Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/3893

Bill Overview

Title: WASH Sector Development Act of 2022

Description: This bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish the Water and Sanitation Needs Working Group to measure and report on the number and approximate geographic distribution of households that do not have access to drinking water infrastructure or a means for the safe collection and disposal of wastewater. The EPA must also establish a program under which it awards grants to nonprofit organizations for assisting such households.

Sponsors: Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]

Target Audience

Population: Individuals lacking access to drinking water and sanitation infrastructure globally

Estimated Size: 2000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Community Health Worker (Navajo Nation, Arizona)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 3

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope the new policy will bring clean running water to our community.
  • Currently, we have to drive miles to get water, and it's a burden.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 3
Year 2 5 3
Year 3 6 3
Year 5 7 3
Year 10 8 3
Year 20 8 3

Retired farmer (Rural Alabama)

Age: 65 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Improving water access would relieve us from constant worry about contamination.
  • I hope the grants reach people like us who are out here in rural areas.

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 6 3
Year 20 5 2

Software Engineer (Los Angeles, California)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While I support cleaner water initiatives, I don't think this policy will affect me directly.
  • It's crucial that funds reach those without any basic sanitation.

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

Plumber (Detroit, Michigan)

Age: 54 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Investments in infrastructure could prevent service outages here.
  • I hope issues specific to older urban neighborhoods are considered.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 5 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 3
Year 20 3 3

Farm worker (Migrant farm worker camp, California)

Age: 52 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 2

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • These kind of policies could drastically improve our living conditions.
  • I fear our voices are often unheard.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 3 2
Year 2 4 2
Year 3 5 2
Year 5 6 2
Year 10 7 2
Year 20 7 2

Environmental Scientist (Suburban Texas)

Age: 38 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Monitoring impacts of this policy on water quality is essential.
  • I support the initiative so individuals without access can benefit.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 7
Year 5 7 7
Year 10 7 7
Year 20 7 7

City Government Worker (Chicago, Illinois)

Age: 48 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The funding from this policy could aid long-overdue upgrades.
  • Ensuring effective allocation is key to benefiting poorer communities.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 5
Year 20 7 4

Oil Industry Worker (Houston, Texas)

Age: 29 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Houston's infrastructure could benefit from attention too, though not as severely.
  • The policy should primarily serve those severely affected.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 4 4
Year 20 3 3

Retired (Bangor, Maine)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I hope these funds tackle areas truly in need, like Native reservations.
  • We need to address this issue nation-wide for true equality.

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 6 6

Teacher (Rural Appalachians, West Virginia)

Age: 41 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • An initiative like this is much needed in rural America.
  • Access to clean, safe water should be a priority for all.

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 4
Year 20 6 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)

Year 2: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)

Year 3: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)

Year 5: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)

Year 10: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)

Year 100: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)

Key Considerations