Testimony on HF 3423
Monday, March 9, 2020
Rep. Fischer, members and ladies and gentlemen.
Thanks very much for the chance to talk with you today about the need to study and set standards for the health of our water.
I think we all agree that taking clean water for granted is no longer acceptable policy. We haven’t always been as attentive to this resource as we should have been, and we all, to some extent, share the responsibility. The fact is that our sky-blue waters now require both assessment and protection.
In many cases, local governments, state and federal agencies are doing good work. But it’s hard to keep ahead of the game. The Minnesota Water Sustainability Framework, published with support from the Legacy Amendment in 2011, refers to “contaminants of emerging concern”. Its chapters describing the challenges we face and the strategies we might take to achieve a “desired Minnesota future” do not mention PFAS or PFOS by name.
That’s not a criticism of the publication, it is evidence of how fast science and public perception can change, and that our vigilance should be reinforced to protect those who will live with some of the mistakes we’ve made in the past.
We don’t have to go beyond this morning’s headlines to realize the impact of a threat to public health.
Last week, my wife attended one of the PCA information sessions describing progress being made in the 3M settlement. She sat next to a young woman and in the context of their conversation, my wife asked her if she had children. “No,” the woman said, “and now we don’t know what to do. Do we move because of the water? And if that’s what we choose to do, we’re afraid that our house will have lost much of its value.”
I don’t believe that policy should be made in response to anecdote, but that conversation suggests that there’s not only serious scientific, economic and political dimensions to this issues, but the emotional response to threatened water is deep and growing.
I want to believe the environmental engineers in Woodbury that, according to current prescriptions, the drinking water delivered to our city residents is safe. But it’s also true that 7 of our 19 wells have been shut down. In Bemidji and areas around Duluth, the situation is similarly serious.
Per- and poly-fluoro-alkyl substances, (including per-fluoro-carbons or PFCs), are highly persistent, mobile, and toxic chemicals.
They’re used in food packaging, to stain proof furniture, carpets, and clothing, in firefighting foam, and in many industrial uses—world-wide. Exposure has been associated with liver damage, harm to the immune system, developmental toxicity, and cancer. Studies have found that PFAS may affect child development, the ability of a woman to become pregnant, and interfere with the body’s natural hormones.
Even though PFAS compounds have long been known to be harmful pollutants, neither state nor federal regulators have set uniform safety standards for human exposure.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommends that states and municipalities set a threshold of 70 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS. Many scientists believe the chemicals can be dangerous at much lower concentrations.
The Minnesota Department of Health has set health-based advisory values, or guidance values, for PFOA and PFOS but they don’t carry the same weight as health standards, drinking water standards, or water quality standards. Water quality standards set a mandatory limit.
In Federal legislation, a sweeping PFAS bill passed the U.S. House but likely will die in the Senate. The House-approved bill would make the EPA declare PFOA and PFOS hazardous substances. Those measures could force manufacturers and users to help pay for cleanup under the Superfund law. The bill would also require the EPA to set and enforce a maximum limit of PFOA and PFOS allowed in drinking water. Currently, no mandatory limit on any PFAS exists.
In Minnesota, MPCA sets water quality standards. Water quality standards are the fundamental regulatory and policy foundation to preserve and restore the quality of all waters of the state. Minnesota shouldn’t wait for the Federal government to lead on this.
There are some who will object to this bill. Although it remains critical to work with cities to provide support for meeting Water Quality Standards, Water Quality Standards should be based on protecting water resources and as a measure to identify polluted waters or healthy waters in need of protection. They are not based on cost or convenience.
My intention is not to point fingers or to blame individuals, corporations or other agencies for doing something that did not seem to be against the law. HF 3423 just says, let’s figure out what we can--or what we can’t--live with. That, it seems to me, is both common sense and responsible. The science of detection has become more sophisticated and the understanding of these chemicals more detailed. That technology and knowledge will support the effort this bill requires.
Some say that health standards will be impossible to meet and, that whatever those standards turn out to be, they’ll be prohibitively expensive due to problems that wastewater treatment cause. “You’ll bankrupt every city in the state,” they’ve told me.
My response is, let’s find out what those standards are before saying they’re ill-conceived or too onerous. Then let’s see how that information might change the way we’re protecting and cleaning our water.
There are others in habit of saying “we need to take more time, to go up-stream to learn where these pollutants are coming from and then talk about it.” That’s just a detour that delays our arrival and that we don’t have time to take.
This bill is a responsible and reasonable approach to discovering things we didn’t know and maybe didn’t want to know. That time has passed. Now we have an opportunity to do something about it.
I’m not foolish enough to say that there’s no room for discussion on this issue. I believe we need to work with the cities, others in this body, and opposing interests to address the issues of origin, the capacities of land-fills, the extent of liability that cities or others could face in light of our discoveries, and our own habits.
HF 3423 provides a one-time appropriation of $492,000 in FY 2021 from the Clean Water Fund to the Pollution Control Agency and is available until June 30, 2023.
I urge you to vote for the bill, to enter into a serious discussion about all we can do to protect the interests of families and meet a challenge to public health. We are all on the side of the families and the individuals we represent. No one among us, I believe, wants to see this issue persist without sincere effort to pursue solutions.
Your vote will send the bill to on--perhaps to the floor of the House where the wisdom of your experience and knowledge will benefit the people of this state and beyond.