Bill Overview
Title: Las Vegas Wash Program Extension Act
Description: This bill increases the authorization of appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation to participate, in partnership with the Las Vegas Wash Coordinating Committee, in the implementation of the Las Vegas Wash wetlands restoration and Lake Mead improvement project. The Las Vegas Wash in Nevada connects the Las Vegas Valley with Lake Mead.
Sponsors: Sen. Cortez Masto, Catherine [D-NV]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on Lake Mead for water resources
Estimated Size: 23000000
- Lake Mead is a critical water supply for millions of people in the southwestern United States, including in Nevada, Arizona, California, and Mexico.
- The restoration of wetlands is essential for maintaining the quality of water entering Lake Mead, which affects water safety and supply for the region.
- Ecosystems in and around the Las Vegas Wash and Lake Mead rely on a well-managed water course for biodiversity and environmental health.
- The Las Vegas metropolitan area, with over 2.2 million residents, directly benefits from a healthy Las Vegas Wash as it affects regional water quality and environmental sustainability.
Reasoning
- The Las Vegas Wash Program Extension Act primarily affects individuals who rely on water from Lake Mead. This includes a significant population in Nevada, Arizona, and California, where Lake Mead is a key water resource.
- Restoration efforts are expected to improve water quality, which contributes to the health and well-being of people in these regions by ensuring a safer and more reliable water supply.
- Biodiversity and ecosystem health, facilitated by this policy, indirectly support human well-being through tourism and the local economy.
- Although the policy target area includes over 23 million people, the range of impacts varies from direct improvements in water quality to broader ecological and economic benefits.
Simulated Interviews
Water Treatment Specialist (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this project is vital for ensuring our water supply remains clean and safe.
- Working in water management, I can see firsthand the issues we're facing with water quality, and this policy seems to address them head-on.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Environmental restoration is always a plus, and this project could serve as a model for other water systems.
- It is crucial to maintain our water sources not only for health but for ecological balance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
College Student (San Diego, CA)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every little bit counts when it comes to environmental conservation, and this seems like a well-focused effort.
- Even though I'm not directly affected day-to-day, I appreciate knowing efforts are being made towards sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Teacher (Riverside, CA)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It sounds like a necessary step to address water scarcity and maintain our gardens and farms.
- I'm optimistic that such projects will help keep our community green and fertile.
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 | 3 |
Tourism Manager (Henderson, NV)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved water quality will likely increase tourism, which benefits the economy and my job.
- I'm hopeful that such investments will yield long-term gains for our community, particularly after the pandemic.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Public Health Official (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Environmental policies like this have a significant impact on public health.
- I am glad to see proactive measures being taken to tackle issues before they worsen.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Park Ranger (Boulder City, NV)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restoration is essential for maintaining the beauty and usability of natural spaces around Lake Mead.
- The policy could ensure that these areas remain attractive to visitors and conserve wildlife.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Technician (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support any measures that protect our natural resources.
- It's encouraging when policies align with innovative approaches to sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Rancher (Flagstaff, AZ)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I rely on clean and abundant water for my livestock, so this policy is extremely important to me.
- It's not just about today but securing resources for future generations of ranchers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Hospital Administrator (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring the quality of our water supply is another step towards comprehensive community health.
- I am glad to see funding directed towards these critical issues.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $40000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $45000000)
Year 2: $41000000 (Low: $36000000, High: $46000000)
Year 3: $42000000 (Low: $37000000, High: $47000000)
Year 5: $43000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $48000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The project's success depends on effective coordination with the Las Vegas Wash Coordinating Committee and continued funding.
- Long-term sustainability of the wetlands and improved water quality are critical to addressing regional water scarcity challenges.
- Environmental regulations and compliance costs might influence operational expenses.