The Orphaned Well Cleanup and Jobs Act: Mitigating Unintentional Impacts of Abandoned Wells7/15/2021 The Orphaned Well Cleanup and Jobs Act was introduced in the House on April 8, 2021 by Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez [D-NM-3] on behalf of herself and Representatives Raul Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Alan Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Kathy Castor [D-FL-14] and Michael Doyle [D-PA-8]. The Bill passed the Committee on Natural Resources on May 26, 2021 on a 22-17 vote. It may be sent to other House committees prior to receiving a vote on the House floor.
THE BILL: H.R.2415 “Communities suffer when oil and gas companies abandon their drilling sites and don’t clean them up. We know that oil and gas development has broad environmental impacts and public health impacts. It’s imperative that we do everything possible to limit the risk and damage done by this development.” --House Committee on Natural Resources Chair Raúl Grijalva What does the Bill do? This Bill has two primary goals: 1) to provide the necessary funding to plug leaks, and cleanup abandoned (orphaned) oil and gas wells on state, private, public and tribal lands, and 2) to strengthen regulations in order to prevent wells from being abandoned in the future by establishing a fee on idle wells. The Bill will define standardized protocols for identifying, characterizing and inventorying orphaned wells, including those that are currently undocumented. This will help establish a prioritized ranking for funding allocation to plug the wells, remediate and reclaim the well pads and access roads, and restore the surrounding soil and native species. Additionally, there will be efforts to identify parties responsible for orphaned wells, so that they can provide reimbursement for expenditures. Specifically, the Bill allocates $7.25 billion for well cleanup and remediation on state and private lands, $400 million for public lands, and $300 million for tribal lands, and $50 million for research and development. Funding will be allocated according to priority, and can be used to plug leaking wells, remediate and reclaim polluted areas surrounding the wells, seek information about those responsible for abandoning the wells, support research for tracking emissions and contamination from the leaks, and reduce effects on environmental justice communities. It will be required that steel, iron and other materials used to plug and reclaim leaky oil and gas wells be made in the United States. Financial assurance instruments, such as bonding, are included in the Mineral Leasing Act and are used to make sure that any land leased for surface-distributing (oil and gas) activities are properly cleaned up, reclaimed, and restored before abandonment or stopping of operations. In this Bill, the minimum federal land oil and gas bonding amounts would increase substantially to help prevent well abandonment in the future. Why was it proposed? Wells do not produce infinite amounts of oil and gas. When a well is no longer producing economically relevant quantities of oil and gas, it is typically abandoned. In 2018 the EPA reported 3.2 million abandoned wells in the US (1), but because the wells have been abandoned over time and plugging regulations are insufficient, the map of those leaking is incomplete. Orphaned wells threaten both the environment and the community, leaking significant amounts of oil, contaminated fluids and natural gases including methane. These leaks can contaminate groundwater, release toxic air pollutants such as radioactive materials and metals, and create safety risks for communities (2)--disproportionately so for rural, tribal and communities of color. Additionally, abandoned wells have no liable owner, leaving remediation costs to the impacted communities. It is estimated to cost between hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to plug high-priority orphaned wells (2), which becomes a massive burden. According to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC), as of 2018, 63,000 orphaned wells had already been addressed and plugged (3). However, the IOGCC also reported 56,600 documented orphaned wells, and 194,400 idle wells out of the 1.6 million unplugged wells in the United States (3). It is important to note though, that many abandoned wells have not been sufficiently plugged, and there are likely many undocumented well that are continuing to leak (3). As a result there is a clear need for standardized practices for identifying orphaned wells that have been insufficiently plugged and for standardizing plugging practices. Benefits This Bill addresses environmental issues and stimulates rural economies by creating jobs and cleaning sites while also taking the financial burden off of the impacted communities and states. It also helps to hold companies accountable for their actions, making sure that sites are not causing unintentional harm after the company vacates the site. Locating, monitoring and plugging orphaned wells averts costly impacts and reduces risks to the environment and human health. Specifically, this Bill would avoid the release and loss of greenhouse gases such as methane to the atmosphere, which would help to directly address the climate crisis. Unlike other efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, like building solar farms or developing electric vehicles, plugging wells does not require new technology or expensive raw materials. It would also help to reduce levels of underground migration of oil leaks and migration into surrounding areas. Challenges The regulations associated with this Bill could be costly and may be a bigger burden on smaller oil companies. As a result these companies may go out of business, claim bankruptcy and avoid responsibility for their sites, which could ultimately result in more abandoned wells. The Bill does not mention who would then be responsible for paying these bonds and fees if the companies responsible go out of business. The Bill language extends beyond plugging leaky wells, and includes identifying responsible parties and remediating polluted areas surrounding the wells, supporting research for tracking emissions and contamination from the leaks, and reducing effects on environmental justice communities. Rather than seeking to determine potentially responsible parties to the extent such information can be ascertained and making efforts to obtain reimbursement for expenses to the extent practicable, the Bill language should be stronger to ensure that the Secretary of Interior, whomever this may be, cannot judge for themselves the extents of seeking how practicable it is to obtain reimbursement. The Bill also does not mention the requirements for what remediating a well looks like, or the extent to which the surrounding environment must be reclaimed. A major issue with underground contamination is that it can migrate across property lines, which can leave questions about who is responsible for the remediation efforts on the other side of the line. “The reality of Congress” (what the outlook of this bill looks like) This Bill has a 18% chance of being enacted into law (govtrack.com). However, all current supporters are Democrats. How Republicans see it: There is bipartisan support for cleaning up orphaned wells, however, some Republicans see this Bill as part of a “crusade” against the oil and gas industry. Increased bond requirements that are not directly related to plugging wells and remediation are taxing for the oil and gas industry, which does not align with the Republican platform to avoid hindering energy productivity. How Democrats see it: The Bill aligns well with the Democratic party platform, and specifically it is part of a broader effort to reduce oil and gas production to shift towards low carbon energy initiatives. 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? This Bill currently has 25 co-sponsors in the House. The Representatives are: Raul M. Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Kathy Castor [D-FL-14], Michael F. Doyle [D-PA-18], Matt Cartwright [D-PA-8], Diana DeGette [D-CO-1], Steve Cohen [D-TN-9], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC-At Large], Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-13], Adriano Espaillat [D-NY-13], Darren Soto [D-FL-9], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Grace F. Napolitano [D-CA-32], Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large], Mike Levin [D-CA-49], Deborah K. Ross [D-NC-2], Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia [D-IL-4], Katie Porter [D-CA-45], Mark Pocan [D-WI-2], Albio Sires [D-NJ-8], Mondaire Jones [D-NY-17], John A.Yarmuth [D-KY-3] 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
0 Comments
Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act: Identifying Areas for Targeted Mercury Cleanup6/15/2021 The Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act was introduced in the Senate on April 22, 2021 (current--117th Congress) by Senator Susan Collins [R-ME] on behalf of Senator Carper [D-DE], where it was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. A version of this Bill was previously introduced in the 110-113th and 115-116th Congresses but did not receive a vote.
