Editorial: We Bring You One Last (Almost) WRDA Hurrah

On November 8 the U.S. Senate overrode a presidential veto of H.R. 1495 (the Water Resources Development Act) by a vote of 79–13, considerably more than the two-thirds vote required. The House previously overrode the bill 361–54. It was the body’s first override of a veto by President Bush and only the 107th time that Congress has overridden a presidential veto.

It might be welcome if we said this is the last hurrah, but it is not. Some celebrating is in order. But more WRDA bills will emerge in a couple of years. More importantly, as proponents of the override proclaimed, WRDA 2007 does not appropriate a penny. Spending on any one of the projects in the bill—Bush claims there are 900 projects and programs—must be approved. This offers opponents and proponents an opportunity to have their day in court, and Congress will have to decide again.

The WJ of last week (November 12) provided numerous details about the veto override, as well as statistics about the bill. As always, we will carry information about various projects as they come up for congressional action. Nevertheless, there are some things we must keep in mind.

First, when a bill containing more than 900 projects and programs and virtually blanketing the country is called “pork” (as it has been so called before and certainly will be again), it is a fallacy. “Pork,” as it has come to be known, represents the projects in every other state but our own. Yet, how can someone living in Missouri call a bill that authorizes flood control in the New Orleans region pork? Painting the entire bill with one critical brush stroke is irresponsible. WRDA 2007 deals with a waterway system and water transportation industries that represent a major bone in the skeleton of our transportation infrastructure. As we’ve said before, water transportation is woven deeply into the fabric of our nation’s economic well-being.

Second, the reason for the override may not be as squeaky clean as we might wish it to be. WRDA supporters have fought for a bill ever since the last one was passed in 2000. The reality is that passing a bill was a skirmish prior to that time as well. Many opponents fought these bills tooth and nail simply because they hate the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Much of this opposition was openly financed by railroads. Opponents want to see Corps operations undergo a major overhaul. Some even want the projects taken out of the Corps’ hands. Some who voted for the override no doubt looked upon it as another chance to stick it to a president whose policies they reject. Supporters of the measure have been out in force for years, and their efforts, to this point, have paid off. Still, there is a lot of work ahead as individual projects come up for appropriations.

Opponents of water resource development refuse to acknowledge the environmental friendliness of water transportation. In their zest to oppose, they hope to put other agencies and perhaps boards and committees in charge of making final decisions about the validity of projects. Repeatedly, water transportation leaders have emphasized the extensive evaluation process the Corps uses to determine project validity or lack of it. We are reminded by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that even though the Corps considered some flood control projects valid, local and state intervention frequently stood in the way of completion. There simply is no government agency other than the Corps with the level of knowledge and experience required to run WRDA programs. Civil works is the agency’s specialty, and the record indicates a job well done.

There are literally thousands of people who deserve thanks for their efforts in helping to bring about the veto override. Our “Washington Waves” columnist Carlo J. Salzano named a few of them in last week’s story. We must repeat praise for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; and for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who joined with her in proclaiming the bipartisanship character of the bill. Both gave passionate pleas for its passage as the vote neared.

As various supportive river associations meet, WRDA will surely be a subject for discussion. One example will be the National Waterways Conference when it holds its Legislative Summit on March 12 & 13, 2008. The discussions will be quite different, we can be sure.

A bromide so applicable in this case is one said often in jest: “There is no rest for the wicked.” A great deal of the work involved in securing appropriations for the WRDA projects is yet ahead of us. River warriors will be called back into the trenches.

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.)