As many in this room are aware, Chairman Smith has set an ambitious schedule for putting together a WRDA bill with a goal of marking up legislation by June 27.
There are some who may question the need for a WRDA bill this year since Congress passed a WRDA bill just last year. In reality, last year's bill was actually unfinished business from 1998, and if Congress is to get back on its two year cycle for passage of WRDA legislation, we need to act on a bill this year. The two year cycle is important to avoid long delays between the planning and the execution of projects and to meet Federal commitments to state and local government partners who share the costs with the Federal government.
While the two year authorization cycle is extremely important in maintaining efficient schedules for completions of important water resources projects as we explored at our hearing on May 16 efficient schedules also depend on adequate appropriations. The appropriations for the Corps' program have not been adequate and, as a result, there is a backlog of over 500 projects that will cost the federal government $38 billion to complete.
As we heard from General Van Winkle last week, these are worthy projects with positive benefit-to-cost ratios and capable non-Federal sponsors.
The failure to provide adequate funding for these projects means that project construction schedules are spread out over a longer period of time, resulting in increased construction costs and delays in achieving project benefits.
I recognize that budget allocations and Corps appropriations are beyond the purview of this Committee. But I believe the backlog issue should impact the way we approach WRDA 2000 in three very important ways.
First, we need to control the mission creep of the Corps of Engineers. At the backlog hearing I held last week, I mentioned that 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.
Another example is the brownfields remediation authority proposed by the Administration for the Corps. Brownfield remediation and redevelopment is a very important issue. It's a big problem in my state of Ohio and I am working to remove Federal impediments to State cleanups. But having said that, I don't think this is a mission for the Corps of Engineers. What we need to do is recognize and address the large unmet national needs within the traditional Corps mission areas: needs such as flood control, navigation and the emerging mission area of restoration of nationally significant environmental resources like the Florida Everglades.
The second thing we need to do in WRDA 2000 is make sure that the projects we are authorizing meet the highest standard of engineering, economic and environmental analysis. We must be sure that the projects and project modifications Congress authorizes make maximum net contributions to economic development and environmental quality.
We can only assure that projects meet these high standards if projects have received adequate study and evaluation to establish project costs, benefits, and environmental impacts to an appropriate level of confidence. This means that a feasibility report must be completed before projects are authorized for construction.
Finally, we have to preserve the partnerships and cost sharing principles of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. WRDA '86 established the principle that water resources projects should be accomplished in partnerships with states and local governments and that this partnership should involve significant financial participation by the non-Federal sponsors.
My experience as Mayor of Cleveland and Governor of Ohio convinced me that the requirement for local funding to match Federal dollars results in much better projects than where Federal funds are simply handed out. It doesn't matter if its parks, housing, highways, or water resources projects, the requirement for a local cost share provides a level of accountability that is essential to a quality project. Cost sharing principles must not be weakened.
We are going to start today's hearing with a presentation of the Administration's WRDA proposal. We will follow that presentation with a panel of proponents for projects and programs that are either already contained in the Administration's bill, or are scheduled to have feasibility reports completed this year in time for WRDA consideration.
I believe today's presentation will give the Committee a good blueprint from which we will be able to formulate a Congressional WRDA bill.