House, Senate negotiators detail compromise water bill worth billions
WASHINGTON — House and Senate negotiators on Thursday introduced a compromise bill that authorizes billions of dollars for water projects during the next decade, from flood protections in California to deepening Georgia's rapidly growing Port of Savannah.
Lawmakers released details of the Water Resources Reform and Development act a week since announcing a tentative deal on legislation that blends House and Senate versions of the bill. The legislation will authorize 34 projects in virtually every region of the country. Lawmakers say it provides important investment in the nation's water infrastructure.
“This legislation is about jobs and our country's economic prosperity, and I look forward to bringing it back to the House for a final vote,” said Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Hollidaysburg, the chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, who filed the bill.
The proposed investments include projects related to expansion and flood protection.
The bill sanctions more than $748 million in federal funds for dredging and widening of the Sabine-Neches Waterway, an area billed as “America's Energy Gateway” because the roughly 80-mile waterway services oil and natural gas refineries in Texas and Louisiana. The legislation authorizes as much as $800 million for a flood diversion project that would protect the Red River Valley region of North Dakota and parts of Minnesota, which have suffered major floods in four of the past five years.
The Senate passed its version of the bill roughly a year ago, with the House following suit in October. Since then, lawmakers have been working to thrash out differences between the two bills. The Senate's version would authorize about $12.5 billion during the next decade, while the House's version would cost about $8.2 billion. The compromise is expected to land somewhere in between the two, but a Congressional Budget Office estimate was not yet available.
Lawmakers have expressed a pent-up demand for a water projects bill. Congress last authorized a bill in 2007, and many lawmakers have said they feared the country's water infrastructure was suffering.
Congress would have to pass separate legislation to pay for all of the projects included in the bill.
The House is expected to vote on the bill as early as Tuesday, then the Senate. Both versions of the bill passed easily, previously. With the estimated cost of the bill expected to rise, though, there is some concern that more conservative Republicans might vote against it. Outside groups, including Heritage Action, have said the bill does not do enough to rein in spending.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Supreme Court will hear challenge to EPA’s power-plant rules
- Brown family blasts prosecutor; Wilson speaks
- United Mine Workers responds to strike complaint
- Protest in Cleveland over 12-year-old’s shooting death chokes off traffic
- Mo. governor adds guardsmen as protests continue
- In IRS ‘rife with scandal,’ staff to receive bonuses
- Illegals protected by Obama in line for Social Security, Medicare, other benefits
- Premiums to rise for Obamacare’s most popular plans
- Oregon recounts votes on measure to label GMO foods
- Ferguson grand jury focused on fatal ‘tussle’
- Alcohol’s role in collegiate assaults cited at University of Virginia board’s meeting