Order Code RL31294
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Safeguarding the Nation’s Drinking Water:
EPA and Congressional Actions
Updated August 22, 2002
Mary Tiemann
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Safeguarding the Nation’s Drinking Water:
EPA and Congressional Actions
Summary
The events of September 11 raised concerns about the security of the nation’s
drinking water supplies and their vulnerability to attack. Issues include the readiness
of water utilities to prevent and respond to attacks on water systems, steps that can
be taken to improve preparedness and response capabilities, and the availability of
resources to help utilities enhance drinking water security.
After a presidential commission on critical infrastructure protection identified
vulnerabilities in the drinking water sector in 1997, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), along with other federal agencies, water utilities, and state and local
governments, began taking steps to improve the security of water systems, although
these efforts generally were not targeted to current concerns over terrorism. For
several years, EPA has provided some research, information, and technical and
financial assistance to improve preparedness and increase the security of drinking
water systems and supplies. Some of these activities began pursuant to the 1998
Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63 on protecting the nation’s critical
infrastructure, but PDD-63 efforts were focused almost entirely on computer security
issues. Since September 11; however, EPA has substantially broadened and
expedited its efforts to help drinking water utilities safeguard facilities and supplies
from terrorist or other threats.
Congress has taken significant steps to improve security in the water sector since
September 11. In the emergency supplemental appropriations for FY2002 (P.L. 107-
117, H.R.3338), Congress provided EPA with $175.6 million for several counter-
terrorism activities, including enhancing drinking water security. Of this amount,
EPA is using $89 million to reduce the vulnerability of public water systems to
terrorist attacks and to enhance their security and their ability to respond to
emergency situations.
In May, the House and Senate approved broad bioterrorism legislation (H.R.
3448, H.Rept. 107-481) which includes funding for drinking water utilities to: assess
their vulnerability to terrorist attack, prepare emergency preparedness and response
plans, and make basic security improvements. The legislation also provides for
research on threats to water safety and infrastructure security, and authorizes funding
for EPA to make emergency assistance grants to states and public water systems. On
June 12, the President signed H.R. 3448 into law (P.L. 107-188).
In June, the President proposed to establish a Department of Homeland Security
that, among other things, would be responsible for comprehensively evaluating the
vulnerabilities of critical infrastructures, including water systems. The House and
Senate have responded with their own versions of implementing legislation; the
House has passed H.R. 5005, and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs has
endorsed an amended version of S. 2452. Other pending legislation would provide
financial assistance to water utilities for making security improvements, require
utilities to assess and reduce vulnerabilities, and establish new water security research
programs. This report will be updated to reflect further developments.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
EPA Efforts to Protect Drinking Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Information Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Vulnerability Assessment Tools and Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Funding Security Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Congressional Actions to Enhance Drinking Water Security . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Department of Homeland Security Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Tables
Table 1. Drinking Water Security Legislation in the 107th Congress
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Safeguarding the Nation’s Drinking Water:
EPA and Congressional Actions
Introduction
Ensuring the security of the nations’ drinking water supplies poses a substantial
challenge, partly because the number of water systems is very large and also because
the responsibility for protecting drinking water safety is shared among federal, state
and local governments and utilities. Nationwide, there are approximately 168,000
public water systems, and these systems range greatly in size, serving from as few as
25 persons to more than 1 million persons. Nearly 140,000 of these water systems
serve 500 people or fewer; another 360 systems serve more than 100,000 people and
provide water to nearly half of the total population served. Because water supplies
directly affect many activities (from drinking water to fighting fires), their disruption
could have significant impacts.
