Bill Overview
Title: Great Lakes Authority Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes a Great Lakes Authority to support economic growth and workforce development, water infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, broadband access, lead abatement, and other initiatives in the Great Lakes region (i.e., Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and parts of Ohio and Illinois). The authority must be composed of a cochairperson appointed by the President, a state cochairperson, and the governor of each Great Lakes region state that elects to participate in the authority.
Sponsors: Sen. Stabenow, Debbie [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People residing in the Great Lakes region (Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, parts of Ohio and Illinois)
Estimated Size: 50000000
- The Great Lakes region includes the states of Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, and parts of Ohio and Illinois.
- The population of these states combined sums up to tens of millions of people.
- The initiatives targeted by the bill, such as economic growth, workforce development, and improvements in infrastructure, could impact virtually every resident in these areas.
- The specific focus areas like water infrastructure, transportation infrastructure, and broadband access are utilities that service entire communities.
- Residents of these states rely on state-governed infrastructures and could be directly impacted by changes and improvements.
- The authority established by the bill will involve coordination at state levels, meaning regional governance will lead to a tailored impact on these communities.
Reasoning
- The Great Lakes region has a significant population, including urban, suburban, and rural areas, all of which will be impacted differently by the policy.
- Economic growth and improved infrastructure can enhance the quality of life for many residents, especially those in underserved communities.
- The budget limits suggest a focus on strategic, high-impact initiatives that can create noticeable improvements quickly and sustain them long-term.
- Well-being improvements from such a policy may not be immediate but are expected to grow over time as infrastructure projects unfold and economic opportunities increase.
Simulated Interviews
Public School Teacher (Milwaukee, Wisconsin)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen the impact of outdated infrastructure on my daily commute and in the schools.
- I hope this policy can bring real, tangible benefits to our community.
- Job opportunities and better internet access in our area could make a huge difference.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Factory Worker (Detroit, Michigan)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transportation infrastructure improvements are much needed in Detroit.
- If we can increase factory efficiency through better support, it would benefit everyone.
- I'm hopeful but cautious about how quickly changes can come.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired (Columbus, Ohio)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Lead abatement alone is such a crucial aspect for older areas.
- My health and my grandchildren's health are tied to the quality of our water.
- I would like to see this policy prioritize health and safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Software Developer (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better broadband access would definitely support my work-from-home setup.
- It's exciting to think about how this might enable other tech opportunities in the region.
- Although I'm not directly in the Great Lakes-specific region, improvements can still have a ripple effect.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Small Business Owner (Indianapolis, Indiana)
Age: 50 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Economic growth initiatives are crucial for small businesses like mine.
- Improvements in local infrastructure can drive more customers into the downtown area.
- I'm interested to see how the Great Lakes Authority plans on supporting local entrepreneurs.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Environmental Engineer (Grand Rapids, Michigan)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water infrastructure improvements are vital for both environment and economy.
- It's promising to see focus on efficient, sustainable systems.
- I'm optimistic about the potential for job creation in technical fields as a result of this policy.
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 |
Farmer (Rural Ohio)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Transportation infrastructure improvements can help trade and transportation of goods.
- Better broadband can support precision agriculture.
- I see this policy as a potential support for agri-business, but timelines need to be realistic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Student (Gary, Indiana)
Age: 26 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Access to resources like better internet and infrastructure can significantly affect my educational experience.
- I want to see tangible results in how these changes are implemented on the ground.
- There should be initiatives that bridge the gap for students and recent graduates.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Engineer (Springfield, Illinois)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Veterans would benefit from the improvements in healthcare access through better infrastructure.
- I've seen the region change over decades, and this could be transformative.
- Patience is key to seeing these large-scale changes come to fruition.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Freelance Writer (Toledo, Ohio)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Local stories about infrastructure improvements will be central to my work.
- Broadband and transportation are recurring issues that can impact my topics greatly.
- I hope the policy addresses long-standing issues efficiently and equitably.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1500000000 (Low: $1200000000, High: $1800000000)
Year 2: $1400000000 (Low: $1100000000, High: $1700000000)
Year 3: $1300000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $1600000000)
Year 5: $1200000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1500000000)
Year 10: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 100: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Key Considerations
- The scale and scope of multiple projects increase the complexity and unpredictability of exact costs.
- Environmental reviews and regulatory requirements could delay project implementation, affecting cost estimates.
- State participation varies, which can influence the project's geographical focus and cost distribution.