Typically, water resource bills are passed every few years, but one has not passed since 2007. One reason no other water bill has passed since 2007 is that there have been controversies about the bill's use of earmarks to fund specific projects.
Provisions of the bill
The bill contains reforms intended to speed up "project delivery by eliminating duplicative studies and requiring concurrent reviews, and streamlining environmental reviews." It also deauthorizes $12 billion worth of projects that have not been active over the last five years. The bill would also allow non-federal organizations and groups to provide funding for projects. If passed, the bill would set up a Congressional review process for approving projects, instead of letting the Army Corps of Engineers make all decisions about which project to pursue.
As ordered reported by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 19, 2013. H.R. 3080 would authorize the United States Army Corps of Engineers to construct water projects for mitigating storm and hurricane damage, restoring ecosystems, and improving flood management. The legislation also would authorize the agency to assist states and local governments with levee safety programs and to assist Indian tribes with planning and technical assistance for water resources projects. Finally, H.R. 3080 would direct the Corps to implement a pilot program to enter agreements with nonfederal partners to manage and construct certain projects. Those agreements would be subject to appropriation of all federal costs. Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, including adjustments for anticipated inflation, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing H.R. 3080 would cost about $3.5 billion over 2014-2018 period. Spending would continue for authorized projects after 2018, and the CBO estimates that such spending would total $4.7 billion over the 2019-2023 period. Pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply because enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. H.R. 3080 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
Speaking in favor of the bill, Representative Shuster argued that the bill was primarily about jobs and improving the United States' competitiveness. According to Shuster, "A strong water transportation network is critical to keeping pace with other nations that are improving their own infrastructure networks and gaining ground in an increasingly competitive global marketplace." The bill was considered to be bipartisan. Newspaper The Hill said that this bill and three others from the week of October 21, 2013, would give the House "a chance to practice the long-forgotten art of working together." This was a reference to the contentious United States federal government shutdown of 2013, which ended the previous week. The conference report was opposed by Heritage Action for America, which said that the bill "hikes spending while doing little to reduce bureaucracy and limit the role of the federal government."
