Anyway, back to this legislation, the bill Inhofe is now working on
authorizes the Corp of Engineers to do flood control, navigation and
environmental restoration projects. For example, the average
transportation cost savings of users of the inland waterway system is
$10.76 per ton hauled or $7 billion annually over rail, highways and air
transportation.
Flood control, as demonstrated during Katrina and Rita, is a critical
service provided by the Army Corps of Engineers. Money was appropriated
to fix those infamous levies in New Orleans but local politicians always
diverted the money to their own projects and now we are all paying the
price. Nevertheless, according to the American Society of Civil
Engineers, flood control structures on average prevent $22 billion in
flood damage per year. That is a saving of $6 for every $1 spent.
Clearly, projects that promote economic growth through good movements or
prevent damage due to flooding are not pork. Yet many in the media, who
never understand the big picture in this country, pick on some project
in a Congressman's district and charge him with bringing home the pork.
Not always so. Recognizing that not all proposed flood control or
navigation projects are necessary, the Senate has established firm
criteria for evaluating project requests.
First, projects have to have a chief report, which means that the Corps
of Engineers has determined that the project is technically feasible,
environmentally sound and economically justified. Second, Inhofe and
his committee attempt to oppose any environmental infrastructure project
which is outside the scope of the main mission. You can imagine that
there are Senators on Inhofe's committee who do bring pork to the table.
Inhofe won't budge on that point. Finally, Inhofe's Enviornment and
Public Works Committee opposes cost waivers, thus following the policy
established in the WRDA Bill of 1986 which established cost-sharing
requirements. In order for a project to be built local communities must
be willing to pay some cost of the project. The same is true in the
Transportation Bill only in that measure there is a huge disparity
between highways and transit. With highways the Federal Government pays
80 to 90% of the project. With transit, say a light rail line in Denver,
the Federal Government will only pay on average around 50%.
Just as in the Transportation Bill (known around here as SAFETEA-LU), in
which the Senator got his Committee to agree that projects eligible for
Highway Trust Fund dollars be on the State's transportation, the Senate
WRDA Bill established and stayed with strict criteria for WRDA projects
in an attempt to avoid funding any project which is not justified.
Work on this measure has been long and hard. Inhofe wants to get the
final bill passed in these waning days of the 109th Congress. But for
Senators like Inhofe (and there are not many-eight or nine at best) who
are willing to do the non-exciting, non-sexy work, the real business of
the Senate would not go on. The WRDA Bill is important and we can be
thankful that Inhofe is behind it, inching it along to enactment.