HR-10151-119
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Sponsored by Christopher Deluzio (D-PA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the Drinking Water Infrastructure Risk and Resilience Program for fiscal years 2028 and 2029, replacing an expired 2020-2021 authorization. It would double the funding caps for technical assistance (from $5 million to $10 million), grants for small water systems (from $10 million to $20 million), and the overall authorization of appropriations (from $25 million to $50 million).
Who benefits
Small and medium public water systems, particularly in rural and low-income communities, that would be eligible for increased technical assistance and grants to improve cybersecurity and resilience against risks like natural disasters and cyberattacks. Water utility operators and local governments that manage these systems would gain access to more federal support.
Who is hurt
No group is directly harmed by the funding increase itself, though federal taxpayers bear the cost of the expanded appropriations authorization. Larger water utilities that do not qualify as "small systems" would not benefit from the expanded grant pool, and other federal grant programs could face indirect competition for limited appropriations if Congress does not increase overall discretionary spending.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that cyberattacks and natural disasters targeting water infrastructure have increased significantly in recent years, and that small water systems often lack the technical staff and funding to defend against these threats. They contend that doubling grant caps and reauthorizing the program through 2029 ensures rural and underfunded utilities can access resources that have not kept pace with inflation or evolving risks since the program was last funded in 2021.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that doubling authorized funding levels without demonstrated need or updated cost-benefit analysis could represent an inefficient allocation of scarce federal resources, particularly since authorization of appropriations does not guarantee the funds will actually be spent effectively. They contend that Congress should require stronger accountability measures or performance metrics before expanding a program's funding ceiling, especially given competing infrastructure priorities.