United States
        Environmental Protection
        Agency
Office of Water
(4101)
EPA812-R-97-001
January 1997
&EPA  Drinking Water
        Infrastructure Needs Survey

        First Report to Congress
                   -«»".
                                  •xf*
                            9t*.*s-
                     ~*t-
                                 Printed on recycled paper

-------
Cincinnati's surface water treatment plant was upgraded in 1995 to include deep bed
carbon filtration. This process removes organic contaminants found in Cincinnati's
source, the Ohio River. The treatment plant (1) and untreated water storage (2) are
shown in the foreground. The intake (3) is shown on the opposite bank of the river.
The city and elevated finished-water storage tanks can be seen in the background.

-------
         Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey

       First Report to Congress
               January 1997

        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Office of Water
       Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
      Implementation and Assistance Division (4101)
            Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
Document is available for sale to the public through:

     Educational Resource Information Center
   Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and
     Environmental Education (ERIC/CSMEE)
      1929 Kenny, Columbus, OH 43210-1015
                 1-800-276-0462

                     -or-

      National Technical Information Service
   5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161
        1-800-553-NTIS or 1-703-487-4650

-------
Contents
                              Executive Summary
                              Overview
IX
                                    What the Survey Covers
                                    How the Survey Was Conducted
                              Findings
                                    Need for Compliance
                                    Total 20-Year Need
                                    Total Need by Category
                                    Need by System Size
                                    Need by Safe Drinking Water Act Regulation
                                    Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Water Systems
                                    Non-Community Water Systems
                                    Separate State Estimates
 1
 3
 7
 8
10
16
21
27
34
35
                              Need for Households Not Served by Community Water Systems     37
                              Appendices
                                    Appendix A — Methodology
                                    Appendix B — Summary of Findings
                                    Appendix C — Future Regulations Not Included in the Total Need
                                    Appendix D — Separate State Estimates
                                    Appendix E — Glossary

-------

-------
Exhibits
                                  Executive Summary

                                        ES-1  Total 20-Year Need by System Size
                                        ES-2  Total 20-Year Need by Category
                                        ES-3  Average 20-Year Per-Household Need
                                  Overview
                                             Small Drinking Water Systems in the Needs Survey Sample   5
                                  Findings
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

9

Total 20-Year Need
Overview of Need by State
Average 20-Year Per-Household Need
Overview of Need by System Size
Current Safe Drinking Water Act Need
Future Safe Drinking Water Act Need
Estimated Need for Future Regulations Not
Included in the Total Need
Location of American Indian Tribal Lands
and Alaska Native Water Systems
8
9
16
18
21
24

25

33
                                  Appendices
                                       A-1   Approach to Statistical Survey in the States               A-1
                                       B-1   Total Need by Category                                B-3
                                       B-2   Current Need by Category                             B-5
                                       B-3   Total Need by System Size                             B-7
                                       B-4   Current Safe Drinking Water Act Need                   B-9
                                       B-5   Total SDWA and SDWA-Related Need                   B-10
                                       B-6   Total Need for American Indian and Alaska Native
                                             Water Systems by EPA Region                        B-13
                                       B-7   Need by Category for American Indian and Alaska
                                             Native Water Systems                               B-15
                                       B-8   Total SDWA and SDWA-Related Need for American
                                             Indian and Alaska Native Water Systems                 B-17
                                       C-1   Estimated Need for Future Regulations Not Included
                                             in the Total Need                                     C-1
                                       D-1   Separate State Estimates                              D-1

-------
New York City's recently completed Van CortlandtPark valve chamber
regulates the flow of water into the city. The chamber houses 34 valves with a
total capacity of over 1 billion gallons per day.

-------
Acknowledgments
Many dedicated individuals contributed to the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey. We would like to thank the American Indian,
Alaska Native, State, and EPA Needs Survey Coordinators for their active support and continuing interest in the survey. Not listed are the
operators and managers of the approximately 4,000 water systems that spent their valuable time searching through their records and
completing the questionnaires we sent to them. We thank them for their assistance.
Cindy Thomas-Alaska Native Health Board
Stephen S. Aoyama, Richard Barror, Tom Coolidge, Karl
   Powers, Dan Schubert-Indian Health Service
Thomas E. Crawford-Native American Water Association
Yolanda Barney, Max Bighorse, Delfred Gene, Lorenda
   Joe-Navajo Nation EPA
David Saddler-Tohono O'Odham Utility Authority
Bernard Gajewski-Village Safe Water, ADEC

Jerome J. Healey, Robert M. Mendoza-EPA Region 1
Deborah Ducoff-Barone-Connecticut
David DiProfio-Maine
Jack Hamm-Massachusetts
Robert W. Haviland-Rhode Island
Richard Skarinka-New Hampshire
Howard Reeves-Vermont

R. K. Narang-EPA Region 2
Philip Royer-New Jersey
Laurence Keefe, Stephen S. Marshall-New York*
Frank Rivera Quintana, Oneida Santiago-Puerto Rico
David Rosoff-Virgin Islands

Don Niehus-EPA Region 3
Edward Hallock-Delaware
George Rizzo-District of Columbia
Saied Kasraei-Maryland
Renee Bartholemew, Thomas Franklin-Pennsylvania1
Thomas Gray-Virginia
Paul Daniels-West Virginia

David Parker-EPA Region 4
James Arnold-Alabama
John R. Sowerby-Florida
Onder E. Serefli-Georgia
Donald  Moccia-Kentucky
Keith Allen-Mississippi
Sidney L. Harrell-North Carolina
Rose R. Stancil-South Carolina
Khaldoun Kailani-Tennessee

Kristine L. Werbach-EPA Region 5
Charles R. Bell-Illinois
Lance 0. Mabry-lndiana
Donald J. Greiner, Frederick R. Scarcella-Michigan
Karla R. Peterson-Minnesota
Habib Kaake-Ohio
Terri S. Lloyd-Wisconsin1
Mark McCasland, David Reazin-EPA Region 6
Craig Corder-Arkansas
T Jay Ray-Louisiana
David Gallegos-New Mexico
Jack Pipkin-Oklahoma
Bill Allen, Wayne Wiley, Cynthia A. Yates-Texas*

Kelly Beard-Tittone-EPA Region 7
Roy G. Ney-lowa
A. Samuel Sunderraj-Kansas
Ronald G. Burgess-Missouri
Steven Rowell-Nebraska

Dale Murphy-EPA Region 8
John Payne-Colorado
Linda Hills-Montana
Charles A. Abel-North Dakota
Garland Erbele, James L. Wendte-South Dakota
Russ Topham-Utah
Maureen Doughtie-Wyoming

Jose T. Caratini-EPA Region 9
James A. Maston-Arizona
Karol Enferadi-California
William Wong-Hawaii
Joe Pollock-Nevada
Su Cox-Pacific Islands

Gerald Opatz-EPA Region 10
James R. Weise-Alaska
Alan Stanford-Idaho
Dave Phelps-Oregon
David Monthie-Washington*

EPA Off ice of Water
  Clive Davies-Needs Survey Coordinator
  Connie Bosma-Regulatory Implementation Branch Chief
Prime Contractor-The Cadmus Group, Inc.
  Ralph T. Jones-Program Manager
  Patricia Carroll Hertzler-Project Manager
  Dan L. Fraser-Small System Site Visits
  Special thanks to Michelle L. Young, Donna G. Jensen,
       Amy M. Blessinger, Elizabeth A. Holland, Robert W.
       Hughes, Ian P. Kline, and Sheila H. Potter
* EPA thanks individuals who participated in the pilot test conducted to ensure that this survey could be implemented as planned.
f EPA thanks individuals who provided information on the cost of infrastructure for smaller water systems.

