Witness Testimony

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am Aaron Colangelo, a Staff Attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC"). NRDC is a national non-profit public interest organization with over 500,000 members, dedicated to protecting public health and the environment.

SUMMARY

Lead contamination in the District of Columbia is a significant public health problem. The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority and the Environmental Protection Agency both missed opportunities to contain or remedy this contamination, failed to comply with drinking water regulations and federal law, and failed to notify the public of the health threats in a timely or meaningful way. In light of this failure to respond properly to lead contamination, Congress should carefully oversee EPA's implementation of its drinking water responsibilities and insist on full and effective enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA's inaction in response to lead and other drinking water contaminants has exacerbated environmental health threats.

Furthermore, a comprehensive reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act is necessary to fund national primary drinking water regulations, State Revolving Funds, technical assistance to small water systems, and other important components of the act. Full funding for these programs is integral to successful implementation of the SDWA, and authorization for each of them expired in 2003. Finally, the nation's deteriorating drinking water infrastructure has increased the challenge of providing safe and affordable drinking water across the country and, in the case of lead in D.C., has contributed to at least one public health crisis. NRDC proposes significant, targeted expenditures and creative financing and utility management options below to start meeting some of the mounting infrastructure needs. Immediate congressional action is necessary to begin to address infrastructure shortfalls.

I. THE DISTRICT'S LEAD IN DRINKING WATER CRISIS THREATENS PUBLIC HEALTH AND DEMANDS BETTER OVERSIGHT.

The local drinking water lead crisis poses serious public health risks to thousands of residents of the national capital area. The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has not fulfilled its obligation to aggressively oversee the safety of D.C.'s water supply, to ensure that the public is fully apprised of the health threats posed by lead in drinking water, and to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA"). This raises important questions about the adequacy of EPA's drinking water program not only in D.C., but across the country. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Washington Aqueduct Division ("Corps") has failed to treat the water it delivers to D.C. and neighboring Northern Virginia communities sufficiently to ensure that the water is not corrosive, in order to reduce lead contamination. The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority ("WASA") failed to act promptly or adequately in response to the lead contamination crisis, and neglected to adequately and clearly inform the public about the lead problem. A report commissioned by the WASA Board of Directors released last week, the "Holder Report", concluded that WASA failed to act promptly after it detected high lead levels in D.C. drinking water, and subsequently downplayed the scope of the lead contamination and the health threats it posed in communications with the public. The nation's capital's water supply should be the best in the world, an international model. Instead, it is among the worst big city supplies in the nation.

It should not be assumed, however, that Washington is the only city in the U.S. affected by lead or other important tap water problems. Although EPA has asserted that lead contamination is not a national problem, its own survey of medium and large public water systems shows that up to 10.2 million people are served by utilities with lead contamination problems. The Lansing, Michigan water utility recently announced that it is replacing 14,000 lead service lines because of contamination concerns, and several other cities have struggled with lead contamination in recent years, including Seattle, greater Boston, St. Paul, Minnesota, Bangor, Maine, Madison, Wisconsin, Ridgewood and Newark, New Jersey, Oneida, New York, and many others. Yet EPA maintains no accurate, up-to-date national information on this issue; national drinking water databases required by EPA rules are incomplete and out of date. Furthermore, EPA has failed to address state failures to comply with federal reporting rules, making effective EPA oversight and enforcement impossible.

School systems in many cities across the country - including in Seattle, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Montgomery County, Maryland - have found serious lead contamination problems, but often have been slow to inform parents and resolve the problem. Many school systems have entirely failed to comply with the Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988's mandate to test school water for lead and replace coolers that serve lead-contaminated water. EPA and many states have done a poor job of ensuring that the EPA lead rule and the school testing and cooler programs are fully implemented. Moreover, the Washington D.C. crisis and experience in other cities highlight that the EPA lead rule and public education requirements are difficult to enforce and ultimately ineffective.

