U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

93–990 2015

CYANOTOXINS IN DRINKING WATER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE 

ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOVEMBER 19, 2014 

Serial No. 113–181 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

Vice Chairman 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Missouri 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan, ex officio 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, ex officio 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 78 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 79 

WITNESSES

Peter Grevatt, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Craig W. Butler, Director, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency .................... 24 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

John Donahue, General Manager, North Park (Il) Public Water District, 

On Behalf of American Water Works Association ............................................. 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Lynn Thorp, National Campaigns Director, Clean Water Action ........................ 61 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Prepared statement of Hon. Marcy Kaptur, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Ohio ......................................................................................... 80 

Letter of November 18, 2014, from the Ohio Farm Burea to Mr. Shimkus, 

submitted by Mr. Latta ....................................................................................... 83 

Statements submitted by Mr. Shimkus ................................................................. 85 

(1) 

CYANOTOXINS IN DRINKING WATER 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:18 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Latta, Harper, 

McKinley, Bilirakis, Johnson, Tonko, and Barrow. 

Staff present: Nick Abraham, Legislative Clerk; Leighton Brown, 

Press Assistant; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental Policy Advisor; 

David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment/Economy; Tina Richards, Counsel, Environment; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment & Economy; Jacqueline Cohen, Democratic Senior Counsel; and Ryan Schmit, Democratic EPA Detailee. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I call the subcommittee to order, and the chair will 

recognize himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Today’s subcommittee will be taking a look at the harmful algal 

blooms in drinking water, including the source water used for 

drinking. I thank Representative Latta for his efforts on this issue, 

for bringing it to the subcommittee’s attention. He has delved into 

the minutiae of this issue in search of a useful and long term solution to this problem. Having sat in some of the meetings with Mr. 

Latta that he has been having on this issue, I realize what a complex and widespread issue this is, but one which only gained national attention a few months ago. 

Some folks may be tempted to think that there are easy solutions 

to this problem, but I caution jumping to simple or sweeping conclusions. There is no single smoking gun that leads to algae based 

toxins in drinking water. I believe we will hear our witnesses say 

that there are still plenty of things that we don’t know about this 

subject. 

I understand from drinking water treatment professionals that 

many types of cyanobacteria and diversity of the habitat make it 

complicated to predict the precise conditions favoring their growth. 

Physical factors that affect whether cyanobacteria grow include 

available light, weather conditions, water flow, temperatures, and 

mixing within the water column. Acidity and nutrient concentrations, including those from municipal wastewater, urban lawn and 

2 

golf course management, and agricultural processes all contribute 

to algal bloom growth. In addition, we will hear testimony that experiencing a blue-green algae bloom does not always mean there is 

a cyanotoxin problem. 

We need to know more about this issue. We understand that 

there are—at least 35 states have reported blue-green algal blooms, 

but we need to separate out the drinking water concerns from 

those seen in the recreational waters context. This hearing is 

meant to focus on the Safe Drinking Water Act, not lawns in other 

subcommittees or committees, whether that be a regulation of nitrogen disposition under the Clean Air Act or nutrient management 

under the Clean Water Act. 

There are plenty of questions within the context of ensuring the 

provision of safe drinking water that we should focus on and learn 

about today. Our hearing will allow us to focus on where we are 

with our understanding of the U.S. EPA’s effort on better grasping 

blue-green algal—algae in the drinking water context, including 

health effects and current data, monitoring and testing techniques, 

and public health communication strategies. We will also hear from 

witnesses on what happened this past August in Ohio, and what 

lessons we learned. Finally, we will get a better sense of what 

drinking water treatment professionals are doing to better prepare 

to handle these events. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and yield the 

rest of my time to Mr. Latta. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS

Today, the subcommittee will be taking a look at the harmful algal blooms in 

drinking water, including the source water used for drinking. I thank Representative Latta for his efforts on this issue and for bringing it to the subcommittee’s attention. He has delved into the minutia of this issue in search of useful and 

longterm solutions to this problem. 

Having sat in some of the meetings Mr. Latta has been having on this issue, I 

realize what a complex and widespread issue this is, but one which only gained national attention a few months ago. 

Some folks may be tempted to think there are easy solutions to this problem, but 

I caution jumping to simple or sweeping conclusions. There is no single ‘‘smoking 

gun’’ that leads to algae-based toxins in drinking water, I believe we will hear our 

witnesses say there are still plenty of things we don’t know about this subject. 

I understand from drinking water treatment professionals that the many types of 

cyanobacteria and diversity of their habitats make it complicated to predict the precise conditions favoring their growth. Physical factors that affect whether 

cyanobacteria grow include available light, weather conditions, water flow, temperature, and mixing within the water column. Acidity and nutrient concentrations—including those from municipal waste water, urban lawn and golf course management, 

and agricultural processes—all contribute to algal bloom growth. 

In addition, we’ll hear testimony that experiencing a blue-green algae bloom does 

not always mean there is a problem. 

We need to know more about this issue. We understand that at least 35 states 

have reported blue-green algae blooms, but we need to separate out the drinking 

water concerns from those in the recreational waters context. This hearing is meant 

to focus on the Safe Drinking Water Act, not laws in other subcommittees or committees whether that be regulation of nitrogen deposition under the Clean Air Act 

or nutrient management under the Clean Water Act. 

There are plenty of questions within the context of ensuring the provision of safe 

drinking water that we should focus on and learn about today. 

Our hearing will allow us to focus on where we are with our understanding of 

U.S. EPA’s efforts on better grasping blue-green algae in the drinking water context, 

including health effects and occurrence data, monitoring and testing techniques, and 

3 

public health communications strategies. We will also hear from witnesses on what 

happened this past August in Ohio, and what lessons were learned. Finally, we will 

get a better sense of what drinking water treatment professionals are doing to better prepare to handle these events. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much for holding this very important hearing today. I really appreciate it and your interest in the subject, because it affects so many 

millions of Americans, 

First, I would like to recognize one of our witnesses today from 

my home state, Ohio EPA Director Craig Butler. Mr. Butler has 

been director of the Ohio EPA since early 2014, and previously 

served in the governor’s administration as the assistant policy director for energy, agriculture, and the environment. I have had the 

pleasure of working with Director Butler on issues of great importance to Ohio. I am grateful that he is able to be here today to 

share his expertise and insights with the subcommittee. 

The United States is truly fortunate to have a vast amount of 

surface water. It provides immense value to our nation’s ecosystem 

and economy, as well as drinking water to countless Americans. To 

me, nowhere is this more evident than the Great Lakes, the largest 

surface freshwater system on Earth, that provides drinking water 

to tens of millions of people. 

Unfortunately, cyanotoxins in public drinking produced from 

harmful algal blooms are presenting a serious concern for our 

health. This past August, half a million people in the Toledo area, 

many of which are residents of my district, were unable to utilize 

their public drinking water for over 2 days without risking potentially negative health effects due to the high level of cyanotoxins, 

microsystems—detected in the city’s public water supply. During 

that time, both concerns and questions were raised about testing 

protocols, treatment process, appropriate responses on how to respond to the problem in the short term. 

I know from my personal experience that the State, including Director Butler, and the U.S. EPA worked tirelessly with the local 

water utility to get the situation under control. I commend their 

hard work, and the steps they have taken since to try to ensure 

this does not happen again. 

However, I believe to fully protect our citizens’ public drinking 

water from cyanotoxins, it is imperative that Federal, State, and 

local governments work together to better understand the science 

and human effects of cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins, as well as the 

best utilization of available testing, monitoring, and treatment 

technology. 

I am confident, by working together, we can accomplish this. I 

look forward to today’s hearing, and hearing from our witnesses on 

what types of strategies, actions U.S. EPA would take to close 

these gaps and improve human health and environmental protection. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back my time, 

and also I would ask that I have a letter from the Ohio Farm Bureau that I would like to have inserted into the record. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Without objection, so ordered in. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And with that, I turn to Ranking Member Paul 

Tonko for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to each 

and everyone. Thank you again, Mr. Chair, for scheduling a hearing on what I believe is a very important topic. Water is an essential resource. It has no substitute. Although 70 percent of the planet’s surface is covered with water, only a small fraction of that is 

of sufficient quality to serve our needs. 

Much of the Eastern half of the United States is blessed with 

ample freshwater resources, and no region is more well-endowed 

than the areas bordering the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes contain 21 percent of the Earth’s surface freshwater supply, and 84 

percent of the United States’ surface freshwater supply. We share 

these resources with Canada, and they are vitally important to the 

well being and economic fortunes of over 30 million people living 

within the eight states of our nation, and province of Ontario. The 

importance of this resource cannot be understated. We must protect it. 

I am reminded by my colleague, Representative Kaptur about the 

importance of water quality, and the impact on her area with this 

issue. The algal bloom that resulted in Toledo’s residents losing the 

use of their tap water is not a new problem. In part because Lake 

Erie is the shallowest lake, with the warmest waters, algal blooms 

have been a well-known problem for decades. Investments made in 

better sewage treatment and control of point sources in the 1960s 

and 1970s improved the situation for a time. But the steady input 

of nutrients from agricultural operations, especially from the 

Miami Watershed, expanded populations of invasive species, and 

changes in weather patterns have continued to fuel harmful algal 

blooms. 

We cannot do much about the weather patterns, but we can do 

much better in managing nutrient inputs and invasive species. Mr. 

Donahue points out in his testimony that the cost of these blooms, 

and for treating water to remove the resulting toxins, is falling on 

the water utilities and their customers. That is true, but the cost 

of these algal bloom events are even larger than that, and they are 

also falling on other individuals and businesses that rely on a 

clean, bloom free Lake Erie to support tourism, to support recreation, to support fisheries, and other activities. 

The International Joint Commission released a report this past 

February with 16 recommendations for action by the governments 

of the states and province within the Great Lakes Basin. The report identifies phosphorus loading as a key driver for the increased 

intensity and frequency of harmful algal blooms in Lake Erie. 

Seven of the recommendations specifically target phosphorus nutrient loading from agricultural lands. This is the largest unchecked 

input of nutrients to the lake. 

Farmers do not wake up every morning with a plan to cause 

algal blooms in Lake Erie, or any of the other water bodies that 

are experiencing this problem, but it is happening as a result of 

farming practices, and the problem needs to be addressed. Agriculture is important to this region, and to our nation, and agriculture also relies on a good supply of water. The goal here is to 

strike an appropriate balance that keeps farms economically viable 

5 

and productive, but reduces the transport of soil and nutrients off 

the land. There is no denying that agriculture practices result in 

nutrient runoff at levels that cannot continue if we are to get these 

blooms under control. 

The good news is that our land grant universities, the Natural 

Resource Conservation Service, and others have developed best 

management practices that can be adopted to achieve some of the 

needed reduction. And EPA has been working with states of the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed to implement basin-wide nutrient 

management plans to address similar problems that we have noted 

in the Chesapeake Bay. Nutrients that are coming off of fields are 

not benefitting anyone. Better nutrient management will not only 

benefit water quality, it will benefit farming also. 

Until we get these blooms under control, we are going to need 

better information for water utilities and the public about the toxicity of these blooms. But to truly ensure the safety of drinking 

water supplies, we will need to take serious steps to correct the 

source of the problem. These blooms not only jeopardize public 

drinking water supplies, they result in dead zones due to lack of 

oxygen when the blooming organisms die, and sink to the bottoms 

of lakes and estuaries. 

