Upper Mississippi Project to be Considered in WRDA

UPPER MISSISSIPPI PROJECT TO BE CONSIDERED IN WRDA -- (House of Representatives - June 28, 2005)

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, the House Water Resources Development Act is on its way to the floor this week, perhaps as early as Thursday. In that bill, there is authorized a $1.8 billion expansion of lock work on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, despite three National Academy of Science reports concluding that realistic projections of the traffic that it is meant to deal with do not justify it. This project epitomizes the need for reform and modernization of the Corps and for Congress to exercise its oversight role.

In the year 2000, Corps economist Donald Sweeney filed for whistleblower protection after Corps leaders fired him when he claimed that Corps officials had ordered him to underestimate how much grain would be shipped to alternatives on the river. Two generals and a colonel ultimately lost their jobs after the Army Inspector General concluded that the Corps had indeed ``cooked the books''. Yet we have the project before us here today, an example still of the continuing problems of the Corps planning system where nonstructural alternatives such as congestion fees, scheduling and switch boats are ignored. This project demonstrates the need for independent review of huge Corps projects. If outside independent review had been applied in the beginning, we would have saved millions of dollars and decades on studies and we would not be arguing about it today.

Make no mistake, every Member of Congress has a stake in this argument, because if we pass this project, it will take up 10 to 15 percent of the entire Corps construction project for years to come. It will delay or eliminate funding for many worthwhile projects around the country when we currently have a $58 billion backlog of unfinished Corps projects and less than $2 billion a year to construct them.

Each Member of Congress should ask, Is there a demand for this project? Is it worth the money? Are there cheaper alternatives?

That demand issue is particularly important because this is a project to reduce river congestion on the upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. But according to the Corps' own data, barge traffic has declined 23 percent from 1992 to 2003. Last year it dropped 19 percent. Lock delays have significantly declined as well in recent years.

The cost justification according to three National Academy of Sciences studies over the last 4 years and the Office of Management and Budget have questioned the methodology used in this project. In 2001, an NAS panel concluded the Corps had relied on overly optimistic barge forecasts for traffic. In December 2003, a second NAS panel reviewed the revised study and renewed their objections. Yet another NAS report came out in 2004 and concluded that, and I quote, the Corps has made substantial progress on the study in the past 3 years but the study contains serious flaws, serious enough to limit its credibility and value within the policymaking process.

There are, in fact, cheaper alternatives. The National Academy of Science concluded in its 2004 report that nonstructural approaches for managing waterway traffic appear not to have been considered at all. Why should we go forward with a project on this scale until we have examined all the inexpensive, small scale congestion management measures that could be just as effective and make a much greater difference much quicker?

Last but not least, it should be pointed out that we have been pouring money into the area for years. Over the last 15 years, the Corps has rehabilitated many of the locks they now plan to replace. They have spent over $900 million extending the productive lives of the existing locks and dams.

People ought to take a very close look at this before it comes to the floor. As I mentioned, every Member has a stake in it. When you compare this to our overall water construction projects, it is actually five or six times larger than the ``Big Dig'' road project in Boston compared to our highway system.

I plan to offer amendments with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) to make sure that if we go forward, that we do so with the proper assessment. We should not have political decisions take the place of economic analysis. We have to make sure we are funding legitimate projects, not politicizing the Corps.

http://thomas.loc.gov