[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17734-S17741]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, in returning to the Safe Drinking 
Water Act Amendments of 1995, I would like to address a few points.
  There has been quite a bit of discussion about the idea of these 
unfunded Federal mandates that we have had for years. And in fact the 
Congressional Budget Office pointed out that probably one of the most 
burdensome, onerous Federal regulations that has been imposed upon 
local and State government has been the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments of 1986. The unfunded mandates format for 1995 that was 
passed earlier this year and signed into law this year by the 
President's signature does not go into effect until January 1, 1996 
and, therefore, this legislation before us today, Senate bill 1316, 
does not come in under the requirements of the Unfunded Mandate Reform 
Act of 1995.
  As the sponsor of that act which was signed into law, I was 
determined and absolutely dedicated that we are going to stop unfunded 
Federal mandates around here and, therefore, as this bill has been 
developed over 9 months I continually stayed in touch with the 
Congressional Budget Office. And in fact, I then submitted Senate bill 
1316 to the Congressional Budget Office and asked them to please go 
through this legislation as though the unfunded mandates format were 
currently law, used all the same criteria, and the tough examination of 
this legislation. They have done so.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the 
Congressional Budget Office be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                 Washington, DC, November 7, 1995.
     Hon. John H. Chafee,
     Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1316, the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995.
       Enacting S. 1316 would affect both direct spending and 
     receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                                     James L. Blum
                                  (For June E. O'Neill, Director).
       Enclosure.


               congressional budget office cost estimate

       1. Bill number: S. 1316.
       2. Bill title: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995.

[[Page S 17735]]

       3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
     on Environment and Public Works on October 24, 1995.
       4. Bill purpose: The bill would amend the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act (SDWA) to authorize the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) to make grants to states for capitalizing state 
     revolving loan funds (SRFs). These SRFs would finance the 
     construction of facilities for the treatment of drinking 
     water. The bill would authorize appropriations of $1 billion 
     annually over the 1996-2003 period for these capitalization 
     grants. In addition, major provisions of the bill would:
       Amend the procedures that EPA uses to identify contaminants 
     for regulation under the SDWA;
       Allow states to establish an alternative monitoring program 
     for contaminants in drinking water;
       Allow operators of small drinking water systems to obtain 
     variances from drinking water standards under certain 
     conditions;
       Direct EPA to define treatment technologies that are 
     feasible for small drinking water systems when the agency 
     issues new contaminant regulations;
       Require states to ensure that public water systems have the 
     technical expertise and financial resources to implement the 
     SDWA;
       Establish a standard for the amount of radon in drinking 
     water;
       Authorize appropriations of $100 million annually for state 
     public water system supervision programs (PWSS), $40 million 
     annually for protecting underground drinking water sources, 
     $35 million annually for protecting drinking water wellhead 
     areas, and $35 million annually for assisting small 
     drinking water systems; and
       Authorize a loan for capital improvements to the Washington 
     Aqueduct, which is operated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers to 
     provide drinking water to the District of Columbia and parts 
     of Northern Virginia.
       5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming 
     appropriation of the entire amounts authorized for 
     discretionary programs, enacting S. 1316 would lead to fiscal 
     year 1996 funding for safe drinking water programs about $1.2 
     billion above the 1995 appropriation. CBO estimates that the 
     bill would authorize appropriations totaling nearly $7 
     billion over the 1996-2000 period.
       The authorization for most of EPA's safe drinking water 
     activities expired in 1991, but the program has been 
     continued through annual appropriations. In 1995 about $166 
     million was appropriated to EPA for safe drinking work and 
     grants. In addition to this amount, $700 million was 
     appropriated in 1995 and $599 million was appropriated in 
     1994 for EPA capitalizing grants to safe drinking water state 
     revolving loan funds (SRFs). Spending of these SRF funds was 
     made contingent upon enactment of legislation authorizing 
     safe drinking water SRFs. Public Law 104-19 rescinded all but 
     $225 million of the SRF appropriations.
       Enacting S. 1316 would have a small effect on revenues from 
     civil and criminal penalties and on resulting direct 
     spending. Finally, enacting the bill could increase direct 
     spending for the payments of judgments against the federal 
     government resulting from claims made by states under SDWA; 
     however, CBO cannot predict the number or amount of any such 
     judgments that would result from enacting the bill. The 
     estimated budgetary effects of S. 1316 are summarized in the 
     following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1995    1996    1997    1998    1999    2000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS                                       
                                                                                                                
Spending under current law:                                                                                     
  Budget authority..............................................     166       0       0       0       0       0
  Estimated outlays.............................................     161      66      17       0       0       0
Proposed changes:                                                                                               
  Estimated authorization level.................................       0   1,371   1,386   1,388   1,389   1,391
  Estimated outlays.............................................       0     257     649   1,045   1,262   1,360
Spending under S. 1316:                                                                                         
  Estimated authorization level.................................     166   1,371   1,386   1,388   1,389   1,391
  Estimated outlays.............................................     161     323     666   1,045   1,262   1,360
                                                                                                                
                                     ADDITIONAL REVENUES AND DIRECT SPENDING                                    
                                                                                                                
Revenues:                                                                                                       
  Estimated revenues............................................  ......   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)
Direct spending:\2\                                                                                             
  Estimated budget authority....................................  ......  ......   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)
  Estimated outlays.............................................  ......  ......   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.                                                                                         
\2\ The bill also could increase direct spending for judgments against the government, but CBO cannot estimate  
  the amount of any judgment payments that might occur from enacting S. 1316.                                   

