Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Authorizes the NASA Administrator to enter into an agreement, for up to five years, to reimburse the Town of Chincoteague, Virginia, for costs directly tied to removing drinking water wells on NASA-administered property and establishing replacement wells on town-controlled property. The agreement must, where practicable, provide for removal/relocation of three remaining wells, describe the relocation site, and include a current estimated cost covering property, engineering, permitting, and construction.
Use of NASA authority/funds for local water infrastructure
Local, narrow, noncontroversial text favors House committee clearance and floor consideration as a routine member-directed measure.
Authorizes the NASA Administrator to enter into an agreement, for up to five years, to reimburse the Town of Chincoteague, Virginia, for costs directly tied to removing drinking water wells on NASA-administered property and establishing replacement wells on town-controlled property.
The agreement must, where practicable, provide for removal/relocation of three remaining wells, describe the relocation site, and include a current estimated cost covering property, engineering, permitting, and construction.
Any agreement must be submitted to the House Science and Senate Commerce Committees within 18 months of enactment.
Very narrow, local, and noncontroversial, so feasible; uncertainty about funding authority and absent appropriation language reduces near-term certainty.
How solid the drafting looks.
Use of NASA authority/funds for local water infrastructure
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Use of NASA authority/funds for local water infrastructure
Likely supportive because the bill remedies contaminated drinking water, protects public health, and makes a federal actor address contamination on its property.
Would want assurances of transparency, full remediation, and protections for vulnerable residents.
May press for environmental monitoring and that costs not fall to low-income households.
Generally favorable toward resolving a concrete public-health problem, but cautious about precedent and budgeting details.
Wants clarity on funding source, oversight, and assurance NASA mission budgets aren't unduly affected.
Sees congressional notification as a helpful accountability step.
Skeptical because it authorizes a federal science agency to spend on local water infrastructure, raising concerns about mission creep and federal spending.
Would prefer local, state, or responsible party pay, unless funding comes from an appropriate non-NASA source.
May accept limited relief with strict oversight and cost-sharing.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow, local, and noncontroversial, so feasible; uncertainty about funding authority and absent appropriation language reduces near-term certainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Use of NASA authority/funds for local water infrastructure
Very narrow, local, and noncontroversial, so feasible; uncertainty about funding authority and absent appropriation language reduces near-t…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Contaminated Wells Relocation Act.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.