President Biden’s Build Back Better Act was introduced in the House on September 27, 2021 by Representative John A. Yarmuth (D-KY-3). The Bill was sent to the House Committee on the Budget. While this Bill holds a lot of important changes, one notable section on mining stimulated significant discussion in the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, which was focused on reforming the General Mining Law of 1872.
“I know we can pursue mining reform responsibly, bearing in mind mining’s importance to our national defense and economic security” -- Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy Chair, Joe Manchin (D-WV) Why is hardrock mining important? Mining has been critical to the development of the United States, and encompasses everything from national defense to economic security. Hardrock mining in particular is the process of extracting essential elements such as copper, gold, iron, uranium, phosphate, and more from rock (2). It provides critical materials necessary for many essential products on the market, including smartphones, laptops, solar panels, airplanes, car parts, and more. The need for minerals is increasing exponentially as the demand for low carbon energy solutions requiring hardrock minerals increases. What is the mining law of 1872, and why Congress is proposing updates Originally, the Mining Law was set in place as part of the California Gold Rush and other mining booms. The purpose was to encourage westward expansion by allowing people to stake claims to mineral deposits such as gold, silver, copper, and others found on land that is owned by the United States (3), without being taxed. Individuals only had to pay a $100 holding fee and could obtain a mineral permit for $2.50-$5 per acre of land. This entitled them to the mineral resources on this land. Though some amendments have been made to the law, the part that does not require any tax on hardrock mining on federal lands has not been updated, and is certainly out-dated. Unlike other mining industries including oil and gas that are required by law to pay a federal royalty tax on crude oil and gas taken from federal lands, mining companies currently do not have to pay a royalty. Though it is known that minerals mined on federal land bring in millions of dollars of revenue each year, the data are poorly constrained since agencies don’t collect royalty fees. As a result, there is no concrete data about how profitable mines are. Additionally, there are over 500,000 abandoned hardrock mines in the US that are having significant environmental impacts on our watersheds, wildlife and landscapes (5). While there is the possibility that ~$5 billion could be devoted to abandoned mine reclamation from the combination of appropriations and reconciliation this year, it is estimated that it will take over $50 billion to clean up these mines and mitigate the damage that has already been done. THE BILL: Build Back Better Act: H.R. 5376 What does this part of the Bill do? Section 70807 of the Bill proposes changes to hardrock mining in the United States. First, it would provide funding of $2.5B for 2022-2031 to assist with abandoned mine land cleanup. The funds would help to assess, decommission, and reclaim the land. Additionally, the Bill would provide $3M in funding to the Bureau of Land Management to prevent environmental damage from mining. These funds would be available until 2031. A major portion of this part of the bill is dedicated to adding an 8% gross royalty tax to the income from mining claims covered under the Act. The royalty would be 4% for mines with a preexisting plan of operations on federal land on the date the bill is enacted. The royalty would not be applied to small mines, or miners that had a gross income of <$100,000. Additionally, the Bill would introduce a Reclamation Fee, or the “dirt tax”, which would be a fee of 7 cents/ton of material displaced by hardrock mineral activities that’s paid to the Secretary of the Interior. Displaced materials include any waste or unprocessed ore that’s moved from its original location when mining happens.The Bill would require the mining company to report on and notarize the amount of material it displaces. If improperly reported, mines could incur a $10,000 penalty. There would also be a claim maintenance fee of $200 imposed for any unpatented mining claim, mill or tunnel site on federal lands. Benefits Mining law reform overall would help in the pursuit of more responsibly mining critical materials. New mining laws that impose a royalty could directly help to address abandoned mine lands by creating a fund for reclamation. Additionally, they would provide for reasonable land management, while also ensuring a fair return to taxpayers for utilizing public lands. Challenges The process of mining is an extremely controversial practice. While it provides essential minerals and materials for the economy and modern technologies, it also is extremely destructive. Not all land is economical to mine, so it takes vast areas of exploration to find the best places to mine. These ideal locations may cross important waterways used for drinking or recreation, sensitive