PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 19, 2009
Water System Adaptation Partnerships Act of 2009 - Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make grants to water systems to assist in planning, designing, constructing, implementing, or maintaining any program, strategy, or infrastructure improvement to: (1) conserve water or increase water use efficiency; (2) carry out water metering to measure water efficiency effectiveness of a water efficiency program; (3) preserve or improve water quality; (4) enhance water management by increasing source water preservation and protection, or natural or engineered green infrastructure, in the management, conveyance, or treatment of water, wastewater, or stormwater; (5) increase energy efficiency or the use and generation of renewable energy in the management, conveyance, or treatment of water, wastewater, or stormwater; (6) support the adoption and use of advanced water treatment, water supply management, or water demand management technologies or processes that maintain or increase water supply or improve water quality; (7) complete studies or assessments to project how climate change may impact the future operations and sustainability of the water system; or (8) carry out any other activity or project to address any ongoing or forecasted climate-related impact on the water quality or quantity of a region of the United States that increases the resiliency of a water system to the impacts of climate change.
Sets forth grant application requirements. Requires the Administrator to conduct a competitive process to select and fund applications, giving priority to applications that: (1) are submitted by water systems that are at the greatest and most immediate risk of facing significant climate-related negative impacts; (2) will impact the largest numbers of water users; and (3) will provide the greatest benefit per dollar expended. Limits the federal share to 50% of the cost.
People & committees
Rep. Capps, Lois [D-CA-23] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to House Energy and Commerce
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House 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.2969 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.2969 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.2969 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.2969 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.