PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.See Title III of H.R. 2868 for further action.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 16, 2009
Wastewater Treatment Works Security Act of 2009 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to require each owner or operator of a treatment works that stores or uses a substance of concern in quantities deemed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to pose a security risk to conduct a vulnerability assessment of its treatment works, which shall include a site security plan to identify specific security enhancements.
Directs the Administrator to develop and publish guidelines for carrying out a vulnerability assessment and, in developing such guidelines, to: (1) develop standards for assigning individual treatment works to four risk-based classifications taking into consideration a works' size and proximity to large population centers and the potential impacts of intentional acts on public health or safety or the environment; (2) designate any chemical substance as a substance of concern; and (3) include a process for the revision, resubmission, and review of vulnerability assessments. Directs the Administrator to establish a threshold quantity for the release or theft of each such substance. Sets forth requirements and deadlines for assessment certification, submission, review, approval, and disclosure.
Authorizes the Administrator to make grants to a state, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency to conduct a vulnerability assessment of a publicly owned treatment works, to implement specified security enhancements to reduce identified vulnerabilities, and to provide for security-related training of treatment works employees and training for emergency response providers.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Administrator: (1) in coordination with the states, to provide technical guidance and assistance to small publicly owned treatment works on conducting a vulnerability assessment and implementation of security enhancements; and (2) to make grants to nonprofit organizations to assist in accomplishing purposes of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Johnson, Eddie Bernice [D-TX-30] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
See Title III of H.R. 2868 for further action.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.2883 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.2883 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.2883 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.2883 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.