Skip to main content

Legislation introduced September 22 by the top Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee would significantly expand EPA’s authority to establish drinking water regulations and impose new regulatory requirements on drinking water systems, among many other provisions.

Sponsored by Energy and Commerce Committee ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Environment and the Economy Subcommittee ranking member Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), the “Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 2016” (H.R. 6116) would overhaul the SDWA for the first time since Congress enacted the 1996 amendments 20 years ago.  But the bill has no Republican support and contains many provisions that would pose serious concerns to AMWA and other water sector stakeholders.  As a result, the bill has little chance of seeing floor action in the foreseeable future.

The bill would make several changes to EPA’s process for regulating drinking water contaminants under SDWA, such as directing EPA to establish primary drinking water regulations for any contaminant that “may have any adverse effect on the health of persons and which is known or anticipated [emphasis added] to occur in public water systems.”  In comparison, current law requires regulations when there is a “substantial likelihood” that a contaminant will occur in water systems “with a frequency and at levels of public health concern.”  The proposal also eliminates the current requirement that EPA determine that a new drinking water regulation would present a “meaningful opportunity” for health risk reduction.

H.R. 6116 would require EPA to publish a new contaminant candidate list every three years (rather than every five years currently), and make regulatory determinations on at least 10 contaminants on the list (up from five contaminants currently).  Drinking water regulations would have to be issued on an expedited basis for perchlorate, prefluorinated compounds, microcystins, and lead and copper.  And the revised Lead and Copper Rule (which would be due nine months after the bill’s enactment) would have to require the eventual replacement of all lead service lines, with utilities responsible for the cost of replacing service lines on both public and private property.

The bill would also substantially change Section 1433 of SDWA, which was enacted through the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 and required community water systems to complete vulnerability assessments examining risks of terrorist attacks.  Utilities would be required to complete new vulnerability assessments every five years that also consider risks posed by industrial activities near sourcewaters and climate change.  As part of this recurring analysis, a utility would have to investigate “alternative disinfection methods” and make a “determination” of whether such alternatives could reduce threats to the utility.  While a utility would not be required to implement any alternative disinfection method, the requirement resembles earlier proposals that would have utilities investigate so-called “inherently safer technologies” in place of gaseous chlorine disinfection.

Other parts of the legislation reflect bills Democrats have introduced on Capitol Hill in recent years, some of which AMWA helped draft or have otherwise attracted AMWA’s support.  These include:

  • A five-year, $500 million grant program that would help communities and low-income individuals replace lead service lines.  This appears based on a bill from Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) which AMWA endorsed and recently passed the Senate as part of that chamber’s WRDA bill.
  • A five-year, $250 million “Drinking Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Program” offers competitive grants to help public water systems undertake projects to adapt to global climate change. This closely resembles the “Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act,” which AMWA worked with Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) to develop.
  • Several reforms to the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program, such as redefining “disadvantaged communities” to include portions of a water utility’s service area (rather than the entire service area), giving additional weight to DWSRF applications from utilities that have completed asset management plans, and requiring states to give additional priority to projects that will help water systems protect public health “affordably in the future” – which is intended to increase DWSRF availability for projects in communities that are currently in compliance with SDWA’s water quality standards.  The bill also reauthorizes the DWSRF program at more than $21 billion over five years.

Other details about the bill can be found in a section-by-section summary developed by the bill’s sponsors.  AMWA will closely monitor future action on H.R. 6116, but realistically the bill has little chance of receiving a vote in the House as long as Republicans continue to hold the chamber’s majority.