[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994
The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
Amendment No. 1699
(Purpose: To amend the bill)
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. Kerrey], for himself, and
Mr. Hatfield, proposes an amendment numbered 1699.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Viability
On page 12, line 10, strike ``50 percent'' and insert ``the
percentage prescribed in the following sentence''.
On page 12, line 13, after the period, insert the
following: ``The percentage withheld shall be 10 percent for
fiscal year 1998, 30 percent for fiscal year 1999, and 30
percent for each subsequent fiscal year.''.
On page 13, strike lines 16 through 20, and insert the
following:
``(2) Assistance to nonviable systems.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
no assistance under this part shall be provided to a public
water system that--
``(i) does not have the technical, managerial, and
financial capability to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this title; and
``(ii) has a history of past violations of any maximum
contaminant level, treatment technique, monitoring
requirement, or other requirement of a national primary
drinking water regulation or variance.
``(B) Restructuring.--A nonviable public water system may
receive assistance under this part if the owner or operator
of the system agrees to undertake changes in operations
(including ownership, management, accounting, rates,
maintenance, consolidation, alternative water supply, or
other procedures) to ensure that the system has the
technical, managerial, and financial capability to comply
with the requirements of this title over the long-term.
``(C) Prohibition.--No assistance under this part shall be
provided to a public water system for a project for which the
State determines that consolidation is appropriate other than
assistance for consolidation.
Beginning on page 62, strike line 25 and all that follows
through page 64, line 22, and insert the following:
(b) Viability of Public Water Systems.--Part B (42 U.S.C.
300g et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following
new section:
``STATE VIABILITY PROGRAMS
``Sec. 1418. (a) In General.--Each State shall adopt a
State Drinking Water System Viability Program (referred to in
this section as the `State Viability Program') to ensure the
capability of public water systems in the State to comply
with the requirements of this title.
``(b) Program Elements.--A State Viability Program complies
with this section if it includes--
``(1) the legal authority to ensure that all new public
water systems commencing operation after October 1, 1997,
have the managerial, technical, and financial capability to
comply with national primary drinking water regulations and
other requirements of this title; and
``(2) a program to secure the voluntary restructuring
(including physical consolidation) of existing systems that
are in violation of a national primary drinking water
regulation or other requirement of this title and that lack
the managerial, technical, or financial capability to comply
with the regulation or requirement.
``(c) Submission and Approval of Programs.--
``(1) Submission.--Not later than 36 months after the date
of enactment of this section, each State shall submit to the
Administrator a proposal for a State Viability Program that
meets the requirements of this section.
On page 66, line 2, strike the quotation marks and the
following period.
On page 66, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following new
subsections:
``(f) EPA Guidance.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall, after
consultation with officials of State and local governments,
publish guidance for use by the States--
(1) identifying the factors contributing to nonviability of
public water systems; and
(2) identifying technical, managerial, financial, and other
options to address the factors, including options that have
been successfully employed by States.
``(g) EPA Survey.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall conduct a
survey of public water systems to identify public water
systems that are likely to be nonviable based on the
requirements of law and factors contributing to nonviability,
including the economic circumstances of the community. The
results of the survey shall be published with the guidance
prepared by the Administrator pursuant to subsection (f).''.
Monitoring
On page 48, line 10, strike ``2 years'' and insert ``1
year''.
On page 48, line 11, insert ``after consultation with
public health experts, representatives of the general public,
and officials of State and local governments,'' after
``subparagraph,''.
On page 48, line 16, strike ``propose'' and insert
``promulgate''.
Beginning on page 48, strike line 18 and all that follows
through page 51, line 2, and insert the following new
subparagraph:
``(D) State-established requirements.--
``(i) In general.--Each State with primary enforcement
responsibility may submit an application to the Administrator
to establish for any national drinking water regulation,
other than a regulation applicable to a microbial contaminant
(or indicator of a microbial contaminant), monitoring
requirements applicable to public water systems identified by
the State, in lieu of the monitoring requirements contained
in the regulation, if the monitoring requirements established
by the State are based on--
``(I) occurrence data and other relevant characteristics of
the contaminant or the systems subject to the requirements;
and
``(II) the monitoring frequencies are no less frequent than
the requirements of the national primary drinking water
regulations for a contaminant that has been detected at a
quantifiable level during the 5-year period ending on the
date of the monitoring.
``(ii) Compliance and enforcement.--The monitoring
requirement established by the State shall be adequate to
ensure compliance with, and enforcement of, each national
primary drinking water regulation.
``(iii) Approval.--The Administrator shall review an
application submitted by a State pursuant to this
subparagraph and approve the application, in whole or in
part, if the application meets the requirements of this
subparagraph. If the Administrator has not acted pursuant to
this clause within 180 days after submission of the
application, the application shall be deemed to be approved.
If the Administrator disapproves an application, or a part of
an application, the Administrator shall provide to the State
a description of the changes needed for the program to be
approved. A monitoring program approved pursuant to this
clause shall be approved for a period of 3 years and each
subsequent approval shall be for a period of 5 years.''.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, let me begin by thanking the managers of
this bill, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
Senator Baucus, and the ranking member of the committee, Senator
Chafee, as well as Senator Hatfield and many others, for their hard
work on this legislation.
Coming to agreement on this bill, and more importantly, the managers'
amendment, Mr. President, has not been an easy task. It is the product
of many different points of view, and it carries the best possible
public health protection while providing reasonable regulatory relief
to small communities.
I, as well, would like to thank Carol Browner of the Environmental
Protection Agency. She was extremely helpful in providing assistance
and making sure that we were able to produce this piece of legislation.
I want to thank as well the senior Senator from Nebraska, Senator
Exon, who was extremely important in developing this amendment. And,
most importantly to me, Mr. President, literally hundreds of
Nebraskans--I must say I have been extremely surprised and pleased, and
I will reference later the amount of enthusiasm there is at home in the
State of Nebraska for this piece of legislation.
There is an urgency at home to enact it for the purpose of
maintaining the quality and the safety of our drinking water and
continuing to make progress in the quality of that water. There is a
willingness at home to exercise authority. On behalf of the people of
Nebraska, Mr. President, I thank Senator Baucus, I thank Senator
Chafee, and I thank the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Administrator Browner.
Mr. President, I believe it would be useful for some of our
colleagues, who may wonder about this legislation--and, certainly, I,
myself, did. It became clear to me that it was important when many in
Nebraska were contacting the office and talking about their needs and
their concerns. So I looked at some of the history.
Briefly, Mr. President, the regulation of safe drinking water quality
in the United States dates clear back to the turn of the century, when
the U.S. Public Health Service established the first standards for
controlling bacteria in the water.
However, Mr. President, it was not until Congress enacted the Safe
Drinking Water Act in 1974--after 4 years of rather contentious
debate--that the United States, by law, established the current
framework under which we provide for safe drinking water to our
citizens.
The legislation in 1974 said:
Its purpose is to assure that water supply systems serving
the public meet minimum national standards for the protection
of public health.
Mr. President, the act meant public concern over findings of harmful
chemicals in drinking water supplies. This act, 20 years ago, for the
first time gave EPA discretionary authority to set drinking water
standards. Further, it provided for national primary drinking water
regulations that specified maximum containment levels or treatment
techniques. It established regulations to protect underground sources
of drinking water, and established groundwater protection grants for
State wellhead projectionary programs.
In 1986, the act was amended because the EPA had been slack in
setting standards. Congress required them to set 25 standards every 3
years. Congress also strengthened and expanded the act's monitoring
compliance and enforcement requirements.
Mr. President, for my colleagues' reference, it is these provisions
that State and local governments are most concerned about. These are
the provisions that the State and local governments are bringing to our
attention, where they are suggesting changes that need to occur because
the monitoring costs at the local level have escalated rapidly, and, in
many cases, the regulations are being promulgated with limited science
just to get them done.
Mr. President, a lot of attention has been paid to this act since
1986, including an amendment in the 100th Congress intended to reduce
exposure to lead. Many are skeptical that we are going to be able to
reauthorize this legislation. Some, in fact, are saying: Well, maybe
nothing is better than something. Maybe we are better off not enacting
legislation.
