Who is responsible for our infrastructure?

[RetiredGySgt]

The feds own a lot of land and the Department of the Interior are responsible for it and for National Parks only.
Or should be.

Yes. Well, they shouldn't own any land except for national parks. But that is a whole 'nother debate.

Really? Who then should monitor and maintain none park property? Besides forst and bases of the military? Who should maintain the fire crews for National Forests? For land being used by mining companies and ranchers? There is a lot of Federal Property.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Can't the States handle the fire crews? Perhaps I can be convinced federal financial assistance could be warranted, but the crews would be better managed at the State level, would they not?

I thought mining companies and ranchers generally operated on private property?

Is the EPA it's own gig? None of the agencies yet mentioned fall under a common authority other than whatever laws or acts Congress might pass?

This sounds very convoluted, disorganized- like one giant clusterfuck.

 

[American Horse]

The Left has started this "our infrastructdure is falling apart" song and dance since about 1992 when they saw it as a way to stop "growth" in the name of stopping "sprawl." Once they moved into that realm they began to see the opportunities it offered, to control everything outside the self. Of course the "self" part comes under "health-care reform"
Caveat Emptor!

Home | Report Card for America's Infrastructure

If you don't want a strong America, you're free to go fuck yourself.

Of course I want a strong America, and instead of exercising my freedoom in the way you suggest, I have exercised that freedom to learn how the system actually operates.
You seem to be starting from scratch in that regard. Fine, we need better informed citizens.

Civil and professional engineers want work to do. The report card appears to indicate that. I'm fine with any of it, but the decisions need to be made on a local level with local districts taking responsibility for at least a part of the cost of what is done in those districts. That is how it works now and it works well.

How was the work done on Atlanta's water system that the video shows? It was done there the way it should always work: they identified a problem, they consulted with several engineers who offered possible solutions and cost estimates (only estimates, not hard figures) and guided by those estimates, bids were requested and obtained, then financing applied for through the Federal Government, bonding vehicles issued, for the work to procede. The local government entities remain involved - as they always do - and the subscribers (local taxpayers or customers to government services) are invited to public meetings for informative purposes.

The feds payed for part of the work through grants, and provided the necessary financing for the rest to be paid off through future revenues from the locals who enjoy the benefit of the infrastructure improvements. The same for schools. A major departure is the interstate highway system, but there too the interstate highway system belongs to the states. The federal role is to oversee it, and provide the same sort of backing I described above, with the taxes paying for most of the work from targeted gasoline taxes.

Most districts can, and do readily identify their own needs. There are plenty of local professionals who are familiar with what needs to be done, and if they knew that grants and financing for their share was available, they would jump at the opportunity. Counties throughout the US have highway/bridge engineers who understand their highway and transportation needs, health departments who know the hazards inherent in the sewage, stormwater, and potable water needs, school boards their brick-and-mortar building needs, etc. Having the locals, except in overarching national needs like the improvement of the Interstate highways, is the only way to efficiently focus resources of capital where it is needed.

An example of the federal government providing total control on the ground is the levees in New Orleans, LA. There we see failure of bureaucracy. The best incentive for good work which should originate at the local level is little more than informing the locals that funding/financing is readily available. My fear, and it seems to be espoused by you - and not necessarily by the civil and PEs - is that we need an overarching authority to take charge. What's actually needed, more than anything else is financial incentives which would move things forward, and that includes TAX INCENTIVES, and more care in regulating in a more positive way.

In a parallel thread on infrastructure I described some of these provisos; you can CLICK HERE to see my input on that thread - Minneapolis Bridge Collapses.. I watched your video. Read this and you might learn something you've missed so far

I stand by my statement in your quote. The left - and I'm not assigning the same motive to you - wants the nations infrastructure entirely in the federal grasp. They do it by promoting fear to a very large degree. I think the engineers are lobbying for work, and all their grades ought to be raised by one grade level; but regardless they do us a service by speaking up.

 

[midcan5]

Infrastructure is nice to use but no one wants to pay for it. Given that corporations profit most from it they should pay the lion's share. Next road taxes on gas etc. But infrastructure includes more than material, it includes knowledge and technology too. Fixing problems only, seems backward, but given modern America, it is the best we can do.

 

[American Horse]

Infrastructure is nice to use but no one wants to pay for it. Given that corporations profit most from it they should pay the lion's share. Next road taxes on gas etc. But infrastructure includes more than material, it includes knowledge and technology too. Fixing problems only, seems backward, but given modern America, it is the best we can do.

America's policy is preventive "maintenance." something that prolongs the life of our infrastructure, with planned replacement prior to obsolescence. That is the most efficent mode, I at least, can imagine. I say that as one who is close to infrastructure, I have built it, and have served on commissions for solutions for sewer and shool building problems and obsolescence. If there weren't so much mis-directed funding we could keep up better.

People don't mind very much paying for needed focused maintenance and improvements. There are also innovative ideas, something we should expect more of from our politicians. A couple of years back our new governor proposed we upgrade our highway and associated infrastructure. We have a toll road in place since the 50's which every year doesn't get sufficient revenues to pay for its operation and maintenance. He proposed that that toll road be leased to investors who would upgrade it, maintain it, and operate it receiving all revenues from that operation for 75 years.

