Intracoastal and Other Waterways Act (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 25, 2024, 02:51:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Intracoastal and Other Waterways Act (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Intracoastal and Other Waterways Act  (Read 3485 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« on: December 01, 2004, 06:16:56 PM »

I like your sense of federalism, but the Corps of Engineers has had responsibility for the navigable waters of the US since before the Civil War, and rightly so.  These waterways cross not just State boundaries, but Regional ones as well.  Except for the Pacific Region, every region shares a navigable waterway with a neighboring Region. (The Pacific has waterways, they just don't reach across the Rockies to connect with those of the other Regions.)  If the Corps didn't have juridiction then we would need to form multi-Region compacts to handle them.  Especially since for the inland waterways, things done upstream affect what happens downstream.  The Corps generally does a good job, within the limits of their funding.  Could it be decentralized?  Yes, but it would complicate the administration of the waterways, altho not as badly as if it were handed to the States instead of the Regions.  There are no great policy disputes to be found here, so I don't see any pressing need to decentralize this.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« Reply #1 on: December 01, 2004, 08:33:02 PM »

The bill doesn't call for constructing new waterways, Harry, only maintaining the existing ones properly, so I fail to see where the potential for enviromental damage would come from here.  If anything, proper maintenece should reduce the potential of an barge accident that might cause a problem.  Now if I wanted to be an enviromental Nazi, I'd propose reversing the 1970 decision to not build the Cross Florida Barge Canal (now known as the Cross Florida Greenwaym as that's what the purchased ROW became).  Southern Louisiana does have its problems thanks to the Corps, but those are because the flood control levees are keeping new silt from being deposited in the wetlands.  It doesn't require levees to keep the waterways navigable.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2004, 05:34:18 PM »

By the way, is all this money really needed?

Actually, they could use even more, as they have quite a backlog of deferred maintence, but I doubt if they could actually use more than the 20% increase in the O&M budget this bill proposes as there is a limit to the amount of available equipment and personnel.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,156
United States


« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2004, 04:20:25 PM »
« Edited: December 11, 2004, 04:25:37 PM by SE Gov. Ernest »

Abstain.  This doesn't affect my district at all.

Actually there are some inland waterways in the Columbia River basin that are under the jurisdiction of the Corps that could receive extra funding out of the unearmarked portions.  In addition there are the waterways on the Missourri and Mississippi River systems that serve Nebraska, Kansas, and the states of Iowa and Missourri that are being added to District 4 as of the current election.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 12 queries.