PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 21, 2005
Small System Safe Drinking Water Act of 2005 - Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): (1) to convene a working group to study barriers to using specified treatments; (2) to develop model guidance to assist states in regulating and promoting such treatment options; and (3) when proposing a national standard for drinking water that includes a maximum containment level, to translate health effects into the quantity of water an individual can consume and the timeframe that may elapse before the effects of a contaminate can occur.
Requires: (1) feasible technologies to reflect water sources from various regions of the United States; and (2) the Administrator to consider specified cost factors when establishing affordability criteria for variance technology.
Prohibits the Administrator or a state from enforcing a national primary drinking water regulation when: (1) variance technology is not identified in guidance or regulations for public water systems serving a population of less than 10,000; and (2) sufficient funds are not available to assist each system in meeting regulations.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Considers a system that conforms to a bilateral compliance agreement with the state to be in compliance with related federal drinking water standards.
Revises provisions allowing an exemption of a system from maximum containment level and treatment technique requirements to: (1) increase the population threshold; and (2) allow state determinations of a renewal period.
Establishes pilot programs to: (1) explore new technologies or approaches to comply with a standard; and (2) research technology transfer issues and disinfection strategies.
Revises technical assistance provisions to require water systems to receive adequate technical assistance and training to meet requirements of final rules. Gives priority to systems not in compliance with specified rules concerning: (1) disinfectants and disinfection byproducts; and (2) arsenic and compliance and new source monitoring. Prohibits enforcement by the Administrator against a system unless adequate technical assistance and training are first provided. Authorizes appropriations through FY2010.
Requires the Administrator to establish a panel to study the health effects of exposure to arsenic and disinfection byproducts.
People & committees
Sen. Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] · R–OK
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR 12/22/2005 S14322)
Introduced in Senate
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: 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 S.2161 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 S.2161 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 S.2161 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 S.2161 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.