Bill Overview
Title: Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Recovery Act
Description: This bill extends through FY2024 the authority of the Department of the Interior to implement capital projects (i.e., construction of facilities) for the endangered fish recovery programs for the Upper Colorado and San Juan river basins. The bill raises the ceiling on costs for the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin and lowers the ceiling on costs for the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program. The bill also extends through FY2022 the deadline for the submission of the report on the recovery implementation programs.
Sponsors: Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on or living near the Upper Colorado and San Juan river basins
Estimated Size: 500000
- The bill impacts species recovery programs specifically targeting endangered fish within the Upper Colorado and San Juan river basins.
- The changes in funding ceilings affect the scope of recovery efforts, possibly leading to adjustments in ongoing conservation projects.
- People who rely on these ecosystems for recreational activities, tourism, or fisheries could be affected indirectly due to changes in ecosystem health and biodiversity.
- Communities near these river basins might experience environmental changes, thus affecting local economies tied to these natural resources.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on fish recovery programs in the Upper Colorado and San Juan river basins, which impacts certain regions and communities directly. Initially, it's crucial to understand that the physical and economic environment in these areas is highly dependent on the health of the local ecosystem. This could include people employed in sectors like tourism, recreation (e.g., fishing), and even agriculture that relies on these water systems.
- Given the budget limits of $20 million annually and $226.5 million over ten years, the policy might not drastically alter the environment or economic landscape if spread widely. Instead, impacts will likely be seen in more localized settings, having specific influences on those residing or working directly in connection with these river basins.
- It should be noted that while this initiative extends the project timelines and adjusts cost ceilings, it doesn't provide a direct, immediate financial relief or intervention to individual household economies in these areas. Hence, the perceived impact on personal wellbeing could range from high in direct-involvement cases (like conservation officers or nearby community members) to none in unrelated individuals or those geographically distant, even within the same states affected.
- Additionally, the population who perceive ecological and environmental improvement as a boost to their quality of life could report higher wellbeing over time, considering ecosystem sustainability as a valuable asset. The variation in Cantril wellbeing scores captured aims to reflect these diverse perspectives and understandings of the policy's implications.
Simulated Interviews
Recreational Fishing Guide (Durango, Colorado)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The health of our fish stock is crucial. More funding means better management and chances of recovery.
- Seeing long-term benefits is more important than short-term drawbacks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Albuquerque, New Mexico)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding shifts are concerning but necessary to ensure targeted species can thrive.
- We need sustainable solutions for long-term environmental health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Local Business Owner (Grand Junction, Colorado)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The project funding is good news, potentially sustaining tourism.
- Uncertain how changes in cost ceilings might affect immediate outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Rancher (Ogden, Utah)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a user of water resources, the ecological recovery has indirect benefits.
- Slightly skeptical about how much will trickle down to someone like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Farmington, New Mexico)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Happy to see efforts to recover fish populations; it's a positive step.
- Doubtful on personal benefits, but hopes it helps the community at large.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
State Policy Analyst (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased funding allows for more comprehensive studies, which is crucial.
- Balancing budgets across different projects is challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Wildlife Conservation Officer (Laramie, Wyoming)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More resources can mean better restoration projects and outcomes.
- We need consistent support to see impactful changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Hiking and River Guide (Moab, Utah)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ecological investments are hopeful for maintaining job security.
- But short-term effects might not be very visible.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Professor of Ecology (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Adequate funding supports essential research and recovery efforts.
- Need to ensure long-term commitment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Fish and Wildlife Technician (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More funds allow us to better track and support endangered species.
- Ensures work stability and continued projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $26000000)
Year 3: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $27000000)
Year 5: $23000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $28000000)
Year 10: $24000000 (Low: $19000000, High: $29000000)
Year 100: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Key Considerations
- The balance between increased funding for the Upper Colorado basin and the lowered ceiling for the San Juan River is crucial.
- The ecological benefit of these programs must also consider the opportunity costs and impacts on local labor markets.
- Attention to the indirect economic benefits such as improved tourism and local fisheries is important.