Editorial: Viewpoints Foment Dreams And Disappointment

We were attracted this week to an Associated Press story in which former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt said that the nation’s 96-million-acre system of wildlife refuges is being neglected and undermined by political meddling and chronic underfunding. How close that is to the story being told about our system of waterways!

The importance of a program, the forward movement and growth toward its goals, depends largely upon the viewpoint of the U.S. president and, to a lesser degree, upon the individual viewpoints of congressional delegates, et al. As it so happens, the viewpoint of our president and the viewpoint of Congress as a whole, conflict. We are still awaiting the outcome. Will the Water Resources Development Act be vetoed? If it is, will Congress override that veto?

The truth is that in the viewpoint of Congress over several years following the passage of WRDA 2000, water resources seemed not important enough to finance. Since these laws best serve the nation when passed every two years, we can admit that we didn’t need another until perhaps 2002. But WRDA 2000 was the last. As for the administration, for the last three decades or more, when it came time to cut funds, the Office of Management and Budget has always taken a dim view of water resources development. A few presidents and transportation secretaries took advantage of photo ops by participating in river-project dedications, etc., but by and large, water infrastructure has not been at the top of their to-do list. The question, “Why?” begs an answer.

Obviously, the answer has its roots in individual viewpoints. Babbitt has always been a warrior for the environment. The problem faced by river interests is that too many leaders have been warriors for something else! Is it time to reintroduce the idea of compromise?

A 1997 law, whose development can be credited in great part to Babbitt, “was a promise to the American people: That the system of lands and waters that had been set aside for wildlife…would be properly cared for,” he said. Can we not point to the Flood Control Act of 1944 and other legislation (as well as court decisions) that represent promises to care for our inland waterway system? Certainly we can. Promises related to other matters deemed important by leaders have become law, too.

When Babbitt discusses the 96-million-acre national wildlife refuge system and 548 wildlife refuges, he emphasizes that they are “reeling from years of fiscal starvation.” The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, he says, is faced with a $2.5 billion budget shortfall. It has eliminated hundreds of jobs in recent years, cut back programs, and left some 200 refuges unstaffed, the AP story said. These refuges attract 40 million visitors a year.

Have not thousands of jobs been eliminated over the decades as river projects were started and stopped and contractors had to withdraw? Need we emphasize again the tremendous budget shortfall of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the backlog of projects—many authorized and never started, some started and never completed—all due to a shortage of money?

Sometimes the answer to why things are as they are is simpler than we think. Let’s experiment:

George, who has a sweet tooth, not only is in charge of the family budget but also buys the groceries. It is logical to believe that his pantry will contain more cookies and candy and other treats than the pantry of someone who is a health-food addict.

Babbitt is strong on environment. Is there any doubt as to how he might spend the nation’s money were he president?

If one of our water industry leaders were to become president, is there any doubt that the inland waterway system would fare better?

If New Orleans’ Mayor Ray Nagin were elected to the presidency, is there any reason to believe that restoring that hurricane-battered city would not be among his favorite projects?

We elect to office those we favor, usually with an eye toward their likes and dislikes, and we “gets” what we elect. Since there is great dissimilarity in the likes and dislikes of our various leaders and our citizenry, it is fair to suggest that compromise should always be in order when programs are vital to the nation but not necessarily the president’s No. 1 choice for spending. After all, the need for flood control and water transportation doesn’t go away just because the president and his administration aren’t particularly interested in them.

The ups and downs of important national programs frequently follow the flow of a newly elected leader’s likes and dislikes. That is to be expected, but at times it is destructive to worthwhile agendas that should continue unabated regardless of who gets into office.

At this writing, we still have heard nothing definitive about WRDA 2007. There were hints that it would reach President Bush’s desk last week. During last Tuesday’s GOP debate among presidential candidates we heard Sen. John McCain say that the president has before him a “public works” bill that should be vetoed. Does he mean WRDA? We don’t know.

Just as there were promises made to the people about the care of our system of lands and waters, Congress, by the very one-sided nature of its votes in favor of WRDA, has promised us that this time around we will get a law.

We hope they fulfill that promise.

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.)