Dear Resources Committee Member:  We oppose H.R. 901, introduced by Congressmen John Doolittle (R-CA) and Doug Ose (R-CA). This bill authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to build a $66.5 million bridge over the American River near Folsom Dam in California. We also understand there may be an amendment which would make minor, window-dressing, changes to H.R. 901 in an attempt to disguise the bill’s negative impact on taxpayers. We believe those negative elements will remain in the bill. We strongly urge you to vote against H.R. 901.

In February, Bureau of Reclamation officials announced that the bridge over Folsom Dam, a two-lane road, would be closed due to security concerns. Since June 2001, local officials have been pushing to stick federal taxpayers with the tab to build a new, improved four-lane bridge to replace the one over the dam. H.R. 901 and a recently proposed substitute amendment are the latest versions of that vision of subsidy.

The following are important taxpayer concerns related to this bill:

• Contains no real cost sharing provisions. H.R. 901, as passed by the Water and Power Subcommittee, does not contain non-federal cost sharing provisions. A recently proposed substitute amendment offers fig leaf cost sharing by reducing the project scope from a four-lane to a two-lane bridge, and making the federal taxpayer pick up the tab for the new, $63 million bridge, a savings of only $2.5 million from the original proposed project cost! On top of this, local interests would pay only a quarter of the $2.5 million upgrade costs, working out to a local contribution of a little more than 1% toward the total project. This amounts to an $875,000 insult to the federal taxpayer.

• Rewrites the Bureau of Reclamation’s mission. The bill attempts to rewrite the mission of the Bureau of Reclamation, imposing responsibilities on the Bureau outside its core mission.

• Ignores the Highway Projects Authorization Process. This legislation makes an end run of the normal authorization process for highway projects. Even with the proposed amendment, H.R. 901 clearly envisions upgrading the bridge that formerly traversed Folsom Dam from two lanes to four lanes. Instead of following the normal approval process, this bill provides local interests with a substantially improved bridge, while forcing federal taxpayers to pay for nearly 99% of the cost of it.

• Disregards additional plans to replace the bridge. H.R. 901 ignores other proposals to build a bridge near Folsom Dam. The Army Corps of Engineers’ original plan to raise Folsom Dam seven feet to provide additional flood control for the City of Sacramento envisioned a temporary bridge, which could be turned over to a local sponsor to cover the operation and maintenance responsibilities.

H.R. 901 attempts to skirt the appropriate funding procedures for projects of this type, and would add to an already bloated energy and water appropriations budget. We urge you to reject H.R. 901.

Sincerely,

Jill Lancelot

President

Taxpayers for Common Sense Action

Tom Schatz

President

Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Pete Sepp

Vice President for Communications

National Taxpayers Union