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

20–186 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1220 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON 

FEDERAL DRINKING WATER PROGRAMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 8, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

DECEMBER 8, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 2 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 11 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 12 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 76 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 198 

WITNESSES 

Silva, Peter S., Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared statement of Mr. Silva and Ms. Giles ............................................. 16 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 27 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 34 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 36 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 38 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 40 

Giles, Cynthia J., Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .......................................... 42 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 43 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 46 

Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse .................... 47 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 48 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 50 

Larsen, Matthew C., Associate Director for Water, U.S. Geological Survey, 

U.S. Department of the Interior ......................................................................... 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 64 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 65 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 66 

Paulson, Jerome A., M.D., FAAP, Professor, The George Washington School 

of Public Health and Health Services, on behalf of the American Academy 

of Pediatrics .......................................................................................................... 124 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 127 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 139 

Baker, Michael G., President, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators ................................................................................................................... 142 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 144 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 163 

Whatley, Gene, Executive Director, Oklahoma Rural Water Association .......... 166 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 168 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 171 
Page

IV 

Griffiths, Jeffrey K., M.D., MPH&TM, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Associate Professor of Public Health and of Medicine, 

Tufts University School of Medicine ................................................................... 174 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 176 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 180 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 183 
(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FEDERAL 

DRINKING WATER PROGRAMS 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Cardin, Klobuchar, 

Whitehouse, and Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The hearing will come to order. 

Welcome to our panelists. 

Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 to protect 

public health by regulating the Nation’s public drinking water supply. When President Ford signed the legislation into law, he spoke 

eloquently about the importance of providing Federal protections 

for drinking water. 

One of the reasons I called this hearing is because I am concerned that the Federal Government has not done enough in recent 

years to maintain and improve drinking water safeguards. I want 

to ensure the Federal Government fully and effectively utilizes its 

authority under the law, and I want to ensure that EPA has the 

tools it needs to protect our children and communities all across 

this Nation from dangerous water contamination. 

For example, perchlorate is a toxic chemical contained in rocket 

fuel. It does not belong in our drinking water. But the last Administration refused to set a drinking water standard for perchlorate 

despite strong scientific evidence that perchlorate is a public health 

threat. And so I believe it has left millions of Americans in dozens 

of States, including California, at risk. 

That is why I asked Administrator Jackson in January to use the 

best available science to reconsider EPA’s interim decision not to 

regulate perchlorate. And I am very pleased to say that they are 

taking another look at addressing this threat posed from perchlorate. 

Americans also have a right to expect that their children are safe 

from drinking water pollution in their schools. But the Associated 

Press reported this year on toxic drinking water pollution, including lead contamination, in the drinking water of thousands of 

schools across this Nation. I have asked the Administrator to de-
2 

velop a plan to address this unacceptable threat to America’s school 

children. 

So, I look forward to hearing from EPA about all these issues. 

I have also asked them to testify today specifically about steps they 

can take to improve assistance to small systems, to improve the effectiveness of enforcement and compliance, to improve transparency, and to better protect our children’s health. 

We have taken steps in this committee that demonstrate strong 

bipartisan support for water infrastructure improvements including 

the passage, 17 to 2, of S. 1005, the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, which would provide nearly $15 billion from 2010 to 2014 

for EPA’s Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. And Senator 

Inhofe and I are trying very hard to get this up before the Senate 

and passed. In addition, the stimulus bill provided approximately $2 billion 

for this program. I worked hard to get those funds included because I believe investing in our water infrastructure not only protects public health, but it creates good jobs in communities across 

the Nation. 

I want to thank our distinguished witnesses, and I reserve the 

balance of my time. 

I call on Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for taking the 

time today to discuss this issue. It is a very significant issue. The 

Safe Drinking Water Act has been a great success in providing 

Americans with clean, safe drinking water, and as our technology 

has improved we are able to detect smaller and smaller amounts 

of contaminants. And because of this EPA is regulating more contaminants. 

But complying with EPA’s new regulations is difficult. Many 

Oklahoman municipalities continue to struggle with the 2002 arsenic rule, and many of our small systems are having a difficult 

time with the disinfection by-product stage I rule. Small systems 

that purchase water from other systems and previously not required to test, treat and monitor their water are further burdened 

by this. 

Because I worry about the challenges facing small systems, I am 

pleased today—not on this panel, but on the next panel—to have 

Gene Whatley from the Oklahoma Rural Water Association. Gene 

understands the problems facing small drinking water systems, 

and I look forward to his testimony on how small systems are coping with Federal regulations. 

Some of the fear to make changes in this Safe Drinking Water 

Act is driven by press attention to reports of issues like recent polls 

on the pharmaceuticals in drinking water. I remind my colleagues 

that in 1996, under the leadership of Chairman Chafee and Ranking Member Baucus, we amended the law by requiring EPA to set 

standards if contaminants have known health effects or are known 

to occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of 

public health concern. I am quoting that. We should allow EPA to 

keep working on through this problem and try not to preempt it. 
3 

I am also reminding the committee that one of the most important steps Congress can take to improve our Nation’s drinking 

water facilities is to reauthorize the State Revolving Loan Fund 

Programs. The Chairman and I have been very concerned about 

that and Senators Cardin, Crapo and I, and I believe the Chairman 

also, have worked hard to put together amendments to accomplish 

that. 

I would like to say—put something in the record here. But let me 

tell you what it is. There is a poll done. It shows how really serious 

this is. People do not realize that people are concerned about this 

issue. The Gallup Poll just released said that pollution of drinking 

water, Madam Chairman, is America’s No. 1 environmental concern, with 59 percent saying they worry a great deal about the 

issue according to the Gallup Poll. It was just released this year. 

And I am quoting further. That exceeds the 45 percent worried 

about air pollution, the 42 percent about the loss of the tropical 

rainforest, and it goes on down, and it gets to global warming. It 

is interesting that twice as many people are concerned about the 

pollution of drinking water than they are global warming. 

I want that in the record for two reasons. One, the obvious one, 

the other one to show how important drinking water is. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. So ordered. 

Senator INHOFE. That is it. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for taking the time today to discuss our Nation’s 

Federal drinking water programs. I think there is one thing that everyone in this 

room can agree on: clean, safe, affordable drinking water is a national priority. 

Through the Safe Drinking Water Act, we have had great success in providing 

America with clean, safe drinking water. As our technology has improved, we have 

been able to detect smaller amounts of contaminants, and EPA has regulated more 

contaminants. 

Complying with EPA’s new regulations has been difficult. Oklahoma has municipalities who struggle with the 2002 arsenic rule, and many of our small systems 

are having difficulty with the Disinfection Byproducts Stage I rule. Additionally, 

small systems that purchase water from other systems and were previously not required to test, treat or monitor their water must now comply with Disinfection Byproducts Stage II rule. 

I am pleased today that we will hear from Gene Whatley of the Oklahoma Rural 

Water Association. Gene understands the problems facing small drinking water systems, and I look forward to his testimony on how small systems are coping with 

Federal regulations. 

I know there have been many press reports recently about pharmaceuticals and 

other chemicals in drinking water. Our committee has held hearings on these issues 

in April and May 2008. I would remind my colleagues that in 1996, under leadership of former Chairman Chafee and Ranking Member Baucus, Congress was successful in amending the Safe Drinking Water Act. Here’s what they did: The amendments required EPA to set standards if the contaminants ‘‘have known health effects,’’ and are ‘‘known to occur in public water systems with a frequency and at 

levels of public health concern.’’ The amendments also gave EPA the opportunity for 

‘‘health risk reduction for persons served by a public water system.’’ I encourage my 

colleagues to allow EPA to keep working through this process—we don’t need new 

legislation that requires EPA to set standards for chemicals simply because they 

have received press attention. 

I would also like to take the opportunity to remind the committee that we need 

to improve our Nation’s drinking water facilities by reauthorizing the State Revolving Loan Fund programs, both for drinking water and waste water. We cannot expect our communities to continue to provide safe drinking water if they do not have 

the resources to meet their infrastructure needs. This committee has the responsibility to ensure clean, safe, and affordable water for our country by providing the 

necessary resources to States and local governments. Madam Chairman, EPA estimates that over the next 20 years eligible drinking water systems will need over 

$300 billion in infrastructure investments. I believe that many of the issues we are 

discussing today will be helped by passing S. 1005, the Water Infrastructure Financing Act. 

Thank you again for holding this important hearing, and I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses. 

Senator BOXER. That is it? OK. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The one thing that we all know is the importance of clean, safe 

water to our society, essential for our health and the health and 

well-being of our children. And that is why it is incumbent upon 

us to ensure that America’s water supply is safe. 

When Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA 

gained the authority to regulate the chemicals in our drinking 

water. But even with that authority, there is still troubling evidence that chemicals and other substances are polluting the Nation’s water supply. 
12 

Right now, there are more than 140 chemicals in our drinking 

water that EPA does not regulate, according to a recent study. In 

some parts of the country these chemicals include gasoline and additive pesticides, even rocket fuel. And it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that you should not be drinking rocket fuel. 

In other parts of the country, these chemicals include additives 

to produce natural gas. The concentration of chemicals in some 

places is so high that you can literally light the water on fire. 

These chemicals have proven, negative effects on people’s health, 

including some that can cause cancer, according to the EPA. 

But even so, in the past EPA has ignored three mandatory Safe 

Drinking Water Act deadlines to set standards for unregulated contaminants. And nearly 20 percent of the contaminants that EPA is 

currently considering have been under study at the agency for 17 

years. 

Some people have turned to bottled water, believing that is a 

safe alternative, that bottled water is healthier than sugary, high 

calorie drinks. And it can be a crucial part of our safety net during 

natural disasters and emergencies. But bottled water might provide a false sense of security and an expensive one, also. Americans 

spend more than $8 billion each year on bottled water. But what 

many people do not know is that up to 40 percent of bottled water 

comes straight from the tap. 

And that is why I am introducing, Madam Chairman, the Bottled 

Water Right to Know Act today. And this bill is going to provide 

consumers with information about where their bottled water comes 

from and the quality of the water that they are drinking. 

Beyond this new commitment to overseeing our bottled water, we 

find a renewed commitment to protecting our tap water. First, we 

need to enforce the laws that are on the books. Second, we need 

to increase funding for our crumbling water infrastructure, including our wastewater and drinking water treatment facilities. The 

EPA estimates that there is a $271 billion gap between our wastewater treatment plants’ needs and what they receive. And we have 

got to close that gap. 

So, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I want to make 

mention of the fact that the New York Times today, in a front page 

article, confirms some of our misgivings. It says, since 2004 water 

provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like 

uranium, as well as dangerous bacteria often found in the new age. 

Madam Chairman, it is an appropriate thing that we are reviewing this, a little late, but we have got a chance to correct some of 

the problems that we have out there. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you. And I am very glad that you 

are doing something about bottled water. It has been a long time 

concern of mine, so thank you very much for that. We will be working with you. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Thank you for holding this timely hearing. 
13 

Polluted water, as you all know, has a disproportionate and 

harmful effect on children. And this is something that I would like 

to focus on because of the role that I play as Chair of the Subcommittee on Children’s Health, Madam Chairman. Thank you for 

that. Children drink more water as a percentage of their weight 

than adults do. So, if the water they are drinking is contaminated, 

children are going to get a bigger dose than adults will. 

I have always believed that the first responsibility of government 

is to protect our citizens. In addition to the New York Times report 

that Senator Lautenberg just noted, a few months ago the Associated Press reported that over the last decade drinking water at 

thousands of schools across the country were found to contain lead, 

pesticides and dozens of other toxins. Contaminants were found at 

public and private schools alike in all 50 States. Forty-one violations were found in my State, including four violations in the 

school district where I attended school. 

Ensuring our drinking water is safe requires preventing pollutants from entering into our groundwater. But it also requires us to 

ensure that we are safely treating our water before it becomes 

available for us to drink. 

I am pleased, Chairman Boxer, that you and Senator Lautenberg 

convened the hearing last week to discuss reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act. I think chemical reform is also a very important part of this work. 

Another part of the solution is the enforcement of existing laws, 

and as a former prosecutor I know the role that enforcement plays 

in this equation, and I am pleased that we have Ms. Giles here testifying. 

In her first few months in office, Administrator Jackson called 

for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to develop 

an action plan and to enhance public transparency regarding clean 

water enforcement. Under new leadership, the EPA has decided to 

place comprehensive reports and data on water quality enforcement in all 50 States on the Internet. That is certainly helpful for 

our citizens. 

I look forward to you testimony again, Ms. Giles, and hearing 

how you are ensuring compliance with the Safe Drinking Water 

Act Amendments of 1996. 

A final component in addressing this issue is financing infrastructure improvements. This past summer we were able to pass 

the Water Infrastructure Financing Act out of this committee. This 

bipartisan legislation aims to address the obstacles that many of 

our towns and cities are facing, mainly difficulty in financing 

drinking water infrastructure. 

As you know, the Recovery Act also includes funding for 842 Federal drinking water projects across the country. In my State, with 

the help of Recovery Act funds, in the first 5 months of the State 

year 2010, we funded—we are funding 25 projects, totaling $57 

million, more than the previous 2 years combined. These projects 

are critical to helping our communities provide safe drinking water 

for our residents. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity today, Madam Chair, 

and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator, very much. 
14 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am anxious to hear 

from the witnesses, so I will yield my time back to the Chair. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

So, we have a distinguished panel before us. The Honorable 

Peter Silva, Assistant Administrator for Water, Environmental Protection Agency, Hon. Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at the EPA, and Matthew 

Larsen, Associate Director for Water at the U.S. Geological Survey. 

So, we welcome you. And whatever order you prefer is fine with 

us. And we will hope, please keep your comments to 5 minutes, and 

we will put your whole statement in the record. 

Who is going to go first? 

Mr. SILVA. I will go first. 

Senator BOXER. All right. Mr. Silva. 

