Bill Overview
Title: Delaware River Basin Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2022
Description: This bill reauthorizes the Delaware River Basin Restoration Program and increases the federal cost share for certain grant projects. Specifically, the bill extends the program through FY2030 and increases the federal cost share of a grant project that serves a small, rural, or disadvantaged community to 90% of the total cost of the project. However, the federal share may be increased to 100% of the project's total cost if the grant recipient is unable to pay, or would experience significant financial hardship if required to pay, the nonfederal share. The bill also repeals the prohibition on the use of program funds for the acquisition by the federal government of any interest in land.
Sponsors: Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living within or relying on the Delaware River Basin
Estimated Size: 15950000
- The Delaware River Basin is a major watershed located in four U.S. states: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Therefore, people living in these states, especially in the areas directly within the basin, will be directly impacted.
- The basin supports various ecosystems that influence the livelihoods of those who rely on its natural resources, including water supply and quality, recreation, fishing, and agriculture.
- Communities that are small, rural, or economically disadvantaged are explicitly targeted by the bill for increased federal support, which suggests that individuals in these communities within the basin are a primary target population.
Reasoning
- The target population is composed of those residing in or dependent on the Delaware River Basin, specifically in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.
- Given budget constraints, impact will likely vary by how much each individual's community qualifies as small, rural, or disadvantaged.
- To include a variety of perspectives, interviews should reflect both those who are directly impacted by environmental changes and improvements, as well as those who may not notice any significant differences in their daily lives or wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Easton, PA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased federal share is a relief, my farm can't afford major project costs.
- This might help improve the water quality that affects my crops.
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 | 4 |
Retired (Camden, NJ)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this brings cleaner parks and waterways.
- Better river health might improve community spaces.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Newark, DE)
Age: 32 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy greatly supports my work; more projects will be feasible.
- I'm optimistic about long-term ecological health improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Software Engineer (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like visiting the river, cleaner water could make it more enjoyable.
- Not sure if this will affect me much day-to-day.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
School Teacher (Wilmington, DE)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy assists schools like mine by improving community health resources.
- Expectations are high for positive long-term changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Local Government Official (Trenton, NJ)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This enhances our capacity to fund important infrastructure projects.
- I'm hopeful for sustained federal support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
College Student (Scranton, PA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step in the right direction for long-term river health.
- Excited about potential research and project opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Retired Industrial Worker (Harrisburg, PA)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved river conditions could benefit my health and others'.
- I remember bad moments, so I'm cautious but hopeful.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Small Business Owner (Dover, DE)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sustaining the river's health supports local tourism, which is good for business.
- Optimistic for continued economic benefits.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Nurse (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cleaner water could reduce health issues we often encounter.
- This needs consistent effort beyond initial grants.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $9000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $11000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $12000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $13000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy targets environmentally and economically sensitive areas, requiring careful resource allocation to ensure efficiency and effectiveness.
- Ensuring the financial capability of federal funds may be pivotal, given increased obligations to cover up to 100% project costs in certain cases.
- Potential for long-term ecological, economic, and social benefits from enhanced conservation and restoration efforts.