PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4895-4896)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 22, 2006
Community Water Treatment Hazards Reduction Act of 2006 - Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to: (1) compile a list of all high-consequence facilities; and (2) notify each owner and operator of a water facility that is included on the list. Requires the Administrator, in determining whether a facility is a high-consequence water facility, to consider: (1) the number of people located in the vulnerability zone for each substance of concern that could be released at the water facility; (2) the critical infrastructure served by the facility; (3) any use by the facility of large quantities of one or more substances of concern; and (4) the quantity and volume of annual shipments of substances of concern to or from the facility. Defines "vulnerability zone" as a geographic area that would be affected by a worst-case release of certain hazardous substances.
Requires the Administrator to classify high-consequence water facilities into three tiers and give priority to matters relating to the security of high-consequence water facilities based on the classification. Makes mandatory the designation as a high-consequence facility of those whose vulnerability zone contains more than 10,000 individuals. Prohibits the Administrator from reclassifying such a facility into a tier with a lower priority.
Requires the owner or operator of a high-consequence water facility to submit to the Administrator an options feasibility assessment (including a cost estimate) concerning the use of inherently safer technologies no later than 90 days after receiving notice that such facility is listed.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Administrator, subject to the availability of grant funds, to issue an order requiring a facility to eliminate the use of substances of concern and to adopt safer technologies. Authorizes the Administrator to seek enforcement of an order.
Directs the Administrator to provide grants to high-consequence facilities for use in paying capital expenditures directly required to complete the transition of such facility to the use of safer technologies.
People & committees
Sen. Biden, Joseph R., Jr. [D-DE] · D–DE
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. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4895-4896)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4894-4895)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.2920 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.2920 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.2920 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.2920 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.