The bill authorizes the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to enter into agreements of up to five years with the Town of Chincoteague, Virginia, to reimburse costs directly tied to removing drinking water wells located on property administered by NASA and establishing replacement wells on property controlled by the town. Agreements must, to the extent practicable, provide for removal and relocation of the three remaining wells, identify relocation sites, and include a current cost estimate covering property, engineering, permitting, and construction.
The statute requires the Administrator to submit any such agreement to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology within 18 months. For practitioners this is a narrowly targeted federal authorizing vehicle: it creates an explicit reimbursement authority tied to NASA‑administered land but does not itself appropriate funds, and it may set a limited precedent for agency reimbursement of local infrastructure costs tied to federal property or operations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes NASA’s Administrator to enter agreements (up to five years) to reimburse Chincoteague for removing wells on land administered by NASA and for establishing replacement wells on town‑controlled land, including costs for site acquisition, design, permitting, and construction.
Who It Affects
Directly affects the Town of Chincoteague and its residents, NASA (as the entity authorized to reimburse), engineering and construction contractors who would perform the relocation work, and the congressional committees that will receive copies of any agreement.
Why It Matters
This is a targeted, project‑level authorization that addresses a local public‑health and infrastructure problem tied to federal land; it clarifies one agency’s authority to reimburse a municipality for well relocation but leaves questions about funding, environmental review, and interagency coordination unresolved.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a single, focused authority: the NASA Administrator may negotiate and enter agreements with the Town of Chincoteague for reimbursement of costs tied to removing drinking water wells that sit on property administered by NASA and for creating alternative wells on land under the town’s control. That reimbursement authority can run for up to five years and is limited to costs “directly associated” with developing a removal plan and establishing replacement wells.
When negotiating an agreement, NASA must, to the extent practicable, cover removal and relocation of three specifically identified remaining wells and produce a description of the intended relocation site. The bill requires an upfront, current estimate of relocation costs, explicitly calling out potential line items—purchase or lease of additional property, engineering and design, permitting, and construction—so the parties have a baseline financial plan.
Procedurally, the bill imposes a transparency step: within 18 months of enactment the Administrator must submit any entered agreement to the designated congressional committees. The statute defines those committees (Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation; House Science, Space, and Technology) but does not create a separate federal funding account or appropriate money; in practice, payment will depend on the availability of funds and how NASA implements the authority.
Operationally, the projects the bill contemplates will require standard project delivery tasks—site selection on town property (via purchase, lease, or easement), engineering, permitting with state and local regulators, and construction—which creates near‑term workload for municipal staff and contractors and coordination points for NASA and other federal or state entities involved in water quality and land use compliance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Administrator of NASA may enter agreements of up to five years to reimburse Chincoteague for costs tied to removing wells on NASA‑administered property and establishing replacements on town‑controlled land.
The bill explicitly references removal and relocation of the three remaining wells and requires, 'to the extent practicable,' that an agreement provide for those relocations.
Agreements must include a description of the relocation site and a current estimated cost that can include property acquisition or leasing, engineering and design, permitting, and construction.
The Administrator must submit any agreement entered under this authority to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology within 18 months of enactment.
The statute authorizes reimbursement authority tied to NASA‑administered property and town‑controlled replacement sites but does not itself appropriate funds for payment.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name, the 'Contaminated Wells Relocation Act.' This is purely stylistic but signals the bill’s narrow focus on relocating drinking water wells tied to contamination concerns on federal land administered by NASA.
Authority to enter reimbursement agreements
Gives the NASA Administrator express authority—'notwithstanding any other provision of law'—to enter into one or more agreements with the Town of Chincoteague for up to five years to reimburse costs directly associated with developing a removal plan and establishing replacement wells. The 'notwithstanding' clause broadens NASA’s flexibility to negotiate exceptions to conflicting rules where necessary, but it does not create an appropriation or specify a funding source.
Agreement content requirements
Requires each agreement, to the extent practicable, to cover the removal/relocation of the three remaining wells, identify the planned relocation site, and provide a current estimated cost. The statute lists typical project cost categories—property purchase/lease, engineering, permitting, construction—giving negotiators clear items to include and creating a documented cost baseline for Congress and auditors.
Congressional reporting requirement
Commands the Administrator to submit any agreement entered under subsection (a) to the two named congressional committees within 18 months of enactment. This creates a fixed transparency checkpoint and gives those committees an opportunity to review the agreement’s substance and cost estimates.
Definition of appropriate committees
Defines 'appropriate committees of Congress' narrowly as the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. That choice limits formal congressional oversight channels to the science/space policy committees rather than, for example, appropriations or homeland/security committees.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Town of Chincoteague, Virginia — Gains a contractual path to be reimbursed for planning, removing, and relocating wells on NASA‑administered land, reducing direct fiscal exposure for this specific infrastructure project.
- Chincoteague residents served by the affected wells — Stand to receive safer, municipally controlled drinking water sources when replacement wells are established on town‑controlled property.
- Local engineering and construction firms — May receive new contracts for site selection, design, permitting, and well construction tied to the relocation project.
- Federal oversight committees — Obtain structured visibility into the agreement via the required submission, enabling targeted review of costs and project scope.
Who Bears the Cost
- NASA program budgets — Will bear administrative responsibility for negotiating and potentially funding reimbursable costs, which could divert funds from other NASA priorities unless Congress provides targeted appropriations.
- Congress/Taxpayers — If NASA uses appropriated funds to reimburse the town, the fiscal impact ultimately falls on federal appropriations and taxpayers; the bill does not provide a designated appropriation.
- Town of Chincoteague — Must still manage project delivery, secure permits, and potentially front costs before reimbursement; municipal cashflow and staff capacity are exposed during implementation.
- State and local permitting authorities — Face additional workload processing permits and site approvals for replacement wells and associated construction activity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between addressing a pressing local public‑health and infrastructure problem by directing a federal agency to reimburse a municipality, and preserving clear fiscal and legal boundaries for federal spending and agency obligations: the bill authorizes reimbursement and flexible negotiation but leaves funding, environmental and contracting constraints, and long‑term liabilities unclear.
The statute creates an authorization but stops short of an appropriation. That gap matters: authorization allows NASA to enter agreements, but actual payments will depend on whether Congress provides funds or NASA reallocates existing resources.
The bill’s 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' language broadens negotiating authority but also raises implementation questions about which legal constraints NASA can lawfully waive—especially where environmental review, interagency land use rules, or contracting statutes are implicated.
Operationally, the bill leaves several practical questions unresolved. It requires a 'current estimated cost' but does not prescribe a method for cost validation, dispute resolution, or caps on reimbursable expenses.
The phrase 'to the extent practicable' gives NASA discretion about whether to include the three remaining wells, which could become a point of contention if stakeholders disagree on practicability. Finally, while the bill anticipates relocation to town‑controlled land (lease, ownership, or easement), it does not address longer‑term responsibilities—such as maintenance, monitoring, or future liability—after relocation is complete.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.