    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                  H.R. 212, THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ACT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                FEBRUARY 5, 2015

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 114-7

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                   ____________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    94-940                       WASHINGTON : 2017

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

    			COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

    				FRED UPTON, Michigan
     				      Chairman

    JOE BARTON, Texas			FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    Chairman Emeritus					Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky			BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois			ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania		ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon			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
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana		G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio			DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington	KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi		JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey	        JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky			PETER WELCH, Vermont
    PETE OLSON, Texas			BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia	PAUL TONKO, New York
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas			JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois		YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia		DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida		KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio			JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts
    BILLY LONG, Missouri			TONY CARDENAS, California
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    BILL FLORES, Texas
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota

                  Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy

                             JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
                                     Chairman

    GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman          PAUL TONKO, New York
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                LOIS CAPPS, California
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   JERRY McNERNEY, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               TONY CARDENAS, California
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina           officio)
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    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...........................................     9
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, prepared statement...................................    78

                                   Witnesses

    Peter Grevatt, Ph.D., Director, Office of Groundwater and
      Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency...........    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    Michael Baker, Chief, Division of Drinking and Ground Waters,
      Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, on Behalf of the
      Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.............    34
        Prepared statement...........................................    36
    Aurel Arndt, Chief Executive Officer, Lehigh County Authority
      (Pennsylvania), on Behalf of the American Water Works
      Association....................................................    40
        Prepared statement...........................................    42
    Kristy Meyer, Managing Director, Agricultural, Health, and Clean
      Water Programs, Ohio Environmental Council.....................    64
        Prepared statement...........................................    66

                               Submitted Material

    H.R. 212.........................................................     3
    Statement of Clean Water Action, submitted by Mr. Shimkus........    80

    H.R. 212, THE DRINKING WATER PROTECTION ACT

        THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2015
          House of Representatives,
            Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy,
              Committee on Energy and Commerce
                Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room
      2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus,
      (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.......................
    Present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper, Whitfield, Pitts,
      Murphy, Latta, McKinley, Johnson, Bucshon, Flores, Hudson,
      Cramer, Upton (ex officio), Tonko, Schrader, Capps, McNerney,
      and Pallone (ex officio).......................................
    Staff Present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Gary Andres,
      Staff Director; Charlotte Baker, Deputy Communications
      Director; Sean Bonyun, Communications Director; Leighton Brown,
      Press Assistant; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental Policy
      Advisor; Brad Grantz, Policy Coordinator, O&I; Brittany Havens,
      Legislative Clerk; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment
      and the Economy; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment
      and the Economy; Joe Banez, Minority Policy Analyst; Jeff
      Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Jacqueline Cohen, Minority
      Senior Counsel; Rick Kessler, Minority Staff Director, Energy
      and Environment; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel; and Ryan
      Schmit, Minority EPA Detailee..................................
                    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A
                      REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
                      ILLINOIS
    Mr. Shimkus. The hearing will now come to order..................
    We will start with opening statements, and I will start first. We
      are still waiting on the ranking member, Mr. Tonko, and I think
      Chairman Upton. We will then give them the opportunity to give
      their opening statements when they arrive. So I will recognize
      myself for 5 minutes...........................................
    Today we examine legislation that creates a framework for better
      understanding and addressing the risks posed by algal toxins
      and can show up in some drinking water. I thank Representative
      Latta for his efforts on this issue and for bringing it to the
      subcommittee's attention last fall.............................
    Some folks may be tempted to think there are easy solutions to
      this problem, but, from our hearing this past November, we
      learned we have a long way to go to understand it. The
      diversity of algae and their habitats only complicate the
      problem........................................................
    The legislation we are reviewing moves in the right direction.
      First, the legislation requires the EPA within 90 days to
      develop and submit a strategic plan to Congress for assessing
      and managing risks from cyanotoxins in drinking water provided
      by public water systems........................................
    This plan will detail the six critical steps as well as the
      timelines EPA intends to use: identify information gaps to be
      filled and evaluate human health risk; publish a comprehensive
      list of algal toxins that are harmful, as well as what those
      harmful efforts are; identify what makes these algae harmful;
      determine how to use public health advisories to inform testing
      and monitoring of these algal toxins, as well as look at where
      EPA needs better information for testing and monitoring; and
      then suggest treatment options; and, finally, provide technical
      assistance to States and public water systems..................
    Most importantly, this strategic plan is a living document and
      can be updated as warranted after the deadline expires. H.R.
      212 also calls on EPA to consult with other Federal agencies,
      States, and others actively analyzing cyanotoxins and their
      impact on public health and to publish the information
      possessed by the Federal Government............................
    Finally, H.R. 212 requires the Government Accountability Office
      to inventory and report to Congress on Federal spending between
      fiscal years 2010 and 2014 on analysis and public health
      efforts of the Federal Government on cyanotoxins, including the
      specific purpose for which the funds were made available, the
      law under which the funds were authorized, the Federal agency
      that received or spent the funds, and recommended steps to
      reduce any duplication and improve interagency coordination of
      such expenditures..............................................
    [The bill follows:]..............................................

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Shimkus. I want to welcome and thank our witnesses who are
      joining us or rejoining us today, as the case may be. We look
      forward to hearing from them on what happened this past August
      in Ohio and what lessons were learned and whether H.R. 212
      helps. We will also get a better sense of what drinking-water
      treatment professionals need to better prepare to handle these
      events.........................................................
    We are all eager to hear from our witnesses. And, with that, I
      have some time remaining. Seeing no--the gentleman from Ohio...
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:].................

                    Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus

    Today, we examine legislation that creates a framework for better
        understanding and addressing the risk posed by algal toxins
        that can show up in some drinking water. I thank
        Representative Latta for his efforts on this issue and for
        bringing it to the subcommittee's attention last fall.
    Some folks may be tempted to think there are easy solutions to
        this problem, but from our hearing this past November, we
        learned we have a long way to go to understand it. The
        diversity of algae and their habitats only complicate the
        problem. The legislation we are reviewing moves in the right
        direction.
    First, the legislation requires EPA, within 90 days, to develop
        and submit a strategic plan to Congress for assessing and
        managing risks from cyanotoxins in drinking water provided by
        public water systems. This plan will detail the six critical
        steps as well as the timelines EPA intends to use to:
     Identify information gaps to be filled and evaluate
        human health risks,
     publish a comprehensive list of algal toxins that are
        harmful as well as what those harmful effects are,
     identify what makes these algae harmful,
     determine how to use public health advisories to inform
        testing and monitoring of these algal toxins, as well as look
        at where EPA needs better information for testing and
        monitoring,
     suggest treatment options, and
     provide technical assistance to states and public water
        systems.
    Most importantly, this strategic plan is a living document and
        can be updated as warranted after the deadline expires.
    H.R. 212 also calls on EPA to consult with other Federal
        agencies, states, and others actively analyzing cyanotoxins
        and their impact on public health, and to publish the
        information possessed by the Federal government.
    Finally, H.R. 212 requires the Government Accountability Office
        to inventory and report to Congress on Federal spending,
        between fiscal years 2010 and 2014, on analyses and public
        health efforts of the Federal government on cyanotoxins,
        including the specific purpose for which the funds were made
        available, the law under which the funds were authorized, the
        Federal agency that received or spent the funds, and
        recommended steps to reduce any duplication, and improve
        interagency coordination, of such expenditures.
    I want to welcome and thank our witnesses who are joining, or
        rejoining us today, as the case may be. We look forward to
        hearing from them on what happened this past August in Ohio,
        and what lessons were learned and whether H.R. 212 helps.
        We'll also get a better sense of what drinking water
        treatment professionals need to better prepare to handle
        these events.

