Safe Drinking Water Act Research Articles

The Safe Drinking Water Act at 50: Another Identity Crisis

Key TakeawaysThe Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 (amended in 1986, 1996, and 2018) shows the tension between purity and safety, cost and benefits, and balancing risks, down to today's policy debates.Following the 1996 amendments, regulatory successes include arsenic, radionuclides, filter backwash recycling, total coliform, disinfectants and disinfection byproducts, and enhanced surface water treatment.With recent drinking water standards, such as the 2024 per‐ and polyfluoroalkyl substances rule, based on very low detection levels, the SDWA continues to generate intense public dialogue.

Understanding Drinking Water Quality in Appalachia

Key TakeawaysWhile the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) applies to all public water systems in the United States, the severity and prevalence of violations vary among locations.A study investigated drinking water quality, indicated by statistics of the SDWA in the 13 Appalachian states from 2010 to 2022, to identify any differences in violations.The need for better water system management and infrastructure in economically disadvantaged regions is clear, along with public education and effective policies.

Point-of-use chlorine residuals and disinfection byproduct occurrences in rural households served by public water utilities in Appalachian Virginia

ABSTRACT We characterized concentrations of trihalomethanes (THMs), a measure of disinfection byproducts (DBPs), in tap water samples collected from households with utility-supplied water in two rural counties in Appalachian Virginia, and assessed associations with pH, free chlorine, and metal ions which can impact THM formation. Free chlorine concentrations in all samples (n = 27 homes) complied with EPA drinking water guidelines, though 7% (n = 2) of first draw samples and 11% (n = 3) of 5-min flushed-tap water samples exceeded the US Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) maximum contaminant level (MCL) for THM (80 ppb). Regression analyses showed that free chlorine and pH were positively associated with the formation of THM levels above SDWA MCLs (OR = 1.04, p = 0.97 and OR = 1.74, p = 0.79, respectively), while temperature was negatively associated (OR = 0.78, p = 0.38). Of the eight utilities serving study households, samples from water served by three different utilities exceeded the EPA MCL for THM. Overall, these findings do not indicate substantial exposures to DBPs for rural households with utility-supplied water in this region of southwest Virginia. However, given the observed variability in THM concentrations between and across utilities, and established adverse health impacts associated with chronic and acute DBP exposure, more research on DBPs in rural Central Appalachia is warranted.

Celebrating the Shared Evolution of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Partnership Programs

While water professionals celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 2024, this year also marks the Partnership for Safe Water's 29‐year milestone of supporting advances in water utility optimization. Although the Partnership was established 21 years after SDWA, their histories are inextricably linked. A program originally formed as a voluntary way to encourage utilities to go beyond the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) requirements of the time has evolved to keep pace with an increasingly complex regulatory environment and an ever‐increasing body of water science knowledge.

The Transaction Costs of the Administrative Presidency: Evidence From a Trump-Era Clean Water Act Enforcement Reduction

Over the last two decades, political polarization has gridlocked federal congressional capacity to meet environmental regulatory demands. As a result, presidential authority has expanded to overcome this legislative impediment leading to a new era of “administrative presidency.” In this new era, presidents have increasingly used their administrative authority to meet politically driven environmental goals. Yet, we still know little about how federal-level executive political actions impact the outcomes and operations of local regulatory environmental systems. This study fills this scholarly void by empirically testing the effect of a federal COVID-19 Clean Water Act (CWA) enforcement reduction on Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) implementation outcomes for local community water systems (CWSs) sourcing from surface waters (SWs). Using a framework grounded in transaction cost federalism, we argue that a politically motivated executive reduction in federal CWA enforcement is associated with poor local SDWA implementation outcomes. We test this assumption with a differences-in-differences econometric approach using data drawn from the federal Safe Drinking Water Information System database. Our findings suggest that the CWA enforcement reduction resulted in an over 50% increase in SDWA health violations by CWSs sourcing from SWs. The implications of this study extend to U.S. water policy and environmental federalism, highlighting the need for better coordination between the CWA and SDWA and the potential risks associated with relying on broadened executive actions to drive U.S. environmental policy. Further research is warranted to understand the consequences of administrative policy changes on U.S. environmental governance.

Two's a company, three's a cloud: Explaining the effect of natural disasters on health‐based violations in drinking water

AbstractIdentifying violations is at the heart of environmental compliance, especially detecting contaminants that endanger human health and safety. A review of state drinking water compliance programs demonstrates that the rate and frequency of identifying health‐based violations varies significantly across the states. Previous scholarship has attributed much of this variation to anthropogenic causes. Less studied is the role of natural disasters and other natural events, which may also influence compliance outcomes. To address this gap, we build and utilize a novel data set of state‐reported health‐based violations reported under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) from 1993 to 2016. We are particularly interested in the role that events, such as severe storms, hurricanes, floods, and fires, have on the patterns of health‐based violations. Results indicate that not all focusing events are created equally and that severe storms and hurricanes are associated with state agencies identifying a flurry of violations as compared to fires and flooding.

