[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CYANOTOXINS IN DRINKING WATER
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 19, 2014
__________
Serial No. 113-181
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
93-990 WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
JOE BARTON, Texas Ranking Member
Chairman Emeritus JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky Chairman Emeritus
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GREG WALDEN, Oregon ANNA G. ESHOO, California
LEE TERRY, Nebraska ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia JIM MATHESON, Utah
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JOHN BARROW, Georgia
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey Islands
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
CORY GARDNER, Colorado PETER WELCH, Vermont
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PAUL TONKO, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri
BILLY LONG, Missouri
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
PHIL GINGREY, Georgia PAUL TONKO, New York
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
RALPH M. HALL, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky GENE GREEN, Texas
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania LOIS CAPPS, California
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JOHN BARROW, Georgia
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BILL JOHNSON, Missouri HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex
JOE BARTON, Texas officio
FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 4
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, prepared statement................................... 78
Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 79
Witnesses
Peter Grevatt, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Craig W. Butler, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.. 24
Prepared statement........................................... 27
John Donahue, General Manager, North Park (Il) Public Water
District, On Behalf of American Water Works Association........ 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Director, Clean Water Action...... 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Submitted Material
Prepared statement of Hon. Marcy Kaptur, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Ohio................................ 80
Letter of November 18, 2014, from the Ohio Farm Burea to Mr.
Shimkus, submitted by Mr. Latta................................ 83
Statements submitted by Mr. Shimkus.............................. 85
CYANOTOXINS IN DRINKING WATER
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2014
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in
room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John
Shimkus (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Latta, Harper,
McKinley, Bilirakis, Johnson, Tonko, and Barrow.
Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Leighton
Brown, Press Assistant; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental
Policy Advisor; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment/
Economy; Tina Richards, Counsel, Environment; Chris Sarley,
Policy Coordinator, Environment & Economy; Jacqueline Cohen,
Democratic Senior Counsel; and Ryan Schmit, Democratic EPA
Detailee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. I call the subcommittee to order, and the
chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
Today's subcommittee will be taking a look at the harmful
algal blooms in drinking water, including the source water used
for drinking. I thank Representative Latta for his efforts on
this issue, for bringing it to the subcommittee's attention. He
has delved into the minutiae of this issue in search of a
useful and long term solution to this problem. Having sat in
some of the meetings with Mr. Latta that he has been having on
this issue, I realize what a complex and widespread issue this
is, but one which only gained national attention a few months
ago.
Some folks may be tempted to think that there are easy
solutions to this problem, but I caution jumping to simple or
sweeping conclusions. There is no single smoking gun that leads
to algae based toxins in drinking water. I believe we will hear
our witnesses say that there are still plenty of things that we
don't know about this subject.
I understand from drinking water treatment professionals
that many types of cyanobacteria and diversity of the habitat
make it complicated to predict the precise conditions favoring
their growth. Physical factors that affect whether
cyanobacteria grow include available light, weather conditions,
water flow, temperatures, and mixing within the water column.
Acidity and nutrient concentrations, including those from
municipal wastewater, urban lawn and golf course management,
and agricultural processes all contribute to algal bloom
growth. In addition, we will hear testimony that experiencing a
blue-green algae bloom does not always mean there is a
cyanotoxin problem.
We need to know more about this issue. We understand that
there are--at least 35 states have reported blue-green algal
blooms, but we need to separate out the drinking water concerns
from those seen in the recreational waters context. This
hearing is meant to focus on the Safe Drinking Water Act, not
lawns in other subcommittees or committees, whether that be a
regulation of nitrogen disposition under the Clean Air Act or
nutrient management under the Clean Water Act.
There are plenty of questions within the context of
ensuring the provision of safe drinking water that we should
focus on and learn about today. Our hearing will allow us to
focus on where we are with our understanding of the U.S. EPA's
effort on better grasping blue-green algal--algae in the
drinking water context, including health effects and current
data, monitoring and testing techniques, and public health
communication strategies. We will also hear from witnesses on
what happened this past August in Ohio, and what lessons we
learned. Finally, we will get a better sense of what drinking
water treatment professionals are doing to better prepare to
handle these events.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and
yield the rest of my time to Mr. Latta.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
Today, the subcommittee will be taking a look at the
harmful algal blooms in drinking water, including the source
water used for drinking. I thank Representative Latta for his
efforts on this issue and for bringing it to the subcommittee's
attention. He has delved into the minutia of this issue in
search of useful and longterm solutions to this problem.
Having sat in some of the meetings Mr. Latta has been
having on this issue, I realize what a complex and widespread
issue this is, but one which only gained national attention a
few months ago.
Some folks may be tempted to think there are easy solutions
to this problem, but I caution jumping to simple or sweeping
conclusions. There is no single ``smoking gun'' that leads to
algae-based toxins in drinking water, I believe we will hear
our witnesses say there are still plenty of things we don't
know about this subject.
I understand from drinking water treatment professionals
that the many types of cyanobacteria and diversity of their
habitats make it complicated to predict the precise conditions
favoring their growth. Physical factors that affect whether
cyanobacteria grow include available light, weather conditions,
water flow, temperature, and mixing within the water column.
Acidity and nutrient concentrations--including those from
municipal waste water, urban lawn and golf course management,
and agricultural processes--all contribute to algal bloom
growth.
In addition, we'll hear testimony that experiencing a blue-
green algae bloom does not always mean there is a problem.
We need to know more about this issue. We understand that
at least 35 states have reported blue-green algae blooms, but
we need to separate out the drinking water concerns from those
in the recreational waters context. This hearing is meant to
focus on the Safe Drinking Water Act, not laws in other
subcommittees or committees whether that be regulation of
nitrogen deposition under the Clean Air Act or nutrient
management under the Clean Water Act.
There are plenty of questions within the context of
ensuring the provision of safe drinking water that we should
focus on and learn about today.
Our hearing will allow us to focus on where we are with our
understanding of U.S. EPA's efforts on better grasping blue-
green algae in the drinking water context, including health
effects and occurrence data, monitoring and testing techniques,
and public health communications strategies. We will also hear
from witnesses on what happened this past August in Ohio, and
what lessons were learned. Finally, we will get a better sense
of what drinking water treatment professionals are doing to
better prepare to handle these events.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
very much for holding this very important hearing today. I
really appreciate it and your interest in the subject, because
it affects so many millions of Americans,
First, I would like to recognize one of our witnesses today
from my home state, Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler. Mr. Butler
has been director of the Ohio EPA since early 2014, and
previously served in the governor's administration as the
assistant policy director for energy, agriculture, and the
environment. I have had the pleasure of working with Director
Butler on issues of great importance to Ohio. I am grateful
that he is able to be here today to share his expertise and
insights with the subcommittee.
The United States is truly fortunate to have a vast amount
of surface water. It provides immense value to our nation's
ecosystem and economy, as well as drinking water to countless
Americans. To me, nowhere is this more evident than the Great
Lakes, the largest surface freshwater system on Earth, that
provides drinking water to tens of millions of people.
Unfortunately, cyanotoxins in public drinking produced from
harmful algal blooms are presenting a serious concern for our
health. This past August, half a million people in the Toledo
area, many of which are residents of my district, were unable
to utilize their public drinking water for over 2 days without
risking potentially negative health effects due to the high
level of cyanotoxins, microsystems--detected in the city's
public water supply. During that time, both concerns and
questions were raised about testing protocols, treatment
process, appropriate responses on how to respond to the problem
in the short term.
I know from my personal experience that the State,
including Director Butler, and the U.S. EPA worked tirelessly
with the local water utility to get the situation under
control. I commend their hard work, and the steps they have
taken since to try to ensure this does not happen again.
However, I believe to fully protect our citizens' public
drinking water from cyanotoxins, it is imperative that Federal,
State, and local governments work together to better understand
the science and human effects of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins,
as well as the best utilization of available testing,
monitoring, and treatment technology.
I am confident, by working together, we can accomplish
this. I look forward to today's hearing, and hearing from our
witnesses on what types of strategies, actions U.S. EPA would
take to close these gaps and improve human health and
environmental protection. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would
yield back my time, and also I would ask that I have a letter
from the Ohio Farm Bureau that I would like to have inserted
into the record.
Mr. Shimkus. Without objection, so ordered in.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. And with that, I turn to Ranking Member Paul
Tonko for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
each and everyone. Thank you again, Mr. Chair, for scheduling a
hearing on what I believe is a very important topic. Water is
an essential resource. It has no substitute. Although 70
percent of the planet's surface is covered with water, only a
small fraction of that is of sufficient quality to serve our
needs.
Much of the Eastern half of the United States is blessed
with ample freshwater resources, and no region is more well-
endowed than the areas bordering the Great Lakes. The Great
Lakes contain 21 percent of the Earth's surface freshwater
supply, and 84 percent of the United States' surface freshwater
supply. We share these resources with Canada, and they are
vitally important to the well being and economic fortunes of
over 30 million people living within the eight states of our
nation, and province of Ontario. The importance of this
resource cannot be understated. We must protect it.
I am reminded by my colleague, Representative Kaptur about
the importance of water quality, and the impact on her area
with this issue. The algal bloom that resulted in Toledo's
residents losing the use of their tap water is not a new
problem. In part because Lake Erie is the shallowest lake, with
the warmest waters, algal blooms have been a well-known problem
for decades. Investments made in better sewage treatment and
control of point sources in the 1960s and 1970s improved the
situation for a time. But the steady input of nutrients from
agricultural operations, especially from the Miami Watershed,
expanded populations of invasive species, and changes in
weather patterns have continued to fuel harmful algal blooms.
We cannot do much about the weather patterns, but we can do
much better in managing nutrient inputs and invasive species.
Mr. Donahue points out in his testimony that the cost of these
blooms, and for treating water to remove the resulting toxins,
is falling on the water utilities and their customers. That is
true, but the cost of these algal bloom events are even larger
than that, and they are also falling on other individuals and
businesses that rely on a clean, bloom free Lake Erie to
support tourism, to support recreation, to support fisheries,
and other activities.
The International Joint Commission released a report this
past February with 16 recommendations for action by the
governments of the states and province within the Great Lakes
Basin. The report identifies phosphorus loading as a key driver
for the increased intensity and frequency of harmful algal
blooms in Lake Erie. Seven of the recommendations specifically
target phosphorus nutrient loading from agricultural lands.
This is the largest unchecked input of nutrients to the lake.
Farmers do not wake up every morning with a plan to cause
algal blooms in Lake Erie, or any of the other water bodies
that are experiencing this problem, but it is happening as a
result of farming practices, and the problem needs to be
addressed. Agriculture is important to this region, and to our
nation, and agriculture also relies on a good supply of water.
The goal here is to strike an appropriate balance that keeps
farms economically viable and productive, but reduces the
transport of soil and nutrients off the land. There is no
denying that agriculture practices result in nutrient runoff at
levels that cannot continue if we are to get these blooms under
control.
