The Water Bill

I agree with Michael Grunwald's points about the water bill which led Congress to override Bush's veto for the first time. Many environmentalists are happy because it provides some money to the Everglades and Louisiana coast. Those are small victories and important in the effort to save those places. However, one can legitimately question the value of dumping huge amounts of money into these places given their almost certain inundation because of rising ocean levels.

But as Grunwald correctly states, "It will preserve America's dysfunctional approach to water resources, the same approach that endangered the Everglades and coastal Louisiana in the first place." The bill leaves agencies like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in charge of water, agencies that have done virtually nothing right in the last 100 years. They have dammed every river they could, sending water across the nation to feed irresponsible growth, and have created immense environmental harm. Funding for these projects has almost nothing to do with what the nation and a whole lot to do with congresspeople bringing projects home to their districts.

Higher principles than earmarks should control our water policy, particularly as we face so many water crises. But with neither political party willing to give up these projects and with interest groups from the Sierra Club to developers getting something in this bill, we can be pretty sure that no reform will come soon.