ecosystems, or local communities. The waste discharged from mining, such as acid mine drainage (6) or elevated levels of metals, can have extremely detrimental effects on the surrounding ecosystem and the health of local communities. While mining can take place legally on federal lands, the harmful impacts of mining such as contamination, noise, dust, blast vibrations, and more can extend beyond geopolitical borders. Challenges will also vary with the material being mined. A challenge specific to Uranium mining includes ensuring the proper handling of radioactive materials and properly disposing of waste. It also involves a major environmental justice issue - Indigenous Nations such as the Navajo living in proximity to uranium mining operations have been severely impacted by exposure to uranium via abandoned mines and mine waste out West (7). While this Bill addresses the need for a reclamation fund to clean up abandoned mines, it does not fully address their challenges and concerns. Unless another economically viable alternative is proposed, as minerals are needed for modern technology, mining will happen somewhere on Earth. The majority of mining in the West is done on federal lands. If laws are not crafted carefully and responsibly such that they do not protect US workers, the United States will not be able to compete on a global scale, mines will likely be forced to close, mining communities will suffer, and the US will be more dependent on other nations for these critical resources. While this would help the health of US residents, it could be at the detriment to countries elsewhere mining with even less responsible laws. While a “dirt tax” on earth moved could be a viable way to make sure that companies don’t do more damage than necessary, depending on the way the tax law is written it could also be harmful since a lot of material has to be moved in the exploration process before it is known whether or not there are viable mineral resources for mining. If the dirt tax is implemented, companies will be forced to divert more funds toward their tax, and away from exploration which could impact the mining supply chain. The reality of Congress Republicans and Democrats alike agree to varying extents that the Mining Law of 1872 is outdated and in need of reform. Both sides agree that some type of royalty makes sense, as the taxpayers are not receiving any benefit from hardrock mines operated on federal lands as they do for similar coal, oil, and gas operations (8). The ideas proposed in Reconciliation may not become law, but they promoted a hearing to discuss updates to the mining law and discussion of what appropriate changes should look like (8). Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? You can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
0 Comments
The Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act of 2021 was introduced in the Senate on March 23, 2021 by Senator Tammy Duckworth [D-IL] on behalf of herself and Senators Shelley Moore Capito [R-WV], Benjamin L. Cardin [D-MD], Cynthia M. Lummis [R-WY], Thomas R. Carper [D-DE], Kevin Cramer [R-ND], Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI], James M. Inhofe [R-OK], Debbie Stabenow [D-MI], Dan Sullivan [R-AK], Mark Kelly [D-AZ], Alex Padilla [D-CA]. The Bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. The Bill passed the Senate on April 29, 2021 with bipartisan support in an 89-2 vote. The Bill will now move to the House.
THE BILL: S.914 “Access to clean water is a human right...every American deserves access to clean water no matter the color of their skin or size of their income” -- Senator Tammy Duckworth What does the Bill do? The primary purpose of this Bill is to strengthen water infrastructure in the US by authorizing water resource development projects that upgrade aging infrastructure, address the threat of climate change, invest in new technologies and provide assistance to marginalized communities. The Bill is split into two sections - Drinking Water and Clean Water which are summarized below. Drinking Water The Drinking Water portion of this Bill would provide technical assistance and grants for emergencies affecting public water systems, and amend the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 such that it would provide extra assistance for small and disadvantaged communities. The Bill would help to improve public water systems, both small and large. Small public water systems (<10,000 people) would be improved by establishing a program to award grants for identifying and preventing drinking water loss due to infrastructure failures such as leaks and breaks. Small public water systems can use these funds to develop an inventory of their existing assets such as water sources, wells, hydrants, distribution lines, etc., and an asset map using geographic information systems or GPS software. For small- or medium-sized (10,000-100,000 people) public water systems, an Advanced Drinking Water Technology grant program would be created that are interested in or have plans to employ new technologies to enhance drinking water treatment, monitoring, affordability, or safety. This includes $10,000,000 