Good morning Mr. Chairman. I am Merril Bingham, Director of Public Works for the City of Provo, Utah. I am also the Chair of the Legislative Committee of the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Utility Council. I am here today on behalf of AWWA.
AWWA appreciates the opportunity to present its views on the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996. AWWA is the world's largest and oldest scientific and educational association representing drinking water supply professionals. The association's 55,000 members are comprised of administrators, utility operators, professional engineers, contractors, manufacturers, scientists, professors and health professionals. The association's membership includes over 3,900 utilities which provides over 80 percent of the nation's drinking water. Since our founding in 1881, AWWA and its members have been dedicated to providing safe drinking water.
In my role as Public Works Director, among other duties, I have primary responsibility for Provo's drinking water supply. Provo has a population of approximately 112,000 people and is located at the base of the Wasatch Mountain range 45 miles south of Salt Lake City. Provo is home to Brigham Young University, which, with an enrollment of 35,000 students, is the largest privately owned university in the nation. At present, we utilize about 8.5 billion gallons of drinking water annually with peak day demands slightly in excess of 50 million gallons. Our water supply source is primarily ground water in the form of canyon springs and valley deep wells.
AWWA utility members are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and other statutes. AWWA believes few environmental activities are more important to the health of this country than assuring the protection of water supply sources, and the treatment and distribution of a safe and healthful supply of drinking water. AWWA strongly believes that the successful implementation of the reforms of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 is essential to effective regulations that protect public health.
EPA DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water program took on greatly increased responsibilities in the 1996 SDWA amendments. These responsibilities included developing a new regulatory process requiring additional science and risk analysis for regulations, creating a contaminant occurrence data base and methodology to select contaminants for regulation, promulgating microbial and disinfectant/disinfection by-products regulations, identifying new treatment technologies for small systems, administering the newly created drinking water state revolving fund, and developing regulations and guidelines for consumer confidence reports, operator certification programs, source water assessment and monitoring relief.
In satisfying these requirements, EPA has involved the public in the regulatory process to an extent not equalled by any other federal agency and stands as a model for federal rule making. EPA has involved private citizens, scientists, drinking water professionals, medical professionals, public health officials, economists, and environmental and consumer advocacy representatives, as well as other experts, to provide recommendations on how to carry out these new regulatory responsibilities. AWWA believes that the EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water has made a good faith effort to implement the spirit and intent of the 1996 SDWA Amendments. The EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water is to be commended for taking this exemplary approach for public involvement which should result in better regulations that protect public health.
Many of the new regulations are either in their infancy or not yet promulgated, so there is not yet much experience to determine whether a specific regulation will work as intended in accordance with the 1996 SDWA reforms. However, AWWA does have a major concern that the EPA drinking water research program is not adequate to provide the good science necessary to support new contaminant regulations. There is also a long-term concern that the authorizations for the new drinking water state revolving fund will not be adequate to address the needs identified to comply with SDWA regulations. In this statement, AWWA will focus on the research and infrastructure needs, highlight some regulations of concern and outline potential future SDWA issues.
DRINKING WATER RESEARCH FUNDING
The use of best-available, peer-reviewed good science as the foundation of the new drinking water standard-setting process under the SDWA amendments of 1996 will require extensive drinking water research - particularly health effects research. Funding for drinking water research is becoming more of a critical issue. The 1996 SDWA Amendments require EPA to develop comprehensive research plans for the Microbial/Disinfection By-Products (M/DBP) Rule Cluster and arsenic. The plans have been completed but the plans are not readily understandable to all stakeholders and do not develop relative priorities between all the high priority projects. While tracking is marginally improving, EPA still has difficulty assessing research gaps as well as developing future priorities. It is AWWA's opinion that the EPA resources directed to drinking water research does not meet the statutory needs of the 1996 SDWA Amendments and will ultimately result in either delayed regulations or regulations promulgated without the necessary research to support good science.
AWWA believes that there is a serious problem regarding the amount of funding currently allocated to contaminant research. EPA informal research funding projections discussed with stakeholders indicate a shortfall to meet drinking water research needs from FY 1999 through FY 2005. Due to the extensive amount of research needed to determine whether to regulate contaminants on the Contaminate Candidate List (CCL), annual research needs are expected to "bulge" in FY-00 through FY-03. These projections show research needs rising to $56-$57 million dollars annually, leaving a shortfall of approximately $20 million per year. Although EPA projections indicate that drinking water research needs will begin to decline after the "bulge", there is no firm basis on which to assume that research funding needs will decline.
EPA contends that they have substantially increased drinking water research funding over the past few years, but it is not clear how this additional funding is being used to address critical drinking water research needs. An estimated total of over $150 million is needed for the combined arsenic and M/DBP research plans which will result in finalizing regulations within the next five years as required by the SDWA amendments of 1996. This figure does not include other needed drinking water research on radon, sulfate, and other contaminants that will require additional occurrence, treatment, and health effects research based on the CCL. It has become evident that EPA's research is focusing on M/DBP's and arsenic, which are important, but little research is being done on the contaminants on the CCL to make future regulatory decisions and much of that research is not focused on the drinking water regulatory needs. Without a substantial investment on a continuing annual basis and a research program focused on drinking water regulatory needs, EPA and public water suppliers cannot assure the American public that the contaminants selected for regulation are the appropriate ones or that health standards have been adequately established.
