Bill Overview
Title: Lake Champlain Basin Program Reauthorization Act of 2022
Description: This bill revises and reauthorizes through FY2033 the Lake Champlain Basin Program, which supports restoration and protection efforts for Lake Champlain and its surrounding watershed located in New York, Vermont, and Quebec.
Sponsors: Rep. Welch, Peter [D-VT-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Residents and stakeholders in the Lake Champlain Basin area
Estimated Size: 500000
- The Lake Champlain Basin spans areas in New York, Vermont, and Quebec, meaning residents in these regions are directly impacted.
- Lake Champlain is an important natural resource providing drinking water, tourism, and recreational activities, hence affecting both local businesses and the general population.
- The ecological restoration impacts extend to those interested in or reliant on environmental conservation and clean water access in the region.
- Indirectly, legislative changes can influence policy approaches towards watershed management that could serve as a model for similar ecosystems globally.
Reasoning
- The Lake Champlain Basin Program targets residents and businesses directly within the lake's vicinity, particularly in New York and Vermont. The policy directly impacts those economically or environmentally connected to the lake.
- The program's budget is relatively limited over ten years for the vast population it aims to benefit, suggesting a gradual impact primarily on specific sectors such as tourism, agriculture, and environmental conservation.
- Wellbeing impacts are likely indirect for broader populations, primarily through ecological improvements and enhanced local economies.
- Some residents outside the direct basin may benefit indirectly by improved environmental policies, but their immediate wellbeing score will likely show minimal to no change.
- Target population includes both direct beneficiaries, like local businesses and residents, and indirect beneficiaries, such as visitors and environmentalists emphasizing the secondary effects of such policies.
Simulated Interviews
Small business owner (Burlington, VT)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy should help improve the lake's condition, which will only benefit my business as more tourists come for a cleaner, healthier ecosystem.
- I hope that the funding is used effectively to address pollution and not just spent on endless studies.
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 | 8 | 5 |
Retired engineer (Plattsburgh, NY)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy gives a much-needed boost to ongoing efforts for the lake's revival, something I've volunteered in for years.
- It's critical that this funding helps improve the actual water quality and doesn't get stuck in bureaucratic hurdles.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
State government worker (Albany, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased funding from the policy is critical for us to meet environmental goals and preserve Lake Champlain.
- I am concerned about the extent to which the policy can drive real change without more robust federal support.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Farmer (Moriah, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could help in sustaining water levels and quality which directly influences my yield and income.
- Farmers should be engaged as stakeholders since agricultural runoff is a known issue affecting the lake.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Tourist (New York, NY)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The health of Lake Champlain affects my recreational experiences, so I fully support more restoration efforts.
- Hopefully, the policy will preserve the lake's natural beauty and fish populations for years to come.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental scientist (Montpelier, VT)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The funding is vital for conducting comprehensive research on the lake's deteriorating water quality.
- Let's hope these interventions will finally address non-point source pollution effectively.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
PhD student (Quebec, Canada)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy offers a great case study for ecosystem management and might inform similar efforts elsewhere.
- Collaboration across borders is crucial, so I'm eager to see how Canada supports these initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Park ranger (Rouses Point, NY)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Restoration is crucial for sustaining the habitats of several at-risk species.
- The challenge will be balancing human interests with ecological conservation over the long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Teacher (Ticonderoga, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy provides material for teaching sustainable practices and the importance of ecological balance.
- Budget limitations might restrict the reach of its benefits, but it's a step in the right direction.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software engineer (Hartford, VT)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are key for ensuring that our children and grandchildren will also enjoy Lake Champlain.
- Financial and community engagement transparency will be necessary for its success.
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 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Year 2: $5100000 (Low: $4100000, High: $6100000)
Year 3: $5200000 (Low: $4200000, High: $6200000)
Year 5: $5400000 (Low: $4400000, High: $6400000)
Year 10: $5900000 (Low: $4900000, High: $6900000)
Year 100: $12000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $14000000)
Key Considerations
- Funding would need to sustain both direct ecological restoration activities and the administrative aspects involved in managing the program.
- Coordination among states (New York and Vermont) and international collaboration with Quebec is essential for comprehensive implementation.
- Long-term environmental benefits versus the estimated initial and ongoing program costs should be balanced in decision-making.
- The bill serves as a legislative model that can inform future ecological restoration and watershed management policies.