March 26th, 2007
Editorial: House Vote Puts Water Projects In Spotlight
Newsbreaks often occur close to deadlines and, consequently, they may not be included in the next issue of the WJ. Such is the case with the voice-vote passage by the U.S. House of Representatives Transportation Committee on March 15 of a long-sought multibillion-dollar water projects bill. (Congress has not passed a water projects bill since 2000.)
A normal reaction might be, “Well, here we go again!” The bill is expected to face a final vote in the House in a few weeks. Proponents and opponents will once more bring out their big guns. One can speculate that because it was “just a committee” that passed it, it doesn’t mean much. That’s untrue. A vote by the important Transportation Committee is, admittedly, just one in the procedure that must be followed before a final vote, but passing it quickly by voice vote indicates that congressional delegates want to get this show on the road and they understand the need. A similar bill passed both houses of Congress last year, but because of squabbles over cost and how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approves projects, it never reached the president’s desk.
A St. Louis Post-Dispatch report following passage of the bill on March 15 included details that we believe are important to anyone who thinks the bill is just for the water transportation industry. Included, according to the Post, are:
- $208 million for environmental restoration in the East St. Louis area.
- $35 million for sewer overflow work in St. Louis County.
- $17 million for flood damage repairs in Illinois’ Madison County.
Newspapers elsewhere in the nation no doubt reported on projects included for their own coverage areas. We could salivate over the potential job creation involved if WRDA is passed and signed, but we learned long ago not to count our chickens before they’re hatched.
Overall, the bill has a $14 billion price tag, and multibillions of those dollars are destined for much-needed projects around the country. More than $4 billion is designated for modernization. Fully $1.8 billion would be spent to build seven new locks at dams on the Illinois and Upper Mississippi rivers. Ecosystem restoration expenditures would be somewhere close to that amount.
Transportation Committee Chairman Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.) told the Post, “We need to move ahead [on this issue].” Paul Rhode of St. Louis, midwest vice president of Waterways Council Inc., was cautiously optimistic and added, “People are understanding the desperation our water infrastructure is in.”
Critics of the lock projects include those who argue that construction would further harm the river and its backwaters. They say demand for grain shipments to the Gulf for export may be down due to the increased demand for ethanol. What they don’t say is that the Mississippi River locks at issue are in the nation’s heartland, right in the middle of grain-harvesting states. Transportation officials in several states have discussed the potential for increased barge deliveries due to the rapid development of ethanol production and the plethora of new plants—some already built and others under construction or planned. Corn-exporting states are looking at the possibility of becoming corn-importing states. Isn’t it shortsighted to count out barge transportation on the Upper Mississippi due to a temporary dip in cargo figures and use that as an excuse not to maintain and modernize the system properly?
A 2.5-page list of companies and individuals who signed on to a National Waterways Alliance letter to Rep. Peter Visclosky, chairman of the House Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, attests to the fact that “Over half of our locks and dams have exceeded their life expectancy and desperately need adequate maintenance. Already unscheduled outages have cost us the equivalent of one lock on the Upper Mississippi system…just a $1 investment in operation and maintenance can return an average of $14.10 in transportation savings.” Only last week, the WJ reported that the Corps must close the main lock at Mel Price Lock and Dam for 50+ days (May 10–July 3) to make repairs and replace cables. Serious delays will result.
Presently, the same people who signed on to the letter to Rep. Visclosky have analyzed the administration’s Corps budget submission for $4.871 billion for fiscal 2008 and found it sadly lacking. Concluding that it “falls woefully short of meeting the overall needs of the nation,” they say it also “fails to address the full range of even those projects ranked most critical to the nation’s welfare.” They are pushing for a funding level of at least $8 billion for fiscal 2008 and thereafter “so as to begin addressing these serious shortfalls.” Had the federal government been a prudent steward of the waterways infrastructure, the condition of the system would not be so onerous. As it is, we are billions behind. Would it be imprudent to ask President Bush if he would permit his Texas ranch to fall into such a state of disrepair?
We have for years emphasized water-resource-development benefits in hopes of convincing Congress to pass a WRDA bill with major funding-level increases. The National Waterways Alliance letter to Rep. Visclosky brings to light some new and important variations, which we will discuss next week.
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.) |
 |
319 N. 4th St., Suite 650 · St. Louis, MO 63102 · Phone (314) 241-7354 · Fax (314) 241-4207
|
|
