Lori Trahan (D-MA)
Water Emergency and Technical Assistance Act
A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 Emergency and Technical Assistance Act modifies the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. It reauthorizes emergency technical assistance for drinking water and creates new authority for emergency technical assistance and grants for treatment works. The bill focuses on responding to emergency situations that pose a substantial danger to public health, including cybersecurity events. It provides specific funding authorizations for fiscal years 2027 through 2031.
Yes· 3 of 27
- Scored +7
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Prevents water rate hikes by providing federal grants when repairs are not economically feasible for ratepayers.
- Scored +6
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Crucial for rural areas with limited funding for emergency water infrastructure.
- Scored +6
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Mitigates danger to public health from sewer overflows and drinking water contaminants.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill authorizes an increase in spending for drinking water and clean water emergency grants.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill increases federal spending by authorizing additional appropriations for water emergencies.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Funding for Drinking Water: Section 101 increases funding to $50,000,000 for each fiscal year from 2027 through 2031, providing more resources for emergency situations.
-
Financial Protection for Ratepayers: Section 101 and Section 201(b)(2) ensure that assistance is available when actions are not economically feasible for ratepayers.
-
Public Health Protection from Sewer Overflows: Section 201(a) allows grants to alleviate emergency situations, such as sewer overflows, that present a substantial danger to public health.
-
Cybersecurity Response: Section 201(a) specifically allows for technical assistance and grants to respond to emergency situations resulting from cybersecurity events.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- No negative impacts for people were 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 households on low incomes be better off under this? — Prevents water rate hikes by providing federal grants when repairs are not economically feasible for ratepayers. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Crucial for rural areas with limited funding for emergency water infrastructure. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Critical for tribal lands often facing severe water emergency challenges. Would children be better off under this? — Children are highly vulnerable to water contamination and sewer overflows. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Reduces potential for emergency cost pass-throughs to ratepayers. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Seniors are more susceptible to health risks from contaminated water. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Addresses sewer overflows and urban water emergencies. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately benefits communities that have historically lacked water infrastructure investment. Would farmers be better off under this? — Protects the water systems and runoff management crucial for agricultural areas. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Disproportionately benefits communities that have historically lacked water infrastructure investment. Would retired people be better off under this? — Protects them from emergency water cost spikes on fixed incomes. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General improvement in public health infrastructure. Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides stability for publicly owned treatment works. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General improvement in public safety and health. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — General improvement in public health infrastructure. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Improves general public health and safety. Would union members be better off under this? — Infrastructure spending typically supports skilled labor in water systems. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General improvement in public health infrastructure. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — General improvement in public health infrastructure.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Mitigates danger to public health from sewer overflows and drinking water contaminants. Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Provides specialized disaster relief for water-related public health emergencies. Does this invest in rural communities? — Provides essential funding for water and wastewater infrastructure that often serves rural communities.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this better protect the country from computer attacks? — Explicitly authorizes grants to respond to emergency situations resulting from cybersecurity events in water treatment works.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases the Administrator's authority to provide grants and technical assistance.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — By ensuring safe drinking water and preventing sewer overflows, it reduces public health hazards.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Financial assistance for water emergencies prevents low-income ratepayers from bearing excessive costs.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Protects ratepayers from costs associated with emergency water system repairs. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill authorizes an increase in spending for drinking water and clean water emergency grants. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill increases federal spending by authorizing additional appropriations for water emergencies.
- 7/14/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
- 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.