Editorial: WRDA Delay Generates Many Concerns

Because there has been no Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) since 2000, the announcement recently that Congress was putting off consideration of the bill until after the November election may have caused some disappointment among supporters. Not everyone agrees with why the delay occurred. Numerous explanations are worth considering.

Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond (R-Mo.) said the delay became necessary when time ran out to give the measure proper consideration. That is a legitimate perspective. The Wall Street Journal’s Opinion Journal online said consideration of the bill was delayed because there was too much conflict over its contents. That also fits in with the history of the bill, because those who oppose it want to impose upon the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers legislative amendments that would, in our opinion, shackle their progress. Had there been no conflict, there might have been a bill long ago. Others said that to hurry the bill through under pressure might result in the passage of amendments that would be most undesirable to the river industry. Better to take more time and get it right, they said. That is valid, too.

As we’ve reported before, a major sticking point involves amendment(s) that would establish a committee and fill its membership with various agency delegates to pass judgment on the Corps’ work. In fact, it would enable Corps opponents to shut down projects for decades or eliminate them entirely.

One area of concern to some might be the overall amount that WRDA is said to cost. Well, we must say right off that passing the bill only permits Congress to appropriate money as it sees fit for projects included in the bill. Many proposals represent various parts of the country and are not related to the Upper Mississippi and Illinois river proposals that are being fought so vigorously by river-transportation opponents.

Let’s consider water resource development in general. The Corps civil works budget has been shortchanged for so many years that the backlog of approved projects has grown immensely. Since each project has a price tag, the amount of money needed to clean up the backlog can be calculated. That amount is huge. Also, when projects are delayed, the original cost calculations become obsolete eventually. Inflation does its ugly thing, and the catch-up cost balloons almost beyond comprehension. What this means is that by neglecting water resource infrastructure continuously for so many years, Congress faces what must seem like an insurmountable financial obstacle.

What will happen if WRDA opponents succeed in accomplishing Corps reform—that is, they will be able to dictate how the Corps handles its projects—an almost certain attempt will be made to downgrade projects and seek deauthorization. It is true that if a project has been on the table a very long time that conditions and local support could change, and the reason for proposing it might vanish. But that also assumes that the Corps has done a lousy job of evaluating infrastructure needs in the first place, and we don’t buy that argument.

As we understand it, the Corps does not of itself give birth to proposals unless prompted by local government and support groups to do feasibility studies on them. A very thorough methodology is applied to determine whether a proposal is or is not folly. (It took nearly a century to bring the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway from brainstorm to completion.) Projects included in the WRDA have gone through intensive evaluation exercises. While the WRDA may call for a lot of money, Congress still controls the purse strings. Obviously, it will appropriate funds for projects it determines to be most crucial.

Generally speaking, water resource development can be accomplished to provide better flood protection, the value of which the Corps has learned to determine over the years through experience. With new locks, such as those proposed for the Upper Miss and the Illinois rivers, the goal is to eliminate delays at locks and decrease delivery time of products, particularly agricultural products moving to tidewater. The longer the delays, the higher the costs. The higher the costs, the more difficult it is for the United States to meet foreign competitors head on, particularly when they are trying to take over our overseas markets.

The Upper Miss and Illinois river projects would pump billions into the economy of those regions. In fact, passage of WRDA and appropriations to match would pump billions into other sections of the country where a financial boost is needed. It’s not like dumping sand down a rat hole. The expenditures would turn over numerous times and produce numerous benefits.

Our nation is faced with endless demands on its cash flow—military conflicts, immigration problems, etc. That is precisely why it makes no sense to throw sand in the financial gears that can help us save money and perform more efficiently.

The nation needs a WRDA 2006 and an improved water transportation system. Delaying consideration a couple months to make sure we get a bill we can live with will not hurt us; neither will it eliminate the need.

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.)