-------
This partially demolished million gallon elevated storage tank had exceeded its
useful service life. Needs Survey respondents reported that elevated tanks of
this size would cost an average of$l million.

-------
Executive  Summary
 The nation's 55,000 community water systems must make
 significant investments to install, upgrade,  or replace infra-
 structure to ensure the provision of safe drinking water to their
 243 million customers. This first-ever national survey estimates
 that these systems must invest a minimum of $138.4 billion
 over the next 20 years. Of this total, $12.1 billion is needed now
 to meet current Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements.
       Over the past two years, the U.S.
       Environmental Protection
       Agency (EPA) has sponsored a
national survey of drinking water
infrastructure needs. In this unprec-
edented study, 4,000 community water
systems documented their infrastruc-
ture improvement needs for the next
20 years.

SDWA Need

  The current Safe Drinking Water Act
  (SDWA) need totals $12.1 billion.1
  Current SDWA needs are capital
  costs for projects needed now to
  ensure compliance with existing
  SDWA regulations.

  Treatment for microbiological
  contaminants under the SDWA
  accounts for $10.2 billion—about
  84 percent of the current SDWA
  need. Microbiological contaminants,
  regulated under the Surface Water
  Treatment Rule (SWTR) and Total
  Coliform Rule (TCR), can lead to
1 This figure is comparable to the capital needs
estimate from the 1993 Chafee-Lautenberg
Report to Congress.
gastrointestinal illness and, in
extreme cases, death. The SWTR
and TCR need is for construction of
new infrastructure at systems not
now in compliance and for replace-
ment of existing infrastructure that
no longer functions adequately. In
addition to the need associated with
the SWTR and TCR, almost $0.2 bil-
lion is needed to meet standards for
nitrate, which causes acute health
effects in children, and $1.7 billion  is
needed for contaminants that pose
chronic health risks.

It is important to note that the
current need attributable to the
SDWA is overstated. SDWA projects
often include components that are
not required for compliance but are
undertaken  at the same time  to
realize savings in design and
building costs. Another
component of the need would
exist even in the absence of the
SDWA because of State and
local requirements and
communities' efforts to provide
a consistent level of water
quality.
The Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey
is intended to meet the
requirements of Sections
1452(h) and 1452(i)(4) of the
Safe Drinking Water Act.

-------
x   Executive Summary
  Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                            In addition to the $12.1 billion
                            needed now to comply with the
                            SDWA, $4.2  billion will be needed
                            through the year 2014 for infrastruc-
                            ture replacement or improvement to
                            comply with existing SDWA
                            regulations.

                            Another $14.0 billion will be needed
                            for proposed regulations that will
                            protect against microbiological
                            contaminants and disinfection
                            byproducts.

                            An additional $35.7 billion is needed
                            for replacement of distribution
                            piping that poses a threat of coliform
                            contamination. Approximately
                            $22.3 billion of this total is needed
                            now. Distribution piping replace-
                            ment is categorized as a SDWA-
                            related need because the monitoring
                            required under the TCR helps to
                            identify problems in the distribution
                            system. However, these problems
                            would exist in the absence of TCR
                            monitoring and would eventually
  Exhibit ES-1:  Total 20-Year Need by System Size
              (in billions of Jan. '95 dollars)
System Size
Large Systems
(serving more than 50,000 people)
Medium Systems
(serving 3,301 to 50,000 people)
Small Systems
(serving 3,300 and fewer people)
American Indian and
Alaska Native Systems
Total
Total Need
$58.5
$41.4
$37.2
$1.3
$138.4
  degrade water quality to the extent
  that problems would be detected
  without the TCR.

Total Need

•I The total infrastructure investment
  need is large—$138.4 billion. As
  shown in Exhibit ES-1, the largest
  share of the need, $58.5 billion, is for
  infrastructure improvements at large
  water systems. Medium and small
  water systems also have substantial
  needs at $41.4 billion and $37.2 bil-
  lion. American Indian and Alaska
  Native water systems have needs
  totaling $1.3 billion. The total need
  includes the SDWA need.

U Over $76.8 billion is for infrastruc-
  ture improvements that are needed
  now to protect public health.
  Projects for these improvements are
  defined as current needs. Current
  needs include projects such as
  source, storage, treatment, and
  water main improvements necessary
  to minimize the risk of contamina-
  tion of water supplies.

  The remaining $61.6 billion is for
  future needs, which are projects
  designed to  provide safe drinking
  water through the year 2014. Future
  needs include projects to replace
  existing infrastructure. A portion of
  the future need is for proposed
  regulations.

  The estimate of total need is
  conservative. Many systems were
  unable to identify all of their needs
  for the full 20-year period. In some
  cases, systems were not able to
  provide documentation for all of
  their identified needs. In  addition,
  the survey examined only the needs
  of community water systems; non-
  community water systems, such as

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                         Executive Summary   xi
  schools and churches with their own
  water systems, were not included.
  Needs associated solely with future
  growth were also excluded from this
  survey.

Categories of Need

  The single largest category of need
  is installation and rehabilitation of
  transmission and distribution
  systems. As shown in Exhibit ES-2,
  the total 20-year need for this
  category is $77.2 billion.

  Sound transmission and distribution
  systems are critical to protecting the
  public from contaminants that cause
  acute illness. Deteriorated  distribu-
  tion piping can allow water in the
  distribution system to become
  contaminated and can lead to
  interruptions in water service.
  Transmission line failure can lead to
  interruptions in treatment and water
  service. Most needs in this category
  involve the replacement of existing
  pipe. In some cases, wooden mains
  that have been in service for  more
  than 100 years must be replaced. In
  other instances, pipe that is severely
  undersized, or that has exceeded its
  useful service life, must be replaced.
  Such  pipe often leaks and is prone to
  high rates of breakage, which can
  lead to contamination.

• Treatment needs constitute the
  second largest category of need. The
  total 20-year need for this category is
  $36.2 billion.

  All surface water and a significant
  percentage of ground water must be
  treated before it can be considered
  safe to drink. Over half of all
  treatment needs ($20.2 billion) are to
  reduce the threat from contaminants
  that can cause acute health effects.
One in every four systems needs to
improve its treatment for these
contaminants. In addition, treatment
infrastructure must be installed,
upgraded, or replaced to improve
treatment for contaminants that pose
chronic health risks, or for contami-
nants that cause taste  and odor or
other aesthetic problems.

