|
|
Indiana Section American Water Works Association
Proposed EQSC Review of Drinking Water Programs
| | |  |
Indiana Section, AWWA Proposed EQSC Review of Drinking Water Programs Talking Points
Background
| • | Funding for drinking water programs of IDEM has been essentially flat for the past several years | | | |
| • | Appropriations from the General Fund have only been adequate to provide matching funds with which to secure Federal funds. | | | |
| • | This process has led to drinking water programs being driven largely by Federal legislation and priorities, as opposed to examining and focusing on programs which are designed to meet Indiana’s needs (rather than Federal templates). | | | |
| • | The 1996 reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act included a large number of mandates and activities not previously contemplated, or greatly expanded, including: | | | |
– consumer confidence reports
– wellhead protection
– greatly expanded operator certification
– capacity development initiative
– enhanced surface water treatment rule
– disinfection and disinfection byproducts rule
– public notice rule
– security
as well as extensive review and expansion of MCL standards
| • | By virtually any measure, Indiana’s funding for drinking water programs is modest by comparison with that of other Great Lakes states (Region V USEPA); while this is not intrinsically either good or bad, other Great Lakes states with more funding than Indiana have indicated that they expect to be challenged in their ability to comply with SDWA provisions, going forward. | | | |
| • | While IDEM has significantly improved its openness and receptiveness to input from the drinking water industry and other interested parties, the focus has been largely on local solutions to externally-driven programs, rather than on development of solutions directed to meet the needs of the State of Indiana. | | | |
| • | Input from IDEM’s publics tends to focus primarily on questions of “how” or “how much” rather than “if” or “whether.” While there is no assurance of agreement among these publics, input has been largely driven by the SDWA agenda rather than Indiana’s needs. | | | |
For example, with regard to the new arsenic standards promulgated by USEPA, according to IDEM:
| • | a total of 216 public water supplies in Indiana have reported at least one sample with a value of greater than 10 ppb. | | | |
| • | 95 reported that they exceeded the standards in 3 samplings, of which: | | | |
| • | 41 reporting entities are community water systems: |
| • | 29 serving fewer than 1,000 customers |
| • | 11 serving between 1,000 and 10,000 customers |
| • | just 1 serving more than 10,000 customers |
Any efforts directed toward compliance should take into account circumstances which are special and relevant to Indiana
| • | While day-to-day working relationships are relatively productive, “turf wars” still emerge from time to time among IDEM, ISBH and DNR (e.g., surface coal mine land and aquifer reclamation standards) |
| • | Indiana’s needs and concerns will not be given central attention until there is funding independent of Federal funds to identify and address those needs and concerns. |
Issues for EQSC Exploration
Environmental/drinking water needs of Indiana as articulated by IDEM publics (drinking water industry, environmental groups, general business community, etc., etc.)
| • Priorities |
| • Proactive and forward-looking as opposed to reactive; focusing on long-term needs rather than the “quick fix” | | |
| • Encouraging “best practices” as opposed to “thou shalt nots” | | |
| • Mentoring programs and opportunities | | |
| • Partnering programs involving “outside” resources | | |
| • Associations and other industry resources | | |
| • Academic resources | | |
| • Other levels of government | | |
| • Private contractors | | |
| • Resolution/minimization of “turf wars” | | |
| • Adequate funding | | |
| • Sufficient as to source and amount to maintain Primacy | | |
| • Reliable, largely dedicated and non-compromiseable source(s) (Not pre-emptible for “higher” or more politically visible uses) | | |
| • Linked to positive process outcomes | | |
| • Not burdensome to payees | | |
| • Worst case “development neutral” as opposed to unfriendly to needs of economic development | | |
| • Measurable, quantifiable performance standards | | |
Back to Special Session Page
5/3/02
Back to WUC Home
| | | | |
|
|