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 living in or near impacted water resource areas
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill addresses water resources development projects, which can affect individuals living near bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, or coasts.
- Ecosystem restoration efforts may impact communities that depend on local ecosystems for their livelihoods.
- Flood control measures are crucial for individuals in flood-prone areas, potentially reducing flood risk.
- Water supply and wastewater infrastructure developments can influence individuals by improving access to clean water and sanitation.
- Navigation improvements could impact individuals and businesses relying on water transport.
Reasoning
- The Water Resources Development Act of 2022 primarily impacts people living near bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, or coastal areas, which is a substantial portion of the U.S. population.
- The budget limits necessitate focusing on regions that experience significant environmental challenges related to water resources, such as flood-prone areas or regions with inadequate water infrastructure.
- While some individuals might only experience indirect benefits, those directly affected by improvements such as reduced flooding risk or enhanced water quality might report noticeable wellbeing improvements.
- To reflect the diversity of the U.S. population, interviews include individuals from different locations, occupations, and levels of vulnerability to water-related issues.
- The commonness score reflects the prevalence of each person's situation in the broader population, with a focus on people near impacted areas.
Simulated Interviews
Restaurant Owner (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about flooding every year, and it affects my business directly.
- If this policy can really improve flood control, it would mean less stress and more stable business income.
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 | 7 | 4 |
Retired (Miami, Florida)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm on a fixed income, and any reduction in flood insurance costs would be a relief.
- Improved protection against storms and rising sea levels would make me feel safer at home.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Civil Engineer (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think these improvements are crucial for urban areas like Detroit, which have suffered from outdated water systems.
- This policy could create jobs and improve public health outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
IT Specialist (Houston, Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Flooding has been a consistent issue, impacting my home and tech equipment.
- This policy could reduce future flood damage and improve local infrastructure resilience.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This has potential to enhance Arizona's water management systems significantly.
- Ecosystem restoration is vital for biodiversity and supports local communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Farmer (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Consistent access to water is critical for my livelihood.
- Infrastructure improvements could help stabilize crop yields.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Developer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly affected by flood control, but I care about local ecosystems.
- The potential for ecosystem restoration is exciting for the outdoor community.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Teacher (Sacramento, California)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If flood control can lower my insurance and improve property values, that would be a relief.
- The peace of mind from reduced flood risk would be significant.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Logistics Manager (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancing navigation infrastructure could improve business operations.
- This policy could lower costs and increase reliability in shipping.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Urban Planner (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If implemented effectively, this policy can serve as a model for sustainable urban expansion.
- Integrating ecosystem services with urban areas is a crucial step forward.
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 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000000 (Low: $7500000000, High: $8500000000)
Year 2: $8100000000 (Low: $7600000000, High: $8600000000)
Year 3: $8200000000 (Low: $7700000000, High: $8700000000)
Year 5: $8500000000 (Low: $8000000000, High: $9000000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The success of the infrastructure projects heavily depends on effective project management by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
- Potential environmental impacts and regulatory approval could delay project implementations.
- Cost overruns are a risk given the scale and complexity of water infrastructure projects.