       The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300.
       6. Basis of Estimate: Spending Subject to Appropriations.--
     For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will 
     be enacted before 1996 appropriations for EPA are provided 
     and that all funds authorized by S. 1316 will be appropriated 
     for each year. Over the 1996-2003 period, the bill would 
     authorize appropriations totalling $10.6 billion, including 
     $8 billion for grants to safe drinking water state revolving 
     loan funds.
       In addition to the bill's specified authorization amounts, 
     CBO has estimated that $60 million to $70 million a year 
     would be necessary to pay for activities authorized by the 
     bill without specific dollar authorizations. Estimated 
     costs for these activities are based on information 
     provided by EPA. Estimated outlays are based on historical 
     spending patterns of ongoing EPA drinking water programs 
     and its grant program for waste water treatment state 
     revolving loan funds.
       CBO estimates that enacting the bill would require about 
     $55 million annually (at 1996 price levels) to pay for EPA's 
     general oversight and administrative costs for the safe 
     drinking water program. This amount would constitute an 
     increase of about $15 million above EPA's current program 
     costs, principally for administration of the new SRF program. 
     We estimate that no funds would be required for grants to 
     states for the source-water protection programs that would be 
     established under section 17 of the bill because states are 
     unlikely to implement the optional petition programs 
     described in the bill. CBO also estimates a cost of at least 
     $5 million annually over the 1996-2000 period for EPA to 
     prepare the reports on environmental priorities, costs, and 
     benefits that would be required by section 28 of the bill.
       CBO believes that the proposed authority for modernizing 
     the Washington Aqueduct should be treated as authority for 
     providing a federal loan to the three localities that receive 
     water from the aqueduct. In effect, the localities are 
     borrowing money from the Treasury to pay for modernizing the 
     aqueduct. Such a loan would be subject to credit reform 
     provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. We estimate 
     that this authorization would have no net cost to the federal 
     government because the bill would allow the Secretary of the 
     Treasury to impose loan terms and conditions on the 
     localities involved sufficient to offset any subsidy cost of 
     the loan.
       The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that the aqueduct 
     modernization project would cost about $275 million in 1995 
     dollars and would take seven years to complete. Credit reform 
     requires that the subsidy cost of any loan--estimated as a 
     net present value--be recorded as an outlay in the year that 
     the loan is disbursed. But since the bill would require that 
     the three localities pay interest and any additional amounts 
     necessary to offset the risk of default, the subsidy cost of 
     this loan would be zero. Hence, we estimate that the proposed 
     loan would have no effect on outlays.
       Revenues and Direct Spending.--Enactment of this bill would 
     increase governmental receipts from civil and criminal 
     penalties, as well as direct spending from the Crime Victims 
     Fund, but CBO expects that the amounts involved would be 
     insignificant. Any additional amounts deposited into the 
     Crime Victims Fund would be spent in the following year.
       In addition, section 22 of the bill would explicitly waive 
     any federal immunity from administrative orders or civil or 
     administrative fines or penalties assessed under SDWA, and 
     would clarify that federal facilities are subject to 
     reasonable service charges assessed in connection with a 
     federal or state program. This provision of SDWA may 
     encourage states to seek to impose fines and penalties on 
     the federal government under SDWA. If federal agencies 
     contest these fines and penalties, it is possible that 
     payments would have to be made from the government's 
     Claims and Judgments Fund, if not otherwise provided from 
     appropriated funds. The Claims and Judgments Fund is a 
     permanent, open-ended appropriation, and any amounts paid 
     from it would be considered direct spending. CBO cannot 
     predict the number of the dollar amount of judgments 
     against the government that could result from enactment of 
     this bill. Further, we cannot determine whether those 
     judgments would be paid from the Claims and Judgments Fund 
     or from appropriated funds.
       7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting 
     direct spending or receipts through 1998. Enacting S. 1316 
     would increase governmental receipts from civil and criminal 
     penalties, and the spending of such penalties; hence, pay-as-
     you-go provisions would apply. The following table summarizes 
     CBO's estimate of the bill's pay-as-you-go effects.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            1996       1997       1998  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays......................          0          0          0
Change in receipts.....................          0          0          0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: S. 1316 
     would change the process for setting standards for drinking 
     water contaminants, alter requirements for monitoring and 
     treatment, and create state revolving loan funds to provide 
     low-cost financing for public water systems.
       The primary impact of the bill on state and local 
     governments would be to reduce the likely costs of complying 
     with future drinking water regulations. These future 
     regulations would impose significant costs, primarily on 
     local public water systems. The number of severity of these 
     regulations is likely to be less under S. 1316. However, 
     because these regulations are not yet in place, we cannot 
     estimate the magnitude of any savings at this time.
       For example, the bill would change the level at which 
     future standards would be set for drinking water 
     contaminants. By allowing EPA to consider the cost of 
     compliance and the extent of the reduction in risks to health 
     when establishing new standards, the bill would allow less 
     stringent standards to be set in some circumstances and 
     would therefore lower the cost of compliance for local 
     water systems. Again, because these regulations are not 
     yet in place, we cannot estimate the magnitude of any 
     savings, although we expect that they would be 
     significant. 

[[Page S 17736]]

       The bill also would create some new responsibilities 
     (mostly for states), but CBO expects that the cost of these 
     new responsibilities would likely be far less than the 
     potential savings realized from changing the current 
     standard-setting process and altering current monitoring and 
     treatment requirements. Furthermore, the bill extends the 
     authorization of certain existing appropriations and 
     authorizes the appropriation of additional federal funds to 
     help state and local governments meet compliance costs. In 
     total, the bill would authorize over $9.9 billion in funding 
     for state and local governments over fiscal years 1996 to 
     2003 and would make available for spending about $225 million 
     that was previously appropriated in fiscal years 1994 and 
     1995. Assuming the appropriation of these funds, CBO 
     estimates that the bill would likely result in significant 
     net savings to state and local governments.


