PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Became Public Law No: 114-45.
Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Aug 7, 2015
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on February 24, 2015. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Drinking Water Protection Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to direct the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and submit to Congress a strategic plan for assessing and managing risks associated with algal toxins in drinking water provided by public water systems. Cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, have the ability to produce cyanotoxins, or algal toxins. When certain conditions are favorable, algae can rapidly multiply causing blooms, or dense surface scums, that may be toxic.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The plan must include steps and time lines to:
evaluate the risk to human health from drinking water contaminated with algal toxins;
establish, publish, and update a comprehensive list of algal toxins that may have an adverse effect on human health, taking into account likely exposure levels;
summarize the known adverse human health effects of algal toxins and the factors that cause toxin-producing cyanobacteria and algae to grow rapidly and make toxins;
determine whether to publish health advisories for algal toxins and establish guidance regarding feasible analytical methods to quantify the presence of algal toxins and guidance regarding the frequency of monitoring necessary to determine if the algal toxins are present;
recommend feasible treatment options, including procedures, equipment, and source water protection practices; and
enter into cooperative agreements with, and provide technical assistance to, affected states and public water systems to manage risks associated with algal toxins.
The EPA must update and resubmit the plan as appropriate.
The EPA must identify gaps in its understanding of algal toxins. It must also assemble and publish information from each agency that has examined or analyzed cyanobacteria or algal toxins or addressed public health concerns related to harmful algal blooms. The Government Accountability Office must submit to Congress an inventory of funds expended by the United States for each of FY2010 through 2014 to examine or analyze toxin-producing cyanobacteria and algae or address public health concerns related to harmful algal blooms. The inventory must include the specific purpose for which the funds were made available, the law under which the funds were authorized, and the agency that received or spent the funds.
People & committees
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 114-45.
Became Public Law No: 114-45.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S6348-6349)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.(consideration: CR S6348-6349)
Received in the Senate, read twice.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 375 - 37 (Roll no. 84). (text: CR H1094)
House roll call 84 · Individual votesMotion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 375 - 37 (Roll no. 84).(text: CR H1094)
House roll call 84 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H1100-1101)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 212.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H1094-1095)
Mr. Latta moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 18.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-26.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-26.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.212 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.212 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.212 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.212 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.