for each year 2022-2026. For midsize and large (>100,000 people) drinking water systems, an Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Program would be created in order to increase resilience to extreme weather and other natural hazards, and also reduce their vulnerabilities to cybersecurity. They could use these funds to relocate water infrastructure currently at risk of being impaired by natural hazards, to design desalination facilities, enhance water supply through better watershed management and source water protection, or for the generation of renewable energy in the movement or treatment of drinking water. This Bill also recognizes the injustices underrepresented communities face with regard to access to clean water. A Needs Assessment for nationwide rural and urban low-income community water assistance would be created to examine how many small, medium, and large water providers service households that spend a disproportionate amount of income on access to drinking water or wastewater services. This assessment would also identify entities that took on debt to water providers due to lack of customer payment. This would help to understand how accessible water services are and provide recommendations to increase accessibility. The Bill would also amend the Safe Drinking Water Act such that State Competitive Grants For Underserved Communities would provide $50,000,000 from 2022-2026 to help communities that have inadequate systems for obtaining drinking water. This includes amending America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 to create an Indian Reservation Drinking Water Program. This program would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to fund projects to improve water quality, water pressure, and water services, including sanitation and wastewater treatment, by repairing and improving water from a public water system. Specifically, ten projects each from the Upper Missouri River Basin, Upper Rio Grande Basin, Columbia River Basin, Lower Colorado River Basin, and the Arkansas-White-Red River Basin would be funded with 50% of $50,000,000 for each year 2022-2026. Lead is often a water contaminant that originates from degrading pipes and other infrastructure, and is released into the water source as a result of changes in water chemistry. Part of this Bill aims to reduce lead in drinking water by assisting with lead service line replacement, especially in disadvantaged communities. The proposed Lead Inventorying Utilization Grant Pilot Program would help to achieve this by providing grants to municipalities with water systems where at least 30% of service lines are suspected or known to contain lead, which would allow them to replace pipes and reduce lead in their water system. Additionally, the Bill funds a grant program for voluntary school lead testing, compliance monitoring, and lead reduction. This would make grants available to state and Tribal consortia for the remediation of lead contamination in schools and child care programs. Wastewater and Stormwater Under the Clean Water portion of this Bill, funding for research, training, and information would be prioritized. A wastewater efficiency grant pilot program would be created to fund 15 projects up to $4,000,000 each for improving waste-to-energy systems in publicly owned treatment works. Funding could be used for waste-to-energy systems such as capturing or transferring methane, collecting sludge, upgrading facility equipment related to these systems, or other emerging technologies. An additional pilot program would be created to fund and enhance alternative water sources by amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allocate $25,000,000 for each year 2022-2026. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act would be edited to include $280,000,000 for each year 2022-2026 for municipal grants related to sewer overflow and stormwater reuse. This would include notification systems for when sewage overflow scenarios occur, and would prioritize financially distressed and rural communities. A clean water infrastructure resiliency and sustainability program would be added to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for awarding funds to projects for increasing resiliency of publicly owned water treatment systems to natural hazard and cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Resilience could be increased through conserving water, increasing efficiency of water use, enhancing waste- and storm-water management, and increased protection of the local watershed. The Bill would help to connect houses to publicly owned treatment works, especially those of low or moderate income individuals. It would also establish grants to build or repair household decentralized wastewater systems, or install a system to be shared by multiple households. It would also provide funds to small publicly owned treatment works for replacing or repairing equipment that improves water efficiency. Why was it proposed? Water is an essential resource for sustaining life. For in depth information on water topics, we recommend checking out the EPAs website: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/water-topics. We