               Changes Likely to Reduce Compliance Costs

     Standard-setting
       The bill would change the procedures for determining 
     permissible levels of contaminants in drinking water in ways 
     that would likely lower compliance costs for public water 
     systems. First, it would rescind the requirement that the EPA 
     Administrator issue rules for 25 drinking water contaminants 
     every three years. No specific number of contaminants would 
     have to be regulated. Although it is possible that with this 
     change EPA would regulate more contaminants than current law 
     dictates, CBO expects that the agency would regulate fewer 
     contaminants than currently required.
       Second, the bill would allow EPA to set the maximum 
     contaminant level goal (MCLC) for contaminants known or 
     likely to be carcinogens at a level other than zero in some 
     circumstances. MCLGs are concentration levels below which 
     there is thought to be no adverse effect on human health. 
     Under current law, the maximum contaminant level (MCL) is an 
     enforceable standard that is set as close to the MCLG as EPA 
     determines is feasible. Current law requires MCLGs for known 
     or likely carcinogens to be set at zero.
       Third, the bill would give EPA the authority to set MCLs at 
     a level other than the feasible level if using the feasible 
     level would increase the health risks from other 
     contaminants. If EPA uses this authority, it must set the MCL 
     at a level that minimizes the overall health risk. Current 
     law does not allow EPA to consider the effect of new 
     regulations on the concentration of contaminants that are 
     already regulated.
       Fourth, the bill would require that EPA conduct a cost-
     benefit analysis for national primary drinking water 
     regulations before they are proposed. The bill also would 
     require EPA, when proposing a maximum contaminant level, to 
     publish a determination as to whether the benefits of the 
     proposed MCL justify the costs of complying with it. EPA 
     would be given the discretionary authority to establish less 
     stringent standards when it determines that the benefits of 
     an MCL set at the feasible level would not justify the cost 
     of compliance or when it determines that the contaminant 
     occurs almost exclusively in small systems. If EPA uses this 
     discretionary authority, it would have to set the MCL at a 
     level that maximizes health risk reduction at a cost 
     justified by the benefits. While current law requires EPA to 
     perform cost/benefit analyses of new regulations, it does not 
     give the agency the discretion to use those analyses as 
     justification for changing the standards contained in new 
     regulations. These last three changes in current law would 
     give EPA greater discretion to set less stringent standards 
     in future regulations. Any use of that discretion would lower 
     the cost of compliance for public water systems.
       Finally, the bill would establish an MCL for radon and 
     would set specific requirements for regulations governing 
     arsenic and sulfates in drinking water. The impact of these 
     provisions on state and local government budgets is difficult 
     to gauge, since EPA has not yet written final regulations for 
     these contaminants. The bill would require the EPA 
     Administrator to issue an MCL for radon of 3,000 picocuries 
     per liter of water (pCi/Lwater). The impact of this change is 
     difficult to assess because the MCL for radon under current 
     law has not yet been determined. EPA has issued a draft MCL 
     of 300 pCi/Lwater, and agency officials estimate that public 
     drinking water systems serving 17 million people would be 
     required to treat water for radon at that level. Under the 
     higher MCL in the bill, systems serving fewer than 1 million 
     people would have to treat for radon. Without a clear 
     indication of the MCLs EPA would establish for other 
     substances under current law, CBO has no sound basis for 
     estimating the possible savings that would result from these 
     provisions.
     Monitoring
       Section 19 would change monitoring requirements for local 
     water systems in ways that probably would lower compliance 
     costs. First, it would allow the EPA Administrator to waive 
     monitoring requirements for states under certain conditions. 
     Second, it would allow states with primary enforcement 
     responsibility to establish alternative monitoring 
     requirements for some national drinking water regulations. 
     Alternative requirements could apply to all or just some 
     public water systems in the state. Third, this section would 
     give states with primary enforcement responsibility separate 
     authority to establish alternate monitoring requirements 
     specifically for small systems. Fourth, under 
     ``representative monitoring plans'' developed by the states, 
     small and medium water systems would probably monitor for 
     unregulated contaminants less frequently than they would 
     under current law. Finally, this section would direct the EPA 
     Administration to pay the reasonable costs of testing and 
     analysis that small systems incur by carrying out the 
     representative monitoring plans.
     Compliance period, exemptions, and variances
       Section 11 would change the date that primary drinking 
     water regulations become effective from eighteen months to 
     three years after the date of promulgation, unless the EPA 
     Administrator determines that an earlier date is practicable. 
     This change would give water systems more time to install new 
     equipment or take other steps necessary to come into 
     compliance with the new regulation.
       Section 13 would ease the conditions under which a state 
     with primary enforcement responsibility may grant exemptions 
     from primary drinking water regulations. Exemptions are 
     currently given to water systems that, because of 
     ``compelling factors,'' cannot comply with national drinking 
     water regulations. These exemptions must be accompanied by a 
     schedule that indicates when the system will come into 
     compliance with the regulation. This section would 
     specifically provide that a system serving a disadvantaged 
     community may be eligible for an exemption.
       Section 14 of the bill would set out conditions under which 
     small systems could be granted variances from complying with 
     primary drinking water regulations. Variances are currently 
     given to water systems that, because of the quality of their 
     raw water sources, cannot comply with regulations, even after 
     applying the best technology or treatment technique. This 
     section would broaden the qualifying criteria for small water 
     systems, increasing the likelihood that they would be granted 
     variances.


               new requirements that would increase costs

     Conditions of primary
       Several sections of the bill would increase the 
     responsibilities of states only if they choose to accept 
     primary enforcement responsibility for national drinking 
     water regulations. Every state except Wyoming currently has 
     primary enforcement authority. Specifically, primacy states 
     would have to set up new procedures to review applications 
     for variances submitted by small systems and ensure that 
     systems remain eligible for any variances granted. They would 
     also have to establish requirements for the training and 
     certification of operators of public water systems. Beginning 
     in fiscal year 1997, they would have to prepare an annual 
     report for EPA on violations of national primary drinking 
     water regulations committed by their public water systems. 
     Primacy states would also have to consider and act upon 
     consolidation proposals from public water systems.
       These new requirements would entail some costs for primacy 
     states. Based on information from state drinking water 
     officials, CBO believes that if all funds authorized are 
     subsequently appropriated, states would probably receive 
     enough money to pay for these additional requirements.
     Procedures for small systems
       Some provisions of this bill would require all states, 
     whether or not they have accepted primary enforcement 
     responsibility, to institute new procedures that would 
     benefit some water systems. These requirements could impose 
     significant additional costs on the states themselves. For 
     example, section 19 of the bill would require each state to 
     develop a ``representative monitoring plan'' to assess the 
     occurrence of unregulated contaminants in small water 
     systems. Under these plans, only a representative sample of 
     small water systems in each state would be required to 
     monitor for unregulated contaminants. Current law requires 
     all systems to do such monitoring. While these plans could 
     reduce the cost of monitoring for most small systems, they 
     would require extra effort by the states. Based on 
     information from a number of state drinking water officials, 
     CBO believes that if all funds authorized are later 
     appropriated, the states would probably receive enough 
     funding to pay for any additional costs.
       Section 15 of the bill would require each state to take 
     certain actions to ensure that public water systems in the 
     state develop the technical, managerial, and financial 
     capacity to comply with drinking water regulations. States 
     would have to prepare a ``capacity development strategy'' for 
     small water systems as well as a list of systems that have 
     not complied with drinking water regulations. In some 
     circumstances, states would be allowed to spend money from 
     their annual SRF capitalization grant to pay for developing 
     and implementing their strategy.
     Recordkeeping and notification
       The bill includes other provisions that might lead to 
     additional recordkeeping and reporting responsibilities for 
     states and for public water systems. Section 4 would allow 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
     require states and localities to submit monitoring data and 
     other information necessary for developing studies, work 
     plans, or national primary drinking water regulations. This 
     section could increase reporting costs for state and local 
     governments, but on balance the bill would 

[[Page S 17737]]
     likely result in a significant decrease in overall monitoring 
     requirements and costs.
       Section 20 of the bill would substitute more specific 
     legislative requirements for current regulations governing 
     how water systems notify customers of violations of national 
     primary drinking water regulations. For example, this section 
     would add a new requirement that community water systems 
     notify customers of violations by mail. These requirements 
     might result in increased costs for local governments.
     Definition of public water system
       Section 24 would change the definition of ``public water 
     system'' to include systems that provide water for 
     residential use through ``other constructed conveyances.'' 
     This change would make drinking water regulations applicable 
     to some irrigation districts that currently supply water to 
     residential customers by means other than pipes. Districts 
     would not fall under the new definition if alternative water 
     is being provided for residential uses or if the water 
     provided for residential uses is being treated by the 
     provider, a pass-through entity, or the user. Those districts 
     that fall under the new definition could face increased costs 
     for treatment or for providing an alternative water supply.
       CBO is still gathering information on the number of 
     districts that would be affected by this change; however, we 
     believe that because most of the water supplied by these 
     districts is for agricultural uses, the amount of water that 
     they would need to treat would be a small fraction of the 
     water they supply. Furthermore, the bill would allow 
     districts to make residential users of their water 
     responsible for treatment or for obtaining an alternative 
     water supply.