The good news is that our land grant universities, the
Natural Resource Conservation Service, and others have
developed best management practices that can be adopted to
achieve some of the needed reduction. And EPA has been working
with states of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to implement basin-
wide nutrient management plans to address similar problems that
we have noted in the Chesapeake Bay. Nutrients that are coming
off of fields are not benefitting anyone. Better nutrient
management will not only benefit water quality, it will benefit
farming also.
Until we get these blooms under control, we are going to
need better information for water utilities and the public
about the toxicity of these blooms. But to truly ensure the
safety of drinking water supplies, we will need to take serious
steps to correct the source of the problem. These blooms not
only jeopardize public drinking water supplies, they result in
dead zones due to lack of oxygen when the blooming organisms
die, and sink to the bottoms of lakes and estuaries.
Ultimately, it is less expensive to prevent pollution than
it is to clean it up. This problem is not unique to Lake Erie.
It is happening in other places as well. We are all dependent
upon clean water supplies, and we all must work together to
better manage these vital resources. Maintaining safe drinking
water available to every household through the tap is one of
the conveniences that define a modern society. We cannot
compromise on that guarantee.
We have an excellent panel of witnesses before us today. I
look forward to hear your testimony, and I thank you for
participating in this very important hearing. And, Mr. Chair, I
hope we will be able to spend time over the next 2 years
finding a way to address the backlog of drinking water
infrastructure needs that we have in communities across this
great country. I would welcome an opportunity to work with you
and other members of the committee on this important issue in
the next Congress. And with that I yield back, and thank you
again.
Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. Any other
member seeking time for an opening statement? Seeing none, we
would like to welcome Dr. Peter Grevatt. He is the Director of
Office and Groundwater and Drinking Water at the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. Welcome, sir. You have 5
minutes. We are not going to be draconian on time, and then we
will go to questions. So, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DR. PETER GREVATT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GROUND
WATER AND DRINKING WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir, thank you. Good morning, Chairman
Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on EPA's activities to
address harmful algal blooms and their impact on drinking water
supplies. Today I will discuss the health effects of
cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins, the incident in Toledo this
summer, authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and
strategies for preventing harmful algal blooms.
Cyanobacteria are found naturally in surface waters, and
can rapidly multiply, causing harmful blooms. Factors that
enhance bloom formation include light intensity, nutrient
availability, water temperature, and water column stability.
Some species of cyanobacteria produce toxic compounds known as
cyanotoxins. High levels of cyanotoxins in recreational waters,
and drinking water, may cause a wide range of adverse health
effects in humans, including fever, diarrhea, vomiting, and
allergic reactions.
While the risk associated with low levels of cyanotoxins in
drinking water is uncertain, the effects reported following
exposure suggest that this is an important issue for us to
address. Communities on Western Lake Erie, including Toledo,
remain vulnerable to emergency shutdowns from harmful algal
blooms.
On the morning of August 2, Toledo Mayor Collins issued a
don't drink or boil advisory to the nearly 500,000 customers in
response to the presence of microcystin in the city's drinking
water, leading to the declaration of a state of emergency by
the governor, and mobilization of the Ohio National Guard to
provide emergency drinking water supplies.
The presence of the toxin was due to a harmful algal bloom
near Toledo's intake on Lake Erie. The U.S. EPA performed
sample analyses to confirm the concentrations of algal toxins,
and worked with the State of Ohio and the City of Toledo to
identify the optimal approach for controlling the toxins at the
utility. When treatment adjustments led to the reduction on
cyanotoxin concentrations, Mayor Collins lifted the advisory on
Monday, August 4.
Currently there are no U.S. Federal regulations concerning
cyanotoxins in drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act
establishes a number of tools, including health advisories, the
contaminant candidate list, and the Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Rule to develop regulatory and non-regulatory
approaches to addressing contaminants in drinking water. EPA is
preparing health advisories for microcystin and
cylindrospermopsin, two cyanotoxins commonly associated with
harmful algal blooms.
The health advisories will establish concentrations of
drinking water contaminants below which adverse health effects
are not anticipated to occur, as well as provide states, and
municipalities, and other local officials with technical
guidance on sampling, analytical procedures, and drinking water
treatment recommendations to protect public health. We expect
to finalize these health advisories in 2015.
EPA's contaminant candidate list identifies unregulated
contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public
water systems which may require regulation. The EPA uses this
list to prioritize research and data collection efforts. My
office has listed several cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins on the
three contaminant lists that have been developed.
EPA uses the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule to
collect data for contaminants that do not have primary drinking
water standards, and are suspected to be present in drinking
water. A lack of standardized analytical methods for individual
cyanotoxins has prevented EPA from including them in the
current and previous rounds of the unregulated contaminant
monitoring rule. The agency is currently developing specific
analytical methods for microcystins, anatoxin-a, and
cylindrospermopsin. EPA expects these methods to be available
in 2015 in time to consider including several cyanotoxins in
the fourth unregulated contaminant monitoring rule. Monitoring
for the fourth round of UCMR will begin in 2018.
While monitoring and treatment are critical for providing
safe drinking water, this year's incident in Toledo illustrates
the difficulties of removing those contaminants at the
treatment plant. Shortly after the Toledo incident, EPA
redirected $12 million in Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
funding to Federal and State agencies to strengthen ongoing
efforts to target harmful algal blooms in Western Lake Erie.
Continued source water protection efforts, and adequate
investment in our nation's infrastructure, will be necessary to
prevent events such as the one in Toledo in the future.
Once again, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss EPA's work on cyanotoxins in drinking water, and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grevatt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. First of all, I want to
personally thank you for flying back, especially for today for
the hearing in a town called New Orleans, so--New Orleans,
D.C., 15 degrees versus whatever it was down there. We
appreciate it.
Then I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for the first
round of questions. Could you please--I kind of said some of
this stuff in my opening statement, and you kind of reaffirmed
this, just, for the record, how many cyanotoxins there are.
Mr. Grevatt. So there are many dozens of cyanotoxins. There
are over 40 cyanobacteria that can produce cyanotoxins, and
there are in the range of 80 forms of microcystins alone, so
there are many dozens of different cyanotoxins.
Mr. Shimkus. And that was my next question. So there are
over 80 microcystins?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. Are all cyanobacteria harmful?
Mr. Grevatt. So cyanobacteria are capable--certainly some
are capable of producing the toxins. It is the toxins that are
released from the bacteria that are harmful. And we don't fully
appreciate the specific conditions that lead cyanobacteria to
generate these toxins, so they aren't necessarily always
harmful in every condition, but certainly they are capable of
producing very harmful compounds.
Mr. Shimkus. Do you know which cyanobacteria are harmful in
a drinking water context?
Mr. Grevatt. So the ones that we have been most concerned
about are microcystis, and then the cyanobacteria that also
produce the anatoxin, the cylindrospermopsin, and the
saxitoxin. The ones that we are focused on currently at EPA are
the microcystin generated cyanobacteria, as well as
cylindrospermopsins and the anatoxins.
Mr. Shimkus. Is there a threshold level of exposure of
microcystin LR in drinking water at which the EPA has seen
adverse human impacts?
Mr. Grevatt. So there is no threshold level yet that has
been identified in humans. There has never been any testing in
humans to identify what a threshold level might be. There
certainly is the history with microcystins of--for example, in
Brazil in the '90s, there was a kidney dialysis center that
microcystins in their system that led to 50 deaths as a result
of that treatment. So we know that microcystins can, in certain
circumstances, produce high toxicity in humans. We don't know
specifically what a threshold level would be.
Part of what our health advisory effort is designed to do
is to help identify a level below which we think exposure would
be safe.
Mr. Shimkus. And that Brazil case, was that over time, or
was it, like, identified, and then those deaths occurred
rapidly? Was that over time?
Mr. Grevatt. So I would have to get back to you on the
specifics of that case. All that I know is that that clearly
was defined as microcystin leading to 50 deaths. And that was,
of course, intravenous exposure, and at much higher levels than
what we might see----
Mr. Shimkus. Right.
Mr. Grevatt [continuing]. In drinking water, but it tells
us, at least, this is a dangerous compound for humans.
Mr. Shimkus. Right. Thank you. Many people have been using
the terms like health advisory and standard interchangeably,
but I am not sure that they are. So are these terms defined in
the Safe Drinking Water Act?
Mr. Grevatt. Yes, these terms are defined in the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The health advisories were introduced in
the 1996 amendments to the Act. These are non-regulatory
levels, right, and they are really guidance values to help
states and communities to guide their steps they might take in
response to the presence of contaminants in drinking water. A
standard, of course, is a regulatory value that drinking water
systems must meet.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. When EPA issues a health advisory,
what types of information does it address, and what level of
detail?
Mr. Grevatt. Right. So there are several pieces of the
health advisory that will--pieces of information that will be
included. The first is discussing the environmental properties
of the compound the health advisory is focused on. The second
is identifying sampling and analytical techniques that are
available for that compound. The third is identifying the safe
level for that compound. Then the last, very important piece is
identifying treatment technologies that are available to remove
that compound from drinking water systems.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes, and that is what my follow-up was--my
follow-up was do you recommend testing methods in these? And
you did talk about treatment a little bit.
Mr. Grevatt. Right. So we are currently in the process of
developing a new analytical method for microcystin, and
cylindrospermopsin, and anatoxin. And so these methods will
help us to be able to define specifically much lower levels of
these toxins in drinking water. You are probably aware that
many systems in states across the country currently use a
screening level method known as the Elisa Method. That is
certainly what was used in Toledo, and by the State of Ohio. It
is a very useful method. The one we are developing is going to
be very specific for individual microsystem----
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. I yield back the
remainder of my time, and turn to Ranking Member Mr. Tonko for
5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Doctor, we have heard
today about actions that can be taken to address harmful algal
blooms in the short and long term. Some may believe that the
solution to this drinking water problem is a standard for
microcystin, the toxin released by these organisms. But that
would require water utilities to treat the symptom of harmful
algal blooms, instead of addressing the underlying root causes.
One tool for addressing these causes that cannot be overlooked
is the regulation of nutrient pollution.
Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous in water
sources from agricultural storm water and waste water runoff
fuel rapid algal growth. Algae's rapid reproduction outpaces
that of other organisms, overtaking entire ecosystems. When
they die, sink to the bottom, and decompose, an oxygen-free
dead zone, as you know, is the result.
So, Dr. Grevatt, how are elevated nutrient levels in water
sources like Lake Erie contributing to harmful algal blooms and
toxic contamination of our water sources?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you. So we understand clearly that there
are several factors that contribute to the growth of harmful
algal blooms, certainly one of those is nutrients, and we
believe that a solution to this problem requires attention both
on source water protection, as well as infrastructure in the
drinking water treatment facilities, that without both of those
steps it would be very difficult to manage this problem.
Mr. Tonko. And what authority does your office have under
the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act to prevent
non-point source nutrient pollution from entering our drinking
water sources?
Mr. Grevatt. Right. So, under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
which my office is solely responsible for implementing, there
is a requirement for states to produce source water
assessments, which was completed. This was in the 1996
amendments. Every state has completed this task. There are no
further requirements for source water protection, but certainly
we encourage states and local communities to work together to
address the sources of pollution that can create these sorts of
problems in drinking water supplies.