highlight a few of the reasons this Bill was proposed below. On July 28, 2010, the United Nations recognized the human right to water and sanitation. However, according to a 2018 study in the United States that spanned 30 years, about 10% of public water systems in the US have health based violations and affect ~45 million people every year (1). Additionally, over 2 million Americans are living in areas without access to safe drinking water or sanitation services (1). A report released in 2019 by the U.S. Water Alliance built on this, and included that Native American households are 19 times more likely to lack plumbing and Black and Latino households are twice as likely to lack plumbing as white households (2). This injustice is a direct result of a history of racist policies that were central to planning and construction of water infrastructure (2) The Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act that were passed in the 1970s regulate public water systems and require the EPA to create and enforce standards that the systems must follow (3). However, federal funding for the water sector decreased from 63% of capital spending in 1977 to only 9% by 2015, making it difficult to address disparities and provide safe drinking water across the US (4). Climate change will significantly affect the water cycle impacting droughts, storms and flooding, source water quality, sea level rise and general utility preparedness (5). New infrastructure is important for increasing our resilience as a nation to these changes, and will help with increasing groundwater storage and recovery, diversifying and expanding options for water supply and mitigating saltwater intrusion (5). Lead in particular is a known issue in public water systems because old plumbing systems contain lead, and when they age and corrode, the lead enters the drinking water. Lead is common in pipes, faucets and fixtures and in public infrastructure built before 1986 (6). Additionally, lead bioaccumulates, meaning that it lasts a long time and collects in our bodies over time with sustained exposure. This is extremely harmful to human health, and there is not a safe amount of lead known for a child’s blood levels making children particularly vulnerable (7). Even at low levels, lead damage can cause learning disabilities, shorter stature, impaired hearing and formation and function of blood cells (6). Therefore, it is vital that we reduce the amount of contaminants, including lead, in our public water systems. The proper treatment of sewage and wastewater is essential for maintaining clean water and public health. Before this water can be released to water bodies or reused, it must be treated at a wastewater treatment facility for safety. Aging sanitary sewers can lead to cracks, broken seals, and broken pipes that allow excess water inside, leading to overflows and other issues (8). Benefits Access to clean, safe drinking water is an essential human right, and this Bill would help perpetuate access to cleaner water across the US. It would secure funding for new grant programs to strengthen aging water infrastructure and help to address persistent environmental injustices related to water safety and access. In areas where access to clean water is scarce, this Bill would help to better reuse stormwater. This Bill also aligns with the current Administration's agenda and the American Jobs plan, which promises $111 billion for water systems. This bipartisan solution gives states the flexibility they need to improve their infrastructure, with a specific emphasis on small or rural public water systems. This Bill already has extensive bipartisan support and has passed the Senate. Challenges It is difficult to sell water infrastructure investments politically because many of the investments are invisible. Most water neworks are underground, so it is difficult to acknowledge, address, or gain assistance to replace the degradation until something catastrophic happens. Additionally, while the Bill is a step in the right direction to ensure investment in communities impacted the most, more work can always be done. Additionally, replacement of water infrastructure may disrupt communities and it would take time to replace pipes and enact these proposed programs. A challenge associated with this Bill includes determining where to begin replacing and upgrading infrastructure equitably within the many areas with need. Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The Bill passed the Senate and is on its way to the House. You can email your Representative in the House by finding their email at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The Build Green Infrastructure and Jobs Act was introduced in the Senate on March 18, 2021 by Senator Elizabeth Warren [D-MA] on behalf of herself and Senators Edward Markey [D-MA], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Bernard Sanders [D-VT], Alex Padilla [D-CA], Cory Booker [D-NJ], and Richard Blumenthal [D-CT]. The Bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was very involved with writing this bill, so a similar bill in the House may be proposed soon.
