ON THE GROUNDNew Directions in Water Policy:WRDA 2007Gerald E. Galloway – Dept. of Civil <strong>and</strong>Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Maryl<strong>and</strong><strong>and</strong> Ari M. Michelsen – Texas AgriLifeResearch Center, Texas A&M Univ.Since 1976, the U.S. Congress hasauthorized the construction of waterresource projects by the Army Corpsof Engineers through the periodicpassage of water resource developmentacts, which also promulgate waterresource policies <strong>and</strong> programs.Last October, Congress sent the WaterResource Development Act of 2007(WRDA 2007) to President Bush. Itauthorized more than 900 projects, studies,<strong>and</strong> programs. Citing the large numberof projects <strong>and</strong> total cost of near $23billion, the President vetoed it. Congressoverrode the veto <strong>and</strong> WRDA 2007 wasenacted. It was hailed as a move to addresssignificant infrastructure problems acrossthe country <strong>and</strong> to reform some of thepolicies <strong>and</strong> procedures under whichthe Corps carries out its activities.Objectives Exp<strong>and</strong>edFor 25 years, the defined water resourcedevelopment objective of the Corps<strong>and</strong> other water-related agencies hadbeen national economic development(USWRC, 1983), with little recognition ofenvironmental <strong>and</strong> social costs <strong>and</strong> benefitsor regional economic development.WRDA 2007, in contrast, states that “allwater resource projects should reflectnational priorities, encourage economicdevelopment <strong>and</strong> protect the environment,”with attention to minimizing adverseimpacts <strong>and</strong> vulnerabilities in floodplainsor flood-prone areas; <strong>and</strong> protecting <strong>and</strong>restoring the functions of natural systems.Policy ChangesPrinciples <strong>and</strong> guidelines: WRDA 2007requires the Secretary of the Army, withintwo years, to revise the principles <strong>and</strong>guidelines used to formulate, evaluate,<strong>and</strong> implement water resources projectsby specifically considering: best availableeconomic principles <strong>and</strong> analyticaltechniques; public safety; environmentaljustice issues <strong>and</strong> nonstructural approachesto water resources development <strong>and</strong>management; potential interactionsof a project with other projects <strong>and</strong>programs within a region or watershed;<strong>and</strong> evaluation methods that ensure theprojects are justified by public benefits.Flood vulnerability: WRDA 2007 requiresthe President to submit a report toCongress describing the vulnerability ofthe United States to damage from flooding,including the risk to human life <strong>and</strong>property. The report must also comparerisks faced by different regions of thecountry, assess how well existing programsaddress priorities for reducing flood risk<strong>and</strong> the extent that they might encouragedevelopment <strong>and</strong> economic activity inflood-prone areas, <strong>and</strong> recommend waysto reduce <strong>and</strong> respond to flood risks.Economic <strong>and</strong> risk evaluations: TheSecretary of the Army now must assessall project feasibility reports for costeffectiveness<strong>and</strong> compliance with federal,state, <strong>and</strong> local laws. The Secretary isfurther directed to adopt a risk analysisapproach to project estimates. For flooddamage reduction projects, the residualrisk of flooding <strong>and</strong> the loss of human life<strong>and</strong> safety must be calculated, as well asupstream <strong>and</strong> downstream impacts of theproject. WRDA 2007 also requires benefits<strong>and</strong> costs of structural <strong>and</strong> nonstructuralalternatives to be evaluated equitably, anidea long promoted by the environmental<strong>and</strong> floodplain management communities.Independent review: For projects deemedcontroversial or with a total estimatedcost greater than $45 million, or whenrequested by the governor of an affectedstate, WRDA 2007 requires reviewby an independent panel of experts toassess the adequacy <strong>and</strong> accountabilityof the economic, engineering, <strong>and</strong>environmental methods, models, <strong>and</strong>analyses used by the Chief of Engineers.A Step ForwardOver the last seven years there has beenconsiderable debate in Washington abouthow to improve the way water resourceprojects are developed <strong>and</strong> implemented.WRDA 2007 addresses many of theseissues <strong>and</strong> requires numerous actionsby the President, Secretary of the Army,<strong>and</strong> the Corps’ Chief of Engineers tomeet the intentions of the legislation.Unfortunately, in many cases, theseefforts require funding, <strong>and</strong> littlefunding has been appropriated so far.While far from a perfect solution to acomplex problem, WRDA 2007 representsa major step forward. The response bythe federal government over the next12 to 18 months will indicate how wellthese congressional policy changes<strong>and</strong> activities are brought into play.Contact Gerry Galloway at gegallo@umd.edu.Contact Ari Michelsen at a-michelsen@tamu.edu. • May/June 2008 • <strong>Southwest</strong> <strong>Hydrology</strong>ReferenceU.S. Water Resources Council (USWRC), 1983.Economic <strong>and</strong> Environmental Principles<strong>and</strong> Guidelines for Water <strong>and</strong> Related L<strong>and</strong>Resources Implementation Studies, GPO,Washington, D.C.
May/June 2008 • <strong>Southwest</strong> <strong>Hydrology</strong> •
Change language