                    authorizations of appropriations

       The bill would authorize the appropriation of over $9.9 
     billion for state and local governments over fiscal years 
     1996 to 2203. The largest authorization would be $8.0 billion 
     for the creation of state revolving loan funds (SRFs). In 
     addition, the bill would make available for spending $225 
     million that was appropriated for the revolving funds in 
     fiscal years 1994 and 1995. If the authorized funds are 
     appropriated, these SRFs would be a significant new source of 
     low-cost infrastructure financing for many public water 
     supply systems. The bill would give states the flexibility to 
     transfer capitalization grant funds between the new safe 
     drinking water SRFs and the SRFs established by the Clean 
     Water Act for financing wastewater treatment facilities.
       The bill would also extend the authorization for grants to 
     the states for public water system supervision (PWSS) 
     programs through fiscal year 2003 at $100 million per year 
     and in some situations would allow states to supplement their 
     PWSS grant by reserving an equal amount from their annual SRF 
     capitalization grant. The PWSS programs implement the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act at the state level through enforcement, 
     staff training, data management, sanitary surveys, and 
     certification of testing laboratories. The fiscal year 1995 
     appropriation for PWSS grants totaled $70 million. Both EPA 
     and the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 
     have found this level of funding to be inadequate to meet the 
     requirements of current law.
       The bill would also allow the District of Columbia, 
     Arlington County, Virginia, and Falls Church, Virginia to 
     enter into agreements to pay the Army Corps of Engineers to 
     modernize the Washington Aqueduct. The Corps estimates that 
     the modernization would cost about $275 million in 1995 
     dollars and would take around seven years to complete. The 
     terms of the agreements are subject to negotiation, but it is 
     likely that payment of principal and interest would begin 
     within two or three years and would be spread out over thirty 
     years. The three localities would raise the necessary funds 
     by increasing the water rates paid by their customers. The 
     localities' respective shares of the costs would be roughly 
     as follows: District of Columbia (75 percent), Arlington 
     County (15 percent), and Falls Church (10 percent).
       9. Estimate comparison: None.
       10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
       11. Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: Kim Cawley 
     and Stephanie Weiner. State and Local Government Cost 
     Estimate: Pepper Santalucia.
       12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
     Director for Budget Analysis.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I can state, based on that letter from 
the Congressional Budget Office, that there are no new unfunded Federal 
mandates, and, in fact, as they pointed out, we will significantly 
reduce the cost to the local and State governments based on the 
legislation, S. 1316.
  Again, I think it is important to note that while that act does not 
go into effect until January 1, we are complying with it today. And 
that is as it should be.
  Another point I would like to make is the fact that I think our State 
and local officials have made it very clear that one of their most 
important responsibilities to their constituents is to assure their 
constituents that their drinking water is safe and it is affordable. 
Therefore, on many, many occasions during the course of the crafting of 
this legislation, a coalition representing the State and local 
governments, the different entities that provide the waters to 
different customers were part of the discussions. I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record a series of letters, letters from 
the National Governors' Association, the National Association of 
Counties, the National Conference of State Legislators, National League 
of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and a variety of other 
organizations, pointing out their strong support for this legislation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         National Governors' Association, National Association of 
           Counties, National Conference of State Legislatures, 
           National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors,
                                                 November 9, 1995.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: As elected representatives of 
     state and local government, we are writing to express our 
     strong support for S. 1316, the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1995, as it was reported by the Committee on 
     Environment and Public Works. We ask for your help in passing 
     this legislation into law without extraneous or substantive 
     amendments. As you know, EPA has indicated that the drinking 
     water law is broken and that reform of the statute is a top 
     priority. Collectively our organizations agree that reform of 
     this program is of critical importance, and we have made such 
     reform our highest collective priority for this year. In many 
     respects, the current law is unfocused, arbitrary, and 
     imposes unacceptable costs on our citizens without 
     appreciable benefits. S. 1316 makes important improvements in 
     the law and deserves your support.
       As a bottom line, S. 1316 makes the drinking water program 
     more effective in protecting public health. In her September 
     27 letter to Senator Baucus, EPA Administrator Browner 
     outlined her views on what a new drinking water law should 
     do. We believe S. 1316 satisfies those concerns. In 
     particular, this bill:
       Helps prevent contamination of drinking water supplies by 
     creating the first framework for water suppliers to work in 
     partnership with those whose activities affect water 
     supplies.
       Provides assistance to help build the financial, 
     managerial, and technical capacity of drinking water systems.
       Assures that drinking water standards address the highest 
     risks by directing EPA to set priorities and to establish 
     standards for contaminants that occur in drinking water.
       Allows EPA to consider both costs and benefits in 
     developing new drinking water regulations, as EPA has 
     recommended.
       Provides much needed funds to help communities improve 
     drinking water facilities.
       Finally, but not least important, the bill addresses the 
     problems of many of our smaller communities by requiring EPA 
     to identify appropriate health-protective technologies for 
     small water systems.
       The bill represents countless hours of negotiation and 
     compromise among the various interests, including EPA. While 
     no party gets all that they want from such a process, the 
     final product is balanced and reasonable.
       We are concerned about two amendments that may be offered 
     on the floor. One would require all water systems to report 
     on contaminants found in the water at levels that do not 
     violate the federal standards. The bill as drafted and 
     current law require reporting and public notification when a 
     standard is breached. In addition, water systems will be 
     required to report on monitoring for unregulated contaminants 
     in order to provide EPA with data on occurrence. States 
     already have authority to require additional reporting, and 
     some do. We support those provisions. However, additional 
     mandatory reporting would be burdensome and serve no good 
     purpose, and we cannot support them.
       A second amendment may be offered allowing EPA to avoid 
     analysis and public comment requirements when EPA declares an 
     urgent threat to public health. The bill as drafted, combined 
     with provisions of existing law, allows EPA to react quickly 
     to protect the public in the event of an urgent threat. The 
     authorities for quick action include the emergency powers, 
     urgent threat to public health, and public notification 
     requirements of the current law and this bill. Faced with an 
     urgent threat, the Administrator can--and must--act quickly 
     to protect the public. Moreover, all Governors also have 
     authority to take emergency action to protect public health. 
     However, even the quickest action should not be blind with 
     respect to good science, the costs and benefits of that 
     action, or the effect of that action on other contaminants.
       We have seen no evidence that the analysis required by S. 
     1316 would slow EPA's response to an urgent threat, while the 
     chance of mistakes dramatically increases when action is 
     taken in haste. The cost of such mistakes can be very high, 
     and could include costs of over-reaction, under-reaction, 
     addressing the wrong risk, or addressing a risk 

[[Page S 17738]]
     in the wrong way. Those are the very mistakes that the analysis 
     required by the bill is designed to avoid. The EPA should not 
     take shortcuts even when quick action is needed, and the 
     public and the regulated community should have the right to 
     see EPA's analysis before standards are proposed.
       We hope you understand how important this bill is to state 
     and local governments and to the citizens we represent, and 
     hope you will help move this bill to final passage.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Fife Symington,
       Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.
     Governor George V. Voinovich,
       Lead Governor on Federalism.
     Governor E. Benjamin Nelson,
       Vice Chair, Committee on Natural Resources.
     Douglas R. Bovin,
       President, National Association of Counties.
                                                                    ____