Ultimately, it is less expensive to prevent pollution than it is to 

clean it up. This problem is not unique to Lake Erie. It is happening in other places as well. We are all dependent upon clean 

water supplies, and we all must work together to better manage 

these vital resources. Maintaining safe drinking water available to 

every household through the tap is one of the conveniences that define a modern society. We cannot compromise on that guarantee. 

We have an excellent panel of witnesses before us today. I look 

forward to hear your testimony, and I thank you for participating 

in this very important hearing. And, Mr. Chair, I hope we will be 

able to spend time over the next 2 years finding a way to address 

the backlog of drinking water infrastructure needs that we have in 

communities across this great country. I would welcome an opportunity to work with you and other members of the committee on 

this important issue in the next Congress. And with that I yield 

back, and thank you again. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Any other member seeking time for an opening statement? Seeing none, we would 

like to welcome Dr. Peter Grevatt. He is the Director of Office and 

Groundwater and Drinking Water at the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Welcome, sir. You have 5 minutes. We 

are not going to be draconian on time, and then we will go to questions. So, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DR. PETER GREVATT, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. GREVATT. Yes, sir, thank you. Good morning, Chairman 

Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on EPA’s activities to address harmful algal blooms and their impact on drinking water supplies. Today I will discuss the health effects of 

cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins, the incident in Toledo this summer, 

6 

authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and strategies for 

preventing harmful algal blooms. 

Cyanobacteria are found naturally in surface waters, and can 

rapidly multiply, causing harmful blooms. Factors that enhance 

bloom formation include light intensity, nutrient availability, water 

temperature, and water column stability. Some species of 

cyanobacteria produce toxic compounds known as cyanotoxins. 

High levels of cyanotoxins in recreational waters, and drinking 

water, may cause a wide range of adverse health effects in humans, 

including fever, diarrhea, vomiting, and allergic reactions. 

While the risk associated with low levels of cyanotoxins in drinking water is uncertain, the effects reported following exposure suggest that this is an important issue for us to address. Communities 

on Western Lake Erie, including Toledo, remain vulnerable to 

emergency shutdowns from harmful algal blooms. 

On the morning of August 2, Toledo Mayor Collins issued a don’t 

drink or boil advisory to the nearly 500,000 customers in response 

to the presence of microcystin in the city’s drinking water, leading 

to the declaration of a state of emergency by the governor, and mobilization of the Ohio National Guard to provide emergency drinking water supplies. 

The presence of the toxin was due to a harmful algal bloom near 

Toledo’s intake on Lake Erie. The U.S. EPA performed sample 

analyses to confirm the concentrations of algal toxins, and worked 

with the State of Ohio and the City of Toledo to identify the optimal approach for controlling the toxins at the utility. When treatment adjustments led to the reduction on cyanotoxin concentrations, Mayor Collins lifted the advisory on Monday, August 4. 

Currently there are no U.S. Federal regulations concerning 

cyanotoxins in drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act establishes a number of tools, including health advisories, the contaminant candidate list, and the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring 

Rule to develop regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to addressing contaminants in drinking water. EPA is preparing health 

advisories for microcystin and cylindrospermopsin, two cyanotoxins 

commonly associated with harmful algal blooms. 

The health advisories will establish concentrations of drinking 

water contaminants below which adverse health effects are not anticipated to occur, as well as provide states, and municipalities, and 

other local officials with technical guidance on sampling, analytical 

procedures, and drinking water treatment recommendations to protect public health. We expect to finalize these health advisories in 

2015. 

EPA’s contaminant candidate list identifies unregulated contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems which may require regulation. The EPA uses this list to 

prioritize research and data collection efforts. My office has listed 

several cyanobacteria and cyanotoxins on the three contaminant 

lists that have been developed. 

EPA uses the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule to collect 

data for contaminants that do not have primary drinking water 

standards, and are suspected to be present in drinking water. A 

lack of standardized analytical methods for individual cyanotoxins 

has prevented EPA from including them in the current and preVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-181 CHRIS
7 

vious rounds of the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule. The 

agency is currently developing specific analytical methods for 

microcystins, anatoxin-a, and cylindrospermopsin. EPA expects 

these methods to be available in 2015 in time to consider including 

several cyanotoxins in the fourth unregulated contaminant monitoring rule. Monitoring for the fourth round of UCMR will begin in 

2018. 

While monitoring and treatment are critical for providing safe 

drinking water, this year’s incident in Toledo illustrates the difficulties of removing those contaminants at the treatment plant. 

Shortly after the Toledo incident, EPA redirected $12 million in 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding to Federal and State 

agencies to strengthen ongoing efforts to target harmful algal 

blooms in Western Lake Erie. Continued source water protection 

efforts, and adequate investment in our nation’s infrastructure, will 

be necessary to prevent events such as the one in Toledo in the future. 

Once again, Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member Tonko, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA’s work on cyanotoxins in drinking water, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grevatt follows:] 

8 


93990.001
9 


93990.002
10 


93990.003
11 


93990.004
12 


93990.005
13 


93990.006
14 


93990.007
15 


93990.008
16 


93990.009
17 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. First of all, I want to personally thank you for flying back, especially for today for the hearing in a town called New Orleans, so—New Orleans, D.C., 15 degrees versus whatever it was down there. We appreciate it. 

Then I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for the first round of 

questions. Could you please—I kind of said some of this stuff in my 

opening statement, and you kind of reaffirmed this, just, for the 

record, how many cyanotoxins there are. 

Mr. GREVATT. So there are many dozens of cyanotoxins. There 

are over 40 cyanobacteria that can produce cyanotoxins, and there 

are in the range of 80 forms of microcystins alone, so there are 

many dozens of different cyanotoxins. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that was my next question. So there are over 

80 microcystins? 

Mr. GREVATT. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Are all cyanobacteria harmful? 

Mr. GREVATT. So cyanobacteria are capable—certainly some are 

capable of producing the toxins. It is the toxins that are released 

from the bacteria that are harmful. And we don’t fully appreciate 

the specific conditions that lead cyanobacteria to generate these 

toxins, so they aren’t necessarily always harmful in every condition, but certainly they are capable of producing very harmful compounds. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Do you know which cyanobacteria are harmful in 

a drinking water context? 

Mr. GREVATT. So the ones that we have been most concerned 

about are microcystis, and then the cyanobacteria that also produce 

the anatoxin, the cylindrospermopsin, and the saxitoxin. The ones 

that we are focused on currently at EPA are the microcystin generated cyanobacteria, as well as cylindrospermopsins and the 

anatoxins. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Is there a threshold level of exposure of 

microcystin LR in drinking water at which the EPA has seen adverse human impacts? 

Mr. GREVATT. So there is no threshold level yet that has been 

identified in humans. There has never been any testing in humans 

to identify what a threshold level might be. There certainly is the 

history with microcystins of—for example, in Brazil in the ’90s, 

there was a kidney dialysis center that microcystins in their system that led to 50 deaths as a result of that treatment. So we know 

that microcystins can, in certain circumstances, produce high toxicity in humans. We don’t know specifically what a threshold level 

would be. 

Part of what our health advisory effort is designed to do is to 

help identify a level below which we think exposure would be safe. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And that Brazil case, was that over time, or was 

it, like, identified, and then those deaths occurred rapidly? Was 

that over time? 

Mr. GREVATT. So I would have to get back to you on the specifics 

of that case. All that I know is that that clearly was defined as 

microcystin leading to 50 deaths. And that was, of course, intravenous exposure, and at much higher levels than what we might 

see—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. 

18 

Mr. GREVATT [continuing]. In drinking water, but it tells us, at 

least, this is a dangerous compound for humans. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. Thank you. Many people have been using 

the terms like health advisory and standard interchangeably, but 

I am not sure that they are. So are these terms defined in the Safe 

Drinking Water Act? 

Mr. GREVATT. Yes, these terms are defined in the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. The health advisories were introduced in the 1996 

amendments to the Act. These are non-regulatory levels, right, and 

they are really guidance values to help states and communities to 

guide their steps they might take in response to the presence of 

contaminants in drinking water. A standard, of course, is a regulatory value that drinking water systems must meet. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. When EPA issues a health advisory, 

what types of information does it address, and what level of detail? 

Mr. GREVATT. Right. So there are several pieces of the health advisory that will—pieces of information that will be included. The 

first is discussing the environmental properties of the compound 

the health advisory is focused on. The second is identifying sampling and analytical techniques that are available for that compound. The third is identifying the safe level for that compound. 

Then the last, very important piece is identifying treatment technologies that are available to remove that compound from drinking 

water systems. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes, and that is what my follow-up was—my follow-up was do you recommend testing methods in these? And you 

did talk about treatment a little bit. 

Mr. GREVATT. Right. So we are currently in the process of developing a new analytical method for microcystin, and 

cylindrospermopsin, and anatoxin. And so these methods will help 

us to be able to define specifically much lower levels of these toxins 

in drinking water. You are probably aware that many systems in 

states across the country currently use a screening level method 

known as the Elisa Method. That is certainly what was used in Toledo, and by the State of Ohio. It is a very useful method. The one 

we are developing is going to be very specific for individual microsystem—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. I yield back the remainder 

of my time, and turn to Ranking Member Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Doctor, we have heard today 

about actions that can be taken to address harmful algal blooms 

in the short and long term. Some may believe that the solution to 

this drinking water problem is a standard for microcystin, the toxin 

released by these organisms. But that would require water utilities 

to treat the symptom of harmful algal blooms, instead of addressing the underlying root causes. One tool for addressing these 

causes that cannot be overlooked is the regulation of nutrient pollution. 

Excessive amounts of nitrogen and phosphorous in water sources 

from agricultural storm water and waste water runoff fuel rapid 

algal growth. Algae’s rapid reproduction outpaces that of other organisms, overtaking entire ecosystems. When they die, sink to the 

bottom, and decompose, an oxygen-free dead zone, as you know, is 

the result. 

19 

So, Dr. Grevatt, how are elevated nutrient levels in water 

sources like Lake Erie contributing to harmful algal blooms and 

toxic contamination of our water sources? 

Mr. GREVATT. Thank you. So we understand clearly that there 

are several factors that contribute to the growth of harmful algal 

blooms, certainly one of those is nutrients, and we believe that a 

solution to this problem requires attention both on source water 

protection, as well as infrastructure in the drinking water treatment facilities, that without both of those steps it would be very 

difficult to manage this problem. 

Mr. TONKO. And what authority does your office have under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act to prevent nonpoint source nutrient pollution from entering our drinking water 

sources? 

Mr. GREVATT. Right. So, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 

which my office is solely responsible for implementing, there is a 

requirement for states to produce source water assessments, which 

was completed. This was in the 1996 amendments. Every state has 

completed this task. There are no further requirements for source 

water protection, but certainly we encourage states and local communities to work together to address the sources of pollution that 

can create these sorts of problems in drinking water supplies. 

Clean Water Act is not an authority that my office implements, 

but certainly there are a number of provisions focusing on issues 

like non-point source pollution. We have the 319 grants, and a 

number of other activities that we have been advancing, along with 

partners at the Federal level to address sources pollution. 

Mr. TONKO. And, in your view, is it important to address nutrient pollution in addition to addressing the cyanotoxins in drinking 

water? 

Mr. GREVATT. Without question. I think it would be very difficult. If we don’t do that, what will happen is that we are putting 

all the burden on the drinking water systems to remove the toxins 

from the source water, and we saw in the case of Toledo that that 

can be a difficult thing to achieve. And so we believe it is important 

to address both the sources that are contributing to the growth of 

the algal blooms, as well as making sure that the treatment systems are up to the very tip-top shape so they can remove these pollutants from the drinking water. 

