he programs of the Safe D r i n k i n g W a t e r Act (SDWAI are in terrible disarray,” charges U S . Congressional Representative Henry Waxman (D-CAI. First passed in 1974 and reauthorized in 1986, the SDWA promises that safe drinking water is a right of all citizens. Yet, backed by the findings of several recent General Accounting Office (GAO) (1-4) and EPA reports ( 5 ) ,Waxman complains that there is widespread noncompliance with SDWA regulations, insufficient funds to meet the act’s requirements, a lack of technical personnel to perform monitor-
ing, and a failure to fully protect public health. Waxman’s comments laid the groundwork for what could be a tough battle for the next reauthorization of SDWA. As chair of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Health & Environment, Waxman is a key leader in that fight. At a recent meeting in Washington, DC, sponsored by the National Consumers League, Waxman warned, “Water suppliers are lobbying to gut the health protection sections of the Safe Drinking Water Act.” On the other side, water suppliers and state governments complain
001 3-936X/93/0927-2295$04.00/0 0 1993 American Chemical Society
that they cannot afford current regulations and fear what tougher rules might cost. The American Water Works Association has recently estimated that in 20 years the cost of drinking water will be approximately $5 per cubic meter-about 20 times higher than current rates (61.
“Millions of people who are poor don’t have a choice about water,” says Scott Rubin of the Pennsylvania Office of the Consumer Advocate. He fears that higher rates will force poor families to cut back on other essentials such as doctor care, heat, or even food. “Increased water rates have adverse health effects.”
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 27, No. 12. 1993 2285
Serious problems The reauthorization of SDWA comes at a time when drinkingwater problems have become prominent headline news. This past summer, residents of Milwaukee, WI, struggled through an outbreak of Cxyptosporidium in their drinking water that sickened approximately 800,000 people, and New York City residents were warned to boil their drinking water. Surveys of US drinking water found that some systems contained high concentrations of lead, and health advocates have voiced concerns over disinfection byproducts-most notably potentially carcinogenic trihalomethanes. At the same time, EPA is struggling to manage the Act. According to Richard Hembra, director of Environmental Protection Issues at GAO, “The drinking-water program is in such disarray that GAO has recommended that EPA identify it as a material weakness. Federal and state enforcement [of the Act] is terribly weak.” Under the Act’s provisions, EPA has transferred primary enforcement of the regulations or “primacy” to all the states except Wyoming. This has meant that states must manage and implement at least the minimal regulations of the SDWA. Studies by GAO ( 2 , 4 ) have found that states are not fulfilling their primacy requirements. This past year, EPA began proceedings to remove primacy from Maine because of a serious lack of administrative staff and has put Alaska and Washington on notice that they might be next. Florida has just notified EPA that it wants out of primacy. Unfortunately, says Hembra, EPA lacks the staff to administer the Act directly. The problems flow down t o the local level. In a study of four states (Illinois, Montana, New Hampshire, and Tennessee) GAO found that many water systems experience recurring problems with equipment and management. To keep track of these local systems, the SDWA requires states to conduct surveys evaluating each water systems’s water source, facility, and equipment every three years. Unfortunately, many of the surveys were deficient in how they were conducted, documented, and interpreted (I). “Over 100 million people are exposed to water from systems in noncompliance,” claims Erik Olson, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Olson also charges that there has been falsification of
self-reported data from water systems and widespread failure to report. The problem has been poor enforcement. “There are very few cops on the beat. In many ways [the Act] is a stepchild program within EPA.”
The root of all problems At the heart of the problems lies money, or rather a lack of it. EPA estimates that currently the states need $304 million to fund SDWA, but only $142 million is available
“The w a y we guarantee safe water for the American people is broken and it needs to be fixed. ”
from state and federal sources ( 5 ) . Federal grants for FY 1993 total $58.9 million. Hembra also points out that “EPA is supposed to fund 75% of enforcement, but right now it is really around 40%.” Moreover, the Agency finds that by 1995 the 84 contaminants currently monitored in drinking water will cost public water systems about $1.4 billion to regulate. However, that number is probably too low. EPA estimates that under current SDWA rules the contaminant list could expand to 1 1 2 by 1995 ( 5 ) . As a result, water suppliers argue that reauthorization of SDWA needs to eliminate “unfunded mandates.” The Act also is a nightmare to administer. Of the approximately 198,000 public water systems, 87% are small operations serving 25 to 3300 customers (1). All told, these small operators serve just 11% of the population. In these systems the costs of compliance must be borne by a few customers, resulting in rate hikes that can add more than $100 per household annually. “There is a need for innovative technologies,
2296 Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 27, No. 12, 1993
especially for small systems,” says Hembra. Additionally, the small systems include operations run by part-time operators who do not have time to wade through federal or state regulations and forms. “Small communities don’t have much access to federal funds,” says Tom Halicki, director of Federal Affairs for the National Association of Towns and Townships, “and they don’t know how to file for funds.” Many people worry that these systems are having trouble meeting SDWA guidelines and are not reporting noncompliance. Of the more than 16,000 community water systems reported as violating drinking water regulations during FY 1991, GAO found that 90% fell into the small system category (I). Most U.S. citizens are served by a handful of large urban water utilities, which can spread the cost of compliance over a substantial customer base. Yet even here Rubin warns that urban areas include large numbers of poor on tight budgets who struggle with any rate hike.
