Bill Overview
Title: Colorado River Basin Conservation Act
Description: This bill reauthorizes the Department of the Interior to fund or participate in pilot projects to increase Colorado River System water in Lake Mead and the Colorado River Storage Project reservoirs through FY2026. Interior administers these pilot projects to address the effects of drought conditions on the Colorado River Basin, which includes the Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) and Lower Basin states (Arizona, California, and Nevada). The bill also requires Interior to submit an updated report to Congress by the end of FY2027 on the effectiveness of the pilot projects and a recommendation on whether to continue the program.
Sponsors: Rep. Stansbury, Melanie Ann [D-NM-1]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on Colorado River Basin water resources
Estimated Size: 40000000
- The Colorado River Basin provides water to approximately 40 million people in the United States including those in major urban areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Las Vegas.
- This bill aims to help manage the water resources at Lake Mead and other storage reservoir sites, which are critical for water supply and electricity generation.
- Apart from urban water users, the legislation impacts agricultural activities heavily reliant on Colorado River water, affecting both food production and economic stability.
- The Upper Basin states include Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, which generally experience different water challenges and rights compared to the Lower Basin states (Arizona, Nevada, and California).
- Besides directly impacted states, states downstream or economically linked through trade and agriculture could experience ripple effects due to changes in water availability.
- Tribal nations with rights to the Colorado River and environmental groups concerned with habitat preservation and species protection are also stakeholders.
Reasoning
- The population distribution for these simulated interviews must reflect a mix of directly impacted individuals and those with peripheral or no impact. Given that the Colorado River provides water to 40 million Americans, critical stakeholders include urban consumers, agricultural workers, environmentalists, and Indigenous communities relying on the river.
- Due to budget constraints and program scope, it is crucial to represent varied levels of impact—from high for those directly involved in water-dependent employment or communities, to low for urban populations less immediately dependent on Colorado River water. This mixture accounts for the direct and indirect impacts of the policy.
- With water scarcity affecting prices and availability of crops, urban dwellers may experience changes via cost of living adjustments, even if the immediate water supply remains unaffected. Those in environmental advocacy or specific tribal populations may experience impact duration as long as 20 years due to enduring environmental and cultural impacts.
- Urban residents in major cities such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Las Vegas need to be included given their significant reliance on Colorado River water, along with those in rural agricultural outfits dependent on this water for livelihood, as they face high direct impacts. However, it is important to also represent the significant portion of the population experiencing minimal to no change.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could help secure a more stable water supply, which is critical for farming.
- Uncertain about how much water conservation programs will affect my water allocation rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Software Engineer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am mostly concerned about water pricing, and any policy that stabilizes that is good.
- Limited awareness of how water policy affects my daily life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Hydrologist (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy can be scientifically insightful as it involves innovation in water management.
- Higher funding might lead to better infrastructure investments.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Albuquerque, New Mexico)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could potentially enhance ecosystem preservation if executed responsibly.
- My concerns are mainly about ecological impact and species conservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Retiree (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water scarcity has been a growing concern, this policy might ensure reliability.
- Skeptical about policy execution and real benefits to residents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 1 |
Business Owner (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our business mildly relates to agriculture and may be indirectly impacted.
- I'm uncertain if water conservation policies would mean more stable pricing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Truck Driver (Albuquerque, New Mexico)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might stabilize transport volume if it supports agriculture.
- Concerned more about fuel prices than water policies.
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 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
University Student (Rock Springs, Wyoming)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe that the policy is a step in the right direction for conservation.
- Future academic research could gain valuable insights from this policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Rancher (Yuma, Arizona)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stable or increased water availability would benefit the ranch directly.
- There is a need for careful consideration of all stakeholders involved.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 1 |
Retired Teacher (San Diego, California)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy interests me as it's likely to be educational for the public.
- Better conservation practices could be a long-term benefit.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The outcome of these pilot projects could set a precedent for future water management initiatives in the U.S.
- Managing multiple stakeholders encompassing state, federal, and tribal interests is crucial for successful implementation.
- Ecological impacts should be assessed alongside economic and technical feasibility of pilot projects.
- Lake Mead and other involved reservoirs require strategic oversight to address varied regional needs.