    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.........................
    And, first, I want to thank you for calling this hearing today,
      and, also, I want to thank our witnesses for being here........
    I really appreciate working with Dr. Grevatt and Mr. Baker and
      their office over the past months on this issue. Their
      expertise and guidance has been an immense help in putting
      together the quality bill that is before us today in H.R. 212,
      the Drinking Water Protection Act, that will help ensure our
      citizens' public drinking water and health are protected from
      the threat of algal toxins. This working relationship has and
      continues to be a perfect example of how the Federal Government
      and the States can work together to put forth quality solutions
      to problems that affect millions of our citizens...............
    Unfortunately, the cyanotoxins and algal toxins in public
      drinking water produce some harmful algal blooms that are
      presenting a serious concern for our Nation's citizens. Last
      August, over a half a million people in the polluted area, many
      of which are residents of my district, were unable to utilize
      their water for over 2 days without risking potentially
      negative health effects due to a high level of the cyanotoxin
      Microcystin-LR detected in the city's water supply.............
    During that time, both concerns and questions were raised about
      the testing protocols, treatment processes, and appropriate
      responses on how to respond to the problem in the short term...
    I know from my personal experience that the State, including Mr.
      Baker and the Ohio EPA Director Butler, worked tirelessly with
      the U.S. EPA and with the city and other local officials to get
      this situation under control. I commend their hard work and the
      steps they have taken since to try to ensure that this does not
      occur again....................................................
    Furthermore, while Microcystin-LR is believed to be the most
      common and toxic variant, countless other microcystin variants
      and other algal toxins threaten the health and safety of public
      drinking water. Unfortunately, scientific and health data and
      research has not kept up with this growing, complicated
      problem........................................................
    I believe H.R. 212, the Drinking Water Protection Act, which will
      put forth a strategic plan for assessing and managing risks
      associated with cyanotoxins in drinking water provided by
      public water systems, takes the robust and strong scientific
      approach we need to protect the health and safety of our public
      drinking water and better understand this issue in the short
      term and in the long term......................................
    Again, I want to thank you all for being here today. I greatly
      appreciate all your hard work on this and the testimony that
      you are going to give today....................................
    And, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the committee staff
      and my staff for their hard work on this legislation...........
    And, with that, I yield back.....................................
    Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time..................
    The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
      committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes..........................
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.............................
    Harmful algal blooms are a serious and growing threat to public
      health. The toxins they produce threaten communities that draw
      their water from coastal areas in the Great Lakes, and they
      also pose risks to those who swim in contaminated waters or eat
      contaminated fish..............................................
    Health impacts include skin and eye irritation, gastrointestinal
      illness, cancer, paralysis, and even death. Economic impacts
      are also serious, affecting fishing, recreation, and tourism.
      Estimates of annual costs in the United States are in the
      billions.......................................................
    This summer, Toledo, Ohio experienced a profound disruption when
      citizens woke to a do-not-drink order. And as we will hear from
      the second panel, the impacts were significant and widespread..
    But the problem--and I stress--is not limited to Ohio or Lake
      Erie. Harmful algal blooms have been a recurring problem in my
      home State in New Jersey for decades. And so I appreciate that
      the majority is taking up this bipartisan legislation to begin
      to address this important environmental problem................
    I am happy to say that language we will consider later today
      reflects several changes sought by Democratic members of the
      subcommittee, and I thank the chairman and the majority staff
      for working with us to improve the bill. For too long,
      Republicans in Congress have been more interested in attacking
      EPA than supporting the important work the Agency does to
      protect human health, and safe drinking water should be a
      bipartisan issue...............................................
    So I hope this bill can be the start of broader drinking-water
      work to address important threats like climate change,
      fracking, security, an aging infrastructure. My colleague from
      New York, the ranking member, Mr. Tonko, of the subcommittee
      has been a leader on drinking-water infrastructure issues. And
      I hope we can all work together on his legislation to
      reauthorize the SRF resources essential to the conversation
      about safe drinking water......................................
    Much of our Nation's drinking-water infrastructure is well beyond
      its useful life and in desperate need of replacement. Algae and
      other emerging threats spurred by climate change and other
      factors add to the challenge. Investing in drinking-water
      infrastructure protects public health, creates jobs, and boosts
      the economy, and this is something that we should all support..
    I did want to say one thing on process, though, Mr. Chairman. The
      majority's insistence on scheduling the markup of this bill for
      the same day as the legislative hearing is unfortunate and
      undermines regular order. And I think these are important
      issues that should be given due consideration under regular
      order. So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will support regular
      order moving forward...........................................
    And I just thank the witnesses today and yield back the balance
      of my--I don't think anyone else on our side wants the time?...
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman..........................................
    Mr. Shimkus. And I thank the colleague. It is still regular, but
      I would admit it is fast.......................................
    Seeing that the chairman is not here or the ranking member of the
      subcommittee, what we will do is we will turn to Dr. Grevatt
      from the EPA. And then, of course, those Members will be
      allowed to give their opening statement when they arrive.......
    Sir, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Your whole statement is
      going into the record. We thank you for coming.................

