When Boehner crows it is time to check on the chicks
I am not a scholar on public policy or even
transportation. However I have learned
to watch the sleight of hand that occurs
in DC. When our policy makers pass legislation but only
crow about there being no ear marks, I hear warning bells.
As of this writing I have not
fully read the bill but a few key things about it demand questioning. I
pulled from http://www.agri-pulse.com/Lawmakers-release-final-WRRDA-conference-report-to-upgrade-ports-waterways-05152014.asp
the following questions and quotes.
As I read on the website, I
was immediately drawn to this statement:
“Several agricultural groups and the Waterways Council
expressed support for the conference report - even though many were still
digging through the details.” – www.agri-pulse.com
It seems I am not alone in fully reviewing the legislation
that passed in the house. As of May 15th
20014 neither had several agricultural groups and the Waterways Council.
I skimmed down to the key
points of the legislation. There were
some that raised immediate red flags.
Key points taken from
www.agri-pulse.com:
·
Streamlines
environmental reviews and improves coordination
o
Shall
we expect reduced safety and environmental requirements?
·
Reduces
the inventory of properties that are not needed for the missions of the Army
Corps of Engineers.
o
What
happens to this inventory? Is it
auctioned off to private entities? Will
these entities be non-American?
·
Maximizes
the ability of non-federal interests to contribute their own funds to move
studies and projects forward
o
Red
flag. Red flag. Is this line an invite
for private entities to pay for studies to support projects?
·
Expands
the ability of non-federal interests to contribute funds to expedite the
evaluation and processing of permits
o
Again,
red flag. This line seems to allow for
the payment of approval of projects by
private entities.
·
Establishes
a Water Infrastructure Public-Private Partnership Program and new options to
expand the local role in project implementation
o
Again,
red flag. This line seems to say let’s
get the public to pay for private use infrastructure.
·
Consolidates
or eliminates duplicative or unnecessary studies and requires concurrent reviews
o
Line
is confusing. It seems on the surface to
reduce the requirement for studies prior to the start of a project. It seems to allow for projects to be pushed
through without proper studies
I don’t claim to be a scholar. I am one who questions why and what in our
public policy. We should all ask and we
should engage our elected officials about legislation. I have not fully reviewed the
legislation. It is my hope those who
focus on such things step-up to ask questions as well. At a time when drought it becoming a fact of
life in America, we must question policy regarding water.
As usual, please read the links.
Comments
Post a Comment