Editorial: Still Waiting For Water Resources Act

The reason we keep coming back to the issue of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 is that it is such a crucial one, and the final act in this drama is so long in playing out. Bush’s deadline for signing the bill will have passed two days previous to our WJ of November 5 and will not yet have arrived before our publication closes on November 1.

Not knowing what action the president will take, we can only consider two options. If he fails to sign the bill that landed on his desk October 23, it automatically becomes law, and the United States will have its first new WRDA law since 2000. If he vetoes it, as he promised to do and as his administration has said many times that he would, there are still two options: Congress will override his veto—if ever Congress had the votes to override a veto, this is surely one—or they won’t and the vital waterway infrastructure of the nation will be set back again.

We see reason for hope. While the president may stick stubbornly to his previous plan to veto, merely to show that he does not beat easily, Congress passed WRDA 2007 by such a wide margin that a veto may come across as truly offensive. It would be offensive, on the one hand, because the need for our waterway infrastructure to be modernized and maintained properly is widely recognized. It would also be offensive because Congress reached the point where it acknowledged this need and tackled the problem. We believe there is broad public support for passage of the issue.

Water transport supporters, buttressed by federal reports, have long referenced the fact that water transportation is environmentally friendly. (It pollutes less.) But environmental friendliness is not the key reason why this bill should become law with or without Bush’s signature. Proponents of this mode have always reminded users that while it may be slower, it is far cheaper than other modes. Not only is it cheaper, it is safer, it utilizes less in the way of natural resources and makes possible the movement of cargoes that cannot feasibly be transported in any other matter due to bulk, size, weight, etc.

Far and above the most important reason for passage of the WRDA is that our water transport system and the business growth it has made possible are woven deeply into the very fabric of our nation.

We might ask what purpose rail right-of-ways serve other than to provide for tracks. But rivers? Ah, there is an example of a resource being utilized to bring forth billions of dollars worth of benefits in a variety of ways to every corner of our country. Because of waterways, we have hydroelectric dams to produce power via a renewable energy source. Because of waterways, we have huge impoundments in which to store and preserve this valuable staff-of-life commodity water, which seems to be getting scarcer year in and year out. Because of waterways, we have an endless list of recreational activities available to us, among the most popular being boating and fishing. And, of course, we have a variety of flood control measures, which, while not perfect, save billions of dollars annually.

More importantly, the barge industry that provides this cheaper form of transportation has given rise to business operations around the nation. Those sited directly on waterways have the option to avoid costly rail transport. (Even now Congress is considering the ongoing tendency of railroads to abuse captive shippers.) Businesses sited farther away from the rivers are beginning to sit up and take notice. In recent years, new transportation companies have sprouted to address the needs of moving containers by barge, to provide a means for these companies to have at least an important leg of the transportation provided at a more reasonable cost.

It is our nature to grouse about the deterioration of our waterways. But it behooves the president to face reality and acknowledge that this nation’s waterway system is a blessing and plays a key role in the economic well-being of our national and international enterprise. Many other nations wish they had one like it. The president is hot on the issue of free trade. Water transport is vital to trade. Where is the disconnect?

As in the past we are faced with an issue that boils down to: “To be, or not to be?” And as in the past we are stuck temporarily with one response:

Stay tuned!

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.)