Right-Sized: How Much Consolidation Is Enough?

A survey sampling approach is presented for estimating upper centiles of aggregate distributions of surface water pesticide measurements obtained from datasets with large sample sizes but variable sampling frequency. It is applied to three atrazine monitoring programs of Community Water Systems (CWS) that used surface water as their drinking water source: the nationwide Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) data, the Syngenta Voluntary Monitoring Program (VMP), and the Atrazine Monitoring Program (AMP).The VMP/AMP CWS were selected on the basis of atrazine monitoring history (CWS having at least one annual average concentration from SDWA ≥ 1.6 ppb atrazine since 1997 in the AMP). Estimates of the raw water 95th, 99th, and 99.9th centile atrazine concentrations for the VMP/AMP CWS are 4.82, 11.85, and 34.00 ppb, respectively. The corresponding estimates are lower for the finished drinking water samples, with estimates of 2.75, 7.94, and 22.66 ppb, respectively. Finished water centile estimates for the VMP/AMP CWS using only the SDWA data for these sites are consistent with the results. Estimates are provided for the April through July period and for CWS based on surface water source type (static, flowing, or mixed). Requisite sample sizes are determined using statistical tolerance limits, relative SE, and the Woodruff interval sample size criterion. These analyses provide 99.9% confidence that the existing data include the 99.9th centile atrazine concentration for CWS raw and finished water in the Midwest atrazine high-use areas and in the nationwide SDWA dataset. The general validity of this approach is established by a simulation that shows estimates to be close to target quantities for weights based on sampling probabilities or time intervals between samples. Recommendations are given for suitable effective sample sizes to reliably determine interval estimates.

Since its passage in 1974, the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) has become a pillar of water resources engineering, utility management, and public health policy. Complementing other environmental legislation from the same period, SDWA set standards for drinking water suppliers, service, and quality and has made an unmistakable positive impact on U.S. communities for the past 50 years. While drinking water faces different specific challenges today, the general principles established by SDWA are the same. Its success may be attributed to its broad political commitment at the federal level, firm enforcement at the state level, and dutiful execution at the local (public water supplier) level—all while customers know exactly what to expect—thus creating clear accountability for safe water. Just as SDWA helped resolve last century's drinking water problems, it can serve as a policy model for addressing this century's grand challenges.

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has played an important role in the federal regulatory process for many decades. The regulatory review process is multifaceted, and several Executive Orders and laws have been enacted over the years that added various requirements to improve the process. Existing requirements regarding drinking water regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) are briefly reviewed in this article, including the following: administrative procedures; evaluation of significant regulatory actions; consideration of small entities; paperwork reduction; achieving regulatory flexibility; unfunded mandates reform; input from state and local governments; input from Indian tribal governments; protection of children; actions affecting energy supply, distribution, or use; use of voluntary consensus standards; environmental justice; SDWA consultation provisions; effect on technical, financial, and managerial capacity; congressional review; and, defining a new regulatory process.

Over the past few decades, commercial water—bottled water or water sold from water kiosks (e.g., water vending machines)—has grown into a multibillion-dollar industry. Many commercial water products claim to be superior to tap water, despite being less stringently regulated. This chapter examines disparities in regulation between tap and commercial drinking water. Tap water is strictly regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), while bottled water is less stringently regulated by the Food and Drug Administration under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Kiosk water is essentially unregulated at the national level, and state-based regulations of water kiosks vary widely from state to state. The lack of regulations surrounding commercial water is ironic, given commercial water companies’ claims of selling a superior product to tap water. This chapter reviews the challenges posed by and lessons to be learned from commercial water and then outlines a series of recommendations to guide the next 50 years of policy regarding safe drinking water systems, which today include commercial water.

