Bill Overview
Title: Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Recovery Act
Description: This bill extends through FY2024 the authority of the Department of the Interior to implement capital projects (i.e., construction of facilities) for the endangered fish recovery programs for the Upper Colorado and San Juan river basins. The bill raises the ceiling on costs for the Recovery Implementation Program for Endangered Fish Species in the Upper Colorado River Basin and lowers the ceiling on costs for the San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program. The bill also extends through FY2022 the deadline for the submission of the report on the recovery implementation programs.
Sponsors: Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by fish recovery programs in the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill focuses on endangered fish recovery programs in the Upper Colorado and San Juan River basins. These programs are aimed at sustaining biodiversity and ensuring ecological balance, which indirectly impacts human populations dependent on these ecosystems.
- Geographical areas impacted include areas surrounding the Upper Colorado and San Juan Rivers, particularly communities reliant on these water basins for their livelihood, such as agriculture, tourism, and fishing industries.
- Conservation efforts can affect water use regulations, which in turn can impact industries and residents who rely on these water resources.
- The bill will primarily engage stakeholders involved in ecological preservation, including environmental organizations, local and federal government agencies, and scientists.
- Construction projects for fish recovery may provide short-term employment opportunities and can involve local communities.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily targets ecological recovery, with impact potentially felt by populations involved in or reliant on the biodiversity of the Upper Colorado and San Juan river basins.
- Main beneficiaries include those in tourism and agriculture, who rely on healthy ecosystems for their livelihoods.
- Not all people in surrounding areas will feel a direct impact. Some might experience indirect benefits through economic factors or water regulation changes.
- Given the budget, the influence of the policy will likely be medium to low, except in cases where large capital projects occur in specific communities.
- The interviews will reflect a diversity of stakeholders, some directly affected by changes in ecosystem health, others impacted through economic or regulatory changes.
Simulated Interviews
Tour guide (Durango, Colorado)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful the project will restore some of the local fish populations.
- Tourism heavily relies on the beauty and health of our rivers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Farmer (Farmington, New Mexico)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how this might limit water available for my crops.
- Recovery programs are good, but I fear restrictions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Environmental scientist (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This funding is crucial for sustaining biodiversity.
- Enhanced conservation efforts will stabilize fragile ecosystems.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Rancher (Moab, Utah)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies need to balance between conservation and agricultural needs.
- Hope for improved water quality but fear reduced water access.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Retired teacher (Grand Junction, Colorado)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protecting the fish is part of securing the natural beauty for future generations.
- Though retired, seeing these improvements will be gratifying.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Fisherman (Page, Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More fish could mean more business for me.
- I am worried programs will also mean more fishing restrictions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Hotel manager (Lake Powell, Utah)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sustaining the river's beauty is vital for our revenue.
- Conservation efforts usually help in promoting tourism.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Water rights lawyer (Cortez, Colorado)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might increase demand for legal expertise in water rights.
- I'm skeptical about the long-term balance between conservation and development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired park ranger (Bluff, Utah)
Age: 53 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel proud of the continued efforts in ecological restoration.
- I don't expect drastic changes, but consistency is key.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Student (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's promising to see funds directed towards preserving our natural resources.
- I hope more policies like this will make larger impacts.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The success of the programs in terms of environmental benefits versus cost will be crucial for future funding decisions.
- Uncertainties lie in the construction costs and potential delays that commonly occur with capital projects.
- Reallocation of resources between different river programs might cause political and community responses that need management.
- The ecological effectiveness of these programs could influence future legislation in environmental recovery projects.