House Public Health Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (2)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1205
· 2 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…get underway. Our first bill that we'll be hearing today is House Bill 1205, and Representative Loy Mock, I believe, is here to present…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1248
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1248”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Robert Hart
Unverified
0:00
...made. We tried not to make too much of a fool of ourselves, but we did a little bit anyway. But anyway, we thank you for being here, and this meeting is called to order, and the chair sees a quorum. I have one announcement I want to make. In the second floor of the Capitol Rotunda, we have our Community Mental Health Awareness Day going on from 10 to 2 today, and so I encourage you to go up there and see the booths and things that they have
because they have facilities throughout the 75 counties of Arkansas. And I think we're ready to get underway. Our first bill that we'll be hearing today is House Bill 1205, and Representative Loy Mock, I believe, is here to present that bill. If you will, take your place at the end of the table and go ahead and present your bill, sir.
Representative Mock, if you have people who are there with you to help you with that, if you would please have them introduce themselves for the record as well. Thank you, Madam
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:19
Chair. This is Crystal Harvey. From with secure Arkansas if we could
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
1:25
have her in her voice do it. That'd be great. Thank you
Speaker 12
1:29
Thank you, madam chairman. My name is crystal Harvey, and I'm with secure Arkansas. Thank you Mr. Mock you
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
1:39
may go ahead Okay, thank you madam chairman and members of the committee
This is my first bill ever didn't introduce y'all bear with me. It's kind of like a riding bulls I rodeo quite a bit and you never really ready for it just comes your turn so here I am. Although this bill has a lot of words in it, it is very, very simple. In 1988, unbeknownst to most everyone, especially consumers, the United States Environmental Protection Agency gave up oversight responsibilities for all direct water additives, leaving individual states to voluntarily adopt standards set by chemical manufacturers and the
water industry, which the state of Arkansas has done. Unfortunately, the non-governmental body setting up the standard with a loophole on factual monitoring of chemicals added for the purpose of treating humans rather than the water. While the water operator is accustomed to monitoring the effectiveness of a chemical it adds to treat water, the water operator is challenged with rhetoric and endorsements on attitudes to treat humans. With new discussions of adding lithium or statin drugs or whatever the new fad is through the water or ongoing discussions about fluoridation, operators shouldn't be stuck in the middle. The core
of this language merely calls for the chemical supplier or manufacturer to be accountable for what the product is supposed to do and whether it is safe. It calls for transparency so everyone knows what is going on, and it creates a requirement of full disclosure for documents and data about the product so it is certain to meet our state laws and the industry-wide standards for contaminants. A key feature of this bill is that the water operator has to merely require that a responsible party in the chain of delivery of what actually
shows up in the truck provide the information the manufacturer already has to prepare and their declaration of accountability described in a water operator's request forbid, and then make their information available to the public so we can all rest assured that everything is on the F and up and that there is no bait and switch or hidden agenda. The gift of this bill is that it circumvents rhetoric and endorsements and goes readily to accountability for the product delivered in short it lets the facts declare themselves any questions
Speaker 21
3:52
do we have any questions many representative
Speaker 22
3:54
Wagner representative Wagner will you make sure
Speaker 25
4:05
your mic is turned on in your It is. It is on.
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
4:13
I'll get closer. Page 2, line 4, it mentions that public policy discussions have become more prevalent and
that the water operators have initiated the use of, the halting the use of, and making changes in the use of fluoridation products. So two things seem to appear. There just have been discussions, which doesn't mean that there has been more product used necessarily. But then it goes on to say that these water operators have made or altered the fluoridation contents.
Now, are you saying they did that because they were instructed to, or they have just taken it upon themselves to do that? To my knowledge, both. I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you. To my knowledge, both. All right. And so if some of them have been doing that on their own, then why in line 19, where it talks about the duty of the water system operator, it seems that perhaps we would not want to continue to give that operator
here, the ability to purchase and administer those substances if they have not been doing them correctly and if they have been making changes without authorization, why are
Speaker 31
5:47
you still giving this responsibility to those people? Let
Speaker 33
5:51
me let Crystal can answer that question better
Speaker 12
5:55
than I. Well, first off, what the problem has been all along is that originally, when the original
studies were done on the chemical for fluoride, it was done on sodium fluoride. And through the years, they've changed substances or additives to hydrofluoracidic acid, and that's what's used in Arkansas. And to my knowledge, when we say water operator, that's the person that puts the chemical in the water, whoever in the chain of authority is that orders and makes the bids for the chemical to the manufacturer is who should be responsible to get a declaration from the
manufacturer what this bill is asking for. Because, like I said, the original studies were not done on hydrofluoracidic acid, so there's been a bait and switch going on. And
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
6:49
does that kind of answer what you were saying? Almost, but you're saying that these same people have not been the ones purchasing in the past, but you're going to give
Speaker 12
7:01
them the authority now? No, that's who's purchasing at present. But what we're asking for is to have the manufacturer's data that is stated in Standard 60 that they
don't have available. So we're getting a little more specific in stating what they need, the information that needs to be made available to the public when they order the chemical because the chemical right now according to the CDC is coming from China and Japan and Russia and I don't know about y'all but I'm not real trusting of things that come from Japan because like our babies toys were tainted with with excuse me China our babies toys were tainted with lead and
And we want to know exactly what's in this chemical in the country of origin, where it's coming from. And these things are not required in Standard 60 at all.
Robert Hart
Unverified
8:01
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, seeing no other questions, we have – oh, I'm sorry,
Speaker 43
8:07
Representative Perry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Going back to that same on the second page on line
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
8:12
four where it talks about the prospects of adding lithium. Are there any records or indications of anyone using lithium?
