Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity, and Reliability Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 13, 2025
Bottom line
This bill proposes a substantial, recurring federal investment in water and sewer infrastructure, aiming to improve affordability, equity, and reliability, while also introducing new requirements for funding recipients and mandating a comprehensive study on water service issues.
What it actually does
This bill proposes a substantial, recurring annual federal investment of $35 billion for water and sewer infrastructure programs across the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Indian Health Service. It amends existing federal laws to prioritize publicly owned water systems, significantly increase financial subsidization for disadvantaged communities, and mandate the use of project labor agreements for federally funded projects. Additionally, the bill requires the EPA to conduct a comprehensive study on water affordability, discriminatory practices, and data collection related to water service access.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill addresses a critical national need for updated water infrastructure, ensuring access to clean, affordable drinking water and adequate sanitation for all communities, especially those historically underserved. They emphasize the importance of public ownership, increased subsidies for low-income areas, and fair labor practices in infrastructure projects to create jobs and stimulate local economies.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the significant annual federal spending proposed, potentially increasing the national debt or requiring tax increases. They may also object to the new federal mandates on states and localities regarding public ownership, subsidization levels, and project labor agreements, viewing them as federal overreach or burdensome restrictions on local control and market competition.
The bill is moderately detailed with numerous cross-references to existing statutes, requiring careful reading to understand its full scope and implications, which may exceed the time typically allotted for quick legislative review.
Section 3(a)
Annual Funding for Clean Water Programs
This section mandates the annual obligation of $17.237 billion for various clean water programs administered by the EPA. This includes significant capitalization grants for State Revolving Funds (SRFs) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as well as grants for water quality management, pollution control, and nonpoint source pollution, ensuring a stable and substantial funding stream for wastewater infrastructure.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this funding is essential to address the nation's aging wastewater infrastructure, prevent pollution, and ensure clean water for communities, creating jobs and stimulating local economies.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that such a large annual appropriation contributes significantly to federal spending and the national debt, or that funding mechanisms should rely more on local user fees or private investment.
Tradeoffs
Balances the critical need for infrastructure investment with concerns about federal spending and potential impacts on local control over project prioritization.
Section 3(b)
Annual Funding for Safe Drinking Water Programs
This section mandates the annual obligation of $16.187 billion for safe drinking water programs, primarily through capitalization grants for State Revolving Loan Funds (SRLFs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It also allocates funds for technical assistance and specific grant programs related to drinking water, aiming to upgrade systems and address contaminants.
Section 3(d)
Annual Funding for Tribal Water and Sewer Sanitation Facilities
This section mandates the annual obligation of $1.05 billion to the Indian Health Service for grants related to the planning, design, construction, modernization, improvement, and renovation of water, sewer, and solid waste sanitation facilities in Indian Country. This aims to address significant infrastructure gaps and health disparities in tribal communities.
Section 4
EPA Study on Water Service Affordability and Equity
This section requires the EPA Administrator, in collaboration with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division, to conduct a comprehensive study on water and sewer services. The study must cover affordability, discriminatory practices by service providers and state program administrators, public participation in regionalization efforts, and data collection methodologies for service disconnections, tax liens, and disparate impacts based on race, gender, or socioeconomic status. A report with recommendations is due to Congress within one year.
Section 5(c) and Section 6(2)
Mandate for Increased Subsidization in SRF Programs
These provisions amend both the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts to require states to use not less than 50 percent of their total capitalization grants for a fiscal year for providing 'additional subsidization' (e.g., principal forgiveness, negative interest loans, grants) to disadvantaged communities, 'to the extent that there are sufficient applications.' This significantly increases the amount of grant-like assistance available to communities most in need.
Section 6(1)(A) and (E)
Prioritizing Publicly Owned Water Systems and Facilitating Acquisition of Private Systems
This section amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to specify that funds under the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRLF) may only be used for 'publicly owned, operated, and managed community water systems,' with an exception for small systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons not managed by a multi-system owner. It also explicitly allows SRLF funds to be used for purchasing privately owned community water systems from willing or unwilling sellers, and for expenses related to canceling contracts for the operation or management of publicly owned treatment works.
