Bill Overview
Title: Legacy Mine Cleanup Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes the Office of Mountains, Deserts, and Plains within the Environmental Protection Agency. The office must address abandoned hardrock mines, including by (1) establishing and annually updating a list of abandoned hardrock mine sites that are prioritized for response actions, and (2) updating every five years an interagency plan to carry out response actions at Navajo Nation abandoned uranium mine sites.
Sponsors: Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ]
Target Audience
Population: People living in communities near abandoned hardrock and uranium mines
Estimated Size: 500000
- Abandoned mines, especially hardrock and uranium mines, are often located in rural and economically disadvantaged areas where populations might rely on local water sources that could be contaminated.
- The Navajo Nation and other Indigenous communities often live in close proximity to abandoned uranium mines, which can impact their health and environment due to contamination risks.
- People living near abandoned mines can suffer from health issues due to exposure to heavy metals and other contaminants from mine sites.
- Environmental cleanup can improve local ecosystems that rural populations depend on for agriculture and recreation.
- Reduction in contamination can have broad health impacts, reducing medical costs and improving quality of life for local residents.
Reasoning
- The main target demographic for this policy includes populations living near abandoned mines, particularly in rural and economically disadvantaged areas of the western United States.
- The policy is expected to have a higher impact on Navajo Nation and Indigenous communities who have been historically affected by uranium mining.
- Many communities in close proximity to abandoned mines suffer health issues and environmental degradation, making cleanup efforts potentially beneficial in enhancing their quality of life.
- Not all individuals in these communities will be directly affected, but those reliant on local contaminated water sources or ecosystems for agriculture may benefit significantly.
- Infrastructure improvements from cleanup may take years to manifest, meaning the Cantril wellbeing scores might display gradual increases over time as opposed to immediate jumps. Consequently, I included impacts with differing durations and intensities.
Simulated Interviews
Local community activist (Gallup, New Mexico)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy brings much-needed attention and resources to our community. We've been dealing with the legacy of these mines for too long.
- It's vital for the health of our kids and environment to get these sites cleaned up.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Rancher (Farmington, Navajo Nation)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If the cleanup starts soon, it could really help keep our water clean, which is crucial for my ranch.
- It's about time someone does something—many of my neighbors have been waiting for years.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Environmental scientist (Durango, Colorado)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this is a critical step in making things right environmentally. It's not just about our human communities, but also the ecosystems that suffer.
- Properly funded, this policy can ensure scientific monitoring for years.
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 | 9 | 7 |
Retired miner (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy can help prevent future generations from dealing with the consequences of what we didn't realize was dangerous back then.
- It might not change my life drastically at this age, but it's crucial for my grandkids.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Urban planner (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is interesting from a planning perspective, showcasing a commitment to community health and sustainability.
- Direct impact might be limited in urban areas, but indirectly it raises awareness.
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 | 7 | 7 |
Local government official (Helena, Montana)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could greatly relieve the local governments of some responsibilities and financial burdens in cleanup efforts.
- It may also improve public health and environmental conditions.
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 |
Public health researcher (Salt Lake City, Utah)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy could lessen the health disparities we see in these areas.
- Cleaner environments mean fewer hospital visits, which is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Farmer (Santa Fe, New Mexico)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could be a lifesaver if it indeed cleans up local water supplies.
- I've lost crops to pollution-related issues before; it can't happen again.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Student (Billings, Montana)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this as a case study of how environmental policies can drive change.
- It's what I'm studying and hope to impact after graduation.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Geologist (Flagstaff, Arizona)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative is more ambitious than realistic without proper budgeting.
- Cleanups might be underestimated both in cost and time.
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 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $41600000, High: $62400000)
Year 3: $54080000 (Low: $43264000, High: $64896000)
Year 5: $58320000 (Low: $46656000, High: $69984000)
Year 10: $66512832 (Low: $53210266, High: $79815400)
Year 100: $411884404 (Low: $329507523, High: $494261285)
Key Considerations
- The initial costs for establishing the office and developing interagency plans will be substantial but necessary for successful program execution.
- Given the evolving nature of environmental cleanup science, costs may increase as the scope of work expands or additional contamination is discovered.
- Coordination with state, local, and tribal governments will be critical to effectively manage and execute cleanup efforts.