Mr. TONKO. And the treatment systems are available, or do they 

need to be further developed? 

Mr. GREVATT. So the treatment systems are—treatment techniques are available to remove algal toxins and cyanobacteria from 

drinking water supplies, but it is not necessarily a simple and 

straightforward task. And so that is part of the reason why we 

think we really have to address both issues—— 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. 

Mr. GREVATT [continuing]. Currently. 

Mr. TONKO. And is drinking water contamination the only problem associated with these blooms? 

Mr. GREVATT. So there are a number of issues. I think not many 

of you are familiar with concerns associated with recreational use 

of water, children and families at bathing beaches, if there are 

harmful algal blooms, can be exposed, and, in some cases, sickened 

20 

by those blooms. Certainly we see issues with livestock and pets 

who have been poisoned as a result of harmful algal blooms. And 

as well, as you mentioned, the blooms can contribute to hypoxic situations in lakes and reservoirs, and that can create a whole other 

set of issues that are separate from the drinking water concerns. 

Mr. TONKO. Another important tool is to ensure adequate protections for seasonal streams, wetlands, and other water with significant connections to downstream waters. The regulatory statute of 

these waters—the regulatory of these waters under the Clean 

Water Act is often misunderstood. EPA and the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers recently proposed to clarify the definition 

of waters of the United States under the Clean Water Act to eliminate confusion, and ensure that these waters are protected. 

The recent report that I cited earlier included a recommendation 

to restore wetland areas, and increase them by 10 percent, and the 

Western Lake Erie Basin is one of the ways to address algal 

blooms in the lake. What is the function of these small streams, 

wetlands, and other water bodies, and why are they important to 

our ecosystem? 

Mr. GREVATT. Right. Thank you. So, I want to be clear, again, 

that my office doesn’t implement the Clean Water Act, but certainly it is the case that it is very difficult to protect a body of 

water like Lake Erie without addressing the pollutants that are 

flowing into the water from other streams and rivers, and so I 

think it is a very important issue to think about comprehensively. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I really 

appreciate it. And Director, thank you again for being here. And, 

again, as the Chairman said, thanks very much for coming back 

from New Orleans to be with us today at the subcommittee hearing, because it is very important to our region of the state, but also 

what is going to come out of your office in the near future is important to everyone. 

And as we look at how obviously important it is that we understand the extent of the problem that we have, and I know I really 

appreciated the opportunity to sit down with you earlier this fall 

to go through what had happened, and also some of the issues that 

you are facing on peer review in getting that information together, 

what do you believe today are the largest gaps that we have in the 

health effects on the cyanotoxins are, and those gaps? 

Mr. GREVATT. Right, thank you. So there are a number of different cyanotoxins, as I mentioned. There are some that we understand much better than others. Perhaps the best studied is the 

microcystin cyanotoxin that was the issue within the City of Toledo 

drinking water system. And that is one of the health advisories 

that we will be developing, along with cylindrospermopsin. 

Probably the largest data gaps we have, in terms of toxicity, is 

the effects at very low levels of exposure. So there are a number 

of studies that have been generated in animals that look at issues 

like liver toxicity, and reproductive toxicity associated with 

microcystin exposure, but those studies aren’t perfect. We had 

been, as I mentioned, generating a health advisory for microcystin, 

21 

and we have subjected that draft health advisory to two rounds of 

independent external peer review, and we are using the feedback 

from the peer reviewers to make sure that we are taking the best 

approaches to incorporate the information from these studies, and 

the health advisory. And we will have that health advisory available in the spring of next year. 

Mr. LATTA. When you are talking about the—on a peer review, 

and maybe—as we talked earlier. Could you go into just a little bit 

about—it is kind of difficult because of the technical nature of this, 

and the expertise that is required, and the folks that you have to 

find to be able to conduct this peer review? 

Mr. GREVATT. That is right. So what we will typically do at 

EPA—when I say independent external, what I mean by that is we 

will hire a contractor to identify scientists who are not connected 

with the agency to review our work and give us feedback independent of us. We don’t choose the scientists who review our work. 

They give us the feedback, and then we look at how we interpret 

and incorporate their advice on how we finalize these health 

advisories. 

But we are looking at studies, typically in animals, and we have 

to try and understand what those studies tell us about the potential risks for humans. And that is part of the reason why it is so 

important to have the peer review, to have the advice about how 

best to do that. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. And as we know, that Ohio, and some of the 

other states, if I am not mistaken from our conversation, only 

about six other states are out there that are using surface water, 

or have some type of a standard in place, and we are using the 

World Health Organization standard. And when you are looking at 

your health advisory that you are working on for next year releasing, when was it that you all first decided at EPA that you needed 

to really have that standard in place? 

Mr. GREVATT. We decided that we needed to put a health advisory in place well before the Toledo incident, so we have been 

working on this throughout the last year, and even before. And we 

are working closely with Health Canada and a number of states in 

this effort to make sure that we are using the best available data 

in the best way. 

Mr. LATTA. And when you are talking about that is—in the last 

year, when you started looking at that, was there a reason that you 

hadn’t started working on it sooner, or is it something that has just 

been coming up? Or what was the reasoning behind that? 

Mr. GREVATT. Right. It is an excellent question, and there are 

two issues that have been challenging related to cyanotoxins. One 

has been the absence of analytical methods that are specific for individual cyanotoxins. And you remember I mentioned there are 

over 80 conjurers of microcystin that have different levels of toxicity. And the second is that the data set on toxicity has not been 

all that robust. 

There have been some additional studies that have been generated, and, in fact, the World Health Organization value, which 

about 12 countries around the world use today, and a number of 

states use, that is based on a 1999 study, and it is a 2003 guidance 

value that was generated, and so we felt it was important to upVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-181 CHRIS
22 

date that science. I think we have heard from you, and many of 

your colleagues, about how important it is to have a Federal health 

advisory in place, rather than relying on something from the World 

Health Organization. 

Mr. LATTA. And in my remaining time, would that also include— 

an advisory, would EPA issue for other separate types of algal— 

or not algal blooms, but algal toxins? Would there be one, or would 

you have several different types of advisories that you would have 

out there? 

Mr. GREVATT. We will have two health advisories, one for 

microcystin, and a second for cylindrospermopsin. Those are the 

two that we are focused on right now. So there will be two documents that will come out. They will both include information on 

health effects, treatment technologies, and analytical procedures 

for sampling these compounds. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Well, thank you very much, and, again, thank 

you very much for being here. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time has expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for— 

Congressman Latta for bringing this to our attention. I don’t think 

5 minutes is going to be enough for me, but let me see where we 

can go with this. 

Why Lake Erie? Is this—what made it unique? Because the same 

toxins, or same nutrients are coming into the water in Superior 

and Lake Michigan. Why—the—and is—am I accurate—I was told 

that the—they—they are doing dredging near the port in Toledo. 

So I didn’t hear that come up as a possibility of something that 

could be contributing, because you would have nutrients absorbed 

into the sediment that would be disturbed. Do you consider that 

possibly part of the uniqueness of why western Erie was a factor? 

Mr. GREVATT. Thank you. So clearly there are a number of issues 

that contribute to the growth of harmful algal blooms. We understand that nutrients are a very important factor. We also understand that the warmth of the water is an important factor. Availability of light is an important factor. And these issues come together in western Lake Erie, being a very shallow area, one of the 

most shallow areas of the Great Lakes, that has large nutrient 

inflows, as well as having very warm water temperatures. And also 

relatively stable water, without a whole lot of flows, can also contribute. And so that is—all those factors are present within western Lake Erie. 

We should be clear that there are many, many lakes and reservoirs across the United States that are being impacted by harmful algal blooms today, and many states across the U.S. that have 

similar factors of nutrient in—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But what about—— 

Mr. GREVATT [continuing]. Shallow water. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. The dredging? Could that be—how 

do you take that into consideration? 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. So certainly there are a lot of nutrients in the Lake Erie system today. Some of those are contained 

23 

within the dredge spoils, and there are some who believe that the 

dredging may be a contributing factor, if they are releasing nutrients into the water column, and also supporting, then, the growth 

of the algae. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. What about the zebra mussel that was introduced? I understand that also potentially has a contributing factor. 

Mr. GREVATT. That is an excellent question, and a number of my 

colleagues within the Great Lakes states are focused on issues, including invasive species. The thinking that some have shared is 

that zebra mussels may contribute to the growth of harmful algal 

blooms, cyanobacteria, by essentially competitively eliminating the 

native species of algae, and giving the cyanobacteria a greater opportunity to use the nutrients that are available to grow and create 

blooms. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. All right. So—and then go back down to the fundamental, it sounds like we are reacting, rather than anticipatory. 

How are they testing for this? Is there just—under the normal 

water treatment, does it remove the bacteria, and something 

showed up on a test that was unique that—after the fact that we 

had been using this water for some time? How does our conventional treatment take care of this problem? 

Mr. GREVATT. Our conventional treatment technologies can take 

care of the problem, but it is not a simple task to do, you know, 

so there are issues. For example, the microsystems, the toxins, are 

frequently found within the cells, the cyanobacteria cells. If one inadvertently breaks open the cells in the treatment technology, they 

can actually make the problem worse. So it is not a simple task to 

remove the cyanotoxins from drinking water with standard treatment techniques. 

Harmful algal blooms are not a new problem. They are a problem 

that was present even decades ago, when I was growing up in 

Cleveland, on Lake Erie. There were issues with harmful algal 

blooms on the lake at that time, in the 1960s. We made progress, 

and we see them now coming back for reasons that we may not 

fully understand, all the different factors that are contributing to 

that. 

One of the activities that we put in place at EPA over the last 

several years was a national lakes assessment that characterized 

the conditions of the nation’s lakes and reservoirs, and that assessment sampled for cyanobacteria and for microcystin, and helped to 

identify the extent of the problem across the U.S., and I think contributed, in some ways, to the awareness of some states, like the 

State of Ohio and others, to the issues that need to be addressed. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK, but that just—there are a lot of communities—I don’t want to look at the Toledos, and the Clevelands, and 

the Bostons, and—but what about the small communities, or rural 

America? How do—are they going to be equipped to be able to do 

the same water testing that Cleveland does, or St. Louis? 

Mr. GREVATT. This is a a very important issue, and you may be 

aware that, not in 2014, but in 2013 Carroll Township, a community of 4,000 on western Lake Erie, shut down for several days as 

a result of algal toxins within their system. Carroll Township was 

able to hook up to a neighboring community to get pure water provided to their customers, but that may not always be the case. And 

24 

you are right that that is going to be a significant challenge for 

small communities. 

Within our program, our State Drinking Water Revolving Loan 

Fund is focused on providing resources especially to small communities. So we provide resources to small, medium, and large communities, but especially focused on small communities to help them 

address these sorts of issues. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. I have run over my time. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, and I also want to highlight this. You 

work with the State Revolving Loan Fund. I have got a large rural 

area, and that has been a very successful program. It has been 

very helpful to my community, so—seeing—is there any other questions from colleagues present? Seeing none, again, we want to 

thank you for making your trip back. This is an important issue. 

We want to keep our eye on it, and work with everything, and 

stakeholders, to try to make sure that we can do what is in the 

best interest to protect the water supply for our constituents and 

our citizens. So thank you very much, and with that, I will dismiss 

the first panel, and we will empanel the second one. 

