In a word (acronym actually)……WRDA. The slang term for this is pronounced "word-ah", and it stands for the Water Resources Development Act. Many of you may know what WRDA is, so bear with me for a couple of paragraphs while I delve into a short explanation (The status of the WRDA bill is at the end of this post, for those of you who might want to skip to the bottom).
This act is almost an omnibus-type act in its scope: It deals with all aspects of water resources, including the mission for the USACE, individual projects, disbursement of funds for projects, grant programs…..basically, funding water-related projects that are found to be in the federal interst.
There has not been a WRDA passed since 1987. Seems to parallel our nation’s neglect of our infrastructure, which according to the US Chamber of Commerce will cost $1.6T (yep, that’s trillion) to get our overall infrastructure back into shape. The Minneapolis bridge incident was horrible, and we could be in store for similar problems if we don’t get our act together.
The past WRDA acts have been important to urban waterfronts, and the current WRDA act under consideration is similarly important. Urban waterfront projects range from navigation and shipping improvements to economic development projects to pollution prevention projects to ecosystem restoration projects. Since WRDA can direct an agency to undertake a project, how to undertake it, and provide a schedule, it can clear up regulatory logjams. Past blogs have addressed the economic importance of revitalized waterfronts (both riverine and marine), which included:
What’s better: Eagle habitat or a waterfront entertainment district?
The Border Fence and the Rio Grande
To my view, a large part of our infrastructure revolves around water resources, so I tend to think that WRDA is good for our water resources overall. That’s not to say that every project in WRDA is good….some of them are probably bad for the ecosystems. On the whole, however, it provides funding and wherewithal for stream-related projects.
Regardless of environmental position, WRDA is critical for federal funding for water resources because the USACE ecosystem restoration mission (I’ve heard people argue that they are not good at it, but they also undertake the largest such projects in the nation when no one else has the resources to do it); there are 20 waterfront revitalization projects in the legislation which will economically assist communities (providing the fishing pole instead of giving fish); and it assists in our infrastructure on rivers (including dam removal, maintenance, navigation, etc.)
WRDA update:
During the past month, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved the water bill on a 381-40 vote. That is a veto-proof margin. The Senate approved a roughly $14 billion WRDA bill this year also with a veto-proof margin.
Senate Environment and Public Works ranking member James Inhofe, R-Okla., is trying to lead White House officials to prevent veto over $20 billion in Army Corps of Engineers water infrastructure projects.
The White House says its cost is too high. Supporters of the of the House-Senate WRDA conference report say the high cost is due to a backlog of Army Corps projects since WRDA was last updated in 2000. It is supposed to be reauthorized every other year.
It is very important for local communities like yours, which stand to benefit from the WRDA legislation, to continue to contact your legislators and press for the WRDA approval.
Funny thing about earmarks:
Everyone else’s earmarks are bad (except for ours, of course, which are fully justified as a project that is in the best interest of the nation!).
I bring up earmarks because WRDA is often accused of being simply an earmark omnibus bill.
Earmarks are the true embodiment of situational ethics. The public outcry over the Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere" earmark by Senator Ted Stevens is such an example. However, not much is said about over 300 federal projects in West Virginia named for Senator Robert Byrd or his immediate family. I wonder how many people in West Virginia griped about the Alaskan bridge? The example is not limited to those two states either……there is intense competition and armtwisting among federal legislators to bring home federal projects. Seems like it’s always been that way. The fact is that earmarks are going to remain in the legislative process for a long time to come. There is more transparency about who’s earmarking funds for what, and that transparency is a good thing.
posted by KEVIN CONNER
Comments