Bill Overview
Title: Community Reclamation Partnerships Act
Description: This bill revises the Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Program which restores land and water adversely impacted by surface coal mines that were abandoned before August 3, 1977. A state with an approved reclamation program may enter into a memorandum of understanding with relevant federal or state agencies for remediating mine drainage on abandoned mine land and water impacted by abandoned mines. In addition, the bill authorizes a partnership between a state and a community reclaimer for remediating abandoned mine land if the partnership's proposed project is consistent with an approved state memorandum of understanding and conducted on certain prioritized sites; the state assumes all responsibly on behalf of the community reclaimer and the owner of the proposed project site for costs or damages resulting from actions or inactions of the community reclaimer in carrying out the project, except for gross negligence or intentional misconduct by the community reclaimer; and the state has necessary legal authority to conduct the project and has financial resources to ensure the project's completion. A community reclaimer is a person who (1) voluntarily assists a state in a reclamation project, (2) did not participate in the creation of site conditions at the proposed site or activities that caused any land or waters to become eligible for reclamation or drainage abatement expenditures, (3) is not a past or current owner or operator of any site with ongoing reclamation obligations, and (4) is not subject to outstanding violations of surface coal mining permits.
Sponsors: Rep. LaHood, Darin [R-IL-18]
Target Audience
Population: People impacted by abandoned surface coal mines
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill targets areas affected by surface coal mines abandoned before August 3, 1977, which are primarily located in coal-heavy regions worldwide.
- Globally, communities and ecosystems around numerous abandoned mine sites stand to benefit from this legislation by the improvement of both land and water quality.
- Given the scope of the bill, individuals living near or relying on resources from areas affected by abandoned mine drainage will be direct beneficiaries.
- The global coal mining industry historically spans multiple countries, including those in Europe, Asia, and Oceania, which have sites potentially impacted by this type of legislation.
Reasoning
- The population targeted by this policy primarily resides in regions like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania. These states have been historically reliant on coal mining and thus have numerous abandoned surface mines.
- The policy directly impacts people living near these abandoned mines, as well as those relying on affected water systems for agriculture or daily use.
- Given the budget constraints, impacts would be high in intensely affected but geographically limited areas.
- Diverse perspectives would include not only residents but also environmental advocates, local business owners, state officials, and community leaders who might have different stakes or views on the bill's implementation.
Simulated Interviews
Farmer (West Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy will improve the water quality, which has been polluted for decades.
- It's crucial for my farm's productivity and health of my family.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Environmental Scientist (Kentucky)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in a positive direction, bolstering efforts to restore these ecologically-degraded areas.
- I'm excited to see more partnership opportunities arise.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired Coal Miner (Pennsylvania)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this will finally clean up the mess left behind and bring some jobs to the area.
- I've seen this town deteriorate after the mines were abandoned.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 1 |
Community Activist (Ohio)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could greatly benefit the communities, but we need to ensure transparency and community involvement in all projects.
- Ensuring long-term commitment and oversight is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Local Business Owner (West Virginia)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reclamation efforts may revitalize the area and boost local business.
- The more people feel safe and optimistic about the environment, the better the economy should fare.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Healthcare Worker (Kentucky)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better quality water means fewer illnesses, which is crucial for public health.
- I've seen first-hand the effects of contaminated water on community health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Engineer (Pennsylvania)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could bring more projects and work for people in my field, which is promising.
- It's a chance to apply engineering towards sustainable goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
College Student (West Virginia)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- With this policy in place, I see more opportunities for studies and internships which will be valuable for my career.
- It could also mean a cleaner and healthier environment around campus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
State Legislator (Ohio)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This federal support is crucial for states like ours that face dire environmental health effects.
- I hope it inspires more collaborative efforts across states.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Miner (Kentucky)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reclamation projects bring some job opportunities, though not at the scale of a working mine.
- It's a way forward but not a complete solution for employment in mining regions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $180000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $220000000)
Year 3: $200000000 (Low: $160000000, High: $240000000)
Year 5: $210000000 (Low: $170000000, High: $250000000)
Year 10: $220000000 (Low: $180000000, High: $260000000)
Year 100: $250000000 (Low: $210000000, High: $290000000)
Key Considerations
- The initial costs may be high, but long-term economic and environmental benefits should offset these expenses.
- Collaboration with community reclaimers is encouraged by liability protections for states, hence state buy-in and participation is crucial for success.
- Costs are uncertain and will vary significantly between states depending on the number and scope of prioritized reclamation sites.
- The effectiveness of the partnerships will depend largely on states' commitment and ability to mobilize necessary resources.