Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/8435

Bill Overview

Title: Colorado River Drought Response Act

Description: This bill authorizes appropriations for the Department of the Interior to reduce the near-term likelihood of Lake Mead (in Arizona and Nevada) and Lake Powell (in Arizona and Utah) declining to critically low water elevations. These reservoirs are part of the Colorado River Basin. The bill also decreases the amount of time Interior has to act on existing requirements to establish grant programs for watershed habitat restoration and large-scale water recycling and reuse in certain western states.

Sponsors: Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-9]

Target Audience

Population: People dependent on the Colorado River for water supply

Estimated Size: 35000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Farmer (Phoenix, Arizona)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy is crucial for ensuring water supply for my farm, especially during droughts.
  • However, I am concerned about the time it takes for these measures to show a positive impact.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Hotel Manager (Las Vegas, Nevada)

Age: 33 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Water conservation is vital for maintaining the tourism industry in Vegas.
  • I'm optimistic about the policy, but it needs to kick in sooner rather than later.

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 7 2

Environmental Engineer (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 27 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy aligns with my work in promoting sustainable water use.
  • I'm hopeful, but there needs to be strong oversight and accountability.

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

Local Government Officer (Salt Lake City, Utah)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Implementing this policy could greatly improve our city's water security.
  • Coordination with other states will be key to success.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Retired (San Diego, California)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 17/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope this policy means fewer water restrictions during summer.
  • Although retired, my quality of life is affected by environmental factors.

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 4
Year 10 6 3
Year 20 5 2

University Student (Tucson, Arizona)

Age: 22 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm excited about the prospects for environmental sustainability with this policy.
  • It's important for my generation to see active steps being taken on climate issues.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Rancher (Santa Fe, New Mexico)

Age: 53 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Preserving our water sources is crucial for maintaining my ranch.
  • These policies need to clearly address water rights and access.

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 4
Year 10 8 3
Year 20 8 3

Water Rights Lawyer (Reno, Nevada)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Any legislative action on water rights impacts my profession directly.
  • I am hopeful that such policy will foster more efficient water use.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Agricultural Worker (Mexicali, Mexico)

Age: 38 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The stability of my job depends on water availability from the Colorado River.
  • I'm hopeful U.S. policies will also consider cross-border impacts.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Real Estate Developer (Denver, Colorado)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policies like these can have unpredictable effects on property values.
  • Ensuring water availability is critical for future development projects.

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 7 4
Year 20 7 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)

Year 2: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)

Year 3: $85000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $105000000)

Year 5: $85000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $110000000)

Year 10: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $120000000)

Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $130000000)

Key Considerations