And we want to welcome, as the second panel—in the order at 

the table, we have the Honorable Craig Butler, who is director of 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. We have Mr. John 

Donahue, general manager at North Park Illinois Public Water 

District, on behalf of the American Water Works Association. And 

last, but not least, Ms. Lynn Thorp, national campaigns director of 

the Clean Water Action. Welcome. 

Your full statements will be submitted for the record. You will 

have 5 minutes. It is a—as you see, it is kind of a laid back day, 

so we are not going to be, again, brutal on time, but if we can get 

to questions eventually, that would be great. And I also want to 

thank—Mr. Grevatt is still sitting here, which I think is very important, and thank you for attending for a little bit longer. 

So with that, Mr. Butler, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE CRAIG W. BUTLER, DIRECTOR, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; JOHN 

DONAHUE, GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH PARK (IL) PUBLIC 

WATER DISTRICT, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN WATER WORKS 

ASSOCIATION; AND LYNN THORP, NATIONAL CAMPAIGNS DIRECTOR, CLEAN WATER ACTION 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG W. BUTLER 

Mr. BUTLER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Tonko, rest of the members of the committee, Representative Latta 

also for the invitation today. We appreciate it. I am Craig Butler, 

Director of Ohio EPA, and the Environmental Protection Agency, 

we appreciate the opportunity to offer testimony on the important 

subject of cyanotoxins, or harmful algal blooms, or sometimes we 

call them HABs, in our drinking water. The importance of this 

hearing, as we have heard today, cannot be highlighted more by 

the events of early August in Toledo, when nearly 500,000 people 

were told not to drink the water due to presence of microcystin in 

public drinking water above an acceptable level. Recommending 

25 

the issuance of this was not taken lightly, given the significance of 

the social and economic impact. But in consultation with experts on 

my staff, a decision had to be made to protect public health, and 

was based on the best science available. 

Ensuring that Ohio’s 4,500 public water systems provide safe 

drinking water is one of the most important responsibilities I have 

as director at Ohio EPA. This includes 125 systems using surface 

water, several of which draw their water directly from Lake Erie. 

To do this, Ohio implements and enforces drinking water standards 

and regulations established by U.S. EPA. I believe U.S. EPA’s general regulatory approach is very robust, results in scientifically defensible and feasible regulation. 

In dealing with HABs in Ohio drinking water supplies, we had 

to short circuit this rigorous regulatory process out of necessity. 

For example, in 2010, largely responsible to a significant harmful 

algal bloom in Grand Lake St. Mary’s in Western Central Ohio, the 

state established a strategy to identify and respond to the presence 

of toxins in water being used for recreation, and as a source of public drinking water. Ohio has established sampling and analytical 

protocols, and also public health advisory levels, for several of the 

most commonly identified toxins. And while we worked with U.S. 

EPA on many of these issues, Ohio realized we would need to lead 

the nation in many respects, and have to go it alone, if you will, 

since a national regulatory testing framework was not completed at 

that time. 

With the technical assistance of U.S. EPA since, and the Office 

of Water, and the Office of Research and Development, which is located in Ohio, we are pleased, and have been able to work with Toledo to ensure that their treatment plant was again operating properly, and able to provide Toledoans with safe drinking water. 

One of our lessons learned, if you will, and one of the very first 

of many steps we took to combat harmful algal blooms after the 

event in Toledo was to immediately make $1 million available in 

grant funds for cyanobacteria testing equipment to communities so 

water systems across the state could, and can, conduct their own 

monitoring for the presence of HABs. We believe this will enable 

them to more closely monitor the source water for algal blooms, 

and rapidly respond with any necessary treatment and adjustments. 

We also made $50 million available through zero interest loans 

for enhanced water treatment and infrastructure, and backup 

water sources at public water systems. And while not directly related to drinking water, we also, at that time, made $100 million 

available to our wastewater treatment systems across the state to 

help manage the issues about nutrients being discharged from 

their waste treatment systems. 

Ohio EPA continues to coordinate with U.S. EPA regarding the 

health advisory we spoke of—heard Dr. Grevatt speak of this morning about levels expected to be issues—issued by the U.S. EPA next 

spring, as well as the analytical methodologies, and the effectiveness of various treatment processes. We know they have accelerated this work, and we applaud their efforts to provide more guidance to states. We have also been coordinating with other states 

through the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, 

26 

and concur with the comments contained in ASDWA’s November 

14, 2014 letter to this subcommittee. 

Ohio EPA has been active in addressing HAB and drinking water 

sources, but as I can tell you, these issues are very complex. Many 

other states are under similar circumstances, although only about 

six have identified health advisory levels. Those levels are different, and based on a small set of data and information about 

HABs. It is my belief that the country would benefit from having 

a national dialogue, and establishing a consistent set of national 

standards for all to follow. 

Specific elements of the national approach should include a robust assessment of the health effects, and recommended health advisory levels not only for microcystin, but also for other variants of 

microcystin, as well as other common cyanotoxins. Second, standard analytical methods that are reliable and selective, but also affordable, guidance on the appropriate frequency of monitoring. Additional information on the ecology of cyanobacteria, and more 

guidance on the reliable treatment approach are necessary. 

In the long term, however, we believe that the best approach is 

to protect public water supplies through a source water protection 

plan, as well as preventing blooms via data driven targeted strategies to address nutrient pollution from not only agriculture, but 

other point sources, non-point sources, and other sources in general. As we are putting—and we are putting that into place in Ohio 

today. With the support of significant funding through the GLRI, 

or the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, we have developed a coordinated strategy with the State’s Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources, EPA, and Health to develop prescriptions for 

watersheds in the Lake Erie Basin to address nutrient pollution, 

based on data we have available. 

In summary, EPA takes very seriously the quality of water— 

drinking water supplied to our public water systems. Ohio has 

taken many proactive steps to address the issue. It is our strong 

belief that state and Federal leaders need to work closely together 

to quickly advance the science of detection and effective treatment. 

We stand ready in the State of Ohio to continue to lead in this effort, and we will gladly work with other states. I appreciate the opportunity to offer this testimony to the committee, and would be 

pleased to respond and answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Butler follows:] 

27 


93990.010
28 


93990.011
29 


93990.012
30 


93990.013
31 


93990.014
32 


93990.015
33 


93990.016
34 


93990.017
35 


93990.071
36 


93990.072
37 


93990.073
38 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. I would like to recognize 

Mr. John Donahue. Sir, again, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN DONAHUE 

Mr. DONAHUE. Good morning Chairman Shimkus and members 

of the subcommittee. My name is John Donahue, and I am the 

Chief Executive Officer of the North Park Public Water District 

based in Machesney Park, Illinois. I deeply appreciate this opportunity to offer input on the critical issues surrounding algal bloom, 

cyanotoxins, and our Nation’s sources of drinking water. I am here 

today on behalf of the American Water Works Association, which 

I serve as president. My remarks reflect the experiences and perspective of AWWA’s nearly 50,000 members. Established in 1881, 

AWWA is the world’s oldest and largest non-profit scientific and 

educational association dedicated to water. Our utility members 

provide safe and affordable water every day to more than 70 percent of the American population. 

As you know, last August an algal bloom in western Lake Erie 

resulted in the formation of a toxin known as microcystin, requiring the City of Toledo to issue a Do Not Drink Advisory that affected more than 400,000 people. The formation of algal toxins is 

very complex, and not fully understood. The same can be said for 

their possible human health effects. But one thing is certain, this 

problem is always associated with excessive amounts of nitrogen 

and phosphorus in water. 

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, non-point sources, predominantly runoff and air deposition, account for 90 percent of the 

nitrogen and 75 percent of the phosphorous in our waterways. The 

fairest and best strategy for reducing the scope and severity of this 

problem in the future is bringing non-point sources of nutrient pollution under more effective management. At present, though, these 

sources lie largely outside the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. 

There are some Federal programs that do have a bearing on nutrients in our water, such as the conservation title of the Farm Bill. 

However, these conservation programs are voluntary in nature, in 

contrast to the clean water permit programs, and they are not 

based upon the quality of receiving waters, nor do they reflect the 

need to protect downstream sources of drinking water. 

Now, drinking water treatment technology does exist to allow 

drinking water utilities to remove toxins produced by algal blooms, 

however, this technology is very expensive to acquire and maintain. 

In addition, removing these toxins after they occur does nothing to 

protect the ecosystem, and the people within the watershed. As a 

utility manager, the protection of public health is always my most 

important priority, and the same is true for the American Water 

Works Association. 

Even before this summer’s events, AWWA had taken steps to 

help water systems at risk from algal events. These include developing and distributing information to assist water systems, and anticipating and responding to source water challenges, including 

cyanobacterial blooms and cyanotoxins, prepare a water utility 

manager’s guide to cyanotoxins, which is now in its final review, 

encouraging water systems to evaluate their circumstances to determine whether they might have unrecognized cyanotoxin concern, 

39 

and to establish appropriate safeguards, and assisting water systems with guidance and training in emergency preparedness so 

that they have protocols in place to respond to events like that experienced in Toledo. 

Having said those things, utility managers can’t solve this problem on their own. We need Federal help. Federal agencies, including U.S. EPA, USDA, should include existing authorities to give 

much higher priority to nutrient reduction projects that protect 

downstream drinking water supplies. For example, the Clean 

Water State Revolving Loan Fund and Farm Bill conservation programs could be targeted and used more effectively to reduce nutrient pollution, and protect drinking water sources. 

With regard to drinking water regulation, we support the 

science-based standard setting process in the Safe Drinking Water 

Act. EPA has indicated it will use the unregulated contaminant 

monitoring rule process as the first step in determining whether 

the regulation of cyanotoxins affords a meaningful opportunity to 

protect public health, and we support that step. 

Finally, and perhaps most important, we ask that Congress consider ways to increase the effectiveness of non-point source pollution programs. This should include discussing the question of 

whether non-point pollution should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act in an appropriate way. It would not 

be equitable to put an increasing burden on water systems and 

their customers to solve this problem if the most significant sources 

of nutrient pollution are not also asked to do more. 

In closing, I want to thank the subcommittee for the leadership 

that it is taking today in holding this hearing, and I will be happy 

to answer any questions you may have, either today or in the future. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Donahue follows:] 

40 


93990.018
41 


93990.019
42 


93990.020
43 


93990.021
44 


93990.022
45 


93990.023
46 


93990.024
47 


93990.025
48 


93990.026
49 


93990.027
50 


93990.028
51 


93990.029
52 


93990.030
53 


93990.031
54 


93990.032
55 


93990.033
56 


93990.034
57 


93990.035
58 


93990.036
59 


93990.037
60 


93990.038
61 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. Now I would like to turn 

to Ms. Lynn Thorp, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LYNN THORP 

Ms. THORP. Thank you Chairman Shimkus, Ranking Member 

Tonko, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Lynn Thorp. 

I am the National Campaigns Director for Clean Water Action. We 

are a national organization working in 15 states on a wide range 

of issues, including Safe Drinking Water Act implementation, and 

protecting drinking water sources. Clean Water Action urges the 

committee to support aggressive action to reduce the nitrogen and 

phosphorous or nutrient pollution that cause harmful algal blooms, 

which in turn produce cyanotoxins. To address cyanotoxins only 

through drinking water regulation and treatment is inadequate, 

and transfers the burden of pollution control to water systems and 

their consumers. Sources of nutrient pollution, as we have heard, 

include agriculture practice, storm water, sewer and septic systems, and fossil fuel use in various sectors. Population growth and 

climate change exacerbate the problem. 

