[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 19 (Wednesday, February 15, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1354-S1359]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. McCain):
S. 2288. A bill to modernize water resources planning, and for other
purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I introduce the Water Resources
Planning and Modernization Act of 2006, a bill that will bring our
water resources policy into the 21st century. I am pleased to be joined
in this legislation by the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain. We
have worked together for some time to modernize the Army
[[Page S1355]]
Corps of Engineers and I thank Senator McCain for his continued
commitment to this issue.
While the bill I introduce today builds on previous bills we have
introduced, it also reflects a recognition that we must respond to the
tragic events of the recent past and make thoughtful and needed
adjustments to all aspects of water resources planning. The entire
process, starting with the principles upon which the plans are
developed all the way to discussions of where we invest limited Federal
resources, requires attention and revision. Congress cannot afford to
authorize additional Army Corps projects until it has considered and
passed the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act. From
ensuring large projects are sound to using natural resources to protect
our communities, modernizing water resources policy is a national
priority.
As we all know, our nation is staring down deficits that just a few
years ago were unimaginable. Our current financial situation demands
pragmatic approaches and creative collaborations to save taxpayer
dollars. The bill I introduce today provides a unique opportunity to
endorse such approaches and such collaborations.
The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 represents
a sensible effort to increase our environmental stewardship and
significantly reduce the government waste inherent in poorly designed
or low priority Army Corps of Engineers projects. It represents a way
to both protect the environment and save taxpayer dollars. With support
from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National Taxpayers Union,
Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers, National Wildlife
Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense, Republicans for
Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, the
bill has the backing of a strong, creative coalition.
Several years have passed since I tried to offer an amendment to the
Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to require independent review
of Army Corps of Engineers' projects. Much has changed since the 2000
debate, and yet too much remains the same. We now have more studies
from the National Academy of Sciences, the Government Accountability
Office, and others--even the presidentially appointed U.S. Commission
on Ocean Policy--to point to in support of our efforts. We have also
had a disaster of historic proportion. Hurricane Katrina highlighted
problems that we would be irresponsible to ignore.
The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 can be
broadly divided into five parts: focusing our resources, identifying
vulnerabilities, updating the Army Corps of Engineer's planning
guidelines, guaranteeing sound projects and responsible spending, and
valuing our natural resources.
Our current prioritization process is not serving the public good. To
address this problem, the bill reinvigorates the Water Resources
Council, originally established in 1965, and charges it with providing
Congress a prioritized list of authorized water resource projects
within one year of enactment and then every two years following. The
prioritized list would also be printed in the Federal register for the
public to see. The Water Resources Council described in the bill,
comprised of cabinet-level officials, would bring together varied
perspectives to shape a list of national needs. In short, the
prioritization process would be improved to make sure Congress has the
tools to more wisely invest limited resources while also increasing
public transparency in decision making both needed and reasonable
improvements to the status quo.
Taking stock of our vulnerabilities to natural disasters must also be
a priority. For this reason, the bill also directs the Water Resources
Council to identify and report to Congress on the Nation's
vulnerability to flood and related storm damage, including the risk to
human life and property, and relative risks to different regions of the
country. The Water Resources Council would also recommend improvements
to the Nation's various flood damage reduction programs to better
address those risks. Many of these improvements were discussed in a
government report following the 1993 floods so the building blocks are
available; we just need to update the assessment. Then, of course, we
must actually take action based on the assessment. To help speed such
action, the legislation specifies that the administration will submit a
response to Congress, including legislative proposals to implement the
recommendations, on the Water Resources Council report no later than 90
days after the report has been made public. We cannot afford to have
this report, which will outline improvements to our flood damage
reduction programs, languish like others before it.
The process by which the Army Corps of Engineers analyzes water
projects should undergo periodic revision. Unfortunately, the corps'
principles and guidelines, which bind the planning process, have not
been updated since 1983. This is why the bill requires that the Water
Resources Council work in coordination with the National Academy of
Sciences to propose periodic revisions to the corps' planning
principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars.