The Safe Drinking Water Act at 50: A Policy Model for Grand Challenges

AbstractSince 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.

Associations between area-level arsenic exposure and adverse birth outcomes: An Echo-wide cohort analysis

BackgroundDrinking water is a common source of exposure to inorganic arsenic. In the US, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted to protect consumers from exposure to contaminants, including arsenic, in public water systems (PWS). The reproductive effects of preconception and prenatal arsenic exposure in regions with low to moderate arsenic concentrations are not well understood. ObjectivesThis study examined associations between preconception and prenatal exposure to arsenic violations in water, measured via residence in a county with an arsenic violation in a regulated PWS during pregnancy, and five birth outcomes: birth weight, gestational age at birth, preterm birth, small for gestational age (SGA), and large for gestational age (LGA). MethodsData for arsenic violations in PWS, defined as concentrations exceeding 10 parts per billion, were obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Information System. Participants of the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes Cohort Study were matched to arsenic violations by time and location based on residential history data. Multivariable, mixed effects regression models were used to assess the relationship between preconception and prenatal exposure to arsenic violations in drinking water and birth outcomes. ResultsCompared to unexposed infants, continuous exposure to arsenic from three months prior to conception through birth was associated with 88.8 g higher mean birth weight (95% CI: 8.2, 169.5), after adjusting for individual-level confounders. No statistically significant associations were observed between any preconception or prenatal violations exposure and gestational age at birth, preterm birth, SGA, or LGA. ConclusionsOur study did not identify associations between preconception and prenatal arsenic exposure, defined by drinking water exceedances, and adverse birth outcomes. Exposure to arsenic violations in drinking water was associated with higher birth weight. Future studies would benefit from more precise geodata of water system service areas, direct household drinking water measurements, and exposure biomarkers.

Drinking Water Injustice: Racial Disparity in Regulatory Enforcement of Safe Drinking Water Act Violations

This study assessed regulatory enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) within the political-economic context that examined the impacts of community characteristics on length of time a water system remains in noncompliance with SDWA regulations. Our findings indicate that noncompliant water systems in counties with higher proportion of both Black and Hispanic residents take longer to be returned to compliance with the SDWA. Conversely, water systems serving a larger percentage of White residents are in noncompliance for shorter time period, and as the percent White in an area increases, time to compliance decreases. The findings indicate that minority communities are not given equal attention with respect to managing compliance with the SDWA. This study suggests that the legacy of racialized urban planning and long-term disinvestment in water infrastructure are responsible for the longer duration of water system noncompliance in areas with higher percentage of minority population.

A Matter of Checks and Balances

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].

Court orders EPA to regulate perchlorate

The US Environmental Protection Agency must set a limit for perchlorate in drinking water, a federal appeals court ruled May 9 . The ruling restarts the clock for the EPA to propose regulations to control the chemical under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The EPA determined in 2011 that perchlorate in drinking water should be regulated. The chemical, which is used to make rocket fuel, military weapons, and fireworks, inhibits the thyroid from taking up iodine. A lack of iodine during pregnancy is linked to abnormal brain development in the fetus, and iodine deficiency in lactating people is associated with neurodevelopmental problems in their children. But the EPA never proposed a perchlor- ate drinking-water regulation. In 2020, under the administration of Donald J. Trump, the agency decided it didn’t need to regulate the chemical . The EPA has long faced pressure from other federal agencies, including the Department of