THE BILL: S.1345 “Mercury is one of the most persistent and dangerous pollutants, affecting the senses, brain, spinal cord, kidneys, and liver. It poses a particular risk to children and pregnant women, causing an elevated risk of birth defects and problems with motor skills” --Senator Susan Collins “This legislation, paired with efforts to reduce air toxics emissions at the Environmental Protection Agency, can help protect the health of all Americans, especially those most vulnerable.” --Harold Wimmer, President and CEO of the American Lung Association What does the Bill do? Mercury (Hg) is hazardous and extremely harmful to humans and ecosystems. The Bill would build on existing monitoring efforts by creating a comprehensive national monitoring program for mercury, which would be run by the Environmental Protection Agency, and be geared towards protecting human health and the environment. The EPA would work with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Parks Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, and other appropriate agencies in these efforts. This program would measure, monitor, and track mercury levels over time in different ecosystems (terrestrial, freshwater, coastal, and marine) within national parks, national wildlife refuges, national estuarine research reserves, and communities where people are highly exposed and vulnerable to excess concentrations. Long-term trends in mercury deposition and concentrations within the atmosphere would also be tracked. Samples taken would include depth-resolved and surface-level mercury chemistry in water and soil. Mercury can build up concentration in organisms over time (called bioaccumulation), which is why the US has warnings about eating too much fish in a week. Due to this bioaccumulation, this Bill would require measurements of mercury concentrations in wildlife. Insects, fish, and insect- and fish-eating birds and mammals would be examined for their total mercury and/or methyl mercury levels within their tissue. Importantly, the EPA would be required to publish standardized measurement protocols for the program, to ensure environmental samples would be collected and processed the same way regardless of who takes them so that the data is comparable across all scales and entities. A database would be created to centralize historic and future mercury data and its quality assurance standards so that the data is publicly available on the internet. In the next four years, $37M would be available for FY2022, and $29M for each FY2023 and FY2024. Why was it proposed? Mercury is a naturally occurring element that is liquid at room temperature. At extremely small quantities, mercury is an extremely hazardous and harmful element to humans and wildlife (1). A form of mercury called methylmercury is extremely toxic to organisms and is the form that is mostly found in fish tissue (2). It can cause death, abnormal growth and development, and reproduction issues (3). Even though great strides have been made since the first Earth day in 1970, and mercury exposure has decreased especially when it comes to cleaner air, every year an estimated hundreds of thousands of children are still being born with long-term neurological impairments due to exposure to mercury in the womb (4). Human activity, such as the burning of coal, oil, wood, and waste is responsible for the majority of the mercury released to the environment. The largest source of mercury emissions comes from power plants that burn coal for electricity (44%) (3). Mercury that’s burned can enter the air and be transported to varying distances depending on the form it’s in. Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the EPA published the Mercury Inventory Report, which logged the supply, use and trade of mercury in the US (5). Mercury exposures are currently limited by the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This Bill would support/aid these laws. Benefits This Bill is written so that the Comprehensive National Mercury Monitoring Act would be compatible with international efforts to monitor mercury levels, including Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme and the Global Earth Observation System of Systems, among others. Additionally, the Bill notes that the sites where mercury is monitored should be co-located when possible with sites from other long-term environmental monitoring programs. Both of these considerations would help to spread out and better coordinate data collection efforts. Additionally, this Bill will help provide scientists and researchers with more comprehensive data on the extent of mercury contamination, which will help to inform targeted pollution reduction initiatives. As mercury contamination is present across the country (2), this Bill would help people living in every state. The Bill was introduced with bipartisan support, showing a combined effort toward a problem that goes beyond political boundaries. Challenges This Bill doesn’t focus on the emitters and their location, but provides data to see where the issues currently are. A focus also needs to be on the emitters to effectively decrease levels, which may require additional costs to improve infrastructure. The distribution of mercury is very widespread because most of it enters the atmosphere through burning items that contain mercury (6). These seemingly small levels of mercury that fall onto land and water by rain and snow can magnify over time in organisms, as smaller fish are eaten by bigger fish. This atmospheric deposition is much more difficult to track than pollution that comes from a single source, such as industrial or mining waste, or un-mined minerals that naturally contain mercury. The Reality of Congress The outlook according to GovTrack's estimated likelihood of passing is 3%. How Republicans see it: The Republican platform supports creating jobs, and here that would include monitoring mercury levels. Additionally, their platform indicates support and better life quality for everyone which seemingly would include those impacted by excess mercury. How Democrats see it: This piece of legislation aligns with the party platform to combat the climate crisis and pursue environmental justice. There seem to be a lot of programs already working on mercury at the state & federal level It is unclear why there is not more support for this Bill, but it may be partially because there are mercury programs in effect bringing hesitation to allocate large amounts of funding when other programs are already addressing the issue or Congress currently has other priorities (especially with the pandemic still at large). 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? In the Senate, the Bill is co-sponsored by Susan Collins [R-ME] and Tom Carper [D-DE]. Do you see your Congresspeople listed? 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 Methane Waste Prevention Act was introduced in the House on March 2, 2021 by Representative Diana DeGette [D-CO-1] on behalf of herself and Representatives Raul M. Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Alan S. Lowenthal, [D-CA-47], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Barbara Lee, [D-CA-13], Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Adriano, Espaillat [D-NY-13]. The Bill was assigned to the Energy and Mineral Resources Committee, and sent to the House floor to be voted on on April 28, 2021. This Bill was previously introduced in the 116th Congress, but it did not receive a vote.
