As a schedule-driven statute, the Safe Drinking Water Act deserves periodic and regular oversight and review. In 1999, this subcommittee held a hearing to receive testimony on matters that were of the highest concern of stakeholders at that time. It is our intention to provide a forum today for those matters that come to the forefront in the last year or will reach maturity in the next 12 months.
Although there is no shortage of issues to discuss in our limited time today, it is my expectation that our witnesses will focus on as many of their pressing concerns as possible. While the magnitude of certain matters will draw considerable attention today, I hope not to foreclose debate on all issues.
In 1996, Congress comprehensively reformed the Safe Drinking Water Act to accomplish several goals. Primarily among these were the need to make regulatory implementation of health standards better reflect the availability of resources, science, and actual risks. At the same time, a very rigorous schedule of rule-making and other procedural steps was established to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), state environmental and health agencies, municipalities, and the private sector will best serve the public.
These developments have served to highlight the complexity of implementing a regulatory regime that aims to serve every American but can exacerbate resource and funding shortfalls at the federal and state levels and in the private sector. As new rules are increasingly applied to smaller systems, the reach and impact of the Act touches even more people.
I expect today for several witnesses to address the difficulties of establishing drinking water rules based on science that is constantly changing and open to different interpretations. Within this framework, the EPA is expected to produce standards that recognize the limitations of scientific understanding and the funding available to implement them. Rules instituted that ignore the realities of scientific uncertainty, the knowledge that standards may have to be revised in the future to respond to new information showing greater or lesser risks, and the finite resources available to respond to them are unrealistic and irresponsible.
The spectrum of views represented by our witnesses today should provide a perspective on many issues raised by the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act. I look forward to a full and stimulating discussion of these matters and exploring possible solutions to them.