WASHINGTON -- Amid sharply partisan exchanges over guns, immigration and the federal budget, the debate that began in the Senate this week over a water resources bill seems relatively tame.
This is the same Senate where it usually requires 60 votes to get anything done. And while Senate Democrats and Republicans praised each other for their work on the Water Resources Development Act, the bill also must pass the House of Representatives, where bipartisan agreement is even harder to achieve.
But after a series of deadly and costly storms slammed the East and Gulf coasts in recent years, the water legislation may be the best chance for lawmakers to prove that Washington isn’t completely dysfunctional and can attempt to fix an urgent problem.
The $12.5 billion bill, co-sponsored by Sens. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, and David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, would authorize funding for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects, including dams and levees, ports and inland waterways, and coastal protection and restoration.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which Boxer leads, unanimously approved the legislation in March.
“It’s long past time,” Boxer said on the Senate floor Tuesday when she introduced the bill. “Flood control and flood protection is critical. All we have to do is look at Sandy.”
Hurricane Sandy devastated the East Coast in October, killing more than 100 people and causing $60 billion in damage, especially in New Jersey, New York and Connecticut. Seven years earlier, the costliest disaster in U.S. history, Hurricane Katrina, toppled levees in New Orleans, flooding the city and killing more than 1,000 people along the Gulf Coast, with damages reaching more than $100 billion.
Overall, the legislation includes funding for flood control and storm protection projects across the country and has broad support from business and labor groups. But it also faces opposition.
Environmentalists, several senators and the White House have voiced concern over provisions that would put corps projects on a faster track to completion and give the agency more discretion to choose which projects to fund, a change from the previous water resources bill.
“It should be Congress’ job to authorize projects,” said Ron Stork, policy director for Friends of the River, an environmental group in Sacramento, Calif. “There are projects that should not be authorized.”
The bill also would speed up the environmental review process for corps projects. Critics of the process, including both Republicans and Democrats, complain that the reviews contribute to delays and cost overruns.
Usually an ally of environmentalists, Boxer has been taking some heat. Scott Slesinger, legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, accused her of sacrificing the country’s “premier environmental law,” the National Environmental Policy Act.
“There was enough incentive in the bill to get bipartisan support . . . without undercutting one of the key environmental statutes,” he said.
Boxer and Vitter amended the bill to address some of the concerns of environmentalists and others, but the streamlining provisions clearly opened a rift. Boxer defended her environmental record and the bill and chastised some erstwhile allies.