Mr. SILVA. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF PETER S. SILVA, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR 

FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. SILVA. Good morning, Madam Chair Boxer, Ranking Member 

Inhofe and members of the committee. I am Peter Silva, Assistant 

Administrator for EPA’s Office of Water. Thank you for inviting me 

here to testify today. 

The safety of our drinking water is fundamental to EPA’s mission. Every single day Americans drink water from a tap in their 

homes, workplaces and schools. They must be assured that the 

water they drink is safe. 

EPA and the States regulate more than 150,000 public water 

systems, and the vast majority of Americans served by them receive safe water. We recognize the continuing work ahead of us, 

and to make any real difference we must assist small communities 

and small systems, those serving less than 10,000 people, because 

that is where 95 percent of all health based violations occur. 

These small systems, many of them serving disadvantaged and 

rural communities, face unique financial and operational challenges, partly because of their size. EPA and States have used a 

suite of tools that the Safe Drinking Water Act provides to help 

small communities maintain this capacity to provide safe drinking 

water, from the Drinking Water Safe Revolving Fund to technical 

assistance, including that provided by rural water associations and 

the rural community assistance partnerships. But we must do 

more. 

Implementation of the arsenic rule has highlighted the challenges associated with small system compliance. But it has also 

demonstrated funding and technical assistance options States and 

EPA have to make available. 

To boost compliance, State Drinking Water SRF programs and 

USDA’s Rural Development Program prioritize funding for arsenic 

programs. We also invested some $30 million in research on cost 

effective technologies for small systems and provided training on 

treatment options. Last, we promoted the use of exemptions to give 

small systems more time to comply. Strong involvement of State 

staff has helped drive success. 
15 

In order to refocus our efforts on small systems’ achieving compliance, we have developed a new agency small systems approach. 

The three components of this plan are designed to facilitate use of 

Safe Drinking Water Act tools to achieve the greatest benefit and 

to provide States with active oversight, guidance and technical assistance. 

First, we will target Federal dollars to the small systems that 

need it most by promoting SRF financing and subsidies to achieve 

compliance and health protection. EPA will also work closely with 

USDA’s small system funding program, RUS, to target grants and 

loans to high priority health issues. 

Second, we will work with States to strengthen Capacity Development Programs which will help systems maintain the technical, 

managerial and financial capacity to provide safe water. 

Finally, EPA recognizes that the most prudent way to help a 

small system provide safe water may be to help it choose one of 

many restructuring options ranging from informal cooperation with 

other systems to full ownership transfer or consolidation. 

Strong EPA and State program oversight depends on good data, 

and EPA is committed to improving the accuracy and availability 

of information on drinking water. With the States we will continue 

to identify and resolve problems that produced data discrepancies 

in the past. 

Administrator Jackson has made children’s health a priority. 

States and EPA work with school water systems using all the tools 

we have including funding, technical assistance and enforcement. 

More than 90 percent of schools and child care centers are not Safe 

Drinking Water Act regulated water systems, but are served by a 

large community water system. Lead contamination resulting from 

corrosion in services and plumbing is a serious problem at some of 

these schools, and EPA has partnered with some other Federal 

agencies as well as education and public health groups to raise 

awareness among schools’ officials and child care providers. 

Madam Chair, Administrator Jackson has noted that clean and 

safe water is the livelihood of healthy communities and healthy 

economies. I can assure you that EPA is committed to using all of 

its tools ranging from technical and financial assistance to enforcement and to working with our State partners to provide Americans 

with clean and safe drinking water every day. 

I look forward to working with the committee on this important 

issue and will be pleased to answer any questions you and the 

members of the committee may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Silva and Ms. Giles follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Silva. 

Ms. Giles. 

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA J. GILES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. GILES. Thank you, Madam Chair, and other members of the 

committee. 

As EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, I would like to highlight a few issues relating specifically to Federal and State governments’ enforcement of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act requirements. 

I want to emphasize, as Assistant Administrator Silva did, that 

overall compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act is quite high, 

and the vast majority of the American public receives clean and 

safe drinking water from our public water systems. However, we do 

have challenging, non-compliance problems that require attention, 

particularly in small systems and with new regulations. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act gives primary enforcement authority to the States. As the Act contemplated, almost all States have 

been authorized by EPA to assume primary responsibility for enforcement of the Act’s requirements. EPA maintains a Federal 

oversight role and retains independent enforcement authority. 

States bring the vast majority of enforcement actions for drinking water violations. EPA has primary enforcement responsibility 

in one State without primacy, Wyoming, in the District of Columbia, in the U.S. Territories, and in Federal Indian country, except 

in the Navajo Nation. In addition, EPA has primary enforcement 

authority during the period when new Federal rules for particular 

contaminants have not yet been adopted by the States. 

Enforcement is just one tool but an important one for returning 

drinking water systems to compliance. To give you some idea of the 

numbers of enforcement actions, in 2008 the States and EPA 

brought a total of 5,875 enforcement actions for drinking water violations. Of these, the vast majority were brought by the States with 

EPA playing primarily an oversight role. This number does not include all the assistance and other actions taken to get systems back 

into compliance. Enforcement is taken when the other methods to 

return systems to compliance have not worked. 

Through a policy I issued today, EPA is taking action to improve 

enforcement of Safe Drinking Water Act requirements and deal 

more effectively with systems that have multiple and repeated violations. It prioritizes the most significant threats to public health 

so that systems with the most serious violations or repeated violations of health based standards will automatically rise to the top 

of the list for enforcement attention. 

We expect that this new enforcement strategy together with the 

small systems approach being implemented by the Office of Water 

will help us target the most significant drinking water problems 

and improve compliance with drinking water standards. 

EPA is committed to clean and safe drinking water and to working with the States to achieve compliance with the law. 

I would be happy to answer any questions the committee may 

have about enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
43 

[The responses of Ms. Giles to questions for the record follow:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Mr. Larsen. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW C. LARSEN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 

FOR WATER, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. LARSEN. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the results of U.S. Geological Survey’s studies of drinking water quality 

and related issues. 

I am Matthew Larsen, Associate Director for Water at the U.S. 

Geological Survey. The mission of the USGS is to provide reliable, 

impartial and timely scientific information. This information is 

used by resource managers and policymakers at the Federal, State 

and local levels to make sound, science based decisions. 

Assessment of water quality conditions and research on the 

transport and fate of pollutants in the hydrologic cycle are important parts of the USGS mission. For decades USGS studies of 

water quality have focused on the natural environment, streams 

and aquifers. Because of increased interest in potential human exposure to contaminants through drinking water, the USGS has increased its focus on studies of water quality in domestic wells, 

water quality of untreated water at the intakes of drinking water 

treatment facilities, often called source waters, and more recently 

water quality of treated drinking water, often called finished drinking water. 

In undertaking these studies, the USGS has also increased its coordination with other Federal agencies that have formal public 

health responsibility by sharing information and lending its expertise to the interpretation of linkages between environmental data 

and human exposure. These agencies include USEPA, the Center 

for Disease Control and Prevention, and others. 

Today, I will provide a brief overview of USGS activities organized in the following six categories: water quality of the Nation’s 

streams and aquifers, source water quality, water quality of domestic wells, community drinking water quality, persistence of contaminants, and finally working with public health agencies and scientists. 

The USGS has provided scientific information on the quality of 

the Nation’s streams and aquifers since the early 20th century. 

Much of these data are archived in USGS National Water Information System and are accessible via the Internet to the public. These 

data have been a valuable source of information on water quality 

conditions for drinking water managers. For example, a retrospective analysis of arsenic occurrence in thousands of wells across the 

Nation was used by the EPA in revising the arsenic drinking water 

quality standard in the year 2000. 

USGS studies of surface water quality have provided information 

on the occurrence of naturally occurring contaminants such as arsenic and radionuclides, synthetic organic chemicals used in industry, and many emerging contaminants, including pharmaceuticals 

and personal care products, in environmental waters that are direct sources of drinking water. 
52 

About 43 million Americans get their drinking water from selfsupplied sources, the vast majority from domestic wells. USGS 

studies of domestic wells have provided an archive of water quality 

data on approximately 10,000 privately owned drinking water 

wells. 

USGS studies of finished community drinking water quality are 

relatively new and very modest in comparison to our other water 

quality studies. Information on levels and mixtures of chemicals 

that persist after drinking water treatment is essential to inform 

Safe Drinking Water Act decisionmaking. 

The USGS also collaborates with public health scientists and 

agencies on local and regional studies of diseases that may be attributed to drinking water exposures. The USGS provides insights 

into the landscape and hydrogeologic factors that may affect 

human exposure to environmental contaminants in drinking water 

and lends its expertise to studies that explore linkages between 

chemicals in the environment and health outcomes. 

While in the past USGS studies have focused primarily on the 

quality of our streams, lakes and aquifers, there is now a significant need for information on the quality of source and finished 

drinking water and for understanding of the factors that affect that 

quality. 

USGS contributes to drinking water management and protection 

by providing information on unregulated and emerging environmental contaminants and by working closely with resource managers and regulators, community water supply system managers 

and the public to ensure that they have access to and an understanding of that information. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman and the committee, for the opportunity to present this testimony. I will be pleased to answer any 

questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen follows:] 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I will start off with Administrator Silva. I am extremely concerned by recent press reports indicating that children may be 

drinking contaminated water in small rural schools that run their 

own drinking water systems. Now, you have stated in your opening 

statement that you do not have the authority to intervene in that 

situation. Is that correct? 

Mr. SILVA. That is correct. We do not have any—— 

Senator BOXER. Could you turn on the mic? 

Mr. SILVA. No, that is correct. We do not have a direct authority 

over those kinds of systems. However, we do work with the States 

and communities to try to do a number of things, target funding, 

educational programs. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I am not interested in roundabout help. 

What do I have to do to make sure that you can get in there and 

clean up that water? Education is great, but I want action. So, 

what do we need to do to help you be able to intervene? 

Ms. Giles. 

Ms. GILES. Senator, the schools that supply their own drinking 

water which you are mentioning is about 10 percent of the schools 

nationally. As small systems, those systems are required to comply 

with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and it is a matter of particular 

attention to EPA because, as has been pointed out here, children 

are particularly vulnerable to contamination in drinking water systems. 

So, in addition to the assistance, both financial, technical and 

managerial assistance that the States and EPA provide to these 

systems, we, of course, also have enforcement possibilities for those 

drinking water systems. And where we cannot get a return to compliance through these various forms of assistance, enforcement is 

certainly an option. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So that is good news. So, you do not need 

any change in the law if you come to the conclusion that, after trying to help these systems in doing everything you can, they are still 

not complying? You can go into those rural schools and protect 

those children. Is that what you are saying? 

Ms. GILES. Like all small systems that are required to comply 

with the Safe Drinking Water Act, they are—— 

Senator BOXER. Could you cite that area of the Act that gives you 

that authority to me now, and if not could you get it to me in writing? 

Ms. GILES. It is the General Enforcement Authority of the Act, 

so it is section 1413. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I just cannot imagine, I mean, Senator 

Klobuchar has made the point so well that children are the most 

vulnerable. Pregnant women, children, the elderly, the disabled, 

they are much more at risk. 

So, do you have anything to tell me that you intend to move on 

this, these news reports? Because I understand Senator Inhofe’s 

point about, newspapers make a report, let us not just move on 

that. I agree with him. They may not be accurate. But they may 

be. And if they are, then we know that a lot of our rural schools 

are, kids are drinking contaminated water. So, has Administrator 

Jackson talked to you about moving on these? 
69 

Ms. GILES. Absolutely, Senator. Protection of children’s health is 

a high priority for this Administration. There are many supports 

that are available for these systems, and as Administrator Silva 

mentioned in his testimony, one of these principal ones is helping 

the smaller systems with restructuring where that is appropriate 

to move them off of their own supply into a supply that can be better managed. And I think that there are roughly 1,000 schools of 

these small supplies that have been moved off their own source of 

drinking water to a larger system over the last 5 years. And that 

is an effort that needs to continue. 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me follow that up, thank you, because 

I want to talk about children in larger schools. News reports also 

have found drinking water contamination in some schools that are 

part of a public drinking water system in urban areas. And one of 

the contaminants found is lead, which we know harms the development of the nervous system, and children, again, are especially at 

risk. And again I take to Senator Klobuchar—because our work on 

getting lead out of toys and stopping them from being used by our 

children, it does not help us if the lead is in the water. 

So, are State or local authorities monitoring drinking water quality for such contamination at schools that are part of larger water 

systems, and if not, will EPA develop a program that helps to locate and address these serious problems? It seems to me that when 

you do that you are really helping the whole community because 

if you are helping these larger schools, where they are part of the 

public drinking water system, and you go after those to protect the 

kids, you are protecting everybody who drinks water out of those 

systems. 

So, could you tell me what you are doing here? Are you monitoring, currently, the drinking water for such contamination at 

those schools that are part of larger public water systems? And 

what are your plans on that front? 

Mr. SILVA. Well, right now we do not require separate monitoring 

for schools if they are part of a larger system. The larger system 

is required to test for lead and copper, the lead and copper rule, 

and if they have any issues, they have to report it and work with 

their consumers to resolve those issues. But right now, we do not 

have any direct monitoring requirements at schools. 

Senator BOXER. OK, let me make my point here. We know from 

reading these news stories, and they do seem to be very well documented, that the reports were made, but nothing has happened. In 

other words, everybody feels that yes, the water system, everybody 

said yes, there is more lead, there is more this, there is more that, 

but no follow up. 

What are you doing now, in light of the past 8 years where not 

much was done as far as I can tell? What are you doing now? And 

if you are not monitoring these schools, you are monitoring these 

larger water systems. What action are you taking on these larger 

water systems that service the schools? 

Ms. GILES. Senator, if I could respond. The larger systems are required to monitor for contaminants that are regulated in the Safe 

Drinking Water Act and those standards are set, certainly with 

children in mind. So, the new enforcement approach that we an-
70 

nounced today is intended to target the violations that we find in 

these larger, as well as the smaller systems—— 

Senator BOXER. Say it again for us, your new enforcement. Explain what you are doing. 

