Michael Grunwald, senior correspondent for
Time Magazine and noted critic of the Army Corps of Engineers, says yesterday's historic override of President Bush's water-bill veto isn't worth celebrating -- despite what many environmental activists think.
Hooray! The Everglades and coastal Louisana have been rescued! Activists and politicians alike are giddy over the news that Congress overwhelmingly overrode President Bush's veto of the Water Resources Development Act yesterday. The override authorizes $5 billion worth of new Army Corps of Engineers projects for the dying Everglades and the devastated Louisiana coast, plus another $18 billion worth of new projects for the rest of the country. It was the first veto override of the Bush era, an unprecedented bipartisan rebuke to an anti-environmental White House. The Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, and the National Parks Conservation Association are celebrating. So are the elected officials of Florida and Louisiana, even Bush-friendly Republicans like Senators Mel Martinez and David Vitter.
You'd think I'd be fired up, too. I wrote a book about the plight of the Everglades. I wrote an angry Time Magazine cover story about the plight of coastal Louisiana. I hold no brief for the global warming denier in the White House.
But this time, Bush was right.
This bloated bill will be terrible for the environment -- and it won't save the Everglades or coastal Louisiana. It will preserve America's dysfunctional approach to water resources, the same approach that endangered the Everglades and coastal Louisiana in the first place.
The enviros who bashed Bush for blocking it will now return to their usual bashing of the Army Corps, but they just blew their best chance to reform this destructive and counterproductive agency -- which just happens to oversee the restoration of the Everglades and the protection of coastal Louisiana.
To understand why this bill is so disastrous, it helps to recall the Army Corps scandals of 2000, when a slew of independent investigations -- by the Pentagon inspector general, the Government Accountability Office, the National Academies of Sciences, and me -- exposed how the agency was skewing its economic and environmental analyses to justify wetlands-killing boondoggles that kept its employees busy and its congressional patrons happy.
Corps leaders had launched a secret "Program Growth Initative" designed to boost their budget, ordering underlings to "get creative" with studies in order to greenlight projects. The most notorious was a $1 billion lock project on the Mississippi River; the Corps brass reassigned an honest economist who had concluded it made no sense, and sent a blizzard of emails ordering his replacements to concoct a rationale for it.
Traditionally, Congress has passed a WRDA bill every two years, larded with "earmarks" for Corps flood-control and navigation and beach-replenishment projects. These waterworks are a form of political swag on Capitol Hill; lawmakers use them to steer jobs and cash to their constituents and contributors, and to demonstrate their clout. But after the last WRDA bill passed in 2000, a small group of fiscal conservatives and liberal environmentalists led by Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.) came up with a new strategy for fixing the Corps: No more pork without reform. President Reagan used the same reform strategy in the 1980s, blocking WRDA for six years until pork-starved legislators reluctantly agreed to increase the local cost-share for Corps projects. The hope was that communities would lose their enthusiasm for boondoggles if they had to foot more of the bill.
After 2000, the tiny "Corps Reform Caucus" demanded two modest but significant fixes before any new WRDA bill could pass. The first would require independent technical reviews of all major projects, to prevent the Corps from cooking its books. The second would require the "prioritization" of Corps projects, so that America's water resources could be developed or preserved according to a comprehensive national strategy instead of an annual scramble for appropriations. The desperate need for prioritization became especially clear after Hurricane Katrina; as I've written in Grist, the Corps had spent more money in Louisiana than any other state, but had wasted most of it on white-elephant navigation projects requested by the state's congressional delegation instead of shoring up the flimsy floodwalls and vanishing wetlands that were supposed to protect New Orleans.
The reformers held tough for seven years, as pent-up demand for Corps earmarks grew. But this year the dam burst. The House passed a $14 billion bill with minimal reform; the Senate passed a $15 billion bill with minimal reform; Congress somehow compromised on a $23 billion bill with virtually no reform. When Bush objected to the price tag, right-wing Republicans like Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) joined forces with left-wing Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to denounce him.
