Gary Palmer (R-AL)
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Improvements (LCRI)".
A Republican resolution with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This joint resolution aims to provide congressional disapproval of a specific rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency. The rule in question relates to "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Improvements (LCRI)." If passed, the resolution would ensure that the rule has no force or effect.
Yes
- Scored +2
Does this leave more decisions to the states?
The disapproval of a federal EPA rule reduces federal regulatory authority over water standards.
- Scored +1
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The resolution prevents the implementation of new EPA regulations which would likely reduce future federal oversight and associated administrative costs.
The opposite· 3 of 8
- Scored -5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill stops the EPA from implementing stricter standards to reduce lead and copper in drinking water, thereby weakening environmental protections.
- Scored -4
Would children be better off under this?
Weakening lead and copper water regulations can negatively impact child health due to the heightened risks of lead exposure.
- Scored -3
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Urban areas with older water systems may see a decline in water safety standards due to the reversal of these EPA improvements.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- There are no specific positive impacts or benefits for individuals or groups of people explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- There are no specific negative impacts or burdens for individuals or groups of people explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Weakening lead and copper water regulations can negatively impact child health due to the heightened risks of lead exposure. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban areas with older water systems may see a decline in water safety standards due to the reversal of these EPA improvements. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Water infrastructure issues often disproportionately impact minority communities, and removing protections may exacerbate these disparities. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Removing water safety regulations can have a negative impact on the health of Hispanic communities in areas with aging water systems. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Lowering water quality standards can lead to higher long-term health risks for low-income populations residing in areas with older infrastructure.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill stops the EPA from implementing stricter standards to reduce lead and copper in drinking water, thereby weakening environmental protections.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The disapproval of a federal EPA rule reduces federal regulatory authority over water standards.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — By nullifying the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements, the bill removes regulations designed to ensure cleaner drinking water, which is a fundamental component of public health access.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The resolution prevents the implementation of new EPA regulations which would likely reduce future federal oversight and associated administrative costs.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Reducing water quality standards can disproportionately affect low-income communities that rely on public water infrastructure.
- 1/13/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.