Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8168

Bill Overview

Title: Save Our Sequoias Act

Description: This bill provides for the conservation of giant sequoia trees ( Sequoiadendron giganteum ) in California, including by providing statutory authority for the Giant Sequoia Lands Coalition; directing the coalition to submit a Giant Sequoia Health and Resiliency Assessment; declaring an emergency on certain public lands and allowing officials to carry out protection plans during the emergency to respond to the threat of wildfires, insects, and drought; directing the Department of the Interior to develop and implement a Giant Sequoia Reforestation and Rehabilitation Strategy; and establishing a variety of programs and funds to support the conservation of giant sequoias.

Sponsors: Rep. McCarthy, Kevin [R-CA-23]

Target Audience

Population: people worldwide who care about biodiversity conservation and are affected by climate change

Estimated Size: 15000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Environmental Analyst (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 25 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I believe the Save Our Sequoias Act is a step in the right direction for conservation.
  • Sequoias are such an iconic part of California's heritage, it's crucial we protect them.
  • I'm concerned about the effects of climate change on these groves.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 9 4
Year 20 9 3

Park Ranger (Fresno, California)

Age: 54 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Protection of sequoias is urgent given the recent wildfires we've experienced.
  • I support any policy that funds preservation efforts in our parks.
  • The implementation needs to be quick and efficient to be effective.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 8 4
Year 5 9 4
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 8 3

Tech Industry Professional (San Francisco, California)

Age: 35 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm glad to see a legislative focus on ecological issues.
  • This policy is a good start, but we need more comprehensive efforts to combat climate change in general.
  • The protection of iconic species has value beyond immediate economics.

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 4
Year 20 9 4

State Government Employee (Sacramento, California)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 12.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies like these are vital for preserving our natural heritage.
  • Effectively managing funds is crucial to maximize impact.
  • I see potential for job creation in conservation sectors.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 4

Content Creator (New York, New York)

Age: 32 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm excited to cover this topic in my content. People should know about conservation efforts.
  • The vitality of ecosystems like those where sequoias grow is important for planetary health.
  • Funding and execution will define the success of this policy.

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 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 6 4

Retired Firefighter (Bakersfield, California)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Any measure to reduce wildfire risk is a great relief.
  • I have seen the devastation first hand, and this could help save lives and habitats.
  • Execution may not be easy, but it's worth the effort.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 8 3
Year 10 8 3
Year 20 7 2

Marketing Specialist (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think it's great that such iconic places are being prioritized.
  • I plan on visiting these parks, knowing they're being taken care of gives me peace of mind.
  • Wish there were similar efforts nationwide, beyond just California.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 7 4
Year 20 6 3

Elementary School Teacher (San Diego, California)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 11/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy provides great educational opportunities for my students.
  • Inspiring to see government investing in the environment.
  • We must instill in young minds the importance of conservation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 8 5

Retired Engineer (Utah)

Age: 63 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 20/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Conservation of such unique species is admirable.
  • Policies like this should be a global standard.
  • I'm curious about how Californians will perceive and support this locally.

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

College Student (Seattle, Washington)

Age: 22 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 4.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This act is crucial given increasing environmental threats worldwide.
  • I hope future job opportunities manifest from these efforts.
  • Protecting these giants aligns with sustainable future visions.

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 7 5
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 6 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)

Year 2: $95000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $115000000)

Year 3: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)

Year 5: $85000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)

Year 10: $80000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $90000000)

Year 100: $60000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $80000000)

Key Considerations