                    STATEMENT OF PETER GREVATT, PH.D., DIRECTOR,
                      OFFICE OF GROUNDWATER AND DRINKING WATER, U.S.
                      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Mr. Grevatt. Thank you very much.................................
    Good morning, Chairman Shimkus and members of the subcommittee.
      Thank you for the opportunity to be here to testify on EPA's
      activities to address harmful algal blooms and their impact on
      drinking-water supplies and on H.R. 212, the Drinking Water
      Protection Act.................................................
    The administration has not taken a position on this piece of
      legislation. And today I will provide an update on EPA's
      current work relevant to the bill..............................
    Cyanobacteria are found naturally in surface waters and can
      rapidly multiply, causing harmful algal 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.............................................
    EPA expects that community drinking-water systems will continue
      to be vulnerable to emergency shutdowns from harmful algal
      blooms.........................................................
    H.R. 212 would direct the EPA Administrator to develop a
      strategic plan for assessing and managing risk associated with
      cyanotoxins in drinking water providing by public water
      systems........................................................
    Under the bill, EPA would be directed to identify steps and a
      timeline for evaluating human health risks from drinking water
      contaminated with harmful algal blooms, create a comprehensive
      list of the cyanotoxins determined to be harmful to human
      health, develop a summary of the state of the science on human
      health effects of cyanotoxins and causes of cyanobacterial
      harmful algal blooms, recommend treatment options, and
      establish cooperative agreements with States and public water
      systems for technical assistance...............................
    Additionally, the bill would direct EPA to determine whether to
      publish health advisories for such cyanotoxins as well as
      whether to establish guidance on analytical methods and
      monitoring.....................................................
    Providing technical assistance on harmful algal blooms to States
      and public water systems is a priority for the EPA. The EPA
      actively seeks opportunities to work collaboratively with
      States and public water systems, and the Agency has several
      existing programs for providing technical assistance on
      drinking-water issues..........................................
    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 nonregulatory
      approaches to addressing contaminants in drinking water........
    EPA is preparing health advisories for Microcystin-LR 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, 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 the
      spring of 2015.................................................
    EPA's Contaminant Candidate List identifies unregulated
      contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public
      water systems and which may require regulation. The EPA uses
      this list to prioritize research and data collection efforts.
      The fourth CCL was just published yesterday, and EPA has listed
      several cyanobacteria or cyanotoxins on all four drinking-water
      CCLs...........................................................
    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 UCMR. The Agency is currently
      developing specific analytical methods for microcystins,
      Anatoxin-a, and Cylindrospermopsin. EPA expects to publish
      these methods in the spring of 2015, in time to consider
      including several cyanotoxins in the fourth UCMR. Monitoring
      for the fourth round of the UCMR will begin in 2018............
    Many communities across the United States have faced issues with
      cyanotoxins in drinking-water sources. For example, last year,
      Toledo's Collins Park Water Treatment Plant detected high
      levels of algal toxins resulting from a harmful algal bloom in
      western Lake Erie. U.S. EPA worked with the State of Ohio and
      the city of Toledo around the clock throughout the course of
      the weekend to confirm the concentrations of algal toxins and
      to optimize controlling of the toxins at the utility...........
    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....................................
    While monitoring and treatment are critical for providing safe
      drinking water, continued source-water protection efforts and
      adequate investment in our Nation's water 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
      the Drinking Water Protection Act and EPA's work on cyanotoxins
      in drinking water. I look forward to answering any questions
      you may have...................................................
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Grevatt follows:].................
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.................................
    I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for the first round of
      questioning....................................................
    And I only have two questions, Dr. Grevatt.......................
    Does this legislation raise any red flags because it complicates
      what the Agency is trying to accomplish?.......................
    Mr. Grevatt. No, not at all......................................
    Mr. Shimkus. Aside from cyanotoxins, how many other algal toxins
      do you believe are of concern to the health and safety of
      public drinking water?.........................................
    Mr. Grevatt. So there are many cyanotoxins out there, as we have
      discussed previously. There are two that we haven't talked
      about, the euglenophycins and the prymnesins, which we haven't
      seen widely, but that is something that we need to keep our eye
      on. I know the State of Ohio, along with EPA, is thinking about
      looking forward to the future in terms of how do we prepare for
      the potential emergence of these cyanotoxins...................
    Mr. Shimkus. And I think in my opening statement when I was
      weaving the narrative, I kind of mentioned this was a living
      document, by which we can add to or subtract as we go through
      this process as we use good science to identify that...........
    So, with that, that is all the questions I have. I would look to
      my colleagues to see if anybody wants to ask a question on my
      time...........................................................
    The gentleman from Ohio..........................................
    Mr. Latta. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman, for yielding..............
    And, again, Dr. Grevatt, thanks very much for being here. And
      thanks again for last fall for being at our committee hearing
      back in November. I know you had to come back up from New
      Orleans from a conference......................................
    But when we had our discussion, especially early on when all of
      this was occurring up in my area, one of the things that you
      were talking about was how the EPAis working on the plans to
      release a health advisory, especially when we are talking about
      the Microcystin-LRs and--I hope I pronounce this right--the
      Cylindrospermopsin--am I close on that?--in the spring of 2015.
    And after you have completed that independent review that you are
      working on right now--and I think this is a very technical,
      high area out there. I think there are three different peer
      reviewers on it right now......................................
    So I guess my first question is, are you on track right now to
      make that late-spring deadline that we had talked about last
      year?..........................................................
    Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir, we are....................................
    Mr. Latta. OK. That is great.....................................
    And can you also discuss the importance of the independent
      scientific peer review thatis going on?........................
    Mr. Grevatt. Yes. As you mentioned, Congressman, there are many
      complicated aspects to these questions about cyanotoxins and
      looking at, in particular, the toxicity literature. We don't
      have data that tells us about exposures to humans and human
      health effects. We mostly have data that relates to exposures
      in animals that we then have to translate to what that might
      mean for humans................................................
    So the peer review really helps to make sure that we are
      approaching this properly, that we have selected the right
      studies to base the health advisory on, that we have considered
      uncertainties appropriately, that we are thinking about
      potential exposures and to the life stages, children in
      particular, appropriately......................................
    So this is really a quality check, independent of EPA, to make
      sure that we have taken the right steps in developing the
      health advisory................................................
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.............................................
    And, also, when we are looking and talking about the health
      advisory, are you looking at the recommended contaminant
      levels? The testing? What exactly is going to be in that health
      advisory?......................................................
    Mr. Grevatt. Thank you. Yes, Congressman, the health advisory
      will include information about sampling and analytical
      techniques. It will include information about treatment
      technologies to remove algal toxins from drinking-water
      supplies. And it will also include the health information,
      identifying a level below which we believe that humans will be
      safe from exposure.............................................
    Mr. Latta. And, also, I think it was also interesting in our
      discussions and also when you testified last year, if you could
      maybe just briefly touch on, I think Ohio and five other States
      are really the only States that are out there using surface
      water. And the whole question about health advisories, and
      there is not really a standard, because Ohio uses the World
      Health Organization. I believe Minnesota uses it, too, but at a
      different level................................................
    And so why is it so important that we have a health advisory that
      would be equal across the country that people can look to?.....
    Mr. Grevatt. Right, certainly. There are two aspects of this that
      I think that are particularly important........................
    One is development of the health advisory from the United States
      Government, because, as you mention, we don't have that. States
      have been relying on the World Health Organization value, a
      2003 value, that is based on studies that go back to the late
      1990s. A number of other countries that have taken steps in
      algal toxins also rely on that World Health Organization value.
    There is new data that have come in since the WHO produced their
      value, and we are considering that in partnership with the
      Government of Canada. We are working very closely with the
      Canadians to make sure that we have a coordinated approach to
      this. So it will update the toxicity information...............
    And then the second part of this that I think is equally
      important is, once we publish the health advisory, we are going
      to be reaching out to States and local communities to talk
      about the implementation of that health advisory...............
    So when there is value that is identified in the health advisory,
      we need to think about, if something occurs like happened in
      Toledo this past summer, how do we think that health advisory
      value should be used. Is that a not-to-exceed level for 1 day
      or for a week or for something different?......................
    These conversations, I think, are equally important to make sure
      that we have a common approach across the country for dealing
      with this issue................................................
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.............................................
    Mr. Chairman, the time that you yielded to me has expired, and I
      yield back.....................................................
    Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time..................
    The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
      committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes..........................
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.............................
    Protecting America's waters is one of EPA's priorities laid out
      in the President's budget for this next fiscal year. And I
      quote, he says, ``The responsibility for communities and public
      water systems to continuously provide safe drinking water is a
      key component of the Nation's health and their wellbeing.''....
    And I agree that goal is incredibly important, and I don't think
      it can be achieved without significant resources. Because
      harmful algae blooms are just one example of the threats that
      could drive significant treatment and capital costs for water
      utilities......................................................
    And so my point is we have to invest in drinking-water
      infrastructure. There are two areas of the President's budget
      that I believe move us in that direction. One is the $1.1
      billion allocated for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund,
      a significant increase from last year..........................
    So, Dr. Grevatt, we have not had a hearing on the SRF in this
      subcommittee in several years, so could you briefly explain how
      the SRF works? And how might a State like Ohio address harmful
      algal blooms with their SRF funds? And could these resources
      benefit public water systems who have to undertake
      infrastructure projects to address contamination, such as
      moving intakes or improving treatment capabilities?............
    Mr. Grevatt. Certainly. Thank you, Congressman...................
    So EPA, through the State Revolving Loan Fund, provides grants to
      each of the States, allocates moneys to each of the States
      every year, and the States, in turn, develop an intended-use
      plan that is designed to fund projects that are identified by
      local utilities to improve infrastructure at those facilities..
    In addition, the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund
      provides set-aside funds for States to provide activities like
      technical support to local communities who are dealing with
      these challenges...............................................
    So the drinking-water SRF very much can support responses to
      harmful algal blooms. And I know, in fact, after the Toledo
      event, the State of Ohio directed some of their funding that
      they had received from EPA through the State Revolving Loan
      Fund to help communities on Lake Erie to address some of the
      challenges with harmful algal blooms...........................
    Mr. Pallone. The budget also creates--this is the second point--a
      new tax-except qualified public infrastructure bond program
      that is intended to help small communities track capital for
      infrastructure investment. And 97 percent of public water
      systems in the U.S. serve fewer than 10,000 people.............
    So what are some of the unique challenges faced by small
      community water systems? And would the tax-exempt bond program
      help these small systems keep up with infrastructure needs and
      rising treatment costs?........................................
    Mr. Grevatt. Thank you very much.................................
    So we often have talked in this hearing, the previous hearing as
      well, about the city of Toledo, and we talk less about Carroll
      Township, nearby Toledo, who was shut down in 2013 as a result
      of a harmful algal bloom. And there are particular challenges
      that small systems face, in terms of both technical capacity,
      financial capacity, and managerial capacity to address issues
      like harmful algal blooms......................................
    So it is important through the SRF and other funding
      opportunities for us to focus on the needs of small communities
      as much as we can to make sure that they are supported in these
      efforts. So, certainly, we think that the new authority, as
      well as the drinking-water SRF, can help small communities to
      address these challenges.......................................
    Mr. Pallone. And so the tax-exempt bonds specifically would help
      them is what you are saying....................................
    Mr. Grevatt. We believe so, yes..................................
    Mr. Pallone. OK..................................................
    I mean, I just think that this funding could make all the
      difference for small communities struggling to provide safe
      drinking water. And I just wanted to say I think what the
      President has included for both of these items in his budget is
      important, so hopefully we will get support for it in Congress.
    The other thing I have to say is we can't keep cutting EPA's
      budget and expect our water to get cleaner. And real progress
      on these very serious health and environmental problems takes a
      sustained commitment of time and money. And I think we owe it
      to our constituents and to the long-term health of our
      communities to make the necessary investments..................
    I mean, if you read the President's budget, so much of it is just
      talking about investment in the future, on this and other
      issues. And it is also very obvious, I am sure everyone
      realizes, that when you make these kinds of investments and you
      upgrade systems, you create a lot of jobs......................
    Also, it brings money into the local communities. So it not only
      impacts the health and the drinking water but also is an
      economic boost, as well, that makes a lot of sense, in my
      opinion........................................................
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back............................
    Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time..................
    The chair now recognizes, well, the gentleman from Kentucky, if
      he would like to ask questions.................................
