Remarks of Benjamin H. Grumbles
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water
U.S. EPA
Water Utility Council
American Water Works Association
(AWWA)
Water Matters Fly-In Meeting
April 22, 2004
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Capitol Hill
Washington, DC
[ Introduction ]
Thank you for inviting me to be with you today. I am especially pleased to speak to you on Earth Day, recognizing of course that Earth is "the water planet".
First, I want to convey my appreciation for AWWA members' efforts to ensure clean, safe, and secure drinking water for the American public. And I want to acknowledge AWWA's contributions (through both its staff and members) who help EPA plan, development and implement a national drinking water program.
Cynthia Dougherty, the Director of our Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, will be talking with you tomorrow about specific SDWA-related actions we are taking now or in the near future; so my remarks today will address the broader, often cross-cutting priorities of the Office of Water.
[ Priorities for 2004 : (1) Monitoring ]
One of the top priorities for the Office of Water during 2004 is a topic of concern to everyone involved in the water business: monitoring of water quality. As you well know, effective monitoring is essential under both the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act to support data-based environmental protection in the information age. Indeed, the success of the Clean Water Act really depends on having:
- first, appropriate water quality standards for each water body;
- second, effective discharge permit limits for regulated entities; and
- third, for impaired waters, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) or other approaches that account for contributions from both point and non-point sources of pollution.
Each of these key success factors depends, in turn, on the ability to monitor water quality, whether at the point of discharge or in the receiving waters. In addition, monitoring under the Clean Water Act is also critical in understanding where and when to engage the Clean Water Act's provisions to help protect the sources of drinking water.
Likewise, monitoring under the Safe Drinking Water Act is key to demonstrating results from our collective activities, whether for: source water protection; ensuring compliance with regulations; or notifying the public of water quality findings. Certainly, Washington, DC's current lead contamination problem underscores the importance of monitoring - - and of public disclosure.
For drinking water programs, one of the critical roles you play is protecting public health by monitoring drinking water to ensure it complies with health-based standards. I want to mention a couple facts regarding the reporting of monitoring data. EPA's Inspector General recently released a report criticizing EPA's reporting of progress toward our goal of having 95% of the population receive water that meets drinking water standards. The IG's criticism was based on the fact that EPA's own data quality reports show that data which the States are supposed to submit to EPA's national database, SDWIS, is incomplete. Regardless of whether this incomplete data is based on States' failure to report or on water systems' failure to conduct complete monitoring, all of us our hindered in our ability to inform the public about the safety of their drinking water.
We recognize improved monitoring and reporting are dependent on several factors. Besides issues of data quality and data compatibility, there must be additional funding. To address the funding factor, the President has requested $20 million for a monitoring initiative which will provide $17 million in grants and $3 million in technical assistance to help States and Tribes develop and implement statistically representative water quality monitoring programs. I strongly encourage you to engage your State clean water programs to ensure that the concerns of drinking water utilities are taken into consideration as monitoring programs are developed.
[ 2. Restoration ]
In addition to monitoring, a 2nd key priority for the Office of Water is addressing restoration of impaired waters. Currently, the States identify over 22,000 impaired water bodies in United States - - - according to assessment reports that States submitted to EPA in 2000 (per the Clean Water Act's section 305(b) requirement).
Where drinking water is a designated use of an assessed water body, the majority of those water bodies are considered to be supporting that designated drinking water use. Specifically, 86% of river and stream miles, and 84% of lake and reservoir acres are supporting drinking water. Although these percentages are fairly high, we can see that 14% of river/stream miles and 16% of lake-and-reservoir acres are not supporting designated drinking water use.
Also, 17 States did not report any data on drinking water use support; and many of the 39 States that did report data did not present any information on how they classified their waterbodies for drinking water use support, and did not identify specific contaminants or sources of contamination. We need to do better if we are to assess and restore impaired waters.
Among the key tools for States and EPA to use to ensure restoration are: TMDLs; watershed-based permits; and source water assessments. These source water assessments must be finished soon so we can shift our focus from assessment to protection.
