Overview
Title
To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to provide grants for nitrate and arsenic reduction projects, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 7916 is like a helper plan that wants to make sure the water everyone drinks is super safe by giving money to fix any yucky stuff, like too much nitrate or arsenic. It wants to make sure schools and places with a lot of kids have really clean water, and it gives extra help to neighborhoods where people might not have as much money.
Summary AI
H.R. 7916 proposes an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act to establish a grant program aimed at reducing nitrate and arsenic concentrations in drinking water. The bill defines eligible entities, such as community water systems and nonprofit organizations, that can receive grants for these projects. It prioritizes support for disadvantaged communities and locations serving children or vulnerable populations if they have recently fallen out of compliance with established contaminant levels. The bill authorizes $15 million in annual appropriations starting in 2025 to fund these initiatives and calls for a review to ensure equitable outcomes.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The bill under consideration, H.R. 7916, seeks to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to facilitate funding through grants aimed at reducing nitrate and arsenic levels in drinking water. These grants are intended to aid eligible entities like community water systems, qualified nonprofits, municipalities, and state agencies in implementing focused nitrate and arsenic reduction projects. The bill prioritizes assistance for disadvantaged communities and facilities serving children or other vulnerable groups. Additionally, the bill introduces an annual funding provision of $15 million, starting in 2025, and restricts administrative costs from exceeding 4% of total funds.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several significant issues arise from the bill's language. Firstly, there is an absence of standardized definitions for terms like "disadvantaged community" and "low-income," which could result in varying interpretations across states. The absence of clear criteria may lead to inconsistencies in grant eligibility and prioritization. Additionally, the bill lacks a mechanism for validating the accuracy of the identified sources of nitrate or arsenic, possibly leading to inefficient fund usage.
Another notable concern is the allocation of a fixed annual fund of $15 million without adjustments for inflation or changing needs, which may impact the program's long-term sustainability. Furthermore, the limitation on administrative expenses to not more than 4% of total funds might be inadequate to cover necessary administrative costs. The vague language requiring entities to "take steps to identify" contamination sources may result in varying interpretations and compliance issues. Lastly, the bill lacks explicit evaluation or accountability processes, which raises concerns about the efficient use of funds.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, this bill, if enacted, could significantly impact areas struggling with contaminated drinking water by fostering projects aimed at reducing harmful nitrate and arsenic levels. The focus on disadvantaged communities and vulnerable populations highlights an attempt to address equity in access to safe drinking water. However, the lack of standard definitions and oversight mechanisms could lead to disparities and inefficiencies, possibly undermining well-intentioned goals.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For community water systems and local governments, the grants could provide essential resources for upgrading infrastructure and improving water quality, particularly benefiting regions facing funding challenges. Nonprofit organizations could also find expanded opportunities to engage in public health projects.
Conversely, stakeholders, particularly in states with different definitions of "low-income" and "disadvantaged communities," may experience unequal access to funds. Without clear guidance and oversight, there is a risk that funds may not reach the communities most in need or be used optimally.
Ultimately, while H.R. 7916 aims to enhance public health, its effectiveness will largely depend on the implementation details, clarity of definitions, and accountability measures that guide the allocation and use of the grants provided.
Financial Assessment
The bill, H.R. 7916, outlines financial provisions to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act by establishing a grant program for nitrate and arsenic reduction in drinking water. The bill specifically authorizes an annual appropriation of $15 million starting in fiscal year 2025 to fund these initiatives. This financial allocation underscores the commitment to support eligible entities, such as community water systems and nonprofit organizations, in addressing water quality issues.
Funding Allocation
Appropriations and Usage Limitations
The authorization of $15 million annually represents a fixed amount dedicated to assisting eligible entities in reducing nitrate and arsenic levels in drinking water. However, the bill does not account for inflation or fluctuating community needs, which could impact the program's long-term sustainability and effectiveness. It raises a significant issue, as the static funding may not reflect the evolving demands or cost variations associated with nitrate and arsenic reduction technologies and projects.
In addition, the bill stipulates that no more than 4 percent of the total funds may be used for administrative costs. While this limitation aims to maximize the funds directed toward actual project implementation, it could potentially constrain the administrative capabilities required for complex projects. The efficiency and effectiveness of the program might be impacted if administrative resources are inadequate to support the planning and execution of these projects.
