Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 5247 - Water Resources Development Act of 1988

(House)
(Anderson (D) CA, Nowak (D) NY, Hammerschmidt (R) AR, and Stangeland (R) MN)

The Administration strongly supports reestablishment of biennial authorization bills for Army Corps of Engineers water projects to help ensure the continued credibility and vitality of the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program. The key to this program, however, is the overriding need t6 preserve the cost-sharing reforms of the landmark Water Resources Development Act of 1986, P.L. 99-662, and to limit Federal spending to only economically- justified projects for which there is a clear Federal responsibility. H.R. 5247, to the contrary, would erode the cost-sharing reforms of P.L. 99-662; authorize numerous low-priority, special-interest provisions; and circumvent the Administration's established policy and planning review process.

Accordingly if H.R. 5247 were presented to the President in its current form, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget would recommend that it be vetoed.

The Administration's strong objection to H.R. 5247 is based on the bill's inclusion of provisions that would:

—    erode the cost-sharing principles of P.L. 99-662 by (1) reducing the non-Federal cost share for municipal and industrial water supply at certain projects; (2) authorizing the use of Federal dollars to pay a project's non-Federal cost share; and (3) the use of language that does not clearly state that cost-sharing provisions of P.L. 99-662 apply to all projects authorized in H.R. 5247;

—    fail to limit the number and cumulative cost of project authorizations;

—    authorize low-priority, special-interest projects opposed by the Administration; and

—    violate the concept of and need for biennial project authorizations by authorizing or conditionally authorizing numerous projects, for which (1) economic and environmental feasibility have not been demonstrated, and (2) the Executive branch policy and planning review process has not been completed.

The Administration also objects to the bill because it lacks provisions that would provide for: (1) the Construction Productivity Advancement Research (CPAR) program, (2) increased recreation user fees, (3) technical assistance to private firms, and (4) the transfer of funds for intensified mitigation.