Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
September 19, 2000, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 6107 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE COMMERCE
SUBCOMMITTEE: HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENT
HEADLINE: TESTIMONY DRINKING WATER
SAFETY
TESTIMONY-BY: MR. J. CHARLES FOX , ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR
AFFILIATION: WATER ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
BODY:
September 19, 2000 Prepared
Statement of Mr. J. Charles Fox Assistant Administrator for Water Environmental
Protection Agency Oversight Hearing Implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments and Funding of State Drinking Water Programs Subcommittee
on Health & Environment Panel 1, Witness 2 Representing: Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee today on the important
work that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing, in cooperation
with States and drinking water systems, to assure that all Americans have
drinking water that is safe. Today, Americans enjoy one of the safest drinking
water supply systems in the world. Over 90% of Americans served by community
water systems receive water with no reported health standard violations. The
high quality of our drinking water is a testament to the hard work and
dedication of the managers and staff of water systems throughout the country --
large and small, publicly owned and private -- who are the first line of defense
in assuring safe drinking water. State officials oversee the work of local
systems and are essential to keeping the promise of safe drinking water. Now
more than ever, we rely on States to identify and fix problems and to work with
local systems to ensure safe drinking water long into the future. It is also
important to recognize that the country would not have the high quality drinking
water system that we enjoy today without the leadership provided by the Congress
in the enactment of the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The SDWA amendments, which the Clinton Administration played a major role in
developing, invigorated the core drinking water program and provided new
direction to federal, State and local governments and the drinking water
community. The 1996 amendments moved us toward more comprehensive drinking water
protection by: improving the way EPA sets drinking water safety standards based
on good science and data; addressing some of the highest public health risks;
expanding consumer information and involvement; providing over 3 billion dollars
in funding for infrastructure investments for communities; emphasizing
prevention through source water assessments, capacity development, and operator
certification; and attending to some of the most pressing problems of small
water systems. In addition to playing a leadership role in developing the key
elements of the SDWA amendments, the Administration has also dramatically
increased funding for State safe drinking water programs and for financing of
drinking water infrastructure. Perhaps more important, EPA has established an
outstanding record of success in implementing the many new and challenging
authorities called for by the SDWA amendments -- a total of some 55 new Federal
responsibilities. The Agency worked with States to successfully establish State
Revolving Loan Funds for financing drinking water infrastructure improvements.
The Agency has worked closely with States and a range of other stakeholders to
develop strong and practical new drinking water standards within the very tight
timeframes established in the SDWA amendments. And, we have worked with all
interested parties to improve the long-term protection of sources of drinking
water. I want to publicly commend all the EPA staff who have worked so hard over
the past several years to build an outstanding drinking water program. I believe
that the outstanding quality of the drinking water program we have today is the
best evidence that we will be able to do even better in the coming years. We
will do better in our efforts to identify contaminants of special concern. We
will do better in helping communities finance needed system improvements. We
will do better in planning for the long-term safety of sources of drinking
water. And, we will accomplish this work hand-in-hand with State and local
officials, citizens, and the Congress. My testimony today will review some of
the work we have done to implement the SDWA amendments, describe some of the
funding issues that the program faces, and identify some of the challenges that
we will be working on in the coming years. SUCCESS IN MEETING SDWA MANDATES The
1996 SDWA amendments gave the entire drinking water community, but especially
