Editorial: WRDA Confab Next: No New Delays, Please!

Exactly what will take place during the upcoming conference to make House and Senate versions of the Water Resources Development Act compatible is anybody’s guess. What we don’t need for sure are legislative provisions of any kind that will further extend the length of time it takes to select, evaluate and complete civil works projects.

The problem with WRDA legislation is virtually the same as it is with any proposal that is critically important. Issues that do not relate to water-resource development find their way into the dark crevices of the bill, and if not ferreted out, may slip through, thus boosting the bill’s perceived cost and sometimes fomenting opposition. Suppose a bill is proposed to buy the president a new car. Believing the bill will sail through unopposed, legislator X adds an amendment to allow pig farming within the city limits in City X, which is in his district. Obviously, the pig-farm amendment should be defeated before the vote on the major issue. There are still two provisions in the WRDA legislation that waterway leaders find offensive (WJ editorial May 21).

Incidentally, Capitol Currents, publication of Waterways Council Inc., informs us that in order to get biennial authorization bills back on track, Congress is promising to initiate a follow-up WRDA as soon as the current legislation is finally enacted. (The House passed its version by a vote of 395–25 in mid-April. The Senate’s bill passed on May 16 by a vote of 91–4.)

We see the offending provisions in WRDA as vehicles for the oxymoronic “delays waiting to happen.” Or is that a Yogi Berraism? One provision would establish another unnecessary agency and draw into the water-resources planning kitchen additional cooks (agency heads) who probably would prefer not to be involved. Not only do they have their own matters to contend with, but many of them would lack qualifications to deal with water-resource issues. The second provision, one that would call for additional external review following project studies by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, also invites interminable delays. The reviews would enable any reviewer who opposes a measure to create delay. The Corps’ current project evaluation process is extensive, efficient and sufficient.

Just how to get around the offending provisions is a matter that will no doubt be the talk of the town, so to speak. Not to be forgotten, of course, is the fact that Corps budgets have not been adequate for a long time. Congress keeps adding new “to do” lists without sufficient funding.

Not surprising is that the White House opposes both the House and Senate versions of WRDA 2007. Actually we can’t recall when the White House and Office of Management and Budget ever liked civil works spending bills. What is dumbfounding is that after decades of insufficient budgets and deteriorating waterway structures, the White House does not acknowledge the need to maintain and modernize the waterway infrastructure. The erosion of the system is not a new development. Compared to the Iraq conflict, it is relatively old. Just a small fraction of the war-financing funds could solve waterway problems. But too many have dawdled over the issue for so many years that the challenge to fix and modernize has grown along with the cost. So now we are where we are—the White House thinks there is a lack of fiscal discipline because doing the job would require too much money. There is a lesson in that. If you ignore something long enough, it will either break down completely or cost a bundle to fix.

As usual, when money is tight, the White House tries to come up with new ways to finance civil works. According to Capitol Currents, the Bush administration is seeking new waterway user fees, and all 11 members of the Inland Waterways Users Board believe, “…at the very least [it is] premature.” The members expressed those sentiments in a letter to John Paul Woodley Jr., assistant secretary of the Army (Civil Works). The letter said the inland waterways transportation industry would oppose any new revenue-raising legislation until the Corps’ inefficient spending and contracting practices are corrected. The letter, as reported by Capitol Currents, also expressed disappointment “that the administration had not engaged the Users Board and waterways industry leadership in a broad consideration of all the options available for dealing with the declining balance in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.”

After having covered river news for six score years, we believe the river industry, and in recent decades the Users Board, have done their very best to keep government informed about river-system needs. It is appalling that the board has not been invited as a player when the Waterways Trust Fund is an issue.

Soon it will be conference time, and push will come to shove. It will be interesting to see what develops. The health of water transportation, a big player in the economic well being of the nation, is at stake. And it would be nice to have a current WRDA for a change.

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.)