Grant Prioritization and Implementation
Targeting Disadvantaged Communities
The financial allocations prioritize disadvantaged communities and facilities serving vulnerable populations, such as schools and daycare centers, especially if they have been non-compliant with maximum contaminant levels for nitrate or arsenic. Nonetheless, a lack of standardized definitions for terms like "disadvantaged community" and "low-income" across states could lead to inconsistencies in how the grants are distributed and applied. These inconsistencies might result in unequal access to the program's financial benefits, potentially sidelining some communities in dire need.
Equity and Accountability
Moreover, while the bill includes a provision for low-income assistance, aiding homeowners and landlords or property owners who provide housing to low-income renters, clear criteria and oversight mechanisms are not well-defined. This can hinder the ability to effectively target and monitor financial allocations, leading to concerns over fairness and the risk of inefficient or inappropriate use of funds.
Conclusion
Overall, while the financial components of H.R. 7916 lay a foundation for addressing critical drinking water issues, certain financial and administrative concerns need addressing to ensure the program's equitable reach and effectiveness. The fixed funding amount, along with limitations on administrative expenses, may require reevaluation to better align with the dynamic needs of communities and ensure the intended equitable distribution and application of resources.
Issues
The bill lacks a standardized definition of 'disadvantaged community' and 'low-income' across states (Section 2, Sec. 1459H(a)(4)), which could lead to inconsistencies in grant eligibility and prioritization, leading to potential inequality in the application of the grant program. This legal and ethical issue is significant as it may disproportionately affect access to funding for communities in need.
There is no specified mechanism for evaluating or ensuring the accuracy of the sources identified for nitrate or arsenic contamination by eligible entities (Section 2, Sec. 1459H(b)(2)). This could result in inefficient use of funds and undermine the program's effectiveness, raising financial and ethical concerns.
The bill authorizes a fixed amount of $15,000,000 annually for the grant program without adjusting for inflation or changing needs (Section 2, Sec. 1459H(d)). This could impact the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of the program, presenting a financial and political issue as community needs evolve over time.
The limitation on administrative costs to not more than 4 percent of the funds (Section 2, Sec. 1459H(c)) might be insufficient for covering administrative needs depending on project complexity, potentially affecting the program's implementation and effectiveness. This presents a financial and operational issue.
The requirement for eligible entities to 'take steps to identify' sources of contamination is broad and lacks specificity (Section 2, Sec. 1459H(b)(2)). This vague language could lead to varying interpretations and inconsistent compliance, posing legal and regulatory challenges.
The bill lacks explicit evaluation or accountability measures to ensure effective use of funds for nitrate and arsenic reduction projects (Section 2, Sec. 1459H). Without clear oversight mechanisms, there's a risk of ineffective targeting and misuse of allocated resources, raising ethical and financial concerns.
The criteria for prioritizing applications from disadvantaged communities, low-income homeowners, and low-income renters are not well-defined (Section 2, Sec. 1459H(b)(3)). This lack of detail might result in ineffective targeting, impacting the program's fairness and success, highlighting political and ethical concerns.
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. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that it can be called the “Removing Nitrate and Arsenic in Drinking Water Act.”
2. Nitrate and arsenic reduction grant program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text describes a grant program established by the Safe Drinking Water Act to provide funding for projects aimed at reducing nitrate and arsenic levels in drinking water, prioritizing disadvantaged and low-income communities. Eligible entities include community water systems, nonprofits, and local governments, and up to 4% of the funds can be allocated for administrative costs, with $15 million authorized annually starting in 2025.
Money References
- “(4) LOW-INCOME ASSISTANCE.—An eligible entity may use a grant provided under this subsection to purchase and install treatment technology that reduces the amount of nitrate or arsenic, as applicable, in drinking water, with first priority given to assisting disadvantaged communities based on the affordability criteria established by the applicable State under section 1452(d)(3), low-income homeowners, and landlords or property owners providing housing to low-income renters. “(c) Limitation on use of funds.—Not more than 4 percent of funds made available for grants under this section may be used to pay the administrative costs of the Administrator. “(d) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— “(1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2025; and “(2) $15,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter.
1459H. Nitrate and arsenic reduction grant program Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The Nitrate and Arsenic Reduction Grant Program is designed to help community water systems, schools, and other eligible entities in the U.S. by providing grants for projects that reduce nitrate or arsenic in drinking water. Priority for these grants is given to disadvantaged communities and facilities serving children or vulnerable groups, with specific focus on assisting low-income areas and providing funds for necessary treatment technology.
Money References
- (d) Authorization of appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section— (1) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 2025; and (2) $15,000,000 for each fiscal year thereafter. ---