www.thecentersquare.com – By Nolan McKendry | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-05-07 15:52:00
A proposal in the Louisiana Legislature seeks to grant the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans authority to impose a stormwater fee on all developed properties in the city. This fee would help fund New Orleans’ deteriorating drainage system. It would be based on the impervious surface area of each property, with homeowners paying proportional rates. Larger properties, including commercial sites, would incur higher fees. There are provisions for discounts for properties with effective stormwater retention systems. The bill aims to address the chronic underfunding of the city’s drainage infrastructure, exacerbated by the city’s unique topography and sinking terrain.
(The Center Square) — A proposal making its way through the Louisiana Legislature would give the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans the authority to impose a new stormwater fee on all developed parcels in the city, aiming to shore up funding for the city’s beleaguered drainage infrastructure.
The measure, House Bill 609, would enact a new section of state law requiring the board to assess the fee under a “formula rate plan” approved by the Public Service Commission.
The fee would be based on the amount of impervious surface area on a property, which determines how much stormwater it sheds into the city’s aging drainage system.
For single-family homes, the bill sets a standard unit — the “single-family impervious area unit”— based on the median impervious surface across residential parcels in the city.
Homeowners with lots between half and twice that median would pay one unit’s worth of the fee. Larger or more impervious properties, including commercial sites, would be charged proportionally more.
The legislation also provides avenues for discounts. Properties with effective stormwater retention systems that exceed city standards, or that discharge directly to Lake Pontchartrain with proper treatment, could qualify for reductions. Additionally, the bill directs that stormwater fees be offset by existing drainage millages already collected from property owners.
Stormwater fees would be included in annual property tax bills collected by the Orleans Parish assessor and forwarded to the Sewerage and Water Board. Delinquent payments would be subject to penalties under existing state tax law.
The bill caps the stormwater fee for single-family homes at the equivalent of 16.34 mills.
The bill could work toward addressing chronic underfunding of New Orleans’ drainage system, which suffers from outdated infrastructure and a unique geographic challenge: The city’s bowl-like topography and sinking terrain make it especially vulnerable to flooding.
Responsibility for maintaining the city’s drainage infrastructure shifted from the Sewerage and Water Board to the city’s public works department in 1991, but without a dedicated funding source after voters declined to renew a longstanding drainage tax.
Since then, city officials have struggled to maintain the system amid a steady decline in resources.
The proposed stormwater fee represents a new funding mechanism to fill that gap — though it may also prompt pushback from property owners wary of additional charges in a city already facing rising costs of living.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article provides a factual account of proposed legislation in Louisiana regarding a new stormwater fee. It outlines the details of the bill, the reasoning behind it, and the potential impacts on property owners, particularly with regard to funding the city’s drainage infrastructure. The article avoids presenting an ideological stance or opinion on the matter. It focuses on reporting the specifics of the legislation and its context, such as the city’s flooding vulnerability and the history of underfunding in the drainage system. The tone and language remain neutral, without leaning toward supporting or opposing the fee. There is no discernible political bias in the article, as it sticks to providing clear information on the legislative process and potential consequences.
SUMMARY: Denka Performance Elastomer LLC in St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana, has suspended operations following a significant financial loss of over \$100 million in the recent fiscal year. The plant, located in “Cancer Alley,” has long faced controversy over its chloroprene emissions, which contributed to the closure of Fifth Ward Elementary School. The suspension is attributed to rising pollution control costs, declining production, and operational disruptions, including unscheduled outages and severe weather. Environmental group Rise St. James views this as a victory but stresses the need for full remediation and support for workers transitioning to safer industries.
SUMMARY: The Norro Fire Department has welcomed Chief Mooney, a 2.5-year-old Golden Retriever, to support firefighters’ mental health. Firefighters face intense stress from emergency calls, which can leave lasting invisible scars. Chief Mooney, trained with 30 commands by Thinline Service Dog, provides emotional relief by sensing anxiety and offering comfort, such as resting his head on a firefighter’s knee. Living with handler Tim Dunfer, Chief Mooney is a valued crisis response K9 with his own badge. His presence helps firefighters cope with the psychological burden of their demanding work, reminding them they are not alone after the sirens fade.
A Northshore fire department welcomes Chief Mooney, a Golden Retriever, to help firefighters cope with the emotional weight of their job.
lailluminator.com – Jacob Fischler, Julia Shumway – 2025-05-13 17:17:00
The U.S. House Agriculture Committee’s part of a Republican tax and spending bill proposes transferring 5%-25% of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to states, depending on error rates, starting in 2028. While aimed at reducing federal spending, critics warn this could lead to significant cuts or even an end to the program in some states, especially those with high error rates like Alaska and California. The bill would reduce \$290 billion in federal spending over ten years. Democrats argue it jeopardizes food security, with critics emphasizing the negative impact on vulnerable families.
The U.S. House Agriculture Committee’s portion of Republicans’ massive taxes and spending bill would partially shift to states the costs of the country’s largest food assistance program, which some experts and Democrats predicted will lead to major cuts in the program — and possibly even an end to it in some states.
The measure will be taken up by the panel Tuesday night and is expected to be voted on late Tuesday or early Wednesday, after which it will be folded into a larger reconciliation package with 10 other bills passed out of committees and sent to the floor. The entire House is set to vote on the legislation before Memorial Day.
