Bill Overview
Title: Aquatic Invasive Species Control Act
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2028 and otherwise expands a program for addressing invasive species with adverse effects on water quality, water quantity, or ecosystems.
Sponsors: Rep. Joyce, David P. [R-OH-14]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on or affected by aquatic ecosystems worldwide
Estimated Size: 130000000
- Aquatic invasive species affect ecosystems by altering species composition, food webs, and habitats, impacting species that rely on native aquatic environments.
- The fisheries industry, both commercial and recreational, can be affected as invasive species might alter fish stocks and biodiversity.
- Local communities reliant on aquatic resources for food or economic activities can be impacted by changes in ecosystem services, affecting their livelihoods.
- Climate and environmental scientists and professionals may need to adapt their research or management strategies.
- People involved in tourism around water bodies could experience changes in the attractiveness or viability of locations affected by invasive species.
- Ecosystem restoration projects would focus extensively on mitigating impacts caused by these species, affecting individuals employed in such areas.
Reasoning
- The target population for this policy includes fishermen, local communities dependent on aquatic ecosystems, tourism industry professionals, and scientists. They will have varying degrees of dependence and interactions with water bodies impacted by invasive species.
- Fishermen will be concerned with fish stocks that may be affected by invasive species, potentially altering their catch and income.
- Local communities along water bodies often rely on their health for social and economic reasons, and as a food source; the policy may shift their wellbeing based on the level of disruption and mitigation.
- Tourism professionals rely on water aesthetics and recreation opportunities, both can be compromised by invasive species, impacting their business viability.
- Scientists working in ecology and climate fields may see shifts in research funding and focus.
- The budgetary constraints imply that not all bodies of water or regions may receive adequate resources, affecting the equitability of impacts and benefits.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Fisherman (Alaska)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried that invasive species might reduce fish populations, impacting my catch. The policy might help preserve fish stocks if implemented effectively.
- It's crucial that the funds are distributed where they're most needed, especially in areas like mine where fishing is a critical industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 1 |
Environmental Scientist (Florida)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my work, providing more resources for research and control of invasive species.
- I believe this can lead to more stable ecosystems, improving local biodiversity and resources available to communities.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Recreational Fishing Guide (Michigan)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My business depends heavily on the health of local water bodies.
- I hope this policy will prevent further ecological harm, benefiting both the fish and tourism industry.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 1 |
Tourism Manager (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Tourism can be greatly affected if invasive species disrupt the natural beauty of water bodies.
- This policy could help maintain or even boost tourism by ensuring ecosystems are managed well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Community Organizer (Louisiana)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Coastal communities are at the frontline of changes due to invasive species.
- The policy should also address equitable access to resources and prioritize vulnerable communities.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Marine Biologist (Ohio)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides much-needed funding for critical research and managing invasive species.
- A focused and well-resourced approach can lead to significant ecological improvements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Ecotourism Entrepreneur (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Healthy water bodies are essential for ecotourism activities.
- I am hopeful that this policy will aid in sustaining and improving the ecosystems necessary for my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 1 |
Retired Teacher and Nature Enthusiast (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I want the waterways to remain healthy for future generations.
- This policy is a positive step toward preserving our natural heritage.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Local Government Employee (Mississippi)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My role involves addressing community concerns about water quality.
- This policy's funding will help significantly in managing invasive species and educating the public.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Agricultural Worker (Washington)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Invasive species can affect the availability of clean water, which is essential for my work.
- With the policy's focus on water ecosystems, I hope to see improvements in water quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 3: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 5: $240000000 (Low: $190000000, High: $290000000)
Year 10: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- Long-term environmental benefits versus short-term costs should be evaluated continually to optimize funding allocations.
- Coordination with state and local governments as well as international border regions will be crucial for the success of the initiative.
- The potential for new and emerging invasive species due to climate change and international shipping requires adaptive management strategies.