Bill Overview
Title: To amend the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 to establish payment and performance security requirements for projects, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill establishes bonding requirements for the recipient of a water infrastructure construction loan under the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. A borrower must secure the financed project with payment and performance bonds in minimum amounts set out in the bill.
Sponsors: Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals impacted by changes to water infrastructure project funding requirements
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The bill pertains to water infrastructure projects, which are critical for supplying clean water, managing wastewater, and supporting industrial and agricultural activities.
- It targets borrowers of water infrastructure construction loans, implying it primarily involves construction companies, municipal water authorities, and possibly private utilities undertaking projects in water systems.
- These projects typically occur in communities where the infrastructure is outdated or non-existent, suggesting all residents in these areas will ultimately be affected.
- Water infrastructure impacts a wide range of sectors, including residential, commercial, agriculture, and industries, indicating broad potential impact across the population.
Reasoning
- The policy is designed to ensure financial security and completion of water infrastructure projects by requiring payment and performance bonds, which might increase overall project costs and reduce the number of projects initiated due to higher upfront financial commitments.
- The impact on individuals will vary largely based on their proximity to projects, involvement in construction industries, or reliance on water utilities undergoing funding changes.
- Given the limited budget, only certain areas and demographics will see direct effects, while others may only perceive indirect benefits from improved water infrastructure climates.
- Consider individuals from different geographical settings, economic backgrounds, and professional roles within the population most likely to be affected by this policy.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Contractor (Rural Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional bonding requirements might make projects less profitable for small contractors like us.
- Projects may be more secure, but it could limit who gets the contracts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Municipal Water Authority Employee (Suburban New Jersey)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Bonding requirements could safeguard against project abandonment and ensure community trust.
- Might slow down the initiation of some smaller projects due to higher financial barriers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired (Urban California)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Any improvements to water infrastructure are beneficial, but I'm concerned about cost increases being passed to consumers.
- I hope the policy leads to better infrastructure and reliable water supply.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Farmer (Rural Mississippi)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial for the infrastructure projects to be secure with bonds, but I'm worried how this affects access during dry seasons.
- Increased infrastructure security might lead to more reliable long-term water access.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Environmental Engineer (Urban Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Performance bonds can lead to more consistent and quality project completions.
- There's a possibility that it might restrict smaller innovators due to the high costs.
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 | 10 | 9 |
Public School Teacher (Suburban Colorado)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved infrastructure ensures better health in schools through clean water access.
- Concerns about funding being diverted from education if project costs increase.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Private Utility Manager (Rural Maine)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The bond requirements could secure projects against failure, something very positive for my area.
- Initial cost burdens might constrain utility operations.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
College Student (Urban Washington D.C.)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I want long-term water solutions, and if this policy helps, it's a step forward.
- Seems like it could delay some projects due to increased costs when funds are tight.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Plumber (Suburban Florida)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Job security is a concern if projects decrease because of higher bond requirements.
- Potentially leads to better-managed projects but at a cost of reduced job availability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Activist (Urban Illinois)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy can ensure completed projects, vital for community health.
- May unintentionally restrict smaller contractors who are also valuable to communities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Year 2: $205000000 (Low: $155000000, High: $255000000)
Year 3: $210125000 (Low: $160000000, High: $260000000)
Year 5: $230000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $280000000)
Year 10: $270500000 (Low: $220000000, High: $320000000)
Year 100: $5000000000 (Low: $4500000000, High: $5500000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill introduces financial requirements that may increase project costs initially but decrease long-term risks.
- Bonds provide a financial safety net, ensuring projects are completed or compensated if disruptions occur.
- Stakeholders must consider the balance between increased administrative costs and potential savings from reduced risk.