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
8:19
Nobody in the United States. It's about Arkansas or the United States or anywhere in the world. There's nobody adding lithium that I know of. There's been discussions over in Japan and in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
Speaker 6
8:33
There are, in fact, discussions on that. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 12
8:40
None in Arkansas. May I comment on that? Please. it's just future discussions they've talked about putting lithium in the water they've talked about putting statin in the water
now that's future present is fluoride but in the past in the 1920s they actually added iodine to the water to treat Gorder and they realized that they could not control the dosage of people that had thyroid problems so they removed it from the water so what we're trying to do is to cover past present and future that bill okay one more
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
9:14
question madam chair has there been a fiscal impact study done for the water operators yes yes there's
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
9:22
zero impact is that in this
information no sir is given to me over at the legislative
Robert Hart
Unverified
9:39
bureau I can get if you need it sir representative Perry is
Speaker 53
9:45
that are you done representative Penartz represent to mock I have a
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
9:50
problem with this section on findings it says here of the General Assembly of which you and I are that the General
Assembly has found that public policy discussions of the prospects of adding lithium to the public water mr. mark I've been a member of this body for four years I've heard no such discussions of public policy discussions of this by the General Assembly I wondered if you could direct me specifically to Britain documentation that those public discussions occurred by
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
10:25
this General Assembly thank you thank you are you talking about the same line for on page
two what section you talk I'm talking
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
10:38
in your bill in your bill okay under page one line 30 you use the term findings line 31 the General Assembly finds that and then you proceed to make a series of statements on page two specifically line Line 4 through Line 8. My question to you, Representative, is what specific written documentation do you have
or you can present to us or at a later date present to us that the General Assembly, the 86th or the 87th General Assembly or the current Assembly, has so found that through public discussions your statement there about adding lithium and other human moon human mood imbalances etcetera statin drugs to our water what written can you show me that documentation or does it even exist well
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
11:40
me stop you represent mark did
Did you understand my question? The 86th General Assembly or the 87th General Assembly or the current Assembly, you make a statement here that we as a General Assembly have found that this statement here that you're making is that one that we found to be so true. Now if that is true, I'm asking you for where is the written documentation that that occurred by these two General Assemblies? Because that's what your statement makes, that we have found such.
Speaker 46
12:16
Where is the written documentation of such? It
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
12:20
does not state Arkansas, Representative Bernard's. Well, Representative Mark, maybe you don't understand your own bill. If you go back to page one, line 30, findings, you understand what the term finding means? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Line 31, the General Assembly, you understand what that means? Yes. That's you and me and the prior General Assemblies. Do you understand that?
Yes. All right. Then you make a statement, essentially, that says, you know, that we found this to be true. And what I'm asking you is for the simple documentation that, in fact, the 86th General Assembly or the 87th General Assembly did so. Now, did they or did they not? Well, the General Assembly did not, no, ma'am. All right, that answers my question. So, with regard to Line 4 through Line 8, that is an inaccurate or untrue statement.
Is that correct, by your own
Speaker 66
13:26
admission? I don't find that incorrect, no, ma'am. I'll let my
Speaker 68
13:30
crystal answer that. Well, I have, I think. First off, well, it's just a minute.
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
13:37
Point of order. Madam Chair, I'm still directing my questions toward the representative. Yes. I have not directed any questions to the
Robert Hart
Unverified
13:44
other witness. Yes, Representative Penardson, we'll honor that for sure, and if you'll kind of get to the point with
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
13:51
that. I think that by his own admission, Madam Chair, Mr. Malk has said there is no documentation, so I find fault with your findings.
And until the point at which you can provide that documentation, that through some resolution or act that this General Assembly did in fact do what you said to do, lines 4 through 8 are inaccurate or at the very least untrue so mr. Mock I appreciate your your presentation this bill but I would like to think that when you present a bill to this committee this in this committee of public health that you get bring us a bill that does not contain inaccuracies thank you mr.
Speaker 63
14:31
Mock thank you represent we're discussing this bill right now and it's It's
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
14:38
for the future of adding drugs to the water. And I can give you documentation from the British General of Psychiatry and other information that I have. But the General Assembly, I guess this is stating that the EPA gave up its authority over us and we enact our own laws on this. We're capable of doing that.
Robert Hart
Unverified
15:02
Okay. Representative Mark, I think she's asked the question. You've answered it, and I appreciate that. Let's go on
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
15:14
to the next question. Representative Gaskell. I had read an article. It's been about three years ago now in the New England Journal of Medicine about the addition of lithium to water. Lithium carbonate is a powerful antidepressant. I could go along with fluoridation, but lithium, hell, that's dangerous. I agree.
Yeah. whatever we can, let's get better control of that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
15:47
Representative Mayberry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I actually have two or three questions for Representative Mock. You say that the EPA gave the rights to the states to be able to address this issue back in 1988, I believe. Yes, 1988. My first question is, can you describe for us a little bit how other states have responded to this?
Speaker 85
16:06
Is it similar in nature or is it similar in scope?
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
16:14
It's just like Arkansas. They accept their own standards. So those could vary from state to state? Yes. Are there any that are similar in nature to what you were proposing here? No, no. Okay. Okay. Is there – we talk about the different possible additives to the water. Is there anything in your bill that prohibits specific things, or is it simply a
requirement to identify what those are?
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
16:43
This bill does not take a position pro or con on anything they're putting in the water. We just want the manufacturer to
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
16:51
declare what they're putting in the water. And my last question is regarding the different water associations and the water system operators Have you had discussions with them regarding how much of or
any of a burden it may be upon them To be able to implement these additional regulations and what sort of feedback have you had I've got two letters
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
17:07
on hand with me right now and both of them are positive they support this bill Thank
Robert Hart
Unverified
17:16
you All right, seeing no further questions, we have a number – I'm sorry, Representative Lee.
Speaker 92
17:23
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do you know, Representative Mock, where the Department of Health is on this? Have they weighed in on this? Representative Lee, we have
Robert Hart
Unverified
17:34
the Department of Health on the sign-up sheet, so they'll be coming before us in a few minutes. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Okay, now, seeing no further questions, I think we'll go to our sign-up list, and we'll be hearing from those who are against the bill first, and that will be the Arkansas Department of Health, and I believe Mr. Robert Hart has signed up for that.
Speaker 97
17:58
Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Robert Hart. I'm the Engineering Section Director of the Arkansas Department of Health, which oversees the public water systems in the state of Arkansas. The Department of Health, by its mission, is charged with protecting public health, And the particular section that I direct extends that to the drinking water that we all consume.
We are obviously interested in protecting the health of the public, including drinking water and including the additives that go into drinking water. I want to point out several apparent misconceptions by either the bill sponsor or those who promoted it to him. The first of which is that the EPA never had enforcement authority over additives in the United States, including back in the 80s, which he made reference to.
The EPA did have a program in which they looked at additives and issued advisories to states. States could then accept or reject those advisories. What the EPA does is set standards for the finished drinking water product that public water systems include all those in Arkansas have to meet. What EPA realized back in the 80s with this, the review of these additives and chemicals that go into drinking water is an enormous amount of work and is very, very expensive.
And they decided that this task was best left to the private sector and specifically the cost of that put on the manufacturer of those chemicals. So what the EPA did was using a consortium of water industry and public health groups developed what's called ANSI, that's American National Standards Institute, and the National Sanitation Foundation's standard 60, and that's an independent third-party standard
by which any manufacturer of a chemical that's added to drinking water in Arkansas has to meet. The standard or review that a manufacturer has to go through in order to be certified under NSF 60 is very, very rigorous, it's very expensive, and it's time-consuming. That review includes by DNSF, NSS is one of a couple agencies that, not agencies, but organizations that do this, Underwriters Laboratories, another commonly known organization that does
this certification. But their review of a chemical requires the manufacturer to list the chemical in any additives, any impurities that may be in that water. And they have toxicologists who review that. They have toxicologists who review any kind of health studies, risk assessment studies that have been done on that chemical. They then put the, actually add the chemical to the water and do tests on it, provided
that it meets not only the drinking water standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act, also any other kind of known adverse health effect from any kind of contaminant that might be or impurity even that might be in that chemical. They then will certify the chemical but certification does not stop there. They do annual visits to the manufacturer including collecting samples of the product and testing it, and so there's an ongoing review of those chemicals.
Current Department of Health regulations for public drinking water systems require them to ensure that any additive that they put in the water meets NSF 60, and water operators are aware of that. Water operators, to our knowledge, are glad that there is an independent third party that they can use as a basis for that. Representative Mock said that he did
not want to put the water operator in the, quote, stuck in the middle of this, end quote. Unfortunately, the bill as written as I see it is going to put the operator directly in the middle of this because it puts the liability on him or her to provide this certification. All of this certification is available through the organizations that certify the chemical whether it be NSF or Underwriters Laboratory and can be provided, yes it can be provided
by the manufacturer, most water utilities when they buy chemicals specify that the chemical meet NSF 60. In addition to that, any chemical meeting NSF 60 is so labeled on the container that it's provided in. A lot of the discussion I think around this bill centers on fluoridation. There are a number of health studies that have been done on fluoridation. I'd be glad to offer this to Madam Chair and any members of the committee if they're interested.
are literally hundreds of references in here about fluoridation not all of them are health studies but many of them are mr. Hart if you'll just give when you get completed if
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
23:52
we'll get that information to the staff we'll get that disseminated to the committee I think I'll
Speaker 44
23:57
just stop my comments there I'd be glad
Speaker 101
24:00
to entertain any questions thank you Representative Lee, you have a question?
Speaker 92
24:12
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, you've already done that. Well, I was wanting to ask the Department of Health, but if someone else is in front of me, that's fine. No, please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. Have there been any cases of, have you found any cases of lithium or, pardon me, mind alt, mood imbalance, have you found any of these in any of the water sources in Arkansas? And if so, where, how often, or could you address that? Thank you.
Speaker 97
24:42
No, ma'am, I'm not aware of any. Obviously the list of chemicals that we test for does not include lithium, but certainly that kind of information, if it was out there, would have gotten back to us I would think eventually. But I am not aware of any lithium or statin drugs being added to the public drinking water. Representative Wilkins.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
25:06
Sir, do you know that if we purchase these chemicals from a foreign country, Japan,
Speaker 97
25:12
China, Russia? Yes, sir, they do. Some of the chemicals that we add to drinking water do come from other countries. They meet or are required to meet the same standards that a manufacturer in the United States would be required to meet. I would point out to you as well that some of the food that we eat comes from China. Some of the pharmaceuticals that we take come from China as well. There is a process for ensuring the quality of those, including chemical additives to drinking water.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
25:42
Are we buying it from them because
Speaker 98
25:47
it's cheaper, or is it a price deal, or
Speaker 97
25:53
buying from a foreign country? It could be the particular processes where a lot of, in the case of fluoride, comes from a particular type of ore, phosphoric ore, and it could depend on where that ore is located. I'm not up on where those are, but certainly price is a factor to consider in this product
as well as any other product that the public purchases. You
Speaker 110
26:18
know, I guess I could be labeled a protectionist, but if it's
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
26:22
available in the United States, it seems to me like we ought to buy it in the United States. Do you agree with that?
Speaker 97
26:29
I don't disagree with that, but at the same time, we have laws and a sentiment in this country that allows products from other countries
Speaker 111
26:35
to be available for the public, if so desired. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Wagner.
Speaker 113
26:47
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sir, what training is given the water
Speaker 97
26:56
operators? In order to be a water operator, you have to be certified through a written exam that's administered by a national organization in order to be prepared to take that exam you have to take a number of hours of training a lot of that is regards to the technical aspects of running a water system such as pumps and
piping and and things like that part of that required training is to take a eight-hour course on the regulations that the Health Department administers over public water systems and this particular aspect would be part of that training. Thank
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
27:43
you and have you had reports, has the department had reports of water operators
Speaker 31
27:48
making changes or halting the use of fluoridation products as this bill states? Yes ma'am,
Speaker 97
27:55
under the current regulations any change in the
chemical that they add to the water requires the Department of Health approval so again by regulation they are required to notify us that they intend to change a chemical that they're adding not only Department of Health regulations but I'd also add under EPA regulations as well because those sometimes when they change not in the case of fluoride necessarily but some chemicals can change the pH of the water, and those types of changes can affect whether
or not a water system is likely to meet or not meet some of the other regulations that they're
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
28:46
you, Madam Chair. Representative Mayberry, you have a question? Yes, ma'am. Regarding the chemicals that are purchased from foreign countries, you mentioned they have to meet certain requirements. Is that, in meeting those requirements, is that based strictly on the manufacturer's documentation of that or are those chemicals actually tested to see that they meet those minimum standards?
Speaker 97
29:08
Well there's, I guess if it was a no, it's my understanding of the process that the actual NSF document is about 150 pages long and I don't have a copy of it. It's my understanding that the toxicologists that review a proposed additive will look at not only what the manufacturer is representing that additive to be and its purpose, but anything else that could be in that additive, and they make use of whatever source of information
they have available to them, including that provided by the manufacturer, but not limited to that. So they are tested then?
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
30:02
Yes. Yes. Representative Hall. Thank you, Madam Chairman. On our, when you were referring to the system operators a little while ago,
Speaker 125
30:11
did you not leave out the requirement that they have to have continuous education throughout their
Speaker 97
30:17
employment? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. They, every two years, are required to get 20 hours of continuing education in order to renew
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
30:31
their license. Thank you. And then how often is it required for the operator to take samples of the water
and send it into the health department
Speaker 97
30:41
for y'all's test? For a microbiological standpoint, they are required to test every month. The Department of Health itself is the one that goes out and collects the chemical samples
from the water systems. Typically it depends on which contaminant they're testing for. It could be as frequently as once a quarter. Typically it's in the range of one to two, one to three years. But it's a random
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
31:05
test, it's a random location in which you get the samples from? No, sir. samples are typically
Speaker 97
31:12
taken at the water treatment plant at the treatment plant right okay thank you thank you man chair
Robert Hart
Unverified
31:23
thank you mr. Hart seeing no further questions we'll go next to our list for the person who wants to speak for the bill madam
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
31:33
chair thank you committee members mr. Todd sharp come forward
and speak for the bill sir introduce yourself for the record thank you madam chair
Speaker 133
31:46
I think one thing we can all agree on today is that mother nature has smiled on our water supply today my name
Speaker 135
31:55
is Todd sharp I'm the state director for secure Arkansas and I also work very closely with multiple political groups around the state I'd like to start by thanking every member of this committee for their service and their commitments they've made to their constituents in the state of Arkansas your decision to serve reminds me of a famous quote used by many leaders of our time if not I who if not now when although we may not agree on every issue your service is
is appreciated and it is respected so thank you
Speaker 138
32:33
very much according to the nineteen ninety six amendments to the
Speaker 135
32:37
safe drinking water act providing safe drinking water is essential to protection of our public health i feel that hb twelve five is a common sense step in that direction today i'd like to address three issues concerning this bill the first one is what the bill is not second what the bill is and third how the bill would parallel with other industries in the safety process
Speaker 138
33:02
what the bill is not the bill does not in any
Speaker 135
33:08
shape form or fashion designed to limit or request that any any chemical currently mandated to be put into our water supply be reduced or eliminated in any way it does not increase the workload of our water operators through additional testing that they would have to perform and it does not increase the cost in the manner that water facilities operate. What the bill does do.
The bill will require water operators to acquire documentation from the distributor and or manufacturer of the chemicals, proving that the chemicals added to our drinking water meets the American National Standard Institute's NSF International Standard 60 that has been adopted by the state of Arkansas. This bill will also require that the country of origin of the chemicals be documented. With many of the chemical products that are being sourced from China, Japan, Mexico, Russia and many other countries that may not share our national standards, it is imperative that
we ensure that the chemicals we acquire meets our industrial standards. This bill is designed to protect the consumer, water treatment worker that handles the chemicals before they are diluted into the water supply. And our water operators from a liability standpoint through transparency and documentation. How would this bill bring this in line with other parts of the safety industry? I've been a safety professional for 17 years. I've represented several hundred companies that manufacture safety products both in the
U.S. and abroad. Today I'm currently the North American Business Development Manager for an engineered safety systems manufacturer that is based in the United
Speaker 143
34:56
Kingdom. We also have a standard that is an ANSI standard, and I want to point out the ANSI standard is a private
Speaker 135
35:05
sector standard, and it is a voluntary standard. The manufacturer does not have to adhere to it, and the end user does not have to require that the products meet ANSI.
Now some states have taken the steps that they do require that all products in the safety industry meet ANSI standards, but it is the safety professionals responsibility to make sure that the manufacturer of those products are doing the proper testing either in-house or through a third party to prove that they are meeting those standards. We sell our engineered systems all over the world, and many, many countries have different standards. Some countries have no standards, unfortunately.
The way the process works in the United States is we have a product, and when we sell that product, it goes through distribution or safety supplier. When it goes to the end user or the safety professional, he may or may not request the information, does this meet ANSI standards? And if he asks the question, the responsibility to prove that it meets those standards is put on the manufacturer, not the safety professional or the end user. There have been times that we've had that question asked, and when we looked at our
testing and when we looked at the U.S. standards, we found out that our product did not meet the U.S. standard, even though we had been selling it in the U.S. for some time. When that happens and we see that we do not pass the test, we have to pull the product from the shelf. Now, it's my understanding that this bill is a very common sense bill that simply will require our water operators to ask from the manufacturer, can you provide us the documentation that you are doing the test that prove you meet these standards?
In 1996, amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which I would like to submit as evidence, has asked the states to take the lead in protecting our water supply. I feel that HB 1205 is a clear, common-sense step in this direction. Thank you for your time, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Robert Hart
Unverified
37:12
Thank you, Mr. Sharp. Representative Wardlaw, we do have a question.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
37:19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, who will monitor this, if this bill is passed, who will monitor and make sure all these papers are at the right place at the water operators?
Speaker 143
37:31
I'm not able to answer that question. and I'm not familiar enough with the way the water departments work and how
Speaker 135
37:36
their paperwork is handled. I know in the safety industry, there is a safety officer that is in charge of having all MSDS sheets, all safety documents, and it's supposed to be put in a file so that anybody can find it at any time. I would assume they would operate the same
Speaker 145
37:50
way. Representative Hyde, do you have a question? Madam Chairman
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
38:01
I move that we limit debate on each side 15 minutes so we can
Robert Hart
Unverified
38:07
manage our schedule today Representative Hyde has moved that we limit debate that is non-debatable all indicate I'm sorry my phone rang in the middle of that and I apologize for not turning it off so all in favor thank you Mr. Hyde I don't know why that flustered me so All in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye.
Any opposed? Same sign. Okay, so we've limited debate to 15 minutes on either side. So what that means is that each side, for and against, gets 15 minutes to continue to talk, and Mr. Price is going to keep the clock. So Representative Hyde, do you have any other questions? Okay, seeing no further questions, we're going to go next on our sign-up list to list to the person who has signed up for to speak against the bill and that would be Dennis Sternberg with the Arkansas Rural Water Association thank
Speaker 154
39:06
you madam chair and committee members good morning madam chair and members of the committee my name is Dennis Sternberg I'm the executive director of Arkansas Rural Water Association we are an Association of Water and Wastewater Utilities across the state of
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
39:27
Arkansas. Mr. Sternberg, would you make sure your mic is on and you're talking close to
Speaker 154
39:32
the mic, please? The light's on. Can you hear me better now? Yes. But we represent water and wastewater
systems across the state, rural and larger systems. But we have looked at House Bill 1205,
Speaker 156
39:42
and we believe as a water industry that it's already been looked at properly through the Health Department. The Health Department is the ones we turn to as a water industry to set the regulations to do the required testing as far as our water utilities, and they've done an excellent job. We are opposed to the bill. When you look through some of the issues in the bill, it does put a burden on the water
operators. It is going to take more time. If we have to do paperwork, any time you add additional paperwork, there is an impact to that. More than anything, let me say this. We represent the small communities, large communities. These operators live on these systems. We want safe public water. Our families live on them. I mean, but we also believe that this bill is unnecessary. And I'll help you on the time. I'll open any questions. Thank you, Mr. Sternberg.
Speaker 92
40:42
Representative Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. When you, and I'm glad you're here today, thank you for coming, because you're the boots on the ground and can hopefully answer this, when you get an additive that's going to be put in water, does it automatically, you know, like I'm thinking, I don't know much about the industry, I'll admit that, but like if I open up a drug that I get from a drug store, it has a sheet in it that has an explanation of things. When you get a chemical that you're going to be adding to the water, does something
Speaker 156
41:14
like that already come with it? Well, not necessarily. Mr. Hart addressed a little bit of that. Like if you buy chlorine, it's stamped. You know that it's NSF approved. The other chemicals are as well. And if in doubt, we ask the health department for guidance. I mean, that's the one thing we have engineers that each system relies on when we do any type of major bids for chemicals and stuff. But most of the systems in the state are smaller systems. So, you know, they're buying from that local salesman most of the time.
But we still refer everything to the health department in regard to types of chemicals and what's approved and what's not approved. The other thing is we do a consumer competence report each year. Every water system is required to do that. We send it out to each customer. Every one of you have received one if you're on a community water system. It's also published in the paper. I mean, there's a lot of checks and balances put in place. I would also mention I have my board of directors who will be in the capital this afternoon
Speaker 154
42:17
from water industry that you can talk directly to them on what their
Robert Hart
Unverified
42:23
thoughts on this bill is. Committee, it's been brought to my attention that you have received or some of you may have received a handout that's entitled 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. That has not been submitted, that hasn't come to the committee appropriately. What the appropriate way to do that is to the person who's coming for or against the bill is to make reference to that and it's to go to the staff and be handed out to the committee so I would ask the members of the audience if you are
handing information to the committee to be handed out please don't do that please direct it to the staff I would
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
42:55
appreciate it all right we still have some more questions for mr. Sternberg representative Mayberry a couple of
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
43:04
questions please sir you say that you get chemicals and they have a stamp on there that says NSF approved do you do you get some that do not have that that stamp and and if so how do you address that to my knowledge know that we don't
Speaker 156
43:18
get them that away but I am the executive director I used to run a system for 10 years but that was back in the 70s and I've been working with water systems ever since then but when we do the training stuff that's one of the things
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
43:33
if you don't have that we tell the systems hey don't don't accept it refuse it so then that would be then referred to the health department yes assistance on that. And also, you
mentioned that this would increase the burden upon those system operators. Can you tell us how much of
an increase in burden that is? I mean,
we're talking a whole lot or a little or I don't know how you measure that, but as best
Speaker 156
43:58
you can. Well, and it's going to be hard to measure that, and it's a good question. The reason being is anytime you pass a state law regulation, there's going to be some format on what each operator, what's water what each water system is going to have to do and how detailed that report will have to be we don't know yet but it will take some time an operator is going to have some administrative time providing all that and documenting it because I'm certain somebody's going to be checking it
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
44:29
representative Allen thank you madam chair thank you mr. Sternberg
coming if something catastrophic happened to our water
system today do we have an emergency plan in place every
Speaker 156
44:45
funding from United States federal government USDA rule development or with natural resources they ask you each water system to do a vulnerability assessment and a emergency response plan on how to respond in the event of some type of catastrophic incident happening.
Every system is different depending on the size and the magnitude of that system.
Speaker 167
45:11
So do we have one in place in the state of Arkansas? Each system
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
45:21
has one, yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Representative Malone. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just really quickly, as a consumer, if I want to know what's in my water, can I come to you at any point in time and and figure that out you give will you provide me a sheet if this is something that I'm extremely concerned about I can come to
you and you can ever ever water you know you
Speaker 156
45:39
can if you're a consumer of that water utility you can come to them and ask for
Speaker 164
45:44
that information and it's if a liable anyway okay so any of that information has to be turned
Robert Hart
Unverified
45:53
over okay thank you mr. Sternberg thank you for your testimony seeing no further questions we'll go next to the next person on the list
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
45:59
to speak for the bill Miss Jeannie Burlesworth
Speaker 172
46:08
thank you all I'm Jeannie Burlesworth chair of secure Arkansas and this bill is a common-sense bill because all we're asking for to make a long story short is just a simple manufacturer safety data sheet a safety data sheet because what we're talking about the raw product we're talking about the chemical composition of fluoride that's what we're talking about and what this bill
is designed to do is just to create transparency from the manufacturer and that ensures our safety and I feel like that that's what the job of the public Health Committee is to do, ensure our safety, considering we're just asking for a safety data sheet. Now, I would like to submit into evidence. I've got a box, and we can give those out later, of the standard 60, because those are extremely hard to come by. An average
person and even water department operators do not have the standard 60 because of the cost of $325 just to get that standard. Now I want to just read an excerpt out of standard 60 and it simply says what the formulation, submission and review is. And this is so good because the manufacturer shall submit at minimum the following information for each product. And then it goes on to say, and I'll just read a couple more lines here, but a list of known or suspected impurities within the treatment chemical formulation and the maximum percent or parts by weight of each impurity.
When available, when available, a list of published and unpublished toxological studies relevant to the treatment chemical and the chemicals and impurities present in the treatment chemical. So that's what we're talking about here today. We're just simply talking about the treatment chemical and what's in it, given that we get 50% of the powder from China and, I believe, 40% of the liquid from Mexico. So that's why I think we at least need to ask for a safety data sheet.
Now, I do agree that NSF, it says off their own website that it is strictly voluntary. And this is what concerns us about the manufacturer and this safety data sheet, but I know my testimony, you're trying to rush this, or we're trying to rush this to get through, but we have a letter here submitted by 12 operators from the Carroll Boone Water District, and they simply said, Carol Boone Water District is the wholesale provider of potable water from Beaver Lake
to customers in Carol and Boone counties, and our water is used by over 26,000 consumers. The district has been providing water since 1982, and we take a great deal of pride in the protection of not only our water source, but also the process of making potable water, which includes additives used in the process. We take very seriously our responsibility to protect our customers from contaminants in the drinking water.
We have reviewed House Bill 1205, and to us 12 water professionals, it just makes common sense to further the protection of our water customers. As you are aware, we are heavily regulated by the Arkansas Department of Health and EPA, day, but we feel that House Bill 1205 would give us another tool in the protection of our water customers. The bill would put the burden of proof on the vendor. The bill would
put the burden of proof on the vendor. That's what we're asking for right here. It's not that big a deal. Who supply the product and establish a safety net for our water operators. These guys are asking for this bill. There are no directives in this bill that would require time or money from the district other than a simple request to the supplier to prove the safety of their product.
And surely the public health committee wouldn't, you know, you would want a, you know, safe precaution here. We have always been open, he said, and transparent to our water customers and House Bill 1205 would help us and our consumers have the facts regarding what is used in their potable water. He said, I respectfully request that House Bill 1205 be passed as an aid to water systems in the state of Arkansas.
And here are the 12 operators from the Boone County or Carroll-Boone Water District I'd like to submit into evidence. And then also – Ms.
Robert Hart
Unverified
51:13
Burroughsworth, could I ask a question as to why we don't have representation from the Carroll-Boone Water operators here to do that? I mean, having you reading us a letter is not necessarily
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
51:26
the best way to present their views. Okay, okay, can I let
Speaker 172
51:31
Crystal answer that because I believe she's been doing the visiting.
Robert Hart
Unverified
51:37
Would you identify yourself again, please, for
Speaker 12
51:40
the record? Crystal Harvey, Secure Arkansas. The actual water operators are busy right now producing the water. The office manager, Jim Allison, is, as we speak, having a MRI done because he is fighting colon cancer. So he's in the doctor's office right now. So they were not able to come from Eureka Springs. So that's why they sent the letter. Well, we appreciate and hope
Robert Hart
Unverified
52:07
he does well, and thank you for that.
I would just at least express, I think, sentiments of the committee that having direct testimony is always the most appropriate, and having a letter sent to us is oftentimes, unless we have an opportunity to engage with them and ask questions with them, It's very difficult for us to take that letter and to do anything with it. So I appreciate you bringing
Speaker 171
52:42
just to submit one more piece of evidence here before I end my testimony?
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
52:48
Ms. Burlesworth, if you'll just give us an indication of the type of evidence you're submitting. It would be
Speaker 172
52:54
like on a safety data sheet. All they have to do, because they have to get bids from the manufacturer, and this is just a simple, that's why there's not any extra work for them to do. Because here is a sample of a bid sheet that just says, you know, include us, a manufacturer's safety data sheet. You may leave that with the
Robert Hart
Unverified
53:15
staff, and we'll see that the committee gets a chance to have that in their inbox.
Okay. Ms. Burlsworth, we do have a question. Do you want to take a question from the
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
53:28
committee? Sure. Representative Hyde. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Burroughsworth, thanks for being here today. If I was listening closely enough, you boiled down your whole testimony and your summation of this whole bill is that all you really intend to ask and all you really intend to require by this bill is an MSDS on any chemical that's delivered to a water authority or a water treatment plant that's going to be used for that water.
Speaker 172
53:55
Is that correct? No, we need a statement from the manufacturer, not the maximum contaminant level. It's a different – it would be different, actually. Oh, I apologize. I thought I heard
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
54:08
you say that all you really were asking for was an MSDS. Well, it
Speaker 172
54:13
would be a safety data sheet because what's happening here – Well, what I just wanted to
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
54:18
point out to you is if that's the case, we'd save ourselves a lot of time because an MSDS sheet is required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act or OSHA
for any material that would be delivered to any location for any kind of product. So we already have MSDSs at every one of these locations where any kind of chemical or packaged product has been delivered, right on down to the lumber they might use to build the picnic table to eat lunch at. Thank you.
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
54:51
Okay. Committee, Representative King has requested that we get a copy
Robert Hart
Unverified
54:55
of the letter from Carol Boone since it comes out of his district, and I'll honor that if the staff would take care of that.
Pardon me? Oh, you smell home cooking on that? All right. So I will honor that. Thank
Speaker 172
55:15
you, Representative King. go ahead Ms. Burlesworth and also I think that something that's very interesting here we have from the city of Amity they had adopted an ordinance that is ordinance number 241 Ms. Burlesworth is the
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
55:30
city of Amity here to testify no but he signed it
we really need if somebody has an interest in this topic they do need to come forward and testify so if you'll go on with your other testimony. If you have it,
Speaker 172
55:45
I'd appreciate it. Okay. I guess I won't submit that then, but can I go ahead and say what it said? Ma'am, I think
Speaker 172
55:56
to testify on that. All right. Then that's fine. Well, what I would like to do here then is submit another document from the EPA. It says in the United States, there are no federal safety
safety standards which are applicable to drinking water additives, including those intended for use in fluoridating water, that it is a voluntary standard. And then it goes on to say the standard requires that the manufacturer of a product submitted for certification provide toxological information if available. NFF, NSF requires that manufacturers seeking certification to the standard, submit this information as part of their formulation or ingredient supplier
submission, and then it talks about providing all lists complying with the above requirements submitted by manufacturers of hydrofluorosilic acid and ciliofluorides, so there is this one, and also I'd like to submit into evidence, if I could, this is the Water Chemicals Codex, In their analysis, it says right here in this document, there are grades of fluorosilicic acid that show presence of arsenic and lead.
This document from the CDC talks about it's coming in from China, Mexico, South Africa, Russia, Spain, and France, how much we're consuming, and so forth here. this document I'd like to submit into evidence does show the contaminants in the drinking water so once again what we're asking for here is just a
precautionary data sheet because I think a lot of the people and I know the public is greatly concerned about what's in their water thank you Ms. Burlesworth
Robert Hart
Unverified
58:05
seeing no further questions oh I'm sorry we do have some questions representative Hall do you have a question it
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
58:16
was so long ago I've almost forgot what I was going to ask there, Madam Chairman. Ma'am, your presentation, let me ask you this. What
involvement, direct involvement, have you ever had with a public water system? Any? I've never worked as an
Speaker 171
58:42
operator or anything like that. Been around one,
Speaker 130
58:45
known water managers or anything? I've kind of seen how
Speaker 172
58:50
little of this works when I've toured the GM plant in Kansas City five or six
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
58:59
times. Ma'am, let me assure you this. I fortunately was blessed to be a mayor in a small town.
And my water managers and assistant managers and the city council and the water department, that was our utmost concern. The public safety of our water was primary. and some of this rhetoric that I've heard today is almost insulting to some of these hard working people who are not making a whole lot of money but are dedicated to provide
safe drinking water and let me say this if I may the health department the local area health department they are constantly on the move to communities they're constantly coming by to check to visit and instruct these managers what's new and what's not. And basically, would you not agree that the majority of water managers in this state are competent men and women who are doing the utmost job
Speaker 187
1:00:11
to protect the water of the state of Arkansas? Would you not agree? What I'm seeing is concern. And if
Robert Hart
Unverified
1:00:21
at all possible, I'd like to bring it. I want to interrupt. I want to make Representative Mock aware. You have a minute left, and I don't know if you want to close or not, Mr. Mock, or not. It's up to you. I'll give you that opportunity to do that. If at all possible,
Speaker 171
1:00:36
could we bring a water operator up, Joe Walls? No, ma'am, we have one minute.
Robert Hart
Unverified
1:00:41
If Mr. Mock wants to give that minute to that water operator, he can, or he can close for his bill, whichever he wants to do. representative hall i'm sorry to interrupt you but i just felt like that we need to give mr uh representative mock a heads up on
Speaker 19
1:00:56
this uh i'll concede my minute to joe wood mr wood if you
Robert Hart
Unverified
1:01:03
would take your seat introduce yourself and a minute's going to go pretty fast my name's joe walls i
Speaker 189
1:01:10
got a bachelor's degree of science from henderson i had a class a waters
Speaker 191
1:01:15
operator license the class one waste water operators license and I got injured in 1997 by some hydrofacilic acid and one of the problems was is on the material data safety sheet there wasn't enough information there wasn't information about the contaminating chemicals I found out after the fact that it did have arsenic it had lead and all these things so my doctors could not treat me properly because the proper information was not on the sheet there was not the proper
testing done on those chemicals and my only thing here is it's not going to add a burden to the water operator all he has to do is ask for the testing to show that these products have been tested they come in in huge barrels and they'll have a safety sheet attached to them but it does not have all the pertinent information that you need I don't see what the problem is with the health department or rural water I had no probably hundreds of water operators they would all love to have this for them because it provides
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
1:02:24
safety for them thank you mr. walls we appreciate your testimony and now that the time has expired thank you you're very welcome what is the pleasure of the
Speaker 194
1:02:50
committee seeing no motion representative woods I have respect for a fellow colleague I'd like to at least
Robert Hart
Unverified
1:02:54
make a motion for a vote we have a motion to approve a do pass for House
bill 1205. I'll indicate by saying aye. Any opposed?
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
1:03:02
No's have it. Mr. Mocker, you failed your bill. Representative
Robert Hart
Unverified
1:03:22
Wilkins, are you planning to run your bills?
All right, so if you'll go to the end of the table, and House Bill 1248, take your seat there, and we'll proceed. Thank you,
Speaker 107
1:03:58
Madam Chair, for taking the time this morning, committee.
Thank all of you for taking the time to hear this
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:04:07
bill. This is a- Mr. Wilkins. Can't hear me? Now we can. Boy, thank you all for taking time to hear this bill. It's really a pretty simple bill. There is no physical impact. It pretty well works itself out in fees. And I'm going to let Robert Breck from the Health Department explain this bill. Robert Breck, if
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
1:04:29
you will introduce yourself for the record, please.
Robert Breck
Unverified
1:04:32
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Robert Breck. deputy general counsel for the Arkansas Department of Health what this bill will simply do is do away with a sunset clause at least back until 1977 there was there's been a sunset clause on the food service permit fee this will not raise the fee it'll just simply do away with the sunset clause that the legislature has to go in every four years and renew or the program would would lose the fees and those monies are imperative for the program to to proceed So, all this would do is simply do away with having to go in every four years and deal
with that sunset clause. It's agreed upon by the Hospitality Association, the oil marketers, and the retail marketers. Can I take any questions you might have? Ms. Representative
Robert Hart
Unverified
1:05:23
Penartz. Motion when appropriate. Seeing that we have no other questions, I'll take your
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
1:05:29
motion. Motion do pass. We have a motion do pass on House Bill 1248. I'll indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed?
Robert Hart
Unverified
1:05:40
Motion passed. Mr. Wilkins passing over House Bill 1247. I believe Mr. Letting is passing over House Bill 1279, and Senator Bledsoe is passing over Senate Bill 112 for an amendment. So unless there's any further business to come before the committee, we are adjourned.
Agenda
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Robert Hart
Unverified
Representative Reginald Murdock
Unverified
Representative Linda S. Tyler
Unverified
Speaker 12
Speaker 21
Speaker 22
Speaker 25
Representative Debra M. Hobbs
Unverified
Speaker 31
Speaker 33
Speaker 43
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 6
Speaker 53
Representative Tracy Pennartz
Unverified
Speaker 18
Speaker 46
Speaker 66
Speaker 68
Speaker 63
Representative Billy W. Gaskill
Unverified
Representative Andy Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 85
Speaker 92
Speaker 97
Speaker 44
Speaker 101
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 98
Speaker 109
Speaker 110
Speaker 111
Speaker 113
Speaker 80
Representative Clark Hall
Unverified
Speaker 125
Speaker 133
Speaker 135
Speaker 138
Speaker 143
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 145
Representative Barry Hyde
Unverified
Speaker 154
Speaker 156
Representative Fred Allen
Unverified
Speaker 164
Speaker 167
Representative Stephanie Malone
Unverified
Speaker 172
Speaker 174
Speaker 171
Speaker 119
Speaker 130
Speaker 187
Speaker 19
Speaker 189
Speaker 191
Speaker 194
Speaker 107
Robert Breck
Unverified