[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 90 (Friday, June 25, 2004)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           SMALL COMMUNITY OPTIONS FOR REGULATORY EQUITY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. C. L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER

                                of idaho

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 25, 2004

  Mr. OTTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Small Community 
Options for Regulatory Equity Act. Rural communities across my state 
and elsewhere are being unfairly burdened by Environmental Protection 
Agency regulations that have questionable benefit.
  While we all want to ensure a clean, safe drinking water supply for 
our communities, we must remember that fiscal restraints sometimes 
require tradeoffs and accommodations. Many small communities believe 
that EPA regulations will do more harm than good by wasting limited 
public health funds complying with standards that do little to advance 
the interests of public health.
  For those of you who may have forgotten the arsenic debate of just a 
few years ago, let me refresh your memory. The Safe Drinking Water Act 
was used in the past to clean up pollution caused by previous business 
practices. Now the EPA is using the act to clean up Mother Nature 
herself. Arsenic is a naturally occurring component in the soil and 
water of many Western states, including Idaho. Using questionable 
science, the EPA has committed to ensuring all domestic water systems 
meet the arbitrary 10 parts-per-billion standard for arsenic--no matter 
how small those systems are. This is down from the 50 parts-per-billion 
standard set in 1975.
  When the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed, Congress provided 
flexibility for EPA to determine whether it is economically or 
technologically feasible to obtain a certain level of reduced 
contamination. Essentially, the act states that if it's too expensive, 
smaller systems simply need to get as close to the standard as they 
reasonably can. Unfortunately EPA has decided not to use that 
flexibility. EPA has determined that paying $1,000 per year per user 
for the smaller water systems to meet the arsenic standard is 
affordable.
  We know that many of our rural communities have low-income residents 
who make difficult decisions each month. They must choose which bills 
to pay and which to put off. These folks aren't worried about the cable 
bill; they're worried about being able to cover their heat, food, power 
and even prescription drug costs every month. And when faced with those 
choices, they'll choose to pay their water bill first. But the EPA--in 
its infinite wisdom--has decided to place a higher priority on marginal 
reductions in arsenic level than such basic needs as food and shelter.
  That is unacceptable, which is why I am introducing legislation today 
to allow small and rural communities, those under 10,000 in population, 
to choose whether they want EPA to enforce regulations on naturally 
occurring contaminants. If the eligible community determines it is too 
costly to comply with the rule it can request an exemption from the 
regulation, which EPA must grant.
  No one is talking about removing all the arsenic from the water. We 
are talking about removing parts per billion, which is removing a very 
small amount of something that is barely even there. There is no bright 
line of concentration at the parts-per-billion level beyond which 
arsenic becomes unsafe. EPA views 9.9 parts-per-billion as safe and 
10.1 as unsafe, despite the fact that there is little health difference 
between such small differences. EPA can't determine how much arsenic 
ingestion above the federal standard is harmful. While EPA has said 
that arsenic concentrations above its standard don't necessarily 
present an unreasonable risk to health, concentrations above 10 parts-
per-billion do create a significant financial burden for small 
communities.

  This mandate doesn't consider the unintended consequences and it 
can't balance competing local priorities. Local communities are in the 
best position to determine where their scarce resources need to go. EPA 
is not going to the communities and suggesting ways they can comply or 
technology they can use. Rather than being a good partner, EPA is once 
again just an enforcer, and is waiting until 2006 to impose fines on 
communities that are not in compliance. Such one-size-fits-all 
government ``solutions'' do nothing to make the water cleaner. They 
only provoke bitterness and stifle cooperation.
  One small community in Idaho already has had to lay off its only 
police officer in order to afford studies and other requirements 
related to complying with the arsenic regulation. Now we are asking 
people to choose between real public safety and a theoretical health 
benefit. Further compounding the problem for this rural community, the 
EPA recently denied its request for a compliance extension, as provided 
for in the agency's own regulation. Community leaders know they can't 
comply by 2006 and are trying to do the right thing--but EPA refuses to 
help them.
  We are supposed to have a democratic process here in the United 
States. In this case, the EPA is overriding the will of local citizens. 
I believe it's time to put the power back into the hands of those most 
impacted to determine what truly is best for them.
  I remain concerned that this regulation will have very adverse 
economic impacts on thousands of rural communities across the nation, 
without addressing legitimate human health concerns. Since there is no 
economically feasible way for small communities to meet this standard 
and the standard may result in no health benefits, I support allowing 
each eligible rural community to decide whether to comply. I encourage 
you to join me in cosponsoring the Small Community Options for 
Regulatory Equity Act




                          ____________________