Bill Overview
Title: Shoreline Health Oversight, Restoration, Resilience, and Enhancement Act
Description: This bill provides for the development of water and water-related resources projects and activities with a particular emphasis on those carried out by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Among other things, the bill revises and modifies the flood mitigation and riverine restoration program to include coverage of coastal storm damage; authorizes the Corps to carry out specified water resources development and conservation projects in accordance with plans laid out in designated reports or decision documents; authorizes the Department of the Army to continue periodic nourishment for specified projects for coastal storm risk management for an additional period of 50 years; authorizes the Army to use funds for water resources development purposes to carry out, at full federal expense, a measure located on, or benefitting, federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of another federal agency under specified conditions; authorizes the Army to provide in advance the federal share of funds required for the acquisition of land, easements, and rights-of-way for, and the relocation of, certain projects; directs the Army to establish a program to provide environmental assistance to nonfederal interests in the Chattahoochee River Basin; and requires the Army to expedite the replacement of the Mississippi River mat sinking unit.
Sponsors: Rep. Blunt Rochester, Lisa [D-DE-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: individuals living in coastal and riverine areas worldwide
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill focuses on water and water-related resources projects involving the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, so populations living near shorelines prone to flooding, storm damage, or riverine restoration will be directly impacted.
- Communities along the Chattahoochee River Basin are specifically mentioned and will receive environmental assistance.
- Areas relying on coastal storm risk management will see long-term benefits from the additional 50 years of nourishment projects.
- Federal lands under different jurisdictions may see infrastructure developments or changes, impacting those who live nearby or use these lands.
- Populations along the Mississippi River are also specifically targeted, particularly regarding mat sinking unit replacements.
Reasoning
- Residents along the coastal regions will likely experience a significant impact due to the additional flood mitigation and coastal storm damage management measures, improving their long-term wellbeing.
- The policy includes specific provisions for the Chattahoochee River Basin, directly impacting those residents, which should result in a moderate to high improvement in their environmental conditions and wellbeing.
- Flood mitigation and resource development projects, while impactful, will be heavily prioritized in high-risk areas, likely resulting in unequal distribution of resources.
- The budgetary constraints of $2 billion in year 1 and $20 billion over 10 years suggest that not all potential projects will be funded immediately, necessitating prioritization of high-need areas.
- Residents who don't live close to targeted rivers or shorelines likely won't see direct changes to their wellbeing scores.
- The policy's focus on benefits to federal lands might also mean projects in national parks or protected areas, affecting fewer people directly but potentially offering widespread conservation benefits.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Engineer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is overdue and necessary to address ongoing storm risks.
- Funding will need to continuously support new challenges as sea levels rise.
- Hopes to see community engagement in the implementation processes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 3 |
Civil Servant (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Emphasizes importance of environmental assistance for the basin.
- Concerns about adequate consultation with local stakeholders.
- Believes long-term benefits will outweigh initial disruptions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Teacher (Houston, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about constant flooding and storm damage.
- Hopes policy will offer better storm protection and infrastructure.
- Concern over relocation impacts from project developments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Small Business Owner (St. Louis, Missouri)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supportive of mat sinking unit replacement for safer river navigation.
- Anticipates economic benefits from improved infrastructure.
- Curious about timelines for these improvements and disruptions thereof.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Healthcare Worker (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy gives hope for better emergency response.
- Healthcare infrastructure must also adapt to these changes.
- Worried about potential displacement and community impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Retired Fisherman (Outer Banks, North Carolina)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 50.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Pleased with long-term coastal nourishment commitment.
- Concerned about immediate impacts on marine life.
- Wants assurances that fishing spots will be maintained.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Student (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about quality of implementation.
- Hopes this sets precedence for bigger climate action steps.
- Interested in academic opportunities researching policy impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Journalist (Sacramento, California)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Keeps an eye on how nationwide policy affects California coast diversely.
- Sees potential stories on community resilience and policy effectiveness.
- Wants transparent communication from the Corps.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Construction Worker (Biloxi, Mississippi)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopes for job opportunities due to new projects.
- Appreciates disaster risk mitigation but worries about job continuity.
- Looks forward to better coastal defense for family safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Policy Analyst (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about budget management relative to goals.
- Sees potential for setting new funding priorities critically.
- Advocates for public access to policy impact data.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 2: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 3: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 5: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 10: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Year 100: $2000000000 (Low: $1500000000, High: $2500000000)
Key Considerations
- The emphasis on long-term coastal storm risk management projects suggests ongoing financial commitments for decades.
- Collaboration with federal and non-federal entities may lead to shared costs but could also introduce coordination challenges.
- Environmental and infrastructure improvements can drive economic benefits, although initial expenditures are high.