A 1996 executive order on critical infrastructure protection (E. O. 13010),
included water supply systems as one of 8 national infrastructures vital to the security
of the United States. In 1997, the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure
Protection (established by the executive order) issued a report on the vulnerabilities
of these categories of infrastructures and strategies for protecting them. The
Commission identified three attributes crucial to water supply users: water must be
available on demand, it must be delivered at sufficient pressure, and it must be safe
for use. The Commission concluded that actions affecting any of these factors could
be debilitating for the infrastructure.1
Major threats to water supplies identified in the report include: physical
destruction of facilities or distribution systems, biological or chemical contamination
of supplies, and cyber attacks. The Commission concluded that water supplies had
inadequate protection against the threat of chemical or biological contamination, and
that technology was insufficient to allow detection, identification, measurement, and
treatment of highly toxic, waterborne contaminants. Water utilities were also found
to be vulnerable to cyber attacks as they rely increasingly on computers to control
water flow and pressure.2 The Commission determined that information sharing was
the most immediate need, and that warning and analytical capabilities and research
and development were all insufficient. (For a broader review of water sector security
1The President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. Critical Foundations:
Protecting America’s Infrastructures.
Report of the President’s Commission on Critical
Infrastructure Protection.
Appendix A, Sector Summary Reports. October 1997. A-45.
2Steps taken by water utilities, typically larger utilities, to avoid Y2K problems have
enhanced computer system security from certain types of attacks. For more information on
this security issue, see CRS Report RL31534, Critical Infrastructure Remote Control
Systems and the Terrorist Threat
.

CRS-2
issues (including wastewater facilities and dams), see CRS Report RS21026,
Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector.)
In response to these findings and other developments, President Clinton issued
Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63 on critical infrastructure protection in
1998.3 Under this directive, a public/private partnership was established to put in
place prevention, response, and recovery measures to ensure the security of the
nation’s critical infrastructures against criminal or terrorist attacks. PDD-63
designated EPA as the lead federal agency for the water supply sector. EPA appointed
the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) to coordinate the water
sector. Before September 11, however, the focus of the PDD-63 efforts for all critical
infrastructure sectors was on cyber security. Subsequently, efforts to protect the
nation’s critical infrastructures have been broadened and accelerated.4
EPA Efforts to Protect Drinking Water
EPA believes that the threat of public harm from an attack on the nation’s water
supplies is small; nonetheless, the Agency has set a goal to ensure that water utilities
in all communities (1) have access to scientific information and expertise, (2) assess
their vulnerability to a terrorist attack, (3) improve security, and (4) know the
immediate steps to take should an attack occur.5
For several years, but most substantially since September 11, EPA has been
working with state and local governments, the drinking water industry, and other
federal agencies to improve preparedness and increase the security of water supplies.
Security-related activities fall into 5 general categories including: developing
vulnerability assessment tools, identifying actions to minimize vulnerabilities,
revising and enhancing existing emergency operations plans, establishing an
information center on drinking water alerts or incidents, and supporting research on
biological and chemical contaminants considered to be potential weapons of mass
destruction. Several key government and private sector projects are described below.
Information Sharing. One goal of PDD-63 in 1998 was to establish an
Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC) for each critical infrastructure sector
within 5 years. With assistance from EPA and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies is leading the effort to
develop and implement a secure Water ISAC. The Water ISAC will provide a Web-
based communication system that can be used to: (1) disseminate early warnings and
alerts regarding threats against the physical and cyber systems of drinking water and
wastewater facilities; (2) allow water utilities to share with each other information on
security incidents; and (3) provide an opportunity for utilities to have security
3See: [http://www.ciao.gov/resource/directive.html]
4For more information on PPD-63 and more recent developments, see CRS Report RL30153,
Critical infrastructures: Background, Policy, and Implementation.
5U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA Actions to Safeguard the Nation’s Drinking
Water Supplies.
October 2001. See: [http://www.epa.gov/safewater/security/index.html].

CRS-3
incidents analyzed by counter-terrorism experts.6 Although PDD-63 called for the
completion of the Water ISAC in May 2003, EPA expects that it may be operating
this year. In the interim, an unsecured communication system is in place.
Among other initiatives to provide information to utilities, notices have been
distributed to utilities and local law enforcement officials on measures that could be
taken immediately to improve security. EPA has sent several notices to utilities
outlining available resources and providing advice on monitoring and treatment.
Also, names of individuals who are on the FBI’s watch lists were sent to utilities.
