Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbors Legislation, 1947-1968
Files
Description
In the late summer or early fall, the Conference Report on the Appropriations Bill for Public Works is considered on the floors of the House and Senate. This bill contains the annual appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation, the Atomic Energy Commission, the various power administrations and the river basin authorities, as well as the Army Corps of Engineers’ civil construction program. In every recent year the Corps of Engineers’ portion of the bill has contained funds for between 300 and 400 projects spread over perhaps 45 of the 50 states. Every year, too, the House and Senate between them have usually managed to add new Corps of Engineers projects to the public works section of the President’s budget (which has lately totaled around one billion dollars), increasing it by about half a billion dollars. The Public Works Appropriations Bills are criticized as “pork barrel legislation” by some and praised as “development bills” by others, but both groups appreciate the fact that these bills are made to a great extent in the Congress, principally in the various committees that share jurisdiction over the nation’s rivers, beaches, lakes, and harbors, and that over the years they can fairly be said to constitute the policy of the federal government in the area of water resources development exclusive of ware pollution legislation. Each year in the hearing before the appropriation committees and in the floor debates, the senior members of what might be called the water committees—men like Senators Ellender, Cooper, Randolph, Stennis, and Magnuson, and Representatives Kirwan and Evins—congratulate one another on the fine development bill they have produced and praise the worthy flood-control and navigation projects that will soon be built in Louisiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, Mississippi, Washington, Ohio, and Tennessee. The casual observer sees that, yes, the Red River (in Louisiana) has been programmed by the Senate committee with the concurrence of Congress to receive 100 million dollars over the next few years, and that there are ten to 15 projects receiving federal funds in Kentucky as well as large projects in Ohio and Washington. Members of the presidency, congressional opponents, and even some congressional supporters have referred to this bill privately as pork barrel, ad product of logrolling, a “Christmas tree” bill, and a boondoggle for certain powerful members of both houses. Yet each year a bill that looks very much like the one that passed the year before appears in the Congress and is passed without much general debate or comment on its propriety, though with considerable discussion of individual projects. The result is that more cement is poured, more rivers are dammed, and more streams are straightened. And everyone knows that it will all be about the same next year. Is this what really happens? Are a few powerful senators and congressmen actually able to treat the public purse as a development fund for their states or districts? After all, unless these people constitute the majority in the House and Senate, they can be prevented from regularly enacting such legislation by a majority of either chamber. Yet the process continues unchecked in the public works area. This study is an investigation of why such a system exists and how it functions in the federal government.
Publication Date
1974
Recommended Citation
Ferejohn, John A., "Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbors Legislation, 1947-1968" (1974). Faculty Books & Edited Works. 222.
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-books-edited-works/222
