Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4415

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: Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT]

Target Audience

Population: People living in the Lake Champlain Basin

Estimated Size: 1000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Fisherman (Burlington, Vermont)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The health of Lake Champlain directly affects my livelihood.
  • Improving water quality and fish stocks can help sustain my business long-term.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 7 5
Year 3 7 4
Year 5 8 4
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 9 2

State Environmental Officer (Albany, New York)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This reauthorization is crucial for continued efforts to preserve Lake Champlain.
  • The long-term benefits to biodiversity and water quality are critical for our community.

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 8 4
Year 20 8 4

Tourism Operator (Plattsburgh, New York)

Age: 34 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Lake Champlain is a key attraction for tourists, so restoration efforts are positive for my business.
  • Clean water and vibrant ecosystems increase tourism appeal.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 8 5
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 9 4
Year 10 9 3
Year 20 10 2

Farmer (Rural Vermont)

Age: 29 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful the policy will help maintain water levels and quality for irrigation.
  • Effective implementation is critical for continued agricultural success.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 7 4
Year 10 8 3
Year 20 8 3

Retail Worker (Queensbury, New York)

Age: 32 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While my job doesn't depend on the lake, a healthy Lake Champlain is great for my leisure activities.
  • I support environmental restoration, but it doesn't impact my daily life heavily.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 5

Graduate Student (Burlington, Vermont)

Age: 23 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Policy reauthorization is a step towards achieving crucial environmental goals.
  • It's exciting to be a part of an area committed to the environment.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 6
Year 5 9 6
Year 10 9 5
Year 20 10 5

Retired (Saratoga Springs, New York)

Age: 60 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Living near Lake Champlain was a choice for retirement due to its beauty and tranquility.
  • I hope this policy keeps the area pristine for future generations.

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 7 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 8 5

Independent Researcher (Malone, New York)

Age: 41 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Improved water quality supports both my work and community health.
  • The policy is essential for sustainable water management efforts.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 8 5
Year 5 8 5
Year 10 9 4
Year 20 9 4

Elementary School Teacher (Montpelier, Vermont)

Age: 36 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 20.0 years

Commonness: 6/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy serves as a great educational example for my students about the importance of environmental stewardship.
  • It helps us practice what we preach.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 7
Year 10 9 7
Year 20 9 6

Construction Worker (Bennington, Vermont)

Age: 58 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • While I'm not directly impacted by the lake, I appreciate the importance of environmental health.
  • The policy seems necessary for long-term regional benefits.

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 6 6
Year 20 6 6

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)

Year 2: $10250000 (Low: $8250000, High: $12300000)

Year 3: $10500000 (Low: $8400000, High: $12600000)

Year 5: $11000000 (Low: $8800000, High: $13200000)

Year 10: $12000000 (Low: $9600000, High: $14400000)

Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)

Key Considerations