|
|
FYI
|
|
An adult drinks about 2 liters of water a day.
|
|
(Source: Richard Denison and John Ruston, eds., Recycling and
Incineration: Evaluating the Choices [Washington, D.C.: Island Press for the Environmental Defense Fund, 1990], 222.)
|
|
The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, enacted in 1974 and amended in 1986, 1991, and
1996 is designed to ensure safe drinking water by establishing drinking water standards for treated potable water and by creating special protection for sources of drinking water, including groundwater sources like San Antonio's sole source aquifer.
Under changes made in the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments, the EPA required
all public water systems to monitor for 16 inorganic (non-carbon compounds, such as nitrates, arsenic, fluoride, selenium) and 54 organic (any compound containing carbon)
contaminants for which maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) have been established. The number and levels of contaminants is constantly changing as new problems are
discovered. Currently, the EPA has developed MCLs for 7 types of bacterial or viral microorganisms; 7 standards for
disinfectants like chlorine or disinfectant products like bromate; 16 inorganic compounds; 54 organic compounds, and
4 radionuclides. In addition, the EPA has National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations in place for 15 compounds or
contaminants, including chloride, sulfate and pH, which can cause cosmetic -- skin discoloration -- or aesthetic effects, such as taste, odor or color.* In addition, the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require monitoring of
other "unregulated" organic chemicals for which levels have not yet established. Currently, some 35 contaminants are on the list, including Acetochlor, Diazinon and Perchlorate.
In Texas, the EPA has delegated authority for regulating drinking water to the state government. Currently, under
Chapter 341 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, the state requires water systems to test for 126 chemicals, of which
81 have maximum contaminant levels. In addition, the state requires public water suppliers to test for 16 secondary contaminants which can lead to odor or taste problems.
In 1998, EPA begun a rule-making process to establish a standard for Cryptosporidium, a pathogen that can
sometimes pass through disinfection and water treatment filtration to affect human health. In 1993 an outbreak of
cryptosporidiosis—a disease caused by the pathogen—in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, led to 400,000 affected residents, including 4,000 hospitalizations and at least 50 deaths.* The "Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule" and
"Stage 1 Disinfection Byproduct Rule" of 1998 were finalized in 2001 and 2002 and have led to standards for
Cryptosporidium as well more stringent standards for turbidity and disinfection by-products, including THMs --
trihalomethanes for most public surface water systems. The EPA is also promulgating rules for smaller systems and for
groundwater systems to protect public health both from bacteria and from disinfectant products. These newer, tougher
standards have caused many systems to fall out of compliance with drinking water standards.*
In addition to the new water treatment and disinfection byproduct rules, the EPA has toughened standards for
radionuclides, and in 2001, after a heated debate, adopted a tougher standard for Arsenic, a cancer-causing inorganic
compound which is found in many areas at naturally high levels. The EPA lowered the standard from 50 parts per
billion to 10 parts per billion, though systems will have until 2006 to comply with the new standard.*
|
FYI
|
|
Texas ranked ninth in the nation for the number of people affected by drinking
water violations between 1994 and 1996.
|
|
(Source: Clean Water Network, A Prescription for Clean Water: How
to Meet the Goals of the Clean Water Act [Washington, D.C., October 1997].)
|
|
As part of the 1996 amendments, Congress, for the first time, funded the drinking water
program by providing an estimated $9.6 billion over a six year period to states for improving drinking water infrastructure through the creation of state revolving funds,
similar to the funding for wastewater treatment plants. Between 1997 and 2001, over $3.8 billion in federal grants, state matches, transfers and other funds were allocated to
thousands of drinking water systems.* In Texas, the Texas Water Development Board is
charged with overseeing the fund, which provides low-interest loans to municipalities, utilities, irrigation districts, and other entities providing water for drinking. Texas receives
between $50 and $100 million per year through these federal funds. Between 1997 and June of 2001, the state appropriated nearly $300 million in federal and state funds for the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, and executed more than $160 million in loans.*
None of the funds can be dispersed without public participation in all aspects of the planning and implementation of the program.*
The passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act and subsequent enforcement of standards has helped to improve drinking
water in the U.S., yet problems remain. Despite the passage and implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act,
drinking water in the United States and Texas is not always completely safe to drink. In 2000, 94% of public water
systems in the U.S. reported no violations of a health-based drinking water standard. Still, overall, 42,000 public water
systems serving more than 10 million people violated either health-based standards or significant monitoring and reporting violations.* The vast majority of health-based violations are for failure to meet the Total Coliform Rule (TCR).
In Texas, violations are generally less common than nationally. According to EPA drinking water standards, Texas had
138 systems in violation for chemical contaminants, 129 systems for violations of the total coliform rule, and another 38
systems for violating the surface water treamtent or lead and copper rules.* Overall, there were 1,122 violations out of
6,672 regulated water systems, but many of these systems had multiple violations, and it is estimated that only four
percent of systems had health-based violations. In FY 2002, some 3.6 percent -- 240 systems -- serving 4.4 percent of
Texans had violations according to an EPA database, closely matching national levels (see Graph Below). In 1997 only
four percent of the population in Texas was served by public drinking water systems that did not meet health-based standards.* Still, problems with new contaminants surface continually. In 2002, El Campo, a farming community near
Houston, found trichloroethylene -- a cancer causing contaminant -- in the water supply, while 11 West Texas counties
were alerted by the TCEQ because of high levels of rocket-production related perchlorate -- one of the monitored, but unregulated contaminants.*
|
U.S. AND TEXAS POPULATIONS SERVED BY COMMUNITY DRINKING WATER
SYSTEMS VIOLATING HEALTH-BASED(Treatment Technique & Maximum Contaminant Level) REQUIREMENTS, FY 2002
|
|
|
|
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Safe Drinking Water
Information System, FY2002 Water System Data by State.
|
|
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality implements the Safe Drinking Water Act for the state,
and is charged with making sure that different types of public water systems regularly monitor their water supply, assessing the results, and enforcing the rules, including the maximum contaminant levels. In addition, under the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act, all states are required to develop a Source Water Assessment Program in which sources of regulated contaminants that could impact public water
supply sources are identified. This assessment program will lead to a publicly accessible database of information on each water source and its actual and
potential impacts of contamination sources. Currently, the TNRCC is implementing the program and the EPA is adopting rules. However, the first analysis from this
assessment will not be due for several years.
Still, while most Texans get their water from municipal water systems which are afforded these basic
protections, other residents of Texas receive their water supply from irrigation districts, individual water wells and increasingly, from bottled water. Each of
these sources have varying degrees of protection.
|