Section 8
Mandate for Project Labor Agreements in SRF Projects
This section amends both the Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts to require states to permit recipients of SRF assistance to enter into 'project labor agreements' (PLAs) for building or construction projects. For Clean Water SRF, states must also 'ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable,' recipients carry out projects through PLAs. For Drinking Water SRF, agreements must require states to permit PLAs, and states must ensure projects 'will be carried out through the use of' PLAs. This promotes unionized labor on federally funded water infrastructure projects.
This provision amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to prohibit states from providing financial assistance from Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) for projects that would provide 'substantial direct benefits to new communities, lots, or subdivisions,' with an exception for advanced decentralized wastewater systems.
Section 5(a)(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for amending existing statutes. The specific policy choice to limit funding for new developments is significant but presented as a technical modification to SRF eligibility.
Case for: Proponents argue this promotes responsible growth, prevents subsidizing sprawl, and ensures SRF funds are directed towards existing communities and critical upgrades rather than facilitating new, potentially unsustainable development.
Case against: Critics might argue this restricts economic growth, limits housing development, and could disproportionately affect growing communities needing infrastructure for new residents, potentially increasing housing costs.
Estimated impact: Could significantly alter development patterns and infrastructure investment priorities in areas reliant on Clean Water SRF funding, potentially shifting focus to infill or existing community upgrades.
This provision creates an exception to the general requirement that Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) State Revolving Loan Funds (SRLFs) only go to 'publicly owned, operated, and managed' systems. It allows public water systems that regularly serve fewer than 10,000 persons and are not owned, operated, or managed by any person who owns, operates, or manages any other public water system to still receive assistance.
Section 6(1)(B) (adding new paragraph (6) to 42 U.S.C. 300j-12(a))
Why it matters:This is a common legislative technique to mitigate the impact of a broad policy change on specific, often vulnerable, groups (in this case, small, independent private water systems). It's a practical carve-out to ensure essential services in rural or sparsely populated areas are not inadvertently cut off from funding.
Case for: Proponents argue this ensures that very small, often rural, private systems, which may be the only providers in their areas and lack the capacity for public takeover, can still access critical federal funding to maintain safe drinking water for their communities.
Case against: Critics of private ownership might argue that any exception undermines the bill's broader goal of promoting public control over essential services, even for small systems.
Estimated impact: Preserves federal funding access for an estimated several thousand small, independent private water systems, preventing potential service disruptions or increased costs for their customers.
This provision requires the EPA Administrator to issue guidance to ensure 'affordable, equitable, transparent and reliable water service provision, to provide protections for households facing service disconnection due to unpaid water service charges, and to promote universal equal access to water services.'
Section 6(4)(D)(iii) (adding new clause (iv) to 42 U.S.C. 300j-12(g)(3)(A))
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice where broad policy directives are embedded within administrative guidance requirements. While the intent is clear, the specific implementation details and impact will depend heavily on the EPA's subsequent guidance.
Case for: Proponents argue this guidance is crucial for establishing national standards for fair water service, protecting vulnerable households from disconnections, and ensuring equitable access, addressing a widespread problem of water affordability.
Case against: Critics might argue that this grants the EPA broad authority to regulate local utility practices, potentially imposing burdensome requirements on states and utilities, and interfering with local governance of water services.
Estimated impact: Could lead to significant changes in how water utilities across the country manage billing, customer assistance programs, and disconnection policies, potentially impacting millions of households and utility operations.
These provisions add specific new eligible uses for Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) State Revolving Loan Funds (SRLFs): (E) grants to publicly owned systems for replacing lead service lines on private or public property at no cost to the owner; (F) assistance to publicly owned systems for updating treatment plants or switching water sources due to PFAS contamination; and (G) grants to owners of household water wells contaminated by PFAS for purchasing and installing filtration systems.
Section 6(5)(E), (F), (G) (adding new subparagraphs to 42 U.S.C. 300j-12(k)(1))
Why it matters:This is a common legislative method to ensure specific, high-priority issues (like lead and PFAS contamination) receive dedicated funding streams within existing programs, rather than creating entirely new grant programs.
Case for: Proponents argue these targeted uses are critical for addressing urgent public health crises like lead in drinking water and widespread PFAS contamination, directly protecting communities and individual households from harmful pollutants.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against these targeted public health measures, though general concerns about federal spending or the scope of federal intervention might apply.
Estimated impact: Directly allocates significant portions of SRLF funds towards critical public health interventions, potentially accelerating lead pipe replacement nationwide, improving water quality for communities affected by PFAS, and providing direct relief to well owners.