THE BILL: H.R.1492 “All across our country, oil and gas producers are releasing tons of methane into our atmosphere where it’s causing real harm to our environment and exacerbating the climate crisis...if we’re going to be serious about solving the climate crisis, we have to get serious about preventing the amount of methane that’s being pumped into our atmosphere.” -- Representative Diana DeGette What does the Bill do? Methane gas is one of the leading contributors to the ongoing climate crisis. This bill was introduced as a direct effort to address the release of methane by limiting the amount that oil and gas producers can release into the atmosphere. The Bill would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Bureau of Land Management to set restrictions to limit the amount of methane released from drilling sites. This goal is to facilitate a steady decrease in methane emissions from the oil and gas sector such that by 2025, the methane emissions are 65% below 2012 levels, and 90% below 2012 levels by 2030. The EPA can set regulations to control the amount of emissions through their authority under the Clean Air Act. States would be required to submit their action plans to be in accordance with methane reduction goals, and regulations would apply to each part of natural gas and oil systems including production, processing, transmission, distribution and storage. Additionally, this Bill would amend previous legislation such that there will be new requirements to reduce gas waste from venting, flaring, and leaks on public lands. In five years, 99% of gas waste produced will be captured. Additionally, venting natural gas and flaring from new wells will be prohibited, and standards for new equipment and operations will be implemented to reduce gas leaks. Oil and gas companies will also be required to establish procedures for leak detection and repairs such as required monthly inspections of infrared camera technology and record keeping. Additionally, the Bill would require increased reporting and transparency by making all new measured data such as venting and flaring gases lost, freely and publicly available on the internet. Penalties for unauthorized gas venting or flaring would include production restrictions and fines equal to 15x the market value of vented or flaring gas, respectively. Why was it proposed? Methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas, behind carbon dioxide, that traps heat in the atmosphere and contributes significantly to the climate crisis (1). Methane is, however, significantly worse than carbon dioxide because it traps 86 times more heat than carbon dioxide, and is often coupled with other toxic pollutants all of which can have serious health impacts (2). The oil and gas industry in particular leaks or purposefully vents over 13 million metric tons of methane into the atmosphere each year as part of their operations (3). The problem of methane leaks from the oil and gas industry has long been recognized. The Obama administration enacted the first requirements to reduce methane emissions in 2016. However, in 2020 the Trump administration lifted these restrictions, allowing companies to continue releasing significant quantities of methane emissions without regulation. Earlier in 2021, the Senate used a Congressional Review Act to reverse the rollbacks which passed in April and is expected to pass the House. Benefits The policies that would be used to accomplish the goals of this Bill would also likely prevent the release of other toxic air pollutants such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). It would also help to prevent smog by limiting the release of air pollutants that contribute to the haze. Through this Bill, methane emissions would be cut and as a result the air would be cleaner overall. Additionally, less methane would be wasted and as a temporary solution could be repurposed for other uses, such as natural gas. Less waste could also mean more profit for companies. Challenges Oil and gas production is not the only large emitter of methane, and therefore cannot be the only step taken to reduce methane emissions. The agricultural sector also is a major emitter of methane, largely through cow burps. One solution to livestock emissions is adding a specific kelp to their diet, which helps to limit the amount of gas they produce. In general, oil and gas are widely supported by Republicans so gaining their support on this may be difficult. In a broader perspective, while many people recognize the climate crisis and the extremely harmful impacts of oil and gas, people are also afraid of transitioning away from the pre-existing oil and gas industry due to the significant economic benefits historically observed and the comfort of stability (4). This enormous hurdle will be essential to overcome for moving forward toward clean energy. The Reality of Congress The outlook according to Govtrack’s estimated likelihood of passing is 21%. This Bill made it out of Committee, and is being sent to the House floor, which is something that only happens to 1 in 4 Bills. How Republicans see it: This Bill has no Republican support as of yet. Oil and gas companies have a lot of money invested in Congressional campaigns on both sides of the aisle. In particular, there’s a substantial amount of money from the oil and gas industry on the Republican side (5,6), so the companies and workers who donate may have a degree of influence on decisions made in Congress. Specifically, donations typically come in as rewards after voting against legislation that protects the environment (6). In turn, it may be difficult for Republicans and those supported by those invested in oil and gas to sway away. How Democrats see it: This Bill currently has 21 Democrat sponsors. Generally, Democrats see this as one of many essential steps for combatting the climate crisis, and for addressing environmental injustices related to air pollution. 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? In the House, the Bill currently has 20 cosponsors: Diana DeGette [D-CO-1], Raul M. Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Alan S. Lowenthal, [D-CA-47], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Barbara Lee, [D-CA-13], Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Adriano, Espaillat [D-NY-13], Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large], Peter A. DeFazio [D-OR-4], Jahana Hayes [D-CT-5], Emanuel Cleaver [D-MO-5], Betty McCollum [D-MN-4], Mike Levin [D-CA-49], Alcee L. Hastings [D-FL-20], Ruben Gallego [D-AZ-7], Katie Porter [D-CA-45], Sean Casten [D-IL-6], Teresa Leger Fernandez [D-NM-3], Ed Perlmutter [D-CO-7], Matt Cartwright [D-PA-8], Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-13] 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 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 Green Vehicles, Green Spaces Act of 2021 was introduced in the Senate on March 1, 2021 by Senator Catehrine Cortez Masto [D-NV] on behalf of herself and Senators Tina Smith [D-MN], Debbie Stabenow [D-MI], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Jacky Rosen [D-NV], Mazie Hirono [D-HI], Martin Heinrich [D-NM], and Ron Wyden [D-OR]. The Bill was read twice and then referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This Bill was also introduced in the 116th Congress as S.2041, but did not receive a vote. An identical Bill was introduced in the House during the 116th Congress by Mike Levin [D-CA-49] as H.R.3681, but did not receive a vote and has not yet been reintroduced in the House for the 117th Congress.