                                              Office of the Mayor,


                                              City of Chicago,

                                                 November 2, 1995.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     Chairman, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
         Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife, 
         Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to express my support of 
     your Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization bill (S. 1316).
       As you know, the City of Chicago like other local 
     governments, is plagued by unfunded federal mandates, many of 
     which stem from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Current law 
     makes blanket assumptions about the threats and conditions 
     facing municipalities and issues the same rules for every 
     city regardless of its unique circumstances. As a result, 
     Chicago has spent a significant amount of time and money to 
     comply with mandates that do not reflect the concerns of its 
     water system. These mandates are consuming resources that our 
     budget will not allow us to spend unwisely, and our citizens 
     should not be saddled with unnecessary increases in the price 
     they pay for safe drinking water.
       In an effort to conserve our scarce resources, I have been 
     actively involved in the fight to reduce the burden of 
     unfunded federal mandates on local governments. The standard 
     setting process for safe drinking water is an issue that I 
     strongly believe needs improvement. I am pleased to see that 
     your bill addresses this issue by directing the EPA to set 
     drinking water priorities and to set standards for 
     contaminants that are present in our water. I also commend 
     you for recognizing the need for a cost-benefit analysis in 
     setting these drinking water standards.
       Your bill will enable the City to use its resources more 
     efficiently and will allow the Water Department to take more 
     effective steps to guard against contamination that may pose 
     a real risk to the citizens of Chicago. For these reasons, I 
     thank you not only for your insight but also for your 
     leadership on this important piece of legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard M. Daley,
     Mayor.
                                                                    ____



                                 California Water Service Co.,

                                   San Jose, CA, October 20, 1995.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: As you may know, on October 12, a 
     bipartisan group of Senators introduced S. 1316, the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995. I urge you to lend 
     your support to this important bill by signing on as 
     cosponsor.
       S. 1316 adds needed flexibility to the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act (the Act) while preserving the Act's strong public health 
     protections. It improves the method for choosing and setting 
     drinking water standards; encourages states to prevent the 
     formation of--and consolidate--nonviable water systems (which 
     are responsible for the vast majority of water quality 
     violations); places greater emphasis on source water 
     protection; and directs EPA to place a priority on research 
     into cryptosporidium and at risk subpopulations.
       These reforms are badly needed. Without them, Californians 
     face considerable incremental increases in their water bills 
     over the next few years without concomitant increase in 
     public health protections. For example, it would cost an 
     estimated $500 million for San Francisco to build a 
     filtration plant to treat one of the most pristine water 
     supplies in the world. California consumers would pay between 
     $3 and $4 billion in up front costs and about $600 million 
     annually to comply with the proposed radon regulation if 
     adopted unchanged. Yet merely by opening the window, they 
     will be exposed to higher levels of radon.
       Nationwide, water utilities have spent billions of dollars 
     a year to ensure the safety of their customers' supply. Large 
     expenditures life these were made even before passage of the 
     Act in 1974 and will continue to be made with or without 
     changes to it. However, with the outlook for retail water 
     costs in California increasing, additional treatment costs 
     should not be imposed on our customers unless they are 
     necessary to enhance public health protections.
       The California Water Service Company is the State's largest 
     investor-owned water utility serving 1.5 million people in 38 
     communities around California. On their behalf, I appreciate 
     your interest in this issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Donald L. Houck,
     President.
                                                                    ____



                                   St. Louis County Water Co.,

                                  St. Louis, MO, October 24, 1995.
     Attention: Tracy Henke.
     Hon. Kit Bond,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Bond: Senator Kempthorne recently introduced 
     The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995, (S. 1316), 
     which already has received bipartisan support from many of 
     your colleagues. Last week Gurnie Gunter of the Kansas City 
     Water Department provided testimony before the Senate 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works in support of this 
     legislation. I agree with Gurnie, as do most of the water 
     utility people I know.
       This legislation represents significant improvement over 
     current law, would ensure increased protection of public 
     health, and clearly represents the consensus reached only 
     after long hours of deliberations. S. 1316 would target high 
     risk contaminants, require the use of better scientific 
     analysis, and target funds to much needed research. 
     Furthermore, the bill would repeal unnecessary monitoring 
     requirements and other wasteful SDWA provisions which drain 
     funds from real public health protection.
       The bill has been endorsed by associations representing 
     state and local elected officials all across the country, and 
     contains many provisions which the EPA has been advocating in 
     a SDWA reauthorization.
       For these reasons, I encourage you to cosponsor this 
     important reauthorization bill. I would also like to make my 
     staff available to your staff should clarification be needed 
     in the technical areas of the bill.
       I appreciate your attention to this matter, and look 
     forward to hearing from you.
           Sincerely,
                                                     A. M. Tinkey,
     President.
                                                                    ____

                                                 October 24, 1995.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Drinking Water, Fisheries, and 
         Wildlife, Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned agricultural and 
     agribusiness organizations are pleased to comment on S. 1316, 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995, and in 
     particular Section 17, ``Source Water Quality Protection 
     Partnerships.'' The petition program in Section 17, which 
     Subcommittee Chairman Dirk Kempthorne took the lead in 
     crafting, successfully builds on a similar provision authored 
     in the last congress by Senators John Warner and Kent Conrad, 
     and adopted by the Senate. We certainly appreciate your 
     efforts to resolve agricultural concerns during development 
     of the Section 17 language. If implemented as envisioned, 
     this petition program contains the foundation for voluntary 
     partnerships involving state and local governments and 
     agriculture.
       Importantly, the new petition program is not intended to 
     create new bureaucracies, a mini-Clean Water Act, or a new 
     layer of regulatory mandates imposed on farmers and other 
     stakeholders. Section 17 avoids a heavy-handed, ``top down'' 
     regulatory approach in which economic viability is ignored 
     and farmers could become victims. Instead, States have the 
     option of establishing a petition program. States may respond 
     to petitions where appropriate by facilitating locally 
     developed, voluntary partnerships through technical 
     assistance and financial incentives available under existing 
     water quality, farm bill and other programs, plus funds from 
     the new drinking water SRF as provided for in S. 1316. The 
     petition process is a common-sense, problem-solving approach 
     which offers farmers and other stakeholders the opportunity 
     to work with their local communities as partners. There are a 
     growing number of success stories in which local communities 
     and farmers are already working together in voluntary 
     partnerships to resolve drinking water problems.
       We look forward to working with members of the Committee 
     and the Senate in ensuring that the petition process in S. 
     1316 maintains its voluntary and problem-solving objectives.
           Sincerely,
       Agricultural Retailers Association.
       American Association of Nurserymen.
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Feed Industry Association.
       American Sheep Industry Association.
       American Soybean Association.
       Equipment Manufacturers Institute.
       Farmland Industries, Inc.
       National Association of Conservation Districts.
       National Association of Wheat Growers.
       National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
       National Cattlemen's Association.
       National Cotton Council.
       National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.

