Christopher Deluzio (D-PA)
Water Authority Cybersecurity Protection Act
A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Water Authority Cybersecurity Protection Act amends the Safe Drinking Water Act. It updates the Drinking Water Infrastructure Risk and Resilience Program by changing the applicable years to 2028 and 2029. The bill increases funding limits for technical assistance and grants for small systems. It also raises the total authorization of appropriations.
Yes· 3 of 21
- Scored +8
Does this better protect the country from computer attacks?
The bill specifically increases funding and authorization for cybersecurity protection of critical water infrastructure.
- Scored +6
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Directly targets small water systems which are predominant in rural areas.
- Scored +5
Does this invest in rural communities?
Increased grants for small water systems disproportionately benefit rural communities.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
It doubles the authorized appropriations for the program from $25 million to $50 million.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill increases the authorization of appropriations, which increases federal spending.
- Scored -1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Increases spending authorizations without providing a specific offset.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Technical Assistance: Section 2(b) increases funding from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000, providing more support for technical needs.
-
More Support for Small Systems: Section 2(c) increases grants for small systems from $10,000,000 to $20,000,000, which benefits smaller water providers.
-
Higher Overall Funding: Section 2(d)(1) increases the authorization of appropriations from $25,000,000 to $50,000,000 for the program.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for individuals or groups are explicitly mentioned in the provided text.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Directly targets small water systems which are predominant in rural areas. Would farmers be better off under this? — Many farmers rely on small water systems that will benefit from increased grants. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Small system grants can prevent cost spikes that would occur if systems had to fund cybersecurity upgrades alone. Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides more support for owners of small water utility businesses. Would children be better off under this? — Ensures safer and more reliable drinking water access for all ages. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Increases the overall security and reliability of the public water supply. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Ensures safer and more reliable drinking water access for all ages. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases the overall security and reliability of the public water supply. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Ensures safer and more reliable drinking water access for all ages. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Protects urban water grids from cyber threats. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Ensures safer and more reliable drinking water access for all ages. Would union members be better off under this? — Increased infrastructure spending often supports unionized labor in construction and tech.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — The bill specifically increases funding and authorization for cybersecurity protection of critical water infrastructure. Does this put more money into stopping terrorism? — Cybersecurity for water systems is a key component of defending against domestic and foreign terrorism.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Increased grants for small water systems disproportionately benefit rural communities. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Protecting water systems from cyber attacks prevents potential environmental contamination from system failures.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Improving cybersecurity for water authorities protects consumers from service disruptions and contaminated water. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Increases grants and technical assistance specifically for small water systems. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Investment in critical infrastructure resilience supports long-term economic stability. Is this likely to create jobs? — Increased funding for infrastructure resilience may lead to modest job creation in the cybersecurity and water engineering sectors. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — It doubles the authorized appropriations for the program from $25 million to $50 million. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increases spending authorizations without providing a specific offset. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill increases the authorization of appropriations, which increases federal spending.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal funding and programmatic oversight of local water infrastructure.
- 9/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 8/27/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Brad FinstadRepublican · Minnesota
Eugene VindmanDemocrat · Virginia