Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
This bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to require testing and public reporting of nearby underground sources of drinking water in connection with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations for oil, gas, or geothermal production. It conditions underground injection authorizations on agreement to perform testing: baseline testing before injection, twice-yearly testing during operations, and annual testing for five years after operations stop.
Scope of federal authority vs. state primacy: conservatives see federal overreach; progressives welcome federal minimums.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear statutory amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act that prescribes specific testing schedules, sampling radii, laboratory certification, reporting timelines, and a public database, and it amends statutory provisions to condition underground injection on agreement to test and report.
This bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to require testing and public reporting of nearby underground sources of drinking water in connection with hydraulic fracturing (fracking) operations for oil, gas, or geothermal production.
It conditions underground injection authorizations on agreement to perform testing: baseline testing before injection, twice-yearly testing during operations, and annual testing for five years after operations stop.
Testing must be done by EPA-certified laboratories for contaminants the EPA determines indicate fracking-related damage; reports must be submitted to EPA within two weeks and published in a searchable public database by ZIP Code.
On content alone, the bill creates new, enforceable federal monitoring/reporting requirements tied to fracking—an area of high political salience and industry sensitivity. The proposal is administratively specific (which aids implementability) but offers few compromise features and would impose recurring costs, reducing bipartisan appeal and making enactment less likely without significant amendment or negotiated concessions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear statutory amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act that prescribes specific testing schedules, sampling radii, laboratory certification, reporting timelines, and a public database, and it amends statutory provisions to condition underground injection on agreement to test and report. It integrates cleanly into the existing section 1421 framework but leaves several operational and fiscal details to agency rulemaking without providing funding or explicit enforcement/verification mechanisms.
Scope of federal authority vs. state primacy: conservatives see federal overreach; progressives welcome federal minimums.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope of federal authority vs. state primacy: conservatives see federal overreach; progressives welcome federal minimums.
A mainstream progressive would likely view the bill positively as a public-health and environmental-protection measure that increases transparency and accountability around fracking.
The regular testing schedule, use of EPA-certified labs, and a public, searchable database would be seen as important safeguards for communities — especially those near operations.
They would regard the bill as a step toward preventing or documenting contamination of drinking-water sources and toward environmental justice for affected populations.
A moderate would see clear public-interest elements in the bill — baseline monitoring and transparency — but would also flag practical questions about costs, implementation, federal-state roles, and administrative capacity.
They would appreciate the EPA-certified labs requirement and the time-limited post-operation monitoring, but want clarity on who pays for testing, how the law interacts with existing state underground injection control programs, and how quickly EPA can process and publish data.
With some clarifying amendments (funding, clearer definitions, enforcement), a centrist is likely to support a revised bill.
A mainstream conservative would likely view the bill as an expansion of federal regulation into an area traditionally managed by states and industry standards, imposing potentially costly and duplicative testing and reporting requirements.
They would be concerned about increased compliance costs, delays to operations from added conditions, and broad EPA discretion to require testing for “any hazardous substance.” The searchable public database could be seen as inviting litigation or public pressure on lawful operations.
They might favor state-led oversight, narrower federal requirements, or voluntary/targeted testing instead.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, the bill creates new, enforceable federal monitoring/reporting requirements tied to fracking—an area of high political salience and industry sensitivity. The proposal is administratively specific (which aids implementability) but offers few compromise features and would impose recurring costs, reducing bipartisan appeal and making enactment less likely without significant amendment or negotiated concessions.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope of federal authority vs. state primacy: conservatives see federal overreach; progressives welcome federal minimums.
On content alone, the bill creates new, enforceable federal monitoring/reporting requirements tied to fracking—an area of high political sa…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear statutory amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act that prescribes specific testing schedules, sampling radii, laboratory certification, reporting timeline…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.