SEEC to T&I: Don’t Steamroll Environmental Reviews

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC) today urged the House Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) Committee and its Subcommittee on Water Resources & Environment to protect the environmental review process used to evaluate and develop water infrastructure projects as the full House begins consideration this week of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA).

In a letter signed by 36 SEEC Members to committee and subcommittee chairs and ranking members, the coalition acknowledged the need to update the nation’s aging infrastructure but also stressed the critical role these reviews, specifically those under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), play in protecting public health and saving money. As required by NEPA, environmental reviews give the public an opportunity—typically their only opportunity—to weigh in on projects that will impact their communities. In many instances, these reviews have identified a more cost-effective method of constructing projects, saving taxpayers millions of dollars while protecting public health and the environment.

“We are concerned that some of the proposals to expedite the environmental process may undermine the very success of those reviews,” SEEC Members say in the letter. “For more than four decades environmental laws, which were enacted with strong bipartisan support, have given us cleaner water, cleaner air, and a safer and healthier environment. … Time and time again, the NEPA process has saved taxpayer dollars while protecting the environment.”

Despite evidence to the contrary, these beneficial reviews are mistakenly identified as the cause of projects delays. As Democratic Members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee noted in the “additional views” portion of the report for this bill, the Committee held multiple hearings prior to the introduction of WRRDA and heard no indication that public participation or environmental reviews were the cause of any project delays. Rather, such delays are more a result of the significant funding backlog for these Army Corps of Engineers projects.

SEEC Members elaborated on these points and concerns in the letter, and they have asked the chairs and ranking members to work with them during floor debate in the House and then in conference to uphold the integrity of the environmental review process.

The full text of the letter is below:

October 22, 2013

The Honorable Bill Shuster The Honorable Nick Rahall
Chairman Ranking Member
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
2165 Rayburn House Office Building 2163 Rayburn House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Bob Gibbs The Honorable Tim Bishop
Chairman Ranking Member
Water Resources & Environment Subcommittee Water Resources & Environment Subcommittee
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Shuster, Chairman Gibbs, Ranking Member Rahall, and Ranking Member Bishop:

Congratulations on the recent markup of H.R. 3080, the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA). We appreciate the bipartisan spirit with which you have approached this important and overdue legislation.

As members of the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC), we know how vital water infrastructure is to our national transportation network and economy. Maintaining and investing in these resources are essential to the survival of every community, whether they have jobs tied to waterways, neighborhoods dependent on flood protections, or consumers waiting on goods shipped through our ports. Environmental restoration and protection are also key components of the water resources bill, and as you advance H.R. 3080 toward floor consideration, we would appreciate the opportunity to work with you to address some of our concerns.

We are concerned that some of the proposals to expedite the environmental process may undermine the very success of those reviews. Though often blamed for project delays, environmental reviews are not the problem when it comes to Army Corps projects. As you know, delays in constructing meritorious projects are caused by funding limitations. While the last Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) bill passed by Congress in 2007 authorized the construction of projects costing more than $22 billion, Congress only appropriated $1.5 billion last year for the Corps’ construction budget.

We would echo comments provided by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, who in a March 14, 2013, letter to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, urged Congress to “affirm continued use of the current foundational environmental framework for all water resource project decisions... support efforts to evaluate the full range of reasonable alternatives, ensure the integrity of its analysis, and promote better environmental stewardship.” That letter recommends that the update of WRDA “should not prescribe regulatory deadlines, limit public participation, or constrain the Federal review process of the potential impacts” of Corps proposals.

For more than four decades environmental laws, which were enacted with strong bipartisan support, have given us cleaner water, cleaner air, and a safer and healthier environment. Poll after poll shows that these benefits are deeply important to the public. The foundation for these improvements has been the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a law passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and signed into law by President Nixon.

The NEPA process informs federal decisions and provides critical checks and balances on federal planning and decision making. It has saved money, time, vital resources, historical sites, endangered species, and public lands all while producing better projects with more public support. It provides a key opportunity for the public, and for federal and state agencies to provide input, leading to better decisions and outcomes for everyone. In many cases, NEPA gives the public its only opportunity to have a say in federal actions that have profound impacts on their health, safety, livelihood, and wellbeing.

Time and time again, the NEPA process has saved taxpayer dollars while protecting the environment. NEPA review revealed that the Army Corps of Engineers' plan to construct the Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant in Mississippi would have destroyed thousands of acres of important wetlands and was not needed to protect communities from flooding. As a result, this misguided plan was stopped by the George W. Bush administration, saving taxpayers more than $220 million. NEPA review also led the Bush administration to put a stop to the Oregon Inlet Jetty Project protecting a vital tidal inlet in North Carolina, saving taxpayers $458 million.

The NEPA process also has produced better projects. NEPA review revealed that the Army Corps could complete a long term project to raise levees along the Mississippi River while saving more than 4,300 acres of wetlands that would have been destroyed under its original plan. NEPA review led to development of a new plan for the I-70 Mountain Corridor in Colorado that was safer than the original plan, had fewer environmental impacts, and won more than 30 awards for innovative design and environmental sensitivity. The NEPA process also led to a vastly improved seismic exploration plan in Wyoming that protected game species, Tribal sites, private property rights, and critical water resources.

As the full House begins consideration of the WRRDA, and ultimately a conference with the Senate on its companion legislation, we would like the opportunity to build on the success of your collaboration in Committee and work with you to prevent any degradation of the NEPA process that would undermine the public input into the federal decision making process, increase taxpayer costs, or harm the environment.

Sincerely,

Members of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition

###