Bill Overview
Title: Well Primacy Certainty Act
Description: This bill modifies various aspects of the process for approving applications from states to carry out underground injection control programs. The modifications include, for example, deeming that an application is approved if the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fails to make a decision within the existing 90-day timeframe and requiring the EPA to undertake efforts to coordinate with states concerning their applications.
Sponsors: Rep. McKinley, David B. [R-WV-1]
Target Audience
Population: People dependent on underground water sources
Estimated Size: 160000000
- Underground injection control (UIC) programs are crucial for preventing contamination of underground sources of drinking water.
- States that choose to run their own UIC programs apply to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for authorization.
- The bill affects how these applications from states are processed, specifically if the EPA fails to meet the 90-day decision timeframe.
- This could lead to increased autonomy for states in managing their UIC programs without federal oversight if the EPA does not respond in time.
Reasoning
- Approximately 160 million Americans rely on underground water sources, suggesting a broad impact if states are empowered through expedited or less-overseen approvals.
- The budget constraints imply potential benefits for states that are efficient with the application process but may not cover extensive nationwide improvements immediately.
- The effectiveness of the policy may vary depending on state resources, expertise in managing UIC programs, and whether rapid approval aids or hinders broader water safety objectives.
- Only a subset of these 160 million individuals will be directly affected by changes in state-level UIC program management.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Engineer (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The expedited application process could improve state autonomy, but only if accompanied by robust state-level accountability measures.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Hydrogeologist (Denver, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy may fast-track necessary protective measures, but we must ensure state readiness to handle responsibilities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
State Policy Advisor (Austin, TX)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about the enhanced collaboration between states and the EPA that this policy promises.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Farmer (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about the lack of federal oversight if applications are auto-approved.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Graduate Student in Environmental Science (Miami, FL)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's critical that the policy does not bypass necessary environmental assessments.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Municipal Water Department Manager (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A quicker approval process can alleviate delays but should be paired with strong state checks.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Public Health Official (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support enhancing federal-state collaboration, but it should not weaken compliance measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental Lawyer (New York City, NY)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Legal clarity and reduced bureaucracy can be beneficial but must not lead to environmental neglect.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expedited processes could help my business if local water quality remains assured.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Retired Teacher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 65 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- States must not exploit expedited approvals at the cost of public health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 2: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 3: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 5: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 10: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $80000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy could lead to varying levels of UIC program effectiveness across states, depending on state capabilities and resources.
- Potential increased risks of water contamination if state-managed programs are not adequately monitored.
- The balance need to be assessed between expedited state program approvals and safeguarding underground water resources.