Are Storm Water Run-Off Regulations Bad for Construction?

Engineering News Record tries to examine what a Romney administration would mean for construction.  Here is their tally sheet:

Contractors are hoping that a Romney administration might:  

• "knock down regulatory hurdles that get in the way of contractors"
• "place greater reliance on public private partnerships"
• "practice environmental streamlining"
• "scale back plans to stiffen regulations"
• "expedite projects"
• "reduce taxes on businesses"
• "repeal the job-killing Obama-backed health-care law"
• "ban project labor agreements on federal projects on day one"
• "eliminate estate taxes"
• lower wage surveys used for prevailing wage tables

On the other hand contractors are afraid that a Romney administration will:

• advocate spending cuts, including cuts in infrastructure spending
• When Governor, they fret, "he cut budgets across the board."  
• "Almost all new transportation projects stopped for his four-year term."
• "(His) stands on high-speed rail and Highway Trust Fund also are suspect"

As the article points out, reading the entrails of the campaigns to foretell the future health of the construction industry is tricky business.

What is clear is that across the country we have tremendous needs to refurbish decaying infrastructure and to build new infrastructure--roads, rail, airports, schools, water systems, electrical generation and transmission--so we can uphold our standard of living and be competitive in the world market over the next 50 years.  The country has needs for construction to be a $1.3 trillion plus industry again.  This calls for a government with an appreciation for the long term benefits of  fulfilling infrastructure needs now.

People differ on what it means to develop infrastructure well.  Some want to do it as cheaply as possible with as little government involvement as possible.  Some want to do it with regulation aimed at establishing minimum standards for worker safety, environmental stewardship, and transparency.  Some want to maximize the profits of contractors, some want to maximize the wages of workers.  Some want to assure that public dollars are spent without favoritism or undue influence.

What everyone agrees on is the industry needs projects funded.  Lots of them.  Our industry won't be able to fix the nation's ailing infrastructure, or return to a $1.3 trillion plus industry, if the government won't spend on infrastructure.

Whether we do this with more or less regulations to assure storm water doesn't carry away soil into streams, and with more or less health care for workers or society as a whole, is beside the point.  Lobbying for funding of construction is a matter of interest for the entire construction industry irrespective of political bent.  No matter who occupies the White House, the message should be "Just fund those projects.  You say you want storm water regulation?  We'll do it any which way you want!"