Bill Overview
Title: Colorado River Basin Conservation Act
Description: This bill reauthorizes the Department of the Interior to fund or participate in pilot projects to increase Colorado River System water in Lake Mead and the Colorado River Storage Project reservoirs through FY2026. Interior administers these pilot projects to address the effects of drought conditions on the Colorado River Basin, which includes the Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) and Lower Basin states (Arizona, California, and Nevada). The bill also requires Interior to submit an updated report to Congress by the end of FY2027 on the effectiveness of the pilot projects and a recommendation on whether to continue the program.
Sponsors: Sen. Hickenlooper, John W. [D-CO]
Target Audience
Population: People in the Colorado River Basin states dependent on its water supply
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The Colorado River Basin is an essential water source for millions of people in the western United States.
- Seven states are directly impacted by the Colorado River's water supply: Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, California, and Nevada.
- The population of these states combined is over 60 million people.
- Water from the Colorado River is used for residential, agricultural, and industrial purposes.
- Drought conditions impact not only the direct recipients of the river's water but also agriculture that supplies food nationally and globally.
Reasoning
- The Colorado River Basin serves millions across various states, impacting urban water supply, agriculture, and power generation.
- Residents in states like Arizona and California directly draw from the river for drinking water, making them highly sensitive to changes in water availability.
- Farmers in the region rely on the Colorado River for irrigation. Drought conditions and water scarcity directly affect agricultural productivity and their economic wellbeing.
- Urban residents in large cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Las Vegas may experience water usage restrictions impacting their daily lives depending on policy outcomes.
- Households with higher income may have alternatives such as water-saving technologies, while low-income households could be more vulnerable.
- Conservation projects may improve water availability long-term, benefiting residents' wellbeing, especially during droughts.
- Environmentalists may view the policy positively due to its focus on sustainability.
Simulated Interviews
Urban planner (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the Colorado River Basin Conservation Act is crucial given the current drought conditions. This policy could safeguard urban water supplies and allow cities like Phoenix to plan smarter growth.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Farmer (Fresno, California)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might mitigate some water scarcity issues. I think it's beneficial as increased water storage can sustain my crop yields through difficult seasons.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 1 |
Casino worker (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad something's being done because I hate the dryness and water restrictions sometimes. Still, I don't deal with agriculture, so it doesn't have a huge impact on me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
High school teacher (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Incorporating lessons on water conservation is important for my students. This policy sets a positive example for sustainability efforts, though personally, I may not feel a direct impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Hydrologist (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The recognition of drought's impact is long overdue. This policy might enable better research and tech advancements in water management, though it's too early to be certain of its broad effects.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Social worker (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In rural areas, the pressure from the drought can be harsh. This policy offers hope, but implementation needs more community involvement to truly uplift affected areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Graduate student (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important that we have policies like this, especially to study their effectiveness. It provides real-world data for my studies but may not directly change my day-to-day life.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Health care administrator (Albuquerque, New Mexico)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reliable water means fewer disruptions in our city health facilities. If successful, this policy could significantly help long-term stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Energy executive (Cheyenne, Wyoming)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water conservation is also a critical component of the energy sector operations in the region. The policy aligns with our goals for sustainable practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Environmental activist (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction; nonetheless, I advocate for more aggressive measures. Hopeful it will bring tangible results for our dwindling water sources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 3: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $160000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Long-term benefits of drought mitigation vs. the initial and ongoing costs of the projects.
- The environmental impact of construction and operational activities on local ecosystems.
- Stakeholder cooperation and potential delays in project implementation across state lines.
- Report outcomes in FY2027 could drastically affect future policy recommendations.
- Potential for state and local co-funding to be leveraged.