This Bill was introduced as part of a suite of 7 bills that promote a transition to clean transportation. The other Bills introduced as part of this initiative are: The Clean School Bus Act, The Electric Transportation Commission and National Strategy Act, The Electric Vehicles for Underserved Communities Act, The Greener Transportation for Communities Act, The Green Bus Tax Credit Act, and the More Access to ZEV Equipment (MAZE) in Transit Act. THE BILL: S. 504 What does the Bill do? The goal of this Bill is to promote zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) infrastructure on public lands such as national parks and national forests in order to help facilitate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. Zero emissions infrastructure refers to any infrastructure that can be used to charge or fuel vehicles that do not produce pollutants from exhaust emissions, or greenhouse gases from any operational modes or conditions. According to the EPA, this includes electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (1). The Bill requires the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the National Parks Service and the U.S. Forest Service to establish the Green Spaces, Green Vehicles Initiative, which will develop a strategy for installing ZEV infrastructure on public lands. This involves collaborating with public, private and nonprofit entities in order to secure and install publicly-accessible charging stations, and acquire ZEV shuttle buses and fleets for the National Parks and National Forest Services. All installations must be in compliance with any applicable laws relating to land management in each locale, which are variable. Additionally, installation information will be publicly available online and on maps so that it is easy to find places to charge vehicles, and so that anyone can see future plans for installation. Each of these steps supports the overarching goal of promoting clean transportation. Additionally, installation must consider and support both federal fleets as well as tourists to federal facilities, and will complement alternative fueling corridor networks. There are five alternative fuels to traditional regular, premium, or diesel gas including Electric Vehicles. The alternative fueling corridor refers to the map of alternative fueling stations across the country. For more information, maps of alternative fuel corridors, including state by state breakdowns, are provided through the Department of Energy (2). The Bill would enable the construction of the infrastructure to charge or fuel the vehicles and expand the US alternative fueling corridor network. The Secretaries of Energy, Agriculture and/or Interior will work to determine the land available for ZEV infrastructure and increase the number of ZEVs on Forest Service or National Park lands. $72 million would be available through this Bill each fiscal year. Of these funds, 20% can be used to acquire ZEVs for federal fleets, 30% can be used to acquire, install and operate ZEV infrastructure in urbanized areas, and 2% can be used for administrative costs. The hope is to increase the number of ZEVs used by federal fleets by 125% of the current operation by 2030. This will equate to 25% of all the vehicles in the fleet and shuttle operations of each agency. Why was it proposed? According to the EPA, emissions associated with the transportation sector are the largest contributor to greenhouse gases that are driving the climate crisis. Emissions also significantly contribute to smog and poor air quality, which drastically impacts human health. Pollution from transportation operations includes particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds (3). Specifically, the emissions that cars produce usually sits close to the ground and forms brown haze that is easily visible over cities in the summer (1). This haze can trigger health issues such as asthma and other lung issues (1). In National Parks, 30% of the annual greenhouse gases emissions from park operations are attributed to transportation (4). However, the National Parks funding is limited, and they are already struggling to address the backlog of important maintenance projects (see our post on the Great American Outdoors Act). Therefore, National Parks would not be able to install more energy efficient infrastructure without supplementary funds, studies and partnerships (5). This Bill is one of many that is part of a global push to reduce greenhouse gases and limit the global temperature increases that threatens communities and ecosystems. It falls in line with President Biden’s recently proposed infrastructure plan (6) and is geared towards expediting the transition to greener and more energy efficient technologies. Benefits Increased ZEV infrastructure will help the U.S. to meet the current and anticipated demands for charging and fueling stations across the country as more people turn towards ZEVs as a way to reduce their overall footprint. Additionally, the Bill would enable and accelerate construction that would be unlikely to be completed without explicit federal assistance. The federal support facilitates the construction of ZEV infrastructure and provides an opportunity for partnerships with electric vehicle experts who can help make this program successful. Since the 1970’s, EPA smog pollution emission standards have made the air cleaner and healthier. These standards apply to cars built when the standards were enforced, so older cars do not follow these rules. ZEVs move toward a cleaner and healthier future for transportation (1). Challenges It may be difficult to bring workers out to remote National Parks to install and maintain the equipment. It is also unclear the amount of funds that will be dedicated to this section, and therefore it is difficult to assess how many ZEVs the bill will purchase. The bill has limitations on how 52% of the total appropriated funds can be used, but is unclear about how the remaining 48% will be allocated. It may be difficult to collaborate and organize between lands operated by different groups. 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 is currently co-sponsored by Senators Catherine Cortez Masto [D-NV], Tina Smith [D-MN], Debbie Stabenow [D-MI], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], Jacky Rosen [D-NV], Mazie Hirono [D-HI], Martin Heinrich [D-NM], and Ron Wyden [D-OR] 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 BLUE GLOBE Act: Improving monitoring of the Great Lakes, Oceans, Bays, Estuaries, and Coasts3/30/2021 The BLUE GLOBE Act, or the “Bolstering Long-term Understanding and Exploration of the Great Lakes, Oceans, Bays, and Estuaries Act”, was introduced in the Senate on January 28, 2021 by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI] which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], and Rob Portman [R-OH]. This bill was also introduced as S.933 in the 116th Congress, but did not receive a vote.
