Policy Impact Analysis - 117/HR/6985

Bill Overview

Title: Financing Lead Out of Water Act of 2022

Description: This bill allows the issuance of tax-exempt private activity bonds to finance the replacement of any privately-owned portion of a lead service line in a public water system. Specifically, the bill provides that the use of proceeds from such bonds for replacement of a lead service line does not constitute private business use.

Sponsors: Rep. Kildee, Daniel T. [D-MI-5]

Target Audience

Population: individuals living in homes with privately-owned lead service lines

Estimated Size: 10000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Teacher (Flint, Michigan)

Age: 42 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy is a step in the right direction, but implementation speed is crucial.
  • I'm hopeful that this will bring clean water and peace of mind for my family.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 4
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 7 5
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 9 5

Plumber (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)

Age: 37 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This bill should have come sooner, but it's necessary for public health.
  • The policy will improve the quality of life over time as awareness and implementation go hand in hand.

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 (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 62 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried about how long it will take to replace the lines in my area.
  • This sounds promising, but I've seen promises like these before with little result.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 3
Year 2 5 3
Year 3 5 3
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 6 4

Freelance Photographer (Newark, New Jersey)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While this policy won't affect me as a renter directly, it benefits my community.
  • Clean water is a basic right, and this policy supports that view.

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 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Small Business Owner (Boston, Massachusetts)

Age: 55 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 18/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • It's good for the city's reputation but won’t affect my business directly unless health codes demand changes.
  • I'm relieved to see my taxes funding such necessary infrastructure projects.

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

Nurse (St. Louis, Missouri)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 15.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could save me thousands in replacing lines myself.
  • It provides much-needed reassurance about long-term living conditions.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

City Planner (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)

Age: 46 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 16/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm advocating for maximized implementation and education.
  • The policy is a part of critical infrastructure improvement.

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 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

Construction Worker (Cleveland, Ohio)

Age: 50 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 12.0 years

Commonness: 14/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy will likely provide more job opportunities in construction.
  • It's beneficial for communities, though the immediate impacts may be limited.

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 6 5
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 5

Retired (Detroit, Michigan)

Age: 70 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 13/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Even if it doesn't directly impact me now, it should have happened decades ago.
  • This will help my grandchildren in the long run.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 4
Year 2 5 4
Year 3 5 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 4

Software Engineer (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)

Age: 31 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 19/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy seems essential for older neighborhoods.
  • Awareness of such issues should increase considerably as the policy is enacted.

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $300000000)

Year 2: $220000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $330000000)

Year 3: $242000000 (Low: $121000000, High: $363000000)

Year 5: $290000000 (Low: $145000000, High: $435000000)

Year 10: $350000000 (Low: $175000000, High: $525000000)

Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)

Key Considerations