[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7340-7341]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                    ARSENIC LEVELS IN DRINKING WATER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Issa). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) 
is recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, like my distinguished colleague from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), this Member comes to the floor to urge his 
colleagues to look at the facts when it comes to the issue of arsenic 
in drinking water. The Bush administration's recent actions on this 
matter have led to heated rhetoric, wild exaggerations and soundbite 
politics.
  I suppose that was predictable, since the word ``arsenic'' is so 
emotion-loaded. It is important, I believe, to get the full story and 
to listen to those who would be most affected by the proposed changes.
  Many State and local officials, as well as water system 
administrators, have expressed concerns about the problems which could 
be caused by the proposed changes. This Member would begin by firmly 
stating that, of course, everyone recognizes the importance of 
providing safe drinking water for all of our Nation's citizens. Also 
some changes in the arsenic standard may well be justified. However, it 
makes no sense to base those changes on anything like emotion. Instead, 
they should be based on sound science.
  As many of us know now, in the final days of the Clinton 
administration, a final rule was rushed through which would have 
reduced the acceptable level of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts 
per billion to 10 parts per billion. However, new EPA administrator, 
Christie Todd Whitman, later announced that the agency would seek a 
scientific review of the standard before implementing a new rule. The 
Bush administration has made it clear that the arsenic level will be 
significantly reduced. However, it wants the final rule to be based on 
sound science.
  It certainly appears that the Clinton administration made an 
arbitrary decision based upon questionable studies, most of which 
involve populations in other countries which were exposed to 
significantly higher levels of arsenic than those found in the United 
States. On the other hand, the EPA seems to dismiss the most 
comprehensive U.S. study on this matter. A 1999 study in Utah, which 
involved more than 5,000 people, failed to find an increased incidence 
of cancer associated with arsenic in drinking water.
  It is certainly not the intent of this Member to treat lightly the 
possible adverse health effects of arsenic. However, this Member 
believes that accurate and relevant studies should be reviewed before 
water systems, especially those with limited resources, are forced to 
make such substantial investments in infrastructure and treatment. 
Smaller communities would have been especially hard hit by the 
implementation of the proposed arsenic level.
  Arsenic levels in York, Nebraska, my birthplace, for example, a 
community of about 7,500 people, are at 34 parts per billion, and the 
initial cost to meet the new standard would be $6 million. Gering, 
Nebraska, with a level of only 13 parts per billion, only 3 points over 
the arbitrary level set by the rule, would be compelled to spend about 
$4.4 million.
  Overall, more than 3,000 community water systems in the United States 
would have to come into compliance,

[[Page 7341]]

and the rule would have more than tripled water rates in many small 
communities.
  Now, this Member believes that communities will be willing to spend 
the money necessary to address this matter if they were convinced that 
they would see actual health benefits by making the changes.
  According to an April 14, 2001 article in the New York Times, 
Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mayor Jim Baca, a Democrat stated, ``What we 
would like is some definitive scientific evidence that this would be 
worth doing. I am a pretty strong environmentalist but I was convinced 
that the data did not justify the new level.''
  It is important to listen to utility superintendents, city 
administrators, village boards, mayors and other local and State 
officials, including public health officials, who are concerned about 
the effect the proposed rule and its associated costs would have on 
their communities. These are people who have a powerful incentive to 
provide safe drinking water, since they and their constituents will be 
drinking that water. These community leaders know where the buck stops. 
They certainly would not subject themselves and their families and 
friends to harmful water. Quite simply, these local officials have not 
been convinced of the need to lower the arsenic to the level proposed 
by the Clinton administration.
  It is also helpful to note that any community in the country now has 
the authority to lower arsenic in its drinking water to whatever level 
it chooses below 50 parts per billion. The reason communities have not 
lowered their levels to 10 parts per billion is that the health 
benefits have not been shown to justify the enormous cost.
  The American Water Works Association stated in its comment last year, 
``At the level of 10 ppb or lower, the health risk reduction benefits 
become vanishingly small as compared to the costs.''
  The costs, however, are real. The American Water Works Association, 
which supports a reduction in the current arsenic standard, has 
estimated the proposed rule would cost $600 million annually and 
require $5 billion in capital outlays. In an ideal world, with 
unlimited resources, it may make sense to propose changes in the hope 
that they may provide a benefit. However, the reality is that 
communities do not have unlimited funds.
  Everyone deserves safe drinking water and this Member urges his 
colleagues to listen to State and local officials on how to provide it.

                          ____________________