Michael Simpson (R-ID)
Urban Canal Modernization Act
A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Urban Canal Modernization Act. It amends the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to allow for extraordinary operation and maintenance work on urban canals of concern. These are specific canal reaches where a failure could lead to loss of life, property damage over $5,000,000, or affect more than 100 people. The Secretary of the Interior or the operating entity will carry out necessary work on these canals. The government will provide nonreimbursable Federal funds to cover 35 percent of the cost for the operating entity.
Yes· 3 of 29
- Scored +8
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Directly targets the modernization of urban canals to prevent loss of life and property damage.
- Scored +5
Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster?
Prevents potential disasters by funding maintenance on high-risk urban canal reaches.
- Scored +4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Protects populations in urban areas from catastrophic property damage and loss of life.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
It authorizes new Federal spending for the modernization of urban canals.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill allocates nonreimbursable Federal funds for 35 percent of canal maintenance costs.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Protection of Life and Property: The bill allows for extraordinary maintenance on canals that, if they failed, would result in loss of life or property damage (Section 2(a)(8)).
-
Risk Reduction for Populations: It specifically targets canal reaches where a failure would put more than 100 individuals at risk (Section 2(a)(8)).
-
Federal Financial Support: The Secretary will provide Federal funds on a nonreimbursable basis to cover 35 percent of the cost for necessary work on these canals, reducing the total financial burden on the operating entity (Section 2(b)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Repayment Requirements: While 35 percent of the cost is nonreimbursable, any additional Federal funds advanced by the Secretary for the work must be repaid (Section 2(b)(2)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — Directly targets the modernization of urban canals to prevent loss of life and property damage. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Protects real estate assets in urban areas. Would business owners be better off under this? — Reduces the risk of business property damage exceeding $5 million. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Protects property values and safety from infrastructure failure. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Protects real estate assets in urban areas. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Protects populations in urban areas from catastrophic property damage and loss of life. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Protects property and lives from canal failure in urban settings. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Protects real estate assets in urban areas. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Urban infrastructure improvements disproportionately benefit densely populated urban areas. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Urban infrastructure improvements benefit densely populated urban areas. Would children be better off under this? — Reduces risk of life-threatening failures in urban areas where children reside. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Urban infrastructure improvements benefit densely populated urban areas. Would immigrants be better off under this? — Increases safety for residents in urban centers. Would LGBTQ people be better off under this? — Increases safety in urban areas. Would men be better off under this? — Increases safety in urban areas. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Reduces risk of life-threatening failures and property damage in urban areas. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Increases safety and reduces disaster risk in urban areas. Would retired people be better off under this? — Increases safety in urban areas. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Reduces risk of life-threatening failures in urban areas. Would students be better off under this? — Increases safety in urban areas. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Urban infrastructure improvements benefit urban populations. Would women be better off under this? — Increases safety in urban areas. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Reduces risk of life-threatening failures in urban areas. Would union members be better off under this? — Creates opportunities for skilled labor in infrastructure maintenance.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Prevents potential disasters by funding maintenance on high-risk urban canal reaches. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Modernizes and secures transferred works managed under the Omnibus Public Land Management Act.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases the role of the Secretary of the Interior in determining and funding canal maintenance.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Maintenance and modernization work on urban canals will likely create construction and engineering jobs. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Preventing catastrophic infrastructure failure protects economic assets and property values. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — It authorizes new Federal spending for the modernization of urban canals. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill allocates nonreimbursable Federal funds for 35 percent of canal maintenance costs.
- 11/21/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Russ FulcherRepublican · Idaho
Adam GrayDemocrat · California
Dan NewhouseRepublican · Washington