Overview
Title
To amend section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1941 to impose a deadline for initiating the repair or restoration of project under such section, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 2774 wants to make sure the army fixes levees and flood barriers quickly when they break, asking them to start within about six months of being told. The towns that ask for help have to help pay for some of the extra fix-it costs, too.
Summary AI
H. R. 2774, also known as the “Safeguarding Our Levees Act,” aims to amend the Flood Control Act of 1941 by implementing a deadline for federal action. The bill requires the Secretary of the Army to start repairs or rehabilitation on flood control projects within 180 days after a non-Federal sponsor submits a request. Additionally, it adjusts the cost-sharing provisions to include a requirement that non-Federal sponsors cover 25% of the additional costs. The primary goal of this legislation is to ensure timely responses to flood control issues.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, titled the "Safeguarding Our Levees Act," aims to amend the Flood Control Act of 1941. The primary focus of this bill is to establish a timeline and financial requirement for repairing or restoring flood control projects. Specifically, the bill mandates that, once a request is received from a non-Federal sponsor, the Secretary must initiate repairs or restoration within 180 days. It also requires local sponsors to contribute 25% of a specified cost difference.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several issues arise from this legislation. First, while the bill imposes a deadline of 180 days for initiating repairs, there is concern that this timeframe might not accommodate emergencies requiring immediate action. This delay could adversely affect communities dependent on timely repairs for protection against floods.
Second, the bill introduces a financial clause requiring local contributions, phrased as "25 percent of the difference." This vague wording could lead to confusion and miscalculations, possibly straining local budgets or delaying projects.
Additionally, the bill lacks provisions for oversight or accountability. Without these, it is unclear how the repair projects will be monitored for efficiency and fairness. The absence of criteria for prioritizing projects is also a significant concern, as it leaves room for decision-making to be influenced by non-objective factors.
Impact on the Public
The broader impact of this bill on the public hinges on its ability to ensure timely and efficient flood control repairs. If enacted effectively, communities could benefit from improved infrastructure resilience against natural disasters. However, the potential for delayed responses due to the 180-day initiation deadline could mean some areas remain vulnerable for longer than necessary after extreme weather events.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Local governments, as key stakeholders, face positive and negative impacts. On the one hand, they gain a structured timeline for federal assistance. On the other, the financial stipulation requiring local contributions could burden budgets, especially in less affluent areas.
Communities living near flood-prone areas stand to benefit from faster, federally-supported repair initiatives; however, inadequacies in oversight and criteria for project selection risk undermining the fair allocation of resources. Additionally, without proper accountability measures, the funds may not be utilized as effectively as intended, affecting the residents' safety and economic stability.
In summary, while the "Safeguarding Our Levees Act" proposes potentially beneficial changes to flood control infrastructure processes, it also raises concerns about implementation, fairness, and fiscal clarity. Addressing these issues would be crucial to ensuring the legislation effectively serves its intended public protection and safety objectives.
Issues
The deadline of 180 days to initiate the repair or restoration of flood control work in Section 2 might lead to delays if a more urgent response is necessary, potentially impacting communities awaiting critical infrastructure repairs after natural disasters.
Section 2 lacks details on how the '25 percent of the difference' modification impacts financial responsibilities or calculations, which could lead to ambiguity in funding allocations and could cause financial misunderstandings or mismanagement.
The amendment in Section 2 does not specify any oversight measures to ensure efficient and fair repair or restoration processes, raising concerns about accountability and the potential for misuse of funds.
There is no mention in Section 2 of criteria or prioritization for deciding which flood control projects to repair or rehabilitate, which might allow for biased decision-making influenced by political or personal motivations.
Section 2 does not include a mechanism for accountability or evaluation of the repair or restoration projects, which might result in wasteful spending and ineffective use of taxpayer dollars.
Section 1 is very brief and only contains the short title of the act, making it difficult to assess potential issues related to spending, allocations, or biases.
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
This section of the bill states that the official name of the Act is the “Safeguarding Our Levees Act”.
2. Emergency response to natural disasters Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section updates the Flood Control Act of 1941 to require that the Secretary start repairing or restoring a flood control project within 180 days after a request from a local sponsor. It also changes the financial contribution required from the local sponsor by stating they need to pay 25% of a specific cost difference.