Broadband, Waterways & Highways: Arkansas’ $4.8B Federal Infrastructure Boost

The federal Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act has contributed nearly $4.8 billion to Arkansas since 2022, much of it directed into the state’s Department of Transportation for work on highways and bridges.

The IIJA also provided federal funding for broadband expansion, ports and waterways improvement and clean water. The state’s Department of Finance & Administration said $2.37 billion went toward road and bridge improvements,  $1.26 billion is financing broadband services and at least $260 million will pay for clean water, ports and waterways and workforce development.

In 2021, Asa Hutchinson, the governor at the time, formed the Infrastructure Planning Advisory Committee to help the state prepare for the influx of federal cash. The planning was essential because the IIJA made so much money available for so many different uses.

“The IIJA broke new ground as far as how far-reaching it went, beyond transportation,” said ARDOT Director Lorie Tudor, a member of the 14-person advisory committee.

Hutchinson named Becky Keogh, then the secretary of the state’s Department of Energy & Environment, as the head of the committee. Keogh was later appointed the state’s infrastructure coordinator by Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

“The Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA) comprises hundreds of individual grant programs that are administered by more than a dozen federal agencies,” Keogh said. “Each program has its own timelines, eligibility requirements and application processes, so our primary goal has been to understand and track these opportunities as the federal agencies have advanced new funding opportunities, while coordinating with state departments to ensure they are aware of these funding opportunities and requirements as they become available.”

Tudor said the IIJA funding came in two distinct forms: formula funding and discretionary funding. The formula funding is a set amount based on a state’s metrics that allows Arkansas’ department heads such as Tudor to know how to budget big- and small-ticket projects in the coming years.

The discretionary funding apparatus, Tudor said, is more of an unknown because it allows states to compete against other states for available grant money. It can be a double-edged sword, as not every grant proposal is awarded because of the strong competition for every available dollar.

Federal Funding Announced for Arkansas Segments Since 2022

(Source: Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration)

Bridge Scramble

Tudor said the state has applied repeatedly for grants to help with its Interstate 49 project along the western border of Arkansas between Fort Smith and Texarkana. The 162-mile stretch is the lone remaining gap in an interstate running from south Louisiana to Canada.

The state recently announced it had awarded a $282.5 million contract for a 3.1-mile stretch in the Fort Smith region that includes a bridge over the Arkansas River. Three other segments along a 14-mile stretch remain in limbo because Arkansas’ grant requests were declined.

“That’s a huge expense to build a bridge across the Arkansas River,” Tudor said. “We’re going to get that funding in place. We’ve already let the first project, as you know, and we’re just moving forward. We will look under every cushion and every rock for every dollar we can find.”

Two Arkansas requests that won funding through the IIJA discretionary process were for bridges along the state’s eastern border, in West Memphis and Helena-West Helena. The larger of those two projects, a proposed new I-55 bridge over the Mississippi River, captured a $900 million grant — of which ARDOT has to come up with $250 million, the same as Tennessee’s transportation department.

If Arkansas has had to scramble for I-49 money, a project that has been in the works for decades, imagine the scramble to come up with $250 million it didn’t expect to need. It’s a good problem to have, said Tudor, who is confident the state will come up with the funds.

“We received the largest grant award in our history, a total of almost $400 million to be shared with Arkansas and Tennessee,” Tudor said. “And it’s very exciting, because, you know, the I-55 bridge was built in 1949 prior to the interstate system. It’s just a matter of time where we had to replace it. So the grant program that was made available [meant] this project fit in so neatly.

“But that 55 bridge wasn’t really on our radar. So now we’re scrounging around to try to find the $250 million to match it. But I’m not complaining.”

Congressional Help

Tudor said the money ARDOT receives for formula funding is about 30% more with the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act than before, which was good timing because post-COVID-19 inflation and higher construction costs took a big chunk out of the value of the raise.

Tudor said that without the IIJA funding, ARDOT might have had to postpone or suspend projects because of highly inflated costs. Tudor said the Transportation Department has benefited from the state’s influential congressional delegation, which includes Rep. Steve Womack and Sen. John Boozman, who have directed community funds to state projects, including I-49.

“The best way to answer that is just to say, generally, the big projects … have to have a federal partner,” Womack said. “And so whatever the mechanism is, whether it’s the IIJA, or some of the community project funding that I’ve done and others are trying to do, or whether it’s just general highway revenue from the trust fund, it’s going to require the collective effort of the federal government, the state government and the local jurisdictions to be able to leverage everything that they can to get these big projects done.”

Tudor said that is why more formula funding would help, so a state like Arkansas can bank on an additional “X” amount of millions rather than deal with the unknown result of a grant-writing process.

Womack, who voted against the IIJA, said he is in favor of infrastructure funding but said political additions to the IIJA watered down the ultimate effectiveness of the bill.

“We all support it and celebrate it,” Womack said.

“The problem is so much of the IIJA had less to do with transportation infrastructure and more to do with forcing an agenda, the Green New Deal, on the American public. And we’re opposed to that. We think that more of that money should have been going to transportation. We should have had more to celebrate than what we are.”

Not Just Roads

As Tudor indicated, the IIJA made money available for more than just highways and bridges. Nearly half of the money sent or promised to Arkansas is for other uses.

Keogh said that is why it is critical the state proceed with focus and organization.

Arkansas was the first state to name an infrastructure budget director after the legislation passed.

“The IIJA is a complicated package of hundreds of individual programs,” Keogh said. “Often, multiple opportunities open at the same time. Coordination and response are critical as these opportunities happen in relatively short windows of time.

‘Funding also comes with reporting and compliance obligations, so this is also a focus of our analysis and support,” she said.

Tudor said the advisory committee was a helpful guide to many state departments that had less experience with the pursue-the-grant way of government funding.

“You have to understand, ARDOT has always worked in this world,” Tudor said. “A lot of different people have never dealt with federal funding on this level or this scale [with] this amount of discretionary grant available to them.

“The real benefit Becky brought to the state was to help these other agencies that were not familiar with jumping through the hoops.”

It’s up to Sanders to set the state’s priorities for the funding, whether it is for a new state bridge or expanded broadband access or a water treatment project.

“Arkansas state departments have prioritization processes for selecting and funding capital projects,” Keogh said. “We are working to assure their priorities deliver outcomes that bolster economic opportunities and provide critical needs to support communities and citizens, while also meeting eligibility parameters.

“The governor has priorities, such as broadband, energy, and water, that she addresses through state agencies. Part of my role is ensuring those agencies have the information to identify and leverage infrastructure grant opportunities that line up with her priorities from a scope and timing perspective.”