As we have heard, some cyanotoxins produced by certain harmful 

algal blooms cause liver damage, nerve damage, and skin damage. 

Excessive nutrients contribute to the growth of these harmful algal 

blooms. But this pollution causes other drinking problems as well. 

The development of nitrate, development of increased disinfection 

byproducts, all of these lead to increased public health risks in 

drinking water and costs for consumers. Nitrogen and phosphorous 

also cause other environmental problems, including dead zones and 

impaired water quality, and we know that nutrient pollution 

causes demonstrated economic losses in fishing, recreation, and 

water dependent businesses. 

EPA and some states have taken expeditious action to address 

cyanotoxins in drinking water. As we have heard, EPA has placed 

three cyanotoxins on the contaminant candidate list, an important 

Safe Drinking Water Act implementation step that will lead to the 

research we need to learn more and move on the path toward regulation. EPA is also conducting toxicity and human health assessments, developing drinking water health levels, and also developing laboratory methods so that we can measure cyanotoxins consistently. 

I want to note that EPA and states are conducting these activities in the face of stagnant and shrinking budgets, and possibly inadequate capacity to implement the Safe Drinking Water Act, and 

to reduce drinking water threats as aggressively as the public expects. EPA has the authority, under our Nation’s other landmark 

water law, the Clean Water Act, to address nutrient pollution from 

all sources. Despite the agriculture exemptions in the Clean Water 

Act, progress can be made on addressing a significant source. 

There are other immediate opportunities, as we have heard, for 

EPA to help reduce nitrogen and phosphorous pollution. The proposed definition of waters of the United States under the Clean 

Water Act, which clarifies the protection of streams, wetlands, and 

other waters, is a good example. These water bodies are a vital 

part of our water infrastructure because they filter pollution, inVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-181 CHRIS
62 

cluding nutrients, before it makes its way to downstream water 

bodies, often which service drinking water sources. 

In an upcoming Clean Water Act rulemaking limiting toxic water 

discharges from power plants, EPA has an opportunity to address 

30 million pounds of nitrogen, and 682,000 pounds of phosphorous 

discharged by power plants annually into surface water. As noted 

here earlier today, other Federal agencies, including the USDA and 

states, can take significant action to address nutrient pollution. Innovative partnerships can also play a role. For example, the Source 

Water Collaborative is made up of diverse stakeholders, including 

regulators, drinking water utilities, planners, and environmental 

organizations working together to advance drinking water source 

protection at the local, state, and Federal levels. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act’s multi-barrier approach starts 

with source water protection. Clean Water Action likes to say we 

should put drinking water first, which means making decisions 

about upstream activities with a focus on preventing drinking 

water impacts downstream. This results in better choices, which 

prevent other environmental and economic impacts. This is certainly true when it comes to nutrient pollution. Curbing nitrogen 

and phosphorous inputs is the right choice for drinking water protection, and is the multi-benefit approach. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Thorp follows:] 

63 


93990.039
64 


93990.040
65 


93990.041
66 


93990.042
67 


93990.043
68 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentlelady yields back her time, and thank you 

very much. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for my round 

of questioning. 

First, to Director Butler, which stage would you say we are in 

right now on the state of the science of microcystin, particularly as 

it relates to health effects? 

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just recognize that I am 

not a scientist, like Dr. Grevatt, but—so I will give you my layman’s understanding of it. So I would say that the—a lot of work 

has been done, much more is needed, and I think much more 

quickly than has been advanced in the past, so that is why we have 

applauded Dr. Grevatt and U.S. EPA Research and Development 

office for accelerating the research about the health advisory levels 

for microcystin. 

We understand, and as you heard this morning, there are many 

different variants of microcystin, many different types of 

cyanobacteria that, frankly, we know very little, if not anything, 

about. Not just in terms of the nature of those, but also of the potential toxicity of those. So as we applaud the work that is advancing currently, we also would recommend, and not want to lose sight 

of the fact that there are many other variants of microcystin and 

cyanobacterias that are not being studied that need additional 

study. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And it is to no one’s surprise that I am from one 

of the largest agricultural districts in the Nation, and I know that 

good stewardship is important to them, filter strips, and now with 

incoming technology, the ability to really—I think a lot of people 

have a perspective that this stuff just gets sprayed, to the point 

where it just runs off. And new technology is available where they 

are going to be implementing either the herbicide, or the fertilizer, 

like, right—almost specifically right upon the seed. So have you 

had discussions with the agricultural community in—some of these 

issues in dealing with the State of Ohio? 

Mr. BUTLER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think—one thing I just wanted to make clear, as we—since 2010, through Toledo, and then continuing, this has been an issue that Governor Kasich has been active in, and we all have been. As I mentioned, we have a very close 

partnership with the Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources through the non-point source programs in Ohio, as well as 

Ohio EPA and the Department of Health, so we have continued to 

meet and work aggressively on this. 

One of the things that we had been working with is with the agricultural community, the Farm Bureau in Ohio and agribusiness. 

They have implemented some programs. They have a healthy 

water initiative through the Farm Bureau, where they are doing a 

20 to 30 year assessment. They have also invested several million 

dollars about—doing edge of field research, looking at transport of 

nutrients off of the fields and how that happens. We have recently 

been working with—through the monies that we received through 

the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, we have been working to 

implement several programs of—in the ag community, including 

cover crops, making grants available for farmers to do cover crops. 

But as you mentioned, the prescription application, the prescriptive—very precise, targeted implementation, we know that, much 

69 

like no-till farming was many years ago, that equipment was very 

expensive. Farmers weren’t used to—know how to use it. I think 

we are in that same phase now. There is very expensive equipment 

that farmers can use to be very targeted in the application of fertilizer through GPS, other technologies, and think they are very 

willing to use it. It is just, how do we train them to do that, and 

then help them purchase the equipment to do it? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I think one of the aspects will be immeasurable. How do you measure the success of the new techniques, 

and new farm activities, and get credit for the great work that is 

being done in that area? 

Mr. Donahue, cyanobacteria blooms, as I understand them, are 

not a new problem. To what do you attribute more frequently observation and reporting in most recent years? 

Mr. DONAHUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say that for 

public water systems, we do see more frequency in these algal 

blooms in our receiving streams. Many more public water supplies 

are using surface water supplies as their source of drinking water, 

especially in the Midwest, as we have seen groundwater systems 

be depleted. 

Certainly the increase in nutrient runoff has had an impact on 

our—the quality of our source water, and, from that perspective, I 

think a relationship, or a partnership between the Safe Drinking 

Water Act and the Clean Water Act, in order to help us better understand how those—how that bacteria occurs in the receiving 

streams, and, ultimately, what we can do to prevent it from getting 

into our drinking water supply is something we should be looking 

at. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. There have been a lot of concerns coming out of the Toledo experience on monitoring and testing procedures and equipment. Could you please speak to the feasibility and 

reliability of the available methods for detection and treatment, 

and also speak to the viability of—and the affordability of these? 

Mr. DONAHUE. As far as the analytical processes, I am not an expert in the analytical procedures. I do know that there is some additional work needing to be done, as far as standard method for the 

analysis of drinking water for cyanobacteria. Regarding the cost for 

public water supplies, certainly drinking water is an undervalued 

commodity today. We spend a lot of money—our customers believe 

that they have a—the cost of their water supply—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You are choosing your words carefully. 

Mr. DONAHUE. I am trying to. So water is undervalued to the 

point where somebody would pay $2.50 for a cup of Starbucks coffee, but they might squawk at paying the same amount of money 

for a 1,000 gallons of safe drinking water delivered right to their 

tap. So could some public water supplies afford to increase their 

rates? Perhaps. But our position is that, in this case, it would be 

a bit unfair to put all of the burden on the public water supplies 

in this case without looking at the sources of the cyanobacteria in 

the first place. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. My time is far expired, and I apologize. 

Now turn to the Ranking Member, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Donahue, you indicated 

in your testimony that tackling this problem at the treatment plant 

70 

is not sufficient. Does the American Water Works Association support efforts to protect source water by eliminating nutrient inputs 

to drinking water sources? 

Mr. DONAHUE. We absolutely support anything that can be done 

to prevent these nutrients from running off into our receiving waters. I think what I said in my testimony, though, is that the treatment processes are available that could remove cyanobacteria from 

the drinking water, but they are very expensive to acquire and 

maintain. Requiring communities to purchase advance drinking 

water technology and implement it without doing something at the 

source water level, we believe, would be a bit unfair. 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. And what are the costs to water utilities to adequately treat water to remove toxins from the algal blooms? 

Mr. DONAHUE. I don’t have that information available to me this 

morning, but we would be happy to provide you with that at a future date. 

Mr. TONKO. And we have heard that small and seasonal streams 

and wetlands play a critical role in source water protection. That 

is the goal of the EPA/U.S. Army Corps proposal, to clarify the definition of waters of the U.S. Ms. Thorp, is the protection of these 

upstream waters and wetlands important for pollution reduction 

and to control harmful algal blooms? 

Ms. THORP. Thank you, Ranking Member Tonko. Yes, indeed, it 

is. EPA has found, in its scientific analysis accompanying the proposed definition, that streams and wetlands play a critical role in 

nutrient reduction. In fact, I believe they found the—scientific literature over the last several decades replete with evidence of this 

pollution filtering role. 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. And according to EPA, drinking water for over 

117 million people comes from public water systems that rely, to 

some degree, on seasonal streams. And so, Ms. Thorp, if we do not 

protect the feeder creeks and upstream waters, is there an impact 

on drinking water quality for these communities? 

Ms. THORP. Thank you. Yes, sir, we think so, and we think that 

number is a low estimate, because that was based on an analysis 

only of headwater streams and the public water systems that serve 

what—about a third of our population. But, of course, the impact 

of streams and wetlands, and their role in filtering pollution, including nutrient pollution, is much broader than that. It includes 

many people relying on private wells, for example. 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. And, Mr. Donahue, if we don’t do more to protect source waters, what does that mean for water utilities and 

their customers? 

Mr. DONAHUE. Well, certainly that if we don’t do something to 

remove nutrients from source water before it gets to the drinking 

water treatment plant, treatment facilities will have no choice but 

to impose treatment techniques that would remove those potential 

contaminants. Our first priority is to protect public health, and if 

we can’t control that on the source side, then drinking water utilities will have no alternative but to increase their treatment capability, and the cost associated with that would be transferred to our 

customers. 

Mr. TONKO. You know, I hear about the seriousness of this issue, 

and the toxicity that impacts society in general. Perhaps the misVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-181 CHRIS
71 

understood status of the regulatory opportunities under the Clean 

Water Act. We are also compounding the situation with climate 

change, a science that oftentimes is ignored. 

Some of the predictions for climate change impacts are for far 

more extreme weather events, and altered weather patterns. This 

might include more intense rainfall events, which—obviously cause 

for additional washing of these nutrients into the system of toxic 

elements, warmer summers, higher temperatures obviously being 

an impact here, longer droughts, for example. Ms. Thorp, what impact would these changes have on harmful algal blooms? 

