HR-10602-119
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Sponsored by Hillary Scholten (D-MI)
What it does
This bill would add Ottawa County, Michigan to the list of projects in Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992. It would authorize $15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure there, including stormwater management and surface water resource protection. An authorization sets a spending ceiling but does not itself provide money; separate appropriations would be needed, and other limits under the existing program may apply.
Who benefits
Residents and local governments in Ottawa County, Michigan, who may get upgraded water, wastewater, and stormwater systems with federal cost-sharing. Local ratepayers who might otherwise bear more of the cost through fees. Construction and engineering firms that could win project contracts. Users of local waterways and Lake Michigan shoreline who may see better surface water protection.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers would bear up to $15 million in costs if funds are appropriated. Other communities competing for limited Army Corps environmental infrastructure funds may see their projects delayed or receive less. Ottawa County and local entities may owe a required non-federal cost share. Authorized projects often wait years for appropriations, so expectations may go unmet.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that aging water, wastewater, and stormwater systems in a fast-growing county need capital that local ratepayers cannot easily raise alone. They contend that Section 219 is an established vehicle for such projects, and that a defined $15 million ceiling targets funds to protecting surface water and Lake Michigan-area resources.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that local water and sewer systems are traditionally funded by local ratepayers and states, and that a county-specific authorization adds to federal spending. They contend that adding named projects to Section 219 lengthens an already large backlog of unfunded authorizations, and that earmark-style listings bypass competitive, merit-based prioritization.
Constitutional context
Congress acts under its Article I, Section 8 spending power and the Appropriations Clause (Art. I, §9, cl. 7) to fund local infrastructure; South Dakota v. Dole (1987) confirms broad spending power for the general welfare. The bill raises no significant constitutional question.
Checks and balances
Congress authorizes the project and must separately appropriate funds, while the executive branch (Army Corps of Engineers) would implement it under existing program rules.
Historical precedent
Congress has repeatedly added named local projects to Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 through periodic water resources bills, with the numbered paragraphs reaching the hundreds.