Vulnerability Assessment Tools and Training. Among water utilities,
concerns over the security of facilities and supplies had been increasing in recent
years. In response to these growing concerns, the American Water Works Association
Research Foundation (AWWARF) initiated a project in June 2000 with the
Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratories to develop a vulnerability
assessment methodology for utilities to use to assess vulnerabilities and develop plans
to minimize identified risks. The original deadline for completing the vulnerability
assessment methodology was Spring 2002; however, after the attacks of September
11, the project was expedited and completed in November 2001.
With EPA support, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) has
offered workshops and training for water utilities on a wide range of security topics,
including risk and vulnerability assessment, emergency response plans, and risk
communication. Most notably, the AWWA, has been offering workshops based on
the vulnerability assessment methodology developed by Sandia National Laboratories
for AWWARF. With this training, many large drinking water utilities have acquired
tools to evaluate their security and improve the preparedness of their water systems
against intentional acts or emergency events.7
EPA is using funds provided in the FY2002 emergency supplemental
appropriations (P.L. 107-117) to provide vulnerability assessment training to many
more utilities this year. Training initially is being directed to the approximately 360
community water systems that serve 100,000 or more people. EPA’s goal is, that by
the end of FY2002, most of these large systems will have completed their
assessments and will have begun taking remedial action and enhancing their
emergency response plans. Under the new Bioterrorism Act (P.L. 107-188), large
community water systems are required to complete vulnerability assessments by
March 31, 2003. (See discussion in funding and congressional sections below.)
EPA has also worked with states, tribes, and utility organizations to provide
technical assistance to utilities on security matters. In April 2002, EPA issued model
emergency response guidelines to provide uniform response, recovery and
remediation guidance for water utility actions in response to man-made or
technological emergencies. In addition to describing minimum actions that EPA
recommends be carried out by water utilities for various described events, the
6For further information on the Water ISAC, see [http://www.amwa.net/isac/index.html].
7For more information, see the American Water Works Association Research Foundation
website: [http://www.awwarf.com/press/security.pdf].

CRS-4
guidance document also identifies federal responsibilities and capabilities that can
support local response efforts.8
Research. EPA, is working with the Department of Defense (DOD), the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FBI, and the Food and Drug
Administration to develop information for the Homeland Security Office on
biological, chemical, and radiological contaminants, and how to respond to their
presence in drinking water. This information is intended to expand the state of
knowledge on: technologies to detect contaminants, monitoring protocols and
techniques, and treatment effectiveness.
EPA-supported research projects that are expected to provide information this
year include research on “river spill” and “pipeline” models to determine the fate and
transport of contaminants within rivers and streams and within water treatment plants
and distribution systems, and research to develop biodetectors for detecting and
quantifying biological contaminants in drinking water supplies.9
Funding Security Improvements. In the emergency supplemental
appropriations for FY2002 (P.L. 107-117), enacted January 10, 2002, Congress
provided EPA with $175.6 million for responding to the September 11 attacks and
to support counter-terrorism activities. As discussed in greater detail in the section
on Congressional actions, conferees specified that $90.3 million is intended to be
used for several purposes, including performing drinking water vulnerability
assessments. Another $5 million is for state grants for counter-terrorism coordinators
to work with EPA and water utilities in assessing drinking water safety.
EPA’s FY2003 budget request outlined the Agency’s plans to invest in FY2002
$88.8 million of the amount provided in the emergency supplemental appropriation
to support security enhancements at the nation’s drinking water systems. Of this
amount, EPA planned to allocate about $80 million to: (1) direct grants to the largest
drinking water systems to conduct vulnerability assessments and enhance emergency
response plans; (2) provide technical assistance on vulnerability assessments and
emergency response plans to small and medium drinking water systems; and (3)
further refine security-related detection, monitoring, and treatment tools. EPA
planned to expend another $4 million to: accelerate the development and testing of
counter-terrorism tools; support training for the development of vulnerability
assessments; provide technical assistance; and conduct, test, and implement research
on redesign and detection for collection and treatment systems. EPA also planned to
develop tools and training for medium and small drinking water systems to assess
vulnerabilities and develop appropriate emergency response plans. Additionally, EPA
8U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance for Water Utility Response, Recovery &
Remediation Actions for Man-Made and/or Technological Emergencies
. EPA 810-R-02-
001. April 2002. Available at: [http://www.epa.gov/safewater/security].
9Statement of Marianne Horinko, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, before the Subcommittee on
Water Resources and Environment of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
October 10, 2001.

