Editorial: WRDA: Will Baby Get Tossed Out With Bath Water?

At a time when our nation faces economic problems, amid other issues that need solving, and military conflict saps the national budget, one might think water resources development worthy of delay. While some projects may not be critical, others are. Navigation, which we admit to being “our baby,” is not to be neglected simply because it is part of the WRDA mix. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water!

For going on two years, the cost of the war and the faltering economics of the nation have been debated by presidential candidates; so there is a tendency to postpone spending for some causes. Environmental organizations have succeeded in getting a very large share of the money proposed under WRDA for lock expansion on the Upper Mississippi/Illinois rivers. Now they are busy trying to shoot holes in it again, obviously hoping to convince Congress that it was wrong in its actions. The environmentalists keep repeating their conclusion that river traffic is down and imply that it will never rise again. Still, rails are carrying about as much as they can, and trucking, which is expanding by leaps and bounds, is influencing the efficiency of our roadways in negative ways, not the least of which is the deterioration of safety. One study shows that increasing traffic congestion retards the nation’s economic vitality by curtailing the movement of people and goods, wasting energy resources, increasing personal trip times, impairing productivity, creating social tension and damaging the environment.

The WJ has always supported water resource development but more specifically navigation. Environmentalists are wont to shoot down navigation projects simply because conflict helps them raise money. They often attack the WRDA program totally, thereby stalling or blocking needed projects—again, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Water transportation, both seagoing and inland, is an integral part of the economic wellbeing of our nation. Many nations and important private and federal entities attest to the value of moving cargo by water. So we should consider WRDA as a “gift basket” that contains numerous parcels, some more important than others. Water transport deserves top priority, as shown in the Flood Control Act of 1944 and confirmed by Supreme Court decisions. Second on the list for years has been flood control. Now, with new critical demands being made on our water supply—particularly on rivers like the Missouri—it is apparent that new priorities have emerged and stakeholders are battling for their share.

While not new, the Maritime Administration report Environmental Advantages of Inland Barge Transportation is perhaps more important today than when written in 1994. What has not changed (as it relates to other modes) is that barge transportation is still cheaper, consumes less fuel, causes less air pollution, produces less noise, and is the safest mode of transport. For example, the report says that the death rate for barges for 1993 was “0.01 deaths per billion ton miles, compared with 0.84 for trucks and 1.15 for railroads…And barges are more than 200 times safer than rail in terms of injuries.” U.S. Army Corps of Engineers studies conclude, “commercial marine navigation has the least damaging impact on air quality compared to truck and rail.” A Canadian National Railway study confirms that conclusion. GlobalSecurity.org makes the same points.

The MarAd study says, “When decisions are being made concerning a choice of modes, consideration should be given to the mode that does not contribute to unnecessary increases in fuel use, exhaust emissions, accidents, spill incidents, and congestion.”

Europeans are responding to that admonition to the degree that the European Conference of Ministers of Transport has recommended switching freight to more environmentally friendly modes and increasing the use of inland waterways. The 12 countries that make up the conference studied transport impacts on the environment by comparing mode, social costs of noise and air pollution, land coverage, construction/maintenance, and accidents. For all five categories, water transport had the least impact on the environment. As it relates to noise pollution, accidents and land coverage, water transport had little or no impact.

Because of the study results, there is a growing demand by member countries that inland navigation be included in international traffic management.

There is a saying, “Stupid is as stupid does.” Frankly, we think the evidence is in—and it has been in for decades—that water transport, when feasible, is the best choice for transporting cargo. To ignore not only our own studies but international studies as well is, shall we say, stupid.

Water transport is a national treasure, an available transport mode that has positive impact on our environment—an impact that can grow only if we take advantage of it.

The citizenry should not fall victim to the propaganda of any organization that enhances its financial coffers merely by fomenting trouble for others. An in-depth study by a California newspaper revealed years ago that many environmental organizations do exactly that. Not all of the environmental organizations are as interested in preserving the environment as they would have us believe.

Europe is striving to improve life via water transport. Countries in South America have spent lavishly to improve waterways in order to get their products to tidewater and make them more competitive in international trade. We should not ignore these lessons.

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.)