Bill Overview
Title: A bill to amend the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to modify the eligibility requirements for certain small water storage and groundwater storage projects and to authorize the use of funds for certain additional Carey Act projects, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill expands eligibility for the Bureau of Reclamation's competitive grant program for small water storage and groundwater storage projects. Under the bill, eligible projects must have a capacity of not less than 200 acre-feet (AF) of water. Current law requires an eligible project to have a capacity of not less than 2,000 AF of water. The bill also allows Reclamation to provide additional grants to certain dam rehabilitation and reconstruction projects provided that projects previously eligible under the program have received the necessary funding.
Sponsors: Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]
Target Audience
Population: People reliant on water projects funded by Bureau of Reclamation grants
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill reduces the minimum capacity requirement from 2,000 AF to 200 AF, increasing eligibility for smaller projects.
- Regions in the U.S that rely on Bureau of Reclamation grants for water projects will be particularly impacted.
- Rural communities that historically haven't been able to meet the 2,000 AF requirement might now qualify for these projects.
- Farmers and agricultural businesses in arid regions stand to benefit from increased water storage capabilities.
- Rehabilitation and reconstruction projects for dams may receive more funding, thus improving water infrastructure.
Reasoning
- The prime beneficiaries of this policy change will be rural communities and agricultural sectors in water-scarce regions, particularly in Western states.
- Farmers and small-scale agricultural businesses that previously could not qualify for the 2,000 AF requirement will now be able to access grants for water storage which can significantly affect their economic viability and livelihood.
- Urban populations will see minimal or no direct impact, as the policy primarily supports small to medium-sized water storage projects relevant to rural and agricultural settings.
- The budgetary constraints suggest that not all eligible projects will receive funding immediately, thus affecting some participants' perceptions of the policy's effectiveness.
- Those involved in industries like farming and farming supplies, or living in arid regions will have medium to high impact depending on their involvement with and extent of water use.
- Dam and infrastructure rehabilitation projects will be able to proceed at a greater pace, thus potentially affecting local contractors and workers.
- With a budget allocation, the policy looks to gradually impact the target population over years, improving their wellbeing as more projects get funded.
Simulated Interviews
Almond Farmer (Fresno, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be a game changer for us. Water storage has always been a bottleneck.
- If the funding is distributed fairly, many in our community will benefit.
- I'm cautiously optimistic but aware that funding might be slow to reach us.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Hydrologist (Denver, CO)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation will likely increase demand for our consultancy services.
- It aligns with our push for more sustainable use of groundwater resources.
- I expect to see opportunities for professional growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Engineer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any policy that addresses water scarcity is good news for Arizona.
- However, implementation will be key in ensuring these changes lead to real benefits.
- I'm hopeful that this bill will lead to more sustainable water management.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Reno, NV)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My business could see a spike in sales with more farms accessing water storage funding.
- This policy needs to ensure a rapid and fair allocation of resources.
- Reno's farming community has long awaited adjustments like this.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy won't directly affect my work, but it's a step towards comprehensive water management.
- I hope the expanded grant criteria encourage sustainable practices.
- My focus remains on urban water issues which seem unaffected by this policy.
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 | 8 | 8 |
County Water Resources Manager (Riverside, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reduces barriers for funding smaller-scale projects in our county.
- Could bridge gaps in water access for many rural communities.
- Success hinges on consistent funding over the years.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Minority Rancher (Grand Junction, CO)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, a policy that could really provide support to ranchers like myself.
- We've felt neglected by past water initiatives due to size restrictions.
- I hope it leads to improved water access and ranching conditions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Graduate Student (El Paso, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my research focus and may provide more case studies.
- It's encouraging to see adjustments favoring more inclusive criteria.
- The expanded eligibility might spur innovation in water management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Farmer (Boise, ID)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Good to see the government expanding support for water infrastructure.
- It's too late for me, but this should help current farmers.
- Efficient water use is critical for future agricultural sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Energy Sector Analyst (Dallas, TX)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm neutral as this doesn't intersect with my work directly.
- The expansion might bring new considerations for water in energy planning.
- It's a positive development for the states reliant on these grants.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 2: $82000000 (Low: $62000000, High: $102000000)
Year 3: $84000000 (Low: $64000000, High: $104000000)
Year 5: $88000000 (Low: $68000000, High: $108000000)
Year 10: $95000000 (Low: $75000000, High: $115000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $220000000)
Key Considerations
- The cost estimate assumes that there is increased demand for eligible projects after changing the capacity requirement.
- Costs will depend on the number of projects that successfully apply for and receive grants.
- Project outcomes could vary significantly depending on local community participation and the specific nature of the projects funded.