CRS-5
is providing $5 million to the states to support homeland security coordination work
involving EPA and drinking water utilities. 10
The emergency supplemental appropriation also provided funds for research and
development activities related to homeland security. EPA planned to use some of
these resources to evaluate the performance of drinking water treatment systems for
their ability to remove and inactivate biological and chemical warfare agents.
In June, EPA began awarding water security grants as part of $53 million the
Agency is making available for large community water systems (i.e., systems serving
more than 100,000 individuals). The Agency accepted grant applications from large
publicly owned community water systems through August 9, 2002, and will accept
applications from privately owned community water systems until August 30, 2002.
The value of each grant will not exceed $115,000. Water utilities may use these
grants for vulnerability assessments and other security planning. According to EPA,
grant monies may be used to develop a vulnerability assessment, emergency
response/operating plan, security enhancement plans and designs, or a
combination of the efforts. Utilities may use grant funds for in-house or
contractor support, assuming demonstration of qualifications. ... Funds awarded
under this program may not be used for physical improvements.11
Although these grants are being made only to large systems, EPA has been
working with states and utilities to determine the best ways to meet the security needs
of small and medium-sized drinking water systems. According to EPA, a significant
portion of the FY2002 funding was being used to provide training, and to develop
and distribute tools and technical assistance to these systems. Toward that end, in
June, EPA, in collaboration with states and the National Rural Water Association,
published a security vulnerability self-assessment guide for small drinking water
systems (serving fewer than 3,300 people). In July, EPA issued a water security
strategy for systems serving fewer than 100,000 persons.12
For FY2003, EPA has requested $16.9 million to conduct additional drinking
water vulnerability assessments for small and medium-sized systems, and $5 million
in grants to states to support homeland security coordination.
In addition to the above resources, EPA has identified numerous security
measures that are eligible for funding through the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF) program.13 Examples of eligible measures include vulnerability
10Environmental Protection Agency. FY2003 Annual Performance Plan and Congressional
Justification.
Special Analyses: Homeland Security, p. SA-15, SA-16.
11For a list of communities that have received grants, see Large Drinking Water Utilities
Awarded Security Grants
at: [http://www.epa.gov/safewater/security/large_grants/list.html].
12Water Security Strategy for Systems Serving Populations Less Than 100,000/15 MGD or
Less (for drinking water utilities and for wastewater utilities treating 1,500 million gallons
per day (MGD) or less). Available at: [http://www.epa.gov/safewater/security]
13For more information, see EPA fact sheet, Use of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(continued...)

CRS-6
assessments, contingency plans, and various facility improvements. Congress
approved $850 million for this program for FY2002. However, it is uncertain how
readily funds might become available for security measures, as the key purpose of the
DWSRF is to facilitate compliance with federal drinking water regulations, and
because it can take years for a public water system to receive funding through this
infrastructure program.14 15
Congressional Actions to Enhance Drinking Water Security
Congress has held multiple hearings to examine security issues facing the water
infrastructure sector and has acted on several bills to improve drinking water security.
The bills range from requiring utilities to assess and reduce vulnerabilities, to
providing assistance to utilities for security enhancements, to establishing research
programs to improve utilities’ ability to prevent, mitigate, and respond to attacks.
Selected bills are discussed below. (Table 1 on page 8 outlines drinking water
security provisions in enacted bills and pending legislation in the 107th Congress.)
The emergency supplemental appropriations for FY2002 (P.L. 107-117, H.R.