EPA, new marching orders and many new challenges, including regulating high risk
contaminants, improving consumer right-to-know about drinking water quality,
protecting source waters, and financing system improvements. Regulating
High-Risk Contaminants In the past two years, we have proposed or finalized a
series of new rules that address microbial and other high risk
contaminants in drinking water. The Administration and Congress agree that the
most significant threat to public health is microbial
contamination, such as E.coli and Cryptosporidium. Adverse health effects from
exposure to microbial pathogens in drinking water are well
documented. As we have seen in Milwaukee and New York -- and most recently in
our neighbor, Ontario, Canada -- these health effects can include severe
infections that can last several weeks and may result in death. This Spring, EPA
proposed the Ground Water Rule and the Long Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule to address the health threats to consumers by
microbial contamination in ground water systems. When
promulgated, these rules will complete a cycle of microbial
protection with the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, issued in
1998. Together, these rules will cover all consumers of water provided by public
water systems and significantly reduce threats to human health from
microbial disease. Disinfection of drinking water to protect
from microbial contamination is one of the major public health
advances in the 20th century. However, the disinfectants
themselves can react with naturally-occurring materials in the water to form
unintended byproducts that may pose health risks. EPA's
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule,
released with the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule in 1998,
addresses the potential health threats that may be related to the disinfection
process itself. It strengthens standards for trihalomethanes, establishes new
drinking water standards for seven disinfectant byproducts and
three disinfectants, and requires treatment techniques to
further reduce exposure to disinfection byproducts. The
risk-risk tradeoff between disinfectants and their byproducts
makes decisions about treatment difficult. However, the extensive stakeholder
process that EPA used to develop these complex rules has assured that the new
requirements are well supported and understood. I am pleased to announce that on
September 6th, a Federal Advisory Committee -- with whom the Agency has been
discussing efforts on microbial contaminants, the
disinfectants used to treat these contaminants, and
disinfection byproducts resulting from the treatment - reached
agreement on the second phase of these rules. This agreement builds on both the
results of the microbial and disinfection
byproducts research that is currently ongoing and a massive
data collection effort on contaminant occurrence. It will strengthen and expand
the human health protections provided in the rules promulgated in 1998. In
November 1999, EPA proposed the Radon Rule, which will have an important impact
on reducing the human health risk from radon in drinking water as well as in
indoor air from soil. Radon in indoor air is the second leading cause of lung
cancer in the United States. Although the risk posed by radon from drinking
water is much smaller than that from indoor air, the 1999 report from the
National Academy of Sciences confirmed that radon in drinking water causes
cancer. Because of the multimedia nature of radon risk, Congress, in the SDWA
Amendments, created a unique multimedia mitigation approach to allow local
flexibility in addressing both risks. Our approach of an alternative maximum
contaminant level and multimedia mitigation program accurately and fully
reflects the 1996 SDWA amendments' provisions to protect public health, and will
result in a reduction of cancer cases from both indoor air and drinking water in
a cost-effective manner. Consistent with the Congress' direction, EPA has also
issued a proposed rule to lower the maximum contaminant level for arsenic,
another high-priority drinking water contaminant. Arsenic is a known carcinogen
and is also linked to many non-cancer health effects. In a March 1999 report,
the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council found that the
current, 50- year-old arsenic standard of 50 parts per billion does not provide
adequate human health protection, and recommended that EPA lower the MCL as
quickly as possible. The Agency proposed a standard of 5 parts per billion and
also asked for comments on 3, 10, and 20 parts per billion. Last month we held a
day-long, public meeting on this proposed rule in Reno, Nevada. Over 140 people
attended in person and another 40 or so joined in the discussion via telephone.