They would pay 3.8 billion dollars for that lease, and Gov. Daniels plan was to use that money to up-grade all the rest of the state's highway infrastructure, using that amoney, in large part, to leverage work with federal funds for upgrades, and completion of I-69 from Indianapolis to Evanvsille.

Imagine, there are 92 counties; 3.8 billion less whatever would go to I-69 - which is also needed state infrastructure - would mean that each county would potentially benefit from $40-million plus in improvements; some need little, some need a lot. But 3.8 billion can leverage almost 10-billion more, equalling another $100-million for the average county.

A benefit was that at the same time we dispose of a toll-road that is not sustaining itself at a profit.

Does anyone remember the jokes on the Daly show and other TV comics? I suppose the audience thought they were being usefully informed. Remember those jokes about the "Idiot Governor of Indiana who wanted to sell the Indiana Toll Road to Spain? What an idiot.....he must be.

 

[logical4u]

many of our national parks were given away by Clinton's executive order, they are now 'international parks' (not sure about the financing or if terrorists are in the parks if we still can enforce our laws there)

?

Utility companies 'used' to maintain the electrical grid. When 'de-regulation' hit, it forced utilities to allow other companies to send power across 'their' infrastructure. In some cases, the utilities could not charge enough 'transmission' costs to recoup the wear and tear on the lines (if you put to much current through underrated lines, they can be damaged and the rating drops lower). The utilities are still recovering from this poor legislation. Some have gone out of business, some are starting to rehab and expand their 'grids.

Wouldn't forcing companies to grant access to their system, be regulation, not deregulation?

For those that would want to have the feds have it all, please watch what is happening in Venuzuela: it is not good, the gov is taking over and failing miserably. It would not be any better here.

Advocating regulation and coordination in order to prevent our infrastructure from failing is a far cry from nationalizing the industry.

Nice try though, Mr.Herring.

As you pointed out above: "de-regulation" was not acurately portrayed, it did "regulate"the utilities in some aspects. The point was: when gov is involved without 'good legislation', it causes problems for those it was 'suposed' to help.

 

[logical4u]

Infrastructure is nice to use but no one wants to pay for it. Given that corporations profit most from it they should pay the lion's share. Next road taxes on gas etc. But infrastructure includes more than material, it includes knowledge and technology too. Fixing problems only, seems backward, but given modern America, it is the best we can do.

This is a socialist, short-sighted idea; a corporation gets its monies from selling a product (that would be the consumers). That "tax" would be applied to the consumers of those corporations. That would drive up prices and make the corporations less competetive in the world market. That would put them out of business and require the loss of jobs for all that worked there. That would cause the support jobs (medical, resteraunts, money management, etc) to go away, also. Eventually, we would all be farmers, trying to survive off small patches of land, with no hope for employment, and the 'taxpayer' coming around demanding a portion of your harvest. What a dream!

 

[Darkwind]

The feds own a lot of land and the Department of the Interior are responsible for it and for National Parks only.
Or should be.

Yes. Well, they shouldn't own any land except for national parks. But that is a whole 'nother debate.

Really? Who then should monitor and maintain none park property? Besides forst and bases of the military? Who should maintain the fire crews for National Forests? For land being used by mining companies and ranchers? There is a lot of Federal Property.

Hmm...I thought I had answered this, but it seems I never returned to this thread until just now.

To answer you question, the property owners should pay for the maintainence and upkeep of their property. With ownership comes responsibility. As for fire, do we not put out fires when peoples homes are burning? Or do we say that the state has to own the home before we put the fire out?

As for fire crews for national forests, I believe the state should do so with financial aid from the Feds should a disaster occur.

Mining companies should be mining on their own land. They need to pay for the land that they are making profits from and they should pay to restore the land to its prior state before selling that land all the while maintaining environmental laws.

We have to get out of the mindset that the only way to solve problems is by running to mother government.

 

[Oldandtired]

The feds own a lot of land and the Department of the Interior are responsible for it and for National Parks only.
Or should be.

This is not directed to you uscitizen....but....

"the feds own a lot of land"........

Why does that sound way off to me.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I Googled it

The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – nearly 30% of its total territory. These federal lands are used as military bases or testing grounds, nature parks and reserves and indian reservations, or are leased to the private sector for commercial exploitation (e.g. forestry, mining, agriculture). They are managed by different administrations, such as the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority.
This map details the percentage of state territory owned by the federal government. The top 10 list of states with the highest percentage of federally owned land looks like this:

1. Nevada 84.5%
2. Alaska 69.1%
3. Utah 57.4%
4. Oregon 53.1%
5. Idaho 50.2%
6. Arizona 48.1%
7. California 45.3%
8. Wyoming 42.3%
9. New Mexico 41.8%
10. Colorado 36.6%

291 – Federal Lands in the US Strange Maps

291 – Federal Lands in the US Strange Maps