Updating the project planning process should involve consideration of
a variety of issues, including the use of modern economic analysis and
the same discount rates as used by all other Federal agencies. Simple
steps such as these will lead to more precise estimates of project
costs and benefits, a first step to considering whether a project
should move forward.
To ensure that corps' water resources projects are sound, the bill
requires independent review of those projects estimated to cost over
$25 million, those requested by a Governor of an affected State, those
which the head of a Federal agency has determined may lead to a
significant adverse impact, or those that the Secretary of the Army has
found to be controversial. As crafted in the bill, independent review
should not increase the length of time required for project planning
but would protect the public both those in the vicinity of massive
projects and those whose tax dollars are funding projects.
We must do a better job of valuing our natural resources, such as
wetlands, that provide important services. These resources can help to
buffer communities from storms and filter contaminants out of our
water. Recognizing the role of these natural systems, the Water
Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2006 requires that corps'
water resources projects meet the same mitigation standard as required
by everyone else under the Clean Water Act. Where States have adopted
stronger mitigation standards, the corps must meet those standards. I
feel very strongly that the Federal government should be able to live
up to this requirement. Unfortunately, all too often, the corps has not
completed required mitigation. This legislation will make sure that
mitigation is completed, that the true costs of mitigation are
accounted for in corps' projects, and that the public is able to track
the progress of mitigation projects.
Modernizing all aspects of our water resources policy will help
restore credibility to a Federal agency historically rocked by scandal
and currently plagued by public skepticism. Congress has long used the
Army Corps of Engineers to facilitate favored pork-barrel projects,
while periodically expressing a desire to change its ways. Back in
1836, a House Ways and Means Committee report referred to Congress
ensuring that the corps sought ``actual reform, in the further
prosecution of public works.'' Over 150 years later, the need for
actual reform is stronger than ever.
My office has strong working relationships with the Detroit, Rock
Island, and St. Paul District Offices that service Wisconsin, and I do
not want this bill to be misconstrued as reflecting on the work of
those district offices. What I do want is the fiscal and management
cloud over the entire Army Corps to dissipate so that the corps can
continue to contribute to our environment and our economy without
wasting taxpayer dollars.
I wish the changes we are proposing today were not needed, but
unfortunately that is not the case. In fact, if there were ever a need
for the bill, it is now. We must make sure that future corps' projects
produce predicted benefits, are in furtherance of national priorities,
and do not have negative environmental impacts. This bill gives the
corps the tools it needs to a better job and focuses the attention of
Congress
[[Page S1356]]
on national needs, which is what the American taxpayers and the
environment deserve.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 2288
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Water Resources Planning and
Modernization Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Council.--The term ``Council'' means the Water
Resources Council established under section 101 of the Water
Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Army.
SEC. 3. NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MODERNIZATION
POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States that all water
resources projects carried out by the Corps of Engineers
shall--
(1) reflect national priorities for flood damage reduction,
navigation, and ecosystem restoration; and
(2) seek to avoid the unwise use of floodplains, minimize
vulnerabilities in any case in which a floodplain must be
used, protect and restore the extent and functions of natural
systems, and mitigate any unavoidable damage to natural
systems.
SEC. 4. MEETING THE NATION'S WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIES.
(a) Report on the Nation's Flood Risks.--Not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Council
shall submit to the President and Congress a report
describing the vulnerability of the United States to damage
from flooding and related storm damage, including the risk to
human life, the risk to property, and the comparative risks
faced by different regions of the country. The report shall
assess the extent to which the Nation's programs relating to
flooding are addressing flood risk reduction priorities and
the extent to which those programs may unintentionally be
encouraging development and economic activity in floodprone
areas, and shall provide recommendations for improving those
programs in reducing and responding to flood risks. Not later
than 90 days after the report required by this subsection is
published in the Federal Register, the Administration shall
submit to Congress a report that responds to the
recommendations of the Council and includes proposals to
implement recommendations of the Council.