THE BILL: S.874 “The climate crisis is an existential threat to our planet, but it’s also a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, create a million good new jobs, and unleash the best of American innovations” --Elizabeth Warren, press release What does the Bill do? The goal of this Bill is to provide a first step in catalyzing transportation electrification across the country, as a direct effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. This supports the Nation’s overall goal to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The transportation system developments that could result from this bill would address both the climate crisis and degrading infrastructure across the US. The Bill was modeled after the Department of Transportation's BUILD (Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development) program, which provides funding in the form of grants through the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) discretionary grant program, to support equitable infrastructure projects (1). Individual projects will be funded through grants, which will be awarded each fiscal year by the Department of Transportation through an application process. Eligible entities will be selected based on sustainability and cost savings criteria including: the extent to which the proposed project promotes electrification, contributes to climate resilience and pollution mitigation, and reduces energy usage compared to other eligible projects. Priority will be given to projects that are in vulnerable or disadvantaged communities, have disproportionately high human health impacts on minority and low-income communities, or require federal funds in order to be able to complete a project. At least 40% of the funds each year will go directly to frontline, vulnerable, and disadvantaged communities to promote environmentally just solutions. The Bill would invest $500 billion over the course of 10 years ($50 billion each fiscal year) in state, local and tribal green projects (2) geared towards transitioning entirely to electric transportation. This includes the electrification on public buses, school buses, railcars, and fleet vehicles, as well as modernizing existing roads, bridges and rails. Grants will be provided in an equitable way geographically, and priority will be given to eligible projects that are located in communities facing environmental injustice, low-income or communities of color, and frontline or otherwise vulnerable communities. Any project that receives funding with the program must not increase usage of nonrenewable electrical energy sources. As an example, this can be achieved by buying renewable energy credits for the project or generating renewable energy. The grants will be provided in a way to balance urban and rural area needs. Each fiscal year, 35-40% of funds would be dedicated to projects in rural areas. Why was it proposed? It is impossible to tackle the climate crisis without addressing the United States’ public transportation infrastructure. At 29%, the transportation sector is the leading source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States (3). Electric engines are much more efficient than combustion engines, and have the potential to reduce the amount of energy needed for transportation by ~⅔. Therefore, there is huge potential for lowering greenhouse gas emissions by electrifying transportation. Additionally, in the wake of COVID-19, this Bill would help provide immediate economic recovery by creating ~1 million jobs at a minimum wage of $15 per hour. To protect workers, contractors and subcontractors working on an accepted project must have neutral policy around employee labor organizations, a policy about paid family and medical leave, and a policy about fair employee scheduling with opportunities for the employee’s own adjustment. This bill is part of a larger effort in the United States to transition towards renewable energy sources and cut down on greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. This is also part of a larger effort to increase job availability in the United States. Benefits Benefits to this bill include leveraging investment in climate action and overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions through greener infrastructure projects. This bill coincides with a similar bill introduced in the 117th Congress, the Green Vehicles, Green Spaces Act (4). Additionally, a study showed that by supporting and prioritizing vulnerable communities and those experiencing environmental injustice, these infrastructure projects will work toward correcting health disparities in vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, and avert ~$100 billion in health care costs (5). By creating less emissions and averting health care costs, ~4,200 deaths will be prevented annually (5). This bill will reduce carbon emissions by ~21.5 metric tons which is the equivalent of taking ~4.5 million combustion engine cars off the road (5). This will not only help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but will also create a wealth of new jobs with strong labor protections, which is directly inline with the President’s American Jobs Plan. Challenges Challenges to this bill include the upfront costs associated with planning and getting projects approved as well as initiating the projects. Investing $500 billion over 10 years ($50 billion each fiscal year) will require additional income to offset the budget in order to have a neutral effect on the current national debt. Additionally, it will take time to award and implement these projects, which will delay the overall reduction in transportation sector emissions. Another challenge is creating a more circular economy, where components of the retired vehicles that are no longer reaching emissions standards are broken down into many parts and reused or recycled for other purposes. Even if these