insight POLICY PAPER
This supplement to EPA livyig^ rc"it?irei up-to-dat-e policy information from the
Administrator/C'ep.itv As^ir i«trato- to ^11 EPA employees.
SAFE DRINKING WATER - A NATIONAL PRIORITY
September 1993
EPA-175-N-93-023
rowneri
Below is a speech from Administrator Carol 1
National Association of Towns and Townshi
8, 1993:
Good afternoon. I'm happy to be a guest of this
organization at the forefront of environmental protection.
It's a pleasure to address this group of dedicated public
servants, and if s my special pleasure to welcome you all to
Washington....
The American people asked for change in the last
election, and the Clinton administration is taking on a lot of
big issues—from reducing the deficit to reinventing the
government....
This is what we're talking about today: this glass of
water—my ability to pick up a glass of water anywhere in
American and trust that ifs safe to drink.
Thafs what the Safe Drinking Water Act is all about.
But, we have a problem. The way we guarantee safe water
for the American people is broken and it needs to be fixed.
When you turn on your faucet, you have a right to safe
water to drink, and brush your teeth, and make your coffee,
and wash the dishes, and give your kids a bath.
I don't care whether you live in New York City or in the
smallest community in the country, whether you get your
water from a big urban system or from a tiny trailer park.
Every American has a right to the safest water in the world,
the highest quality available on this earth.
A safe, clean water supply is an absolutely critical aspect
of public health, a vital part of our quality of life.
But, look what's been happening...Thousands of people
in Milwaukee got sick from the parasite that invaded their
water supply...People in New York City had to boil their tap
water or use expensive bottled water this summer...The
terrible flood in the Midwest deprived hundreds of
communities of drinking water.
All over America, communities are struggling to deal
with the pollution that threatens their water supply. The
bacteria, parasites, industrial solvents, pesticides, lead, and
chlorine byproducts in our water carry risks of cancer,
nervous sytem disorders, liver and kidney damage, and
gastro-intestinal distress.
In the face of these problems, the regulatory burden on
water systems is growing—and many American communities
can't keep up. Remember that, of our nation's 200,000 water
systems, the great majority serve under a thousand people.
You know as well as I do that many of these small systems
are in trouble.
of you in this room, this means a big
September—-hea4a€ke=-or perhaps, even a touch of gastro-intestinal
distress....
But, our proposal for reforming the Safe Drinking
Water Act is designed to spell relief-because we've heard
your concerns about the Safe Drinking Water Act and we've
come up with a package that addresses them.
Our proposals are based on two principles:
• The first principle is pollution prevention. We
need to stop pollution before it starts—to prevent
environmental damage, not just clean it up after the fact.
• The second principle is that we need to be
absolutely uncompromising about the goals of
environmental protection—but, at the same time, we need to
incorporate more flexibility, more local and regional
decision-making, in how we reach those goals.
I'm going to describe three things: first, the changes
we're proposing to Congress; second, the administrative
measures that EPA is implementing on its own; and, finally,
I'll describe what I need from you.
Later this year, Congress will take up the reauthorization
of the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA has worked hard to
understand the problems facing communities across this
country. 1 look forward to presenting our recommendations
to Congress and working with the Members of Congress
who have been strong leaders in the effort to guarantee safe
drinking water for all Americans.
I want to outline for you now the reforms that we're
recommending to Congress. These changes are designed to
help small communities to do the best possible job of
protecting public health. And, by the way, they reflect
many of the principles of "reinventing government" that the
President and Vice President talked about yesterday.
Number 1 is a State Revolving Fund, which would
grant loans to local water systems to help them comply with
the law. President Clinton has proposed to have the federal
government contribute $600 million to the fund next year
and $1 billion each for the next four years. That's good
news, isn't it?
Number 2 is a fee that states could use to raise
additional money to oversee drinking water quality and
help small communities.
Number 3—and this is very important—is a program to
prevent contaminants from getting into the drinking water
supply in the first place. Think about it. Instead ot
spending all our energy testing the water and finding the
contaminants and then trying to take them out of our water
supply, doesn't it make sense to focus onJ^_hTmJ_endi toe '
-------
To look at where our drinking water comes from, identify
where the contaminants are going in,, and take steps to keep
them out?
