[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 167 (Wednesday, December 21, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Page S14322]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Hagel, and Mr. 
        Nelson of Nebraska):
  S. 2161. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to prevent the 
enforcement of certain national primary drinking water regulations 
unless sufficient funding is available or variance technology has been 
identified; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce The Small System 
Drinking Water Act of 2005 to assist water systems throughout the 
country comply with the numerous Federal drinking water standards. My 
bill will require the Federal Government to live up to its obligations 
and require the EPA to use all of the tools given the Agency in the 
1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments (SDWA).
  In Oklahoma we continue to have municipalities struggling with the 
arsenic rule. Further nearly 80 percent of our small systems, those 
serving less than 10,000 people, are not in compliance with the 
Disinfection Byproducts (DBP) Stage I rule. In EPA's most recent 
drinking water needs survey, Oklahoma identified $4.5 billion in 
infrastructure needs over the next 20 years. $40 million a year of that 
need is to meet Federal drinking water standards. This does not include 
costs imposed by Oklahoma communities to meet Federal clean water 
requirements.
  The EPA on December 15th finalized the Disinfection Byproducts Stage 
II rule and the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. The 
costs of complying with these two rules are not included in the $40 
million a year need recently identified by the State. At current 
funding rates, the State receives $8.5 million dollars for its drinking 
water revolving loan fund.
  My bill proposes a few simple steps to help systems comply with the 
rules. First, it reauthorizes the technical assistance program in the 
SDWA. The DBP Stage I rule is very complex and involves a lot of 
monitoring and testing. The other rules are equally complex in nature 
and many small systems simply do not have the expertise needed to 
implement them. If we are going to impose complicated requirements on 
systems, we need to provide them with help to implement those 
requirements. Therefore, my legislation also requires that each system 
receive the help it needs to come into compliance before an enforcement 
action can be taken.
  The bill also creates a pilot program to demonstrate new technologies 
and approaches for systems of all sizes to comply with these 
complicated rules. It requires the EPA to convene a working group to 
examine the science behind the rules compared to new developments since 
their publication.
  Section 1412(b)(4)(E) of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 authorizes the 
use of point of entry treatment, point of use treatment and package 
plants to economically meet the requirements of the Act. However, to 
date, these approaches are not widely used by small water systems. My 
legislation directs the EPA to convene a working group to identify 
barriers to the use of these approaches. The EPA will then use the 
recommendations of the working group to draft a model guidance document 
that states can use to create their own programs.
  This legislation seeks to provide communities with more tools in 
order to comply with these Federal requirements while also requiring 
EPA to use the tools it has been provided, including the identification 
of variance technologies.
                                 ______