Rebuttal from Rick to the Tennessean <'TK><
Let’s see if the Tennessean sees fit to print a rebuttal to their own Friday morning Op-Ed. They painted the legislators as hair-triggered overreacting bullies, and the poor ol’ Corps Commander as just trying to slow down a few guys applying for a Darwin Award.
--R--
The Tennessean
1100 Broadway
Nashville, TN 37203
Your Friday Opinion Editorial titled, “Dam safety doesn’t need an act of Congress”, is disappointingly short sighted and ill researched. Your implication that Senators and Congressmen pounced on the Corps to protect a group of fishermen seriously distorts the path the legislators have taken. There’s has been a course of amiable correspondence requesting consultation, public input, and compromise.
In his November letter to local Corps Commander DeLapp, Senator Alexander wrote of the importance the global draw of these waters has on business. He suggests, “Changes should only be considered after a thorough review of all public comments and suggestions.” The letter closes with, “I look forward to talking with you directly on this issue to discuss any proposed changes prior to their enactment. Thank you for your consideration of this request.”
The request for public input was answered by four download meetings by the Corps, leaving no doubt to all in attendance, that there would be zero compromise. Further, the Corps thumbed their nose at all legislators’ call for the conditions-based compromises you spoke to in your editorial - flashing lights, sirens, etc. Just 2 days after legislators and Corps personnel met in Washington, a Corps memo surfaced. That memo states that the project was part of a national policy; for dissenting employees to keep their opinions to themselves, and that they are moving forward with approval at Brigadier General level. The Corps has backed the legislators into a legal corner.
This is not about fishermen. It’s about the people’s representatives protecting the fundamental rights of self-determination, over an autocratic military. It’s about the economics of the nonsensical $2.6 million military expense for something only the Corps wants, and the protection of local commerce that stretches well into the outdoor, travel, and tourism linked industries.
The Corps has consistently pled their case by espousing a 17 year-old order, ER-1130-2-520 Chapter 10, saying they are bound by that order to execute the barricade. That is an internal Corps policy; not the law. The Code of Federal Regulations is law: Title 36, CFR [Code of Federal Regulations], Chapter 3, Part 327, (a), “It is the policy of the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to manage the natural, cultural and developed resources of each project in the public interest...” It’s apparently time for our legislators to define what is in the public interest, as the Army seems to have no clue.
Rick Duty
Gallatin
|
