Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to authorize certain extraordinary operation and maintenance work for urban canals of concern.
Description: This bill amends the Bureau of Reclamation's authority to carry out emergency work to include certain urban canals of concern and amends certain cost-sharing provisions. Specifically, the bill reclassifies Reclamation's urban canals of concern as emergency extraordinary maintenance and operation work necessary to ensure the continued safe, dependable, and reliable delivery of project benefits. An urban canal of concern conveys water through a densely populated urban area and the canal's failure would result in the loss of life and property in the vicinity of the failure. As emergency work, Reclamation may provide federal funds to an urban canal of concern project on a non-reimbursable basis sufficient to cover 35% of the cost. The bill further specifies that reimbursable funds provided under this provision must be considered a nonfederal source of funds for purposes of federal grant cost-sharing requirements.
Sponsors: Rep. Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2]
Target Audience
Population: Residents living near urban canals of concern
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill amends the authority of the Bureau of Reclamation to include work on specific urban canals, which suggests that those served or protected by these canals will be affected.
- Urban canals of concern are defined as those that convey water through densely populated areas, thus affecting a large number of people living in urban settings.
- The purpose is to prevent catastrophic failure that could lead to loss of life and property, indicating that urban residents near these canals are the target population.
- As these canals are in the United States, we can focus primarily on the population living in proximity to such canals across major U.S. cities.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on urban residents living near canals deemed at risk of failure, hence those interviewed should reflect this demographic.
- Given a budget of $20 million in the first year, only certain priority projects will be funded, resulting in varied impact across the population depending on if a canal area is selected.
- Most urban canals are in cities with significant infrastructure, hence people in those areas have a higher chance of being impacted positively by increased safety.
- In considering who to interview, diversity in age, occupation, and living situation will show how different aspects of life might influence the perceived and actual impact of the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Civil Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an engineer, I recognize the importance of proactive maintenance. This policy ensures necessary funding, reducing risk in urban areas.
- Living close to a canal, knowing there is a reduced risk of catastrophe adds peace of mind.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Insurance Adjuster (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is likely to reduce claims related to canal-related flooding, which is beneficial from an insurance perspective.
- I feel more secure living nearby, knowing measures are being taken to mitigate failures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Urban Planner (Denver, CO)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reassures me that proactive measures are being taken to ensure urban safety and sustainability.
- The policy aligns with goals of making cities more resilient and adaptable to failures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired school teacher (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy brings hope for safer living conditions, given past damages experienced.
- Retirement savings are less secure without assurance that infrastructure is safe.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Real Estate Agent (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A failure of these waterways impacts property value, so this policy is a relief.
- Clients are more likely to invest knowing risk is mitigated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This will likely reduce unplanned maintenance disruptions which harm business operations.
- Increased reliability of infrastructure is good for businesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy means environmentally sound management can be a priority, avoiding disasters.
- Peace of mind comes from knowing environmental risks are lower.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Software Developer (Houston, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing canal infrastructure is safe is reassuring given how dependent I am on home for work.
- Reduced risk of disaster is a stress reliever.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Nurse (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having lived through major catastrophes, this policy is a godsend for future generations.
- I would feel safer knowing my area of residence has secured infrastructure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
College Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a student, environmental safety of where I live is important to me.
- Policies ensuring our safety and sustainability make me feel secure about the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $26000000)
Year 3: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $27000000)
Year 5: $23000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $28000000)
Year 10: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Key Considerations
- Necessity of consistent maintenance for major urban infrastructure elements like canals to avoid disasters.
- Initial federal expenses may seem high but serve as prevention against greater possible costs associated with canal failure.
- Potential regional variations in canal conditions may influence costs, with some areas requiring higher expenditure leads.
- Coordination with local and state governments is critical to the effectiveness of implementation.