Bill Overview
Title: Lake Erie Water Quality Protection Act
Description: This bill requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prioritize implementation of dredged material management plans for federally authorized harbors in Ohio. Plans must limit open-lake disposal of dredged material and maximize its beneficial use.
Sponsors: Rep. Joyce, David P. [R-OH-14]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on or benefiting from Lake Erie's water quality
Estimated Size: 8000000
- The act impacts the water quality of Lake Erie, affecting both local and downstream ecosystems.
- Millions of people reside in the Great Lakes region, relying on these waters for recreational, economic, and drinking water purposes. This includes residents in both the United States and Canada.
- Commercial activities, particularly shipping and fisheries, that depend on Lake Erie will experience changes due to improved water quality management.
- The lake is part of the Great Lakes system, which contains 21% of the world's surface fresh water supply, impacting global water resources.
- Lake Erie is a significant ecological and economic resource, supporting diverse ecosystems and communities that rely on its health.
Reasoning
- The Lake Erie Water Quality Protection Act directly affects residents of Ohio, particularly those with jobs related to Lake Erie such as commercial fisheries, recreational boating, and harbor operations.
- It will also benefit individuals in downstream areas who rely on Lake Erie's improved water quality for drinking and recreational water usage.
- The policy implementation is limited by budget constraints, which might affect the scale and speed of changes made to water management practices.
- Given the widespread dependence on Lake Erie, many people will feel indirect benefits or notice changes in their recreational or professional use of the lake.
- Some segments of the population, particularly those more distant from Ohio or less reliant on Lake Erie, will not feel any direct impact from the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Fisherman (Cleveland, Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been fishing these waters for decades, and any move to improve water quality is a big positive.
- Better water quality could mean a healthier fish population and more stable income for fishermen like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Engineer for local water utility (Toledo, Ohio)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should help improve our water infrastructure and quality, making my job easier and our community safer.
- Kayaking should also be more enjoyable with better water quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Columbus, Ohio)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a necessary step towards improving water quality in Lake Erie.
- Though not living directly on the coast, the impact on ecosystems I'm involved with will be profound over long term.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Industrial worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I care about the lake mainly because my job involves shipping.
- If this helps make our shipping routes cleaner and more efficient, I'm all for it.
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 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Retired Teacher (Buffalo, New York)
Age: 63 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone who enjoys walking by the lake, cleaner water means a better environment for my retirement.
- It’s inspiring to see action taken to protect this natural resource.
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 | 8 | 4 |
Logistics Manager (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If this policy improves environmental practices, it might make my workplace healthier and smoother.
- I hope this translates to better regulation and cleaner practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
College Student (Sandusky, Ohio)
Age: 21 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this one align directly with the future I want for my career and the planet.
- I feel hopeful and motivated to continue my studies knowing the government is taking action.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Corporate Executive (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lake Erie’s policies can set precedents for other Great Lakes, so they are highly important.
- This is a significant move that aligns with larger environmental goals in the industry.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Tourism Operator (Erie, Pennsylvania)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better water quality can revive tourism here, which has been struggling in some seasons.
- This policy might bring back visitors and enhance the experience at our attractions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Remote Tech Worker (Brooklyn, New York)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don’t feel directly impacted by Lake Erie policies, but it’s nice to know efforts are being made at these environmental levels.
- These measures can also create a ripple effect, encouraging similar actions elsewhere.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $125000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $140000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $170000000)
Year 3: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $160000000)
Year 5: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 10: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $130000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Key Considerations
- Logistical challenges associated with implementing dredged material management plans.
- Potential opposition or support from local stakeholders dependent on open-lake disposal.
- Technological advancements that may affect the methods and costs of dredge material processing.
- Long-term ecological benefits versus short-term costs.
- Coordination with state and local governments and the Canadian government due to Lake Erie's shared waters.