Bill Overview
Title: Great Lakes Agricultural Stewardship Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a Great Lakes basin initiative for agricultural nonpoint source pollution prevention. Nonpoint source pollution comes from diffuse sources and is caused by precipitation moving over or through the ground and carrying pollution. In implementing the initiative, USDA must provide grants to Great Lakes states (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin) for education and outreach, technical assistance, and voluntary verification programs regarding nonpoint source pollution from agricultural activities; establish a funding priority within the Great Lakes basin for payments to producers that participate in the initiative to achieve verification through a state verification program; and use existing data where it is available. In carrying out the initiative, states may collaborate with entities that have agricultural or environmental expertise, including academic or nonprofit organizations.
Sponsors: Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-7]
Target Audience
Population: People living in the Great Lakes basin affected by agricultural pollution
Estimated Size: 32000000
- The Great Lakes basin includes parts of the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
- The bill is focused on preventing agricultural nonpoint source pollution, which affects a large number of stakeholders including farmers, residents, and governments within the Great Lakes basin.
- The total population in the Great Lakes basin across these states is estimated to be in the tens of millions, considering urban and rural areas influenced by Great Lakes.
- Agricultural stakeholders, specifically farmers and landowners in the region, will be directly affected as they are the primary agents capable of reducing nonpoint source pollution.
- The initiative aims to support education, outreach, and provide technical assistance which benefits both agricultural producers and local communities relying on the basin's water resources.
Reasoning
- The Great Lakes basin encompasses a substantial portion of the US Midwest and Northeast, impacting a diverse set of demographics from urban to rural areas.
- The primary stakeholders affected by this policy are those related to agriculture, such as farmers and landowners who engage in practices that might contribute to nonpoint source pollution.
- Non-agricultural residents in the Great Lakes basin who rely on clean water for drinking, recreation, or business will also experience indirect effects.
- Given the budget restrictions, not all potential beneficiaries in the impacted states will receive support or intervention in the initial years.
- Overall impacts are differentiated across various groups depending on their direct involvement with agriculture and their geographic location in relation to the Great Lakes basin.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is beneficial because it supports cleaner water which is crucial for both farming and personal use.
- I hope to learn from education programs as I believe they will help me improve my farming practices sustainably.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (Wisconsin)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this initiative is a key step in mitigating pollution and preserving the Great Lakes region.
- Collaborations with academic institutions will enhance the impact of this policy.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Retired (Michigan)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as necessary for ensuring the clean water we need for our community's health.
- Without financial incentives, I'm afraid not all farmers will participate in pollution reduction activities.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Agricultural Consultant (Indiana)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative aligns well with my work, providing more resources to educate farmers about sustainable practices.
- The focus should remain on voluntary participation, avoiding mandatory measures that could deter engagement.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Urban Resident (New York)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy will improve water quality in the long term.
- Residents like me are reliant on these measures for ensuring clean water supply.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Dairy Farmer (Minnesota)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the financial assistance potential of this initiative, as implementing change can be costly.
- Efforts should help tailor solutions that work specifically for different types of farming, such as dairying.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Teacher (Pennsylvania)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Educational programs that come from this initiative are crucial; I integrate such topics into my curriculum.
- Protecting the Great Lakes ensures our resources for future generations.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
State Environmental Officer (Illinois)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with existing efforts to protect our water resources and is a welcome reinforcement.
- We need to ensure continuous funding and monitoring for lasting impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
University Student (Michigan)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see potential for this policy to drive research opportunities and new data.
- The direct engagement of educational institutions will be beneficial for new findings.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retail Manager (Indiana)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I don't farm myself, cleaner lakes promote health and help our community thrive.
- I believe in supporting the initiative but wonder how much change I'll actually see.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $51000000 (Low: $41000000, High: $71000000)
Year 3: $52000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $72000000)
Year 5: $54000000 (Low: $44000000, High: $74000000)
Year 10: $59000000 (Low: $49000000, High: $79000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Successful collaboration with environmental and agricultural organizations is key for initiative effectiveness.
- Long-term sustainability depends on the availability of accurate data and its integration into the initiative's practices.
- Resistance or lack of participation from agricultural communities could hinder success.
- Ensuring equitable distribution of resources and benefits across the diverse states and communities within the Great Lakes basin is critical.