[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 189 (Wednesday, November 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17764-S17767]
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. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are in the process of talking about the 
Safe Drinking Water Act now, I understand?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. THOMAS. Good. I would like to do that.
  Mr. President, I want to speak in behalf of this bill. I think it is 
one that is very important to all of us, certainly important to my 
State. I congratulate Senator Kempthorne and Senator Chafee and Senator 
Baucus for the hard work and long time that has gone into it. This is 
an important bill. It has been very long in coming. Last year in the 
House we worked on this bill. I think it reflects a good deal of 
thoughtful consideration. Therefore, I believe it deserves the support 
of Members of this Senate.
  It has been an inclusive process in which many people with many 
interests have been involved. It is important that be the case. We are 
talking here about a program that affects us all over the country, a 
country in which the effects are quite different. Certainly some of the 
small towns in Wyoming have different problems than Pittsburgh or Los 
Angeles, and one of the efforts we have to make is to make it flexible 
enough to reflect that. I think this bill does that. Overregulation, 
certainly, has been on the minds of most people. It is much on the 
minds of the people I talk to in Wyoming. People are weary of the top-
down kinds of regulations, that one-size-fits-all sort of thing. It is 
difficult to deal with that. I think this bill attempts to do that and 
does so in a very effective way.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act, as it has been, has been an example of 
the old approach, regulating substances that do not even occur in 
drinking water and do not pose a risk in particular areas. I always 
think of the efforts we made in Pinedale, WY, which has a water supply. 
There is a very deep lake that is close. Even though the testing would 
show that water was of excellent quality, they were, at least 
ostensibly, required to invest a great deal of their taxpayers' money 
to do some things that probably were not necessary.

  So people have asked for change and a new direction. The principle 
guiding this change is common sense. That is what I think we seek to do 
here, and the sponsors of the bill have done so, I think, successfully. 
It injects much-needed common sense into the regulatory process while 
doing a better job at protecting public health.
  The current mandate that 25 contaminants be regulated every 3 years 
regardless of whether there is a risk is repealed. The risk assessment 
is inserted into the process. States' roles are increased. Water 
systems are able to focus their efforts and their resources monitoring 
contaminants that actually occur in the systems. And that is good. In a 
word, the bill shatters the status quo.
  I again thank the sponsors for their attention to a State like 
Wyoming, which is different--small towns, different sources. So we have 
worked closely with Senators Kempthorne and Chafee to ensure that our 
communities did have the opportunity to take advantage of the funding 
mechanisms and the regulatory relief that this bill provides. I thank 
them for that.
  In addition, the small systems, as defined in this bill as those 
serving under 10,000, will be given special consideration when seeking 
ways to comply with the regulations.
  The bill is not perfect, of course, and there has been a great deal 
of effort going on each day, and some things needed to be changed. But 
overall the bill is an excellent one, and is an effort that will reduce 
the cost to local communities, municipalities but allowing them to 
protect effectively.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I hope the other body 
will act quickly, and the President will support our efforts. This bill 
is needed and we ought to move forward, and I urge that.
  Mr. President, thank you. I yield the floor.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for 
his statement on the floor, and I also thank him for his great support 
in the Environment and Public Works Committee. We are very happy to 
have him as a cosponsor, and his addition to that committee on behalf 
of the voices of small town America and rural communities is extremely 
helpful. We thank him.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. I also want to thank the distinguished Senator from 
Wyoming for his kind comments and for his help on this legislation. He 
is a very valuable member of our committee, and we appreciate 
everything he has done to help with this.


                           Amendment No. 3077

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senators Kempthorne, 
Baucus, Reid, D'Amato, and Moynihan, I send to the desk a printed 
amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. CHAFEE), for himself, 
     and Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Reid, Mr. D'Amato and Mr. 
     Moynihan proposes an amendment numbered 3077.

  Mr. CHAFEE. 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:

       On page 168, line 7, strike ``ground water protection'' and 
     insert ``watershed and ground water protection''.
       On page 173, after line 7, insert the following:
       ``(g) Watershed Protection Demonstration Program.--
       ``(1) The heading of section 1443 (42 U.S.C.) is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``grants for state and local programs
       ``(2) Section 1443 (42 U.S.C.) is amended by adding at the 
     end thereof the following:
       ``(e) Watershed Protection Demonstration Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--
       ``(A) Assistance for demonstration projects.--The 
     Administrator is authorized to provide technical and 
     financial assistance to units of State or local government 
     for projects that demonstrate and assess innovative and 
     enhanced methods and practices to develop and implement 
     watershed protection programs including methods and practices 
     that protect both surface and ground water. In selecting 
     projects for assistance under this subsection, the 
     Administrator shall give priority to projects that are 
     carried out to satisfy criteria published under section 
     1412(b)(7)(C) or that are identified through programs 
     developed and implemented pursuant to section 1428.
       ``(B) Matching requirements.--Federal assistance 
     provided under this subsection shall 