    Mr. Whitfield. I will pass.......................................
    Mr. Shimkus. You will pass.......................................
    The gentleman from Ohio, did you get your questions done?........
    Mr. Latta. I think I got them, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Shimkus. Anyone else on the Republican side wish to ask any
      questions?.....................................................
    The gentleman from West Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes.....
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman............................
    I remember hearing the testimony from last year. I guess it was
      in November of last year, I believe, you were making that. I
      don't have all my notes from that meeting, but there was some
      discussion about the uniqueness of that situation up there,
      that there had been some dredging going on, and perhaps some of
      the leached material and sediment in the bottom maybe had
      triggered some of that.........................................
    I think, if I recall your testimony, you said, yes, you were
      aware of this, but--we are going on over a year now since this
      issue occurred. You know, how close are we getting to where the
      algae blooms--there will be a standard at the Federal level?...
    Mr. Grevatt. A standard health advisory, sir?....................
    Mr. McKinley. Yes................................................
    Mr. Grevatt. We will have that done by late spring of this
      calendar year..................................................
    Mr. McKinley. I thought I heard you say that. Why that long? I
      mean, the people are still out there struggling with it. And,
      with all the resources you have to put that out, I don't
      understand why there is such a delay at the bureaucratic level
      to get something out...........................................
    Mr. Grevatt. The primary issue is to make sure we get it right.
      So, as others have discussed, we are in the midst of an
      independent scientific peer review of our health advisory
      focused on the toxicity levels we are identifying, which will
      be a level below which we believe that humans are not at risk
      from exposure to cyanotoxins. And we view that as a
      tremendously important level to identify and make sure we have
      confidence. So----.............................................
    Mr. McKinley. Well, was that the first reporting in the Toledo
      area that--Lake Erie, was that the first time that we have had
      a problem with it?.............................................
    Mr. Grevatt. With cyanotoxins? No. That is certainly not the
      first time we have had problems with cyanotoxins...............
    Mr. McKinley. OK. So, based on that, I am saying, how long does
      it take to develop a standard when we know we have a health
      hazard out there? When little communities that don't have the
      ability, the resources, to be able to do all the testing that
      you mentioned back in November, how are these little
      communities going to do it?....................................
    They need your standard, and I don't understand why it is taking
      so long. Because last year wasn't the first time this has come
      up.............................................................
    Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir. And we are, as I said, committed to having
      this ready before the next algal bloom season in the Great
      Lakes region. So we expect that this is going to be coming in
      time to assist those systems, large and small, with addressing
      algal toxins going forward.....................................
    Mr. McKinley. OK.................................................
    What about--you were going to get back to us--I didn't get any--
      about the contribution from the zebra mussels. I know that was
      potentially a factor in that. Have you been able to determine
      in the past year whether or not they have been any contribution
      to that?.......................................................
    Mr. Grevatt. There is not scientific agreement at this point on
      the contribution of zebra mussels. There certainly are
      scientific studies that suggest that invasive species, such as
      zebra mussels, may contribute, as well as dredging of
      sediments. We know there are quite a bit of nutrients in the
      system, including in the sediments, and the dredging may, some
      believe, contribute to the growth of algal blooms. But there is
      not scientific agreement as yet on those questions.............
    Mr. McKinley. So when you come up with the standard, with the
      little communities, Toledo being much larger than many, and you
      talk about getting its surface water from ponds and the like,
      how are they going to be able--what costs are they going to
      face, a small community of 5,000 people or 2,000 people,
      compared to Toledo, to be able to achieve the standard? Is
      there going to be any assistance you are going to recommend?...
    Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir. In particular through the State Drinking
      Water Revolving Loan Fund, we will be providing resources
      through the States to communities. And the drinking-water SRF
      is focused, as I said, primarily on small communities..........
    Mr. McKinley. And you are talking through the State Revolving
      Fund?..........................................................
    Mr. Grevatt. I am sorry?.........................................
    Mr. McKinley. The State Revolving Fund?..........................
    Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir............................................
    Mr. McKinley. Yes. But I haven't dissected the President's
      budget, but last year he took that and cut that almost in half,
      the amount of money coming through the SRF. So I haven't seen
      his--do wehave a reduction in the SRF this year?...............
    Mr. Grevatt. There is an increase in the drinking-water SRF in
      the President's budget.........................................
    Mr. McKinley. Good. Thank you very much..........................
    I yield back the balance of my time..............................
    Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time..................
    Just a note for the public and my colleagues. It looks like they
      will call votes in a few minutes. We will try to get through
      this panel and maybe the opening statements of the second
      panel. We will have to come back to move the bill after votes..
    So, with that, I would like to recognize the ranking member of
      the subcommittee, Mr. Tonko....................................
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I had a opening statement
      that, with your indulgence----.................................
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes. Let me ask unanimous consent that all opening
      statements can be submitted for the record. I got that request
      from the chairman, too.........................................
    So, without objection, so ordered................................
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you so much.....................................
    And, Dr. Grevatt, thank you for being here today to testify again
      on this very important topic...................................
    The problem of algal toxins touches on the biggest challenges
      facing our water utilities today: source-water protection and
      infrastructure funding.........................................
    H.R. 212 would require EPA to identify the factors that cause
      harmful algae to proliferate and express toxins. Can you
      identify some of those factors for us?.........................
    Mr. Grevatt. Certainly. Among the most important are nutrients in
      the system, availability of light, light intensity in
      particular, warmer temperatures. Water flows are also very
      important in promoting the growth of toxic algae blooms........
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.............................................
    And the President's budget describes multiple efforts that the
      administration will undertake to address these factors,
      including funds for EPA to enhance its efforts to address
      nutrient pollution through partnerships with USDA and States in
      the high-priority watersheds...................................
    Excessive levels of nitrogen and phosphorous in water sources
      create prime conditions for excessive algal growth. Nutrient
      pollution has been identified by your agency, the International
      Joint Commission, and other stakeholders as one of the key
      factors driving proliferation of harmful algal blooms..........
    Can you describe briefly what EPA's efforts to address nutrient
      pollution would entail?........................................
    Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir. So we will be working with partners at the
      State and local level to make sure that we are addressing
      nutrient pollution comprehensively, thinking about the various
      sources of nutrients, both in large communities and small, in
      rural communities and urban communities, to make sure that we
      are minimizing the inputs of nutrients into systems like
      western Lake Erie that promote the growth of algal blooms......
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.............................................
    And is addressing nutrient pollution important if we are indeed
      to address harmful algal blooms?...............................
    Mr. Grevatt. We believe so, yes..................................
    Mr. Tonko. OK....................................................
    And H.R. 212 would also require EPA to identify feasible
      treatment options to address and manage the risks posed by
      harmful algal blooms...........................................
    You testified in November that preventative measures are the
      preferred and most effective approach to managing harmful algal
      blooms. Do you think it is important that preventative measures
      be included in EPA's consideration of tools to address and
      manage these risks?............................................
    Mr. Grevatt. We think it is very important that we at EPA think
      both about treatment at drinking-water supplies as well as
      prevention of the growth of algal blooms in the first place.
      Yes............................................................
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.............................................
    And later today I expect that the subcommittee will adopt an
      amendment to clarify that treatment options include those
      preventative measures. As we will hear from the second panel,
      treatment options to address harmful algal blooms can be very
      expensive. Some water systems may have to move their intake
      pipes or find alternative water sources--a very expensive
      undertaking. This will only exacerbate the high cost of
      replacing our crumbling drinking-water infrastructure
      nationwide.....................................................
    H.R. 212 envisions EPA entering into cooperative agreements with
      States and affected water systems, though it does not provide
      funding for such agreements. The President's budget request
      includes significant funding for drinking-water infrastructure,
      but that funding is already far outpaced by need...............
    My question: Does EPA currently have funding for cooperative
      agreements and other activities to address the risks of harmful
      algal blooms?..................................................
    Mr. Grevatt. We have funds, particularly through the State
      Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund, to support small
      communities. We don't currently have a funding source that
      would support cooperative agreements as identified in the bill.
    Mr. Tonko. Well, let me just state that this bill addresses an
      important problem, but its impact will be indeed limited if we
      don't provide funding. I hope my colleagues will join me later
      today to ensure that funds are available to implement the
      strategic plan and enter into cooperative agreements...........
    And I thank the chair for calling this hearing...................
    And, Mr. Chair, I yield back.....................................
    Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time..................
    We have had a few other Members join.............................
    Anybody on the Republican side wishing to ask additional
      questions?.....................................................
    Mr. Murphy is recognized for 5 minutes...........................
    Mr. Murphy. Thank you............................................
    Appreciate you being here, Doctor................................
    With Toledo, you said it was forced to go without tap water for 3
      days because of the algal bloom. And what was the economic
      impact of shutting down that drinking-water system for that
      period of time? Do you know?...................................
    Mr. Grevatt. So I am not familiar with an estimate for the city
      of Toledo. I can say that in Charleston, West Virginia, which
      was a very different situation and a longer duration, the
      Governor of West Virginia, Governor Tomblin, estimated the
      economic impact of that incident as over $70 million...........
    Mr. Murphy. I heard that for Toledo it was $1.5 million just in
      that water system alone........................................
    Now, do you know that Bowling Green, Ohio, also obtains its
      municipal water from Lake Erie?................................
    Mr. Grevatt. Yes, sir............................................
    Mr. Murphy. And they were able to maintain that tap water. You
      are aware of that. Do you know why?............................
    Mr. Grevatt. So we know that conventional treatment technologies,
      if optimized, are effective in removing algal toxins from
      source waters for drinking water. And it may be that in the
      case of the Toledo last summer the concentration simply
      overwhelmed what they could deal with at their intake..........
    Mr. Murphy. But they have a different system for water
      purification than the Bowling Green facility has. What was the
      technology? Do you have any idea what that technology
      difference was that they had at bowing Green?..................
    Mr. Grevatt. I am not familiar with the technologies that were
      present in Bowling Green, so----...............................
    Mr. Murphy. OK. It was activated carbon..........................
    And you may be aware--I have some here--3 to 5 grams of this, so
      about a sugar packet, has as much surface area as a football
      field. And this is much more than 3 to 5 grams.................
    I am wondering if this is something that EPA is studying at all,
      in terms of looking at activated carbon as a source to help us
      with clean water systems?......................................
    Mr. Grevatt. Absolutely. And the Toledo system also used
      activated carbon last summer during the event..................
    Mr. Murphy. And this is something that, as we review these
      issues--for example, Mr. Latta's bill--that the EPA will
      continue to look at, of how we can use activated carbon more in
      this process?..................................................
    Mr. Grevatt. Absolutely..........................................
    Mr. Murphy. Good.................................................
    Then that is all I have to ask, Mr. Chairman. Thank you..........
    Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time..................
    Is there anyone else on the minority side seeking time to ask
      questions?.....................................................
    The gentlelady from California is recognized for 5 minutes.......
    Mrs. Capps. I wanted to say thank you first for holding this very
      important topic as a hearing...................................
    Mr. Shimkus. You are very welcome................................
    Mrs. Capps. And thank you, Dr. Grevatt, for your testimony.......
    And as has been said and I just want to state, a growing body of
      scientific research is pointing to toward global climate change
      as a primary factor in the emergence and proliferation of
      harmful algal blooms. Warming waters, elevated carbon dioxide
      levels, ocean acidification, rising sea levels, extreme weather
      events are all linked to manmade climate change, and all
      contribute to harmful algal blooms.............................
    Addressing these risks is going to require both mitigation and
      adaptation. EPA is working with States to help address the many
      facets of this problem.........................................
    Dr. Grevatt, could you describe just briefly--I have a series of
      questions--some of these efforts?..............................
    Mr. Grevatt. Certainly...........................................
    So, within my office, we support efforts on climate adaptation,
      in particular for the water sector, helping both storm-water
      utilities and drinking-water utilities to prepare for things
      like flood events, drought events, extreme weather events,
      whether it be hurricanes or other things. So very much we are
      focused on helping to build resiliency of local drinking water
      and wastewater treatment systems...............................
    Mrs. Capps. In your testimony, you mentioned there are effective
      water treatments available to remove these toxins but that
      these techniques are very expensive to implement. Am I correct
      on that? Just a ``yes'' or a ``no.''...........................
    Mr. Grevatt. Some of those, yes, can be expensive................
    Mrs. Capps. And with climate change expected to make these events
      more frequent and severe in the future, will these adaptation
      costs increase or decrease over the coming years and decades?..
    Mr. Grevatt. They are likely to increase for many systems........
    Mrs. Capps. And following along that, do you think the current
      level of Federal funding and resources is adequate to properly
      mitigate the future impacts of harmful algal blooms?...........
    Mr. Grevatt. We very much are going to focus on using the
      available resources we have as efficiently as possibly to meet
      this challenge.................................................
    Mrs. Capps. Well, but would you say the next sentence if you can?
      Do we have enough? Are we going to need more as time goes on?..
    Mr. Grevatt. I can't comment on that.............................
