WASHINGTON, D.C. — With a price tag ranging between $1.7 and $1.9 billion, not every state is enthusiastic about the idea of helping to fund the rebuild of the Francis Scott Key Bridge.
On Wednesday morning, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrator, Shailen Bhatt, faced questions from lawmakers on the plans for the federal government to fully fund the construction. It was part of a larger hearing on the Key Bridge collapse held by the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
"My constituents are not willing to pay for this thing," Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) told Bhatt.
"If you're from Washington State, likely you're never going to travel across that bridge, but you're sure gonna pay for it," Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pennsylvania) said.
State and federal leaders have pledged to hold the shipping companies responsible, and eventually reimburse the taxpayer with insurance money. But how long until we'd see that money?
Rep.Rick Larsen (D-Washington) pointed to a 2013 bridge collapse in his home state of Washington, where it took 10 years to get $19 million back from the insurance claim.
"If that's the average time to get $19 million, we'll all be dead by the time we get the money back from this ocean carrier," Rep. Larsen said.
Right now, the Federal Highway Administration plans to pay for 90% of the cost through emergency relief funds. The remaining 10%, more than $170 million, is what Maryland is asking Congress to cover.
"I would just say - what the benefit of the 100% share brings is - it removes the element of uncertainty," Bhatt said. "Not knowing whether that $170 million is going to be there, does it impact things right now in this moment? No they're gonna move forward. But as they're projecting out, and as they're trying to build their construction program, other contractors, it's just an element of uncertainty."
Administrator Bhatt, Governor Moore, and other state officials have repeatedly said the funding plan is consistent with other catastrophic incidents. Bhatt specifically referenced the 2007 collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minnesota. But some lawmakers pointed out, the I-35W bridge is part of the Interstate Highway System, and thus qualifies for a 90% federal cost share as part of FHWA’s emergency relief program. For highways not included in the IHS, the FHWA is only obligated to cover 80% of repairs after a disaster; the remaining 20% is for the state to cover.
The Key Bridge is part of Interstate 695. Although signed and mapped as such, I-695 is not technically a federal interstate, but rather, a state highway. After the collapse, however, the state requested the FHWA re-classify the bridge to be an interstate, in order to get more federal funding. Members of Congress questioned Bhatt on whether the agency has the authority to do that, and whether it’s fair.
“Is it normal for a road change to be designated after an incident?” asked Rep. Michael Bost, a Republican from Illinois.
Bhatt responded that he was not aware of any other example.
Rep. Bost asked if it requires an act of Congress, to which Bhatt said, “It does not. They would need to come in and say these are the design exceptions, whether it’s the curves or some of the other elements they might have had in there, and then our engineers would have to say yes, this is why we would approve those exceptions.”
Later in the hearing, Rep. Rudy Yakym (R-Indiana) asked, “Does your agency have the authority to retroactively designate damaged or destroyed infrastructure as a part of the interstate system?”
Bhatt replied, “I would have to clarify on our exact authority and the retroactive piece. I just know we received the request after the incident and we went through our typical process."
Regardless of whether the state was left with 10% or 20% of the cost, Maryland's delegates and President Biden want Congress to cover up-front whatever remains, so that the rebuild is 100% federally-funded.
Representative Perry asked Bhatt: "I think we can all agree that we probably and shouldn't wait for the insurance companies and the litigators to work it out, but Maryland had insurance on the bridge didn't they?
BHATT: Sir, I'm aware of one policy that Maryland has for $350 million.
PERRY: So that should, by all rights you would assume, be actioned and go toward paying for a portion of the bridge reconstruction, right?
BHATT: Absolutely sir, I just have yet to go through and have our lawyers go through whatever's in there. But yes, whatever portion of the $350 million we would apply.
Last month, we reported that Chubb, the company who insured the Key Bridge, is reportedly preparing a $350 million payout to the state of Maryland.
Another big topic of discussion during the House committee hearing was whether the government would waive National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for the rebuild, known to slow down large infrastructure projects.
Bhatt testified that since the bridge will be built in the same spot, with a similar footprint, it's eligible for a "categorical exclusion" from NEPA requirements, which should expedite the process. Several Congress members have expressed frustration, saying that should happen more often, as they have infrastructure projects that are currently bogged down by environmental regulations.
"This shouldn't be the exception," Rep. Garret Graves (R-Louisiana) said. "Environmental damages haven't resulted from using categorical exclusions or alternative arrangements."
"I hope that, in the future, other projects are given the same consideration, because time is money," Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Arkansas) said. "I understand that's certainly the case here. But there are a lot of other projects out there pending that have cost millions in regulatory compliance fees that have really been delayed as a result."
