Yazoo Pumps Project

Senate Roll Call Vote 23

2003 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

67

Votes Against

30

Not Voting

3

Although wetlands are known to serve vital environmental functions, among them filtering water and controlling floods, flood control is, ironically, often the justification cited by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for draining wetlands. Such is the case with the Corps’ controversial Yazoo pumps project, which would construct one of the world’s largest pumping stations to carry water over a flood control levee into Mississippi’s Yazoo River. The Environmental Protection Agency has warned that the Yazoo pumps would degrade more than 200,000 acres of ecologically significant wetlands in the Mississippi Flyway–more than seven times the amount of wetlands destroyed nationwide each year under the Clean Water Act’s Section 404 permit program. The pumps would also alter the hydrology of the entire 925,000-acre project area, as well as the four Mississippi delta rivers that flow through it. While the Corps contends the project would benefit local agriculture, independent economic studies have shown that those benefits are inflated by an estimated $144 million.

During consideration of the fiscal year 2003 energy and water appropriations bill, later incorporated into the omnibus appropriations bill, Senators Trent Lott (R-MS) and Thad Cochran (R-MS) introduced a rider directing the Corps to contract for the design and purchase of the Yazoo pumps, even though the agency had yet to finish an environmental impact statement or a feasibility study for the project.

During debate on the 2003 omnibus spending bill, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) offered an amendment to reduce project funding to the level recommended in the President’s budget so that the Corps could properly carry out its planning. The amendment also deleted language from the omnibus bill that required “continuing contracts,” a provision that forces the Corps to immediately lock in contracts to build the entire project, rather than staggering contract commitments over time to allow for modifying and updating project plans. This provision could ultimately force the federal government to cover the project’s entire projected cost of $181 million. On January 23, 2003, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) introduced a motion to table (or kill) the McCain amendment. The motion passed by a 67-30 vote (Senate roll call vote 23). NO is the pro-environment vote.

On February 20, President Bush signed the omnibus spending bill into law. At press time, the Corps had not yet released a final environmental impact statement for the Yazoo project.

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%