Republicans
- Thread starter aquitted
- Start date
The Republicans didn't sell us down the river nor did they vote for Obamacare. They voted to reopen the government and gave up using Obamacare as a hostage. The dam in Kentucky is the Olmsted Dam Project which Congress in 1988 authorized spending $775 million to replace two 1920s-era Ohio River dams 17 miles from the Mississippi River, at the busiest inland shipping hub in America.
A project that should have been completed years ago has quadrupled in cost because of management failures for which the Corps of Engineers has yet to be held accountable. Plus, it was grossly underfunded to begin with. The project has plagued by cost overruns, delays and engineering challenges stemming largely from the Corps’ stubborn insistence on an innovative (and largely untested) construction method that met its match in the Ohio River. The Army Corps of Engineers insistence on using something called the “in-the-wet” construction method figures large in the delays and spiraling cost, but also the failure by Congress to properly fund the project in its early years played a role in stretching out construction and in increasing costs.
Last December, a 5,000-ton concrete shell was in the water ready to be dropped into the Ohio River like a giant Lego piece by the world's largest catamaran barge. But, the river rose. The rapidly moving waters threatened to destroy everything and endanger divers working 50 feet down with 3-inch visibility. So the Army Corps of Engineers canceled the operation, just one of seemingly countless setbacks that has plagued construction of Olmsted Locks and Dam Project for more than 20 years. Today you can see the remains of he shell perched on the shoreline along with partially built shells, an impressive thing to see, but a clear picture of a failure that is costing taxpayers, and is still sending ripples across the nation’s inland waterway system all along the Mississippi and its connected waterways.
In the legislation to reopen the government is included additional funding of $2.918 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers to install locks as part of the Olmsted Dam and Lock Authority Project. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has taken most of the blame for adding that pork spending into the bill. However, the House and Senate had already approved the additional funding earlier this year, and did so with very little involvement by McConnell.
Senators Diane Feinstein and Lamar Alexander, the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee respectively, are the ones who came up with the plan, worked out the details, and got the funding approved. Congress simply hadn't gotten around to inserting the funding into any bills, and this is the one that made it.
"According to the Army Corps of Engineers, $160 million taxpayer dollars will be wasted because of canceled contracts if this language is not included. Sen. Feinstein and I requested this provision. It has already been approved this year by the House and Senate,” Alexander said.
The Olmsted Lock and Dam should prove at least $1 billion annual in savings to the country by reducing shipping costs. Meanwhile, the Corps is scrambling to maintain and fix Locks 52 and 53 which are posing a very real threat of catastrophic failure. $7 million this year alone for necessary band-ads and bailing wire to keep the dams from blowing apart, not including the cost of the construction project.
In 1985, a letter to the corps from a dozen U.S. senators - among them John Danforth and Thomas Eagleton of Missouri and Paul Simon and Alan Dixon of Illinois - complained of the “critically deficient and obsolete” old dams.In 1987, the corps formally recommended to Congress that a new dam be built near Olmsted, Ill.
A year later, Congress authorized $775 million for the project, with expectations that it would get done in 7 years. But as is the case with government spending, authorizations and appropriations are separate animals. Money for the project did not start to flow until 1991.
The corps has blamed funding delays and shortages for what went wrong.
However, the bigger culprit seems to be the decision to build Olmsted “in-the-wet,” setting in motion costly changes and engineering challenges that continue to this day, because building “in-the-wet” has been more of a problem than anticipated. The method has been used in the past, but never on such a river as the Ohio. Its been used along European coasts and in American bridge construction, and in 2004 on Braddock Dam on the very lake-like Monongahela River in Pennsylvania to rebuild a structure, but one that is one-fourth the size of Olmsted. The Olmsted Lock and Dam Project is the largest "in-the-wet" project ever undertaken on any river in the world.
A project that should have been completed years ago has quadrupled in cost because of management failures for which the Corps of Engineers has yet to be held accountable. Plus, it was grossly underfunded to begin with. The project has plagued by cost overruns, delays and engineering challenges stemming largely from the Corps’ stubborn insistence on an innovative (and largely untested) construction method that met its match in the Ohio River. The Army Corps of Engineers insistence on using something called the “in-the-wet” construction method figures large in the delays and spiraling cost, but also the failure by Congress to properly fund the project in its early years played a role in stretching out construction and in increasing costs.
Last December, a 5,000-ton concrete shell was in the water ready to be dropped into the Ohio River like a giant Lego piece by the world's largest catamaran barge. But, the river rose. The rapidly moving waters threatened to destroy everything and endanger divers working 50 feet down with 3-inch visibility. So the Army Corps of Engineers canceled the operation, just one of seemingly countless setbacks that has plagued construction of Olmsted Locks and Dam Project for more than 20 years. Today you can see the remains of he shell perched on the shoreline along with partially built shells, an impressive thing to see, but a clear picture of a failure that is costing taxpayers, and is still sending ripples across the nation’s inland waterway system all along the Mississippi and its connected waterways.
