NOR'WESTER NEWSLETTER ISSUE #404                                                Visit us on Facebook! Facebookmasthead

September 8, 2011

In This Issue:
Senate committee proposes increased Corps funding in FY2012, recognizes importance of small ports

Senate committee proposes increased Corps funding in FY2012, recognizes importance of small ports

 

Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee proposed funding levels for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for fiscal year 2012, which begins on October 1, 2011. This builds on the markup by the Senate Energy & Water Appropriations Subcommittee on Tuesday. The next step for the bill is consideration on the Senate floor, which is not yet scheduled.

 

The Senate bill proposes $4.864B for the Corps of Engineers, which is $291 million above the Administration's budget level, and $101 million more than the House bill. Despite the proposed increase over the President's budget, Corps funding continues to be on a downward trend - $5.4B was appropriated for the Corps by Congress as recently as FY2010.

 

PNWA's project funding

 

All of PNWA's supported navigation projects included in the President's budget are retained in the Senate bill, at the same funding levels. This marks a shift from the House's approach, where most projects received a slight reduction. To view our updated FY2012 navigation project funding document, with all budget, Senate, and House numbers reflected, please click here.

 

Earmarks vs. "additional funding" streams

 

In a typical year, Congress would have the opportunity to add funding to projects listed in the President's budget, and add projects that were left out of the budget. With the earmark ban in place, this is not possible.

 

Instead, Senate appropriators created additional national funding streams for unfunded or underfunded projects in the General Investigations (studies), Construction, and Operations & Maintenance (O&M) accounts. This is the same approach we saw in the House's bill, though there are some differences in the amounts proposed, and some additional specificity in the Senate bill. Following are the additional funding amounts proposed by the Senate:

 

Additional investigations: $36,500,000

Additional construction: $193,000,000

Additional O&M: $143,000,000

 

Within the "additional O&M" stream of $143M, the following allotments are prescribed:

Small, remote or subsistence harbor maintenance: $30,000,000

Inland navigation channel maintenance: $15,000,000

Commercial harbor maintenance: $55,000,000

Miscellaneous maintenance: $34,000,000

Multi-purpose project O&M: $9,000,000

 

Small waterways

 

Within the $143M that is proposed for additional O&M, the Committee notes that $30M should be provided to small, remote or subsistence harbor maintenance. PNWA advocated for language recognizing the importance of small harbors and waterways to regional and local economies, and all four Senators from Washington and Oregon requested language from the Committee earlier this year. We are very pleased to note the inclusion of the following language in the report:

 

"The Committee is concerned that the administration criteria for navigation maintenance does not allow small, remote, or subsistence harbors to properly compete for scarce navigation maintenance funds. The Committee urges the Corps to revise the criteria used for determining which navigation maintenance projects are funded to account for the economic impact that these projects provide to local and regional economies. The Committee recommends that priority in allocating these funds should be towards completing ongoing work maintaining harbors and shipping channels, particularly where there is a U.S. Coast Guard presence, or that will enhance national, regional, or local economic development, and promote job growth and international competitiveness or for critical backlog maintenance activities."

 

This is an excellent complement to language included in the House bill in June, which also recognized the importance of these smaller projects. We will continue to advocate for this language to be retained in a final spending bill later this year, and will work with our local Corps districts to identify smaller Northwest navigation projects that would be appropriate recipients of this additional funding.

 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF)

 

The Committee noted that the HMTF has an estimated balance of more than $6B in revenue that has not been provided to the Corps for coastal navigation O&M. The report also noted the Administration's suggestion in the budget that other activities could be funded out of the HMTF. We were pleased to see the Senate join with the House in rejecting this proposal. The Senate report also includes suggestions to address the lack of spending from the trust fund: have the authorizing committees create a firewall around the fund, or have the Administration more fully fund coastal navigation O&M in the budget. PNWA strongly supports full spending of annual Harbor Maintenance Tax revenue for its intended purpose. View PNWA's fact sheet on the HMTF here.

 

Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF)

 

The Committee expressed frustration with the lack of progress in addressing the funding shortfall in this trust fund, and noted the benefits provided by the nation's inland waterways. The Committee urged stakeholders and the Administration to recommit to identifying a solution, and have that solution reflected in the Administration's FY2013 budget proposal next February. To read PNWA's fact sheet on the IWTF, click here.

 

Levee safety

 

On levee safety, the report offers a tone of compassion for local communities dealing with levee repairs and levee certification. They say, "The Committee is concerned that the costs to repair levees may be overwhelming to local interest." They want the Corps to "ensure that recommendations are not blindly made in the name of safety without determining if the recommendations actually provide cost effective safety improvements. The Committee encourages the Corps when working with communities on levee issues to be cognizant of the costs for proposed fixes and the community's ability to fund the repairs."

 

For irrigation and hydropower canals, the Committee "encourages the Committee on Levee Safety to provide categorical exclusions for these canal systems" from levee safety requirements. This would be a welcome development for PNWA's irrigation interests, whose levees are already well-regulated by other federal agencies.

 

Please contact PNWA staff if you would like to review specific report language for any of the areas discussed in this article. We look forward to another successful year of partnership with the Northwest Congressional delegation, Corps Headquarters, the Northwestern Division and the Portland, Seattle and Walla Walla Districts in working to achieve adequate funding levels for Northwest water projects. Please contact us with any questions you may have.

 

PNWA staff contact: Kristin Meira