Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) – An Update with Emphasis on WRDA 2016

Thursday, June 16, 2016

J. Tom Ray, PE, D.WREWater Resources Program Manager

 

FundamentalsCongress generally authorizes numerous new Corps site-specific activities and provides policy direction in an omnibus Corps authorization bill, typically called the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)

WRDAs do not provide funds to conduct activities, nor are they reauthorization bills.

BasicsU.S. Army Corps of Engineers activities:

• maintain navigable channels, • reduce flood and storm damage, and • restore aquatic ecosystems.

Congress directs the Corps:• authorizations, • appropriations, and • oversight of its studies, construction projects, and

other activities. Corps must be authorized to undertake an activity;

Authorization:• project-specific, • programmatic, or • general. Corps’ ability to act on an authorization requires funding.

Authority

Appropriation

Project Phase

can Proceed

Authority

Appropriation Backlog

Authorization

The Corps must be authorized to undertake an activity

While necessary, authorizations are usually insufficient for a Corps study or construction project to proceed;

Corps action on an authorization requires funding!

Authority

Role

of

W

RDA

Funding• Corps civil works funded in annual Energy and Water Development appropriations acts or supplementals• Annual civil works range $4.5 billion to nearly $6 billion. • O&M taking an increasing share• Funds competition driven by outpaced appropriations• Many authorized activities have not received

appropriations. • Backlog of >1,000 authorized studies and construction

projects.

Appropriations

In recent years, few new studies, new construction projects,

and new programs have been in either the President’s

budget request or enacted appropriations

Result = “unprecedented pressure on Corps to limit its

mission.”

Funding

• Excluding supplemental

appropriations, funding has remained

steady or increased slightly;

• Ranging from $4.5 billion to nearly $6

billion;

• For FY2016 in P.L. 114-113, Congress

appropriated $5.99 billion to the

Corps.

Appropriations

Last 10 years – Meager Budget Request

followed by Congressional Plus-up

WRDA HistoryPertinent events and marked changes or shifts in Corps authorizations

WRDA History

Prior to 1986, long-standing

disputes over cost-share, user fees, and env reqmts resulted in no

major civil works legislation. PL

99-6

62

PL10

0-67

6

PL10

1-64

0

PL10

2-58

0

PL10

4-30

3

PL10

6-53

PL10

6-54

1

PL11

0-11

4

WRR

DA o

f 201

4

1986 1988 1990 1992 19961999-2001

2007 2014 2016

WRDA 99 100 101 102 104 106 110 113No WRDA 103 105 107 108 109 111 112

Year

Congress

Over-ride President’s

vetoWashington Post article

Earmark Rule

Changing Priorities

(1960-1986)Environmental Mission and Local Responsibility

(1986-2000)Evolving Demands and Processes

(2001-Present)

WRDA 86 – Marks Shift in Water Resources

Major Markers of Shift:• General agreement that nonfederal interests can,

and should, shoulder more of the financial and management burdens;

• Ended stalemate between Congress and Executive Branch on authorizations;

• First major civil works legislation since 1970;• Environmental considerations in water

planning;• Deauthorizing marginal projects• Biennial WRDAs to avoid long delays,

Congress regular review of projects

WRDA 86Authorized $16B:

Federal share - $ 12BNon-federal – 4 B

WRDA 2007 – Override VetoOn April 19, 2007, H.R.1495, sponsored by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.)

- Passed 394-25.House bill - $13.2

billionSenate bill - $31.5

billion

$23 billion

VetoThis bill

lacks fiscal

discipline.

Override Votes:• House voted 361 - 54 (290

required)• Senate voted 79 - 14 (67

required)

First veto override of Bush term

WRRDA 2014

Altered processes for project delivery options:• Expanded opportunities for nonfederal entities to

lead projects,• For innovative financing, including public-private

partnerships

Earmark restrictions:for site-specific authorizations complicated WRDA enactment in the 111th and 112th Congresses.

WRRDA 2014, enacted June 10, 2014, addressed restrictions by:• Authorized 34 construction projects• Received agency review & Chief ‘s reports• Subject of a congressional hearing.

2014 WRRDA Guidance

Approx 80% complete-- Total: Over 200 Sections-- Guidance complete or not needed: 162

WRDA 2016Expansive bill versus “Pamphlet” bill H.R. 5303:“Regular action and

oversight by Congress through the biannual WRDA

process will ensure that the

United States’ infrastructure

is prepared for future growth.”