parts are recycled or reused, there may still be waste streams of components that are more difficult to reuse. The United States will need a plan to sustainably dispose and redirect them from landfills. Additionally, the proposed legislation has been endorsed by many progressive advocacy groups including Data for Progress as well as Sunrise Movement, League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, 350.org, Greenpeace, Public Citizen, Friends of the Earth, Center for Progressive Reform, GreenLatinos, Rewiring America, New Consensus, Zero Hour, and WE ACT for Environmental Justice. It has not been promoted by many conservative advocacy groups and will need bipartisan support to pass through Congress. Want to advocate? Does this bill resonate with you? Do you want to see it become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? There are currently 7 co-sponsors of this bill in the Senate: Elizabeth Warren [D-MA], Edward Markey [D-MA], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Bernard Sanders [D-VT], Alex Padilla [D-CA], Cory Booker [D-NJ], Richard Blumenthal [D-CT], and Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! If you are looking for an easy way to support this Bill, you could join the letter signing campaign through act350. If you enter your name, email address, and zip code, a letter will be sent on your behalf to your Congress People. Check it out at: https://act.350.org/letter/buildgreenact/ Note Policy for the Planet is not affiliated with act350 or any other group and their views do not necessarily reflect our own. We strive to provide bipartisan information, provide facts backed up by reliable sources, and provide ways to get involved with issues you care about. To that end, we are highlighting just one quick advocacy opportunity of many you can get involved with and encourage you to look for others that interest you and coincide with your values. Footnotes
The Environmental Justice Mapping and Data Collection Act of 2021 was introduced in the House on January 28, 2021 by Representative Cori Bush (D-MO-1) on behalf of herself and 32 original co-sponsors*. The Bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Committee on Natural Resources to determine which has jurisdiction over the legislation. In the Senate, an identical Bill was introduced by Senator Edward Markey (D-MA) on January 28, 2021 and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
THE BILLS: H.R.516 S.101 These Bills are focused on environmental justice (EJ), which in the Bill is defined as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, culture, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.“ This is important for ensuring equal protection from environmental health hazards and equal access to actions relating to environmental regulations. What do these Bills do? The purpose of these Bills are to take a step towards connecting environmental justice communities with policy outcomes by providing layered maps depicting which communities experience environmental injustices. EJ communities are those with a substantial representation of Indigenous, low-income, or communities of color that experience more frequent or more adverse human health or environmental effects compared to other communities. Congress identified that EJ communities are more vulnerable to climate change and environmental hazards that impact human health due to systemic injustices such as race or income. The Bill would establish the Environmental Justice Mapping Committee, led by the Environmental Protection Agency and composed of relevant offices (1). The Committee will create, consult, and regularly engage with an advisory council of relevant stakeholders (2). At a minimum, half of these stakeholders will represent EJ communities, and will be led by a stakeholder with experience in environmental justice. The plan created will consider barriers to public engagement, including language, transportation, economic, and internet access, and will incorporate feedback from EJ advocates and communities. For this Bill, $20,000,000 will be set aside in 2021 and 2022, and $18,000,000 will be designated each year for 2023-2025. The Committee would formalize and develop a tool for mapping environmental justice communities. This tool would be interactive, transparent, and used throughout the Federal government, with all the impacts of environmental justice combined into the tool. The tool will integrate: demographics (3), public health (4), pollution burdens (5), environmental effects (6). The tool would also investigate how the impacts of climate change affect the vulnerability of the EJ communities. The tool will also be customizable in order to address policy needs and permitting processes, and allow communities to self-identify as EJ. Additionally, it would identify access to services including safe drinking water, sanitation, stormwater services, and access to green space, healthy food, affordable energy and water, internet, and transportation, among many others. The tool will be created at the national level but will implement regional indicators as well, such that the tool will be effective at a more local scale. This will allow states to expand and collect data to understand specific EJ issues in their area, and address them accordingly. The development process will be ground-truthing, meaning that technical information collected, will be supplemented with local knowledge in order to create the most inclusive and best policy and project decisions. This is important for engaging with EJ communities in a meaningful way to address critical EJ issues. The Bill specifically notes that care must be taken to not exacerbate current issues or create new issues. The Committee will identify gaps in data, and assign a federal agency to conduct an audit and collect data to address these gaps. A report will be made public 180 days after the audit to describe