Environmentalists are pushing back against the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, saying that a part of the bill that supporters say increases efficiency actually guts the environmental-review process.
The bill, which the House takes up Wednesday, would set an outside limit of three years for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to complete a feasibility study for proposed water-resources transportation and infrastructure projects. As part of the feasibility study, the Corps would also be required to issue an environmental-impact statement.
Currently, there is no limit for the amount of time the Corps can spend to create an environmental-impact statement.
Although the bill does not specify a time limit for the environmental-review process, by imposing an outer limit of three years for the entire feasibility study to be completed, environmentalists say it will not allow the Corps adequate time to consider the full environmental impact of a project in cases where it would take longer than three years for the review to be completed.
“This bill will make it very difficult to review the environmental impacts of major water projects and will significantly cut out the public from projects that have huge impacts across the country,” said Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.
According to environmental activists, the problem isn’t the time it takes to complete an environmental review; it’s the fact that Congress hasn’t appropriated the funds for the Corps to carry out its work.
“The Corps has a backlog of billions of dollars worth of projects,” said Melissa Samet, a senior water-resources counsel for the National Wildlife Federation. “No matter how quickly an environmental study is completed, these projects still then have to get in line for limited funding.”
At least one of the bill’s cosponsors agrees that stalled appropriations account for the bulk of delays. “The principle cause of delay in Corps projects is either the uncertainty of a funding source or the inadequacy of a funding source,” said Rep. Tim Bishop, D-N.Y., ranking member on House Transportation and Infrastructure’s Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.
Bishop didn’t side entirely with environmentalists, however. “I think it is incumbent upon the Congress and the Corps to see to it that environmental reviews are sufficient to protect the environment,” he said. “What we’re looking to do is move the projects from conceptual stage to construction more quickly, and this is a part of it. But we’re trying to move projects forward in a way that is environmentally responsible.”
Other lawmakers are trying to find a middle ground. An amendment proposed by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., submitted Tuesday morning, would put on hold the bill’s provisions that speed up the review process until Congress appropriates sufficient funds to reduce the backlog of projects to less than $20 billion.
“It’s a very reasonable compromise,” said Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., one of the cosponsors of the amendment. “We’re not trying to strip out all these provisions. We just are saying let’s take care of the backlog on existing projects first. I’m in favor of analyzing the review process to make it better, but having artificial timetables and cutting people out, that’s not going to get more work done effectively. That’s a lose-lose proposition.”
The bill has bipartisan backing and was favorably reported out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee with no dissenting votes in September.
What We're Following See More »
"It is with humility, determination, and boundless confidence in America’s promise that I accept your nomination for president," said Hillary Clinton in becoming the first woman to accept a nomination for president from a major party. Clinton gave a wide-ranging address, both criticizing Donald Trump and speaking of what she has done in the past and hopes to do in the future. "He's taken the Republican party a long way, from morning in America to midnight in America," Clinton said of Trump. However, most of her speech focused instead on the work she has done and the work she hopes to do as president. "I will be a president of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. For the struggling, the striving, the successful," she said. "For those who vote for me and for those who don't. For all Americans together."
Supporters of Bernie Sanders promised to walk out, turn their backs, or disrupt Hillary Clinton's speech tonight, and they made good immediately, with an outburst almost as soon as Clinton began her speech. But her supporters, armed with a handy counter-chant cheat sheet distributed by the campaign, immediately began drowning them out with chants of "Hillary, Hillary!"
If a new poll is to be believed, Hillary Clinton has a big lead in the all-important swing state of Pennsylvania. A new Suffolk University survey shows her ahead of Donald Trump, 50%-41%. In a four-way race, she maintains her nine-point lead, 46%-37%. "Pennsylvania has voted Democratic in the past six presidential elections, going back to Bill Clinton’s first win in 1992. Yet it is a rust belt state that could be in play, as indicated by recent general-election polling showing a close race."
Wednesday was the third night in a row that the Democratic convention enjoyed a ratings win over the Republican convention last week. Which might have prompted a fundraising email from Donald Trump exhorting supporters not to watch. "Unless you want to be lied to, belittled, and attacked for your beliefs, don't watch Hillary's DNC speech tonight," the email read. "Instead, help Donald Trump hold her accountable, call out her lies and fight back against her nasty attacks."
Catholics who attend mass at least weekly have increased their support of the Democratic nominee by 22 points, relative to 2012, when devout Catholics backed Mitt Romney. Meanwhile, a Morning Consult poll shows that those voters with advanced degrees prefer Hillary Clinton, 51%-34%. Which, we suppose, makes the ideal Clinton voter a Catholic with a PhD in divinity.