We are sorry to see that all of Utah's members of Congress voted to override President Bush's very proper veto of a mammoth measure authorizing 900 water projects and studies across the nation.

The House originally passed a $14 million bill, the Senate a $15 million version. They split the difference and wound up with the $23 billion Water Resources Development Act of 2007.

For its excesses, Bush vetoed and many applauded.

"The legislation had more pork than a Carolina barbecue joint, with millions going to water-project slush funds nationwide, millions more for pumping sand on beaches to protect vacation homes, and navigation boondoggles like the $130 million Port of Iberia (La.) project," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Sadly, Bush's veto was easily defeated. The House voted to override it 381-64, the Senate 79-14.

Some of the blame for this boondoggle lands in the president's lap. It was only his fifth veto in two terms filled with out-of-control spending. If he had applied some fiscal discipline earlier, this fiasco might have been avoided.

But why did even loyal Republicans go against the presidentfi Rep. Chris Cannon lamely said that the act is symbolic. It merely authorizes the projects; it doesn't actually allocate money. The spending vote would come next year in the appropriations process. "That's where the real battle will be," Cannon said.

The measure includes studies in Utah's Grand, Washington, Iron and Kane counties. And it backs $50 million worth of water projects in rural areas in the state. Some of this work will help reduce the amount of salt flowing into the Colorado River, an issue that affects much of the mountain West and Mexico.

It may be true that money is the lubricant that makes the machinery of government run. But some of the items raise eyebrows. The act authorizes projects for many cities and counties that seemingly could pay for their own improvements. Our favorite out of many is a $3 million project for municipal wastewater and recycled water infrastructure at the Malibu Creek Watershed Protection Project in California. It's sad to hear that the beach-front favorite of movie stars has fallen on hard times. But should a portion of Utahns' paychecks go to keep that particular creek tidyfi

Other projects sound as dubious. Here are two from USA Today:

• Replenishing sand at Imperial Beach in San Diego County. Price tag: $56 million.

• Expanding Upper Mississippi River navigation locks to accommodate more barges. In 2001, the project was halted when a whistleblower said government planners were overestimating barge traffic and using other inaccurate assumptions to justify the $2 billion project. But the water bill puts it back on track.

The biggest pigs at the government trough often shove others out of the way. Critics point out that the Army Corps of Engineers already has a backlog of projects totaling about $58 billion. This suggests the federal government can't handle the work it has now, much less more.

Backers point out the act doesn't spend a dime. But, like a football team happy with a first down, the veto override keeps the forces of pork in possession of the pigskin. And they are now closer to scoring.

Even if Cannon is right that the bill is merely symbolic, it might discourage efforts to cut spending. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post said the override sent this lesson all across Capitol Hill: "Don't mess with lawmakers' pet projects."

We wish Bush long ago had sent a message that pork would not be tolerated. We also wish lawmakers had sent the same message. But then, does a pig really know it's fatfi We think this one does but it just doesn't care.

Do you agree?