John W. Morris
Cost sharing, which was at the heart of the economic issue, has been integral to
water resource development at least since the Flood Control Act was passed in 1927.
It has taken a variety forms and degrees laws and policies were enacted for water
supply, recreation, hydropower, etc. Navigation's particular exclusions came under
renewed assault in the mid-l 970's and the attacks strengthened as the national
economic situation worsened and means were sought to transfer more costs from the
federal government to others, that is state and local governments and private business.
By 1972, "let the beneficiaries pay" had become a litmus test in the office of
Management and Budget and other places in the Federal arena. While this attitude had
little effect on water project formulation at the Corps field level, it became a true factor
for delay above the Office of the Chief of Engineers. For several years, new projects
which had passed all the tests and consequently were recommended for authorization
never made the trip up Capitol Hill to the Congressional Committees. Consequently,
the amount of new work declined and existing older projects continued to deteriorate
as they served out their programmed life. As 1980 arrived, the funding for the O&M
element of the budget passed the construction element for the first time and signalled
that the character of the Corps had become considerably different than in the glamour
days of the mid-1960's.
Finding a way through this shelving process proved difficult and tedious and often
targeted on the tough issues of sharing costs for constructing and operating navigation
projects. As it turned out, well over a full decade was required to legislate the new cost
sharing rules. During this period other lesser changes were occurring under the banner
of "privatization." The Corps looked to private enterprise to take over some portions
of traditional Corps workloads-hopper dredging became a new private investment,
more recreation activities and certain plant operations were contracted out, greater
percentages of engineering and design were passed to others, constructive management
contracts became acceptable, private investors were allowed to add power at existing
Corps of Engineers projects and federal lands, to name a few.
As already intimated, changes in national and economic policies and priorities had
major impacts on the Corps of Engineer procedures. More than that, however, were the
effects on the type of work itself. The decline in public works came at a time when
other engineering roles for the U.S. were rising at home and abroad. Some examples
include the growth in the U.S. Military program, the interest of other nations in U.S.
public works expertise, American at home concern for waste water, hazardous waste
and energy matters, infrastructure and safety problems.
The Corps of Engineers was called upon on numerous occasions to address the
engineering requirements of such programs. At the same time, the Corps did take time
to study comprehensively and report to the nation on the national hydropower potential
and the description of the first class water transportation system it needs and deserves.
Previous Page