Ms. GILES. The new enforcement approach, Senator, is a new 

way of targeting and requiring enforcement response from all Safe 

Drinking Water Act systems. The concept of it is to make sure that 

the most serious violations rise to the top of the list for prompt enforcement action. So, what we are doing is implementing a targeting system that will identify the health threats where there is 

a violation of health based standards, and especially where there 

have been repeated violations at a system, and put those to the top 

of the list for enforcement attention. 

Senator BOXER. And when are you going to take your first enforcement moves? 

Ms. GILES. Excuse me? 

Senator BOXER. When are you going to move? When are you 

going to move on this? We already know this—— 

Ms. GILES. January. It is being implemented, it is being issued 

today and it is being implemented—— 

Senator BOXER. And you are going to move on enforcement in 

January? 

Ms. GILES. Well, the enforcement approach, we are moving on 

some enforcement cases now. But the enforcement approach is a 

way of targeting our enforcement resources, both at the State and 

the Federal level—— 

Senator BOXER. There is a lot of bureaucratic talk here. What I 

just would like to close with—and I am sorry for taking an extra 

couple of minutes, and I will be happy to grant that to my colleague over here. We already know kids are being exposed to these 

contaminants, and they are deadly, and we already know there are 

problems. And what Mr. Silva said, and I appreciate his honesty, 

is we are not really tracking schools, we are tracking the public 

systems, and we do not know which public systems serve the 

schools. 

We need a lot—I need a lot more specificity from you. I do not— 

I am not confident that we are now ready to go. So, I would urge 

you to speak with Administrator Jackson. I know she is often doing 

very important work, and we will talk to her, of course. But, what 

I am getting from you is, well, we have this new plan. And I say 

we need enforcement now. And it just sounds like it is a plan, and 

it is going into effect in January and when will it be done and 

when. 

So, I expect to see some enforcement and I hope that you will— 

I do not mean to put you on the spot to identify systems, but I am 

going to need in writing, after this hearing, what are you concerned 

about, where are you moving, and I am just very worried about our 

kids and their safety. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will not need 

additional time. 

You mentioned something in your opening statement, Ms. Giles, 

with the exception of—and you named some—you named Wyoming. 
71 

What is the situation there where they would have primary as opposed to—just out of curiosity? 

Ms. GILES. The Safe Drinking Water Act is established to allow 

States to assume primary authority for implementation and enforcement of the Act, and all of the States have been given that authority with the exception of Wyoming. So, in Wyoming EPA is the 

primary—— 

Senator INHOFE. Well, yes, that is what you had said. But I am 

asking why. Why Wyoming? 

Ms. GILES. I am sorry, Senator, I do not know the reason why 

Wyoming did not—— 

Senator INHOFE. Well, would you find out for the record? I am 

just curious. It is not very important. 

To both Mr. Silva and Administrator Giles, this was set up, the 

EPA and the States created a Federal-State partnership to clean 

up the water. And I like that. My concern is, and I am anxious to 

get to the second panel so that we can hear from some of the people, including Gene Whatley from Oklahoma, is that, I spend a lot 

of time around the States. We are the small communities that we 

are talking about. That is what Oklahoma is. And one of the reasons I originally came here, with my experience and my background, was being concerned about unfitted mandates. 

So, I am concerned about the—what specifically, the emphasis in 

the Federal responsibilities for water—what specifically are you 

doing to empower States to meet their goals under this Act? Both 

of you. You have two, kind of, I see, competing things. I am not 

in total agreement with the Chairman on enforcement. I am more 

concerned about compliance assistance. So, tell me what you are 

doing now to help these small systems that we are talking about. 

Mr. SILVA. I am sorry, with the school systems? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, all small systems. 

Mr. SILVA. Yes, small systems. Well, again, we—that is something that we are going to target. We are developing what we call 

a new small systems program. Again, it is a three pronged approach where we are going to work with the States on better targeting the SRF programs that they have to small communities. We 

are going to work directly with the communities in some manner 

in terms of providing technical assistance to build up their institutional capacity, their financial capacity. 

Also, we are going to try to work with the partners, the Rural 

Assistance Program, for example, where we have, for example, circuit riders that can help small communities directly. So, those 

are—— 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Circuit riders, those are people that actually get out there and get dirty and—— 

Mr. SILVA. Exactly. For example, if there are a number of small 

systems that are close by, instead of trying to build one big system, 

they can use one operator for, let us say, three systems, instead of 

having one operator where communities cannot afford one operator. 

That is one of the ideas—— 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. 

And Ms. Giles, you have, I guess in your jurisdiction, the compliance assistance teams. Is that correct? 
72 

Ms. GILES. Yes, EPA does provide compliance assistance. But as 

I mentioned before, the States really do the bulk of the compliance 

assistance as part of their primacy responsibilities, although EPA 

is certainly there to support the States—— 

Senator INHOFE. I was going to say because a lot of times the 

States do not have the resources and the background and expertise 

to do this. That is how I see the assistance. Not that the Federal 

Government is coming in to take something over, but to actually 

assist. 

We have small communities. We do not have all the expertise 

and the engineers and people who can make analysis. And they 

cannot afford, in most cases, to have studies done. And that is 

where I see your role as being a very significant role. And that does 

take staff to do that. And so if you feel that you do not have that, 

that ability, those resources to do that, you let me know. I would 

appreciate it. 

That is primarily what I have, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Silva, do you think that bottled water manufacturers ought 

to be required to give the public some detailed information such as 

source, what the source of the water is and the level of contaminants? 

Mr. SILVA. Yes, Senator. Well, under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act we provide, we require all of our drinking systems to provide 

information to their consumers on a yearly basis. And additionally, 

if they have violations, they have to report that—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, but you do not—— 

Ms. SILVA. We do not regulate right now, but I mean, it makes 

sense to me that just for, if nothing else, for transparency and 

openness, to me it would make sense for that to happen. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. OK. 

Ms. Giles, an investigation by the New York Times found that 

fewer than 6 percent of the polluters have been punished for violations. What would your new enforcement policies do to—that the 

States must carry out with their enforcement responsibilities under 

the Safe Drinking Water Act? 

Ms. GILES. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for that question. 

I think I was not clear about the enforcement plan, and I would 

like to be clear about that. It is not a plan to consider enforcement. 

It is the mechanism that requires that we take enforcement with 

respect to the facilities that are not in compliance with the requirements. 

It is a way of prioritizing which enforcement should be taken 

first. And what it says is we should focus on systems that are not 

in compliance with health based standards, especially where there 

have been repeated violations, and specifically says that we should 

pay special attention to schools because, of course, exposure of children to drinking water is—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, the vulnerability of the young—— 

Ms. GILES. Yes—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG [continuing]. Ought to get priority attention. There is no doubt. 
73 

Mr. Larsen, hydrologic fracturing, I am sure you know what that 

is, involves the underground injection of chemicals to extract natural gas. Now, this practice is beginning to occur in areas in New 

Jersey, and the drinking water that is provided should get attention. But EPA is severely limited in its ability to regulate this activity. 

Should EPA have the authority to investigate the health risks of 

this process that is now becoming rather common across the country? And would that protect our people from risks? 

Mr. LARSEN. I can comment on some of the science behind it. I 

do not normally recommend policy for the EPA. But certainly it is 

a growing concern in Pennsylvania and New Jersey and other parts 

of the country as water is injected deep underground to fracture 

rock under pressure and then liberate gases and petrochemicals. 

There are water quality issues associated with it as that water is 

returned to the surface or to groundwater, and the USGS is involved in a number of studies in different States to help understand and define what those water quality issues are. We share 

those data with the EPA so that they can then make determinations about what actions to take. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Silva, do you have any view of that, 

and what kind of risks are presenting as a result of this process? 

Mr. SILVA. Well, right, we have heard the concerns, and we understand there are two primary issues. One is the wastewater that 

has gone of the out of the system and is put in reservoirs on the 

ground. The other is when you do the fracturing, there are some 

kinds of chemicals that are used for the fracturing process, and the 

science is not clear whether that poses risk to ground, especially 

to potable drinking water sources if they are there. 

So, we are concerned about it. We understand the issue. And we 

have been asked to start looking at that. It just requires, we are 

not sure about the funding for that. It probably would take—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I think, as the Chairman said, that action 

in these situations is a requirement, and when we see something 

that is growing in popularity as a process, I think it suggests that 

we ought to get after it. 

I wanted to ask you this. Scientists have reported disturbingly 

high numbers of fish with both male and female characteristics and 

other reproductive problems. The problems have been linked to exposure to pharmaceuticals and other chemicals in the water. What 

is EPA doing to address this problem, or do they register any concerns? 

Mr. SILVA. No, certainly, again, that is another area where we 

are not clear about the threats, although we understand the issues 

and—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, but we see a result that is, I think 

disturbing, rather alarming. 

Mr. SILVA. We do have what we call a list of contaminants that 

we do every 6 years, so we are taking a look at that. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 
74 

The first question I have of you, Mr. Silva, is a practical question 

about the Recovery Act. I talked about how important that is, the 

funding nationwide. A number of the water infrastructure projects 

have been held in abeyance for, I think, some legal issues. Can you 

provide an update on EPA’s effort to get the shovels in the ground 

on these shovel ready projects? I have been hearing from the people 

in my State, I visit every county every year, so I hear a lot about 

the rural water projects. 

Ms. SILVA. No, no, I can tell you that it is a highest priority in 

the agency to get the money out and to help States, and through 

the States and communities to make sure this money is spent. 

Right now, as of right now, we have 842 agreements under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act part of it, the $2 billion, so about half of 

the money, about 60 percent, is now available for projects. Of that 

total, about 33 percent are now under contract. So, we are doing 

well. 

I mean, our concern is that, as you know, under the authority, 

we have to have that money spent by February 17th of next year. 

So, we are concerned about that and we are working with States. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Well, we—— 

Mr. SILVA. We sent some support to New Mexico recently to a 

small community to help them with their project. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. Well, we will work with you on 

these specific projects to see what is happening. 

The other thing I thought was interesting is that you were talking about how so many of the issues arise from small communities 

with less than 10,000 people because, I think, the problem is they 

do not have the financing to do this. 

In Minnesota, we maintain a county well index, which is a computerized data base that contains basic information for over 

300,000 water wells that have been drilled. The data is derived 

from water well contractors’ logs of geologic materials encountered 

during drilling. Is there data about water quality from private 

wells that are predominantly found in rural parts of our country? 

Mr. SILVA. Well, unfortunately, that is, one of the dilemmas is 

that we do not have any authority, and the States a lot of time do 

not have the authority also to control draft of private wells. And 

that is one of the issues that we have both with trying to ensure 

that all people have safe drinking water, because I think about 15 

percent of the Nation uses private wells for their supply. So, unfortunately, it is an area that we do not have a lot of control of. All 

we can do there is work, again, with States on educational programs to make sure that, through the local counties perhaps, they 

provide information to their individual users. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

I want to get back to my original opening, where I talked about 

the school data. And, as I mentioned, the Associated Press reported 

that over the last decade, unsafe levels of lead, pesticides and dozens of other toxins have surfaced at public and private schools in 

all 50 States. 

Just to give you one example, in 2001, 28 children at a Worthington, Minnesota, elementary school experienced severe stomach 

aches and nausea after drinking water tainted with lead and copper, which was the result of a poorly installed treatment system. 
75 

What is being done now? Is there a new found focus over the previous Administration on the kids’ drinking water? 

Ms. GILES. Senator, in addition to the measures that Administrator Silva testified about, the direction of the funds, technical assistance and assisting these smaller systems to connect to larger 

systems or otherwise improve their managerial capacity to handle 

these systems, we also are increasing our enforcement attention on 

these systems, especially where there has been, as you mentioned, 

health based concerns at these smaller systems and persistent noncompliance that these assistance mechanisms have not succeeded 

in getting resolved. We need to make sure that we get the attention 

that is needed to get these systems into compliance, and enforcement can be one of the tools to achieve that objective. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Mr. Silva, did you want to add anything? 

Mr. SILVA. Yes, I just wanted to let you know that we are also 

looking at updating our lead and copper rule, I think by 2012. So, 

I think those kinds of things, I think we can look at how we could 

better work with schools in that aspect. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. And then, a good thing. A few 

years ago, Minneapolis opened North America’s largest 

ultrafiltration plant that produces drinking water for the residents 

of Minneapolis and surrounding suburbs. We actually, and somewhat facetiously, sell our bottled water, or city water, as the best 

water in the world. 

The plant was constructed to replace existing sand based filters 

that were installed in the early 20th century. This new drinking 

water facility aims to provide additional protections against pathogens such as cryptospiridium, did I say that right? 

Mr. SILVA. Yes, you did. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Excellent. And other chlorine-tolerant organisms. How many facilities are equipped with this kind of new filtration system like we have in Minneapolis? That was like one of 

those questions you get asked on 20 Questions. You can tell me 

later. 

Mr. SILVA. Actually, not too many. It says here we only have 

about 5.5 percent. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. I am impressed that you knew that. 

That was very good, Mr. Silva. But I think the idea here is, as we 

look at the funding for infrastructure projects, the more that we 

can do to use some of the new technology that is available, the 

more our cities and towns will be able to sell their city drinking 

water, the same as some of the expensive kind. 

So, thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Cardin followed by Senator Whitehouse, unless a Republican shows up. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Madam Chairperson, let me thank you 

very much for conducting this hearing. I would ask consent that 

my opening statement be made part of the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 
76 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madam Chairman, my highest priority as Chairman of the Water and Wildlife 

Subcommittee is to ensure that all Americans have clean and safe drinking water. 

Thank you for holding this important hearing on the safety of our drinking water. 

Water is an essential and precious resource that we all too often take for granted. 