We need to break the cycle of drinking water research lagging behind the regulatory needs. Assume that EPA develops an overall contaminant research plan that is peer reviewed by mid-1999. Then, EPA issues a research request, receives proposals, selects specific proposals, and contracts for the research. This process will take at least six months, so the research would not start until early 2000. Most research takes a minimum of two to three years to complete, with an added year for complete peer review, so the results would not be available until well past the statutory deadline for the first round of regulatory determinations (2001). Since EPA has put a strong emphasis on meeting statutory deadlines, the result may be the promulgation of regulations without the good science which was envisioned in the 1996 SDWA Amendments.
MICROBIAL, DISINFECTANT & DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS CLUSTER
This "cluster" of regulations is the most significant and potentially the most costly of all drinking water regulations required in the 1996 SDWA amendments. It includes Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Product Rules, Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules, a filter Backwash rule and the Groundwater rule. The regulations in this "cluster" require substantial research all of which will not be completed by the time indicated in the SDWA.
Research on microbial contaminants and disinfectants and disinfection by-products is a critical need. Each day there are roughly 50,000 deaths in the world attributed to microbial contamination of drinking water. Much of this threat has essentially been eliminated in the United States through disinfection of drinking water. However, it is now known that disinfection of drinking water can produce chemical by-products, some of which are suspected human carcinogens or may cause other toxic effects. Controlling risks from these by-products must be carefully balanced against microbial risks to ensure that when reducing disinfection levels to lower by-product risk, significant microbial risks are not created.
Research on disinfectants and disinfection by-products, as endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences and EPA's Science Advisory Board, is essential. The cost to the nation of disinfection by-products regulations under the SDWA will certainly be in the billions and could be as high as $60 billion or more depending on the final rule. An appropriate investment in health effects research will ensure that costs of regulation will be commensurate with the health benefit and not driven to extremes because of the lack of data.
Cryptosporidium has emerged as a microbial pathogen of major concern to drinking water supplies. The Centers for Disease Control, in correspondence with EPA, has pointed out that extensive research on the health implications of this pathogen and dramatic improvements in analytical methods for its detection are necessary before it is possible to evaluate the public health implications of its occurrence at low levels and determine the appropriate regulatory response. Adequate funding for research on cryptosporidium is essential to protect the health of millions of Americans.
The final Filter Backwash Rule, which will prevent unsafe concentrations of contaminants in the drinking water treatment process, is scheduled to be promulgated by August 2000. However, this rule has become a major concern since there is not much data on which to base a regulation and the potential for significant compliance costs.
The final Groundwater Rule, which will provide for the additional treatment or other protective measures of drinking water from groundwater when necessary, is scheduled to be promulgated in November 2000; however, there is a lack of data on which to base a regulation and what data is available is under debate. This rule, as currently reported, will be very expensive for small groundwater systems and states to implement.
ARSENIC
The 1996 SDWA Amendments requires EPA to propose a revised arsenic regulation by January, 2000, and promulgate a final regulation by January, 2001. The National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) comprehensive review of the arsenic risk assessment, which is expected to be available by later this month, will be a critical component. The 1996 SDWA Amendments also require EPA to develop a comprehensive research plan on low-levels or naturally occurring arsenic. The objective of the plan was to develop an extensive arsenic research program. The plan has been completed but has not yet been fully executed. The key issue for the arsenic regulation is that the health effects data and the results of the health effects research needs to be available by mid-1999 to meet the deadlines in the SDWA. Only five major arsenic research projects have been started so far. Since EPA has not made a significant start on the bulk of the necessary health effects (which will take several years to complete), it is likely that very little of the necessary research will be completed in time to be used in developing a revised arsenic regulation.
The lack of realistic prioritization of the arsenic research, from the AWWA viewpoint, has minimized the potential for the ongoing research to substantially reduce the uncertainty in the arsenic risk assessment. The ongoing research projects may (or may not) be the specific projects that could have the most impact in reducing that uncertainty, but nobody know for sure at this point. AWWA is concerned that some of the ongoing research may simply lead to the need for more research rather than give answers that are meaningful for the regulatory process.
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND (DWSRF)
According to the EPA Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey released on January 31, 1997, $12.1 billion is needed in the immediate future to protect drinking water supplies. Of this amount, $10.2 billion, or 84 percent, is needed to protect water from microbial contaminants which can produce immediate illness or death. According to the needs survey, between 1995 and 2015, a total of $138.4 billion will be needed to upgrade the infrastructure of the nation's water utilities to meet requirements of the SDWA. It is also important to note that this figure does not include other drinking water infrastructure needs, such as replacing aging transmission and distribution facilities, which are not eligible for DWSRF funding.
