[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 36 (Friday, March 25, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: March 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
       S. 1920, A BILL TO REAUTHORIZE THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

 Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, whenever I travel across my State I 
hear about the Safe Drinking Water Act. Whether I'm holding town 
meetings, visiting with small business owners, or talking with the 
mayors and residents of the small rural towns which make up my State, 
the Safe Drinking Water Act is a top concern.
  I hear two common themes: the costs of compliance with the act do not 
necessarily correspond to a direct public health benefit, and that the 
act's ``one-size-fits-all'' approach does not meet the needs of small 
communities.
  Instead of spending their resources on identifying, monitoring, 
testing, and treating those contaminants which do pose a health risk 
and are known to exist within a given water system, rural communities 
are expending their dwindling resources on identifying and monitoring 
for contaminants which, in many cases do not appear in their water 
systems, nor pose a public health threat.
  Federal assistance is desperately needed by our States and small 
communities. For proof positive of this fact, take a look at the State 
of Washington:
  In 1993, the Washington State Department of Public Health conducted a 
``needs assessment survey'' and determined that by 1999 the State's 
water systems will need $700 million in capital funding to comply with 
current SDWA requirements. Washington State is only one of many States 
in dire need of Federal assistance to provide safe, clean drinking 
water to its citizens.
  Moreover, an EPA resource model shows that the Washington State 
Department of Health needs 170 people to effectively administer the 
act, however, the State currently only has 45 people to help with 
administration, of which 70 percent is funded by the State.
  Perhaps even more distressing is the costs which compliance with the 
act requires local governments and their residents to absorb.
  For example, the city of Entiat estimates that the average household 
water bill will increase from $15 per month to $28. The city of South 
Bend--population 1,570--tells us that in order to meet SDWA 
requirements it would cost the city $1.5 million. The city contends 
that it would be impossible to absorb this cost, as 33 percent of the 
population is made up of retired citizens. The average combined water, 
sewer and garbage bill totals $40 per month. SDWA requirements would 
tack on an estimated $10 per month.
  Mr. President, these are the communities I continue to hear from--
small, rural communities which, almost inevitably, bear the cost of 
expensive Federal regulations.
  Yet another example, Mayor Hartman, of Coulee Dam, WA, population 
1,100, wrote urging me to support S. 1920. He wrote:

       We urge your support of the legislation which will look at 
     health threats as they might exist at each location and 
     cooperatively work towards resolving these problems on an 
     individual basis, rather than assuming the same health 
     threats exist in all surface waters.

  If you listen closely to this statement, it sounds as if Mayor 
Hartman is an expert on the Safe Drinking Water Act--in fact I would 
bet that he is probably more knowledgeable on the specifics of the act 
than most members of Congress. Clearly, Mayor Hartman wants to provide 
safe, clean water to his residents. But we need to give him the 
resources and the flexibility to achieve his goal.
  It is these pleas from the town of Coulee Dam and the city of Entiat, 
WA, which make clear to me that one of the most important provisions of 
S. 1920 is the authorization of appropriations for both grants and a 
state revolving loan fund. Although some might balk at the 
authorization included within this bill--because the price tag is 
high--even this amount may not be enough to assist communities across 
the United States in their effort to provide safe, affordable drinking 
water to their residents. In my opinion this will be money well spent. 
These moneys will help small communities meet their SDWA needs and put 
an end to the unfunded mandates within the act.
  The authorization of appropriations to conduct research on 
contaminants is $20 million for each of fiscal year's 1994-98.
  Previous authorizations for grants to States ranged from $37.2 
million in fiscal year 1987 to $40.15 million in fiscal year 1991. S. 
1920 authorizes appropriations for grants to States at the following 
levels fiscal year 1994, $100 million, fiscal year 1995, $125 million, 
fiscal year 1996, $150 million, fiscal year 1997, $150 million, and 
fiscal year 1998, $150 million.


           science and reality based contaminant requirements

  The central component of this bill is this: The bill would require 
that maximum contaminant levels, and corresponding enforcement 
regulations, be based upon an assessment of public health information 
data. This is the basic thrust of the bill. By focusing our Federal, 
State and local resources on those contaminants which pose public 
health threats we will stop the process of identifying contaminants 
simply for the sake of identification. This bill shifts the focus of 
contaminant identification to focus upon those contaminants which 
actually exist in a given water supply and scientific research 
determines to pose a public health threat.

