Bill Overview
Title: STREAM Act
Description: This bill allows a state to set aside up to 30% of its annual grant for abandoned mine reclamation provided under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act for the treatment and abatement of acid mine drainage, which is the release of acidic water from abandoned coal mines.
Sponsors: Sen. Casey, Robert P., Jr. [D-PA]
Target Audience
Population: People living in areas affected by acid mine drainage from abandoned mines
Estimated Size: 3000000
- Acid mine drainage is prevalent in regions with a history of coal mining.
- The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides grants for abandoned mine reclamation, indicating a nationwide scope as coal mining occurred across multiple states in the U.S.
- Abating acid mine drainage improves water quality, which benefits ecosystems, local communities, and agricultural sectors relying on clean water.
- The act affects both current residents in areas near abandoned mines and future generations who will benefit from restored ecosystems.
Reasoning
- The policy is likely to have a high impact on individuals living close to previously active coal mining areas, especially in states like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky, where acid mine drainage is most prevalent.
- Individuals in agricultural and fishing industries within these areas may also experience positive impacts over time if water quality improves, though the immediate effect might be low or medium.
- Residents who are not directly involved in agriculture or water use directly from affected streams may experience very low or negligible impact from the policy.
- Given the funding cap and predicted 10-year expenditure, the policy might only cover a portion of affected sites and not every individual within affected zones will experience a change immediately or significantly.
- Some individuals may not report significant changes in Cantril well-being if their daily life and economic activities are not intertwined with these environmental improvements.
Simulated Interviews
Retired coal miner (West Virginia)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen these waters go from clear to murky over my lifetime. The policy could help restore some of that old purity.
- My family would benefit from cleaner water, especially for my grandchildren's future.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Agricultural worker (Pennsylvania)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Water quality directly impacts our crops. I'm hopeful this policy will help reduce contaminants.
- It could mean more stable income if crop quality improves.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Ecologist (Ohio)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a critical step for ecological restoration.
- Even though my studies might show results over decades, it offers hope for the environment and improves our understanding of mitigation.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Retired teacher (Kentucky)
Age: 67 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Mine-related pollution has been a sore topic for years. Any effort to remediate these areas is welcomed.
- The policy might boost community morale and health.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Tech industry worker (Oregon)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm supportive of such policies, I don't expect it to affect me directly.
- I hope it brings more good than harm.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Local business owner (West Virginia)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved stream quality could boost tourism, which is good for my business.
- I'm excited to see environmental restoration efforts in the area.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
College student (Ohio)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm eager to see policies like these in action during my career.
- It would be nice to spend more summers by clean rivers with my family.
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 | 10 | 5 |
Local government official (Pennsylvania)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Effective use of the policy could demonstrate success in collaborative environmental improvement.
- I feel responsible for seeing these changes through to fruition.
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 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Fisherman (Kentucky)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Cleaner waters mean more fish, which is essential for my trade and local biodiversity.
- This could show how important preserving nature is for future businesses.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
School teacher (West Virginia)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial for the younger generation to see proactive change in their environment.
- I can teach with real-life examples of positive impact from policies.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $155000000 (Low: $105000000, High: $205000000)
Year 3: $160000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $210000000)
Year 5: $170000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $220000000)
Year 10: $190000000 (Low: $140000000, High: $240000000)
Year 100: $300000000 (Low: $200000000, High: $400000000)
Key Considerations
- The reliance on existing grant structures might cushion any notable increase in federal expenditure projections.
- State-level implementation and prioritization play critical roles in the program’s success and cost-efficiency.
- There will likely be wide variability in costs due to differing state needs and reclamation strategies.