WRRDA and WRDA: How are they different, and does it make any difference? Inland Rivers, Ports and Terminals, Inc. Tuesday, April 29, 2014 James A. Kearns

Water Resources (and Reform) Development Act S. 601—Water Resources Development Act Passed by Senate on May 14, 2013 (83-14) H.R. 3080—Water Resources and Reform Development Act Passed by House on October 23, 2013 (417-3) In conference committee....

Benchmark: Capital Development Plan Issued by Inland Waterways Users Board in 2010 Key elements in Capital Development Plan that are NOT in either Senate or House version: –Dams and major lock rehabilitation projects of less than $100 million not subject to cost sharing from Inland Waterways Trust Fund –Cap on cost sharing from Inland Waterways Trust Fund for project costs in excess of original cost estimate –Increase in fuel tax to provide additional revenue to Inland Waterways Trust Fund Assume that items not in either bill to begin with will not be included in final result from conference committee.

Selected Differences Between Bills Items affecting use of IWTF funds –IWTF cost sharing for Olmsted –Threshold for “major rehabilitation” definition Alternative sources of funding for inland waterways Process for selecting projects Mississippi River port dredging

Items Affecting Use of IWTF Funds IWTF cost sharing for Olmsted –S Retains current cost-sharing arrangement between IWTF and general funds, except no further funds from IWTF to complete Olmsted –H.R – Retains current cost-sharing arrangement, but reduces contribution to Olmsted to 25% of cost “Major rehabilitation” threshold –S. 601 – Raises threshhold to $20 million, at which point IWTF cost- sharing is required –H.R – no provision

Alternative Sources of Funding for Inland Waterways No fuel tax increase in either bill, as noted above. S. 601 § 7005: –“(1) It is the sense of Congress that existing revenue sources for inland waterways construction and rehabilitation activities are insufficient to cover the costs....” –“(2) The issue described in (1) should be addressed.” H.R. 3080, § 214: –Secretary of Army and Secretary of Treasury to conduct 1-year study of feasibility of tax-exempt bonds secured by proceeds in IWTF, plus other revenue options, including user fees. –Secretary to conduct stakeholder roundtable and report to Congress within 6 months after submitting report from feasibility study.

Alternative Sources of Funding for Inland Waterways S. 601, § 2039: Pilot program for 5 years to accept and spend funds contributed by non-federal interests “to increase hours of operation.” –But Committee Report says decisions by the Corps on lock hours of operations “shall remain solely based on commercial traffic.” –Intended to accommodate “requests by local communities for specific and unique activities requiring locks to be operated outside the established levels of service.” H.R. 3080, § 109: Similar to S. 601, but permanent authority and broader scope. –Committee Report: “to ensure traffic is not unduly impacted on the inland navigation system”

Pilot Projects for Public-Private Partnerships S. 601 – Pilot program “to evaluate cost effectiveness and project delivery efficiency of allowing non-Federal interests to carry out flood risk management, hurricane and storm damage reduction, coastal harbor and inland channel navigation, and aquatic ecosystem restoration projects.” H.R. 3080: Pilot program “to evaluate cost effectiveness and project delivery efficiency of allowing non-Federal interests to carry out authorized water resources development projects for coastal harbor improvement, channel improvement, inland navigation, flood damage reduction, aquatic ecosystem restoration, and hurricane and storm damage reduction.

New Soy Transportation Coalition Study Earlier study (January 2013) by Texas Transportation Institute for United Soybean Board: “New Approaches for U.S. Lock and Dam Maintenance and Funding” New study funded by soybean checkoff, conducted by The Horinko Group: “Proposed Public-Private Partnership –Announced by Soy Transportation Coalition on April 28, 2014 (Mike Steenhoek speaking tomorrow morning) –Lease versus ownership –Maintenance and operation versus construction –Initial candidates: Peoria & LaGrange on lower Illinois River and Locks 24, 25, Melvin Price and 27 on Upper Mississippi River

Process for Selecting Projects Issue of extent to which projects require review and approval by Congress CQ Roll Call, February 7, 2014: –“Conference negotiators have agreed on a framework for selecting the flood-control, navigation and ecosystem restoration projects that would be eligible for funding in a water resources authorization.” –“Details of agreement between … [Senator] Barbara Boxer and [Congressman] Bill Shuster were unavailable. –But settling on a framework for project selection signals a breakthrough on what had been the biggest remaining obstacle to a conference agreement reconciling the differences between [S. 601 and H.R. 3080].”

Mississippi River Port Dredging S. 601: $25 million per year authorized for Operations and Maintenance budget of Corps of Engineers to dredge shallow draft port on Mississippi River H.R. 3080: No corresponding provision

What Happens Next?