EPA Efforts to Increase Drinking Water Security

In 2003, President Bush issued Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HPSD-7), which affirmed EPA as the lead federal agency for coordinating the protection of the nation's critical infrastructure for the water sector. Under this directive, EPA is responsible for developing and providing tools and training on improving security to roughly 52,000 community water systems and 16,000 municipal wastewater treatment facilities. This Division works with drinking water and wastewater utilities, states, tribes, and other stakeholders to improve the security of these utilities and improve their ability to respond to security threats and breaches. Among its responsibilities and activities, the Water Security Division provides security and antiterrorism-related technical assistance and training to the water sector. As a sector, drinking water utilities acted relatively quickly to assess vulnerabilities, upgrade emergency response plans, and take some initial steps to improve security of this critical infrastructure. Funding for Drinking Water Security Activities

Since 2001, Congress has provided funds annually to EPA to improve the security of public water supplies. Congress has continued to provide roughly $5 million for these state grants each year. P.L. Again, Congress did not pass specific EPA appropriations, and the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act ( P.L. Another potential source of funding for community water systems is the State Homeland Security Grant Program, administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While the Homeland Security Act of 2002 broadly addressed critical infrastructure protection, the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 specifically aimed at improving the security of drinking water supplies. The act gave key responsibility for critical infrastructure protection to DHS, but did not transfer EPA water security functions to the new department. Under HSPD-7, DHS is responsible for overall coordination and integration of national critical infrastructure protection efforts by federal, state, and local governments and the private sector, whereas EPA is responsible for developing and providing water security tools and training for the nation's community water systems and municipal wastewater treatment facilities. The relative roles of EPA and DHS with regard to water sector security have also been at issue in debates on legislation to impose security requirements at chemical facilities. Although the Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act required community water systems to conduct vulnerability assessments and prepare emergency response plans, it did not require systems to make security upgrades to address any identified vulnerabilities. 109-295 , Section 550), the 109 th Congress authorized DHS to regulate, for three years, high-risk chemical facilities, excluding drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities and facilities in ports. 2868 , to revise and codify security requirements for chemical facilities and impose new security requirements on drinking water and wastewater utilities. In the Senate, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs reported H.R. Nonetheless, there is continued congressional interest in expanding security requirements for the chemical facility sector, and in including certain water utilities within the scope of such requirements. These principles are:
EPA should be the lead agency for chemical security for drinking water and wastewater systems, with DHS supporting EPA's efforts; to address chemical security in the water sector, EPA would use, with modifications as appropriate considering statutory requirements and the uniqueness of the water sector, DHS's existing risk assessment tools and performance standards for chemical facilities; DHS should be responsible for ensuring consistency of high-risk chemical facility security across all 18 infrastructure sectors; and to enhance the security of high-risk chemical storing facilities, where possible, these facilities should use safer technology such as less toxic chemicals. S. 2781 and S. 1995 proposed to amend the Clean Water Act to address security at wastewater treatment facilities. P.L. The substitute language would have extended the authorization of the current CFATS authority for three years, and established a voluntary training program and a best-practices clearinghouse for chemical facility security activities. 2868 . Congress has not provided funding specifically for water systems to make security improvements. House-passed H.R.
The events of September 11, 2001, focused attention on the security status of the nation's drinking water supplies and the vulnerability of this critical infrastructure sector to attack. Congress since has enacted security requirements for public water systems and has provided funding for vulnerability assessments, emergency planning, and drinking water research. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the lead federal agency for the water sector, has worked with water utilities, state and local governments, and federal agencies to improve the drinking water security. However, water facilities have not been required to address identified risks and vulnerabilities, and recent Congresses have considered legislation to mandate such actions.
The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188) amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to require some 8,400 community water systems to assess vulnerabilities and prepare emergency response plans. It authorized funding for these activities and for emergency grants to states and utilities, and it directed EPA to review methods to prevent, detect, and respond to threats to water safety and infrastructure security. The act did not require water systems to make security upgrades to address potential vulnerabilities. In most years since FY2002, Congress appropriated roughly $5 million annually for EPA to work with states and the water sector to improve the security of drinking water supplies.
In creating the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296), Congress gave DHS responsibility for assessing and protecting the nation's critical infrastructures. However, the act did not transfer EPA's water security functions, and the 2003 Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-7) affirmed EPA's lead role in protecting the water infrastructure. Under this directive, EPA has responsibility for developing and providing tools and training on improving security to roughly 52,000 community water systems and 16,000 municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
In the 109th Congress, the Department of Homeland Security FY2007 appropriations act (P.L. 109-295) authorized DHS to regulate for three years high-risk chemical facilities, but the law excluded from coverage drinking water and wastewater treatment facilities.
In the 111th Congress, interest in extending and expanding security requirements for the chemical facility sector continued, as has debate over whether to include certain water utilities within the scope of such requirements. House-passed H.R. 2868 would have imposed new security requirements on drinking water and wastewater utilities, while retaining EPA's regulatory authority for water sector utilities. The substitute version of H.R. 2868 reported by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs excluded water utilities and proposed to extend DHS chemical facility authority for three years, create voluntary technical assistance and training programs, and create a best practices clearinghouse.
Although EPA, states, localities, and water utilities have taken steps to address security concerns, the security of the nation's water supplies has continued to attract congressional attention. Issues have included the status of efforts by the water sector to improve security, whether to impose new federal requirements, funding needs for water systems to make security improvements, the relative roles and responsibilities of EPA and DHS regarding the water sector, and the status of research and development of technologies to help water systems detect and address potential biological and chemical contaminants. This report reviews governmental and water utility efforts to improve drinking water security.