Clean Water Advocacy - Newsroom - AMSA in the News
Domestic issues raise concerns on Iraq costs
9/29/2003 The Miami Herald
By SETH BORENSTEIN
sborenstein@krwashington.com
WASHINGTON
-
The Bush administration's proposal to spend more than $20 billion on
reconstruction for Iraq and Afghanistan while there are needs at home is
becoming a lightning-rod issue.
America's infrastructure -- water and sewer systems, power grids, roads, schools
and airports -- is in such poor shape that it needs an additional $1.6 trillion
in repairs over the next five years, according to a report this month from the
American Society of Civil Engineers.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency says local water and sewer
agencies need an extra $535 billion over the next 20 years to keep waterways
from growing more polluted.
But the Bush administration proposes to spend $3.7 billion in taxpayers' money
to rebuild Iraq's water and sewer systems, versus $1.8 billion on the EPA
programs that help upgrade U.S. water and sewer systems.
VOICING CONCERNS
''It is mind-boggling that the president can recognize the importance of water
infrastructure needs in Iraq, but is blind to our needs here at home,'' said
Sen. James Jeffords, a Vermont independent who's on the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee.
A top Republican has similar concerns.
''If we can spend $1 billion a week in Iraq, we should be doing the same type of
things in this country,'' said John J. Duncan Jr., R-Tenn., the chairman of the
House of Representatives Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.
To be sure, in America most spending on water and sewer systems comes from local
taxes, but the federal government has always played a role.
The amount of assistance the EPA provided to help build water and sewer projects
dropped from $2.6 billion in 2001 to $2.2 billion in the budget year that ends
Tuesday.
UNFAIR TO COMPARE?
Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget,
said it was unfair to compare one-time help for Iraq to longtime federal aid for
U.S. water and sewer systems, which totals trillions of dollars over time.
''The Iraq costs are one-time shots in the arm,'' Duffy said.
Moreover, Duffy argued, on balance the Bush administration does spend more on
American water and sewer programs than on Iraqi systems because other federal
money helps in addition to EPA water and sewer grants. Duffy cited $1.7 billion
in proposed water-supply spending by the Agriculture and Interior departments.
In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers spends $4 billion, much of it on flood
control.
But that spending isn't equivalent to rebuilding water and sewer systemsin
America or Iraq, and is peripheral to the real U.S. problem, said Ken Kirk,
executive director of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, the
lobby for U.S. sewer agencies.
''They have critical needs over there, but at the same time we have critical
needs over here,'' he said. ``If you're going to make an investment in Iraqi
infrastructure, then you should make similar investments in U.S. water
resources.''
A majority of ordinary Americans feel similarly, judging by recent polls. Some
59 percent oppose the president's request of $87 billion for military operations
and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a Pew Research Center
poll last week.
© 2003 The Miami Herald and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miami.com