[ Restoration through watershed approach ]
EPA is committed to working on a watershed basis for restoration. President Bush's budget proposes to continue investing in a "targeted watershed grants program"; an initiative started in 2003, when 20 grants were awarded, ranging from $300 thousand to $1million. For FY2004, the grant application period ended in January.
Your local source water assessments could fit well with some of these other locally-led watershed assessment efforts. Likewise, your local source water protection efforts could be coordinated with, and bolstered by, the restoration work being carried out in your watershed - - whether the EPA initiative I've mentioned or under a locally-driven process. Either way, your local efforts afford a unique opportunity to relate source waters to various Clean Water Act programs and requirements, such as water quality standards and TMDLs.
For any watershed-based restoration approach to be effective, it is critical to partner for protection. One way to partner is by leveraging local or State resources with those available through Agriculture programs. Another is by partnering with your State agencies responsible for Clean Water Act programs to determine whether drinking water sources are in need of TMDLs, or are impacted by upstream (or up-gradient) pollutant sources. I strongly encourage you to participate in locally-run or State-run processes for determining TMDL waste load allocations.
[ 3. Water Conservation & Efficiency ]
Another top priority for the Office of Water is water efficiency and water conservation. Although EPA's focus is water quality, not water quantity; we increasingly see how water quantity and quality issues are inextricably linked. In fact, EPA's regulations, programs, standards, and data (under both the Clean Water Act and SDWA), are increasingly pulled into issues of water quantity. Examples include: infrastructure for both water supply and water quality; setting TMDLs based on volume and capacity of receiving waters; the reuse of water for a range of water supply purposes, while protecting public health.
Last year the General Accounting Office issued the results of a survey they conducted which found that 36 states expect to have a water shortage within the next ten years - - - even under non-drought conditions. We need to acknowledge these expectations as we look maintain and enhance water quality in the future.
I am convinced that quantity and quality should be addressed together, under the broad umbrella of water resource management. Better integration and coordination of our water quantity and water quality programs, can only be done through a watershed approach. Moreover, it must include extensive intergovernmental, inter-organizational, and stakeholder coordination. And it must consider water efficiency/conservation issues, i.e., the demand side as well as the supply side of water management. Each of us needs to address and promote water conservation and efficiency, both to ensure water for drinking and to meet the water needs of our natural environment, especially for species and ecosystem protection.
EPA will increasingly focus on water conservation and efficiency through education, funding, and technical assistance.
[ "Water Star" ]
I am especially excited about EPA's plan to develop a "Water Star" program; i.e., a voluntary program to identify and label water-efficient appliances or other products in order to inform consumers about the water efficiency potential of those products.
In the summer of 2002, EPA began to investigate ways to enhance the market for water-efficient products. In July 2003, over 100 organizations (representing state and local water officials, environmental organizations, and businesses) wrote to EPA to express support for a national water-efficient product labeling program. Recently, we have been collaborating with many stakeholders through open stakeholder meetings held in DC, Austin, and Phoenix, earlier this month in at our final stakeholder meeting in Seattle.
If a national program is developed and implemented, it would seek to increase water efficiency by:
- informing water users of the advantages of water-efficient products;
- motivating manufacturers to produce more water-efficient products;
- encouraging distributors, retailers, and local water utilities to promote these products.
We believe the highly successful EnergySTAR program, a program jointly implemented by EPA and the Department of Energy, provides a useful model (or at least an example from which we can learn). Manufacturers voluntarily have their products tested to meet efficiency and other performance standards to ensure that the labeled products not only meet environmental goals, but also meet consumer goals as well.
The types of products EPA would consider evaluating could include: plumbing products; appliances; and landscape irrigation devices. We will be careful to proceed only in areas where there would be clear benefits beyond those from activities already under way, such as the EnergySTAR program or national plumbing standards. Of course, the viability of any market enhancement program will depend on support from a wide array of stakeholders, including AWWA members.
[ Infrastructure Issues ]
In addition to the priorities that I've noted [monitoring, restoration, and water efficiency], all of us must grapple with the challenge of Infrastructure - - - for both water and wastewater.