Most Americans expect the water flowing from their faucets to be safe to cook with 

and to drink. In some jurisdictions that slight chlorinated smell leads people to 

think that their water has been treated and is safe. 

Unfortunately, chlorine and fluoride do not treat or remove all harmful substances 

including: 

• Lead: which impairs children’s mental development and is associated with behavioral problems has been present in tap water in cities like Baltimore and Washington, DC. 

• Perchlorate: A jet and rocket fuel residue has been found in drinking water systems at high enough concentrations to disrupt normal human hormonal functions, 

and 

• Nitrates: a common and costly pollutant found in the drinking water of many 

agricultural communities leads to a condition known as ‘‘blue baby syndrome’’ where 

decreased oxygen carrying capacity of hemoglobin in babies leads to death. 

These pollutants are especially dangerous to vulnerable populations like infants, 

pregnant women and people with compromised immune systems. Treating these and 

other emerging pollutants in our drinking water is incredibly costly. The best way 

to keep them out of our water is to prevent them from getting in there in the first 

place. 

SOURCE WATER PROTECTION AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE

Keeping pollutants out of our rivers, lakes and streams protects the water we 

drink. Restoring Clean Water Act protections of source water streams and wetlands 

that filter harmful pollutants from our water helps ensure the safety of our drinking 

water. 

This October, EPA released a report indicating that because of two Supreme 

Court decisions, 117 million Americans’ drinking water is supplied by smaller 

streams which no longer fall under the Clean Water Act. 

Maintaining upland forests and natural systems is key to protecting in stream 

water quality and to reducing the burden on drinking water facilities downstream. 

New York City has recently done exactly that. Its outstanding, non-chemically 

treated drinking water comes straight from the Catskill Mountains. To protect this 

drinking water source, New York recently decided to spend $100 million to protect 

the 19 upland reservoirs and 3 controlled lakes. 

The city decided that conserving the natural landscape was more cost-effective 

than spending billions of dollars it would take to treat the city’s water supply. 

REPAIRING INFRASTRUCTURE

Some of the issues surrounding emerging contaminants, particularly lead, can be 

dealt with proper maintenance of water systems. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates the cost of the maintenance backlog for America’s drinking water 

infrastructure somewhere around $255 billion. 

Drinking water systems provide a critical public health function and are essential 

to life, economic development, and growth. Failing systems hinder disaster response 

and recovery efforts, expose the public to water-borne contaminants, and cause damage to roadways, homes, and other infrastructure, endangering lives and resulting 

in billions of dollars in losses. 

Maryland is all too familiar with these losses as we have suffered serious infrastructure failures in the last year on River Road in Bethesda and in the town of 

Dundalk outside of Baltimore. 

Safe and secure water supplies and healthy drinking water start with a functional 

and modern water infrastructure system. The Nation’s drinking water systems face 

staggering public investment needs over the next 20 years. 

Although America spends billions on infrastructure each year, drinking water systems face an annual shortfall of at least $11 billion in funding needed to replace 

aging facilities that are near the end of their useful life and to comply with existing 

and future Federal water regulations. 

Federal assistance has not kept pace with demand, however. Between fiscal year 

1997 and fiscal year 2008, Congress appropriated approximately $9.5 billion for the 
77 

SRF. This 11-year total is only slightly more than the annual capital investment 

gap for each of those years as calculated by the EPA in 2002. 

MARYLAND AND REGIONAL WATER CONTAMINATION ISSUES

Lead in Baltimore: In Maryland these maintenance issues are the root of serious 

contamination issues that have gone unaddressed for years. 

The presence of lead in Baltimore City schools’ drinking fountains was first documented in the early 1990s. The source of the contamination was believed to be old 

pipes within the school buildings. At the time school officials said sinks and fountains with unsafe lead levels would be turned off, and water coolers similar to those 

in many offices would replace them. 

In 2003, however, the city’s health commissioner ordered water fountains turned 

off at more than 100 schools because of reports that drinking fountains in scores 

of city schools were dispensing lead tainted water, more than a decade after the 

fountains had been ordered shut off. 

Sadly, in 2007 the school system determined that it would be more cost-effective 

to provide bottled water indefinitely, rather than retrofitting and monitoring the existing plumbing in school buildings. 

INTERSEX FISH AND PHARMACEUTICALS

Recent studies by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have found that a large percentage of fish in the Potomac and its tributaries are intersex—meaning they have 

both male and female characteristics within the same fish. The most densely populated, heavily farmed study area in the Potomac experienced a 75 percent intersex 

fish rate while less habited sites had 14–35 percent rates. What human populations 

are flushing and dumping into the river is causing these mutations in the fish. 

The occurrence of intersex fish has been associated with known or suspected endocrine disrupting compounds which are not removed during standard sewage treatment and in runoff from farming operations. These compounds can include estrogen 

from birth control pills and hormone replacements, pesticides and fertilizers used 

on crops, and hormones from livestock operations. 

According to Dr. John Peterson Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health 

Sciences of Charlottesville, Virginia, ‘‘Endocrine disrupting compounds are major 

pollutants in the Potomac watershed, and we need to exercise the utmost caution 

when introducing these compounds into our rivers, streams, and ultimately our 

drinking water.’’ 

The Potomac River is Maryland’s largest drinking water source. These fish are 

equivalent to the canaries in the mine. Like the canaries that signal contaminants 

in the air miners breathe, these mutant fish alert us to the contaminants in the 

water we drink. 

We’ve got to do better. Madam Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how we will begin to do that. 

Senator CARDIN. I have the honor of chairing the Water and 

Wildlife Subcommittee on this committee, and I can tell you that 

one of our highest priorities is to make sure that Americans who 

expect, when they turn on their faucets and pour out a glass of 

water, that it is safe to drink. We need to do a better job to make 

sure that we are carrying out that responsibility. 

Let me just cite some Maryland concerns which—my colleagues 

have brought up things in their own individual States, which I 

think points out our concern. 

We talk about our children in our schools. Well, in the 1990s, 

Baltimore City schools were identified as not having safe drinking 

water for their students in the schools because of high levels of 

lead. That was in the 1990s. And the coolers were turned off, the 

faucets were turned off, and to this date they have not been turned 

on. We are using bottled water in the Baltimore City school system 

because of the high cost of retrofitting the piping system in the 

Baltimore City schools. 

And then I have cited, Madam Chair, several times the concerns 

of failures of pipes in Maryland, when River Road in Montgomery 
78 

County became a river, or when the Dundalk community in Baltimore was flooded because of the break of water systems. 

And Madam Chair, I think that is our responsibility. I must tell 

you that. You have, and I have authored, along with the Republicans, legislation, the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, to try 

to deal with the deficiencies in Federal funds for water infrastructure. I think it has been estimated to be about $11 billion a year, 

the shortfall. And I think we have a responsibility to do a better 

job in providing those resources to improve the water infrastructure for safe drinking water in America. 

But let me just say one more example which really follows up on 

Senator Lautenberg’s point, and that is the intersex fish, 75 percent rate in the Potomac River, the largest source of drinking water 

in my State. Perhaps this water came from there. I do not know. 

But I am not satisfied with the answer, Mr. Silva, that you gave 

on the intersex issue. 

To me, it is like the canary that dies in a mine shaft. When it 

dies, I know that there is a concern about humans going into that 

area. When fish become intersex, that means having characteristics 

of both male and female, it is a clear indication that there are too 

many hormones or estrogen-laden drugs that are being put into our 

water system that are not being cleansed, or too much fertilizer is 

being used by our farmers that are getting into the water. 

And there it is not, to me, so much the infrastructure, it is the 

pollutants that are getting into the water. And there is it your responsibility, the regulatory system, to make sure that we have the 

proper regulations and enforcement in place to keep these pollutants out of the water in the first place. 

So, I think we do need to work together. Congress needs to provide the resources for improving and upgrading our infrastructure 

so we can transport clean water more efficiently so that when you 

turn on your tap, you do not have lead in it. But also we need to 

make sure that we keep pollutants out of the water that are causing concern. 

So, I would just urge a more aggressive plan, at first understanding the science, but also keeping these pollutants out of our 

water. And I heard you respond to the Chairman’s question. I just 

think that we need to be more aggressive about this. I welcome 

your thoughts. 

Mr. Silva, let me start with you, because as the intersex fish—— 

Mr. SILVA. No, I think, I think you are raising a number of excellent points in terms of the number of challenges that we have from 

nutrient pollution, non-point source pollution, to contaminants of 

concern, pharmaceuticals specifically. And so I think the communities now are facing a number of challenges that ultimately are 

going to end up in some way probably in more extensive treatment 

at the treatment plants. 

And so we have to be very, very clear about the standards that 

we set, what kind of standards we set for the communities, because 

it is going to be more costs for them for the point source. It also 

could involve things like education, to avoid putting things into the 

system. Source reduction, for example, is one that does not cost a 

lot of money, is more educational, getting the citizens involved. 
79 

So, I think what I am saying is that it is a multi-faceted issue 

that is going to require a multi-faceted approach. And certainly 

funding is going to be one critical thing, as I mentioned, because 

once we get into this, I think as we find more contaminants of concern, they may require more standards and more regulation. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I agree that it is multi-faceted. I think 

education is critically important. But I also think enforcement is 

going to be an important role here. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

Could each of you give me your views on the extent to which the 

drinking water contamination problem relates to infrastructure 

failure? 

Mr. SILVA. I am not sure I understand that question. Are you 

talking about infrastructure failure in terms of not having enough 

infrastructure or the existing not working—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The existing not working. 

Mr. SILVA. I would say overall, nationwide, I do not think that 

is a major issue at this point. I mean, I think in some areas it is 

a concern, especially, again, where you have older infrastructure—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. What percent, would you say? 

Mr. SILVA. Senator, I could not give you that off the top of my 

head. Again, I do not think it, in terms of the pollution problems 

that we have, I do not think that is a major one. I know, for example though, that in CSOs, combined sewer issues, there you have 

a big need throughout the country, especially in large communities 

that require large investment. So, in that case, it is not really a 

lack of old infrastructure, it is just that they do not have it in 

place. 

I think the ARRA funds have really addressed some of the aging 

infrastructure issues, such as old pipes and upgrades—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, what I am getting at is that I think 

EPA has identified $662 billion in decrepit infrastructure. 

Mr. SILVA. Right. Right. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. ARRA gave out six, less than 1 percent, so 

I am not very excited by what ARRA contributed to the solution if, 

in fact, the EPA is correct that it is $662 billion. So, I do not find 

your answer very reassuring, if that is what you are relying on. 

Mr. SILVA. Well, no, I mean, what I am saying is that I do not 

think that is a big issue right now. But again, if we do not start 

investing more in the near future and the long term, I think there 

will be more issue with pollution from point sources. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Ms. Giles. 

Ms. GILES. Thank you, Senator. As you correctly point out, there 

is a big infrastructure concern, both on the drinking water and on 

the wastewater side, of the capacity of the systems that attempt to 

deliver clean water to meet their obligations. 

In addition to the physical infrastructure, though, that you have 

mentioned here, there are also other aspects of infrastructure, the 

capacity of the systems to operate and maintain their systems and 
80 

to have not only the financial wherewithal to do that but the managerial and administrative capacity to do that. 

And that is something—so on both aspects that is something that 

is an important priority to EPA, both the physical and the other 

aspects of infrastructure that help us to deliver clean and safe 

water. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. I would only add that, well, first of all, the USGS 

as a science provider does not normally deal with this side of the 

question. But I would add that one of the big challenges in addition 

to dealing with the decaying infrastructure, whether it be pipes 

and sewage treatment plants or bridges or whatever, is the fact 

that as the new science emerges on different contaminants, and the 

topic we were just talking about, estrogen-active chemicals in 

water, our existing sewage treatment facilities were never designed 

to deal with the concentrations in low levels of the types of contaminants we are talking about. And we do not really know yet, 

in terms of the science, whether we need to retrofit, whether or to 

what degree we need to upgrade those kinds of facilities. This is 

still an emerging question. 

So, in addition to repairing our aging infrastructure, we also 

have a large challenge which is to examine to what degree we may 

need to revise our treatment methodologies to deal with these very 

low concentrations as we have acknowledged. In fact, we do not 

really know to what degree they may affect humans and to what 

degree we need to respond. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I would, the news today reports that 

the President looks at highways, small business and jobs plan, is 

the headline. I would ask that within the Administration you use 

whatever efforts you have to try to assure that water and wastewater infrastructure are included in the jobs plan. 

I think that the infrastructure failure in water and wastewater 

is considerably worse than Mr. Silva has suggested. I think it is 

your own number, that it is $662 billion that we are behind in this 

coming, whatever it was, 6 or 7 years, and it is very sad for me, 

representing Rhode Island, where, Ms. Giles, you come from, and 

which has a near 13 percent unemployment rate, to see decrepit infrastructure and unemployed people, side by side, and we have not 

yet connected those two obvious dots. 

And I know that there are concerns about the deficit, but by God, 

if the stuff is going to have to be fixed sooner or later anyway, it 

really is not a deficit problem to move it forward and get it done 

now while we need the jobs. 

So, I would hope that you would urge internally for water and 

wastewater infrastructure to be part of the jobs program through 

EPA into the Administration’s counsels. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

We are going to do a second round of 4 minutes each. 

Mr. Silva, I want to back up what Senator Whitehouse said. Here 

is the EPA’s own document. Drinking water infrastructure needs 

$334 billion over 20 years, and most of it is because of repair or 

replacement. So, there is a lot of deteriorating infrastructure, and 

that is why, again, the bill we passed out of here is a strong start. 

And we need to move forward. 
81 

So, I have a couple of questions more. Assistant Administrator 

Silva, I have long called for EPA to use the best available science 

to make a decision on regulating perchlorate, which is rocket fuel, 

is found in rocket fuel, in drinking water in a lot of States, including mine. What is the time line for EPA to make a decision on regulating perchlorate in drinking water supplies, the time line? 