3338) provided EPA with $175.6 million for emergency expenses to respond to the
September 11 attacks and to support counter-terrorism activities. The accompanying
conference report, H.Rept. 107-350, specifies that $90.3 million is intended to be
used to improve security at EPA laboratories, to perform drinking water vulnerability
assessments, and for anthrax decontamination activities. Another $5 million is for
state grants for counter-terrorism coordinators to work with EPA and water utilities
in assessing drinking water safety. As noted, EPA has initiated a grant program for
large water systems for vulnerability assessments and other security planning.
On June 12, the President signed into law the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188, H.Rept. 107-
481). The House-passed version of the bill contained drinking water security
13(...continued)
(DWSRF) to Implement Security Measures at Public Water Systems. EPA 816-F-02-040.
November 2001. Available at: [http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf/security-fs.pdf].
14For information on the DWSRF program, see CRS Report 97-677, Safe Drinking Water
Act: State Revolving Fund Program.

15Another potential source of funding for community water systems to enhance security may
be through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utility Service (RUS), Water and
Environmental Programs. These programs provide grants, loans, and loan guarantees for
water and waste disposal projects (i.e., drinking water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and
storm drainage facilities) for communities of 10,000 or fewer individuals. According to RUS
officials, funds provided for community water system projects could be used to improve the
security of those systems. For FY2002, the RUS has available for the Water and
Environmental Programs approximately $586 million for grants, $836 million in direct loan
authority, and $75 million in guaranteed loan authority. In addition to these funds, Congress
provided in the 2002 Farm Bill (P.L. 107-171) $360 million to fund water and waste
disposal applications that were pending on the date of Farm Bill’s enactment, May 13, 2002.
The entire amount is mandatory funding that does not require an appropriation, and it is to
remain available until expended.

CRS-7
provisions, and the final act expanded on these provisions, including elements of
Senate bills on water security research and preparedness.
Title IV of the Bioterrorism Act amends the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
to require each community water system serving more than 3,300 individuals to
conduct an assessment of the system’s vulnerability to terrorist attacks or other
intentional acts to disrupt the provision of a safe and reliable drinking water supply.
The law establishes deadlines, based on system size, for community water systems
to certify to EPA that they have conducted a vulnerability assessment and to submit
to EPA a copy of the assessment. Certifications and submissions must be made
before:
! March 31, 2003 by systems serving 100,000 or more persons;
! December 31, 2003 by systems serving 50,000 or more but fewer than 100,000
persons; and
! June 30, 2004 by systems serving more than 3,300 but fewer than 50,000
persons.
The Act exempts the contents of the vulnerability assessments from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act (except for information contained in the
certification identifying the system and the date of the certification). The law requires
EPA to develop protocols to protect the assessments from unauthorized disclosure,
and provides for civil and criminal penalties for inappropriate disclosure of
information by government officials.
Additionally, the Bioterrorism Act requires each community water system
serving more than 3,300 individuals to prepare or revise an emergency response plan
incorporating the results of the vulnerability assessment. EPA is required to provide
guidance to smaller systems on how to conduct vulnerability assessments, prepare
emergency response plans, and address threats.

The Act authorizes $160 million for FY2002 to provide financial assistance to
community water systems to conduct vulnerability assessments, to prepare response
plans, and for expenses and contracts to address basic security enhancements and
significant threats. (Security enhancements may include purchase and installation of
intruder detection equipment and lighting, enhancing security of automated systems,
personnel training and security screening of employees or contractors, etc. Funding
may not be used for personnel costs, plant operations, monitoring or maintenance.)
Also for this fiscal year, the Act authorizes $35 million for EPA to make grants
to states and water systems to assist in responding to emergency situations, and $15
million for EPA to review methods by which terrorists or others could disrupt the
provision of safe water supplies, and methods for preventing, detecting, and
responding to such disruptions.16
16For a detailed discussion of the entire Act and a chronology of bioterrorism hearings, see
CRS Report RL31263, Bioterrorism: Legislation to Improve Public Health Preparedness
and Response Capacity.


