Bill Overview
Title: Tribal Access to Clean Water Act of 2022
Description: This bill provides funding for and expands access to water resources for Native communities (i.e., Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian communities). First, the bill provides funding for the Indian Health Service to (1) provide essential sanitation facilities to community structures (e.g., schools, hospitals, and tribal offices) that were not previously considered eligible for such service; (2) provide technical assistance; and (3) operate and maintain water facilities that serve Native communities. Next, the bill provides funding for the Department of Agriculture to provide water and wastewater facility grants to eligible entities (e.g., Native communities) that have residents facing significant health risks due to inadequate water supply systems. The bill specifies that these funds shall not require any matching contribution. In addition, the bill reauthorizes through FY2032 the Bureau of Reclamation's Rural Water Supply Program. Further, the bill provides funding for and establishes a grant program for tribal clean water access projects. It also provides funding for the Native American Affairs Technical Assistance Program.
Sponsors: Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2]
Target Audience
Population: Native communities, including Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian communities, globally
Estimated Size: 6400000
- The bill targets Native communities, specifically Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian communities, to expand their access to clean water.
- It specifies funding for the Indian Health Service, which typically serves Native American populations, making these populations the primary beneficiaries.
- There is a mention of Native Hawaiian communities alongside Indian tribes, thus including Native Hawaiians in the targeted population.
- The bill provides significant funding for the operation and maintenance of water facilities specifically serving Native communities.
Reasoning
- The primary beneficiaries of the policy will be Native American tribes and Native Hawaiian communities, as the policy specifically targets these groups for improved water access.
- I will include people who are directly impacted, such as members of Native communities facing current challenges with water access.
- I'll also include some individuals outside these communities to demonstrate indirect and non-impact, reflecting perspectives on policy prioritization and broader socio-political context.
- Not all Native individuals may see a high impact depending on their current access to water and related services. Thus, variation in impact is expected.
- The policy is bounded by a budget, so it is unlikely every Native community will experience changes at the same time or to the same extent.
- The geographic distribution of Native communities, both in urban and rural settings, will create variance in how quickly and effectively the policy can be implemented.
Simulated Interviews
school teacher (Navajo Nation, Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy brings hope for our schools. We have struggled with water scarcity, affecting hygiene and day-to-day operations.
- It sounds promising for our community if resources are allocated properly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
farmer (Molokai, Hawaii)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reliable water supply is crucial for my farm, and this policy could be game-changing.
- I am hopeful but cautious since rural areas often get overlooked.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
nurse (Spokane, Washington)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a health professional, I see the direct impact lack of clean water has on health issues.
- I think this policy could significantly improve wellbeing and health outcomes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
software engineer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Personally, this policy won't change much for me, but it makes me proud to see support for our communities.
- It's a good initiative, but there are many competing priorities in urban settings.
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 | 7 | 7 |
retired (Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's about time we get the help needed for clean water.
- These changes are crucial for the health of the upcoming generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
government employee (Anchorage, Alaska)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Many Alaskan Natives live in remote areas with severe water scarcity.
- Effective allocation of funds is key to truly making a difference.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
unemployed (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m not directly impacted by this policy.
- I hope it helps those who need it.
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 | 5 | 5 |
tribal administrator (Tulsa, Oklahoma)
Age: 49 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with our regional needs for better health infrastructures.
- It will likely ease some of the administrative burdens.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
college student (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m encouraged by policies that address environmental issues.
- I would like to see more youth involvement in these projects.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
organic produce farmer (Vermont, USA)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Though the policy doesn't impact me directly, I'm glad to see attention on clean water initiatives.
- It's a step forward in addressing sustainability challenges.
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 | 4 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $250000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $300000000)
Year 2: $275000000 (Low: $220000000, High: $330000000)
Year 3: $300000000 (Low: $240000000, High: $360000000)
Year 5: $350000000 (Low: $280000000, High: $420000000)
Year 10: $450000000 (Low: $360000000, High: $540000000)
Year 100: $450000000 (Low: $360000000, High: $540000000)
Key Considerations
- The funding period and allocations span multiple years, indicating a long-term commitment to infrastructure improvement.
- Estimations must account for potential variations in grant uptake levels and the varying success rates of infrastructure projects.
- Potential economic multipliers from infrastructure spending need to be factored into economic impact models.