Overview
Title
To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to reauthorize certain United States Geological Survey water data enhancement programs, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
The bill wants to help scientists learn more about water by updating how they study things like rivers and water underground, giving money for this work until 2028, and working with Native American Tribes and other local groups to do it.
Summary AI
S. 4245 aims to update and improve various United States Geological Survey water data programs, including the Federal priority streamgage program and the national groundwater resources monitoring. The bill makes amendments to the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 by refining definitions, extending timelines, and authorizing specific funding for these activities through 2028. Notably, the bill also involves collaboration with Indian Tribes and other local entities, and it repeals the section on brackish groundwater assessment.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Bill
The bill titled "Water Monitoring and Tracking Essential Resources Data Improvement Act," or the "WATER Data Improvement Act," seeks to amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The primary goal of the legislation is to enhance water data management by reauthorizing and renaming United States Geological Survey programs. Notably, it transitions the national streamflow information program into the Federal priority streamgage program and extends its authorization to 2028. Furthermore, the bill mandates an annual allocation of $4,000,000 for national groundwater resource monitoring, now including Indian Tribes in its scope, and repeals the brackish groundwater assessment.
Summary of Significant Issues
Funding Concerns
One significant issue the bill presents is the annual authorization of $4,000,000 for groundwater resources without a detailed justification or expense breakdown. The lack of transparency may trigger concerns regarding efficient use of public funds and accountability. Stakeholders might question the basis for this specific amount and how it will be utilized effectively.
Terminology Changes
The bill replaces the term "national streamflow information program" with "Federal priority streamgage program," which could lead to confusion. Simply replacing terms without clarifying the scope or changes in the program's objectives might create ambiguity about the responsibilities and benefits involved.
Language Complexity
Complex legal jargon, such as "Federal priority streamgage program," could be challenging for the general public to comprehend. Legal terminology without clear explanations can hinder public understanding and diminish informed discussion regarding the bill's implications.
Repealing of the Brackish Groundwater Assessment
The removal of the brackish groundwater assessment might inadvertently leave gaps in water resource management. Without thorough explanation or replacement strategies, this action could adversely affect groundwater research, an essential component of comprehensive water resource management.
Feedback Collection Issues
The bill's approach to soliciting and incorporating feedback lacks clarity. It does not specify the methods or stakeholders involved in the feedback process, raising questions over inclusivity and the effectiveness of gathering and utilizing public and expert input.
Public Impact
Overall, the bill aspires to improve water data management, which could benefit public and environmental health by offering more accurate and comprehensive water resource information. However, there might be concerns about financial management and terminology clarity, potentially affecting how the public perceives and trusts the program's efficacy.
Impact on Stakeholders
General Public: The bill, by improving water measurement and monitoring, holds potential advantages for the public through enhanced accuracy in water data and related decisions. However, the complexity in language and lack of transparency in funding could lead to distrust or misunderstanding.
Government Agencies and Tribes: The inclusion of Indian Tribes is positive, potentially fostering collaboration and better resource management. However, the inadequately defined feedback protocols might leave governmental and tribal agencies uncertain about their roles.
Environmental Researchers and Managers: For those involved in water management, the repeal of the brackish groundwater assessment presents challenges. It could result in gaps within groundwater studies unless alternative measures are established.
In summary, while the bill aims to enhance water data and include diverse stakeholders, it requires adjustments for greater transparency in financial appropriations and clearer communication about its objectives and procedural nuances to ensure effective implementation and trust among all stakeholders.
Financial Assessment
The bill S. 4245 proposes modifications to existing legislative frameworks to support United States Geological Survey (USGS) water data enhancement programs and other related activities. An essential aspect of this bill is its financial implications, which are detailed as follows:
Summary of Financial Allocations
In Section 2(b)(3), the bill authorizes an annual allocation of $4,000,000 specifically designated for national groundwater resources monitoring. This allocation is slated for each fiscal year from 2023 through 2028. Such funding is intended to support the continued collection and analysis of groundwater data, crucial for understanding water availability and sustainability.