The Future of Utility Governance

Governance is not an easy topic to talk about in the water utility world. The mere mention of the word governance evokes strong reactions related to the best and worst aspects of utilities and the regulatory systems that oversee them. America's approximately 50,000 community water systems are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), providing a common framework for many aspects of treatment and water quality—this is despite differences pertaining to system type and state primacy agency discretion. These rules apply to systems that serve the public, regardless of ownership model or governance structure. However, the commonalities largely end there. Numerous ownership types exist, broadly divided into publicly and privately owned, but with considerable variation and nuance in both categories. Many are functions of local governments; others are publicly owned by independent authorities or organized as a form of nonprofit organization. There are also investor-owned utilities that are either privately held or that have publicly traded parent companies; yet others are a part of homeowners associations, military bases, trailer parks, and several other ownership models. One study found 26 ownership types in California alone. Generally, although with exceptions, privately owned water utilities answer to an economic regulator (such as a public utility commission) for issues such as rate-setting, whereas publicly owned utilities answer to their local governments (city council, utility board, etc.). The present governance structure is complex and varied, so what is the vision for the future of water utility governance? This is a seemingly simple question that generates many more complex questions. First, is having 50,000 community water systems viable over the long term? The entirety of the United Kingdom (albeit much smaller than the United States) has only a handful of systems. Does this highly decentralized management create resilience and sustainability, or are they impeded without an economy of scale? If smaller systems end up being consolidated, how do we ensure all are involved to form a just and appropriate arrangement? And how do we ensure that customers receive comparable quality of service while paying rates that will allow utilities to meet future challenges? Second, will one or a few of the governance models eventually emerge above the rest? There are valid pros and cons for every type of governance. A successful future utility is one that will plan for the long term while also meeting present needs. This means investing in today's maintenance as well as necessary infrastructure upgrades, and identifying local funding sources for both to ensure long-term sustainability. At the same time, this investment must not leave low-income customers with unmanageable bills. There is no question utility leaders have a difficult challenge ahead, no matter what governance model is chosen. Third, is our regulatory system working? Despite the incredible advances in public health through the SDWA's history, our national regulatory system has made strong strides in recent years (see the existing primary standards in the United States), and we continue to look for new opportunities for additional risk reduction (e.g., unregulated contaminant monitoring). At the same time, a great deal of time, effort, and money have been spent scrutinizing chemical contaminants with less health-risk certainty, with some efforts abandoned while others have unclear futures (as examples, the former push for carcinogenic volatile organic compounds regulations and perchlorate). Are we really focusing on the largest threats to public health and safety in the water community? Or should we be more focused on, as an example, identifying and remedying systems that are at risk of failure from technical, managerial, and financial deficiencies? I will be the first to admit I do not have the answers to these questions, and more than likely there is no single “right” answer. However, as a sector we need to be thinking about these and other hard questions so we can work toward viable answers. AWWA is already working with experts across the water community and in adjacent sectors to develop a long-term vision of what water might look like in the future, including the future of utility governance. I encourage everyone to participate in AWWA's Water 2050 process, which has already begun, with a goal to unveil a vision at ACE 2023. But this is just the beginning, and it will take many years to achieve the appropriate solutions resulting from these difficult questions. The future of water is in our hands! Adam T. Carpenter is the manager of energy and environmental policy at the AWWA Government Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at acarpenter@awwa.org.

Examining the association between safe drinking water act violations and adverse birth outcomes in Virginia

In 1974, the United States established the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to protect consumers from potential exposure to drinking water contaminants associated with health risks. Each contaminant is assigned a health-based standard meant to reflect the maximum level at which an adverse human health outcome is unlikely; measurements beyond that level have greater potential to result in adverse health outcomes. Although there is extensive research on human health implications following water contaminant exposure, few studies have specifically examined associations between fetal health and municipal drinking water violations. Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess whether SDWA drinking water violations are associated with fetal health outcomes, including preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW), and term-low birth weight (tLBW), in the Commonwealth of Virginia.Singleton births (n = 665,984) occurring between 2007 and 2015 in Virginia were geocoded and assigned to a corresponding estimated water service area. Health-based (HB) and monitoring and reporting (MR) violations for 12 contaminants were acquired from the US EPA Safe Drinking Water Information System, with exposure defined at the approximate service area level to limit exposure misclassification. A logistic regression model for each birth outcome assessed potential relationships with SDWA violations.When examining the association between individual MR violations and birth outcomes, Nitrate-Nitrite (OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.02, 1.18, P = 0.01) was positively associated with PTB and the total coliform rule was negatively associated with tLBW (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.87, 1.00, P = 0.04). These findings indicate that a lack of regular monitoring and reporting by water providers (resulting in monitoring and reporting violations) may be concealing health-based violations as these health concerns cannot be revealed without testing, suggesting a need for additional technical, managerial, and financial support to enable often-underfunded water systems to adhere to monitoring and reporting requirements meant to protect public health.

