Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

Louisiana House Bill HB1320

Introduced
4/19/10  
Refer
4/20/10  
Report Pass
5/3/10  
Engrossed
5/12/10  
Refer
5/13/10  
Report Pass
6/15/10  
Enrolled
6/20/10  
Chaptered
7/8/10  

Caption

Exempts certain nonstate entity projects from the local match requirement (EN NO IMPACT GF EX See Note)

Impact

By exempting these smaller rural water systems from the local match requirement, HB1320 stands to improve access to crucial resources and infrastructure for rural communities. This will not only help sustain existing water systems but also promote the development of new connections, ultimately aiming to enhance the overall water quality and availability. The bill is particularly significant as it addresses specific needs of smaller, potentially underfunded areas, enabling them to compete more effectively for state funding opportunities.

Summary

House Bill 1320 seeks to amend existing capital outlay regulations by exempting certain nonstate entity projects, specifically those related to rural water systems serving less than one thousand customers, from the local match funding requirement. Historically, nonstate entity projects needed to provide at least a twenty-five percent local match of the funding requested. This legislation aims to alleviate financial burdens on smaller water systems which may struggle to meet funding conditions, thereby enhancing their ability to extend or connect waterlines to other systems.

Sentiment

General sentiment surrounding HB1320 appears to be supportive among rural advocacy groups and lawmakers focused on infrastructural improvements. Many view it as a meaningful step toward ensuring equitable access to essential services for underserved communities. However, some concerns have been raised regarding the implications of exempting projects from the local match requirement, particularly regarding accountability and the allocation of state funds without sufficient local investment.

Contention

The primary contention reflects the broader debate on the role of local investments in state-funded projects. Detractors may argue that removing the local match requirement could set a problematic precedent, potentially leading to insufficient investment in local projects. Conversely, advocates argue that this exemption is essential to stimulate necessary improvements within vulnerable rural communities that lack the resources to meet matching fund criteria, thereby necessitating a delicate balance between local responsibility and state support.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.