Rep. John Linder's '21st Century Water Commission' Bill: Afloat Again

Rep. John Linder (R-GA), who represents Georgia's 7th District, the northeast suburbs of Atlanta (Gwinnett County and environs), has seen his bill H.R. 135 to establish a "21st Century Water Commission" get voted out of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's Subcommittee on Water and Environment.

Linder's bill has been down this road before, getting House approval in the previous two sessions but no consideration in the Senate. His Senate colleague Johnny Isakson (R-GA) hopes to change that should the bill be approved by the House.

Third time's a charm, right?

Download linder_pr_water_bill_2008.pdf

Download hr_135_21_century_watercommission.pdf 

Linder is one of the founders of the House Water caucus, which according to some reports, has been rather quiet. One caucus member said she was "just along for the ride" and "didn't know what Linder was doing." Well, I guess she knows now!

Download congresswatercaucus.pdf 

Linder spoke at the AWRA's First and Third Water Policy Dialogues. You can access a podcast of his most recent address here.

Linder's bill establishes a nine-person commission with a three-year life and a$9M budget. The commission members will be unsalaried.  The keys are not only the commissioners themselves, but the staff positions and the Director, all of whom are salaried. The commission will study and develop recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy to address future water needs.

Okay, here are the "good, bad, and the ugly."

Good:

1. The commission is a very good idea and its charge is long overdue.
2. I like the idea of a water strategy as opposed to a water policy.
3. States' water prerogatives will be respected.
4. Conflicts and duplication among Federal water agencies will be addressed (great idea - good luck!).
5. Water quality and environmental considerations are embedded in the bill.
6. The study will look at options other than simply trying to develop more supplies via infrastructure projects.

Bad:

1. The commission, its charge, and budget should have been assigned to the The National Academies. They have experience with these kinds of studies, and would help ensure that politics would not rear its ugly head and that the "right" people would be appointed. I'd like to get a good water strategy, not the SOS.
2. The commissioners should not all be "the usual suspects"; ditto the Director and staff.
3. The bill calls for a 50-year horizon. A longer time frame is required - at least 100 years.

Ugly:

1. The commission Director is appointed by the Speaker of the House and that's not a good idea; too much risk of political shenanigans. The commission itself should hire the Director, a la the 9/11 Commission.

For those who say that the gravitas of the commission will be lessened by having the NAS involved at the expense of Congress and the President: ensure that Congressional hearings will be held on the committee's report. There are precedents for this.

An amendment in the form of a substitute bill was recently added to Linder's original bill by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX).  Here's what her amendment does (all good):

1. increases the size of the commission to 11 members;
2. increases the budget to $12M over five years; and
3. directs the commission to include the effects of climate change and climate change science in its report and recommendations. 

Download johnson_substitute_to_hr_135_oberst_127_xml_2.pdf

Time will tell whether the commission will produce a workable national water strategy , but it's a long-overdue start.

But the real test will come when the commission's work is done. Will the President and Congress heed the recommendations? About that, I'm less optimistic.

"Never underestimate the collective stupidity of very smart people in small groups." -- Anonymous