Louisiana Amendment 3, Levee Districts and Regional Flood Protection Authorities Measure (September 2006)

Louisiana Amendment 3
Election date September 30, 2006
Topic Taxes and Environment
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature

Louisiana Amendment 3 was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in Louisiana on September 30, 2006. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported allowing the state legislature to provide for establishing regional flood protection authorities within levee districts; allowing the state legislature to appropriate up to $500,000 per year from the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund to regional flood protection authorities; and providing that any levee district created after 2006 may levy an annual property tax on all property that is not exempt from taxation within the district.

A "no" vote opposed allowing the state legislature to provide for establishing regional flood protection authorities within levee districts; allowing the state legislature to appropriate up to $500,000 per year from the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund to regional flood protection authorities; and providing that any levee district created after 2006 may levy an annual property tax on all property that is not exempt from taxation within the district.

Measure design

Amendment 3 of 2006 provided that any levee district created after 2006 could, with district voter approval, levy an annual property tax on all property that is not exempt from taxation within the district. Amendment 3 also allowed the state legislature to provide for establishing regional flood protection authorities within levee districts. It also allowed the state legislature to appropriate up to $500,000 per year from the Coastal Protection and Restoration Fund (previously the Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Fund) to regional flood protection authorities. Companion legislation was passed to create Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East and Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-West Bank.

Levee districts created before 2006 could levy an annual property tax of up to five mills ($5 per $1,000 of assessed value) (without voter approval) to construct and maintain levees in the district. However, the Board of Levee Commissioners of the Orleans Levee District could levy an annual property tax limited to two and a half mills because it was authorized to generate revenue from operating non-flood control facilities. Levee districts created before 2006 could increase the tax rate with district voter approval.

Election results

Louisiana Amendment 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		513,180	80.77%
No		122,206	19.23%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Amendment 3 was as follows:

“

To authorize the legislature to establish regional flood protection authorities and provide for its governing authority, powers, duties, and functions, for the governing authority of levee districts within the territorial jurisdiction of the regional authority, and authorizing ad valorem taxes subject to voter approval. (Amends Article VI, Sections 38(A)(1) and 39 and adds Article VI, Section 38.1)

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Support

Arguments

The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana provided the following summary of supporters' arguments for Amendment 3 in its guide to the September 2006 ballot measures:

“

Proponents of the amendment argue that creation of regional flood protection authorities would strengthen the state’s hurricane and coastal protection efforts. The amendment offers a unified approach to replace the disjointed, fragmented patchwork of levee districts that cannot accommodate region-wide planning and protection. Flood protection authorities ensure that districts would be united by similar geographic challenges rather than divided by artificial political boundaries. Uniting districts into regional authorities that share challenges would ease the coordination of regional spending priorities with the priorities established in the statewide master plan under development by the CPRA. Proponents argue that the amendment would ensure strong professional expertise among members. Additionally, the boards would be focused entirely on flood control instead of the operation of non-flood protection facilities. Proponents also argue the amendment would place the regional authorities under the same ethical standards as the Board of Ethics. Board members would have no involvement in political activity. These standards reduce opportunities for political patronage. Proponents further argue that the amendment sends a strong signal for reform and could sway national and local public opinion. Proponents suggest that the amendment was necessary to secure $12 million in federal funding for the Louisiana Hurricane Protection Study. Many supporters add that the redesign of flood control in southeast Louisiana would attract people and businesses back to the region.

”

Opposition

Arguments

The Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana provided the following summary of opponents' arguments against Amendment 3 in its guide to the September 2006 ballot measures:

“

The most vocal opponents of the amendment argue that the current levee district boards should not be punished for the errors of the Orleans Levee District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The punishment they fear lies in being forced to compete with New Orleans for future project funding. Many opponents also fear the loss of local expertise in the levee districts run by a regionwide authority. Some opponents question the need for engineers and scientists on the board since boards make many business decisions that these professionals may be unaccustomed to making. Opponents also question the value of the regional authority. Since the levee districts and the CPRA remain, the amendment would merely insert another layer of bureaucracy into the flood control planning process. They argue that local levee districts can already handle flood control projects and that most have been successful. These opponents argue that the amendment would simply address perception rather than actual flood risks. Some opponents also question the regional flood protection authorities’ ability to implement region-wide projects. Voters in a single parish would be able to kill a region-wide project if they vote it down. Additionally, some oppose the amendment because it could raise the prospect of a property tax increase in the area. Others oppose the amendment because it is not sufficiently comprehensive. They argue that the authorities should have jurisdiction over all levee districts and parishes that are potentially affected by hurricanes and coastal erosion. Other opponents suggest that one regional board that includes all parishes in the southeast corner of the state would be more effective.

”

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Louisiana Constitution

In Louisiana, a two-thirds vote is needed in each chamber of the Louisiana State Legislature to refer a legislatively referred constitutional amendment to the ballot for voter consideration.

The measure was introduced as Senate Bill 9 by Senator Walter Boasso. The House passed the amendment unanimously on February 16, 2006, and the Senate passed the amendment unanimously on February 17, 2006.

See also

2006 Measures

• 2006 Measures
• Water on the ballot
• Taxes on the ballot
• 2006 legislative sessions

Louisiana

• Louisiana ballot measures
• Louisiana ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Louisiana Senate Bill 9 (2006) overview
• Louisiana Senate Bill 9 (2006) full text
• 2006 Louisiana Ballot Measure Election Results
• Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, Inc. Guide to September 2006 Constitutional Amendments