Letter to Barbara Boxer, Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, Bill Shuster, Chairman, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, David Vitter, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, and Nick J. Rahall II, Ranking Member, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure - Protect Provisions Promoting Public-Private Partnerships for Water Infrastructure

Letter

December 6, 2013

Dear Chairmen Boxer and Shuster and Ranking Members Vitter and Rahall:

We write as supporters of the Water Infrastructure Now Public Private Partnership Act (S. 566 and H.R. 1153), which would create a pilot program to decentralize the design, rehabilitation, and construction of major water infrastructure projects and open the door to greater private investment. Similar programs were included in both the Senate (Section 2025) and House (Section 117) versions of the Water Resources Development Act.

Programs like Sections 2025 and 117 could help reduce the estimated $60 billion Corps project backlog and greatly benefit nationally significant projects like the lock and dam modernization on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, authorized as part of the Navigation and Sustainability Program (NESP). The locks and dams on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers were built in the 1930s. Industry has outgrown them and their structural integrity is rapidly deteriorating. With every passing day, the risk increases of a catastrophic failure that would choke the vital economic activity on the rivers. Under current project financing and delivery models, these improvements won't be finished until 2090.

There is great interest up and down the Mississippi from shippers, agricultural interests, the mining sector and others in programs included in Sections 2025 and 117. It is important to include the following priorities as the two versions of the program are reconciled:

* Maintaining eligibility for inland navigation projects;
* Maintaining eligibility for projects that have not received federal appropriations;
* Allowing an authorized major rehabilitation project to qualify in addition to an authorized construction project;
* Maintaining as much flexibility as possible for the non-federal entity to finance both the non-federal and federal portions of the project; and
* Ensuring that design of the project falls under the program as well as construction

As the sponsors of H.R. 1153 and members of the Conference Committee -- Representatives Cheri Bustos and Rodney Davis -- have also advocated, we ask that you take these issues into consideration in the final conference report. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin
Mark Kirk
William L. Enyart
John Shimkus
Mike Quigley
Dave Loebsack
Bruce Braley