Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 149.
This bill authorizes the NASA Administrator to enter a up-to-five-year agreement to reimburse the Town of Chincoteague, Virginia, for costs directly associated with removing drinking water wells located on NASA-administered property and establishing replacement wells on town-controlled property. Agreements must, to the extent practicable, cover removal/relocation of three remaining wells, identify relocation sites, and include an estimated cost covering property, engineering, permitting, and construction.
Liberal emphasizes public-health remediation and federal accountability
Narrow local bill with modest fiscal impact but requires House scheduling and potential appropriation linkage.
This bill authorizes the NASA Administrator to enter a up-to-five-year agreement to reimburse the Town of Chincoteague, Virginia, for costs directly associated with removing drinking water wells located on NASA-administered property and establishing replacement wells on town-controlled property.
Agreements must, to the extent practicable, cover removal/relocation of three remaining wells, identify relocation sites, and include an estimated cost covering property, engineering, permitting, and construction.
Any such agreement must be submitted to specified Congressional committees within 18 months.
Local, narrow, low-controversy measure with modest fiscal implications; passage depends mainly on funding mechanism and floor scheduling in both chambers.
How solid the drafting looks.
Liberal emphasizes public-health remediation and federal accountability
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberal emphasizes public-health remediation and federal accountability
Likely broadly supportive: views the bill as targeted remediation for public health and environmental harms to a local community.
Sees federal accountability for wells on federal-administered land as appropriate, but may want stronger assurances on oversight and long-term environmental monitoring.
Generally supportive but cautious: sees the bill as a narrow, practical fix for a local public-health issue, while wanting clarity on budgetary effects, legal responsibility, and implementation details.
Would favor limits, transparency, and a clear funding mechanism.
Skeptical: likely sees this as a narrowly targeted federal expenditure or earmark that expands agency obligations, and questions why NASA rather than state or local authorities bears responsibility.
Would push for fiscal restraint, limited precedent, and local cost-sharing.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Local, narrow, low-controversy measure with modest fiscal implications; passage depends mainly on funding mechanism and floor scheduling in both chambers.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberal emphasizes public-health remediation and federal accountability
Local, narrow, low-controversy measure with modest fiscal implications; passage depends mainly on funding mechanism and floor scheduling in…
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.