Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
The bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to create a grant program for projects that reduce nitrate and arsenic in drinking water. Eligible recipients include community and certain noncommunity water systems, qualified nonprofits, municipalities, and state or intermunicipal agencies.
Support level: strong for progressives, modest for centrists, lukewarm for conservatives
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a focused grant authority to fund nitrate and arsenic reduction projects, including definitions, eligibility, priorities, a precondition for applicants, an administrative cost cap, and an explicit annual authorization amount.
The bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to create a grant program for projects that reduce nitrate and arsenic in drinking water.
Eligible recipients include community and certain noncommunity water systems, qualified nonprofits, municipalities, and state or intermunicipal agencies.
Grants prioritize disadvantaged communities, schools, daycares, and other vulnerable populations, and may fund treatment technology for low-income households.
Modest, targeted public-health grants have plausible bipartisan appeal, but enactment depends on appropriations and packaging with larger bills.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a focused grant authority to fund nitrate and arsenic reduction projects, including definitions, eligibility, priorities, a precondition for applicants, an administrative cost cap, and an explicit annual authorization amount. It also includes a required EPA review on equity considerations.
Support level: strong for progressives, modest for centrists, lukewarm for conservatives
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Support level: strong for progressives, modest for centrists, lukewarm for conservatives
Likely supportive because the bill targets environmental health hazards and prioritizes disadvantaged communities.
It advances environmental justice by funding treatment and prioritizing children and vulnerable populations.
The funding is modest, but the program's equity focus and low-income assistance align with progressive priorities.
Generally favorable because the bill targets a clear public-health problem with a narrowly tailored grant program and modest cost.
The preconditions and EPA equity review are sensible accountability measures.
Concerns will center on whether $15 million per year is adequate and how the program coordinates with existing state revolving funds.
Skeptical due to new federal spending and potential program duplication with state-run funds.
The modest authorization lowers fiscal concerns, but conservatives may object to federal prioritization criteria and perceived expansion of EPA-administered programs.
Some local officials might accept targeted grants for public-health needs, but many will prefer state or local control instead.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Modest, targeted public-health grants have plausible bipartisan appeal, but enactment depends on appropriations and packaging with larger bills.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Support level: strong for progressives, modest for centrists, lukewarm for conservatives
Modest, targeted public-health grants have plausible bipartisan appeal, but enactment depends on appropriations and packaging with larger b…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a focused grant authority to fund nitrate and arsenic reduction projects, including definitions, eligibility, priorities, a precondition for applicants, a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.