Storage needs are the third largest
category of need. The total 20-year
need for this category is $12.1 billion.

Storage ensures the positive water
pressure necessary to  prevent
contaminants from entering the
system. Storage also provides water
during periods of peak usage.
Storage facilities require periodic
rehabilitation to ensure their
structural integrity and to prevent the
entry and growth of microbiological
contaminants.
     Exhibit ES-2: Total 20-Year Need by Category
               (in billions of Jan. '95 dollars)
                  Source
                 $11.0(8%)
    Transmission
   and Distribution
     $77.2 (56%)
                                             Treatment
                                            $36.2 (26%)
                                                 Storage
                                                $12.1 (9%)
 Other
$1.9(1%)

-------
xii  Executive Summary
                                   Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                          • The fourth category of need is
                            source rehabilitation and develop-
                            ment. The total 20-year need for this
                            category is $11.0 billion.

                            Source rehabilitation and develop-
                            ment is necessary for systems to
                            continue to provide an adequate
                            quantity and  quality of drinking
                            water.

                            An additional $1.9 billion in need is
                            categorized as "other." These needs
                            include projects to protect water
                            systems against earthquake damage,
                            automate treatment plant opera-
                            tions, and improve laboratory
                            facilities.

                          Unique Needs of Small
                          Systems

                          Of the nation's  55,000 community
                          water systems,  approximately 46,500
                          are small systems which serve up to
                          3,300 persons each. There are small
                          systems in every State, and together
                          they serve about 10 percent of the
                          nation's population.
  Exhibit ES-3:  Average 20-Year Per-Household Need
              (Total need in Jan. '95 dollars)
                                                    $43,500


$970
I ,
$1,200


$3,300


$6,200




       Large
                  Medium
Small       American
           Indian
Alaska
Native
                                 The total need facing these systems is
                                 $37.2 billion, about 27 percent of the
                                 total national need. Exhibit ES-3 shows
                                 per-household need by system size.
                                 Customers of small systems face a
                                 particularly heavy burden because
                                 these systems lack economies of scale.
                                 As a result, their average per-house-
                                 hold costs are significantly higher than
                                 those of medium and large systems.

                                 American Indian and Alaska
                                 Native Systems

                                 Estimated needs for the 884 American
                                 Indian and Alaska Native systems total
                                 $1.3 billion over 20 years. American
                                 Indian and Alaska Native systems have
                                 a small total need compared to
                                 systems regulated by the States, but
                                 their need is significant in terms of
                                 household cost and impact on public
                                 health and quality of life. Per-house-
                                 hold needs are high for the customers
                                 of these systems — they average
                                 $6,200 for American Indians and
                                 $43,500 for Alaska Natives over the
                                 20-year period covered by the survey.

                                 More than 98 percent of American
                                 Indian and Alaska Native water
                                 systems are small. These systems
                                 share challenges common to most
                                 small systems.

                                 American Indian and Alaska Native
                                 systems are often located in arid
                                 regions, where water sources are
                                 difficult to obtain. Natural conditions
                                 such as permafrost can make construc-
                                 tion very expensive. Many small
                                 systems minimize costs by joining with
                                 other water systems. But since
                                 American Indian and Alaska Native
                                 water systems are often remote, this
                                 option  is rarely available to them. They
                                 must find, treat, and distribute their
                                 own water.
                             Systems

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                          Executive Summary  xiii
Households Not Served by
Community Water Systems

This survey does not address the
needs of the approximately 16 million
households not served by community
water systems. Many of these house-
holds have safe sources of running
water, but an undetermined number do
not. Some households that lack safe
running water are close to existing
community water systems, and some
survey respondents estimated costs for
connecting this type of household.
Six billion dollars is a partial estimate
for providing water to households that
do not have a safe source of drinking
water. Unfortunately, connecting to an
existing community water system is
not an option for all such homes.
Further study is necessary to deter-
mine the full scope of this problem.

Methodology

The Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey was a joint effort of the
nation's drinking water utilities, State
drinking water  regulatory agencies,
representatives of American Indians
and Alaska Natives, the Indian Health
Service (IMS), and EPA. The survey
benefited from the unanimous support
of every organization  representing
drinking water  utilities.

The survey included community water
systems from every State, Puerto Rico,
the District of Columbia, the Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, the Northern
Mariana Islands, and Guam, as well as
American Indian and Alaska Native
systems. The survey's scope ranged
from systems serving more than
15 million people to those serving only
25. Urban and rural water systems,
both publicly and privately owned,
were surveyed.
Of the 794 large water systems, which
serve more than 50,000 people, 784
participated through a mail survey. All
systems serving more than 110,000
people responded to the survey. Of the
6,800 medium systems serving a
population of 3,301  to 50,000, a
random sample of 2,760 systems was
drawn. Ninety-three percent of these
systems responded to the mail survey.
To ensure an accurate estimate of
infrastructure needs for the 46,500
small systems nationwide, drinking
water professionals made on-site
determinations of need for 537 sys-
tems serving 3,300 or fewer people.
The small system needs assessment
covered every State. The results of the
statistical surveys were extrapolated to
estimate needs for small and medium
community water systems.

-------
xiv  Executive Summary
  Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                           All 15 medium American Indian
                           systems responded to the question-
                           naire. Of the 869 small American Indian
                           and Alaska Native systems, needs were
                           assessed for 77 representative
                           systems. Needs for these sampled
                           systems, in conjunction with IMS data,
                           were used to derive needs for Ameri-
                           can Indian and Alaska Native systems.

                           EPA and State drinking water regula-
                           tors thoroughly reviewed each
                           system's estimates and supporting
                           documents to ensure the validity and
                           accuracy of the proposed projects and
                           associated  costs. The most common
                           sources of documentation  were capital
                           improvement plans and engineers'
                           estimates.
A distribution main break resulted in extensive damage to
this Brooklyn street.
Conclusions

Community water systems need to
invest significant amounts of money in
infrastructure improvements if they are
to continue providing water that is safe
to drink. Much of the nation's drinking
water infrastructure suffers from long-
term neglect and serious deterioration.
Recent events—including waterborne
disease outbreaks and extended boil-
water notices in major cities—have
focused national attention on the
dangers associated with contamination
of public water supplies. Current needs
for minimizing health threats from
microbiological contaminants—those
needs associated with the SWTR and
the TCR—are especially critical.

Water systems around the country
must make immediate investments  in
infrastructure to protect public health
and ensure the availability of safe
drinking water.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Executive Summary   xv
   This dug well is vulnerable to contamination from nearby farming
   and grazing. After rainfall, water from the well is cloudy and often
   contains microbiological contaminants. Water from this well must
   be filtered and disinfected before it can be considered safe to drink.
   The bottles contain water taken from the well after rainfall.

-------
Scanning electron micrograph of the pathogen Giardia lamblia in the trophozoite stage of its life
cycle. Giardia is a microbiological contaminant that can cause acute illness. About 84percent of
current SDWA need is to protect against microbiological contaminants.