Data published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ("CDC")recently found that there are reasons to be concerned about lead in D.C. tap water. The CDC analyzed 85,000 blood lead screenings reported to D.C. since 1998. Although severe acute lead poisoning from drinking water exposure was not found, blood lead levels in D.C. children who drink water in homes served with lead lines did not decrease, whereas they did decrease in children served by non-lead lines. This suggests to health experts that lead in tap water is likely contributing to higher blood lead levels in some children in the District. As Mary Jean Brown, the lead poison prevention chief at the CDC, stated to the Washington Post: "There is no safe level of lead. Even a small contribution, especially in small children, is not something that we want to happen. . . . We don't want to increase the blood lead levels of those individuals by even 1 microgram if it can be prevented." Avram Goldstein, Blood Levels Affected by Disinfectant: Study Cites Impact on D.C. Children, Washington Post at B1 (March 31, 2004). Because of deficiencies in the D.C. blood lead monitoring program, and because blood lead levels begin to drop fairly shortly after exposure is stopped (with time, much of the lead deposits in bone and soft tissue), it is possible that more serious problems were simply undetected. It is important to note that new data published in major medical journals the past few years show that the most significant adverse health effects are seen at levels below 10 micrograms per deciliter in blood, where lead has been linked to reduced cognitive function, poor school performance, and learning disabilities in children.

Furthermore, it is incorrect to assert that lead in drinking water is not a problem because it will comprise only a minority of most children's total exposure to lead. First, this was the same argument used to justify keeping lead in gasoline for decades, which is now acknowledged to have been a major (and wholly avoidable) source of lead exposure for millions. Second, for a significant percentage of people, their only exposure to lead is through drinking water, and high levels in drinking water alone can cause health problems. Third, as noted above and confirmed by the CDC, science is trending towards the conclusion that very low levels of lead in blood - as low as two to three micrograms per deciliter - can cause measurable and irreversible health effects.

Below, we summarize some key problems with the responsible agencies' reactions to the lead crisis, and the actions that need to be taken to resolve the problem locally and to avoid possible repetition of the problem nationally:

EPA - The EPA bears a special responsibility for addressing the D.C. water crisis, because the agency has primary responsibility for drinking water protection in the city. EPA must go beyond its recent Consent Order with WASA, discussed below, and take stronger emergency enforcement action against WASA and the Corps. EPA's dealings with WASA and the Corps lack the clarity, detail, and enforceability needed to ensure that this problem is promptly resolved. An enforcement order should be issued that would both mandate immediate actions to deal with the lead crisis in the short term, and require a comprehensive top-to-bottom review of both WASA and Corps operations, with an eye towards effecting positive structural changes in the long term.

EPA has failed to ensure prompt and accurate public education and reporting on lead problems, and there are substantial questions, confirmed in the Holder Report, about whether EPA adequately oversaw WASA's lead monitoring and sample invalidations. EPA also failed to promptly and adequately review - or to insist upon updating - the Corps' corrosion control program. It is unclear whether EPA insisted upon an adequate and accurate materials survey, and EPA reportedly allowed WASA to avoid lead service line replacement by taking advantage of a regulatory loophole.

EPA has been slow to force WASA to redo its invalid school testing, or to mandate testing of day care centers or private schools. The EPA lead rule itself, which is drafted in a way that makes it very difficult to enforce, needs to be substantially strengthened. In addition, as noted above, EPA's data reporting systems are inadequate, to the point that EPA management cannot accurately and timely answer simple questions, such as "which public water systems are above the lead action level and which are replacing lead service lines?" EPA also has done little to ensure that school testing for lead has been carried out nationally, perhaps in part due to a court ruling casting doubt on the constitutionality of the program: Acorn v. Edwards, 81 F.3d 1387 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding that a SDWA provision requiring states to develop lead testing programs for schools and day care centers violates the Tenth Amendment as an unconstitutional conscription of state agencies to perform federal regulatory functions).

By a Consent Order negotiated last month, EPA and WASA outlined a list of steps that WASA must take to address the lead contamination problem. This Consent Order includes basic requirements that essentially compel WASA to comply with the EPA Lead and Copper Rule in the future, and take some minor additional steps in an attempt to redress WASA's past failure to comply. See In the Matter of D.C. WASA, EPA Docket No. SDWA-03-2004-0258DS, Administrative Order for Compliance on Consent ("Consent Order"). However, the EPA and WASA Consent Order falls short of the steps necessary to resolve the D.C. lead in drinking water crisis. In particular, the Consent Order fails to include any of the following necessary components:

. expedited, valid testing of all schools and day care centers;

. expanded testing of multiple family and single family homes and apartments beyond those with lead service lines;

. reissued accurate, understandable notices to consumers of lead levels, health risks, and options to avoid lead;

. professional installation and maintenance of certified filters for homes with lead service lines or high lead levels in their water, and that have young children, pregnant women, women who expect they may become pregnant, and other high risk individuals;

. an aggressive, honest, ongoing public education campaign developed with public input;

. a comprehensive third-party review of all available records and archives to determine whether the D.C. materials survey correctly identifies all locations where lead components were used;

. an expedited third-party review of the Corps' corrosion control and disinfection byproduct control strategy, with mandatory implementation of solutions by specified dates certain; and

. a top-to-bottom third party expert review of WASA and the Corps' water quality, source water, and overall performance, including a detailed review of their implementation of past consultant recommendations, Comprehensive Performance Evaluations, and sanitary surveys, and recommendations for long-term compliance with current and upcoming rules and water quality objectives. The review should seek public input and should be published.