    Mrs. Capps. OK...................................................
    While developing a strategic plan would certainly be helpful, I
      am concerned that H.R. 212, our House resolution, does nothing
      to help local communities actually implement the changes
      necessary to prevent these events in the future................
    And, Mr. Chairman, I am going to be introducing the Water
      Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act soon. And it
      would increase funding for local water agencies so that they
      can actually implement mitigation and adaptation strategies.
      They know what needs to be done, but if you don't have the
      wherewithal, you can't do it...................................
    H.R. 212 only takes the first step, and I believe there is much
      more that needs to be done. That is not by way of saying that I
      don't agree with this hearing, but I hope this is just the
      first step, because we need to have further hearings on the
      issue as to implementation. And that is a direction I hope we
      can go, because, as has been stated, this is a problem that is
      only expected to get worse in the years and decades to come.
      And I think our next generations, we owe it to them to start
      doing this now.................................................
    Thank you, and I yield back......................................
    Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back her time.................
    Anyone else on the majority side seeking time?...................
    And for my colleagues, we are going to recess after the first
      panel. And then we will come back and we will empanel the
      second panel, finish that testimony. Then we will move into the
      markup, just for information...................................
    The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman............................
    I am going to change the subject slightly and talk about
      groundwater in California, if you don't mind too much. We are
      in the third year of a very severe drought. At the same time,
      California is the third largest oil producer in the United
      States, but a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle
      highlighted that California aquifers have been contaminated by
      drilling operations............................................
    It is my understanding that the EPA has given California until
      tomorrow to present additional plans on how to fix the problem.
      EPA Regional Administrator Jared Blumenfeld said, and I quote,
      ``If there are wells having a direct impact on drinking water,
      we need to shut them down now.''...............................
    Are there any wells that the EPA is targeting to shut down?......
    Mr. Grevatt. So EPA is working very closely with the State of
      California as they develop this plan that you just mentioned
      that they will be submitting tomorrow, which is designed to
      make sure they are fully in compliance with the Safe Drinking
      Water Act on their underground injection control program within
      2 years........................................................
    Mr. McNerney. OK.................................................
    Is there anything that triggers the EPA to be more involved in
      overseeing and monitoring the Safe Water Drinking Act funds in
      areas that are experiencing drought?...........................
    Mr. Grevatt. We certainly are working, as I mentioned, with
      communities both large and small that are facing drought
      challenges. And so we are focused on trying to support those
      communities in becoming as resilient as possible to drought,
      yes............................................................
    Mr. McNerney. OK.................................................
    And last December 2014, there is a letter that also mentions the
      EPA has strengthened oversight of the oil and gas underground
      injection control program. What has the EPA done with that new
      authority?.....................................................
    Mr. Grevatt. So there is not a new authority, but we have been
      working, as I said, with the State of California to make sure
      that their program that they are implementing, underground
      injection control program, is in full compliance with the Safe
      Drinking Water Act. We have been working very cooperatively
      with them on that..............................................
    Mr. McNerney. OK.................................................
    Well, apparently, there is a 1983 agreement between the EPA and
      the California regulators, and the agreement listed some
      specific aquifers considered exempt. By ``exempt,'' that means
      the process can inject wastewater into the aquifer. But there
      are two signed copies of this agreement; one has a list of 11
      aquifers that are exempt, and the other doesn't have those
      aquifers listed................................................
    Could you explain that or give me some insight?..................
    Mr. Grevatt. Yes. So that 1983 document is actually the original
      primacy application from the State of California, which--EPA
      granted primacy for them to implement the underground injection
      control program................................................
    And so, as we have worked with the State of California, we have
      discovered there has been some confusion with the historical
      record on this. So the focus of our work with the State of
      California going forward has been to make sure that the aquifer
      exemptions are implemented properly in the State of California.
    Mr. McNerney. OK. This is an area that I think needs a lot more
      scrutiny, and I appreciate your consideration..................
    I yield back.....................................................
    Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time..................
    Now I will recess this hearing and return--we will ask my
      colleagues to return as promptly as possibly after the last
      vote, and then we will empanel the second panel................
    And we want to thank you, Dr. Grevatt, for being here. We have
      seen you now, you know, what, twice in the last 4 months. And
      we look forward to working with you. Thank you very much.......
    [Recess.]........................................................
    Mr. Shimkus. We are going to call the hearing back to order and
      welcome our second panel and continue to move through the
      process........................................................
    So thank you for coming. Thank you for many of you or your
      associations being here, you know, last fall or last November,
      I guess........................................................
    And we will go in order of the table. I will do the introduction
      and then ask you to do your 5-minute opening statement. Your
      full statement is submitted for the record.....................
    So I would like to first introduce Mr. Mike Baker, chief,
      Division of Drinking and Ground Waters from the Ohio
      Environmental Protection Agency................................
    Thank you for your service. We look forward to hearing your
      testimony. You are recognized for 5 minutes....................
                    STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL BAKER, CHIEF, DIVISION OF
                      DRINKING AND GROUND WATERS, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL
                      PROTECTION AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION
                      OF STATE DRINKING WATER ADMINISTRATORS; AUREL
                      ARNDT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LEHIGH COUNTY
                      AUTHORITY (PENNSYLVANIA), ON BEHALF OF THE
                      AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION; AND KRISTY
                      MEYER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURAL, HEALTH,
                      AND CLEAN WATER PROGRAMS, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL
                      COUNCIL
                    STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BAKER
    Mr. Baker. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
      Member Tonko, and subcommittee members.........................
    My name is Michael Baker. I am administrator of the public
      drinking-water program in the State of Ohio and also a recent
      past president of the Association of State Drinking Water
      Administrators, on whose behalf I am testifying here this
      morning........................................................
    Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler testified before this subcommittee
      in November of 2014 on the subject of harmful algal blooms and,
      in particular, Ohio's experience with the August 2014 incident
      in Toledo, when nearly a half a million people were told they
      could not drink the water due to elevated levels of
      microcystin....................................................
    Today I will frame my remarks in the context of the various
      components of H.R. 212 but in consideration of the lessons
      learned during the events in Toledo and the activities we have
      undertaken since that event....................................
    We support the bill's emphasis on a strategic plan. It has become
      abundantly clear that solving the problems associated with
      harmful algal blooms needs to be done holistically and
      thoughtfully rather than piecemeal. It is appropriate to
      establish and update a list of harmful cyanotoxins and
      associated information on their toxicity. Such a list will
      drive the work undertaken in other parts of the strategy, such
      as refining the health assessments, analytical methods, and
      treatment effectiveness. We also think it is reasonable that
      priority be placed on those toxins most likely to occur in
      drinking water at levels of concern............................
    Assessing adverse health effects from cyanotoxins is the most
      critical element of the bill. At present, individual States are
      forced to develop their own health benchmarks. We need a
      national approach based on sound science and welcome EPA-
      derived health advisories......................................
    There are a host of assumptions and policy ramifications that
      need to be considered in establishing an advisory level, and
      States need to be engaged in those considerations before a
      number is finalized. And I want to knowledge Dr. Grevatt and
      EPA for their support of Ohio and for recently engaging a small
      group of State representatives for deliberation on these
      important decisions............................................
    Additional information on the ecology of cyanobacteria, including
      what triggers them to produce toxins, is needed. Guidance is
      needed on strategies for early detection of blooms and the
      appropriate frequency of monitoring at public water systems.
      This is also an area in which consultation and coordination
      with agencies such as NOAA and NASA is essential...............
    We agree with the bill's emphasis on analytical methods. More
      work is needed to evaluate the capabilities and applicability
      of all appropriate analytical methods and how they can be used
      in tandem with one another. The determination of appropriate
      analytical methods also relates to how health advisories are
      expressed--for example, if the level for a single category for
      microcystin, Microcystin-LR, or if it includes Mycrocystin-LR
      and equivalents................................................
    We are fortunate that cyanobacteria and associated toxins are
      generally removed with conventional surface water treatment at
      our public water systems. But it is costly and in no way a
      straightforward problem, and ongoing research and guidance on
      treatment technologies is needed...............................
    We appreciate the bill's emphasis on EPA providing assistance to
      affected States and water systems through cooperative
      agreements. This is an essential role and one I believe EPA
      strives to fulfill with available resources. We would
      respectfully point out that there is an important role for
      Congress in this regard to adequately fund EPA, States, and
      water systems in support of our collective efforts.............
    The bill properly includes a requirement for consultation with
      other Federal agencies, State public water systems,
      international agencies, research and academic institutions. My
      experience with the Toledo water system this past summer showed
      that it is a team effort comprised of Federal, State, and local
      experts as well as academic institutions, and that was needed
      to address the challenges we faced in Toledo...................
    Finally, I will note that the most reliable and, in the long run,
      most protective of public health is a multibarrier approach.
      That starts with protecting sources of drinking water. We
      believe it is extremely important that we collectively stay
      focused on the root cause of algal blooms. These problems are
      ultimately the result of point and nonpoint sources of nitrogen
      and phosphorus pollution.......................................
    In conclusion, we strongly believe that Federal, State, and local
      leaders need to work closely together in partnership to quickly
      advance the science, to detect and effectively treat
      cyanotoxins in drinking water, to scientifically derive safe
      levels. We also need to stay focused on the root cause of the
      problem........................................................
    We believe the steps articulated in H.R. 212 are an appropriate
      series of actions to be taken at this time, and ASDWA and the
      States look forward to working with you in tackling this
      challenging issue..............................................
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to
      answering any questions........................................
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]...................
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.................................
    Now I would like to recognize Mr. Aurel Arndt, the chief
      executive officer of Lehigh County Authority in the State of
      Pennsylvania, on behalf of the American Water Works
      Association....................................................
    And before I recognize you for 5 minutes, he was accompanied
      early this morning by a colleague of ours, Mr. Charlie Dent, so
      we don't want to hold that against him as he gives his
      testimony......................................................
    But it was good to see Charlie walking through our chamber to say
      hi to you. So, with that, sir, you are recognized for 5
      minutes........................................................
                    STATEMENT OF AUREL ARNDT
    Mr. Arndt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman...............................
    Good morning, members of the subcommittee. My name is Aurel
      Arndt. I am chief executive officer of Lehigh County Authority,
      based in Allentown, Pennsylvania. I am also chair of the
      American Water Works Association's Water Utility Council. I
      deeply appreciate the opportunity to offer input on the
      critical issues surrounding algal blooms, cyanotoxins, and
      drinking-water sources and H.R. 212, the Drinking Water
      Protection Act.................................................
    As the chairman said, I am here on behalf of the American Water
      Works Association today. Established in 1881, AWWA is the
      word's oldest and largest nonprofit 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. My remarks today reflect the
      experiences and perspectives of AWWA's nearly 50,000 members...
    As you know, we are brought here today largely due to the algal
      bloom in Lake Erie last August that resulted in the formation
      of a toxin known as microcystin, requiring the city of Toledo
      to issue a do-not-drink advisory to its customers. We also know
      that other water systems that rely on lakes and reservoirs for
      their drinking-water supplies have also had to wrestle with
      algal blooms...................................................
    The formation of algal toxins is very complex and not fully
      understood. Similarly, the same can be said for the possible
      human health effects of cyanotoxins. But one thing is very
      clear: The problem is always associated with excessive amounts
      of nitrogen and phosphorus in the water........................
    According to the U.S. Geological Survey, nonpoint sources,
      predominantly runoff and deposition from the air, account for
      90 percent of the nitrogen and 75 percent of the phosphorus in
      our waters. We believe the most sensible strategy for reducing
      the scope and severity of this problem is bringing nonpoint
      sources of nutrient pollution under more effective management..
    There are some Federal programs that have a bearing on nutrients
      in our water, such as the conservation title of the farm bill.
      However, these conservation programs are largely voluntary in
      nature.........................................................
    Drinking-water treatment technology exists to allow utilities to
      remove toxins produced by algal blooms; however, this
      technology is very expensive to install 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, as it is for American Water Works
      and all of its membership. Even before this summer's event,
      AWWA had taken steps to help water systems at risk from algal
      events. They include the following: First, developing and
      distributing information to assist water systems in
      anticipating and responding to source-water challenges,
      including cyanobacterial blooms and cyanotoxins. Also, AWWA is
      preparing a water utility manager's guide to cyanotoxins, which
      will be published later this month.............................
    Having said these things, utility managers can't solve this
      problem on their own. We do need Federal help. Federal
      agencies, including EPA and USDA, should use 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 the farm
      bill conservation programs could be targeted and used more
      effectively to reduce nutrient pollution and protect our
      drinking-water sources.........................................
    With regard to drinking-water regulation, we support the
      methodical, science-based standard-setting process in the Safe
