| |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
|
|
Guest Commentary: May 12, 2001
Base Water Arsenic Levels on Sound Science
The Honorable Douglas K. Bereuter
|
Look at the facts when it comes to the issue of arsenic in drinking water. The Bush administration's recent actions on this matter have led to heated rhetoric, wild exaggerations and soundbite politics.
I suppose that was predictable, since the word "arsenic" is so emotion-loaded. It is important, I believe, to get the full story and to listen to those who would be most affected by the proposed changes.
Many State and local officials, as well as water system administrators, have expressed concerns about the problems which could be caused by the proposed changes. This Member would begin by firmly stating that, of course, everyone recognizes the importance of providing safe drinking water for all of our Nation's citizens. Also some changes in the arsenic standard may well be justified. However, it makes no sense to base those changes on anything like emotion. Instead, they should be based on sound science.
As many of us know now, in the final days of the Clinton administration, a final rule was rushed through which would have reduced the acceptable level of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion. However, new EPA administrator, Christie Todd Whitman, later announced that the agency would seek a scientific review of the standard before implementing a new rule. The Bush administration has made it clear that the arsenic level will be significantly reduced. However, it wants the final rule to be based on sound science.
It certainly appears that the Clinton administration made an arbitrary decision based upon questionable studies, most of which involve populations in other countries which were exposed to significantly higher levels of arsenic than those found in the United States. On the other hand, the EPA seems to dismiss the most comprehensive U.S. study on this matter. A 1999 study in Utah, which involved more than 5,000 people, failed to find an increased incidence of cancer associated with arsenic in drinking water.
It is certainly not the intent to treat lightly the possible adverse health effects of arsenic. However, accurate and relevant studies should be reviewed before water systems, especially those with limited resources, are forced to make such substantial investments in infrastructure and treatment. Smaller communities would have been especially hard hit by the implementation of the proposed arsenic level.
Arsenic levels in York, Nebraska, my birthplace, for example, a community of about 7,500 people, are at 34 parts per billion, and the initial cost to meet the new standard would be $6 million. Gering, Nebraska, with a level of only 13 parts per billion, only 3 points over the arbitrary level set by the rule, would be compelled to spend about $4.4 million.
Overall, more than 3,000 community water systems in the United States would have to come into compliance, and the rule would have more than tripled water rates in many small communities.
Communities will be willing to spend the money necessary to address this matter if they were convinced that they would see actual health benefits by making the changes.
According to an April 14, 2001 article in the New York Times, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mayor Jim Baca, a Democrat stated, "What we would like is some definitive scientific evidence that this would be worth doing. I am a pretty strong environmentalist but I was convinced that the data did not justify the new level."
It is important to listen to utility superintendents, city administrators, village boards, mayors and other local and State officials, including public health officials, who are concerned about the effect the proposed rule and its associated costs would have on their communities. These are people who have a powerful incentive to provide safe drinking water, since they and their constituents will be drinking that water. These community leaders know where the buck stops. They certainly would not subject themselves and their families and friends to harmful water. Quite simply, these local officials have not been convinced of the need to lower the arsenic to the level proposed by the Clinton administration.
It is also helpful to note that any community in the country now has the authority to lower arsenic in its drinking water to whatever level it chooses below 50 parts per billion. The reason communities have not lowered their levels to 10 parts per billion is that the health benefits have not been shown to justify the enormous cost.
The American Water Works Association stated in its comment last year, "At the level of 10 ppb or lower, the health risk reduction benefits become vanishingly small as compared to the costs."
The costs, however, are real. The American Water Works Association, which supports a reduction in the current arsenic standard, has estimated the proposed rule would cost $600 million annually and require $5 billion in capital outlays.
In an ideal world, with unlimited resources, it may make sense to propose changes in the hope that they may provide a benefit. However, the reality is that communities do not have unlimited funds.
Note: Rep. Bereuter originally issued this statement on May 8, 2001.
 How to contact Rep. Douglas Bereuter (R-Nebraska)
Reading a past guest commentary? Click here for the most current one.
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