Well, Mr. President, we have appropriated a revolving fund for the
States and the local communities to make the investments necessary to
create a safer supply of water for our citizens. The existing law is
inadequate, and I, once again, assert my high praise for the chairman
of this committee and the ranking member of this committee in their
diligence and urgency to make certain that we reauthorize this act in
1994.
Mr. President, throughout the history of the national drinking water
problem, there has been substantial State and local involvement. But
since 1994 the State and local governments have relied on the Federal
Government to set priorities and establish environmental goals. States
have taken an active role in administering Federal programs or gaining
primacy, and understand the need for public health protection. I
emphasize that. There really is a changed enthusiasm for accepting the
primacy that 49 of 50 States currently have. They understand that the
citizens want safe drinking water.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a resolution--a unanimous
resolution, I might add--that was passed by the Nebraska unicameral
legislature be printed in the Record at this time.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Legislative Resolution 349
Whereas, the protection of the public health and welfare is
the primary concern of public water supply systems; and
Whereas, the ability of public water supply systems to
protect the health and welfare of its citizenry has been
greatly reduced by unfunded federal mandates contained in the
Safe Drinking Water Act; and
Whereas, public water supply systems cannot afford to
commit limited resources on federal mandates which provide
little or no benefit to public health, but must rather be
permitted to focus their resources on protections which
ensure the highest safety for public health; and
Whereas, several proposals currently before Congress would
amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to allow public water
supply systems greater ability to effectively protect the
public health and welfare by ensuring that limited public
resources can be sensibly focused on the most serious risks
presented by contaminants in drinking water.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Members of the
ninety-third Legislature of Nebraska, second session:
1. That the Legislature urges Congress to amend the Safe
Drinking Water Act in such a manner as will permit public
water supply systems to focus their resources on issues which
threaten public health and which will provide flexibility in
meeting the real health needs of its citizenry.
2. That the Clerk of the Legislature transmit a copy of
this resolution to the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, the President of the United States Senate,
all members of the congressional delegation from the State of
Nebraska, the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, and the Regional
Administrator, Region VII of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, this resolution, once again, underscores
the willingness of the people of the States to take charge of this
program. They are not asking for regulatory relief without a
willingness to assume the responsibility for setting priorities. In
this resolution, the operative phrase says, we ``urge Congress to amend
the Safe Drinking Water Act in such a manner as will permit public
water supply systems to focus their resources on issues which threaten
public health and which will provide flexibility in meeting the real
health needs of its citizenry.''
I emphasize, Mr. President, the unicameral of the State of Nebraska--
elected officials of the State of Nebraska--are saying that they want
to be able to carry out the objective of improving the public water
supply systems and the quality and safety of those water supply
systems.
Mr. President, the managers' amendment, which was approved earlier,
did a number of things, some of which I will reference. But I would now
like to reference the changes that are made in the Kerrey-Hatfield
amendment, which is now before this body.
One of the biggest issues with safe drinking water is the monitoring
requirements that were put into effect in 1986. One of the largest
costs of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act is this
monitoring. Every Nebraska community that has contacted me has asked
that the current system be revised to let them test for contaminants
that exist in Nebraska--not an unreasonable request--rather than
testing for contaminants that do not exist in Nebraska.
Mr. President, we have been contacted by the Governor of the State--
an elected official, obviously--by mayors in every single community,
and city council people, who are saying,
We want to set our priorities. We are committed to the
public health of the people of the State of Nebraska, but we
want to monitor those contaminants that are in our drinking
water, or potentially in our drinking water.
Under current law, States can go through a waiver process to get some
monitoring requirements changed. However, the process is expensive and
time-consuming, and the benefits accrue to the local systems, while
costs are incurred by the States. The States that have waivers have
seen huge decreases in monitoring costs. These potential savings should
be spread to all States.
The original bill reported out of the Environment and Public Works
Committee creates a more flexible program in the bill, but the problems
remain.
What our amendment does: First, Mr. President, it simplifies the
criteria that States must use to evaluate alternative monitoring
regulations. States would instead look at how often a contaminant has
occurred, and other factors, such as whether it is used for crops
manufactured in the State, and various factors.
Second, the amendment creates an automatic approval process to
prevent State programs from being caught in an open-ended EPA approval
process. The EPA would have 180 days to respond to a State's plan. If
the EPA did not respond, the State's plan would be considered approved.
Third, the amendment eliminates the EPA's ability to revoke approval
of a monitoring plan at any time. Instead, the State would have to
reapply to the EPA for an extension of that waiver every 5 years.
The second big issue that this amendment addresses is the issue of
viability. A March 1994 GAO study on small drinking water systems found
that nonviable systems are one of the major problems many States face
in guaranteeing safe drinking water to all citizens.
The nonviable systems are those systems that lack the capacity, for
financial reasons, technical reasons, or managerial reasons, to fully
comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act over the long run. These
systems, Mr. President, are a major problem, because they cannot
deliver reliably safe drinking water.
As reported, S. 2019 takes a first step in dealing with the national
viability problem and calls for the States to develop a viability
program to prevent nonviable systems from being created.
The Kerrey-Hatfield amendment first eliminates the requirement that
States have viability programs for a State to keep primacy. This is
extremely controversial, but I urge my colleagues who may think that we
are getting lax with this requirement to consider this: Only one State
currently has relinquished primacy, and that is Wyoming.
I asked Administrator Browner when she was before the Appropriations
Committee, is the EPA prepared to take over the safe drinking water
program in all the States? And the answer unequivocally is no. The
taxpayers of the United States are not prepared for that to occur. And
thus it is Senator Hatfield's and my judgment that eliminating this
requirement makes sense for the goals of safe drinking water and
unquestionably makes sense for the administration of the program, and
it replaces the requirement that States adopt legal authority to force
nonviable systems to restructure with the requirements for States to
develop a program to encourage voluntary reconstructing and
consolidation.
Third, for those who fear that this voluntary compliance is not
enough, it does replace the 50-percent penalty against the States
revolving loan fund grants for States that fail to implement viability
programs and the 3-year phase-in penalties beginning in 1998. States
without viability programs will lose 10 percent of the revolving loan
fund grant in fiscal year 1998, 30 percent in 1999, and 50 percent in
the year 2000.
Fourth, it requires EPA to develop guidelines to viability and to
conduct a survey of systems to determine the number and characteristics
of our national viability program.
Mr. President, I would like to comment on some changes that were made
in the original bill included in the managers' amendment about which I
was an advocate and for which I am grateful the managers included in
the amendment.
The first is the good science risk assessment issue, also very
controversial. This bill and in the managers' amendment addresses the
concerns of Nebraskans who have raised this issue with me. There has
been a loud cry coming from the community, again from the community
level. This is not coming from some ogre out there. This is coming at
the grassroot levels--the mayors, city councils, legislators, the
Governor's office--people who have been elected to be concerned about
safe drinking water.
In 1982 when we first authorized the act, the policy was set into the
act, as I said earlier, to require EPA to regulate 25 new contaminants
every 3 years whether they were needed or not. This strict method of
establishing standards caused some contaminants to be regulated without
a sound, scientific basis.
The bill, as originally reported, eliminated the 25 new contaminants
every 3 years and replaced the requirement the EPA study 7 contaminants
every 5 years and make an independent decision about regulation.
This change will provide tremendous regulatory relief to EPA, States,
and water systems without jeopardizing public health.
The managers' amendment, in my judgment, has made the report language
even better by saying that the Centers for Disease Control will be
brought in in a consultative basis. The EPA is required under this
legislation to consult with the CDC in selecting contaminants to be
considered for regulation.
The people of the United States of America look to the CDC as experts
in health issues. This will enable us without the typical disagreements
as to whether or not the EPA is selecting an item that is a health
hazard, and this will allow the citizens who are concerned about the
safety of their drinking water to have not only a scientific evaluation
but a scientific evaluation that is done by a health agency that has
very high credibility in the community.
The managers' amendment also requires EPA to, with good science,
assess the rest of the contaminants before proceeding with the
regulation. This will help EPA pursue regulation of substances in
drinking water that pose the greatest risk to human health.
Mr. President, the next thing that the managers' amendment includes
is a cost-benefit analysis in the standards setting. This was the most
contentious and difficult of the issues to come to agreement on.
The issue, Mr. President, is best expressed by looking at the
Nebraska League of Cities. They sent a petition with 60 signatures.