Each of these recommended agency actions was first proposed by a coalition of public health, environmental, and other public interest organizations, of which NRDC is a member, in February 2004. For a more detailed discussion, see the LEAD Coalition recommendations attached at Appendix A below.

Army Corps of Engineers - The Corps has failed to ensure that its water is adequately treated to reduce its corrosivity and to thereby reduce lead levels in Washington and the Northern Virginia suburbs that it serves. The Corps has repeatedly responded to water quality problems by adopting the cheapest and often least effective band-aid solutions. Instead of using orthophosphate or other sophisticated corrosion inhibiters, as recommended by its consultants, the Corps chose to simply adjust water pH with lime, a cheaper and apparently less effective alternative.

In addition, instead of moving towards advanced treatment such as granular activated carbon filters and UV light or ozone disinfection, or membranes to reduce cancer-causing (and possibly miscarriage and birth defect-inducing) disinfection byproducts, and to more effectively remove the dangerous parasite Cryptosporidium and other contaminants, the Corps opted for the cheapest and least effective choice. It simply added ammonia to its chlorine to make chloramines. The switch to chloramines did slightly reduce chlorination byproduct levels, but also appears to have increased corrosivity of the water and therefore increased lead problems. It should be noted that, contrary to the inaccurate assertions of some critics, the EPA rules setting new limits on disinfection byproducts were not the result of "extremist environmentalist" efforts, but were negotiated by a diverse regulatory committee over a several-year period. The committee included major water utility trade associations, chlorine manufacturers, health departments, public health experts, states, local officials, and environmentalists (see 1998 agreement in principle at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mdbp/mdbpagre.html). Furthermore, increased lead contamination is not the necessary outcome of efforts to combat disinfection byproducts. By improving source water protection, enhancing water infrastructure, and modernizing treatment technology, the Corps could resolve both of these risks at the same time. The suggestion of a tradeoff between higher disinfection byproducts on the one hand and higher lead levels on the other presents a false choice.

WASA - WASA's response to the lead crisis has been slow, plagued by misleading statements to the public and to senior D.C. officials, and often characterized by missteps and non-compliance with EPA rules. EPA has recently listed six alleged violations of federal regulations that may have contributed to the lack of public knowledge. See EPA Non Compliance Letter to WASA, dated March 31, 2004, available online at http://www.epa.gov/dclead/johnson-letter2.htm. The Holder Report outlines other clear WASA violations of federal regulations and thoroughly documents years of WASA inaction and inappropriate action in response to test results showing high lead levels. In particular, the Holder Report (at page 88) notes that WASA deliberately changed the required language in its public service announcements regarding lead "in ways that downplayed the health issue."

WASA's conflicting advice to customers (such as a February 9, 2004 letter to all customers telling them to flush their water for 15-30 seconds, followed by a public announcement a few days later to flush lead lines for 10 minutes, followed a few days later by a recommendation that pregnant women and children under six served by lead service lines should use a filter) confused and justifiably upset citizens. WASA's invalid testing of city schools, in which virtually all samples were taken after water was flushed for 10 minutes (with the likely effect of reducing or eliminating lead levels) should be disregarded, and WASA should instead conduct a valid school and day care testing program. At the mayor's and EPA's insistence, WASA has now said it will do additional school testing.

WASA announced on July 1, 2004 that it intends to replace all lead service lines on public property by 2010, and will encourage homeowners to replace lead service lines on private property as well. Although overdue, this is a positive first step. However, since local and federal authorities have approved and encouraged the private use of lead service lines in D.C. for over 100 years, we believe that WASA should fully remove all of the lead service lines at its expense (with federal assistance, as outlined below), instead of stopping at the property line. A comprehensive third-party public review of WASA's lead program and all water quality operations is also needed.