Number 4, we're also going to reward those
communities that make the upfront investment to prevent
contaminants from entering their water supply.
Communities that adopt enhanced pollution prevention
programs won't be required to do as much monitoring and
treatment. If s a common-sense solution.
Number 5: Lef s work with small systems, not against
them. What do we do when some of these tiny systems that
serve a few dozen households can't afford to screen for six
different contaminants? We want to work with the states to
either consolidate these tiny systems or get them to share
resources in new ways.
Number 6: We want to allow the small systems, so
strapped for funds, to choose less expensive technologies.
EPA wants to provide information to these small systems to
help them find these cheaper technologies and use them.
Again, matters of common sense that will help solve a
lot of problems.
Number 7 is operator training and certification. This
is something most states already do,, but not always for the
smallest sytems. We want to make sure that properly-
trained, qualified personnel operate all drinking water
systems, no matter how small.
Number 8: We want to make sure that our resources
and your resources are going to deal with the contaminants
that are the most serious. Currently, seven dozen
contaminants are already regulated, and the Safe Drinking
Water Act requires EPA to set standards for 25 new
contaminants every three years. We don't think this specific
numeric requirement is in anyone's best interest. Instead,
we're proposing that EPA would draw up a list of
contaminants divided into two groups: one, those that
should be regulated, and, two, those that we still need to
study. This would get us off the treadmill of regulating for
the sake of regulating, and restore purpose and balance to
our actions.
Number 9 would give water systems more time to
comply with new regulations. Right now, the law gives you
only 18 months to come into compliance, even if the new
rules are very complex or require expensive equipment. A
lof of small systems have found this 18-month deadline to
be a hardship. So, in response, we're proposing to be more
flexible and allow some systems up to 60 months to reach
compliance.
The last recommendation, Number 10, would make the
Safe Drinking Water Act enforcement component consistent
with other environmental statutes. We'd put some teeth
into the ban against using lead in plumbing pipes, so that
we could protect people, especially children, from this
dangerous hazard.
Now, let me very briefly describe a couple of things that
EPA is already doing on our own....
First, we're helping states to participate in the waiver
program for water sampling. It's my job not only to
administer nationwide policies, but also to take account of
regional differences. Through the waiver program, EPA
gives a state the authority to waive the sampling
requirements in particular communities. For example, you
may not have to test for a particular pesticide if that
pesticide is never used in your area.
The savings you can achieve are truly extraordinary.
We've just compiled this information for the first time.
Listen to this: MASSACHUSETTS expects to save its water
systems $12-and-a-half million out of $30 million in chemical
monitoring costs over the next two years. MINNESOTA
expects to save $18 million out of $32 million. MISSOURI
expects to save $18-and-a-half million out of $24 million.
And the list goes on.
If your state hasn't already invested in the waiver
program, ask them to look into it. Ifs a proven mechanism
to reduce monitoring costs in cases where you're sure that
spending more money won't yield more benefits for public
health.
Another thing we're offering is our pocket sampling
guide for operators of small water systems. Ifs written in
plain English (and) it's really easy to use....
Finally, let me describe what I need from you. I know
you all have loud voices. I need you to make your voices
heard loud and clear on Capitol Hill. There's nothing more
persuasive for a Member of Congress than hearing directly
from you how laws that they pass affect their community,
your community. You know better than anyone else about
the problems with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and how
these proposed changes could make it better. You and I
need to work together to make the Safe Drinking Water Act
provide the strongest and most effective protection for all
Americans, in communities large and small.
In conclusion, let's remember that, while the issues are
big, the American people experience these issues on a much
smaller scale. Millions of Americans live in small
communities like yours. Small communities are where a
common concern for the future takes root. In this way,
small communities are the key to the future we build for
our children and our children's children.
Your job as public officials in small communities is a
vital building block of environmental protection. It's critical
to the future of our nation...I look forward to working with
you to protect the American public and our environment.
Thank you.
iTNfe Follcy Pajwr is available «x Email: type VTX af && imp «wpt;
wv$ Inter, &e»,. |jress -4
------- |