Statement by Senator Tom Daschle
Committee on Environment and Public Works
June 18, 2002
Mr. Chairman, thank
you for inviting me to testify today at this hearing. I am here to express my strong belief that fundamental reform of
the Corps of Engineers is necessary not only to protect the nation=s environment, but also to protect the
integrity of the process by which Congress authorizes Corps projects and to
restore the severely damaged credibility of the Corps itself.
In that regard, I
want to commend the Committee for taking up the Water Resources Development
Act, and for recognizing that passage of any new authorizing legislation for
the Corps of Engineers should be accompanied by meaningful reform legislation. I also want to encourage the Committee to
include many of the provisions of S. 1987 in the next Water Resources
Development Act. This bill is a
thoughtful and justifiable response to the ongoing problems associated with the
Corps of Engineers, and I will cosponsor it today.
My one reservation
about the bill is the establishment of a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.5. It has been my experience that some projects
with lesser benefit-to-cost ratios are defensible, while some with higher
benefit-to-cost ratios may not be justified.
I think it is important that Congress establish a more sensitive metric
for evaluating projects than simply increasing the minimum benefit-to-cost
ratio, and I would like to explore this issue further with the Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I have
advocated reform of the Corps of Engineers for years. In fact, in March of 2000, I introduced S. 2309, the Corps of
Engineers Civil Works Independent Investigation and Review Act, calling for an
independent review of the Corps of Engineers.
That bill established an independent commission to take a hard look at
the Corps.
At the time, I was
extremely concerned by evidence that the Corps was neglecting its
responsibilities to comply with the nation=s environmental laws and was systematically engaged in producing
fraudulent analyses of proposed projects to manufacture economic justifications
in cases where factual analyses could not have supported their authorization by
Congress.
Two years ago the Washington
Post published a number of very troubling articles about the operations of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Those stories exposed the existence of independent agendas within the
Corps. They suggested cost‑benefit
analyses rigged to justify billion dollar projects, disregard for environmental
laws, and a pattern of catering to special interests.
The actions
described in the Post articles raise serious questions about the
accountability of the Corps and present a compelling case for a thorough review
of the agency's operations and management.
And it is not only
the Post articles that cause me to believe this.
The Corps' current
effort to update the Missouri River Master Control Manual ‑‑ the
policy document that governs the Corps' management of the river from Montana to
Missouri ‑‑ illustrates not only that the Corps can be indifferent
to the environment. It also
demonstrates that the close relationship of the Corps to the barge industry
often drives the Corps=
willingness to manipulate and falsify data and analyses to protect those
special interests and justify the work of the Corps in supporting those
activities.
On the Missouri
River, for example, the Corps has taken pains to protect the $7 million barge
industry at the expense of public recreational opportunities and fish and
wildlife. One important factor that
motivates the Corps=
actions is its ongoing program to maintain the barge channel B a Corps jobs program that costs taxpayers
over $7 million per year B more than the value of the barge industry itself.
This example ought
to be a concern to all Americans. It is
a deep concern to South Dakotans. The
Missouri runs down the center of our state and is a major source of income, recreation
and pride for us. More than 40 years
ago, the Corps built dams up and down the Missouri River in order to harness
hydroelectric power. In return, it was
expected to manage the river wisely, and in compliance with the nation=s laws.
The Corps has not
kept that trust. The Missouri river is
dying a slow death. And the Corps
continues to bend over backwards to ensure that the management changes
necessary to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and recover
the health of the river are not made.
In recent years,
studies have been done to determine how to restore the river to health. An overwhelming amount of scientific and
technical data all point to the same conclusion. The flow of the river needs to more closely mimic nature. Flows should be higher in the spring, and
lower in the summer ‑‑ just as they are in nature.
Yet, if and when the
Corps ever releases its plan for managing the river -- and after 12 years of
study, that is still in doubt -- observers expect that it will propose to
continue doing largely what it has been doing all these years. That is what most expect, despite knowing
exactly what the practices have produced now for the last 40‑plus
years. The agency's refusal to change
will further jeopardize endangered species.
And, it will continue to erode the natural beauty and recreational value
of the river.
The Washington
Post series suggested that the Corps= handling of the Missouri River Master Manual is not an isolated
case. The Post articles
contained allegations by a Corps whistleblower who says that a study of
proposed upper‑Mississippi lock expansions was rigged to provide an
economic justification for that billion‑dollar project. In response to these allegations, the Corps'
own Office of Special Counsel concluded that the agency Aprobably broke laws and engaged in a gross
waste of funds.@
In my own dealings
with the Corps of Engineers, I, too, have experienced the institutional
problems recorded so starkly in the Post series. In South Dakota, where the Corps operates
four hydroelectric dams, we have fought for more than 40 years to force the
agency to meet its responsibilities under the 1958 Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act and mitigate the loss of wildlife habitat resulting from the
construction of those dams.
For 40 years, the
Corps has failed to meet those responsibilities. That is why I have worked closely with the Governor of my state,
Bill Janklow, and with many other South Dakotans, to come up with a plan to
transfer Corps lands back to the state of South Dakota and two Indian tribes. Unfortunately, instead of attempting to
work with us, the Corps fought us for years -- hoping to prevent us from
reinforcing the precedent that the Corps is responsible for mitigating the
environmental damage caused by its projects.
Just last week, the Post
described a new General Accounting Office report on a project in Delaware,
where once again fraudulent analysis was performed to justify moving forward
when it appears an objective analysis would have concluded the opposite. When considered in the context of the litany
of problems that have come to light in the Post, Congress has no choice
but to enact serious reforms prior to providing the agency with any new
authority.
In a democracy,
institutions of government must be held accountable by representatives of the
people. That is the job of Congress ‑‑ to hold that agency
responsible and make sure it follows the nation=s laws and provides lawmakers with accurate information upon which
million- and billion-dollar decisions are made.
Contempt for
environmental laws and self‑serving economic analyses simply cannot be
tolerated if Congress is to make well‑informed decisions regarding the
authorization of expensive projects, and if the American taxpayer is to be
assured that federal monies are being spent wisely.
The Corps of
Engineers provides a valuable national service. It constructs and manages needed projects throughout the
country. The size and scope of the
biannual Water Resources Development Act is clear evidence of the importance of
the Corps' civil works mission. Because the Corps' work is so critical, it is
essential that steps be taken immediately to determine the extent of the
problems within the agency ‑‑ and to design meaningful and lasting
reforms to correct them. Our nation
needs a civil works program we can depend on.
We need a Corps of Engineers that conducts credible analysis.
We need a Corps that
balances economic development and environmental protection as required by its
mandate ‑‑ not one that ignores environmental laws as it
chooses. History does not offer much
room for confidence that the Army Corps of Engineers can meet these standards
under its current management system.
Consequently, I urge
this committee to take a hard and systematic look at the Corps and include
reforms in the next Water Resources Development Act to address these obvious
problems. In particular, I hope the
Committee will look at the Corps' compliance with environmental laws, the
quality and objectivity of the agency's scientific and economic analysis, the
extent to which the Corps coordinates and cooperates with other state and
federal agencies in designing and implementing projects, and the
appropriateness of the agency's size, budget and personnel.
It is my hope that
all those who care about the integrity of the Army Corps of Engineers and its
mission will support an effort by this committee to identify and implement
whatever reforms are necessary to rebuild public support for its work. I look forward to working with all members
of the Committee to help craft responsible reform legislation, and I encourage
you to look to the provisions of S.
1987 as a basis for needed reform in this year=s Water Resources Development Act.