I've been hearing a lot concerning the Army Corps of Engineers and budget cuts that the administration has forced upon them.
Yesterday I heard Former Congressman Livingston of Louisiana complain that environmentalists have fought hard to keep all money out of the Corps hands, so I went looking.
Yesterday the NYTimes economic (though unqualified) writer Paul Krugman asked:
"Second question: Why wasn't more preventive action taken? After 2003 the Army Corps of Engineers sharply slowed its flood-control work, including work on sinking levees. "The corps," an Editor and Publisher article says, citing a series of articles in The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, "never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security - coming at the same time as federal tax cuts - was the reason for the strain."
However, The NYTimes has been against the Army Corps of Engineers in the past as demonstrated here on July 14, 1993
| Mother Nature and Ol' Man River The billions of Federal dollars spent to construct dams and levees have doubtless prevented billions of dollars of damage to the areas they serve. But a dam or a levee in one place creates problems somewhere else. Also, by offering protection, they encourage people to live and work and develop farming in flood plains that are inherently risky. Budget constraints and environmental concerns have slowed new flood control projects in recent years. Congress should resist pressure to spend more now because of this year's floods; these projects need closer evaluation than they've gotten in the past. |
Another editorial dated June 24, 2003 states:
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a rare opportunity tomorrow to strike a blow for both fiscal sanity and the environment. Before the committee is a bill that would bring a measure of discipline and independent oversight to the Army Corps of Engineers, an incorrigibly spendthrift agency whose projects over the years have caused enormous damage to the nation's streams, rivers and wetlands.
Published: April 13, 2005 Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects -- this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences. The bill would also weaken civilian control over the corps, a fiercely independent agency that operates in what amounts to a parallel universe in Washington, spending billions on public works projects ordered by members of Congress. The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork. |
So it appears that the New York Times whose editorial board was opposed to a bill that would funnel 17 billion dollars to the Corps of Engineers to beef up levees and such is today questioning why the administration listened to them.
Strange isn't it?