While we knew there was considerable interest in this proposed rule, the
attendance at this meeting serves as a good indicator that the comments
submitted on this rule will be significant. In addition, we expect a report on
this proposed rule from the Agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) in the next
few weeks. This SAB assessment, as well as the numerous public comments
submitted on the proposed rule, will be thoroughly evaluated as EPA develops the
final regulation on arsenic. Right-to-Know/Consumer Awareness The Clinton
Administration has a strong commitment to the right of consumers to know the
quality of the water that they drink. We made expanded consumer information a
top priority in the development of the SDWA amendments and have worked hard to
assure the effective implementation of new right-to-know authorities. In
addition, drinking water systems are making outstanding progress in providing
information to consumers. The new "consumer confidence" reports give customers
of drinking water systems the information they need to make their own health
decisions. Today, approximately 253 million Americans have access to their
annual consumer confidence report. Over 100 million Americans are able to read
their water quality report online. These reports provide information the public
is demanding. The public also needs immediate information about drinking water
health threats so they can protect themselves and their children. EPA recently
completed revisions to the Public Notification Rule, which now requires faster
notice in emergencies - specifically, within 24 hours. While providing for
faster and clearer communication to consumers, the rule will also reduce the
burden to water systems by requiring fewer notices overall and enabling water
systems to better target notices to the seriousness of the risk. Finally, EPA
continues to respond to the public about drinking water issues. In 1999, EPA's
Safe Drinking Water Hotline received over 10,000 calls from consumers about
their water quality, most coming near the October, 1999 deadline for the first
consumer confidence report. EPA's Local Drinking Water Information website is
accessed over 5,000 times per month. Preventing Contamination of Drinking Water
The 1996 SDWA amendments recognized that a robust program to prevent
contamination of drinking water supplies and efforts to ensure reliable systems
are necessary and cost-effective approaches to address current and emerging
problems. Effective drinking water protection has to start with an understanding
of the threats to the water source. States are making significant progress in
development of source water assessments. Fifty States/Territories have an
EPA-approved Source Water Assessment and Prevention Program and are conducting
assessments for the water supplies. To support source water assessment and
prevention activities, States were provided a one year only, FY1997, set-aside
that allowed them to use up to10 percent of their Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund allotment to support their source water delineations and assessment
efforts. The total amount available for this set-aside was approximately $124
million; all States and Territories actually set aside close to $112 million, or
90 percent of the amount available. While the set-aside itself was limited to
one year, the States have four years to obligate these funds. Preventing
drinking water contamination also means that water systems must have the
financial, technical, and managerial ability to meet new challenges and continue
to provide safe drinking water to their consumers. As required by the 1996 SDWA
amendments, EPA has developed guidance to States on both capacity development
programs and programs to ensure that all water systems have access to a fully
qualified operator. All States are developing their capacity development and
operator certification programs. We are optimistic that they will meet the
statutory requirements and deadline so as to avoid the penalty of a 10 percent
reduction for capacity development and a 20 percent reduction for operator
certification from their State Revolving Loan Fund allocation in FY 2001.
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) has been extremely successful in less than 4 years of operation. From
its four year (FYs 97,98,99, 00) aggregate appropriations of some $3.6 billion,
EPA has given out nearly $2.7 billion in revolving loan grants to all 50 States,
Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the Territories. States have made
over 1,200 loans totaling over $2.3 billion to water systems to address the most
significant public health needs. Small water systems have been a focus of the
DWSRF. Nearly three-fourths of all DWSRF loans awarded have gone to systems
serving fewer than 10,000 persons. EPA Cooperation with States and Drinking
Water Systems As EPA has implemented SDWA, we have tried to ameliorate some of
the demands that the requirements place on our partners, especially the States.
We have had extensive stakeholder involvement in our actions, including a
particular focus on small water systems. This has improved the quality of our
rules and has resulted in increased flexibility to States and water systems. The
SDWA amendments provide the authority to accommodate the needs and concerns of
small systems and to emphasize technologies as a cost-effective approach to
achieve compliance with our rules. We have worked hard to make effective use of
this authority. We have also given the regulated community advance notice of new
requirements, so that they may better prepare. The new Contaminant Candidate
List process that Congress added to SDWA in 1996 gives us a fair and workable
way to identify and address the highest risks to public health. We will also
attempt to consolidate rules by type to move away from a contaminant-by-
contaminant approach to regulation. As we develop our rules, we have taken into
consideration the impacts that other rulemakings will have on the regulated
community. We have tailored rules to consider local or regional considerations.
