[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 16095-16096]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               WATER RESOURCES REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my concerns about provisions 
in the Water Resources Reform and Development Act that put communities, 
taxpayers and the environment at risk by undermining the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
  NEPA reviews have been useful for identifying potentially costly 
problems with water projects, allowing changes to save taxpayer dollars 
and avoid delays. This bill contains so-called ``streamlining'' 
provisions based on the flawed notion that NEPA is causing project 
delays; but studies have shown that other factors, like insufficient 
funding for the Corps, are the cause of delays. The bill limits public 
participation in the decision-making process, which will deny the Corps 
the benefit of public and expert input.
  I ask the chairman to work, as this bill moves forward, to ensure 
that the bill does not degrade the NEPA process. I also hope that the 
chairman will work with me to provide the Corps the authority to 
perform ecosystem restoration work on lands owned by other Federal 
agencies, which is needed to complete important projects such as the 
South San Francisco Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. I tried to offer 
a simple amendment to the Water Resources Reform and Development Act 
today, but the Rules Committee did not make my amendment in order.
  Currently, the Army Corps of Engineers has the authority to use 
construction funds to perform flood protection work on lands owned by 
other

[[Page 16096]]

Federal agencies, but the Corps does not have the legal authority to 
use construction funds to perform ecosystem restoration work on lands 
owned by other Federal agencies. In 2013, we all believe that good 
flood protection projects must incorporate ecosystem restoration, and 
the Corps has the ability to do integrated projects like this 
everywhere else except on lands owned by another Federal agency. This 
poses a significant hurdle in the case of the South San Francisco Bay 
Salt Pond Restoration Project, which seeks to return the San Francisco 
Bay to its natural state and provide flood protection and wetlands 
restoration.
  In this case, the State of California and the United States 
Government, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, own the land on 
which the project will be performed even though most of the funding to 
buy the land came from the State and non-Federal interests. The Corps 
has told the local partners that it does not have the legal authority 
to perform the ecosystem restoration aspects of this work on lands 
owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service and that it needs Congress to 
provide that authority. My amendment simply sought to fix this 
situation by granting the Corps that authority so it could pursue this 
joint flood protection and ecosystem restoration project.
  I ask Chairmen Shuster and Gibbs and Ranking Members Rahall and 
Bishop to work with me as this bill goes to conference with the Senate 
in order to provide the Corps with the authority it needs to carry out 
this project and projects for which it has already been authorized to 
perform feasibility studies.

                          ____________________