Bill Overview
Title: Stop the Spread of Invasive Mussels Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides for activities to control invasive species on federal lands and waters. The Department of the Interior may inspect and decontaminate watercraft entering and leaving federal land and water located within a river basin that contains a Bureau of Reclamation water project. The Bureau of Reclamation shall establish a competitive grant program to provide grants to partners to conduct inspections and decontamination of watercraft in reservoirs operated and maintained by Reclamation, including to purchase, establish, operate, or maintain a watercraft inspection and decontamination station. In carrying out the grant program, Reclamation shall coordinate with (1) states with Reclamation projects, (2) affected Indian tribes, and (3) the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.
Sponsors: Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on ecosystems and economies affected by invasive mussel species
Estimated Size: 30000000
- The bill focuses on controlling invasive mussel species on federal lands and waters, affecting ecosystems that rely on these habitats.
- Protection of these ecosystems impacts commercial and recreational fishing industries, conservation groups, and tourists who utilize water bodies for recreation.
- Federally owned lands and waters span across the United States, impacting a diverse population including indigenous communities, local fishermen, recreational boaters, and tourists.
- The funding and measures will directly impact local economies reliant on water bodies, particularly in regions with a high prevalence of invasive mussel species.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts a varied group of people depending on their proximity to federal lands and water bodies affected by invasive mussels.
- Recreational users like boaters and fishermen will be among those directly affected, as they interact with these waters frequently.
- Local businesses that rely on recreation and tourism might experience indirect benefits from healthier ecosystems.
- The impact on indigenous communities might differ based on their traditional reliance on these ecosystems.
- Given the policy's focus, individuals living in affected areas may experience improved ecosystem quality, potentially boosting local economies and wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Recreational Fisherman (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a great step towards protecting our aquatic ecosystems.
- I hope it encourages more responsible usage of watercrafts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Watercraft Rental Business Owner (Reno, Nevada)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's essential for business that these waters remain healthy and safe for visitors.
- The policy should help attract more tourists, which is beneficial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Conservation Scientist (Austin, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protecting our water bodies is critical and this policy addresses a pressing issue.
- I'm hopeful it leads to long-term health of these important ecosystems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
State Park Ranger (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time we took invasive species seriously in managing our natural resources.
- The policy indicates a commitment to our long-term ecological health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Tour Guide (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can only bring positive changes if executed properly.
- Healthy ecosystems attract more people and sustain my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Retired educator (Helena, Montana)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Even as a retiree, I want to see our natural areas preserved for my grandchildren.
- These measures are necessary despite the inconvenience.
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 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Environmental Policy Advocate (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about the impact of this policy, especially on water rights advocacy.
- Continued collaboration with indigenous groups is key.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
College Student (Olympia, Washington)
Age: 19 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Younger generations like mine care a lot about protecting natural environments.
- This policy is a step in the right direction.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Commercial Fisher (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful but it depends on how much focus there is on enforcement.
- Impact on commercial activities needs more emphasis in policies like this.
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 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Aquarium Manager (Cleveland, Ohio)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy supports awareness and action, which is my professional focus.
- Correct public perception is crucial and this helps.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $4200000, High: $6200000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $4400000, High: $6400000)
Year 5: $5800000 (Low: $4800000, High: $6800000)
Year 10: $6500000 (Low: $5500000, High: $7500000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- The high initial setup and coordination costs are offset by potential long-term savings by preventing the mussels' spread.
- Effective implementation hinges on successful intergovernmental and public-private partnerships.
- Potential savings in ecosystem restoration and economic protective measures justify the initial costs.