Funding cuts threaten replacement of nearly century-old dam

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Sunday, April 25, 2004 | Jim McKay

[Willie Green]

Elizabeth Dam improvements could be delayed 15 years or longer

When tow boat Capt. Steve Lumpkins moves coal through the century-old locks and dam on the Monongahela River at Elizabeth, he gingerly avoids weakened concrete walls and jutting metal rods that could gash and sink the 195-foot barges he pushes.

"There are big chunks out of the wall as we approach from the upper end and three spots that we avoid touching that could cause a crash. That metal could rip the whole side of a barge open,'' Lumpkins said from the Richard C., a tow boat he operates for Campbell Transportation, a major commercial river line.

The situation is likely worse under water. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a real concern that the locks and dam at Elizabeth, built on oak timbers driven through the river bottom and stone-filled wooden cribbing, are so badly deteriorated that they could fail and cripple commercial navigation and recreational boating.

[Willie Green]

Taken for granted by the general public, the condition of our inland waterway infrastructure is also largely ignored by our political leadership. Yet these "invisible" structures are absolutely vital for domestic commerce and safety. Congress should act immediately to assure that our system of river locks & dams are adequately funded and maintained.

[Willie Green]

dam ping

[farmfriend]

We all know that buying land for preservation is much more important.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!

[Paleo Conservative]

If it's so important why aren't the users willing to pay a fee to use the dam an locks? Why should the funding come from general revenues rather than user fees?

[F.J. Mitchell]

Removing all dams is the agenda of the super powerful, limitlessly funded lobbiests and agitators for the fish first freaks for free flowing rivers and damn the consequenses activists, not saving or rebuilding them.

[Willie Green]

If it's so important why aren't the users willing to pay a fee to use the dam an locks? Why should the funding come from general revenues rather than user fees?

It IS largely funded by user fees.
The scumbag congresscritters are misappropriating the money.

Barge system worse for wear
Barge owners press Congress to allocate funds for improvements

An excerpt from the 2nd link:

But over the past decade, even Congress has failed to fully uphold its end of a deal it made with barge owners in 1986. The agreement called for the owners to pay 20 cents per gallon of fuel into the Inland Waterways Trust Fund....
Congress has failed to appropriate all of the money, creating a $400 million surplus in the fund which makes it an attractive target for bureaucrats trying to find money for other uses. Trust funds for aviation, parks and transportation are often diverted to other purposes.

[Iscool]

If it's so important why aren't the users willing to pay a fee to use the dam an locks? Why should the funding come from general revenues rather than user fees?

The users would just pass along the new fees to the consumers anyway...We pay either way...

[Paleo Conservative]

The users would just pass along the new fees to the consumers anyway...We pay either way...

Different people pay. It is more efficient if the prices of goods reflect their cost. Also, if user fees funded it rather than general revenues, it would not be necessary to take revenues away from other programs. If investments in the river transportaion system were made in a more timely manner, it might be possible to operate the system more efficiently and thus save costs. replacing small older locks with larger ones would allow larger barges to use the river. Even better than having the Corps of Engineers charge user fees would be to outsource operations to private companies that could then make investments. The problem is basically a lack of a free market in river transportation services. The government under invests and under produces.