a core issue in implementing good policy, is a sound understanding of the problem to be solved. let me unpack that a bit. policy is good if it can solve a problem; it needs to address some issue which reasonable people collectively agree is worth solving. for exampe, lets say, building code is in place to ensure fire safety standards or to withstand environmental tragedy (say earthquake) or similar. most people would agree saving lives due to non-standard building implementations is a good thing. so in order to attack that problem, groups of people (non-profit/industry groups, industry, government, academics, etc) advocate, strategize, architect, pass and implement policy (standards, law, regulation, executive order etc) which solve the problems around standarization of building codes.
good policy stands the test of time, is robust to challenge, moves with opinion (popular, scientific and/or otherwise) and is high on the adoption curve; which is to say people generally want to adopt it. so for the sake of argument building codes solve a problem, most people want to adopt them, most people do adopt them, they address the problem, they can be measured against the problem, there is a problem, etc etc. sure there can be arguments made for how a particular clause or regulation in general has a negative influence (my good friend the libertarian has some argument here, which i can't articulate, but respect he has an opinion). the short, policy can be good, but fundamentally it requires a sound problem to be addressed.
recently this bill recently proposed intends to "To improve the coordination and use of geospatial data." again lets unpack that a little. the verb (infinitive) for this phrase (fwiw it isn't a complete thought since there is no proper subject and you understood is not applicable, so it shouldn't exactly need a period; lets just assume the they mean 'we' understood) is 'to improve'. the subject clause of the phrase is compund with two nouns 1) coordination and 2) use. these nouns are modified by the prepositional phrase 'of geospatial data'. lets simplify geospatial data and just say data for a minute, because geospatial data is an adjective, and really what we are talking about is data.
so lets put that back together, the primary goal of the proposed bill is to make better, 1) coordination and 2) use of data. make better coordination and use of data.
if this is the goal, then first one would expect substantial build up to there being problems surounding the concepts of 1) coordination and 2) use. second there would be measurable functions which address these problems. to cut to the chase, i see neither of these things in the bill language presented.
And I hate to beat a dead horse here, but section 10 seems particularly heavy-handed to be attached to otherwise-vague imperatives. It has the ring of something Sen. Hatch might show to his Tea Party constituents as a stand-in for "fiscal conservatism" when the next primary rolls around.