(b) Prioritization of Water Resources Projects.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Council shall submit to Congress
an initial report containing a prioritized list of each water
resources project of the Corps of Engineers that is not being
carried out under a continuing authorities program,
categorized by project type and recommendations with respect
to a process to compare all water resources projects across
project type. The Council shall submit to Congress a
prioritized list of water resources projects of the Corps of
Engineers every 2 years following submission of the initial
report. In preparing the prioritization of projects, the
Council shall endeavor to balance stability in the rankings
from year to year with recognizing newly authorized projects.
Each report prepared under this paragraph shall provide
documentation and description of any criteria used in
addition to those set forth in paragraph (2) for comparing
water resources projects and the assumptions upon which those
criteria are based.
(2) Project prioritization criteria.--In preparing a report
under paragraph (1), the Council shall prioritize each water
resource project of the Corps of Engineers based on the
extent to which the project meets at least the following
criteria:
(A) For flood damage reduction projects, the extent to
which such a project--
(i) addresses the most critical flood damage reduction
needs of the United States as identified by the Council;
(ii) does not encourage new development or intensified
economic activity in flood prone areas and avoids adverse
environmental impacts; and
(iii) provides significantly increased benefits to the
United States through the protection of human life, property,
economic activity, or ecosystem services.
(B) For navigation projects, the extent to which such a
project--
(i) produces a net economic benefit to the United States
based on a high level of certainty that any projected trends
upon which the project is based will be realized;
(ii) addresses priority navigation needs of the United
States identified through comprehensive, regional port
planning; and
(iii) minimizes adverse environmental impacts.
(C) For environmental restoration projects, the extent to
which such a project--
(i) restores the natural hydrologic processes and spatial
extent of an aquatic habitat;
(ii) is self-sustaining; and
(iii) is cost-effective or produces economic benefits.
(3) Sense of congress.--It is the sense of Congress that to
promote effective prioritization of water resources projects,
no project should be authorized for construction unless a
final Chief's report recommending construction has been
submitted to Congress, and annual appropriations for the
Corps of Engineers' Continuing Authorities Programs should be
distributed by the Corps of Engineers to those projects with
the highest degree of design merit and the greatest degree of
need, consistent with the applicable criteria established
under paragraph (2).
(c) Modernizing Water Resources Planning Guidelines.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter, the
Council, in coordination with the National Academy of
Sciences, shall propose revisions to the planning principles
and guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Corps of
Engineers to improve the process by which the Corps of
Engineers analyzes and evaluates water projects.
(2) Public participation.--The Council shall solicit public
and expert comment and testimony regarding proposed revisions
and shall subject proposed revisions to public notice and
comment.
(3) Revisions.--Revisions proposed by the Council shall
improve water resources project planning through, among other
things--
(A) focusing Federal dollars on the highest water resources
priorities of the United States;
(B) requiring the use of modern economic principles and
analytical techniques, credible schedules for project
construction, and current discount rates as used by all other
Federal agencies;
(C) discouraging any project that induces new development
or intensified economic activity in flood prone areas, and
eliminating biases and disincentives to providing projects to
low-income communities, including fully accounting for the
prevention of loss of life as required by section 904 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2281);
(D) eliminating biases and disincentives that discourage
the use of nonstructural approaches to water resources
development and management, and fully accounting for the
flood protection and other values of healthy natural systems;
(E) utilizing a comprehensive, regional approach to port
planning;
(F) promoting environmental restoration projects that
reestablish natural processes;
(G) analyzing and incorporating lessons learned from recent
studies of Corps of Engineers programs and recent disasters
such as Hurricane Katrina and the Great Midwest Flood of
1993; and
(H) ensuring the effective implementation of the National
Water Resources Planning and Modernization Policy established
by this Act.
(d) Revision of Planning Guidelines.--Not later than 180
days after submission of the proposed revisions required by
subsection (b), the Secretary shall implement the
recommendations of the Council by incorporating the proposed
revisions into the planning principles and guidelines,
regulations, and circulars of the Corps of Engineers. These
revisions shall be subject to public notice and comment
pursuant to subchapter II of chapter 5, and chapter 7, of
title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the
``Administrative Procedure Act''). Effective beginning on the
date on which the Secretary carries out the first revision
under this paragraph, the Corps of Engineers shall not be
subject to--
(1) subsections (a) and (b) of section 80 of the Water
Resources Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 1962d-17); and
(2) any provision of the guidelines entitled ``Economic and
Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related
Land Resources Implementation Studies'' and dated 1983, to
the extent that such a provision conflicts with a guideline
revised by the Secretary.