Again, I said this many times. These are signatures of elected
officials at the local level, specifically asking the Senate to include
provisions that change the current process for setting standards to
include public health benefits and cost as factors in determining new
requirements, and the managers' amendment requires EPA to assess the
amount of health risk reduction and compliance cost of the proposed
regulation.
After this analysis, EPA may set the standard at a less stringent
level if, and these definitions are spelled out in the colloquy that
was entered into earlier, may set the standards at a less stringent
level if the cost can be substantially reduced and the health risk is
not increased significantly, a critical level of reauthorization
because it creates a tighter and more explicit relationship between
regulations, health protection, and the cost of compliance.
The next item, Mr. President, is that S. 2019 includes a multimedia
approach to a health risk that has been given a great deal of
attention, and that is radon. The idea here is that you want to put
your money where it does the most good, and essentially what the
reauthorized bill would say that approximately 80 percent of the risk
of radon comes from the air, about 20 percent comes from the water, and
essentially say that those States that have indoor air programs would
be able to be given some regulatory relief.
The managers' amendment includes language and essentially sets a
1,500 picocurie liter floor on standards for radon with no exception
for States that have indoor air programs. Essentially all States are
allowed to use the alternative level.
Mr. President, earlier the distinguished Senator from Montana and the
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island talked about the importance of
funding and the changes made in the revolving fund. I will merely
endorse what it was that they said and applaud them for making changes
in the funding. That was earlier provided.
I will conclude, Mr. President, by thanking once again the chairman
of the committee, Senator Baucus of Montana, Senator Chafee of Rhode
Island, Senator Hatfield especially with whom I worked, Senator Exon,
the senior Senator from Nebraska, who was extremely helpful in
participating, Senators Dorgan, Conrad, Warner, DeConcini, Boren,
Kempthorne, Nickles, Smith, Simpson, Daschle, Gorton, and Brown.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
privilege of the floor
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, first, I ask unanimous consent that
Maureen Koetz of Senator Domenici's staff be given the privileges of
the floor during the debate and discussions of this particular bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Gorton of Washington State and Senator Boren of Oklahoma be added as
cosponsors to the pending amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERREY. If the Senator will yield, I ask unanimous consent to add
Senator Exon of Nebraska as a cosponsor of this amendment also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be listed
as a cosponsor of the underlying bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would like to thank my colleagues from
Montana and Rhode Island for their willingness to work with me on this
bill. I believe we have come up with a bill that will result in a high
level of health protection for our citizens because it will help local
systems devote attention and resources to the most threatening drinking
water problems.
I would also like to express my thanks for the commitment, support
and hard work of my friend from Nebraska, Senator Bob Kerrey.
I began my involvement in the safe drinking water debate almost 2
years ago during the Domenici-Chafee debate on the VA-HUD
appropriations bill. After this debate, I made a concerted effort to
learn about how the Safe Drinking Water Act was working in Oregon. I
toured water treatment works in Salem and Aurora. I asked water system
operators in Oregon to write me, and I received over 300 letters about
the strengths and weaknesses of the current law. Last July, I convened
a meeting of over 150 State and local officials who implement the Safe
Drinking Water Act. People in my State were a wealth of information
about this law and program, and I believe the officials of Oregon have
done national service in raising and analyzing the strengths and
weaknesses of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Mr. President, the problems raised by Oregon operators have been the
foundation of my involvement in this debate. I want to sincerely thank
Senator Baucus and Senator Chafee because they not only took the
concerns of Oregon seriously, but they worked with me to help address
them.
The bill before us, with the inclusion of the manager's amendment and
the Kerrey-Hatfield amendment, addresses the major concerns raised by
my State. I would like to take a moment to outline the concerns raised
by Oregon and discuss how the bill before the Senate addresses them.
selection of new contaminants
One of the most frequently cited problems with the current law is
that in the 1986 reauthorization, Congress required EPA to regulate 25
new contaminants every 3 years, whether they need to or not. I received
hundreds of comments on this provision, and I believe the problem was
best described in a letter from Edward Olson, manager of the Medford
water system which serves more than 80,000 people:
By mandating quotas, the ability to set meaningful water
quality standards is compromised. It forces EPA to set a
specific number of standards within the 3 year period without
a sound scientific basis * * * All this does is add to the
cost of water without any health benefits.
The bill before us eliminates this requirement and replaces it with a
requirement that EPA study seven contaminants every 5 years, then make
an independent decision about regulation. This change will provide
tremendous relief to EPA, States and water systems.
risk assessment
Citizens of Oregon want to know that the contaminants EPA decides to
regulate actually pose a health risk. They feel that the process of
regulation is too often divorced from sound scientific evidence of risk
from a contaminant.
The manager's amendment requires EPA to use good science and assess
the risk of contaminants before proceeding with regulation. This will
help EPA pursue regulations of the substances in drinking water that
pose the greatest threat to human health.
cost-benefit analysis (standard setting)
Nearly everyone I have spoken to in Oregon is concerned that EPA sets
standards for contaminants at a level that is unrelated to the level of
health protection secured for the cost.
Jim Adamson, the Public Works Director from Baker City, which serves
almost 10,000 people puts it this way:
More consideration should be given to the cost/benefit
ratio to abate some of the risks that are very slight or
maybe only have the potential of a very slight risk.
Small systems need consideration of risk even more than larger ones.
Or, as Frank and Nell Kuonen of the tiny, 40-connection, Tingley Lake
Estates system put it:
Everyone wants safe drinking water, but the EPA has
completely lost sight of a reasonable cost/benefit ratio. The
projection of Phase II regulator costs of $10,000 per well is
a staggering $30,000 for us; or $750 per household per year.
The bill, as amended by the Manager's amendment, requires EPA to
assess the amount of health risk reduction and the compliance cost of a
proposed regulation. After this analysis, EPA may set the standard at a
less stringent level if the costs can be substantially reduced and the
health risk is not increased significantly.
This is a critical element of reauthorization because it will create
a tighter and more explicit relationship between regulations, health
protection of the costs of compliance. I strongly commend Senators
Baucus and Chafee for helping solve this thorny issue.
monitoring burden
Oregonians have complained that they monitor for contaminants that
have never been in their water. By ignoring differences among areas, we
force local systems to devote resources to contaminants they do not
have. This takes vital resources from real problems. Joanne Dalziel of
the city of Garibaldi which serves around 200 households stated it
simply:
We do not share the same problems with Florida and Idaho
and should not be subjected to the same regulations.
Daniel Bradley of the city of Salem, with a water system serving
nearly 100,000 people, was even more specific:
A vast amount of information has been submitted since the
inception of the SDWA * * *. The Environmental Protection
Agency should use this information to determine the areas
that need monitoring of contaminants specific to those areas,
and exclude areas that are not susceptible to contamination.
The amendment that Senator Kerrey and I offered--and that was
graciously accepted by the Managers--is designed to fix this problem.
State drinking water programs will be permitted to design monitoring
programs that are appropriate to conditions faced by their State.
small system flexibility
In Oregon, I learned that small systems are particularly hard hit by
many of the current Safe Drinking Water Act regulations because they do
not have the economies of scale of a large city.
As the board of directors of the Country View Estates system, which
serves 39 households explains:
Due to the inability of small systems to spread the massive
costs of the testing requirements to a large number of
consumers, the operation of such systems will be economically
unfeasible. It is our view that this will defeat the very
purpose of the act.
The bill as amended addresses this problem in several ways. First,
there is specific monitoring relief for small systems. Moreover,
systems serving less than 10,000 people are eligible for a streamlined
variance process and a small system technology program. A number of
other flexibility provisions are included in the bill for small
systems, including money for a circuit rider assistance program.
sufficient resources
Oregonians have told me that the regulations governing drinking water
are technical and expensive. In addition, GAO reported last year that
State programs are underfunded.
To begin to solve this problem, the bill authorizes a $599 million
State revolving loan fund. The money for this loan fund has already
been appropriated, subject to this authorization. In addition, S. 2019
more than doubles the public water system supervision grants to States
for administration of drinking water programs. The bill also provides
for technical assistance, and the monitoring relief and slow down of
regulations should help States and local systems gain headway on their
resource needs.
conclusion
I strongly urge the Senate to support this bill as amended by the
manager's amendment and the Kerrey-Hatfield amendment. These provisions
strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act, not because they make the act
more rigid and stringent but because they will help us--in Congress, at
EPA, in the States and in every local water system--focus drinking
water resources on the most pressing problems and on the biggest
threats to health.
