Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
This bill amends section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1941 to require the Secretary to initiate repair or restoration of a flood control work within 180 days after receiving a non‑Federal sponsor's request. The bill also amends subsection (d)(2) by inserting the phrase "25 percent of the difference," but the legislative text provided is incomplete about how that insertion changes cost‑sharing or other calculations.
Support for mandated timeline versus concerns about federal overreach
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that imposes a specific deadline on the Secretary to initiate repair or restoration work after a non-Federal sponsor's request, and it also purports to amend cost-share language in subsection (d)(2) (that insertion is truncated in the provided text).
This bill amends section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1941 to require the Secretary to initiate repair or restoration of a flood control work within 180 days after receiving a non‑Federal sponsor's request.
The bill also amends subsection (d)(2) by inserting the phrase "25 percent of the difference," but the legislative text provided is incomplete about how that insertion changes cost‑sharing or other calculations.
Technically modest and broadly uncontroversial, but potential fiscal implications, lack of funding language, and Senate hurdles reduce probability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that imposes a specific deadline on the Secretary to initiate repair or restoration work after a non-Federal sponsor's request, and it also purports to amend cost-share language in subsection (d)(2) (that insertion is truncated in the provided text). The amendment approach is legally appropriate for changing obligations under the Flood Control Act, but the text is terse and leaves several operational, fiscal, and enforcement details unspecified.
Support for mandated timeline versus concerns about federal overreach
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Support for mandated timeline versus concerns about federal overreach
Likely favorable because the bill mandates timely federal action to repair levees and flood works, protecting vulnerable communities.
They will note benefits for public safety and climate resilience but want assurance of equitable funding and environmental safeguards.
Generally supportive of codifying a deadline to reduce bureaucratic delay while cautious about implementation details.
They will seek clarity on funding, Corps workload, and the incomplete cost‑share language before committing full support.
Mixed to skeptical: appreciative of expedited repairs protecting property and commerce, but concerned about federal mandates, potential new federal spending, and shifting costs from locals to federal taxpayers.
They will press for state/local control and fiscal restraint.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically modest and broadly uncontroversial, but potential fiscal implications, lack of funding language, and Senate hurdles reduce probability.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Support for mandated timeline versus concerns about federal overreach
Technically modest and broadly uncontroversial, but potential fiscal implications, lack of funding language, and Senate hurdles reduce prob…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory amendment that imposes a specific deadline on the Secretary to initiate repair or restoration work after a non-Federal sponsor's request, and i…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.