(e) Availability.--Each report prepared under this section
shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to
the Committees on Environment and Public Works and
Appropriations of the Senate and the Committees on
Transportation and Infrastructure and Appropriations of the
House of Representatives.
(f) Water Resources Council.--Section 101 of the Water
Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962a) is amended in the
first sentence by inserting ``the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the Chairperson of the Council on Environmental
Quality,'' after ``Secretary of Transportation,''.
(g) Funding.--In carrying out this section, the Council
shall use funds made available for the general operating
expenses of the Corps of Engineers.
SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE PROJECT PLANNING.
(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Affected state.--The term ``affected State'' means a
State that is located, in whole or in part, within the
drainage basin in which a water resources project is carried
out and that would be economically or environmentally
affected as a result of the project.
(2) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of
Independent Review appointed under subsection (c).
(3) Study.--The term ``study'' means a feasibility report,
general reevaluation report,
[[Page S1357]]
or environmental impact statement prepared by the Corps of
Engineers.
(b) Projects Subject to Independent Review.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall ensure that each study
for each water resources project described in paragraph (2)
is subject to review by an independent panel of experts
established under this section.
(2) Projects subject to review.--A water resources project
shall be subject to review under this section if--
(A) the project has an estimated total cost of more than
$25,000,000, including mitigation costs;
(B) the Governor of an affected State requests in writing
to the Secretary the establishment of an independent panel of
experts for the project;
(C) the head of a Federal agency charged with reviewing the
project determines that the project is likely to have a
significant adverse impact on cultural, environmental, or
other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency, and
requests in writing to the Secretary the establishment of an
independent panel of experts for the project; or
(D) the Secretary determines that the project is
controversial based upon a finding that--
(i) there is a significant dispute regarding the size,
nature, or effects of the project;
(ii) there is a significant dispute regarding the economic
or environmental costs or benefits of the project; or
(iii) there is a significant dispute regarding the
potential benefits to communities affected by the project of
a project alternative that was not fully considered in the
study.
(3) Written requests.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which the Secretary receives a written request of any
party, or on the initiative of the Secretary, the Secretary
shall determine whether a project is controversial.
(c) Director of Independent Review.--
(1) In general.--The Inspector General of the Army shall
appoint in the Office of the Inspector General of the Army a
Director of Independent Review. The term of a Director
appointed under this subsection shall be 6 years, and an
individual may serve as the Director for not more than 2
nonconsecutive terms.
(2) Qualifications.--The Inspector General of the Army
shall select the Director from among individuals who are
distinguished experts in engineering, hydrology, biology,
economics, or another discipline relating to water resources
management. The Inspector General of the Army shall not
appoint an individual to serve as the Director if the
individual has a financial interest in or close professional
association with any entity with a financial interest in a
water resources project that, on the date of appointment of
the Director, is under construction, in the preconstruction
engineering and design phase, or under feasibility or
reconnaissance study by the Corps of Engineers. The Inspector
General of the Army may establish additional criteria if
necessary to avoid a conflict of interest between the
individual appointed as Director and the projects subject to
review.
(3) Duties.--The Director shall establish a panel of
experts to review each water resources project that is
subject to review under subsection (b).
(d) Establishment of Panels.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days before the release
of a draft study subject to review under subsection
(b)(2)(A), and not later than 30 days after a determination
that a review is necessary under subparagraph (B), (C), or
(D) of subsection (b)(2), the Director shall establish a
panel of experts to review the draft study. Panels may be
convened earlier on the request of the Chief of Engineers.
(2) Membership.--A panel of experts established by the
Director for a project shall be composed of not less than 5
nor more than 9 independent experts (including 1 or more
engineers, hydrologists, biologists, and economists) who
represent a range of areas of expertise.
