Overview
Title
Corps of Engineers Agency Specific Procedures To Implement the Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines for Federal Investments in Water Resources
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The Army's Engineers have made new rules to help decide how to handle water projects like building dams or cleaning rivers, making sure they are good for people, the environment, and the economy. These rules say it's important for everyone to work together and listen to communities, especially when thinking about changes in weather and fairness for everyone.
Summary AI
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has introduced new rules for evaluating water resources projects, offering specific procedures to implement principles from federal guidelines established for such investments. This rule aims to maximize public benefits by balancing economic, environmental, and social considerations while prioritizing collaboration and public engagement, including with Tribal Nations. The rule will apply to new and significant projects and does not impose new mandates on small entities or Tribal governments. It emphasizes transparency, public participation, and the consideration of climate change and environmental justice in decision-making processes.
Abstract
This rule establishes Agency Specific Procedures (ASPs) for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to implement the Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G) for Federal water resources investments. It provides a framework to govern how the Corps would evaluate proposed water resources investments, subject to the PR&G. The rule incorporates recommendations from interested parties. The Army is issuing this rule in response to congressional direction in the Water Resources Development Act of 2020.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has unveiled a detailed regulatory framework aimed at refining how water resources projects across the nation are planned and evaluated. This comprehensive document seeks to integrate economic, environmental, and social considerations while fostering broader public engagement, particularly with Tribal Nations. Slated to come into effect in early 2025, this rule is a response to legislative directives aimed at modernizing water resources management.
General Summary
The regulation establishes specific procedures under which the Corps of Engineers will implement federal guidelines for investments in water resources. These guidelines emphasize maximizing public benefits by evaluating projects through a balanced lens of economic, environmental, and social impacts. The rules prioritize transparency and inclusivity in public participation, seeking to engage various stakeholders, including Tribal Nations, more effectively throughout the planning process. The rule reflects a responsive shift towards incorporating climate change and environmental justice into water resource decision-making.
Significant Issues
One notable challenge with the document is its complexity. Its thoroughness and the extensive use of technical language could intimidate or alienate the general public, potentially leading to misunderstandings about its impacts and implementation. Furthermore, while the document lays out lofty goals and principles, it offers limited clarity on some operational aspects, such as how enhanced collaboration will be managed or how professional judgment will be standardized.
The criteria for granting exceptions under the new procedures are not well-defined, which might result in issues related to unequal treatment or inconsistent application. Another concern is the balancing of economic, environmental, and social goals promised in the document, which lacks concrete examples or methodologies that would guide the Corps in making these determinations.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
For the broader public, these new rules mean that future water resources projects will undergo a more thorough evaluation process, taking into account a wider variety of impacts than before. This could lead to more sustainable and community-sensitive projects being approved.
Specific communities, particularly those with environmental justice concerns, might find the emphasis on inclusivity and transparency beneficial. They have the promise of being more actively involved in decisions that affect them, with their voices being a crucial part of the entire investment evaluation process.
However, small governments and non-Federal interests might feel an unintended burden from these regulations if project costs or procedural requirements become too cumbersome. The rule does not clearly articulate potential impacts on these smaller jurisdictions, which could cause financial or logistical challenges.
Conclusion
Overall, the new rule from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sets out an ambitious plan to elevate water resources investment to a new standard, incorporating modern considerations like climate change and broader public engagement. While the goals are commendable, the document could benefit from greater clarity and specificity in its details to ensure successful implementation and avoid potential pitfalls associated with complexity and inconsistent application. Through focused improvements in these areas, the Corps can enhance the actual impact of this regulatory change, making it both effective and equitable for all stakeholders involved.
Financial Assessment
The document outlines the implementation of Agency Specific Procedures (ASPs) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for federal investments in water resources. These procedures are designed to align with the Principles, Requirements, and Guidelines (PR&G), emphasizing a broader approach to evaluating water resource projects beyond strictly economic criteria.
Financial Allocations and Thresholds
One of the key financial thresholds mentioned in the document is that any study, project, or plan falling below the $15 million threshold would be excluded from the ASPs. This exclusion likely aims to streamline processes by focusing on larger-scale projects that have the potential for significant impact. The reference to a current dollar value indicates that the financial assessments should account for inflation and other economic variables to reflect the true contemporary cost of investments.
Regulatory Actions
The document notes that a significant regulatory action is defined under Executive Order 12866 as having an annual economic effect of $200 million or more. This sets a clear benchmark for what constitutes a major impact on the economy, encompassing various sectors, including state and local governments. This threshold exists to ensure that policies are evaluated for their potential economic impact and that significant actions receive appropriate scrutiny.
Analysis of Costs and Benefits
Throughout the document, there is an emphasis on the costs and benefits, which should be measured in present dollar terms. This present value calculation is crucial for understanding the long-term financial implications of projects, accounting for future costs and benefits in today's economic terms. It mentions that the ASPs involve a constant dollar analysis approach, highlighting the importance of consistency in financial assessments over time.
Issues Related to Financial References
The document identifies several issues that involve financial elements or implications:
Complexity and Accessibility: The complexity of financial data, such as dollar thresholds and present value terms, could make it challenging for the public to engage with the content fully. The extensive use of technical jargon may serve as a barrier to understanding the financial nuances.
Costs of Development: Although the ASPs promise significant benefits, there is an acknowledgment that developing new tools and methods may increase costs. However, a comprehensive assessment quantifying these potential cost increases is lacking. This gap leaves uncertainty about the true economic impact of implementing the ASPs.
Net Public Benefits: The document refers to balancing economic, environmental, and social goals but lacks clear examples or methodologies for achieving this balance. Without specific frameworks, there's potential for ambiguity in assessing what constitutes the maximization of net public benefits.
Professional Judgment: The term "professional judgment" is noted as potentially leading to subjective interpretations that could affect financial evaluations of projects, including the decision-making process related to costs and benefits.
Guidance on Monetization: There is a mention of monetization practices but without clear guidance on when and how to apply them. This vagueness could lead to inconsistencies in financial assessments across different projects.
In sum, while the document lays out a structured approach to evaluating water resource investments, its financial references suggest a need for greater clarity and accessible language to ensure broader understanding and consistency in application. These issues, if unaddressed, could lead to inefficiencies in project evaluation and implementation.
Issues
• The document is lengthy and complex, which could make it difficult for the general public to understand without specialized knowledge.
• There is a frequent use of technical jargon and legal references, making the text less accessible to readers unfamiliar with federal legislation or water resource management terminology.
• The criteria for requesting exceptions to the requirements or policies contained in the rule are not detailed, which could lead to inconsistent application or favoritism.
• While there are claims of significant benefits from implementing the rule, there is no comprehensive assessment or quantification of the potential increase in costs due to the development of new tools and methods.
• The description of 'net public benefits' emphasizes economic, environmental, and social goals but lacks specific examples or methodologies for balancing these considerations.
• The rule mentions 'enhanced collaboration,' but the specifics of how collaboration will be operationalized, monitored, or evaluated are not well articulated.
• The lack of a clear guideline or standard for integrating the Army’s procedures with those of other federal and state regulatory bodies may lead to inefficiencies and potential overlaps in efforts.
• The mention of using a 'professional judgment' is subjective and not clearly defined, which may result in inconsistent interpretation across different projects.
• The potential impact of the rule on small governmental jurisdictions and non-Federal interests needs clearer articulation to ensure it is not burdensome.
• Issues around monetization of certain costs and benefits are addressed but lack clear guidance on when and how to apply these practices.
• The document recognizes risks and uncertainties but does not provide a clear method for consistently evaluating these across different projects, which could lead to inconsistent risk assessments.