Congressman Earl Blumenauer’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Why I voted for WRDA

  This is an excellent analysis of the WRDA override vote and the state of "corps reform" in Congress.  As one of the original co-chairs of the tiny Corps Reform Caucus referenced, I want to offer an explanation of why I voted for WRDA.  

  It's not the bill I would have written, but this bill does represent progress.  Although not as independent as some would like, there is a provision requiring independent peer review of large and expensive projects. Also, as American Rivers, one of the leading groups advocating corps reform, writes, "The bill will also establish a new policy that gives a stronger emphasis on protecting the environment and the natural systems that provide crucial natural flood protection to communities."

  But most important to me, the bill included an amendment I offered successfully on the House Floor requiring the corps to update its principles and guidelines (P&G) used in the formulation, evaluation, and implementation of water resources projects. Last updated in 1983, the P&G have been called "woefully out-of-date" by the National Academy of Sciences because they don't reflect changes in the law or our understanding of water policy and the environment over the past 25 years.

  In terms of Bush's veto, he didn't get it right either. His veto message didn't talk about reform, it talked about federal spending. Bush has been missing in action when it comes to corps reform efforts in Congress.

  Neither Bush nor the champions of this WRDA bill have a vision for water resources policy. While it's important to fight to get rid of bad projects, which I will continue to do, the best way to do this is to fix the underlying framework. As Mr. Grunwald knows, it's not about the number of projects, it's about which projects and why.  During consideration of the 2005 version of WRDA, I offered an amendment that would have made sure that the most expensive project in the bill, the expansion of locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi River, would only move forward if economically justified. Unfortunately, this amendment lost overwhelmingly.  I've discovered that going after individual projects is virtually impossible. But if we are able to fix the framework, which WRDA 2007 does by requiring independent review and an update of the principles and guidelines, we will end up with better projects in general.

  Supporting WRDA was a difficult decision for me to make.  But in the end, I voted for progress in this bill because it prepares for a new framework and vision for future water resources bills.

  I will work with any administration that has a new vision for water resources policy, and I would have welcomed a policy-based veto of this legislation. Maybe we can get one for the farm bill... that one we might be able to uphold.
  On Why Bush's water-bill veto was actually a good idea posted 2 years ago 11 Responses