Bill Overview
Title: Deschutes River Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 2022
Description: This bill (1) reauthorizes the Deschutes River Conservancy Working Group through FY2032, (2) increases from 5% to 10% the amount authorized to be provided to the working group, and (3) changes the composition of the members of the working group.
Sponsors: Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living in or reliant on resources from the Deschutes River Basin
Estimated Size: 250000
- The Deschutes River Conservancy Working Group is focused on the Deschutes River Basin, which directly impacts those living in Central Oregon.
- Communities that rely on the Deschutes River for water resources will be directly affected by the conservation efforts.
- The reauthorization and increased funding of the Working Group implies a continued and possibly expanded conservation effort in the region.
- Individuals involved with water management, agriculture, and environmental advocacy in Central Oregon will be particularly impacted.
- Legislation focusing on a specific river basin impacts local populations much more than global ones.
- There could be broader ecological and environmental benefits that extend beyond immediate local inhabitants.
Reasoning
- The Deschutes River Conservancy Reauthorization Act of 2022 primarily impacts the region surrounding the Deschutes River Basin. This area is located in Central Oregon, affecting residents who depend on the river ecosystem for livelihood and daily living needs.
- The budget allocation suggests a focused attempt at conservation and sustainable water management, impacting local farmers, water management professionals, environmental advocates, and potentially recreational users of the river.
- Given the specific geographic focus, a majority of the affected people will be those residing in Oregon, specifically in Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook Counties.
- The effects on wellbeing will likely vary, with those directly benefiting from improved water resources and river health perhaps seeing positive impacts, while others may be unaffected if they have no reliance on the river.
- While the funding allocated is substantial, both immediately and cumulatively over 10 years, the policy's effect is expected to be confined largely to the local population, meaning the broader US or global population remains unaffected to a great extent.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Bend, Oregon)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy means more reliable irrigation water.
- I'm hopeful for better crop yields due to the conservation efforts.
- There is some concern about bureaucratic processes delaying actual benefits.
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 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Retired teacher (Redmond, Oregon)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reauthorization ensures our grandchildren can enjoy the river.
- I appreciate the commitment to cleaning and preserving our river.
- Worried about funding allocation and bureaucratic oversight.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Software Engineer (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bill seems important for Central Oregon but doesn't impact me directly.
- I support environmental conservation policies in general.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Hydrologist (Sisters, Oregon)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is critical; it enhances job security and funding for projects.
- Expect better water quality and management outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Rancher (Madras, Oregon)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopeful that the increased funding will improve my water access.
- Concerned about increased regulations limiting water use.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Graduate Student (Reno, Nevada)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Interesting case study but doesn't affect me personally.
- I might consider similar policies elsewhere.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Environmentalist (Prineville, Oregon)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This increased funding is a win for our advocacy.
- Prioritizes river's health, a step in the right direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Fisherman (Eugene, Oregon)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reauthorization might stabilize fish habitats.
- Skeptic about timely effects on fish populations.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Tourism operator (Tumalo, Oregon)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Tourism could get a boost from a cleaner, better-managed river.
- Timing and real-world execution are crucial to outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Construction worker (La Pine, Oregon)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Indirectly might see better fishing opportunities from healthier river.
- The policy is good broadly, but doesn't affect my day-to-day.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1200000 (Low: $1000000, High: $1400000)
Year 2: $1224000 (Low: $1020000, High: $1400000)
Year 3: $1248480 (Low: $1040400, High: $1450320)
Year 5: $1273440 (Low: $1061208, High: $1482480)
Year 10: $1351560 (Low: $1115264, High: $1572856)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The increased funding from 5% to 10% reflects a doubling of financial resources available to the working group, necessitating careful monitoring of resource allocation and expenditure.
- Changes in the group composition could influence the operational efficiency and the strategic directions of the working group.
- Conservation efforts funded by this bill could provide long-term ecological benefits, although these are difficult to quantify financially.