Bill Overview
Title: Navigable Waters Protection Act of 2022
Description: This bill enacts definitions that determine which bodies of water fall under the scope of the Clean Water Act and are thereby under federal jurisdiction. Specifically, the bill provides statutory authority for the definitions related to the waters of the United States, commonly known as WOTUS, in specified regulations that were in effect on January 1, 2021.
Sponsors: Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by regulation of water bodies within jurisdiction of federal water protection law.
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The Navigable Waters Protection Act of 2022 pertains to the definition of what constitutes navigable waters under federal law, impacting bodies of water that fall under the Clean Water Act.
- Defining which bodies of water fall under these regulations affects various stakeholders, including agricultural professionals, developers, industrial operators, and conservationists.
- The regulations can impact businesses that rely on water usage, discharge, or modification of water bodies through permitting requirements or restrictions.
- It also has the potential to affect community water supplies and ecosystems by determining jurisdiction over water pollution controls.
- Globally, policies tied to the definition of WOTUS could impact international business with interests in the United States or ecosystems that are affected by U.S. water policy, such as migratory bird habitats.
Reasoning
- The Navigable Waters Protection Act of 2022 is intended to clarify the scope of waters that are federally protected under the Clean Water Act, which could influence a wide range of stakeholders, including farmers, real estate developers, industry players, and the general public.
- Given the broad spectrum of individuals affected, it is important to interview a diverse demographic crossing ages, occupations, and geographical regions, as the policy impacts will not be uniform.
- Farmers and agricultural workers, particularly those close to bodies of water, will likely feel more direct regulatory impacts, such as needing permits for certain activities, affecting their operational costs and planning.
- Real estate developers and construction companies will have to reassess land-use plans, possibly leading to delays or increased costs due to additional regulation, while businesses or entities on already compliant lands may face little change.
- Residents and environmentalists may experience indirect benefits through enhanced water quality, affecting health and recreational opportunities positively.
- The estimated monetary impact suggests scalable but targeted implementation to focus on areas presently less regulated, where the most gains in environmental quality and public health can be achieved with minimal economic disruption.
- Compliance efforts can be enacted most efficiently in the immediate years by focusing on educational campaigns for affected stakeholders about the act's implications to alleviate concerns and enhance societal benefits.
- Evaluation of long-term benefits must incorporate changes in the perception and actual quality of local water resources and personal well-being.
- Any amendments to water boundaries under federal jurisdiction must balance environmental gains with economic feasibility for stakeholders reliant on these resources for their livelihoods.
Simulated Interviews
Corn Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new definitions make me nervous about required permits that could increase my costs.
- I worry about potential constraints on how I manage my water use for farming.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (California)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited to see clearer definitions that can help protect critical water resources.
- I believe this will aid in preserving biodiversity.
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 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The regulations might require me to change how I use the creek, potentially entailing significant costs.
- I'm concerned about federal overreach in how I manage my land.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Real Estate Developer (New York)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My projects might face delays due to the redefined boundaries, which could increase costs.
- I'll have to reconsider some developments directly abutting newly covered wetlands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Industrial Engineer (Michigan)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stricter definitions might prompt our company to re-evaluate how we manage waste, raising costs.
- However, this could help us become more sustainable long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Water Quality Advocate (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act aligns with our goals for stricter water protection.
- Looking forward to greater water quality improvements for local communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Energy Sector Consultant (Oklahoma)
Age: 34 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clients might face new compliance costs due to changes in what constitutes WOTUS.
- This presents both challenges and opportunities for advising on environmentally friendly practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Fishing Guide (Louisiana)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hoping for improved water quality which might boost fish populations.
- Worried about immediate disruptions from regulatory changes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Public Health Official (Ohio)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expect the act to help reduce pollution and improve public health outcomes.
- Implementation might require more infrastructure investment.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Recreational Enthusiast (Colorado)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any actions that help to protect and preserve our waterways.
- I believe this act is a step in the right direction for environmental health and recreational quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 2: $10500000 (Low: $8500000, High: $12500000)
Year 3: $11000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $13000000)
Year 5: $12000000 (Low: $9500000, High: $14000000)
Year 10: $13500000 (Low: $10000000, High: $16000000)
Year 100: $17000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $21000000)
Key Considerations
- The complexity and variability of water bodies across different states necessitate a flexible implementation plan for the bill's definitions.
- The potential for litigation due to changes in water definitions could affect both compliance timelines and costs.
- Though short-term costs might arise, long-term economic benefits could be substantial if businesses leverage regulatory certainty.