Bill Overview
Title: Healthy H2O Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Agriculture to establish a clean drinking water program to provide grants for water quality testing and for the purchase, installation, and maintenance of point-of use and point-of-entry water filtration systems that remove or significantly reduce contaminants in drinking water. Grants may be given to end users (such as homeowners), nonprofit organizations, and government entities.
Sponsors: Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]
Target Audience
Population: People worldwide who live in areas with contaminated drinking water and will benefit from water purification and filtration systems
Estimated Size: 45000000
- The bill targets water filtration systems which are generally required in areas where water contamination is a problem.
- Water contamination issues exist worldwide and can affect anyone using unsafe water sources.
- Point-of-use systems target households, so the primary impact would be on individuals residing in areas with known water quality issues.
- Grants for water quality testing and installation of filtration systems will foremost affect those currently suffering from poor water quality.
Reasoning
- The policy is expected to have a significant impact on rural regions and areas near industrial operations where water contamination is prevalent.
- It will primarily affect low-income households with limited access to clean drinking water.
- Urban areas with older infrastructure may also benefit, but the impact could be lower due to better municipal provisions.
- The program budget may not allow for widespread immediate coverage but could provide significant improvement to certain targeted areas over time.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary School Teacher (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the safety of the water my daughter and I drink every day.
- The grants could finally help us get a filtration system without breaking our budget.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Farmworker (Rural Arkansas)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen firsthand the effects of contaminated water on my family and animals.
- This policy could be life-changing for us if it helps us afford better water treatment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Environmental Scientist (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I have some concerns, I trust the city's water treatment systems.
- The policy provides peace of mind, but it's not critical for me personally.
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 |
Retired (Central California)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clean, safe water should be a right when you retire.
- I hope the policy makes a difference where we need it most.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Coal Miner (Rural West Virginia)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the impact of our water quality on my children's health.
- This policy might finally provide us the support we need.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
College Student (Indianapolis, Indiana)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water quality isn't something I think about much, but it's nice to know the option is there.
- I hope the program can help those who really need it.
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 |
Public Health Worker (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen how contamination affects our community health.
- Any step towards cleaner water options is a good one.
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 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Hotel Manager (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With my skin condition, water quality is a concern.
- Glad there's an initiative but my needs are minimal compared to others.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Financial Analyst (New York, New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have no concerns about my water now, but I see the importance elsewhere.
- The bill sounds like it will make a big difference for those it targets.
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 |
Nurse (Pueblo, Colorado)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Seeing patients with health issues linked to water quality is troubling.
- The policy offers hope for betterment, especially for vulnerable groups.
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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $800000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $1000000000)
Year 2: $750000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $950000000)
Year 3: $750000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $950000000)
Year 5: $750000000 (Low: $550000000, High: $950000000)
Year 10: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $700000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
Key Considerations
- The scalability of water filtration technology across different regions with unique contamination issues must be considered.
- Coordination between federal, state, and local bodies will be essential for effective implementation.
- Ongoing monitoring and evaluation are crucial to ensure that grants are used effectively and that water quality standards are met.