Overview
Title
To establish a Water Risk and Resilience Organization to develop risk and resilience requirements for the water sector.
ELI5 AI
The bill, H.R. 2594, wants to create a special team to help protect the water systems in America from bad guys online. This team will have rules to make sure our water is safe, and if someone doesn’t follow the rules, they might have to pay a lot of money as a penalty.
Summary AI
H.R. 2594 aims to establish the Water Risk and Resilience Organization (WRRO) to develop and implement cybersecurity and resilience requirements for major water systems in the U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator will certify a single organization to become the WRRO, which will propose and monitor cybersecurity measures for water systems serving populations over 3,300 people. The WRRO will also enforce these requirements, with the ability to impose penalties for non-compliance and receive funds to improve its operations. The bill allows for state action on water safety as long as it doesn’t conflict with federal requirements.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, H.R. 2594, seeks to establish a Water Risk and Resilience Organization (WRRO) aimed at developing and enforcing cybersecurity standards specifically tailored to safeguard large community water systems. These systems include both community water systems and treatment works that serve populations of 3,300 or more. The bill outlines the procedures for certifying the WRRO, the organization's role in creating cybersecurity requirements, and enforcement protocols, while also delineating provisions for imposing penalties on systems that fail to comply. Though certified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the WRRO would act independently and not as a government entity, operating with the support of authorized federal funds.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several significant issues arise from the bill's provisions. Firstly, only one organization would be certified as the WRRO, potentially leading to a monopoly and stifling competition. Concerns are also raised regarding the lack of transparency in how the $10,000,000 authorized for the WRRO will be spent. Moreover, since the WRRO can impose penalties up to $25,000 per day, issues of accountability and oversight come into question, especially considering the WRRO is not a government body.
Additionally, the language used in some parts of the bill is complex, which may hinder understanding and compliance. Definitions, such as "cyber resilient," are somewhat vague, leaving room for varied interpretations. The mechanisms for resolving any conflicts between cybersecurity standards and other regulations are not fully articulated, potentially leading to legal ambiguities.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill aims to enhance the cybersecurity and resilience of essential water systems, which could contribute to public safety and security amidst growing cyber threats. By establishing protocols and a dedicated organization to oversee these requirements, the legislation seeks to safeguard critical infrastructure that millions rely on daily. On the flip side, the costs of compliance and potential penalties might be transferred to consumers in the form of higher utility rates, affecting household budgets.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The bill's enactment would distinctly impact several stakeholders:
Water System Operators: They will face increased requirements to comply with cybersecurity measures. The legislation could result in higher operational costs and potential penalties, although it also provides a framework for improving system resilience.
Local Governments: As they often manage or oversee water systems, they may see budgetary pressures due to compliance costs. Nonetheless, enhanced security could reduce vulnerabilities to disruptions and resultant public safety risks.
The General Public: While the primary benefit lies in a more secure water supply, consumers might experience increased costs due to the imposition of penalties or the investment required to meet new standards.
The WRRO: As the central entity enforcing the bill’s terms, it gains substantial authority and responsibility, raising concerns about its capacity to operate without undue influence due to its independent status.
While the bill presents a proactive step towards securing vital water infrastructure, these stakeholders must carefully consider the implications, weighing the potential benefits against the economic and operational challenges posed.
Financial Assessment
The bill, H.R. 2594, proposes the establishment of the Water Risk and Resilience Organization (WRRO), primarily focusing on enhancing cybersecurity and resilience of water systems across the United States. There are specific financial references within the bill related to funding and penalties which merit examination.
Financial Allocations
The bill authorizes a total of $10,000,000 to be appropriated for the establishment and operations of the WRRO. This funding is intended to remain available until expended, meaning that it can be used over an extended period rather than needing to be spent within a single fiscal year. However, the bill does not provide a detailed breakdown of how this amount should be allocated or how the funds are to be managed once appropriated. This lack of specificity raises concerns about potential wasteful spending, as highlighted in the issues section. The absence of a detailed financial plan for the utilization of this substantial funding could lead to inefficiencies and overspending in the organization's operations.
Penalties and Enforcement
The WRRO is granted authority to impose penalties for non-compliance with the cybersecurity and resilience requirements it develops. Specifically, it can impose fines of up to $25,000 per day for any violation by covered water systems. While these penalties are a significant financial aspect of the bill, they raise questions about potential oversight concerns. The issues section points out that while such penalties serve as a deterrent, the provisions for enforcement and penalty impositions may lack sufficient checks and balances. There is also an absence of clear guidance on how fairness will be ensured in applying these penalties, potentially leading to uneven enforcement.
Observations
The financial aspects of H.R. 2594 are primarily centered around substantial funding for the WRRO's establishment and the imposition of significant penalties for non-compliance. However, both areas exhibit critical gaps: the appropriations lack detailed planning and transparency, and the penalty system might be subject to oversight issues with insufficient checks. These factors could affect the accountability and effectiveness of the WRRO in meeting its objectives to enhance the security and resilience of U.S. water systems. For stakeholders, clarity and accountability in managing these funds and penalties will be essential to ensure the bill achieves its intended goals efficiently and equitably.
Issues
The certification process for the WRRO allows for only one organization to be certified, which could create a monopoly and limit competition. This is found in Section 1(c).
The bill authorizes $10,000,000 for the WRRO, but there is no detailed breakdown of how these funds are to be used, raising concerns about potential wasteful spending. This is addressed in Section 1(i).
The WRRO is given significant authority to impose penalties and make decisions affecting water systems, yet it is not a government entity, which raises questions about accountability. This is mentioned in Section 1(h).
The penalty provisions allow for penalties up to $25,000 per day, but there may be insufficient oversight or checks and balances on the imposition of these penalties. This is discussed in Section 1(f).
The language in some sections, such as those describing the approval and disapproval process for cybersecurity risk and resilience requirements, is overly complex and may be difficult for stakeholders to understand. This is covered in Section 1(d).
The definition of 'cyber resilient' includes terms that may be ambiguous, such as 'absorb' and 'adapt to', which could lead to varying interpretations. This is noted in Section 1(a)(3).
The process for resolving conflicts between cybersecurity requirements and other regulations is not fully detailed, potentially leading to legal disputes or uncertainty. This is found in Section 1(d)(6).
The subsection on enforcement allows the WRRO to impose penalties but lacks clarity on the consultation and hearing process, which might result in uneven application or ambiguity in enforcement. This is detailed in Section 1(f).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Water risk and resilience organization Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section establishes a "Water Risk and Resilience Organization" (WRRO) certified by the EPA Administrator to enforce cybersecurity standards for large community water systems. It outlines requirements for certification, the development and enforcement of cybersecurity measures, handles conflicts and penalties, and specifies that the WRRO operates independently from the government.
Money References
- (4) IMPOSITION OF PENALTY.— (A) MAXIMUM AMOUNT.—A penalty imposed under paragraph (1) shall not exceed $25,000 per day the applicable owner or operator is in violation of a cybersecurity risk and resilience requirement approved by the Administrator under subsection (d). (B) LIMITATION.—No penalty may be imposed on a covered water system under any other provision of law for a violation of a cybersecurity risk and resilience requirement approved by the Administrator under subsection (d).
- (i) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $10,000,000 to remain available to the WRRO until expended.