Editorial: WRDA Showdown Around The Corner?

When the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 by a vote of 394–25 on April 19, it didn’t exactly inspire jubilation. One might erroneously conclude that the towing industry should be pleased as punch that a WRDA might come to pass after the nation has experienced years without one. But not so. The question as to whether we should celebrate or mourn may be answered during the first week of May, when the Senate is expected to take up its version of the legislation.

Why not so? The legislation passed by the House includes an amendment by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) that deletes Section 2036 and replaces it with language directing the secretary of the Army to update the Principles and Guidelines (P&G) that the Army Corps of Engineers uses in formulating, evaluating, and implementing water projects. The amendment would require the secretary to consult with other agencies and the public in developing the new principles and guidelines.

During the permitted 10-minute debate, Rep. Richard Baker (R-La.), the ranking member of the Water Resources Subcommittee, explained how the Corps regularly updates its Engineering Circulars, which govern how projects are formulated. Rep. Blumenauer’s response was that the Corps hadn’t incorporated its updates into the P&G.

Perhaps unknown to Blumenauer is that the P&G do not belong to the Corps. The agency has no ability to change them. Congress can change them by enacting a law, or the president can change them by revamping the 1983 Executive Order that contains them. Blumenauer and his supporters want to effect change by enacting law.

If legislation passed by the Senate prior to any conference contains language that enforces Blumenauer’s amendment, it would not bode well, and industry leaders might be forced to recommend defeat of WRDA. We have survived—not particularly well, admittedly—without a WRDA, but gutting the Corps’ operating procedures would be an ongoing disaster.

By deleting Section 2036 (the heart and soul of the Corps planning process), legislators opened the door to acceptance of Section 2006 in the Senate bill, which would create a Water Resources Coordinating Council of cabinet members, an idea industry opposes.

Is it possible that industry wants WRDA 2007 so badly that it would support a bill directing overhaul of the Corps planning process? We hope not. The goal of the environmental movement is to disembowel the Corps and virtually bring progress to a halt.

For all of its sweet talk about improving the planning process to better serve the nation, the proponents of this change have not been upfront about it. As it now exists, the Corps process provides thorough oversight and exposes project details to hundreds if not thousands of opinions from engineers as to project validity, feasibility, etc. By creating a cabinet, Congress would be inviting what we all fear; too many cooks would spoil the broth. It would enable cabinet members to stall or halt completely any project with which they disagree. Pork barrel politics would thrive.

Need we challenge readers to identify a single government agency that has operated in such a way to enhance the economic well-being of the nation? We think there isn’t one! Need we remind that Congress already has Corps oversight? For years, faith in good government has been waning as we see agency after agency criticized for poor performance; but the Corps has a history of more than 200 years of service that has rendered great financial benefits for the investment. The only serious problem faced by the Corps today, other than environmental critics, is an ongoing lack of money and a Congress that haphazardly adds to its responsibilities without increasing its budget appropriately. Duties related to Katrina represent only one example.

Is industry willing to exchange the existing Corps’ planning process for a cabinet mechanism that would be only worse? We don’t think so.

The proponents of changing Corps’ operations want to stop progress. They want to subject projects to the whims of cabinet members whose own agencies may not operate as efficiently as the Corps. Many of these members could seriously lack knowledge and experience in water resource development and could be expected to vote their own political interests. Like legislators, they could simply place a “hold” on any project they don’t like.

We can only hope that during debate on the Senate version of WRDA 2007, wisdom prevails, that adequate debate time is permitted, and that language designed to overhaul the Corps evaluation process be removed before a final vote.

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.)