A Hearing on America’s Drinking Water: Where the Safe Drinking Water Act Falls Short

Lawmakers gathered to examine America’s drinking water standards and whether the Safe Drinking Water Act, the law meant to ensure clean and safe tap water, is keeping up with today’s challenges. The hearing highlighted sharp concerns about outdated regulations, rising contamination threats, and the need for stronger national protections. A Summary of the Opening Statements July 28, 2020:

Congressman Paul Tonko

Tonko emphasized that millions of Americans are exposed to PFOA and PFOS, toxic PFAS “forever chemicals,” at levels above the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) health advisory limits. He criticized the EPA for relying on unenforceable advisories instead of binding standards. In the absence of federal action, states have been forced to create their own protections. Tonko urged the EPA to set clear standards within a reasonable timeframe and called for Congress to play a larger role in infrastructure investment and pollution prevention.

Congressman John Shimkus

Shimkus pointed out that there are 5,887 known PFAS chemicals, but water systems can only test for 29. He argued the focus should remain on the most harmful types rather than grouping all PFAS together. He also warned that new regulations could triple compliance costs for water systems, including small utilities facing issues from contaminants not even present in their state. Shimkus noted that since 1996, the EPA has regulated substances like arsenic, and those efforts should not be discounted. He urged careful reform that avoids repeating past mistakes.

Congressman Frank Pallone

Pallone linked safe water directly to public health and COVID-19 resilience, noting families already worry contaminants like PFAS could weaken immune systems. He stressed that access to safe water should not depend on where you live. Pallone criticized the 1996 standard-setting process, pointing out that of the 90 existing drinking water standards, only six have been updated since, and all under special procedures. He argued the Act is not producing health-based standards and leaves too much discretion to the EPA, putting communities at risk.

Congresswoman Debbie Dingell

Dingell called access to safe drinking water a fundamental human right. She warned that the current process fails to address new and emerging contaminants like PFAS. Since PFAS chemicals remain in the body indefinitely, she argued for reforms to ensure standards are health-based, timely, and protective of vulnerable populations—especially children and future generations.

Congressman Greg Walden

Walden reminded the committee that in 2018, Congress passed the first major reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 25 years, with bipartisan support. He highlighted improvements in compliance, innovation, and resilience for water systems. Walden cautioned against reforms that remove current statutory criteria requiring a “meaningful health risk reduction” before new standards are imposed. He warned that regulating contaminants not present at harmful levels could divert resources from more serious threats. Walden also stressed that science must guide decisions, and that excessive new mandates could overwhelm states and undermine scientific research needed for credible regulations.

Key Takeaways

No new enforceable standards in 24 years. Most drinking water protections predate 1996 reforms, and EPA has not set new standards under the general process.
PFAS contamination is a growing crisis. Federal inaction has left states to fill the gap with their own regulations.
Tension between costs and protections. Lawmakers are divided over how to balance public health safeguards with the financial burden on local water systems.
Consensus on reform. Both parties agree the Safe Drinking Water Act needs updates, but differ on how far and how fast reforms should go.

Witness Testimony: Mae Wu, Senior Director of Health and Food, NRDC

At the July 28, 2020, hearing on national drinking water standards, Mae Wu of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) delivered pointed testimony on the failures of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the urgent need for reform.

Wu argued that the true cost of toxic contamination goes far beyond medical bills. The EPA often undercounts these intangible costs, such as lost productivity, special education needs, and reduced quality of life, which allows the agency to set weaker drinking water standards. She stated that the regulatory system, especially after the 1996 amendments to the SDWA, is “broken” and leaves EPA either unable or unwilling to adopt health-protective standards despite clear scientific evidence of harm.

A Case Study: Perchlorate

Perchlorate, a chemical linked to interference with fetal and infant brain development, was detected in millions of Americans’ drinking water in the 1990s. By 2011, the EPA finally acknowledged the risk and announced plans to regulate it. That decision triggered statutory deadlines for EPA action, yet no enforceable standard was ever set. Instead, deadlines passed, and in 2020, the Trump administration attempted to defy a court order requiring EPA to follow through.

Wu warned that the same story could soon repeat itself with PFOA and PFOS, the most notorious of the PFAS “forever chemicals.” Despite widespread contamination and mounting evidence linking them to serious health issues, without changes to the SDWA, it is unlikely that meaningful, protective standards will emerge in a timely manner.