  It is important to note that the bill stipulates that each maximum 
contaminant level [MCL] established shall be set at the level at which 
no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur 
and which allows an adequate margin of safety. In other words, this 
bill ensures that we will be providing safe water to our citizens. The 
bill requires that water systems will use the best technology, 
treatment techniques, and other means in order to comply with the MCL.
  The bill also requires the Administrator to consider public health 
risk reduction benefits and cost when making technology and treatment 
determinations. This cost-benefit component has been one for which 
communities across my State have been fighting. And it just makes 
sense.
  Time and again I hear from Washingtonians that their communities are 
required under existing law to construct costly filtration systems 
when, in fact little if no benefit can be derived from its 
construction. This provision is common sense. We need to ensure that 
Federal, State and local dollars are being used wisely, because, after 
all, resources are in short supply.
  This legislation addresses the needs of our small, rural communities, 
and recognizes that not all water systems are alike across this Nation. 
S. 1920 direct the Administrator to establish best technology treatment 
techniques [BTTT] for public water systems serving less than 1,000 
people, BTTT for systems serving between 1,000 and 10,000 people, and 
BTTT for systems serving over 10,000 people. In addition to technology, 
watershed protection and pollution prevention shall be considered 
appropriate best technology for purposes of compliance with drinking 
water regulations.
  This is another important component of the legislation--especially 
for Washington State. In Washington State water sources are often 
located in pristine and rural settings which are unique to the 
Northwest. It is important to understand, and a simple look on the map 
would illustrate this point clearly, that the Northwest is 
geographically different than the Midwest or the Northeast sections of 
our Nation. We have problems with different contaminants in our water 
sources. Consequently, in Washington State watershed protection is a 
good course of action, many communities tell me, in order to protect 
the water supply from contamination.


                          support for s. 1920

  Mr. President, a broad coalition of associations support S. 1920. 
This legislation is supported by the National Governors Association, 
National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Association of 
Metropolitan Water Agencies, National Association of Counties, National 
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, Association of State 
Drinking Water Administrators, National Rural Water Association, 
American Water Works Association, National Association of Water 
Companies, National Conference of State Legislators, National 
Association of Regulator Utility Commissioners.
  More specifically to Washington State, S. 1920 is supported by 
Washington State's Governor Mike Lowry. I ask that a copy of the 
Governor's letter on this subject be included within the Record upon 
completion of my remarks.
  Other Washington groups support S. 1920, the Seattle Water 
Department, the Tacoma Water Department, the Everett Public Works 
Department, the town of Coulee Dam, the Washington Associated Water 
Systems, the city of Chelan, to name a few.
  I am holding a safe drinking water forum over the Easter recess to 
listen to the concerns of the many cities and towns across Washington 
State, mayors, small business owners, citizens and interested groups. I 
hope to learn what's working with the current act and how we can make 
it better for our residents.
  In summary, I am proud to cosponsor S. 1920 because I believe it 
answers the problems of many of my constituents, and will help us 
provide safe, clean water to Washington State residents.
  The letter follows:


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                    Olympia, WA, January 21, 1994.
     Hon. Slade Gorton,
     Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Slade: As Governor of Washington, and a former member 
     of Congress, I am writing to urge your support of HB 3392, 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1993 and HB 1701, 
     an act to create a state revolving fund for public water 
     systems.
       HB 3392 is a bipartisan measure cosponsored by Congressmen 
     Jim Slattery (D-KS) and Tom Bliley (R-VA). I understand that 
     this bill has been cosponsored by approximately 60 additional 
     members of Congress, although not yet by any member of the 
     Washington Delegation. I am writing to ask you to consider 
     becoming a cosponsor, and otherwise fully support this 
     measure.
       HB 3392 represents the work of a broad coalition of groups 
     knowledgeable about the current Safe Drinking Water Act 
     (SDWA) and motivated to assure better public health 
     protection through the revisions proposed in HR 3392. The 
     National Governors Association (NGA) is one of the members of 
     the coalition that developed HR 3392, which tracks the 
     recommendations for changes to the SDWA adopted by the NGA in 
     1992. HR 3392 is also supported by the National League of 
     Cities, National Association of Counties, Association of 
     State Drinking Water Administrators, U.S. Conference of 
     Mayors, National Rural Water Association, American Water 
     Works Association, National Conference of State Legislators, 
     and National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. 
     Washington representatives have actively participated in 
     most, if not all, of these groups' work on what has become 
     known as the ``Coalition bill.'' These and other groups are 
     vitally and directly interested in assuring that we all have 
     safe and reliable drinking water supplies.
       There is near-universal agreement that the SDWA as it 
     currently exists, and is being implemented by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has major flaws that 
     must be corrected. These problems include overly-cumbersome 
     and complicated rules, massive costs for water systems 
     (particularly for small system customers), major increases in 
     implementation costs on administering states like Washington, 
     and inadequate research on health effects, to name a few. I 
     see serious problems being created by the SDWA in this state, 
     including the following:
       Of the nearly 5000 water systems in Washington subject to 
     the SWDA, all but 170 are considered ``small'' by the EPA 
     (either community systems with fewer than 1000 hookups or 
     non-community systems). These small systems, when forced to 
     do the monitoring, testing, or treatment required by the EPA 
     under its new rules will face potentially major rate 
     increases that could drive monthly household charges up to 
     $100 or more. The EPA has not adequately addressed this 
     issue, stating that it bases its economic analysis on ``large 
     municipal system'' costs, which does not reflect the reality 
     of the vast majority of systems in Washington. HB 3392 makes 
     special provision for small system problems, including the 
     development by EPA of appropriate technology for different 
     size systems.
       EPA's ``one size fits all'' approach to setting national 
     standards does not account for regional or state differences. 
     Washington, for instance, does not have the history of 
     chemical pollution that more industrialized states have, nor 
     the widespread use of lead pipes like many major eastern 
     cities have. Yet the EPA rules require Washington's systems 
     to conduct the same types of expensive testing and monitoring 
     as are appropriate in areas where these types of contaminants 
     may be expected to be found. HB 3392 would allow tailoring of 
     monitoring and testing by each state to its own 
     circumstances, and provide additional flexibility to the 
     states in determining appropriate water treatment 
     requirements.
       The 1993 Public Water System Needs Assessment conducted by 
     the Department of Health concluded that by 1999 the state's 
     water systems will need nearly $700 million in capital 
     funding to meet SDWA requirements. The study noted that 
     figure could increase significantly if existing exceptions 
     are not maintained (e.g., the City of Seattle may be required 
     to spend approximately $300 million to build a filtration 
     plant for the Cedar River if it does not continue to receive 
     its exception under the SDWA). There is not now any major 
     federal funding program for such federally-driven capital 
     costs (like there was for wastewater treatment under the 
     Clean Water Act). Congress has appropriated $599 million in 
     start-up money in FY 94 for the proposed Drinking Water State 
     Revolving Fund. That funding will lapse on September 30 if 
     such a program has not been authorized. HB 3392's one major 
     omission is authorization for such a program. However, 
     Congressmen Waxman has an act (HB 1701) that would authorize 
     such a program independently of the re-authorization of the 
     SDWA in HB 3392. Given that these major costs will be 
     incurred regardless of the prospective changes in the SDWA, 
     the State Revolving Fund program envisioned in HB 1701 should 
     be enacted immediately.
       According to the EPA's model, the Department of Health will 
     have to increase its level of staffing from the current 73.5 
     FTE's to approximately 170 by 1998 in order to have a program 
     that satisfies the EPA. Most of these increases would be 
     directly due to administration of existing and proposed rules 
     under the SDWA. EPA currently provides only about 30% of our 
     Drinking Water Program funding, even though more than half 
     the Program's functions and activities are directly generated 
     by the SDWA. For the current fiscal year, the EPA proposed no 
     increase in grants to the states for administering, although 
     Congress on its own initiative added another $5 million for 
     the states. The heavy increase in workload being forced on 
     the states can only be done through major increases in 
     federal funding, which the current Administration has not 
     proposed to provide. The state of Washington cannot afford 
     such increases, given its current fiscal problems and the 
     future limitations on state revenues imposed under Initiative 
     601. HB 3392 will provide the major increases in state 
     funding necessary.
       I think I can safely characterize the 1986 Safe Drinking 
     Water Act amendments as well-intentioned legislation, based 
     on the best available information at the time, that in its 
     implementation has gone awry. We now know much more than we 
     did in 1986, particularly with regard to the existence of 
     many contaminants, their potential health effects, and the 
     enormous costs that will have to be borne by utilities and 
     state and local governments to implement the rules enacted by 
     the EPA. While there is a lot we still don't know, I think it 
     is time to make a mid-course correction to the SDWA, based on 
     knowledge accumulated over the past seven years. HB 3392 will 
     do that.
       Although I am asking that you support HB 3392 (and any 
     Senate version I understand may be introduced), I am aware 
     that SB 1547 (the ``Baucus bill'') also contains a number of 
     provisions that would materially improve the SDWA and its 
     administration. Many of these changes are meritorious and 
     deserve your support. However, at this point, HB 3392 
     represents the work of a large number of organizations, and 
     the consensus of a variety of viewpoints, including those of 
     the Governors of the 50 states. Because of the lengthy debate 
     and compromise that has already gone into this bill, it 
     warrants your strong efforts on its behalf.
       Finally, I want to note that, despite its broad support 
     from a range of organizations, HB 3392 is being criticized as 
     ``weakening'' of public health protection. I do not believe 
     that claim is accurate, and I am not aware of any such 
     criticisms being made by Washington organizations 
     knowledgeable about drinking water issues. The public health 
     of our citizens can only be adequately protected if 
     reasonable decisions are made on the allocation of our 
     resources to all the types of threats being made to public 
     health. We cannot afford to divert scarce resources to 
     theoretical public health threats and away from real and 
     demonstrable ones, of which we have many.
       In my one year as Governor, I have become well aware that 
     the citizens of this state will no longer tolerate 
     increasingly expensive burdens imposed on them by any level 
     of government without clear delineation of the need. They are 
     willing to support good public policy, with clearly stated 
     objectives, and reasonable measures to achieve them. HB 3392 
     will go a long way toward assuring that, at least with regard 
     to safe and reliable water supplies.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Mike Lowry,

     Governor.

                          ____________________