Clean Water Act is not an authority that my office
implements, but certainly there are a number of provisions
focusing on issues like non-point source pollution. We have the
319 grants, and a number of other activities that we have been
advancing, along with partners at the Federal level to address
sources pollution.
Mr. Tonko. And, in your view, is it important to address
nutrient pollution in addition to addressing the cyanotoxins in
drinking water?
Mr. Grevatt. Without question. I think it would be very
difficult. If we don't do that, what will happen is that we are
putting all the burden on the drinking water systems to remove
the toxins from the source water, and we saw in the case of
Toledo that that can be a difficult thing to achieve. And so we
believe it is important to address both the sources that are
contributing to the growth of the algal blooms, as well as
making sure that the treatment systems are up to the very tip-
top shape so they can remove these pollutants from the drinking
water.
Mr. Tonko. And the treatment systems are available, or do
they need to be further developed?
Mr. Grevatt. So the treatment systems are--treatment
techniques are available to remove algal toxins and
cyanobacteria from drinking water supplies, but it is not
necessarily a simple and straightforward task. And so that is
part of the reason why we think we really have to address both
issues----
Mr. Tonko. Yes.
Mr. Grevatt [continuing]. Currently.
Mr. Tonko. And is drinking water contamination the only
problem associated with these blooms?
Mr. Grevatt. So there are a number of issues. I think not
many of you are familiar with concerns associated with
recreational use of water, children and families at bathing
beaches, if there are harmful algal blooms, can be exposed,
and, in some cases, sickened by those blooms. Certainly we see
issues with livestock and pets who have been poisoned as a
result of harmful algal blooms. And as well, as you mentioned,
the blooms can contribute to hypoxic situations in lakes and
reservoirs, and that can create a whole other set of issues
that are separate from the drinking water concerns.
Mr. Tonko. Another important tool is to ensure adequate
protections for seasonal streams, wetlands, and other water
with significant connections to downstream waters. The
regulatory statute of these waters--the regulatory of these
waters under the Clean Water Act is often misunderstood. EPA
and the United States Army Corps of Engineers recently proposed
to clarify the definition of waters of the United States under
the Clean Water Act to eliminate confusion, and ensure that
these waters are protected.
The recent report that I cited earlier included a
recommendation to restore wetland areas, and increase them by
10 percent, and the Western Lake Erie Basin is one of the ways
to address algal blooms in the lake. What is the function of
these small streams, wetlands, and other water bodies, and why
are they important to our ecosystem?
Mr. Grevatt. Right. Thank you. So, I want to be clear,
again, that my office doesn't implement the Clean Water Act,
but certainly it is the case that it is very difficult to
protect a body of water like Lake Erie without addressing the
pollutants that are flowing into the water from other streams
and rivers, and so I think it is a very important issue to
think about comprehensively.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I
really appreciate it. And Director, thank you again for being
here. And, again, as the Chairman said, thanks very much for
coming back from New Orleans to be with us today at the
subcommittee hearing, because it is very important to our
region of the state, but also what is going to come out of your
office in the near future is important to everyone.
And as we look at how obviously important it is that we
understand the extent of the problem that we have, and I know I
really appreciated the opportunity to sit down with you earlier
this fall to go through what had happened, and also some of the
issues that you are facing on peer review in getting that
information together, what do you believe today are the largest
gaps that we have in the health effects on the cyanotoxins are,
and those gaps?
Mr. Grevatt. Right, thank you. So there are a number of
different cyanotoxins, as I mentioned. There are some that we
understand much better than others. Perhaps the best studied is
the microcystin cyanotoxin that was the issue within the City
of Toledo drinking water system. And that is one of the health
advisories that we will be developing, along with
cylindrospermopsin.
Probably the largest data gaps we have, in terms of
toxicity, is the effects at very low levels of exposure. So
there are a number of studies that have been generated in
animals that look at issues like liver toxicity, and
reproductive toxicity associated with microcystin exposure, but
those studies aren't perfect. We had been, as I mentioned,
generating a health advisory for microcystin, and we have
subjected that draft health advisory to two rounds of
independent external peer review, and we are using the feedback
from the peer reviewers to make sure that we are taking the
best approaches to incorporate the information from these
studies, and the health advisory. And we will have that health
advisory available in the spring of next year.
Mr. Latta. When you are talking about the--on a peer
review, and maybe--as we talked earlier. Could you go into just
a little bit about--it is kind of difficult because of the
technical nature of this, and the expertise that is required,
and the folks that you have to find to be able to conduct this
peer review?
Mr. Grevatt. That is right. So what we will typically do at
EPA--when I say independent external, what I mean by that is we
will hire a contractor to identify scientists who are not
connected with the agency to review our work and give us
feedback independent of us. We don't choose the scientists who
review our work. They give us the feedback, and then we look at
how we interpret and incorporate their advice on how we
finalize these health advisories.
But we are looking at studies, typically in animals, and we
have to try and understand what those studies tell us about the
potential risks for humans. And that is part of the reason why
it is so important to have the peer review, to have the advice
about how best to do that.
Mr. Latta. OK. And as we know, that Ohio, and some of the
other states, if I am not mistaken from our conversation, only
about six other states are out there that are using surface
water, or have some type of a standard in place, and we are
using the World Health Organization standard. And when you are
looking at your health advisory that you are working on for
next year releasing, when was it that you all first decided at
EPA that you needed to really have that standard in place?
Mr. Grevatt. We decided that we needed to put a health
advisory in place well before the Toledo incident, so we have
been working on this throughout the last year, and even before.
And we are working closely with Health Canada and a number of
states in this effort to make sure that we are using the best
available data in the best way.
Mr. Latta. And when you are talking about that is--in the
last year, when you started looking at that, was there a reason
that you hadn't started working on it sooner, or is it
something that has just been coming up? Or what was the
reasoning behind that?
Mr. Grevatt. Right. It is an excellent question, and there
are two issues that have been challenging related to
cyanotoxins. One has been the absence of analytical methods
that are specific for individual cyanotoxins. And you remember
I mentioned there are over 80 conjurers of microcystin that
have different levels of toxicity. And the second is that the
data set on toxicity has not been all that robust.
There have been some additional studies that have been
generated, and, in fact, the World Health Organization value,
which about 12 countries around the world use today, and a
number of states use, that is based on a 1999 study, and it is
a 2003 guidance value that was generated, and so we felt it was
important to update that science. I think we have heard from
you, and many of your colleagues, about how important it is to
have a Federal health advisory in place, rather than relying on
something from the World Health Organization.
Mr. Latta. And in my remaining time, would that also
include--an advisory, would EPA issue for other separate types
of algal--or not algal blooms, but algal toxins? Would there be
one, or would you have several different types of advisories
that you would have out there?
Mr. Grevatt. We will have two health advisories, one for
microcystin, and a second for cylindrospermopsin. Those are the
two that we are focused on right now. So there will be two
documents that will come out. They will both include
information on health effects, treatment technologies, and
analytical procedures for sampling these compounds.
Mr. Latta. OK. Well, thank you very much, and, again, thank
you very much for being here. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman's time has expired. Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for
5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for--
Congressman Latta for bringing this to our attention. I don't
think 5 minutes is going to be enough for me, but let me see
where we can go with this.
Why Lake Erie? Is this--what made it unique? Because the
same toxins, or same nutrients are coming into the water in
Superior and Lake Michigan. Why--the--and is--am I accurate--I
was told that the--they--they are doing dredging near the port
in Toledo. So I didn't hear that come up as a possibility of
something that could be contributing, because you would have
nutrients absorbed into the sediment that would be disturbed.
Do you consider that possibly part of the uniqueness of why
western Erie was a factor?
Mr. Grevatt. Thank you. So clearly there are a number of
issues that contribute to the growth of harmful algal blooms.
We understand that nutrients are a very important factor. We
also understand that the warmth of the water is an important
factor. Availability of light is an important factor. And these
issues come together in western Lake Erie, being a very shallow
area, one of the most shallow areas of the Great Lakes, that
has large nutrient inflows, as well as having very warm water
temperatures. And also relatively stable water, without a whole
lot of flows, can also contribute. And so that is--all those
factors are present within western Lake Erie.
We should be clear that there are many, many lakes and
reservoirs across the United States that are being impacted by
harmful algal blooms today, and many states across the U.S.
that have similar factors of nutrient in----
Mr. McKinley. But what about----
Mr. Grevatt [continuing]. Shallow water.
Mr. McKinley [continuing]. The dredging? Could that be--how
do you take that into consideration?
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. So certainly there are a lot of
nutrients in the Lake Erie system today. Some of those are
contained within the dredge spoils, and there are some who
believe that the dredging may be a contributing factor, if they
are releasing nutrients into the water column, and also
supporting, then, the growth of the algae.
Mr. McKinley. What about the zebra mussel that was
introduced? I understand that also potentially has a
contributing factor.
Mr. Grevatt. That is an excellent question, and a number of
my colleagues within the Great Lakes states are focused on
issues, including invasive species. The thinking that some have
shared is that zebra mussels may contribute to the growth of
harmful algal blooms, cyanobacteria, by essentially
competitively eliminating the native species of algae, and
giving the cyanobacteria a greater opportunity to use the
nutrients that are available to grow and create blooms.
Mr. McKinley. All right. So--and then go back down to the
fundamental, it sounds like we are reacting, rather than
anticipatory. How are they testing for this? Is there just--
under the normal water treatment, does it remove the bacteria,
and something showed up on a test that was unique that--after
the fact that we had been using this water for some time? How
does our conventional treatment take care of this problem?
Mr. Grevatt. Our conventional treatment technologies can
take care of the problem, but it is not a simple task to do,
you know, so there are issues. For example, the microsystems,
the toxins, are frequently found within the cells, the
cyanobacteria cells. If one inadvertently breaks open the cells
in the treatment technology, they can actually make the problem
worse. So it is not a simple task to remove the cyanotoxins
from drinking water with standard treatment techniques.
Harmful algal blooms are not a new problem. They are a
problem that was present even decades ago, when I was growing
up in Cleveland, on Lake Erie. There were issues with harmful
algal blooms on the lake at that time, in the 1960s. We made
progress, and we see them now coming back for reasons that we
may not fully understand, all the different factors that are
contributing to that.
One of the activities that we put in place at EPA over the
last several years was a national lakes assessment that
characterized the conditions of the nation's lakes and
reservoirs, and that assessment sampled for cyanobacteria and
for microcystin, and helped to identify the extent of the
problem across the U.S., and I think contributed, in some ways,
to the awareness of some states, like the State of Ohio and
others, to the issues that need to be addressed.
Mr. McKinley. OK, but that just--there are a lot of
communities--I don't want to look at the Toledos, and the
Clevelands, and the Bostons, and--but what about the small
communities, or rural America? How do--are they going to be
equipped to be able to do the same water testing that Cleveland
does, or St. Louis?
Mr. Grevatt. This is a a very important issue, and you may
be aware that, not in 2014, but in 2013 Carroll Township, a
community of 4,000 on western Lake Erie, shut down for several
days as a result of algal toxins within their system. Carroll
Township was able to hook up to a neighboring community to get
pure water provided to their customers, but that may not always
be the case. And you are right that that is going to be a
significant challenge for small communities.