Mr. President, I would be remiss if I ended my remarks without noting
the commitment of several other Senators. In addition to the work of
Senators Kerrey, Chafee, and Baucus, I do not think we could have come
this far without the work of Senators Domenici. He and his staff have
done a tremendous job of delineating and advocating for these issues. I
also appreciate the contributions of Senators Warner, Kempthorne,
Conrad, Daschle, Gorton, DeConcini, Boren, Exon, Nickles, Dorgan,
Simpson, Smith, and Brown. They and their staffs have participated in
innumerable discussions of these issues and have helped resolve many of
the crucial questions.
Mr. President, I want to indicate that this amendment that Senator
Kerrey of Nebraska and I have sponsored is done on the simple,
fundamental basis that we want to make this bill, the underlying bill,
the most workable, the most practical, and the most enforceable bill
possible. In no way do we seek to weaken the current bill as reported
by the committee.
In fact, we are indebted to the leadership of the committee for their
long cooperation in working out some of the problems that have emerged
since 1974 when I was privileged to have voted for the original bill.
Here we are 20 years later, to update that statute on the basis of our
experience over the last 20 years. We are here to strengthen the
statute and to make certain that we achieve the goal of safe drinking
water for all of the citizens of this country.
Mr. President, Senator Kerrey has outlined the details of the
amendment, which has two parts: one dealing with viability and the
other with monitoring. He has outlined the amendment in very accurate
detail, and there is no requirement for me at this particular hour to
go over the same data and the same explanations. I will have that
presented in my written statement.
But I would like to briefly outline a part of this bill that relates
to philosophy, and I use the term philosophy rather broadly. In 1974,
like many times when we in this body blaze new trails with legislation,
when we create a new legislative role for the Congress of the United
States, we often seek uniform coverage for all 50 States. During these
efforts, we look at standards, we look at criteria, and we look at
regulations that would apply to all 50 States, of course, in a uniform
manner.
But, at the same time, we have learned that many States are not
similar. Although each has a similar expectation of safe drinking
water, the geography, the terrain, the climate--all factors to be
considered--do vary widely among our States. In this amendment, we hope
to adopt a little more flexibility to recognize that those distinctions
exist.
Why should a local water district in the State of Oregon repeatedly
monitor for a contaminant that only exists in Florida? And yet, because
of the standardization of these national listings, all States have to
do this particular monitoring under current law.
In this effort to create flexibility, recognizing the diversity of
the States, the committee bill has taken a major forward step toward
recognizing that flexibility is required to effectively administer such
a program in an efficient, effective, reasonable, and practical way.
Our amendment seeks to expand on the flexibility factor that the
committee has already adopted.
I recall that 2 years ago, as we considered the VA-HUD appropriations
bill, an informative debate on this floor between Senator Domenici of
New Mexico and Senator Chafee of Rhode Island brought this issue into
sharp focus. That debate very obviously raised the question as to the
effectiveness and wisdom of the current Safe Drinking Water Act
structure. That debate triggered the interest of all Senators.
Soon afterward, I went home to my State and proceeded to develop a
plan by which I was going to become better informed on the details of
the problems with this statute that I knew confronted all States, not
just mine. I convened an ad hoc conference of about 150 State and local
officials responsible for drinking water. They provided a great deal of
data and insight. They were very good tutors on this subject as it
relates to my State.
I also took the time to visit various types of water districts--small
and large cities and viable and non-viable systems.
I received hundreds of thoughtful letters from citizens all over my
State indicating their ideas and concerns. First of all, they indicated
they wanted safe drinking water, but they also expressed concerns about
problems that prevented them from achieving this goal.
I want to say that over the last 3 months, because we have a large
conference room, the Lincoln Room, which has a large conference table,
we have hosted meetings of staff in relation to this legislation. And
so 20 Senators here in this body and their staffs, from time to time
would gather over this 3-month period to compare notes and to consider
what we could do to resolve the lingering issues.
I want to say that the managers of the bill, Senator Baucus and
Senator Chafee, and their staffs, were fully involved, fully supportive
of this effort to try to build up a consensus. My objective has been to
be helpful in resolving the problems and at the same time not in any
way diminish our commitment to safe water. I think that that has been
accomplished.
But, you see, that also demonstrates a point of philosophy which I
want to raise: How much more we can achieve through collaboration,
consensus building, rather than when we take the other alternative of
ramming something through because we have the votes.
I think this bill establishes that same kind of philosophy. We must
work with, collaborate with and cooperate with the State and local
entities throughout this country, rather than saying to them, ``This is
the mandate and we have the power of law to require it.''
I think this bill incorporates the philosophy that we can achieve far
more by sitting down with State and local water officials and saying,
``We have a common goal. How can we best relate our individual roles
and responsibilities to achieve that goal through collaboration?''
I think you will find that in the two-part amendment which Senator
Kerrey and I are offering at this time, we have achieved a further step
toward the flexibility factors and toward the philosophy of
collaborating and not commanding.
In no way does it diminish our goal. In no way does it diminish our
commitment. In every way, it increases the possibility of achieving the
goal. And that is the approach that Senator Kerrey and I have taken on
this.
Again, I want to say that it has been a great privilege to work with
my colleagues and their staffs who have been concerned about the same
issue, and to work with the committee and the committee staff in
addressing these concerns. Because the committee members had these same
problems in their respective States, the committee was very open and
very anxious to resolve these differences and to bring about a stronger
bill for the achievement of our common goal.
I thank the committee and I thank the leadership of the committee.
And I thank my colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator Chafee, for their
superb leadership in bringing this bill to the floor.
It was a great pleasure to work in tandem with Senator Kerrey of
Nebraska on this. It is a pleasure to work with him on any issue. It
has been a pleasure working with him and his staff on this issue.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HATFIELD. Yes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to be added as a cosponsor.
I want to say, I watched this bill come forward. I think the Senator
deserves, together with his colleagues, Senator Kerrey and the Senator
from Louisiana, great credit, because their amendment, I think, made it
possible for this bill to become law.
Had this not been solved through the work of our distinguished
managers, the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Rhode Island,
and the Senator from Oregon, it would not have happened.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I welcome the Senator's cosponsorship of
our amendment. I ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment offered by the Senator from
Nebraska and the Senator from Oregon is a very good amendment. As has
been indicated, the Senators from Oregon and Nebraska have worked
diligently with other Senators and with the committee to work out some
wrinkles that did occur as a consequence of the committee bill.
I must say, Mr. President, the committee bill was approved out of the
committee with a very, very large vote. I think it was unanimous. Every
member of the committee voted for this bill. I see Senator Smith from
New Hampshire on the floor, who also helped very much to come up with a
consensus, a good approach.
The amendment that the Senators are offering addresses two very
important concepts of the bill. One is monitoring requirements and the
second is the viability of small systems.
We, Mr. President, have heard from small systems, in particular. The
small water systems in our country are many. Most of the systems in
this country are very small. I think about 87 percent of the water
systems in this country serve fewer than 3,300 people. They are small
systems.
On the other hand, most Americans get drinking water from large
systems; that is, most Americans live in cities which have large
systems.
As a consequence, and because of the laws of the economies of scale,
small systems--that is, smaller communities--pay much more to meet the
monitoring costs and the treatment costs to provide good, clean, safe
water for their communities, compared with the cost per household to
provide the same clean, safe water in larger cities.
Therein lies a major problem and therein lies a major impetus for
this bill. And therein lies the reason for this amendment.
The committee bill directly addresses the problems of small systems
in many ways, including monitoring.
I will not go into great detail, but I do want to make it very clear
that, No. 1, small systems have very great problems. I might say, Mr.
President, that, on average, a household served by a large system will
have to pay about $12 per year to meet the requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. On the other hand, people who live in very small
communities, to meet the same requirements, would have to pay about
$145 per year. That is about a 14-fold increase for small systems
compared with large systems. So it is not fair to people who live in
rural areas. They cannot come up with the money. They cannot afford the
monitoring requirements, the technology requirements, and other
requirements.
