Is the Water Resources Development Act good for the Great Lakes?

Many environmentalists and Great Lakes legislators are celebrating the recent override of President Bush's veto of the $26 billion Water Resources Development Act. The tone of the report on the website All American Patriots is typical:

Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) today hailed the 79-14 Senate vote to override President Bush’s veto of the Water Resources Development Act, which includes numerous provisions for Michigan and the Great Lakes. The House voted to override the veto earlier this week, so the bill now becomes law.

“In overriding President Bush’s veto today, the Senate stood up for America’s waterways and water infrastructure,” said Levin. “The strong bipartisan vote shows that we’ll fight to protect the Great Lakes from invasive species, and we’ll fight to help make our waters safe and clean. We’ll fight to address the serious dredging backlog in our harbors and channels, which hurts many Michigan businesses that rely on these waterways every day. The Senate showed that we’ll protect our residents from sewer overflows and we’ll enhance the security of our dams to keep our communities safe.”

“I am so pleased that working together, we were able to override this President’s veto and pass this bipartisan legislation,” said Stabenow. “From protecting the Great Lakes from invasive species, to providing crucial maintenance for harbors across our state, this bill serves as a critical framework for protecting and maintaining the lakes, rivers, harbors and other waterways that are such a crucial part of Michigan’s identity and economy.”

The article continues with a rather long list of projects authorized by the bill that would benefit the Great Lakes. There are in fact many environmental projects on the list, including a long overdue upgrade to the Asian carp barrier on the Chicago river, sewer system upgrades, and aquatic ecosystem restoration.

But by far the majority of projects listed are of questionable value to the Great Lakes themselves. Is building a $341,714,000 lock in Sault Ste. Marie and spending millions more on harbor dredging really good for the Great Lakes? Certainly for the economy, but what about the ecology?

Environmental writer Michael Grunwald expressed a strong dissenting opinion on the value of the veto override. He has a special concern for the impact of the bill on the Everglades and Gulf Coast. But his insights have application to the Great Lakes as well. Here's his basic point:

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.

His central concern is that while this bill authorizes a lot of projects, it will take separate acts of Congress to appropriate the funds. And when it comes to appropriations, "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."

Lets hope the Congressional delegates from the Great Lakes prove him wrong.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Sponsored by:

      

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Comments

[direfloyd]

For Michigan I think this is a great victory. I personally think the polluting economy of the great lakes is declining all the time. We however, for the sake of the rust belt, should keep what we have of our economy as the environment improves (please exclude BP). For this reason I think building a new lock is a good thing. It will be nice to get some of the rec. harbors dredged also for no other reason than safety! I think I mentioned it before but due to weather I had to seek refuge at Pentwater this year, which was not my destination, where our sailboat barely clears the bottom on a calm day let alone one with 15-20 waves.

The Louisiana thing is completely different and I think as a whole is bad. The reason the hurricanes have so much effect down there now is that sediment doesn't pile up anymore from over control of the river... I am also against having a city below sea level also but that is another story... I predict things will only get worse down there with the continuation of trying to keep the river shipping lane as it is; mother nature may reclaim that city one day.

I agree with your point about the importance of harbor dredging. Recreational boating and other forms of tourism depend on healthy lakes too. I'm just a bit worried that congress will not get its priorities straight. What is more important for the future of the Great Lakes and which is the better investment, $9 million to prevent the onslaught of asian carp into the Great Lakes or $341 million for a duplicate lock at Sault Ste Marie?

[dave dempsey]

This is a valuable post. The Asian carp barrier in the bill, while important to the Great Lakes, could have been tucked into another piece of legislation. WRDA bills are almost entirely giant slabs of pork. This one is no exception.

[direfloyd]

I forgot about the carp barrier!!! Very important! I'm glad they finally passed it in some form. The lock should be a huge upgrade. Only one lock can handle the medium to large freighters. With another lock there can be one for downbound and upbound traffic, I've heard the congestion can be bad waiting for the lock freighter wise.