Financial References and Related Issues
A significant issue identified in the financial references is the potential perception of the authorized funding as excessive or lacking clear justification. Critics may view the absence of a detailed breakdown of expenses or explicit objectives for the annual $4,000,000 appropriation as a shortcoming, raising concerns of financial accountability and the efficient use of public funds. When public money is involved, transparency regarding its allocation and spending becomes critical to ensure that funds are used effectively to meet their intended purpose.
The change in terminology and approach within the bill, notably from the "national streamflow information program" to the "Federal priority streamgage program," could add to concerns regarding clarity and purpose. If not accompanied by detailed financial analyses or expected outcomes, stakeholders might find it challenging to assess the value or evolution of these programs over time. The continuity in funding levels or changes might not be evident without clear explanations, leading to potential misunderstandings about what financial adjustments are being made and why.
Moreover, the legislative repeal of the brackish groundwater assessment in Section 2(c), while not involving direct financial references, indirectly raises questions about comprehensive resource allocation. Eliminating certain assessments without clearly redirecting or justifying funds could suggest gaps in research coverage, potentially impacting overall water resource management strategies. While financial impacts are not explicitly detailed, the implications of such a decision could necessitate further financial scrutiny or reevaluation.
In conclusion, while the bill attempts to structure funding for vital water data programs, the annual $4,000,000 allocation and other financial elements require further clarity and transparency to assure stakeholders of their effectiveness and appropriateness.
Issues
The annual authorization of $4,000,000 for the national groundwater resources monitoring in Section 2(b)(3) could be considered wasteful or excessive due to the lack of clear justification or detailed breakdown of expenses. This lack of transparency could raise concerns about financial accountability and public expenditure efficiency.
Section 2(a) involves amendments that change terminology from 'national streamflow information program' to 'Federal priority streamgage program'. This alteration, by simply striking previous terms and replacing them, might lead to confusion regarding the implications of the program's changes and the continuity of its objectives, obligations, and benefits.
The language used throughout Section 2, particularly involving complex legal jargon like 'Federal priority streamgage program,' may be too technical for the general public to understand. This lack of clarity could obscure the bill's impacts and prevent informed public discourse.
The repeal of the brackish groundwater assessment in Section 2(c) might lead to insufficient groundwater management and research coverage, which could have repercussions for water resource management, potentially leaving gaps in the understanding and monitoring of brackish groundwater resources. These consequences are not fully addressed or explained in the bill.
Section 2(a)(4)(B) involves the solicitation of feedback and reports and could be viewed as unclear because it does not specify how feedback will be gathered or from whom, potentially leaving stakeholders unsure about their role and the effectiveness of feedback mechanisms in addressing their concerns.
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 establishes its short title, stating that the Act can be referred to as the “Water Monitoring and Tracking Essential Resources Data Improvement Act” or simply the “WATER Data Improvement Act.”
2. Water data enhancement by United States Geological Survey Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section modifies the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to enhance water data by updating and renaming the national streamflow information program to the Federal priority streamgage program, specifies funding for monitoring groundwater resources with inclusion of Indian Tribes, repeals the brackish groundwater assessment, and extends authorization for improved water estimation and monitoring technologies through 2028.
Money References
- National groundwater resources monitoring.—Section 9507(b) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (42 U.S.C. 10367(b)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (2)— (A) in subparagraph (B), in the matter preceding clause (i), by inserting “, Indian Tribes, ” before “and State”; and (B) in subparagraph (C)— (i) by inserting “or on Tribal land” after “within a State”; and (ii) by inserting “or Indian Tribe” after “water resource agency”; (2) in paragraph (6), by inserting “or an Indian Tribe” after “or local governmental entity”; and (3) in paragraph (7), by striking “are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary to carry out this subsection for the period of fiscal years 2009 through 2023” and inserting “is authorized to be appropriated $4,000,000 to carry out this subsection for each of fiscal years 2023 through 2028 ”. (c) Repeal of brackish groundwater assessment.—Section 9507 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (42 U.S.C. 10367) is amended— (1) by striking subsection (c); and (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c). (d) Improved water estimation, measurement, and monitoring technologies.—Section 9507 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (42 U.S.C. 10367) is amended, in subsection (c)(4) (as redesignated by subsection (c)(2)), by striking “2019” and inserting “2028”.