Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4236

Bill Overview

Title: Water Data and Security Act of 2022

Description: This bill requires federal departments and agencies involved in water resources management to jointly develop and implement a National Water Data Framework and establish an interagency council, advisory committee, and grant program. This bill also requires the Department of the Interior to develop and implement an integrated water resources management plan (i.e., the Basin Plan) for the Rio Grande Basin and reauthorizes an irrigation infrastructure grant program for Rio Grande Pueblos tribes.

Sponsors: Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

Target Audience

Population: People depending on water resources management

Estimated Size: 330000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Farmer (Albuquerque, New Mexico)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The water management plan could improve irrigation efficiency, crucial for my crops.
  • I'm concerned about how changes might initially affect my water allocation during implementation.

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 9 5
Year 20 9 4

Environmental Scientist (Santa Fe, New Mexico)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy offers a structured method to address long-standing water management issues.
  • More data can significantly enhance resource allocation and environmental protection.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 5

Water Utility Manager (Dallas, Texas)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A national framework could streamline data sharing, improving service reliability.
  • The initiative will likely raise operational costs in the short term as systems integrate.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 5

Community Activist (Eagle Pass, Texas)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy sounds promising for visibility and attention to serious water issues here.
  • Past promises have led to little change, so we're cautiously optimistic.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 8 4
Year 20 8 3

Student (Denver, Colorado)

Age: 22 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This framework could provide crucial data for research and advocacy.
  • Access to updated and integrated data could drive more effective environmental action.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 5

Retired Engineer (Austin, Texas)

Age: 64 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm interested in how this policy will affect local water conservation efforts.
  • I've seen similar initiatives underdeliver, but I remain hopeful.

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 8 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 8 4

Lawyer (Las Cruces, New Mexico)

Age: 41 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The grant program for tribal irrigation is a meaningful step forward.
  • Ensuring effective implementation and respecting water rights is crucial.

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 8 5
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 9 4

Industrial Plant Manager (Phoenix, Arizona)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Improved national water data could help forecast water availability, which is vital for our operations.
  • I'm wary of potential increased regulatory costs as standards become more stringent.

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 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 5

Public Health Official (San Antonio, Texas)

Age: 48 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy can help tackle local water quality issues by providing better data for decision-making.
  • I'm optimistic but mindful of budget constraints and prioritization of areas.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 9 4
Year 20 9 4

Tribal Member and Agricultural Worker (Taos Pueblo, New Mexico)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The reauthorization of the irrigation grant program is very encouraging.
  • We need assurance on a fair distribution of resources and proper oversight.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 9 4
Year 20 9 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)

Year 2: $260000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $310000000)

Year 3: $270000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)

Year 5: $290000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $340000000)

Year 10: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)

Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $350000000)

Key Considerations