Within our program, our State Drinking Water Revolving Loan
Fund is focused on providing resources especially to small
communities. So we provide resources to small, medium, and
large communities, but especially focused on small communities
to help them address these sorts of issues.
Mr. McKinley. OK. I have run over my time. Thank you very
much.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, and I also want to highlight this.
You work with the State Revolving Loan Fund. I have got a large
rural area, and that has been a very successful program. It has
been very helpful to my community, so--seeing--is there any
other questions from colleagues present? Seeing none, again, we
want to thank you for making your trip back. This is an
important issue. We want to keep our eye on it, and work with
everything, and stakeholders, to try to make sure that we can
do what is in the best interest to protect the water supply for
our constituents and our citizens. So thank you very much, and
with that, I will dismiss the first panel, and we will empanel
the second one.
And we want to welcome, as the second panel--in the order
at the table, we have the Honorable Craig Butler, who is
director of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. We have Mr.
John Donahue, general manager at North Park Illinois Public
Water District, on behalf of the American Water Works
Association. And last, but not least, Ms. Lynn Thorp, national
campaigns director of the Clean Water Action. Welcome.
Your full statements will be submitted for the record. You
will have 5 minutes. It is a--as you see, it is kind of a laid
back day, so we are not going to be, again, brutal on time, but
if we can get to questions eventually, that would be great. And
I also want to thank--Mr. Grevatt is still sitting here, which
I think is very important, and thank you for attending for a
little bit longer.
So with that, Mr. Butler, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE CRAIG W. BUTLER, DIRECTOR, OHIO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; JOHN DONAHUE, GENERAL MANAGER,
NORTH PARK (IL) PUBLIC WATER DISTRICT, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN
WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION; AND LYNN THORP, NATIONAL CAMPAIGNS
DIRECTOR, CLEAN WATER ACTION
STATEMENT OF CRAIG W. BUTLER
Mr. Butler. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Tonko, rest of the members of the committee, Representative
Latta also for the invitation today. We appreciate it. I am
Craig Butler, Director of Ohio EPA, and the Environmental
Protection Agency, we appreciate the opportunity to offer
testimony on the important subject of cyanotoxins, or harmful
algal blooms, or sometimes we call them HABs, in our drinking
water. The importance of this hearing, as we have heard today,
cannot be highlighted more by the events of early August in
Toledo, when nearly 500,000 people were told not to drink the
water due to presence of microcystin in public drinking water
above an acceptable level. Recommending the issuance of this
was not taken lightly, given the significance of the social and
economic impact. But in consultation with experts on my staff,
a decision had to be made to protect public health, and was
based on the best science available.
Ensuring that Ohio's 4,500 public water systems provide
safe drinking water is one of the most important
responsibilities I have as director at Ohio EPA. This includes
125 systems using surface water, several of which draw their
water directly from Lake Erie. To do this, Ohio implements and
enforces drinking water standards and regulations established
by U.S. EPA. I believe U.S. EPA's general regulatory approach
is very robust, results in scientifically defensible and
feasible regulation.
In dealing with HABs in Ohio drinking water supplies, we
had to short circuit this rigorous regulatory process out of
necessity. For example, in 2010, largely responsible to a
significant harmful algal bloom in Grand Lake St. Mary's in
Western Central Ohio, the state established a strategy to
identify and respond to the presence of toxins in water being
used for recreation, and as a source of public drinking water.
Ohio has established sampling and analytical protocols, and
also public health advisory levels, for several of the most
commonly identified toxins. And while we worked with U.S. EPA
on many of these issues, Ohio realized we would need to lead
the nation in many respects, and have to go it alone, if you
will, since a national regulatory testing framework was not
completed at that time.
With the technical assistance of U.S. EPA since, and the
Office of Water, and the Office of Research and Development,
which is located in Ohio, we are pleased, and have been able to
work with Toledo to ensure that their treatment plant was again
operating properly, and able to provide Toledoans with safe
drinking water.
One of our lessons learned, if you will, and one of the
very first of many steps we took to combat harmful algal blooms
after the event in Toledo was to immediately make $1 million
available in grant funds for cyanobacteria testing equipment to
communities so water systems across the state could, and can,
conduct their own monitoring for the presence of HABs. We
believe this will enable them to more closely monitor the
source water for algal blooms, and rapidly respond with any
necessary treatment and adjustments.
We also made $50 million available through zero interest
loans for enhanced water treatment and infrastructure, and
backup water sources at public water systems. And while not
directly related to drinking water, we also, at that time, made
$100 million available to our wastewater treatment systems
across the state to help manage the issues about nutrients
being discharged from their waste treatment systems.
Ohio EPA continues to coordinate with U.S. EPA regarding
the health advisory we spoke of--heard Dr. Grevatt speak of
this morning about levels expected to be issues--issued by the
U.S. EPA next spring, as well as the analytical methodologies,
and the effectiveness of various treatment processes. We know
they have accelerated this work, and we applaud their efforts
to provide more guidance to states. We have also been
coordinating with other states through the Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators, and concur with the comments
contained in ASDWA's November 14, 2014 letter to this
subcommittee.
Ohio EPA has been active in addressing HAB and drinking
water sources, but as I can tell you, these issues are very
complex. Many other states are under similar circumstances,
although only about six have identified health advisory levels.
Those levels are different, and based on a small set of data
and information about HABs. It is my belief that the country
would benefit from having a national dialogue, and establishing
a consistent set of national standards for all to follow.
Specific elements of the national approach should include a
robust assessment of the health effects, and recommended health
advisory levels not only for microcystin, but also for other
variants of microcystin, as well as other common cyanotoxins.
Second, standard analytical methods that are reliable and
selective, but also affordable, guidance on the appropriate
frequency of monitoring. Additional information on the ecology
of cyanobacteria, and more guidance on the reliable treatment
approach are necessary.
In the long term, however, we believe that the best
approach is to protect public water supplies through a source
water protection plan, as well as preventing blooms via data
driven targeted strategies to address nutrient pollution from
not only agriculture, but other point sources, non-point
sources, and other sources in general. As we are putting--and
we are putting that into place in Ohio today. With the support
of significant funding through the GLRI, or the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative, we have developed a coordinated
strategy with the State's Department of Agriculture, Natural
Resources, EPA, and Health to develop prescriptions for
watersheds in the Lake Erie Basin to address nutrient
pollution, based on data we have available.
In summary, EPA takes very seriously the quality of water--
drinking water supplied to our public water systems. Ohio has
taken many proactive steps to address the issue. It is our
strong belief that state and Federal leaders need to work
closely together to quickly advance the science of detection
and effective treatment. We stand ready in the State of Ohio to
continue to lead in this effort, and we will gladly work with
other states. I appreciate the opportunity to offer this
testimony to the committee, and would be pleased to respond and
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Butler follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. I would like to recognize
Mr. John Donahue. Sir, again, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN DONAHUE
Mr. Donahue. Good morning Chairman Shimkus and members of
the subcommittee. My name is John Donahue, and I am the Chief
Executive Officer of the North Park Public Water District based
in Machesney Park, Illinois. I deeply appreciate this
opportunity to offer input on the critical issues surrounding
algal bloom, cyanotoxins, and our Nation's sources of drinking
water. I am here today on behalf of the American Water Works
Association, which I serve as president. My remarks reflect the
experiences and perspective of AWWA's nearly 50,000 members.
Established in 1881, AWWA is the world's oldest and largest
non-profit scientific and educational association dedicated to
water. Our utility members provide safe and affordable water
every day to more than 70 percent of the American population.
As you know, last August an algal bloom in western Lake
Erie resulted in the formation of a toxin known as microcystin,
requiring the City of Toledo to issue a Do Not Drink Advisory
that affected more than 400,000 people. The formation of algal
toxins is very complex, and not fully understood. The same can
be said for their possible human health effects. But one thing
is certain, this problem is always associated with excessive
amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus in water.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, non-point sources,
predominantly runoff and air deposition, account for 90 percent
of the nitrogen and 75 percent of the phosphorous in our
waterways. The fairest and best strategy for reducing the scope
and severity of this problem in the future is bringing non-
point sources of nutrient pollution under more effective
management. At present, though, these sources lie largely
outside the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.
There are some Federal programs that do have a bearing on
nutrients in our water, such as the conservation title of the
Farm Bill. However, these conservation programs are voluntary
in nature, in contrast to the clean water permit programs, and
they are not based upon the quality of receiving waters, nor do
they reflect the need to protect downstream sources of drinking
water.
Now, drinking water treatment technology does exist to
allow drinking water utilities to remove toxins produced by
algal blooms, however, this technology is very expensive to
acquire and maintain. In addition, removing these toxins after
they occur does nothing to protect the ecosystem, and the
people within the watershed. As a utility manager, the
protection of public health is always my most important
priority, and the same is true for the American Water Works
Association.
Even before this summer's events, AWWA had taken steps to
help water systems at risk from algal events. These include
developing and distributing information to assist water
systems, and anticipating and responding to source water
challenges, including cyanobacterial blooms and cyanotoxins,
prepare a water utility manager's guide to cyanotoxins, which
is now in its final review, encouraging water systems to
evaluate their circumstances to determine whether they might
have unrecognized cyanotoxin concern, and to establish
appropriate safeguards, and assisting water systems with
guidance and training in emergency preparedness so that they
have protocols in place to respond to events like that
experienced in Toledo.
Having said those things, utility managers can't solve this
problem on their own. We need Federal help. Federal agencies,
including U.S. EPA, USDA, should include existing authorities
to give much higher priority to nutrient reduction projects
that protect downstream drinking water supplies. For example,
the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund and Farm Bill
conservation programs could be targeted and used more
effectively to reduce nutrient pollution, and protect drinking
water sources.
With regard to drinking water regulation, we support the
science-based standard setting process in the Safe Drinking
Water Act. EPA has indicated it will use the unregulated
contaminant monitoring rule process as the first step in
determining whether the regulation of cyanotoxins affords a
meaningful opportunity to protect public health, and we support
that step.
Finally, and perhaps most important, we ask that Congress
consider ways to increase the effectiveness of non-point source
pollution programs. This should include discussing the question
of whether non-point pollution should be brought under the
jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act in an appropriate way. It
would not be equitable to put an increasing burden on water
systems and their customers to solve this problem if the most
significant sources of nutrient pollution are not also asked to
do more.
In closing, I want to thank the subcommittee for the
leadership that it is taking today in holding this hearing, and
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have, either
today or in the future. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donahue follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. Now I would like to turn
to Ms. Lynn Thorp, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF LYNN THORP
Ms. Thorp. Thank you Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member
Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Lynn Thorp.
I am the National Campaigns Director for Clean Water Action. We
are a national organization working in 15 states on a wide
range of issues, including Safe Drinking Water Act
implementation, and protecting drinking water sources. Clean
Water Action urges the committee to support aggressive action
to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorous or nutrient pollution
that cause harmful algal blooms, which in turn produce
cyanotoxins. To address cyanotoxins only through drinking water
regulation and treatment is inadequate, and transfers the
burden of pollution control to water systems and their
consumers. Sources of nutrient pollution, as we have heard,
include agriculture practice, storm water, sewer and septic
systems, and fossil fuel use in various sectors. Population
growth and climate change exacerbate the problem.
