Louisiana House Bill HB913

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Refer: 4/14/10
• Refer: 4/15/10
• Report Pass: 4/26/10
• Engrossed: 5/5/10
• Refer: 5/10/10
• Report Pass: 5/18/10
• Enrolled: 6/8/10
• Chaptered: 6/17/10
• Passed: 6/17/10

Caption

Provides for Dept. of Environmental Quality revolving loan programs (EN NO IMPACT SD EX See Note)

Impact

The bill is significant for the future of water infrastructure funding in Louisiana. It empowers the state to secure both federal and state matching funds, allowing local governments to access necessary financing without directly incurring state debt. This approach aims at simplifying the funding process for wastewater treatment and other critical projects, which is expected to improve public health and environmental safety across the state. The streamlined access to financial resources is particularly crucial for municipalities facing budget constraints.

Summary

House Bill 913 aims to amend existing statutes related to the financing of water infrastructure projects in Louisiana, specifically through the reconstitution of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). This legislation provides the Department of Environmental Quality with enhanced authority to administer loans to political subdivisions and public trusts for waste treatment facilities and associated environmental projects. By improving the structure and operations of the CWSRF, the bill seeks to facilitate financial assistance that aligns with federal guidelines while promoting state-level environmental objectives.

Sentiment

Support for HB 913 was largely favorable among legislators, particularly those focused on environmental issues and local government funding. Advocates praised the bill as a proactive step in addressing the states’ aging water infrastructure and the urgent need for investment in water quality improvements. However, there were concerns expressed by some lawmakers about the potential impacts on local control and the reliance on state administration for project approvals, which could slow down critical infrastructure developments.

Contention

Notable points of contention included discussions around the amendments to existing laws that prescribe how funds can be allocated, loan conditions, and the transparency of project approvals. Critics raised the issue of balancing state powers with the autonomy of local governments to manage their own infrastructure needs effectively. Moreover, some stakeholders questioned whether the CWSRF could maintain the level of responsiveness required to meet local demands without a significant increase in administrative overhead.