Overview
Title
To direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish a grant program to allocate resources for remote search and rescue activities conducted on Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The government wants to help teams that rescue people lost in forests and other big, wild places by giving them money to buy things like special rescue gear and pay for rescue missions. They plan to cover up to 75% of the costs and aim to help places where there are lots of visitors compared to people who live there.
Summary AI
H. R. 9165, known as the “Public Land Search and Rescue Act,” is a proposed bill that aims to set up a grant program through the Secretary of the Interior. This program would provide funding to support remote search and rescue activities on federal lands managed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture. Grants would cover costs like purchasing and maintaining rescue equipment and reimbursing search and rescue operations. The bill emphasizes supporting areas with high visitor-to-resident ratios and limits the federal contribution to 75% of project costs.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The "Public Land Search and Rescue Act," as introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives, aims to allocate federal resources towards enhancing search and rescue operations on federal lands. The bill mandates the Secretary of the Interior to establish a grant program that provides financial support for remote search and rescue activities. These efforts are directed towards federal lands governed by either the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture. The program seeks to prioritize areas with high visitor traffic relative to residents, and it offers grants covering up to 75% of the costs associated with equipment, maintenance, and actual rescue operations.
Summary of Significant Issues
While the bill is straightforward in its intention to provide essential support for search and rescue operations, several issues emerge upon closer examination:
Ambiguity in Defining Eligible Recipients: The bill broadly defines "eligible recipients," which could lead to legal challenges or disputes about which entities qualify for funding. The inclusion of "political subdivisions" and their designees without clear guidelines could complicate the application process.
Specificity of Eligible Activities: The narrow definition of "remote search and rescue activity" might inadvertently exclude activities like preventative measures or essential training, which are also crucial in search and rescue operations.
Lack of Specific Guidance on Prioritization: The bill prioritizes grants based on the visitor-to-resident ratio, yet it fails to specify how this is measured. This lack of clarity could result in inconsistent or biased application evaluations.
Potential Negative Fairness Impacts: The provision that allows the federal government to cover up to 75% of costs may insufficiently encourage cost-sharing or match investments from local entities, potentially affecting financial sustainability.
Subjectivity in Project Capability Assessment: The requirement for proven capability to carry out projects could be subjectively interpreted by the Secretary, possibly leading to arbitrary decisions on grant awards.
Ongoing Maintenance and Operation Concerns: The bill does not stipulate how ongoing maintenance or operational efficacy will be ensured beyond the initial funding, which could lead to sustainability issues for funded projects.
Discretionary Application Process: The bill grants the Secretary of the Interior complete discretion over the application process, possibly raising concerns about transparency and favoritism.
Vague Definition of 'Remote': The term "remote" is not explicitly defined, allowing room for variable interpretation, which might complicate enforcement and application of the program.
Broad Public Impact
If enacted, this bill could significantly impact federal land safety, particularly in national parks and wilderness areas with high visitation numbers. By bolstering search and rescue capabilities, the program could enhance visitor safety and potentially save lives, thereby boosting public confidence in exploring these areas. However, the lack of clarity and specificity in certain terms may lead to inconsistent enforcement and application of provisions.
Specific Stakeholder Impact
Local Governments and Search and Rescue Entities: Local agencies tasked with search and rescue operations stand to benefit broadly from additional funding, enabling them to purchase necessary equipment and cover operational costs. However, they may face hurdles in qualifying for grants due to the vague criteria defining eligibility and requirement for demonstrated capability.
Visitors and Tourists: Tourists visiting federal lands may experience heightened safety thanks to improved search and rescue resources. The prioritization of areas with high visitor numbers could lead to more efficient and rapid response times in emergencies.
Federal Agencies: As implementers, federal agencies may bear the burden of developing clear guidelines and frameworks to address the ambiguities and subjective elements in the bill. Execution may require additional resources to manage the application and assessment process transparently and equitably.
In essence, while the bill aims to increase safety measures across federal lands, its implementation presents challenges that require careful consideration and clarification to effectively translate legislative intent into practical benefit.
Issues
The definition of 'eligible recipient' in Section 2 might lead to ambiguity or legal challenges regarding which entities are qualified, particularly because it includes any state or political subdivision and their designees authorized by state or federal law.
The term 'remote search and rescue activity' in Section 2 is very specific and may exclude related activities such as preventative measures or training, potentially leading to a limitation on eligible projects.
The absence of specific guidance on determining the 'high ratio of visitors to residents' for prioritizing applications in Section 2 may result in inconsistent application assessments and potential biases.
The provision allowing up to 75 percent Federal share in Section 2 could discourage cost-saving measures or matching investments by local entities, impacting financial sustainability and efficient use of resources.
The requirement that eligible recipients must have 'the capability to carry out a project' in Section 2 could be subjectively assessed by the Secretary, leading to potential exclusion of deserving entities based on arbitrary judgments.
Section 2 does not address how ongoing maintenance and operational effectiveness will be managed post initial funding for equipment and gear, possibly affecting long-term sustainability of the search and rescue operations.
Delegating the application process entirely to the Secretary's discretion in Section 2 might result in variability in requirements and raise concerns of favoritism or lack of transparency.
The term 'remote' in 'remote search and rescue activities' in Section 2 is not precisely defined, leaving room for interpretation that could affect decisions on applicable areas and projects, potentially causing legal or operational challenges.
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 first section of the bill confirms its short title, stating that it can be officially referred to as the "Public Land Search and Rescue Act."
2. Grant program for remote search and rescue activities Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill establishes a program to fund remote search and rescue activities on Federal land, offering grants to states and other authorized entities. It prioritizes areas with high numbers of visitors and covers up to 75% of costs for equipment, maintenance, and rescue operations, defining key terms like "eligible recipient" and "remote search and rescue activity."