As we have heard, some cyanotoxins produced by certain
harmful algal blooms cause liver damage, nerve damage, and skin
damage. Excessive nutrients contribute to the growth of these
harmful algal blooms. But this pollution causes other drinking
problems as well. The development of nitrate, development of
increased disinfection byproducts, all of these lead to
increased public health risks in drinking water and costs for
consumers. Nitrogen and phosphorous also cause other
environmental problems, including dead zones and impaired water
quality, and we know that nutrient pollution causes
demonstrated economic losses in fishing, recreation, and water
dependent businesses.
EPA and some states have taken expeditious action to
address cyanotoxins in drinking water. As we have heard, EPA
has placed three cyanotoxins on the contaminant candidate list,
an important Safe Drinking Water Act implementation step that
will lead to the research we need to learn more and move on the
path toward regulation. EPA is also conducting toxicity and
human health assessments, developing drinking water health
levels, and also developing laboratory methods so that we can
measure cyanotoxins consistently.
I want to note that EPA and states are conducting these
activities in the face of stagnant and shrinking budgets, and
possibly inadequate capacity to implement the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and to reduce drinking water threats as aggressively
as the public expects. EPA has the authority, under our
Nation's other landmark water law, the Clean Water Act, to
address nutrient pollution from all sources. Despite the
agriculture exemptions in the Clean Water Act, progress can be
made on addressing a significant source.
There are other immediate opportunities, as we have heard,
for EPA to help reduce nitrogen and phosphorous pollution. The
proposed definition of waters of the United States under the
Clean Water Act, which clarifies the protection of streams,
wetlands, and other waters, is a good example. These water
bodies are a vital part of our water infrastructure because
they filter pollution, including nutrients, before it makes its
way to downstream water bodies, often which service drinking
water sources.
In an upcoming Clean Water Act rulemaking limiting toxic
water discharges from power plants, EPA has an opportunity to
address 30 million pounds of nitrogen, and 682,000 pounds of
phosphorous discharged by power plants annually into surface
water. As noted here earlier today, other Federal agencies,
including the USDA and states, can take significant action to
address nutrient pollution. Innovative partnerships can also
play a role. For example, the Source Water Collaborative is
made up of diverse stakeholders, including regulators, drinking
water utilities, planners, and environmental organizations
working together to advance drinking water source protection at
the local, state, and Federal levels.
The Safe Drinking Water Act's multi-barrier approach starts
with source water protection. Clean Water Action likes to say
we should put drinking water first, which means making
decisions about upstream activities with a focus on preventing
drinking water impacts downstream. This results in better
choices, which prevent other environmental and economic
impacts. This is certainly true when it comes to nutrient
pollution. Curbing nitrogen and phosphorous inputs is the right
choice for drinking water protection, and is the multi-benefit
approach.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thorp follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Gentlelady yields back her time, and thank you
very much. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for my
round of questioning.
First, to Director Butler, which stage would you say we are
in right now on the state of the science of microcystin,
particularly as it relates to health effects?
Mr. Butler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just recognize that I
am not a scientist, like Dr. Grevatt, but--so I will give you
my layman's understanding of it. So I would say that the--a lot
of work has been done, much more is needed, and I think much
more quickly than has been advanced in the past, so that is why
we have applauded Dr. Grevatt and U.S. EPA Research and
Development office for accelerating the research about the
health advisory levels for microcystin.
We understand, and as you heard this morning, there are
many different variants of microcystin, many different types of
cyanobacteria that, frankly, we know very little, if not
anything, about. Not just in terms of the nature of those, but
also of the potential toxicity of those. So as we applaud the
work that is advancing currently, we also would recommend, and
not want to lose sight of the fact that there are many other
variants of microcystin and cyanobacterias that are not being
studied that need additional study.
Mr. Shimkus. And it is to no one's surprise that I am from
one of the largest agricultural districts in the Nation, and I
know that good stewardship is important to them, filter strips,
and now with incoming technology, the ability to really--I
think a lot of people have a perspective that this stuff just
gets sprayed, to the point where it just runs off. And new
technology is available where they are going to be implementing
either the herbicide, or the fertilizer, like, right--almost
specifically right upon the seed. So have you had discussions
with the agricultural community in--some of these issues in
dealing with the State of Ohio?
Mr. Butler. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think--one thing I just
wanted to make clear, as we--since 2010, through Toledo, and
then continuing, this has been an issue that Governor Kasich
has been active in, and we all have been. As I mentioned, we
have a very close partnership with the Departments of
Agriculture and Natural Resources through the non-point source
programs in Ohio, as well as Ohio EPA and the Department of
Health, so we have continued to meet and work aggressively on
this.
One of the things that we had been working with is with the
agricultural community, the Farm Bureau in Ohio and
agribusiness. They have implemented some programs. They have a
healthy water initiative through the Farm Bureau, where they
are doing a 20 to 30 year assessment. They have also invested
several million dollars about--doing edge of field research,
looking at transport of nutrients off of the fields and how
that happens. We have recently been working with--through the
monies that we received through the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, we have been working to implement several programs
of--in the ag community, including cover crops, making grants
available for farmers to do cover crops.
But as you mentioned, the prescription application, the
prescriptive--very precise, targeted implementation, we know
that, much like no-till farming was many years ago, that
equipment was very expensive. Farmers weren't used to--know how
to use it. I think we are in that same phase now. There is very
expensive equipment that farmers can use to be very targeted in
the application of fertilizer through GPS, other technologies,
and think they are very willing to use it. It is just, how do
we train them to do that, and then help them purchase the
equipment to do it?
Mr. Shimkus. And I think one of the aspects will be
immeasurable. How do you measure the success of the new
techniques, and new farm activities, and get credit for the
great work that is being done in that area?
Mr. Donahue, cyanobacteria blooms, as I understand them,
are not a new problem. To what do you attribute more frequently
observation and reporting in most recent years?
Mr. Donahue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say that for
public water systems, we do see more frequency in these algal
blooms in our receiving streams. Many more public water
supplies are using surface water supplies as their source of
drinking water, especially in the Midwest, as we have seen
groundwater systems be depleted.
Certainly the increase in nutrient runoff has had an impact
on our--the quality of our source water, and, from that
perspective, I think a relationship, or a partnership between
the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act, in order
to help us better understand how those--how that bacteria
occurs in the receiving streams, and, ultimately, what we can
do to prevent it from getting into our drinking water supply is
something we should be looking at.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. There have been a lot of concerns
coming out of the Toledo experience on monitoring and testing
procedures and equipment. Could you please speak to the
feasibility and reliability of the available methods for
detection and treatment, and also speak to the viability of--
and the affordability of these?
Mr. Donahue. As far as the analytical processes, I am not
an expert in the analytical procedures. I do know that there is
some additional work needing to be done, as far as standard
method for the analysis of drinking water for cyanobacteria.
Regarding the cost for public water supplies, certainly
drinking water is an undervalued commodity today. We spend a
lot of money--our customers believe that they have a--the cost
of their water supply----
Mr. Shimkus. You are choosing your words carefully.
Mr. Donahue. I am trying to. So water is undervalued to the
point where somebody would pay $2.50 for a cup of Starbucks
coffee, but they might squawk at paying the same amount of
money for a 1,000 gallons of safe drinking water delivered
right to their tap. So could some public water supplies afford
to increase their rates? Perhaps. But our position is that, in
this case, it would be a bit unfair to put all of the burden on
the public water supplies in this case without looking at the
sources of the cyanobacteria in the first place.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. My time is far expired, and I
apologize. Now turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Tonko, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Donahue, you indicated
in your testimony that tackling this problem at the treatment
plant is not sufficient. Does the American Water Works
Association support efforts to protect source water by
eliminating nutrient inputs to drinking water sources?
Mr. Donahue. We absolutely support anything that can be
done to prevent these nutrients from running off into our
receiving waters. I think what I said in my testimony, though,
is that the treatment processes are available that could remove
cyanobacteria from the drinking water, but they are very
expensive to acquire and maintain. Requiring communities to
purchase advance drinking water technology and implement it
without doing something at the source water level, we believe,
would be a bit unfair.
Mr. Tonko. Yes. And what are the costs to water utilities
to adequately treat water to remove toxins from the algal
blooms?
Mr. Donahue. I don't have that information available to me
this morning, but we would be happy to provide you with that at
a future date.
Mr. Tonko. And we have heard that small and seasonal
streams and wetlands play a critical role in source water
protection. That is the goal of the EPA/U.S. Army Corps
proposal, to clarify the definition of waters of the U.S. Ms.
Thorp, is the protection of these upstream waters and wetlands
important for pollution reduction and to control harmful algal
blooms?
Ms. Thorp. Thank you, Ranking Member Tonko. Yes, indeed, it
is. EPA has found, in its scientific analysis accompanying the
proposed definition, that streams and wetlands play a critical
role in nutrient reduction. In fact, I believe they found the--
scientific literature over the last several decades replete
with evidence of this pollution filtering role.
Mr. Tonko. Yes. And according to EPA, drinking water for
over 117 million people comes from public water systems that
rely, to some degree, on seasonal streams. And so, Ms. Thorp,
if we do not protect the feeder creeks and upstream waters, is
there an impact on drinking water quality for these
communities?
Ms. Thorp. Thank you. Yes, sir, we think so, and we think
that number is a low estimate, because that was based on an
analysis only of headwater streams and the public water systems
that serve what--about a third of our population. But, of
course, the impact of streams and wetlands, and their role in
filtering pollution, including nutrient pollution, is much
broader than that. It includes many people relying on private
wells, for example.
Mr. Tonko. Yes. And, Mr. Donahue, if we don't do more to
protect source waters, what does that mean for water utilities
and their customers?
Mr. Donahue. Well, certainly that if we don't do something
to remove nutrients from source water before it gets to the
drinking water treatment plant, treatment facilities will have
no choice but to impose treatment techniques that would remove
those potential contaminants. Our first priority is to protect
public health, and if we can't control that on the source side,
then drinking water utilities will have no alternative but to
increase their treatment capability, and the cost associated
with that would be transferred to our customers.
Mr. Tonko. You know, I hear about the seriousness of this
issue, and the toxicity that impacts society in general.
Perhaps the misunderstood status of the regulatory
opportunities under the Clean Water Act. We are also
compounding the situation with climate change, a science that
oftentimes is ignored.
Some of the predictions for climate change impacts are for
far more extreme weather events, and altered weather patterns.
This might include more intense rainfall events, which--
obviously cause for additional washing of these nutrients into
the system of toxic elements, warmer summers, higher
temperatures obviously being an impact here, longer droughts,
for example. Ms. Thorp, what impact would these changes have on
harmful algal blooms?
