Bill Overview
Title: STREAM Act
Description: This bill generally establishes and expands infrastructure projects to address water supply issues in western states, including by establishing a competitive grant program for nonfederal storage projects.
Sponsors: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]
Target Audience
Population: People in western states of the United States affected by water supply issues
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The bill focuses on infrastructure projects related to water supply, impacting areas facing water scarcity.
- The western United States is experiencing significant water supply challenges, affecting millions.
- These projects can potentially impact farmers, municipalities, industries, and general populations relying on improved water infrastructure.
Reasoning
- The STREAM Act is targeted towards water infrastructure, crucial in the western U.S. due to drought conditions.
- Farmers are highly impacted as their livelihoods depend on reliable water supply for crops and livestock.
- Urban areas with growing populations face challenges in meeting water demands, influencing residents, businesses, and local governments.
- The policy’s impact varies significantly depending on the proximity and reliance on affected water sources.
- Improved water infrastructure can lead to better agricultural yields, economic growth, and quality of life improvements in affected regions but at varying degrees.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Bakersfield, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could offer much-needed water security for my crops.
- Grant programs might make it easier to invest in water-saving technologies.
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 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 1 |
Municipal Planner (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is crucial for ensuring Las Vegas' long-term water needs.
- Public awareness and involvement are key to successful implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Retired Engineer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We're already seeing water issues, and I'm hopeful this can mitigate future restrictions.
- Resource allocation must be transparent and effective.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
University Student (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with what I’m learning about sustainable practices.
- It's essential for protecting our environment and resources.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Casino Manager (Reno, Nevada)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could improve water services which is vital for hospitality businesses.
- Balancing tourists' needs and resource limits is challenging.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Environmental Activist (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is essential for L.A.'s future sustainability.
- Citizen involvement can drive better outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Winery Owner (Fresno, California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water scarcity threatens my business, and this policy could help.
- Understanding water rights and regulations is crucial for implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Retired Teacher (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvement in water access is beneficial for my lifestyle.
- Efficient planning can maximize benefits from limited resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Tech Start-up Employee (Sacramento, California)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reliable water supply is a must for urban living.
- Improved infrastructure supports community resilience.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stable water access is crucial for steady business operations.
- Awareness and education about water conservation are needed.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1050000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 3: $1100000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 5: $1200000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1400000000)
Year 10: $1300000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 100: $150000000 (Low: $144000000, High: $156000000)
Key Considerations
- Infrastructure projects often face delays and cost overruns.
- The impact of improved water supply on agricultural and urban growth.
- Potential environmental implications of large-scale water projects.