Bill Overview
Title: New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act
Description: This bill requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish the New York-New Jersey Watershed Restoration Program, a nonregulatory program, to coordinate restoration and protection activities among government entities and conservation partners throughout the watershed. The bill also establishes the New York-New Jersey Watershed Restoration Grant Program, a voluntary grant and technical assistance program, to provide competitive matching grants to certain entities to implement restoration and protection activities for the watershed.
Sponsors: Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20]
Target Audience
Population: Residents living within the New York-New Jersey watershed region
Estimated Size: 28000000
- The New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act targets the protection and restoration of the watershed.
- A watershed encompasses the land area that drains into a particular body of water, affecting environmental quality and water availability in the region.
- The bill impacts individuals who live within the New York-New Jersey watershed area, as they rely on the watershed for water supply and environmental health.
- Activities funded by the bill may improve the quality of the environment, which affects the health and wellbeing of residents.
- An estimated population of individuals living in the New York-New Jersey area will be directly impacted by the implementation of the bill's programs.
Reasoning
- The New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act aims to improve environmental quality and availability of water, affecting residents significantly in the watershed area.
- Given the program involves both restoration and protection measures, residents could see improvements in health and environmental circumstances over time.
- The area is densely populated, but with a limited budget, the impact intensity will vary among residents.
- There will be variability in how people perceive the change, with higher impacts for those directly interacting or benefiting from improved water or environmental measures.
- The policy may not affect residents outside the watershed, including those indirectly relying on it for business or other practices.
- Consideration is given to both rural and urban perspectives within the watershed for diversity of impact.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (New York City, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is vital for maintaining biodiversity in the region.
- I believe this will enhance the natural beauty and health of our ecosystem.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Retired (Newark, NJ)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restoration efforts are essential for clean water in Newark.
- The grant program could empower local groups to act.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Paramus, NJ)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Business could benefit from improved local water quality.
- I hope this aids in lowering water treatment costs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Urban Planner (Jersey City, NJ)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An opportunity to align urban planning with environmental goals.
- Important for future-proofing city landscapes against climate issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Nurse (Brooklyn, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can have long-term health benefits.
- Clean water is foundational for community health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Chef (Hoboken, NJ)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better watershed management could stabilize local produce quality.
- Hopeful for reducing flood risks to urban areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
School Teacher (Queens, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Engagement in watershed projects could enrich educational content.
- Education is a pivotal part of environmental sustainability efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
University Student (Yonkers, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Critical step towards developing real-world conservation skills.
- Increased funding can open up new research and learning opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Government Employee (Staten Island, NY)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Integration of policy can aid infrastructure improvement.
- Eager to see government action align with community needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Journalist (Trenton, NJ)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transparency in grant distribution will determine success.
- Critical for holding entities accountable for restoration effects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)
Year 3: $53000000 (Low: $43000000, High: $63000000)
Year 5: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 10: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the program in achieving restoration and protection goals will influence long-term benefits and cost efficiencies.
- Collaboration with diverse stakeholders including local governments and conservation groups will be essential to program success.
- Potential economic benefits from improved watershed conditions may only materialize in the long term, requiring sustained investment.