Ms. Thorp. Thank you, sir. I think a number of impacts of
extreme weather events and warming temperatures can affect the
problems we are talking about here. One example is that the
growth of harmful algal blooms, and, in fact, all algal blooms,
is not completely understood, as we have heard earlier today,
but we know that warming temperatures, as well as rainfall
patters, can affect that growth. We also know that excessive
rainfall, for example, can lead to increased nutrient runoff,
which then is feeding the problem in another way.
Mr. Tonko. Yes. Mr. Donahue, were you looking at that,
that----
Mr. Donahue. No.
Mr. Tonko. OK. All right. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time, and the Chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thanks again, Mr. Chairman, and thanks
again for having our hearing, and thanks to our panel for being
with us today. Really appreciate your time and expertise in
this matter. And if I could--Director Butler, if I could ask
you some questions right off the bat?
It was mentioned a little bit earlier that there are
several types of cyanotoxins of concerns just besides the
microcystins. Do you believe it would be helpful if the U.S.
EPA had a comprehensive list of cyanotoxins determined to be
harmful to human health in drinking water?
Mr. Butler. Mr. Chairman, Representative Latta, yes, we do.
We know that that would take a long term commitment from U.S.
EPA, and take an extensive period of time to do that,
particularly if they were to develop regulatory levels about
the harmful impacts for that. We are encouraged by the
acceleration to provide states with some additional information
and health advisory in 2015.
We think that will add to the body of research that is out
there, although we think that we need to continue to
accelerate, keep our foot on the gas, so to speak, about not
only moving through 2018 with--moving with a regulatory level,
not only for those that U.S. EPA had identified, but also do
not forget about the other cyanobacteria and harmful algal
derivatives that are out there that also need attention.
Mr. Latta. And also, you know, all the conversations we had
during that first week of August, you know, when Toledo was
having its crisis out there, in all that was going on, I know
that--you mentioned what the state has done, especially on
funding from the U.S.--or from the Ohio EPA. Because of the
cost--because there was a significant amount of dollars here,
when we are talking about the different types of testing that
are going to be going--that could be done--and if you could
just maybe go into all of it? Because I know that we are
talking about, you know, the Elisa Method, and the LC-MS/MS
test method that is being--that is more robust and efficient
than the others, and being able to find different variants.
But if you could just kind of go into that, because I found
it pretty interesting, number one, the cost, two, about getting
the equipment, and three, about finding the personnel, being
able to just run that equipment. And then, again, I think, in
the north end of Ohio we have about 140 plus systems out there
that are utilizing surface water, and what that would entail
for all of those communities. I know that is a long question.
Mr. Butler. Mr. Chairman, Representative Latta, exactly
right. We have made a million dollars, as I mentioned in my
testimony, I think we have 125 systems that are surface water
systems in the State of Ohio, many of those which take water
directly from Lake Erie. We came to that relative number of a
million dollars because we wanted to offer this Elisa screening
technology to all of them. That cost of doing that is about
$10,000, so a relatively modest amount of money.
What you get from that, in my layman's terms, is you get a
piece of technology that is a broad spectrum identifier, if you
have microcystin in your water. It is not a piece of technology
that helps speciate out which protective variant or congeners
you have, or what kind of cyanobacteria you have got. If it is
in there, it will tell you it is there, but it won't tell you
which one it is, and it won't tell you whether it is one of
those that may be harmful, or which ones it may not be.
So we think it is a great screening tool, and we think that
a tiered approach would be most effective. If we are going to
move into a more detailed system, and you talked about the LC-
MS/MS technology, Dr. Grevatt could tell you what all of that
acronym means, but, in my view, what it will do is a much more
refined testing methodology that gets down and helps you
identify what variant of cyanobacteria do you have, and whether
or not it may be one that is harmful. That is also helpful. If
you could use that as the Elisa Method to determine whether you
have something to be concerned with, then you could rely on the
LC-MS/MS technology to then figure out exactly what variant you
have go hand in hand. The issue we have with the LC-MS/MS is--
or the HPLC, which is another, is cost.
Rather than $10,000 for a piece of equipment of Elisa that
a small community could run, and learn that very quickly, the
cost to us in the State of Ohio would be around $400,000 for
one piece of equipment. On top of that, you have the
development of the method, which could take many months, 8 to
12 months to find the method. And then, for us, it is a cost
concern about just finding somebody that is capable of running
it. It is a very specialized piece of equipment. Having
somebody with the right degree and credential to be able to
keep them on staff and pay them, frankly, a state salary is
very difficult. So while we like that technology, we also don't
want to suggest that that be the only potential technology we
use.
Mr. Latta. If I could just follow up just briefly? With
that, how many communities could utilize one piece of
equipment?
Mr. Butler. Mr. Chairman, Representative Latta, that is a
good question. We have talked internally, and with U.S. EPA,
about whether the State of Ohio or communities could group
together. I think they could all--and we are seeing that happen
now, frankly. Some communities do not want to take the grant
monies from Ohio EPA, even for the $10,000 for the Elisa
technology, because they are very close to another small
neighborhood that is, or has the technology. They are
partnering together, sharing services, which we very much
applaud in the state. Sharing those services, banding together,
and doing the testing.
So it is conceivable, and we would encourage it, that there
would be a way for many communities to band together and use an
HPLC methodology. We could also help them, through our testing
capabilities with the State of Ohio. I know U.S. EPA has this,
as well as many universities too, so there are multiple
options, so not every community would need to invest that time
and money.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your
indulgence in time, and I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman's time has expired. Chair now
recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, who will
be the vice-chair of this subcommittee in the next Congress. We
want to congratulate him on that, and you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the
Chairman, and look forward to the next term, and I hope you
will be pleased with that decision, so thank you. And glad to
have the panelists here today, appreciate this. This is an
important topic, important to many of us. And if I could start
with Mr. Butler?
And what is your expectation of how U.S. EPA should engage
with the states before issuing its public health advisory?
Mr. Butler. Mr. Chairman, Representative Harper, that is a
great question. What we have been encouraged by so far is the
great working relationship we have got. We are very blessed to
have the Office of Research and Development in Cincinnati. So
them being able to help us in the Toledo situation was very
helpful. In fact, we were flying samples down in the middle of
the night, and their staff, you know, went to the airport to
pick these samples up in the middle of the night, so it was
just a great opportunity for us. We have been encouraged since
then. We have got a great working relationship.
And to answer your question directly, what we would prefer,
and what we would like to see happen, is, as U.S. EPA--and we
know they are on a very fast track to get us this health
advisory information, but as they are going through this
process to engage states that are interested, or that need to
be engaged in the development of that, rather than at the end,
after they develop that, hold a public hearing and public
comment period. So I know it is a balance. We want to see this
move along quickly and get the information, but we would prefer
to be engaged up front, because we think we have information to
offer.
Mr. Harper. And if I may ask, Mr. Butler, since the algal
problem in Toledo, is the Ohio EPA on much better ground
regarding testing protocols for microcystin?
Mr. Butler. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I think we are.
You know, we have learned a lot after working with Toledo. We
also have worked with all of our other surface water systems,
not only in terms of offering technology and treatment, but we
have developed, and have redefined, and continue to redefine on
a consensus basis, with all of our surface water systems,
statement of operations on how we--everybody consistently
manages tests for cyanobacteria.
Mr. Harper. You know, I am very pleased with your earlier
comments on the coordination between the Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA
of what you went through, and the----
Mr. Butler. Yes.
Mr. Harper [continuing]. That coordination that took place.
But if we were looking overall, what improvements to government
coordination between the states and Federal Government would
recommend would need to occur, and why?
Mr. Butler. Very specifically, and I will just reiterate a
comment I had before, as we focus more attention, and U.S. EPA
is starting to aggressively develop not only health
assessments, but further on, with potential regulatory limits
in safe drinking water, through the contaminant rule, I think
that coordinating more up front versus more reactive is
something we would encourage, and think it ultimately leads us
to a better product. I think we get there quicker, and I think
U.S. EPA would concur with that. So it is not a fault, but I
just think a process that would allow that would be much more
beneficial.
Mr. Harper. And, Mr. Donahue, if you can just kind of
educate me a little bit, and those that are tuning in, discuss
effective ways to treat drinking water for the cyanotoxins.
Mr. Donahue. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, typically,
conventional coagulation and sedimentation can take care of
this. There are a number of other treatment technologies that
are able to remove cyanotoxins from the water. Pre-treatment
oxidation, and even microfiltration with membrane treatment are
all options for treating drinking water.
Mr. Harper. OK. Some of our testimony today talks about
predicting cyanobacteria blooms through National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration modeling. Can you please speak to
the challenges of relying on this too much?
Mr. Donahue. I really don't have the answer for that
question right now, but we would be happy to provide that.
Mr. Harper. Anybody else on the panel want to take a shot
at that? OK.
Mr. Butler. Well, Representative, what we are encouraged by
is NOAA continues to refine their modeling, and being able to
provide more and more specialized assessments in the western
basin, we also are working with our aviation centers in Ohio in
how we can coordinate with NOAA, and even NASA, on being able
to provide more detailed information about looking at the
western basin almost in real time, in a very specific location.
The caution would be not to rely on that completely, because
you may not always find that those are if we have a harmful
algal bloom, that those are visible from the surface, or from a
multi-spectrum scanner.
So the need to do consistent sampling, and we do that in
the near shore environment around the western basin, Ohio EPA
and others do sampling to give us a predictor of when those
harmful algal blooms may be in place.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now
recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the
conclusion of Grevatt's comment, and I think the Chairman
mentioned it, and then I think, Mr. Donahue, you mention it as
well, and that is the State Revolving Fund, I want to get back
to that in a minute, but I thought I heard you say in your
testimony that there were some 4,500 water treatment facilities
in the State of Ohio. Is that accurate?
Mr. Donahue. That is correct, sir.
Mr. McKinley. And so we are now--and I don't know how many
of that would be across the country. Yes, if there are 4,500 in
the State of Ohio, I don't know, how many water treatment
facilities would we have across the country? Thousands?
Mr. Shimkus. You may want to direct that to Mr. Donahue,
David.
Mr. McKinley. Yes.
Mr. Donahue. Drinking water treatment facilities, there are
in the neighborhood of 50 to 55,000 treatment----
Mr. McKinley. OK.
Mr. Donahue [continuing]. Facilities----
Mr. McKinley. But not all of them are going to be surface
water----
Mr. Donahue. No.
Mr. McKinley [continuing]. But I think we are primarily
focused back on the State Revolving Fund, we have had people
come before us in this panel, and other committees, where they
have talked about--the State Revolving Fund doesn't have an
adequate amount of money to meet all of their challenges that
they have. And perhaps this is--this situation--I am not
denying it is happening. I think we have to deal with that, and
it is just going to exacerbate the problem all the more if
there is not sufficient money with the SRF. Would you agree
with that?
Mr. Donahue. Absolutely. There is significant competition
for SRF funding right now. AWWA has produced a report that has
identified more than a trillion dollars' worth of
infrastructure requirements for the country in the next 20
years, and that alone can tax the SRF program. And this would
only serve to make that matter worse.
