My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP02687
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
WSP02687
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:38:06 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:17:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
7630.425
Description
Wild and Scenic - Piedra River
State
CO
Basin
Western Slope
Water Division
7
Date
7/1/1992
Author
Colo Rural Water Ass
Title
Colorado Rural Water Association - Second Edition 1992
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Publication
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />fI-'l-- <br />I iJ! ;};) <br /> <br />- - - - - - -CRwu",- - <br />- - - - - - WVr"l:....=....;; <br />-"""'--~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Fact Sheet on S. 2900 <br />A Bill to FoClls Protection of the Nation's Drinking Water <br /> <br />THE REASON FOR THIS Bll~ <br /> <br />'Of the &l substances now regulated by EPA <br />drinking water rules, fe\-\'er than 10 actually pose a <br />significant risk to health. <br />-Small commWlities nationwide are being forced <br />by EPA rules to pay up to 510,000 to test their drink- <br />ing water. Many of the most expensive tests are for <br />chemicals that have not even been LL~ within their <br />respective states. <br />. ErA drinking water proposals would have com- <br />munities pay to remove substances like radon to <br />levels belo..... natural backgrolUld levels found in <br />normal fresh air. <br />. Developments like the 4,()J()-unit community in <br />the Poconos afe being put on 4,000 private wells <br />and 2,800 septic tanks expressly to avoid becoming <br />a public water system subject to EPA rules. <br /> <br />.Conswner groups like the National A<;s(Xjation <br />of State Utilit)' Conswner Advocates are concemoo <br />that the Safe Drinking Water Act appears to man- <br />date regulation of drinking water regardless of the <br />I actual risk to the public, the real costs of the rules, or <br />the absence of benefits to the customers who must <br />pay the higher costs. <br /> <br />-The Governors' Forum on Environmental Man- <br />agement believes the challenge facing Congress is <br />how to retain and cOfL<;Qlidate the gains that have <br />already been made, while focusing any available <br />additional resources on those specific contaminants <br />which pose the greatest risk to users of public water <br />supplies. <br />-Governor Sinner (ND), Chairman of the NGA <br />Environmental Committee, has recommended the <br />Safe Drinking Water Act be revised to gi\'e states <br />hdl responsibility for writing and implementing <br />rules. The Governors' Forum, taking a more center- <br />of-the-road position, only asks that, until the Act is <br />reauthorized, Congress should take action to en<;ure <br />the states and localities are not required to imple- <br />ment new regulation lmless they address signifi- <br />cant risks and the resources are provided to help <br />them implement them. <br /> <br />- Fin,1lly, now is a good time to step back and take <br />a fresh look at the EPA rules. States are no\\' "in <br />between" rules. Rules developed before December <br />t 1989 are being implemented and generally do ad- <br />dress significant risks. Those which EPA published <br />thereafter ha\'e not been implemented to any great <br />degree, and contain dozens of substances \....hich <br />pose no meaningful risk of any kind. <br /> <br />WHAT THIS BIll Will DO: <br />- It will ensure the public is protected from the <br />real risks that are in some drinking waters. <br />- It will force EPA to look at their rules to deter- <br />mine which drinking water requirements justify the <br />large costs consumers have to pay. <br />.It will shift responsibility back to Congress to <br />examine this issue in appropriate depth, based on a <br />detailed report of the facts, and thus draft a long- <br />term solution to this problem. <br />.It will implement what EPA Administrator Bill <br />Reilly has been calling for-a risk-based approach <br />to public health that takes into account the ability of <br />states and communities to pay for these federal <br />rules. <br />- It reflects what the consumer advocates want, a <br />balanced approach to regulation, protection of pub- <br />lic health with due regard to cost. . <br />- And, it reflects ......hat hundreds of communities <br />tell us they need-breathing space to catch up with <br />the first wave of EPA regulations. <br />WHAT THIS Bill DOES NOT DO <br />. It does not stop public health protection. The bill <br />authorizes the EPA Administrator to make a simple <br />finding that a particular requirement is justified, <br />and implementation of that element would con- <br />tinue. <br />-It does not mean avoidable cases of disease will <br />arise. EPA requirements that actually prevent sig- <br />nificant risks to health are exempted by the bill. <br />.It does not force delays of OMB. The Adminis- <br />trator, in consultation with the States, makes deci- <br />sions. Further, 0.\1.8 has stated that it believes there <br />are some drinking water rules which are needed to <br />protect public health, and those should continue to <br />be implemented. All the data needed for decisions <br />is in the regulatory record. <br />-It does not throw the program into crisis. States <br />are a convenient stopping point for those rules signed <br />after December 1989. Those rules that would con- <br />tinue to be implemented under the exemption would <br />be easy to continue. <br />'It does not delay future rules. The bill only <br />changes the basis for establishing rules, not thesched- <br />ules. <br />- It is not a permanent fix. The bill requires an <br />important study from which Congress can deter- <br />mine how best to re\'i..~ the Safe Drinking Water <br />Act, legislation that l'; due for reauthorization over <br />the next few years. <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.