[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 15]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 21224]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     REGARDING FIRE ISLAND AND THE WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. STEVE ISRAEL

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, October 21, 2002

  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, on September 17, I shared with the House 
correspondence between myself, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci) 
and the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, Les 
Brownlee, regarding Fire Island, New York.
  On September 27, Congressman Grucci and I responded to Acting 
Assistant Secretary Brownlee's letter. As the House considers 
reauthorizing the Water Resources Development Act of 1999, I wanted to 
take this opportunity to update Members on this situation. Therefore, I 
ask that our response letter be printed in the Record at this point.

                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 2002.
     The Hon. Les Brownlee,
     Under Secretary of the Army, U.S. Department of the Army, The 
         Pentagon, Washington, DC.
       Dear Under Secretary Brownlee: We are writing to respond to 
     your letter of September 3rd. We appreciate your reply, but 
     unfortunately it did not provide an explanation of why the 
     Departments of the Army and Interior have failed to comply 
     with Section 342 of the Water Resources Development Act of 
     1999. As you may recall, this is the provision that directed 
     the Secretary of the Army to provide Congress with a 
     ``mutually acceptable shore erosion plan for Fire Island to 
     Moriches Inlet Reach of the Project.''
       The December 17, 1999 letter to which you referred did not 
     transmit a plan as required by the law. Your letter suggested 
     that the Corps decided not to proceed with the interim 
     project as mandated because of a New York State decision to 
     withdraw as the non-federal sponsor. We have never seen any 
     official position from the State informing the Corps of that 
     decision. In fact, in a November 30, 1999 letter to the 
     Corps, the State indicated that it would issue the necessary 
     State approvals ``if no new issues came up during the public 
     comment process'' and if the issues raised by the State are 
     ``satisfactorily resolved.''
       We understand that no new issues came up at the January 12, 
     2000 public hearing. Indeed, we understand that the State 
     never even submitted written comments on the Draft 
     Environmental Impact Statement. If you have such comments or 
     any official state position, please provide it to us as soon 
     as possible.
       Your statement that ``the time had passed to reach 
     agreement on the interim project'' is disturbing. Congress' 
     directive under Sec.  342 was unequivocal. Almost three years 
     have passed since the law's deadline, and the risk to Fire 
     Island and the mainland from storm damage continues unabated. 
     Waiting until 2005 to reach a decision on renourishment when 
     the law required a decision in 1999 is unacceptable.
           Sincerely,
       Steve Israel.
       Felix J. Grucci, Jr.

       

                          ____________________