Bill Overview
Title: Water Design-Build Improvement Act of 2022
Description: This bill allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to use the collaborative project delivery method for certain water infrastructure projects (e.g., building and upgrading wastewater and drinking water treatment systems). This method involves collaboration among those involved at various stages of a project from design through completion of construction. The bill also requires the EPA and USACE to study the use of the collaborative project delivery method in these projects and make the results public.
Sponsors: Rep. Davids, Sharice [D-KS-3]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on improved or maintained wastewater and drinking water systems globally
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill affects projects related to wastewater and drinking water treatment systems.
- Access to clean water is a fundamental necessity for all people, so changes in infrastructure can have wide-reaching impacts.
- The collaborative project delivery method involves multiple stakeholders and can lead to more efficient project completion and better outcomes.
- Both urban and rural populations could be impacted by improvements in water infrastructure.
Reasoning
- Given the large budget and the significant target population, the impact of the policy can vary based on how projects are distributed geographically and across different communities.
- Communities with outdated or inadequate infrastructure, such as rural areas or those affected by historical water issues like Flint, MI, are likely to see greater benefits from this policy.
- The collaborative project delivery method is intended to streamline processes and enhance outcomes, potentially improving resident satisfaction and health outcomes.
- The potential improvement in water quality and infrastructure reliability could improve general wellbeing, particularly in socio-economically disadvantaged areas.
Simulated Interviews
Public School Teacher (Flint, MI)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen too many families and children suffer from water issues here, so any project promising improvement would be a blessing.
- I'm hopeful but also a bit skeptical because we've heard promises before without seeing much change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Farmer (Rural Alabama)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stable and clean water supply is crucial for my farm and my family's health.
- A collaborative approach seems promising if it brings everyone on board to solve these persistent issues.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Corporate Lawyer (New York City, NY)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's wonderful and necessary to keep our water infrastructure updated, but I don't expect direct changes in my day-to-day life.
- As someone who cares about the environment, I see this as a win for cities and rural areas alike.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Water Treatment Plant Manager (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill offers a chance to innovate and possibly alleviate some of our water scarcity concerns through better infrastructure.
- Collaboration could cut red tape and lead to much-needed upgrades.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislative approach seems smart, encouraging collaboration which could lead to smarter, more sustainable project design.
- I'm not going to see a personal change necessarily, but I like the bigger-picture implications.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the changes might not affect me directly, I'm optimistic about the potential for innovative environmental solutions.
- This kind of project should ensure our cities can deal with future challenges better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Community Organizer (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being prepared for future weather events is crucial, and improving water systems is a part of that readiness.
- I see potential for our community to finally get much-needed improvements.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Civil Engineer (Suburban Atlanta, GA)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could set the groundwork for more modern water infrastructure, which excites me professionally.
- It's a good step, but execution is what will matter most.
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 | 8 | 5 |
Hotel Manager (Las Vegas, NV)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In a desert city, water infrastructure is everything. This policy could streamline necessary upgrades at an appropriate pace.
- I support anything that helps us manage our scarce resources more effectively.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Meteorologist (Seattle, WA)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a positive policy shift, though Seattle's current systems are robust.
- If this approach fosters better practices nationwide, it will ultimately benefit all of us.
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 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $450000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $500000000)
Year 2: $460000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $520000000)
Year 3: $470000000 (Low: $430000000, High: $530000000)
Year 5: $480000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $540000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $460000000, High: $560000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The complexity of coordinating multiple stakeholders in a collaborative project delivery setting.
- The initial learning curve associated with adopting the collaborative method, which may impact cost savings early in the implementation phase.