CRS-8
The House and Senate have acted on several other bills focused specifically on
water security. Senate-passed S. 1608 (S.Rept. 107-119) directs EPA to provide funds
to states to use in awarding grants to drinking water and wastewater facilities to meet
immediate security needs (several of the specified activities have been incorporated
into the Bioterrorism Act). Two other bills address concerns over gaps in water
security research: House-passed H.R. 3178; and S. 1593, reported by the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee (S.Rept. 107-118). These similar bills
establish grant programs to support research and development projects for the
security of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure.17 Elements of these bills
also are contained in P.L. 107-188.
On August 2, 2002, President Bush signed into law the 2002 Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on
the United States
(P.L. 107-206, H.R. 4775), a $28.9 billion emergency supplemental
spending bill. The conference agreement to H.R. 4775 (H.Rept. 107-593) included
$50 million to EPA for security vulnerability assessments of small and medium sized
drinking water systems. It also included $20 million for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) for emergency grants and loans, with up to $5 million for
contracting with qualified organizations to conduct vulnerability assessments for rural
community water systems. However, the law stipulated that $5.1 billion provided in
the bill, including this EPA and USDA funding, would be available contingent upon
the declaration of a budget emergency by the President. The President had not
requested this funding and had until September 4th to do so, or the funding would no
longer be available. On August 13, the President announced that he will not release
the $5.1 billion contingency fund, which is intended for a wide variety of purposes,
including homeland security. (For FY2003, the Administration has requested $17
million for EPA for vulnerability assessments for small and medium-sized systems,
and $5 million in grants to states to support homeland security coordination.)
Department of Homeland Security Proposal
The Department of Homeland Security proposal announced by the Bush
Administration on June 6, 200218 envisions a Department that would be responsible
for “comprehensively evaluating the vulnerabilities of America’s critical
infrastructure,” including water systems. Under “Critical Infrastructure Protection,”
the proposal discusses a national effort to secure America’s critical infrastructure
sectors by building and maintaining a “comprehensive assessment” of these sectors.
According to the proposal, the Department would analyze threats, direct or coordinate
action to protect vulnerable systems, and would “establish policy for standardized,
tiered protective measures tailored to the target and rapidly adjusted to the threat.”
House and the Senate bills to establish a Department of Homeland Security build
on the President’s proposal regarding critical infrastructure vulnerability assessment
17For a broad discussion of security-related water research issues and needs, see: H.R. 3178
and the Development of Anti-Terrorism Tools for Water Infrastructure
. Hearing before the
Committee on Science, House of Representatives, 107th Congress, 1st session. Serial No.
107-29. 2001. Available at: [http://www.house.gov/science].
18[http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/sect1.html].

CRS-9
and protection. The House passed H.R. 5005, on July 26, and the Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs endorsed S. 2452, as amended by the Committee on July
24 and 25. Neither bill appears to envision transferring EPA water security functions
to a new Homeland Security Department. Both bills would include in the Department
an office headed by an under secretary for infrastructure protection with
responsibilities for analyzing and integrating information to assess the vulnerabilities
of critical infrastructures, developing a comprehensive national plan for securing key
resources and critical infrastructure, coordinating with other agencies regarding
infrastructure security, etc. Under S. 2452, , a Directorate of Critical Infrastructure
Protection also would be responsible for “establishing specialized research and
analysis units for the purpose of processing intelligence to identify vulnerabilities and
protective measures” in various sectors, including water storage, production and
distribution. H.R. 5005 does not explicitly mention water supplies, but has many
similarities in its provisions addressing critical infrastructures. (For more information,
see CRS Report RL31513, Homeland Security: Side-by-Side Comparison of H.R.
5005 and S. 2452, 107th Congress
.)

CRS-10
Table 1. Drinking Water Security Legislation in the 107th Congress
Bill Key
Provisions
Funding
Status
H.R. 3448
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.