ObjectivePast research yields inconsistent evidence of disparities in environmental quality by socioeconomic status (SES), race, and/or ethnicity. Since the political significance of race/ethnicity may be contingent upon SES, this study advances environmental justice research by examining interactively the effects of race, ethnicity, and SES on environmental quality.MethodsWe match 2010–2013 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) compliance records with demographic and economic data for U.S. local government water utilities serving populations greater than 1,000. Statistical regression isolates direct and interactive relationships between communities’ racial/ethnic populations, SES, and SDWA compliance.ResultsWe find that community racial/ethnic composition predicts drinking water quality, but also that SES conditions the effect; specifically, black and Hispanic populations most strongly predict SDWA violations in low‐SES communities.ConclusionsOur findings highlight the importance of analyzing race, ethnicity, and SES interactively in environmental justice research. Results also carry troubling implications for drinking water quality in the United States.

During the 1980s and early 1990s, the US Environmental Protection Agency proposed to reform federal environmental regulation around “risk management” principles that stressed pollution prevention, better priorities, and cost control. In spite of the fact that risk management were strongly supported by three successive presidential administrations, only one major federal statute – the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 – was developed around these principles. The purpose of this paper is to understand why Congress succeeded in reforming the SDWA around risk management principles at a time when legislative reform of other federal pollution control policies remained stalled. Through a historical analysis of federal drinking water politics between 1970 and 1996, it is concluded that the somewhat unique politics surrounding the drinking water issue enabled risk management principles to serve as a “persuasive discourse” that bound together key interests within the policy community.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to ensure that the water obtained from a public water supply is safe to drink. Under the SDWA, EPA establishes enforceable maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for contaminants that may have an adverse health effect and are known or anticipated to occur in water. Occasionally, public water supplies are unable to meet the MCL at the time it becomes enforceable. The SDWA allows public water supplies to apply to the State for a temporary variance or exemption from an MCL(s) as long as the concentration of the contaminant(s) exceeding the MCL(s) does not result in an unreasonable risk to human health. EPA has developed guidance to assist States in determining what level above the MCL presents an unreasonable health risk. In developing this guidance, the toxicity exhibited by each regulated contaminant is evaluated individually. Consideration is also given to the available risk assessments (short-term and long-term) for each contaminant, comparing carcinogenic risks with noncarcinogenic assessments. Other factors that may be considered on a contaminant by contaminant basis include for example, past exposure and expected duration of the variance or exemption period, population sensitivity, and volatilization of the contaminant from drinking water.

Policymakers have become increasingly concerned regarding the widespread exposure and toxicity of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). While concerns exist about unequal distribution of PFAS contamination in drinking water, research is lacking. We assess the scope of PFAS contamination in drinking water in New Jersey (NJ), the first US state to develop regulatory levels for PFAS in drinking water. We test for inequities in PFAS concentrations by community sociodemographic characteristics. We use PFAS testing data for community water systems (CWS) () from the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) from 2019 to 2021 and demographic data at the block group level from the US Census to estimate the demographics of the NJ population served by CWS. We use difference in means tests to determine whether CWSs serving "overburdened communities" (OBCs) have a statistically significant difference in likelihood of PFAS detections. OBCs are defined by the NJDEP to be census block groups in which: a) at least 35% of the households qualify as low-income, b) at least 40% of the residents identify as people of color, or c) at least 40% of the households have limited English proficiency. We calculate statewide summary statistics to approximate the relative proportions of sociodemographic groups that are served by CWSs with PFAS detections. We find that 63% of all CWSs tested by NJDEP from 2019 to 2021 had PFAS detections in public drinking water, collectively serving 84% of NJ's population receiving water from CWSs. Additionally, CWSs serving OBCs had a statistically significant higher likelihood of PFAS detection and a higher likelihood of exposure above state MCLs. We also find that a larger proportion of people of color lived in CWS service areas with PFAS detections compared to the non-Hispanic white population. These findings quantitatively identify disparities in PFAS contamination of drinking water by CWS service area and highlight the extent of PFAS drinking water contamination and the importance of PFAS remediation efforts for protecting environmental health and justice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP12787.

