Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

America's future federal public works policies must address the twin realities of falling budgets and rising demand for services from public works infrastructure. Federal domestic discretionary spending—nondefense and nonentitlement funding, including most federal public works programs—is shrinking while physical facilities funded by that spending are growing older. Public managers are thus shifting their focus from building new structures to maintaining old ones and improving service delivery to suit present needs. This article reviews the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' response to these changes, especially the national Operations and Maintenance Program Plan of Improvement and the intergovernmental, Corps-facilitated effort known as the Federal Infrastructure Strategy (FIS) Program. The Corps' response to the new infrastructure policy paradigm is a particularly relevant case study.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Public Works Association. (1976). History of public works in the United States, 1776-1976. Chicago: Author.

Engineer Strategic Studies Center. (1995). Windows on USACE. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments. Executive Order No. 12893, (1994, January 27). Washington, DC: The White House.

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, Stat. (1993).

National Council on Public Works Improvement (NCPWI). (1988). Fragile foundations. Washington, DC: Author.

National Performance Review. (1994). Creating a government that works better and costs less: Status report (Report of the National Performance Review). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Steiner

. (1994, October). Presentation of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ohio River Division to Inland Waterways Review Board, Pittsburgh, Pa.

U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1992). Intergovernmental decisionmaking for environmental protection and public works (Rep. No. A-122). Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1996). The role of federal mandates in intergovernmental relations: A preliminary ACIR report for public review and comment. Washington, DC: Author.

10.

U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). (1995). Public infrastructure spending and an analysis of the president's proposals for infrastructure spending from 1996 to 2000. Washington, DC: Author.

11.

U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. (1993). National operation and maintenance program plan of improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Author.

12.

U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. (1994). National operation and maintenance program plan of improvement: Performance plan for fiscal year 1995 (Pilot Project, Government Performance and Results Act of 1993). Washington, DC: Author.

13.

U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources (IWR). (1992). 1992 inland waterways review (IWR Rep. No. N-92). Washington, DC: U.S. Author.

14.

U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources (IWR). (1995). Living within constraints: An emerging vision for high performance public works (IWR Rep. No. FIS-95-20). Washington, DC: Author.

15.

U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources (IWR), Policy and Special Studies Division. (1996). Corps expenditures [Database]. Arlington, VA: Author.

16.

U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Navigation Data Center. (1995). Lock Performance Monitoring System (LPMS) [Database]. Arlington, VA: Author.

17.

U.S. Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Works. (1996). 1995 and 1996 civil works goals. Washington, DC: Author.

18.

Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-662 (1986).

The Paradox of Federal Infrastructure Programs: Aging Infrastructure and Constrained Budgets

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References