Bill Overview
Title: To direct the Corps of Engineers to develop a comprehensive plan for Lake Okeechobee and northern estuaries ecosystem restoration, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop a comprehensive plan for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting Lake Okeechobee and the northern estuaries in Florida.
Sponsors: Rep. Mast, Brian J. [R-FL-18]
Target Audience
Population: People residing or working in Lake Okeechobee and northern estuaries region
Estimated Size: 5000000
- Lake Okeechobee and the northern estuaries are significant natural features in Florida where local communities, fisheries, and agriculture largely rely on these water systems.
- Water quality and balance of ecological functions in Lake Okeechobee impacts the tourism industry, a critical economic activity in Florida which attracts nation-wide visitors.
- Restoration plans affect recreational water activities which are popular in these regions, thus impacting individuals who participate in boating, fishing, and other recreational activities.
- Ecosystem changes influence the local economies, housing market, and may affect property values, and these areas are among the most populous in Florida.
- Ecological restoration impacts wildlife which is essential for both the environment and associated economic activities like birdwatching and nature tourism.
- Communities along Lake Okeechobee and the northern estuaries include a mix of urban, suburban, and rural areas, requiring broad infrastructural considerations mainly focusing on water management systems.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts residents and workers in the Lake Okeechobee area and northern estuaries in Florida. These are typically blended communities including agriculture, tourism, and local commerce-driven economies.
- Residents outside Florida or beyond these regions are less directly affected, thus having a lower or no impact on their well-being from this policy.
- Ecological restoration efforts may directly improve or sustain livelihoods related to fishing, tourism, and agriculture, translating to positive well-being impacts for directly involved parties.
- The funded policy actions are limited by budget constraints which may restrict immediate broader environmental and economic changes, explaining variations in impact levels over time, depending on scale and results.
- Some people involved in recreational activities or indirectly connected through Florida’s tourism may experience mild benefits if water quality influences broader ecosystem services.
- People concerned with environmental conservation will likely support the initiative, but their personal well-being scores might only change minimally due to indirect economic impact.
Simulated Interviews
Fishing guide (Orlando, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The health of Lake Okeechobee is critical to my fishing business.
- I support the policy because it could improve water quality and fish populations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Environmental scientist (Miami, FL)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restoring Lake Okeechobee is crucial for biodiversity.
- I believe the policy will positively influence the ecosystem and scientific research.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Realtor (Fort Myers, FL)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Environmental improvements could stabilize property values near the lake.
- It's important but I need to see actual beneficial outcomes.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Tampa, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cleaner lakes mean better recreational experiences.
- I hope to enjoy my retirement visiting such places.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Barista (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's great to see initiatives to protect our ecosystems.
- Might not see a direct change, but feels good to support.
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 | 5 | 5 |
School teacher (Palm Beach, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Environmental education is essential, and improvements help provide learning opportunities.
- The policy is a step forward in protecting our natural resources.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Marine biologist (Miami, FL)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could fund essential research and conservation work.
- I'm optimistic but the impact needs to be measured carefully.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Property Manager (West Palm Beach, FL)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy could stabilize or increase property values over time.
- Residents' interest in environmental quality plays a role in housing decisions.
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 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
College student (Pensacola, FL)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restoration efforts are key to our environmental future, even if not immediately felt.
- Policies like this shape my career outlook.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Tourism operator (St. Petersburg, FL)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improvements in the lake could boost tourism.
- Interested to see if policy reaches long-term ecological goals.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $35000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $35000000)
Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Engagement with local communities and stakeholders is critical for plan success and social acceptance.
- The benefits of the restoration plan may not be immediate, requiring patience and continued policy support.
- Monitoring and evaluation will be essential to adapt the plan as ecological and technical challenges arise.