Bill Overview
Title: Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act Amendments of 2022
Description: This bill expands and modifies the Water Infrastructure and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan program by, for example, expanding eligibility to state water storage projects, transferred works, and certain nonfederally owned projects. WIFIA provides credit assistance through secured or direct loans for water infrastructure projects.
Sponsors: Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]
Target Audience
Population: people dependent on water infrastructure projects for clean water and sanitation
Estimated Size: 331000000
- The bill deals with financing for water infrastructure projects.
- It makes changes to the existing Water Infrastructure and Innovation Act loan program.
- The global population depends on water infrastructure for clean water and sanitation.
- Countries around the world seek funding for their water infrastructure improvements.
- WIFIA's changes could enable more international projects to access funding.
Reasoning
- The policy focuses on funding water infrastructure improvements which can lead to better public health, environmental benefits, and economic opportunities for certain regions.
- The population affected includes those in areas with outdated or inadequate water infrastructure, potentially benefiting from expanded project eligibility.
- The variety in geographical, economic, and social diversity necessitates a representative sample to assess different impact levels.
- This policy is more likely to impact rural and underserved urban communities where infrastructure improvements are most needed.
- Areas with industrial or agricultural activities might experience different levels of benefit compared to purely residential areas.
- Some individuals may experience indirect benefits, such as improved community health and local economy, thus affecting wellbeing scores.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Rural Nebraska)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this new policy will help us get better water resources for irrigation.
- If water projects are expanded, it could secure my farming activities.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Environmental Engineer (Urban California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's promising that more projects can now get funding.
- Hopefully, this will help modernize our outdated systems.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Activist (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Many parts of our city still have issues with old pipes and contaminated water.
- I'm cautiously optimistic about this bill's impact here.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Hotel Manager (Las Vegas, Nevada)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need more reliable water sources, especially in the hospitality industry.
- This legislation could help our state develop better water storage options.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Teacher (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've seen what happens with poor water management.
- I hope this helps ensure safer water in the long term.
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 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 2 |
Water Resource Manager (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This expansion could lead to some ground-breaking projects.
- Phoenix could definitely use this support to manage water scarcity better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Graduate Student (New York City, New York)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The theoretical potential is fascinating.
- I'm eager to see how it plays out, although NYC is usually well-supplied.
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 |
Industrial Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our water needs are significant, and any improvement can help.
- I'm hopeful for more sustainable water management practices.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
City Planner (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step toward more equitable water access.
- It could bring some much-needed innovation to our city projects.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired (Appalachia, Kentucky)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wish we'd had better water systems when I was young.
- Hope the next generation benefits from it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $210000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 3: $220000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $270000000)
Year 5: $240000000 (Low: $190000000, High: $290000000)
Year 10: $280000000 (Low: $230000000, High: $330000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- The success of the policy heavily depends on the execution and completion of the water infrastructure projects.
- Economic benefits and cost savings depend on timely project completions and expected improvements when projects are realized.
- There are uncertainties around defaults on loans, which could increase federal costs.
- Implementation and administrative costs could be burdensome if demand spikes.