      Drinking Water Act. EPA has already placed some cyanotoxins on
      its Contaminate Candidate List and has indicated that it will
      use the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule process to help
      determine whether regulation of cyanotoxins would afford a
      meaningful opportunity to protect public health. We certainly
      support these efforts..........................................
    We applaud the goal of H.R. 212 to have EPA develop a strategic
      plan to protect people from cyanotoxins when they appear in
      source waters. EPA has already begun work on developing health
      advisories for two of those, as we heard earlier. We also
      commend the bill's author, Congressman Latta, for not
      disrupting the effective, established processes in the Safe
      Drinking Water Act for determining whether or not a substance
      should be regulated............................................
    We have offered the technical expertise of our membership to
      Congress and EPA, as we all continue to work to protect the
      public from potential health threats in the environment.
      However, I must emphasize, we also ask that Congress consider
      ways to increase the effectiveness of nonpoint-source pollution
      programs.......................................................
    They should include discussing whether nonpoint pollution should
      be brought under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act and,
      if so, the appropriate way do so. To reemphasize what we said
      in similar testimony last fall, we believe it would not be
      equitable to put an additional burden on water systems and
      their customers to solve problems if the most significant
      sources of nutrient pollution are not also asked to do more....
    In closing, I would like to thank the subcommittee for the
      leadership it is taking today in holding this hearing. I would
      be happy to answer any questions, both today and in the future.
      Thank you......................................................
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Arndt follows:]...................
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.................................
    Now I would like to turn to Ms. Kristy Meyer, who is representing
      the Ohio Environmental Council.................................
    Again, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Your full statement is
      in the record..................................................
                    STATEMENT OF KRISTY MEYER
    Ms. Meyer. Thank you. And good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
      Ranking Member, and members of the subcommittee. I want to
      thank you for allowing me to testify before you today on the
      Drinking Water Protection Act, introduced by the Honorable Bob
      Latta..........................................................
    My name is Kristy Meyer, and I am the managing director of
      agricultural, health, and clean water programs with the Ohio
      Environmental Council. Our organization, the OEC, is a 46-year
      not-for-profit advocacy organization whose mission is to secure
      healthy air, land, and water for all who call Ohio home........
    On behalf of the OEC, I would like to thank Representative Latta
      for introducing this piece of legislation and this subcommittee
      for holding this hearing today. I have with me an updated
      version of my testimony. I apologize that you don't have it,
      but I was given very little time to turn it around.............
    I will never forget Saturday, August 2, 2014. At 8 a.m., my good
      friend from Toledo called me. She was talking so fast. She told
      me that Toledo area residents weren't able to drink their
      water. She told me she had a cup of coffee that morning and
      used tap water and asked me if she would be OK. My head started
      spinning thinking about this news--all those people without
      drinking water. And boiling that water would further
      concentrate those toxins.......................................
    Imagine parents telling their children that they can't drink the
      water or that they should not touch the water, or hospital
      staff trying to ensure the safety of their patients, or local
      mom-and-pop businesses temporarily closing their doors to
      protect their customers. While thankfully nobody was hurt
      during this emergency, some small businesses unfortunately paid
      the ultimate price.............................................
    How could this be? A modern American city in a first-world nation
      dealing with third-world water problems. This news spread like
      a wildfire, reaching the furthest parts of the globe, giving
      the U.S., Ohio, Toledo, and Lake Erie a black eye..............
    Clean, potable water is essential to life. And, according to the
      U.S. EPA, there is not one State in this Nation that has not
      experienced a harmful algal bloom. And, in fact, in Ohio, Lake
      Erie is not the only lake that has experienced a harmful algal
      bloom. In 2010, more than 10 inland lakes also experience a
      harmful algal bloom............................................
    So if this bill is enacted, as the U.S. EPA moves forward in
      developing this report it is essential that the Agency take
      into consideration the whole-body burden of these toxins when
      establishing recommendations for standards, which should, along
      with recreational activities, consider fish and shellfish
      consumption as part of what is considered for other purposes...
    It is vitally important to ensure safe drinking water, but we
      cannot continue to diagnose the symptoms and expect this
      problem to go away. According to the Ohio Phosphorus Task
      Force, we need to, in Ohio, slash nutrients flowing into Lake
      Erie by 40 percent at least. Members of the Ohio Phosphorus
      Task Force included the Ohio Environmental Council, Federal and
      State local agencies, the Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio AgriBusiness
      Association, and the Ohio Certified Crop Advisors..............
    Achieving this 40-percent-reduction goal means that we need to
      protect our waterways and wetlands. Meandering streams can help
      assimilate nutrients, allowing nutrients and sediments to fall
      out of the waterway as it flows down the river, whereas
      straightened ditches move the nutrients quickly into the next
      receiving body--and in Ohio, such as the Maumee and then Lake
      Erie...........................................................
    We also must slash phosphorus from all sources, such as
      wastewater treatment plants and sewer overflows and farm-field
      runoff. We cannot, however, allow for the wastewater treatment
      plants to bear the burden of this reduction alone, especially
      when, according to the Ohio Phosphorus Task Force, the major
      culprit in Ohio in Lake Erie is farm-field runoff. We must
      ensure that each farmer samples their soil using precision
      soil-sampling techniques for the appropriate amount of
      fertilizer to be applied as well as develop and implement a
      nutrient management plan, at the very minimum..................
    So, in conclusion, in Ohio, we always say that Lake Erie is the
      canary in the coal mine for the Great Lakes region. The
      weekend-without-water crisis is a wakeup call not just for Ohio
      but for our Nation. Our waterways are at risk from excessive
      nutrient pollution. We must address this problem for the health
      and safety of our children and grandchildren. And this bill
      will help ensure safeguards are in place to protect our
      families and future generations. But without the end goal being
      the protection and attainment of water quality in our own
      waterways, I fear we will only continue to treat the symptoms..
    The OEC thanks Representative Latta once again and this
      subcommittee for holding this hearing today and allowing me to
      testify before you. I am happy to answer any questions you may
      have...........................................................
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Meyer follows:]...................
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much.................................
    And I would like to recognize myself 5 minutes for the questions
      of the panel, and my first question will go to Mr. Baker.......
    Based on the lessons learned from this event last fall, do you
      perceive this bill to be helpful to improve protocols for
      testing and data analysis?.....................................
    Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman...............................
    Yes, I do think that it will. As I stated in my testimony, it
      covers all the bases of needs that we have identified, first
      off, by establishing a national health advisory number so that
      States aren't developing those numbers on their own;
      developing, analyzing, giving us robust analytical methods and
      further information on treatment technologies. So yes..........
    Mr. Shimkus. What are the analytical methods that you see that
      are critical from the previous experiences with algae and
      source water?..................................................
    Mr. Baker. I think that there are a couple that we want to be
      looking at. The State of Ohio has utilized the ELISA ADA
      methodology, which looks at total microcystin, which we believe
      is important. And it is also relatively quick and relatively
      inexpensive method so that public water systems can monitor
      what is in their source water, the effectiveness of their
      treatment, and the water that they are producing...............
    But we also believe that there may be more robust methods that
      are appropriate when making determinations on final safety of
      water..........................................................
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you...........................................
    And, Mr. Arndt, in your testimony, you state that drinking-water
      utilities would also appreciate technical assistance and
      cooperative agreements provided for in H.R. 212 to aid in
      managing the cyanotoxin risk...................................
    Can you elaborate a little bit more?.............................
    Mr. Arndt. Yes. We would value and welcome any new research
      findings with regard to detection, monitoring, and practical
      and affordable treatment technologies. Some of our utilities
      and research entities associated with our association would be
      very interested in helping to pilot-test such technologies and
      methods........................................................
    We also would be appreciative of additional research to develop a
      more thorough understanding of why and how these blooms occur.
      There are multiple moving parts that have an effect on the
      generation of cyanotoxins. Such information could perhaps, in
      turn, lead to the development of early-warning technologies
      that could be applied by water systems across the country......
    Mr. Shimkus. So the association considers this bill helpful in
      moving the ball forward on the problems addressed?.............
    Mr. Arndt. Say it again. I am sorry..............................
    Mr. Shimkus. So your association considers this as a helpful
      legislation to move us forward in trying to obtain the goals
      that you have outlined?........................................
    Mr. Arndt. Yes, we do. It is not by itself the solution to all of
      the issues, but certainly it is something that should
      facilitate answering those needs...............................
    Mr. Shimkus. It is a step in the right direction, let's hope.....
    That is all the questions I have. Does anyone want to use the
      balance of my time for a question or two?......................
    If not, I will yield back my time, and then I will ask the
      ranking member, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.......................
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair..................................
    Welcome to our panel.............................................
    Last November, we discussed the crisis in Lake Erie, where a
      toxin-producing algal bloom forced the closure of a major
      drinking-water system. Half a million people in Toledo, Ohio,
      had no safe tap water for several days. Treating pollution
      after it has entered our drinking-water sources is obviously
      costly and inefficient.........................................
    Mr. Baker, what funding did the State of Ohio provide to water
      utilities to respond to the cyanotoxin emergency of last year?.
    Mr. Baker. Thank you, Ranking Member.............................
    Immediately following the events in Toledo, we made $50 million
      available for zero-interest loans for water systems to install
      additional treatment or avoidant strategies, such as new
      intakes or storage, and we received applications in weeks to
      exceed that amount.............................................
    Another thing that we did was we made up to $1 million available
      in grants for water systems to improve their early-detection
      and analytical capabilities....................................
    Mr. Tonko. So $50 million, and you said you received applications
      in excess. So that amount wasn't limited by the need of water
      utilities, but it was more about what the State had available?.
    Mr. Baker. It was based upon what we had available and what we
      could make available out of existing SRF funding...............
    Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you.........................................
    And Ohio is far from the only State affected. Next year, Ohio or
      other States may not have that funding available...............
    Mr. Arndt, without funding from States or the Federal EPA, would
      it be difficult for water utilities to absorb the cost of
      treating for cyanotoxins?......................................
    Mr. Arndt. Water utilities use a multiplicity of sources to fund
      their infrastructure and technology that is necessary to
      provide treatment, and a key part of that is the Federal
      funding that is made available through the State revolving loan
      funds. And so, yes, it is an important tool, particularly for
      smaller systems, as was stated in the earlier hearing..........
    And what AWWA has supported is developing a broad array of
      financing tools, recognizing that not every tool fits every
      need...........................................................
    Mr. Tonko. Yes. But in terms of that funding mechanism, the
      difficulty remains in terms of treating the water supply. So
      would that be passed on to consumers?..........................
    Mr. Arndt. Water systems are largely funded by borrowed funds
      which need to be at some point retired, and interest needs to
      be paid on that funding. And the source of revenues for most
      every water system--and it has been the policy of our
      association to support the cost of running water systems from
      the revenues derived from users. So, yes, those revenues would
      ultimately be derived from customers...........................
    Mr. Tonko. Unfortunately, the algal toxins are just one of the
      contamination issues associated with nutrient pollution.
      Nitrate is another serous concern. Nutrient pollution required
      a municipal water utility to invest over $4 million--millions
      of dollars in a nitrate-removal facility. Operating that
      facility at peak capacity costs the utility some $7,000 a day.
      This summer, the utility spent over $500,000 on nitrate removal
      alone..........................................................
    And the problem is only getting worse. That utility has now said
      that they will be able to meet their customers' water demands
      without regulation of pollutants in their source water.........
    So, Mr. Arndt, as nutrient pollutant levels continue to rise,
      should we expect treatment costs to go up for many of our
      municipal water utilities?.....................................
    Mr. Arndt. I think it is clear that there is a correlation
      between enhanced or increased treatment requirements and the
      investment in facilities, not just in the capital but also for
      the operation of those facilities, that the result of that is
      increased user charges.........................................
    Mr. Tonko. Yes. And can huge capital costs like building a new $4
      million plant be absorbed by water utilities?..................
    Mr. Arndt. Again, please?........................................
    Mr. Tonko. Sure. Can huge capital costs, like that of building a
      new $4 million plant, be absorbed by our water utilities?......
    Mr. Arndt. That is very much a question which is unique to each
      individual system and its circumstances. Certainly, there are
      systems that have challenges because of the affordability of
      water rates already, and so, in those cases, any added costs
      are certainly just going to add to that burden and make it more
      onerous. And there are other systems that certainly may be able
      to handle it...................................................
    Mr. Tonko. Has AWWA done any estimates on what might be needed
      over the next decades or 2?....................................
    Mr. Arndt. Yes, we have. We prepared a report a couple years ago
      called ``Buried No Longer'' which evaluated the water-main
      replacement costs that we will face in the country over the
      next 25 and 40 years. And the estimate for the next 25 years
      was that we would have to spend across the country
      approximately $1 trillion for the replacement of aged water
      mains, and over 40 years that number would be about $1.7
      trillion.......................................................
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much...................................
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.......................................
    Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time..................
    The chair now recognizes, I think, the gentleman from Ohio for 5
      minutes........................................................
    Mr. Latta. Well, thanks again, Mr. Chairman. Thanks again for
      holding the hearing today......................................
    And, again, thanks for our panel for appearing today and
      presenting testimony...........................................
    And, Mr. Baker, if I could ask the first couple questions to you.
      But, first, I just want to again thank Ohio EPA and the great