[[Page S 17739]]

       National Grange.
       National Pork Producers Council.
       National Potato Council.
                                                                    ____



                              American Farm Bureau Federation,

                                 Washington, DC, October 13, 1995.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The American Farm Bureau Federation would 
     like to take this opportunity to thank you for your strong 
     support of agriculture in developing the source water 
     protection provisions in the Kempthorne/Chafee Safe Drinking 
     Water Act reauthorization bill.
       Farm Bureau supports the incorporation of a voluntary 
     sources water provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Your 
     petition program will establish these voluntary partnerships 
     between state and local governments, helping agriculture 
     create a positive approach for solve water quality problems. 
     An important aspect of this program is that it does not 
     create new regulations or bureaucracies. Rather it provides a 
     means for a community or water supplier who is experiencing 
     water quality trouble to solve the problem with the help of 
     stakeholders using programs and resources that are currently 
     available under existing laws. This is a very practical 
     solution in addressing water quality needs.
       We thank you and your staff again for your leadership and 
     responsiveness in addressing this issue.
           Sincerely,

                                           Richard W. Newpher,

                                               Executive Director,
     Washington Office.
                                                                    ____



                                        United Water Delaware,

                                 Wilmington, DE, October 13, 1995.
     Senator Dirk Kempthorne,
     Chairman, Senate Drinking Water, Fisheries, and Wildlife 
         Subcommittee, Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.
       Hon. Senator Kempthorne: As Manager of United Water 
     Delaware, I am writing to support your proposed Safe Drinking 
     Water Act Amendments of 1995. As purveyor of water to some 
     100,000 people in the Wilmington, DE area, the re-
     authorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act is very 
     important to me and UWD's customers in Delaware and 
     Pennsylvania.
       I feel that this bill will renew the partnership between 
     the water purveyors and the State; re-establish confidence in 
     EPA; and help make safe, adequate water supplies available to 
     all Americans.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 Robert P. Walker,
     Manager.
                                                                    ____



                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                    Rutland, VT, October 23, 1995.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Senator Kempthorne: Thank you once again for your most 
     successful efforts to craft a bipartisan set of amendments to 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act. Thank you also for giving me, 
     the NLC and NACO an opportunity to offer testimony last week.
       A great many people have worked for years to strengthen the 
     protection of public health through the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act. As someone who is on the front line of this fight. I 
     want you to know how deeply your leadership and legislative 
     craftsmanship are appreciated. Put bluntly, in the current 
     political climate, it could not have been without you.
       I am now confident that this Congress will enact amendments 
     that will protect both the taxpayer's wallets and the public 
     health. Please share my sentiments with Meg and everyone on 
     your staff who contributed to this remarkable effort.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Jeff Wennberg,
     Mayor of Rutland.
                                                                    ____

                                             Alabama Department of


                                     Environmental Management,

                                 Montgomery, AL, October 25, 1995.
     Re: Senate bill 1316.
     Hon. Richard Shelby,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Shelby. As you are aware, hearings were held 
     on Senate Bill 1316, reauthorization of the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act, on October 19, 1995.
       Staff of the Department have reviewed this bill and 
     previously provided input through the National Governor's 
     Association and the Association of State Drinking Water 
     Administrators noting our satisfaction with the language as 
     presented. Lack of flexibility properly administer the Safe 
     Drinking Water Program has caused water systems in Alabama to 
     spend excessively on monitoring without an associated 
     increase in public health protection. The passage of 
     reauthorization will greatly benefit the water systems of 
     Alabama and not only provide a safer quality of drinking 
     water but a better environment for our citizens. I urge you 
     to co-sponsor this bill and provide support for its passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                    James W. Warr,
     Acting Director.
                                                                    ____

                                                Tulsa Metropolitan


                                          Utilities Authority,

                                      Tulsa, OK, November 1, 1995.
     Hon. James M. Inhofe,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Inhofe: On behalf of the Tulsa Metropolitan 
     Utility Authority, I am writing to thank you for your 
     cosponsorship of S. 1316, the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1995. We feel that S. 1316 is a significant 
     improvement over current law in that it increases the 
     likelihood that contaminants of real concern to the public 
     will be addressed. We feel S. 1316 will achieve this goal by 
     doing the following:
       Using solid science as a standard setting basis;
       Authorizing adequate funding for health effects research;
       Securing the publics right to know;
       Establishing a reasonable compliance time frame;
       Ensuring that drinking water standards address the highest 
     priorities for risk reduction;
       Setting up a framework and authorizing funds for source 
     water protection partnerships.
       By supporting this bill, we recognize you are focusing your 
     attention as well as the state of Oklahoma's attention on 
     public health protection. Water quality is important to us 
     all; consequently, we feel that S. 1316 is a step in the 
     right direction to achieving better drinking water. We ask 
     that you continue your support of S. 1316 and the pursuit of 
     other supporters for the improvement of drinking water. We 
     truly believe S. 1316 will not only benefit the water quality 
     of Tulsa and the State of Oklahoma, but it will also benefit 
     the water quality of the entire country.
       Thank you again for your support and continued pursuit of 
     this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Sandra Alexander,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                                Tulsa Metropolitan


                                            Utility Authority,

                                                 November 1, 1995.
     Hon. Don Nickles,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Nickles: On behalf of the Tulsa Metropolitan 
     Utility Authority, I am writing to ask for your support of S. 
     1316, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995. By 
     supporting this bill, you would be focusing your attention as 
     well as the state of Oklahoma's attention on public health 
     protection. We here at the TMUA support S. 1316 and believe 
     it represents a significant improvement over current law by 
     increasing the likelihood that contaminants of real concern 
     to the public will be addressed. We believe it would do this 
     by achieving the following:
       Ensuring that drinking water standards address the highest 
     priorities for risk reduction;
       Utilizing solid science as a basis for standard setting;
       Authorizing adequate funding for health effects research;
       Securing the publics right-to-know;
       Establishing a reasonable compliance timeframe;
       Setting up a framework and authorizing funds for source 
     water protection partnerships.
       Water quality is of utmost importance to us, and we feel 
     that the current bill up for approval by the Senate meets the 
     current water quality needs in an adequate manner. We would 
     greatly appreciate your support on S. 1316 and hope you will 
     continue to pursue what is best for Oklahoma.
       Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Sandra Alexander,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                       Association of Metropolitan


                                               Water Agencies,

                                Washington, DC, November 15, 1995.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: On behalf of the Association of 
     Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), I would like to urge you 
     to support S. 1316, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
     1995. The bill, which makes essential reforms to the nation's 
     drinking water law, was developed through a bipartisan effort 
     and has the backing of the major drinking water supply 
     organizations as well as State and local governments.
       S. 1316 improves the current statute in several meaningful 
     ways. The bill establishes a rational approach to selecting 
     contaminants for future regulation, greatly improves the 
     scientific bases for establishing maximum contaminant levels, 
     and modifies the existing mechanism for setting standards by 
     providing EPA with the discretion to apply a benefit-cost 
     justification under certain circumstances. In addition, the 
     bill allows EPA to balance risks when considering the 
     development of standards and applies this risk balancing 
     authority to regulation of disinfectants, disinfection by-
     products and microbial contaminants. The risk trade-off 
     authority is particularly important given the public health 
     and cost implications of controlling contaminants whose 
     treatment, by its very nature, may result in unintended 
     increased public health risks.
       AMWA also urges you to support passage of S. 1316 without 
     significant amendments. The bill contains many compromises 
     that continues the Act's focus on public health protection 
     but also addresses many problems with the statute from a 
     variety of perspectives. Amendments that shift this balance 
     could serve to undermine the bill's support.

