April 20, 2009

Advocacy Project: Issue Overview

Issue/Problem and Current Legislation

As of March 17, 2009 the S. 624 - Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009
has been introduced and has been read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. With the hopes of the bill being past, there will be access to safe water and sanitation for developing countries. The Secretary of State to will be required to develop a strategy to promote the role of water and sanitation policy and improve the effectiveness of United States assistance programs. This bill is directly correlated to The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-121). After reviewing the findings, the bill has been redesigned to meet new and improved goals for the year of 2015.

Who is affected by the issue

The main people affected by this are the poor and people who live in rural areas. The Senator Paul Simon Water for the Poor Act is working to provide safe and sanitary water for those in need. The act affects people in developing countries and the United States because it is the country that is working to help developing countries and their water issues. "Today, more than 1 billion people lack access to improved water sources and more than 2 billion people lack access to improved sanitation. At any given point in time, over 50 percent of the world's hospital beds are occupied by people suffering from water-related diseases. Each year, nearly 2 million people - most children under five - die from diarrhea, a disease which is easily preventable through safe water supply, sanitation, and hygiene. Beyond its impacts on human health, sound water management is critical to promoting economic growth, ensuring sustainable food supplies, and preserving ecosystems upon which most of the world's inhabitants depend. Water may also become a source of tension. More than 260 watersheds are shared by two or more countries."

Many of the people that are impacted the most by this issue live in under-developed countries that don't have the money to distribute water to rural areas. By this bill being passed, these under-developed, rural countries will receive the sanitary water that they deserve.

The United States will benefit and lose from this bill being passed. We, as a country, will have the opportunity to help smaller, developing countries is need. But the money for all of the other countries water development will be coming out of our tax payers pocket. There may be many individuals who believe that this bill should not be passed because directly, it does not impact us.

What are the consequences of the issue?

If this bill were to be passed, the main consequence is the money that it will take. Not only could the sanitation and delivery of water be expensive, it also would take a lot of time and effort to acquire all the assets and resources needed to make the changes necessary once the bill has been passed.

Not only will there be issues with the resources, but once the country becomes more developed there is a higher chance for pollution rates throughout these developing countries. This could start many different health problems among people who are inhaling toxic chemicals companies are making, using and have lingering through the air.

What is the economic/social impact of the issue?

Because this is a bill that the United States is trying to pass to help developing countries water issues, the money will be coming out of our pockets. We will be the country who bears the majority of the economic costs.

Current sources of financing for water investments are drawn from a mix of several sources, including :

  • Domestic public sector financing at the national or local level (from taxes, user fees, public debt, etc.) [64% of total expenditures];
  • Direct investments from domestic private sources [19% of total expenditures];
  • Direct investments from international private sources [5% of total expenditures]; and
  • International sources of support and cooperation (including multilateral and bilateral Official Development Assistance (ODA)) [12% of total expenditures]

This could create controversy between tax payers and the Senate who has fought to get the bill passed, there may be more issues and controversy between whether the water in country should be free for all individuals or if it should be paid for. If the bill is not passed, there are direct investments that individuals have made to be spent on the water sanitation issue, and this money will be lost.

All of the money that is spent developing water sanitation and water delivery systems will economically benefit the countries that are developing. These systems will create more jobs for people that are living in urban and under-developed areas, it will create an economic money flow for the country and provide the opportunity for more developments.

What are the barriers?

Because this bill effects more people than just the citizens of the United States, it may be difficult for communication between all of the other countries leaders. There are different demands for different countries, different demographics and geographical areas that will need to be assessed and figuring out all of these while making sure all needs are met can/will be difficult and time consuming.

These barriers can be over come doing research to design and implement a system that would help with communication barriers. Once this is accomplished, there will need to be an organized database of each countries specific needs, what type of demographics will be included and the geographic areas that are going to be dealt with.

What is the history of this issue?

This is an issue that has been addressed for the past 10 years. It was an bill that they were opening to pass in 2005 and an objective that Healthy People 2010 had wanted to meet. Since then, the bill has been revised with the hopes of being passed in 2015.

Your Recommendation

I believe that this is a bill that should be passed. Currently, many people in the United States have the luxury of sanitary water that is easily accessible. For myself, I could not imagine not having water available to me whenever I wanted or needed it.


4 comments:

  1. Good post, Erika!
    Very thorough!
    The only think I can think to add would be under "consequences of this issue": Although we would be helping millions of people, the money being spent assisting developing countries may mean that that much less is being spent to correct existing problems and health disparities here in the United States.

    (That's not really my opinion, but I feel that some people may want to argue that way.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. WOW! I can tell you worked really hard on this post! Like I suggested to Jessica, plant and animals could also be affected by unsafe water and poor sanitation.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good post very detailed! I think it would be a good thing to incorporate the environment in the consequences and benefits. Like Lauren said its not just the people and companies that will be affected or included in this bill. Great Job!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good job! I can't think of anymore to add to this topic. After I read your post I think we need this bill to be passed, but it looks like it's going to be an up hill struggle.

    ReplyDelete