Congress - We urge Congress to help D.C. and EPA to fund the response to the lead crisis, including lead service line replacement and upgrades to the D.C. and Corps water infrastructure. Congress also should respond to the national water infrastructure problem through national legislation and increased appropriations. In addition, Congress should vigorously oversee EPA's drinking water program, including its national implementation of the lead rule and its enforcement and data collection programs. Members of this Committee should urge their colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to increase funding for EPA drinking water programs, and particularly for drinking water enforcement. We also urge Congress to insist that EPA take emergency enforcement action against WASA and the Corps, as discussed below.

Specifically, among the actions that we believe Congress should take to address problems raised by the lead crisis are:

Water Infrastructure or Grants/Trust Fund Legislation

. Congress should substantially increase the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund authorization and appropriations (now funded at $850M; authorization of $1B expired in 2003).

. Congress should adopt a broad water infrastructure bill and/or water infrastructure trust fund legislation.

. Congress should adopt targeted legislation for lead rule compliance/lead service line replacement and filters for D.C. residents at least, since the federal government approved and oversaw the installation of the lead lines.

. Congress should require the Corps of Engineers to pay for D.C. lead service line replacement, since the Corps built the system and operates the treatment plant that is providing corrosive water. Also, federal agents (federally-appointed Commissioners and engineers) approved and sometimes required lead service lines in D.C.

. Congress should adopt new legislation that provides grants to needy water systems, like the Gibbons-Udall bill (H.R. 1178, 107th Congress) and the Reid-Ensign bill (S. 503, 107th Congress), which would create a small public water system assistance program to provide technical assistance, help maintain level costs for consumers, and enable regulatory compliance.

Fix Lead Pipe and Fixtures provision in the SDWA

. Congress should redefine "lead free" in SDWA §1417(d) to mean really lead free (i.e. no lead added, and no more that 0.1 or 0.25% incidental lead - as required by Los Angeles and Bangor, Maine)

. Congress should fix the public notice provisions in SDWA §1417(a)(2), which clearly have been inadequate (as shown by the D.C. experience)

Fix the SDWA lead in schools and day care provisions (SDWA §§1461-1463)

. Congress should redefine "lead free" in the Lead Contamination Control Act (LCCA), which added SDWA §1461, to mean really lead free (0.1% or 0.25%, see above)

. Congress should order an EPA review of SDWA §1462 implementation and effectiveness of lead fountain recall provision in all states

. Congress should clarify SDWA §§1461-63 to eliminate any doubts about constitutionality raised by the decision in Acorn v. Edwards, 81 F.3d 1387 (5th Cir. 1996), holding that requiring states to develop school and day care lead testing plans violates the Tenth Amendment;

. Congress should require ongoing retesting of all schools and day care centers in light of Acorn and the resulting widespread non-compliance by states, and new info on lead leaching.

Fix the EPA Lead Rule & Associated Regulations

. Adopt a 10 or 15 ppb MCL at the tap. There was an MCL (50 ppb) until 1991.

. As a clearly second-best alternative, the EPA lead rule needs serious overhaul:

. Require immediate review of corrosion control programs for systems that make treatment changes, and also require review periodically;

. Change monitoring requirements so systems cannot go for years without testing, and to clarify and strengthen test methods, site selection, and number of tests (50 or 100 per city are not enough);

. Strengthen and overhaul the inadequate public education and public notice requirements in 40 C.F.R. 141.85;

. Require full lead service line replacement, or at a minimum require water systems that approved, authorized, or required use of lead service lines to replace those lines if they are contributing to lead over the action level;

. Require in-home certified filters to be provided to high-risk people who have high lead levels, with water system-supplied maintenance in accordance with 40 C.F.R. 141.100;

. Eliminate the loophole that allows systems to count homes tested at below 15 ppb as if their lead service lines were replaced ("testing in lieu of replacement") in implementing the 7% per year lead service line replacement provision;

. Require an overhaul and upgrade of EPA's compliance & data tracking.

Fix the Consumer Confidence Report & Right to Know Requirements

. EPA's right to know and consumer confidence report rules need to be overhauled and strengthened. WASA's report declared on the cover "Your Drinking Water is Safe" and buried the facts. No one knew of the problem. Similar problems have been documented for water systems across the country.

Fix SDWA Standards Provisions

. Congress should require that standards protect pregnant women, children, vulnerable people;

. Congress should overhaul the new contaminant selection and six year standard review provisions. These provisions have been complete failures since 1996.

