Bill Overview
Title: Water Efficiency, Conservation, and Sustainability Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes multiple grants that support activities to incentivize efficient water use by customers of public water systems, reduce water losses and leaks in water systems, and promote the adoption of water-efficient plumbing codes.
Sponsors: Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]
Target Audience
Population: People using public water systems
Estimated Size: 300000000
- The bill aims to incentivize efficient water use among customers of public water systems globally.
- Efficient water use is a critical issue for countries facing water scarcity, which include many regions worldwide.
- The bill aligns with global targets on sustainable water management, potentially impacting millions who depend on public water systems.
- With a focus on reducing water losses and leaks, the bill could see adoption in both developed and developing nations.
Reasoning
- The Water Efficiency, Conservation, and Sustainability Act of 2022 aims to impact 300 million people using public water systems in the US.
- The policy's budget restricts extensive infrastructure projects but supports initiatives like incentivizing efficient water use and leak reduction.
- The policy will likely have a medium to high impact in regions where water scarcity and outdated systems are prevalent.
- Simulated interviews need to cover a range of impact levels, from highly engaged users to those who may not see direct benefits.
- Interviewees should reflect various demographic groups, including age, occupation, location, and lifestyle, to give a comprehensive picture.
Simulated Interviews
civil engineer (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am optimistic about the policy because it addresses critical infrastructure needs.
- Efficient water use is crucial in Arizona due to frequent droughts.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
teacher (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy can help reduce my water bills in the long term.
- Upgrading plumbing could also help prevent water waste in older apartments.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
farmer (Rural Kansas)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't think this policy will affect me much since I rely on my own water sources.
- Water leaks in city systems are not my concern, but I support any community-wide effort.
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 |
grad student (New York City, New York)
Age: 25 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water usage in dorms is not something I have control over, but the policy sounds good.
- I'd support any initiative that makes cities more sustainable.
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 |
construction manager (Houston, Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could mean more construction jobs if it involves retrofitting homes with efficient systems.
- I support anything that conserves resources.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
software developer (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Efficient systems are already part of our lives in Seattle.
- The policy may bring further improvements, but my daily life might not change much.
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 |
environmental scientist (Miami, Florida)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm thrilled about any initiatives targeting water conservation.
- The policy aligns well with my work interests and could lead to more project opportunities.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
real estate agent (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could increase demand for eco-friendly homes.
- More efficient building codes are welcomed in my work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
retired (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy translates to lower water bills for senior citizens.
- Water efficiency in public systems will prevent waste and save money.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
barista (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a renter, I hope landlords take advantage of grants for efficient plumbing.
- Any reduction in water bills will help me financially.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1050000000 (Low: $850000000, High: $1250000000)
Year 3: $1100000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1300000000)
Year 5: $1200000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1400000000)
Year 10: $1300000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1300000000, High: $1700000000)
Key Considerations
- Water scarcity is a national security issue due to its potential impact on agricultural output, community living standards, and public health.
- Grants must be effectively structured to ensure funds are used in projects that yield long-term efficiency and savings.
- The policy requires collaboration between federal, state, and local authorities to implement effectively.