Hoeven flood bill would set terrible precedent
WASHINGTON (July 23, 2012) -– One week after it was pulled from the calendar due to protests from taxpayer and environmental groups, U.S. House leaders have once again scheduled a suspension vote on a measure that would permit North Dakota communities to redevelop flood-prone open spaces that were bought out by the federal government.
The House is set to vote today on S. 2039, a bill that would permit the construction of permanent levees on frequently flooded lands that have been purchased using the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, with the stipulation that the lands be preserved as open spaces. The bill would lift that restriction throughout North Dakota, without requiring the communities repay the federal grants they took voluntarily.
“The purpose of the mitigation grant program was to stop the insane cycle of extending subsidies, again and again, to risky and environmentally destructive development,” R Street Institute Public Affairs Director R.J. Lehmann said. “This bill would not only undo the mitigation taxpayers thought they had already purchased when they bought out these lands, but it also would create new risks that taxpayers will likely have to bear in the form of preservation of the levees themselves and protection of any new development constructed downstream.”
The bill, which is sponsored by Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., has not received a single hearing in either chamber of Congress, nor any significant debate on the floors of either the House or the Senate. Nonetheless, it passed the Senate in January by unanimous consent and has been placed on the House’s suspension calendar, which is meant to be reserved for measures that aren’t controversial.
“From where we sit, tossing away millions of taxpayer dollars, subsidizing environmentally harmful construction and transforming federal programs that were meant to reduce risks into, in effect, community development grants should all be considered controversial,” Lehmann said. “Congress should at least take a pause to discuss this bill, and better understand the terrible precedent it would set.”