II. AGING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIRES IMMEDIATE ATTENTION AND SIGNIFICANT FUNDING.

Comprehensive water infrastructure legislation, consistent with smart growth and water conservation principles, is urgently needed. Many drinking water quality and affordability problems can be traced to inadequate and aging infrastructure. As noted above, Congress should adopt a broad water infrastructure bill or water infrastructure trust fund legislation. Any infrastructure legislation should preserve public control of all water assets.

Many cities' water mains and collection systems are 100 years old or more, according to EPA review. These aging pipes burst, leak 20 percent or more of their water, and can allow bacteria growth or catastrophic failure leading to contamination. Because of this aging infrastructure, there are 200,000 water main breaks per year in the United States.

Over 90 percent of U.S. city water supplies continue to use pre-World War I technology to treat drinking water, according to an NRDC analysis of city treatment systems. Existing treatment often fails to remove significant contaminants from drinking water, including pesticides such as atrazine, industrial chemicals such as TCE or perchlorate, and inorganics such as arsenic or nitrates. Old water system pipes, including lead service lines, often leach lead into drinking water. Old-fashioned treatment techniques using free chlorine disinfection create high levels of disinfection byproducts, contaminants that are known to cause cancer and are linked to higher rates of miscarriage and birth defects.

About $1 trillion is needed for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure upgrades and rehabilitation over the next 20 years, according to the Water Infrastructure Network (a coalition of cities, states, utilities, and others). The annual funding shortfall for drinking water investment is about $11 billion - and an additional $12 billion for wastewater investment - according to the WIN study. A 2002 Congressional Budget Office review was more conservative in its estimates, but still found huge 20-year needs of $232 to $402 billion for drinking water infrastructure investment, and $260 to $418 billion for sewage collection and treatment infrastructure needs. These dramatic water infrastructure funding gaps are outlined in Appendix B, below.

NRDC endorses both creative financing options and more efficient infrastructure management to start to resolve this urgent problem. Increasing State Revolving Fund monies is a necessary first step, and municipal bond reform could encourage easier and more tax-exempt bond funding of water infrastructure. NRDC also recommends green bonds - lower interest federal bonds that could fund infrastructure needs. In addition, progressive water rates that charge the heaviest industrial users more per gallon, instead of less, could be used to establish a water infrastructure trust fund. Finally, incentives for green infrastructure could provide source water protection and lower-cost stormwater solutions that would limit the burden on existing drinking water and wastewater systems.

III. A COMPREHENSIVE REAUTHORIZATION OF THE SDWA IS NEEDED.

It is important that Congress conduct a comprehensive review and reauthorization of the SDWA as a whole. The 1996 SDWA Amendments created and authorized numerous new drinking water programs, and revised and reauthorized many existing programs, but these authorizations expired in 2003. This subcommittee recently considered a bill to reauthorize the New York City Watershed Protection Program. NRDC strongly supports continued funding for this watershed program, but we also believe that it is critical to reauthorize all of the important provisions of the SDWA. Each of the following important authorizations expired in 2003 and have not been reauthorized:

Drinking Water Regulations. The heart of the SDWA's drinking water program, section 1412 authorizes $35 million/year for studies and analyses to support the standard-setting program for establishing national primary drinking water regulations to protect public health.

State Revolving Fund. The biggest expired authorization is $1 billion/year for the drinking water State Revolving Fund, which was established in section 1452 to allow states to operate revolving funds that finance loans (and limited grants to disadvantaged communities) to facilitate compliance with EPA drinking water rules or to significantly further health protection objectives of the SDWA.

Operator Certification. This program, established in section 1419 by the 1996 SDWA Amendments, authorizes $30 million/year for EPA grants to states to run programs to ensure the proficiency and certification of drinking water system operators.

Capacity Development. Another program established by the 1996 Amendments (section 1420), authorizes $5 million/year for small system technology assistance grants and $1.5 million/year for the small system capacity development program.

Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program. The sole source aquifer program in section 1427 authorizes $15 million/year for grants to protect underground aquifers that are the sole or primary source of drinking water for a region against contamination.

State Wellhead Protection Programs. Section 1428 authorizes $30 million/year for states to develop and implement wellhead protection programs to defend public water supply wells against contamination.

State Ground Water Protection Grants. The 1996 Amendments authorized, in section 1429, $15 million/year in grants to states to develop and implement state programs to ensure coordinated and comprehensive protection of ground water resources.

