Water Projects

House Roll Call Vote 377

2005 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

105

Votes Against

315

Not Voting

13

Conservationists have long fought the costly and environmentally destructive “pork barrel” water projects administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. One of the most egregious recent examples is a $1.8 billion expansion of locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers–the most expensive inland navigation project ever conceived.

The project was justified by its supporters as a way of handling projected increases in barge traffic. However, studies by the National Academy of Sciences and the Congressional Research Service show that river traffic has been flat or declining for 25 years, with that trend likely to continue. The proposed project, in addition to damaging aquatic ecosystems, would displace funding for critically needed restoration efforts in the Upper Mississippi River, coastal Louisiana, the Everglades, and the Great Lakes.

The lock expansion was included in H.R. 2864, the Water Resources Development Act, an omnibus bill for water projects. Representatives Floyd Flake (R-AZ) and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) offered a common-sense amendment that would have required the Corps to show that river traffic was increasing before the project could be authorized. On July 14, 2005, House Amendment 450 was rejected by a 105-315 vote (House roll call vote 377). YES is the pro-environment vote. The omnibus bill passed the House shortly afterward. At press time, a companion Senate bill had yet to be approved.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

78%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

51%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

28%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

34%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

22%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

23%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

19%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

38%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

76%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

85%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

44%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

50%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

69%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

73%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

72%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

82%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

47%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

14%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

10%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

31%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

58%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

75%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%