-------
Findings
      Community water systems
      nationwide face significant
      infrastructure needs to protect
public health and ensure the availabil-
ity of safe drinking water. This section
of the report presents the estimated
capital costs for SDWA compliance and
the total 20-year infrastructure need. It
also  describes the infrastructure need
by category and discusses how the
need impacts each system size. The
section discusses needs for American
Indian and Alaska Native water
systems. Appendix B contains a
detailed breakdown of the need.

Need for Compliance

Community water systems nationwide
need $12.1  billion now for compliance
with  the SDWA. Eighty-four percent of
this need is to protect against micro-
biological contaminants that pose an
acute health risk.

The current need attributable to the
SDWA is overstated. SDWA projects
often include components that are not
required for compliance but are
undertaken at the same time to realize
efficiencies in operation as well as
savings in design and building costs.
For instance, a state-of-the-art
computerized system for monitoring
and control of operations in the entire
system may be included  in a project for
a new filter plant. Only the filter plant—
and the component of the computer
system used for the filter plant—is a
SDWA need, but the Needs Survey is
likely to have  recorded the need for
both as one SDWA project. Another
component of the need would exist
even in the absence of the
SDWA because of State and
local requirements and
communities' efforts to provide
a consistent level of water
quality.
The Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey places the current
Safe Drinking Water Act need at
$12.1 billion.
In addition to the $12.1 billion
needed now for SDWA
compliance, $18.2 billion is a future
need to maintain compliance over the
next 20 years. Taken together, the
largest portion of the current and
future SDWA need is for installing or
upgrading filtration plants to treat for
microbiological contaminants. Projects
to install or upgrade storage tanks or
transmission lines for disinfectant
contact time are also included. Other
SDWA needs include projects to
address exceedances of EPA safety
standards for nitrate, which has an
acute health effect, or for contaminants
that cause chronic health effects.

Community water systems have an
additional current need of $22.3 billion
and a future need of $13.5 billion for
replacing deteriorated distribution
piping. These needs are categorized as
SDWA-related  because the monitoring
required under the TCR  helps to
identify problems in the distribution
system. However, these problems
would exist even in the absence of TCR
monitoring and would eventually
degrade water quality and service to
the extent that problems would be
detected without the TCR.

-------
8   Findings
  Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                          Total 20-Year Need

                          Drinking water infrastructure needs for
                          the nation's community water systems
                          total $138.4 billion. Of this total,
                          $76.8 billion is for current needs to
                          protect public health. Current needs
                          are projects to treat for contaminants
                          with acute and chronic health effects
                          and to prevent contamination of water
                          supplies. A portion of these needs are
                          for SDWA compliance.

                          Of the $138.4 billion total, $61.6 billion
                          is for future need. Projects for future
                          need are designed to provide safe
                          drinking water through the year 2014.
                          Future needs include projects for
                          replacing infrastructure and for the
                          Disinfectants and Disinfection
                          Byproducts  Rule (D/DBPR), the
                          Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
                          Rule (ESWTR), and the Information
                          Collection Rule (ICR).
The needs in this report are conserva-
tive because many systems were not
able to identify all of their needs or
document them well enough to meet
the survey's criteria. In addition, needs
for non-community water systems are
not included. Needs associated solely
with future growth were not included
in this survey.

Exhibit 2 shows the total infrastructure
need by category and  water system
size. Exhibit 3 shows need on a State-
by-State  basis.
                                  Exhibit 2: Total 20-Year Need
System Size
Large Systems
(serving more than
50,000 people)
Medium Systems
(serving 3,301 to
50,000 people)
Small Systems
(serving 3,300 and
fewer people)
American Indian and
Alaska Native
Systems
Total
Total Need (in billions of Jan. '95 dollars)
Transmission
and
Distribution
$30.5
$22.2
$23.8
$0.6
$77.2
Treatment
$17.2
$12.0
$6.7
$0.3
$36.2
Storage
$3.5
$4.2
$4.2
$0.3
$12.1
Source
$5.6
$2.8
$2.5
$0.1
$11.0
Other
$1.6
$0.3
$0.04
$0.03
$1.9
Total
$58.5
$41.4
$37.2
$1.3
$138.4
  Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                                                                                        Findings   9
                                   Exhibit 3:  Overview of Need by Statet
                                                                                                     o o
                                                                                                   o o o
                                                                                                  oo oo
                                                                                                   0000
                                                                                                  00000
                                                                                                oooooo
                                                                                             ooooooooo
                                                                                              o o
 oooooo
 0000000
oooo o oo
   ooo o o
   0000
    0000
     ooo oo
    o oo oooo
     0000000
    00000000
     oooooooo
         o oooooo
          oooooo
           00000
           oooo
                                           oooo
                                          o o o o o
                                           oooo
                                          o o o o o
                                           oooo
                                          oooooo
                                          ooooooooo
                                          ooooooooooooooo
                                          oooooooooooooooo
                                          oooooooooooooooo
                                    oo ooTroooo ooooooooooooo
                                     0000000000000000000000
                                     0000000000000000000000
                                       000000000000000000000
                                       ooooooooooooooooooooo
                                              oooooooooooooo
                                               oooooooooooo
                                                 oooooooooo
                                                ooooooooo
                                                  oooooo
                                                   ooooo
                                                   oooo
                                                    ooo
                                                    o o
                                                      o
                                                                                          20-year need in millions of
                                                                                          Jan. '95 dollars
                                                                                              Less than $1,000
                                                                                              $1,000-$1,999
                                                                                              $2,000-$2,999

                                                                                              $3,000 -$10,000
                                                                                              More than $10,000
                     i   Northern Mariana Is
Not to scale
                    Needs for American Indian and Alaska Native water systems are not included in this exhibit.
                    ' The need for American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands is less than $1 billion each.

-------
 10   Findings
  Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Tuberculation is a condition that affects the interior of pipes in many
water systems. Tuberculation can decrease water quality and leads to
loss of energy and capacity.
Total Need by Category

There are four major categories of
need: transmission and distribution,
treatment, storage, and source.
Exhibit 2 (on page 8) shows the  need
by category. A portion of each category
is attributable to the SDWA.