(3) Limitation on appointments.--The Director shall apply
the National Academy of Science's policy for selecting
committee members to ensure that members of a review panel
have no conflict with the project being reviewed.
(4) Consultation.--The Director shall consult with the
National Academy of Sciences in developing lists of
individuals to serve on panels of experts under this section.
(5) Notification.--To ensure that the Director is able to
effectively carry out the duties of the Director under this
section, the Secretary shall notify the Director in writing
not later than 120 days before the release of a draft study
for a project costing more than $25,000,000 or for which a
preliminary assessment suggests that a panel of experts may
be required.
(6) Compensation.--An individual serving on a panel of
experts under this section shall be compensated at a rate of
pay to be determined by the Inspector General of the Army.
(7) Travel expenses.--A member of a panel of experts under
this section shall be allowed travel expenses, including per
diem in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for an
employee of an agency under subchapter I of chapter 57 of
title 5, United States Code, while away from the home or
regular place of business of the member in the performance of
the duties of the panel.
(e) Duties of Panels.--A panel of experts established for a
water resources project under this section shall--
(1) review each draft study prepared for the project;
(2) assess the adequacy of the economic, scientific, and
environmental models used by the Secretary in reviewing the
project and assess whether the best available economic and
scientific data and methods of analysis have been used;
(3) assess the extent to which the study complies with the
National Water Resources Planning and Modernization Policy
established by this Act;
(4) evaluate the engineering assumptions and plans for any
flood control structure whose failure could result in
significant flooding;
(5) receive from the public written and oral comments
concerning the project;
(6) submit an Independent Review Report to the Secretary
that addresses the economic, engineering, and environmental
analyses of the project, including the conclusions of the
panel, with particular emphasis on areas of public
controversy, with respect to the study; and
(7) submit a Final Assessment Report to the Secretary that
briefly provides the views of the panel on the extent to
which the final study prepared by the Corps adequately
addresses issues or concerns raised by the panel in the
Independent Review Report.
(f) Deadlines for Panel Reports.--A panel shall submit its
Independent Review Report under subsection (e)(6) to the
Secretary not later than 90 days after the close of the
public comment period or not later than 180 days after the
panel is convened, whichever is later. A panel shall submit
its Final Assessment Report under subsection (e)(7) to the
Secretary not later than 30 days after release of the final
study. The Director may extend these deadlines for good cause
shown.
(g) Recommendations of Panel.--
(1) Consideration by secretary.--If the Secretary receives
an Independent Review Report on a water resources project
from a panel of experts under subsection (e)(6), the
Secretary shall, at least 30 days before releasing a final
study for the project, take into consideration any
recommendations contained in the report, prepare a written
explanation for any recommendations not adopted, and make
such written explanations available to the public, including
through posting on the Internet.
(2) Inconsistent recommendations and findings.--
Recommendations and findings of the Secretary that are
inconsistent with the recommendations and findings of a panel
of experts under this section shall not be entitled to
deference in a judicial proceeding.
(3) Submission to congress and public availability.--After
receiving an Independent Review Report under subsection
(e)(6) or a Final Assessment Report under subsection (e)(7),
the Secretary shall immediately make a copy of the report
available to the public. The Secretary also shall immediately
make available to the public any written response by the
Secretary prepared pursuant to paragraph (1). Copies of all
independent review panel reports and all written responses by
the Secretary also shall be included in any report submitted
to Congress concerning the project.
(h) Record of Decision.--The Secretary shall not issue a
record of decision or a report of the Chief of Engineers for
a water resources project subject to review under this
section until, at the earliest, 14 days after the deadline
for submission of the Final Assessment Report required under
subsection (e)(7).
(i) Public Access to Information.--The Secretary shall
ensure that information relating to the analysis of any water
resources project by the Corps of Engineers, including all
supporting data, analytical documents, and information that
the Corps of Engineers has considered in the justification
for and analysis of the project, is made available to the
public on the Internet and to an independent review panel, if
a panel is established for the project. The Secretary shall
not make information available under this paragraph if the
Secretary determines that the information is a trade secret
of any person that provided the information to the Corps of
Engineers.
