Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
This bill amends Section 4 of the Digital Coast Act (16 U.S.C. 1467) to change language on data availability/accessibility, add subsurface utilities and underground infrastructure data to the types of data the Digital Coast program acquires and integrates, and extends the program’s statutory period (appears to extend authorization to 2030). The amendments specifically alter wording in subsection (b)(1) to address how data are made available, add a clause in subsection (d)(3)(D) to include underground/subsurface utilities data, and replace subsection (g) text to extend the program’s term.
Open-data accessibility vs security: liberals favor public access for resilience and equity; conservatives worry about exposing critical infrastructure.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped administrative amendment to the Digital Coast Act that clarifies accessibility language, adds underground/subsurface utilities data to enumerated data types, and extends the program authorization date.
This bill amends Section 4 of the Digital Coast Act (16 U.S.C. 1467) to change language on data availability/accessibility, add subsurface utilities and underground infrastructure data to the types of data the Digital Coast program acquires and integrates, and extends the program’s statutory period (appears to extend authorization to 2030).
The amendments specifically alter wording in subsection (b)(1) to address how data are made available, add a clause in subsection (d)(3)(D) to include underground/subsurface utilities data, and replace subsection (g) text to extend the program’s term.
The text does not include appropriation amounts, detailed implementation rules, or explicit security/privacy provisions in the excerpt provided.
Based solely on the text, the bill is a narrowly scoped, technical amendment and extension of an existing program without large new spending or controversial policy shifts—characteristics that historically make enactment more likely. The absence of explicit appropriation language and potential stakeholder concerns about publishing subsurface infrastructure data create some risk, but overall the content indicates a relatively high chance of enactment compared with more ambitious or partisan proposals.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped administrative amendment to the Digital Coast Act that clarifies accessibility language, adds underground/subsurface utilities data to enumerated data types, and extends the program authorization date. It states its purpose clearly and targets specific statutory subsections.
Open-data accessibility vs security: liberals favor public access for resilience and equity; conservatives worry about exposing critical infrastructure.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Open-data accessibility vs security: liberals favor public access for resilience and equity; conservatives worry about exposing critical infrastructure.
A mainstream progressive would likely view this bill positively because it expands the scope of publicly managed geospatial data, strengthens accessibility language, and extends the program that supports coastal resilience and climate adaptation.
They would see inclusion of subsurface infrastructure data as valuable for environmental justice, disaster planning, and equitable community resilience, provided the data remain available to the public and communities in need.
The lack of explicit funding details would be a concern — progressives would want to ensure sufficient federal investment and open-access standards.
A pragmatic moderate would generally approve of updating and extending the Digital Coast program because better data and continuity can improve planning and reduce duplicate efforts.
They would emphasize the need for clear cost estimates, implementation details, and safeguards to balance transparency with security.
The centrist would also want clarity on federal-state roles, data standards, and whether the extension requires new appropriations or simply changes statutory language.
A mainstream conservative would be skeptical of broadening federal data collection and making detailed infrastructure and subsurface utility data more accessible, citing security, federal overreach, and cost concerns.
They may acknowledge some practical benefits for planning and commerce but worry the bill increases federal involvement in data that could be handled by states or private owners.
The absence of explicit funding limits and safeguards for sensitive infrastructure data would be red flags.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Based solely on the text, the bill is a narrowly scoped, technical amendment and extension of an existing program without large new spending or controversial policy shifts—characteristics that historically make enactment more likely. The absence of explicit appropriation language and potential stakeholder concerns about publishing subsurface infrastructure data create some risk, but overall the content indicates a relatively high chance of enactment compared with more ambitious or partisan proposals.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Open-data accessibility vs security: liberals favor public access for resilience and equity; conservatives worry about exposing critical in…
Based solely on the text, the bill is a narrowly scoped, technical amendment and extension of an existing program without large new spendin…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly scoped administrative amendment to the Digital Coast Act that clarifies accessibility language, adds underground/subsurface utilities data to enumerated…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.