Outcomes of the Halliburton Loophole: Chemicals regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act in US fracking disclosures, 2014–2021

Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has enabled the United States to lead the world in gas and oil production over the past decade; 17.6 million Americans now live within a mile of an oil or gas well (Czolowski et al., 2017). This major expansion in fossil fuel production is possible in part due to the 2005 Energy Policy Act and its “Halliburton Loophole,” which exempts fracking activity from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). To begin quantifying the environmental and economic impacts of this loophole, this study undertakes an aggregate analysis of chemicals that would otherwise be regulated by SDWA within FracFocus, an industry-sponsored fracking disclosure database. This paper quantifies the total disclosures and total mass of these chemicals used between 2014 and 2021, examines trends in their use, and investigates which companies most use and supply them. We find that 28 SDWA-regulated chemicals are reported in FracFocus, and 62–73% of all disclosures (depending on year) report at least one SDWA-regulated chemical. Of these, 19,700 disclosures report using SDWA-regulated chemicals in masses that exceed their reportable quantities as defined under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Finally, while the most common direct-supplier category is “company name not reported,” Halliburton is the second-most named direct supplier of SWDA regulated chemicals. Halliburton is also the supplier most frequently associated with fracks that use SDWA regulated chemicals. These results show the necessity of a more robust and federally mandated disclosure system and suggest the importance of revisiting exemptions such as the Halliburton Loophole.

Land cover and community water system characteristics as predictors of Safe Drinking Water Act violations in Central Appalachia, USA

Upstream anthropogenic land cover can degrade source drinking water quality and thereby inhibit the ability of a community water system to provide safe drinking water. This study aimed to predict differences in Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) compliance between water systems based on upstream land cover in Central Appalachia and to examine whether national trends correlating violations with system size and source type were relevant for this region. Multiple generalized linear mixed models assessed relationships between SDWA violations and the distance weighted land cover proportions associated with the water system's contributing source watershed, as well as county economic status, system size, and water source. Results indicate that rates of monitoring and reporting violations were significantly higher for smaller water systems in more economically distressed counties. Interestingly, increases in surface mining landuse and high density development decreased monitoring and reporting violations, which may reflect impacts of associated economic development. Increases in low intensity development increased the likelihood of health-based violations. To protect public health, community managers should consider source water protection and/or upgrading drinking water system treatment capacity prior to developing previously undeveloped areas and further motivate compliance with monitoring and reporting requirements.

Ethnicity, Poverty, Race, and the Unequal Distribution of US Safe Drinking Water Act Violations, 2016-2018

ABSTRACT 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.

Review UCMR 5 Requirements

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized the Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 5) on Dec. 27, 2021. UCMR is a recurring national water quality monitoring program required by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Under this program, EPA is required to identify up to 30 unregulated contaminants for inclusion in the monitoring program to inform regulatory decisions for drinking water standards. EPA is currently preparing for UCMR 5 monitoring activities, which will begin Jan. 1, 2023, and finish Dec. 31, 2025.

LCRR Compliance Involves More Than Lead Service Lines

LCRR Compliance Involves More Than Lead Service Lines

Contribution of Toxicology in Sustainable Development

Contribution of Toxicology in Sustainable Development

Household Affordability in SDWA Rulemaking

The affordability of water service is a large and growing challenge for the sector. Utilities are facing substantial costs to upgrade infrastructure and to treat for emerging contaminants of concern, but also are grappling with how to fund these efforts without disproportionately impacting customers. So discussions around affordability at the household level are important not only in the strategic planning and day-to-day operation of water systems, but also for state and federal agencies considering new regulations. In these discussions, it's important to recognize that affordability is a complex issue, and household-level affordability and the consequences of policy changes cannot rest on a single metric like median household income. Many stakeholders, AWWA included, have long advocated for better analysis of rulemaking to identify whether rule requirements are likely to cause affordability problems to low-income customers. Understanding impacts on fiscally challenged households is an important step to determining what can be done to address those challenges while still ensuring access to safe and reliable drinking water supplies. Under current practice, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) prepares an extensive economic analysis for new Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulations. That analysis includes determining whether—across the nation as a whole—the health benefits of a rule are greater than the costs of implementation. USEPA looks specifically at the household-level cost implications of drinking water regulations only for small systems with the question of whether a small-system variance (i.e., a less expensive but equivalently protective compliance strategy) should be available. And USEPA prepares analyses to address several executive orders, including Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. The panel emphasized that analyzing impacts on household affordability is not meant to reduce health protections for low-income customers or anyone else. Instead, evaluating the impacts of regulatory options on household-level affordability should provide an opportunity to modify draft rule frameworks and implementation strategies to mitigate impacts on low-income households and consequently alleviate disparate impacts. The panel's work sets the stage for improving current SDWA decision-making processes, which in turn will help lead to more informed decisions across the sector. Although work remains to fully demonstrate the recommended analyses, they nevertheless pave the way for a more informed future. Adam T. Carpenter is the energy and environmental policy manager at the AWWA Government Affairs Office in Washington, D.C. He can be reached at acarpenter@awwa.org.