Editorial: WRDA Becomes Gameboard For Diverse Proposals

Because both houses of Congress have unflinchingly expressed a desire to see a Water Resources Development Act passed, and because the legislation has been moving ahead, WRDA has become a perfect launch site for heterogeneous proposals. If we look hard enough we might even find the kitchen sink.

As of May 14 (Monday) there were around 45 proposed WRDA amendments, Worth Hager, National Waterways Conference president, told us. Taking matters literally, we didn’t find any sinks, but there was one involving global warming and another that would establish a one-time commission to prioritize Corps projects, both ongoing and backlog. Both failed. Two other amendments aimed at delaying funding for two specific projects also failed. (Incidentally, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers already takes climate change into account as it considers projects.) Also among the proposed amendments were those related to Iraq. The debate provided an opportunity for expression without harming the ability of WRDA legislation to move forward.

The commission-prioritization amendment, said to be a priority of radical environmental groups, was sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), and failed by a vote of 22–69. The handling of the global warming amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Feingold, included two hours of debate. It failed 51–42

In the end, WRDA passed by an astonishing vote of 91–4 in the Senate. It now goes to a House-Senate conference committee. The House of Representatives earlier passed the bill by a 394–25 margin.

There are two provisions in the bill passed by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that are of concern to river-industry leaders. One, Section 2006, would establish a virtual agency, a Water Resources Coordinating Committee (composed of cabinet members) to undertake a revision of the way the Corps formulates and evaluates water resources projects. The other, Section 2007, would provide for external review of issues at the end of Corps project studies. (The WJ has opposed these provisions repeatedly.)

The National Waterways Alliance, in a letter that thanks Sen. Boxer for her efforts and explains the NWA position, said it “strongly supports policies in WRDA that will empower the Corps to collaboratively develop water resource projects with all stakeholders to ensure that projects enjoy public confidence and broad-based support.” The alliance said S. 1248 contains “almost all of the concepts and provisions that we believe further that end.”

However, the alliance finds Sections 2006 and 2007 provisions troublesome, and wrote, “we believe [the provisions] would unduly hamper our nation’s commitment to meeting water resources challenges and would erode the worthwhile efforts the Corps recently made to improve planning and evaluation of proposed projects.” The alliance does not believe that the provisions would improve the process the Corps uses to formulate project solutions. Requirements for additional independent review would add no value to the process, NWA wrote. Obviously it is hoped the offending provisions can be fixed.

The NWA letter points out that the water resources system contributes “mightily” to our nation’s well-being; that adequately dredged ports and waterways are the backbone of our transportation system; that the flood-damage-reduction programs prevent almost $8 in damages for each dollar spent; that Corps hydropower facilities provide electricity to 24 percent of U.S. citizens; and that shore protection projects provide safety from hurricanes and other storm events for transportation, petroleum and agriculture infrastructure around our coastal waterways and deltas. The program also provides recreational benefits that return $4 for each dollar invested, NWA wrote.

By the time readers see this, the fat will be in the fire, so to speak. All we can do is wait and hope for the best. That’s something we’ve also written before.

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.)