Bill Overview
Title: Targeting and Offsetting Existing Illegal Contaminants Act
Description: This bill provides for a program within the Forest Service to identify, investigate, research, and remediate the environmental damage caused by trespass cultivation of cannabis on National Forest System lands and increases criminal penalties for illegal pesticide application on government property. Specifically, the bill directs the Forest Service to carry out a program of environmental remediation on its land, to be known as the Trespass Cannabis Cultivation Site Restoration Program.
Sponsors: Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-52]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on National Forest System lands
Estimated Size: 2500000
- The bill aims to address environmental damage from unauthorized cannabis cultivation on public lands, specifically National Forest System lands.
- Individuals and communities relying on National Forest System lands for clean water, air, and recreational activities will be directly impacted by the cleanup and restoration efforts.
- People concerned with environmental conservation and public land stewardship will be positively impacted by efforts to remediate illegal pesticide applications.
- Individuals and businesses involved in legal cannabis cultivation may be indirectly impacted by increased enforcement of illegal activities.
- Local wildlife and ecosystems on National Forest System lands will benefit from reduced contamination and habitat restoration.
Reasoning
- The budget constraints mean that the impact of the policy will be limited initially to the most affected areas, prioritizing regions with the highest illegal pesticide contamination.
- Those who live near highly contaminated areas or rely on affected watersheds will see the most significant changes in their wellbeing scores due to improved environmental conditions.
- Many people using national forest lands primarily for recreational activities might see little to no change as initial remediation efforts roll out.
- People working in legal cannabis cultivation might see an indirect impact through stricter enforcement policies, potentially improving their competitive standing but also facing more regulatory scrutiny.
- The estimated population directly using or living near National Forest System lands (2.5 million) suggests many people may not feel immediate effects due to the breadth and complexity of the nationwide landscapes.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial for reversing the damage done by illegal growers who prioritize profit over the environment.
- Increased penalties are a good deterrent, but ensuring effective implementation is essential.
- I expect a positive impact on the local ecology, which is my primary concern.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Legal Cannabis Producer (California)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will help level the playing field against illegal growers, which is necessary.
- Better enforcement helps legitimize the industry but I worry stricter measures could complicate legal processes further.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Retired Forest Ranger (Montana)
Age: 60 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a well-timed intervention as the damage from illegal operations is increasingly visible.
- Ongoing maintenance and strict monitoring will be key to sustaining the positive impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Graduate Student (Arizona)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The commitment to remediate environmental damage is a positive step for science-based conservation efforts.
- I'm optimistic about improved research opportunities and ecosystem health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Recreational Hiker (Colorado)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Making national forests safer by removing hazardous waste is essential for the enjoyment of these areas.
- However, the policy might not directly affect my overall experience initially.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Wildlife Photographer (Nevada)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lowering the environmental impact of illegal practices is vital for preserving biodiversity.
- I hope the initiatives are long-lasting and well-managed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Local Business Owner (New Hampshire)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A cleaner and safer environment may attract more visitors, boosting local businesses.
- While beneficial, I worry about any increase in restrictions affecting visitor 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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
High School Teacher (Wisconsin)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The program is an opportunity to engage students with real-world conservation challenges.
- It's important for educational purposes to see implementation and results firsthand.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired (New Mexico)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efforts like this are essential for keeping our forests clean, but more focus on long-term strategies is necessary.
- I appreciate any policy that focuses on the upkeep and safety of our public lands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Fishing Guide (Alaska)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring that river systems remain clean from illegal pesticide use is critical for my livelihood.
- I am optimistic about the policy but worry about enforcement consistency.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $11000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $13000000)
Year 3: $12000000 (Low: $9500000, High: $14000000)
Year 5: $13000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $14000000 (Low: $11000000, High: $16000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $17000000)
Key Considerations
- The estimation of costs depends heavily on the extent and difficulty of remediation required for contaminated sites.
- Increased law enforcement presence might deter future illegal activities, but its effectiveness must be continuously evaluated.
- There could be unintended consequences such as displacement of illegal activity to other areas.
- Coordination with state and local authorities is crucial for the success of restoration programs.