Bill Overview
Title: Housatonic Wild and Scenic River Act of 2022
Description: This bill designates specified segments of the Housatonic River in Connecticut as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The designation of the river segments must not impact or alter the existing terms of permitting, licensing, or operation of the Falls Village Hydroelectric Generating Station located in Falls Village, Connecticut, or the Bulls Bridge Hydroelectric Generating Station located in New Milford, Connecticut. The designation of the river segments must also not preclude the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from licensing, relicensing, or otherwise authorizing the operation or continued operation of those facilities. The authority of the Department of the Interior to acquire lands for the river segments shall be limited to acquisition by donation or acquisition with the consent of the owner, and subject to the additional criteria set forth in the Housatonic River Management Plan. No land or interest in land may be acquired for the river segments by condemnation.
Sponsors: Sen. Murphy, Christopher [D-CT]
Target Audience
Population: Residents and stakeholders of the Housatonic River area in Connecticut
Estimated Size: 50000
- The designation as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System is aimed at protecting the river's natural, cultural, and recreational values.
- The bill specifically concerns segments of the Housatonic River in Connecticut, impacting local communities along these segments.
- The local ecosystems and wildlife dependent on the river may be protected and preserved due to the new status.
- Residents and businesses relying on the river for recreation or tourism could see an increase in protection for their activities.
- The property rights of landowners along the river are protected by limiting property acquisition to donation or mutual consent.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts local residents and stakeholders along the Housatonic River, so they will be the main focus of the interviews.
- We need to ensure a variety of perspectives from different demographics including business owners, environmentalists, and residents with varying degrees of dependence on the river.
- Because the policy protects property rights by limiting acquisitions to donations or consensual purchase, the immediate financial impact on landowners is negligible.
- Recreation and tourism may benefit from increased protection of the river, improving economic opportunities for businesses in these sectors.
- The overall wellbeing scores will reflect both environmental improvements and any economic impacts or lack thereof, due to the increased protection of the river.
Simulated Interviews
Retired electrician (Falls Village, Connecticut)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a retiree, I am happy to see the river protected. It’s a place of natural beauty and peace which I cherish.
- I am not concerned about property issues because the bill doesn’t force land sales.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Small business owner - Kayak and Canoe Rentals (New Milford, Connecticut)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is great as it helps protect the river where my business operates.
- I'm hopeful it will attract more tourists but also protect the environment at the same time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Environmental scientist (Bridgeport, Connecticut)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The designation will be crucial for research and conservation efforts.
- I feel this will lead to better funding and recognition of the river's importance.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Farmer (Cornwall, Connecticut)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved that the policy does not force land sales as that was a big worry.
- I hope this doesn’t lead to new restrictions that affect my farming operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
State tourism official (Hartford, Connecticut)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could be a significant boost to our tourism sector.
- I’m optimistic that it will lead to more visitors and appreciation for Connecticut's natural sites.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Hydrology researcher (Berkshire County, Massachusetts)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The recognition will help in our hydrology studies and could lead to better water management.
- It's an essential step for future research collaborations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Local historian (Litchfield, Connecticut)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am thrilled about the protection of the river as it enriches our historical narrative.
- It might help in preserving cultural sites along the river.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Student specializing in environmental law (New York City, New York)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a valuable case study for my research.
- Hope similar policies can extend to other vital watersheds as well.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Environmental Engineer (Bridgewater, Connecticut)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with my lifelong advocacy for the river.
- Thrilled to see conservation prioritized over commercial exploitation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
School teacher (New Milford, Connecticut)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a fantastic opportunity to educate students on the importance of conservation.
- This policy could serve as a model for sustainable development lessons.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $300000 (Low: $250000, High: $350000)
Year 2: $300000 (Low: $250000, High: $350000)
Year 3: $300000 (Low: $250000, High: $350000)
Year 5: $300000 (Low: $250000, High: $350000)
Year 10: $300000 (Low: $250000, High: $350000)
Year 100: $300000 (Low: $250000, High: $350000)
Key Considerations
- The bill protects the river's natural state, potentially enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem health.
- Local stakeholders maintain rights with limited government land acquisition options.
- Hydroelectric operations on the river are safeguarded under existing licenses, ensuring no economic disruption.