Bill Overview
Title: Stay Off My Line Act
Description: This bill excludes from major federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 projects that neither involve federal lands nor federal control or responsibility.
Sponsors: Rep. Miller-Meeks, Mariannette [R-IA-2]
Target Audience
Population: People living near privately controlled environmental projects
Estimated Size: 24000000
- The bill pertains to projects excluded from being classified as 'major federal actions' which can limit the scope of environmental reviews.
- Projects that do not involve federal lands or federal control might be subject to less scrutiny under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).
- Changes under this bill would likely affect individuals living in areas where such projects are proposed, as they might experience less environmental oversight.
- Populations that live near industrial activities, infrastructure developments, or resource extraction projects not involving federal oversight may be impacted.
Reasoning
- The bill would likely cause more harm to people living near privately controlled projects as environmental reviews could be bypassed, leading to potential increases in pollution or habitat destruction.
- Residents near these projects might experience changes in their local environment that affect their wellbeing, such as noise, air quality, or loss of natural beauty.
- The changes could be especially impactful for individuals in rural areas or areas with a high amount of industrial or resource extraction activities, where federal oversight is often seen as a protective measure.
Simulated Interviews
Local Wildlife Protector (Rural Kentucky)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm deeply concerned about how this affects our environment.
- Without oversight, there's a risk of pollution that can harm wildlife.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Construction Manager (Suburban Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Less regulation can speed up projects, but I worry about cutting corners on safety.
- Environmental impacts should be considered thoroughly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Urban California)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a step backwards for environmental protection.
- We need rigorous reviews to make informed decisions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Ranch Owner (Rural Montana)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about potential contamination of our water source.
- This policy might make it harder to hold companies accountable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Rural Pennsylvania)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might mean more business but at what environmental cost?
- I hope the community isn't negatively affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 3 |
Public Policy Student (Urban New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this one set a dangerous precedent.
- We need more environmental oversight, not less.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Retired Farmer (Rural Nebraska)
Age: 66 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We must preserve our environment for future generations.
- It's concerning to think of the potential pollution impacts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Tech Industry Worker (Urban Portland)
Age: 24 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about nature being accessible and protected.
- This policy might reduce protections around outdoor spaces I love.
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 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Environmental Health Specialist (Suburban Oregon)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need to assess all potential health impacts thoroughly.
- This policy might allow overlooked risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 5 |
Community Leader (Rural Alabama)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Growth is important, but not if it harms our local environment.
- This policy might lead to unchecked development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 3: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 5: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 10: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $12000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- Potential reduction in environmental protection due to decreased oversight could result in higher cleanup or public health costs in the long term.
- Financial benefits may be realized mostly by private developers whereas costs might be externalized to public health and environmental sectors.
- Short-term economic boosts might mask long-term environmental degradation costs.