[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]