Istanbul has administrative, social and economic, drinking water problems. The forest areas of Istanbul are more important to drinking water than any other of the forest’s activities, because most of the drinking water dams are located in forest areas. This study is aimed at determining the differences between past and present forestry applications concerning drinking water production in Istanbul for a 600 year period. The level of future drinking water problems in Istanbul was also estimated. Using descriptive analysis method similarities and differences between past and present forestry applications in producing drinking water were identified. Furthermore, the trend of Istanbul’s water demand and supply for the 2010 and 2030 term was also predicted with a scenario. This study indicates that Istanbul city has historically experienced drinking water and forest resources shortages. In the pastadministrators were very keen to conserve forest areas and drinking water resources for the city. Various regulations to protect and improve the utilization of water resources have been created throughout the history of Istanbul. These measures today are not as effective as they once were which causes exploitation and destruction of water resources. Key words: Forestry, drinking water, traditional use, Istanbul, Turkey

The sanitary survey program was created by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to support state primacy agencies in assessing utility progress with implementing water quality requirements in the Ground Water Rule and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. In the spring of 2021, EPA said it was planning to issue a direct file rule to integrate cybersecurity into the existing sanitary survey program. Multiple organizations representing water utilities and state primacy agencies communicated to EPA that using the sanitary survey program for cybersecurity was ill-advised. Even so, on March 3, 2023, EPA issued the “Cyber Rule” directing state primacy agencies to assess cybersecurity of public water systems (PWSs) as part of the sanitary survey program—effective immediately. The new Cyber Rule requires all PWSs (n = 151,606) to determine whether they use “operational technology,” meaning hardware and software that detect or cause a change through the direct monitoring or control of physical devices, processes, and events in the enterprise, per the Internet of Things Cybersecurity Improvement Act of 2020, 15 U.S.C. § 271(3)(6). EPA provided states with three compliance options: (1) self-assessment or third-party assessment by a state-approved entity; (2) state assessment during a sanitary survey; or (3) an alternative, equivalent, state-developed cybersecurity program. The draft guidance for the Cyber Rule includes a checklist of 33 controls that EPA determined are “technically feasible for most PWS[s] to address without significant capital expenditures.” Sixteen of these controls are classified by EPA as potential “significant deficiencies” if not implemented. There are numerous implementation challenges, including the ability of a state official to nonintrusively verify that a control has been implemented. The Cyber Rule interprets the use of operational technology as being part of the equipment or operations examined in the sanitary survey, components used for producing and distributing safe drinking water. This represents a significant expansion of the states’ existing sanitary survey inspection obligations. The details of the rule were never proposed or made available for public review and comment, which is the norm under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). While EPA did have discussions with states in the summer of 2022, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators has consistently advised the agency against using the sanitary survey for addressing cybersecurity. Bypassing APA and other regulatory obligations represents a troubling process issue that undermines the integrity of the rule of law. This includes EPA's determination that the regulatory oversight approach set out by Congress in §2013 of America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 was, in the administrator's judgment, insufficient. AWIA §2013 amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) §1433 to require each community water system serving 3,300 or more people to conduct a risk and resilience assessment (RRA) at least every five years, which explicitly encompass cybersecurity threats to “electronic, computer, or other automated systems.” Further, §2013 requires systems to incorporate the findings of the RRA into emergency response plans, which must address the “strategies and resources to improve the resilience of the system, including the physical security and cybersecurity of the system.” Congress clearly defined a process by which a specific class of PWSs would address cybersecurity. Finally, Congress instructed EPA to directly implement, oversee, and enforce AWIA §2013. Unlike other SDWA requirements, AWIA does not authorize the EPA to delegate implementation to the states. Contrary to congressional direction, the Cyber Rule shifts the burden of oversight to the state. Many of these procedural concerns were shared with EPA in a January 2023 letter from the water community. Undeterred, EPA proceeded with issuing the Cyber Rule. Subsequently, on April 17, the states of Missouri, Arkansas, and Iowa filed a challenge to the Cyber Rule in the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, State of Missouri, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 23-1787 (8th Cir.). AWWA and the National Rural Water Association have filed to intervene on behalf of the states. The intent of the challenge is to hold EPA accountable for going around the checks and balances created to govern the promulgation of regulations. Perhaps watching the “Three Ring Government” episode from Schoolhouse Rock! is in order since it explains the balance of power between the three branches of government. The judiciary is a last resort for accountability; it is unfortunate that the public–private collaboration called for in the National Cybersecurity Strategy was not exercised. Kevin M. Morley is manager of federal relations at the AWWA Government Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at [email protected].

