Louisiana Senate Bill SB599

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Report Pass: 4/19/10
• Engrossed: 5/19/10
• Refer: 5/20/10
• Report Pass: 6/7/10
• Enrolled: 6/17/10
• Chaptered: 7/6/10
• Passed: 7/6/10

Caption

Provides in each fiscal year, at least $200,000 but no more than seven percent of the federal revenues received by the state generated from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activity may be used for administrative costs or fees. (8/15/10) (EN INCREASE SD EX See Note)

Impact

This legislation has a direct impact on how Louisiana manages and allocates funds from Outer Continental Shelf revenues, potentially leading to enhanced funding for coastal restoration initiatives. By limiting administrative costs, the bill encourages a more transparent use of funds that are crucial for environmental protection and restoration projects related to Louisiana's coastline. It is a strategic approach to ensure that the financial contributions from oil and gas activities are effectively utilized for their intended purpose and support sustainability efforts against coastal erosion and habitat loss.

Summary

Senate Bill 599, introduced by Senator B. Gautreaux, amends regulations concerning the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund in Louisiana. The bill establishes that in each fiscal year, at least $200,000, but no more than seven percent of federal revenues generated from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas activities, may be allocated for administrative expenses. This stipulation aims to ensure that a significant portion of the funds is directed towards actual restoration efforts rather than administrative overhead, which is seen as necessary for optimizing fund usage designated for coastal protection.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 599 appears to be largely positive among environmental advocates and stakeholders interested in coastal restoration. Supporters of the bill argue that it is a necessary step towards accountability in the use of federal funds, fostering greater public trust in how state resources are managed. However, some concerns may arise regarding the implications for administrative flexibility and capacity, prompting discussions about ensuring that essential administrative functions are still adequately supported despite the funding constraints.

Contention

Notable points of contention may revolve around the specific limits placed on administrative costs and the definitions of what constitutes necessary oversight. Those opposed to overly restrictive funding caps might argue that stringent limitations could hinder effective management and operational capacity within the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund. Additionally, the exceptions for certain funds, such as those received in response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, may raise questions about equitable treatment of funding sources and the potential for underfunding critical administrative roles.