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: Sen. Collins, Susan M. [R-ME]
Target Audience
Population: Farmers and agricultural workers impacted by PFAS contamination globally
Estimated Size: 2000000
- PFAS contamination affects agricultural lands which are prevalent worldwide.
- Farmers and agricultural workers globally are potentially impacted by PFAS contamination due to polluted soil and water sources.
- Countries with significant agricultural sectors might have larger populations affected by PFAS contamination.
Reasoning
- The policy targets farmers and agricultural workers, specifically those impacted by PFAS contamination. Since PFAS issues are often localized, not all farmers are affected, leading to a mixture of relevant perspectives.
- The budgetary constraint narrows the focus to significant but manageable projects and will not cover all needs simultaneously, leaving some impacted areas still unaddressed initially.
- Some farmers are not affected by PFAS and will show little to no change under the policy, especially in locations less impacted by industrial activity.
- For those directly affected, the task force and technical assistance aspects of the policy offer potential improvements in well-being as assistance becomes available.
- The commonness of PFAS-affected farmers in the larger subset of all US farmers affects their representation among interviews, considering that only a segment is severely impacted.
Simulated Interviews
Farm owner (Michigan)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been worried about the chemicals affecting our crops and water.
- This policy is the first sign of concrete help we've had.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Organic farm manager (California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the policy's importance but it doesn't directly affect my operation.
- It's frustrating to see resources not going towards bigger agricultural concerns.
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 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Dairy farmer (Iowa)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been cautious about the water we use on the farm.
- Help with this might secure our farm's future.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
New farmer on leased land (Vermont)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a great initiative for those who need it, but I don’t expect it will impact my current operation.
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 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Corn and soybean farmer (Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Finally, a policy that cares about contamination!
- It could mean safer crops and better sales long-term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Retired farmer, owner of farmland (Florida)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Rent issues are worrisome. If this helps tenants, it's good for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 2 |
Cattle rancher (Nebraska)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the effort, but it won't change my day-to-day work.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
City planner (New York)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy aligns with our city planning goals for rural sustainability.
- It's essential for the long-term health of agricultural communities.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Agricultural policy analyst (Tennessee)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is pivotal for areas heavily impacted by industry.
- We need ongoing support to prevent such issues from recurring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Environmental science professor (Washington)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The educational importance and awareness of PFAS will increase significantly.
- Such policies are crucial to understanding and mitigating contamination effects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 3: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 5: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The allocation of funds will need efficient management to ensure grants are used effectively to mitigate PFAS contamination.
- States and regions with higher industrial activity may require more immediate attention and resources.
- Long-term effectiveness will depend on the sustainability of the solutions implemented.