Please call Senator Jeffords immediately!

Your help is needed immediately to send the message to Senator Jim Jeffords
(I-VT), the Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,
that there should be NO NEW WATER PROJECTS AUTHORIZED without meaningful
Corps reforms to protect taxpayers and the environment.

His committee could act as soon as this Thursday, September 26, to authorize
new water projects while failing to pass much needed measure to Reform the
Corps of Engineers.

Tell Senator Jeffords that, as chairman of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, he must not allow new water projects without Reforming the
Corps.

To reach Senator Jeffords, call 202-224-5141
[log in to unmask]

BACKGROUND:

Last week, Senator Jeffords announced that the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee would NOT take up a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)
bill this year. That would mean no policy reforms for the Corps and no new
project authorizations. However, the very next day his Committee announced
plans to mark up a series of bills on Thursday, September 26, 2002, that
would authorize new Corps projects and studies without voting on any of the
much needed and long overdue reforms to the scandal-plagued Corps.
Authorizing new Corps projects - either individually, as a project-only
authorization bill, or as a full WRDA - without meaningful reforms is not
acceptable.

THE SENATE SHOULD NOT ADOPT CORPS PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS WITHOUT REFORM.
Please take a minute to call or email Senator Jeffords to let him know that
the current plan for project authorizations without policy reforms is a
severe disservice to the environment and taxpayers.

Background on the need for reforms:

* Growing scrutiny of Corps projects has revealed a disturbing pattern of
flawed economic and environmental analyses, biased and insupportable
decision-making, and failed mitigation.
* The National Academy of Sciences, General Accounting Office, Army
Inspector General, federal agencies, and independent experts have all
concluded that many proposed Corps projects are not economically justified
and that the Corps' planning process is biased in favor of large-scale
construction projects.
* Even the Corps has acknowledged that the problems with the Corps' planning
process are so severe that the agency is losing its capacity to make sound
recommendations to Congress
* These authorities have concluded that the Corps' planning process provides
for inadequate review by outside experts, allows for undue influence by
local project beneficiaries, results in inadequate mitigation, and utilizes
outdated methods for measuring costs and benefits. As a result, many Corps
projects are based upon unrealistic predictions of economic benefits to
taxpayers and grossly underestimate environmental harm and necessary
mitigation.

Key Reforms:

* Independent Project Review - An external, independent review process for
costly and controversial projects should be integrated into the existing
planning process to ensure the studies are sound and unbiased.
* Updating the Principles and Guidelines - The Corps needs to modernize its
project planning process, including the Principles and Guidelines ("P&G"),
to use to the most up to date science and methodologies and to have this
update peer reviewed by independent experts. In requiring an update and
revision of the P&G, Congress should establish higher environmental and
economic standards for Corps projects, including a higher benefit-cost
ratio.
* Focus Priorities and Deauthorize Outdated Projects - Congress also should
set clear priorities for the Corps by focusing the agency's resources on its
traditional mission areas of environmental restoration and protection,
navigation and flood damage reduction, and reduce the Corps' $52 billion
project backlog by including a deauthorization reform that weeds out
wasteful and outdated projects.

* Cost Sharing - WRDA must strengthen existing cost sharing rules to better
allocate costs to beneficiaries for projects that provide primarily local
benefits. Project sponsors should be required to share more project costs to
ensure that projects are economically sound and to provide incentives for
strong local decision-making.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]