Within days of the Aug. 1 collapse of the Interstate Highway 35W bridge, federal and state officials made concerted efforts to join together in delivering a singular public message: Minnesota bridges — and the maintenance, inspections and ratings systems of them — are adequate.

But oh what a difference a year can make.

Last week, 7th District U.S. Rep. Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., made it clear in a Star Tribune news report that he believes the state is falling far short of doing all it can to improve ailing bridges. As evidence, he noted how the state Department of Transportation spent about half of the money available to it in the past five years under a federal program intended for substandard bridges.

Naturally, MnDOT officials quickly disputed that contention. They claimed the federal program came with too many restrictions and how it's only one of several funding streams available for bridge improvements.

While disagreement between Oberstar, the powerful chairman of the House Transportation Committee, and MnDOT is not earth-shattering, we do find it troubling that two levels of government that worked so hard immediately after the collapse to build public confidence have turned into seemingly bitter rivals.

More so, we believe most Minnesotans probably don't care which government program provides the resources for bridge maintenance and repairs. They just want to see all levels of government work together to make sure bridges are safe.

And that's why both Oberstar and leaders of MnDOT should more fully explain their respective views on this issue. From the limited details available, it appears a thorough discussion might yield improved use of public resources.

For example, the basis of Oberstar's claims were from proposed federal legislation that would limit the ability of states to transfer money from the federal Highway Bridge Program to pay for other highway and infrastructure projects.

The Star Tribune reported that from 2003-07, MnDOT acquired only 51 percent of the available funds. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the state did not seek more than $63.5 million in that period and shifted another $50 million from the program to pay for other needs.

Leaders of MnDOT didn't directly dispute those statistics but did note how they spent almost $400 million on bridge replacement and repair from 2003-07. They also criticized the federal program for a ratings system that requires bridges to become too inadequate before being eligible for funding.

Now Minnesotans with even a little common sense would quickly see that perhaps the solution isn't for state and federal leaders to bicker about blame. Rather, it's to meld state and federal standards into one cohesive approach that focuses on getting bridges fixed with the funds available.

Elected and appointed public officials have had almost a year to learn that lesson. How much longer do they need?