[[Page S 17740]]

       We urge you to support S. 1316.
       Thank you for your consideration of this very important 
     matter. If you need any additional information or have any 
     questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Diane VanDe Hei,
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____



                                           Citizens Utilities,

                                   Sun City, AZ, November 6, 1995.
     Hon. John Kyl,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kyl: I am writing on behalf of Citizens 
     Utilities Company (``Citizens'') regarding proposed 
     legislation, Senator Kempthorne recently introduced the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995 (S. 1316) which already 
     has received bipartisan support from many of your colleagues. 
     Citizens strongly supports this reauthorization bill.
       In the state of Arizona, Citizens provides water and 
     wastewater utility services to approximately 105,000 
     customers in Maricopa, Mohave, and Santa Cruz Counties. We 
     are the largest contiguous investor-owned water/wastewater 
     utility company in the State of Arizona. Among our service 
     areas are the world-renowned, master-planned retirement 
     communities of Sun City, Sun City West, and Del Webb's newest 
     project, Sun City Grand.
       This legislation represents significant improvement over 
     current law, would ensure increased protection of public 
     health, and clearly represents the consensus reached only 
     after long hours of deliberations. S. 1316 would target high 
     risk contaminants, require the use of better scientific 
     analysis, and target funds to much needed research. 
     Furthermore, the bill would repeal unnecessary monitoring 
     requirements and other wasteful SDWA provisions which drain 
     funds from real public health protection.
       The bill has been endorsed by associations representing 
     state and local elected officials all across the country, and 
     it contains many provisions which the EPA has been advocating 
     in an SDWA reauthorization.
       Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing 
     information. I look forward to hearing from you regarding 
     this important piece of legislation.
           Very truly yours,
                                              Fred L. Kriess, Jr.,
     General Manager.
                                                                    ____



                                  Illinois-American Water Co.,

                                 Belleville, IL, October 18, 1995.
     Hon. Carol Moseley-Braun,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moseley-Braun: I am writing to urge you to 
     cosponsor S. 1316, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
     1995. The bipartisan bill was introduced by Senator 
     Kempthorne with 23 cosponsors including Senator Dole 
     (Majority Leader) and Senator Daschle (Minority Leader).
       As the guardian of safe drinking water in Pekin, Peoria, 
     Alton, East St. Louis, Belleville, Granite City and Cairo, 
     Illinois-American Water Company believes S. 1316 is a major 
     step forward in the direction of better public health; safer 
     drinking water; and more responsive government. The reforms 
     contained in this bill represent a common sense solution that 
     supports both environmental protection and regulatory reform.
       S. 1316 strengthens the scientific basis for establishing 
     drinking water standards; targets regulatory resources 
     towards greater public health risks and away from trivial 
     risks; establishes a stable, forward-looking framework for 
     addressing longer term drinking water issues; funds new 
     mandates while reducing existing mandates that don't work; 
     establishes a source water protection program; provides 
     authorization for a drinking water state revolving fund; and 
     provides for an improved federal-state partnership.
       S. 1316 is supported by national organizations representing 
     governors, mayors, other state and local elected officials, 
     state drinking water regulators, and public water suppliers--
     virtually all those responsible for assuring the safety of 
     America's drinking water.
       It is important that we focus our resources on the overall 
     interest of the public and not simply react to political 
     rhetoric.
       Thank you for your time and consideration. If we can 
     provide additional information for you please contact us.
           Sincerely,
     Ray Lee, President.
                                                                    ____



                                     Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.,

                                Bridgeport, CT., October 13, 1995.
     Hon. Christopher J. Dodd,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Russell Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Dodd: We understand that on October 12, 1995, 
     Senators Kempthorne and Chafee introduced S. 1316, ``The Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995.'' This bill has bi-
     partisan support from the leadership of both parties in the 
     Senate and has been endorsed by members of the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act Coalition, which represents state and local 
     governments and public water suppliers.
       S. 1316 makes substantial improvements in the current law, 
     particularly how contaminants will be selected for regulation 
     and requiring a cost benefit analysis for risk assessment. We 
     believe when enacted, S. 1316 will help provide American 
     consumers with safe, high-quality water at a reasonable 
     price.
       Since this bill will provide reasonable, risk reducing 
     water regulations, we urge you to become one of its co-
     sponsors. Thanks for your consideration.
           Sincerely,

                                            Larry L. Bingaman,

                                                   Vice President,
     Corporate Relations and Secretary.
                                                                    ____



                                Idaho Rural Water Association,

                                     Lewiston, ID, March 13, 1995.
     Hon. Dirk Kempthorne,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Kempthorne: On behalf of over 187 rural and 
     small communities in Idaho, we want to thank you for your 
     commitment to pass a revised Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
       The federal Safe Drinking Water Act has proven to be one of 
     the most expensive and most arbitrary federal mandates that 
     has been placed on rural communities. All water systems small 
     and large must follow the same ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL federal 
     requirements regardless of the history and/or previously 
     tested quality of their water.
       We urge you to pass the SDWA that corrects the over 
     regulation of small and rural communities. No one is more 
     concerned about ensuring public health protection than rural 
     communities with water systems, but specific changes need to 
     be made to make the law workable.
       For a bill to benefit small and rural communities, the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act should:
       1. Provide small communities with increased technical 
     assistance. This is what works in the field to help small 
     systems with the mandates. Small systems have the most 
     difficulty complying with the SDWA because of limited budgets 
     and big system requirements. Through the thick and thin of 
     the federal SDWA regulations, small and rural systems have 
     relied on their state rural technical assistance program to 
     help each other try to meet these ever increasing mandates. 
     This program needs to be strengthened.
       2. No more federal regulation requirements. The revised law 
     should not include new requirements because EPA cannot even 
     manage the existing requirements. Viability, or the way a 
     system operates in order to meet standards, should not be 
     subject to federal regulatory definition. Our state can 
     manage its small systems. Rural consumers have to pay for all 
     the good ideas that come out of Washington. Giving the 
     federal bureaucracy authority over determining the criteria 
     for management and operations of local municipal water 
     systems will only increase burden on water operators and 
     local elected officials.
       3. Urgent-Monitoring relief. We estimate that 20 to 25 
     percent of Idaho's small communities did not utilize the 1993 
     Chafee Lautenberg monitoring relief and therefore will have 
     to complete four samples of Phase II/V monitoring in 1995. 
     Please extend this one-test relief provision.
       4. The enclosed signatures were gathered during the Idaho 
     Rural Water Association's annual meeting. The 54 names on the 
     petition represent approximately 140,992 citizens of small 
     rural communities in Idaho. They support the above mentioned 
     three items. They also appreciate your effort to pass a 
     revised SDWA that is fair and workable and provides them the 
     opportunity to provide clean, safe, affordable drinking water 
     to their citizens.
           Sincerely,
                                      Kenneth Gortsema, President.
       Enclosure.