Transmission and Distribution.
Transmission and distribution needs
account for  $77.2 billion, more than
half of the total need for community
water systems. Deteriorating distribu-
tion infrastructure threatens drinking
water quality and can cause violations
of the SDWA. Even in systems with
excellent treatment, leaking pipes can
lead to a loss of pressure and cause
back-siphonage of contaminated water.
Leaks also waste  water and energy as
treated water escapes from the
distribution  system. Deteriorating
transmission and distribution infra-
structure is  common throughout the
nation, particularly in older systems.
                                                                  Back-Siphonage

                                             Water mains are pressurized to deliver water to residents and to
                                             keep contaminants from entering the water system. Systems can
                                             lose pressure or even experience a partial vacuum during fire
                                             flows, repairs, or line breaks. Loss of pressure is dangerous
                                             because it can lead to back-siphonage, where contaminants are
                                             drawn into the water system through leaks. The danger becomes
                                             greater as the condition of the pipe becomes worse, allowing more
                                             leaks and more opportunities for the water to be contaminated.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                             Findings   11
                      Transmission and Distribution Needs—Three Examples
                       Niagara Falls, NY—During World
                       War II, the federal government
                       installed approximately 8 1/2 miles of
                       "victory pipe" as large diameter
                       transmission and distribution mains to
                       ensure a reliable water supply for
                       defense industries in the city. Because
                       of demand for metal during the war,
                       this pipe is thin-walled and prone to
                       frequent and costly line breaks. The
                       deteriorating victory pipe constitutes
                       only 3 percent of the total pipe in the
                       city, but claims one quarter of the city's
                       expenditures for water main repair and
                       replacement. Breaks and leaks in the
                       victory pipe could lead to microbiologi-
                       cal contamination of the water supply
                       and seriously threaten public health.
Butte, MT—Butte was developed as a
mining community in the late 1800's
and much of the infrastructure that was
installed then remains in place today.
The distribution system was con-
structed primarily of 6-inch diameter
thin-walled steel pipe. Some wooden
pipe was also used, but most of it has
been replaced. While 30,000 feet of the
steel pipe has been replaced, the water
system estimates that an additional
100,000 feet is still in service. A four
person "leak gang" works six days a
week in Butte, fixing up to 600 leaks
and breaks per year.

Huntington, IN—In December 1995,
city residents were  forced to boil their
water for a week when a city water
main broke. The 7-foot crack in the
main caused businesses and schools in
the area to close temporarily.
                                                              Three members of the Butte,
                                                              Montana leak gang.

-------
12   Findings
  Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Scanning electron micrograph of the pathogen Giardia lamblia in
the cyst stage of their life cycle. Giardia is one microbiological
contaminant found in surface waters throughout the country.
Treatment. Treatment is the second
largest category of need, representing
$36.2 billion (26 percent) of the total
infrastructure need for community
water systems.

About $20.0 billion is needed for
treatment of microbiological contami-
nants which can cause acute health
effects. These contaminants are usually
associated with gastrointestinal illness
and, in extreme cases, death. They can
strike in a matter of hours or days. To
minimize the risk of microbiological
contamination, 35 percent of systems
that use surface water sources need to
install, replace, or upgrade filtration
plants.

A smaller portion of the treatment
need, approximately $0.2 billion, is
associated with nitrate. Nitrate poses
an acute health threat. High levels can
interfere with the ability of an infant's
blood to carry oxygen. This potentially
fatal condition is called "blue baby
syndrome."

Almost $10.7 billion is needed for
treatment of contaminants with chronic
health effects. These effects include
cancer and birth defects. The largest
needs among contaminants with
chronic health effects are treatment for
byproducts of disinfection and for lead.
Some disinfection byproducts are toxic
and some are probable carcinogens.
Exposure to lead can impair the mental
development of children.

Another $5.3 billion is needed for
treatment of secondary contaminants.
Secondary contaminants affect the
taste, odor, and color of water.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                                                    Findings   13
                       The Costs of Failed Treatment—Three Examples
   Boiling Tap Water
   Purchase Bottled Water
   Purchase Alternative Beverages
   Purchase Safe Ice*
   Costs to Hospitals
   Costs to Restaurants
   Total
Washington, DC—In 1993, the DC
metropolitan area experienced a
decrease in source water quality that
coincided with operational problems.
Water not meeting federal standards
entered the distribution system. The
                       problem was
                       identified and
                       EPA and the
                       State of
                       Virginia
                       issued a boil-
Cost of the DC Boil Notice
  (Estimated in '93 dollars)

                      $7,000,000
                      $8,000,000
                      $3,340,000
                      $4,000,000
                        $126,500
                      $1.484.800
                     $23,951,300
   * And other water-based products
                       water notice
                       to area
                       residents,
                       preventing
                       any reported
                       cases of
                       illness. But
                       the lapse in
                       treatment did
                       carry a cost.
According to conservative estimates,
the four-day boil notice cost the city
and its residents approximately
$24 million and inconvenienced
residents and tourists who were forced
to find alternative sources of drinking
water.
Milwaukee, Wl—In 1993, Milwaukee
experienced a decrease in treated
water quality similar to that in
Washington, DC. The consequences for
residents of Milwaukee, however, were
far more serious than for residents  of
Washington. Contamination in the
Milwaukee water supply led to over
400,000 reported cases of illness and
some 100  deaths. Milwaukee has since
upgraded  its filtration facilities.

Ethete, WY—This small  American
Indian community uses direct pressure
filtration to treat a surface water source
which deteriorates in quality during
spring run-off. The existing plant,
though well-maintained and
well-operated, is unable to treat the
highly turbid water adequately, and the
community must issue boil-water
orders for extended periods of time
during the spring and summer. The
community has considered alternative
ground water sources, but this option
is not feasible because of quality and
quantity problems. Therefore, the
community needs to build a more
appropriate treatment plant for the
existing surface water source.
                       Pressure filters at Ethete

-------
14  Findings
  Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
      This rural midwestern well is poorly located. Grazing and farming
      around the well house pose a threat through microbiological and
      nitrate contamination.
Storage. Projects to build new storage
or rehabilitate existing facilities
constitute $12.1 billion, or 9 percent of
the total  need. Storage is critical
because  it ensures the positive water
pressure necessary to prevent
contaminants from entering the
system. It also provides water for
periods when demand exceeds the
capacity  of source and treatment
facilities. Two-thirds of water systems
reported a need for improvements to
storage facilities.

Storage needs usually include building
or repairing conventional tanks.
Another significant need is associated
with uncovered finished-water
reservoirs. These  large reservoirs are
vulnerable to contamination. Covering
these reservoirs is a priority for most
cities that have them.

Source. Needs for source rehabilita-
tion or development account for  more
than $11.0 billion, or 8 percent of the
total need. Source development is a
small portion of the total need, but an
important step in the provision of safe
drinking water and compliance with
the SDWA. Poor-quality source water
can threaten public health and force a
system to use expensive treatment.

Adequate source quantity is also an
important consideration. A source
must meet demand on a hot summer
day or during fire flow to prevent back-
siphonage of contaminated water.
Back-siphonage results from low
pressure in the distribution system.
Source needs range from huge new
surface water reservoirs for large
metropolitan  areas, such as Los
Angeles, to new wells for very small
systems.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                              Findings   15
                     Storage and Source Needs—Two Examples
                     Metropolitan Boston, MA—Many
                     systems reported needs for covering
                     reservoirs used to store finished
                     water—water that is ready for human
                     consumption. Uncovered reservoirs
                     can be contaminated through surface
                     water run-off or through direct human
                     and animal contact. According to a
                     recent analysis completed by the
                     Massachusetts Water Resources
                     Authority (MWRA) Advisory Board,
                     water quality is lower in communities
                     that receive water from uncovered
                     reservoirs than in communities that
                     receive water from covered storage
                     reservoirs and tanks. The possibility of
                     contamination of water in MWRA's
                     Fells Reservoir threatens drinking
                     water quality for several cities north of
                     Boston. MWRA has plans to construct
                     a 20 million gallon covered storage
                     facility at the site of the current Fells
                     Reservoir.
San Juan, Puerto Rico—Due to the
high organic and inorganic content of
its source waters, sediment collects
quickly in San Juan's reservoirs.
Sedimentation has caused a severe
shortage of supply and degraded
aesthetic and biological water quality.
The two reservoirs serving this area,
Lago Lofza and Lago La Plata, have
experienced capacity reductions of
54 percent and 53 percent respectively.
To restore capacity, the reservoirs will
be dredged for a combined cost of
about $150 million. Shortages of safe
drinking water have led to mandatory
water rationing throughout the island.
    MWRA's Fells Reservoir
    is used for storage of
    finished water.