If the current authorized DWSRF funding level of $1 billion per year is maintained to 2015 only $20 billion plus approximately $4 billion state match for a maximum total of approximately $24 billion will be available to meet these needs from the DWSRF. Since appropriations have not matched authorizations and there are indications that the actual needs, just for the projects eligible under current SDWA DWSRF criteria, may be underestimated by about 55 percent (which may be reflected in the next EPA needs survey), the shortfall may be greater.
AWWA believes that the total drinking water infrastructure need is in the $325 billion range (in 1998 dollars) in capital investment, which could easily translate into a much higher need for available funds over 20 years.
AWWA does not expect that federal funds will be available for 100 percent of the infrastructure needs of the nation's water utilities. The DWSRF is a loan program with a state match. Ultimately, the rate-paying public will have to pay for the nation's drinking water infrastructure, regardless of whether financing comes from the DWSRF or other sources. However, AWWA does believe that DWSRF funding is a major issue for future Congressional oversight to ensure that federal funding is adequately available to meet the intended purposes of the SDWA. Oversight should take place in the context of the total need and how the needs should be apportioned among the various financing mechanisms and sources.
The DWSRF program is still in its infancy so the outlay of funds for loans and available funds has not yet become critical. However, DWSRF authorized funding levels is an issue which Congress may need to address in the future, possibly before the next scheduled reauthorization of the SDWA.
FUTURE SDWA ISSUES
The next reauthorization of the SDWA will clearly take drinking water into the 2010 timeframe. AWWA believes that it is not too early to begin exploring future issues and possible innovative solutions now. EPA and Congressional forums must be held to explore the future of drinking water. The 25th Anniversary of the SDWA this year would be an ideal time to start the process. I will briefly outline a few issues and questions that should be addressed to develop the issues most important to the next SDWA reauthorization.
a. The individual contaminant-by-contaminant regulatory approach should be examined to determine if there is a more efficient and effective means to regulating drinking water. We are already approaching the point where regulating one contaminant may cause a problem with regulating another contaminant.
b. The total cost of providing drinking water should be studied. What are the cost issues facing the nation's water systems (including infrastructure repair and replacement and paying for new treatment technologies)? Should the DWSRF be expanded to include total needs? How can resources be more efficiently allocated among local, state and federal governments, and water systems?
c. Are there feasible alternatives to centralized treatment and distribution for compliance with the SDWA to provide safe drinking water? Are we reaching a point of creating such stringent standards that standards cannot be maintained in a distribution system? After all, less than one percent of treated water is used for human consumption. Can consolidation and restructuring provide economies of scale and still comply with more stringent standards? Is the reduction in health risk relevant when compared with the health risk of all the other ingested products?
d. Should the drinking water program be decentralized to provide local consumer driven decision-making on how to provide safe drinking water in the community? Can safe drinking water be provided through a regulatory system in which EPA sets broad health goals and local communities have flexibility to chose how to meet those goals? Should compliance be based on community risk reduction aggregate goals and cost/benefit analysis? Are there creative alternatives for providing drinking water for vulnerable subpopulations without driving treatment costs to an unaffordable level? This also requires a clear definition of what vulnerable subpopulations really are (eg: certainly AIDS patients and cryptosporidium is clear; however, far less clear is the issue of smokers and radon).
e. What can be done to assure the availability of an adequate drinking water supply in the future? There needs to be a closer integration of various statutes (eg: Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Superfund, etc.) to protect drinking water sources to assure an adequate and clean supply of water. Drinking water priorities should be set appropriately. The use of gray water systems, reclaimed waste water, desalinization and conservation measures should be studied. The Clean Water Action Plan is a step in the right direction for integration of water resource management and stewardship.
AWWA believes that addressing the above issues and questions will provide potential solutions for coping with localized or regional water shortages, new strains of contaminants, and unaffordable treatment costs or technological challenges which had not been anticipated or addressed by the 1996 SDWA Amendments. Some of these issues also may emerge in the next five years.
SUMMARY
In conclusion, I want to highlight the main points of the testimony:
- AWWA believes that the EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water has made a good faith effort to implement the spirit and intent of the 1996 SDWA Amendments.
- AWWA has a major concern that the EPA drinking water research program is not adequate to provide the good science necessary to support new contaminant regulations.
- The regulations in the Microbial, Disinfectant & Disinfection By-Products "cluster" require research, all of which will not be completed by the deadlines indicated in the SDWA.
- It is likely that very little of the necessary research will be completed in time to be used in developing a revised arsenic regulation.
- AWWA has a long-term concern that the authorizations for the new drinking water state revolving fund may not be adequate to address the needs identified to comply with SDWA regulations.
- AWWA believes that Congress and EPA should hold forums to begin exploring future SDWA issues and possible innovative solutions now.
This concludes the AWWA statement on the implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. I would be pleased to answer any questions or provide additional material for the committee.