Editorial: Don’t Lose Sight Of WRDA Purpose

We have all heard about not being able to see the forest for the trees. As it relates to the pending Water Resources Development Act of 2007, we can say that debate has become so convoluted that it obscures sight of the core issue. It’s like a feud that goes on and on, ad infinitum, but no one remembers what started it. The overall goal of WRDA may be shrouded by infighting that places too much priority on individual projects. Such skirmishes tend to destroy the binding element that makes the whole of WRDA 2007 more important to the nation than its individual parts. The overall purpose should be to develop water resources to the utmost economic well-being of the nation.

From a global standpoint, it is common knowledge that world transportation leaders question our failure to properly maintain and modernize the commercially navigable waterways with which we have been blessed. Their focus, understandably, is on the big picture, not on individual projects of which they are not aware.

There is another way of looking at WRDA 2007 and attending frustrations. The “making” or “breaking” of this legislation may have less to do with bitter skirmishes resulting from anti and pro stances on such elements as the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet (MR-GO) than it does with the fact that we have, perhaps, bitten off more than we can chew. Just as the world’s population has mushroomed exponentially, so, too, over the years have legislative proposals. There is dire need for simplification. So let us drop down to less rarified air.

A problem with modern-day legislation (to utilize another bromide) is that lawmakers throw in everything but the kitchen sink. During waning days of consideration, totally unrelated issues are cast into the pot to make a mulligan stew with which few, if any, are comfortable. This practice, in part, is behind the term “pork barrel.” It is a practice that saps the life out of Congress and results in failure to pass much-needed legislation. These “everything but the kitchen sink” additions cause the exponential bloating of costs. Many bills fail due to the cost factor.

We are not suggesting that WRDA 2007 is bloated with unrelated legislative issues. But one look at what it includes (see WJ April 30) suggests that Congress may have bitten off more than it can chew. There are legislators, for example, who are for closing down the MR-GO. Still others may feel strongly about restoring armor barrier islands or building a regional visitor center near Morgan City, La., or restoration work on the Missouri River, but they may be neutral about the MR-GO issue. We won’t even pursue the issue of vote-swapping. To say the least, it is a complicated bill.

One very good reason why WRDA legislation has grown intolerably complicated over the years is that Congress has ignored waterway needs and deprived the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of sufficient funds to accomplish congressional mandates. There is a monumental backlog, which makes the overall cost high, which in turn causes some legislators to balk because of the price tag. Our waterway system, once considered a Cadillac by some, is turning into a Yugo.

There is naught we can do at this point to strip away the less relevant issues included in WRDA 2007. We can only deal with what we have. What we have is a gigantic “to do” list that is underfunded and will not get done if Congress ignores the overall goal of WRDA—to bless the nation with economic benefits befitting its growing population and its status as a world leader.

But there is a danger. Detractors are determined to reform the Corps—to change the way water projects are evaluated and undertaken. They want to control what the Corps does and how it does it. They fight, always against the Corps and spasmodically, as opportunity arises, against individual civil works projects. They would jettison a workable oversight mechanism and replace it with a cabinet-type committee, which, like too many committees, would get nothing done. If this happens, we can say goodbye to civil works progress. This danger exists in an amendment that would mandate Corps reform.

The U.S. Senate is on the verge of taking up WRDA 2007. When the skirmish is over, if a Senate version is passed, there will be a conference to iron out differences in House/Senate approaches. The reform amendment looms large in these considerations.

Neither industry nor the Corps wants this reform amendment to survive and become part of the final bill. To pass WRDA 2007 with the “forced reform” amendment intact would ultimately be a serious hindrance to the overall water resource development goals for the nation. Eliminating that amendment is crucial.

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.)