President’s Budget Leaves Ill-Advised Dredging Project Unfunded

We have achieved a victory in our ongoing battle over the deepening of the Delaware River.  President Bush’s recently released federal budget for FY 2008 contained no funding for the Army Corps of Engineer’s project.  I thank Reps. Saxton and LoBiondo for their unwavering leadership on this issue.  Before the President issued his budget, we sent a joint letter to the President outlining our opposition to funding for this project because it will waste taxpayer dollars and have devastating environmental effects.  I will continue to oppose this unnecessary and ill-advised proposal.

I have included my joint letter with Rep. Saxton and LoBiondo below.

January 25, 2007

Dear President Bush:

We are writing to thank you for not requesting funding for the Army Corps of Engineer’s Delaware River Main Channel Deepening project for the past two years in your budget request to Congress and to request that you once again omit funding for this project in your Fiscal Year 2008 budget request until concerns regarding the project’s cost benefit analysis and the environmental impacts are adequately addressed.
 
As you know, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) objected to the appropriation of “over $150 million to other work that raises policy concerns, such as directing funds for construction of the Delaware River Main Channel...”  We agree that this project clearly raises serious policy, economic and environmental concerns.

A General Accountability Office report (# GAO-02-604) released in June of 2002 found that the Army Corps grossly misrepresented the costs and benefits of this project.  The GAO determined that the economic analysis provided for the project contained a number of “material errors,” “miscalculations, invalid assumptions, and the use of significantly outdated information.”  Based on the GAO’s findings, the benefit to cost ratio of the project is closer to .49 to 1 as opposed to the 1.4 to 1 originally asserted by the Army Corps.

Following the GAO report, the Army Corps has released additional reanalysis of the project, claiming a new benefit to cost ratio, most recently at 1.15 to 1.  Previously expended Preconstruction, Engineering and Design costs totaling over $10 million were not included in the project economic analysis.  Further, this reanalysis did not include expensive and incomplete costs for beneficial use disposal of much of the dredged spoils that would come out of the River.  Finally, the State of Delaware Hearing Officer recommended that needed environmental permits be denied.  This was in parallel to the actions taken by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection who withdrew previously granted permits due to growing concerns surrounding the economic and environmental impacts of the project and increasingly outdated information relied upon by the Army Corps. 

We continue to remain concerned about the possibility that approval for this project has been based on underrepresented economic and environmental costs of the project.  Tremendous controversy surrounds the assessment of this project and many questions remain regarding the final cost and disposal of 2.6 million truckloads of dredged spoils that would be created from this project.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

ROBERT ANDREWS
Member of Congress

JIM SAXTON
Member of Congress

FRANK LOBIONDO
Member of Congress

Return to the Washington Updates Page