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: Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]
Target Audience
Population: People who rely on Lake Erie for drinking water, recreation, or their livelihood
Estimated Size: 8000000
- Lake Erie is one of the Great Lakes and a major water source for millions of people, so any legislation affecting it has a broad impact.
- Dredged material management impacts aquatic ecosystems, which can have further effects on fisheries and local wildlife conservation efforts.
- People who rely on Lake Erie for drinking water, recreation, or their livelihood, particularly those in Ohio and surrounding states, will be directly impacted.
- The Great Lakes region is economically significant for both the U.S. and Canada, affecting a wide range of industries, from shipping to tourism.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts individuals who are reliant on Lake Erie, meaning the majority of those affected will reside in Ohio and nearby states, especially Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York by extension.
- Given the magnitude of the budget and the environmental focus, this policy is likely to have a high impact on those directly involved in industries reliant on Lake Erie, such as fishing, tourism, and shipping.
- Some individuals may experience no direct impact if they do not depend on the lake or its resources for their livelihood or recreation, though they may still have an indirect sense of wellbeing improvement due to ecological benefits.
- Given economic and ecological importance, policy impact will vary depending on proximity to Lake Erie, occupation, and reliance on its resources. Most significant changes in wellbeing could be anticipated in the first 5-10 years as environmental benefits manifest and economic changes take hold.
Simulated Interviews
Fisherman (Cleveland, Ohio)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could potentially restore fish populations in Lake Erie, which would greatly benefit my business.
- I'm concerned about the short-term impacts and whether there will be sufficient support during the transition period.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Environmental Scientist (Buffalo, New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act is a crucial step towards sustainable management of Lake Erie's resources.
- Long-term beneficial use of dredged materials is vital for Lake Erie's health and local economies.
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 | 5 |
Small business owner (Erie, Pennsylvania)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy will boost tourism and improve the health of Lake Erie.
- There might be expenses I don't foresee, but cleaner water would be good long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Engineer at Shipping Company (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 51 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may alter shipping routes or procedures temporarily, but long-term environmental benefits could streamline operations.
- It's promising, but we need clear guidelines and timelines for adjustments.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Recent University Graduate (Columbus, Ohio)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A great time for new graduates in environmental sciences.
- This act could spur job creation in the environmental sector but may not affect me if I work outside the region.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Toledo, Ohio)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Promising to think about a cleaner and healthier Lake Erie.
- Will slowly see the results, but I'm optimistic that bird populations and recreational areas will benefit.
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 | 9 | 5 |
Tour Guide (Sandusky, Ohio)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better water quality means more tourists, but implementation phases might be tricky.
- I hope the act addresses all stakeholders to avoid adverse business impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Chamber of Commerce Member (Lorain, Ohio)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Supportive of efforts that promise a healthier lake which is crucial for our town's economy.
- This policy could impact city planning and local business opportunities positively.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Environmental Activist (Ann Arbor, Michigan)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with our goals for the Great Lakes, providing an optimistic view for the future.
- Legislative action like this sets the pace for environmental resilience, which is heartening for our work.
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 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Water Quality Researcher (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy helps underscore the importance of practical research and solutions in improving water quality.
- While my work isn't directly tied to economic impacts, this policy is integral to ecological health.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $27000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $35000000)
Year 3: $25000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $30000000)
Year 5: $22000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $27000000)
Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Assessment of environmental impact versus economic impact.
- Coordination with state and local governments for implementation.
- Long-term sustainability and effectiveness of dredged material management plans.
- Public perception and potential opposition from local industries.