S-4536-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
What it does
This bill would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to expand the eligible uses of grants under the existing Midsize and Large Drinking Water System Infrastructure Resilience and Sustainability Program. Specifically, it would add "extreme temperatures" — both heat and cold — as a covered hazard alongside the already-eligible categories of natural hazards and extreme weather events. It would also extend the program's authorization period from 2022–2026 to 2027–2032.
Who benefits
Residents served by midsize and large drinking water systems who face infrastructure risks from extreme heat or cold, including pipe bursts during freezes or equipment failures during heat waves. Water utilities and municipal water authorities that would gain access to a broader pool of grant funding. Communities in climate-variable regions — such as the Sun Belt, which experienced widespread water system failures during the 2021 Texas winter storm — that may be especially vulnerable. Construction and engineering firms contracted to upgrade water infrastructure. State drinking water agencies that administer the grants.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who fund the underlying grant program, to the extent the reauthorization increases federal spending. Smaller water systems (serving fewer customers) that remain ineligible for this specific program and would not benefit from the expanded categories. Competing federal grant programs or other infrastructure priorities that may receive less attention or funding if resources shift toward this program. Grant applicants focused on other hazard categories (e.g., flooding, seismic) who may face more competition for the same pool of funds.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that extreme temperature events — both record heat waves and severe winter freezes — have exposed critical vulnerabilities in U.S. drinking water infrastructure, most visibly during the 2021 Texas winter storm that left millions without safe water for days. They contend that the current program's omission of "extreme temperatures" as a named hazard creates an unnecessary gap in eligibility, and that extending the authorization through 2032 ensures continuity of funding for long-term infrastructure planning that utilities cannot accomplish in short windows.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that "extreme temperatures" is already broadly implied by the existing categories of "natural hazards" and "extreme weather events," making this amendment largely redundant and potentially a vehicle for expanding program scope without a full congressional debate on funding levels or eligibility criteria. They contend that reauthorizing the program through 2032 without addressing the program's overall funding adequacy, oversight mechanisms, or demonstrated effectiveness simply extends a program whose outcomes have not been rigorously evaluated.