So we are dramatically changing the standards that apply to smaller
communities. First of all, we are dramatically reducing the monitoring
requirements. Monitoring is the biggest cost facing small communities.
It is very, very expensive.
Currently, all communities must monitor for all the contaminants,
regardless of whether the monitoring detects a violation or detects the
contaminant. And the monitoring basically occurs on a quarterly basis
in 1 year of every 3.
I do not think it makes much sense to continue to monitor if there is
no contaminant. So we say in the bill: OK, after you have monitored
once and if there is no showing of the contaminant, you need not go
back and monitor again for another 3 years. It only makes sense. In
addition to that, however, the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator
from Oregon are further refining the State waiver program for
monitoring. A number of States have applied to the EPA to enact waiver
programs. That is a program where they put their own monitoring
requirements in depending upon the various different conditions in
their States.
States are not homogeneous. States are different. I might say, the
results for those States is dramatic. That is, for those States who
have taken advantage of the waiver program, they have found dramatic
monitoring savings. Let me just state, for example, Wisconsin has a $16
million saving over 3 years, Massachusetts a $15 million saving over 3
years, Michigan a $36 million--90 percent saving in Michigan. That is,
if Michigan had not applied for a waiver under the monitoring program--
that is Michigan set up its own monitoring program depending upon
different conditions in Michigan, set fees in Michigan--it would be
paying 90 percent more than it now is.
The amendment before us is one where we are trying to add even
greater flexibility and reasonableness to the State waiver program so
States can more easily apply to EPA and get approval from EPA on
enacting their State waiver programs. That is the only point of this.
There are other parts of this amendment, but we are trying to help
States, if you will, do their own thing, provide a good, solid
monitoring program that is tailored to and fits conditions in their own
States. That is why I think this is a good amendment.
The second major point is viability. Some systems are just not
viable. That is, they are so small or because of certain conditions
they really cannot do a very good job in coming up with, not only
monitoring, but the treatment they need. We are suggesting, therefore,
that those nonviable systems be encouraged to consolidate. Where there
is greater consolidation, then there is a greater ability for systems
to meet the provisions of the act. If they cannot consolidate, maybe
they can share some resources. Again, we are trying to address that
very fundamental, iron law of the economies of scale by encouraging
more consolidation. By encouraging more cooperation, we are going to
help systems better meet the provisions of the act.
Essentially, the amendment encourages States to develop viability
programs. That is a good idea. In the earlier versions, we required
States to develop powers to require systems to consolidate. That was a
bit strong, a bit draconian. We, here, are saying you do not have to
require communities to consolidate or become more viable. Rather, you
as a State should have a program in place that encourages more
nonviable systems to become viable.
I very much commend the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from
Oregon for their offering this amendment. It is a major improvement
upon the bill.
If there is no further discussion, Mr. President, I urge the Senate
to adopt the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is
on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1699) was agreed to.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to share
my concerns over this proposed legislation. First, I'd like to say that
when compared to other countries around the world, the United States
has some of the safest drinking water in the world. A survey of our
Nation's 200,000 public water systems indicate that few systems are
contaminated--even by our own strict standards.
Kentucky is made up of 120 agriculturally diverse counties, and
within those counties are hundreds of small communities, most of which
rely heavily on agriculture as their main source of income. There are
more than 91,000 farm families in Kentucky. These people seek out the
best ways to grow corn and soybeans, raise the healthiest livestock,
and provide our Nation with healthy, nutritious food. And it is through
the hard work and determination of these people that others are fed.
I am supportive of protecting that quality of our drinking water.
Unfortunately, many provisions in this bill will be detrimental to
those people who work hard every day to feed the rest of us, yet
provide little, if any, workable formulas to protect the water. I am
most concerned about the bill's source water protection provisions.
Source water protection has traditionally been a function of the Clean
Water Act, which provides the framework for protection of surface
waters. I am concerned about the manner in which this bill addresses
source water protection. The Safe Drinking Water Act should not be used
as the vehicle to disrupt or interfere with ongoing progress in the
watershed area.
This proposed source water protection program in S. 2019 would have
serious implications for farm operations upstream of municipalities.
Individual municipalities nationwide could issue mandates to landowners
in source water protection areas for the control of both regulated and
unregulated contaminants. Not only would this lead to the overlap of
numerous governmental authorities and programs, but it would create a
confusion of water regulations across the country. Municipalities
should not be able to supersede State authority and expertise. Yet they
are encouraged by S. 2019 to do this.
Under S. 2019, local water systems would be eligible for important
cost saving reductions in required monitoring if they develop a source
water protection plan that: Defines the boundaries of their source
water areas, even if that goes beyond the system's territory and for
many miles upstream; identifies sources of pollution, both point and
nonpoint, regardless of their expertise to carry out such a task; and
implements control measures over the identified sources of pollution.
Finger pointing and restrictive control measures could likely be the
unintended result, since failure of an individual plan to include any
one of these requirements may result in its disapproval by the EPA.
Without an approved plan, water systems would not be eligible for cost-
saving reductions in the frequency of required monitoring. This is the
trap in S. 2019's source water protection provisions. There are more:
If a system's source water protection area is beyond its service
territory, a plan may mandate controls without the consultation of
neighboring local governments or adjacent landowners. Confusions among
source water protection plans could impose costly restrictions on the
use of surface waters or limitations on traditional land use
activities.
Under the bill, States must review and approve these source water
protection plans or face stiff financial penalties. States have no
authority to require modifications to a plan that may have unwarranted
economic impacts. Without specific authority, a State will be reluctant
to seek revisions or disapprove a plan for fear of penalties from EPA.
In addition to these principal concerns, I have other problems with
the bill as written. Unfunded mandates were imposed by the 1986
amendments, because of the funding shortfalls States and municipalities
faced. This issue has not been resolved. The EPA defines small systems
as those serving fewer than 3,300 individuals. Eighty-seven percent of
water systems in Kentucky meet this definition. Kentucky has 616 small
water systems that service a population of 467,680. We have 6 counties
with more than 20 different small water systems. These rural systems
have had the most difficulty meeting Federal drinking water
requirements. These systems do not have adequate financial and
technical resources to devote to treatment and monitoring. According to
EPA, for systems serving 25 to 100 persons, the average annual
incremental household cost of compliance is $145 per year.
On the issue of standard setting, the EPA Administrator may have even
less flexibility to consider public health risk reduction benefits,
costs, and scientific information than under current law. I am also
concerned that the definition of public water systems could be
interpreted to cover crop irrigation delivery systems.
Overall, I am worried that the bill authorizes EPA to initiate
enforcement actions in States without providing the State with an
opportunity to initiate its own action. Kentucky has recently enacted
its own legislation to improve and monitor its water resources.
Kentucky's recently approved water quality legislation sets up a
strategy for agricultural producers to protect Kentucky's water
resources and establish a process to work with farmers on water
pollution issues. Appropriate agencies will assist farmers in
developing plans to protect water, and guarantees fair treatment of
agricultural producers by enforcement personnel. The bill moves
Kentucky's water quality programs away from a punitive approach toward
a technology-driven program that enables farmers to do what they do
best--produce food and fiber--without doing harm to the environment.
Key responsibilities under Kentucky's plan include:
Evaluating and modifying the best management practices to promote
water protection.
Developing statewide agriculture water quality plans within two
years.
Reviewing water quality data to help identify priority areas.
Plans will consist of practical, economical management practices
designed to prevent pollution from animal waste, pesticides, sediment,
and other sources such as fuel tanks. The statewide plan would also
recognize the regional differences in Kentucky and account for the
varying agriculture and sensitive groundwater areas. The time for
implementing the plan is 5 years.
I commend those Kentuckians involved in taking the initiative to
develop the agriculture water quality program. They have set forth a
strategy for agriculture producers to protect Kentucky's water
resources and work out water pollution issues. Now we need to let that
same strategy work in the Clean Water Act at the national level.
In conclusion, although I support the goals of the safe drinking
water bill, it is important we work to build consensus on standards. In
carrying out these solutions we must provide realistic funding levels
so as not to cause undue hardship on States and municipalities.
I am very concerned about the potential adverse impact that this bill
will have on my crop production and livestock producers. I am also
disturbed about the potential overlap of numerous governmental
authorities and programs, creating confusion of water regulations all
over Kentucky and the country.