The federal government currently pays for all Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, benefits. A provision in the Agriculture Committee’s piece of Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill” to enact President Donald Trump’s agenda would transfer between 5% and 25% of that cost to states, depending on each state’s payment error rate, starting in 2028.
The program provided about $100 billion in food assistance to nearly 42 million Americans last year, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Eligibility currently depends on tests related to income, assets, work requirements and more.
But the change in cost structure could lead states to opt out entirely, said Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at the left-leaning economic think tank Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, leading some needy families unable to pay for groceries.
“The language is unclear, but it could end SNAP entirely in some parts of the country if states decide the new state funding requirements are impossible for them to meet,” Cox said in a statement late Monday after the bill’s release. “The bill’s massive cuts disguised as ‘cost shifts’ pass the buck to states – but ultimately would leave families holding an empty grocery bag when states aren’t willing or able to backfill for lost federal funds.”
Republicans plan to use the reconciliation package to permanently extend the 2017 tax law, increase spending on border security and defense by hundreds of billions of dollars, overhaul American energy production, restructure higher education aid and cut spending.
“Our budget reconciliation text restores SNAP to its original intent—promoting work, not welfare—while saving taxpayer dollars and investing in American agriculture,” House Committee on Agriculture Republicans said on X on Monday night.
Funding tied to error rate
Under the bill, states’ responsibility would rise with the broadly defined error rate of payments, which includes fraud as well as paperwork mistakes by a beneficiary or caseworker.
States with an error rate of 6% or less would be responsible for paying 5% of benefits, and those with an error rate higher than 10% would shoulder one-quarter of the cost of benefits.
Two other intermediate categories would exist for states with error rates between 6% and 10%.
Based on current data, more than half of states would fall into the highest category of error rates. The national average is 11.7% and more than two dozen states and territories have rates higher than 10%.
The states are: Alaska, Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and West Virginia. The District of Columbia also has an error rate over 10%, as do Guam and the Virgin Islands.
Alaska’s nation-leading 60% error rate would be nearly impossible to bring under 10% by the time the provision goes into effect, Jones Cox said in a Tuesday interview.
Only seven states — Idaho, Iowa, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming — would qualify for the lowest state cost-share.
$290 billion in cuts overall
The measure would incentivize states to control the $13 billion per year in erroneous payments, a House Agriculture Committee summary of the legislation said. The bill as a whole would cut $290 billion in federal spending over a 10-year budget window, according to the summary.
While congressional Republicans can claim they are not cutting benefits with the bill, the program would shrink with a lower federal cost-share, Jones Cox said.
“They can say it’s not a cut, because they’re going to say it’s just shifting those costs to the states,” she said. “But it is a cut because states, if they cannot fill the gap… that brings down the program, period.”
The changes would force state budget officers to choose from among a host of unattractive options: cutting SNAP, offsetting costs with corresponding cuts to other programs or raising revenues through taxes or other measures.
States “have a few options,” Jones Cox said. “None look good.”
Republicans are using the complex reconciliation process to move the package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber, avoiding the Senate’s 60-vote legislative filibuster, which would otherwise require bipartisanship.
Reconciliation measures must address federal revenue, spending, or the debt limit in a way not deemed “merely incidental” by the Senate parliamentarian. That means the GOP proposals must carry some sort of price tag and cannot focus simply on changing federal policy.
Democrats slam bill
On a press call Tuesday, Democratic officials and an anti-hunger nonprofit blasted the proposal.
Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat, expressed skepticism that U.S. DOGE Service head Elon Musk could find a more efficient use of the $2 per meal SNAP provides during the call with other Democratic senators, Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek and the nonprofit, Hunger Free Vermont.
“This is not a waste, fraud and abuse deal,” Welch said. “This is really about taking away basic nutritional security that is so absolutely essential to the well-being of our families and our kids in Vermont and in every single state across the nation.”
Kotek, who started her political career as a policy advocate for the Oregon Food Bank, said she saw firsthand the effect of food insecurity. More than 700,000 Oregonians receive benefits from SNAP, and every dollar spent on SNAP generates another $1.50 to $1.80 in economic activity at grocery stores, farmers’ markets and other local businesses, Kotek said.
“When you cut SNAP, you’re not cutting bureaucracy,” she said. “You’re cutting a child’s dinner. You’re cutting their breakfast. You’re cutting their family’s dignity.”
One in four New Mexicans rely on SNAP, said Sen. Ben Ray Luján, D-N.M. The farmers and ranchers he represents also plan their farming season based on what grocery stores and food banks will need, and farmers already planted seeds with the idea that those vegetables will be used for school lunches and other food programs.
“The way to look at this is it’s not fiscally responsible,” Luján said. “It’s taking away from the hungry across America to make billionaires and millionaires even wealthier, and it’s going to even explode the deficit.”
Louisiana Illuminator is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Louisiana Illuminator maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Greg LaRose for questions: info@lailluminator.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This article presents a detailed examination of a Republican-led proposal to shift costs of the SNAP program to states, highlighting concerns raised by Democrats and left-leaning experts about potential cuts to food assistance for vulnerable populations. While it covers the Republican perspective and the stated intent to promote work and fiscal responsibility, the emphasis on potential negative impacts, criticisms from Democratic officials, and references to data from a progressive think tank indicate a slight lean toward a center-left viewpoint seeking to emphasize social safety net preservation and skepticism of budget cuts to welfare programs. The coverage remains relatively balanced but favors the concerns and voices of Democrats and advocacy groups more prominently.
