GovernmentExecutive.com

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Wednesday approved legislation authorizing water projects for the Army Corps of Engineers after adopting an amendment that would require independent review of some agency projects.

The legislation, which the committee approved by voice vote, would provide a two-year authorization for navigation, flood control, shoreline protection, and other studies and projects carried out by the Corps of Engineers.

After initially failing to agree on a package of reforms to how the Corps of Engineers chooses its projects, committee leaders crafted an amendment, which was approved by voice vote, that would allow for independent peer review of some larger proposed projects. The amendment was offered by Transportation and Infrastructure Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee John Duncan, R-Tenn., and ranking member Jerry Costello, D-Ill.

The Corps has come under fire in recent years for its analysis of some proposed projects. In response to such concerns, the National Academy of Sciences and others have recommended independent review of large Corps projects.

Congress failed to pass legislation last year authorizing Corps projects because of disagreements over the issue of whether to require independent review Corps project studies. Critics claim that such reviews would be too costly and could be used to delay projects.

"I believe that the work of the Corps of Engineers is essential to the economy, safety and well being of this country," said Transportation and Infrastructure Chairman Don Young, R-Alaska, who in the past has resisted efforts to require independent review of Corps projects.

Despite the controversy surrounding peer review, committee members spent more time congratulating each other on reaching a bipartisan compromise on the peer review issue than they did debating the amendment or other provisions in the bill.

Under the amendment, studies of proposed projects by the Corps would be subject to review by a panel of outside experts if the projects would cost more than $50 million.

But the amendment also would allow the chief of engineers of the Corps to exempt a project from peer review if it meets certain conditions including being uncontroversial and having little effect on fish and wildlife or endangered species. A decision not to seek peer review of a project study could be appealed to the secretary of the Army but only by a governor or federal or state agency head.

Review panels would have 180 days to review proposed projects unless the chief of engineers agrees to provide more time. Peer review panel recommendations would not be binding on the Corps.

COMMENTS

• The Corp already has destroyed the Mississippi and Missouri rivers (and others) and the Everglades. Therefore, new projects would have no impact on fish and wildlife because the Corp already has eliminated these things. This exemption is dangerous. The Corp should have every project reivewed. Congress has given the Corp too many loopholes to slide through. The Corp will take a $300 million project and break it into six or more projects that fall below the $50 million limit for peer review. Likewise, they can do as they please on the Mississippi because they already destroyed everything - St. Louis and New Orleans (and others) live below river level at times because of the dredging of the river and building of flood walls and levees. The Mississippi runs faster than it should, which drains the water sheds faster all along the river. Also, the change in the river depth and flow has eliminated various fish and other speciies because it has been going on so long. The disasterous floods of 1996 were a result of what the Corp has done to the river but they will use that data to justify doing more harm. The major problem in evaluating Corp projects will be the establishment of a baseline - the Corp already screwed up the baseline so much it is hard to determine where to start to evaluate the cummulative impact of the Corps projects. Most Corp projects should be to undo what they have been doing over the past fifty years, not the new things they need to do to support the damage they have done. GovExec.com reader Posted July 29, 2003 7:15 AM