Technical Assistance to Small Water Systems. Section 1442(e) authorizes $15 million/year in funding to assist small systems to achieve and maintain compliance with national primary drinking water regulations.

State Grants for Public Water System Supervision Programs. Section 1443(a)(7) authorizes $100 million/year in grants to states to run their drinking water programs to supervise the safety of public water systems.

State Grants for Underground Injection Control Programs. Section 1443(b)(5) authorizes $15 million/year to carry out their underground injection control programs that regulate activities such as injection of millions of gallons of hazardous waste underground.

National Assistance Program for Water Infrastructure and Watersheds. The 1996 Amendments unconditionally authorized $25 million/year (and authorized another $25 million/year in any fiscal year for which the State Revolving Fund is 75% funded) for grants to states to provide technical and financial assistance for the construction, rehabilitation, and improvement of public water systems and for source water protection programs, in SDWA § 1441.

Records, Inspections, and Monitoring. The SDWA also authorizes $10 million/year for monitoring for levels of unregulated contaminants in drinking water, in §1445(a)(2).

Source Water Petition Program. Section 1454 authorizes $5 million/year for grants to states to carry out programs under which water systems or municipalities may submit a petition to get funding for source water protection programs.

Drinking Water Studies. Section 1458 authorizes $12.5 million/year for studies of waterborne disease, health effects of contaminants on pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations, and other important issues regarding the potential impacts of drinking water contaminants on public health.

Thus, it is clear that there are many important drinking water programs whose authorizations have expired, and that deserve Congressional review and reauthorization.

IV. AFFORDABILITY CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT PRESERVE EQUAL ACCESS TO SAFE DRINKING WATER.

NRDC strongly believes that all Americans deserve water that is safe to drink and affordable. NRDC recognizes the special challenges faced by small water systems and believes that the best approach to dealing with small system affordability issues is to encourage cooperative strategies, innovative small system package treatment and source protection, and targeted public funding. A blanket exemption for certain contaminants for small systems is not a viable approach, and would inappropriately create a "second tier" of lower quality tap water for the users of small systems.

In many areas of the country, cooperative strategies such as regionalization and consolidation would substantially help resolve affordability concerns by achieving greater economies of scale and making the provision of drinking water more efficient. To promote drinking water affordability, we also endorse a program that would help low-income consumers pay for their water bills - a Low Income Water Assistance Program ("LIWAP") - similar to the existing Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program ("LIHEAP"). Furthermore, NRDC endorses increasing funding for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund ("DWSRF"), with special consideration given to assisting small systems.

EPA convened a National Drinking Water Advisory Council ("NDWAC") Work Group on National Small Systems Affordability Criteria in 2002. The Work Group was asked to provide advice to the NDWAC, which in turn provided recommendations to EPA in a July 2003 report. In this report, the NDWAC recommended that EPA rely on cooperative strategies, targeted funding to disadvantaged communities, a LIWAP, and other methods to address the affordability problem without creating a less-protected class of drinking water consumers. NRDC supports the conclusions of the NDWAC affordability report.

V. EPA'S FAILURE TO REGULATE PERCHLORATE THREATENS PUBLIC HEALTH.

Nearly eight years after the 1996 SDWA Amendments, EPA has failed to set a single new drinking water standard, or even propose to start adopting one, under SDWA section 1412. Yet a number of contaminants - including perchlorate, for example - have now been detected at risky levels in millions of Americans' tap water. Congress should direct EPA to set an MCL for perchlorate.

Perchlorate is a widespread toxic chemical that is used in large quantities in rocket fuel, as well as in explosives, road flares, and fireworks. Perchlorate blocks iodine from entering the thyroid gland, thereby interfering with normal thyroid hormone production. Because normal levels of thyroid hormone are critical to the development of the brain, perchlorate poses especially high risks to newborn babies and fetuses, and to people who already have thyroid problems or iodine deficiency, including 15 percent of U.S. women of childbearing age. Scientific evidence shows that low-level perchlorate exposure causes health risks. Studies dating back to 1952 show that perchlorate disrupts the thyroid and can cause adverse health effects. Perchlorate affects thyroid hormone levels at very low concentrations: in one study, investigators could not rule out effects in rats at the miniscule dose of 0.01 mg/kg/day.

