[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 13 (Thursday, February 10, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 10, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                         DRINKING WATER SAFETY

                                 ______


                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, February 10, 1994

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, January 19, 1994 into the Congressional Record:
  The article follows:

                         Drinking Water Safety


                              introduction

       Compared to most countries, the United States has very 
     clean and safe drinking water, arguably the best in the 
     world, but that does not mean that it is safe in all places 
     at all times. Outbreaks of water-borne illnesses and related 
     public health alerts made headlines in several cities during 
     1993 and have challenged our false sense of complacency. 
     Recent studies have blamed a previously unsuspected level of 
     intestinal illness on contaminated drinking water and also 
     raise questions about the levels of carcinogenic chemicals in 
     some drinking water. Amid these and other concerns, Congress 
     this year will consider how to revise and renew the 
     legislation that is intended to keep our drinking water safe. 
     Efforts must be made to ensure the quality that Americans 
     expect.


                              the problem

       Safe drinking water has two major enemies: microbes 
     (bacteria and viruses, which stem typically from human and 
     animal wastes) and chemicals (including fertilizers, 
     pesticides, industrial wastes). Other potential contaminants 
     include lead and radon. Many small ground water systems do 
     not have to contend with significant level of contaminants. 
     And in ordinary circumstances most of the over 25,000 surface 
     water treatment plants, including those in Indiana, do a good 
     job eliminating microbes and many chemicals. But at times, 
     microbes can overwhelm systems. In April 1993 Milwaukee, 
     Wisconsin suffered the largest recorded outbreak of a 
     waterborne disease in United States history when 
     Cryptosporidium, a parasite, struck over 370,000 residents 
     with flulike symptoms. Also, many facilities either do not 
     have or cannot afford the technologies that might be 
     necessary to cope with some chemicals that recently have come 
     under federal standards. The combination of overburdened and 
     aging facilities, new regulatory standards, and funding 
     shortfalls has produced conflict between what federal laws 
     call for and what many local water systems can afford to 
     deliver.


                              federal laws

       Two federal laws have a direct effect on the safety of 
     drinking water: The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, which 
     regulates major sources of water pollution, and the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974, which regulates the purity 
     of drinking water.


                          the clean water act

       The CWA is intended to reduce and prevent pollution going 
     into water sources by regulating pollutant levels and helping 
     to fund wastewater treatment construction. It has produced 
     significant advances in the fight against water pollution. 
     Nearly 75% of monitored waters now meet federal standards for 
     major pollutants. Much of this has been accomplished by the 
     construction of wastewater treatment facilities, for which 
     the federal government since 1972 has contribute $60 billion 
     in assistance grants. Nevertheless, the EPA and states 
     estimate that an additional $83.5 billion is needed to meet 
     CWA standards. Recent amendments to the law seek to curb 
     other sources of pollution, in particular, toxic discharges 
     and nonpoint pollution, such as agricultural runoff. The CWA 
     has been, along with the Clean Air Act, the keystone in the 
     fight for a cleaner environment. Its water pollution 
     provisions have been broadly supported.


                      the safe drinking water act

       The SDWA is intended to ensure that the water we drink is 
     pollution-free, and focuses on drinking water purification, 
     also by setting contaminant standards and funding treatment 
     facilities. While most agree that a funding gap exists here 
     as well, some have argued that the SDWA regulations 
     themselves are contributing to the problem. The Safe Drinking 
     Water Act required the EPA to set safe levels for several 
     dozen contaminants and enforce the standards for all 200,000 
     local water systems in this country. But in contrast to the 
     gradual increase in standards after 1974, recent amendments 
     to the law produced a lengthy set of regulations to be 
     complied with in short order, during a time when both state 
     and federal funding are becoming increasingly scarce. In 
     particular, many water producers don't think they should be 
     compelled to conduct expensive tests for contaminants that do 
     not exist in their area (such as certain fertilizers or 
     pesticides) or have not been demonstrated to be a threat to 
     public health.
       This regulatory burden can be acute in rural areas with 
     higher percentages of small water systems, as in the Ninth 
     Congressional District. Smaller systems, often must do the 
     same costly testing as large ones and some may be compelled 
     to install expensive filtration units to comply with recently 
     imposed standards. Small producers argue that they simply do 
     not have the resources to pay for such tests and equipment 
     and cannot pass such large costs on to their limited number 
     of consumers. While the goals of the law remain essential, 
     there is increasing congressional interest in revising the 
     regulatory scheme it created.


                      new approaches and proposals

       The gap between needs and dollars has produced honest 
     disagreements over how best to solve the problem. 
     Environmentalists talk about the dangers of the water supply 
     while the water providers stress the costs and the 
     inflexibility of present laws. Several proposals for renewals 
     and revisions of the CWA and SDWA will come before Congress 
     in 1994. The objective is to strike a balance between meeting 
     public demands that water supplies are free from 
     contamination and addressing the concerns of local officials 
     about the costs and technical difficulties of compliance with 
     national standards. For example, several SDWA proposals, 
     including the President's, seek to change the structure of 
     regulations by eliminating the set lists of contaminants and 
     schedules for regulation and replacing them with a more 
     flexible approach based on the actual risk of the substance 
     and its degree of occurrence in water sources. Funding of new 
     purification facilities is a high priority for the SDWA as 
     well, through the creation of a revolving fund (a low 
     interest loan pool) to help localities pay for upgraded and 
     new facilities.


                               conclusion

       Most Americans have the assurance that their drinking water 
     is safe, but money and effort are necessary to guarantee it 
     to everyone. With limited resources, we must be sure to use 
     the most cost-effective measures. I believe that special 
     attention must be paid to the difficulties of rural areas, by 
     designing manageable and flexible regulations and standards 
     and by providing federal funds to assist necessary testing 
     and improvements. Small systems should also be encouraged to 
     merge and to share costs. The present water law is simplistic 
     with a one size fits all problems approach. Local governments 
     have to be able to deal with local problems in their own way 
     without sacrificing important safety standards.

                          ____________________