Bill Overview
Title: DRIP Act of 2022
Description: 22 This bill directs the Department of Agriculture to establish a competitive grant program to (1) remove nonnative plant species in riparian areas that contribute to drought conditions, (2) replace those nonnative plant species with native plant species, and (3) maintain and monitor riparian areas in which nonnative plant species have been removed and replaced.
Sponsors: Rep. O'Halleran, Tom [D-AZ-1]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on agricultural and water resources affected by drought conditions
Estimated Size: 20000000
- Nonnative plant species in riparian areas can exacerbate drought conditions by using more water, so removing them can impact water availability.
- Replacing nonnative with native plant species can improve the ecological balance and water usage in riparian areas, impacting agricultural productivity.
- The maintenance and monitoring of riparian areas are likely to provide ongoing improvements in water management.
Reasoning
- Using the provided budget for the policy, we are targeting individuals who either directly or indirectly depend on agriculture and water resources in drought-prone areas, particularly focusing on those in the western United States where riparian areas are significantly impacted by nonnative plant species.
- We included a diverse range of individuals from various backgrounds related to agriculture, community organizations, and indigenous populations who may be disproportionately impacted by the policy.
- Not everyone in the target population will be directly impacted by the policy; thus, we include individuals with varying degrees of connection to agriculture and water resources.
Simulated Interviews
Rancher (New Mexico)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy might help with our long-term water issues if it's done well.
- Replacing nonnative species with native plants can help restore water flows, which we desperately need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Arizona)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is greatly needed, especially in areas where we see a lot of ecological damage due to invasive species.
- Proper maintenance will be key to its success.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Farmer (Utah)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautiously optimistic. If this policy works, it could mean more reliable water for irrigation.
- I hope the government supports local farmers effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Urban Planner (California)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The DRIP Act has potential to integrate ecological strategies into urban planning.
- It's a long overdue step towards environmental sustainability.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Forestry Worker (Colorado)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe we need this legislation to restore balance to our forests and water systems.
- I've seen first-hand how bad invasive species are.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Community Organizer (Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should help our communities to handle water scarcity better.
- However, its success will depend on meaningful community involvement.
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 |
Water Resource Engineer (Nevada)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Technically, the policy is a sound approach to improving water conservation.
- Financial and logistical support will be necessary to see significant results.
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 | 7 |
Indigenous Community Leader (Texas)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support initiatives that restore native ecosystems as they align with our community values.
- We must ensure Native communities are involved in decision-making processes.
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 | 6 |
Vineyard Owner (California)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm intrigued to see if the local water supply improves for agriculture.
- Native plants might help stabilize the local ecosystem, reducing water usage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College Student (Arizona)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as a step towards real environmental change.
- Excited to see how emerging scientists like me can contribute to policy implementation.
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 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $80000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $100000000)
Year 3: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $80000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 10: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $50000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential budget volatility as costs for plant removal and restoration can vary widely with site conditions.
- Efficacy of native species reestablishment could influence future costs related to ecosystem management and benefits.
- Partnering with local and state agencies may leverage existing resources and reduce federal spending.