Here are some points to make when contacting your member of Congress or discussing this issue with the media. Don’t assume they know anything about this matter. Be specific in your comments.

1.       Indicate that you are contacting them regarding an amendment added in the Senate to the emergency supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 4939) on May 4. The amendment number was S,Amdt. 3805, and it was introduced by Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) and co-sponsored by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

2.       This guts the last effective provision in the HBA for removing rural billboards. The amendment would gut the Highway Beautification Act by permitting states affected by the hurricanes of the past several years to opt out of the key provision of the law that says that nonconforming billboards must remain down if they are destroyed by an Act of God.

3.       What you are asking for. Ask your Senator or Representative to support striking the amendment in its entirety from the conference committee bill and allow no compromises, since there is no way to adopt its provisions in any form without destroying the effectiveness of the Highway Beautification Act.

4.       Which billboards are we talking about? Emphasize that a nonconforming sign is one that does not conform to the provisions of the federal law and the federal-state agreements that govern the implementation of the Act. These are signs that could not be built today because they are in rural or scenic areas or don’t meet current rules about spacing and size. They were grandfathered in during the compromises made when the original law was passed in 1965, but with the understanding that they would eventually come down through a process of attrition. Be very clear that you are talking mainly about the old wooden signs that have been in place on rural highways for 30-50 years and are located in places where they would not be permitted to be built today. The sign owners have had a half century to recoup their investment in these signs that were deemed undesirable by Congress all the way back in 1965. They are still undesirable today. No one can reasonably argue a hardship is being suffered by enormous sign companies losing a few hundred ancient signs that their industry agreed 40 years ago would be removed over time.

5.       This amendment is totally contrary to the intent of the law. The whole purpose of the Highway Beautification Act was to gradually get rid of these old signs that clutter our rural and scenic roads. Because of changes made to the Act in the past, the only remaining methods available to remove these signs are to buy them outright or to wait until they fall over due to lack of maintenance or are destroyed by an Act of God, such as a hurricane. This amendment subverts the intentions of Congress as expressed in the original legislation and would remove the last vestige of effective control over billboards in rural and scenic areas. There were many trade-offs and compromises made when the original law was passed and this was one of them: old, wooden, nonconforming signs that violate the provisions of the law, would be permitted to come down by attrition. It makes no sense to abrogate the law now that that long-anticipated occurrence is actually happening.

6.       This is not about conforming billboards. Be very clear: there is nothing in current law that prevents sign companies from reconstructing legal, conforming billboards that are knocked over in storms. We are only talking about nonconforming decades-old signs located in places they are not supposed to be.

7.       Rebuilt signs will never go away. The amendment permits the reconstruction of the old, wooden signs with more durable materials, which is in flagrant contradiction to the intent of the law, which was written to gradually get rid of billboards in rural areas, not make them permanent scars on the landscape.

8.       The amendment subverts congressional procedures. This matter is properly handled by the committees with jurisdiction over the issue: the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee. There is no appropriation associated with this amendment and it doesn’t belong in an emergency appropriations bill.

9.       We should wait for the conclusion of a study being conducted by the Dept. of Transportation. The Federal Highway Administration is currently conducting a national assessment of the effectiveness and administration of the Highway Beautification Act and any major adjustments to the Act (and this IS major) should wait until that study is completed and its findings analyzed by Congress and stakeholders.

10.   This is infinitely retroactive and is not related only to Katrina. Contrary to appearances, this amendment, as it is drafted, is not confined to damage resulting from Katrina, and, in fact, covers damage from storms extending back an indefinite number of years and in places well beyond the area affected by the 2005 hurricanes. It covers billboards in all of FEMA Regions IV and VI, which includes 13 states. Even though it has an expiration date, it is still a profound violation of the letter and spirit of the Highway Beautification Act, and sets a precedent that will never be undone.