PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Feb 10, 2016
Safe Drinking Water Act Improved Compliance Awareness Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to require public water systems to notify their customers when a lead action level under national drinking water regulations is exceeded in more than 10% of customer taps sampled. (An action level is a level of contaminates which triggers a requirement for the public water system to take additional actions to control corrosion.) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must notify customers if the state or the public water system fails to notify the public within 24 hours of receiving notice from the EPA.
Community water systems' consumer confidence reports must include: (1) a definition of "action level," and (2) the action level for contaminants detected in water provided by the public water system.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The EPA must establish a strategic plan for conducting targeted outreach, education, technical assistance, and risk communication to populations affected by lead in the public water system.
EPA employees must forward to the public water system and to the state information indicating that drinking water contains lead that exceeds a lead action level. The public water system must then disseminate this information to its customers along with its potential adverse effects on human health, corrective steps underway, and advice on whether customers should seek alternative water supplies. If the public water system or the state fails to disseminate the information, the EPA must disseminate it as soon as reasonably possible.
(Sec. 3) The EPA must: (1) make information about lead in drinking water available to the public, and (2) carry out targeted outreach strategies that focus on educating groups that are at greater risk than the general population for adverse health effects from exposure to lead in drinking water.
People & committees
Rep. Kildee, Daniel T. [D-MI-5] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table 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): 416 - 2 (Roll no. 67). (text: CR H662-663)
House roll call 67 · Individual votesPassed/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): 416 - 2 (Roll no. 67).(text: CR H662-663)
House roll call 67 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H676-677)
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. 4470.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H662-668)
Mr. Upton moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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.4470 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.4470 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.4470 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.4470 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.