THE BILL: S.140 What does the Bill do? There are many goals of this Bill, all of which focus on improving the understanding of the Great Lakes, oceans, bays, estuaries, and coasts of the US by supporting monitoring, data collection, data sharing, and management efforts. The Bill would support international and domestic collaborations to better facilitate data collection and sharing between satellites, buoys, vessels, and other technologies. A major component of this Bill is to facilitate better coordination between agencies in order to improve data and monitoring. The Interagency Ocean Observation Committee, Federal Geographic Data Committee, National Geospatial Advisory Committee, and Interagency Committee on Ocean and Coastal Mapping would work with international partners to ensure continuous collection of data for the Great Lakes, oceans, bays, estuaries, and coasts. Additionally, the Federal Geographic Data Committee and the National Geospatial Advisory Committee would work to cross-check older data and archive it as necessary. The Interagency Committee on Ocean and Coastal Mapping would also provide input to how this data could be made more accessible to the public and other audiences, such as interactive maps and graphics. This Bill also requires that Section 3532 of the Maritime Security and Fisheries Enforcement Act (1) is amended with additional technologies that will be used to further prevent illegal and unregulated fishing. This includes satellite imagery, vessel location data, biological methods for tracking seafood, among others. Additionally, the Bill would support upgrades to and deployment of technologies such as research vessels and remote vehicles or sensors. Specifically, this would focus on biological techniques that can assess genetic data from environmental samples to advance technology. Data will be publicly and openly accessible, unless confidential or proprietary. The Bill calls for a workforce study to assess if there is a shortage of skilled workers in areas related to oceanic and atmospheric data collection or satellite functions. This specifically includes determining the level of diversity present in the current scientific workforce, and taking actions to take to increase diversity equity and inclusion. The Bill also incentivizes rapid development and deployment of novel data collection and monitoring technology by awarding at least one Ocean Innovation prize. This will go to an applicant working on topics such as plastic pollution detection, satellite data advancement, coral reef monitoring, water quality monitoring, carbon sequestration, and others. Through 2024, the Bill would reauthorize National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) exploration programs, which include nautical mapping and charting. NOAA would work with the National Academy of Sciences to determine the feasibility of an Advanced Research Projects Agency - Oceans (ARPA-O). Finally, the Bill directs the heads of various Federal agencies to assess the value and impact of industries such as marine transportation, tourism, recreation, and offshore mineral extraction. Why was it proposed? As stated by Senator Whitehouse, “we know more about the surface of the moon than we do our own oceans” (2), even though water covers 71% of Earth’s surface (3). Here he highlights a major gap in the fundamental understanding of Earth and its natural processes. Additionally, oceans in particular are one of Earth’s most valuable resources, and the growth of the global ocean economy (the sum of ocean industries (4) combined with assets, resources and services provided by the ocean) is expected to double in size from 2010 to 2030, reaching 3 trillion USD (5). The growth of the ocean economy is likely to outpace that of the global economy, and therefore, gaining a better understanding of the natural processes at play by investing in technology to collect more reliable data and produce more accurate observations is essential. This Bill was proposed to increase awareness and knowledge of the Great Lakes, oceans, bays, estuaries, and coasts. Changing climatic conditions are drastically impacting these areas, but we do not have the scientific understanding required to respond effectively. Better observations and increased monitoring will provide the foundation to increase our understanding of the changes that are occurring. This would ultimately lead to new discoveries, and spark the innovation of new products and development of policies in these water-focused areas. More efficient data collection and robust repositories would provide better data accessibility long-term, and international collaboration would bring key stakeholders together. The data would help to identify the impact of cargo transported across water bodies, infrastructure along shorelines, populations along the coasts, and water-dependent economic activities. Additionally, the value of the collected data to businesses involved with agriculture or weather prediction would be assessed. Benefits Science and technology focused on the oceans is critical to ensuring that the ocean is healthy, which in turn is vital to protecting our public health, safety, food, water, and energy (5). Expanding our knowledge of water-focused areas through advanced data collection techniques improves the US’ economic competitiveness, strengthens national and ecological security, protects the environment and promotes prosperity (6). BLUE GLOBE efforts will directly contribute to increasing our gross domestic product and provide employment opportunities. The work described in this Bill incentivizes new discoveries and technologies to mitigate environmental issues like harmful algal blooms, pollution, and ocean acidification. Mapping efforts particularly in coastal areas will help efforts to reduce illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activity, and international collaborations can be helpful for sharing the task and spreading out costs. ARPA-O would identify best practices and metrics for research programs and consolidate Federal oceanic programs so overlap and duplication doesn’t occur. Challenges The ocean economy itself is a challenge because the ocean based industry is typically derived from marine ecosystems, but also industrial practices typically harm these same ecosystems. This results in significant controversy among lawmakers, conservationists, the fishing industry, etc., and slows the process of technology deployment. Additionally, conflicts continue today over the rights to sea exploitation across international waters, which may make it difficult to collaborate with many countries. The United States is already behind with respect to investment in ocean data, technology and education compared to the UK, EU, Indian Ocean States and China. These countries have already invested in catalyzing scientific advancement and understanding of the oceans because they recognize the importance oceans play in economic security, international trade, sustainable development, connection, livelihoods and military development (7). The BLUE GLOBE Act provides incentives and directives for the US to overcome this challenge and rise to also be a global leader in ocean technology, data, and education. 