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: Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
Target Audience
Population: People relying on stable water prices and access globally
Estimated Size: 335000000
- The global population faces increasing issues with water scarcity, making the management and trade of water resources a critical issue.
- Water futures trading can impact the price and allocation of water resources, potentially affecting agricultural, industrial, and personal usage globally.
- The prohibition of water futures contracts may lead to stability in water prices, directly affecting populations dependent on fluctuating water markets.
- Most of the world's population relies on consistent access to water for personal and economic activities, hence such legislation can have wide-reaching economic and social consequences.
Reasoning
- The simulated interviews aim to reflect a diverse cross-section of the US population, varying by age, gender, location, and occupation, to understand the Future of Water Act's potential impact.
- The budget constraint of $50M in year 1 and $589.6M over 10 years suggests a focused application of the policy's effects, likely targeting regions or sectors most affected by water pricing volatility.
- A significant emphasis is on populations engaged in agriculture and industries reliant on stable water supply, as these are more directly impacted by water market fluctuations.
- We also consider the indirect effects on everyday consumers, who might experience changes in pricing indirectly through the costs of goods and services.
- The range of impact (none to high) indicates that for some people, the policy might not have a noticeable effect, while for others, especially those in water-intensive industries, it could significantly influence their economic decisions and wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (California)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the ban on water futures trading is a step in the right direction.
- Water should be stable like any essential resource, not dictated by market speculation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Environmental Analyst (New York)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy can be a critical tool in ensuring long-term sustainability of our water resources.
- It's vital for our planet's health to not let water become just another commodity oversized by market forces.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Manufacturing Worker (Texas)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't know much about future trading, but I do know water costs can affect my job.
- Lower and stable prices would mean more security at work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Small Business Owner (Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope prohibiting water futures trading will keep my water costs predictable.
- Unexpected hikes in water prices have hurt my business before.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retired (Nevada)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a good move for ensuring future water stability.
- We must protect our natural resources for the next generations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
College Student (Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a progressive step that aligns with environmental resilience.
- Market speculation on essential resources like water is not sustainable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Water Resource Manager (Arizona)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Prohibiting water futures trading should stabilize prices and make my job easier.
- Unpredictable water costs are a major headache in my field.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Tech Industry Employee (Washington State)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water stability is crucial for uninterrupted operations.
- The ban might help us plan better for our industry's water needs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Agricultural Consultant (Iowa)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stabilizing water prices is essential for sustainable agriculture.
- It's a crucial step toward supporting farmers and the environment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
Grain Producer (Georgia)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Stopping water futures contracts might help keep our water costs down.
- Stability in water supply pricing is crucial for my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $31000000, High: $74000000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $32000000, High: $78080000)
Year 5: $58368000 (Low: $34560000, High: $84288000)
Year 10: $67392640 (Low: $39813120, High: $97260800)
Year 100: $360000000 (Low: $190000000, High: $550000000)
Key Considerations
- Prohibition of water futures trading could lead to more stable water pricing, benefiting consumers and businesses.
- Monitoring and enforcement costs are limited compared to infrastructure projects, which reduces overall budget impact.
- The indirect economic benefits may outweigh direct costs, but these are harder to quantify.