PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 6, 2005
National Private Well Protection Act of 2005 - Requires any private property owner whose property includes a well that has fewer than 15 service connections and does not regularly serve at least 25 individuals for at least 60 days each year to: (1) conduct tests on such wells to determine the level of contaminants in the well water; (2) disclose the results of such tests to any prospective buyer or lessee of the property; and (3) provide the results of such tests to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Allows civil remedies and penalties for nondisclosure of test results to prospective buyers or lessees or to the EPA.
Requires the EPA Administrator to collect, compile, and maintain the results of such tests and make them available to the public.
People & committees
Rep. Andrews, Robert E. [D-NJ-1] · D–NJ
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 Environment and Hazardous Materials.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 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.3977 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.3977 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.3977 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.3977 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.