We have phased implementation components where possible. We have worked to
improve the capacity of water systems to meet these new requirements through
early and improved technical assistance, training, outreach, and funding through
the DWSRF. Finally, we are working to lessen the pressure on water systems as
the last line of defense by promoting tools for watershed and source water
protection through such mechanisms as the SDWA's source water protection
programs and the Clean Water Act. FUNDING SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAMS Mr.
Chairman, in your letter of invitation to this hearing, you asked that I address
funding for the implementation of the SDWA amendments, both now and in the
future. I am confident that, working together, Congress and the Administration
have provided the resources that EPA, States, and others needed to assure the
effective implementation of the SDWA amendments. Since the early 1990s, the
Clinton Administration had proposed, and Congress has provided, dramatically
increased resources for Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) grants to the
States. These grants provide support to States in their role as primary
implementors of drinking water programs. The funding for PWSS grants has
increased from a level of $39.3 million in FY'90, to $72.2 million in FY 96, and
almost $94.0 million in FY's 1998, 1999, and 2000 -- an almost threefold
increase in less than 10 years. (Note that roughly 10% of PWSS funding has been
used by EPA to implement drinking water programs for Territories, Tribes, and
States not implementing the program.) States must match these federal funds by
providing at least one dollar for every three federal dollar received, but
usually provide more. Congress and the Administration recognized that adequate
funding for drinking water programs called for in the new SDWA amendments would
be essential to the success of the program. We agreed to include in the new law
authority for States to use some of the funds provided to them through the DWSRF
to support program management activities. The authority to "set-aside" the DWSRF
funds is discretionary to each State. Many States have chosen to use this new
authority to supplement State funds and the federal funds available under the
PWSS grant program. I understand your question, Mr. Chairman, to be whether
these various funding sources are sufficient to support implementation of the
strong drinking water program called for in the SDWA amendments. I believe that
the short answer to that question is "yes." At the same time, it is important to
note that not all States have chosen to use the full amount of funding that is
available to them. And, as the program evolves in the coming years, some funding
shortfalls may develop. I have attached to my testimony a graph that illustrates
the funding increases for drinking water program implementation over the past
decade. FUTURE CHALLENGES FOR THE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM The challenges facing
the entire drinking water community are indeed daunting. Protection of drinking
water safety has always required constant vigilance and a proactive approach to
emerging threats. That is still the case today. We can continue to meet these
challenges through the framework provided by the SDWA, but it will require
concerted effort by everyone in the drinking water community. The cost of
providing safe drinking water -- finding a water supply, treating the water,
delivering the water, and maintaining the system -- will continue to be a
challenge. EPA's 1997 Drinking Water Needs Survey Report to Congress identified
over $138 billion in industry needs with the vast majority of these needs
targeted for delivery of water, rather than for meeting SDWA regulatory
requirements. EPA is committed to working with Congress, the States, the
drinking water industry, and consumers to ensure that Americans continue to
receive safe, affordable drinking water into the future. The impressive
successes of drinking water systems, States, and Federal agencies in providing
safe water to all Americans should not lull us into a false sense of security.
This success is a result of daily efforts to address constant risks and
challenges. While some threats have been eliminated and some require continual
management, new challenges are arising, including - unknown, or newly emerging
contaminants; a pace of development that may threaten source water quality if
not properly managed; an expanding and aging population that increasingly
includes those with special health concerns; increasing demand and competition
for water that strains available resources; a need for high-quality research on
health effects and treatment technologies; a need for accurate information on
compliance with drinking water standards; and a need for data that is reliable
and accurate and information systems that can serve as a user-friendly reference
for the drinking water community and the general public. CONCLUSION I am
confident that the safety, security, and availability of drinking water will
always be at the top of the American public's agenda. EPA will continue to work
tirelessly with Congress, the States, localities, and others to identify and
develop the best mechanisms for full and appropriate implementation of drinking
water protection activities. Thank you again for the opportunity to discuss
these important issues. I would be happy to address any questions you may have
at this time.
LOAD-DATE: September 20, 2000, Wednesday
