[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, [email protected].  


			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]