In July 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a proposed rule under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regarding the geologic sequestration (GS) of carbon dioxide. The proposed rule recommends the addition of a new class of injection well, Class VI, to EPA’s existing Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program to address the unique nature of carbon dioxide injection and to ensure the protection of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from carbon dioxide injection-related activities. The proposed GS Rule builds upon the existing UIC regulatory framework established under the SDWA. The final rule, anticipated in late 2010 or early 2011, will apply to owners and operators of permitted Class VI injection wells for the subsurface injection of carbon dioxide for long-term underground storage. States interested in obtaining approval for primary enforcement responsibility ("primacy") for the new Class VI program will apply for primacy to EPA with either a new UIC program application or a UIC program revision (depending on a particular state’s existing UIC primacy status). Any state that chooses not to apply for primacy, or that has not yet received approval for their proposed Class VI program, will have the UIC Class VI program administered by EPA until such time as the state has an approved Class VI program. EPA is developing multiple technical and programmatic guidance documents for UIC Directors and proposed Class VI injection well owners and operators to assist in meeting the new GS rule requirements. In addition, EPA will be conducting nationwide training workshops for UIC Directors on primacy application and on the technical and programmatic elements of GS Rule and its implementation. EPA is also planning for a series of webcasts focused on technical aspects of the GS rule for interested owners, operators, field service providers, UIC permit reviewers, and others to be involved in GS activities. EPA anticipates that these guidance documents, implementation tools, trainings, and other outreach efforts will assist Class VI injection well owners and operators, as well as state UIC Directors, in meeting the new GS Rule requirements.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) allows civil and, in some cases, criminal enforcement actions to be taken against water suppliers who fail to meet the requirements of drinking water regulations. The 1996 SDWA amendments expanded the scope of existing enforcement provisions, clarified enforcement in nonprimacy states, increased civil penalties, and added an incentive for consolidation.

This roundtable discussion focuses on the enforcement of Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulations. Reflecting its dissatisfaction with the US Environmental Protection Agency's track record of enforcing the SDWA, Congress gave the agency new enforcement powers and the mandate to use them when it passed the 1986 SDWA amendments. The change in enforcement status quo has raised numerous questions among those responsible for achieving and ensuring compliance, especially in light of the promise of a dramatically increased number of regulations.

The current study examines whether social and economic factors affect the geographic distribution of safe drinking water act (SDWA) violations at the county-level, 2016–2018. Our research controls for a variety of factors in an effort to assess whether community ethnicity, poverty, and racial characteristics appear to be related to the geographic distribution of SDWA violations. The results indicated that populations that are exposed to unsafe drinking water are clustered in certain areas. There appears to be a “contaminated drinking water belt” in the Southwest and South regions, which are concentrated in California’s Central Valley, the Texas colonias, and the rural South. Consistent with the spatial cluster results, the zero-inflated count regression model showed that the percentage of Hispanics was a significant predictor of SDWA violations. In addition, the results indicated that counties with SDWA violations and persistent poverty co-occur, suggesting that concentrated poverty matters, and has a negative impact on local drinking water quality.

To understand public awareness about drinking water safety and water contamination accidents in rural areas of China, two rural counties of Hainan Province were selected as pilot sites for investigation. We explored the degree of public satisfaction with drinking water quality, public trust of drinking water safety, and public awareness about drinking water problems and solutions. The results showed that 80.3% of respondents were satisfied with the quality of their drinking water. About 78.8% of respondents paid special attention or comparatively high attention to drinking water quality and contamination accidents, especially regarding potential damage to the human body and health, the influence scope, and the causes of accidents. A total 52.4% of respondents solved drinking water problems by themselves; few respondents complained to the health department or called the local telephone hotline. Age and sex did not play significant roles in the degree of public satisfaction with water quality or in the public perception of water pollution accidents; however, residents in rural areas within a drinking water quality monitoring network were more satisfied with their drinking water quality and more aware of drinking water contamination accidents than in areas outside of such a network. Respondents with higher education levels had greater awareness than those with lower education levels with respect to water quality and water pollution accidents.