There is troubling evidence that senior Corps officials, under pressure from barge interests, ordered their subordinates to exaggerate demand for barges in order to justify new Mississippi River locks. Two senior Corps economists have come forward to say they were ordered to cook the books to support longer locks.
These problems are not confined to the Upper Mississippi River.
There are other troubling allegations of abuse, including questionable channel deepening projects, harbor dredging projects, beach renourishment projects, and flood control projects. Examples include Delaware River deepening, C&D Canal Deepening, Columbia River deepening, New Madrid Levee, Big Sunflower Dredging, White River channelization, and Yazoo Pumps.
The Corps doesn't adequately mitigate for projects.
Too often, the Corps plays by a different set of rules than the rest of the country when it comes to mitigation – replacing a small fraction of the habitat their projects destroy. In some cases, the Corps does not mitigate at all! If we allow more barges on the Mississippi, for example, we must be sure the environmental impacts of those barges are fully mitigated.
We need an unbiased assessment of future projects.
We must restore trust in the Corps if the Corps is going to complete an unbiased assessment of future projects, such as Mississippi River navigation needs. The first step is restoring the credibility of the Corps. decision-making process. We must remove the cloud hanging over the Corps.
Independent technical review of large Corps projects would restore credibility in the Corps' decision-making process.
The Army Corps Reform Act would create on office within the Corps that would hire outside experts to review studies for errors and abuse of planning rules. This review would apply to all Corps projects, including restoration projects.
Independent technical review would not delay projects.
Independent review would be weaved into the feasibility study process so that studies would not take longer to complete.
Independent technical review would not significantly increase projects costs.
Independent review costs would be capped at $250,000.
Independent technical review would deter errors and abuse.
In addition to catching errors, the presence of independent review would deter errors and abuse from happening in the first place, and would empower planners under pressure from project boosters.
We need to fully mitigate for Corps projects.
Too much wildlife habitat has already been lost. We must make sure the Corps replaces every acre of habitat their projects destroy by acquiring and restoring a similar acre of habitat. And, we must make sure we fully mitigate for the impacts of barge wakes on fish, backwaters and aquatic plants. We must ensure that the Corps fully and concurrently replaces habitat and wildlife impacted by their projects.
We should no longer build projects when environmental impacts are too great.
If the Corps cannot successfully or cost-effectively mitigate for the impacts of a proposed project, then the project should not be built.
We must involve stakeholders earlier in Corps studies.
We must make sure that the Corps treats the American people, not just their cost-sharing partners, as their customers. We should create a stakeholder advisory group of local economic and environmental interests to be involved in Corps studies every step of the way.
Involving stakeholders would make the Corps. process more transparent and improve accountability.
The Corps planning process, though technically open to the public, is poorly understood by many affected interests. Few people bother to get involved until public hearings – when their input is too late to impact the study. Involving stakeholders early on would make sure all interests are reflected in project design and selection.
We must make economic benefits and environmental restoration co-equal goals of project planning.
Our rivers serve many masters – barge owners as well as bass fisherman – and the Corps' planning process should reflect the diverse demands we place on them.
We must learn from our mistakes.
Many Corps projects have failed to produce predicted benefits, have cost more than the Corps estimated, or have unanticipated environmental impacts. In the future, we must monitor the result of projects so that we can learn from our mistakes and, when possible, correct them.
Build Projects with Public Benefits.
Congress should ensure that project benefits are primarily public benefits, such as flood protection for roads, school and rail lines. Congress should direct the Corps to establish a priority list to guide funding for flood damage reduction and other projects.
Reform Benefit-Cost Ratios.
Congress should require that project benefits be twice as great as the costs to ensure that projects are in the nation's economic interest.
Reform Cost-Sharing.
Project beneficiaries should share more project costs, including maintenance costs.