Overview
Title
To amend the Flood Control Act of 1946 with respect to emergency streambank and shoreline protection, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 10070 is a plan to spend more money each year helping protect riverbanks and coastlines from damage, like flooding, by fixing and looking after not just roads and bridges, but also parks and old lighthouses. The plan wants to spend up to $45.5 million a year instead of $25 million to keep these places safe.
Summary AI
H. R. 10070 is a bill proposed to amend the Flood Control Act of 1946. Its aim is to enhance emergency streambank and shoreline protection by increasing funding from $25,000,000 to $45,500,000 per year. The bill broadens the scope of protection to include not just highways, bridge approaches, and public works, but also public recreational assets, public lands, parks, and historic lighthouses, all to prevent damage due to flooding or erosion.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The bill titled "Creating Opportunities to Advance Shoreline Treatments Act" or the "COAST Act" seeks to amend the Flood Control Act of 1946. The primary focus is on enhancing measures for emergency streambank and shoreline protection. This amendment proposes an increase in the annual budget allocated for these protections from $25,000,000 to $45,500,000. The expanded budget is intended to cover not only flood control but also erosion control. Additionally, the scope of protection has been broadened to include public recreational assets, public lands, and parks, alongside infrastructure such as highways, bridge approaches, and lighthouses.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the most significant concerns with this bill is the substantial increase in the annual spending limit for shoreline protection measures. Without a detailed justification or analysis of necessity, this budget hike might be perceived as potentially wasteful. Furthermore, the broad inclusion of "public recreational assets, public lands, and parks" raises questions about whether the funding might disproportionately benefit particular localities depending on how projects are distributed.
Another critical issue is the lack of specificity in how priorities are set for projects funded under this amendment. This ambiguity could open the door to favoritism or misuse of funds. The shift in language from "including" to "such as" introduces further uncertainty about which entities are genuinely covered under the funding scope.
Additionally, the bill's language, due to its modifications and insertions, may be challenging for non-experts to comprehend fully. This complexity could result in misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the bill's intention and scope. Finally, the short title of the Act itself does not provide much insight into the bill's content or purpose, potentially confusing the public about its aims.
Impact on the Public and Stakeholders
The broader public might see potential benefits from this bill if it results in enhanced protection of infrastructure and natural areas, particularly in flood-prone regions. This could lead to safer communities and preserved public lands and recreation areas. However, the increased spending requires careful justification to ensure taxpayer money is utilized efficiently and effectively.
For specific stakeholders, the bill could have varied impacts. Local governments and agencies responsible for infrastructure and public lands might benefit from additional funding and resources to enhance protective measures. Conversely, regions not seeing direct benefits could perceive the funding allocation as unfair or uneven, particularly if the distribution appears to favor certain localities or projects.
Overall, while the goals of enhanced shoreline protection and erosion control are commendable, the bill's lack of detailed prioritization, justification, and clarity in language could create challenges in its interpretation and implementation. Ensuring that the funds effectively address the most critical needs while maintaining transparency and fairness will be crucial to the bill's success and public acceptance.
Financial Assessment
The bill, H. R. 10070, proposes amendments to the Flood Control Act of 1946, specifically increasing the annual funding for emergency streambank and shoreline protection from $25,000,000 to $45,500,000 per year. This increase is aimed at expanding the protection efforts against damage due to flooding or erosion. The expansion includes not only the traditional infrastructure such as highways and bridge approaches but also a broader range of entities like public recreational assets, public lands, and parks.
Financial Summary
The primary financial aspect of the bill is the proposed increase in the annual spending limit for emergency streambank and shoreline protection. The bill seeks to increase this limit by $20,500,000 per year, which represents an 82% increase from the previous cap. This significant increase suggests a strong legislative priority on enhancing national infrastructure resilience against natural elements.
Financial Implications
Efficiency Concerns
One issue raised involves the potential for inefficiency in the utilization of these increased funds. With an uptick in funding, there are concerns about whether there is a detailed justification or thorough analysis of necessity and priority. Critics might argue that without clear directives on how and where this additional funding will be applied, there is a risk of potentially wasteful spending.
Scope of Coverage and Fairness
The bill broadens the scope of protection, which includes entities such as public recreational assets and parks. However, this increased scope raises potential fairness concerns. The distribution of funds might benefit specific localities more than others, leading to disproportionate advantages. It is crucial to ensure that all regions receive equitable attention and that the increased funding does not inadvertently favor select areas due to broader language.
Prioritization and Governance
The bill's language lacks specificity regarding the prioritization of projects. With the phrase "construction, repair, restoration, and modification," there is a risk of vagueness that could lead to favoritism or even misuse of funds. Clear prioritization criteria should be established to ensure transparency and fairness in project selection, mitigating any governance issues.
Interpretational Ambiguities
Finally, the shift in language from "including" to "such as" introduces ambiguity about what will be covered under the funding scope. This could lead to interpretational challenges, potentially complicating legal applications. Such ambiguities can create uncertainty regarding what constitutes eligible projects, impacting effective allocation and utilization of the increased funds.
In summary, while the increase in funding could provide significant benefits in terms of enhanced flood and erosion protection, careful consideration of these issues will be crucial in ensuring that the additional funds are managed effectively, fairly, and transparently.
Issues
Section 2: The increase in the annual spending limit from $25,000,000 to $45,500,000 could be seen as potentially wasteful without a detailed justification or analysis of necessity. This raises financial concerns regarding efficient use of taxpayer money.
Section 2: The inclusion of 'public recreational assets, public lands, and parks' is overly broad and might lead to disproportionate benefits to specific localities depending on project distribution, raising ethical and fairness concerns.
Section 2: The lack of specificity in prioritizing 'construction, repair, restoration, and modification of emergency streambank and shoreline protection works' can lead to favoritism or misuse, highlighting potential legal and governance issues.
Section 2: The transition from 'including' to 'such as' introduces ambiguity about entities covered under the funding scope, which might cause interpretational issues and uncertainty in legal applications.
Section 2: The language complexity due to various insertions and modifications makes it difficult for non-experts to fully understand the scope and impact of the changes, potentially leading to misunderstandings or misinterpretations.
Section 1: The short title 'Creating Opportunities to Advance Shoreline Treatments Act' or 'COAST Act' lacks specificity about the Act's content or purpose, potentially leading to public confusion about its aims.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides the short title of the Act, stating that it may be referred to as the "Creating Opportunities to Advance Shoreline Treatments Act" or the "COAST Act".
2. Emergency streambank and shoreline protection Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In an amendment to the Flood Control Act, the budget for emergency streambank and shoreline protection to prevent damage to infrastructure such as highways, lighthouses, and public facilities has been increased from $25 million to $45.5 million per year, and now also includes projects for erosion control and the protection of public recreational assets, public lands, and parks.
Money References
- Section 14 of the Flood Control Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 701r) is amended by striking “for flood control, not to exceed $25,000,000 per year, for the construction, repair, restoration, and modification of emergency streambank and shoreline protection works to prevent damage to highways, bridge approaches, lighthouses (including those lighthouses with historical value), and public works, churches, hospitals, schools, and other nonprofit public services,” and inserting “for flood control or erosion control, not to exceed $45,500,000 per year, for the construction, repair, restoration, and modification of emergency streambank and shoreline protection works to prevent damage to highways and other roadways, bridge approaches, lighthouses (including those lighthouses with historical value), public works, public recreational assets, public lands, and parks, churches, hospitals, schools, and other nonprofit public services,”. ---