[[Page S 17765]]
     not exceed 35 percent of the total cost of the protection program being 
     carried out for any particular watershed or ground water 
     recharge area.
       ``(2) New york city watershed protection program.--
       ``(A) In general.--Pursuant to the authority of paragraph 
     (1), the Administrator is authorized to provide financial 
     assistance to the State of New York for demonstration 
     projects implemented as part of the watershed program for the 
     protection and enhancement of the quality of source waters of 
     the New York City water supply system. Demonstration projects 
     which shall be eligible for financial assistance shall be 
     certified to the Administration by the State of New York as 
     satisfying the purposes of this subsection and shall include 
     those projects that demonstrate, assess, or provide for 
     comprehensive monitoring, surveillance, and research with 
     respect to the efficacy of phosphorus offsets or trading, 
     wastewater diversion, septic system siting and maintenance, 
     innovative or enhanced wastewater treatment technologies, 
     innovative methodologies for the control of stormwater 
     runoff, urban, agricultural, and forestry best management 
     practices for controlling nonpoint source pollution, operator 
     training, compliance surveillance and that establish 
     watershed or basin-wide coordinating, planning or governing 
     organizations.
       In certifying projects to the Administration, the State of 
     New York shall give priority to those monitoring and research 
     projects that have undergone peer review.
       ``(C) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date on 
     which the Administrator first provides assistance pursuant to 
     this paragraph, the Governor of the State of New York shall 
     submit a report to the Administrator on the results of 
     projects assisted.
       ``(3) Authorization.--There are authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Administrator such sums as are necessary 
     to carry out this subsection for each of fiscal years 1997 
     through 2003 including $15,000,000 for each of such fiscal 
     years for the purpose of providing assistance to the State of 
     New York to carry out paragraph (2).''.
       On page 171, line 21, strike ``20,000,000'' and insert 
     ``15,000,000''.
       On page 171, line 24, strike ``35,000,000'' and insert 
     ``30,000,000''.
       On page 172, line 3, strike ``20,850,000'' and insert 
     ``15,000,000''.
       On page 2, in the material following line 6, strike ``Sec. 
     25. Ground water protection.'' and insert ``Sec. 25. 
     Watershed and ground water protection.''.