Mr. SILVA. Well, there are a couple of steps. First, we have to 

study the science to see if we first need to regulate. We are looking 

at that right now. We feel that we can do that probably by the middle of next year sometime, to decide whether we are going to regulate or not, and then get into the science of what kind of standards 

we need to set—— 

Senator BOXER. So, in 6 months you will let us know whether or 

not you think it ought to be regulated? That would be the middle 

of next year. Correct? 

Mr. SILVA. Well, I can back to you with a date certain—— 

Senator BOXER. Would you really put it in writing, please? 

Mr. SILVA. Yes, I can do that. 

Senator BOXER. Because a lot of work has been done. My State 

has already set a standard. So, you do not have to start from 

square one. We know the impact on pregnant women. We know the 

impact on our people. So, please, I am going to look at that and 

I would like that in writing. 

Let us see. On arsenic and radionuclides, Assistant Administrator Silva, what more can EPA do to help small water systems 

meet the health based standards that EPA has set already for arsenic and radioactive contaminants? What more can you do to help 

small water systems? 

Mr. SILVA. Well, as I mentioned earlier, we have a number of approaches. But I do want to say that, make a comment, that we 

have made a lot of progress. When this rule was set up for arsenic 

at 10 parts per billion, we had about 4,000 systems out of compliance. We have been able to pull that down to about 1,000. And of 

those, 20 are large and the rest are small. So, you can see again 

that the issue is really with small communities. 

And again, our focus is to get funding to those communities and 

technical assistance to make sure that they can meet those standards. I do want to say that we also have, through the $30 million 

in investment in technology research, we do feel that there is affordable technology for small communities. 

Senator BOXER. So, just to go over that again. I asked you what 

more can EPA do to help small water systems, and you are saying 

get them the funding they need. And where do you stand on that 

funding? 

Mr. SILVA. Well, right now, again the—— 

Senator BOXER. What do you need? 

Mr. SILVA. Well, right now we need more funding focused to 

small communities. And again, we are working with the States because they do have already the authority to use what is called set 

asides for small communities. We also want to encourage those 

States to use more of that authority for small communities. In the 

ARRA funding, we were also able to use what was called buy 

downs, or, essentially grants for small communities, and continue—— 
82 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me just press you, because this is good 

information. You are saying there is a set aside that the States 

have to follow, they have to follow. Are they following it? 

Mr. SILVA. It is voluntary at this point. 

Senator BOXER. It is voluntary? 

Mr. SILVA. But it is a 2 percent set aside, or they can go higher 

if they like. So, again, we are going to try to work—— 

Senator BOXER. So, could you get us a report on which States are 

doing that and which States are not? 

Mr. SILVA. Certainly. 

Senator BOXER. Because we worry, all of us, about our smaller 

systems, because they are the ones that just do not have the ability 

to move forward. 

Is EPA considering the recommendation from the Science Board 

on Drinking Water which suggests addressing the cumulative effects of chemicals and similar sources? Because we believe it is important to figure, as you look at the human health consequences, 

what has been the accumulation? So, what is the time line for making a decision on whether to increase the consideration of cumulative effects on drinking water contaminants? 

Mr. SILVA. Well, right now we do not have a time line. We have 

just received the report and we are looking at it. Our research 

branch is—— 

Senator BOXER. OK, if you could confer with Administrator Jackson and get back to us, in writing. That would be very good. 

You noted that ARRA started to fund some of these smaller systems, and that is correct, and I will ask unanimous consent to 

place in the record the investments in ARRA that went toward 

these smaller systems in my home State because I think it is important. 

But again, I want to see dates certain because these are problems that are impacting people every day. I do not want a situation 

that Senator Cardin has where you cannot—you have to drink out 

of bottled water. As Senator Lautenberg has said that is not the 

answer either because there are no standards for bottled water. I 

mean, it is the facts. And we need to deal with that as well. 

Senator Inhofe. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 

Senator INHOFE. I will take the 3 minutes I had remaining from 

the first round but not the second round. I am anxious to get to 

the second panel, Madam Chairman. 

I cannot remain silent after Senator Lautenberg’s statement 

about hydraulic fracturing. I have something to say about that. But 

first I want to ask all three of you, in response, do any one of you 

know of one case of groundwater contamination that has resulted 

from hydraulic fracturing? 

Mr. SILVA. Not that I am aware of, no. 

Senator INHOFE. Ms. Giles. 

Ms. GILES. I understand that there is some anecdotal evidence, 

but I do not know that it has been firmly—— 

Senator INHOFE. So the answer is no, that you do not know of 

it. All right. 

Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. I will have to respond in writing. I do not know of 

all of our studies on that topic. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, but you have already answered. You are 

not aware of. That is the question that I asked you. 

Here is the problem that we have. Senator Lautenberg referred 

to this as something that is new. This is not new. This has been 

around over 50 years. And we do approximately 35,000 wells a 

year, nearly 1 million wells, without one documented case of 

groundwater contamination. I am concerned about this because I 

know for a fact that if you took away the ability, as all other countries do, of hydraulic fracturing, we are going to be much more dependent upon other countries for our ability to produce oil. 

Now, I want to repeat that one more time. There has never been 

a documented case in almost 1 million uses of that technology. The 

EPA did an extensive study of this back, prior to—it lasted a long 

period of time. They concluded in 2004 that it does not warrant any 

further study. And I want to submit, for the record, a document 

that tells the history of hydraulic fracturing—— 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. So ordered. 

Senator INHOFE. And I will reserve time in case I need it. I hope 

I do not. 

Senator BOXER. Sure. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Are you aware of any chemicals of concern in the hydraulic fracturing process? 

Ms. GILES. Senator, my understanding is that Congress has exempted hydraulic fracturing from the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act, so we do not—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But my question goes beyond that. Is there 

any, do you have any information, has anybody looked at it to see 

whether there is any, there are any chemicals of concern used in 

the process? 

Mr. SILVA. I would have to get back to you, Senator. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I find it surprising, because we ought to 

certainly know that. 

Ms. Giles, I asked you before, what is being done to ensure that 

States carry out their responsibility for enforcement under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act? What is being done? You, before, said that 

you are, I think, reviewing it. Just tell me, is there anything being 

done? There is only 6 percent of the polluters that have been punished for water violations. 

Ms. GILES. Senator, the EPA does retain a State oversight responsibility for the States that have primacy under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the enforcement approach that issued today is 

about how that oversight should be undertaken—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That should be undertaken—— 

Ms. GILES. Working with the States to identify the existing violations—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Ms. Giles, I am sorry that we are missing 

one another here on this. But is there anything currently being 

done to make certain—or at least get some sense of what the 

States are doing to enforce it? 

Ms. GILES. There is a current oversight protocol which is what 

I am revising today. But the existing protocol is that States are required to report to EPA when there are violations of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. But is anything—what I deduce is that 

you are saying no, in some terms. So, I am going to assume that 

little is being done. 

Ms. GILES. I think perhaps I am not being clear, Senator. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Not for me. Perhaps for everybody else. 

Ms. GILES. The existing protocol is that when there is a violation 

at a drinking water system of a contaminant standard under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, that there is required to be an escalating 

series of enforcement responses to try to return that system to compliance. 

What we are doing today is focusing that enforcement protocol so 

that instead of a contaminant by contaminant approach it is a system based approach so that we make sure we return the whole system to compliance and that we are holding ourselves and the 

States to a high standard for getting those systems into compliance. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Would you argue with the fact that there 

are only a maximum 6 percent of the polluters that have been punished for water violations? Is that—— 
118 

Ms. GILES. I am not sure where that number comes from. Under 

the Safe Drinking—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Frankly, it comes from the New York 

Times. They may not be the perfect monitor. But do you think 

there is a lot more progress than that? 

Ms. GILES. Well, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, we do, as 

I mentioned earlier, start with trying to provide compliance assistance and then—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I know, but you are talking about process. 

I am talking about results. Forgive me, please. 

Ms. GILES. The important thing is whether the system returns 

to compliance. That is what is important. And that is what we are 

attempting to do here. The penalty provisions of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act are somewhat different from the provisions of other Federal environmental laws. And what they provide is that EPA has 

to, before it can take a penalty action, first issue an administrative 

order and only for violations of an administrative order can we assess—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Ms. Giles. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Just to follow up on Senator Lautenberg’s questions. I know that 

back in July, Ms. Giles, that Administrator Jackson directed you 

and Mr. Silva to work with the States or the 10 regional offices of 

the EPA to work with them and with the States to have more 

transparency in the water quality enforcement. Could you talk 

about the status of those efforts? 

Ms. GILES. Certainly. Yes, in July, the Administrator directed me 

to work with Assistant Administrator Silva to develop a plan to improve our enforcement for the Clean Water Act Program, which is 

the discharges to surface waters of the United States. And, as you 

point out here, there is a connection, a direct connection, between 

that and safe drinking water because two-thirds of Americans do 

obtain their drinking water from surface water supplies. 

So, the current status is, as mentioned earlier, we have released 

data on what the compliance information we have is and how the 

government has responded. We are targeting the sources that have 

the most significant effects on clean water, including specifically 

where there is an affected drinking water system to make sure that 

we return those systems to compliance. 

And we have started work on a rule for electronic reporting of 

the discharge data so that we can improve both the transparency 

and the accuracy of the information. So, we are hard at work on 

making sure that we are targeting the most important work on the 

roughly 1 million sources that affect surface water quality. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. I have just always found that no 

matter what agency you are dealing with, or what level of government, that that transparency really can spur people to action, if 

that information gets out there. 

Then the second thing I wanted to get back to, Mr. Silva, is we 

have talked here about ways to get at this problem. One is clearly 

enforcement and transparency and openness to get out the problem. But the second is this infrastructure issue, because that is 

what I hear the most around my State. And I was surprised at 
119 

your answer and maybe you want to go back and look at it just, 

I mean, I am going to give you just one example in the city of 

Oronico, which is just north of Rochester. They had a mix of old 

and newer housing with no municipal water or sewer system. In 

the older part of the town, septic systems on small lots were causing private well contamination for approximately 100 households. With the help of the $1.3 million with the principal forgiveness 

that came from the Recovery Act, and some money from the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund, this city, this town of 

Oronico, was able to build a municipal drinking water system to 

provide safe water. And I have just heard these kinds of needs 

from all over our State. 

So, I hope you will go back and look at that, because I think it 

is a combination of, as I said, of this enforcement, but also this declining infrastructure, particularly in these small towns that you 

have both identified as the ones that are having the most problems. 

They just simply cannot afford it. They have less than 10,000 people. And it is trying to help them, collecting data on their wells, 

which we have done well in our State, and then helping them to 

get the update infrastructure in place. OK? 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Cardin, and then Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. Giles, I want to get an update from you on how we are proceeding in regard to mercury and mercury in our waters. Mercuryladen seafood, the warnings go out all the time, and the amount 

of mercury load in our rivers is well above any recognized level of 

safety. Can you just give me—and I will talk a little specifically 

about some of the concerns in Maryland coming in from the Shenandoah. But where are as far as mercury? 

Ms. GILES. Well, Senator, I think that the principal source of 

mercury in surface waters comes from the air, and that is where 

rules are being considered by EPA now about control of mercury 

emissions from utilities, at least within the United States. So, it is 

a help to contribute to reducing the load of mercury in our waters, 

that is where we are looking. 

Senator CARDIN. There is at least some evidence that the mercury coming in from plant activity is affecting Maryland waters, 

the Potomac. There is a long history of concerns about water that 

enters in through the South Fork Shenandoah River, dealing with 

industrial activities in Pennsylvania and in Virginia. 

Let me just give you one number that has been given to me, and 

maybe you want to counter that as not being accurate. About 416 

pounds of mercury get into the South River per year, and the mercury contamination stretches from Waynesboro for 125 miles downstream to Front Royal, and that Virginia is considering developing 

the total maximum daily loads of not to exceed 4 pounds per year, 

which would be a 99 percent reduction. Are you saying all of that 

is from the air? 

Ms. GILES. Senator, I am not familiar with the specific circumstances of that one river that you are referring to. In addition 

to the air sources of contamination, there are, of course, some sitespecific concerns, especially hazardous waste sites that might be 
120 

cleaned up that could be sources of mercury, too. And the program 

does look at those. I can get back to you as to that specific river 

and let you know what those—— 

Senator CARDIN. Well, if you would get back with the specifics, 

I would appreciate that. 

I guess I share the Chairman’s urgency here. Mercury contamination is a significant health care risk for people in our community, 

and the levels appear to be way too high. And there are warnings 

given out all the time about not eating certain seafood. I come from 

a State in which the seafood industry is critically important to our 

economy and to our way of life. 

Whether it is airborne or pollutant activities on industrial use or 

whatever, we need a game plan to deal with this. If it is air, and 

part of the problem clearly is airborne, we need that strategy, and 

this committee is working on it. I just wish there was a greater 

sense of urgency in some of these replies as to these issues. 

Ms. GILES. Well, Senator, I am sorry I am not familiar with 

those specific circumstances. But I would have to say I think this 

Administration does share your sense of urgency, that the need to 

address clean water, both in our rivers and from the tap, and we 

are—this is a top priority for this Administration, and that is why 

we have devoted some attention here to try to make sure that we 

beef up our enforcement actions as well as the other mechanisms 

that Administrator Silva has discussed. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

The New York Times, which I think has been cited already 

today, reports that for over a quarter of water systems have violated the arsenic or radioactive standards, there is no record that 

they were ever contacted by a regulator, even after they sent in paperwork revealing those violations. Those figures are particularly 

worrisome, say researchers, because the Safe Drinking Water Act 

limits on arsenic are so weak to begin with. A system could deliver 

tap water that puts residents at a 1 in 600 risk of developing bladder cancer from arsenic and still comply with the law. 

I am not sure what the story means by 1 in 600 risk of developing bladder cancer. Does that mean that in a small community 

of 6,000 people, if water was delivered at that level, there would 

be 10 cases of bladder cancer? Is that what the 1 in 600 means? 

