Bill Overview
Title: New York-New Jersey Watershed Protection Act
Description: This bill requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to establish the New York-New Jersey Watershed Restoration Program, a nonregulatory program, to coordinate restoration and protection activities among government entities and conservation partners throughout the watershed. The bill also establishes the New York-New Jersey Watershed Restoration Grant Program, a voluntary grant and technical assistance program, to provide competitive matching grants to certain entities to implement restoration and protection activities for the watershed.
Sponsors: Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living in the New York-New Jersey watershed area
Estimated Size: 25000000
- The New York-New Jersey Watershed Restoration Program will coordinate activities in the watershed, directly affecting residents in this area.
- The watershed covers parts of New York and New Jersey, where populations of these states will be directly impacted.
- The watershed provides water and ecosystem services that may affect the physical and economic wellbeing of residents.
- Restoration and protection activities funded by grants may impact local communities, environmental groups, and governments involved in these activities.
- Residents whose livelihoods depend on the watershed, such as those in fishing, agriculture, and tourism, will likely be affected.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily affects residents within the New York-New Jersey watershed, which includes both urban and rural populations.
- Individuals in occupations reliant on the watershed's health, like fishing, agriculture, and tourism, will see more direct impacts.
- People living in urban areas might experience indirect benefits or minimal impact, as their water sources and environmental settings might only see marginal improvements initially.
- Long-term impacts will likely increase for those younger individuals who will have more years living in an enhanced watershed environment.
- Others, like retirees or individuals not reliant on the watershed for their livelihood, may see little to no direct impact immediately.
Simulated Interviews
construction worker (Newark, NJ)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy will clean up the areas around where I live. We've seen pollution affect both living conditions and local jobs like fishing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
graphic designer (New York City, NY)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I value any policy that improves the environment, even if the changes aren't directly visible in the city.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
park ranger (Adirondacks, NY)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems crucial for our conservation efforts. More funding for restoration can only mean good things for the environment.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
barista (Brooklyn, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's encouraging to see money being spent on environmental protection, but I hope it's effective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
retired engineer (Princeton, NJ)
Age: 62 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding to restore local streams would be great. I spend a lot of time outdoors and have noticed the pollution over the years.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
teacher (Hoboken, NJ)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm interested in how these programs will engage with local schools. Educating the next generation is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
farmer (Poughkeepsie, NY)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water quality is critical for my farm. Any improvements would likely help me yield better crops.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
nurse (Jersey City, NJ)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With local flooding issues, anything that can improve environmental conditions will hopefully reduce health risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
real estate agent (Yonkers, NY)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sustainability efforts can positively impact the desirability and value of properties.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
student (Montclair, NJ)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is exactly the type of policy I'd like our government to focus on. I hope it's successful in its goals.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 2: $16000000 (Low: $13000000, High: $19000000)
Year 3: $17000000 (Low: $14000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $19000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $22000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The program's nonregulatory and voluntary nature reduces direct federal cost impacts, mainly channeling funds through grants.
- Successful coordination with state and local governments, as well as conservation partners, is critical for the program's effectiveness.
- Environmental benefits from the program could indirectly affect federal budgets long-term by reducing the necessity for environmental damage mitigation.
- Stakeholder engagement and public support may play roles in the program's efficacy and funding continuity.