The bill would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to create a Nitrate and Arsenic Reduction Grant Program. It sets definitions for nitrate and arsenic reduction projects and eligible entities, establishes grant mechanics, and prioritizes projects in disadvantaged communities and facilities serving children.
It also places a limit on administrative costs and authorizes funding for fiscal years 2026 and onward.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds Section 1459H to the Safe Drinking Water Act, creating a grant program to support nitrate or arsenic reduction projects in the United States. It defines eligible entities and outlines how grants are awarded and used.
Who It Affects
Community water systems, nontransient noncommunity water systems, municipalities, and qualified nonprofits; states and local governments that oversee affordability and equity criteria.
Why It Matters
This program channels federal funds into treatment projects to reduce drinking water contaminants, with explicit equity considerations and prioritization for vulnerable populations and schools.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new grant program into the Safe Drinking Water Act to fund projects that reduce nitrate and arsenic levels in drinking water. It defines what counts as an arsenic or nitrate reduction project and who can receive grants, including community water systems, nontransient noncommunity water systems, nonprofit organizations with relevant experience, and municipalities or interstate/local agencies.
Applicants must identify the source of contamination and how their proposed project would meaningfully reduce nitrate or arsenic in drinking water before receiving support. Priority is given to disadvantaged communities and to projects addressing nitrate or arsenic in water serving schools, daycare facilities, or other vulnerable populations.
Grants may be used to purchase and install treatment technology, with a cap on administrative costs. The program is authorized at $15 million per year starting in FY2026, with EPA oversight and a required equity review to ensure underserved communities benefit.
The bill also requires an EPA program review on equity outcomes.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 1459H adds a Nitrate and Arsenic Reduction Grant Program to the SDWA.
Eligible entities include community water systems, nontransient noncommunity systems, qualified nonprofits, and certain municipalities or state agencies.
Priority goes to disadvantaged communities and facilities serving children or vulnerable groups.
Grants may fund treatment technology, with a 4% cap on EPA administrative costs.
Authorized funding is $15 million annually from FY2026 onward, plus an equity-focused program review by EPA.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions for nitrate/arsenic reduction
This section defines what counts as an arsenic reduction project and a nitrate reduction project—each as a project or activity whose primary purpose is to reduce the respective contaminant in water for human consumption. It also defines ‘eligible entity’ to include community water systems, nontransient noncommunity water systems, qualified nonprofits with experience in nitrate or arsenic reduction, and municipalities or state/interstate/local agencies. The definition of ‘low-income’ references state affordability criteria, anchoring eligibility to local thresholds for affordability.
Establishment and scope of the grant program
This subsection establishes the grant program within the SDWA and authorizes the Administrator to provide assistance to eligible entities for nitrate or arsenic reduction projects. It requires preconditions that grant recipients identify the contamination source and how the project would meaningfully reduce nitrate or arsenic levels in the drinking water supply. It also outlines that grants should be used for capital or related improvements that advance contaminant reduction.
Priority considerations for grants
Grants are prioritized toward disadvantaged communities identified by state affordability criteria and for projects addressing conditions where nitrate or arsenic levels have not complied with maximum contaminant levels within the prior three years, or projects serving schools, daycares, or other vulnerable groups. This prioritization is intended to amplify equity-focused outcomes and to accelerate improvements in high-need settings.
Targeting low-income communities
Grants may fund treatment technology to reduce contaminant levels, with initial priority for disadvantaged communities as defined by state criteria. The provision also specifies support for low-income homeowners and landlords in housing for low-income renters, ensuring that affordability considerations influence project selection and implementation.
Admin cost cap
Not more than 4 percent of grant funds may be used for the EPA administrator’s administrative costs. The remainder is directed to project implementation, ensuring the bulk of funds reach on-the-ground reductions in nitrate and arsenic in drinking water.
Funding authorization
The bill authorizes $15 million for fiscal year 2026 and $15 million for each subsequent fiscal year to carry out the section. This creates a predictable funding stream for long-term treatment projects, subject to appropriations.
Equity and program evaluation
The Administrator shall conduct a review of how the grant program takes equity into account, including whether the needs of economically disadvantaged and underserved populations are being met. This review emphasizes equity outcomes and the diversity of needs across communities, and it serves as a mechanism to adjust policy and funding as needed.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Community water systems in areas with nitrate and arsenic contamination gain access to grant funding for treatment upgrades.
- Nontransient noncommunity water systems serving at least 25 residents with consistent exposure to contaminants benefit from funded improvements.
- Disadvantaged communities identified by state affordability criteria receive prioritized grant consideration and potential improvements to drinking water quality.
- Schools and daycares that rely on impacted water sources can gain access to funding for safer water supplies.
- Municipalities, interstate and intermunicipal agencies, and qualified nonprofit organizations bring needed capacity to deploy treatment technologies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Applicants incur upfront costs to identify contamination sources and to plan implementation of nitrate/arsenic reduction projects.
- The eligible entities must design and operate treatment upgrades, bearing ongoing maintenance costs where applicable.
- State and local agencies may incur costs to apply affordability criteria, verify eligibility, and coordinate program requirements.
- EPA administrative costs are capped at 4% of grant funds, limiting federal overhead but still requiring administration and reporting.
- Utilities and local governments may face implementation costs and potential rate impacts if capital projects are financed through rates.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing rapid, equity-focused funding for nitrate/arsenic reductions with the administrative and fiscal constraints of a capped federal program and state-determined affordability criteria.
The program hinges on annual appropriations, so its scale and timing depend on future budgets. While the equity review is required, the bill delegates critical determinations—such as which communities are designated disadvantaged and how affordability is measured—to states under 1452(d)(3), which could produce variability in eligibility and funding across jurisdictions.
The precondition requiring identification of contamination sources and the means to reduce them creates an upfront burden on applicants and may slow grant uptake for smaller systems. Finally, the balance between prioritizing vulnerable populations and ensuring timely deployment of treatment projects will be tested as projects move from planning to installation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.