Bill Overview
Title: Water Resources Development Act of 2022
Description: This bill authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to carry out activities concerning water resources development projects, ecosystem restoration, flood control, water supply and wastewater infrastructure, or navigation.
Sponsors: Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by water resources development, ecosystem restoration, flood control, water/navigational improvements
Estimated Size: 120000000
- The bill involves the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, indicating it has a significant focus on U.S. infrastructure.
- Activities include ecosystem restoration, which can benefit local wildlife and ecosystems, indirectly affecting populations dependent on these ecosystems.
- Flood control projects can protect communities living in flood-prone areas.
- Water supply and wastewater infrastructure improvements can directly impact communities by improving access to clean water and sanitation.
- Navigation projects can affect commercial businesses and individuals involved in maritime activities.
Reasoning
- The target population includes a wide range of individuals impacted by water resource developments, from those in flood-prone areas to those benefiting from ecosystem restoration.
- The budget constraints imply that not all projects can be funded at once, leading to prioritizing the most critical or beneficial projects.
- The Cantril wellbeing scores help track individual happiness or satisfaction over time, impacted by improved security, health outcomes, and economic benefits from the policy.
- Water infrastructure improvements can directly improve quality of life, but indirect benefits like reduced flood risk may also increase well-being.
- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' focus on domestic projects confines the primary impact within the U.S., although indirect global environmental benefits may occur.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should prioritize areas with high flood risks like New Orleans.
- Ecosystem restoration is crucial for protecting coastal environments and local biodiversity.
- Improved water infrastructure will benefit both the environment and local communities.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Real Estate Developer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Flood control measures are essential to protect property investments.
- Water supply improvements will increase property values.
- The bill could provide economic growth opportunities in construction and real estate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Owner of a Small Marina (San Francisco, California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Navigation improvements are vital for businesses reliant on water access.
- Ecosystem conservation helps maintain a sustainable environment for future generations.
- Policy benefits should trickle down to small businesses.
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 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Civil Engineer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing the bill will improve water quality and availability.
- Combining urban development with sustainable water practices is key.
- Long-term benefits will offset initial costs.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
School Teacher (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Flood control projects can protect schools and communities.
- Interested in using policy changes as teaching material for students.
- Ecosystem restoration projects should involve local communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Farmer (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reliable water infrastructure is crucial for agriculture.
- Policy needs to focus on sustainable water usage.
- Concerned about the policy not reaching rural areas promptly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
City Planner (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can lead to more sustainable urban environments.
- Integrating green spaces into flood control projects is essential.
- The policy can set a precedent for future legislation.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Logistics Coordinator (St. Louis, Missouri)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Navigation projects are critical for shipping efficiency.
- Policy needs to ensure long-term maintenance of waterways.
- Transportation efficiency impacts economic competitiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Environmental Activist (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ecosystem restoration aligns with my goals for biodiversity protection.
- Community engagement is key to policy success.
- Policy should address root causes of climate disruption.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired Engineer (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Legacy of infrastructure advancements is crucial for future generations.
- Policy should learn from past experiences to avoid previous mistakes.
- Support for thorough environmental impact assessments.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $4000000000 (Low: $3500000000, High: $4500000000)
Year 2: $5000000000 (Low: $4500000000, High: $5500000000)
Year 3: $5500000000 (Low: $5000000000, High: $6000000000)
Year 5: $6000000000 (Low: $5500000000, High: $6500000000)
Year 10: $7000000000 (Low: $6500000000, High: $7500000000)
Year 100: $8000000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $8500000000)
Key Considerations
- The actual costs could vary substantially based on the specificity and scale of the projects undertaken.
- There is significant dependency on state and local cooperation for the success and cost-sharing of projects, which could influence net federal expenditures.
- Ecological considerations may result in increased costs due to the need for environmental compliance and mitigation measures.
- The long-term economic benefits could offset initial costs, but these benefits are uncertain and may take years to materialize.