Mr. SILVA. I am assuming so, although I am not an expert in 

those kinds of numbers. But I do not know whether USGS—are 

you familiar with that? 

Mr. LARSEN. We do not really deal with risk assessment. That 

is how I would interpret it, based on what you just reported. But 

I would have to look more closely at the numbers to know the risk. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Cynthia, Ms. Giles. We are both from 

Rhode Island, so we are on a first name basis outside the hearing, 

and I slipped into that. 

Ms. GILES. Senator, that was also my understanding, but I would 

also describe myself as not an expert in risk assessment. The violations of arsenic standards are of concern, and it is something that 
121 

we have been working on, both on the compliance side and on the 

enforcement side. There have been a number of enforcement actions taken for systems in violation of the arsenic standards, and 

that is something that we are looking closely at. It is a particular 

challenge, of course, for the smaller systems. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. If that is the number, that is a little 

town of 6,000, 10 cases of bladder cases is a lot. In a medium-sized 

town of 60,000, that is 100 people stricken with bladder cancer. 

You get up to the size of the State of Rhode Island, you are talking 

about 1,500 people. That is a pretty high toll. Bladder cancer is a 

very serious cancer. So, I hope that will be part of the examination. 

Mr. SILVA. And again, we feel we have made progress on the 

road to, hopefully, get to all the systems eventually. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Well, colleagues, we are going to end this first 

panel. But I just have to say we are looking forward to your specific responses. 

What I am going to take away from this is that we are going to 

know in 6 months if you are going to regulate perchlorate, we anticipate that you are going to take enforcement actions starting in 

January against these systems that have been out of compliance 

and are endangering our children, you are going to look at ways 

that you can be more involved in protecting our children in these 

small systems, and we are going to follow up, I am, at least, and 

any of my colleagues who have concerns, are going to follow up 

with a letter with specific points so that there is no confusion. 

You have a lot to time to make up for. But you have the information. The information is there. The New York Times piece is very 

clear. They are fair. They say, these systems reported that they 

were out of compliance on some of the most serious and dangerous 

chemicals and toxins. You have the information. You need to take 

the action. 

And I would say the vast majority of this committee, and I am 

not speaking for all, believe me, but the vast majority of this committee expects you to take action to protect our kids and our families. And anything less than that we will consider a stall. So, we 

expect action. Not just plans, not just good answers and ideas, but 

specific action, because these bad actors need to be called to account. And nothing helps more than that. I love the idea of electronic filing, but that is going to take time. You have the information in your possession. And so we expect action. 

And I thank you so much from the bottom of my heart for your 

being here, for your answering these tough questions. But this is 

a message to you from a lot of us that we want to see more. And 

we thank you very, very much. 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. For the record, I would like to insert the onepage summary of the national study and final report of the EPA 

on hydraulic fracturing. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely, it will be done. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
122 
123 
124 

Senator BOXER. We thank you again, and we will call up our second panel. Thanks again. 

We will call up Jerome Paulson, Professor, the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, on 

behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics; Michael Baker, 

President, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators; 

Gene Whatley, Executive Director, Oklahoma Rural Water Association. 

We need the panel to leave quietly, please, because we are inviting up our panelists. 

Gene Whatley, Executive Director, Oklahoma Rural Water Association, and Jeffrey Griffiths, Professor, Tufts University, Chair of 

the EPA Science Advisory Committee. 

And unless there is any other way you want to do it, I guess I 

will just simply start with the way it is explained to me here on 

this list, which would be Jerome Paulson first, Professor of the 

George Washington University School of Public Health on behalf of 

the American Academy of Pediatrics. 

Dr. Paulson. 

STATEMENT OF JEROME A. PAULSON, M.D., FAAP, PROFESSOR, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF PUBLIC 

HEALTH AND HEALTH SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS 

Dr. PAULSON. Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to 

testify today before the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works regarding safe drinking water and children’s health. My 

name is Dr. Jerome Paulson, and I am a proud representative of 

the American Academy of Pediatrics. 

The safety of our Nation’s drinking water is of primary importance to child health. The general water supply is used for drinking, cooking, preparation of infant formula for children who are not 

breast fed, and bathing. Contamination of the water supply has obvious implications for children who may swallow, inhale or have 

skin contact with pollutants. 

As with many types of exposures, children are more vulnerable 

than adults to adverse effects from water contamination. Children 

drink more water per pound of body weight than do adults. Drinking water is consumed in a number of forms, as water, liquid used 

to reconstitute infant formula, reconstitute juice or other drinks, 

and in cooking. 

Household water supplies can lead to inhalation exposures if 

volatile substances or gases such as organic solvents or radon are 

present in the water and when water vapor from showering is inhaled. Contaminated bathing water can result in exposure by ingestion or dermal contact. Young children are particularly at risk 

because they swallow more water while bathing than do older children and adults. They are babies. What can you say? 

The effect of exposure on children’s health may vary widely depending upon the nature of the pollutant, its concentration, duration of exposure and other factors. In general, however, their developing minds and bodies place children at disproportionate risk to 

toxins of any kind. Exposure during sensitive windows of development or periods of growth may have even more serious adverse 
125 

health consequences. Because children live longer than adults, 

those outcomes which take years to manifest themselves have 

ample time to become apparent as the individual exposed as a child 

becomes an adult. 

Under the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974, the EPA is responsible for setting national standards for both naturally occurring 

and human made contaminants that may be found in drinking 

water. EPA works in partnership with States and localities and 

water systems to monitor safety and ensure compliance. 

As is the case with many public health programs, however, costs 

and benefits of providing safe drinking water accrue to different 

parties. While water systems, schools or individual consumers bear 

the cost of installing, maintaining or upgrading systems, the financial benefits of those outlays are most often seen in other areas, 

such as lowered health care costs. 

Policymakers have the responsibility of balancing the many competing interests and assuring that public health and children’s 

health are protected. My written testimony describes in greater detail the challenges associated with both public water supplies and 

private wells. 

Schools present a special challenge. Although a variety of pollutants may be present in school water supplies, the presence of lead 

has been the subject of specific attention from the media, Congress 

and EPA. In 1988, Congress passed the Lead Contamination Control Act in an attempt to reduce lead levels in drinking water in 

schools. The law requires monitoring of water in schools and replacement of fixtures if excess lead is found. 

The law contains two key weaknesses, however. First, it requires 

remediation to take place only after a problem is detected and after 

children may have been exposed rather than attempting to deal 

prospectively with the problem. Second, there are no enforcement 

provisions in the law. Compliance is voluntary and requires local 

and State government entities to cooperate in order for effective 

implementation to take effect. 

As with many other environmental hazards in schools, no one is 

really in charge in this situation. Therefore, it is not surprising 

that numerous reports in the press and medical literature have 

documented that lead continues to be found in drinking water in 

schools. Without enforcement authority, EPA is forced to rely upon 

voluntary programs such as the three Ts—training, testing and 

telling. While this is certainly a commendable effort its effectiveness is limited because the agency is unable to compel action in 

those cases where violations persist. 

Certain contaminants are known to pose specific health hazards 

for children. You will find in my written testimony a table that outlines some of the most common pollutants in drinking water and 

their health impacts on children. A handful of these pollutants 

merit special consideration due to their known hazards to children’s health, including coliforms, lead, nitrates, volatile organic 

compounds, pesticides, and perchlorate. 

The American Academy of Pediatrics makes the following recommendations on maintaining and improving the safety of drinking water in the United States. Safe drinking water must continue 

to be a priority given the fundamental importance of water to 
126 

human health. We must continue to prioritize drinking water safety among the activities at EPA and State and regulatory agencies. 

Federal regulators must increase oversight and technical assistance to State and localities. EPA Administrator Jackson has made 

welcome statements increasing the agency’s activities on safe 

drinking water. But the agency must work effectively with State 

regulators and water systems to actually improve water safety. Serious and repeated violations should be identified and pursued aggressively. 

Congress should increase funding for EPA’s efforts on clean 

water and safe drinking water. Schools and child care providers 

need more assistance in assuring the safety of their drinking 

water. Steps must be taken to establish clear lines of responsibility 

for testing school water supplies and correcting deficiencies. Communities should not wait until children are exposed or ill. 

More attention should be paid to the safety of private water supplies such as wells, and the EPA should increase funding for pediatric environmental health specialty units. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Paulson follows:] 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 

Senator BOXER. We will next turn to Michael Baker, President, 

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL G. BAKER, PRESIDENT, 

ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING WATER ADMINISTRATORS 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, committee members. 

I can assure you that State drinking water programs take our responsibility of ensuring that public water systems comply with safe 

drinking water requirements extremely seriously. We recognize 

that the health and well-being of our citizens and our communities 

are dependent on their having access to adequate supplies of safe 

drinking water. 

Overall, our public water systems do a good job. In general, community systems do a better job than non-community systems, and 

larger systems tend to do a better job than smaller ones. One hundred percent compliance by all public water systems with all drinking water requirements continues to be our goal. Admittedly, 

achieving that goal is challenging. 

For instance, contaminants in our sources of drinking water such 

as nutrients associated with non-point sources of pollution continue 

to be a problem. The number and complexity of drinking water requirements continue to grow as does the technology required for 

meeting those requirements. New arsenic, disinfection byproduct 

and radionuclide rules have been a particular challenge due to the 

large number of small water systems and some large that have had 

to meet those more stringent standards for the first time. 

When a public water system does have violations, a variety of approaches can be used to return them to compliance. Those approaches can be taken with or without formal enforcement actions 

depending on the nature and severity of the violation. Bringing systems back into compliance is not easy, but it can be done. In Ohio, 

for example, we used a combination of outreach, technical assistance, financing, and when necessary enforcement to bring systems 

into compliance with the arsenic standard. 

In 2003, we had 153 systems that were exceeding the new standard. Today, we have 14 systems that are still exceeding the standard, and all but 2 of those are in some kind of enforcement action 

to return them to compliance. 

I will mention that States do support and actually help develop 

the revised approach for identifying and prioritizing significant 

non-compliers for enforcement, as mentioned by Administrator 

Giles. However, before enforcement comes into play the most reliable approach to ensuring compliance at public water systems is to 

enhance their overall technical, managerial and financial capacity. 

Reactive approaches after violations occur tend to be more expensive, more time consuming and less protective of public health. 

With that in mind and with the support of Senator Voinovich 

and Senator Brown, the Ohio EPA has been providing training to 

our local decisionmakers to make sure that they have the managerial and fiscal knowledge necessary to operate and maintain their 

public water systems. States do not support waiving standards or 

lowering the bar for systems due to financial challenges and thus 

allowing for two tiers of public health protection. 
143 

Safe drinking water in schools is vitally important. States recognize that children are particularly sensitive to certain contaminants such as lead, and States have taken action to address drinking water compliance at our schools. 

Whether building capacity at the local level or conducting oversight and enforcement activities, to be successful States and public 

water systems have to have adequate resources. We commend Congress for increased funding for drinking water infrastructure 

through both the Recovery Act and the 2010 appropriations. 

States also appreciate the efforts of this committee to reauthorize 

the SRF programs, and overall we support the proposed changes in 

that legislation. We particularly appreciate the increased funding 

but also the increased flexibility in the use of the set asides and 

the emphasis on increasing the capability of our public water systems. 

But without question, if we are going to improve drinking water 

compliance, State drinking water programs need more resources. 

And while not the direct purview of this committee, I do ask your 

support for increased funding for the State Public Water Supply 

Supervision Grant, which has been the primary source of Federal 

support for State drinking water programs. 

In summary, States take very seriously our ongoing challenge of 

ensuring public water systems comply with all requirements. In cooperation with our partners at the Federal, State and local level, 

we believe we have, given the challenges, a solid record of success. 

But we know collectively we can and need to do better. 

We appreciate Federal support for the SRF programs and this 

committee’s particular efforts to support reauthorization of those 

programs. However, if we are going to fully recognize the public 

health protection goals that we all seek State drinking water programs need more resources to implement and enforce the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony, and I would be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:] 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Now, we would go to Mr. Whatley, Executive Director, Oklahoma 

Rural Water Association. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF GENE WHATLEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

OKLAHOMA RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WHATLEY. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and 

members of the committee, I appreciate very much the opportunity 

to be able to appear before the committee today. 

To begin, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my Senator from Oklahoma, Senator James Inhofe, for his efforts on behalf of sensible regulation of the environment and his efforts to 

protect the environment and his leadership in working for practical, reasonable and affordable drinking water regulations. Thank 

you very much, Senator. 

When I started to work with the association in 1978, EPA had 

developed regulation for seven or eight contaminants. During the 

past 30 years, the numbers of regulated contaminants has steadily 

increased to near 100 today. Each new regulation has a cost, 

whether it is for monitoring, additional personnel, increased treatment costs or infrastructure improvements. New requirements usually place additional costs on small systems with limited financial 

resources. 

Many of the EPA regulations, such as testing for bacteria, filtration of surface water, and regulation of nitrates have made our 

water safer. But I believe many of the regulations and water quality standards are overly restrictive for small systems and do not 

justify the costs. 

Many of the rules are complex and very difficult to understand 

and implement for both the water systems and State regulatory 

agencies. This is a significant problem for systems that do not have 

experienced full-time operators. Many of the small system operators do not understand the regulations, and they do not know what 

they need to do to comply. 

Systems are having to spend an increasing amount of time and 

money trying to comply with regulations. As a result, systems do 

not have the money to make system improvements to better serve 

existing customers or expand services to areas where individuals 

are on unsafe private wells. Many small systems spend money on 

overly prescriptive testing that they could be using to upgrade their 

infrastructure to provide more reliable service. 

When the Disinfection/Disinfection Byproducts Rule went into effect a few years ago, 75 percent of the 250 surface water treatment 

plants in Oklahoma were unable to comply. With training and 

technical assistance provided by ORWA and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, compliance has improved. Currently, over 50 percent of the systems in the State are in compliance with the rule, and we continue to work with them. 

