Let’s face it.  The budget is a moving target and anything I write today will be old news by Thursday.  So let’s talk about something completely different:  safe drinking water and H.80: An Act Relating to the Use of Chloramine as a Disinfectant in Public Water Systems.

Here is where everyone agrees: The importance of clean drinking water for our health and well-being cannot be underestimated.  It is our country’s commitment to clean water that eradicated such water-born epidemics as cholera and typhoid.

The Champlain Water District or CWD, serves a variety of towns in Chittenden County including Shelburne and has been a leader in the field of clean and safe water.  It was the first to receive the “Excellence in Water Treatment Award” for safe water and after ten years, is still only one of six in the country to retain this title.

The drinking water used by the CWD is drawn from Lake Champlain, 2500 feet out and 75 feet down. The treatment facility, located in Queen City Park serves 68,000 people.  To keep the drinking water clean and safe, the CWD treats the water in ways that meet the health and safety guidelines set by the EPA.  Not only is the district required to disinfect the water at the treatment plant, it must also insure that the water remains disinfected all the way down the miles and miles of piping.

The CWD used chlorine as a primary and secondary disinfectant for many years.  But chlorine alone has its problems.  First, when combined with organic matter in water, disinfection byproducts or DBPs are produced.  Two of these DBPs are regulated by the EPA as they have been linked to an increase in cancer, reproductive and developmental health risks.  Second, free chlorine is not stable enough to last down the line, leaving houses at the end of the line less protected from harmful bacteria it could pick up along the way.

Because of these problems, the EPA developed more stringent regulations to reduce disinfection byproducts in drinking water. These regulations would be implemented in stages.  In anticipation of Stage II regulations scheduled to go into effect in 2012, the CWD became the first public water system in the state to use EPA approved chloramine as a secondary disinfectant.  Chemically, chloramine is simply chlorine plus ammonia and is fourteen times less volatile than free chlorine.

Chloramine (specifically, monochloramine)  met the needs of the CWD in several ways.  First, it reduced the health hazards related to the two regulated DPBs.  Second, it was stable enough to remain in the water line all the way to the last house on the block.  Third, it was cost-effective.  Fourth, it carried the EPA stamp of approval.

So what was the problem?

Almost immediately, people began calling, saying they were experiencing health changes since the switch to chloramine.  Over the last 3 years, more than 80 people have reported their concerns to the water district.  Problems reported were of three varieties from mild to severe:  skin rashes, gastrointestinal problems and respiratory difficulties.  These problems all seemed to go away when the individuals stopped using the water.  Symptoms returned with water use.

Sufferers contacting the Department of Health were sent to their physicians for intervention.  Physicians were unable to make a differential diagnosis linking their problems to chloramine due to the dearth of research on chloramine and human health effects.

In previous years, similar problems had been reported by people in San Francisco after a switch to chloramine.  San Franciscans formed a group called Citizens Concerned About Chloramine and began gathering information. In addition to skin, intestinal and respiratory issues, they also raised concerns about pipe line degradation, impact on the environment and unstudied effects of DBP’s produced by chloramine.  In 2006, citizens from around the country started communicating, comparing symptoms, sharing information and finding much in common.  Sufferers in Vermont organized and approached the CWD and the Department of Health seeking relief.  Finding none, they approached the legislature.

For the last two years, sufferers have sought legislation to place a moratorium on the use of chloramine.   They hoped that this break would give them a relief from symptoms while allowing time for the water district to find alternatives to chloramine.  In 2007, the issue was studied at length by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee.  In 2008, H.80 was introduced and assigned to the House Fish, Wildlife and Water Resources Committee on which I serve.

To determine whether a moratorium on chloramine was appropriate, we took testimony from several different sources.

We heard very compelling stories from individuals with People Concerned About Chloramine (PCAC) the group organized by Vermont citizens.  They described painful skin, intestinal or respiratory problems and complete relief from symptoms many experienced when on vacation or using water other than CWD.  Several provided very good data with controlled variables.

PCAC reported that over 300 people had contacted them describing skin, digestive or respiratory problems they believed were related to the water.  While filtering worked for some, others felt the faucet filters were not always effective and the whole house systems much too expensive.  In addition, a sufferer might be able to handle the problem at home, but what about in schools?  Restaurants?

Vermonters for a Clean Environment (VCE) raised concern that water system operators and state regulators were “putting compliance with well-intentioned but misguided regulation ahead of public health and environmental protection and even ahead of science itself?” They also provided testimony indicating that the research on human health effects and chloramine was scarce.  No epidemiological studies, no data on inhalation exposure exist.