-------
16   Findings
                                     Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                          Need by System Size

                          The need attributable to large,
                          medium, and small water systems is
                          different in each State. Exhibit 5 (on
                          pages 18 and 19) shows State-by-State
                          need for each system size.

                          Large drinking water systems consti-
                          tute a small fraction of the community
                          water systems in the nation, but they
                          provide water to more than half of the
                          population served by community water
                          systems. Small systems, in contrast,
                          make up the vast majority of systems,
                          but serve only about 10 percent of the
                          population. In spite of their differences,
                          the survey found that all system sizes
                          had similar types of needs. For
                          example, the largest  category of need
                          for all three system sizes was transmis-
                          sion and distribution. This category
                          accounted for over half of the needs for
                          each system size.
    Exhibit 4: Average 20-Year Per-Household Need
              (Total need in Jan. '95 dollars)
                                                $3,300
                                   The total need for large systems is
                                   significantly higher than the need for
                                   medium or small systems—$58.5 bil-
                                   lion. On a per-household basis,
                                   however, this need is the smallest of
                                   the three system sizes, as shown in
                                   Exhibit 4.

                                   Medium systems have the second-
                                   largest total need—$41.4 billion. These
                                   systems typically serve small metro-
                                   politan areas and suburban towns.
                                   They serve about a third of the
                                   population nationally and provide
                                   water to over half of the residents in 10
                                   States, including Alabama, Idaho,
                                   Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, North
                                   Dakota, South Carolina, Vermont, West
                                   Virginia, and Wyoming. The smallest of
                                   the medium systems have operating
                                   and financial characteristics similar  to
                                   small systems.

                                   Unique Needs of Small Systems

                                   The infrastructure need for small
                                   systems totals $37.2 billion. Although
                                   this is the smallest need of the three
                                   system sizes, it represents the largest
                                   per-household need, as shown in
                                   Exhibit 4. Small systems are located
                                   throughout the country. Most States
                                   have hundreds of these systems. Some
                                   are villages or small towns, others are
                                   retirement communities and mobile
                                   home parks. Although many small
                                   systems are located in rural areas, a
                                   significant number are found in
                                   metropolitan areas.
           Large
 Medium

Systems
                                                 Small

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                                     Findings   17
Per-household costs are high for small
systems because they lack economies
of scale. The fixed costs of infrastruc-
ture must be spread over a small
customer base, resulting in a higher
cost for each gallon produced.

In many instances, water from small
systems poses public health  risks
because system components were
improperly designed and constructed.
Many small systems were built without
review of plans and specifications and
were not required to adhere  to
minimum design and construction
standards. In some cases, entire water
systems must be replaced.

Eighty-one percent of small systems
need to upgrade distribution systems.
Systems with poorly designed
distribution mains often suffer from
low pressure problems and the
associated risk of contamination.

Most small systems use ground water
sources. In this type of system, the
absence of disinfection can be a
pressing public health concern.
Disinfection minimizes the threat from
microbiological contaminants that can
cause severe gastrointestinal illness
and sometimes lead to death. Over
10 percent of small ground water
systems have a current need to install
or replace disinfection.

Two-thirds of small systems  need to
improve their sources, which are
usually wells. Older wells often
become clogged with sediment or
encrusted with calcium carbonate or
iron bacteria.
This water system on the Mexican border serves a minority community of about
175 people. The system stores its water in a deteriorated hydropneumatic tank.
Small diameter galvanized steel mains make up the distribution system, and service
lines consist of ordinary garden hoses. The condition of this system currently
presents acute health risks to the residents of this community. The small diameter
mains pose a threat through back-siphonage. The hoses pose a threat through
accidental cross-connection or breakage. While one solution to the community's
water problems is to replace all system components, another is to replace the
distribution system and to connect to the city system, which has a main only 50 feet
away. Connecting to the larger system would be the best and most cost effective
solution.

-------
  18   Findings
                   Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                            Exhibit 5:  Overview of Need by System Sizet
                                          Total Need for All System Sizes
                                           $137.1 billion in Jan. '95 dollars
                                                                                         State need as a percent of the total
                                                                                         20-year need for each system size.
                                                Large System Need
                                          $58.5 billion in Jan. '9!
                                   I  I - Less than 1 percent
                                   I  I - 1 to 1.99 percent
                                   • - 2 to 2.99 percent
                                   B - 3 percent or more
Not to scale
not include the need for American Indian or Alaska Native water systems.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
        Findings   19
                         Exhibit 5:  Overview of Need by System Size (cont.)
                                                Medium System Need
                                            $41.4 billion in Jan.  '95 dollars
                                                  Small System Need
                                             $37.2 billion in Jan. '95 dollars
                                                                                          State need as a percent of the total
                                                                                          20-year need for each system size.
I  I- Less than 1 percent
I  I- 1 to 1.99 percent
• - 2 to 2.99 percent
B - 3 percent or more
Not to scale
                     The need for American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands is less than 1 percent each.

-------
20   Findings
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
      This well in New York State supplies water to a small system.
      The well is located in a pit, making it vulnerable to contamina-
      tion through flooding. The pit is also an unventilated confined
      space. In such spaces, the atmosphere can become poisonous
      and dangerous for the operator. The chlorine bottles are
      evidence that short-term ineffectual attempts have been made to
      control microbiological contamination. This well should be
      reconstructed so that it can provide safe water and not pose a
      threat to the operator.
                                                                    Poorly constructed wells can also lead
                                                                    to public health risks. Water drawn
                                                                    from improperly constructed wells
                                                                    faces an increased risk of microbiologi-
                                                                    cal contamination. Poor siting can also
                                                                    lead to contamination. For example,
                                                                    wells located near sources of contami-
                                                                    nation such as septic systems, feed
                                                                    lots, fuel tanks, or pesticide storage are
                                                                    at risk.

                                                                    Small systems also have a substantial
                                                                    need to treat for secondary contami-
                                                                    nants such as iron and manganese.
                                                                    Over 5,000 small systems have a need
                                                                    to treat for these contaminants, at a
                                                                    cost of $2.2 billion. Although these
                                                                    contaminants do not pose a direct
                                                                    health risk, they affect taste, odor, and
                                                                    color. As a result,  consumers may seek
                                                                    alternative drinking water sources that
                                                                    are aesthetically acceptable, but may
                                                                    contain contaminants that pose serious
                                                                    health risks.