      coordination that went on, again, as I mentioned to Dr. Grevatt
      early this morning, about what had happened with U.S. EPA
      working with Ohio EPA and, of course, all the departments and
      agencies in Ohio working together, from the Department of
      Natural Resources, Department of Agriculture, and of course the
      city of Toledo and all the other local governments that were
      involved. So I just want to thank you again....................
    And my first question is on--Microcystin-LR is believed to be one
      of the most common and toxic of the algal toxins. Given the
      current gaps on health-effects data, is it possible there may
      be other algal toxins or variants that are of even greater
      health concern that aren't known yet due to these gaps?........
    Mr. Baker. Thank you, Representative Latta.......................
    We know that there are a number of different types of
      cyanotoxins. We know that there are tens of different types of
      variants of each of those toxins, of which there is research
      out there that indicates that some of them are more toxic than
      LR.............................................................
    We do think that there are significant gaps that need to be
      filled on that. I think that is why the approach in H.R. 212 of
      establishing a list of these potential toxins and collecting
      information, compiling information on their relative toxicity
      is a critical first step.......................................
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.............................................
    And, also, can you discuss how you believe the bill tackles and
      helps these long-term issues that we could have, especially
      with these unknown and these gaps that could be occurring out
      there?.........................................................
    Mr. Baker. Well, as I mentioned, the first step is just
      understanding what the total universe is of the toxins that are
      out there and what the potential health effects are, and then
      using that as a basis for developing further information on
      what their actual human health toxicological impacts are,
      analytical methods for even testing for them to see if they are
      present in our water supplies, and then certainly advancing
      treatment technologies to address them.........................
    So I think, logically, those are the approaches that we should be
      taking to address toxins in drinking water.....................
    Mr. Latta. And, finally, how do the water treatment facilities
      and the Ohio EPA treat drinking water in which testing samples
      indicate multiple variants of microcystin, given that different
      variants have different toxin potency?.........................
    Mr. Baker. Thank you, Representative.............................
    Our approach in accordance with Ohio's strategy is that we look
      at the total microcystin, and we know that there is research
      out there that indicates that some of the variants of
      microcystin may be less toxic than LR, but there are studies
      out there that would indicate that there are some variants that
      are more toxic than LR.........................................
    So our recommended approach is that, where we have standards and
      we have analytical methods to look for those variants, we
      should be looking at not only Microcystin-LR but their
      equivalents and looking at those as a whole so that we are most
      protective of public health....................................
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.............................................
    Mr. Arndt, in your testimony, you state that it was wise in the
      legislation that we have today to ask for a strategic plan for
      addressing cyanotoxins rather than requiring a specific date
      for final human health effects findings, monitoring analytical
      methods, and desired treatment options, and the like...........
    Could you expound on that a little bit, why you think that is
      important?.....................................................
    Mr. Arndt. I would love to, but I have to acknowledge that those
      areas are not my area of expertise. But our association would
      be happy to provide you with information that will expound on
      that and explain that further..................................
    Mr. Latta. OK. Well, thank you. If you could get that to the
      committee, we would appreciate it..............................
    And then, Ms. Meyer, if I could just in my remaining time ask, as
      you heard this morning with Dr. Grevatt and what they are
      looking at on establishing the health advisories and getting
      the information--because, of course, with Ohio using the World
      Health Organization and other States doing the same--what do
      you see as the importance of having that standard set by the
      EPA for the health advisory instead of having the World Health
      Organization?..................................................
    Ms. Meyer. Thank you, Congressman................................
    Well, I certainly think it is very important that the U.S. EPA
      sets that standard. They are the ones that are consistently
      looking at the pollutants and the toxins that are in our air
      and in our water and determining what a healthy level is for
      our body.......................................................
    And recognize that right now they are taking a look at some
      health criteria and looking at the whole-body burden. So I
      think it is essential that the U.S. EPA be the leader in
      establishing these standards...................................
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.............................................
    Mr. Chairman, my time has expired, and I yield back..............
    Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time..................
    The chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
      committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes..........................
    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.............................
    I wanted to ask some questions of Mr. Arndt......................
    First let me say, harmful algal blooms and cyanotoxins present a
      significant threat to safe drinking water. And I recognize that
      working to overcome this issue has not been easy or cheap for
      both States and drinking-water systems, and I applaud the
      efforts you have made..........................................
    The bill, H.R. 212, would continue us on this path forward,
      requiring EPA to draft a strategic plan for addressing the
      problem, providing important guidance to States and water
      systems, and entering into cooperative agreements..............
    So, Mr. Arndt, do you see these as positive steps forward, first
      of all, you know, the bill and what the bill is suggesting?....
    Mr. Arndt. I am a firm believer in developing a plan whenever
      attempting to address any complex undertaking. And it seems to
      me that the framework that is established within H.R. 212
      represents an outline of a good plan and effort that can help
      us to answer the unanswered questions and obtain the
      information necessary to deal with these threats...............
    Mr. Pallone. OK. Thanks..........................................
    But the plan is only going to be effective if it is implemented.
      And, as we heard from the first panel, the EPA will need
      funding to implement the plan and enter into cooperative
      agreements.....................................................
    So would you agree that EPA will need resources to implement this
      plan and enter into these kinds of agreements with States and
      water utilities?...............................................
    Mr. Arndt. Well, I think that ultimately rests with the
      determination that comes out of the effort that is pursued as a
      result of the plan. There is no presumption in this legislation
      that there is a need for a specific regulation on cyanotoxins
      or cyanobacteria. That is the outcome of the work that would be
      accomplished under that plan. And so to state at this point
      that there will be a necessary investment is, I think,
      premature......................................................
    Mr. Pallone. Did you want to say something, Mr. Baker, on that?..
    Mr. Baker. I think that EPA is expending a lot of resources to
      address several of the key elements that are identified and
      they would be required to address in the strategy..............
    And doing the science behind health advisories and analytical
      methods--I guess I would equate it to a bandwidth-type issue,
      as, you know, they can only do so much with the resources that
      they have available. And given the critical nature of the
      health threat that we face with this, more resources to advance
      the science quicker, I think, would be advantageous............
    As well, as they enter into the real cooperative agreements with
      States and public water systems and providing direct technical
      assistance, it takes a substantial amount of resources, both at
      the Federal level, State, and the local level..................
    Mr. Pallone. OK. I mentioned it because the President's budget
      includes significant funding for drinking-water infrastructure
      through the State Revolving Fund and a new bond measure........
    Let me go back to Mr. Arndt, and then I will ask Mr. Baker.......
    Would you think that the increased funding--I mean, what would
      that kind of increased funding that the President's budget
      proposed mean for water utilities like yours, if that was made
      available?.....................................................
    Mr. Arndt. I would concede that there is certainly a significant
      need for water infrastructure funding in order to meet all of
      the challenges that are before us, including dealing with new
      and emerging contaminants that are going to be regulated. And,
      certainly, any sources the Federal Government can bring to bear
      can certainly assist in meeting that need......................
    Mr. Pallone. Do you want to answer that, too, Mr. Baker?.........
    Mr. Baker. I would agree with Mr. Arndt that there are tremendous
      infrastructure needs at our public water systems, including
      specific needs to address harmful algal blooms. And the money
      available through the SRF is a tremendous tool to assist public
      water systems with doing that..................................
    Mr. Pallone. OK..................................................
    Well, the budget also calls for more concerted efforts to address
      nutrient pollution. So let me just ask Ms. Meyer, do you think
      that funding is important, as well? I will ask you the same
      question.......................................................
    Ms. Meyer. Thank you, Congressman................................
    Certainly, I do think that the funding is important to address
      the nutrient pollution. But there is always more need than
      there is funding. And so, you know, certainly, we have been
      doing a really good job at targeting that funding in the most,
      I would say, nutrient hotspots, but we need to continue to
      fully fund these programs to make sure that we are protecting
      our water quality..............................................
    Mr. Pallone. All right...........................................
    I mean, I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that I guess my concern
      is that we can't expect new work, like the strategic plan under
      this bill, to come out of existing funds that are already
      stretched thin. I mean, that is my whole point here............
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman..........................................
    Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time..................
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr.
      McKinley, for 5 minutes........................................
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also for Congressman
      Latta for bringing this to our attention and really shedding
      light on this whole subject of funding for our clean water and
      drinking-water programs........................................
    I have heard now several people testify that the SRF actually got
      more money. And I just heard from the ranking member say that
      increased funding--but I have here a report from the ASCE, the
      American Society of Civil Engineers, that the funding has been
      reduced to the SRF.............................................
    So I am just curious, did I--Mr. Chairman, did I hear wrongly
      that he said that they increased the funding for the SRF?......
    Mr. Shimkus. If the gentleman would yield........................
    Mr. McKinley. Yes................................................
    Mr. Shimkus. I think the issue was there was a reduction in the
      last budget year, and the President has proposed an increase in
      this budget year...............................................
    Mr. McKinley. But the report I am getting from the American
      Society of Civil Engineers says it has actually been reduced by
      2 \1/2\ percent over the previous amount that was put in.
      Because the President had markedly reduced the money for the
      SRF last year, and it was the Appropriations Committee who put
      it back in, put money back in, to get it to a higher level, and
      he has reduced it again, the President has reduced it again....
    So I am concerned whether or not they understand the problem we
      are facing here. The American Water Works Association has
      already indicated they have identified over a trillion dollars
      of water infrastructure problems, but yet they keep reducing
      the amount of money available. Because most communities rely
      very heavily on the SRF. And, once again, we are going to have
      to see if we can pump money back up into that..................
    So, again, representing small communities--I don't have a town in
      my district over 30,000 people. And when they are facing some
      of the problems that are going to be having to be addressed,
      with Latta's issue or others', how are we going to get the
      money? What are some of the projections of how we might be able
      to find the money if the administration keeps slashing money
      out of the SRF?................................................
    Mr. Baker. Do you want----.......................................
    Mr. McKinley. I don't care. Whoever wants to take that on........
    Mr. Baker. Thank you.............................................
    Well, I think as I have indicated, our experience is that the SRF
      has been an extremely valuable tool in helping particularly
      small, medium-size public water systems and addressing their
      infrastructure needs and being able to provide them below-
      market funding and other incentives to address highly needed
      infrastructure repairs and replacements........................
    So we continue to support the funding of the SRF at levels that
      support that, and we appreciated seeing the increased level
      proposed this year.............................................
    Mr. McKinley. Yes. I am glad the Congress put the money back in,
      but I hate seeing the fact that the administration now has
      reduced it and trying to represent through Dr. Grevatt that
      that was increased.............................................
    You know, when you look at the sheer numbers, we are talking
      about 50,000 to 55,000 treatment facilities across America, not
      all of which are getting surface water, but probably a great
      number of them are. And I am just concerned how we are going to
      address this long-term issue of funding, especially if it is a
      trillion dollars that is out there in that requirement.........
    Mr. Arndt?.......................................................
    Mr. Arndt. The American Water Works Association has long
      supported funding to the SRF programs. And I think it is
      accurate to say that the SRFs have never been funded to the
      full level of the authorization for those programs. And yet, at
      the same time, the need for funding has grown not just with
      inflation but with the aging of facilities and increasing
      regulatory requirements and other needs........................
    So I think your point is very well-made that additional funding
      is necessary. And there is no one, single source that is going
      to resolve that shortfall. We need to look at a multiplicity of
      sources that can be applied to making those infrastructure
      investments that we need to make sure that we have safe water
      and we continue to provide the services that are needed to
      support our economy............................................
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you..........................................
    I yield back the balance of my time..............................
    Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time..................
    The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California..............
    Do you have questions?...........................................
    Mrs. Capps. No...................................................
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you...........................................
    Turning to my side, would anyone like time for questions?........
    Seeing none, we want to thank the panel for joining us today, and
      we look forward to working with you............................
    This is a step in the right direction. Are there more actions
      required in the future? Maybe. And we will address those as we
      move forward...................................................
    I want to thank my colleagues for bearing with us on the hearing
      today..........................................................
    And I ask unanimous consent to include letters from the American
      Water Works Association and Clean Water Action--oh, I am sorry,
      the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. Is there
      objection?.....................................................
    Hearing none, so ordered.........................................
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]......
    Mr. Shimkus. And we will adjourn this hearing and reconvene
      promptly for the markup........................................
    [Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]......
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]........