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 is co-sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK], Jeff Merkley [D-OR], and Rob Portman [R-OH]. 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 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 Climate Emergency Act of 2021 was introduced in the House on February 4, 2021 by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, on behalf of himself and 28 original co-sponsors, and the bill now has 44 Democrat co-sponsors. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management on February 5, 2021. The 28 original co-sponsors are: Representatives: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY-14], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Grace F. Napolitano [D-CA-32], Grace Meng [D-NY-6], Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large], Adriano Espaillat [D-NY-13], Jerrold Nadler [D-NY-10], Mike Quigley [D-IL-5], Andy Levin [D-MI-9], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC-At Large], Mike Levin [D-CA-49], Doris O. Matsui [D-CA-6], Mark DeSaulnier [D-CA-11], Ayanna Pressley [D-MA-7], Yvette D. Clarke [D-NY-9], Mondaire Jones [D-NY-17], Janice D. Schakowsky [D-IL-9], Steve Cohen [D-TN-9], Jimmy Gomez [D-CA-34], John A. Yarmuth [D-KY-3], Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR-1], Joe Neguse [D-CO-2], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Jamaal Bowman [D-NY-16], Pramila Jayapal [D-WA-7] THE BILL: H.R.794 What does the bill do? The goal of this Bill is to require that the President declare a national emergency under the National Emergencies Act (1) with respect to climate change. This would ensure that the Federal Government allocates money and resources to mitigation and resiliency projects, particularly for public systems, to upgrade infrastructure to expand access to affordable, clean energy, transportation, high-speed broadband and water. These projects should enable a transition to a clean energy economy that must be racially and socially just, actively combat environmental injustice, create sustainable jobs with liveable wages, and prioritize local and equitable hiring that provides opportunities. Additionally, the bill will ensure that the Federal Government avoids solutions that increase inequality, violate human rights laws, or harm the environment. Each year after its enactment, the Bill requires the President to submit a report to Congress that describes the actions taken that align with the requirements laid out by the bill in direct response to the climate emergency. Why was it proposed? Congress found the years 2010-2019 to be the hottest on record, and are accompanied by a 40% increase of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial times, from 280 parts per million (ppm) to 415 ppm. They also note a 1.5 degree C global temperature increase. All of these increases are primarily due to human activities. Carbon dioxide is the primary global warming pollutant, and concentrations in the atmosphere continue to rise at a rate of 2-3 ppm annually. Global concentrations of other global warming pollutants (methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons (2)) have also increased significantly due to human activities including burning fossil fuels. We are already seeing the harmful impacts of increased levels of greenhouse gases including ocean warming and acidification, and increased duration and severity of droughts, wildfires and extreme weather events. Climate-related disasters have increased exponentially over the past decade, and cost the U.S. alone ~$1 billion per year. The public health consequences from climate change are also expansive, and will lead to temperature related deaths and illness, decreased air quality, vector borne diseases, water borne illnesses, food safety complications and mental health and well-being concerns. Congress notes that communities of color, indigenous communities and low-income communities will be disproportionately impacted due to existing environmental injustices (3). Additionally, the intelligence community identifies that climate change is a national security threat multiplier due to an increasing scarcity of resources and the spread of infectious diseases, among others. Climate scientists indicate that addressing the climate crisis must include phasing out fossil fuels in order to greatly reduce the amount of carbon being released in the atmosphere. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that mitigation and transition to clean energy needs to happen immediately. This will require urgent governmental action in the United States, and will require public awareness, engagement, and deliberation to develop and implement equitable policies. The United States has a powerful history of collaborative, constructive, large-scale Federal mobilizations of resources and labor to address challenges (e.g. the Interstate Highway System, Apollo 11 Moon landing, the New Deal and World War II). Many other countries including the UK, Ireland, Portugal and Canada have already declared a climate emergency, as have some local governments such as New York City and Los Angeles. Benefits
The bill acknowledges that climate change is human-induced, which requires the United States to take action on catastrophic and harmful events that will affect the entire country. Limiting the warming of Earth to not more than 1.5 degrees C would avoid climate change that’s catastrophic and irreversible. By declaring a national climate emergency through this bill, upgrades to public infrastructure will happen so that access to clean and affordable energy, water, and internet is available to all. The bill would support farmers and agricultural workers by investing in local and regional food systems to ensure healthy soil and regenerative agriculture. The bill takes a major step toward addressing major environmental justice issues by focusing on mitigating pollution, removing health hazards, and fixing the health and environmental impacts of climate change on communities. The bill specifically emphasizes a focus on communities of color and Indigenous communities that have systemically been denied equitable access to public health resources. Challenges The bill notes a lot of broad actions that could be taken, but does not provide guidance on any specific, actionable steps to take in the immediate future. Additionally, this bill does not address funding or expenses for such tasks, but notes that the President will ensure that the Federal Government invests in climate change mitigation and resiliency projects, of which 40% of those go to historically disadvantaged communities. 