Talk Elections

Fully Funded Intracoastal and Other Waterways Act

§1. Findings
The Atlasian Senate finds that -
   (1) waterborne barge traffic is the most economical and least pollutiing method of moving bulk cargo,
   (2) such traffic is dependent upon the prompt and proper maintence of the navigable waters of Atlasia,
   (3) the intracoastal waterways have not been maintained to the depths and other standards mandated by statute,
   (4) said lack of maintenence has impeded the safety and efficency of waterborne barge traffic, and
   (5) said lack of maintenence has been due to lack of funding rather than negligence on the part of the Army Corps of Engineers.[/b]

§2. Appropriations
The portion of the annual budget for the Army Corps of Engineers labeled “Operations and Maintence” shall be increased by $385,000,000, with at least one quarter of that increase to be devoted to restoring the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway to standard, and an additional one quarter to be devoted to restoring the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to standard.[/b]


This bill was presented to my by our fine governer Ernest and I proudly endorse this bill.

I'd like to see this become law also.

I think that this bill is needed. The state of the Intercoastal Waterway is horrible. Many channels have had to be closed and this has been an impediment to shipping traffic. Most goods have to, at one time or another, be shipped by cargo ship and an improvement to the Intercoastal Waterway would help facilitate speedier cargo shipment by the sea and create better economic oportunities for port towns along the coast.

Can't we decentralize part of it to the states?

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.

I like the sound of this bill, but I do have one concern:  are the Intracostal Waterways themselves bad for the environment?  especially in wetlands area, say Southern Louisiana....  How can we gauarantee that we won't damage wetlands and other areas that are possibly harmed.  If someone can show how the fragile  environment of these areas will be harmed, I will whoteheartedly support this bill.

I assume thats a mis-statement, otherwise I'm going to denounce you as an environmental Nazi.

LOL.  I'm pretty sure it was a mis-statement.

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.

LOL

As a citizen, I'm somewhat concerned of the costs. $385 million is a drop in the bucket to the federal government, but even so I would like that money used efficiently, and if possible not have all of it used so that it can be recycled back into the government for other purposes.

As long as the money is spent well, I will have no complaints about this bill.

Hehe...it was a misstatement indeed :).
But Ernest did calm some of my concerns.

Sounds good.

Siege

Ok then, just merely asking, I thought it could be more eficient. :)
I'm not familiarized with the waterway system.
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.

I like this idea, it is a good way to develop and improve the infrastructure of Atlasia which is something we need to do.

I support this bill and hereby open the debate on it.

Although it's a good bill it places priorities on waterways in the south.
the great lakes need work too.

Agreed.

Siege

Debate ends today. Will the presiding officer put this to a vote?

I hereby open the voting on this bill.

Please vote Yea, Nay or abstain.

Yea.

Yea.

Siege

Abstain.

Yea.

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

argh, you should vote with Atlasia AND your district in mind, not just your district.

Yea

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.

Yea.

Yea

I didn't even know what the Intracoastal waterway was before reading this bill and I still don't know anything about it.  I would rather not vote on something when I know very little about the subject that it addresses.

Yea.

I hereby close the vote at seven votes in favour with none against and two abstentions.

I present the bill to the President for his signature.

I sign this bill into law:

President PBrunsel