Congratulations to you, Senator Crapo, on your Chairmanship of this Subcommittee. The state of Idaho has sent many Senators to this Committee and all have represented the state and our nation with distinction. I am certain that you will continue that fine tradition.
Your most immediate predecessor, Senator, now Governor Kempthorne, and I worked together on many issues in this Subcommittee during his six years in the Senate, but I think the one that both of us are the most proud of is the Safe Drinking Water Act.
During the 104th Congress, this Subcommittee and this Committee, wrote a sweeping reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The original Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 was a landmark piece of legislation, but was deeply flawed. Its implementation was a regulatory mess.
In particular, small systems had tremendous problems in complying with the requirements both due to regulatory and resource problems. Also, the public was inadequately informed of health risks associated with contaminated or improperly treated water.
The reauthorization that we wrote adds flexibility to the regulatory process, forces EPA to focus on contaminants posing the greatest health risk, and provided funding through a revolving loan fund to assist communities, especially small communities, comply with safe drinking water regulations. We also added language designed to prevent the contamination of source waters and to increase public awareness of drinking water issues.
If I sound pleased with the Safe Drinking Water Act, it is because I am. Fortunately, I have also read all of the testimony that our witnesses are set to give today, and most of you seem positive about progress so far.
Obviously, there are concerns, so of which may grow in the coming years. I am very concerned about funding issues. This is not an example of a program, like some in Washington, that can thrive while underfunded.
Rural systems concern me the most. My state is dotted with hundreds of small water systems that provide services to only a few thousand, or more frequently, only a few hundred people. These systems simply cannot take advantage of the economies of scale that the larger, more urban or suburban systems can.
However, the need for rural residents to have access to safe drinking water is no less important than for any of out other citizens.
Before the day is over, I feel confident that we will come back to the issue of funding again and again, so I won't dwell on it now. However, to the extent possible, I would ask each of our witness~es focus a little attention in their comments on rural implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and also on the Consumer Confidence Reports that are coming due later this year.
Finally, as most of you know, in the West we are unable to separate issues of drinking water quality from drinking water quantity. Groundwater sources are being depleted more quickly than nature is refilling them in many areas. As the aquifers are drained, water quality, for a variety of reasons, typically declines.
I bring this up for two reasons. First, it underscores the long-term importance of having mechanisms in place to ensure that all Americans are drinking safe water. Secondly, I raise it because we as a nation are doing little to address the coming problems of water shortages. We trail much of the world in research and development of technologies that will allow us to inexpensively recycle and desalinate water.
Although this is an issue for another day, it is one that I hope to focus some attention on during this Congress.
~Mr. Chairman. Welcome aboard. Thank you.