| Shorttitle: | Water Resources Development Act of 2007 |
| Longtitle: | An act to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes. |
| Enacted By: | 110th |
| Title Amended: | Title 33 |
| Leghisturl: | https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/1495/ |
| Introducedin: | House |
| Introducedbill: | H.R.1495 |
| Introducedby: | Jim Oberstar (D–MN) |
| Introduceddate: | March 13, 2007 |
| Passedbody1: | House |
| Passeddate1: | April 19, 2007 |
| Passedvote1: | 394-25 |
| Passedbody2: | Senate |
| Passeddate2: | May 16, 2007 |
| Passedvote2: | 91-4 |
| Conferencedate: | July 31, 2007 |
| Passedbody3: | House |
| Passeddate3: | August 1, 2007 |
| Passedvote3: | 381-40 |
| Passedbody4: | Senate |
| Passeddate4: | 81-12 |
| Passedvote4: | September 24, 2007 |
| Vetoedpresident: | George W. Bush |
| Vetoeddate: | November 2, 2007 |
| Overriddenbody1: | House |
| Overriddendate1: | November 6, 2007 |
| Overriddenvote1: | 361-54 |
| Overriddenbody2: | Senate |
| Overriddendate2: | November 8, 2007 |
| Overriddenvote2: | 79-14 |
The Water Resources Development Act of 2007 or WRDA 2007 (formerly) is a United States law that reauthorized the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), and authorized flood control, navigation, and environmental projects and studies by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.[1] However, the law does not appropriate funds for those projects and programs.[2] It was passed by the 110th United States Congress on November 8, 2007 over President George W. Bush's veto.
On April 19, 2007, the United States House of Representatives considered a bill (H.R.1495), sponsored by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.), to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States.[3]
Among its many projects, the bill authorized the following:
The bill passed, 394-25.
When the bill was introduced in the United States Senate, it was held up in the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works because of the development of a substitute bill intended to fix several problems apparent in the original. One such problem was that the earmark disclosure table was printed in tiny type and was reproduced as a single image, making a computerized search impossible. Committee sources said the printing snafu was unintentional, having more to do with the way the Government Printing Office reproduced the legislation than the way the committee intended it to be presented. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Senate bill would cost $31.5 billion, more than twice the estimate of the House bill that was estimated at around $13.2 billion. The substitute bill would be introduced to bring the cost down to around the same estimate as the House version, fix the printing problem, and to rearrange some of the earmarks of the original version.[4]
On May 9, the Senate invoked cloture on the $13.2 billion version of the bill (identical to the one passed by the House), 89-7.
The following week, the bill was amended. Specifically, the Senate agreed to spend more, at least $15 billion on Gulf Coast projects that would ensure more protection for New Orleans and the surrounding area from Category 5 hurricanes. Spending for the House version was "$6.7 billion over the 2008-2012 period and an additional $6.5 billion over the 10 years after 2012. The Senate version would spend about $5.5 billion over the 2008-2012 period and an additional $26 billion over the 10 years after 2012."[3]
The Senate version would also limit the number of projects the Army Corps of Engineers would work on, reducing it from 50 to 40.[3]
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) bill, which authorizes funding for a variety of projects, including beach nourishment, clean water, and flood control programs, passed both chambers of Congress, was vetoed by President Bush, but Democratic Party leaders promised to quickly override this veto. "When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). Howard Marlowe of Marlowe & Company said, "Water resources are critical to the nation's economy and international competitiveness. To say this is too expensive flies in the face of the fact that the administration has done nothing over the past seven years to build water resources infrastructure."[5] "Without a Water Resources Development Act, which is seven years overdue, we are seeing our coastline disappear," said Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La).
A watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) commented that the bill was just a continuation of the political practices that led to the Hurricane Katrina disaster in 2005. It stated, "In the starkest terms, Katrina showed us that the time is long passed to end the political spoils system that has driven water project investment for more than a century. We need a modern, accountable and prioritized system to develop and award projects. It's a message that Congress has failed to grasp." While the bill provided funding for water projects around the country, it also contained "more than 800 parochial pork barrel projects for virtually every Congressional district in the nation." TCS complained that instead of disbursing funds by need, the legislators distributed as much as they could to their own districts.[6]
President Bush vetoed the bill on November 2.[7] [8] [9]
His reasoning is as follows:[10]
The House voted 361 - 54 (290 required) to override President Bush's veto. House members from both parties representing those areas disagreed with Bush's attempt to kill the bill. The next day, the Senate also voted to override the veto 79 - 14 (67 required), making it the first veto override of Bush's term[11] and the first veto override in ten years. The bill only authorizes projects like coastal restoration and river navigation; funding still needed to be secured via the appropriations committees.[12]