Epidemiological studies show noteworthy effects in newborns exposed to perchlorate in utero. In one study, California infants whose mothers drank water contaminated with perchlorate at 1-2 parts per billion showed altered levels of thyroid hormones. In a second study, conducted by the Arizona Health Department, infants born in a city with low levels of perchlorate contamination in the drinking water (below 10 parts per billion) showed significantly different thyroid hormone levels than infants born in another Arizona city with no perchlorate contamination. Both iodide deficiency and changes in thyroid hormone levels can cause irreversible damage to infant and fetal brains; even small changes in maternal thyroid hormone levels can decrease IQ in the child.

Perchlorate has been used in significant quantities in at least 49 states, and was released into the environment in at least 30 states. It contaminates over 20 million Americans' drinking water- in, for example, Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and much of Southern California-above EPA's draft safe level. It is thus an extremely widespread and dangerous pollutant.

In addition to causing widespread tap water contamination, perchlorate has found its way into the nation's food supply, and has been detected in fruits, vegetables, fish, animal feed, and milk (perchlorate has been reported in both human breast milk and in cows milk). Lettuce has been shown to absorb and retain perchlorate contained in irrigation water, and recent reports find that perchlorate also accumulates in melons, blackberries, strawberries, cucumbers, soybeans, and mustard greens in the same manner. It likely also contaminates and accumulates in other crops for which no test results have been conducted or made public.

A single facility in Henderson, Nevada has created an unprecedented perchlorate contamination plume - polluting Lake Mead and the entire Colorado River downstream of the Hoover Dam, as well as the drinking water of at least 15 million people in Southern California, Nevada, and Arizona. Despite years of cleanup efforts overseen by the State of Nevada, 200 pounds of perchlorate per day continue to enter the Colorado River from this site in Henderson, averaging 3 tons a month of additional contamination. To NRDC's knowledge, this plume affects more people than any other single drinking water contamination source in the United States. A second, slightly smaller perchlorate plume has also been found in Henderson; this one has not yet reached the Colorado River, but soon will if aggressive cleanup efforts are not put in place.

To date, the Environmental Protection Agency's response has been to do little or nothing about the perchlorate contamination crisis. It has spent 18 years evaluating and re-evaluating the health risks posed by perchlorate-contaminated drinking water. In July 2003, EPA closed its multi-year perchlorate review by refusing to establish an enforceable drinking water standard for the chemical, saying more study is needed. Also in 2003, EPA requested that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) review perchlorate's health effects. The NAS review panel included several scientists who, as lobbyists or expert witnesses for the defense industry, had clear financial conflicts of interest. So far in the course of the NAS review, two panel members have been forced to resign because of direct industry ties and financial conflicts of interest. See Peter Waldman, Perchlorate Panel Member Resigns, Wall Street Journal (June 11, 2004). However, at least one other panel member with direct industry connections and a financial stake in the perchlorate review has been allowed to remain on the panel.

Also last year, EPA management issued a gag order to agency staff banning scientists from publicly discussing the risks posed by perchlorate. The order came on the heels of the release of two studies - one conducted by EPA - revealing perchlorate contamination in lettuce grown with water from the Colorado River. In addition to mismanaging the standard-setting process, the EPA has not made cleanup or regulatory action on perchlorate a priority. Thus, plumes across the country have languished for years without adequate attention.

EPA and the Department of Defense have stonewalled public efforts to learn more about the scope of perchlorate contamination nationwide. To get more information about the government's action (and inaction) on perchlorate, NRDC filed several Freedom of Information Act requests with government agencies for details on the extent of contamination, health risks, and government coordination with defense industry contractors. EPA and the Department of Defense refused to answer these information requests for over a year, requiring NRDC to file a lawsuit this spring to force a response. The agencies' refusal to release information about perchlorate contamination deprives the public of important information about a threat to public health.

CONCLUSION

Congress should carefully oversee EPA's implementation of its drinking water responsibilities and insist on full and effective enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA's inaction or delayed action in response to lead, perchlorate, and other contaminants in drinking water has exacerbated environmental health threats. Furthermore, a comprehensive reauthorization of the SDWA is needed to fund the heart of the statute's drinking water program - national primary drinking water regulations - as well as every other important component of the act. Finally, the nation's deteriorating drinking water infrastructure has increased the challenge of providing safe and affordable drinking water across the country and, in the case of lead in D.C., has contributed to at least one public health crisis. The significant, targeted expenditures and creative financing and management proposals outlined above are necessary to start meeting some of the mounting infrastructure needs.