But the cost of compliance has been extremely high for the systems. For many systems, operating costs have escalated dramatically. On one system that I am aware of the cost just for chemicals 

alone has gone from $1,800 a month to $18,000 per month. It has 

also been necessary for some systems to upgrade their treatment 
167 

processes or construct new water treatment plants at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars, maybe even millions of dollars, with 

no immediate health improvements. 

The governing boards and operators of public water supply systems want to comply with Federal regulations and provide the best 

quality water possible to their customers. To achieve this objective 

systems need training to educate operators and board members on 

drinking water regulatory requirements, technical assistance is 

needed to provide onsite, hands-on help for operators in troubleshooting problems and evaluating alternatives for enhancing or improving operations and treatment processes. 

Rural Water Training and Technical Assistance is a primary 

source of help for small community water systems. These programs 

have contributed substantially to better compliance with Federal 

drinking water regulations and clean water regulations and helped 

to improve system management, operations and liability. Continued funding for training and technical assistance is essential to 

maintain grassroots support and assistance for small water systems. 

For water systems to be successful in complying with Federal 

regulations and meeting the present and future needs of their communities, adequate low cost financing must be available for system 

development and infrastructure improvements. Systems in Oklahoma and around the Nation rely heavily on Drinking Water SRF 

and Clean Water SRF for financing system improvements. The program is well managed and very effective in helping systems meet 

their water and wastewater needs. We encourage Congress to continue funding for these very important programs. 

That concludes my remarks. Thank you again for the opportunity 

to appear before the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whatley follows:] 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Whatley. 

And our last speaker, well, just to let you know after we are 

going to proceed, after we hear from Professor Griffiths, who is the 

Chair of the EPA Science Advisory Board, I am going to ask just 

one question. Then, I am going to allow, of course, Senator Inhofe 

to take his full time. I am going to ask Senator Lautenberg if he 

can then take the gavel because I have got to be on the floor of the 

Senate for some debate. So, that is what we are doing. 

So, let me in advance thank everybody for being here. 

So, please, Professor, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY K. GRIFFITHS, M.D., MPH&TM, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND COMMUNITY MEDICINE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND OF 

MEDICINE, TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE 

Dr. GRIFFITHS. Good morning Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Inhofe and other members of the committee. 

My name is Jeff Griffiths, and I am a public health and infectious disease physician at Tufts University. Although I serve on the 

Science Advisory Board as the Chair of the Drinking Water Committee, I am speaking today for myself as a member of the public 

health community, not as an official representative of that body. 

We supply water to children which contains copper, lead, arsenic, 

nitrates and other toxic compounds. This is disgraceful. Our drinking water is contaminated with industrial chemicals such as perchlorate and MTBE and agricultural chemicals such as nitrates 

and atrazine. We have, in my opinion, a flawed approach to these 

issues and have allowed lax enforcement of regulations. We have 

failed to protect vulnerable people such as children, pregnant 

women and the elderly. 

Our process for identifying worrisome compounds is flawed and 

is doomed to miss truly risky chemicals. Some of them, I should 

say. We test and regulate chemical contaminants chemical by 

chemical, rather than by using reasonable, prudent, common sense 

approaches which would allow us to regulate groups of chemicals. 

We simply do not have the scientific capacity to test every individual chemical used in the United States. The U.S. EPA has the 

resources to thoroughly examine only a relative handful of chemicals. Yet hundreds to thousands of new chemicals are introduced 

into industrial production every year. In support of these statements, I have referenced a letter from the Science Advisory Board 

to Lisa Jackson. 

We artificially divide the oversight of agricultural chemicals and 

animal wastes at the State and Federal levels. And we have a mess 

because of this. The majority of fertilizers such as nitrates which 

are applied to croplands end up in water. The public health and 

economic costs to this contamination are shifted downstream. It 

also is destroying critical incubators for sea life and related commerce, such as in the Chesapeake. It makes the job of treating 

water for human consumption more difficult and more expensive. 

When manure from our industrialized concentrated animal feedlot operations is applied to the land, we will contaminate the water 

of some people, some proportion of the time, and make some people 
175 

sick. We must find a way to feed the public wholesome food without asking them to drink bad water. 

The water crisis is not solely a rural phenomenon. It is a national phenomenon. Cities and towns are dealing with limited 

quantities of water, which is worsened by drought in dry areas. Climate variability has also led to increased flooding, which overwhelms combined sewer and overflow systems so that sewage contaminates our drinking water. We all know it is bad to have poop 

in our drinking water. Water delivery is at risk because of our 

aging infrastructure of pipes in the ground. 

We have institutionalized an approach to testing for water contamination that in my opinion will not protect the public unless it 

is changed. We test for contaminants infrequently and average the 

exposure over a year so that we are guaranteed to miss important 

seasonal spikes of contamination, and we give false reassurance to 

ourselves because of this. 

Do we really want pregnant women, babies and children to drink 

water with high levels of contaminants during periods of their sensitivity? I should think not. 

In my opinion we need a paradigm shift about water. We have 

to better protect our water from contamination. We must better 

monitor our water. We must face the fact that we cannot test every 

potential chemical contaminant for safety and must devise a more 

rational and comprehensive regulatory approach. We have to do a 

better job of keeping infectious pathogens out of our water by stopping sewage overflows and animal manure intrusions. 

We must hold our drinking water providers accountable for their 

lapses. We should, in turn, help our drinking water utilities to deal 

with these challenges in three ways. First, keep water from being 

contaminated in the first place so they have an easier and less expensive task when removing contaminants. Second, help them to 

adopt modern treatment technologies that will remove a suite of 

contaminants, not just the currently identified bad actors but the 

potential bad actors of the future. And third, we must value their 

work and value clean water through managerial, operational and 

financial support. 

If we choose to do these things, we will be healthier, we will have 

spent money in the long run, and we will have acted as good stewards for this precious resource. 

Thank you very much for your time, and thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Griffiths follows:] 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. I really appreciate your call 

to action, and I think you and Mr. Baker said it well. If we can 

keep the water from being contaminated in the first place, it is far 

better than having to put all kinds of costly repairs into place. 

And I would say to Mr. Baker, and this is my question to you, 

and then I am going to turn it over to Senator Inhofe for his time 

and then the gavel to Senator Lautenberg, I really appreciated 

what you said, Mr. Baker. You said we do not want to roll back 

standards. We want to keep that water clean. But we need some 

assistance, some technical assistance and help. 

And I would say to Professor Griffiths, who is calling for a whole 

new way of looking at our water, even the way we have got it now, 

where we are being told there are violations, there is no option, 

which is why I was so—and I think other Senators—were pretty 

hard on our EPA folks who were here because we want them to act 

on the information that is already out there. 

We may have to change the system, but right now the system is 

working in this sense. We know where the standards are being violated, but it falls apart because there is no enforcement. 

And I so appreciate Mr. Baker, because you are an important 

witness here. You are President of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, and you said it beautifully. You want to 

protect our kids, you want to protect our families, you do not want 

to weaken the standards, but you need help. 

So, my question to you is will you help us pass this State Revolving Fund, the S. 1005, which Senator Inhofe and I have worked so 

closely on, where we improve the amount of funds that go to the 

rural—we approve the technical assistance, we take care of well 

water. This is our intent. 

And so I wanted to ask you, would you help us? And I mean this 

sincerely. We need to get time on the Senate floor. Obviously, it is 

not going to happen before the end of the year, but early next year. 

We are going to have to file cloture on that and move forward. I 

think there is overwhelming support, but there are a few people 

who do not support it. 

So, can I ask you if you and your agencies would help us by simply writing to your Senator Reid and Senator McConnell and letting them know that this is important for us to take up? 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Very simply, yes. As 

I said in my testimony, States recognize and need a good SRF program. We support overall all the changes that have been proposed 

by this committee in there. Of course, as I said, we appreciate the 

increase in infrastructure funding because our public water systems do have tremendous need to address their failing infrastructure. 

The set asides that are made available for use for States are also 

extremely important. They can help us to provide direct technical 

assistance to small systems to help build system capability as well 

as for our own enforcement activities with the added flexibility that 

is being proposed in that bill. 

So, yes, we do support it. We do think it is valuable, and we will 

do our efforts to move it forward. 

Senator BOXER. Please. I think it would be very helpful. 

Senator Inhofe. 
187 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

First of all, the Chairman mentioned the legislation that we have 

and the technical assistance is dramatically increased with that 

legislation. Now, since we are kind of confined on time, the first 

panel lasted a little longer than I thought it would, I want to confine my questions to Mr. Whatley and then, on each question, if 

you have any, I would like to know from you, Mr. Baker, what is 

happening in Oklahoma is also consistent with wishes and problems in other States. 

First of all, Mr. Whatley, do you think a greater emphasis by the 

EPA on the training and technical assistance as opposed to enforcement is something that would be helping you to do a better job to 

clean up the drinking water? 

Mr. WHATLEY. Thank you, Senator. I believe that most of our 

systems in the States do not really understand what they need to 

do and what the rules are. That is why we have some of the problems that we have. We have about 7,000 certified operators in the 

State of Oklahoma. We have a turnover of around 1,500 every year. 

So, we have a lot of people with no experience and very little or 

no training. So, we think we can address it and help systems meet 

a lot of these requirements through educational and onsite technical assistance that we work with the State in providing. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate that because many of our small 

communities—we are a State of small communities. Many of those 

communities do not have the resources to have the studies and all 

of the things that—and so we rely on the assistance, the technical 

assistance. Do you agree with that, Mr. Baker? 

Mr. BAKER. Yes, I do. The complexity of our drinking water regulations continues to grow, as does the technology required to meet 

those requirements. We have a challenge of making—helping people to just to be aware of what the requirements are and then to 

understand what those requirements are and how best to achieve 

them. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. And I appreciate that. Mr. Whatley, could 

you name some specific EPA regulations or water quality standards 

that you feel are overly restrictive for our small systems? 

Mr. WHATLEY. Well, I just learned yesterday that EPA has sent 

out notice to systems under the Long Term II Enhanced Surface 

Water Treatment Rule. It is going out to those small—well, all surface water systems that serve less than 10,000 people. It is going 

to require monitoring that is going to cost about $24,000 a year, 

and as you pointed out we are a State of very small systems. 

Eighty-five percent of the entities in Oklahoma serve less than 

3,300 people. So, we will be in—— 

Senator INHOFE. That is less than 3,300, and yet the benchmark 

was 10,000. 

Mr. WHATLEY. Yes, so that—— 

Senator INHOFE. That is almost—— 

Mr. WHATLEY. So, 90 percent of our folks are less than 10,000. 

Senator INHOFE. Ninety percent. 

Mr. WHATLEY. So, nearly all of our systems in Oklahoma as you 

pointed out are small or very small systems. So it is going to be 

extremely difficult for these systems to meet this standard or the 

launching requirement for cryptospiridium. Of course systems al-
188 

ready are having to comply with turbidity standards which were 

reduced, I think, by 50 percent a couple of years ago from 1 NTU 

down to .5. So, we are very concerned about the effect of that rule. 

The Stage II Disinfection Byproducts Rule is of great concern to 

us. There are 1,000 systems in Oklahoma, or more than 1,000 systems, that will be impacted by that rule. These are systems that 

have, that purchase water systems, that buy water from a surface 

water system or another groundwater system that have no treatment experience. They are going to be required to do monitoring 

and potentially have to install expensive treatment processes to 

meet the requirements of that rule. 

Senator INHOFE. Those are good examples. For the record, and 

by that I mean after this is over we keep the record open, I would 

like to have you list other examples that specifically are problems 

for you because I know that the time does not allow us to get into 

too many of them. You have given a couple of good examples. 

Do you want to add to that, Mr. Baker? 

Mr. BAKER. I think the particular rules that were mentioned are 

in fact challenging and are particularly challenging for the large 

number of small systems that have to achieve compliance with 

those. But I would also note that I think that they are particularly 

important rules in addressing acute contaminants that can impact 

people’s health in the short term as well as in the long term. 

So, while I think there are challenges I think we have to utilize 

all the tools in the tool box to try and assist small systems to bring 

them into compliance with those regulations. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, that is good. And then for the record, I 

would like to have each one of you send us something, what you 

think the EPA could do to be of help to us, and particularly I emphasize the small communities. 

And Mr. Whatley, my time has expired, and I have to go because 

I am making a talk off campus here. But if you are around today, 

I looked at my schedule, any time between 3 and 5 o’clock or after 

6 o’clock, if you could drop by the office, I would like to visit with 

you. 

Mr. WHATLEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator LAUTENBERG [presiding]. Thank you very much. I will 

proceed with a few questions, and then I would pass the gavel and 

the time over to Senator Whitehouse. Everybody is interested. The 

problem is everybody is so busy. And we thank you, each, for your 

testimony. 

Mr. Whatley, one of the things that I kind of deduce as I read 

your commentary is that you say the regulations are—you said you 

believe that many of the regulations and water quality standards 

are unnecessary, that benefits of regulations do not justify the cost. 

You say that many small system operators do not understand the 

regulations. 

Well, since we know that small communities typically have revenue shortfalls, are we then consigning people who live in these 

communities to have to bear up under unsanitary conditions, contaminated water? What are the alternatives for people who live in 

these communities? 
189 

Mr. WHATLEY. Senator, we certainly do not advocate some lower 

standard for people in small systems. We think we are all entitled 

to equal health protection. I guess what I was alluding to in my 

remarks is that we think that we need to look at the science when 

we are setting regulations, we need to ensure that we are getting 

the benefit from that regulation, more benefit from that, say lowering the standard for THMs from 160 to 80, we are getting more 

benefit from that regulation than we would by investing our money 

in helping people pay for medical costs somewhere. 

