HB 2010
In CommitteeHouse
Safe drinking water grants
Creating a safe drinking water grant program for economically distressed communities.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill establishes a safe drinking water grant program to help economically distressed communities fix unsafe or failing public water systems. It allows the state to provide grants for planning and infrastructure improvements, with priority given to communities with the worst water quality and greatest financial need.
- Creates a safe drinking water grant program administered by the Department of Health for economically distressed communities with public water systems that do not meet state drinking water standards.
- Grants can be used for planning (e.g., assessing problems, designing solutions) and construction (e.g., building, repairing, consolidating, or redesigning water infrastructure).
- Eligibility requires that the public water system be in an economically distressed community and fail to meet state drinking water standards.
- Requires the Department of Health to develop an application process and evaluation criteria by January 1, 2026, prioritizing projects based on water quality and financial need.
- Starting in the 2027–2029 fiscal biennium, the Department must submit a prioritized list of recommended projects and funding amounts to the governor and legislature as part of the capital budget request.
Who is affected
- Economically distressed communities with public water systems — Communities with public water systems that have poor water quality and limited financial resources may receive grants to improve water infrastructure.
- Operators of small or rural public water systems — Local water system operators (e.g., small towns, rural districts, mobile home park managers) who manage public water systems and may lack funds for repairs or upgrades.
- State agencies (Department of Health, State Board of Health) — State agencies responsible for implementing and managing the grant program, including the Department of Health and the State Board of Health.
- Residents of underserved communities — Residents of economically distressed communities who rely on public water systems and may currently face unsafe or unaffordable drinking water.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The grant program directly addresses unsafe drinking water in economically distressed communities, reducing health risks from contaminated water (e.g., lead, nitrates, bacteria) and improving public safety — especially for children, elderly, and immunocompromised residents who are most vulnerable to waterborne illness.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1)-(3)By funding infrastructure upgrades (e.g., pipe replacement, treatment systems), the program helps stabilize water service and reduce rates for low-income households in distressed communities, where water affordability is a known barrier to stable housing and health.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(a)-(b), Sec. 3(3)Improved water quality and reliability in schools and child care facilities located in economically distressed communities supports healthier learning environments and reduces absenteeism due to water-related illness — especially beneficial for K–12 public schools in underserved areas.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 3(3)(a)-(b), Sec. 3(4)By targeting communities with the worst water quality and greatest financial need, the program reduces long-term public health costs associated with chronic exposure to unsafe water (e.g., developmental delays in children, kidney disease, cancer), easing strain on public health and Medicaid-funded services.
HealthcarePeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(a), Sec. 3(4)Local contractors, engineers, and construction firms in rural or small communities may benefit from infrastructure work funded through the grants — though the scale and duration of jobs created depend on appropriation levels and project scope.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(3)
Potential Concerns (1)
The bill requires the Department of Health to submit a prioritized list of recommended projects to the governor and legislature as part of the capital budget request, but does not guarantee funding — meaning local governments may invest time and resources in preparing applications and project plans without assurance of eventual appropriation, creating administrative burden and uncertainty.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(5)
Who Is Most Affected
Residents in economically distressed communities with failing water systems stand to gain the most — improved water quality directly enhances health, safety, and quality of life. However, they may face short-term disruption during construction and could still struggle with affordability if local rates rise post-upgrade despite state support.
Operators of small or rural water systems (e.g., rural districts, mobile home parks) gain access to critical funding to meet regulatory compliance and avoid fines or system shutdowns — but must navigate complex application processes and may lack staff to manage large-scale projects.
The Department of Health gains new authority and responsibility to implement the program, potentially expanding its public health mandate — but faces resource and staffing constraints in managing applications, evaluations, and oversight without explicit new funding.
Local governments (cities, counties, utility districts) benefit from state support to fix failing systems but may still need to provide matching funds or assume long-term maintenance obligations — which could strain budgets if not fully covered by grants.
Environmental justice and low-income advocacy groups may see this as a meaningful step toward equitable water access, but could be disappointed if funding falls short of need or if implementation delays persist.