Bill Overview
Title: Future of Water Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits the trading of futures contracts in water or water rights. A futures contract is an agreement to buy or sell a commodity or financial instrument at a set price at a specific time.
Sponsors: Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17]
Target Audience
Population: People globally who rely on water resources subject to rights trading or management practices
Estimated Size: 332000000
- The bill targets the prohibition of trading futures contracts in water or water rights.
- Water is a fundamental resource, necessary for all individuals, agriculture, and industries.
- Agencies and municipalities that manage water supplies are directly impacted as they might be involved in planning for future water supplies and rights.
- Agricultural sectors will be affected as they are major consumers of water and may use futures contracts as a means to manage water-related risks.
- Communities relying on water sources that are subject to rights trading and future contracts will be impacted in access and management practices.
- Environmental groups and policymakers engaging in sustainable resource management might be involved due to the implications on water resource policies.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts industries and municipalities that use water futures contracts for planning and hedging financial risks related to water supply.
- The policy could have indirect effects on communities and individuals if the costs of managing water supplies change, but those impacts might not be immediately felt in individual well-being scores.
- Placing a halt on water futures trading might reduce financial speculation on water and limit the ability of some entities to manage long-term water risks, potentially impacting agricultural and industrial stakeholders.
- For everyday consumers, the immediate impact might be minimal, but long-term effects could alter water costs or availability, which would be more pronounced in drought-prone areas.
- The policy's budget limitations suggest a focus on regulatory enforcement and monitoring, rather than direct financial aid or infrastructure changes, which would limit direct consumer impact.
- Given the broad and indirect nature of the policy, individuals might not perceive an immediate change in their daily lives, reflected in wellbeing scores.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Fresno, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water futures trading is a tool for farmers to manage uncertainty in water supply.
- Without futures, it might be harder to plan for unpredictable shifts in water availability due to climate change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Municipal Water Resource Planner (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The prohibition on water futures trading removes a financial planning tool.
- Could make it challenging to secure water rights for future commitments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
Environmental Scientist (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with our advocacy against treating water as a commodity.
- Could direct focus towards sustainable water management without financial speculation.
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 |
Manufacturing Plant Manager (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might indirectly impact manufacturing costs if water supply conditions change.
- Currently no direct impact as we don't engage in water futures.
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 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Graduate Student (Austin, Texas)
Age: 26 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It sees positive, prevents financial firms from speculating on water.
- Uncertain about direct impact on communities.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Public School Teacher (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds good but unclear on how it affects daily life or water bills.
- Hopeful it might lead to better water resources management long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired (Salem, Oregon)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supporting the halt on water commodification.
- Hopes to see positive environmental impacts.
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 |
Tech Industry Executive (San Francisco, California)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Neutral perspective on the policy.
- Primary water usage concerns are local regulations and innovation impacts rather than futures trading.
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 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Energy Sector Analyst (Houston, Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy removes a data point valuable for market analysis.
- Anticipating indirect impact on related water-intensive energy operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Public Health Officer (Miami, Florida)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy has potential benefits in long-term community health initiatives.
- Might affect water allocation and priorities for health-focused projects.
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: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 3: $2100000 (Low: $1600000, High: $2600000)
Year 5: $2150000 (Low: $1650000, High: $2650000)
Year 10: $2300000 (Low: $1750000, High: $2800000)
Year 100: $3500000 (Low: $2500000, High: $4500000)
Key Considerations
- The enforcement of this policy may require extensive coordination across state and federal agencies, especially in regions with water scarcity.
- The prohibition could lead to legal challenges from stakeholders currently involved in water futures markets.
- Implementation might impact agricultural strategies that rely on futures contracts for risk management.