Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/5215

Bill Overview

Title: Collaborative Modifications to Aging Infrastructure Projects Act

Description: This bill allows the Bureau of Reclamation to modify project features for transferred works to increase public benefits as part the bureau's extraordinary operation and maintenance work on aging infrastructure projects. The bill also allows the reimbursable and nonreimbursable costs of these projects to be advanced from the Aging Infrastructure Account.

Sponsors: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]

Target Audience

Population: People reliant on Bureau of Reclamation-managed water infrastructure

Estimated Size: 6500000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Farmer (Phoenix, Arizona)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could significantly enhance our water supply's reliability, potentially increasing our farm's productivity.
  • If they truly invest in improving the infrastructure here, we might see better crop yields and less stress over water shortage.

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

Hospitality Worker (Las Vegas, Nevada)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Water scarcity worries me because it affects everything from home life to work.
  • Improving infrastructure could stabilize our community and jobs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 6

Retired Engineer (Bakersfield, California)

Age: 67 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful this will mean less stress about water resources, both for our community and for agriculture.
  • Retrofitting these infrastructures is long overdue.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 9 6

Environmental Scientist (Denver, Colorado)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy could have transformative effects on water sustainability in the region.
  • Aside from infrastructure issues, the bureaucratic delays often hamper progress, so I hope this bill addresses them too.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 7

Water Resource Manager (Boise, Idaho)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Increased funding is crucial for repairing infrastructure that’s both outdated and overburdened.
  • This could mean fewer disruptions in supply and better response to drought conditions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 6
Year 3 9 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 10 6
Year 20 9 6

Public Policy Advisor (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could help bridge the gap between immediate needs and long-term sustainability goals.
  • I expect improvements in public confidence regarding water security.

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 9 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 8 7

Software Developer (Salt Lake City, Utah)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I think any infrastructure that can leverage water use more efficiently is fantastic.
  • I'm not directly impacted but supportive of anything that addresses environmental challenges.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 5

Teacher (Tucson, Arizona)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Water issues are increasingly affecting our community's resilience and growth.
  • The policy might relieve some pressure off schools and families.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 7 6

College Student (Reno, Nevada)

Age: 23 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Ensuring the future sustainability of our water supply is essential, and this policy could be a step in the right direction.
  • While I'm an indirect benefactor now, future benefits seem promising.

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 7 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Retired Hydrologist (Albuquerque, New Mexico)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Long-term investments in water infrastructure are critical for both human safety and ecological balance.
  • I hope this policy brings the needed updates to our aging systems.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 9 6
Year 20 8 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 3: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 5: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Key Considerations