Louisiana Senate Bill SB190

Louisiana 2019 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/27/19
• Refer: 3/27/19
• Refer: 4/8/19
• Report Pass: 4/29/19
• Engrossed: 5/2/19
• Refer: 5/6/19
• Report Pass: 5/15/19
• Enrolled: 6/6/19
• Chaptered: 6/22/19
• Passed: 6/22/19

Caption

Provides with respect to the membership of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Board. (1/13/20)

Impact

The bill's passage potentially enhances the board's capacity to address issues related to coastal protection and restoration actively. By diversifying the representation on the board, it aims to ensure that the needs and concerns of different coastal communities are adequately voiced and considered. This change may lead to more tailored decisions regarding coastal adaptation and resilience strategies, directly affecting funding and resource allocation for these initiatives.

Summary

Senate Bill No. 190, introduced by Senator Chabert, amends the composition and membership of the Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority Board in Louisiana. The bill revises the number of members appointed by the governor from certain associations and adds requirements for their appointment. It emphasizes representation from coastal areas, ensuring that appointees reflect both population and land distribution across various parishes. Moreover, it mandates that there be at least two representatives from each side of the Atchafalaya River and specifies the inclusion of residents from significant hydrologic basins of the state.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment regarding SB190 seems to be supportive, particularly among stakeholders focused on environmental protection and community representation in coastal management. The bill is viewed as a progressive step towards inclusive governance that acknowledges the state's unique geographical challenges. However, there may be underlying concerns about the political implications of such appointments, especially regarding the influence of the governor over board composition.

Contention

While there is broad support for increasing representation on the board, some members expressed apprehension about the implications of shifting control in appointments. The requirement for appointees to be residents may generate debates concerning who qualifies and how nominees are selected, possibly fueling contention about local versus state governance dynamics. The balance of power between appointed members and local interests remains a significant point of consideration in discussions surrounding the effectiveness of this governance structure.