[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]

 
                 REFORMING THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

                                 ______


                          HON. GERRY E. STUDDS

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 28, 1994

  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues Representatives 
Mike Synar and Blanche Lambert in introducing the Safe Drinking Water 
Reform Act of 1994. This bill is a recognition that there are problems 
with the Safe Drinking Water Act that need to be addressed, but which 
can be done in a way that does not compromise the fundamental public 
health protections in the law.
  First, unlike the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] 
provides no Federal funds to help local water systems finance 
increasingly expensive programs. Our bill deals with this problem by 
establishing a State revolving fund [SRF] program, which would provide 
grants to States to make loans--and grants in hardship situations--to 
local public water systems for SDWA compliance purposes. The measure 
authorizes $599 million for fiscal year 1994, allowing that same 
amount, which has already been appropriated, to be released. The 
program is authorized for $1 billion annually for fiscal years 1995-97.
  Second, this measure recognizes that the best long-term step a water 
system can take to protect public health is to adopt an effective 
source water protection program to prevent contaminants from ever 
entering the water supply. My State of Massachusetts has learned the 
hard way that it can be very expensive to clean up a contaminated water 
supply.
  Building on this experience, Massachusetts environmental officials 
have created a model program that grants SDWA monitoring relief to 
water systems that have worked with local governments to develop and 
implement source water pollution prevention programs. This effort has 
saved Massachusetts ratepayers $12 million. Our bill creates a similar 
national program, allowing States to use up to 10 percent of SRF funds 
to assist local or regional management entities to develop local 
drinking water assessment and protection measures.
  Third, our bill addresses the problem faced by small water systems 
which often cannot pay for the contaminant treatment technologies 
designated by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] in its drinking 
water regulations. The Safe Drinking Water Reform Act of 1994 requires 
the agency to designate cheaper ``best available technology'' for small 
systems and allows States to grant variances from the existing maximum 
contaminant level and treatment technique requirements.
  Fourth, this measure changes the way new contaminants are selected 
for regulation. Under current law, EPA must issue regulations for 25 
new contaminants every 3 years. This has proven unnecessary and 
unworkable. Our bill directs the agency to use an occurrence data base 
and other information to designate 15 contaminants that occur in water 
supplies, present the greatest public health concern and may require 
regulation. EPA must then individually determine whether or not to 
regulate these 15, taking into account costs and risk reduction 
benefits. Every 4 years, EPA would designate 12 new contaminants to 
study for possible regulation.

  Fifth, our bill allows water systems up to 36 months to comply with 
EPA regulations, increasing this to 48 months if additional time is 
necessary for capital improvements and 60 months for small systems. The 
current deadline for compliance is 18 months, which has proven to be an 
unrealistic timeframe for many systems.
  Sixth, this measure address several problems that have been 
identified by GAO and EPA as those that most frequently result in SDWA 
noncompliance. It does so by creating and funding State programs to 
ensure that small water systems are financially and technically capable 
of providing safe drinking water and to require that operators of water 
systems be trained and certified. The measure strengthens State 
inspection requirements and directs EPA to issue a drinking water 
regulation for cryptosporidium, the micro-organism that caused illness 
in over 400,000 Milwaukee residents and threatened the Washington 
area's water supply late last year.
  Finally, our bill authorizes $100,000,000 for fiscal year 1995 
through fiscal year 2000 for grants to States to carry out their 
drinking water programs, and an additional $20,000,000 annually for 
grants to States to use for State source water assessment, pollution 
prevention and system viability programs.

                          ____________________