Statement of Administration Policy: S. 2740 - Water Resources Development Act of 1990

(FINAL/sent)

(Senate)
(Burdick (D) North Dakota)

Any new Water Resources Development Act must preserve the cost-sharing principles and other critical policy reforms contained in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1986 and 1988. These reforms emphasize high priority urban flood control and commercial navigation projects. They also ensure that all projects have thoroughly documented economic and environmental justifications in accordance with long-established Federal principles and guidelines.

S. 2740, in a number of instances, is inconsistent with these principles. Therefore, unless amended as noted below, the Administration would strongly oppose its enactment.

The Administration would support s. 2740 if it were amended to delete those provisions which would:

—  authorize 17 projects with incomplete environmental and economic feasibility studies, 5 projects with no study, and conditionally authorize 3 projects;

—  unduly intrude into Executive branch policy and budgetary prerogatives by 1) requiring the Corps of Engineers to secure public and congressional approval prior to making routine changes in its program and policy guidance or its operation of projects; 2) modifying the "single owner" policy which ensures that the benefits of taxpayer-provided projects are widespread; 3) modifying the "ability-to-pay" policy which ensures that appropriate state and local resources are considered when calculating beneficiaries' financial means;

—  weaken the cost-sharing reforms of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 by 1) inappropriately including military benefits as an offset to non-Federal requirements, and 2) including dredged material management and disposal costs as payment for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund; or

—  set potentially expensive precedents by extending Federal responsibility into new areas without requiring significant non-Federal cost sharing to 1) authorize the-Corps to build a waste water treatment plant, 2) move a light house, or 3) clean up a lake.

The Administration also strongly objects to the bill's failure to include the increased recreation user fee and harbor maintenance user fee proposals contained in the President's FY 1991 Budget. Given the need for deficit reduction, foregoing these $420 million of additional revenues would require commensurate cuts in Corps programs.

In addition, the bill creates over $2.5 billion in future funding commitments. Given the demand to reduce current and future appropriations, this would preclude Federal funding of other high-priority flood control and navigation projects in the future.