Bill Overview
Title: Reducing Plastics in Wastewater Act
Description: This bill permits the use of the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to construct or improve municipal water treatment facilities to reduce and remove plastic waste, microplastics, and other post-consumer materials from wastewater. That fund provides low-cost financing to communities for a wide range of water quality infrastructure projects.
Sponsors: Rep. Jacobs, Chris [R-NY-27]
Target Audience
Population: Global Population
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill impacts populations who rely on municipal water services, as the legislation is focused on improving water quality infrastructure.
- Reducing microplastics and other plastic waste in wastewater facilities can have broad implications for public health.
- Communities that undertake water treatment facility improvements will directly benefit from cleaner municipal water sources, positively affecting local residents.
- Cleaner waterways also have environmental benefits, impacting ecosystems that support human life globally.
Reasoning
- The policy's primary beneficiaries are individuals who rely on municipal water services, which constitutes a large portion of the U.S. population.
- Those living in areas undergoing infrastructure improvements will see the most direct benefits, reflected in improved perception of water quality and potentially fewer health risks associated with pollutants.
- Individuals in regions with existing water quality issues will likely see a higher impact from the policy, particularly in terms of health outcomes and welfare.
- The environmental improvements due to reduced plastics in water systems could have indirect effects on individuals' wellbeing by improving local ecosystems and aesthetics.
- Residents in areas with historically poor water quality might notice significant improvements in their quality of life and health indicators.
- Budget constraints may limit the immediate extensive rollout or comprehensive coverage; hence, the impact is varied based on regional implementations and available funds.
Simulated Interviews
Software Engineer (Urban area in California)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe improving water infrastructure is critical, especially with all the news about microplastics.
- Cleaner water would definitely make me feel more at ease about my outdoor activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to hear about efforts to clean our water supply, though I rely on my own well.
- Reducing pollution overall can help my crops thrive.
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 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Teacher (Suburban New Jersey)
Age: 43 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clean water is fundamental for community health, and this policy is a great step forward.
- I think it will make everyone feel more secure about the water quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Given my work, I'm keenly aware of how crucial this legislation is.
- The policy is a necessary starting point to tackle an important issue.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A cleaner water supply can improve our quality of life considerably here.
- This investment is long overdue for our community.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Marketing Specialist (Miami, Florida)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improving wastewater treatment could help protect our beaches, which is crucial here.
- I'm supportive of anything that can keep our environment clean for future generations.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Tech startup founder (Austin, Texas)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my values of supporting local and global environmental health.
- Cleaner water treatment processes will be a major long-term benefit.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Healthcare Worker (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This kind of policy reflects where public health initiatives should be headed.
- My kids drink and play in this water, so improvements here are improvements for all.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired Environmental Lawyer (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 72 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having dedicated my life to this field, I know how important actionable measures like these are.
- It's heartening to see such policies finally gain traction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
College Student (New York City, New York)
Age: 20 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's vital that NYC continues to improve its water quality, anything else is unacceptable in such a big city.
- These improvements speak to broader efforts we need against pollution.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1200000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1400000000)
Year 2: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 3: $1800000000 (Low: $1600000000, High: $2000000000)
Year 5: $2100000000 (Low: $1900000000, High: $2300000000)
Year 10: $2500000000 (Low: $2200000000, High: $2800000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The program relies on low-cost financing, limiting variable cost exposure to interest rates.
- Impact on local water tariffs will vary, requiring analysis of individual municipality debt dynamics.
- Coordination between federal and state governments is crucial for the enhanced effectiveness of this program.