The Water Resources Coalition submitted written testimony for the October 29th Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing, Infrastructure Investment: The Road to Recovery. The Coalition urged the Committee to include at least $5 billion, in water resources investment, as part of any package that is created. Federal infrastructure funding would have a direct stimulus effect on the economy by putting contractors, and their employees, back to work; while improving our infrastructure, which has deteriorated to crisis levels.

 

The Committee Chairman, Rep. James Oberstar, (D-MN), hopes to have a bill by November 17th.

 

Full WRC Statement to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee 

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) President, David G. Mongan, P.E. testified before the House Ways and Means Committee that infrastructure spending, "would serve the dual purpose of reviving the nation's economy and the nation's infrastructure." He also stressed the hardships many engineering firms are facing since states have started to cut back planned projects.

 

At a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing on economic recovery, ASCE Board Member Andrew Herrmann, P.E.,  reminded Representatives that a decaying infrastructure leads to further lags in the economy, "We firmly believe that any economic recovery legislation should contain significant new funding for many of the nation's aging infrastructure systems, which are the indispensable lifelines of our economy", said Herrmann. "The nation's surface transportation systems, wastewater treatment facilities, waterways, and airports are all in need of repair and updates."

 

Also, testifying at the Transportation and Infrastructure hearing was Associated General Contractors (AGC) member Brian Burgett, President and CEO of Kokosing Construction Co., Inc., Fredericktown, Ohio, American Public Works Association (APWA) President, Noel Thompson, and in a written statement American Shore & Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA) President, Harry Simmons. The Committee asked Mr. Burgett to focus his remarks on the immediate needs of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps estimates that a $5 billion investment would create 140,000 direct and indirect jobs and that contracts could be awarded in less than 9 months for large projects, and sooner for on-going and smaller projects. Mr. Thompson focused his remarks on how an economic stimulus package that funds infrastructure will help "Main Street" Americans and Mr. Simmons again urged for water resources funding and stressed the need to improve dam safety, lower flood risks, and reduce coastal hazards.

All the witnesses identified specific funding requirements to be part of the economic recovery: $7 billion for water resources systems under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; $6.5 billion for the Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund; $18 billion for necessary reconstruction projects for the nation's highway systems; $5.4 billion to maintain and expand the nation's transit systems; $600 million in capital improvements to the nation's aviation infrastructure; and $200 million for the repair and rehabilitation of deficient dams.
 

Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) stated that he plans to have a bill ready for the house to consider when the House reconvenes on November 17.

 

Full Committee Hearing Summary 

 

 

On October 15, the Water Resources Coalition offered comments to the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), for the revision of the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Reources Implementation Studies, dated, March 10, 1983. The Principles and Guidelines allow the USACE to formulate and recommend water resources plans in response to the single "Federal" objective: maximizing net national economic development benefits. The Coalition believes this is a short sighted view and that the USACE must instead recognize a more comprehensive national framework, which is flexible, timely, and open to innovation in the marketplace of water resources planning.

 

To read the full statement and all revision suggestions please visit:

 

The Coalition sent a letter to Congressional leadership on October 17, encouraging Congress to enact on legislation that will stimulate the economy and fund the nation's aging water resources infrastructure.

 

President - Elect Obama will be facing massive infrastructure challenges when he takes office in January, ranging from a dramatic lack of funding to the reauthorization of the sweeping SAFETEA-LU bill in Congress. During the campaign season Obama identified infrastructure spending as part of his long term economic growth agenda and has stated he envisions as many as 2 million jobs can be created through infrastructure investment. Obama has already urged Congress to pass an additional economic stimulus; that will include infrastructure spending, when they reconvene on November 17. He has also called for the creation of a new, independent, expert-run National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank. However where does our future President stand on water infrastructure issues?
 
Obama strongly supported the enactment of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), a bill which provided funding for upgrading our aging water infrastructure, including modernizing locks and dams and strengthening levees. His official site states that he believes that the decay of our water infrastructure has led to a decline in economic development along our ports and rivers, due to the increasingly difficult ability to ship goods both domestically and internationally. Additionally, President - Elect Obama has promised to ensure that the federal government continues to invest in upgrading our national water infrastructure in order to support economic growth and protect our communities from devastating storms and floods.
 
President - Elect Barack Obama's full Transportation & Infrastructure Plan

As mayors and governors across the nation work to address increasingly bleak budget shortfalls, it is becoming painfully clear that many public spending cuts are necessary, if not unavoidable. When Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger cut nearly $1 million for beach water testing from California's annual budget in September, however, public officials, environmentalists and concerned citizens did not greet this particular purse-tightening effort with grudging fiscal understanding. That is why on Tuesday, members of the State Water Quality Control Board voted unanimously to spend roughly $1.97 million over two years to test coastal waters for bacterial contamination.

Despite the state's worsening budget shortfall (estimated to be crowding $10 billion), county leaders and environmentalists successfully lobbied the state water board to approve a temporary infusion of cash to keep the coastal water monitoring program afloat. The approved funding, approximately $1 million this fiscal year and $1 million the next, will come from Proposition 13 bond funds designated for water quality projects. Had this funding not passed, Schwarzenegger's cut would have meant that water quality monitoring programs in 17 counties along California's coast would have been severely underfunded, if not eliminated altogether. Counties typically do the work and are repaid by the state.

California's water monitoring program, which has operated since 1997, works to identify sources of water contamination, reduce dangerous bacteria levels and alert beachgoers when water quality poises a health-risk. During Tuesday's funding deliberations, state officials described the state's water quality monitoring as being both the most rigorous in the nation and generally very popular amongst California residents.

H.D. Palmer, deputy director in the state Department of Finance, defended Schwarzenegger's program cut, arguing that it was one of $512 million worth of programs deleted from the $145-billion 2008-09 fiscal budget. Palmer reiterated that the Governor's budget "was in no way any statement about this program not being worthwhile or important," but rather an attempt to build up state budget reserves and gird for the cost of fighting wildfires.

Whereas other budget cuts seem tolerable during this fiscally tight year, Tuesday's decision rendered by the California State Water Quality Control Board reaffirms the priority that local officials place on protecting vital water resources and the people that depend upon them. Testifying before the Board earlier this week, Greg Cox, Chairman of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, concluded that "we have an obligation to our own residents and to the people who come to San Diego to guarantee that our beaches are safe to use."

David E. Daniel, P.E., President of the University of Texas at Dallas and former chair of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Hurricane Katrina External Review Panel, was published in The Times-Picayune of New Orleans on November 4 with a letter to the editor urging state administrators to maintain high standards for renovated and rebuilt levees in Louisiana.

The letter was a response to staff writer Mark Schleifstein's October 30 article, "Standards Make Levees Too Costly, Some Argue", which described how Army Corps of Engineers standards were requiring too much investment, and could prevent many levees from being built.
In his letter, Daniel warned residents that loosened standards would be a "huge mistake" that could create a "false sense of security...that can cost people their lives with the next major hurricane strikes."

The Army Corps of Engineers has stated that earthen levees should be between 22 to 28 feet high, concrete structures should be as high as 32 feet, and stronger clay should be used in construction.
According to The Times-Picayune, levee raising and renovation has already begun. Shelia Grissett reported on October 30 that a $2.9 million contract for two miles of the East Jefferson lakefront levee had been awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers.

By raising the levee another 12 to 18 inches, enlarging the levee berm, and widening the levee crowns from 7 to 10 feet, the levee will now be suitable for a 100-year flood.

 

"Standards Make Levees Too Costly, Some Argue"