This morning I heard an awful lot about the "historic compromise" leading the first-ever veto override for Bush on NPR, but not one thing about what this bill actually involved. I got to hear James Inhofe crow about how if he and Barbara Boxer managed to agree, it must be a solid piece of legislation (I think his participation is reason enough to be wary, but that's another story). So in other words, instead of explaining something to the public about this bill which will actually affect us, NPR simply chooses to do a story about controversy or the lack thereof. I'm disappointed in them.

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.

When there is this kind of bipartisan support for any legislation I have to wonder about it.  So much for the Democrat's promise of reform.  Bastards!

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.  

You don't have to dig to deep to see the process here. A compromise between a $14 billion bill and a $15 billion bill turns out to be $23 billion. Pork barrel business as usual.

I would all be for spending billions to save the Everglades if it weren't for global warming.  But does it make much sense to do so if rising oceans will cover them by the end of the century?

Lee

Simply looking at the bill in terms of the Army Corps of Engineers, the Everglades or coastal Louisiana is not fair....here is another angle for this bill....these are solid projects that are much needed and meaningful. Maybe Time magazine might want to come up north to see what things are like here. This will will help Lake Superior and the great lakes in huge ways.

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.

This is an excellent analysis of the WRDA override vote and the state of "corps reform" in Congress.  As one of the original co-chairs of the tiny Corps Reform Caucus referenced, I want to offer an explanation of why I voted for WRDA.  

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.

Mr. Grunwald has provided a real service in pulling the curtain back on the passage of WRDA in congress. Reform of the corps and restoration of the environment have lost again. But, as Corps reformers throughout the country know, the real tragedy of the past few days was the passing of Mark Beorkrem----a truth-to-power example for us all throughout the more than decade long fight against the Upper Mississippi locks boondoggle.

This WRDA is a setback, but right back at it. Mark wasn't finished yet.

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.