[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 59 (Friday, May 13, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for 
passage of S. 2019, the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1994, and 
I particularly commend the chairman of the Environment Committee on 
which I am privileged to serve, Senator Baucus, and the ranking member, 
Senator Chafee, for the extraordinary diligence and patience with which 
they have brought this bill to the floor.
  The mood surrounding the reauthorization of this very important law--
think about it, safe drinking water--has been one of frustration. We 
have heard a lot in the last year or so about how the 1986 
reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which passed almost 
unanimously and was signed into law by President Reagan, imposed overly 
burdensome requirements on small drinking water systems. We were told 
as well that some larger systems felt they should not have to invest 
significant sums of money to achieve what they believed to be the 
minimal gains in the prevention of deaths by cancer.
  At the same time, Mr. President, we have seen real cases like those 
that occurred in Milwaukee where people died because they drank the 
water from their kitchen tap. The culprit, a contaminant called 
cryptosperidium, was not even regulated. Unfortunately, Milwaukee is 
but the most tragic and dramatic example of a nationwide public health 
threat. EPA tells us that one-third of the 200,000 drinking water 
systems in the United States exceeded their allowable limits of 
contamination last year. The Natural Resources Defense Council 
identified more than 250,000 violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
in 1991 and 1992, ``affecting 43 percent of the Nation's public 
drinking water systems serving an estimated 120 million people.''
  This is real problem that affects real people.
  The NRDC report that this statistic comes from ``Danger on Tap,'' I 
found very instructive. According to the report, the Centers for 
Disease Control in Atlanta estimates that waterborne organisms cause 
nearly 1 million cases of intestinal illnesses and 900 deaths annually 
in the United States. Again, I quote from the report: ``Between 1989 
and 1990, 16 States reported 26 major waterborne disease outbreaks 
affecting more than 4,000 people. By 1991 and 1992, 17 States had 
reported 34 major waterborne outbreaks affecting more than 17,000 
people.''
  But these statistics only account for impacts on Americans who get 
their water from public water systems. According to Health magazine in 
their July/August, 1993 issue, ``an estimated 8 percent of Americans--
more than 20 million people--still rely on unfiltered water from mostly 
groundwater sources; this is not part of any public water system and 
hence excluded from official statistics,'' that I have just cited. The 
NRDC report further tells us that ``one study group assembled by the 
EPA and the American Water Works Association concluded, `by the time 
microbes are detected, the water has been consumed.' Thus many experts 
believe that the true extent of waterborne illness in the United States 
remains largely unknown.''
  That is the statistical reality as we understand it. The perception 
is even worse. One of the most telling statistics of all is this; 
bottled water is a $2.7 billion industry. Americans are paying that 
much money to affectively avoid having to drink from their own kitchen 
taps. Comparatively, they are paying a fair amount. A recent survey 
concluded that only 4 percent of Americans believe that drinking water 
standards are too stringent. Nearly 84 percent believe they ought to be 
tougher. This is underscored by a 1993 American Water Works 
Association-Research Foundation study which found that 74 percent of 
water system customers were willing to pay additional costs in order to 
raise drinking water quality above Federal standards.
  That is not hard to understand when you think about how much we rely 
on drinking water from the tap.
  All of the recent studies on the efficacy of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act program--whether done by EPA, GAO, the American Works Association, 
the Natural Resources Defense Council, all agree that there are certain 
elements critical to running a program for drinking water that will 
protect the public health: Strong State-run program; the prevention of 
new nonviable systems and the authority to consolidate existing ones or 
force them to find alternate sources of water; stronger research funds 
and technology development particularly for treatment technologies 
suitable for use by small systems; training for operators of those new 
technologies; more directed monitoring programs. There is basic 
agreement on those factors.

  They also all appear to agree that until now there have not been the 
financial resources to help make these changes happen. States have the 
authority under current law, for example, to relieve small systems of 
certain monitoring requirements, if the State can demonstrate that the 
contaminant to be monitored for has not been used in that particular 
watershed. But States do not, as a rule, have strong enough State 
programs to be able to make that assessment. With most drinking water 
programs being run by State Departments of Health, perhaps it is 
because their resources have been drained by other health-protection or 
awareness programs, such as those dealing with AIDS, or load poison for 
example.
  This is a problem, particularly as now is the time that the 
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act are increasing. The 83 
contaminants that the 1986 law instructed EPA to set standards for are 
coming due. This in itself was apparently enough to panic a lot of 
States and particularly those with a lot of small systems. How in the 
world were those systems going to be able to comply with additional 
monitoring and perhaps treatment requirements when they were struggling 
to meet those already required?
  Clearly, we needed to find a way to address real compliance problems 
while not compromising public health protection. We needed to make sure 
that we were using the best available science upon which to base 
contaminant monitoring choices and frequency. We needed to find a way 
to help States mount strong State-run programs as that they could help 
their own small systems protect the health of their customers. We 
needed to recognize that the cheapest way to control drinking water 
contamination was not to treat it, but to prevent it, to prevent its 
contamination at its source.
  S. 2019, reported unanimously from the Environment and Pubic Works 
Committee did all of this. It established a new State revolving loan 
fund of nearly $6 billion to assist States with compliance with Federal 
law. It set us a system by which small systems could meet safe drinking 
water standards without going broke, a process by which they could 
achieve a variance if there were no way to either combine with another 
system or seek an alternate source of drinking water. States would be 
able to substitute their own monitoring programs for EPA regulations.
  S. 2019 would also require some things from States, namely that they 
have the legal authority to prevent new nonviable systems from forming, 
and that they establish a strong State program to encourage the 
restructuring of existing nonviable systems. In addition, S. 2019 
required States to develop a process by which the State could review a 
source-water protection plan should one be developed and presented to 
the State.
  I think this is a very, very important and constructive piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I know the debate on this matter will continue next 
week. There are other areas that I look forward to participating in the 
debate on, but there are two areas I just want to touch on briefly 
today and which I hope to return to next week.
  One is the importance of retaining language in the bill to encourage 
and assist States and localities to craft drinking water source 
protection plans. Protecting drinking water at its source really is the 
most pragmatic, cost-effective and public-health-conscious way to 
assure a safe drinking water supply.
  The other area of concern to me is how to best account for so-called 
sensitive subpopulations when we determine what level of exposure to a 
contaminant in the water is, in fact, a safe level. In other words, how 
do we make sure that we are protecting those at most risk in our 
population--children, the elderly, or those with a biological, a 
physical predisposition to suffer more acutely than most of us as a 
result of exposure to a particular contaminant in drinking water.
  I have been working closely with Senator Boxer on this issue and I 
appreciate very much the ongoing interest in this problem that has been 
shown by Chairman Baucus and by Senators Chafee, Hatfield, and Kerrey. 
I am certain that all of us will have more to say about this more 
specifically later on in debate on this bill and I am confident that we 
will find an appropriate response to this very serious human problem.
  The bottom line is, Mr. President, the bill represents real progress 
and I hope we can see it through to successful passage next week here 
in the Senate
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________