Water Projects Funding

Senate Roll Call Vote 99

1981 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

Yes

Votes For

39

Votes Against

52

Not Voting

9

Metzenbaum (D-OH) and Heinz (R-PA) amendment to the fiscal year 1982 Budget targets to reduce funding for water projects by $300 million. In a year when an unprecedented $30 billion was cut from social programs, the Reagan Administration left the budget for water projects virtually intact, recommending only a $40 million or 2% cut in the $2.16 billion program. This amendment would have reduced the water project budget by an additional $300 million, a modest 7% reduction compared to most other budget cuts.

Many of these water projects destroy free flowing rivers, wetlands, rich farmland, and important wildlife habitat for very questionable benefits. They often cannot be justified economically except through the use of outmoded and unrealistic interest rates used for calculating their cost/benefit ratios. Often they benefit a select few at the expense of the general public. A 1981 U.S. General Accounting Office report found one project which was 94% federally financed, yet had only three users, one of them an oil company which would receive 86% of the benefits. The real cost of irrigation water is usually far more than farmers are asked to pay, and artificially low prices invite a waste we can ill afford when water tables are dropping dangerously. Rejected 39-52; May 11, 1981. YES is the pro-environment vote.

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

0%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

11%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

89%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

63%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

4%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

40%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

96%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

49%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%