7913 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It is clear that the emerging new partnerships between federal, state and local governments in developing the nation's water resources provide the impetus and resolve for solving the significant challenges facing wise. and needed water resources development. The Corps is committed to rethinking our procedures. Planning responsibilities and planning costs both must be shared. 26 In effect, these criteria are constraints upon the range of feasible solutions. Therefore, the NED benefits should be maximized within these constraints. Consequently, the development and screening of plans could focus not only on net economic benefits and environmental effects, but also on acceptability to the non-federal sponsors and their ability to finance the projects, Sponsors' concerns include: restrictions on debt, taxation limits, deficit spending, the obligation of future appropriations, the co-mingling of funds and scheduling of referenda of support planning and construction. Because of uncertainty in the outcome of feasibility planning as it impacts on these concerns, sponsor( s) may also need to consider temporary arrangements to alleviate financial constraints from the start of planning until the time when firm funding commitments for construction must be made. The information needs of sponsors when considering such arrangements will need to be anticipated as part of the planning process. The P&G also enable the Corps to develop alternatives to the NED plan in order to address other federal, state, local or international concerns which are not fully addressed in the NED plan. If it can be shown that the concerns which led to the development of an alternative to the NED plan provide an overriding reason for selecting that alternative, the Secretary of the Army may select that alternative for recommendation to Congress. Streamlined Review and Authorization A state or local unit of government committing funds to project planning must know that such expenditures will result in a quality project which can be built within a reasonable time. One of the major criticisms of current federal water development is the inordinate time period between the beginning of planning and the completion of construction of a project. This time period can easily extend to 20 years and results largely from lengthy reviews and sequential referrals to the Congress for authorizations and appropriations for each step of the planning, design and construction process. Adding the additional time to negotiate cost-sharing agreements with local sponsors can only lengthen an already unacceptably long process, unless a major revision of current practice occurs. Precedents exist for congressional recognition of the need for speedy review and authorization. Under Section 201 of the 1965 River and Harbor and Flood Control Act, projects under $15 million may be authorized by resolution of the House and Senate Public Works Committees rather than by enactment of specific project legislation. Also, under the Continuing Authorities program, the Chief of Engineers has the discretion to plan and construct small projects (for instance, less than $4 million federal costs for flood control and less than $2 million federal costs for navigation) without referring to Congress or the committees for approval. Finally, Congress has also authorized the Corps to continue planning and engineering for projects which have been submitted for authorization but not yet authorized, although this authority has limited. application. Other alternatives have been proposed to streamline the development process. These include resuming the use of Section 201 which was discontinued in 1978, expanding the dollar limits of the Continue Authorities program, providing for concurrent authorization of projects and appropriation of funds, authorizing the Corps to review and participate in implementation of plans developed by non-federal governments, much as in the fashion of the Soil Conservation Service, and providing for concurrent and shared review of plans by local, state and federal partners, Streamlined planning and construction is perhaps the most difficult and yet the most important issue to be faced if the new cost-sharing partnership is to succeed.