Bill Overview
Title: Platte River Basin Critical Maintenance and Repair Act
Description: This bill expands federal government funding to allow for the critical maintenance and repair of certain Bureau of Reclamation-owned facilities located within the Platte River Basin in Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. The bill applies to those basin facilities that have had a structural failure resulting in a declaration of emergency in the 3-year period ending on the date the bill is enacted (e.g., the Fort Laramie Canal in both Wyoming and Nebraska, which had a tunnel collapse in July 2019). Current law limits funding eligibility to certain Reclamation-owned facilities that suffered a critical failure during a 2-year period ending on November 15, 2021.
Sponsors: Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals dependent on Platte River Basin water facilities
Estimated Size: 400000
- The Platte River Basin spans across Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming, impacting people in these states.
- Federal government funding is directed towards Bureau of Reclamation-owned facilities, which play a key role in water management.
- The bill focuses on basin facilities that have had a structural failure, such as the Fort Laramie Canal, affecting regional water supply and agricultural activities.
- These facilities support irrigation, which affects farmers and agricultural operations, as well as local communities that rely on these water resources.
- Previous structural failures have resulted in emergency declarations, indicating significant impact on local populations' access to water and livelihoods.
- The main industries affected include agriculture, fisheries, and possibly tourism if water bodies attract visitors.
- Communities dependent on these irrigation systems for economic activities will likely benefit from repairs and maintenance, minimizing disruptions to their livelihoods.
Reasoning
- The policy specifically supports maintenance and repair of water facilities in the Platte River Basin, influencing water management critical to agricultural and local community needs.
- Farmers directly using water from these facilities for irrigation will be directly affected by the policy.
- There are also indirect effects on communities dependent on agriculture and fisheries supported by this water.
- Individuals outside the immediate facility-area may have indirect benefits or be unaffected.
- Some urban residents may express no direct impact due to distance from affected areas.
Simulated Interviews
farmer (Scottsbluff, Nebraska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm very hopeful about this policy as it addresses critical failures that have been impacting our irrigation systems.
- Previous emergencies have disrupted my crop cycles and financial stability.
- If the repairs are adequately funded and managed, it would provide essential relief.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
environmental scientist (Casper, Wyoming)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This funding is crucial for maintaining not only water supply but also its quality, which directly impacts local ecosystems.
- I see this as a positive step towards sustainable water management but its success will depend on execution.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
software engineer (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see this policy affecting my daily life or work.
- Water infrastructure is important but doesn't directly impact me in this case.
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 |
retired (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 56 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a community member, I hope these repairs help my neighbors who are farmers.
- Though not directly affected, I worry about local food prices and economic health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
agricultural consultant (Greeley, Colorado)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy provides an opportunity for stability in agricultural operations for my clients.
- Continued funding and focus are required beyond initial repairs.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
water resources manager (North Platte, Nebraska)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring infrastructure stability is critical, and this policy aids immensely in risk reduction.
- It will be essential for future water management strategy.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
restaurant owner (Fort Collins, Colorado)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy's success could mean better consistency in local produce supply, impacting my business positively.
- Decreased risk of supply disruption is a relief.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
graduate student (Lincoln, Nebraska)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an academic, I'm interested in how effective implementation will drive regional water policy improvements.
- This offers a case study in infrastructure and environmental impact.
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 |
retired farmer (Kearney, Nebraska)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen firsthand how infrastructure issues can cripple farms.
- This funding is sorely needed to avoid what I and others have faced.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
travel blogger (Rapid City, South Dakota)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not directly impacted, but I understand these regions might have better visitor experiences with more stable water infrastructure.
- Overall, this policy seems beneficial for local communities.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring timely and efficient repair to avoid prolonged economic disruption.
- Potential cost overruns typical of infrastructure projects, especially under emergency conditions.
- The positive impact of stabilization of water resources on agricultural reliability and community well-being.