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 House bill has 44 cosponsors: Representatives Earl Blumenauer [D-OR-3], Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D-NY-14], Nanette Diaz Barragan [D-CA-44], Grace F. Napolitano [D-CA-32], Grace Meng [D-NY-6], Peter Welch [D-VT-At Large], Adriano Espaillat [D-NY-13], Jerrold Nadler [D-NY-10], Mike Quigley [D-IL-5], Andy Levin [D-MI-9], Nydia M. Velazquez [D-NY-7], Alan S. Lowenthal [D-CA-47], Eleanor Holmes Norton [D-DC-At Large], Mike Levin [D-CA-49], Doris O. Matsui [D-CA-6], Mark DeSaulnier [D-CA-11], Ayanna Pressley [D-MA-7], Yvette D. Clarke [D-NY-9], Mondaire Jones [D-NY-17], Janice D. Schakowsky [D-IL-9], Steve Cohen [D-TN-9], Jimmy Gomez [D-CA-34], John A. Yarmuth [D-KY-3], Suzanne Bonamici [D-OR-1], Joe Neguse [D-CO-2], Ro Khanna [D-CA-17], Jared Huffman [D-CA-2], Jamaal Bowman [D-NY-16], Pramila Jayapal [D-WA-7], Raja Krishnamoorthi [D-IL-8], Thomas R. Suozzi [D-NY-3], Brendan F. Boyle [D-PA-2], Gerald E. Connolly [D-VA-11], Alcee L. Hastings [D-FL-20], Jesus G. "Chuy" Garcia [D-IL-4], Raul M. Grijalva [D-AZ-3], Emanuel Cleaver [D-MO-5], Judy Chu [D-CA-27], Ilhan Omar [D-MN-5], Brad Sherman [D-CA-30], Dwight Evans [D-PA-3], Jahana Hayes [D-CT-5], Chellie Pingree [D-ME-1], Rashida Tlaib [D-MI-13], Bennie G. Thompson [D-MS-2]. 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 Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances Act (PFAS)* was introduced in the Senate on February 4, 2021 by Senator Gary Peters (D-MI), on behalf of himself and Senators Sullivan (R-AK), Hassan (D-NH), Tillis (R-NC), Carper (D-DE), Murkowski (R-AK), and Collins (R-ME). The bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. *PFAS in this scenario stands for both the title of the bill (Protecting Firefighters from Adverse Substances Act), and the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances that are addressed in the Act. Moving forward, when discussed, PFAS will refer to the toxic chemicals. THE BILL: S. 231 What does this bill do? The goal of this bill is to prevent the release of and exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) specifically from firefighting foam, which is a common tool used for fire suppression. The bill would also develop and publish guidance for emergency response personnel, such as firefighters, to reduce their exposure to materials that contain PFAS. Specifically, this would be achieved by identifying and using alternative firefighting foams, personal protective equipment, and other tools that do not contain PFAS. These items would be uploaded to an online public repository and updated regularly for workers to limit their exposure to and the release of PFAS to the environment. Guidance will be developed in collaboration with key stakeholders including emergency response personnel, communities dealing with PFAS contamination, scientists, state fire marshals, and manufacturers of firefighting tools. Review of this guidance will be performed within 3 years of enactment, and every 2 years after that by the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in consultation with the Administrator of the United States Fire Administration, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Why was it proposed? PFAS are human-made, toxic chemicals that are extremely difficult to break down and therefore persist both in the environment and in the body (1), leading to their nickname of the “forever chemicals.” There are more than 5,000 substances in this class of chemicals, and they are known for providing a grease- water- or stain- resistant barrier when applied to a product. They can be found in food, especially where the item was packaged in PFAS containing materials or grown in PFAS-contaminated water or soil. They can also be found in household products, such as non-stick products (Teflon), polishes, waxes, and cleaning products (2). PFAS can enter drinking water if it’s associated with a wastewater treatment plant, landfill, or firefighter training facility where PFAS is present. Specifically related to this bill, places where firefighter training occurs, such as airports and military bases, are a major source of groundwater contamination due to the fire fighting foams that are used (1). PFAS exposure can lead to adverse health effects in humans, such as reproductive and developmental issues, liver and kidney concerns, cancer, and thyroid hormone disruption (1). Currently, only a handful of states have adopted or proposed limits to PFAS in drinking water (3) Benefits According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 95% of the United States population has PFAS in their bodies, and therefore, any mitigation of PFAS in the environment is beneficial (4). Contaminated water is a main route of exposure to PFAS, and firefighting foam is one of the two main sources of PFAS contamination in water (5, 6). Therefore, federal legislation for developing alternative foams that do not contain PFAS would greatly reduce the amount of PFAS being released into the environment. Education and best practices for understanding PFAS and how to avoid it will aid in keeping it out of the environment long-term. Challenges PFAS are extremely difficult to break down in the environment. They can persist for decades, and be detected in substantial levels in blood for 8 years after exposure. This bill only addresses limiting or preventing PFAS from entering the environment in the future, but does not discuss cleanup of current PFAS in the environment, which will continue to pose major health concerns. This bill does not provide financial assistance required for building and maintaining the database and training efforts, so it is currently unclear who would be responsible for this, nor does it address the cost of identifying and shifting to equipment that does not contain PFAS. This bill is specifically geared towards PFAS release from firefighting foam and PPE. However, PFAS are found in many common items as well, such as food packaging, household items, non-stick cookware, and outdoor gear. Future legislation would need to address these concerns. 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 six cosponsors: Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI), Sullivan (R-AK), Hassan (D-NH), Tillis (R-NC), Carper (D-DE), Murkowski (R-AK), and Collins (R-ME). 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! Additionally, if you are worried about PFAS in everyday items, consumers can contact brands to stop using PFAS in their products. Some larger companies like Ikea, H&M, and Crate & Barrel are already eliminating PFAS from their product lines, and others like Chipotle and Taco Bell have pledged to do so (3). The more people who speak out, the more likely change is to happen. Your voice matters! Footnotes
Currently, the House and Senate are transitioning into the 117th Congress. While summaries and text of newly proposed pieces of legislation are being updated, we thought it was a good opportunity to discuss some of the exciting environmental bills that became law recently.
