Bill Overview
Title: Watershed Results Act
Description: This bill provides funding for the Department of the Interior, in coordination with the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency, to establish a total of not less than two and not more than five watershed pilot programs in certain western states that use pay-for-performance contracts. Interior is required to designate a management team for each watershed pilot project. Each team must develop and implement a five-year plan for carrying out the applicable pilot. Interior and the management team for each watershed pilot must use advance watershed analytics throughout the planning, implementation, measuring, and monitoring of projects within the pilot. This technical analysis must be conducted to identify quantifiable outcomes, costs, feasibility, and impacts of the projects before making funding available for a watershed pilot. Further, Interior and the management team for a watershed pilot are required to set and publish minimum per-unit outcome prices. Interior must also enter into a pay-for-performance contract to achieve outcome-based goals described in the plan developed for the pilot. Interior must also submit specified annual and five-year reports to Congress.
Sponsors: Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: People in western US states particularly those dependent on or impacting watersheds
Estimated Size: 8000000
- The bill aims to establish pilot programs focusing on watershed management in certain western states.
- Western states in the US are expected to be directly impacted due to the location of pilot programs.
- Watershed management typically impacts environmental aspects, which can affect local communities, farmers, industries reliant on water resources, and the ecosystem.
- The involvement of the Department of the Interior, Agriculture, and the EPA suggests that various sectors, including agriculture, environmental conservation, and local governments, will have interests in these projects.
- The pilot programs are designed to test pay-for-performance models, which may influence future funding and management strategies for watershed projects nationally.
Reasoning
- The Watershed Results Act is aimed at specific western states, suggesting geographic specificity in impact. Therefore, individuals in these areas, particularly those who are directly interacting with watershed resources, such as farmers, municipal water workers, and environmental scientists, will be more directly impacted than, say, city-dwellers not dependent on these resources.
- Because the bill is a pilot project with budgets that reflect its experimental nature, projects will directly involve limited individuals compared to a nationwide policy, affecting those closely related to watershed activities.
- The well-being changes are likely measured by how directly involved or affected individuals are by water quality and management outcomes. This could range from improved local environmental quality to changes in water availability for key local industries.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Rural Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a good initiative. Farmers like me depend on these watersheds for irrigation, and improving management can only be a good thing.
- There is some concern about how exactly these 'performance contracts' will affect us, but I'm hopeful.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Environmental Lawyer (Urban California)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's encouraging to see government prioritizing sustainable watershed management.
- This could lead to changes in policy that extend beyond western states, setting a precedent for future water management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Municipal Water Worker (Rural Utah)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The modernization of watershed management is overdue. It's great to see investment in technology and performance metrics.
- If implemented well, this could mean more resources for maintaining clean, safe water in our towns.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Retired Urban Resident (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These projects may not directly impact my daily life, but water conservation is a big issue here.
- I'm concerned about budget allocations and ensuring funds aren't wasted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Rancher (Rural Nevada)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm cautiously optimistic. We face water challenges every year, so any help is welcome.
- But I've seen other projects struggle to manage resources effectively.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It is vital to integrate science-driven management strategies with local projects.
- Performance-based contracts are a good approach to ensure accountability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Community Organizer (Rural Colorado)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Community involvement is key to these policies being effective.
- Looking forward to potential job opportunities and improved local water resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tourism Business Owner (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water management directly impacts local tourism; this could be good for business.
- There’s uncertainty on how quickly benefits might appear.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Farmer (Rural Idaho)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wish these actions had been taken sooner; water is often scarce and getting worse.
- Hoping this leads to better water security for future generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Tech Professional (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like the environmental focus of the policy, though it seems it will have more indirect effects in the city.
- I'm supportive but cautious on whether this will help urban areas significantly.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $9000000)
Year 3: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $9000000)
Year 5: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $9000000)
Year 10: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $9000000)
Year 100: $7000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $9000000)
Key Considerations
- The complexity of coordinating multiple federal agencies may affect cost efficiency and implementation timelines.
- Pilot programs are inherently experimental, and outcomes are uncertain, influencing future expansion decisions.
- The bill's success hinges upon the efficacy of pay-for-performance contracts, a relatively novel approach in watershed management.