Bill Overview
Title: Catastrophic Wildfire Prevention Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Forest Service to establish a pilot program to implement treatments and conduct related fire-suppression activities in areas of the National Forest System that are (1) west of the 100th meridian, and (2) near communities that may benefit from such treatments and activities.
Sponsors: Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
Target Audience
Population: People living in wildfire-prone areas in western US
Estimated Size: 78000000
- The bill affects regions in the western United States, specifically in the National Forest System areas prone to wildfires.
- Many communities near these areas are endangered by potential wildfires, affecting their lives and properties.
- Fire suppression and prevention likely enhance safety and reduce economic loss from wildfires.
- Western U.S. has a population of approximately 78 million people.
- Wildfires can have broad effects such as damage to properties, health impacts due to smoke, and ecological damage.
Reasoning
- The policy is localized to the western U.S. areas that experience frequent wildfires.
- Approximately 78 million people live in these regions, but the policy impact may directly affect only those near national forests.
- The budget and scope allow for initial pilot programs, potentially expanding if successful.
- Wildfire prevention can improve safety, economic stability, and environmental health, thus impacting community wellbeing.
- The diversity in occupation and socioeconomic status means different levels of influence by the policy will occur.
- Some people may see immediate benefits via reduced fire risk, while others see long-term ecological improvements.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary school teacher (Northern California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the increasing threat of wildfires every summer.
- If this policy reduces fire risk, our community will feel much safer.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Firefighter (Colorado)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Primary prevention reduces our risk exposure on the frontlines.
- I hope the program provides necessary resources for our professional training.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Research scientist (Nevada)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a positive step towards proactive environmental protection.
- Research funding associated with such policies strengthens our work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Rancher (Oregon)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Every year my livelihood is jeopardized by fire threats.
- This plan needs to address landowner concerns and support directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Park Ranger (Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhancing fire prevention is crucial for park conservation.
- I've seen firsthand the devastating impact of unchecked wildfires.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Tech startup employee (Washington)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Protective measures for these natural areas are important to me.
- My outdoor lifestyle strongly impacts my wellbeing.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired engineer (Southern California)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen the direct impact on both property and personal health.
- This initiative could provide crucial support for local efforts.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
College student (Idaho)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this guide our conversations in solving environmental issues.
- I'm hopeful for effective results and real change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired forest service employee (Montana)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Combining history with current strategies could be impactful.
- It's crucial these efforts gain political and community support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Wildlife Photographer (Utah)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Positive for preserving ecosystems, crucial for my work.
- The natural beauty of these areas is vital to protect.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $525000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $630000000)
Year 3: $551250000 (Low: $441000000, High: $661500000)
Year 5: $605062500 (Low: $484500000, High: $726750000)
Year 10: $706318125 (Low: $565275000, High: $847581750)
Year 100: $1838208433 (Low: $1463698300, High: $2206918567)
Key Considerations
- The initial spending is high due to setup costs and infrastructure build-out for fire prevention activities.
- Benefits include not only direct savings and GDP impacts but also ecological and health advantages.
- Uncertainties in wildfire occurrences and economic conditions could affect cost and savings estimates.