Ms. THORP. Thank you, sir. I think a number of impacts of extreme weather events and warming temperatures can affect the 

problems we are talking about here. One example is that the 

growth of harmful algal blooms, and, in fact, all algal blooms, is not 

completely understood, as we have heard earlier today, but we 

know that warming temperatures, as well as rainfall patters, can 

affect that growth. We also know that excessive rainfall, for example, can lead to increased nutrient runoff, which then is feeding the 

problem in another way. 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. Mr. Donahue, were you looking at that, 

that—— 

Mr. DONAHUE. No. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. All right. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time, and the Chair 

now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thanks again, Mr. Chairman, and thanks again 

for having our hearing, and thanks to our panel for being with us 

today. Really appreciate your time and expertise in this matter. 

And if I could—Director Butler, if I could ask you some questions 

right off the bat? 

It was mentioned a little bit earlier that there are several types 

of cyanotoxins of concerns just besides the microcystins. Do you believe it would be helpful if the U.S. EPA had a comprehensive list 

of cyanotoxins determined to be harmful to human health in drinking water? 

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, Representative Latta, yes, we do. 

We know that that would take a long term commitment from U.S. 

EPA, and take an extensive period of time to do that, particularly 

if they were to develop regulatory levels about the harmful impacts 

for that. We are encouraged by the acceleration to provide states 

with some additional information and health advisory in 2015. 

We think that will add to the body of research that is out there, 

although we think that we need to continue to accelerate, keep our 

foot on the gas, so to speak, about not only moving through 2018 

with—moving with a regulatory level, not only for those that U.S. 

EPA had identified, but also do not forget about the other 

cyanobacteria and harmful algal derivatives that are out there that 

also need attention. 

Mr. LATTA. And also, you know, all the conversations we had 

during that first week of August, you know, when Toledo was having its crisis out there, in all that was going on, I know that—you 

mentioned what the state has done, especially on funding from the 

U.S.—or from the Ohio EPA. Because of the cost—because there 

was a significant amount of dollars here, when we are talking 

72 

about the different types of testing that are going to be going—that 

could be done—and if you could just maybe go into all of it? Because I know that we are talking about, you know, the Elisa Method, and the LC–MS/MS test method that is being—that is more robust and efficient than the others, and being able to find different 

variants. 

But if you could just kind of go into that, because I found it pretty interesting, number one, the cost, two, about getting the equipment, and three, about finding the personnel, being able to just run 

that equipment. And then, again, I think, in the north end of Ohio 

we have about 140 plus systems out there that are utilizing surface 

water, and what that would entail for all of those communities. I 

know that is a long question. 

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, Representative Latta, exactly right. 

We have made a million dollars, as I mentioned in my testimony, 

I think we have 125 systems that are surface water systems in the 

State of Ohio, many of those which take water directly from Lake 

Erie. We came to that relative number of a million dollars because 

we wanted to offer this Elisa screening technology to all of them. 

That cost of doing that is about $10,000, so a relatively modest 

amount of money. 

What you get from that, in my layman’s terms, is you get a piece 

of technology that is a broad spectrum identifier, if you have 

microcystin in your water. It is not a piece of technology that helps 

speciate out which protective variant or congeners you have, or 

what kind of cyanobacteria you have got. If it is in there, it will 

tell you it is there, but it won’t tell you which one it is, and it won’t 

tell you whether it is one of those that may be harmful, or which 

ones it may not be. 

So we think it is a great screening tool, and we think that a 

tiered approach would be most effective. If we are going to move 

into a more detailed system, and you talked about the LC–MS/MS 

technology, Dr. Grevatt could tell you what all of that acronym 

means, but, in my view, what it will do is a much more refined 

testing methodology that gets down and helps you identify what 

variant of cyanobacteria do you have, and whether or not it may 

be one that is harmful. That is also helpful. If you could use that 

as the Elisa Method to determine whether you have something to 

be concerned with, then you could rely on the LC–MS/MS technology to then figure out exactly what variant you have go hand 

in hand. The issue we have with the LC–MS/MS is—or the HPLC, 

which is another, is cost. 

Rather than $10,000 for a piece of equipment of Elisa that a 

small community could run, and learn that very quickly, the cost 

to us in the State of Ohio would be around $400,000 for one piece 

of equipment. On top of that, you have the development of the 

method, which could take many months, 8 to 12 months to find the 

method. And then, for us, it is a cost concern about just finding 

somebody that is capable of running it. It is a very specialized piece 

of equipment. Having somebody with the right degree and credential to be able to keep them on staff and pay them, frankly, a state 

salary is very difficult. So while we like that technology, we also 

don’t want to suggest that that be the only potential technology we 

use. 

73 

Mr. LATTA. If I could just follow up just briefly? With that, how 

many communities could utilize one piece of equipment? 

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, Representative Latta, that is a good 

question. We have talked internally, and with U.S. EPA, about 

whether the State of Ohio or communities could group together. I 

think they could all—and we are seeing that happen now, frankly. 

Some communities do not want to take the grant monies from Ohio 

EPA, even for the $10,000 for the Elisa technology, because they 

are very close to another small neighborhood that is, or has the 

technology. They are partnering together, sharing services, which 

we very much applaud in the state. Sharing those services, banding 

together, and doing the testing. 

So it is conceivable, and we would encourage it, that there would 

be a way for many communities to band together and use an HPLC 

methodology. We could also help them, through our testing capabilities with the State of Ohio. I know U.S. EPA has this, as well 

as many universities too, so there are multiple options, so not every 

community would need to invest that time and money. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence in time, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman’s time has expired. Chair now recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, who will be the 

vice-chair of this subcommittee in the next Congress. We want to 

congratulate him on that, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the 

Chairman, and look forward to the next term, and I hope you will 

be pleased with that decision, so thank you. And glad to have the 

panelists here today, appreciate this. This is an important topic, 

important to many of us. And if I could start with Mr. Butler? 

And what is your expectation of how U.S. EPA should engage 

with the states before issuing its public health advisory? 

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, Representative Harper, that is a 

great question. What we have been encouraged by so far is the 

great working relationship we have got. We are very blessed to 

have the Office of Research and Development in Cincinnati. So 

them being able to help us in the Toledo situation was very helpful. 

In fact, we were flying samples down in the middle of the night, 

and their staff, you know, went to the airport to pick these samples 

up in the middle of the night, so it was just a great opportunity 

for us. We have been encouraged since then. We have got a great 

working relationship. 

And to answer your question directly, what we would prefer, and 

what we would like to see happen, is, as U.S. EPA—and we know 

they are on a very fast track to get us this health advisory information, but as they are going through this process to engage states 

that are interested, or that need to be engaged in the development 

of that, rather than at the end, after they develop that, hold a public hearing and public comment period. So I know it is a balance. 

We want to see this move along quickly and get the information, 

but we would prefer to be engaged up front, because we think we 

have information to offer. 

Mr. HARPER. And if I may ask, Mr. Butler, since the algal problem in Toledo, is the Ohio EPA on much better ground regarding 

testing protocols for microcystin? 

74 

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, Representative, I think we are. You 

know, we have learned a lot after working with Toledo. We also 

have worked with all of our other surface water systems, not only 

in terms of offering technology and treatment, but we have developed, and have redefined, and continue to redefine on a consensus 

basis, with all of our surface water systems, statement of operations on how we—everybody consistently manages tests for 

cyanobacteria. 

Mr. HARPER. You know, I am very pleased with your earlier comments on the coordination between the Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA of 

what you went through, and the—— 

Mr. BUTLER. Yes. 

Mr. HARPER [continuing]. That coordination that took place. But 

if we were looking overall, what improvements to government coordination between the states and Federal Government would recommend would need to occur, and why? 

Mr. BUTLER. Very specifically, and I will just reiterate a comment I had before, as we focus more attention, and U.S. EPA is 

starting to aggressively develop not only health assessments, but 

further on, with potential regulatory limits in safe drinking water, 

through the contaminant rule, I think that coordinating more up 

front versus more reactive is something we would encourage, and 

think it ultimately leads us to a better product. I think we get 

there quicker, and I think U.S. EPA would concur with that. So it 

is not a fault, but I just think a process that would allow that 

would be much more beneficial. 

Mr. HARPER. And, Mr. Donahue, if you can just kind of educate 

me a little bit, and those that are tuning in, discuss effective ways 

to treat drinking water for the cyanotoxins. 

Mr. DONAHUE. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, typically, conventional coagulation and sedimentation can take care of this. There 

are a number of other treatment technologies that are able to remove cyanotoxins from the water. Pre-treatment oxidation, and 

even microfiltration with membrane treatment are all options for 

treating drinking water. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Some of our testimony today talks about predicting cyanobacteria blooms through National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration modeling. Can you please speak to the challenges of relying on this too much? 

Mr. DONAHUE. I really don’t have the answer for that question 

right now, but we would be happy to provide that. 

Mr. HARPER. Anybody else on the panel want to take a shot at 

that? OK. 

Mr. BUTLER. Well, Representative, what we are encouraged by is 

NOAA continues to refine their modeling, and being able to provide 

more and more specialized assessments in the western basin, we 

also are working with our aviation centers in Ohio in how we can 

coordinate with NOAA, and even NASA, on being able to provide 

more detailed information about looking at the western basin almost in real time, in a very specific location. The caution would be 

not to rely on that completely, because you may not always find 

that those are if we have a harmful algal bloom, that those are 

visible from the surface, or from a multi-spectrum scanner. 

75 

So the need to do consistent sampling, and we do that in the 

near shore environment around the western basin, Ohio EPA and 

others do sampling to give us a predictor of when those harmful 

algal blooms may be in place. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Chair now recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. At the conclusion 

of Grevatt’s comment, and I think the Chairman mentioned it, and 

then I think, Mr. Donahue, you mention it as well, and that is the 

State Revolving Fund, I want to get back to that in a minute, but 

I thought I heard you say in your testimony that there were some 

4,500 water treatment facilities in the State of Ohio. Is that accurate? 

Mr. DONAHUE. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. And so we are now—and I don’t know how many 

of that would be across the country. Yes, if there are 4,500 in the 

State of Ohio, I don’t know, how many water treatment facilities 

would we have across the country? Thousands? 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You may want to direct that to Mr. Donahue, 

David. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Yes. 

Mr. DONAHUE. Drinking water treatment facilities, there are in 

the neighborhood of 50 to 55,000 treatment—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. 

Mr. DONAHUE [continuing]. Facilities—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. But not all of them are going to be surface 

water—— 

Mr. DONAHUE. No. 

Mr. MCKINLEY [continuing]. But I think we are primarily focused 

back on the State Revolving Fund, we have had people come before 

us in this panel, and other committees, where they have talked 

about—the State Revolving Fund doesn’t have an adequate amount 

of money to meet all of their challenges that they have. And perhaps this is—this situation—I am not denying it is happening. I 

think we have to deal with that, and it is just going to exacerbate 

the problem all the more if there is not sufficient money with the 

SRF. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. DONAHUE. Absolutely. There is significant competition for 

SRF funding right now. AWWA has produced a report that has 

identified more than a trillion dollars’ worth of infrastructure requirements for the country in the next 20 years, and that alone can 

tax the SRF program. And this would only serve to make that matter worse. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Well, thank you, because I am concerned, as I 

mentioned in my earlier remarks at the last panel, where those 

small communities, 4,500—how they are going to come up with the 

money, and there has to be a grant to be able to help them out to 

do this. And if the SRF doesn’t have sufficient funds, it just exacerbates this problem all the more. 