Mr. McKinley. Well, thank you, because I am concerned, as I
mentioned in my earlier remarks at the last panel, where those
small communities, 4,500--how they are going to come up with
the money, and there has to be a grant to be able to help them
out to do this. And if the SRF doesn't have sufficient funds,
it just exacerbates this problem all the more.
So, having said all that, I am curious, and probably should
have asked Grevatt when he was here, why would the EPA reduce
funding for the SRF? The president just came out with his
budget, reduces the State Revolving Fund by nearly 40 percent.
And when we asked them that question, why did they reduce it,
knowing so many people in these small communities need the
money, why would they do that? And his--and her answer was, we
have changed our priorities. Our priorities are not State--
providing money for communities for water systems, but rather
for climate change initiatives, pamphlets, literature, and
education processes around the country, and perhaps around the
world.
How would you--in terms of priorities, OK, would it be
better to be able to provide money for the--these communities
that need water, clean water? Because we have all talked about
how desperately we need it. Or is it more important that we
have climate change initiatives?
Mr. Donahue. Certainly, Congressman. Maintaining the SRF
program, and even increasing it, is something that the American
Water Works Association fully supports. Many of our small,
medium, and large communities rely quite heavily on the
revolving loan funds to support capital projects within their
community.
Mr. McKinley. So you would have a problem with transferring
$581 million out of the State Revolving Fund?
Mr. Donahue. I am not sure I am the best person on this
panel to answer that question, and Dr. Grevatt is still here,
but I would say yes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. Looking to the
minority side, Mr. Barrow waives. Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
panel members for joining us today. Mr. Butler, it is good to
see some home folks here today from Ohio.
Mr. Butler. Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson. Good to have you.
Mr. Butler. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Butler, does Ohio EPA support the U.S. EPA
issuing a non-contaminating monitoring rule for microcystins?
Mr. Butler. Mr. Chairman, Representative Johnson, yes, we
do?
Mr. Johnson. You do?
Mr. Butler. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. OK. How is Ohio dealing with nutrient
contribution to source water from non-agricultural
contributors?
Mr. Butler. Mr. Chairman, Representative, that is a good
question. As I mentioned in my testimony, some of the immediate
after action items that we did was--we were able to secure some
money from U.S. EPA. You have often heard, in our state, people
talking about how Grand Lake St. Mary's was called a watershed
in distress, and there has been a call for calling the western
basin of Lake Erie a watershed in distress. While we think this
is important, and that is a designation that we see as useful
in a grand lake, it is not something that we agree with for the
western basin, and the reason is it is only focused on
agricultural sources. There are many contributing sources in
the western basin that are non-agricultural.
We have used the money that was provided by U.S. EPA by the
GLRI to go down into the very small sub-watershed levels, use
the information we have through our monitoring and sampling
that worked throughout the state, and in the western basin, to
determine if it is an agricultural contribution that is most
predominant, if it is point source, or other non-point source,
in many parts of our state we have failing not--failing on-lot
septic sewage systems. It is generally a combination of all
those. No watershed is the same. So we have been able to use
that money to target and develop--I call it a prescription for
each one of these very small sub-watersheds. That is much more
productive, than--it is just a broad brushed approach.
Certainly agriculture recognizes that they have a
contribution, and they are--they have, and we agree, that they
have stepped up to help us here. But there are other sources
that we are also working on. We have introduced two pieces of--
we are going through our end of the year legislative session.
In House Bill 490 we have recently added two components. One is
adding monitoring, a requirement that all of our wastewater
treatment plants would include monitoring for phosphorous, so
we can determine if they are contributing, and then manage
that. And the second is we introduced part--a bill that would
disallow, unless under certain conditions, the open lake
disposal of dredge material on Lake Erie, which is also thought
to be a contributor for harmful algal blooms.
We have also--on the agriculture side, we have worked a lot
through Senate Bill 150 that was implemented, on training all
the farmers to make sure that they are certified on application
of manure. And we have also done cover crop work. We have done
soil testing. And so we have got a comprehensive program across
the board.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you. I understand that some
groups in Ohio have a citizen sampling program for dealing with
microcystin. Are the groups operating in Toledo working with
Ohio EPA?
Mr. Butler. I have heard that the groups exist. It is not
to my knowledge they have worked with us.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Does Ohio EPA have a citizen sampling
program?
Mr. Butler. We have a program called Credible Data, so
whether it is Ohio EPA--we have got a lot of scientists that
are out in the field collecting water quality data. We will
accept, under certain conditions, if they, you know, if
citizens or other organizations collect samples, we can accept
those, as long as they follow the proper chains of custody, and
that the samples are accurate samples. We have not only
guidance in Ohio, but law in Ohio that directs how we do that,
and we are willing to train people to do that.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, you mentioned chain of custody. How
important is chain of custody, and using approved methods when
sampling is occurring?
Mr. Butler. It is crucial. We base all of our decisions
based on science, and the legality of those results. So having
a complete chain of custody from the time the sample is taken,
knowing how those samples were taken, what parameters they are
taken, make sure they are taken under the right methods, they
are preserved correctly, that those samples then are handled
correctly for certain periods of time. Some call for icing of
those samples, some don't. So the whole chain of custody, and
how those samples are managed to get them to our laboratory, to
get them through our testing methodology, is critical. And if
it is not done the right way, it calls into question the
result.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. Gentleman yields back his time. I would be
remiss if I didn't also mention the USDA Rural Development
ability to access water assistance for small rural Americans.
It has been very, very helpful, and I can't say enough about
it. Based upon the agreement between the majority and minority
committee staff, I would like to request unanimous consent that
the letters from the following organizations, as well as their
attachments, be inserted into the hearing record. The
Association of State Water Drinking Administrators, the
Internal Bottled Water Association, the Fertilizer Institute,
the American Municipal Water Association. Without objection, so
ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. I would also like to request unanimous consent
that members have 5 legislative days to submit statements for
the record. And, with that, I want to thank you for coming. I
think it was very helpful and educational. I look forward to
working with you, and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
I want to thank the Chairman of the subcommittee for
recognizing me.
Today, this panel is going to examine the issue of blue-
green algae in the water which is treated for use in Americans'
drinking water taps.
As we've already heard, this past August, in an effort to
protect its customers from elevated levels of algae toxins in
the water, the City of Toledo, Ohio urged all customers of its
Collins Water Treatment Plant to neither drink nor boil its
treated tap water until an ``all clear'' was issued.
This protective effort though was little comfort for some
who were confused about what the ``DO NOT USE'' order meant and
were anxious about the adverse health impacts that exposure to
cyanotoxins (CY-AHN-O-toxins) could inflict: damage to the
liver, skin, or nervous system. In addition, cyanotoxins (CY-
AHN-O-toxins) were known to inflict death upon exposed
wildlife, livestock, birds, and pets.
Toledo is not a one-off when it comes to harmful algal
blooms in fresh water that is used as a source drinking water.
While I am not aware of any cyanotoxins (CY-AHN-O-toxin) issues
with Lake Michigan, the Toledo incident did have fellow
Michiganders in Monroe County on alert as well.
Cyanobacteria (CY-AHN-O-bacteria), the microorganisms
considered as important contributors to the formation of the
Earth's atmosphere and need for nitrogen are also frequently
connected to harmful algal blooms, technically known as
cyanotoxins (CY-AHN-O-toxins).
Cyanobacterial blooms usually occur according to a
combination of environmental factors e.g., nutrient
concentration, water temperature, light intensity, salinity,
water movement, stagnation and residence time, as well as
several other variables. Consequently, when cyanobacterial
blooms occur in drinking water resources, treatment has to
remove both cyanobacteria (avoiding cell lysis and subsequent
toxin release) and aqueous cyanotoxins previously released.
As the subcommittee chairman said, this is a highly complex
issue which is national in scope, but only gained national
attention a few months ago. The Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators reports that nine states have created
programs, developed health thresholds, or enacted policies and
protocols for sampling and issuing public notices on harmful
algal blooms.
There are many types of blue-green algae and the diversity
of their habitats make it complicated to predict the precise
conditions favoring their growth. Physical factors that affect
whether harmful algal blooms grow include available light,
weather conditions, water flow, temperature, and mixing within
the water column. Chemical factors include pH and nutrient
(primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) concentrations.
I appreciate that our subcommittee is going to get a better
understanding of this issue, particularly from both Federal and
state regulators, who worked so hard to get this issue under
control late this past summer.
I also want to commend Mr. Latta for his dogged attention
to this matter.
Our committee is but a piece of the cyanobacteria and toxin
puzzle, but an important one for anyone who drinks finished
water from a utility. I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses.
I yield back the balance of my time.
----------
Prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman
Today's hearing focuses on a growing public health threat,
cyanotoxins in drinking water. Harmful algal blooms can grow
out of control in our nation's waterways, posing risks to those
who drink, swim, or even fish in contaminated water. If these
blooms are blue-green algae, also called cyanobacteria, they
produce toxins called cyanotoxins.
Cyanotoxins can cause a long list of health impacts: liver
damage, skin and eye irritation, gastrointestinal illness,
neurological effects, cancer, paralysis and death. And exposure
to these toxins can occur through direct contact, drinking
contaminated water, consumption of contaminated fish, and
inhalation of aerosolized toxins.
Every year, toxins released from algal blooms prompt
seasonal closures of shellfisheries around the Pacific, Gulf,
and Atlantic coasts in the United States.
The toxins are also a serious issue in the Great Lakes.
This year, the toxins forced the closure of a major drinking
water system, leaving 500,000 people in the city of Toledo
unable to use their tap water for two days. The water was not
safe, even for bathing, and boiling it would do nothing to
remove the toxins.
There are important steps Congress should be taking to
address this threat. We need to provide more resources to EPA.
EPA doesn't have the resources it needs to monitor the extent
of the contamination, develop health advisories and drinking
water standards, or provide technical assistance to states and
drinking water systems.
We also need to reauthorize the State Revolving Fund to get
resources to affected utilities. And we should speed research
into testing methods and treatment techniques. But we must also
address the root causes of these algal blooms, and one of them
is climate change.
Water temperature is a key factor in the growth of harmful
algal blooms, and climate change has already lengthened the
bloom season. Warming waters, elevated carbon dioxide levels,
and acidification all provide a competitive advantage to
harmful algae over other organisms, leading to greater
frequency and intensity of blooms.
Climate change has also increased extreme weather events,
which create favorable conditions for algal blooms. Heavy
precipitation and flooding increase nutrient runoff and
pollution. In droughts, lower water levels can concentrate
nutrients and allow them to stay in the water longer, enhancing
the conditions favorable to algal growth. Droughts have also
increased salinity in freshwater ecosystems, allowing toxic
marine algae to move to inlands waters.
A recent report by Smithsonian researchers found that
climate change has exacerbated the harmful algal bloom
problem--in fact, they found that the effect of climate change
on harmful algal blooms has been grossly underestimated.
Our first step must be to stop denying the facts and to
stop underestimating the impacts of climate change. It may be
politically convenient to deny climate change is real. Science
deniers don't have to cut emissions or make hard choices. And
they don't have to take on the biggest polluters in the
country, whose efforts to sow confusion and doubt have been
determined, sophisticated, and well-funded.