And green groups eager to authorize restoration work on the Everglades and Louisiana's coastal wetlands echoed the opposition of dredging contractors, shipping interests, beachfront developers, and farm groups eager for more traditional Corps projects. They helped provide the political cover for the overwhelming override of Bush's veto. "If there is a cause that merits a historic vote such as this, it's fitting that the cause be to restore some of our most special places before they are lost forever," crowed April Gromnicki, Audubon's director of ecosystem restoration.
It's hard to see how this vote helps that cause, even if it gives Audubon something to brag about to clueless donors. The Corps already has a $58 billion backlog of unfinished projects. It needs 900 additional projects like Dom DeLuise needs a butt enhancement.
And the greens are deluded if they think their restoration projects will take precedence over the usual dredge-and-drain work favored by Congress and the Corps. There are already billions of dollars worth of authorized restoration projects for the Everglades and coastal Louisiana; Congress just hasn't been funding them. Why should these be any different? Congress is much more likely to fund the new bill's $900 million levee project for Louisiana, which would destroy thousands of additional acres of marshes and cypress swamps that might otherwise help deflect and deflate the next Gulf hurricane. The bill even authorizes the billion-dollar Mississippi River lock boondoggle that embarrassed the Corps in 2000 -- except that the price tag has now skyrocketed to $2.3 billion.
Enviros have been justifiably outraged by Corps mismanagement of both the Everglades and coastal Louisiana restoration projects; neither has produced any significant ecological results. It certainly would be nice to have a greener agency in charge of reversing damage that was largely inflicted by the Corps in the first place. But that's not going to happen as long as members of Congress see the Corps as their personal plaything. The best hope for America's degraded ecosystems is a better Corps. Until then, you'll keep seeing ludicrous stories like this. And this. And this.
But it's hard to imagine when there's going to be a better opportunity to improve the Corps than the one the environmental movement just missed. There's an eco-friendly Democratic Congress and a Corps-unfriendly Republican president. There's been a national backlash against earmarks, when the Corps is almost entirely funded by earmarks. The Corps and its congressional enablers recently drowned a city through bungled engineering, environmental ignorance, and misplaced priorities. And after enduring seven years without ribbon-cuttings, salivating lawmakers would have been willing to swallow almost anything that came attached to a new platter of pork.
Now that Congress has its pork, it's got no incentive to reform the butcher. It's sad that enviros helped make that happen, just because some of the bacon bits were for them.
Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) [UPDATED]
Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)
Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 3:35 am
09 Nov 2007
So, is the answer to make environmentalists out of their constituents? Maybe so, but we would need a new label to give them because the word environmentalist carries such a negative connotation for so many.
Oh well. Blogs like this one appear to making an impact so, never give up.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
msk Posted 3:42 am
09 Nov 2007
Maybe they did something on the actual substance of the bill at some other point that I missed, but the real issue is that it isn't really important whether Congress managed to override the veto; it's what they are pushing through that's important. Thanks for this post.
Permalink
justlou Posted 3:51 am
09 Nov 2007
I do wonder about the need for the upgrade to the lock and dam system on the Mississippi. Why? Ethanol production is now consuming more corn than is exported. More is slated for ramped up ethanol production. So, will this be reducing the traffic on the rivers? If so, then what is the urgency?
Thank you Mr. Grunwald for this excellent critique and for reminding us of the poor progress being made in restoring the Everglades.
Permalink
KenG Posted 3:57 am
09 Nov 2007
Permalink
LeeHSkinner Posted 4:01 am
09 Nov 2007
Lee
Permalink
ssroed Posted 4:40 am
09 Nov 2007
New law will funnel cash for Northland water projects
John Myers Duluth News Tribune
Published Friday, November 09, 2007
Northeastern Minnesota will see millions of dollars in federal transportation and other projects dealing with water treatment, the environment, Great Lakes shipping and drinking water after the U.S. Senate voted Thursday to override a veto by President Bush.
The Senate, acting on the heels of an overwhelming House vote this week, voted 79-14 to override Bush's veto of the $23 billion Water Resources Development Act. Thirty-four Republicans broke ranks with the president and helped make the bill a law.
It's the first veto override for Bush and only the 106th in U.S. history.
