Bill Overview
Title: Aquatic Invasive Species Control Act
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2028 and otherwise expands a program for addressing invasive species with adverse effects on water quality, water quantity, or ecosystems.
Sponsors: Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]
Target Audience
Population: People reliant on water resources and ecosystems affected by invasive aquatic species
Estimated Size: 150000000
- Invasive aquatic species can impact water resources, which are crucial for human consumption, agriculture, and industry.
- Communities dependent on waterways, such as those involved in fishing and tourism, will be directly affected.
- Individuals relying on ecosystems services provided by aquatic environments, such as clean drinking water and sanitation, will be impacted.
- Broadly, efforts to control invasive species can affect biodiversity, ecosystem health, and potentially food security.
Reasoning
- Many individuals affected by the policy are located in regions heavily reliant on water resources, such as the Midwest and coastal areas.
- Agricultural areas will benefit from the policy, as invasive species can seriously impact water quality and availability for irrigation.
- Fishing and tourism industries are likely the most directly affected, potentially seeing improvements in ecosystem health and biodiversity.
- With the program's budget, reaching a broader population may be limited, focusing efforts on regions most in need of aquatic ecosystem preservation.
- The policy aims to have a long-term impact on ecosystem health, though some immediate benefits could be seen in economic and quality of life metrics within a few years after implementation.
Simulated Interviews
Fisherman (Louisiana, USA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could help restore natural fisheries, benefiting my business.
- Immediate financial impact might be low, but long-term prospects are positive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Tourism Operator (California, USA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Preserving marine health is crucial for my business.
- The policy seems necessary for sustainable tourism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Water Quality Scientist (New York, USA)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy is essential for maintaining ecosystem balance.
- Immediate effects might not be visible, but long-term improvements are expected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Retired (Florida, USA)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could restore fish stocks, enhancing leisure activities.
- Hopes for improved water quality in rivers and lakes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Farmer (Minnesota, USA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could improve irrigation water quality, boosting crop yield.
- Concerned about implementation costs if local governments require contributions.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Industrial Engineer (Texas, USA)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could ensure water availability for industrial processes.
- Possibly reduce future water costs and improve business sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (Michigan, USA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a positive step towards safeguarding ecosystems.
- Advocacy efforts could align with government objectives to maximize impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
State Park Ranger (Oregon, USA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding and support from the policy could enhance conservation efforts.
- Directly impacts effectiveness of local restoration projects.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
College Student (Illinois, USA)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Excited about career opportunities in environmental policy and implementation.
- Believes policy will provide essential practical learning experiences.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Public Health Official (Georgia, USA)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could improve health outcomes linked to cleaner water sources.
- Hopes for reduced healthcare costs associated with water-borne illnesses.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $175000000, High: $225000000)
Year 2: $210000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $240000000)
Year 3: $220000000 (Low: $185000000, High: $255000000)
Year 5: $240000000 (Low: $195000000, High: $275000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of invasive species control measures in containing species spread and protecting ecosystems.
- The challenge of balancing federal, state, and local roles in funding and implementation.
- Potential shifts in biodiversity and ecosystem services that influence both costs and benefits over time.
- Flexibility in funding to adapt to changing ecological and invasive species challenges over the authorized period.