Bill Overview
Title: Relief for Farmers Hit with PFAS Act
Description: This bill directs the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a grant program to help states address contamination by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as PFAS, on agricultural land and commercial farms. The bill also requires USDA to establish a task force to provide (1) advice regarding whether addressing PFAS contamination should be added as an eligible activity for each USDA program, and (2) technical assistance to states in addressing PFAS contamination.
Sponsors: Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1]
Target Audience
Population: Farmers and communities affected by PFAS contamination
Estimated Size: 2000000
- PFAS contamination is a global issue affecting agricultural land in many countries.
- Farmers worldwide may face land usability issues due to PFAS contamination and could benefit from such a relief concept.
- Contamination can affect food safety and environmental health affecting not only farmers but also consumers relying on agricultural products.
Reasoning
- The $1,000,000,000 initial budget is significant but will need to be distributed among potentially 2 million affected farmers. Therefore, individual impacts may vary widely based on grant allocation success and extent of PFAS contamination.
- The policy's immediate impact will likely be more noticeable among farmers directly dealing with PFAS contamination, especially those with negligible financial means to remediate their lands.
- Certain segments of the population may see no change due to lack of direct PFAS impact or existing sufficient remedial measures independent of this federal assistance.
- While farmers will be the primary beneficiaries, other community members such as agricultural suppliers, rural consumers, and environmental advocates might also experience indirect benefits.
- Given the long-term nature of land remediation and government processes, notable improvements in well-being could take substantial time to manifest.
Simulated Interviews
Corn Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The grant could offer us the financial backing to finally address the contamination affecting my yields.
- I hope the task force isn't just another bureaucratic step but actually provides real solutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Organic Vegetable Farmer (Pennsylvania)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- For a small operation like ours, such a grant could be pivotal in maintaining our organic certification.
- I am cautious about how the funds will be allocated and whether small farms will really benefit.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental Scientist (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could increase demand for mine and others' consultancy services.
- While farmers benefit financially, the environment and public health stand to gain the most.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired Farmer (Georgia)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I won't personally benefit, it reassures me to know current farmers have support instruments.
- The task force should work to prevent future contamination occurrences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Water Management Specialist (Texas)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better management of PFAS will directly lower costs and public health risks associated with rural water treatment.
- This policy might allocate more resources to water filtration systems.
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 |
Poultry Farmer (North Carolina)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We are at significant risk of losing entire sections of arable land to contamination.
- This policy could determine the future viability of many in our community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Agricultural Policy Analyst (Florida)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a significant step toward better resource management and contamination control.
- I hope the task force has clear accountability measures.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cattle Rancher (Michigan)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Difficult to treat contamination could severely impact exports and overall farm viability.
- The policy could provide crucial developments in the science of PFAS mitigation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Soybean Farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 2
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The potential financial relief could be a lifeline after a tough few years.
- I'm hopeful the task force will bring better monitoring across our state.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Rural Community Educator (Ohio)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This grant could spark renewed focus on sustainable practices in rural education programs.
- The task force needs to include educators to maximize community impact.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000000 (Low: $800000000, High: $1200000000)
Year 2: $1050000000 (Low: $840000000, High: $1260000000)
Year 3: $1100000000 (Low: $880000000, High: $1320000000)
Year 5: $1200000000 (Low: $960000000, High: $1440000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The scale at which PFAS contamination affects different agricultural regions in the US could influence cost variability.
- Remediation techniques and their applicability to different levels of contamination may impact costs.
- The effectiveness of the task force's advice could lower future costs by increasing the efficiency of USDA programs.