RELATED CONTENT
John Myers Archive
Bush said he vetoed the bill last week because it was too expensive. But supporters said money for environmental, public works and clean water projects was long overdue. The bill had been stalled in Congress for more than six years.
The bill includes about$82 million for Minnesota projects, and more money for projects that will affect the Northland, including:
$341 million for a new lock on the St. Lawrence Seaway at Sault Ste. Marie,Mich., as a backup for the Poe Lock, the only lock able to handle 1,000-foot freighters. The extra lock is considered critical to the viability of the Twin Ports harbor.
100 million for Great Lakes fisheries and ecosystem restoration, including authority to restore fisheries and Great Lakes beneficial uses, as well as for diverse habitat projects, including coastal wetlands and controlling invasive species.
$14 million to build a sewage overflow tank in Duluth. The Duluth tank would be built near the Lake Superior waterfront on the eastern edge of downtown to hold overflows during heavy rain so they don't leave the sewer system and spill into the lake. Several similar tanks and basins have been built and have helped reduce polluted runoff.
$9 million for improvement projects for the Duluth-Superior harbor, including navigational improvements, ecosystem restoration and studies to determine causes of unusually rapid corrosion along the port and to figure the cost to rebuild rust-damaged structures.
$1 million for additional improvements to the new McQuade Road safe harbor and recreational boat ramp on Lake Superior near Duluth.
r $5 million to reconstruct and upgrade the existing wastewater treatment facility in Grand Rapids aimed at expanding capacity for the proposed expansion of the Blandin paper mill.
r $5 million for a new dredge disposal facility in Two Harbors.
r $12 million for a joint wastewater treatment plant for Kinney, Buhl and Chisholm.
r The bill also includes authorization for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct harbor safety and navigation improvements at Silver Bay and Taconite Harbor, including shifting dredging responsibilities to the federal government.
r The bill also orders several federal agencies to conduct an emergency effort to stop the spread of a deadly fish disease, called VHS, that has moved into the Great Lakes. And it includes money for barriers to keep invasive Asian carp out of Lake Michigan at Chicago and out of the upper Mississippi River near the Iowa-Minnesota border.
r The bill also orders the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin dredging many Great Lakes harbors and channels that had been waiting for the work because of money shortages. Many harbors need additional dredging to make up for lower water levels, which have caused some boats to leave ports with less-than-full loads.
Kurt Soderberg, executive director of the Western lake Superior Sanitary District, praised U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn. chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for putting a high priority on projects that protect clean water, such as the Duluth sewage overflow tank. He said the cost of keeping the lake clean should be a local-state-federal partnership and not fall completely on local residents.
"It is very gratifying to see that the new leaders in Congress like Congressman Oberstar are prepared to assist local communities in helping to pay for some portion of the cost for these important water projects,'' Soderberg said. "The federal government needs to remain a partner in keeping overflows from the lake, especially when local rate payers have already paid for so much from their own pockets.
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn, usually an ally of the president, said many of the projects were critical for Minnesota communities.
"Passage of the Water Resources Development Act was a must-do for the future of Minnesota's infrastructure, and I am glad that an overwhelming majority of my colleagues joined me to override the president's veto of this critical legislation," Coleman said in a statement. "While I appreciate the president's call for fiscal responsibility, short-changing our infrastructure is penny-wise and pound-foolish. ... This bill will mean a stronger economy, a cleaner environment and a better quality of life for Minnesotans."
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., agreed.
"The overwhelming, bipartisan nature of this override speaks volumes about the critical nature of these projects and that the president's veto is just plain wrong,'' Klobuchar said in a statement.
The House voted 361-54 to override the veto Tuesday. Both overrides easily exceeded the two-thirds majority needed in each chamber to negate a presidential veto. The bill, the first water system restoration and flood control authorization passed by Congress since 2000, would cost $11.2 billion over the next four years, and $12 billion in the 10 years after that, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Flood protection projects along the Gulf Coast, including 100-year levee protection in New Orleans, are included and would cost about $7 billion if fully funded.
The bill approves the projects although each must still be included in agency appropriations bills.