findings and conclusions. Finally, an Environmental Justice Data Repository will be created to maintain and update the data collected by the Committee as described in the Bill, and updated as often as possible but not less than once every 3 years. The repository will be made available to every regional, state, local, and Tribal governments, and each could collaborate to include pre-existing EJ data into the repository. Why were they proposed? Environmental racism, a form of systemic racism whereby individuals or communities face significant health disparities due to disproportionately shouldering unfair policies and practices based on race. This results in these communities often living in closer proximity to toxic sources and pollutants such as landfills, power stations, mines and sewage works (7). Environmental racism can take many different forms, and is a global scale problem that needs to be addressed. Some EJ communities have already been identified, such as a part of Louisiana nicknamed “Cancer Alley”, where communities have been exposed to extremely high levels of contaminants. However, the Federal Government lacks a consistent strategy to address environmental injustices in minority and low-income populations. The Bill notes that this is due to a deficiency of high quality environmental justice data in the US, and no consistent method to identify the environmental justice communities that currently exist. The method created would specifically account for historic and current racist and unjust practices. Removal and reduction of pollution within these communities is essential to creating equitable access to a cleaner environment. Benefits The Bill would be a systematic and inclusive collaboration through community engagement and intergovernmental agencies to identify public health concerns that are related to environmental injustice. It would be a crucial first step in identifying communities that are experiencing environmental injustices, and where help is most needed. The data collected will be used to build an interactive, layered map that would document existing EJ communities in the US and create a repository of data for long-term tracking to assess progress. Additionally, as described in the Bill, this information will help the current and future Administrations in directing at least 40% of the funds to clean energy, transportation, housing, and water quality infrastructure specifically in EJ communities. This is important for addressing the climate crisis in an equitable way by providing resources to communities that have been harmed by persistent unjust practices. Challenges The Bill will provide the framework to begin correcting critical environmental justice issues, but it may have some logistical challenges in identifying all EJ communities in the US. Each EJ issue is unique, and while resources and guidance can be federally implemented, the full issues will require local government involvement and community support. Additionally, there is no timeline created for how long it will take to create this map, and the Bill only provides funding through 2025. Future Bills will need to be created to continue this work to address the climate crisis in an environmentally just way. The Bill designates $18-20 million per year, but does not designate specifically how to spend the funds, so there is flexibility in design, but it is unclear if funding can be transferred from the previous fiscal year if there is any balance remaining. Want to advocate? Does this Bill resonate with you? Do you want to see them become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? The Senate Bill has 1 cosponsor: Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). The House Bill has 41 cosponsors: *Original co-sponsors: Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia (D-IL-4), Alcee L.Hastings (D-FL-20), Ro Khanna (D-CA-17), Adriano Espaillat (D-NY-13), Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS-2), Alan S. Lowenthal (D-CA-47), Nanette Diaz Barragan (D-CA-44), Terri A. Sewell (D-AL-7), Gwen Moore (D-WI-4), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL-23), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-10), Mondaire Jones (D-NY-17), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-At Large), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA-11), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-13), Grace F. Napolitano (D-CA-32), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ-12), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO-5), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY-16), Juan Vargas (D-CA-51), Chellie Pingree (D-ME-1), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR-3), Ritchie Torres (D-NY-15), Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA-11), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE-At Large), Doris O. Matsui (D-CA-6), Henry C. "Hank," Johnson Jr. (D-GA-4), A. Donald McEachin (D-VA-4), Diana DeGette (D-CO-1), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA-7), Jim Cooper (D-TN-5). Additional co-sponsors: Nydia M. Velazquez (D-NY-7), Andy Levin (D-MI-9), Matt Cartwright (D-PA-8), Ilhan Omar (D-MN-5), Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA-40), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA-7), Raul M. Grijalva (D-AZ-3), Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-1), Nikema Williams (D-GA-5) Do you see your Congresspeople listed above? If not, you can email your policymakers by finding their emails at https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes
The Clean Air Sharp Minds Act S.3364 was introduced in the Senate on February 27, 2020 by Democrat Cory Booker from New Jersey, and referred to the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee. An identical bill, H.R. 6025 was introduced in the House by Representative Katherine Clark, a Democrat representing Massachusetts' 5th district.
