However, I felt it was extremely important to have this hearing today - prior to our first WRDA hearing - to discuss a major point of concern I have. I surfaced this concern~at the full committee hearing on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. As most of my colleagues know Congress passes biennial Water Resources Development Act with billions of dollars of new authorization for projects and programs and assumes that the money will be available to build these projects.
The stark reality is, at the current levels of construction appropriations for the Corps water resources projects, we already have more water resources projects authorized for construction than we can complete in any efficient construction schedule. At the current low levels of construction appropriations it would take 25 years to complete the active projects in the backlog without even considering additional project authorizations.
Currently the Corps has a backlog of over 500 active authorized projects with a Federal cost to complete these projects of about $38 billion. I want to emphasize the words active projects. These are projects that have been recently funded, economically justified and supported by a non-Federal sponsor. If we included the outdated and unneeded authorized projects, the backlog figure would be almost 800 projects at cost of $46 billion.
Let me make this one point on the obsolete projects. We made an excellent start in WRDA '86 in setting up a process to Reauthorize these projects. We need to accelerate the process. The Administration has a proposal to speed up that Reauthorization process and it merits our serious consideration. However, Reauthorizing inactive and outdated projects will have relatively little impact on the backlog which is largely made up of active projects which have positive benefit cost ratios and willing and capable non-Federal sponsors.
Chart 1, you also have a copy in front of you, shows the general breakdown of the backlog by project purpose. You can see that it covers the full range of the traditional Corps projects including navigation, flood control, shore protection projects, hydropower project rehabilitation and recreation plus projects in the major new mission area of environmental restoration. Projects in the other new mission areas of remediation of formerly use nuclear sites (FUSRAP) and environmental infrastructure are also in the mix.
Why this backlog? There are a couple of reasons. The first and most significant is the decreasing Federal investment in water resources infrastructure. Chart 2 dramatically illustrates what has occurred. It shows our capital investment in water resources infrastructure since the 1930's shown in constant 1999 dollars as measured by the Corps of Engineers Civil Works construction appropriations. You can see the sharp decline from the peak in 1966 of a $5 billion appropriation and appropriations through the 1970's in the $4 billion level to the 1990's where annual Corps construction appropriations have averaged only around $1.6 billion.
The second reason for the backlog is that we are asking the Corps of Engineers to do more with less. We have a series of charts in front of you showing the breakdown by mission area for the Corps' construction appropriation by representative year from the decades of the 60's, 70's, and 90's. These clearly show the mission growth of the Corps.
If we look Chart 3, you will see that in FY 65, there were three large dominant mission areas flood control, navigation and hydropower with a low level of spending for recreation development.
Switching to Chart 4 in FY 75 you see the same big three of flood control, navigation, and hydropower but with increased recreation spending. In FY 75 shore protection enters the picture and the first tiny wedge of environmental restoration work emerges. When we talk about environmental restoration work we are generally talking about habitat protection Restoration or creation particularly wetlands and aquatic habitat.
In Chart 5, the 90's, as illustrated by FY 99, show a dramatic mission increase with environmental restoration as a significant mission area, and two new mission areas of environmental infrastructure and remediation of formerly used government nuclear sites (FUSRAP). Environmental infrastructure, as contrasted with environmental restoration, includes such work as construction of water plants and sewage treatment facilities.
What's the point of this? Well if your recall our second chart, the Corps construction appropriations have been falling since 1965, and it falls sharply in the 90,s. At the same time the Corps mission has been growing. The result is today's hugetbacklog.
This final chart illustrates where we are. This shows the recent construction requests by the Corps of Engineers and the anticipated future requests in the areas of navigation, flood control, shore protection, hydropower, environmental restoration, environmental infrastructure, recreation, remediation of formerly used sites, Everglades restoration work and the anticipated future requests as we continue to authorize projects.
As you can see the budget requests, which are constrained by Administration budget policy and far short of historic funding levels, are in the range of about $2.5 billion and anticipated to approach $3 billion by 2010. If the 1990's are any guide, what the Corps will actually receive in appropriations will be $1 to 2 billion below these already constrained request levels. The result will be an even greater backlog and inefficient construction schedules.
What should be done? First I think our witnesses will tell us that the needs are not going away. Given that reality, I think we need to significantly increase the construction appropriation of the Corps of Engineers. I think a doubling of current construction appropriations would be appropriate . I am a fiscal conservative but there are certain areas where the Federal government has an appropriate role and I think navigation, flood control and restoration of nationally significant environmental resources like the Florida everglades are areas where the Federal government does have a role.
In this regard recently the House passed the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) which authorizes $2.8 billion in expenditures for land acquisition, coastal conservation wildlife conservation and historic preservation. One wonders if anyone ever sits down and weighs unmet legitimate Federal and non-Federal roles versus the poll driven spending by Congress. Does the left hand know in the Administration, or for that matter here in the Congress, what the right hand is doing.
Second, I think we need to control the mission creep of the Corps. For example, even though I obtained a limited authority for the Corps for environmental infrastructure in Ohio, I am not convinced that there is a Corps role in water and sewage plant construction. That should be a State and local responsibility with some Federal assistance through the State revolving loan funds. We will never get control of the backlog if the mission of the Corps continues to creep.
Finally I think we need to assure that the Corps process of planning and recommending projects is open, objective and inclusive and the project evaluation meets the highest standards of professionalism and quality. We must be able to continue to rely on the Corps to recommend to the Congress for authorization and funding only projects that make maximum net contributions to economic development and environmental quality.
These are some pretty weighty issues, and I am eager to hear what our witnesses have to say about our responsibility to meet national water resources needs effectively and efficiently and whether we should narrow the scope of projects being considered for authorization by this committee.