[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 16079-16080]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    ARSENIC IN RURAL WATER SUPPLIES

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate passed the 
Appropriations bill funding the Environmental Protection Agency and 
other departments. I have grave concerns about a provision in that 
bill, the amendment adopted by the Senate that directs the EPA 
Administrator to establish a new national primary drinking water 
regulation for arsenic. This is a slight modification from the House 
version of this bill, which requires the Administrator to establish 
this standard at the level set by the previous administration--10 parts 
per billion. While the Senate language is not that specific, I still 
have grave concerns over the direction Congress is heading on this 
issue.
  I understand that 59 public water systems in Alaska, most of which 
are in rural villages, have naturally occurring, background levels of 
arsenic in their water supplies that substantially exceed the 10 parts 
per billion standard. If Congress imposes this standard or a similar 
one on these villages, they will need nearly twenty million dollars to 
purchase modern, high-tech water treatment facilities. This is money 
that will otherwise be spent on their more immediate water and sewer 
needs, including safe wastewater systems. We are moving many rural 
villages off of honey buckets, but many people on the haul system still 
have to cart their own untreated wastewater from their homes to local 
collection bins, where it lies until the city takes it to a sewage 
lagoon on the outskirts of town. I know of one village in rural Alaska 
where a young girl was playing near one of these wastewater collection 
bins when she scratched at a mosquito bite. She developed a bacterial 
infection and later died. We are making good progress towards getting 
her village on to a safe, centralized water and wastewater system. 
Congress should allow areas without reliable sanitary water supplies to 
address those needs before turning to the relative luxury of removing a 
few parts per billion of naturally-occurring arsenic. I invite any 
Senator who disagrees with me to join me on a trip to rural Alaska 
where they can see these challenges first hand.
  I can foresee another unanticipated consequence of a national arsenic 
standard applied in rural Alaska. There are no toxic waste facilities 
available to process the arsenic after it is taken out of the water. We 
can not drive it

[[Page 16080]]

away because these villages are not on the road system. The arsenic 
will end up in the local landfill on the edge of town, next to the 
sewage lagoon. Like a lot of other things that end up in the landfill, 
the wind will blow it around town, where it will end up in homes and 
schools. This arsenic may do far more harm to people in rural Alaska 
than if we were to just leave it alone.
  I intend to seek a modification in conference that will recognize the 
practical problems of forcing a national standard on the most remote, 
rural areas of the country. We should not turn away from the most 
pressing sanitation needs in order to impose an unfunded mandate on 
rural areas, especially one that may result in a greater health risk 
than the one we are trying to address.

                          ____________________