The Clinton plan The Clinton administration appears to be well versed in the problems of the SDWA. Recently Presid e n t Clinton proposed a state revolving fund that would provide loans to states for implementing the Act. The Administration would like this fund to provide $599 million in 1994 and $1 billion each year for the following four years. Waxman predicts that the revolving fund will not pass Congress except as part of an SDWA reauthorization. The administration also outlined in September its plan for SDWA reauthorization. This marks the Clinton administration’s first major piece of environmental legislation. (Congress has taken the lead on reauthorizing the Clean Water Act.) In outlining the principles behind their bill, EPA Administrator Carol Browner echoed Waxman’s concern over SDWA, saying, “the way we guarantee safe water for the American people is broken and it needs to be fixed.” The Clinton plan offers a mix of carrots, sticks, and new directions. To address the funding problems the Clinton proposal allows states the option of imposing a user fee on customers. If states turn primacy over to EPA, the Agency could use the fee. The Clinton administration would also like to build into the act pollu-
tion prevention rules that would provide wellhead protection, Drinkingwater protection areas would be established, and within those regions anyone polluting the water could be sued. As a carrot, the administration says that communities that adopt “enhanced” pollution prevention programs would not need to do as much monitoring and treatment. Additionally, the administration would like to change the rate at which new contaminants come und e r regulation. Currently, t h e SDWA requires EPA to set standards for 25 new contaminants every three years. This rule is widely disliked, and President Clinton proposes that instead EPA draw up a list of contaminants that would be regulated and a second list of those that would require further study. Timetables would be set and public participation invited. Moreover, as new regulations came into existence water systems could have more time to reach compliance. Some systems might have up to 60 months rather than the uncompromising 18 months in the current Act. A key sticking point in any reauthorization is the fate of small public water works. The Clinton bill recommends that small systems consolidate or restructure (e.g., buy chemicals collectively or share parttime employees) to become more viable. Small systems could also request variances, allowing them to choose alternative, less expensive water treatment technologies. James Elder, director of EPA’s Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, says the Agency estimates that 50% of the small systems have a potential for some sort of restructuring, 30% are viable without any change, and 20% are probably nonviable. To handle Native American reservations, some of which have serious water problems, the administration is urging tribal governments to act as state governments. However, both large and small systems would have to be run by trained and certified operators. Certification would be handled by the states. And finally, the enforcement sections of the act would be toughened so that EPA could take quicker and stronger actions against systems that violate the act. In addition, EPA is promoting a waiver program for water sampling. This program allows states to grant particular communities a waiver for testing for a certain contaminant that has been shown never to be
present in the region. Currently, says Elder, there are 11states in the waiver program. Elder also reports that in the pipeline are regulations for radon in water, disinfection byproducts, and arsenic, Rubin, who is working with Elder on the disinfection byproducts regulation, estimates that this rule could cost $1 billion. According to Rubin, estimates for cancers reduced from this regulation range from 100 to 10,000-a significant cost for what may be a small public health gain. It seems likely these new, potentially controversial regulations will affect reauthorization of SDWA as well.
Prospects With national health care, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the restructuring of the federal bureaucracy already on Congress’s agenda, it will be tough to squeeze SDWA through this year. Waxman doesn’t see reauthorization until next year unless a consensus forms in Congress. However, with so much concern over funding, that doesn’t seem likely. As Olson points out, “It is going to cost consumers more to have safe drinking water.” The question is whether US. citizens are willing to pay the bill. References “Drinking Water: Key Quality Assurance Program is Flawed and Underfunded”; U.S. General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, April 1993; RCED-93- 97, “Drinking Water: Widening Gap Between Needs and Available Resources Threatens Vital EPA Program”; U.S. General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, July 1992, RCED-92-184. “Drinking Water: Consumers Often Not Well-Informed of Potentially Serious Violations”; U.S. General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, June 1992, RCED-92-135. “Drinking Water: States Face Increased Difficulties in Meeting Basic Requirements”; U.S. General Accounting Office: Washington, DC, June 1993, RCED-93-144. “Technical and Economic Capacity of States and Public Water Systems to Implement Drinking Water Regulations,” Office of Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, September 1993, EPA 810SR-93-001. Glaze, W., Ed.; Drinking Water and Health in the Year 2000;American Water Works Association Research Foundation: Denver, CO, 1993.
Alan Newman is an associate editor on the Washington staff of ES&T. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 27, No. 12, 1993 2297
