Bill Overview
Title: A bill 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: Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]
Target Audience
Population: People living in urban areas near canals of concern
Estimated Size: 20000000
- Urban canals of concern are located in or near densely populated areas.
- The failure of such canals can lead to loss of life and property, implying residents and businesses in close proximity are directly affected.
- The bill involves emergency maintenance and operation, highlighting the urgency and importance of these urban canals for the community's safety and well-being.
- The legislation impacts those who rely on these canals for water delivery, including municipal water systems, local businesses, and residential properties.
- The bill amends cost-sharing provisions, which means that federally subsidized funds will be used to cover a portion of the maintenance costs, potentially reducing local financial burden and influencing local budgeting and economic planning.
Reasoning
- The selected individuals primarily live in urban areas near irrigation canals managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, focusing on cities in the Western United States like Los Angeles and Phoenix.
- The budget limitations indicate that not all urban canals will receive assistance immediately, so individuals closer to prioritized canals will experience more immediate benefits.
- People directly affected may include homeowners, renters, local business owners, and municipal water managers.
- I included perspectives from those whose wellbeing is significantly impacted by the canal safety and those whose wellbeing remains unchanged to reflect a wide range of experiences.
Simulated Interviews
municipal water manager (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy would reduce cost pressures for our department.
- Primary concerns are safety and reliable water supply.
- Federal support means lower local taxes possibly, positive for residents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
real estate developer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about property value impacts from potential canal failures.
- The bill provides assurance that infrastructure will be maintained.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
independent retailer (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the proposal as canal safety impacts my business.
- Assured water and safety could boost local economic activity.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
retired engineer (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to know the canals will be maintained for safety.
- There should be transparent communication about the policy's direct impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
civil rights advocate (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill aligns with our goals of equitable infrastructure development.
- Ensuring secure water paths impacts low-income communities positively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
homeowner (San Diego, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Federal involvement in canal maintenance alleviates local burden.
- Long-term infrastructure safety reassures property owners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
urban planner (Denver, CO)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Maintaining these canals is crucial for city planning.
- Ensures integration with new urban developments safely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
business consultant (Sacramento, CA)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could drive new infrastructure investments.
- Reassures investors about ongoing risk mitigation projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
school teacher (Albuquerque, NM)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's vital that our schools are in safe environments.
- Ensured water and safety are basic rights for the community.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
student (Boise, ID)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a real-world example of environmental equity.
- Can be a case study for water resource management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $17500000 (Low: $15000000, High: $20000000)
Year 2: $18000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $21000000)
Year 3: $18500000 (Low: $16500000, High: $21500000)
Year 5: $19000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $22000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $23000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $35000000)
Key Considerations
- The availability of federal funds as non-reimbursable shifts financial responsibility for part of these projects to the federal government, reducing state and local budget strains.
- Stabilizing urban canals can avert potential massive flood damage, protecting significantly more economic value than the immediate maintenance cost.
- The emergent categorization allows faster deployment of resources, crucial in densely populated areas prone to disasters.
- The bill necessitates identifying and prioritizing canals 'of concern', which could pose implementation challenges related to asset management and oversight.