When I have an ambiguous horizon, like this one, I look for a vertical reference deep within the image. The bridge is a good idea, but the perspective might make that misleading. With trees in the image, then I look for a prominent tree or two as a reference. Based on that, I might have rotated it a degree or two clockwise. Then again, if that made the bridge look wonky, then I'd go back to the bridge. It's so prominent that you can't let it disturb the viewer, even me and Chewy.
As for Saturation, I don't see it as too much here. Is this a Raw conversion, or an in-camera JPEG? If JPEG, some cameras do apply too much Saturation in the camera and then adding just a little is too much. (The "Landscape" mode can be dangerous). My in-camera Raw files look flat and lifeless because I expose to the right, then I add an S-curve, set levels, perhaps bump Contrast, balance shadows vs. highlights, consider Vibrance and then Saturation would be one of the last things that I consider. Sat is usually a single digit number, if not 0, but my S-curve takes care of a lot of that, so that's why I apply the S-curve first in my workflow.