Posted on 06/15/2004 11:28:04 AM PDT by Willie Green
About 12.5 million tons of cargo move through three antiquated locks and dams on the lower Monongahela River each year, but lack of money to rebuild the dams threatens to halt those shipments.
The reconstruction project, already 10 years in the making, will last 15 more years if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cannot devote $60 million to it annually. If anything happens to shut down river traffic, every household in the region would see higher utility and gasoline costs. Thousands of jobs directly and indirectly tied to river transportation could be jeopardized.
"We think we're living on borrowed time," said James R. McCarville, president of the Port of Pittsburgh Commission, a state agency that promotes commercial river use.
For that reason, a U.S. House subcommittee today will recommend increasing the Army Corps' proposed budget by $703 million, to $4.82 billion for fiscal 2005. That could place the project back on schedule this fall, said Barry Palmer, president of the Waterways Council Inc., a lobbying group based in Washington, D.C. It would be the largest Army Corps budget in five years, he said.
"This president has made it clear what his priorities are -- homeland security, the war in Iraq, education. The Corps of Engineers is down at the bottom of the barrel," Palmer said. "We're hopeful that the inland navigation modernization program is lifted up."
The $4.12 billion budget for the corps proposed by the Bush administration cuts money for the lower Mon project to $31 million next fiscal year, just half the amount needed each year to complete the work over the next decade, Palmer said.
(Excerpt) Read more at pittsburghlive.com ...
Barge system worse for wear
Barge owners press Congress to allocate funds for improvements
More than $400 million has built up in the Inland Trust Fund, which is funded by a 20-cent tax on every gallon of fuel purchased by the river shipping industry.
Congress is obligated to match money in the fund, which is earmarked for lock upgrades and repairs. To date, however, the federal government has been reluctant to release money from the fund, instead opting to use it to offset deficits in the federal budget.
The Bush Administration apparently approves of this scandalous misappropriation of funds. In doing so, it jeopardizes the safety and security of our inland waterway transportation infrastructure, along with the associated benefits of flood control and recreation.
The blind hatred that globalist "Import Uber Alles" neocons have for America's productive industries is truly appalling.
User fees? It works for the Panam Canal.
Sounds like Pittsburgh needs more dam money.
Redraw the state lines and annex Pittsburgh to West Virginia and Robert Byrd will pave the entire river system and name it after himself to boot.
Find me a single "excise" or "sin" tax that this doesn't happen.
The river shipping industry already pays "user fees" in the form of a 20¢ tax on every gallon of fuel they purchase.
Congress refuses to authorize appropriation of the surplus funds that have accrued from that source.
The thieves are spending the money elsewhere.
Anywhere else except for the reason it was collected.
The Robert C. Byrd Highway; the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam; the Robert C. Byrd Institute; the Robert C. Byrd Life Long Learning Center; the Robert C. Byrd Honors Scholarship Program; the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope; the Robert C. Byrd Institute for Advanced Flexible Manufacturing; the Robert C. Byrd Federal Courthouse; the Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center; the Robert C. Byrd Academic and Technology Center; the Robert C. Byrd United Technical Center; the Robert C. Byrd Federal Building; the Robert C. Byrd Drive; the Robert C. Byrd Hilltop Office Complex; the Robert C. Byrd Library; the Robert C. Byrd Learning Resource Center; the Robert C. Byrd Rural Health Center; Robert C. Byrd High School; and the Robert C. Byrd Intermodal Transportation Center (a parking garage).
Hey, does that mean that the Robert C. Byrd Locks and Dam (#2 on the long list) is falling apart even with all the pork flowing into WV?
Perhaps, if private ownership was strictly limited to an umbrella corporation comprised of those businesses with a vested interest in river transport. Similarly, ownership by conflicting interests in other modes of transport (rail, trucks) would have to be expressly prohibited. And still, some degree of government subsidy would be necessary to assure adequate flood control provisions are also included in the operation of these structures. Those don't always coincide with the navigation needs of the shipping industry.
That's what's wrong with Federally funded projects; the money gets misallocated because there is no accountability for success. This system should be privatized so that the wealth it produces can't be raided.
Privatization of the locks and dams on our nation's inland waterways is problematic.
I can understand where there may be private sector efficiencies if ownership was restricted to those with a long-term vested interest in sustaining river transport infrastructure. But I'd be less favorable towards private ownership by those with conflicting interests in competing modes of transportation: rail, trucks & highways. Furthermore, there are other functional benefits that these structures provide, including flood control and recreational boating. The market incentives of river cargo transportation do not always coincide with these other purposes.
Given the price one might have to pay for a waterway contract, it is highly unlikely that someone would make an investment of that magnitude to shut down the locks when making money on them is the other option. Water transportation is so much more efficient than trucking or rail that to try what you suggest would be foolish unless those other modes were heavily subsidized.
Furthermore, there are other functional benefits that these structures provide, including flood control and recreational boating.
Both are marketable products as long as insurance works the way it should. Of course, that would mean that we might have to deregulate insurance too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.