Five Proposed Fixes

Wu laid out five reforms to strengthen the Safe Drinking Water Act and ensure it fulfills its mission to protect public health:

Fix the legal standard. The EPA should be required to regulate a contaminant when there is evidence it may harm human health and when it appears in public water at concerning levels.
Stop cherry-picking. Over 17 years, the EPA reviewed 25 unregulated contaminants but chose not to regulate 24 of them. Even perchlorate, the lone chemical slated for regulation, remains without a standard. The statute should compel the EPA to act, not allow inaction.
Remove the extra cost-benefit hurdle. While the EPA must already consider feasibility and cost when setting standards, an additional cost-benefit analysis undervalues the benefits of clean water—especially for vulnerable groups—while overemphasizing costs to industry.
Protect the most vulnerable. Drinking water standards should be as stringent as feasible and explicitly designed to protect pregnant women, infants, children, and other sensitive populations.
Adopt a class-based approach. The EPA’s chemical-by-chemical “whack-a-mole” approach is inadequate. With more than 7,000 PFAS compounds, regulating one at a time means communities will face centuries of exposure to toxic “forever chemicals.” A class-based strategy is needed to prevent ongoing contamination.

Key Message

Wu’s testimony underscored the urgent need to overhaul how the EPA regulates contaminants in drinking water. Without stronger standards, stricter timelines, and a shift toward class-based regulation, Americans, especially the most vulnerable, will continue to face preventable risks from toxic chemicals in their tap water.

Witness Testimony: Shellie Chard, Director, Water Quality Division, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

Shellie Chard emphasized that for the EPA to maintain public trust, it must develop drinking water standards in a reasonable timeframe, guided by sound science and close collaboration with states. She stressed that the rulemaking process needs balance: if it moves too slowly or lacks transparency, confidence in the system will erode.

Chard outlined several key priorities:

Timely, science-based standards. EPA must issue standards on a reasonable timeline that reflects scientific consensus.
Testing and technology. The agency should ensure that appropriate testing methods, laboratory capacity, and treatment technologies are available and supported by robust federal and state data systems.
Local differences matter. Water systems vary greatly based on geography, population size, affordability, and source water. A “one-size-fits-all” approach does not work. Standards must reflect these realities.
Clarity and transparency. Regulations must be clear and understandable for regulators, utilities, and the public. Over time, the difference between immediate health risks and potential long-term impacts has become blurred, making communication even more critical.
Workforce training. As new standards are introduced, public water operators and laboratory staff must be trained to manage testing requirements and technologies. Building and sustaining a skilled workforce is essential.

Witness Testimony: Diane VanDe Hei, CEO, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

Representing publicly owned water utilities, Diane VanDe Hei highlighted the financial pressures that water systems face. Unlike private companies, municipal utilities do not operate for profit; their costs are ultimately borne by the community through water rates and local government investments.

VanDe Hei stressed that while safe, clean water must remain the goal, new standards require significant investments—from treatment chemicals and laboratory equipment to trained professional staff. With the ongoing economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic, both utilities and their customers are especially vulnerable to rising costs.

She underscored three key points:

Cost and public health must both be weighed. Federal drinking water standards should focus on contaminants that clearly pose the most serious health risks.
Criteria matter. Regulations should apply when a contaminant is likely to occur in public water supplies at levels of concern and when meaningful reductions in health risks are achievable.
Transparency and science. The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require a transparent, science-based process for new rules, and this balance should remain central.

VanDe Hei also reminded lawmakers that vulnerable populations face greater risks and must be considered when standards are set. At the same time, regulations should not divert scarce resources away from the most urgent public health threats.

Takeaway

Both witnesses agreed that while safe drinking water is a national priority, reforms to the Safe Drinking Water Act must balance scientific evidence, public health protection, and affordability. Chard stressed the need for clear, timely, and adaptable regulations, while VanDe Hei warned of the financial strain on communities if standards expand without careful prioritization.

The Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change of the Committee on Energy and Commerce held a remote hearing on Tuesday, July 28, at 11 a.m. via Cisco Webex. The hearing was entitled, "There's Something in the Water: Reforming Our Nation's Drinking Water Standards."