So, having said all that, I am curious, and probably should have 

asked Grevatt when he was here, why would the EPA reduce funding for the SRF? The president just came out with his budget, reVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-181 CHRIS
76 

duces the State Revolving Fund by nearly 40 percent. And when 

we asked them that question, why did they reduce it, knowing so 

many people in these small communities need the money, why 

would they do that? And his—and her answer was, we have 

changed our priorities. Our priorities are not State—providing 

money for communities for water systems, but rather for climate 

change initiatives, pamphlets, literature, and education processes 

around the country, and perhaps around the world. 

How would you—in terms of priorities, OK, would it be better to 

be able to provide money for the—these communities that need 

water, clean water? Because we have all talked about how desperately we need it. Or is it more important that we have climate 

change initiatives? 

Mr. DONAHUE. Certainly, Congressman. Maintaining the SRF 

program, and even increasing it, is something that the American 

Water Works Association fully supports. Many of our small, medium, and large communities rely quite heavily on the revolving 

loan funds to support capital projects within their community. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. So you would have a problem with transferring $581 million out of the State Revolving Fund? 

Mr. DONAHUE. I am not sure I am the best person on this panel 

to answer that question, and Dr. Grevatt is still here, but I would 

say yes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. Looking to the 

minority side, Mr. Barrow waives. Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

panel members for joining us today. Mr. Butler, it is good to see 

some home folks here today from Ohio. 

Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good to have you. 

Mr. BUTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Butler, does Ohio EPA support the U.S. EPA 

issuing a non-contaminating monitoring rule for microcystins? 

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, Representative Johnson, yes, we do? 

Mr. JOHNSON. You do? 

Mr. BUTLER. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. How is Ohio dealing with nutrient contribution to source water from non-agricultural contributors? 

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, Representative, that is a good question. As I mentioned in my testimony, some of the immediate after 

action items that we did was—we were able to secure some money 

from U.S. EPA. You have often heard, in our state, people talking 

about how Grand Lake St. Mary’s was called a watershed in distress, and there has been a call for calling the western basin of 

Lake Erie a watershed in distress. While we think this is important, and that is a designation that we see as useful in a grand 

lake, it is not something that we agree with for the western basin, 

and the reason is it is only focused on agricultural sources. There 

are many contributing sources in the western basin that are nonagricultural. 

We have used the money that was provided by U.S. EPA by the 

GLRI to go down into the very small sub-watershed levels, use the 

77 

information we have through our monitoring and sampling that 

worked throughout the state, and in the western basin, to determine if it is an agricultural contribution that is most predominant, 

if it is point source, or other non-point source, in many parts of our 

state we have failing not—failing on-lot septic sewage systems. It 

is generally a combination of all those. No watershed is the same. 

So we have been able to use that money to target and develop— 

I call it a prescription for each one of these very small sub-watersheds. That is much more productive, than—it is just a broad 

brushed approach. 

Certainly agriculture recognizes that they have a contribution, 

and they are—they have, and we agree, that they have stepped up 

to help us here. But there are other sources that we are also working on. We have introduced two pieces of—we are going through 

our end of the year legislative session. In House Bill 490 we have 

recently added two components. One is adding monitoring, a requirement that all of our wastewater treatment plants would include monitoring for phosphorous, so we can determine if they are 

contributing, and then manage that. And the second is we introduced part—a bill that would disallow, unless under certain conditions, the open lake disposal of dredge material on Lake Erie, 

which is also thought to be a contributor for harmful algal blooms. 

We have also—on the agriculture side, we have worked a lot 

through Senate Bill 150 that was implemented, on training all the 

farmers to make sure that they are certified on application of manure. And we have also done cover crop work. We have done soil 

testing. And so we have got a comprehensive program across the 

board. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Well, thank you. I understand that some 

groups in Ohio have a citizen sampling program for dealing with 

microcystin. Are the groups operating in Toledo working with Ohio 

EPA? 

Mr. BUTLER. I have heard that the groups exist. It is not to my 

knowledge they have worked with us. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Does Ohio EPA have a citizen sampling program? 

Mr. BUTLER. We have a program called Credible Data, so whether it is Ohio EPA—we have got a lot of scientists that are out in 

the field collecting water quality data. We will accept, under certain conditions, if they, you know, if citizens or other organizations 

collect samples, we can accept those, as long as they follow the 

proper chains of custody, and that the samples are accurate samples. We have not only guidance in Ohio, but law in Ohio that directs how we do that, and we are willing to train people to do that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Well, you mentioned chain of custody. How 

important is chain of custody, and using approved methods when 

sampling is occurring? 

Mr. BUTLER. It is crucial. We base all of our decisions based on 

science, and the legality of those results. So having a complete 

chain of custody from the time the sample is taken, knowing how 

those samples were taken, what parameters they are taken, make 

sure they are taken under the right methods, they are preserved 

correctly, that those samples then are handled correctly for certain 

periods of time. Some call for icing of those samples, some don’t. 

78 

So the whole chain of custody, and how those samples are managed 

to get them to our laboratory, to get them through our testing 

methodology, is critical. And if it is not done the right way, it calls 

into question the result. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I 

yield back. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Gentleman yields back his time. I would be remiss 

if I didn’t also mention the USDA Rural Development ability to access water assistance for small rural Americans. It has been very, 

very helpful, and I can’t say enough about it. Based upon the 

agreement between the majority and minority committee staff, I 

would like to request unanimous consent that the letters from the 

following organizations, as well as their attachments, be inserted 

into the hearing record. The Association of State Water Drinking 

Administrators, the Internal Bottled Water Association, the Fertilizer Institute, the American Municipal Water Association. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I would also like to request unanimous consent 

that members have 5 legislative days to submit statements for the 

record. And, with that, I want to thank you for coming. I think it 

was very helpful and educational. I look forward to working with 

you, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

I want to thank the Chairman of the subcommittee for recognizing me. 

Today, this panel is going to examine the issue of blue-green algae in the water 

which is treated for use in Americans’ drinking water taps. 

As we’ve already heard, this past August, in an effort to protect its customers 

from elevated levels of algae toxins in the water, the City of Toledo, Ohio urged all 

customers of its Collins Water Treatment Plant to neither drink nor boil its treated 

tap water until an ‘‘all clear’’ was issued. 

This protective effort though was little comfort for some who were confused about 

what the ‘‘DO NOT USE’’ order meant and were anxious about the adverse health 

impacts that exposure to cyanotoxins (CY-AHN-O-toxins) could inflict: damage to 

the liver, skin, or nervous system. In addition, cyanotoxins (CY-AHN-O-toxins) were 

known to inflict death upon exposed wildlife, livestock, birds, and pets. 

Toledo is not a one-off when it comes to harmful algal blooms in fresh water that 

is used as a source drinking water. While I am not aware of any cyanotoxins (CYAHN-O-toxin) issues with Lake Michigan, the Toledo incident did have fellow 

Michiganders in Monroe County on alert as well. 

Cyanobacteria (CY-AHN-O-bacteria), the microorganisms considered as important 

contributors to the formation of the Earth’s atmosphere and need for nitrogen are 

also frequently connected to harmful algal blooms, technically known as cyanotoxins 

(CY-AHN-O-toxins). 

Cyanobacterial blooms usually occur according to a combination of environmental 

factors e.g., nutrient concentration, water temperature, light intensity, salinity, 

water movement, stagnation and residence time, as well as several other variables. 

Consequently, when cyanobacterial blooms occur in drinking water resources, treatment has to remove both cyanobacteria (avoiding cell lysis and subsequent toxin release) and aqueous cyanotoxins previously released. 

As the subcommittee chairman said, this is a highly complex issue which is national in scope, but only gained national attention a few months ago. The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators reports that nine states have created 

programs, developed health thresholds, or enacted policies and protocols for sampling and issuing public notices on harmful algal blooms. 

There are many types of blue-green algae and the diversity of their habitats make 

it complicated to predict the precise conditions favoring their growth. Physical facVerDate Nov 24 2008 13:30 Jun 10, 2015 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 113\113-181 CHRIS
79 

tors that affect whether harmful algal blooms grow include available light, weather 

conditions, water flow, temperature, and mixing within the water column. Chemical 

factors include pH and nutrient (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) concentrations. 

I appreciate that our subcommittee is going to get a better understanding of this 

issue, particularly from both Federal and state regulators, who worked so hard to 

get this issue under control late this past summer. 

I also want to commend Mr. Latta for his dogged attention to this matter. 

Our committee is but a piece of the cyanobacteria and toxin puzzle, but an important one for anyone who drinks finished water from a utility. I look forward to the 

testimony of our witnesses. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN

Today’s hearing focuses on a growing public health threat, cyanotoxins in drinking 

water. Harmful algal blooms can grow out of control in our nation’s waterways, posing risks to those who drink, swim, or even fish in contaminated water. If these 

blooms are blue-green algae, also called cyanobacteria, they produce toxins called 

cyanotoxins. 

Cyanotoxins can cause a long list of health impacts: liver damage, skin and eye 

irritation, gastrointestinal illness, neurological effects, cancer, paralysis and death. 

And exposure to these toxins can occur through direct contact, drinking contaminated water, consumption of contaminated fish, and inhalation of aerosolized toxins. 

Every year, toxins released from algal blooms prompt seasonal closures of 

shellfisheries around the Pacific, Gulf, and Atlantic coasts in the United States. 

The toxins are also a serious issue in the Great Lakes. This year, the toxins forced 

the closure of a major drinking water system, leaving 500,000 people in the city of 

Toledo unable to use their tap water for two days. The water was not safe, even 

for bathing, and boiling it would do nothing to remove the toxins. 

There are important steps Congress should be taking to address this threat. We 

need to provide more resources to EPA. EPA doesn’t have the resources it needs to 

monitor the extent of the contamination, develop health advisories and drinking 

water standards, or provide technical assistance to states and drinking water systems. 

We also need to reauthorize the State Revolving Fund to get resources to affected 

utilities. And we should speed research into testing methods and treatment techniques. But we must also address the root causes of these algal blooms, and one 

of them is climate change. 

Water temperature is a key factor in the growth of harmful algal blooms, and climate change has already lengthened the bloom season. Warming waters, elevated 

carbon dioxide levels, and acidification all provide a competitive advantage to harmful algae over other organisms, leading to greater frequency and intensity of blooms. 

Climate change has also increased extreme weather events, which create favorable conditions for algal blooms. Heavy precipitation and flooding increase nutrient 

runoff and pollution. In droughts, lower water levels can concentrate nutrients and 

allow them to stay in the water longer, enhancing the conditions favorable to algal 

growth. Droughts have also increased salinity in freshwater ecosystems, allowing 

toxic marine algae to move to inlands waters. 

A recent report by Smithsonian researchers found that climate change has exacerbated the harmful algal bloom problem—in fact, they found that the effect of climate 

change on harmful algal blooms has been grossly underestimated. 

Our first step must be to stop denying the facts and to stop underestimating the 

impacts of climate change. It may be politically convenient to deny climate change 

is real. Science deniers don’t have to cut emissions or make hard choices. And they 

don’t have to take on the biggest polluters in the country, whose efforts to sow confusion and doubt have been determined, sophisticated, and well-funded. 

But denying climate change is irresponsible and reckless. We have a window in 

which we can act. If we don’t act, algal blooms and so many other problems caused 

by climate change will grow worse. 

And history will look back at this Congress with shame and embarrassment and 

ask why we failed to heed the warnings of scientists. 