But denying climate change is irresponsible and reckless.
We have a window in which we can act. If we don't act, algal
blooms and so many other problems caused by climate change will
grow worse.
And history will look back at this Congress with shame and
embarrassment and ask why we failed to heed the warnings of
scientists.
----------
Prepared statement of Hon. Marcy Kaptur
When I was first elected to Congress, there were two pairs
of nesting bald eagles left on Lake Erie. Our nation's symbol
was an endangered species. Yet, due to passage of the Clean
Water Act, a decade earlier in 1972, the banning of DDT, and
the vigilant efforts of citizen naturalists and
environmentalists near and far, today there are over 200 pair
of nesting eagles on Lake Erie. Our efforts to restore our
wildlife refuges and natural habitats, as the decades have
ensued, are paying off.
This year over 300 eaglet chicks hatched. The bald eagle
has been taken off the endangered species list.
Indeed, about 2 years ago, a pair of adventuresome bald
eagles took flight from our western basin, flew east, and
established a nesting site in the Cuyahoga Valley National
Park. Literally, Lake Erie's Western Basin has given rebirth to
the bald eagle across our region.
This giant accomplishment of human beings helping nature
restore herself teaches us that America can achieve what she
sets out to do.
Our place here in Lake Erie's Western Basin is truly
blessed. Nowhere on the face of the globe does this much
freshwater meet this much arable land. Nowhere. This rich land,
site of the former Great Black Swamp, formed as Lake Erie's
glacial waters receded from as far west as Ft. Wayne, giving
rise to a productive life bowl that even hosts our community's
mascot - the Mud Hen - a little brown duck called the ``coot.''
This freshwater kingdom and the land around it was tiled
and drained for agriculture. The fields are abundant and our 4-
season region is sustainable. The highly productive soils of
Providence Township and points west, south, and east of it are
precious, surely in a world whose population is slated to
expand geometrically, at a faster and faster rate. When I was
born, our nation's population was 146 million. In half a
century, it has doubled to over 300 million. And, in even less
time, by 2050, it is projected to rise to 500 million people -
a population two and a half times as large as in the post WWII
years.
Agricultural innovation and pushing the science of
production has made it possible to meet our food supply needs
and to export to a hungry world, especially those in less
productive regions. Fertilizer levels have been quadrupled in
the past quarter century to replenish depleted soils for higher
yields and double cropping. Fertilizer composition has been
altered, sometimes eliminating ingredients like sulfur that
play a role in soil and water health. Sulfur helps break down
phosphorus, one of the nutrients that explode algae's growth.
But one natural resource on the face of the earth cannot be
magically increased - and that is fresh water. There is a
finite amount, and though its form gets changed and shifted
around by the seasons, its quantity remains the same globally.
In an era where other regions are experiencing water
shortages, the Great Lakes contain 85 percent of the freshwater
in the United States and 20 percent of the world's supply.
On a planet where there are increasing calls by humans and
animals for fresh water, it behooves us to stop and consider
how our precious waters and arable soils can be managed for the
sake of future generations. The stresses on our waters are
growing and significant.
We need clean water and we need replenished soils. We can't
afford to destroy either for the sake of the 11 million people
who live here and generations to follow.
In Toledo, the taps are back on, but the water crisis
continues. Our water is drinkable again, but the emergency
still exists.
The toxic algae threat has receded for the moment, but the
image of our community has suffered untold, tremendous damage.
Rainfall across our region has changed. Sudden, extreme
downpours are more and more common, increasing the nutrient
runoff into streams and rivers. Our climactic zone has moved up
a zone. Ohio's climate is now like Tennessee's. In a nation
where 17 states in the arid, fire ravaged West are facing
scarcity, we are dealing with a different sort of dilemma.
There is the reality that Lake Erie is sick again - very
sick. It might even go the way of Grand Lake Saint Mary's, the
western Ohio watershed that is in grave trouble. Lake Erie
already has dead zones. No one in this region and frankly, no
one with any sense can look the other way.
This resource is too important - and, this is our home. We
have to muster the will and intelligence to help this system
heal.
We don't need another study. Legislative work I have done
in funding the Western Lake Erie Basin Partnership for a decade
and a half. This group has laid the research foundation for
action. We have a major environmental crisis on our hands.
The Toledo water drinking water advisory was an important
warning that we overlook at our own peril.
Let me take you on a journey across our Watershed, the
largest in the entire Great Lakes. Put on your hip boots. We
are about to scale a shallow canyon that tilts eastward. Toledo
lies at the base of this oblong bowl on its extreme eastern
edge.
Simply put, the water drains toward us across a three state
region. For example, when Findlay floods, Lake Erie eventually
becomes the depository for the runoff as the Blanchard River
runs North. If you picture the Watershed as a living, beating
heart, the Maumee River is its major aorta. That aorta is fed
by major veins and smaller capillaries that form ditches,
streams, and rivers that drain into the Maumee inside this bowl
tilted toward the Lake. Waterways drain downward from Michigan,
- eastward from Ft. Wayne, Indiana - northward from a region
south of Findlay - and upward and across toward the Lake near
Sandusky.
The watershed is a sponge of water, including artesian
wells, underground rivers, and a spider-web of subsurface
drainage tiles.
That manmade, concentrated subsurface drainage system is
the most concentrated system of tiling on our continent. When
it rains anywhere across the watershed, this system acts like a
superhighway - shooting the runoff into the Lake.
Now remember rainfall in the Midwest has increased by well
over a third in the past quarter century.
The toxin that invaded Toledo's water system is the end
product of a massive watershed runoff problem. Just fixing
Toledo's water plant won't fix the watershed problem. We have
to fix the tri-state feeder system that is clogging the
arteries of our heart and threatening cardiac arrest in our
Lake.
Our tri-state watershed embraces 11,111 square miles -
larger than the states of Maryland and Delaware combined or a
land area a little larger than , of Ohio.
When water moves inside this watershed, it sweeps up with
it natural sediments and nutrients from the land, and all the
by-products of human activity - sewage, stormwater runoff,
industrial runoff and agricultural runoff, including animal
waste and commercial fertilizer, a witch's brew of our own
making.
The water drains and courses down the Maumee River - the
largest river that flows into the Great Lakes - and eventually
delivers massive amounts of nutrients into the shallowest,
warmest and most fragile of the Great Lakes. The Detroit River
and Thames River in Ontario also charge nutrients into Lake
Erie; but our watershed is the biggest contributor.
Toxic algal bloom and other water contaminants have become
a global health threat and an enormously expensive treatment
challenge for cities throughout our country. Fixing this is a
multi-billion dollar challenge; not just a few million.
To succeed, the region will need a financing mechanism that
embraces the entire watershed and meets its myriad of
challenges, from thousands of leaking septic systems, to urban
storm runoff, to 2 dozen combined sewer overflows, to animal
manure spread on winter snows. And, as we found out in Toledo,
the clock is ticking.
Good science can save Lake Erie and our freshwater supply.
That is why I have worked so hard to bring precious Federal
dollars starting nearly three decades ago to launch the Lake
Erie Research Center at the University of Toledo, in memory of
Dr. Peter Fraleigh, a pioneer in lake science who predicted
that this day would come. If you haven't visited this world-
class Center near Maumee Bay State Park, you should.
We need to strengthen our lakefront science capabilities so
that the Lake Erie Center, and Stone Lab at Gibraltar Island
and the water labs at Heidelberg and the Erie County Health
Department can refine the science of our Lake. We must continue
our work with NASA, and the U.S. Geological Survey, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the
Natural Resource Conservation Service of the United States
Department of Agriculture. We need them all to help us, not
just during this crisis, but to lay the basis for additional
action.
To effectively embrace the magnitude of what it will take
to heal Lake Erie is precisely why I have worked hard to create
a tri- state collaboration called the Western Lake Erie Basin
Partnership. It was designed originally as a voluntary effort
and a national model for watershed management in this 21st
century - a century in which pundits observe freshwater will
become more precious, even with wars fought over access to it.
My initial goal was to legally protect our water supply and
to prevent its diversion from this region. Our challenge now is
to build forward a more action-oriented organization to achieve
a solution to the ecosystem crisis at hand. Thank goodness the
vision, the science, and the relationships already have been at
work across the watershed.
As the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Water
Subcommittee, I have proposed several legislative alternatives
to expedite a solution to cleaning up the waters and, frankly
the soils, to ensure public health and safety. The solutions
that will work must rely on three pillars; science, citizen
action, and an aggressive, accountable management structure.
The first immediate step is to strengthen the science.
USEPA should be mandated to provide advisory guidance for
testing and treating microcystin in our drinking water. We need
a standard and we need universal testing protocols for this
contaminant.
Second, our Lake Erie labs need the testing equipment and
research capabilities to help us and all Lakefront communities
to maintain a safe drinking water supply. Communities along
Lake Erie should not be forced to waste 2 days in transporting
samples to labs in southern Ohio or other states for certified
results during a crisis. Lake Erie is here, and so should the
labs be here.
Third, we need to inspire a ``watershed mindset'' across
our entire basin. This is an awesome task. To be successful, an
active and engaged public across the watershed is essential.
We have 1,313,420 acres to attend to. The storm sewer on
the street can become a filter strip for nutrient runoff with
proper rain-garden plantings. For farmers out in the country,
their drainage ditches can become catchment ponds for nutrients
that can be reapplied to fields. The vast amounts of animal
manure produced across the watershed need more careful
management and, frankly economic uses whose value exceeds the
savings of field application.
Let me just pick out a few numbers to illustrate the
magnitude of the nutrients our watershed is asked to process
each year. When it fails to do so, the residuals end up in our
Lake and royally feed the algal blooms.
There are two million people who live in our watershed; but
over nine and a half million animals live here too. The amount
of human fertilizer generated each year would fill 247 boxcars.
But for animal manure, which totals over 12 billion pounds
annually, it would take 42,713 box cars to haul it out. That's
over 170 times more than humans.
For commercial fertilizer, there are a total of over a
billion pounds of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium placed on
the land, or 3,745 boxcars full. The question is how much do
the plants absorb, and how much material works its way to Lake
Erie.
There is an old expression; ``you can't fool Mother
Nature.'' And, I would add - we shouldn't try. We must find the
truth and face it resolutely.
Finally, I believe that our Watershed needs a more formal
structure - like a federally authorized, tri-state coordinating
and financing instrumentality to set goals and achieve them.
This crisis is too significant to punt along. Years ago the
Tennessee Valley Authority was created over an 8 state region
to aid their development. More recently, the Everglades and the
Chesapeake Bay created organizations to meet their particular
environmental challenges. The Bureau of Reclamation has served
17 western states in the desert west for 100 years. The Great
Lakes has no such mechanism.
Such a public-private partnership could aim to lift some of
the management and infrastructure financing burden from
communities trying to do the right thing.
To succeed, we need science, we need one another, and we
need an organization empowered and capable to meet the
challenge.
Let us be heartened in our quest by this Daniel Webster
quote:``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth
its powers, build up its institutions and ask whether we in our
time and generation may not perform something worthy to be
remembered.''
Lake Erie's future depends on our resolve.
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]