Statement of Administration Policy: S. 2740 - Water Resources Development Act of 1990

(Senate)
(Burdick (D) North Dakota)

S. 2740 violates the three principles on which sound water resources development policy rests, those being:

—  preserving the cost-sharing principles and other critical policy reforms contained in the Water Resources Development Acts of 1986 and 1988;

—  emphasizing high priority urban flood control and commercial navigation projects; and

—  ensuring that all projects have thoroughly documented economic and environmental justifications in accordance with long-established Federal principles and guidelines.

Accordingly, if S. 2740 were presented to the President in its current form, his senior advisers would recommend that it be vetoed.

S. 2740 contains numerous provisions that would be administered by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps); over 45 of these, provisions are objectionable. The bill would:

—  authorize numerous special-interest, low-priority, and uneconomic projects. These projects include construction of a wastewater treatment plant and cleanup of a lake polluted by local sewage and industrial discharges. Such activities are not related to the Corps' mission and use Federal tax dollars to fix problems caused solely by local actions. Several projects are included solely because they were unable to compete successfully for Federal funding in other existing programs. Finally, several projects would establish a Federal responsibility where one does not now exist;

—  create over $2.5 billion in future funding commitments that, given the demand to reduce current and future appropriations, will preclude Federal funding of other high-priority flood control and navigation projects in the future;

—  authorize, or conditionally authorize, over 20 projects for which economic and environmental feasibility evaluations do not exist or have not been completed; and

—  unduly intrude into Executive branch policy and budgetary prerogatives by requiring the Corps to secure public and Congressional approval prior to making routine changes in its operation of projects or program guidance.

The Administration also strongly objects to the bill's failure to include the increased recreation user fee and harbor maintenance user fee proposals contained in the President's FY 1991 Budget. Given the need for deficit reduction, foregoing these $420 million of additional revenues will require commensurate cuts in Corps programs.