Haley Stevens (D-MI)
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Assistance Act of 2026
A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 4 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
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 Advanced Wastewater Treatment Assistance Act of 2026 creates a grant program managed by the EPA to fund advanced wastewater treatment projects in every State. It authorizes $1,000,000,000 for fiscal years 2026 through 2030. The bill prioritizes funding for qualified disadvantaged communities, rural, small, or tribal treatment works, and specific public regional water providers. Additionally, it requires a study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on how effective these technologies are at capturing emerging contaminants like nanomaterials and PFAS.
Yes· 3 of 30
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Prioritizes funding and eliminates cost-sharing for disadvantaged communities.
- Scored +7
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Specifically targets tribal treatment works for priority funding.
- Scored +7
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill targets the removal of PFAS and nanomaterials from water systems.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill creates a new grant program requiring $1 billion in appropriations.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill authorizes $1 billion in spending, which increases government expenditure.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Funding for Water Projects: The bill provides grants for advanced wastewater treatment projects, which can improve water infrastructure (Section 2(a)).
-
Support for Disadvantaged Communities: At least 49 percent of funds are set aside for projects serving qualified disadvantaged communities, rural, small, or tribal treatment works, or regional providers serving multiple disadvantaged communities (Section 2(e)).
-
Financial Relief for Poor Areas: Qualified disadvantaged communities are not required to meet the standard 50 percent non-Federal cost-sharing requirement (Section 2(d)(2)).
-
Research on Contaminants: The bill mandates a study on the efficacy of technologies in capturing emerging contaminants, such as PFAS and nanomaterials, to provide public reports on the findings (Section 3).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Cost Burden on Non-Disadvantaged Areas: For projects not serving qualified disadvantaged communities, the non-Federal share of the cost must be at least 50 percent, which may be a financial burden (Section 2(d)(1)).
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 households on low incomes be better off under this? — Prioritizes funding and eliminates cost-sharing for disadvantaged communities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Specifically targets tribal treatment works for priority funding. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Specifically allocates funds for rural treatment works. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Disadvantaged community set-asides often benefit minority populations disproportionately affected by poor infrastructure. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Disadvantaged community set-asides often benefit minority populations disproportionately affected by poor infrastructure. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Disadvantaged community set-asides often benefit minority populations disproportionately affected by poor infrastructure. Would children be better off under this? — Cleaner water free of PFAS is particularly beneficial for child development. Would farmers be better off under this? — Improved wastewater treatment can benefit agricultural water management in rural areas. Would union members be better off under this? — Infrastructure projects typically utilize unionized construction labor. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Urban centers often have the most pressing need for advanced wastewater treatment. Would business owners be better off under this? — Opportunities for companies specializing in wastewater technology. Would men be better off under this? — General public health improvements. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — General health improvement from reduced water contaminants. Would retired people be better off under this? — General improvement in public health and water safety. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — General health improvement from reduced water contaminants. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General improvement in national water infrastructure. Would women be better off under this? — General public health improvements. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — General health improvement from reduced water contaminants. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General improvement in water quality. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — General improvement in water quality, though may face 50% cost-sharing.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill targets the removal of PFAS and nanomaterials from water systems. Does this invest in rural communities? — Directly provides funding for rural treatment works.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Priority funding and reduced cost-sharing for disadvantaged communities address systemic infrastructure gaps. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Improving essential infrastructure in disadvantaged communities supports overall poverty reduction.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into medical research? — The bill funds a comprehensive study by the National Academies on emerging contaminants. Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Reducing PFAS and nanomaterials in water provides a long-term public health benefit.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Funds research into advanced wastewater treatment and emerging contaminants.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Investment in wastewater infrastructure projects typically creates construction and engineering jobs. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Infrastructure investment generally stimulates local economic activity. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill creates a new grant program requiring $1 billion in appropriations. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes $1 billion in spending, which increases government expenditure.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases the EPA's role in granting and overseeing state water projects.
- 6/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 5/20/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/24/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/20/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
- 3/19/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Debbie DingellDemocrat · Michigan
Brian FitzpatrickRepublican · Pennsylvania
Nellie PouDemocrat · New Jersey
Josh RileyDemocrat · New York