80 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARCY KAPTUR

When I was first elected to Congress, there were two pairs of nesting bald eagles 

left on Lake Erie. Our nation’s symbol was an endangered species. Yet, due to passage of the Clean Water Act, a decade earlier in 1972, the banning of DDT, and 

the vigilant efforts of citizen naturalists and environmentalists near and far, today 

there are over 200 pair of nesting eagles on Lake Erie. Our efforts to restore our 

wildlife refuges and natural habitats, as the decades have ensued, are paying off. 

This year over 300 eaglet chicks hatched. The bald eagle has been taken off the 

endangered species list. 

Indeed, about 2 years ago, a pair of adventuresome bald eagles took flight from 

our western basin, flew east, and established a nesting site in the Cuyahoga Valley 

National Park. Literally, Lake Erie’s Western Basin has given rebirth to the bald 

eagle across our region. 

This giant accomplishment of human beings helping nature restore herself teaches us that America can achieve what she sets out to do. 

Our place here in Lake Erie’s Western Basin is truly blessed. Nowhere on the face 

of the globe does this much freshwater meet this much arable land. Nowhere. This 

rich land, site of the former Great Black Swamp, formed as Lake Erie’s glacial waters receded from as far west as Ft. Wayne, giving rise to a productive life bowl that 

even hosts our community’s mascot - the Mud Hen - a little brown duck called the 

‘‘coot.’’ 

This freshwater kingdom and the land around it was tiled and drained for agriculture. The fields are abundant and our 4-season region is sustainable. The highly 

productive soils of Providence Township and points west, south, and east of it are 

precious, surely in a world whose population is slated to expand geometrically, at 

a faster and faster rate. When I was born, our nation’s population was 146 million. 

In half a century, it has doubled to over 300 million. And, in even less time, by 

2050, it is projected to rise to 500 million people - a population two and a half times 

as large as in the post WWII years. 

Agricultural innovation and pushing the science of production has made it possible to meet our food supply needs and to export to a hungry world, especially those 

in less productive regions. Fertilizer levels have been quadrupled in the past quarter 

century to replenish depleted soils for higher yields and double cropping. Fertilizer 

composition has been altered, sometimes eliminating ingredients like sulfur that 

play a role in soil and water health. Sulfur helps break down phosphorus, one of 

the nutrients that explode algae’s growth. 

But one natural resource on the face of the earth cannot be magically increased 

- and that is fresh water. There is a finite amount, and though its form gets 

changed and shifted around by the seasons, its quantity remains the same globally. 

In an era where other regions are experiencing water shortages, the Great Lakes 

contain 85 percent of the freshwater in the United States and 20 percent of the 

world’s supply. 

On a planet where there are increasing calls by humans and animals for fresh 

water, it behooves us to stop and consider how our precious waters and arable soils 

can be managed for the sake of future generations. The stresses on our waters are 

growing and significant. 

We need clean water and we need replenished soils. We can’t afford to destroy 

either for the sake of the 11 million people who live here and generations to follow. 

In Toledo, the taps are back on, but the water crisis continues. Our water is 

drinkable again, but the emergency still exists. 

The toxic algae threat has receded for the moment, but the image of our community has suffered untold, tremendous damage. 

Rainfall across our region has changed. Sudden, extreme downpours are more and 

more common, increasing the nutrient runoff into streams and rivers. Our climactic 

zone has moved up a zone. Ohio’s climate is now like Tennessee’s. In a nation where 

17 states in the arid, fire ravaged West are facing scarcity, we are dealing with a 

different sort of dilemma. 

There is the reality that Lake Erie is sick again - very sick. It might even go the 

way of Grand Lake Saint Mary’s, the western Ohio watershed that is in grave trouble. Lake Erie already has dead zones. No one in this region and frankly, no one 

with any sense can look the other way. 

This resource is too important - and, this is our home. We have to muster the 

will and intelligence to help this system heal. 

We don’t need another study. Legislative work I have done in funding the Western Lake Erie Basin Partnership for a decade and a half. This group has laid the 

research foundation for action. We have a major environmental crisis on our hands. 

81 

The Toledo water drinking water advisory was an important warning that we 

overlook at our own peril. 

Let me take you on a journey across our Watershed, the largest in the entire 

Great Lakes. Put on your hip boots. We are about to scale a shallow canyon that 

tilts eastward. Toledo lies at the base of this oblong bowl on its extreme eastern 

edge. 

Simply put, the water drains toward us across a three state region. For example, 

when Findlay floods, Lake Erie eventually becomes the depository for the runoff as 

the Blanchard River runs North. If you picture the Watershed as a living, beating 

heart, the Maumee River is its major aorta. That aorta is fed by major veins and 

smaller capillaries that form ditches, streams, and rivers that drain into the 

Maumee inside this bowl tilted toward the Lake. Waterways drain downward from 

Michigan, - eastward from Ft. Wayne, Indiana - northward from a region south of 

Findlay - and upward and across toward the Lake near Sandusky. 

The watershed is a sponge of water, including artesian wells, underground rivers, 

and a spider-web of subsurface drainage tiles. 

That manmade, concentrated subsurface drainage system is the most concentrated system of tiling on our continent. When it rains anywhere across the watershed, this system acts like a superhighway - shooting the runoff into the Lake. 

Now remember rainfall in the Midwest has increased by well over a third in the 

past quarter century. 

The toxin that invaded Toledo’s water system is the end product of a massive watershed runoff problem. Just fixing Toledo’s water plant won’t fix the watershed 

problem. We have to fix the tri-state feeder system that is clogging the arteries of 

our heart and threatening cardiac arrest in our Lake. 

Our tri-state watershed embraces 11,111 square miles - larger than the states of 

Maryland and Delaware combined or a land area a little larger than ′ of Ohio. 

When water moves inside this watershed, it sweeps up with it natural sediments 

and nutrients from the land, and all the by-products of human activity - sewage, 

stormwater runoff, industrial runoff and agricultural runoff, including animal waste 

and commercial fertilizer, a witch’s brew of our own making. 

The water drains and courses down the Maumee River - the largest river that 

flows into the Great Lakes - and eventually delivers massive amounts of nutrients 

into the shallowest, warmest and most fragile of the Great Lakes. The Detroit River 

and Thames River in Ontario also charge nutrients into Lake Erie; but our watershed is the biggest contributor. 

Toxic algal bloom and other water contaminants have become a global health 

threat and an enormously expensive treatment challenge for cities throughout our 

country. Fixing this is a multi-billion dollar challenge; not just a few million. 

To succeed, the region will need a financing mechanism that embraces the entire 

watershed and meets its myriad of challenges, from thousands of leaking septic systems, to urban storm runoff, to 2 dozen combined sewer overflows, to animal manure spread on winter snows. And, as we found out in Toledo, the clock is ticking. 

Good science can save Lake Erie and our freshwater supply. That is why I have 

worked so hard to bring precious Federal dollars starting nearly three decades ago 

to launch the Lake Erie Research Center at the University of Toledo, in memory 

of Dr. Peter Fraleigh, a pioneer in lake science who predicted that this day would 

come. If you haven’t visited this world-class Center near Maumee Bay State Park, 

you should. 

We need to strengthen our lakefront science capabilities so that the Lake Erie 

Center, and Stone Lab at Gibraltar Island and the water labs at Heidelberg and 

the Erie County Health Department can refine the science of our Lake. We must 

continue our work with NASA, and the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. We need them all to help us, 

not just during this crisis, but to lay the basis for additional action. 

To effectively embrace the magnitude of what it will take to heal Lake Erie is precisely why I have worked hard to create a tri- state collaboration called the Western 

Lake Erie Basin Partnership. It was designed originally as a voluntary effort and 

a national model for watershed management in this 21st century - a century in 

which pundits observe freshwater will become more precious, even with wars fought 

over access to it. 

My initial goal was to legally protect our water supply and to prevent its diversion 

from this region. Our challenge now is to build forward a more action-oriented organization to achieve a solution to the ecosystem crisis at hand. Thank goodness the 

vision, the science, and the relationships already have been at work across the watershed. 

82 

As the ranking Democrat on the House Energy and Water Subcommittee, I have 

proposed several legislative alternatives to expedite a solution to cleaning up the 

waters and, frankly the soils, to ensure public health and safety. The solutions that 

will work must rely on three pillars; science, citizen action, and an aggressive, accountable management structure. 

The first immediate step is to strengthen the science. USEPA should be mandated 

to provide advisory guidance for testing and treating microcystin in our drinking 

water. We need a standard and we need universal testing protocols for this contaminant. 

Second, our Lake Erie labs need the testing equipment and research capabilities 

to help us and all Lakefront communities to maintain a safe drinking water supply. 

Communities along Lake Erie should not be forced to waste 2 days in transporting 

samples to labs in southern Ohio or other states for certified results during a crisis. 

Lake Erie is here, and so should the labs be here. 

Third, we need to inspire a ‘‘watershed mindset’’ across our entire basin. This is 

an awesome task. To be successful, an active and engaged public across the watershed is essential. 

We have 1,313,420 acres to attend to. The storm sewer on the street can become 

a filter strip for nutrient runoff with proper rain-garden plantings. For farmers out 

in the country, their drainage ditches can become catchment ponds for nutrients 

that can be reapplied to fields. The vast amounts of animal manure produced across 

the watershed need more careful management and, frankly economic uses whose 

value exceeds the savings of field application. 

Let me just pick out a few numbers to illustrate the magnitude of the nutrients 

our watershed is asked to process each year. When it fails to do so, the residuals 

end up in our Lake and royally feed the algal blooms. 

There are two million people who live in our watershed; but over nine and a half 

million animals live here too. The amount of human fertilizer generated each year 

would fill 247 boxcars. But for animal manure, which totals over 12 billion pounds 

annually, it would take 42,713 box cars to haul it out. That’s over 170 times more 

than humans. 

For commercial fertilizer, there are a total of over a billion pounds of nitrogen, 

phosphorus and potassium placed on the land, or 3,745 boxcars full. The question 

is how much do the plants absorb, and how much material works its way to Lake 

Erie. 

There is an old expression; ‘‘you can’t fool Mother Nature.’’ And, I would add - 

we shouldn’t try. We must find the truth and face it resolutely. 

Finally, I believe that our Watershed needs a more formal structure - like a federally authorized, tri-state coordinating and financing instrumentality to set goals and 

achieve them. This crisis is too significant to punt along. Years ago the Tennessee 

Valley Authority was created over an 8 state region to aid their development. More 

recently, the Everglades and the Chesapeake Bay created organizations to meet 

their particular environmental challenges. The Bureau of Reclamation has served 

17 western states in the desert west for 100 years. The Great Lakes has no such 

mechanism. 

Such a public-private partnership could aim to lift some of the management and 

infrastructure financing burden from communities trying to do the right thing. 

To succeed, we need science, we need one another, and we need an organization 

empowered and capable to meet the challenge. 

Let us be heartened in our quest by this Daniel Webster quote:‘‘Let us develop 

the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions and ask 

whether we in our time and generation may not perform something worthy to be 

remembered.’’ 

Lake Erie’s future depends on our resolve. 

83 


93990.044
84 


93990.045
85 


93990.046
86 


93990.047
87 


93990.048
88 


93990.049
89 


93990.050
90 


93990.051
91 


93990.052
92 


93990.053
93 


93990.054
94 


93990.055
95 


93990.056
96 


93990.057
97 


93990.058
98 


93990.059
99 


93990.060
100 


93990.061
101 


93990.062
102 


93990.063
103 


93990.064
104 


93990.065
105 


93990.066
106 


93990.067
107 


93990.068
108 


93990.069
109 

Æ 


93990.070