Most of these problems can be addressed by reworking section 9 of the
bill, and I support the amendment of Senators Warner and Conrad to
accomplish that. I urge my colleagues to take a hard look at the
unintended consequences this bill will have, and let us work together
to pass a safe drinking water bill that is also safe for rural America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I see two other Senators seeking
recognition. It is my intention at this time to lay down an amendment
sponsored by myself and the distinguished Senator from North Dakota
[Mr. Conrad], unless some Senator desires--fine.
Amendment No. 1700
(Purpose: To authorize States to establish a source water quality
protection petition procedure to assist community water systems and
municipal and local governments to address drinking water contaminants
of public health concern)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], for himself and Mr.
Conrad, proposes an amendment numbered 1700.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
Beginning on page 94, strike line 10 and all that follows
through page 103, line 2, and insert the following:
SEC. 9. WATER QUALITY PROTECTION PARTNERSHIP.
(a) Source Water Quality Protection.--Part B (42 U.S.C.
300g et seq.) (as amended by section 8) is further amended by
adding at the end the following new section:
``SOURCE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
``Sec. 1420. (a) Source Water Quality Protection Petition
Program.--
``(1) In general.--
``(A) Establishment.--A State may establish a program under
which an owner or operator of a community water system of the
State, or a municipal or local government or political
subdivision of the government in the State, may submit a
water quality protection petition to the State requesting
that the State assist in addressing--
``(i) the origins of drinking water contaminants of public
health concern, including to the extent practicable the
specific activities that affect the drinking water supply of
a community; and
``(ii) the financial or technical limitations that impair
the ability of a community water system to provide drinking
water that complies with a national primary drinking water
regulation for--
``(I) a contaminant listed under this title; or
``(II) an unregulated contaminant for which the
Administrator has determined that there is an urgent threat
to public health pursuant to section 1412(b)(3)(G).
``(B) Funding.--The State may provide assistance in
response to the petition using funds referred to in
subsections (b)(2)(C) and (c).
``(2) Goal.--The objective of a petition submitted under
this subsection shall be to seek assistance from the State in
directing or redirecting resources under Federal or State
water quality programs to establish voluntary, incentive-
based partnerships in order to address the origins of
drinking water contaminants of public health concern,
including to the extent practicable the specific activities
that affect the drinking water supply of a community.
``(3) Contents of petition.--A petition submitted under
this subsection shall, at a minimum--
``(A) include a delineation of the source water area in the
State that is the subject of the petition;
``(B) identify the origins of the drinking water
contaminants of public health concern, including to the
extent practicable the specific activities in the source
water area delineated under subparagraph (A);
``(C) identify any deficiencies in information that will
inhibit the identification of significant origins of drinking
water contaminants of public health concern; and
``(D) identify any public participation solicited from
affected persons in the source water area delineated under
subparagraph (A), including--
``(i) voluntary efforts to address the origins of the
drinking water contaminants of public health concern,
including specific activities; and
``(ii) the assistance that may be needed to facilitate the
efforts.
``(b) Approval or Disapproval of Petitions.--
``(1) In general.--After providing notice and an
opportunity for public comment on a petition submitted under
subsection (a), the State shall approve or disapprove in
whole or in part the petition in an expeditious manner.
``(2) Approval.--The State may approve a petition if the
petition meets the requirements established under subsection
(a). The notice of approval shall, at a minimum, include--
``(A) a determination that the drinking water contaminants
referred to in the petition pose a public health concern;
``(B) a description of the options available, including
voluntary measures and practices for the protection of source
waters to address the problems described in the petition;
``(C) an identification of technical or financial
assistance that the State will provide to assist in
addressing the drinking water contaminants of public health
concern based on--
``(i) the relative priority of the public health concern
identified in the petition as compared to the other water
quality needs identified by the State;
``(ii) any appropriate studies or assessments that are
available to identify significant origins of drinking water
contaminants of public health concern;
``(iii) any necessary coordination that the State will
perform of the program established under this section with
programs implemented or planned by other States under this
section; and
``(iv) funds available (including funds available from a
State revolving loan fund established under title VI of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.)
or part G) and the appropriate distribution of the funds to
assist in addressing the problems described in the petition;
``(D) a description of Federal and State programs available
to assist in addressing the problems described in the
petition, including--
``(i) any program established under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);
``(ii) the program established under section 6217 of the
Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (16
U.S.C. 1455b);
``(iii) the agricultural water quality protection program
established under chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of the
Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3838 et seq.);
``(iv) the sole source aquifer protection program
established under section 1427;
``(v) the community wellhead protection program established
under section 1428;
``(vi) any pesticide or ground water management plan; and
``(vii) any abandoned well closure program;
``(E) a description of activities that will be undertaken
to coordinate Federal and State programs to respond to the
petition; and
``(F) a description of alternative management measures or
treatment techniques and other strategies, including an
evaluation of the costs associated with each alternative, and
a description of sources of funding available to implement
the alternative.
``(3) Disapproval.--If the State disapproves a petition
submitted under subsection (a), the State shall notify the
entity submitting the petition in writing of the reasons for
disapproval. A petition may be resubmitted at any time if new
information becomes available or conditions affecting the
source water that is the subject of the petition change.
``(c) Eligibility for Water Quality Protection
Assistance.--A sole source aquifer plan developed pursuant to
section 1427, a wellhead protection plan developed pursuant
to section 1428, and a source water quality protection
measure assisted in response to a petition submitted under
subsection (a) shall be eligible for assistance under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.),
including assistance provided under section 319 and title VI
of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1329 and 1381 et seq.), in the same
manner as a project, measure, or practice identified in a
State plan under such section 319 is eligible for assistance
under such Act. In the case of funds made available under
such section 319 to assist a source water quality protection
measure in response to a petition submitted under subsection
(a), the funds may be used only for a measure that addresses
nonpoint source pollution.
``(d) Grants to Support State Programs.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator is authorized to make
grants to each State that establishes a program under this
section that is approved under paragraph (2). The amount of
each grant shall not exceed 50 percent of the cost of
administering the petition program for the year in which the
grant is available.
``(2) Approval.--As a condition of receiving grant
assistance under this subsection, a State shall submit to the
Administrator for approval a source water protection petition
program that is consistent with the guidance published under
paragraph (3).
``(3) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date of
enactment of this section, the Administrator shall publish
guidance to assist States in the development of a source
water protection petition program. The guidance shall, at a
minimum--
``(A) recommend procedures for the approval by a State of a
source water protection petition submitted under subsection
(a);
``(B) recommend procedures by which a community water
system may submit a source water protection petition
developed under subsection (a);
``(C) recommend criteria for the delineation of source
water protection areas within a State; and
``(D) describe sources of funding that are available to
develop and respond to source water protection petitions.
``(4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection
such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 1995
through 2000. Each State with a program approved under
paragraph (2) shall receive an equitable portion of the funds
available for any fiscal year.''.
____
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment which is a
substitute for section 9 of the committee bill relating to source water
protection plans.
I also ask unanimous consent that a letter from various organizations
who have endorsed this amendment be included in the Record at the end
of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. [See
exhibit 1.]
Mr. WARNER. These organizations include the American Farm Bureau
Federation, the National Agricultural Chemicals Association, the
National Water Resources Association, the Clean Water Industry
Coalition, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, and many
others.
This is one of the most remarkable, grassroots collection of
organizations that I have seen. This shows that those individuals and
organizations which support their individual trade associations--these
associations can deliver. And this is a clear product of the
consolidated efforts of this broad, grass roots American coalition of
organizations. I commend each of them.
Mr. President, during the Environment Committee's markup of this
legislation, several concerns were raised regarding the proposed new
source water protection program and its reach into the management of
land use practices.
In the interest of enacting reform legislation this year to provide
the relief so desperately needed by our local governments, I voted to
report the bill from the Environment Committee.
Since that time, I have explored with my friend from North Dakota
[Mr. Conrad,] possible alternatives to provide for the protection of
waters that are used to supply drinking water.
While recognizing the potential benefits from an approach to reduce
contaminants that enter our surface waters, we believed that a
partnership could be formed among water agencies, agricultural
interests, and others without mandating a new Federal requirement of
imposing penalties on our States.
