In our recently initiated Q&A Column, intended to allow leaders to share their knowledge and expertise of projects and issues that relate to hot topics in the COPRI community, this month we turn our focus to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Principles and Guidelines. Our interviewee is Brian Pallasch of the ASCE Government Relations Office. As Managing Director of Government Relations and Infrastructure Initiatives, Pallassch leads ASCE's lobbying efforts and manages the Washington, D.C. Office. He is a graduate of the University of Southern California and the American University.
WW: In the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Congress directed the Secretary of the Army to revise the Principles and Guidelines (P&G). Why is this important to COPRI members?
BP: The Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, commonly known as the P&G, is the government’s principal planning document for water resource projects and lays out the factors the government must consider when calculating the benefits and costs of water resource projects. Previously established by the U.S. Water Resources Council in March 1983, these guidelines are now 25 years old. Section 2031 in WRDA 2007 give officials until November 8, 2009, to complete the revisions.
WW: What are the current problems with the P&G?
BP: The current guidelines are primarily focused on national economic development. They are only incidentally focused on avoiding harm to the environment. They also don’t do enough to emphasize the importance of public safety. Currently, the guidelines are worded to focus on individual projects rather than system or watershed impacts. With a goal of “increasing the net value of the national output of goods and service, expressed in monetary units”, the emphasis places benefit-cost analysis at the center of the planning process. It places relatively less emphasis on the non-economic needs of society and does a poor job of establishing which projects may damage the environment.
WW: What factors does the Congress expect the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to consider in revising the P&G?
BP: In enacting Section 2031 of the Water Resources Development Act, Congress set the USACE on a different path by placing greater emphasis on non-economic factors in the planning of water resources projects, including the environment, social effects of planning and public safety. Specifically—
ASCE hopes the USACE will embrace the spirit of section 2031 in revising the principles to ensure a transparent process that provides for a stronger role for non-federal partners and, other stakeholders, and the beneficiaries of water resources programs in the planning, decision making and implementation.
WW: In what other ways would ASCE like the see the P&G revised?
BP: ASCE would like to see the new P&G incorporate risk management, uncertainty analysis and discussion of public safety. It also should evaluate economic development on a life-cycle basis and adopt a watershed approach, making integrated water resource plans and regional sediment management plans a prerequisite to any project authorization.
ASCE also wants to emphasize the importance of the guidelines’ social effects. The experience of the Gulf Coast highlights that the national economic development objective is a model that does not take into serious consideration the protection of low income households. It is imperative that the planning process adjust this model and include social effects as a primary consideration.
WW: Why is it so important for the revised P&G to incorporate the concepts of risk management?
BP: With effective risk assessment, comparative risk analysis, and risk management can help us respond to the challenge of allocating limited resources while maximizing protection of human safety, health and welfare and protecting the environment. These strategies allow us to identify adverse risk of hazards, rate the risk of hazards and weigh the conclusions of risk assessment and risk analysis to make the best decisions when compared against statutory requirements, cost, public values and politics.
ASCE calls for:
WW: How can COPRI members stay informed of, and participate in, the revision of the P&G?
BP: To stay informed, visit the ASCE government relations website at http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/grwk/index.cfm, or e-mail the government relations staff at gowash@asce.org. Public comments which have been submitted are available at http://www.usace.army.mil/cw/hot_topics/ht_2008/pandg_rev.htm. According to the Corps, a draft revision to the principles and guidelines is expected to be available in July. Then, the Corps will begin drafting revisions to the procedures, which provide detailed guidance on benefit analysis. WRDA 2007 allowed 24 months for revisions to be completed and adopted, specifying a deadline of November 8, 2009.
