Editorial: Like Atlas, Waterways Prop Up U.S. Universe

We are continuing our “treatise” on the federal government’s responsibility (stewardship if you will) toward maintenance and modernization of this nation’s navigational waterway system. As we reported in this column on February 11, President Bush’s 2009 proposed budget virtually ignores locks and dams. This was sufficient to set off howls of protest from many corners, since navigable waterways represent a key segment of our transportation infrastructure and, like Atlas, prop up the U.S. universe.

What we did not say, however, is that the proposal ignores flood control. Flood control represents one of the most important benefits derived from water resource development. If you have it, you save billions in investments that might otherwise be destroyed by meandering and uncontrolled rivers. We did mention, by the way, that a major portion of three Illinois counties may suffer tremendous flood damage to businesses and residences if a large portion of Mississippi River floodwall were not to be repaired.

It is with pleasure that we can repeat what the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported last week, that Missouri Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond and his colleagues praised a 14-year bipartisan effort to secure up to $4 million from the federal government to rebuild the Mississippi River floodwall that borders St. Louis. (Let us remind readers that under normal confrontational criticism of Congress, this $4 million is commonly referred to as “pork”. Missourians don’t call it that, nor do we. But many from states competing for money, and government critics in general, call it pork or an earmark. When money for such needy projects is requested and obtained, it should be outside of the realm of pork. Pork is the addition of legislation to a dissimilar piece of legislation to give the added proposal a chance for passage.)

Anyway, Bush did include $2 million for the St. Louis floodwall in his 2009 budget proposal. That amount was approved last year. The city of St. Louis will match that amount. How important is investing $4 million in the floodwall? The structure protects some 3,000 acres of land with homes and businesses estimated to be worth $3 billion. Put another way, it is a move to replace worn out tires on a $50,000 automobile before they blow out and the resulting crash demolishes the car. It is safe to conclude there are other river cities throughout the nation whose floodwalls need attention to varying degrees. There are still some major cities where the livelihood of the entire region depends on towing-industry services. That once again begs the question about how important water transportation is to our nation—a question too infrequently pondered by presidents. It is safe, we conclude, to discuss replacement of the Coast Guard fleet at many multibillions of dollars but not discuss a sensible annual financial allotment to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to maintain our river system. The Corps has been “dissed” for years.

Let us, however attempt to answer the question about river-system value. Financial pundits reported last week that the United States owns (not counting territories and dependencies) 12,383 miles of coast line with nearly 150 ports. “Through these ports,” the pundit wrote, “it exports $1.14 trillion worth of agricultural products, industrial supplies, capital goods, and consumer goods. Meanwhile, the United States imports $2.2 trillion worth of goods and materials every year.” (The government itself reports that water transportation contributes around $16 billion in customs fees alone annually to the treasury.)

Do those figures not qualify the water resource development program to be the object of an honest endeavor on the part of the federal government to protect and maintain our water infrastructure? Our financial pundit cites CIA World Factbook as crediting at least a portion of this nation’s long-term problems to “inadequate investment in economic infrastructure….”

It might be putting words in the mouths of the Factbook writers to say that “economic infrastructure” includes water resource development, but we don’t think so. The combined movement of $3.4 trillion in goods through ports supports our claim. In this case, planes, trains and trucks don’t cut it.

That brings up another question. What impact does the movement of $3.4 trillion in goods have on the economic well-being of the United States? As just one small example, let us remind readers that in recent years, businesses across the country suffered drastically reduced Christmas sales because their wares were riding the waves of huge ships off the coast of California and couldn’t be unloaded. How would our economy fare if all water transport, brown-water and blue-water alike, were to be discontinued?

For decades, our government has spent billions maintaining our mothball fleets and spending multi-billions more on modernistic weapons of war and giving handouts to foreign nations while ignoring the very transportation infrastructure that makes it all possible. We don’t question the need for these expenditures, but we do believe the government is ignoring other vital priorities.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)