THE BILLS: H.R. 6025 S. 3364 What does it do? This bill highlights the intersection of education and environmental justice. The main goal of this bill is to improve air quality in schools, leading to both better health and academic achievement. The bill outlines a three year, $20 million, trial program called the School Air Filters Demonstration Program. This would be administered and overseen by a joint effort between the Department of Education (DE) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The DE would be responsible for selecting a mix of urban, suburban and rural, public elementary or secondary schools. The selection would focus on advancing environmental justice (1), giving priority first to schools located in highly polluted zones (e.g. near heavily trafficked roads or a toxic release site), then to schools that have known health threats, and finally to schools with a high concentration of students from low-income families. At least 175 schools will participate in the program. In the bill Congress notes, “More than 1 in 5 public schools in the United States are located within a mile of a toxic release site. Nearly 1 in 11 public schools, serving 4,400,000 students, are less than 500 feet from a major road.” Further, “4 percent of schools serving predominantly white students are next to major roads, while 15 percent of schools serving largely students of color are next to major roads.” Annually, the DE and EPA will purchase, install, and maintain the filters, and provide a report to Congress outlining metrics, pollutants captured, academic outcomes, and rates of health related absences. They will also provide technical support to the participating schools and collect and analyze data for evaluating the effectiveness of the program. The idea conveyed in this bill is that this program will greatly improve air quality because high quality air filters can remove up to 90% of particulate matter. At the end of the three year trial period, the effectiveness of the program will be evaluated by Congress based on a cumulative report from the DE and the EPA. Why was it proposed? It has been documented that academic achievement increases when students are working in a healthy environment. Yet, in 2014, ~50% of schools in the states reported air quality issues. Asthma is already the leading cause of school absences, and poor air quality increases the risk of asthma, and allergic reactions. According to the EPA (2), indoor air pollutants, which can originate within or outside the building, can be 2-5 times as high, and occasionally as much as 100 times higher, than the outdoor equivalents. Since the majority of people spend ~90% of their time indoors, these levels are concerning. Schools in particular have 4 times more occupants than most office buildings for the same amount of space. The goal is that air filters remove particulate matter (3) and gaseous pollutants (4), and therefore will create healthier environments that in turn advance academic achievement. Benefits The bill states that proof of concept has already been demonstrated in 18 public schools in Los Angeles. Test scores dramatically improved mirroring the same effect as reducing class sizes by 1/3. Ideally, schools should not be located near heavily polluted areas, but in the short term, this program would provide immediate assistance. Challenges Long term, school budgets are small and the addition of ventilation systems and their upkeep increases the strain on maintenance staff. Also, there are known pollutant sources associated with art and science supplies, vocational arts, gyms, and the large amounts of diesel gas emitted from buses. In these areas with higher pollutants, the filters would require more frequent replacement and maintenance. Want to advocate? Does this bill resonate with you? Do you want to see this bill become a law? Have concerns or thoughts you would like to discuss? Thus far, this bill only has two cosponsors, Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Tina Smith (D-MN). You can email your Senators by finding their emails at: https://www.congress.gov/members?searchResultViewType=expanded or call their offices to voice your thoughts. Remember to use our Resources page for more information and guidance when reaching out! Footnotes as defined by the bill: (1) Briefly, means: the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all individuals with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This specifically ensures that populations of color, communities of color, indigenous communities, and low-income communities -- a. have access to information and opportunities for meaningful public participation relating to human health and environmental planning, regulations, and enforcement b.are not exposed to a disproportionate burden of the negative human health and environmental impacts of pollution or other environmental hazards c. that the “17 Principles of Environmental Justice”, written and adopted at the First National People of Color Environmental Leadership Summit (1991) are upheld. (2) Source: https://www.epa.gov/iaq-schools/why-indoor-air-quality-important-schools (3) Includes: mold, smoke, dust, soot, lead, and allergens from pests (4) Includes: carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) |