(j) Costs of Review.--
(1) In general.--The cost of conducting a review of a water
resources project under this section shall not exceed--
(A) $250,000 for a project, if the total cost of the
project in current year dollars is less than $50,000,000; and
(B) 0.5 percent of the total cost of the project in current
year dollars, if the total cost is $50,000,000 or more.
(2) Waiver.--The Secretary may waive these cost limitations
if the Secretary determines that the waiver is appropriate.
(k) Applicability of Federal Advisory Committee Act.--The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall apply to
a panel of experts established under this section.
SEC. 6. MITIGATION.
(a) Mitigation.--Section 906(d) of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2283(d)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``to the Congress'' and
inserting ``to Congress, and shall not choose a project
alternative in any final record of decision, environmental
impact statement, or environmental assessment,'', and by
inserting in the second sentence ``and other habitat types''
after ``bottomland hardwood forests''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page S1358]]
``(3) Mitigation requirements.--
``(A) Mitigation.--To mitigate losses to flood damage
reduction capabilities and fish and wildlife resulting from a
water resources project, the Secretary shall ensure that
mitigation for each water resources project complies fully
with the mitigation standards and policies established by
each State in which the project is located. Under no
circumstances shall the mitigation required for a water
resources project be less than would be required of a private
party or other entity under section 404 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
``(B) Mitigation plan.--The specific mitigation plan for a
water resources project required under paragraph (1) shall
include, at a minimum--
``(i) a detailed plan to monitor mitigation implementation
and ecological success, including the designation of the
entities that will be responsible for monitoring;
``(ii) specific ecological success criteria by which the
mitigation will be evaluated and determined to be successful,
prepared in consultation with the Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Director of the
National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and each
State in which the project is located;
``(iii) a detailed description of the land and interests in
land to be acquired for mitigation, and the basis for a
determination that land and interests are available for
acquisition;
``(iv) sufficient detail regarding the chosen mitigation
sites, and types and amount of restoration activities to be
conducted, to permit a thorough evaluation of the likelihood
of the ecological success and aquatic and terrestrial
resource functions and habitat values that will result from
the plan; and
``(v) a contingency plan for taking corrective actions if
monitoring demonstrates that mitigation efforts are not
achieving ecological success as described in the ecological
success criteria.
``(4) Determination of mitigation success.--
``(A) In general.--Mitigation under this subsection shall
be considered to be successful at the time at which
monitoring demonstrates that the mitigation has met the
ecological success criteria established in the mitigation
plan.
``(B) Evaluation and reporting.--The Secretary shall
consult annually with the Director of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Director of the National Marine
Fisheries Service, as appropriate, and each State in which
the project is located, on each water resources project
requiring mitigation to determine whether mitigation
monitoring for that project demonstrates that the project is
achieving, or has achieved, ecological success. Not later
than 60 days after the date of completion of the annual
consultation, the Director of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service or the Director of the National Marine
Fisheries Service, as appropriate, shall, and each State in
which the project is located may, submit to the Secretary a
report that describes--
``(i) the ecological success of the mitigation as of the
date of the report;
``(ii) the likelihood that the mitigation will achieve
ecological success, as defined in the mitigation plan;
``(iii) the projected timeline for achieving that success;
and
``(iv) any recommendations for improving the likelihood of
success.
The Secretary shall respond in writing to the substance and
recommendations contained in such reports not later than 30
days after the date of receipt. Mitigation monitoring shall
continue until it has been demonstrated that the mitigation
has met the ecological success criteria.''.
(b) Mitigation Tracking System.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall establish a
recordkeeping system to track, for each water resources
project constructed, operated, or maintained by the Secretary
and for each permit issued under section 404 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1344)--
(A) the quantity and type of wetland and other habitat
types affected by the project, project operation, or
permitted activity;
(B) the quantity and type of mitigation required for the
project, project operation, or permitted activity;
(C) the quantity and type of mitigation that has been
completed for the project, project operation, or permitted
activity; and
(D) the status of monitoring for the mitigation carried out
for the project, project operation, or permitted activity.
