Press Releases
|
|
Print this page |
MCCAIN SUPPORTS INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF ARMY CORPS PROJECTS
July 19, 2006
Washington D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator McCain (R-AZ) delivered the following statement on floor of the Senate regarding his co-sponsorship of an amendment to the Water Resources Development Bill (S. 728) calling for an independent system to review Army Corps projects:Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senators Feingold, Carper, Lieberman, and Jeffords in sponsoring an amendment to establish a truly independent system for conducting peer review of certain Army Corps projects.
As my colleges know, the Corps has come under intense scrutiny by government watchdog agencies and taxpayer groups, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the National Academy of Sciences. Investigation after investigation into the Corps’ project review practices have revealed serious problems with the quality, objectivity, and credibility of the Corps when reporting on the economic and environmental feasibility of proposed water projects. One GAO report concluded in 2006 that the Corps planning studies “were fraught with errors, mistakes, and miscalculations, and used invalid assumptions and outdated data.” The same GAO report cited several examples of the Corps’ failure to properly analyze projects. These include: The Sacramento Flood Protection Project
According to the GAO, the Corps did not fully analyze likely cost increases for the Sacramento Flood Protection Project or report cost overruns to Congress in a timely manner. The GAO found that the estimated cost of the project originally totaled about $114 million, but increased to about $500 million by 2002. By the time the Corps reported theses cost increases to Congress in 2002, it had already spent or planned to spend more than double its original estimated cost. GAO also discovered that the Corps incorrectly counted the number of properties protected by the project by almost 20% and incorrectly valued these properties. The Delaware Deepening Project
The GAO found that the Corps substantially overstated the projected economic benefits of the Delaware River channel-deepening project. Whereas the Corps estimated the benefits to be $40.1 million per year in 1998, the GAO projected only $13.3 million per year. The GAO urged the Corps to reanalyze the project, which later revealed it could be built for $56 million less than what the Corps previously estimated.
The Oregon Inlet Jetty Project
According to the GAO, the Corps’ analysis of the Oregon Inlet Jetty Project, issued in 2001, failed to “consider alternatives to the proposed project, used outdated data to estimate benefits to fishing trawlers, and did not account for the effects on smaller fishing vessels.” The estimated economic benefit of this project was originally estimated to be $2 million annually by the Corps, but was revised to $300,000 annually under GAO’s review. The Corps subsequently canceled this project.
Mr. President, it may surprise you to know that the GAO discovered that the last two projects were subjected to the Corps’ existing organizational review process, but the Corps still failed to catch their mistakes. Following years of criticism by oversight agencies, the Corps, in May 2005, adopted guidelines for conducting external reviews of projects. At first glance, the Corps’ process might seem reasonable and comprehensive until given a closer look. The current guidelines give the Corps virtually complete discretion to decide what projects should be reviewed from outside the Corps. The so-called “peer reviewers” themselves are selected by the Corps, and in some circumstances, can even be Corps employees. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, Corps officials have identified approximately 25 engineering studies as eligible for outside peer review since the peer review guidelines were enacted over a year ago, but the Corps has not been able to point to any study where an external review was actually carried out. Mr. President, because of the Corps’ lousy track record when it comes to project reviews, this amendment is designed to ensure independent review for certain Corps projects– those that are costly, controversial, or critical to public safety. More specifically, Corps studies would be subject to peer review if: the project cost more than $40 million; the Governor of an affected state requests a review; a federal agency with statutory authority to review a project finds that it will have significant adverse impact; or, the Secretary of the Army determines that the project is controversial. The timing of the review is flexible, but the duration is strictly limited in order to not delay the process. Reviewers will be able to consider all the date, facts, and models used. Finally the amendment establishes an independent safety assurance review for flood control projects where the public safety could be at risk should the project fail– something recommended by the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s report on Hurricane Katrina.
Mr. President, we cannot allow wasteful spending and faulty planning to continue to impact the budgets of our nation’s critical water projects. Given our budget constraints, it’s only reasonable that we ensure appropriate fiscal accountability within the Corps, and that means looking beyond the Corps.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
# # #
|