Overview
Title
Providing for corrections in the enrollment of S. 4367.
ELI5 AI
S. CON. RES. 46 is a fix-it list for a big, important paper about American rivers and water projects. It changes some words to make sure everyone pays the right amount and understands things correctly, like fixing a word from "food" to "flood" so it makes sense.
Summary AI
S. CON. RES. 46 is a resolution that directs specific corrections to be made in the text of S. 4367, a bill aimed at improving the United States' rivers, harbors, and water resources. The changes include clarifying the language regarding costs and responsibilities in various sections of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986. These corrections involve changing terms like "maximum Federal cost" to "Federal share of the cost," and correcting a typo from "food" to "flood." Additionally, it updates language related to planning costs and studies associated with water development projects.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The concurrent resolution S. CON. RES. 46 pertains to making specific corrections in the enrollment of S. 4367, a legislative act aimed at improving the rivers and harbors of the United States, as well as fostering the conservation and development of water and related resources. These corrections are primarily centered on adjusting the language in various sections of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 and its subsequent amendments. The primary focus is to clarify terminology regarding financial responsibilities, correct typographic errors, and ensure the legislation's intent is accurately conveyed.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several key issues arise from the language corrections in this resolution:
Financial Terminology Adjustments: The change from "maximum Federal cost" to "Federal share of the cost" might redefine financial responsibilities between federal and non-federal entities, potentially affecting how project funding is shared.
Terminology on Planning Phases: The shift from "Reconnaissance study" to "Pre-design planning costs" could influence understanding of project phases, which might impact how funding is allocated and how these projects are perceived in terms of their progress and planning stages.
Typographical Corrections: The alteration from "food" to "flood" corrects what is likely a typographic error but needs to be reviewed thoroughly to ensure legal precision.
Ambiguity in Financial Sources: Adjusting "United States funds" to "United States" in a section might introduce ambiguity about the specific financial responsibilities or sources, needing clarification to prevent potential misinterpretations.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, the bill primarily ensures that water resources and infrastructure projects continue with clear funding guidelines and authority definitions. With clarifications on financial contributions, local and state governments can better plan their budgets and project scopes. Clearer language could lead to more efficient project management, potentially resulting in faster and more effective improvements to local water infrastructures.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Positive Impacts
Federal and Local Governments: Clarity in funding responsibilities helps government bodies at both federal and state levels allocate resources more effectively, promoting smoother cooperation and progression of projects aimed at river and harbor improvements.
Project Managers and Planners: Correct terminology ensures better understanding of project stages and funding allocations, aiding in planning and securing necessary resources.
Negative Impacts
Unintended Confusion: Frequent amendments referenced in various sections of the Water Resources Development Act could lead to misunderstanding if not managed with a consolidated overview for stakeholders involved in these projects.
Potential Financial Repercussions for Local Entities: Ambiguities in financial terms might result in increased financial burdens for local governments if the distribution of costs leans more heavily on non-federal parties. This could slow down project initiation or completion if additional funds need to be secured.
Overall, while the bill serves the purpose of legal and textual accuracy, its implications span financial, logistical, and operational contexts, requiring stakeholders to stay informed and adaptive to the precise adjustments its enactment carries forth.
Issues
The change from 'maximum Federal cost' to 'Federal share of the cost' in section 203(d) might have implications for how project funding is allocated, potentially affecting the scope or financial burden on state or local governments.
The alteration of terminology from 'Reconnaissance study' to 'Pre-design planning costs' in paragraph (2) of section 1113(d) could impact the understanding of project phases and funding allocations, leading to confusion without clear definitions.
The corrections involve frequent amendments to sections of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, referencing multiple prior amendments, which can lead to confusion or misinterpretation without a consolidated reference or summary.
The change from 'food' to 'flood' in section 1203(a)(1), while likely a typographical correction, needs careful review to ensure it does not inadvertently change legal intent.
The modification of 'United States funds' to 'United States' in section 204(c)(1) could lead to ambiguity regarding financial sources or responsibility, necessitating clarification to avoid misinterpretation of fiscal obligations.
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) Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section outlines corrections to S. 4367, a bill related to U.S. water resources development, specifying changes to terminology and language in various sections to accurately describe financial responsibilities and clarify text related to planning and flood management.