Water Resources Development Act of 2000

Water Resources Development Act of 2000
Name	Water Resources Development Act of 2000
Enactment date	2000
Public law	Public Law 106-541
Enacted by	106th United States Congress
Sponsor	Don Young (House), John McCain (Senate) [?]
Agencies	United States Army Corps of Engineers, United States Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency
Status	enacted

Water Resources Development Act of 2000

The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 was a United States federal statute enacted by the 106th United States Congress and signed into law during the administration of Bill Clinton. The Act authorized multiple navigation, flood control, ecosystem restoration, and coastal protection projects nationwide and amended earlier statutes such as the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and the Water Resources Development Act of 1996. It directed the United States Army Corps of Engineers to carry out construction, planning, and studies across numerous sites and shaped interactions among federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and state counterparts.

Background and Legislative History

Congress considered the Act amid debates in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate over infrastructure priorities following the 1990s negotiations between the Clinton administration and Republican majorities led by figures such as Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Legislative text reflected precedents set by the Water Resources Development Act of 1974 and the influential 1986 reform championed by Senator Robert Dole and Representative Dan Coats, and responded to regional interests represented by delegations from Louisiana, California, Florida, Texas, and New York. The bill moved through committees including the United States House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works with amendments offered by lawmakers such as Don Young and John McCain.

Provisions and Authorized Projects

The Act authorized construction, modification, and study of navigation projects affecting ports like New Orleans, Los Angeles Harbor, Houston Ship Channel, and Port of New York and New Jersey, and flood control works in river basins including the Mississippi River, the Columbia River, the Sacramento River, and the Susquehanna River. It provided authorization for ecosystem restoration projects in areas such as the Florida Everglades, the Chesapeake Bay, the San Francisco Bay-Delta, and the Gulf Coast. The measure included specific provisions for harbor deepening, jetty construction, levee repair, and shoreline protection for communities in Louisiana and Mississippi, as well as studies for inland waterways like the Ohio River and the Missouri River.

Funding and Budgetary Provisions

Budgetary directives in the statute allocated appropriations for construction and operation overseen by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and adjusted cost-sharing formulas that affected the United States Treasury and non-federal sponsors such as state governments and port authorities including the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Texas State Port Authority. The Act amended provisions related to the Infrastructure Investment funding mechanisms used in prior Water Resources Development Act measures and contained provisions for advancing funds, trust funds, and project-specific cost limitations that interacted with the Congressional Budget Office scoring and the annual appropriations process in the United States Congress.

Environmental and Regulatory Provisions

The Act contained directives concerning mitigation, environmental restoration, and compliance with statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean Water Act. It authorized restoration programs to benefit species protected under the Endangered Species Act and required coordination with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Provisions addressed wetlands protection and mitigation banking, invoking practices familiar to Environmental Protection Agency rulemaking and regional ecosystem initiatives in the Great Lakes and the Pacific Northwest.

State and Local Roles and Cost Sharing

The statute reaffirmed the role of non-federal sponsors, including state agencies like the California Department of Water Resources and local entities such as county flood control districts in Los Angeles County and port commissions in Seattle and Galveston. Cost-sharing formulas required contributions from municipal authorities, water districts, and local navigation districts, aligning with precedents involving the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. The Act enabled public-private partnerships for some harbor projects and specified responsibilities for operation, maintenance, and periodic replacement by non-federal sponsors.

Implementation and Projects Completed

Following enactment, the United States Army Corps of Engineers initiated authorized projects, completed navigation improvements at major ports including phases at Port of New Orleans and Los Angeles Harbor, advanced ecosystem restoration in the Everglades and the Chesapeake Bay tributaries, and executed coastal protection measures following storm events that impacted Hurricane Katrina preparedness debates. Implementation involved collaboration with federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and state partners; many projects required multi-year construction overseen by district offices like the USACE New Orleans District and the USACE San Francisco District.

Controversies and Legal Challenges

The Act prompted disputes over local protection projects, cost allocations, and environmental compliance, leading to legal challenges in federal courts including litigation invoking the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act brought by environmental organizations and state plaintiffs. Controversies involved large-scale projects affecting wetlands and coastal habitats in Louisiana and Florida, debates among stakeholders including the Port of New York and New Jersey and regional environmental groups such as The Nature Conservancy and litigation referencing decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and district courts. Congressional oversight hearings in committees like the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works scrutinized implementation, cost overruns, and interagency coordination.

Category:United States federal public land legislation Category:106th United States Congress