To create the “Southern West Virginia Clean Water Fund” to be used in water emergencies or to upgrade infrastructure so residences can get clean water.
HB5525 would create the Southern West Virginia Clean Water Fund Act of 2026 and establish a new state framework for improving drinking water quality in Boone, Fayette, Greenbrier, Lincoln, Logan, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Monroe, Raleigh, Summers, Wayne, and Wyoming counties. The bill directs the Department of Environmental Protection to adopt drinking water standards that meet or exceed federal EPA requirements, update maximum contaminant levels every three years, and require water utilities to install advanced filtration where contaminant levels are unsafe.
The bill also creates a dedicated Clean Water Fund to provide grants and low-interest loans for water treatment upgrades and pipeline replacement, with priority for rural and underserved communities. It requires annual infrastructure assessments, quarterly testing for lead, bacteria, nitrates, and other contaminants, and public reporting through a state website and direct notice to residents. In addition, it sets a lead service line survey deadline of 2027, requires full lead pipe removal by 2035, and provides financial assistance to low-income households for replacement costs.
HB5525 would add a new article to the West Virginia Code and impose new regulatory, reporting, enforcement, and funding requirements on public water systems in the listed southern counties. It would expand the Department of Environmental Protection’s authority over drinking water standards, require more frequent testing and public disclosure, authorize fines and possible temporary state management for noncompliant systems, and create a new state fund supported by a $10 million appropriation plus federal and private funding efforts. The bill would directly affect water utilities, local residents, especially low-income households, and county systems with aging or contaminated infrastructure.
The available voting history suggests the bill drew meaningful support but also significant opposition. A motion to discharge the bill from committee ultimately passed, indicating enough members wanted it moved forward, but the preceding and subsequent votes were close, including a failed motion to table and a failed vote to dispense with the constitutional rule. That pattern suggests the bill was viewed as important and urgent by supporters, while opponents were concerned enough to resist expedited consideration.
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s scope, cost, and regulatory burden. Supporters likely emphasized the need for safe drinking water, lead pipe replacement, and infrastructure investment in underserved southern counties. Opponents likely focused on the $10 million appropriation, ongoing compliance costs for utilities, mandatory testing and reporting requirements, and the possibility of state intervention or fines for noncompliance. The targeted county approach and the bill’s aggressive deadlines for lead service line removal may also have been debated as to feasibility and fairness.