$160 million for FY2002, and
Enacted
(Title IV)
Title IV of this comprehensive bioterrorism legislation amends the Safe Drinking Water Act
such sums as may be necessary
P.L. 107-188,
to require community water systems serving more than 3,300 individuals to conduct
for FY2003-FY2005 for these
H.Rept. 107-481
vulnerability assessments and to prepare emergency response plans. Utilities must submit
activities
assessments to EPA; the information they contain is not subject to the Freedom of
Information Act. Authorizes EPA, in coordination with state and local governments, to
provide financial assistance to these systems for conducting assessments and preparing
response plans, and for expenses to address basic security enhancements and significant
threats. EPA must provide guidance for smaller systems on how to conduct vulnerability
assessments, prepare response plans, and address threats to water supplies. $5 million of the
funds made available may be used to make grants to systems to assist in responding to any
vulnerability that EPA determines presents an urgent security need; another $5 million may
be used for security activities for systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons.
Authorizes EPA to provide technical assistance and to make grants to states and public water
$35 million for FY2002 and such
systems to assist in responding to and alleviating emergency situations.
sums as necessary thereafter
Directs EPA, with the Centers for Disease Control, to review (directly or through contracts or
$15 million for FY2002 and such
cooperative agreements) methods and means to prevent, detect and respond to the intentional
sums as necessary for FY2003-
introduction of chemical, biological or radiological contaminants into community water
FY2005
systems and source waters. The review must include methods and means to detect
contaminants, to provide sufficient notice of contamination, to prevent the flow of
contaminated drinking water, to negate or mitigate adverse effects on public health, to
develop educational and awareness programs for community water systems, and to conduct
biomedical research. Requires EPA to share the information developed, as appropriate,
through the Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC). EPA also must, in
coordination with other federal departments and agencies, review methods and means by
which terrorists or others could disrupt the supply of safe drinking water or render a public
water supply unsafe, including methods and means by which water systems could be
destroyed, impaired, or made subject to cross-contamination, or by which information
systems, including process controls and computer systems could be disrupted. EPA must
also review methods and means to reasonably protect systems from attacks, and to provide
alternative drinking water supplies.

CRS-11
Bill Key
Provisions
Funding
Status
H.R. 3448
Specifies that EPA’s emergency powers under SDWA include authority to act when there is
(cont’d.)
a threatened or potential terrorist attack or other intentional act to disrupt a water supply.
Increases criminal and civil penalties for tampering, or threatening to tamper, with public
water supplies.
H.R. 3338
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for FY2002. Division B authorizes
$175.6 million for FY2002
Enacted
(Div. B)
appropriations to EPA for emergency expenses to respond to 9/11 attacks and to support
including:
P.L. 107-117,
counter-terrorism activities, including:
H.Rept. 107-350
Science and Technology Account: to assess and improve building security at EPA laboratory
$90.3 million
sites, to perform drinking water vulnerability assessments, and for anthrax decontamination.
State and Tribal Assistance Grants: for counter-terrorism coordinators to work with EPA and
$5 million
water utilities in assessing drinking water safety.
Environmental Programs and Management Account: for planning manuals for wastewater
$39 million
treatment plants, anthrax decontamination, personnel, etc.
Hazardous Substance Superfund Account: for a West Coast “Immediate Response Team,
$41.3 million
anthrax cleanup and reimbursement, personnel, etc.
H.R. 3178
The Water Infrastructure Security and Research Development Act directs EPA to
$12 million for each of FY2002-
Passed by the House on
(Similar to S.
establish a grant program for research, development, and demonstration activities to improve
FY2006
12/18/01;
1593)
technologies and related processes for security of water supply systems and municipal
Placed on Senate
wastewater treatment facilities. Requires EPA to make grants to, or enter into agreements
Legislative Calendar
with, research organizations to be used for: (1) research on technologies and processes for
12/19/01.
vulnerability assessment, and protection of physical assets and information systems; (3)
dissemination of research results to facility managers and the public; (4) research or
development of real-time monitoring systems to protect against chemical, biological, and
radiological attacks, etc.
H.R. 3227
Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to direct EPA to make grants to organizations, or enter
Authorizes such sums as may be
Introduced 11/1/01;
into contracts with any person, to conduct research on methods to combat biological
necessary.
referred to House
contamination of public water supplies.
