Louisiana House Bill HB490

Louisiana 2014 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/14
• Refer: 3/10/14
• Refer: 4/22/14
• Refer: 4/23/14
• Report Pass: 4/28/14
• Engrossed: 5/6/14
• Refer: 5/7/14

Caption

(Constitutional Amendment) Prohibits certain transfers of monies through the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund or the Budget Stabilization Fund (RR SEE FISC NOTE SD RV See Note)

Impact

If passed, the bill would reinforce existing restrictions on fund appropriation within Louisiana's Constitution. The proposed changes would ensure that funds earmarked for coastal protection and budget stabilization cannot be redirected for other use without explicit legal backing. This shift aims to protect Louisiana's coastal restoration initiatives from political maneuvering and ensures that state budget management aligns with long-term restoration efforts.

Summary

House Bill 490 proposes a constitutional amendment to prohibit the transfer or removal of funds from the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund as well as from the Budget Stabilization Fund for purposes not consistent with existing laws. Specifically, the bill adds a prohibition that outlines that appropriations from these funds must adhere to the established Coastal Protection Plan as set forth by the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. This amendment seeks to strengthen the financial integrity of these funds by limiting their usage strictly to authorized purposes.

Sentiment

General sentiment regarding HB 490 appears to be supportive among legislators who prioritize environmental protections and fiscal responsibility. Proponents argue that the amendment is necessary to safeguard vital funds necessary for coastal restoration efforts, reflecting Louisiana's commitment to address climate and environmental challenges. However, there may be concerns about potential restrictions on budget flexibility for future appropriations, which could lead to a polarized discussion among lawmakers regarding fiscal governance versus environmental safeguarding.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding the bill include concerns over the rigidity it imposes on fiscal management in times of economic distress. Opponents may argue that restricting the transfer of funds could hinder the state’s ability to address unexpected budgetary needs. Additionally, discussions around the extent of legislative control over these funds and how these protections might limit the state’s capacity to respond flexibly during crises are likely to emerge. The balance between environmental sustainability and economic adaptability may serve as the crux of the debate on this constitutional amendment.