[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 69 (Monday, April 30, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


  ON THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ``LEAD-FREE DRINKING WATER ACT OF 2007''

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, April 30, 2007

  Mr. NORTON. Madam Speaker, Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
Chairman Henry A. Waxman and I re-introduce the ``Lead-Free Drinking 
Water Act of 2007''. This bill today was virtually summoned by the 
District's lead water crisis in 2004. The national attention our crisis 
generated for the likely presence of lead in the water supply drew many 
jurisdictions to do their own investigations, uncovering similar 
problems. When former Senator James Jeffords, Representative Waxman, 
and I looked at the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the Lead 
and Copper Rule, it was clear that even the revision of the Rule in 
1991 did not meet standards that should have been adopted at that time. 
Our bill incorporates what we learned from hearings on the D.C. water 
crisis and from the state of the current science.
  This bill is necessary because at a recent hearing for the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources, Benjamin H Grumbles, Assistant 
Administrator for Water in the EPA, promised that new rules on lead and 
copper in water would be promulgated at the level mandated in this 
legislation. However, details of the rule have not been shared with the 
subcommittee, and the rule is not scheduled to be released until the 
fall of this year. We have heard this same excuse since 2004, 
illustrating the continuing need for Congress to act. In 2006, as 
confidence was slowly being restored in our drinking water, the 
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority was cited for violations 
of SDWA consent order due to a failure in testing procedures. Most 
especially, recent reports have documented elevated levels of lead in 
drinking water in five District of Columbia public school water 
fountains, even though the children are most vulnerable to lead, thus 
the important reasons for this legislation remain strong after three 
years. This bill directly addresses the concerns that also vulnerable 
are pregnant and nursing women and District of Columbia parents have 
with lead in the water at schools and would lay to rest well-placed 
anxiety about lead in the drinking water here and nationwide.
  The District of Columbia provided us with a virtual case study in why 
SWDA must be revised again in 2007. Here are some of the most important 
provisions taken from the D.C. experience:

       (1) Valid Testing. This bill eliminates the giant loophole 
     that allowed the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) to 
     continue testing once it exceeded the 15 parts per billion 
     (Ppb) action level, in order to dilute its findings, reduce 
     the percentage of homes to less than 10%, and thus relieve 
     WASA of the requirement to replace lead service lines. 
     Instead, 10% of lead pipes must be replaced until all are 
     eliminated.
       (2) Total Lead Service Line Replacement. Instead of 
     replacing only publicly owned lead service lines, this bill 
     requires total replacement, including the portion owned by 
     the homeowner. Our hearings showed that partial replacement 
     can actually increase the amount of lead in drinking water, 
     because the new metal, such as brass or copper, can interact 
     with the remaining lead pipe and accelerate lead leaching 
     into the drinking water.
       (3) Individual Notice From Detection to Correction. Instead 
     of allowing public notices to be delayed or buried, using 
     generic language deep in a brochure or water bill, as WASA 
     did, our bill requires notice to all customers, individually 
     within 30 days of lead exceedence, stating the scope of 
     testing, results and corrective actions.
       (4) Alternative Water Supply. Where excessive lead is 
     found, the bill requires that certified water filters be 
     provided to each residence, school and day care facility, a 
     measure that was delayed in the District despite the danger 
     to pregnant women and children under six.
       (5) Testing Water Treatment Chemicals. The Army Corp of 
     Engineers switched chemicals at the Washington Aqueduct from 
     chlorine to chloramines without conducting a corrosion 
     control test. The evidence is that the new chemical was the 
     likely cause of the spike in lead levels here, but only now 
     are phosphates being tested to counter lead corrosion in the 
     water supply. This bill requires water systems to have 
     corrosion control plans within one year of switching chemical 
     treatment or a finding of excessive lead in the water.
       (6) Lead Free Plumbing. ``Lead free'' in this bill is 
     defined as 0.2%, the standard already used in Los Angeles, 
     down from the current 8%. We heard testimony at our hearings 
     that most brass and copper plumbing contains 8% lead.
       (7) Lead Testing In Schools. This bill requires the repair 
     or replacement of school water coolers found to have 
     excessive lead. Annual testing of water coolers in schools is 
     also required.

  The District of Columbia experience has opened the nation's eyes to 
lead in the water that millions of Americans may be drinking. Our bill 
will reduce the well-earned fears of residents here and across the 
country.

                          ____________________