The National Landslide Preparedness Act was introduced by Representative Suzan DelBene (D-WA) on behalf of five original cosponsors* referred to the House Natural Resources Committee and the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee on November 24, 2020. The bill was passed on a voice vote (1) in the House and unanimous consent (2) in the Senate. became Public Law No: 116-323 on January 5, 2021. *The five original cosponsors in addition to Rep. DelBene are Reps. Derek Kilmer (D-WA-6), Denny Heck (D-WA-10), Adam Smith (D-WA-9), Matt Cartwright (D-PA-8), and Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-1). THE LAW: H.R. 8810 What does this law do? This bipartisan law provides funds to establish two programs: The National Landslide Hazards Reduction Program and the National 3D Elevation Program through the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The National Landslide Hazards Reduction Program aims to better identify landslide hazards and risks, reduce losses from landslides, protect communities currently at risk of landslide hazards, and improve the communication of emergency preparedness. This will involve identifying, mapping, assessing and researching landslide hazards and responding to landslide events. Priority areas will also be established in coordination with state offices, local government, territories and Indian tribes. Landslide hazard guidelines will be developed and standardized for those directly involved with the program (e.g. geologists and emergency management personnel), and emergency procedures will be developed and implemented. It will also create a publicly-accessible database that will be maintained and used to alert citizens of risks and health hazards associated with landslides as well as data on areas that have been stabilized and reduction of losses from landslides. National landslide research grants may be provided through the National Science Foundation to advance research on landslide events and develop ways to reduce risks and minimize losses that occur with landslide events. A Debris Flow Early Warning System is already in place, but this law will expand it to include more recently burned areas of the western United States, stormwater drainage monitoring procedures in high risk areas, and at-risk areas of wildfires and volcanic mudflows. The 3D Elevation Program (3) will be responsible for coordinating and facilitating the collection of 3D elevation data of the United States using high-resolution surveys (LiDAR) (4). Data will be disseminated to federal agencies and non-federal entities, as well as used to produce standard publicly accessible data products. This will be overseen and managed by a 3D Elevation Federal Interagency Coordinating Committee. One year after enacted, and then every five years, the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the director of the USGS) in Coordination with the committee, will publish an updated national strategy that will include goals and priorities for the program. Why was it proposed? Landslides are known geologic hazards that happen in every state, caused by disturbances in the natural stability of a slope. Some areas are more susceptible to landslides, as they often accompany other natural phenomena including heavy rains, droughts, fires, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions (5). Specific areas of increased risk include: steep slopes, areas where landscapes have lost significant vegetation naturally (e.g. fires) or by human behavior (e.g. logging), channel or river banks, areas where surface runoff is directed, or newly formed slopes (e.g. where landslides have occurred before or due to construction) (5). They cause ~$2-4 billion per year in damage and kill between 25 and 50 people each year in the United States (5,6, 7). Globally, landslides result in billions of dollars of damage and thousands of deaths and injuries each year. Adverse effects can include infrastructure destruction, medical costs, and disruption of transportation routes, as well as the loss of property value, fish stocks, timber, and both water availability and quality. More data can help to identify more areas of risk and mitigate potential damage. Benefits This federalizes the ability to monitor areas of high risk, advance landslide research, and do more LiDAR mapping to assess the land movement underneath vegetation covered areas. 3D elevation data can be an essential tool for public safety, national security, infrastructure, transportation, agriculture, and natural resource management. This is especially important in landslide prone areas like Washington state, which need better landslide prediction and monitoring efforts, but have increasingly tight budgets especially due to the pandemic. Challenges Funding is only authorized for the fiscal years 2021-2024. Without the establishment of long term funding, maintenance of these endeavors will fall to individual states that would have to designate specific funding and resources to these projects. Landscapes are continuously changing, and require active monitoring, rapid responses, and cost mitigation. Want to advocate? Although this bill has become law, advocacy is still important. Sending “thank you” notes or emails to your legislators who support a bill, an Executive Order, or other legislative efforts are powerful tools in forming relationships, and tells your legislator that they are representing their constituents’ needs. We encourage people to reach out to their legislators with appreciation, questions, or concerns. Footnotes:
|