In the legislation to reopen the government is included additional funding of $2.918 billion to the Army Corps of Engineers to install locks as part of the Olmsted Dam and Lock Authority Project. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky has taken most of the blame for adding that pork spending into the bill. However, the House and Senate had already approved the additional funding earlier this year, and did so with very little involvement by McConnell.
Senators Diane Feinstein and Lamar Alexander, the chair and ranking member of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee respectively, are the ones who came up with the plan, worked out the details, and got the funding approved. Congress simply hadn't gotten around to inserting the funding into any bills, and this is the one that made it.
"According to the Army Corps of Engineers, $160 million taxpayer dollars will be wasted because of canceled contracts if this language is not included. Sen. Feinstein and I requested this provision. It has already been approved this year by the House and Senate,” Alexander said.
The Olmsted Lock and Dam should prove at least $1 billion annual in savings to the country by reducing shipping costs. Meanwhile, the Corps is scrambling to maintain and fix Locks 52 and 53 which are posing a very real threat of catastrophic failure. $7 million this year alone for necessary band-ads and bailing wire to keep the dams from blowing apart, not including the cost of the construction project.
In 1985, a letter to the corps from a dozen U.S. senators - among them John Danforth and Thomas Eagleton of Missouri and Paul Simon and Alan Dixon of Illinois - complained of the “critically deficient and obsolete” old dams.In 1987, the corps formally recommended to Congress that a new dam be built near Olmsted, Ill.
A year later, Congress authorized $775 million for the project, with expectations that it would get done in 7 years. But as is the case with government spending, authorizations and appropriations are separate animals. Money for the project did not start to flow until 1991.
The corps has blamed funding delays and shortages for what went wrong.
However, the bigger culprit seems to be the decision to build Olmsted “in-the-wet,” setting in motion costly changes and engineering challenges that continue to this day, because building “in-the-wet” has been more of a problem than anticipated. The method has been used in the past, but never on such a river as the Ohio. Its been used along European coasts and in American bridge construction, and in 2004 on Braddock Dam on the very lake-like Monongahela River in Pennsylvania to rebuild a structure, but one that is one-fourth the size of Olmsted. The Olmsted Lock and Dam Project is the largest "in-the-wet" project ever undertaken on any river in the world.
That's a touchy subject for Illinois and Kentucky. The border has been in dispute for 200 years. When Kentucky became a state in 1792 the border was set at whatever the low water mark was. Illinois contends that the border is whatever it was in 1792, Kentucky contends it's whatever the low water mark is as it exists at any given time. Mainly, having the border being whatever the low water mark is at any given time allowed Kentucky Fish and Game wardens to bust Illinois residence for fishing on the Ohio without a Kentucky license, even those standing on the ground in Illinois. Granted, very few people were actually given citations by Kentucky, but it's been a sore point between Kentucky and Illinois for a long time.
In 1991 I think it was, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Illinois, putting the border at the low water mark in 1792. Because of locks and dams, the water level is 50-100 feet higher now than it was in 1792, making Illinois up to 100 feet longer than it used to be.
Interestingly enough, since the ruling, more Illinois residents fishing on the Ohio River have been given citations by Illinois Fish and Game than all of the citations ever issued to Illinois residents by Kentucky wardens. Be careful of what you wish for.
Both states in the last few years have allowed people to fish on the river as long as they have a license from one state or the other, they don't need both.
Soooo, part of that dam is in Illinois, but not much of it. The vast majority of the dam is below the 1792 water mark. About 10% of the dam is in Illinois.
Back in the mid 80s I think it was, the Supreme Court rued the same way in favor of Indiana, and also did so for Ohio. Illinois wanted their hunnert feet.
Despite the river being there, there is a land border between Kentucky and Indiana. I wonder how many people know where it is? Expediters should know, though.
Despite the river being there, there is a land border between Kentucky and Indiana. I wonder how many people know where it is? Expediters should know, though.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
I know this is true. There is a race track there on the north side of the river that is actually located in Kentucky. I just passed it yesterday. Additionally, I don't know if this bolsters either of your arguments but the land on either side of the river is owned by whoever owns the land on shore. the water is co-owned equally by the states on either side, with no border being observed... It is where the state of Ohio is involved anyhow.
Last edited:
The Supreme Court said differently. Three times.
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
Once upon a time not too awful long ago there were moderates from both parties that were good people. I understand they even talked to one another.