Bill Overview
Title: Lake Lanier and Upper Chattahoochee Safety Act
Description: This bill requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to review potential threats to human life and safety from the use of recreational areas at Buford Dam, Lake Sidney Lanier in northern Georgia. The bill also requires USACE to install technology necessary to alert the public of hazardous water conditions or to minimize or eliminate threats to human life and safety (e.g., sirens, strobe lights, and signage). USACE operates and maintains Buford Dam which forms Lake Sidney Lanier. The Chattahoochee River flows just below the dam. Water releases from the dam effect water levels in Lake Sidney Lanier and river flow conditions below Buford Dam.
Sponsors: Rep. Bourdeaux, Carolyn [D-GA-7]
Target Audience
Population: Recreational users of Lake Sidney Lanier and Upper Chattahoochee River
Estimated Size: 9500000
- The bill primarily affects those using recreational areas at Buford Dam and Lake Sidney Lanier. This includes swimmers, boaters, fishing enthusiasts, and picnickers.
- Lake Sidney Lanier and Upper Chattahoochee River are popular destinations drawing approximately 10 million visitors annually, including locals, tourists, and visitors from nearby regions.
- USACE will monitor safety threats and affect the safety measures related to water-related activities.
- The safety measures and alert technologies will be installed to inform and protect this group of recreational users from potential dangers.
- Considering Lake Lanier's location in Georgia, many impacted individuals will likely be from surrounding southeastern states, though tourists from all over the US and internationally visit.
Reasoning
- To accurately represent the population distribution and policy budget, I focused on individuals who frequently engage in recreational activities around Lake Sidney Lanier.
- Considering the budget of $2,500,000 in the first year, it is essential to ensure that awareness and safety infrastructure are established effectively in main areas, affecting visitors mostly.
- Lake Sidney Lanier attracts a diverse group of people, both locals and tourists, but the primary beneficiaries of the policy will likely be locals and repeat visitors due to frequency of use.
- The simulated interviews include locals from Georgia, occasional tourists from nearby states, and people whose activities, like boating and swimming, are directly influenced by the policy.
- It is important to cover both low-impact and high-impact scenarios over the long term to reflect how recurring exposure to safety measures alters well-being scores.
Simulated Interviews
Elementary School Teacher (Atlanta, Georgia)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am glad that the USACE is focusing on safety around Lake Lanier. It's a popular spot, and warning systems will definitely help prevent accidents.
- As a parent, having the added safety features makes me feel more secure about bringing my kids to the lake for picnics and swimming.
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 | 9 | 7 |
Fishing Guide (Gainesville, Georgia)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Installation of alert systems is a great idea, as water levels can change rapidly which might not be easy for everyone to notice.
- As someone who makes a living from the lake, I see this policy as a positive step for our safety.
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 | 8 | 6 |
Travel Blogger (Charlotte, North Carolina)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I visit many recreational places, and having clear safety measures increases the overall appeal of the area.
- Even though I visit only once a year, it's good to know the area is safe. This policy will help in making Lake Lanier more attractive to tourists.
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 |
Retired Pilot (Miami, Florida)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing safety alerts near the dam will help boaters like myself stay informed about water conditions.
- Living by the lake, I appreciate efforts to enhance safety as it directly affects our community.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
College Student (Athens, Georgia)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having safety systems like sirens and strobe lights makes one feel safer knowing that there are immediate warnings without having to rely on apps or signs alone.
- I'm frequently at the lake with friends, and this feels like a smart precautionary measure.
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 | 8 | 8 |
Corporate Manager (Birmingham, Alabama)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to know that measures are being put in place to protect visitors around the dam area.
- We plan our family trips frequently, and improvements in safety will definitely encourage more frequent visits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Nurse (Dalton, Georgia)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Safety alerts would make it easier for me and the group to feel at ease, especially if someone isn't feeling confident near the water.
- It's good to see our safety being considered, particularly as some in our group are not great swimmers.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Freelance Writer (Chattanooga, Tennessee)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The safety systems could provide valuable insights on environmental conditions for the articles I write and for the readers visiting the lake.
- Even if safety doesn't impact me directly, hearing an alert means I would be well informed, a boon for any visitor.
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 |
IT Consultant (Nashville, Tennessee)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With how competitive boating can get, having reliable alerts helps ensure everyone is safe amidst the rush of adrenaline and competition.
- Such measures by the USACE are a step towards making the event safer for all participants.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Park Ranger (Macon, Georgia)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- New safety technology will aid us greatly in managing the area, especially during peak seasons.
- I believe that these measures will enhance our ability to ensure visitor safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $800000, High: $1200000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Ensuring timely and effective installation of the alert systems is crucial for meeting the policy's safety objectives.
- Collaboration with local authorities and emergency services may be necessary to integrate the new alert systems smoothly.
- Consideration of environmental impacts and public reception to the visual and auditory alerts (such as sirens and lights) is essential.