Science Committee

CRS-12
Bill Key
Provisions
Funding
Status
H.R. 3255
The Bioterrorism Protection Act of 2001. Title II of this extensive security bill addresses
For FY2002:
Introduced 11/8/01;
(Title II)
water security and requires EPA: (1) to undertake vulnerability assessments for public water
$66 million for vulnerability
referred to 9 committees.
systems and wastewater facilities; (2) to review emergency response plans and operations of
assessments;
public water systems to ensure that plans account for possible chemical, biological or
$55 million for emergency
radiological attacks; (3) to provide financial and technical assistance to systems that lack
response plans;
adequate response plans; (4) to provide, in coordination with the Office of Homeland
$3 million for R&D;
Security, assistance to water systems to make critically-important basic security
$60 million for basic security
enhancements; (5) to assist water systems to prevent electronic attacks on information
enhancements;
systems at facilities. Directs EPA, in consultation with DOE, to conduct research and
$80 million for electronic
development of technology to monitor and detect chemical, biological and radiological
security
contamination of drinking water systems.
S. 1593
The Water Infrastructure Security and Research Development Act directs EPA to
$12 million for each of FY2002-
Reported by Senate
(Similar to
establish a grants program and to enter into cooperative agreements with research institutions
FY2007
Environment and Public
H.R. 3178)
to improve the protection and security of public water supply systems and municipal
Works Committee
wastewater treatment facilities. Eligible projects: (1) assess security issues by conducting
12/10/01;
assessments of security issues and developing vulnerability assessment tools for systems to
Placed on the Senate
identify physical and cyber vulnerabilities; (2) protect water systems by developing
Legislative Calendar.
technologies, processes, guidelines, standards and real-time monitoring systems, and
educational programs; (3)develop technologies and processes for mitigating and responding
to contamination of water supplies; (4) implement Presidential Decision Directive by
operating/refining the Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC); and (5) test new
technologies and precesses. (This bill also includes $20 million for each of FY2002 and
FY2003 to assist small public water systems in complying with requirements regarding
arsenic in drinking water.)
S. 1608
Directs EPA to establish a program to allocate funds to states for use in awarding grants to
$50 million for year in which bill
Passed by Senate
drinking water and wastewater facilities for projects and activities to address immediate
is enacted.
12/20/01.
security needs. (Many of the specified activities have been included in H.R. 3448.)
S. 1737
The Homeland Security Block Grant Act authorizes the Attorney General to make
$3 billion for FY2002, and such
Introduced 11/28/01;
homeland security block grants to state and local governments and Indian tribes for a range
additional sums as are authorized
referred to Senate
of security-enhancing activities (e.g., funding law enforcement and improving cyber and
thereafter
Judiciary Committee.
infrastructure security).

CRS-13
Bill Key
Provisions
Funding
Status
S. 2077
The Securing Our States Act of 2002 directs the Director of Federal Emergency
$4 billion for FY2003, and such
Introduced 4/9/02;
Management Agency (FEMA) to make grants to states to improve public safety in order to
as necessary for each fiscal year
referred to Senate
prepare for and respond to terrorist threats. Grants may be used for various specified
thereafter.
Environment and Public
purposes, including improving protection of critical infrastructure which includes water
Works Committee.
treatment plants, distribution systems, and other water infrastructure.
S. 2599
The Water Supply Technology Act of 2002 establishes a Water Supply Technologies
$25 million for FY2003, of
Introduced 6/6/02;
Program within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy of the Department of
which $4 million is for water
referred to the Senate
Energy (DOE). Directs the Secretary to carry out research and development programs on
security research program, and
Environment and Public
water supply security, arsenic removal, desalination, water and energy sustainability. Directs
such sums as are necessary for
Works Committee.
DOE to offer to enter into contract with the American Water Works Association Research
each fiscal year thereafter.
Foundation to carry out the water supply security research program. Requires the program to
include research on developing cost-effective monitoring technologies for chemical and
biological threats, and methodologies to enable monitoring data to be applied rapidly to
decision making.