I am pleased that the amendment we offer establishes a cooperative,
voluntary process involving States, local governments, and landowners
that will, for the first time, focus needed attention and resources on
specific problems associated with waters that affect a community's
drinking water supply.
With Chairman Baucus's and Senator Chafee's cooperation and
constructive contributions to accomplish the goals we all share in this
effort, our amendment will achieve results in protecting our source
waters by facilitating a dialog among interested parties in a watershed
and building upon voluntary programs to address sources of point and
nonpoint pollution.
I want to make it very clear to my colleagues that this amendment
encourages the voluntary participation by States and local governments
in identifying measures and financial resources that may be utilized to
provide for the protection of drinking water supplies.
The petition process established in the amendment is a solution based
approach for our local governments. In developing a petition, a
community water system will bring together various persons who depend
on source waters and those whose activities may affect source waters in
an effort to gain a better understanding of the specific needs within a
watershed.
I firmly believe this collaborative effort at the local level, with
resources from a State, will produce results to reduce the burden on
localities to install expensive treatment technologies.
Specifically, a local government or community water system can submit
a petition to a State which identifies contaminants of public health
concern in source waters and the voluntary efforts that are being
employed to reduce the ability of these contaminants to enter our
rivers and streams.
In response to a petition, a State may provide technical and
financial resources which will help address problems identified in the
petition. It is important to mention that the redirection of existing
funding sources is critical to the success of this program.
I am pleased that provisions are included in this amendment to
provide funding from the Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund because
I believe that responses to problems identified in petitions will be
less costly than the installation of expensive treatment technologies.
Mr. President, the available of funding to respond to these local
petitions is an essential element of this petition program. It is my
hope that the provisions relating to funding will be preserved when the
Senate goes to conference with the House.
The last point I would like to mention, Mr. President, is the grant
authority this amendment provides to the Environmental Protection
Agency. In an effort to provide an incentive for States to respond to
petitions in a timely manner, EPA is authorized to make grants to
States pending the approval of a State's petition program.
Mr. President, before concluding, I must recognize and commend
Chairman Baucus and Senator Chafee for their diligent efforts to
resolve the differences of opinion on this issue and to develop a
compromise that fosters a cooperative relationship among various
parties to become allies in the fight for drinking water protection.
In Virginia, we have been firsthand the benefits of this partnership
approach through the 13 years of the Chesapeake Bay Program--a regional
partnership between the Federal Government, Virginia, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia, and the varied interests
who depend on the bay for their livelihood and recreation. In the bay
watershed, more than 300,000 acres of agricultural land are now farmed
under the Chesapeake Bay Program nutrient reduction initiatives,
erosion control, and runoff measures.
Mr. President, I would also like to commend the chairman and ranking
member, and their staffs, and the enormous contributions made by
Senator Hatfield and Senator Kerrey, for bringing to the Senate a bill
that responds to the legitimate problems brought to our attention by
our States and local governments.
This legislation restores the balance in our obligation to provide
water that is safe for citizens to drink with the financial and
technical limitations on local governments to install technologies to
treat drinking water, and I am pleased to lend my support to this
legislation.
When the committee began discussions on developing a bill for markup,
there were many forceful discussions about the direction the committee
should take. Through a very cooperative and inclusive process, Chairman
Baucus listened to our concerns and demonstrated his significant skill
and leadership to develop a bill that responded to those issues.
Prior to bringing this important legislation to the floor, the
chairman and ranking member continued to listen to other points of view
and responded in a manner that allows us to be here today. I am
grateful for their willingness to accommodate our concerns and commend
them for their continued leadership on the committee.
Exhibit 1
May 12, 1994.
Hon. John W. Warner,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Warner, this week the Senate will consider S.
2019, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994,
introduced last year as S. 1547 by Environment and Public
Works Committee Chairman Max Baucus. We would like to offer
our support for the compromise amendment that you have
cosponsored with Senator Kent Conrad as a substitute for
Section 9 of S. 2019.
This is an important amendment, broadly supported by
coalitions and organizations representing municipal, water
suppliers, agriculture, agribusiness, food processors,
livestock production, municipal groups, industry and other
stakeholders. The amendment allows a state to establish a
source water quality petition program which:
Encourage a drinking water authority or local government
entity to submit a petition requesting that the state assist
in addressing financial or technical limitations that reduce
the petitioner's capability to provide drinking water that
complies with national drinking water standards or to address
unregulated contaminants that pose an urgent threat to public
health;
Provides for state response in the form of financial and
technical assistance as may be appropriate under existing
water quality programs, such as those in place under the
Clean Water Act and other state, regional or federal water
quality programs;
Authorizes federal grants as an incentive for states to
initiate a petition program; and
Relies on voluntary, incentive-based partnerships among all
affected parties.
We thank you for your constructive and effective leadership
in working with the Environment and Public Works Committee
leadership on this important issue. We believe the compromise
amendment provides a workable mechanism, to help accomplish
the end goal of improving our nation's drinking water, while
addressing many serious concerns about provisions of Section
9 in S. 2019.
Sincerely,
Agricultural Retailers Association; AK Steel
Incorporation; American Bakers Association; American
Cyanamid; American Farm Bureau Federation; American
Feed Industry Association; American Forest and Paper
Association; American Frozen Food Institute; American
Soybean Association; Association of California Water
Agencies; Automotive Recyclers Association; Bethlehem
Steel; Biscuit and Cracker Manufacturers Association;
Callispell Chamber of Commerce; Central Valley Project
Water Association; CF Industries Inc.; Chocolate
Manufacturers Association; Clean Water industry
Coalition; Dairymen, Inc.; Egg Association of America;
Greater Cleveland Growth Association; Independent
Bakers Association; International Dairy Foods
Association; Maine Sardine Council; MDU Resources
Group, Inc.; Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California; National Agricultural Chemicals
Association; National Association of Conservation
Districts; National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture; National Association of Wheat Growers;
National Broiler Council; National Cattlemen's
Association; National Confectioners Association;
National Corn Growers Association; National Cotton
Council of America; National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives; National Electrical Manufacturers
Association; National Farmers Union; National Food
Processes Association; National Grange; National Milk
Producers Federation; National Pork Producers Council;
National Potato Council; National Turkey Federation;
National Water Resources Association; Rio Grande Valley
Sugar Growers, Inc.; Snack Food Association; The
Uniform and Textile Service Association; Unilever
United States; United Egg Producers; U.S. Rice
Producers' Group; Western Growers Association.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, their legislation restores a balance in
our obligation to provide safe water for citizens to drink with the
financial and technical limitations on local governments to install
technologies to treat drinking water.
I am pleased to lend my support to their legislation; that is, to
Senator Hatfield.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I momentarily will ask the amendment to be laid aside.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to laying the amendment
aside?
Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
MR. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed
to proceed as in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished Senator will
allow me to send up another amendment and very quickly act on that.
MR. BREAUX. I will be happy to yield to my colleague.
Mr. WARNER. I shall not take but a few minutes, I say to my
colleague.
Amendment No. 1701
(Purpose: To provide for the funding of capital improvements at the
Washington Aqueduct)
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I send up an amendment on behalf of myself
and the distinguished Senator, Mr. Robb, from the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator's previous
amendment will be laid aside.
The clerk will now report the amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] for himself and Mr.
Robb, proposes an amendment numbered 1701.
In section 16 of the bill, strike subsection (f) and insert
the following new subsection:
(f) Capital Improvements for the Washington Aqueduct.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4),
and notwithstanding any other provision of law, at the
request of the public water supply customers of the
Washington Aqueduct--
(A) the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers, shall borrow from
the Federal Financing Bank such funds as the Secretary of the
Army determines are required to finance capital improvements
for the Washington Aqueduct; and
(B) the Board of Directors of the Federal Financing Bank
shall loan the funds to the Secretary of the Army on such
terms as may be established by the Secretary of the Army and
the Board of Directors.
(2) Interest.--The rate of interest to be charged in
connection with a loan made under paragraph (1) shall be not
less than a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury,
taking into consideration current market yields on
outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of
comparable maturities.
(3) Contract.--The Secretary of the Army shall borrow funds
under paragraph (1) after the public water supply customers
enter into a written contract with the Secretary of the Army
to repay the funds and to pay the costs associated with
borrowing the funds.
