WRRDA Poised for Smooth Conference Following House Passage, Say Industry Officials and Lawmakers

“It is legislation like this that is going to improve the way we move infrastructure projects forward efficiently,” said Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Congressman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., in a statement (here). Shuster is the House bill’s lead sponsor. “WRRDA is not just about construction jobs in our ports and waterways, but also long-term jobs in our manufacturing industry. This legislation is about economic viability and competitiveness for the U.S. economy.”

The Senate passed its version of the bill in May. The Congressional Budget Office said the House bill would cost roughly $3.5 billion from 2014-2018. The Senate version, S. 601 (here), is estimated to cost $5.7 billion from 2014-2018, said the CBO (see 13102233). Although the two bills contain a number of differences, the conference process will likely be conducted quickly, industry officials said. “There are definitely differences between the two pieces of legislation…it's something they can work out,” said Susan Monteverde, vice president-government relations at the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA). “I think it's going to be a quick and easy conference. Senator Boxer, and others, have said that. Their goal is to get it through this year," possibly in the next month or two, she said. "It might fall over to January because of the dates of sessions. That’s what the Chairmen and their staffs have told us.”

The House bill will accomplish the following, according to AAPA (here):

• Sets targets for increased use of federal Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT) collections to better maintain the nation’s deep-draft shipping channels, while providing more equity for ports whose shippers pay more in HMT taxes than are required for maintaining those ports’ channels. WRRDA provides an important step in addressing this complex challenge.
• Gives the private sector, as well as state and local agencies, more flexibility to advance funding for channel improvement projects by eliminating key roadblocks that non-federal entities must overcome when they want to contribute to project costs.
• Authorizes and advances those federal channel improvement projects that have a completed Corps of Engineers’ Chief’s Report and that would otherwise be delayed without WRRDA, while complying with the House earmark moratorium.
• Revises Army Corps of Engineers procedures to accelerate waterside infrastructure projects and studies.

The payment method for the Olmsted Lock and Dam project, a Kentucky initiative that has long overshot its scheduled construction timeline, is a critical aspect of both pieces of legislation and one where some compromise is needed, said Debra Colbert, Senior Vice President of the Waterway Council. “We are very behind the reform payment ratio in the House bill. Currently we pay 50 percent of that project. The House bill says the government will take over 75 percent of the cost. The Senate bill calls for 100 percent government expenditure to finish the project,” said Colbert. “Anywhere in the 75 to 100 percent range, we are in favor of because that will take pressure off the HMTF fund in order to go to other projects.”

The Waterways Council pressed the need for a hike in inland waterway user fees as part of the WRRDA bill in a Sept. 24 letter to Congress (see 13092621). Both pieces of legislation included user fee hike provision at certain points, but were ultimately stripped. “What we’ve been asking for is to increase that user fee from 20 cents per gallon to anywhere from 26 to 29 cents per gallon,” said Colbert. “The Ways and Means Committee, particularly Chairman Dave Camp, has said no. He’s said that should be included in comprehensive tax reform. We are not expecting it to be part of WRRDA. That’s not unexpected but it’s unfortunate.”

The Obama Administration supports the legislation, but wants changes before it hits the president’ desk, a White House Office of Management and Budget statement said on Oct. 23 (here). “The administration supports provisions in the bill to de-authorize projects that no longer meet the Nation's needs or have become too costly,” said the statement. The bill, however, would authorize the Corps to construct several new projects that the administration has not recommended for authorization due to their marginal return on investment or other concerns.”

The bill also continues to have detractors. Several prominent conservative organizations recently urged lawmakers to oppose the bill prior to the Oct. 23 vote, due to profligate federal spending and failure to address inefficient U.S. Army Corps of Engineers infrastructure projects and practices (see 13102238). "The reforms made in the House are modest," said Josh Withrow, Legislative Affairs Manager at FreedomWorks. “Therefore whatever comes out of conference will be a more modest still. We expect the bill to more reflect the Senate legislation than House. So at that point, there’s a good chance we’d oppose the bill.”

In September, Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., co-endorsed the introduction of the Maritime Goods Movement Act for the 21st Century (here), a bill that would replace the HMT with a "Maritime Goods Movement User Fee" (see 13082120). The senators will continue to pursue that legislation, despite likely WRRDA passage, said a spokesman for Sen. Murray. “Senators Murray and Cantwell have been working to build support for this legislation, and they’ll continue looking for opportunities to move the bill forward,” he said.