                                                                    For small systems located near larger
                                                                    systems, the least costly way to resolve
                                                                    infrastructure needs may be to connect
                                                                    with a larger system. According to the
                                                                    survey, this would be the most cost
                                                                    effective way to protect  public health
                                                                    for over 13 percent of small systems.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                                    Findings   21
Need by Safe Drinking Water
Act Regulation

Needs for maintaining compliance with
the SDWA constitute a portion of each
category of need. SDWA needs include
projects for treatment of contaminants
regulated under the Act. SDWA needs
also include projects to replace
contaminated sources and storage or
to improve transmission lines that
provide disinfectant contact time.

Current SDWA Need

Capital costs for projects needed now
to ensure compliance are defined as
current SDWA needs. Exhibit 6
summarizes the current SDWA and
SDWA-related need.

Existing Regulations. Approximately
$12.1  billion is needed now for
compliance with the SDWA. Treatment
for microbiological contaminants
regulated under the SWTR and the TCR
accounts for $10.2 billion—about
84 percent of the current SDWA need.
These contaminants can lead to
gastrointestinal illness and, in extreme
cases, death. Almost $0.2 billion is
needed to meet standards for nitrate,
which has acute health effects for
children, and $1.7 billion is needed for
contaminants that pose chronic health
risks.

The current SDWA need is overstated.
Many SDWA projects include compo-
nents that are related but not attribut-
able to the SDWA. Also, federal
regulations are one of many factors
that drive investment in drinking water
facilities. States had standards in place
prior to the SDWA that would have
eventually required systems to invest
in many of the projects included in the
survey. Regardless of regulations,
infrastructure approaching the end of
its useful life must be rehabilitated and
replaced to provide a consistent level
of water quality and service. The
enactment of the SDWA and the
promulgation of its regulations has,
however, placed more stringent
monitoring and treatment require-
ments on many systems. In many
cases, these requirements have
prompted systems to act sooner to
solve their public health problems than
they would have in the absence  of the
SDWA. It is impossible to ascertain
how much of the need would exist in
the absence of the SDWA.
     Exhibit 6:  Current Safe Drinking Water Act Need
                 (in billions of Jan. '95 dollars)
Existing Regulations
Surface Water Treatment Rule*
Total Coliform Rule*
Nitrate Standard*
Lead & Copper Rule
Phase I, II, & V Rules (chemical contaminants)
Total Trihalomethanes Standard
Other Standards1
Total Existing Regulations
SDWA-Related Need
Distribution Improvements (TCR)*
Total SDWA-Related Need
Need
$10.1
$0.1
$0.2
$0.9
$0.4
$0.2
$0.2
$12.1
Need
$22.3
$22.3
                                      Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
                                      * Regulations for contaminants that cause acute health effects.
                                      t Includes arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, fluoride, mercury, selenium,
                                       combined radium -226, -228, and gross alpha particle activity.

-------
22   Findings
                        Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                           Existing regulations for microbio-
                           logical contaminants. Regulations to
                           minimize microbiological contamina-
                           tion account for $10.2 billion of the
                           current SDWA need. Microbiological
                           contaminants regulated under the
                           SWTR and the TCR can pose a health
                           risk to consumers, especially to those
                           with weakened immune systems.
                           According to conservative estimates
                           from the Centers for Disease Control
                           and Prevention (CDC), waterborne
                           disease outbreaks between  1986 and
                           1992 led to illness in approximately
                           47,600 people.

                           Almost all of the need for projects to
                           minimize microbiological contamina-
                           tion is associated with the SWTR. This
                           regulation accounts for almost
                           $10.1 billion. The SWTR ensures that
     Need to Install, Replace, or Upgrade Filtration Plants
                (in millions of Jan. '95 dollars)
         New York City, NY*
         Metropolitan Boston, MA
         Metropolitan Los Angeles, CA
         San Diego, CA
         Detroit, MI
         Sacramento, CA
         Omaha, NE
         Macon, GA
         Seattle, WA
         Tulsa, OK
         Greenville, SC
         Newport News, VA
         Kansas City, KS
$533
$452
$276
$210
$180
$120
$109
$105
 $97
 $76
 $59
 $56
 $55
        * Covers only the Croton supply (approximately 10% of total NYC supply)
water systems using surface water
sources treat to minimum standards to
control microbiological contaminants
such as Giardia lamblia, viruses, and
Legionella. The SWTR also applies to
ground water systems with sources
containing microbiological contami-
nants typically found in surface waters.

Almost 40 percent of water systems
covered by the SWTR reported a
treatment need to maintain compliance
with the rule. A portion of this need,
approximately $1.9 billion, is for
projects to install filtration plants for
water systems that are currently
unfiltered. These systems now use
disinfection as the sole treatment
barrier for microbiological contami-
nants. Also included in the SWTR  need
are upgrades to  plants where current
facilities cannot ensure continued
compliance with the rule. A few
examples of cities that need to install
or replace filtration plants are offered
in the accompanying sidebar.

Other existing regulations. Nation-
wide, an estimated $0.2  billion is
needed for treatment of nitrate. The
entire amount is needed now. Al-
though the need for nitrate is a small
percentage of the total need, the nature
of the health threat makes the need
significant for systems that exceed
allowable limits. Exposure to high
levels of nitrate is dangerous to infants
and pregnant women because it
causes "blue baby syndrome." In
addition, treating for nitrate or
developing alternative sources can be
expensive. Survey respondents with
high levels of nitrate reported needs
averaging $6.7 million per system to
treat existing sources or develop new
sources.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                         Findings   23
Current needs identified by water
systems to address contaminants with
chronic health risks total $1.7 billion.
Chronic health effects include cancer
and, in the case of lead, alterations in
the physical and emotional develop-
ment of children. Some of the most
frequently reported treatment needs in
this category are associated with lead,
trihalomethanes, tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethane, and atrazine.

SDWA-Related Need. An additional
$22.3 billion is needed now to replace
deteriorated distribution piping that
poses a threat of coliform contamina-
tion. Distribution piping replacement is
categorized as a SDWA-related need
because the monitoring required under
the TCR helps to identify problems in
the distribution system. However,
these problems  would exist in the
absence of TCR  monitoring and would
eventually degrade water quality and
service to the extent that problems
would be  detected without the TCR.

