Bill Overview
Title: Natural Infrastructure Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to coordinate with the Forest Service on a program that supports the development and dissemination of research concerning natural infrastructure (i.e., constructed landscape features and systems that employ nature-based solutions that promote, use, restore, or emulate natural ecological processes). The USGS must also annually assess the costs and effectiveness of natural infrastructure projects.
Sponsors: Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI]
Target Audience
Population: People living in regions affected by natural infrastructure projects and benefiting from improved ecosystem services globally.
Estimated Size: 10000000
- The bill focuses on natural infrastructure which involves nature-based solutions for landscape features and ecological processes.
- It requires collaboration between the US Geological Survey and the Forest Service, which means it is specifically oriented towards projects in the United States.
- Natural infrastructure can impact ecosystem services such as water filtration, flood control, and carbon storage, which affects a large population indirectly.
- The legislation will largely impact communities living near areas where natural infrastructure projects are implemented by improving their environment.
- Researchers and professionals in environmental science, ecology, and related fields will be directly engaged due to the development and dissemination of research outlined in the bill.
Reasoning
- The Natural Infrastructure Act aims to improve ecosystem services by introducing natural landscape interventions, which can benefit populations experiencing ecological or environmental challenges.
- We must consider people living near forests, wetlands, and urban parks as likely beneficiaries, influencing residents' well-being and underlying ecological processes.
- The budget limits suggest the policy will initiate new projects gradually, impacting select regions within the U.S., with notable effects after implementation phases across multiple years.
- Underlying research and collaboration between governmental bodies underscore the intention to provide long-term, sustainable environmental benefits.
- Opinions from diverse demographics highlight the influence of ecosystem-centric policies on various social, economic, and personal factors, affecting well-being differently.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a critical step to mitigate environmental degradation and improve community resilience.
- Increased research and sustainable practices can enhance scientific understanding and community engagement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Georgia)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Natural infrastructure projects could support agricultural sustainability by improving soil and water quality.
- Collaborative efforts are vital for the well-being of farming communities relying on healthy ecosystems.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 3 |
City Planner (Tallahassee, Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Integrating natural infrastructure can transform city landscapes, improving quality of life and environmental resilience.
- This policy aligns with sustainable urban planning goals we are actively pursuing.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Environmental Activist (New York City, New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a beneficial move towards reinforcing nature-based solutions in urban environments.
- More policies like this are necessary for addressing climate change impacts extensively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Forestry Manager (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative could bolster much-needed funds and research into forestry management.
- Strengthening natural infrastructure aligns with our goals for sustainability and conservation.
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 | 5 |
Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, California)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Investments in natural infrastructure could revolutionize data analytics for environmental sustainability.
- Excited about new opportunities for innovation and tech-driven ecological solutions.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Community Organizer (Jackson, Mississippi)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy fosters environmental equity by improving natural infrastructure in under-resourced areas.
- Looking forward to seeing tangible ecosystem improvements and increased community engagement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Marine Biologist (Hawaii)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Incorporating natural infrastructure in coastal areas can strengthen ecosystem resilience against climate impacts.
- Essential policy for safeguarding coastal environments and communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Software Developer (Austin, Texas)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although personally not directly impacted, this policy aligns well with environmental futurism.
- Tech innovations driven by such policies could benefit broader environmental tech landscapes.
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 | 8 | 8 |
Firefighter (Boise, Idaho)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Natural infrastructure improvements might mitigate wildfire risks, promoting community safety.
- Optimistic about proactive measures addressing ecosystem challenges and fire management.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $3100000, High: $7300000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $3200000, High: $7600000)
Year 5: $5800000 (Low: $3400000, High: $8200000)
Year 10: $6400000 (Low: $3700000, High: $9000000)
Year 100: $7400000 (Low: $4200000, High: $10600000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness and scope of natural infrastructure projects can vary widely depending on ecological and geographical factors.
- Long-term benefits may accrue differently across regions, potentially leading to uneven distribution of economic and ecological benefits.
- Collaboration between the USGS and Forest Service can enhance both scientific and practical outcomes, but requires effective coordination.