If you think the Army Corps of Engineers is one of the lesser organizations within the federal hierarchy you had better think again. With approximately 35,000 employees it is larger than the Energy, Labor and Education Departments combined. The Corps land holdings are larger than Vermont and New Hampshire combined while its dams generate one fourth of the hydroelectric power in the U.S.. It is responsible for many of the nation’s flood control projects as well as for numerous ports that handle over two billion tons of freight a year. The Corps is involved in issues ranging from oil drilling in Alaska, beach erosion, restoring the Everglades to the cleanup of pollution and industrial waste.

The Corps is an enigma in many ways. It is a military organization but its workforce is nearly entirely civilian. Organizationally, it belongs to the Executive Branch but virtually every President has found it impossible to control. Its mission includes environmental regulation but many environmentalists despise it. Its literature touts the Corps’ role as a protector of natural resources but the projects it sponsors are among the most environmentally destructive ever undertaken. It reviews the integrity of environmental studies for virtually every federal project yet the studies it conducts internally for its own projects are often massively flawed. The Corps acts as both a regulatory agency and as an enormous contractor. In many cases, it is both at the same time.

The inconsistencies that surround the Corps are difficult to comprehend until one understands how the Corps actually works within the political realities of Washington. Although the Corps theoretically answers to the President, its very strong symbiotic relationship with Congress is much more influential. In fact, the Corps has a long history of doing battle with the Office of the President and has frequently called on their many “friends” in Congress to exert political pressure on the President to curtail Executive Office policies or mandates with which the Corps leadership disagrees. One would be hard pressed to find an instance where the President actually stood up to the Corps and came away with better than a dismal compromise. How has the Corps come to exert such power? The answer is simple, money.

Water projects are an important method that members of Congress use to steer large sums of federal money into their states or districts and that translates directly into votes. It is considered very bad form to object to the proposals of a fellow member of Congress so the only real issue is how big the pie is going to be and who is going to get what size slice. (John McCain has to be given credit for being the exception to the rule and has been a vocal opponent to a number of the harebrained projects that have been proposed.) The water projects are authorized biennially by The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) and with over $60 billion in active projects and billions more on the table for discussion, water projects are clearly “the other white meat” and are a preferred source of “pork” among Representatives and Senators alike.

The Corps fits into the picture in that they are the agency that carries out the specific water projects authorized by Congress. Without projects to build, the Corps would shrink to about 15% of its current size if it were reduced to carrying out only its regulatory functions. In essence, their existence and power derives from the actions of Congress, not the Executive Branch, and a very cozy relationship has developed over the years.

In recent years, the Corps has adapted a “Strategic Vision” that incorporates the concept of “Seek Growth Opportunities” as one of its three core principles. Although those “growth opportunities” could conceivably have been to expand the effectiveness of their environmental regulations, that is not the case. Instead, the Corps seems intent on building ever larger projects that have significant environmental impacts.

As a case in point, Corps projects along the Mississippi have resulted in one half of the nation’s wetland losses according to a Clinton Administration draft presidential order, yet the Corps continues to attempt to try and tame the Mississippi with a variety of flood control projects. One project in East Prairie, Missouri is designed to provide flood protection for a 180 square mile area that is designated as a floodway that was designated by the Corps to be inundated in the event of heavy rains to protect downstream communities. Confused? If you worked for the Corps you would not be because somewhere within the agency they must have an explanation as to why it makes perfect sense to protect an area from flooding even though it was designed to be flooded.

In the Washington Post, the project was characterized as an “An environmental debacle” by a White House aide, “Absolutely ridiculous,” by a FWS Regional Director, “A crazy idea,” by the head of FEMA and as “Probably the dumbest project around,” according to a top EPA official.[ ] Unfortunately, this Corps project will destroy more acres of wetlands than the yearly total for all “regulated” wetland intrusions combined!

Although the Corps has been given new environmental mandates in recent years, the organization as a whole has been unable to shed its “dredge and destroy” reputation. Corps projects often require only Corps approval and they continue to show a blatant disregard for the opinions of other agencies, environmental groups and the public by ignoring their input. Additionally, the agency has been harshly criticized for “cooking the books” and producing environmental assessments that have but one purpose; that being to get the project approved. Recent overcites, omissions and errors in the Corps study regarding the deepening of Baltimore Harbor were so outrageous that the Corps was eventually forced to acknowledge that they were wrong. However, rather than making a commitment to correct the errors, the Corps took the outlandish position that since the same practices had been used in the past they should be allowed to use them in this case as well and that no additional studies or corrections were necessary.

Washington Post 9/8/2000