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this authorizes the expenditure of $15 
million a year for 7 years to the year 2003 for the protection of the 
watershed of the city of New York. This is a very unusual approach that 
they are trying in New York in which, instead of building very, very 
expensive water treatment facilities that would amount to more than $1 
billion, they are trying to protect the watershed; in other words, the 
headwaters of the rivers that provide the waters for the city of New 
York up in the Hudson River Valley.
  This provides authorization for $15 million for 7 years to be of 
assistance in that effort.
  As I say, this is an amendment by both New York Senators, Senators 
Moynihan and D'Amato. I think it is a good amendment, Mr. President.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Moynihan, 
I wish to thank Senator Chafee and Senator Kempthorne for accepting 
this crucial amendment--an amendment that will protect the drinking 
water of 9 million persons.
  New York City is home to our Nation's largest unfiltered surface 
water supply delivering 1.5 billion gallons per day. It is also, 
arguably, our Nation's best drinking water. To many, it would seem 
implausible that our Nation's largest city could have such high quality 
water and not require extensive filtration. However, extensive measures 
have been taken over the years to ensure the purity of New York City's 
water.
  New York City's watershed actually consists of three distinct 
geographic areas that cover some 1,900 square miles in 8 counties in 
New York State--an area approximately the size of Rhode Island. Due to 
an act of the New York Legislature in 1907, and further amendments in 
1953, New York City has been able to regulate activities that affect 
water quality in the watershed area. This capability caused its share 
of suspicion among farmers, homeowners, and local elected officials in 
the upstate watershed. As one might suspect, these individuals did not 
necessarily appreciate the city having a say as to how they could 
utilize their land.
  With development creeping out of the metropolitan area and into the 
watershed area, many became concerned about the consequences of such 
growth on water quality. Echoing that concern, under the auspices of 
the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, the EPA required New York 
City in 1989 to either further protect the watershed or filter. It was 
apparent that enhanced protection efforts would be necessary if the 
water supply for the city was to be preserved without spending billions 
of dollars to build filtration plants. This set in motion the impetus 
to negotiate a filtration avoidance plan that would meet the approval 
of the EPA, provide safe drinking water to New York City residents, and 
preserve the rights of upstate New Yorkers to prudently utilize their 
land. Until recently, the ability to balance all of these needs had not 
proven entirely successful and watershed protection efforts stalled.
  In early November, though, New York Governor George Pataki announced 
what many had thought impossible. In an unprecedented agreement, the 
State of New York, the city of New York, environmentalists, local 
elected officials within the watershed and the Environmental Protection 
Agency all gave their approval to a plan to protect the New York City 
watershed and avoid large-scale filtration. Under the terms of the 
agreement, a total of $1.2 billion will be spent by the city of New 
York over the next 15 years for water quality protection programs while 
upstate communities will continue to be able to grow and prosper in 
environmentally responsible ways.
  Specifically, the city expects to increase its landholdings in the 
watershed threefold spending a minimum of $260 million for purchases in 
the most sensitive areas from willing sellers. Also, the city will 
spend close to $400 million on water quality protection programs in the 
watershed communities in addition to the programs required to be 
undertaken by EPA for the city to avoid filtration. Also, a new 
regional watershed council will be created to serve in an advisory 
role. The city will continue its plans to spend over $600 million in 
already committed funds to build a filtration plant for the Croton 
watershed. Finally, the New York State Department of Health will 
approve and promulgate new watershed regulations to replace the 
existing outdated regulations.
  By undertaking these activities, the city of New York will avoid the 
construction of a filtration system for the Catskill/Delaware watershed 
costing upwards of $8 billion. The construction of such massive 
filtration plants would have likely dramatically increased water 
payments for each household in New York City.
  While this historic agreement will lay the groundwork for the 
protection of New York's watershed, it will only be successful if 
effective and sophisticated monitoring is in place. It would not be 
fiscally wise to spend over $1 billion without an ability to determine 
whether the protection efforts are working.
  To address this concern, Senator Moynihan and I have offered this 
amendment that will allow the EPA to spend up to $15 million per year 
for 7 years in the State of New York in order to monitor and implement 
a host of watershed protection programs in the New York City watershed. 
Some of the projects that will be undertaken and in need of Federal 
assistance are: a phosphorus offset program designed to reduce the 
total amount of phosphorus in sensitive watershed basins; wastewater 
diversion; wastewater micro-filtration treatment; enhanced stormwater 
control activities; and agricultural and forestry best management 
practices. Federal funding could be utilized for up to 35 percent of a 
project's total cost. Should water quality decline, the EPA will have 
the ability to demand appropriate changes.
  Our amendment is a perfect complement to the efforts being undertaken 
in New York State to protect the watershed in a scientifically sound 
and fiscally responsible manner. Under our amendment, scientists will 
be better able to monitor the quality of the drinking water of some 9 
million people and prevent degradation of this vital watershed before 
it becomes a matter of concern. This will be able to be done at a 
spend-out rate of $12 to every $1 spent by the Federal Government.
  I am pleased that the managers of this bill agree with the need to 
protect this precious resource. With the passage of this amendment, the 
State of 

[[Page S 17766]]
New York will be given an opportunity to further protect its valuable 
watershed. I am confident that the efforts undertaken in New York will 
be able to serve as a model for similar activities in other parts of 
the country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? If 
not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  The amendment (No. 3077) was agreed to.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the bill we have before us provides an 
excellent example of how good people, working together, can find a way 
to balance safety and cost concerns. I commend the bipartisan effort 
that developed the Safe Drinking Water Amendments Act of 1995. I also 
rise to thank these same chairmen and ranking members for agreeing to 
the amendment that Senator Gorton and I proposed regarding the city of 
Seattle's water supply that was approved earlier today.
  Safe drinking water is probably the single most important thing a 
government can supply its people. This bill, S. 1316, accomplishes that 
task by giving the Environmental Protection Agency flexibility to set 
drinking water standards based on peer-reviewed science. It encourages 
State and local governments to become full partners in the development, 
implementation, and enforcement of drinking water regulations. It 
targets our scarce public resources toward greater health risks and 
away from more trivial risks.
  S. 1316 will be particularly helpful for small systems serving fewer 
than 10,000 people. These small systems will be eligible for variances 
that allow them to use affordable treatment technology. While 
regulators may grant variances, S. 1316 also authorizes consumers to 
participate in the decision to grant a variance and requires variance 
renewals every 5 years. I have heard from many small communities about 
how burdensome the current Safe Drinking Water Act requirements are. I 
share their enthusiasm for the flexibility and innovation contained in 
this bill.
  I also want to draw my colleagues' attention to the amendment Senator 
Gorton and I proposed regarding the city of Seattle water supply. With 
our amendment, Seattle will be able to provide its customers safer 
water, at a lower cost, and with a better taste than it could have 
under current filtration requirements. Our amendment will allow local 
governments that have undeveloped watersheds with a consolidated 
ownership to use a process other than filtration if that alternative 
ensures significantly greater removal of pathogens.
  The Seattle Water Department has concluded that ozonation, a process 
commonly used in Europe, may provide 100 times more protection from 
Cryptosporidium and other pathogens than would a filtration system. 
Should ozonation deliver as much protection as it promises, the people 
of Seattle will have safer water and will pay $130 million less for 
that safety than they would have had to pay for a Cedar River watershed 
filtration system.
  Mr. President, like all bills that pass through the process of 
compromise and negotiation, S. 1316 is not perfect. However, it is a 
good bill that goes a long way toward solving some of the more 
troublesome aspects of the current Safe Drinking Water Act. This bill 
offers responsible reform, flexibility, and balance. I have heard from 
a number of local governments urging my full support of this bill. I 
intend to offer that support, while at the same time voting in favor of 
stronger right-to-know provisions.
  Again, I thank the chairmen and ranking members for their hard work 
on this bill and for accepting Sen. Gorton's and my amendment.