So, we need to take a close look at what kind of benefits we are 

really getting from, the health benefits that we are really getting 

from the regulations. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes, because I am concerned when there 

is a position saying that they do not have the knowledge, and they 

do not have the facility, and I am wondering where they go. 

Mr. Griffiths, do you believe bottled water manufacturers should 

be required to give the public detailed information such as the 

source, where does the water come from, and the level of contaminants? 

Dr. GRIFFITHS. Yes, Senator, I do believe the bottled water manufacturers should do that. I had the experience about 10 years ago 

as a member of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council, an 

organ that advises the EPA, to ask people from the FDA could they 

come and give us some information about that. And of course the 

EPA has hundreds if not thousands of people working on drinking 

water. And that time, the FDA had one-third of an FTE operating 

on this. And it took us several, an extended period of time, before 

we were able to get a representative from the FDA to come speak 

with us. 

Bottled water, as you know, simply has to meet drinking water 

criteria for being put into the bottle. So Senator Lautenberg could 

go ahead and set up his own bottling plant, and we would not know 

where it comes from or anything else like that. And we have had 

people doing that in Massachusetts. They just turn on the faucet 

and do it. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I assure you, I would drink it first. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Baker, your testimony, each of you 

made a significant contribution to our hearing today. Recent studies said that only 5 percent of the funds under the Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund went to control non-point source pollution, 

like agricultural or urban runoff, point source pollution from water 

pipes. 

And yet, non-point pollution accounts for as much as 60 percent 

of the total pollution in the rivers and streams that supply our 

drinking water. What can we do to encourage more State action to 

control non-point? I know it is a big problem in my State. 

Mr. BAKER. Senator, as you noted, non-point sources of pollutants, particularly nutrients, pesticides and other agricultural and 

urban stormwater runoff, are a particular challenge, both for folks 

on the Clean Water Act that are trying to ensure the quality of our 

rivers and streams as well as on the drinking water for systems 

that are using those. 
190 

Recently, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators and State Water Pollution Control Administrators, in cooperation with EPA, formed a work group over the last year which was 

called the Nutrient Innovation Task Group where we published a 

call for action that was submitted to the Administrator to specifically look at nutrient loading and non-point sources of pollution. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. I will take just a minute more. What 

is happening to force the States—no, strike that—to help the 

States improve enforcement from EPA? Are you satisfied with the 

efforts of EPA to enforce—to help the States enforce the regulations that they are responsible for? 

Mr. BAKER. First off, as I said in my testimony, States do support, and we actually help develop, the approach that Assistant Administrator Giles mentioned for identifying and prioritizing significant non-compliers for enforcement. And we think that that will 

help ensure that those systems that are presenting the greatest 

public health threat are the ones that in fact we are spending our 

time taking enforcement actions on. 

Having said that, I want to also note that enforcement is extremely time consuming and takes a tremendous amount of resources. A single case can take hundreds of hours and lots of staff 

time dedicated to building that case and enforcing it. So, while a 

hammer is one of the most important tools in the tool box, you cannot fix everything with it. And we believe enforcement is a very important tool, but we cannot address all of our systems and all of 

our problems with enforcement. 

Enforcement all takes a long time. We have cases out there on 

some of most recalcitrant systems that we have been working on 

for years. So, taking enforcement is not necessarily the quickest approach to achieving public health protection either. 

So, I guess more directly in answer, I think EPA has been working in cooperation with the States and support the States when we 

request that support. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I thank my colleague while I ran a little 

over time here. And I am going to just say this and close my session here. But the record will be kept open, so we would ask you 

to respond to any inquiries that you get over the next couple of 

weeks as promptly as you can. What you are doing is very important. 

And I do close with this statement, that a group of scientists, 

which I am putting in the public record, and they say more than 

20 scientists are writing to express a collective view that oil and 

gas companies, like any other industry, should fully comply with all 

health and environmental protections. Oil and gas operations, they 

are talking now about the fractionation, are known to release substances into the environment that are known to be very hazardous 

to human health. 

And with that, I relinquish my—you do not need this. I thank 

you all very much. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 

Senator WHITEHOUSE [presiding]. I join my colleagues in thanking all of you for being here with us. I was struck by Mr. Whatley’s 

testimony about the problems that small systems face. In Rhode Island we have a number of small systems as well. 

It strikes me that we are moving into a new environment, as Dr. 

Griffiths described, in which there are more pollutants and more 

chemicals and more human health risks than have been faced by 

systems in the past. I see four nodding heads on that point. We are 

also dealing with a question of the public health, which should be, 

I would say, our highest priority. 

And so I am concerned about the argument that the public 

health should yield to the concerns of small operators who are, I 

think the phrase was, unable to understand or implement the new 

regulatory requirements that are driven not by frivolous concerns, 

but are driven by, frankly, new exposures to new chemicals. 

And I am wondering, I guess, Mr. Baker, let me ask you, because 

I understand that Oklahoma is widely populated with small systems, from a national perspective, what is the continuing role of 

the small system? 

I know that there cannot be geographic consolidation because 

this is hard, in the ground, fixed infrastructure, but are there opportunities for administrative consolidation among small systems 

so that they are not incapable of understanding regulations and incapable of implementing regulations? Is it time to look at the way 

in which small systems are structured in order to try to meet these 

new and changed needs? 

Mr. BAKER. Senator, I think that there are several different approaches that can be utilized to assist small systems in achieving 

compliance with requirements. Those can include managerial restructuring. In some cases, where it is possible regionalization and 

becoming part of another system physically could be a solution. But 

due to the geographic dispersion that is not always the case. 

I think that there are opportunities for systems to work together 

and to work with technical assistance providers in the States in 

how they are structured and how they can gain some better efficiencies of scale by working together. Direct technical assistance is 

going to continue to be part of the problem. I mean, it is really a 

challenge—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Part of the solution, I think you mean. Direct technical assistance is going to be part of the solution. 

Mr. BAKER. Yes. Direct technical assistance is going to be part 

of the solution. But the challenge is getting out there to the large 

number of those and helping each of those individual operators and 

owners understand what their requirements are. And that is just 

one of the first basic principles that can be there. And then financially—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So you agree with Mr. Whatley that there 

is a structural problem out there in that the chemical and pollutant 

inputs into our waters have reached a point where safe regulation 

and testing is a real challenge for water systems below a certain 

size just because of the increased complexity driven by the increased pollutants? 

Mr. BAKER. They are increasing challenges that present themselves. Some small public water systems are more capable of meet-
197 

ing those challenges than others, and that is where that assistance 

is needed to help them develop the managerial, technical and financial knowledge base in order to operate it. 

Some systems are so small and face challenges of contaminants 

in their drinking water that they do not have the proper number 

of customers in order to support, financially, the challenges that 

they face. In those cases, yes, we have to look for alternative structures for them. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Yes. Mr. Griffiths, did you have a comment on that? You are, OK, engaged in the exchange. 

Dr. GRIFFITHS. Well, I think that it is well recognized that we are 

at risk of having second class water delivery in some parts of the 

country because of these limitations of resources and finances. I 

think we have to fish or cut bait in many ways. We have to come 

up with solutions that will deal with these issues. They are genuine issues; they are real issues. 

At the same time it is very clear that there are a host of chemicals, a sea of chemicals, that we have not really understood what 

their health effects were before. The fact that we have frogs and 

fish with confused gender is a major problem, if you ask me. And 

we have to deal with that. 

And so it is not simply a matter of, I think, tweaking the system. 

We do need a paradigm shift in terms of the way that we support 

water infrastructure and the way that we value water. We have to 

make sure that the small systems get the support they need, and 

at the same time we must be robust in our protection when it 

comes to public health. 

The figure of a 1 in 600 risk for bladder cancer because of arsenic 

is, frankly, not something that I would like to publicize, let anybody know. I would be ashamed of it if that was the case. It is really a problem. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You consider that to be an accurate figure? I read it out of a newspaper so it is not always clear that that 

is—— 

Dr. GRIFFITHS. It is a central estimate, sir, of some scientific information. I think that one of the things that is not well appreciated is that while we have contaminants in food, we say 1 in 1 

million risk of cancer. With drinking water, we have a risk level 

of 1 in 10,000 of having an adverse impact. So, our water regulations are inherently 100 times less protective, if you will, against 

something like cancer. 

And this, this is a historic lacuna in the way that we think about 

this kind of thing. We have some very significant issues, and there 

is no way to paper over this. And the small systems are bearing 

the brunt of the managerial and financial hit when it comes to this. 

It does not mean that we should come up with a two-tiered system 

of public health protection of the country, though. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, your testimony has been very compelling and helpful. I appreciate it. And I want to take this opportunity to thank you also for your service on the Scientific Advisory 

Panel. 

Dr. GRIFFITHS. That is an honor. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And I thank all of the witnesses for their 

testimony. It was very helpful to all of us. 
198 

As the previous Chairman said, the record of the hearing remains open for a week for anything that anybody would want to 

add. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for calling this critical hearing. Of the many important issues that this committee is responsible for, I can think of none that touches 

every American, in every region of the country, more so than ensuring clean drinking water. 

In their most recent Infrastructure Report Card, the American Society of Civil Engineers describes the budget shortfalls for drinking water infrastructure at staggering proportions. They estimate that our Nation’s drinking water systems need 

over $108 billion in investment just to meet current demands. When taking into account future growth and necessary maintenance over the next 20 years, the Nation’s 

drinking water systems will require an additional $146 billion. 

The funding needs in my home State of New York follow these national trends. 

According to analysis by the New York State Department of Health, which manages 

the Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, over the next 20 years New York drinking water systems will require an infusion of nearly $39 billion. The current funding 

streams simply do not meet the lengthy backlog in improvements and general maintenance. For instance, in New York 95 percent of the projects submitted to the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds Program remain unfunded due to lack of 

available funding. 

Chairman Boxer, it is not just our crumbling infrastructure that is threatening 

our drinking water systems. Long known threats to the safety of our drinking water 

supply such as arsenic and lead continue to be a problem in many communities 

across the country. 

Just 2 years ago in Rockland County located in New York’s lower Hudson Valley, 

elevated levels of arsenic were discovered in two wells that service the county water 

supply. 

New York in particular has been successful in reducing lead levels in drinking 

water over the last decade, but there are many communities in the United States 

still facing health threats from lead and other chemicals in drinking water. 

In its investigative series Toxic Waters, the New York Times has detailed many 

of the threats to clean water that communities across the United States are facing. 

In one of their recent articles, the author details the high levels of lead, arsenic, 

manganese, and other cancer causing chemicals in Charleston, West Virginia. The 

article goes on to describe the effects of many of these chemicals irritating and burning the skin from bathing and erosion of tooth enamel leading to a child as young 

as 7 needing multiple capped teeth. 

The series also details the state of the Nation’s enforcement of water pollution 

laws. In 2008 alone approximately 40 percent of the Nation’s water systems violated 

the Safe Drinking Water Act at least once, based on Environmental Protection 

Agency data. These systems provide water to more than 23 million Americans. 

One area of major concern is the lack of enforcement of the Clean Water Act. According to the New York Times, since 2004 the Clean Water Act has been violated 

more than 506,000 times by more than 23,000 companies and other facilities. Of 

those, 60 percent were found to be in ‘‘significant noncompliance,’’ which includes 

major violations such as dumping cancer causing chemicals or failure to measure 

or report where they pollute. In total, less than 3 percent of all Clean Water Act 

violations result in fines or any other significant punishment. 

For a nation as blessed as the United States, basic clean drinking water should 

never be a concern. 

But as science advances, we are beginning to learn of new threats to our Nation’s 

drinking water. Over the last 2 years a series of investigations and articles have 

outlined how chemicals found in everyday products including shampoos, lotions and 

cleaning products as well as medications are turning up in waters across the United 

States. 

An Associated Press investigation from 2007 reported that water supplies across 

the United States tested positive for traces of a number of drugs including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and even sex hormones. The United 

States Geological Survey has found numerous cases of intersexing occurring in fish 
199 

across the United States. One likely cause that researchers are identifying with the 

increased intersexing taking place in wildlife is from endocrine disrupting chemicals 

that are common in household cleaners, laundry detergents, shampoos, hand sanitizers and many pharmaceuticals. 

Wastewater treatment facilities are not equipped to remove these chemicals from 

wastewater before treated water is released. Likewise, many drinking water systems are not built to remove these drugs from our drinking water before it reaches 

our tap. 

It is critical that as this body moves forward with increased funding to meet our 

Nation’s drinking water and wastewater system needs that we take into account the 

new challenges that we are facing. We currently do not have the information as to 

how best to prevent these pharmaceuticals and personal care products from entering 

into our environment. 

That is why I authored an amendment to S. 1005, the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, calling for a 2-year study of the presence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in waters of the United States. My amendment, which 

was unanimously approved by my fellow committee members, takes a comprehensive approach to the concerns associated with PPCPs in the Nation’s water looking 

at what PPCPs are present, and where, how much, and what cost-effective steps can 

we take to control, limit, treat or prevent the disseminations of drugs into our drinking water. 

I am confident that by working with Federal, State and local authorities as well 

as industry and consumers we can take common sense steps to protect our families 

and our environment from potential adverse health effects. 

Madam Chair, I thank you again for holding this important hearing and hope that 

very soon the Senate will be able to take up S. 1005, the Water Infrastructure Financing Act so that we can not only address the funding needs but also the real 

health concerns that are associated with the Nation’s drinking water systems. The 

legislation passed by this committee in May provides $34.7 billion in funding over 

the next 5 years for the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds. 

This funding is critical to digging out from the lengthy backlog in critical drinking 

water and wastewater infrastructure improvements New York and other States are 

facing. Increased funding for water infrastructure will create good paying American 

jobs at a time when we need them most, protect both public health and our environment, and help to lower property taxes by assisting our local communities with financing these expensive improvements. 

[Additional material, Rural Water’s 2009 Report to Congress 

Documenting Environmental Accomplishments, is available in the 

committee’s files.] 

Æ