The ban on earmarks that House and Senate Republicans embraced this month could put a major crimp in the Dallas area's biggest public projects.
The multibillion-dollar Trinity River makeover has long relied on congressional patrons. As for the Green Line, Washington still owes $250 million – more than a third of its share – for the 28-mile light-rail expansion from Carrollton to Pleasant Grove that opens soon.
Republicans adopted the earmark moratorium to allay public anger over federal spending. Democrats haven't gone along yet, but the move has stirred anxiety among nonprofit groups, medical researchers, defense contractors and local agencies that depend on set-aside funding. For the city of Dallas and Dallas Area Rapid Transit, the implications remain fuzzy but could be serious.
"I don't think that anybody can tell you what the earmark decisions mean right now," said Dallas City Manager Mary Suhm. "We certainly will be watching it."
At DART, chief financial officer David Leininger said he's not sure how worried he should be, though he expects some federal lawmakers will argue that the ban should even apply to pre-existing deals like DART's.
"I don't think that there's been a great deal of granularity in terms of what exactly are earmarks," he said. "It's kind of a jump ball."
His concern reflects how the playing field changed dramatically this month after Republicans won back of the House and adopted the moratorium.
It "basically is a timeout while we reassess this whole earmarking process, which has been in some instances abused," said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a member of the GOP leadership. He cited the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," a $398 million Alaska proposal that Congress ultimately scrapped.
Cornyn, like some other moratorium supporters, said the policy should not and won't last indefinitely but agreed that for now, "it will have an impact on Texas, just as it will have an impact on the rest of the country."
Awaiting word
Whether that impact extends to DART and the Trinity may not become clear for months, as the lame duck Congress attempts to finalize the 2011 budget, and the ban takes full effect with the new session of Congress in January.
The Trinity River project is the most ambitious public works effort Dallas has undertaken. Plans call for two Santiago Calatrava signature bridges, lakes and a significant expansion of flood control. Like the Green Line, the project has benefited from bipartisan support from Texas lawmakers.
Cornyn sought $16 million in earmarks for the Dallas Floodway Extension, a component of the Trinity project, in next year's budget. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, sought $24 million.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Dallas Democrat, has also sought funding, using her perch as chairwoman of a key subcommittee that oversees water and transportation – a post she will lose when Republicans take over in January.
The Trinity project lost another key advocate with the defeat of Waco Rep. Chet Edwards, who chaired a powerful Appropriations subcommittee.
"The delegation understands it's critical and has been our champion," Suhm said. "Yes, we do want the funding each year. It protects a lot of our tax base and a lot of our people, property and lives."
Funding for the Army Corps of Engineers, which is implementing much of the Trinity project, comes almost entirely from earmarks – money set aside by Congress, often through the efforts of influential lawmakers.
The administration of George W. Bush – a Dallas resident and former governor – actively tried to eliminate funding for the Trinity project. The Obama administration has also shown little interest.
So under the congressional earmark moratorium, "that's big-time at risk," said Steve Ellis, vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a staunch critic of earmarks and of the Trinity project in particular.
Without earmarks, the Corps would presumably set its own priorities for allocating the funds Congress provides.
As with any infrastructure project, Ellis said, local officials "would be happy to have Uncle Sam pay for it." If that funding dries up, they'll have to decide: "How bad do they want it?"
Not going away
Critics of the moratorium on earmarks argue that such funds – roughly 1 percent of the budget – won't be cut, they'll just be directed by the administration rather than by elected representatives.
For funding recipients, this could mean trying to obtain awards through competitive grants or other mechanisms.
"It's going to be a whole new day," said Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, who is worried about funds to dredge the Houston Ship Channel and for ongoing levee projects.
There's also a fight brewing about whether the ban will apply to infrastructure projects – a fight that will come to a head when the new Congress crafts a six-year transportation bill that traditionally is brimming with specific funding directives.
Rep. Kay Granger , R-Fort Worth – who starting in January will chair the Appropriations subcommittee that controls billions for foreign operations – supported the moratorium but also admitted to qualms.
"It does not cut spending. It changes who will decide where spending will go," she said. "There's really a misunderstanding about earmarks from the public, and it's up to us to explain this."
DART may be in better shape than the Trinity project.
Although Congress has provided the Green Line funds through earmarks – roughly $85 million each of the last five years – the funds stem from a competitive grant awarded by the Federal Transit Administration, which agreed to pay its share of the $1.6 billion project over eight years.
Hutchison and Johnson have put their names on annual funding requests. That allowed them to take credit for helping DART, while using their influence to ensure the funds keep flowing.
"There probably are a variety of things that get called earmarks that really aren't earmarks," said Leininger, DART senior vice president and chief financial officer.
The Green Line will open fully on Dec. 6. The downtown-to-Fair Park segment opened last year. DART fronted the money. If Congress fails to pay the remaining $250 million or so, DART would view that as a breach of contract.
"It clearly would have a bearing on the capital projects that are not yet awarded," Leininger said. "We would certainly prefer not to fill another $250 million hole that we didn't plan on."
Earmark ban puts funding for Dallas projects at risk (Dallas Morning News)
Discussion
Weekly Email
