Report criticizes Army Corps project management

Unless the Army Corps of Engineers rethinks procedures for approving, prioritizing and monitoring the progress of projects, the agency will waste taxpayer money, two watchdog groups charged in a report released Thursday.

Corps officials often rely on outdated or inaccurate information to justify water and other infrastructure improvement projects, according to the report published by the National Wildlife Federation and Taxpayers for Common Sense. The report is based on two years of research, including interviews with government officials and reviews of Corps documents.

The criticisms are not new, said David Hewitt, a spokesman for the Corps. "These are the same claims [the groups] made four years ago," he said.

Under pressure from special interest groups and members of Congress, the Corps relies on "fuzzy math" to illustrate that the benefits of projects outweigh the costs, the advocacy groups claimed.

For instance, the Corps underestimated the costs of dredging a shipping channel in the Delaware River, the report said. In calculating the expenses of the project, agency managers used faulty data on shipping traffic along the river and did not complete an accurate analysis of the project's likely environmental impact, the groups charged.

General Accounting Office researchers estimated in June 2002 that these mistakes caused Corps officials to overstate the benefits of the Delaware River project by nearly $27 million a year. The Corps claimed the project would provide $40.1.billion in benefits annually, but GAO could verify only $13.3 million of that.

Subsequent studies conducted by independent experts at the request of the Corps demonstrated the Delaware project would produce substantial savings, but the advocacy groups said the Corps "handpicked" consultants to complete the analysis and continued to inflate the benefits.

The report pointed to 28 other projects where the Corps allegedly completed faulty costs-benefit studies and is failing to deliver intended results. "Fundamentally, the Corps is not held accountable to the public for reliable project planning or project performance," the report said.

To alleviate this problem, the Corps should seek additional input from members of the public and outside analysts before beginning projects and should focus on designing performance measures to ensure projects are on track, Thursday's report recommended. Administration officials and Congress also should get more involved in monitoring the progress of Corps projects and holding the agency responsible for failures, the report said.

The Office of Management and Budget has completed formal performance reviews of several Corps projects as part of the budget process. In preparation for the release of President Bush's fiscal 2005 budget, OMB evaluated six Corps programs. Of those, four could not demonstrate results and two earned ratings of "moderately effective."

Corps managers should do a better job of listening to warnings or recommendations from OMB, GAO and independent research organizations, the advocacy group report said.

But according to Hewitt, the Corps does take outside opinions seriously. "Striving to achieve environmental sustainability is the first of the Corps' environmental principles, and we believe that it is essential to respect the views of others and learn from their perspective," he said.

The projects singled out in the National Wildlife Federation and Taxpayers for Common Sense report "have stood the test of rigorous public review," Hewitt said. He explained that the Corps uses independent reviews and is in a "constant state" of updating review policies.

Corps officials in October 2003 finalized plans for a reorganization that would result in a roughly 20 percent reduction in staff at the Corps headquarters and eight division offices. The plan also calls for headquarters staff, currently organized in four layers beneath the chief, to regroup into eight "integration teams" acting as liaisons to the agency's regional offices, and asks employees to form "communities of practice" based on areas of expertise.

This reorganization will not have any direct impact on addressing the concerns posed by the advocacy groups in Thursday's report, Hewitt said.

Click here to view the full report.