Bill Overview
Title: Rio Grande Water Security Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of the Interior to develop and implement an integrated water resources management plan (i.e., the Basin Plan) for the Rio Grande Basin and reauthorizes an irrigation infrastructure grant program for Rio Grande Pueblos tribes. Specifically, Interior must convene a working group of designated federal agencies to collaborate with the Basin States (Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas), Indian tribes, local governments, irrigation districts, and other partners to develop and implement a plan for improving the basin's water security and quality, river and watershed health, and resilience to drought. The plan must include (1) project recommendations for updating reservoir operations, increasing water conservation, and improving infrastructure; (2) a list of potential changes that may be needed to existing federal authorities to implement the plan; and (3) a 30-year implementation time line. After the plan is submitted to Congress, relevant agencies may implement recommended projects. Agencies may also waive cost-sharing requirements for projects that demonstrate significant public benefits. The bill also reauthorizes an irrigation infrastructure grant program that permits the Bureau of Reclamation to provide grants and enter into agreements with the Rio Grande Pueblos tribes for repairing and replacing Pueblo irrigation infrastructure to (1) increase water use efficiency and agricultural productivity, (2) conserve water, and (3) enhance water management.
Sponsors: Rep. Stansbury, Melanie Ann [D-NM-1]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living in or dependent on the Rio Grande Basin's water resources
Estimated Size: 14000000
- The Rio Grande Basin spans three U.S. states: Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas.
- This area includes significant numbers of urban as well as rural populations relying on the Rio Grande for water supply.
- Irrigation and agriculture are significant industries in the Rio Grande Basin reliant on water resources.
- The bill involves collaboration with Indian tribes in the area, indicating a significant impact on these populations, particularly the Rio Grande Pueblos tribes.
- Drought and water scarcity affects all population living along the Rio Grande, making water security a crucial issue.
- Infrastructure updates and water conservation efforts impact other residents who depend on this crucial water source.
Reasoning
- The Rio Grande Water Security Act is designed to address significant issues in the Rio Grande Basin affecting water security and quality. By focusing on infrastructure improvement and drought resilience, it aims to benefit a diverse population that relies on this water source.
- A considerable portion of the target population includes agricultural workers, who may benefit from increased irrigation efficiency and productivity. This includes the Pueblo tribes with specific grant provisions for irrigation infrastructure improvement.
- Urban populations, such as those in Albuquerque or Santa Fe, indirectly depending on the river, will likely see little immediate direct impact, but long-term benefits from improved water security and conservation efforts.
- Given the 14 million people in the Basin States, and the limited budget initially, the policy predominantly impacts those directly involved in agriculture or tribal communities initially, with broader impacts as infrastructure projects advance.
- Given the focus on collaboration with tribes and local governments, the projects aligned with such interests stand to receive support and prioritization, with potential significant wellbeing effects for those directly receiving grants or involved in new initiatives.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Rural New Mexico)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about water availability every year and whether my crops will fail.
- This bill looks like it could provide the resources we need to upgrade our irrigation system.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Albuquerque, New Mexico)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's focus on environmental health and drought resilience is crucial.
- I hope it includes modern conservation technologies.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Teacher (El Paso, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the improvements help prevent restrictions.
- Water quality is equally important to quantity.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Business Owner (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy may create new business opportunities.
- I am concerned about the cost-effectiveness of implementation.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Community Leader (Pueblo, Tribal Lands)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our historic irrigation systems need serious upgrades.
- I hope the grants will help us preserve our way of life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Policy Analyst (Austin, Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy represents a critical step toward sustainable water management.
- Integration across federal and local entities is ambitious but necessary.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Graduate Student (Las Cruces, New Mexico)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Studying policies like these shows me their complexity.
- I hope it will bolster regional resilience against climate change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired (Rio Rancho, New Mexico)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water availability has always been a concern, especially for gardening.
- I'd like to see more focus on individual conservation as well.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Engineer (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful this policy encourages more sustainable technologies.
- It may take a while to see initial impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Water Resource Manager (Lubbock, Texas)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These integrated plans are vital for managing scarce resources wisely.
- I am concerned about the timeline and bureaucracy involved.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 5: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $90000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Key Considerations
- The necessity for multi-state collaboration emphasizes the complexity and potentially expansive scope of the project.
- Consider significant upfront costs with potential long-term indirect benefits.
- Compatibility with existing water rights and management agreements among various stakeholders.
- The ongoing impact of climate change and drought complicates long-term water management strategy planning.