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

    Today, we gather to discuss H.R. 212, Mr. Latta's bipartisan
        Drinking Water Protection Act. Following the hearing we'll
        proceed right to a subcommittee markup, and I thank all the
        members for their participation as we close out this week's
        work.
    The whole nation was watching last summer when folks in Northwest
        Ohio were cautioned to avoid drinking their tap water due to
        the algal bloom in Lake Erie. The experience raised more
        questions than it answered:
     Which algae strains produce toxins that we need to worry
        about?
     How do we detect and measure those toxins?
     What steps can we take to protect the public?
    As someone who represents a big chunk of Michigan coastline, I
        have long been a champion of all issues related to our Great
        Lakes and protecting those who live around them. This bill
        will give the EPA the tools they need to prevent future
        occurrences like the one that happened in Ohio.
    Tackling this problem requires collaboration among EPA, the
        states, and Congress. That's what today's hearing is all
        about. Our first witness, EPA's Peter Gravatt, has been
        working with us since last fall on this complex issue. Thank
        you, Peter, for meeting with us, and for testifying before
        this subcommittee twice within three months on the algal
        toxin problem for drinking water. We appreciate your hard
        work, and we have confidence in your ability to help solve
        this.
    That's why this bill doesn't tell EPA what plays to call, or even
        when to call them, it merely asks EPA to put together a game
        plan for tackling the issue.
    In addition to collaboration, success will require the
        persistence of all of us, and maybe some patience. We can't
        wave a magic wand and make the algal toxin issue go away, but
        we can help EPA develop a plan to manage the problem. Let's
        get going.
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]