(4) Net present value of loan.--The Secretary of the Army
may borrow funds under paragraph (1) if amounts sufficient to
pay for the cost, as defined in section 502(5) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 661a(5)), of the
loan involved are provided in advance in appropriation Acts.
(5) Definition.--As used in this subsection, the term
``public water supply customers'' means the District of
Columbia, the county of Arlington, Virginia, and the city of
Falls Church, Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, how many of us remember this headline in
our local paper, the Washington Post? What a dramatic headline: ``D.C.,
Part of Northern Virginia Under Drinking Water Alert.''
By sundown, all the water fountains at National Airport had
been shut off. The Environmental Protection Agency yesterday
advised people who live and work in the District of
Columbia----
The Nation's Capital.
and parts of the Commonwealth of Virginia to boil all
drinking water.
The alert was put out on the afternoon of December 8. This is the
paper on the morning of December 9. This prompted me to consult the
Corps of Engineers and, as a consequence, I ask the Senate to consider
the amendment that is now pending.
Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment which is to allow the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers access to the Federal Financing Bank for
the purpose of financing capital improvements in the Washington
aqueduct. The Washington aqueduct is a generic title for that
infrastructure that provides water for the Nation's Capital and certain
parts of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I would like to also advise my colleagues that I requested the
General Accounting Office to conduct a study of this entire system,
given the relationship between this particular water system in the
United States and the Nation's Capital as it relates to national
security.
Mr. President, for 3 days beginning on December 8 of last year, this
region was nearly crippled when the Environmental Protection Agency--
and I commend the agency for acting--ordered us to cease using the
water that came through the pipes; to boil water. The paper describes
the run on all shops that sell bottled water. We take for granted our
water supply. That is the purpose of this amendment. Let us check it
out. Some parts of this system date back 100 years, and it is time we
check it out.
But this was December 8, and the region was crippled as a consequence
of this EPA order. Area residents were fearful that their water supply
was contaminated. They did not know. It was an enormous undertaking for
local governments to notify everyone in this life-threatening
situation, and it was described as life-threatening. In no way do I
fault the alert that came out from the EPA and from other responsible
civic persons in this area. Imagine the difficulty they had in
conveying this message to a lot of people in this region who are not
familiar with the English language. Simple things like that--maybe not
so simple--of having to convey to a lot of people the problem.
During this crisis period, and in subsequent news reports, the
Washington Post--and I credit the Washington Post for a very careful,
detailed analysis of this problem--the paper educated us on the broader
problems of the system's financing limitations, the lack of operator
training, the lack of monitoring systems which provide an early warning
of potential problems, and lack of coordination among Federal agencies
responsible.
The corps since addressed some of these problems, but the question of
financing major capital improvements, which, in the judgment of the
Corps of Engineers are needed, remains a problem which I hope will be
solved by this legislation.
In reports conducted by the EPA and independent authorities, it has
been concluded that equipment failure, followed by human error in
responding to the situation of December 8 affected the results of water
quality testing. While we are thankful that the water was not
contaminated in that period by the suspected parasite, cryptosporidium,
it was a loud wake-up call for the region.
The modified amendment I offer today addresses issues relating to the
Congressional Budget Office views concerning the Corps of Engineers'
borrowing authority for the Washington aqueduct and this provision's
impact on direct spending.
I believe those concerns have been resolved in this revised amendment
by subjecting the amount of the loan discount to appropriations. While
the essence of the amendment simply provides borrowing authority, the
cost of making the loans to the Corps of Engineers will be paid for in
advance by the system's customers.
So there is a financing arrangement set forth in this amendment which
will enable this system, which serves the Nation's Capital, to be
corrected and hopefully to be fixed in a manner that will make it less
vulnerable to many problems to which it could be subjected under the
usual circumstances.
We have letters, which I ask unanimous consent be printed in the
Record, from the chairman of the Arlington County Board who supports
it; the Mayor of the city of Falls Church; and the Mayor of Washington,
the Honorable Sharon Pratt Kelly, all expressing the desperate need to
have an amendment adopted and the appreciation hopefully to this body
for accepting the amendment.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Arlington County, Virginia,
Office of the County Board,
Arlington, VA, May 6, 1994.
Hon. John W. Warner,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Warner: Thank you for supporting the inclusion
of Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant, or the Washington
Aqueduct, language in S. 2019, Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1994. As you know, the language will allow the
Army authority to borrow funds in order to finance necessary
capital improvements. Consequently, all users of the
Washington Aqueduct, including Arlington County, will benefit
from the adoption of the legislation.
Without the financing language, Arlington County, in
addition to the City of Falls Church and Fairfax County,
would continue to fund its portion of capital improvements on
a pay-as-you-go basis. A pay-as-you-go mandate is impractical
and would financially burden Aqueduct users.
Again, thank you for your hard work on this important
issue; we are grateful for your continued leadership.
Sincerely,
Mary Margaret Whipple,
Chairman.
____
City of Falls Church,
Falls Church, VA, April 21, 1994.
Hon. John W. Warner,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Warner: Thank you for your letter of April 19
and the accompanying copy of your amendment to the Safe
Drinking Water Act which will enable the Corps of Engineers
to obtain funds from the Federal Financing Bank. Improvements
proposed at the Washington Aqueduct over the next decade are
necessary. The local jurisdictions dependent on the
Washington Aqueduct for safe water much appreciate your
assistance in sponsoring this legislation.
If there is any information concerning the necessity for,
or the benefits of, this financing mechanism which we can
provide, please call.
With best regards, I am
Respectfully yours,
Brian M. O'Connor,
Mayor.
____
The District of Columbia,
Washington, DC, April 20, 1994.
Hon. John Warner,
Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC
Dear Senator Warner: I am writing to commend and thank you
for your efforts in introducing legislation to give the Army
Corps of Engineers the authority to borrow from the Federal
Financing Bank in order to finance capital improvements to
the Washington Aqueduct.
We in the District of Columbia government are 100% in
agreement with your assessment of the Corps' unusual
predicament of not being able to borrow money to finance
infrastructure improvements. We agree wholeheartedly that in
the wake of recent concern over the cleanliness of local
drinking water, needed improvements must be made and should
be paid for by customers over the life of the new or upgraded
facilities.
I applaud your efforts on behalf of metropolitan area
residents. It is my hope that the final version of the
legislation will provide, with specificity, that area
ratepayers will be protected from short term spikes in rates,
and FFB loans will be repaid over the long term useful life
of the project, as you stated in your March 24 statement.
If you or your staff should have any questions of the
District, please contact Ms. Mimi Mager, my Director of
Congressional and Federal Relations (727-9111). Again, thank
you for your leadership on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Sharon Pratt Kelly.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I again thank the distinguished chairman,
Mr. Baucus, and the ranking member, Mr. Chafee, for devoting the
committee's time and attention to this very serious issue.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Mikulski). The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we have reviewed the amendment of the
Senator from Virginia and accept it. I might say, this general subject
must be addressed. The water system in the District of Columbia and
northern Virginia was built by the corps--the first water system--in
1853. It is the only water system under the jurisdiction of the Army
Corps of Engineers--the only one in the whole Nation--in the District
of Columbia.
It also happens to be about the only water system that is unable to
get any financing from the Federal Financing Bank. Other systems can,
but the system in the District of Columbia cannot because we,
regrettably, in the past have not given the authority to the corps to
seek funding from that financing authority.
We addressed it in the committee, and the Senator from Virginia, a
very able member of the committee, in fact it was his amendment, his
idea, helped to get this in the bill. We found there were technical
glitches with the Budget Committee, and the Senator from Virginia has
now come up with a better version that addresses those wrinkles that we
had with the Budget Committee.
I thank the Senator and commend him.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman and I
wish to thank the staff of the committee and particularly my staff,
Mrs. Loomis, who worked tirelessly on the formula, a formula that will
assist financing and not overburden financially the users of this
system; that is, the actual user, particularly at home and the offices
so dependent on this water.
I thank the Chair. I urge, again, adoption of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 1701.
The amendment (No. 1701) was agreed to.
Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which
the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Louisiana.
Mr. BREAUX. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may
proceed as if in morning business for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BREAUX. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Breaux, pertaining to the introduction of S. 2111
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
____________________