The bipartisan bill, approved 417-3, authorizes a slew of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects and outlines plans to accelerate their approval. Historically the legislation has been passed every two years, but a new federal water bill hasn't been signed since 2007.
"It has been six long years since we have passed water resources legislation," said Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.V.), ranking member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, in a statement. "The bipartisan bill approved today stops the finger in the dike solutions to our water infrastructure challenges and instead invests in these corridors of commerce which create jobs and support increased economic opportunity."
Lawmakers touted the bill has one that cuts red tape and speeds up projects by setting firmer deadlines and eliminating duplicative and unnecessary studies. "Reforming the way our country builds and maintains vital ports and waterways – streamlining the process, cutting out wasteful earmarks, and increasing accountability – is good for families and taxpayers," House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement.
The legislation also deauthorizes $12 billion of old projects that had been authorized prior to the 2007 version of the legislation, and it includes sunset provisions to ensure that newly-authorized projects don't sit on the backlog for years.
The legislation requires feasibility studies to be completed in less than three years at a cost of less than $3 million. That will likely bring a sigh of relief to many state and local partners -- especially ports -- who are often left waiting impatiently for years before pursuing projects related to water infrastructure.
The urgency surrounding the legislation has ramped up in the last year, with many U.S. ports rushing to complete expansions and renovations in anticipation of the widening of the Panama Canal slated for completion in 2015. American ports want to be able to accommodate larger ships that will start taking advantage of the canal's larger capacity.
But, as Governing reported last year, it can many years just to complete a study for a port project, even when it's considered critically important:
Preparing to dredge a harbor is an enormously complicated process. Such projects must be authorized by Congress, but there’s no guarantee that any funds will be appropriated. Before construction can begin, a project must undergo two sets of impact studies. These studies, run by the Army Corps of Engineers, are major undertakings that can cost millions of dollars and take a decade or more to complete. One of the most egregious examples is Savannah, Ga., which is trying to deepen its port from 42 feet to 48 feet. Earlier this year, the Corps released its final documentation for that project -- after 15 years of study. “This whole process of dredging is completely broken,” says Eugene Pentimonti, a former senior vice president of Maersk, one of the world’s largest shipping companies. “There’s virtually no way for a port to get their facilities dredged in a commercially acceptable time frame, to be able to compete, to use the opportunities it will provide them.”
The House bill also increase the use of the funds collected via the federal harbor maintenance tax to improve shipping channels. Port officials and shipping companies have long complained that the fees they pay -- which are intended to be used for dredging and other maintenance -- have not been fully utilized. Instead, Congress has allowed them to build up in a trust fund to be counted against the deficit. The bill would wean Congress off those funds and ensure more them go toward their intended use.
“Increased investments are needed to better maintain and improve the transportation infrastructure on our three coasts and the Great Lakes, linking America to the global marketplace," said Kurt Nagle, CEO of the American Association of Port Authorities, in a statement praising the bill.
The Senate passed its version of a water bill back in May.
