Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President
  Site Search     
About OMB  
- Organization Chart
- Contact OMB
President's Budget
- Budget Documents
- Supplementals, Budget Amendments, and Releases
Federal Management
- President's Management Agenda
- Office of Federal Financial
-- Agency Audits
- Office of Federal Procurement
  -- CAS Board
-- FAIR Act Inventory
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
- OIRA Administrator
- Regulatory Matters
- Paperwork Requirements
- Statistical Programs & Standards
- Information Policy, IT & E-Gov
Communications & Media
- News Releases
- Speeches
Legislative Information
- Statements of Administration Policy (SAPs)
- Testimony
- Reports to Congress
Information for Agencies
- Circulars
- Memoranda
- Bulletins
- Pivacy Guidance
- Grants Management
- Reports
Site Map
First Gov  

May 2, 1997

H.R. 478 - Flood Prevention and Family Protection Act of 1997
(Rep. Herger (R) CA and 24 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 478 because it would exempt all flood control projects from "consultation" and "takings" requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Administration clearly supports minimizing flood damages and protecting the residents living in flood prone areas, but does not believe that H.R. 478 will achieve these goals. Because of the severe economic and environmental impacts that would be caused by H.R. 478, the Secretary of the Interior would recommend that the President veto the bill in its current form.

H.R. 478 would waive ESA requirements in a broad range of non-emergency situations, including routine operation and maintenance of flood control projects. For example, the broad ESA exemption under H.R. 478 could apply to prominent dams such as Hoover and Grand Coulee or any hydropower facility with associated flood control benefits. H.R. 478 could have potentially disastrous environmental consequences with little project benefits.

The administration of ESA by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service has not resulted in significant delays in construction or proper maintenance of flood control facilities. Effective emergency procedures are already utilized to deal with the ESA and other environmental requirements during flood emergencies. For example, during the recent California flooding, FWS implemented ESA provisions which allowed emergency actions in disaster areas to be taken quickly without the Act's normal "prior consultation" requirements.

Under H.R. 478, virtually all Federal and non-Federal projects in the Columbia River basin would arguably be exempt from ESA requirements. Since these projects would no longer be required to protect endangered fish stocks, such as Pacific salmon, other public agencies and the private sector would have to significantly increase their conservation efforts to compensate for the expected loss of important fishery resources. This could have severe, long-term economic impacts for the logging, mining, irrigation, navigation, water supply, recreation, and commercial fishing industries in the region. These developments could be repeated in other regions of the country.