[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 121 (Monday, September 23, 2002)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1634-E1635]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      INTRODUCTION OF THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Monday, September 23, 2002

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce, 
along with the Ranking Member of the Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committee, James Oberstar, the

[[Page E1635]]

Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee Chairman, John J. Duncan, 
Jr., and the Ranking Member of the Water Resources and Environment 
Subcommittee, Peter DeFazio, the Water Resources Development Act of 
2002.
  Every two years, Congress makes it a high priority to meet our 
Nation's water resources needs by enacting a Water Resources 
Development Act. Through this legislation, Congress authorizes the 
Corps of Engineers to carry out its primary missions of providing 
navigation improvements at harbors and waterways, flood damage 
reduction in our communities and coastal areas, and environmental 
restoration along the Nation's rivers, and lakes. These projects have a 
profound impact on the economy of this Nation by reducing 
transportation costs, saving lives, homes, and businesses from the 
ravages of flooding, and improving our quality of life. The standard of 
living for every American has been positively affected by the work the 
Corps does with its local partners.
  Under authorities enacted in Water Resources Development Acts, the 
Corps of Engineers constructs harbors and navigation channels. Over 13 
million American jobs are depended on trade, making our ports and 
waterways vital to our economic, as well as national, security. Our 
harbors currently handle over 2 billion tons of cargo a year, and that 
volume is projected to double by 2020. We need to be ready to handle 
the larger ships that will carry that cargo or face potential loss of 
trade. Our inland navigation system is critical to our transportation 
system. Inland waterways cover 12,000 miles and carry \1/6\th of the 
Nation's inter-city freight, at a cost per ton-mile that is \1/2\ that 
of rail and \1/10\th that of trucks. We need to keep transportation of 
goods on our inland waterways efficient to keep our farmers competitive 
in the world market.
  The Water Resources Development Act of 2002 helps our Nation stay 
competitive by authorizing or modifying over 50 projects, studies, and 
policies relating to navigation improvements, as well as related 
projects and policy changes to improve the management of dredged 
material.
  Water Resources Development Acts also authorize the Corps to protect 
towns and cities from the ravages of floods. Over the past 10 years, 
flood damage reduction projects built by the Corps with local partners 
have prevented more than $208 billion in damages.
  Water Resources Development Act of 2002 continues to provide this 
protection by authorizing or modifying over 75 projects and studies 
relating to flood damage reduction, and nearly 20 related projects for 
shoreline protection.
  Since 1990, environmental restoration also has been a primary mission 
of the Corps. These projects range from small aquatic ecosystem 
restoration projects to multi-billion dollar projects like the 
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
  The Water Resources Development Act of 2002 continues this mission by 
authorizing or modifying over 40 environmental restoration projects and 
studies.
  In this legislation, we also recognize that there are other water 
resources challenges that face this Nation where the Corps' expertise 
could help--particularly since needs for water supply, water quality, 
and navigation often are interrelated. The Water Resource Development 
Act of 2002 provides additional opportunities for the Corps to lend its 
technical expertise where a community or a region has decided to 
address water resources matters on a watershed or river basin basis.
  There are some who believe we do not need a Corps of Engineers Civil 
Works program. Some say it openly, and propose to eliminate funding the 
Corps. Others are more subtle and instead are trying to convince 
Congress to add so many procedural hurdles that a single person could 
have the ability to stop a water resources project, no matter how 
important the project is to the safety of our citizens or the strength 
or our economy. I have a different view of the Corps and a different 
vision for its future.
  First, I believe that this Nation needs an Army Corps of Engineers. 
Most members of the House of Representative agree. We have received 
request from nearly 200 members for over 400 separate water resources 
projects, studies, and modifications to projects. These requests are 
generated at the local level, and are tailored to meet local needs. No 
matter what some may say here in Washington, back home people want and 
need a vital and continuing civil works program.
  Second, I support the Corps process for formulating water resources 
projects. Under the Corps planning process, all projects must be in the 
Federal interest and must be economically justified and environmentally 
sound, but the details of a project are developed through a close 
interaction between the Corps and the local communities that share in 
the cost of the project. This is a bottom-up process that allows 
projects to be designed to best meet local needs.
  Deciding where investments in water resources are warranted is a 
complex task often involving sophisticated economic analyses. While 
there has been some criticism of how the Corps has attempted to do 
these analyses in certain projects, the fact is no other Federal agency 
requires its projects to go through a similar benefit cost review.
  There have been some individual cases where the economic analysis of 
a project has been flawed. This is a personnel and management problem, 
not a problem with the Corps' statutory authorities. The Chief of 
Engineers is taking steps to address this issue through improved 
training and establishing centers of expertise. We in Congress also 
have many oversight tools that give us the ability to investigate the 
merits of a project, and we have demonstrated that we are not hesitant 
to use these tools to scrutinize controversial projects.
  After reviewing all of the requests from members, it is clear to us 
that the House of Representatives supports changes to the Corps civil 
works program to speed the delivery of projects, not changes that will 
lengthen the Corps' process and add costs. For example, we have 
received over 40 requests from members asking that their local project 
sponsors be allowed to move ahead of the Corps and receive credit for 
work they begin on projects, while the Corps' lengthy study and review 
process in underway. Other members of Congress requested statutory 
language directing the Corps to expedite its planning process and 
deliver needed projects more quickly. No member of Congress has asked 
the Committee to add more procedural hurdles, more delay, and more 
costs to their projects.
  The Corps civil works program is nearly unique. The Corps is a 
Federal agency that partners with local agencies to solve local 
problems. The needs are identified at the local level and the solutions 
are developed through a bottom-up process--they are not thrust upon a 
community as top-down mandates. I am proud to say that the Water 
Resources Development Act of 2002 continues in this tradition.

                          ____________________