Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

senate Bill S. 3197

Does the EPA Need to Regulate Noise Pollution?

Argument in favor

Noise pollution, especially when caused by airplanes, can damage people’s hearing over the long-term. The EPA is capable of effectively regulating noise pollution.

Dylan's Opinion
···
10/02/2016
This potentially could help regulate residential fracking.
Like (6)
Follow
Share
Lwalker13's Opinion
···
10/02/2016
I think there is a line. There's such a thing as a nuisance, and nuisance law. If the noise can be deemed such in a federal court I think that somebody should be able to take action for a community or individual. I'm not sure here but somebody needs to be able to take action against excessive noise. something along those lines. Precedence is needed
Like (4)
Follow
Share
JoshuaOchoa's Opinion
···
10/01/2016
Families can often be burdened with the amount of noise pollution from freeways, railroads, and airports. Working on retrying to reduce the amount of noise can help everyone equally.
Like (3)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The EPA shouldn’t have its responsibilities expanded to include noise pollution, as problems of that nature would be better handled by state and local governments.

Tiago's Opinion
···
10/02/2016
While I agree it would be a bit over the top for the EPA to regulate noise levels, the EPA is a necessity of the USA. Environmental Protection Agency - think about that phrase. Do you not want that? Do you want our environment to go to shit so that in the near future we can have wars over clean water? Do you want to have to find new, habitable land since our own is so trashed? Do you want our children and theirs to breathe putrid, polluted air? Are you so selfish you don't care in what conditions our future generations will live? We need the EPA; to abolish it would be to abolish humanity. If you answered no to any of these questions, the EPA should be something you care to keep.
Like (49)
Follow
Share
Keith's Opinion
···
10/02/2016
The EPA is unconstitutional and any action by this organization should be ignored.
Like (38)
Follow
Share
AngryInfidel's Opinion
···
10/02/2016
A better plan would be to shut down the EPA entirely!
Like (21)
Follow
Share

What is Senate Bill S. 3197?

This bill would establish an Office of Noise Abatement and Control within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that would be tasked with addressing noise pollution, including that caused by airplanes. The Office would conduct research on the impacts of noise and provide technical assistance and grants to communities for reducing noise pollution.

Noise pollution mitigation efforts would be required to focus on approaches that rely on state and local action, market incentives, and coordination with other public and private entities. A total of $1 million would be provided annually in each fiscal year from 2017 through 2021.

Under current law, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for mitigating airplane noise, though the EPA has in the past put forward noise pollution regulations.

Impact

People in areas that may benefit from noise pollution mitigation efforts; the Office of Noise Abatement and Control; and the EPA.

Cost of Senate Bill S. 3197

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) introduced this bill to help communities that find themselves in the flight path of busy airports and whose residents are subjected to incessant airplane noise:

“Communities in the New York metro area have long struggled with incessant airplane noise caused by the highly-trafficked skies above and it’s time we set up an office dedicated to tackling this issue head on. Airplane noise is a major quality of life issue and that’s why it makes sense for the EPA to take the lead role in addressing these matters. This legislation will once again set up an Office of Noise Abatement and Control at the EPA so that environmental experts can address airplane noise.”

This legislation has the support of one Senate cosponsor, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY).


Media:

Summary by Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Creative Commons)

AKA

Quiet Communities Act of 2016

Official Title

A bill to reestablish the Office of Noise Abatement and Control in the Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The house has not voted
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Environment and Public Works
    IntroducedJuly 13th, 2016
    This potentially could help regulate residential fracking.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    While I agree it would be a bit over the top for the EPA to regulate noise levels, the EPA is a necessity of the USA. Environmental Protection Agency - think about that phrase. Do you not want that? Do you want our environment to go to shit so that in the near future we can have wars over clean water? Do you want to have to find new, habitable land since our own is so trashed? Do you want our children and theirs to breathe putrid, polluted air? Are you so selfish you don't care in what conditions our future generations will live? We need the EPA; to abolish it would be to abolish humanity. If you answered no to any of these questions, the EPA should be something you care to keep.
    Like (49)
    Follow
    Share
    The EPA is unconstitutional and any action by this organization should be ignored.
    Like (38)
    Follow
    Share
    A better plan would be to shut down the EPA entirely!
    Like (21)
    Follow
    Share
    No more govt interference, don't move near airports. Why do we think that things we'd like need to be forced on others.
    Like (19)
    Follow
    Share
    Sounds like the old story of buying cheap land next to rail line. Really quiet until the train makes its run. This should/would be a city/state project. I believe if you buy a home next to a airport, noise is what you want. If you build a nice home next to a dairy, it's your bad. But if you live in a house and a asphalt company moves in next door. By all means, time to complain. May I say then…get your Federal outreach out of my back yard. And allowing the EPA to intervene is like pumping heavy metal mining sludge into your swimming pool.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    I generally support the EPA, but it is the ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency. Unless noise is harming the environment, noise pollution is not within its purview.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    I like what Countable member Jim2423 said: "The airports were build on the outskirts of cities to begin with. You knew or should have been told you are renting or buying a home within the flight path. Just like buying or renting a home near a dairy, you know it is going to stink." I also concur with everyone who believes that the EPA has gotten too big (and powerful) for its britches! Too many have had their Constitutional rights trampled on by this agency and, in fact, by the whole federal government, especially under the Obama Administration! "The best government is that which governs least." (Motto of United States Magazine and Democratic Review. First used in introductory essay by editor John L. O'Sullivan in the premier issue of October, 1837, p. 6)
    Like (10)
    Follow
    Share
    The EPA needs to disappear
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    All we need is more regulation!
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    The EPA has to much power already!
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    If the FAA is currently responsible for this, then why not just hold them responsible for doing so? Why create another department under the EPA. It just baffles me that rather than hold the responsible party accountable, the answer is always to create duplication and spend more money.
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    For God sake regulate the EPA they're the ones making all the noise that's stifling American growth!
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    Another major overreach of the Federal Government to control minor issues that they have absolutely no jurisdiction over.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Practically, (1) there is no money for new departments, (2) there is no constitutional authority for the EPA to unilaterally declare itself in charge of noise, and (3) there is no constitutional authority for the EPA in the first place. Philosophically, there is only a legitimate claim against pollution - noise or otherwise - insofar as a person, business, or organization can show material damages, and damages can already be pursued in court, ergo the entire EPA is simply redundant and therefore unnecessary.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Is this a legitimate bill?
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    First, get rid of the EPA. If that doesn't happen, then the EPA should stick to what they claim to know, the Environmental.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    The EPA has gotten entirely too powerful. They have regulated most of our businesses to death which is one reason many businesses are leaving the US. Give them less not more power.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    I think there is a line. There's such a thing as a nuisance, and nuisance law. If the noise can be deemed such in a federal court I think that somebody should be able to take action for a community or individual. I'm not sure here but somebody needs to be able to take action against excessive noise. something along those lines. Precedence is needed
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    EPA seems like the wrong agency.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE