The Water Resources & Environment subcommittee of the House T&I recently held a hearing on WRDA, Water Resources Development Acts: Status of Past Provisions and Future Needs. Almost all was devoted to specific projects that involve the USACE, which is WRDA’s primary purpose after all. But Rep. Napolitano’s opening remarks had a few things that could be relevant to CWIFP.

Most generally, about an expanded role for USACE in national water management infrastructure going forward (emphasis added):

Mr. Chairman, much of the country is now facing the same water supply challenges that we have long felt in the West. In my view that necessitates rethinking the role the Corps can play to help communities facing water insecurity, not to supplant state and local water efforts but to support them.

I thought the point about federal agencies not supplanting state & local efforts is completely consistent with how federal loan programs can work and has a very timely political aspect — more on that in future posts.

Specifically, OMB’s apparent propensity for arbitrary and artificial barriers was explicitly stated. Twice in fact:

If the Corps or the Office of Management and Budget is using arbitrary policy level factors to shut down the consideration of congressionally authorized water supply and water conservation developments and water resources projects, we should all be concerned.

If the Corps or OMB is using artificial barriers to exclude worthy projects with substantial state and local support from consideration, then Congress needs to revisit how authorized water supply and water conservation are ranked among the historic priorities and missions of the Corps.

Certainly directly relevant to the Corps’ FCRA travails. But I’m pretty sure that the comments refer to a wide range of issues with OMB, of which CWIFP’s FCRA issue might be a very minor one, if they thought of it at all. I’d note that Rep. Napolitano didn’t co-sponsor either HR 5664 or HR 2671.

But still, fixing the FCRA issue might be an especially good way to further the general push-back against OMB’s ‘arbitrary’ and ‘artificial’ restrictions on USACE water projects. Other issues probably have large subjective components about risk, compliance, interpretation of Congressional intent, etc. In contrast, OMB is simply and demonstrably wrong about the FCRA issue, which very much makes their FCRA Criteria an arbitrary and artificial barrier. Water stakeholders can win this one decisively, which perhaps is a good start.