> it's a water level issue, which translates infra commitment issue

The point is with the Jones Act there isn't much value in barges. So other uses of the water are prioritised. Adding water doesn't have an ROI commensurate with alternative uses.

The mississippi utilization priority is commercial traffic, which is prodominantly barge traffic for all sorts of critical bulk cargo. It's an extremely valuable waterway that can't be replaced by rail or truck. It's not about adding water, it's about dredging to maintain same water levels or building out infra to be more resilient to water level changes, in so far as Jones Act is concerned, along with Foreign Dredge Act, it limits non US ships from conducting maintainence, which precludes bidders like the Dutch who are much better / economical at maintaining water ways. The ROI is massive, but there exist lack of commitment to fix, at least with urgency that, which is in part legistlative.