Editorial: When Is A Water Bill Not A Good Water Bill?

It appears as though Congress might pass a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) this year. Yet, no matter how promising that possibility appears, the bill can be virtually worthless if its contents allow opponents to control the water-project review process.

That is the situation we now face. WRDA is now in the conference stage. The bill has been stalled for six long years because of a protracted public policy fight over how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should operate.

Water transportation leaders contend that even though this year a WRDA seems within reach, water-resource interests should watch this bill carefully, because provisions included in the legislation could change the future direction of the Corps civil works program.

Of concern is a proposal (Section 2006) to legislate an unwise process for changing the way the Corps develops projects to meet water-resources needs. It is akin to the same flawed concept that led to the failed Water Resources Council in the middle of the last century. Section 2006 of the Senate WRDA would establish a water resources coordinating committee whose main purpose would be to review and formulate planning guidance for Corps water-resource projects.

Myriad federal agency secretaries, or their designees, including the secretary of the Army, would serve. Section 2006 would require that every five years the committee and the secretary of the Army “in collaboration with each other review and propose updates and revisions to modernize the planning principles and guidelines, regulations and circulars by which the Corps analyzes and evaluates water projects.” Within six months after such a review the secretary would be required to issue proposed new planning guidance. Please note that the planning guidance is the foundation of how projects are formulated, designed, constructed and evaluated for funding.

How many cooks does it take to spoil the broth? Just imagine the number of committee members. It might look fair-minded to add the secretary of the Army to the group, but that would neither eliminate the fatal flaw nor remove potential for instability caused by constantly changing guidelines.

Let there be no mistake about it, the proposal to reform Corps operations represents another way opponents of water projects can kill projects or stall them indefinitely.

We are reminded of the oft-used phrase “pork barrel,” which water project opponents frequently use to discredit the Corps and Congress and to stall projects. We are reminded also (by The Dallas Morning News) that the WRDA is not pork. The bill would authorize spending of $10 billion to $12 billion over 14 years, the Morning News reported. (How does that compare with the $8 billion plus authorized to restore a Florida swamp?)

The legislation would improve harbors in New York and Los Angeles to ease cargo flow, would clean up gunk in the Rio Grande so border communities can better use the river and would restore ecosystems along the Katrina-lashed Louisiana Coast, the Morning News reports. The writer also lists benefits to Texas—benefits totaling $350 million that would flow in to help communities manage water challenges. How could a bill with such widespread benefits represent pork? It doesn’t!

Over the past 35 years we have documented opposition to water projects by people who couldn’t care less about people and worship only the environment (their god). The leopard has not changed its spots. It is just fighting in craftier ways, now with the help of environmental lawyers imbedded in government.

Anyone who supports water resources projects and wants to see a wise WRDA passed—a bill that will not hinder Corps operations—had better step up to the plate and let their Washington delegates know how they feel. Let those delegates know that Section 2006 should not be included in the final legislation. It would add layers of unproductive bureaucracy to the planning process and turn it into a political donnybrook. As it is now, the Corps uses a strictly technical approach.

Decision time is soon. The House-Senate Conference committee must decide which scheme of Corps’ operations becomes law. Section 2006, the wrong approach, would dismiss lessons learned and codified in a progressive series of laws starting with the Flood Control Act of 1936 and extending through the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. Management by committee would be a nightmare, leaving little chance to make executive decisions to resolve deeply held differences of opinion.

The entire water-resources community needs to get involved now in a united way and with an effective voice to ensure that Congress passes legislation that would preserve the secretary of the Army’s responsibility and accountability for the planning guidance used to develop projects and set the tone for project operations and regulations.

A wise policy approach is within our grasp. Immediate and proper response from the water-resources community can help to see that Congress adopts such an approach.

When is a water bill not a good water bill? When it is ill designed and cluttered with obstructive proposals. Section 2006 of the Senate bill must be trashed!

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.)