[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 48 (Thursday, April 28, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                 SAFE DRINKING WATER REFORM ACT OF 1994

                                 ______


                        HON. BLANCHE M. LAMBERT

                              of arkansas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 28, 1994

  Ms. LAMBERT. Mr. Speaker, today two distinguished colleagues and I 
are introducing legislation, the Safe Drinking Water Reform Act of 
1994, to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA]. We have heard the 
cries of the small systems who are unable to comply with the stringent 
requirements of the SDWA. They are forced to monitor for contaminants 
that do not exist in their water systems and install expensive 
technology that is not needed. We need to protect the quality of our 
drinking water sources without needlessly placing financial and 
technical burdens on our small water systems. We must focus on 
prioritizing the true health risks that present themselves in the 
water.
  The quality of our drinking water came into the forefront when 
Milwaukee found cryptosporidium in its drinking water. This crisis left 
40 people dead and hundreds of thousands of Milwaukeeans ill from 
drinking the water. This is a warning that we cannot ignore. We can no 
longer take the quality of our water for granted.
  This country is one of the few nations where citizens can drink their 
water out of the tap with few reservations. However, with the past 
drinking water scares in Washington, DC, New York City, and Milwaukee, 
citizens are beginning to wonder if they can drink the water. We want 
to allay these fears and ensure that the quality of our drinking water 
continues.
  Our bill sets forth parameters that will encourage compliance with 
the SDWA through both financial and technical assistance. We have 
incorporated a State revolving fund provisions to provide funds that 
will enable States to upgrade their infrastructure and to establish 
pollution prevention programs. The language we have used came from H.R. 
1701 which the Energy and Commerce Committee passed last session. We 
also provide for $100 million a year for grants over a 5-year period 
for States to administer their State drinking water programs and $20 
million a year to finance State and local assessment and pollution 
prevention programs. Through these financing measures we believe that 
we are not placing another unfunded Federal mandate on the States.
  Our purpose in introducing this bill is to alleviate the burdens on 
small systems while pursuing the goal of pollution prevention. By 
encouraging pollution prevention through the State and local 
establishment of pollution prevention programs, we can stop problems 
before they start. We hope to eliminate the sources of potential 
contamination to our drinking water while allowing small and large 
systems the option of obtaining monitoring relief. States will have the 
authority to grant monitoring relief to public water systems within 
local pollution prevention programs where the contaminant is not 
present in the drinking water. The whole basis behind this bill is to 
find out what contaminants are out there, where they are, and monitor 
and treat where they exist. We don't need to invest valuable financial 
and human resources where we don't have a problem.

  We are proposing additional measures to ease the burden on small 
systems. This bill directs EPA to develop less expensive alternative 
best available technology [BAT] for systems that can't come into 
compliance with the act through restructuring or obtaining alternative 
water sources. Compliance with this alternative small system BAT 
constitutes compliance with the act. In addition, both small and large 
systems will have an extended time period to come into compliance with 
new health standards for contaminants. Large systems have up to 48 
months and small systems have up to 60 months to come into compliance.
  Many water systems have complained about the current SDWA requirement 
mandating EPA to regulate 25 contaminants every 3 years. This provision 
has proven to be unworkable and unnecessary--we should not regulate for 
regulation sake. Our bill eliminates this provision and directs the EPA 
to use the newly created occurrence data base and other health based 
information, incorporating risk reduction benefits and costs, when 
selecting new contaminants to regulate. Again, this approach should 
focus EPA's priorities on trouble spots and address contaminants that 
pose the greatest health risk to persons served by public water 
systems.
  My colleagues and I have worked very hard to compose legislation that 
will help small systems without rolling back health standards, and I 
urge other Members to cosponsor this responsible and effective bill.

                          ____________________