Bill Overview
Title: A bill to include phosphate and potash on the final list of critical minerals of the Department of the Interior.
Description: This bill includes phosphate and potash on a list of mineral commodities that are critical to the U.S. economy and national security.
Sponsors: Sen. Tillis, Thomas [R-NC]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals dependent on agriculture affected by phosphate and potash availability
Estimated Size: 332000000
- Phosphate and potash are important components of fertilizers used in agricultural practices.
- Farmers around the world rely on fertilizers containing phosphate and potash to enhance crop yields.
- Phosphate and potash are used extensively in the agriculture sector, which supports food production for entire populations.
- Including phosphate and potash in the list of critical minerals can impact the supply chain and availability of these materials globally.
- The U.S., being a major agricultural producer and consumer, significantly influences global markets for phosphate and potash.
Reasoning
- The budget constraints necessitate that the policy primarily benefits individuals directly involved in the agriculture sector given their reliance on phosphate and potash.
- Phosphate and potash's designation as critical minerals may lead to more robust supply chains, potentially lowering costs or stabilizing prices for U.S. farmers.
- This policy will likely have a direct impact on farmers but a limited direct impact on urban populations not engaged in agriculture.
- The broader secondary effects may take several years to manifest as changes in agricultural efficiency or costs are passed through the food supply chain.
- Individuals outside of agriculture may perceive little to no immediate impact, though over time, food prices could potentially stabilize or decrease.
Simulated Interviews
Corn Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will secure access to essential minerals for my operations.
- It may help to stabilize fertilizer prices, which have been volatile.
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 | 7 | 4 |
Organic Farmer (California)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Since I use mostly organic methods, this policy isn't crucial for me.
- I support the idea of stabilizing mineral supplies for conventional farmers.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Grocery Store Clerk (New York)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see how this policy affects my daily life as I'm in retail, not agriculture.
- Maybe food prices could be affected, but it's uncertain.
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 |
Cattle Rancher (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that helps stabilize costs for feed crops is welcome.
- This policy should help in ensuring that fertilizer remains affordable.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Policy Analyst (Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The designation of these minerals as critical is important for national security and economic stability.
- This can potentially prevent supply disruptions, benefiting the agricultural sector.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy encourages more sustainable and efficient use of these minerals.
- Environmental considerations are always key.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think maintaining access to these minerals is smart for future farming generations.
- It might not impact me directly anymore, but I see its importance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Agriculture Software Developer (North Carolina)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy leads to better resource management, it positively impacts the tools I develop.
- Could see an increase in demand for optimized software solutions if this stabilizes the market.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Agricultural Supply Company Manager (Kansas)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is critical for maintaining a consistent supply chain for our products.
- It should help in avoiding price spikes due to scarcity.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Home Gardener (Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't see a significant impact as I grow at home and use little fertilizer.
- It's good for large-scale farmers though.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Phosphate and potash are critical for fertilizers, which are essential for agricultural yields.
- The regulatory designation can influence strategic reserves and import policies, potentially affecting farmers reliant on these minerals.
- The U.S. agriculture sector's heavy reliance on these inputs emphasizes the need for stable supply chains.