Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to remove the longstanding exemption for hydraulic fracturing from federal underground injection regulation, explicitly bringing fluids and propping agents used in oil, gas, or geothermal hydraulic fracturing within the Act’s scope.
It requires companies to disclose to the State (or EPA where the EPA is the primary enforcer) a list of chemicals intended for use before operations begin and a list of chemicals actually used within 30 days after operations end, including chemical identities, Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers, material safety data sheets when available, and volumes.
The State or EPA must make the disclosed chemical constituent information available to the public (e.g., via a website), but the text prohibits requiring public disclosure of proprietary chemical formulas.
By content alone, the bill is a focused regulatory reform with clear public-health framing and concrete implementation steps, which helps its prospects among supporters. However, it addresses a high-profile, divisive policy area (fracking), imposes compliance burdens on a well-organized industry, and expands federal oversight in a domain largely managed by states—factors that historically raise the difficulty of passing such measures, especially in a bicameral body requiring bipartisan agreement in the Senate. The absence of explicit appropriation language and likely strong opposition from affected sectors further reduce near-term odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and directly amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to remove the hydraulic fracturing exemption and establishes specific chemical disclosure requirements, with concrete data elements and short deadlines. It integrates into existing statutory provisions and contemplates proprietary formula handling in medical emergencies.
Whether federal SDWA jurisdiction is an appropriate remedy (liberal/centrist see federal baseline as needed; conservatives see federal overreach).
Whether federal SDWA jurisdiction is an appropriate remedy (liberal/centrist see federal baseline as needed; conservatives see federal overreach).
A mainstream liberal would likely view the bill positively as a federal corrective to a regulatory gap that exposed drinking water to risks and limited public knowledge about chemicals used in fracking.
They would welcome stronger transparency and emergency medical access to trade-secret information, and would see federal involvement as necessary where states have failed to protect communities.
At the same time they may judge the bill as a minimum standard and want stronger enforcement, more complete public disclosure of trade secrets in certain circumstances, and resources to implement the law effectively.
A centrist or moderate would generally view the bill as a reasonable move toward transparency and public health protection while trying to balance industry trade-secret concerns.
They would welcome a federal baseline in states that lack strong rules but would be attentive to implementation costs, administrative capacity, and legal clarity about federal-state roles.
They would likely want clearer provisions about enforcement, funding for states and EPA, and precise definitions to reduce litigation and unintended economic impacts.
A mainstream conservative would likely oppose the bill as an unnecessary expansion of federal authority into an industry often regulated at the state level and as an added regulatory burden on domestic energy producers.
They would be concerned that disclosure requirements and potential EPA enforcement could harm proprietary business information, raise compliance costs, and discourage investment and energy development.
Some conservatives might accept narrow, targeted transparency measures, but the overall removal of the SDWA exemption would be viewed as federal overreach.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
By content alone, the bill is a focused regulatory reform with clear public-health framing and concrete implementation steps, which helps its prospects among supporters. However, it addresses a high-profile, divisive policy area (fracking), imposes compliance burdens on a well-organized industry, and expands federal oversight in a domain largely managed by states—factors that historically raise the difficulty of passing such measures, especially in a bicameral body requiring bipartisan agreement in the Senate. The absence of explicit appropriation language and likely strong opposition from affected sectors further reduce near-term odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether federal SDWA jurisdiction is an appropriate remedy (liberal/centrist see federal baseline as needed; conservatives see federal over…
By content alone, the bill is a focused regulatory reform with clear public-health framing and concrete implementation steps, which helps i…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly and directly amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to remove the hydraulic fracturing exemption and establishes specific chemical disclosure requirements, with c…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.