The Department of Health, while acknowledging the suffering of the individuals, did not feel they could directly tie the symptoms suffered with the use of chloramines.  They remained skeptical about the correlation.  They reminded us that we must consider “degree of harm” not just for those describing symptoms, but for the rest of the 68,000 people who would be at risk for known effects such as cancer and reproductive problems from chlorine’s DBPs.  When asked about a health study, they stated that the complexity and rigorous standards for human studies and costs precluded this.

The Vermont State Department of Environmental Conservation, which issued the permit to use chloramine opposed a moratorium citing EPA guidelines and federal regulation. In addition, we heard from water managers who feared they would be out of compliance if the moratorium was imposed.

The Champlain Water District informed us that they spent tremendous hours and study to find the best solution to meet the 2012 EPA guidelines before the switch to chloramine as a secondary disinfectant.  We learned that 68 million people across the country use water from systems treated with chloramine.  Denver has been successfully using chloramine since 1917 as have 47 towns around Boston since 1932.   Although more than 80 people had contacted the CWD regarding symptoms, a number of those calls came from those on a different municipal water system not using chloramine. They reminded us that there was no “silver bullet” to clean water.  Clean water requires diligence in protecting the source of water; filtration and treatment; disinfection and maintaining distribution down the line.  They stated chloramine can be neutralized or removed using vitamin C or granular activated carbon filters.

After listening to testimony, neither the House nor the Senate committees could come to agreement on the moratorium.  After considerable discussion with stakeholders, it became apparent that we were not going to be getting an answer as to the true relationship between the symptoms of the sufferers and chloramine in the near future.   Instead, both bodies agreed that what we could do is determine whether other disinfection options exist, determine technical feasibility and identify costs of these options.

The EPA has committed to pay for and provide an independent consultant to conduct an engineering study to attempt to answer these questions.  All stakeholder groups were willing to accept this solution.  The Agency of Natural Resources will be reporting back results to the legislature in January, 2010.

It is Sunday night, less than 24 hours since the House adjourned.  By the time you get this, any information I have to share about last week will be stale.  Instead of content on the final decisions in the Legislature, I thought I would take a moment to share a few observations from the perspective of a first year legislator.  Here are a few:

THE FLOOR:  The floor of the house is where all the theatrics take place. Opportunities for great sound bites abound and the presence of VPR streaming is irresistible for some.  The rules of the House keep us in order for the most part, allowing all voices to be heard and keeping the speeches relevant.  For me, the first time I spoke on the floor, I had my 2-sentence introduction written out and was worried about making a mistake.  Friday night, I presented the Senate amendment to the compost bill, survived a difficult interrogation, added an amendment and got the bill through on a unanimous vote.  It felt like growth.

THE COMMITTEE ROOM:  The serious work of the House happens in the committee room.  For most committees, we drop our partisan politics at the door, roll up our sleeves and get to the work at hand.  Some committees are focused on finances while others spend more time on policy. Each bill begins with a problem and makes a stab at a solution.  Through testimony from stakeholders, experts and state agencies, we either refine the bill, seek more testimony, decide to drop it, or set it aside for another time.  “This is just a simple bill,” we laugh, knowing there is no such thing.  Of the thirty bills coming into our committee, twenty were discussed and twelve were voted out.  Eleven of these bills received unanimous bipartisan support.  The twelfth had only one dissenting vote.  I find the committee process fascinating and have developed a deep respect for the committee process.

THE PARTIES:  The camaraderie between parties is far greater than reported in the press.  When I survived that difficult interrogation, I got notes of congratulations from four Republicans signing it, “your buddies in Agriculture.”  I found if I wanted a real perspective on what was happening in committees, it helped to have reliable contacts across parties.  Although my vote usually aligned with the recommendation of the committee, I appreciated hearing about the process to get there. Most of the questions I asked had indeed been addressed in committee.

At the closing on Saturday night, the minority leader, reminded us of the need for more than one party.  “It is the majority’s job to guide the ship,” she said, “and the minority’s job to point out the rocks.”   On this, I do agree.

As a final note, I want to thank Joan Lenes for her considerable help this first year.  From logistics, to introductions, to explaining background, she has been a great resource and mentor.  I plan to be around most of the summer and will continue to do my best to get back to anyone who contacts me.

Sorry, my link did not seem to work.  To view the bill as passed out of the House:

1.  go to http://www.leg.state.vt.us/

2.  Under “Legislative Information Database,” click on “display current status”

3. enter H.446 (remember period) and “display status”

4.  you can view the progress of the bill on the table. Under “bill text” click on “as passed the house”