The problem is huge; - - - as you know. As indicated in EPA's "Gap Analysis Report" from 2002, if investment doesn't increase; then the funding gap (using a mid-range estimate) for the next 20 years would be: $122 billion for Clean Water capital costs; and $102 billion for Drinking Water capital costs. If revenue grows by 3% per year above inflation, then gaps are: $21 billion for Clean Water and $45 billion Drinking Water capital.
The President's budget extends the federal commitment to fund the Drinking Water SRF at $850 million per year through 2018. EPA is committed to the SRF programs.
But Federal dollars are not the only answer. We see four "pillars" as essential for sustainable infrastructure. I have already discussed two of these pillars, those being "water conservation" and "the watershed approach".
The third pillar is better management at the local or facility level. By better management, I mean the suite of opportunities that include: asset management; environmental management systems; capacity development; and related systems through which successful enterprises are managed effectively.
The fourth pillar, is "full-cost pricing". Pricing that recovers all of the costs of building, operating, and maintaining a system is absolutely essential to achieving sustainability. Of course, full-cost pricing depends upon complete and accurate metering of water usage in order to charge users for what they actually consume. Using conservation rates and seasonal rates can further help reduce peak water demand. And valid concerns about equity issues can be addressed through "lifeline rates" for the poor. Clearly, there needs to be more information developed and shared regarding progress in full-cost and conservation pricing approaches. EPA has taken one step toward sharing information by establishing a new website a few months ago with pricing information.
[ Example ]
Among AWWA members, there are undoubtedly many examples of utilities which are seriously pursuing some or all of these "pillars of sustainable infrastructure". The example presented by Seattle Public Utilities is certainly noteworthy. At Seattle Public Utilities, we see:
- a progressive water rate structure with conservation pricing;
- an innovative water efficiency program, which features incentives for the purchase of water-efficient products;
- careful assessment of threats to source waters and action to protect those water sources;
- asset management techniques that have reduced its FY2004 capital budget by 13%, and its operating budget by 7%;
- and a reduction in overall water demand by over 20%, and they are still looking for more savings.
We applaud these efforts to ensure sustainability.
[ Lead in drinking water ]
I'd like to take a moment to talk about the current situation here in Washington, D.C. related to elevated lead levels in customer's tap water.
We are working with the water supply to identify a solution to the problem. Many systems have helped us by providing us with information about the experiences other large systems have had with corrosion control. We are planning two technical workshops for the near future that will focus on issues associated with simultaneous compliance and sampling protocols for the rule. We hope that you will engage with us in these efforts.
We have been asked whether the situation in D.C. reflects a national problem. Unfortunately states have not done a good job of reporting 90th percentile levels for systems, which has hindered our ability to answer those questions. I have asked the drinking water program to conduct a compliance review of the lead and copper rule and to remedy potential non-reporting.
One of the major problems in D.C. was the ineffectiveness of public education and communication. We provide a disservice to the public by failing to communicate information in a clear and timely manner. We are seeking good examples of public education and outreach information associated with the Lead and Copper Rule and hope that you will support us in this effort.
Also, I recently sent a letter to all state Environmental and Public Health Commissioners asking them about the status of programs to monitor lead in drinking water at schools and day care facilities. Children are most at risk from lead poisoning and we want to ensure that their exposure to lead in drinking water is minimized. If you have any experience or recommendations with respect to how to monitor for lead in the schools served by your utilities, I am eager to hear about them.
[ Closing: overall message for water management ]
I have talked with you today about priorities for the Office of Water - - priorities to help us manage our water resources in sustainable ways. Indeed, as the great conservationist Aldo Leopold said, we must develop an "ethic of sustainability". We need to think of our water-related goals in terms of effective overall management of water resources for multiple purposes for current and future generations. And, if I may re-interpret another line of Leopold's, all of us need to "think like a watershed". Only in this way can we ensure sufficient and secure supplies of clean and safe water.
We appreciate the hard work that all of you do, and we look forward to working collaboratively with you in the future to protect public health and the environment.
[ END ]
|