Permalink
Congressman Earl Blumenauer Posted 6:45 am
09 Nov 2007
It's not the bill I would have written, but this bill does represent progress. Although not as independent as some would like, there is a provision requiring independent peer review of large and expensive projects. Also, as American Rivers, one of the leading groups advocating corps reform, writes, "The bill will also establish a new policy that gives a stronger emphasis on protecting the environment and the natural systems that provide crucial natural flood protection to communities."
But most important to me, the bill included an amendment I offered successfully on the House Floor requiring the corps to update its principles and guidelines (P&G) used in the formulation, evaluation, and implementation of water resources projects. Last updated in 1983, the P&G have been called "woefully out-of-date" by the National Academy of Sciences because they don't reflect changes in the law or our understanding of water policy and the environment over the past 25 years.
In terms of Bush's veto, he didn't get it right either. His veto message didn't talk about reform, it talked about federal spending. Bush has been missing in action when it comes to corps reform efforts in Congress.
Neither Bush nor the champions of this WRDA bill have a vision for water resources policy. While it's important to fight to get rid of bad projects, which I will continue to do, the best way to do this is to fix the underlying framework. As Mr. Grunwald knows, it's not about the number of projects, it's about which projects and why. During consideration of the 2005 version of WRDA, I offered an amendment that would have made sure that the most expensive project in the bill, the expansion of locks and dams on the Upper Mississippi River, would only move forward if economically justified. Unfortunately, this amendment lost overwhelmingly. I've discovered that going after individual projects is virtually impossible. But if we are able to fix the framework, which WRDA 2007 does by requiring independent review and an update of the principles and guidelines, we will end up with better projects in general.
Supporting WRDA was a difficult decision for me to make. But in the end, I voted for progress in this bill because it prepares for a new framework and vision for future water resources bills.
I will work with any administration that has a new vision for water resources policy, and I would have welcomed a policy-based veto of this legislation. Maybe we can get one for the farm bill... that one we might be able to uphold.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 6:58 am
09 Nov 2007
The Everglades is being trashed by the sugar producers who have secured another billion dollars in subsidies through successful lobbying efforts and who routinely violate environmental statutes.
Until we get serious about taking on special interests the environmental and the public interest will suffer.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
JR Posted 7:28 am
09 Nov 2007
This WRDA is a setback, but right back at it. Mark wasn't finished yet.
Permalink
Steve Erickson Posted 12:30 pm
09 Nov 2007
SWS Public Policy Alert
One mission of SWS is to actively promote the inclusion of sound science in wetland policy and stewardship. To this end, I wish to bring to your attention a proposed Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) project that will drain approximately 26,300 acres of forested wetlands and farmed hydric soils, and could impact 200,000 acres of wetlands. The purpose of the project is to increase agriculture on lands that routinely flood (80% of projected benefits) and protect roads and other structures (20% of projected benefits). The project includes a reforestation component.
The ACOE will release its final Environmental Impact Statement recommending construction of the Yazoo Pumps around November 9. Within 25 days of release, the Department of the Interior must decide whether to refer the project to the Council on Environmental Quality. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency may initiate a process to veto the project outright under the Clean Water Act.
Critical deadlines for commenting on the project are approaching, the earliest of which falls on November 19th. The following resources are available to you for learning more about this proposal, and communicating your opinion to the Department of Interior, EPA and the ACOE.
You can join a letter from wetland scientists who oppose the project. This must be done by November 19th. http://www.americanrivers.org/yazoo
You can read the EPA's perspective on the project. http://www.americanrivers.org/yazoo
You can download the ACOE feasibility report and read the ACOE perspective on the project. The ACOE will accept public comments for at least 30 days after releasing its final report, which is imminent. http://www.mvk.usace.army.mil/offices/pp/projects/ybr/ind ...
Sincerely yours,
J. Patrick Megonigal, Ph.D.
SWS President
Steve E.
Permalink
mat Posted 12:51 am
12 Nov 2007
good to hear from Congress-people in these posts.
i wish more members of our government blogged on reputable sites, i'd LOVE to know what my members of Congress and Senate would say in free exchanges.(i wonder how many read Grist? Grist should do a poll).
thank you for your post Congressman Blumenauer.
Permalink