To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make certain technology investments eligible for additional subsidization, and for other purposes.
Summary
HB5513 would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, specifically the Clean Water State Revolving Fund additional subsidization provisions, to expand the kinds of projects that can qualify for extra financial assistance. The bill adds certain technology investments to the list of eligible uses, including software for asset management, software for operational analysis, and advanced digital construction management systems.
In addition to technology-related tools, the bill would expressly allow additional subsidization for projects that advance water-efficiency goals, energy-efficiency goals, reduce stormwater runoff, or are cost-effective and sustainably planned, designed, and constructed. The measure is framed as a targeted update to federal water infrastructure financing rules rather than a broad rewrite of water pollution law.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend 33 U.S.C. 1383(i)(1)(B) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to broaden the categories of projects eligible for additional subsidization through state water pollution control revolving funds. This would likely give states and local water systems more flexibility to use subsidized federal financing for digital management tools, efficiency upgrades, stormwater mitigation, and sustainability-focused infrastructure projects, potentially affecting municipalities, utilities, and project planners that rely on Clean Water SRF funding.
Sentiment
The available record suggests generally favorable or at least noncontroversial treatment of the bill, but the context is limited. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, and the bill was simply referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. The text itself reflects a practical, modernization-oriented approach that emphasizes efficiency, sustainability, and technology adoption in water infrastructure.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. Potential areas of debate, if the bill advances, could include whether expanding subsidization to software and digital systems is an appropriate use of water infrastructure funds, how broadly “sustainably planned, designed, and constructed” should be interpreted, and whether the added eligibility criteria could shift limited revolving fund resources away from traditional physical infrastructure projects. However, no opposing views are recorded here.