News Intelligence Analysis
EDITORIAL: Coastal Advocates Dismayed by Bush's Opposition
Date: 7/22/2005
Author: By LAURA McKNIGHT and KATINA A. GAUDET Staff Writers Houma Courier
Tell the president what you think
Gov. Kathleen Blanco released a copy of a letter to President
Bush on Wednesday in which she encourages him to visit Louisiana
to see the state's coastal-erosion problems firsthand.
In it, she touches on concerns that the deteriorating Louisiana
coast threatens critical oil-industry infrastructure, including
transportation routes and pipelines. Although budget constraints
are said to be the reason for the Bush administration's opposition,
Blanco said, "please consider the far greater costs of not
addressing the catastrophic coastal land loss occurring in Louisiana,
land loss that puts our nation's energy security and economic
future at risk. . I urge you to schedule the visit before the
Energy Bill is completed. I know that once you see what is unfolding,
firsthand, the urgency my state and our nation faces will be
clear."
Blanco also encouraged Louisiana residents to send correspondence
to the president. You can e-mail president@whitehouse.gov, call
(202) 456-1111 or write The President, The White House, 1600
Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, D.C., 20500.
"Repair the marshland or rebuild New Orleans."
That headline ran atop a column last week in Denver's Rocky Mountain News. It provided the newspaper's readers with information about how to get involved in the effort to save Louisiana's coast.
Louisiana's state and congressional leaders point to such work as proof that word is getting out that the coast is integral to national security and commerce and is especially important in protecting the area from Gulf storms.
Still, state leaders are uncertain whether they are reaching the one place they must: the White House.
"We've already jumped through these hoops," Sidney Coffee, executive assistant to Gov. Kathleen Blanco in the Office of Coastal Activities, said. "I think it's time for this administration and this Congress to recognize what we're up against here and that there is some federal responsibility that needs to be taken."
In the past week, the state has been dealt two blows to its near-term plan to address coastal land loss.
Last week, in response to the U.S. House's approval of the 2005 Water Resources Development Act, the Bush administration recommended that Louisiana pay half the cost of its $17 billion plan to rebuild the coast. [Emphasis added by Yurica Report]
The Louisiana Coastal Area study, as it's called, is in the House's WRDA legislation. Similar legislation has not yet been approved by the full Senate but has passed a Senate committee.
The administration cites the comprehensive Everglades restoration program and its 50 percent cost-share agreement, but Louisiana's leaders criticized the comparison.
On Monday, the administration again opposed a plan for revenue sharing with Louisiana and other coastal oil-and-gas-producing states. The opposition came in a letter from U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman to House and Senate members chosen to reconcile the two branches' versions of the federal energy bill.
"The administration recognizes that coastal Louisiana is an environmental resource of national significance and has worked closely with the state of Louisiana to produce a near-term coastal wetlands restoration plan to guide how the next phase of restoration projects in Louisiana will be identified, prioritized and sequenced," the policy statement says.
It says, however, that the House bill does not require a sufficient
cost-share by the state.
HALF AND HALF
"The cost-share paid by the general taxpayer for the Everglades
restoration effort is 50 percent, and this should likewise be
the maximum federal contribution for the Upper Mississippi River
and Illinois Waterway and coastal Louisiana restoration efforts,"
the statement says.
It would cost more than $10 billion to implement the House's WRDA bill, make changes to existing projects and programs and pay for the increased federal cost-share on certain projects, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
That would "create expectations for future appropriations that cannot be met given competing spending priorities within the overall need for spending restraint, including deficit reduction," the administration's policy statement says.
According to Louisiana's leaders, the near-term coastal-restoration
program, already scaled down from its more-comprehensive effort
at the administration's request, cannot afford to be further
trimmed.
'IT'S ABSURD'
"It's absurd," U.S. Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville,
said. "This is America's Wetland. We were happy to get the
WRDA bill passed, and that's good news, but from what I understand
of what the administration has said, this is not, and we'll continue
our effort to try to get the federal government to ante up and
take care of the coastline like it should."
U.S. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., also disagrees with the 50-50 cost share.
"The good news," Vitter added, "is that the House and Senate also disagree with it."
Louisiana's delegation has so far been successful in keeping the cost share at 65 percent federal and 35 percent state and local, he said.
"I remain very focused on these coastal provisions," he said.
So, too, does Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-New Orleans, spokesman Adam Sharp said.
In its report on the coastal plan to Congress in January, the corps states that the 65-35 cost share is "consistent with existing law and corps policy" and is recommended by corps officers.
Like state officials, Sharp said the Everglades cost share is the exception to the corps' practice, not the rule. If the 65-35 split were the exception, Louisiana would deserve it, he said.
"The president's sharp assertion is completely overlooking the fact that Louisiana's coastal area is a working wetlands," Sharp said. "The national impact of Louisiana's coastal wetlands is significant. Continuing erosion would hurt the national economy and national security."
Coffee agreed, saying that it would be "extremely difficult" for the state to pay half the cost.
'APPLES TO ORANGES'
"I hate to even compare our situation and the Everglades.
It's like comparing apples to oranges. The Everglades doesn't
produce to the nation what our coast does by any stretch of the
imagination, and the purpose of Everglades restoration is entirely
different than ours," Coffee said.
This week, in response to Bodman's letter opposing the plan, Blanco called upon state residents to speak up, calling the Bush administration's opposition "incomprehensible."
"That this administration could actively oppose compensating the states that continue to produce so much of the nation's energy is not just short-sighted, it's irresponsible," said Blanco in a statement released this week. "I urge every citizen of Louisiana to write or call President Bush and tell him about the importance to the nation of our state's coast."
Blanco extended a formal invitation to the president and Bodman to visit coastal Louisiana and see "the critical infrastructure being put at greater and greater risk as these wetlands continue to vanish."
U.S. Rep. Bobby Jindal, R-La., on Tuesday sent a similar offer to congressional negotiators working on the compromise energy bill, which also contains money for Louisiana's coastal efforts.
COME FLY WITH ME
"I invite you all to fly over the effected areas with me
in order to see the submerged foundations of houses that used
to be on solid ground, the water lapping at roads that used to
be protected, and the graves that now rest under water,"
Jindal wrote.
The Senate portion of the bill would force the government to annually distribute $250 million from 2007 to 2010 among Louisiana and five other coastal energy-producing states. The money would come from federal taxes on oil produced in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico off Louisiana's coast. Louisiana would receive the biggest portion.
The House version calls for Louisiana to receive $300 million over the next five years, rising to $1 billion a year in revenues starting in 2016.
The conference committee will decide which version gets used in the Energy Bill, though Jindal said members have the latitude to decide on any amount they see fit. The committee hopes to give Bush a bill by the end of next week.
-30-
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this article
Directory of a Disaster