Possible Policy Solutions for the WRD Act of 2013

There are some different opinions and resolutions overlooking the Water Resources Development Act of 2013 as the Senate decided to pass the bill recently.  There was some swaying between decisions when the bill first entered the Senate, but a surprising and overwhelming lopsided pole showed how desirable this act may be for our nation's livelihood.  Some policy solutions were discussed inside and outside of the hearings by several stakeholders.  The main opinion, held by the federal government, had complex views of course considering the two parties involved and the different objectives set in order.  An equilibrium was maintained however as both parties agree that this bill provides plenty of economic support as well as necessary maintenance.  The split Senate has more momentum in favor of the bill and to fund the program.  They will tackle on about sixty five percent of the finances that will be contributed into the operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement costs for flood gates, pumping stations, and infrastructure going towards storm repair in coastal and inland waterways (http://www.taxpayer.net).  Policy standards remain the same for them as they are waiting on the House's vote on passing the bill on.  Enactment is still considerably low, but the overwhelming 83-14 majority vote in the Senate is picking up federal support as other stakeholders are applauding their progress (http://www.joc.com/) .  The policy solution is as presented on the bill.  The feds will do all they can as long as all officials of the federal government comes on agreement to pass the bill along. 

One major stakeholder, The US Corps of Engineers, is a group that would be known as the laborers for this proposed bill.  Under the federal level, the Corps receives work from state and local governments as well, depending on the location and demand for work on the waterways.  Some projects of theirs are aimed at making ports more accessible, as well as completing the Panama Canal widening in 2015.  They would ensure that the user fee financed, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, would be directed to harbor improvements, and they will set up programs for levee safety and inland waterway projects, completing all unfinished work (http://www.joc.com/).  They would not be mending any of their own policy solutions other than what is organized for them.  No inside vote would deter a difference in opinion.  The Waterways Council Inc. is another major stakeholder, a part of the interest groups that declares they will take on a proportional load of responsibility in restoring some of the waterways.  These interest groups utilize the criteria of utilizing any job opportunity as well as promoting the idea of the bill.  The Waterways Council Inc. only suggests that provisions of a RIVER Act which is modernizing inland waterways infrastructure, should be installed.  The WRD bill would only benefit both acts financially, making the Waterways Council Inc. excited for the navigation projects and revamping project delivery processes (http://www.joc.com/).  If this industry could kill two birds with one stone, they would take advantage of that opportunity, and not only abide by most policy standards made by the bill, but advocate it.  These two groups are highlighted as highly influential groups below the governments' supports.  Their say sways to approval, and no other mechanisms are practiced in objection.  The other smaller stakeholders, like businesses that transport products through waterways, and individuals with investments along harbors and bays, have the power to only weigh interest.  Though power in interest can possibly sway popular vote in some assemblies, the House of the federal government is the controller of the bill.  Their criteria will mostly contain budgets within the federal, state, and local governments which is understood at this point.  It is conclusive to say that every stakeholder, in exception of the rest of the federal government, wants a cooperative responsibility, has the right mentality, and current or future financial stability to desire these endeavors the Water Resources Development Act of 2013 proposes.

http://www.joc.com/regulation-policy/transportation-policy/us-transportation-policy/us-senate-passes-water-resources-development-act_20130515.html
http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/analysis-of-selected-sections-of-s.-601-water-resources-development-act-of
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s601/text
http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/ProjectPlanning.aspx
http://waterwayscouncil.org/key-issues/improve-system-reliability-through-infrastructure-maintenance/
http://www.aashtojournal.org/Pages/051713SenateWRDA.aspx