  Idaho Rural Water Association Letter to Senator Kempthorne--Signers

       Roy Cook, Coeur o'Alene, vendor.
       Robert Cuber, City of Jerome, (pop. 7,049), water 
     superintendent.
       Helen Smith, LOFD Lewiston, (pop. 6,000), board member.
       Frank Groseclose, City of Juliaetta, (pop. 500), 
     maintenance supervisor.
       Jeanette Turner, Clarkia, (pop. 70), director/secretary.
       Fred Turner, Clarkia, (pop. 70), maintenance.
       Robert L. Luedke Jr., City of Gowesee, (pop. 800), city 
     supervisor.
       Jeanette Turner, Clarkia, (pop. 70), board member.
       Fred Turner, Clarkia, (pop. 70), maintenance.
       Jerry Lewis, Bonner County, (pop. 115), owner.
       Roberto J. Lopez, Lapwai, (pop. 250), water maintenance.
       Jim Richards, City of Pierce, (pop. 800), maintenance.
       Andy Steut, City of Spiritlake, (pop. 1,500), maintenance.
       Mark Kriner, Pocatello Idaho, (pop. 60,000), vice president 
     Caribon Acres water.
       Ted A. Swanson, Pocatello Idaho, (pop. 60,000), Swanson 
     construction.
       Nathan Marvin, City of Weiser, (pop. 4,800), public works 
     superintendent.
       Larry Kubick, Fernwood water district, (pop. 450), 
     operator/maintenance/supervisor.
       Steve Howerton, City of Kendrick, (pop. 350), maintenance/
     supervisor.
       Kelly Frazier, City of Kooskia, (pop. 700), public works 
     superintendent.
       Alvena Gellinos, L.O. irrigation district, (pop. 3,800A.), 
     Billing clerk.
       ------ ------, City of Lapivai, (pop. 1,000), city clerk.
       Daeline Pfaff, Fort Hall (townsite), (pop. 150), board 
     member.
       Shelley Ponozzo, L.O.I.D. Lewiston, Id,, (pop. 6,000), 
     accountant/office manager.

[[Page S 17741]]

       Irvin Hardy, Rupert Id., (pop. 5,200), water 
     superintendent.
       Bob Paffile, CDA, board member/vice president.
       Robert Smith, New Meadows, (pop. 600), water 
     superintendent.
       Buzz Hardy, Rapid River water and sewer, (pop. 42), 
     district president.
       Paul Stokes, Solmon, Idaho, (pop. 3,000), water treatment.
       Steve Kimberling, Orofino ID, (pop. 2,500), water 
     maintenance.
       Richard Whiting, City of Victor ID., (pop. 600), water 
     superintendent.
       Jim Condit, City of Spirit Lake, (pop. 1,500), water waste 
     water.
       Rhonda Wilcox, City of Harrison, (pop. 226), water 
     maintenance.
       Phil Tschida, City of Horseshoe Bend, (pop. 720), water 
     maintenance superintendent.
       Ed Miller, CSC water district Kellogg, (pop. 3,000), water 
     operator.
       Virgil W. Leedy, City of Weiser, (pop. 4,500), water 
     superintendent.
       Dan Waldo, Kingston water, (pop. 180), manager.
       Todd Zimmermann, Avondale Irrigation District, (pop. 
     1,700), manager.
       Joe Podrabsky, City of Lewiston, (pop. 5,500), water 
     operator.
       Ken Rawson, City of Lewiston, (pop. 5,500), water operator.
       Mike Curtiss, City of Grangeville, (pop. 3,300), water 
     superintendent.
       John Shields, Kootenai county water district, (pop. 170), 
     manager.
       Dave Owsley, Dworshak N.F.H., engineer.
       Ray Crawford, Winchester, (pop. 380), maintenance.
       Rodney Cook, Juliaetta, (pop. 480), maintenance.
       Jack Fuest, Culdesac, (pop. 420), maintenance.
       Brian Ellison, Troy, (pop. 800), maintenance.
       David C. Shears Sr., Cottonwood, (pop. 850), maintenance.
       Dave Fuzzell, Cottonwood, (pop. 850), maintenance.
       Robert Jones, Lewiston, (pop. 28,000), maintenance.
       Renee McMillen, Lewiston, (pop. 28,000), water operator.
       Bob Faling, Lewiston, (pop. 28,000), water maintenance.
       Lonnie Woodbridge, Arco, (pop. 1,000), maintenance.
       Dale W. Anderson, Harwood, (pop. 80), maintenance.
       Eugene J. Pfoff, Fort Hall (townsite), maintenance).
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I remember, Mr. President, on one occasion at a 
particular meeting somebody who was part of the Federal establishment 
saying, ``Well, if we do not have the Federal Government absolutely 
through regulation watch out for everything dealing with safe drinking 
water, who in the world will?'' It is because of that same Federal 
mentality--somehow somebody thinks only the Federal Government can be 
the guardian of the well-being of this country--I remind all of us we 
are the United States. We are not the Federal Government of America. 
There are 50 sovereign States that comprise this Union, and those 
Governors and those legislators and, within those States, those county 
commissioners and those mayors, they care about their people. If you 
had a situation in a community where there would be an outbreak of 
water contamination that would be life threatening, those elected 
officials would have a serious problem, not only the serious problem of 
immediately dealing with the life-threatening situation but they also 
probably would have a political problem because their constituents are 
not going to allow someone to somehow jeopardize the safety of that 
water which the children of that community are going to drink.
  We have talked about cryptosporidium, the fact that it was not 
regulated in 1993 when there was an outbreak and 104 people died from 
that particular outbreak, and yet today cryptosporidium is still not 
regulated. We are going to change that, and this legislation allows us 
to improve, therefore, public safety and public health, and we are 
going to do it at less cost. We are going to provide flexibility to 
States and local communities, but we are going to then be able to 
target life-threatening contaminants such as cryptosporidium and go 
after those contaminants instead of contaminants that pose absolutely 
no health risk and yet require these communities to spend their finite 
dollars on expensive monitoring systems. If this is not in keeping with 
what this Congress is trying to do, I do know what is.
  So I am pleased that we do have S. 1316 before us. I am pleased that 
in the Environment and Public Works Committee all 16 members of that 
committee, bipartisan, support this legislation, as well as the fact 
the leadership on both sides of the aisle, the majority leader and the 
Democratic leader, supports this legislation. We are currently working 
with some Senators who have proposals, amendments that they are 
suggesting would improve this particular legislation. We will work with 
them. I believe that we can resolve that. But again this is another 
significant step forward in our role as partners with State and local 
governments, working on behalf of the people of the United States of 
America.
  With that, Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to proceed as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________