A prominent environmental organization is warning that a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives would put America’s waterways at risk, eliminating time for public comment and taking away citizens’ right to voice concerns and participate in the decision-making process.
The Water Resources Development Act typically grants authorization to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to manage environmental restoration and take responsibility for all infrastructure projects on U.S. rivers and coasts. While in the past Congress has routinely updated the bill every two years, a revised version has not been passed since 2007.
The House’s new rendition of the bill, HR 3080, would go beyond the bill’s traditional purpose, limiting a mandatory environmental review phase, which includes a public comment period.
Republicans are applauding the bill, claiming it eliminates an environmental review process that they blames for a backlog of water infrastructure projects. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), a co-sponsor of the bill, is touting its passage through the House as a victory for small government policies.
“Containing no earmarks, WRRDA puts us on a path to a more limited federal role in water infrastructure development by laying the groundwork for increased private sector and state-level oversight,” Meadows said in a statement. “It also places strict limits on the amount of time and money the federal government can spend on feasibility studies that have held up vital projects for decades and cost taxpayers millions of dollars.”
Not everyone agrees that the environmental review process is to blame for the backlog of U.S. water-related projects.
American Rivers is at the forefront of a campaign against HR 3080. The organization warns that lawmakers, in an attempt to scale back wait times for projects involving water infrastructure, including dams, are incorrectly blaming the environmental community’s part in the process.
It all comes down to the math, according to American Rivers policy director Eileen Fretz.
“The flaw [in that argument] is that the Corps has a $2 billion budget for construction and a $60 billion backlog in projects,” Fretz told Mint Press News. “If they are successful in planning projects faster because of the environmental review process — and I don’t think that they will be — it doesn’t mean they are going to construct projects any faster.”
‘Fixing’ a portion of the system that, according to American Rivers, is necessary and not part of the problem, would have serious ramifications for the environment.
“Unfortunately the House bill erroneously blames the environmental review process for project delays, rather than the Corps’ $60 billion backlog of projects,” American Rivers president Bob Irvin said in a press release. “Ironically, rollbacks to this process may result in projects being denied rather than faster construction. The House and Senate should make sure that a final water resources bill ensures an environmental review process that protects the environment, the public, and federal taxpayers.”
Where’s the logic?
No one is denying that the Army Corps of Engineers is experiencing a serious backlog.
But environmentalists argue that this shouldn’t be the reason to roll back environmental safeguards. As it stands, proposed projects go through two major reviews — one through the Environmental Protection Agency and one through the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The EPA review is intended to assure that any waterway infrastructure project complies with the Clean Water Act, while the Fish and Wildlife review monitors whether or not a proposed project could have an impact on local habitats. The latter agency’s job is also to protect any endangered species that could be living in the area.
When both agencies issue their report on a given project, the public has a comment period. During that time, is customary for local watershed foundations to read the report. If concerns still arise, or if the content of the review is questioned, members of the public and conservation organizations have the opportunity to submit a public comment.
The House version of the new Water Resources and Development Act (now the Water Resources Reform And Development Act) would cut what’s considered the most important review: the environmental impact statement (EIS). As it stands, the public now has time to dispute or raise issues not addressed in an EIS.
Eliminating that comment period is the key, say the bill’s advocates, to cracking down on the Corp’s $60 billion project backlog. Not so, according to environmentalists, who say all that’s really happening is a move away from conservation — and the prevention of the public from having a say in what happens in their backyards.
The other portion of the bill in question has nothing to do with the construction of infrastructure projects. Instead, it cuts back the time period during which a completed project can be challenged on environmental grounds. Currently, when a Corps project is approved, there is a six-year period during which the project can be legally challenged on the basis of environmental impacts. The newest version of the bill would cut that time period down to 150 days.
“The way this is all moving forward is that using the assumption that is being planned is something that should go through, and that’s not always the case,” Fretz told Mint Press News. “There are many projects that have been planned, but in today’s world we realize that the environmental impacts of it would be too drastic, or the public safety benefits aren’t there, or the benefits to the taxpayers aren’t there.”
What will this mean for the health of America’s waterways?
The Army Corps of Engineers deals with any infrastructure project in any U.S. waterway, particularly in rivers and in coastal areas. While this covers a wide swathe of projects, the main infrastructure projects include the construction of dams and levees.
With each dam and levee proposed, there are a list of environmental and wildlife issues that are addressed. Fretz deals specifically with flood management with American Rivers, and says there’s more to these infrastructure projects than meets the eyes.
“It completely depends on the specific project in that location and what the environmental concerns are there,” Fretz said, “But in general, with levies as an example, if you build a levy, you are disconnecting the floodplain from the river, and the floodplain is a vital part of that river — it’s where the land and the water meet and that makes it a location where you have really robust fish and wildlife habitat. And you have those wetlands that can clean water and manage sediment.”
That may not mean much to members of Congress, but for local conservation groups aiming to maintain a healthy fish population or conserve wetland areas, it means a lot.
“Dams, levees, and other water infrastructure projects can have a huge impact on the health of rivers, fish and wildlife habitat, and public safety,” Irvin said. “The current environmental review process gives the public an opportunity to voice their concerns about projects that affect them and ensures that infrastructure projects comply with bedrock environmental laws like the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act.”
Fretz said the timing of the bill is off, too. From her standpoint, the Corps of Engineers was getting closer to a proposal method in which environmental concerns were addressed right away. Yanking any environmental oversight at this point could overturn any progress that has been made. .
While the bill passed the House with bipartisan support, the question now is whether its companion in the Senate will as well — and whether or not it will include such strict cutbacks to the environmental process.