Deficit concerns could sink boat traffic on Southeastern waterway

By

Posted 8:59AM on Monday, February 18, 2002

WASHINGTON - A river dispute that for years has divided lawmakers of the same state appears headed for another dogfight in Congress, and money -- or a lack thereof -- could be a critical factor this time. Those who want to end barge traffic on three Southeastern rivers have always said the issue is about unused channels and unwanted sand. From a funding perspective, even they admit the $13 million or so annually it takes to keep the boats afloat would hardly make or break the federal budget. Yet this year, when President Bush has proposed a return to deficit spending as a way to finance a war, the administration is hunting to eliminate any examples of wasted money. It shocked nobody when Bush again targeted dredging on the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint rivers. In his budget for the next budget year, Bush proposed slashing funds for the rivers in Alabama, Georgia and Florida to $1.4 million, down from $12.9 million this year. Locks and dams would be maintained, but there wouldn't be enough money to keep the channel deep enough for commercial barges and recreational boats. Bush proposed essentially the same thing last year, but Congress succeeded in boosting the amount. This time, however, opponents are more optimistic. "If you're a local congressman wanting to spend money on pork instead of fighting the war on terrorism, that might have political fallout," said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense. "We're not swimming in surpluses anymore, so people aren't just putting their hands in the cookie jar and saying, 'let's spend money on everything."' At the center of the controversy, at least for Alabama and Georgia, is a paradox. Opponents say the rivers are seldom used, but proponents contend they would be if the Army Corps of Engineers more consistently dredged excess sand from the bottom, deepening the channel. Rep. Bob Barr, a Republican who represents metro Atlanta, wants to end dredging funds altogether, but Rep. Sanford Bishop says businesses in his south Georgia district would suffer. Bishop is pledging another fight for the money. "Congress has already decided that it makes good economic sense to maintain navigation on this waterway," said Bishop, a Democrat. "I would hope the delegations from all three states would stay the course." Alabama's lawmakers seem to be on Bishop's side, but not Florida Sen. Bob Graham. For years, he has argued that dredged sand travels down the river and washes up on the river banks in Florida, polluting the Panhandle. One of the sand stacks is so tall, it has been labeled Sand Mountain. There was some money allocated last year for cleanup, but the Florida Democrat says the Corps needs to follow through on that task and end the dredging practice upstream. "I think it'll be another battle," Graham said. "Florida's position concerns the potential damage done to the fisheries and other natural life that depend on the Apalachicola. The federal government has a contractual and moral obligation to clean up the mess." And there's yet another wrinkle in the debate. The same waterway is the subject of a decade-long water sharing dispute among the three states. After years of talks, negotiators reached an agreement in principle last month, but some lawmakers -- especially in Alabama -- are concerned about what effect a change in dredging might have on the deal. "To me, it's bigger than just dredging at this point," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.