Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to modify the eligibility requirements for certain small water storage and groundwater storage projects and to authorize the use of funds for certain additional Carey Act projects, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill expands eligibility for the Bureau of Reclamation's competitive grant program for small water storage and groundwater storage projects. Under the bill, eligible projects must have a capacity of not less than 200 acre-feet (AF) of water. Current law requires an eligible project to have a capacity of not less than 2,000 AF of water. The bill also allows Reclamation to provide additional grants to certain dam rehabilitation and reconstruction projects provided that projects previously eligible under the program have received the necessary funding.
Sponsors: Rep. Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on small water storage and groundwater storage projects
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill modifies eligibility requirements for small water storage and groundwater storage projects, potentially expanding the number of such projects that can receive funding.
- It reduces the minimum capacity requirement for eligible projects from 2,000 acre-feet to 200 acre-feet, allowing smaller projects to qualify.
- The bill impacts regions that rely on water storage, particularly for agriculture, local water utilities, and conservation efforts.
- Groundwater storage and water storage projects are vital in arid and semi-arid regions, impacting farmers, residents, and industries that rely on a stable water supply.
- The bill's impact extends to regions involved in dam rehabilitation and reconstruction projects, potentially affecting local communities that depend on these structures for water supply and security.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals and communities involved with or dependent on water supply systems, particularly those in regions prone to droughts and with a significant reliance on groundwater.
- Farmers and agricultural workers in the Western United States are likely to see a direct impact due to the policy easing access to grants for water storage, which could enhance irrigation systems.
- Smaller towns and rural communities that may have previously been ineligible for funding can now access grants for water storage projects, possibly improving their water security.
- The cost and size limit of the policy mean it will likely impact specific projects and regions significantly but may not address all water scarcity issues comprehensively.
- Long-term benefits such as improved water management and sustainability could have broad positive effects on communities if the policy expands the number of eligible water projects significantly.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Bakersfield, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to additional grants will help maintain my farm's viability during dry years.
- This policy could make a significant difference in our community's water conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Water Management Specialist (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could bolster our efforts to implement newer, more efficient water storage technologies.
- These grants are crucial in arid regions where every drop of water counts.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental Engineer (Denver, CO)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While Denver is less arid than other areas, this policy could provide extra resources for our conservation projects.
- It's a step in the right direction to address water inefficiencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
City Planner (Tulsa, OK)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could enable us to fund projects that were previously out of reach due to capacity limits.
- Improved water storage can have wider benefits for urban development and planning.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing the project size requirement seems wise and timely, given our water scarcity issues.
- This allows smaller communities like mine to manage water resources better.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Agricultural Extension Officer (Modesto, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grant expansion can empower more farmers to adopt sustainable practices.
- This should help ease tensions linked to water shortages among our farmers.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Hydrologist (Reno, NV)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's encouraging to see funding criteria adapt to include more projects, a much-needed shift in policy.
- Smaller, more local projects have been overlooked and this can change that.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Rancher (Albuquerque, NM)
Age: 68 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Allowing smaller storages to qualify is beneficial; it directly impacts our ability to maintain productivity.
- Long overdue changes that should have been considered earlier to mitigate drought effects.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Non-profit Director (Frisco, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a proactive step towards maintaining water balance as urban areas grow.
- It is essential to consider more projects under these grants to promote sustainability.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Water Policy Researcher (El Paso, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Broadening eligibility criteria is a logical next step and could have lasting benefits if implemented well.
- Important to monitor the impacts on smaller communities and ensure policies are inclusive.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $11000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $14000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $13000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $16000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 10: $18000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $21000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Key Considerations
- The reduced minimum capacity requirement dramatically increases the pool of eligible projects, potentially overstretching budget allocations.
- If not carefully managed, increased eligibility may result in competition for limited funding, impacting larger project allocations.
- The environmental impact of increased small water projects must be considered, particularly in ecosystems sensitive to water level changes.