A Democratic bill with 9 Democratic cosponsors · See all 9 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
This bill is known as the Monitor Microplastics Now Act. It requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to include certain nanoplastics and microplastics on the sixth publication of the list of unregulated contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill specifies that these substances are those not currently subject to a national primary drinking water regulation. Additionally, these specific substances will not count toward the limit of 30 unregulated contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act. If a final rule for the sixth publication of the list is already put out before this Act is enacted, the Administrator must reissue the final rule to include these nanoplastics and microplastics.
Yes· 3 of 13
- Scored +7
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill mandates the inclusion of nanoplastics and microplastics on the list of unregulated contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act, enhancing environmental monitoring and protection of water resources.
- Scored +6
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
By requiring the tracking and monitoring of microplastics and nanoplastics in drinking water, the legislation increases public availability of information regarding water contaminants.
- Scored +5
Would children be better off under this?
Monitoring microplastics in drinking water helps protect public health, benefiting vulnerable populations such as children.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Monitoring Certain Plastics: Under Section 2(a)(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency must include certain nanoplastics and microplastics on the sixth publication of the list of unregulated contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is a positive step because it ensures these specific particles are monitored.
-
Exemption from Contaminant Limits: Under Section 2(a)(3), the substances included on the list will not count toward the limit of 30 unregulated contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is beneficial because it allows these plastic particles to be added without displacing other contaminants that also need tracking.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based on the provided text, there are no explicitly stated negative impacts, consequences, or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
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 children be better off under this? — Monitoring microplastics in drinking water helps protect public health, benefiting vulnerable populations such as children. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Improving drinking water monitoring standards helps protect communities that may be disproportionately affected by environmental hazards. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Ensuring better oversight of drinking water contaminants safeguards public health, which is particularly beneficial for older adults. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Enhanced environmental regulations help protect communities from water contamination risks. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Stricter contaminant monitoring supports cleaner drinking water for all communities. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Enhanced monitoring of drinking water quality benefits all households reliant on public water systems. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Better water safety oversight contributes to healthier public water systems on and off tribal lands. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Safeguarding public health through improved drinking water standards benefits individuals with chronic health sensitivities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural communities relying on regulated drinking water systems benefit from comprehensive contaminant tracking. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban public water systems will be subject to improved monitoring for plastic particles.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — By requiring the tracking and monitoring of microplastics and nanoplastics in drinking water, the legislation increases public availability of information regarding water contaminants. Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill directs the EPA Administrator to enforce specific monitoring requirements under federal law.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill mandates the inclusion of nanoplastics and microplastics on the list of unregulated contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act, enhancing environmental monitoring and protection of water resources.
- 11/12/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/9/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 10/29/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- 7 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Suzanne BonamiciDemocrat · Oregon
Janelle BynumDemocrat · Oregon
André CarsonDemocrat · Indiana
Sylvia GarciaDemocrat · Texas
Raja KrishnamoorthiDemocrat · Illinois
Zoe LofgrenDemocrat · California
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Maxine WatersDemocrat · California
Bonnie Watson ColemanDemocrat · New Jersey