(2) Required information and organization.--The
recordkeeping system shall--
(A) include information on impacts and mitigation described
in paragraph (1) that occur after December 31, 1969; and
(B) be organized by watershed, project, permit application,
and zip code.
(3) Availability of information.--The Secretary shall make
information contained in the recordkeeping system available
to the public on the Internet.
SEC. 7. PROJECT ADMINISTRATION.
(a) Chief's Reports.--The Chief of Engineers shall not
submit a Chief's report to Congress recommending construction
of a water resources project until that Chief's report has
been reviewed and approved by the Secretary of the Army.
(b) Project Tracking.--The Secretary shall assign a unique
tracking number to each water resources project, to be used
by each Federal agency throughout the life of the project.
(c) Report Repository.--The Secretary shall maintain at the
Library of Congress a copy of each final feasibility study,
final environmental impact statement, final reevaluation
report, record of decision, and report to Congress prepared
by the Corps of Engineers. These documents shall be made
available to the public for review, and electronic copies of
those documents shall be permanently available, through the
Internet website of the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senator Feingold
in introducing the Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of
2006. This legislation is designed to take a post-Katrina approach to
Army Corps of Engineers projects. It would provide for a more effective
system for selecting and funding Army Corps projects that help to
protect our citizens against damage caused by floods, hurricanes and
other natural disasters.
Last August this Nation witnessed a horrible national disaster. When
Hurricane Katrina hit, it brought with it destruction and tragedy
beyond compare; more so than our Nation has seen in decades. Some six
months later, the Gulf Coast region is still largely in the early
stages of attempting to rebuild and recover and there is a long road
ahead. As our Nation continues to dedicate significant resources to the
reconstruction effort, we must be vigilant in our oversight obligations
and take appropriate actions based on the many lessons learned from
this tragedy.
One area that most would agree deserves needed attention concerns the
Army Corps system. Funding is distributed in a manner that is not
always awarded the most urgent projects. Because of this, citizens can
end up paying for unnecessary and irresponsible Army Corps projects
with their tax dollars and their safety. It is time for us to take a
new approach to how the Army Corps does business. With lessons learned
from Katrina, we can and must shepherd in a new era within the Army
Corps that prioritizes critical projects and allows the American
taxpayers to know that their money is being spent in an effective and
efficient manner.
The Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act is the only Corps
related measure that has been introduced in the Senate since Katrina
tragically struck that truly takes a lessons-learned approach. Any
measure acted upon by this Congress regarding the Corps simply must
account for the most up to date information available. We owe it to the
American public.
Historically, Congress has considered water projects costing many
billions of taxpayer dollars as essential expenditures--regardless of
the environmental costs or public benefits. That is why the
modernization procedures in this bill are designed to achieve more
critical and cost-effective expenditures for Corps water projects that
will yield more environmental, economic, and social benefits. The need
for these changes has been acknowledged by many for some time, but
never has the need to spend scarce taxpayer dollars wisely been as
crucial as it is now.
The Corps procedures for planning and approving projects, as well as
the Congressional system for funding projects, are broken, but they can
be fixed. The reforms in our bill are based on thorough program
analysis and common sense. I commend Senator Feingold for his efforts
to build on and improve upon the legislation we have previously
introduced. Corps modernization has been a priority that Senator
Feingold and I have shared for years but never before has there been
such an appropriate atmosphere and urgent need to move forward on these
overdue reforms.
Provisions of the legislation we are introducing today provide for a
process to modify and modernize the Corps planning and approval
procedures to consider economic, public, and environmental objectives.
Independent review of Corps projects and a clear national
prioritization of Corps projects would ensure that the most beneficial
projects are constructed. Effective measures for mitigation of
environmental and other damage caused by projects would be required and
monitored.
With support from Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, National
Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, American Rivers,
National Wildlife Federation, Earthjustice, Environmental Defense,
[[Page S1359]]
Republicans for Environmental Protection, Sierra Club, and the World
Wildlife Fund, the bill has broad interest and impact.
Water projects that provide economic and environmental benefits to
our Nation's citizens--the hardworking American taxpayers--serve the
common good and reflect our common interest in fiscal responsibility.
I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
______