Chairman Shuster

S. 2848Going beyond the scope of a typical WRDA, the

Senate bill aims to increase water supply and

improve crumbling drinking water and

wastewater systems. To this end, the bill

authorizes more than $6 billion for programs

under the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean

Water Act, including a $220 million aid package

to address the Flint, Michigan crisis

WRDA 2016 S. 2848 – passes Senate Environment & Public Works Cmt, 19 – 1• EPW Committee approves 19-1 on April 26, 2016• Mega-bill in seven Titles • Mega cost at ~ $9.4B• Stretches “traditional” WRDA by adding $6B for Water & Wastewater• $6B for SDWA & CWA programs, $220M to Flint• Authorizes 27 projects with Chief Reports

H.R. 5303 – passes House Transportation & Infrastructure Cmt• T&I Committee approves on May 25, 2016• “Pamphlet” bill at ~ 100 pages• Goal to achieve regular two-year cycle (Section 101) • Approximately $5 billion in federal funding for Corps

activities• Authorizes 28 projects with Chief Reports

WRDA 2016 – Positives & Obstacles

Chairman Bill Shuster, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee H.R. 5303 Positives Obstacles

* 2-year regular cycle * Need questioned * “pamphlet” size * Cost ($5 billion) * 28 Chief rpt projects * Limited time (maybe) * De-authorizations * Bipartisan

Chairman James Inhofe, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

S. 2848Positives Obstacles * 2-year regular cycle * Need questioned * “tome” size (seven Titles) * Cost ($9 billion) * De-authorizations * Limited time

* Non-traditional WRDA

Authorized Texas Projects & Studies Brazos River, Fort Bend County, Texas (flood damage

reduction) Chacon Creek, city of Laredo, Texas (for flood damage

reduction, ecosystem restoration, and recreation)

Corpus Christi Ship Channel, Texas (navigation)

City of El Paso, Texas (flood damage reduction)

Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Brazoria and Matagorda

Counties, Texas (navigation and hurricane and storm damage

reduction) Port of Bay City, Texas (navigation)

Upper Trinity (Central City Project)

• Modification to the Upper Trinity River (Central City Texas) with a total initial project cost of $810 million total

• Authorized in Annual Report under Section 7001 of WRRDA 2014

• Included in S. 2848 but requires economic analysis finding

Moving Forward – Leadership Changes

Leadership Changes

Steve Stockton, frequent guest at TWD

Deputy Commander for Civil and Emergency Operations

Chief of Engineers

Director of Civil Works

LG Thomas P. Bostick – address 2015 Texas Water Day

LG Todd T. SemoniteMay 19, 2016

MG John Peabody and old friend at TWD 2015

MG Donald E. (Ed) JacksonAugust 12, 2015

Moving WRDA 2016 ForwardWorking alliance of T&I Chair & Ranking

Members of Committee and Subcommittee

Moving WRDA 2016 ForwardRecent S. 2848 Briefing (June 7th)

1. With appropriations stalled – Move to floor this month

2. Susan Bodine preparing alternative “no harm” language (per concerns with Sec 1012 and Sec 1032)3. Senate bill could be “lead” in Conference (TBD)

H.R. 5303 – based on recent communications

1. Possibly in June timeframe -- positive, bipartisan measure-- prior to Republican convention-- stalled appropriations (although effort to

salvage)2. Possibly after the June Republican convention

-- would severely limit available time (back in Sept)

-- pros and cons on taking bill to Convention3. Press by Members to add amendments

What we ex

pected

in February

at

TWD 2016

WRDA 2016 – Issues for TWCAPossible TWCA Related Issues

Resumption of biennial or more frequent WRDA enactment;

Congressional oversight and corrective legislative remedies to facilitate more meaningful input from non-federal sponsors; and,

Corrective language in WRDA 2016 to address the following major items and others identified in this briefing paper:

o Input by the non-federal sponsors on implementation guidance;o Resolution of implementation issues with Section 7001;o Prohibit implementation of the FFRMS; and,o Recognize “emergencies” caused by O&M issues in addition to natural disasters

WRDA 2016 Concerns

Amy Larson, National Waterways Conference

• “Son of Dam Optimization” why Non-federal Sponsors should be concern

• TWCA Response - discussion

“Interest” vs. “sponsor”

“No Harm” language is being prepared according Susan Bodine, Majority Chief Counsel, Senate EPW Committee

TWCA Response & Timing

Open Discussion of Appropriate Next Steps:• Collaborate with other Associations (NWRA,

NWC, ACWA, WESTCAS, etc)• Resolve terminology issue – “interest”• Await “no harm” language from EPW

Thanks – Questions/Discussion