                         Seattle's Water Supply

  Mr. President, I rise in support of the Safe Drinking Water 
Amendments Act of 1995 and commend the managers on their excellent 
work. In addition, I would like to address the amendment that Senator 
Gorton and I proposed, which was accepted as a managers' amendment, 
that will provide the people of the city of Seattle with quality 
drinking water at an affordable price. Like this bill before us, our 
amendment seeks to protect our citizens from unnecessary costs while 
providing safe, high quality drinking water.
  Our amendment requires the EPA to amend its drinking water protection 
criteria to allow a State to establish treatment requirements other 
than filtration where a watershed is uninhabited, has consolidated 
ownership and has controlled access. Our amendment allows an 
alternative to filtration where EPA determines that the quality of the 
source water and alternative treatment requirements established by the 
State ensure significantly greater pathogen removal efficiencies than 
would a combination of filtration and chlorine disinfection.
  Mr. President, the Cedar River watershed is unique. The city of 
Seattle will own 100 percent of this 90,490 acre watershed by the end 
of the year. The city controls access to and activity in this 
watershed. It practices model land stewardship, supplying a wide 
variety of public values, including healthy populations of wildlife. In 
short, it is a crown jewel. It is the type of water supply all major 
cities should aspire to have.
  The watershed met all of the criteria for remaining an unfiltered 
supplier for the first 18 months after passage of the SDWA amendments 
of 1986. However, because of a severe drought and an abundance of 
wildlife, the watershed exceeded one of the unfiltered water criteria, 
that of fecal coliform. After receiving notification of noncompliance, 
the Seattle Water Department began investigating filtration and non-
filtration systems to ensure it would satisfy requirements of the SDWA.
  The water department discovered that a process widely used in Europe, 
called ozonation, would reliably remove more cryptosporidium and 
giardia--the pathogens of most concern--than would filtration. An 
ozonation facility would inactivate 99.999 percent of cryptosporidium, 
while filtration would inactivate only 99.9 percent. In simple terms, 
ozonation can be economically designed to provide two orders of 
magnitude, or 100 times greater protection than filtration. Not only is 
ozonation more effective against the most serious threats to the 
Seattle water supply, but it costs less and makes the water taste 
better.
  The Seattle Water Department's studies indicate that an ozonation 
plant would cost its customers $68 million, while a filtration plant 
would cost $198 million. While Seattle water officials believe that the 
Cedar River water may require filtration sometime in the future, the 
system has a number of other more pressing needs--such as covering 
open, in-city reservoirs and installing a filtration plant in the Tolt 
River watershed--that make ozonation the best course for today. The 
ozonation plant will be built in such a way as to be compatible with a 
filtration plant should the need for one arise in the future.
  Mr. President, this amendment offers the city of Seattle needed 
flexibility so that it can provide its customers the safest water at 
the lowest cost in the very near future. It is worth re-stating that 
this filtration flexibility may be given only where a watershed is 
undeveloped and, most importantly, the alternative to filtration proves 
to ensure significantly greater pathogen removal efficiencies. 
Delivering safe drinking water is the fundamental goal of this 
amendment and this bill.
  Again, I thank the bill's managers for their assistance and support 
on our amendment and in developing the comprehensive, balanced Safe 
Drinking Water Amendments Act of 1995.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  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. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak as if in morning business for 5 

[[Page S 17767]]
minutes without the time being charged to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________