PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.3258 / 111th Congress

Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 179.

Official summary

Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Oct 23, 2009

Drinking Water System Security Act of 2009 - Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to revise and expand requirements for assessments by covered water systems of their vulnerability to intentional acts of sabotage. Defines "covered water system" as a public water system that is a community water system serving a population greater than 3,300 or that presents a security risk requiring the issuance of regulations.

Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in consultation with states and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), to issue regulations to: (1) establish tiered risk-based performance standards for the security of covered water systems and requirements and deadlines for such systems to conduct and update vulnerability assessments; (2) develop, implement, and revise site security and emergency response plans for such systems; and (3) provide annual training to system employees and contractor employees.

Authorizes the Administrator to designate any chemical substance as a substance of concern in issuing water system security standards.

Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.

Read full official summaryShow less

Requires the Administrator to provide covered water systems with baseline information about probable threats to disrupt the safe and reliable supply of water, cause a release of a substance of concern at the covered water system, or steal, misuse, or misappropriate a substance of concern.

Requires a covered water system under this Act to: (1) describe in its site security plan an assessment of methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act and the roles and responsibilities of employees in responding to an intentional act of sabotage; (2) submit its vulnerability assessment and site security plan to the Administrator for review; (3) correct any deficiency found in its assessment or plan; (4) prepare or revise its emergency response plan to incorporate the results of the most current vulnerability assessment and site security plan; and (5) maintain an updated copy of its vulnerability assessment, site security plan, and emergency response plan.

Requires the Administrator to: (1) audit and inspect covered water systems to determine compliance with this Act; (2) offer nonsupervisory employees of any system the opportunity to share information, on a confidential basis, about a system's compliance; and (3) take enforcement action, as appropriate, against states that fail to implement methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act at a covered water system.

Prohibits disclosure of protected information relating to the security of covered water systems. Exempts such information from Freedom of Information disclosure requirements. Imposes criminal penalties for unauthorized disclosure of protected information.

Exempts public water systems subject to this Act from regulation under certain DHS chemical facility anti-terrorism standards.

Allows states or local governments to impose security standards for drinking water systems that are more stringent than standards under this Act.

Imposes a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day on a covered water system that violates any requirement of this Act.

Requires the Administrator to submit a report every three years to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on progress in achieving compliance under this Act. Requires such report to be made publicly available.

Authorizes the Administrator to award grants to, or enter into cooperative agreements with: (1) states to implement this Act; (2) nonprofit organizations to provide research, training, and technical assistance to covered water systems; and (3) covered water systems to assist them in preparing and updating vulnerability assessments, site security plans, and emergency response plans and in assessing and implementing methods to reduce the consequences of the release of a substance of concern from an intentional act. Assigns priority for awarding grants to water systems that have the greatest need or pose the greatest security risk.

Directs the Administrator to award grants to nonprofit organizations for training and education of employees and first responders who would respond to an intentional act of sabotage at a covered water system.

Authorizes appropriations for FY2011 for administrative costs and to implement methods to reduce the consequences of a chemical release from an intentional act at covered water systems, and for FY2012-FY2015 generally. Prohibits funding for basic security enhancements from including expenditures for personnel costs or monitoring, operation, or maintenance of facilities, equipment, or systems.

Requires the Administrator: (1) to promulgate final regulations within two years after the enactment of this Act; and (2) in consultation with the DHS Secretary, to study and report to Congress on the threat of contamination of drinking water being distributed through public water systems, including fire main systems.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Waxman, Henry A. [D-CA-30] · D–CA

Committees

  • Energy and Commerce Committee
10 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 179.

  2. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 111-313.

  3. Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 111-313.

  4. Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.

  5. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  6. Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .

  7. Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  8. Subcommittee Hearings Held.

  9. Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.

  10. Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.

  11. Introduced in House

  12. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 27, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.3258 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.3258 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.3258 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.3258 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.

View full prompt & sources