Deteriorated piping can break or leak,
allowing fecal matter to enter drinking
water, carrying disease-causing
organisms. The  TCR provides water
systems with a framework for monitor-
ing the microbiological status of their
distribution systems. By early detection
of microbiological contamination,
systems can avoid outbreaks of illness.
Occasionally, microbiological contami-
nation from pipe breaks or leaks can be
severe. One extreme case  occurred in
the town of Cabool,  Missouri, where in
1989 four people died when a pipe
break led to contamination of water in
the town's distribution system.2
This pipe section was replaced because it had sprung numerous
leaks, posing a threat of microbiological contamination.
2 William C. Levine, William T. Stephenson, and Gunther F. Craun, "Waterborne Disease Outbreaks,
1986-1988," CDC Surveillance Summaries, March 1990. MMftl/l/39(No. SS-1):1; Barbara L. Herwaldt,
et al. "Waterborne Disease Outbreaks, 1989-1990," CDC Surveillance Summaries, December 1991.
MMRI/l/40(No.SS-3):1; Anne C. Moore, et al. "Surveillance for Waterborne Disease Outbreaks—
United States, 1991-1992," CDC Surveillance Summaries, November 1993. MMftl/l/42(No. SS-3):1-2

-------
  24   Findings
  Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
      Exhibit 7: Future Safe Drinking Water Act Need
                  (in billions of Jan. '95 dollars)
Existing Regulations
For contaminants with acute health effects*
For contaminants with chronic health effects1
Total Existing Regulations
Proposed Regulations
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Information Collection Rule (promulgated)
Total Proposed Regulations
SDWA-Related Need
Distribution Improvements (TCR)
Total SDWA-Related Need
Need
$3.3
$0.9
$4.2
Need
$8.9
$5.1
<$0.1
$14.0
Need
$13.5
$13.5
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
* Includes Surface Water Treatment Rule, Total Coliform Rule, and the Nitrate Standard
t Includes lead and copper, Phase I, II, and V Rules, total trihalomethanes, arsenic,
 barium, cadmium, chromium, fluoride, mercury, selenium, combined radium -226,
 -228, and gross alpha particle activity.
  Scanning electron
  micrograph of sporozoites
  of the parasitic protozoan
  Crypto sporidium leaving
  the protective shell of the
  oocyst. Cryptosporidium in
  this life-cycle stage
  colonizes the small
  intestine and can cause
  severe illness. Crypto-
  sporidium, apriority for
  regulation, is much more
  resistant to typical
  disinfection practices than
  microbiological pathogens
  currently regulated under
  the SDWA.
Future SDWA Need

Future SDWA needs are projects
needed for compliance over the next
20 years. Exhibit 7 summarizes the
future SDWA and SDWA-related need.

Existing Regulations. In addition to
the $12.1 billion needed nowto comply
with the SDWA, $4.2  billion will be
needed over the next 20 years for
existing SDWA regulations. This need
is for replacing infrastructure that
assures compliance now, but, due to
aging and deterioration, will require
replacement in the next 20 years. Over
75 percent of this need, almost
$3.3 billion, is to protect against
microbiological contaminants. A
smaller portion  of this need, $0.8 bil-
lion, is for lead service line replace-
ment under the Lead  and Copper Rule.

Proposed Regulations. An estimated
$14.0 billion will be needed to comply
with recently promulgated regulations
and proposed regulations that are
priorities for promulgation. These
regulations include the D/DBPR
($8.9 billion), the ESWTR ($5.1 billion)
and the recently promulgated  ICR
($60 million).

The proposed D/DBPR will minimize
the undesirable reaction that occurs
between disinfectants and the organic
material and bromide that are present
naturally in water. The reaction forms
hundreds of disinfection byproducts.
Some of the disinfection byproducts

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                                   Findings   25
are known to be toxic or are probable
human carcinogens. Under the ESWTR,
EPA plans to regulate Cryptospo-
ridium, a parasitic protozoan that is
responsible for several waterborne
disease outbreaks and many other
cases of acute illness in the United
States. The ICR was designed to gather
data needed to design the D/DBPR and
the ESWTR.

Cost estimates for these regulations
were taken from the preambles of the
Federal Register notices proposing the
rules. These estimates are based on
EPA's best knowledge of existing
infrastructure and on estimates of the
paths most likely to be taken by water
systems to reach compliance. They are
rough cost estimates, and should not
be considered as accurate as the cost
estimates for existing regulations
derived from the Needs Survey.
Estimates for these regulations include
needs for non-community water
systems, which are not included
elsewhere in this report. Needs for
non-community water systems,
however, are a very small portion of
the projected need for these regula-
tions.

SDWA-Related Need. An additional
$13.5  billion is needed for future
replacement of distribution piping.
Deterioration of this piping will pose a
threat of coliform contamination if it is
not replaced on schedule.

Future Regulations Not Included
in the Total Need

EPA may promulgate additional SDWA
regulations. Future regulations being
considered under the SDWA are for
radon and other radionuclides, arsenic
(revision), and sulfate. Needs for these
future regulations are not presented
elsewhere in this report because safety
standards, cost estimates, and
regulatory approaches have not been
finalized. New or revised standards for
these contaminants may result in
needs ranging between $1.7 billion and
$14.8 billion, depending on how they
are regulated. Exhibit 8 shows the
estimated range of cost by regulation.
Needs for the Ground Water Disinfec-
tion Rule, which is a priority for
regulation, are not included in this
report because cost estimates have not
been developed.  More information on
regulations that may be promulgated
in the future is in Appendix C.

SDWA Need by Category

A portion of the total in each category
of need—transmission and distribu-
tion, treatment, storage, and source—is
for compliance with the SDWA. The
largest portion of the current and
future SDWA need is for treatment.
Also, there is a significant need for
distribution system repair, which is
considered a SDWA-related need.
  Exhibit 8:  Estimated Need for Future Regulations Not
  Included in the Total Need (in billions of Jan. '95 dollars)
Regulation/
Contaminant
Radon
Radionuclides other
than Radon
Arsenic
Sulfate
Total
Range of Need Estimate
Low Estimate
$0.10
$1.27
$0.28
$0.03
$1.68
High Estimate
$2.59
$4.59
$7.13
$0.46
$14.77
                                      Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

-------
  26   Findings
                                         Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
This pipe has just been replaced.
The steel bands are evidence of
past leaks and illustrate that the
pipe had exceeded its useful
service life.
Treatment accounts for almost
90 percent of the current SDWA need
($10.7 billion of $12.1 billion) and over
95 percent of the future SDWA need
($17.3 billion of $18.2 billion). These
SDWA treatment needs are for
treatment of contaminants currently
regulated or proposed for regulation
under the Act. Non-SDWA treatment
needs include projects for ground
water disinfection, which minimizes
the threat from microbiological
contaminants. Non-SDWA treatment
needs also include treatment for
secondary contaminants and other
unregulated contaminants,  installation
of fluoridation facilities,  and projects to
upgrade process control measures at
treatment plants.

A significant portion of the transmis-
sion  and distribution need is
SDWA-related. Current SDWA-related
needs total $22.3 billion  and future
SDWA-related needs total $13.5 billion.
These needs are for replacement of
deteriorated distribution piping, which
can lead to microbiological  contamina-
tion. Distribution piping  replacement is
considered a SDWA-related need
because the monitoring  required under
the TCR helps to identify problems in
the distribution system.
                             -   -  -   f\\    >^
                               "ll * i,ll i .
In addition to the SDWA-related need
for compliance with the TCR, a small
portion of the transmission and
distribution need is for compliance
with other SDWA rules. About
$0.8 billion of the transmission and
distribution need is for current SDWA
compliance, and $0.8 billion is for
future compliance. This need consists
mainly of transmission lines to
improve  disinfectant contact time and
replacement of lead service lines. Non-
SDWA needs include transmission
mains to carry water from the source
to treatment or from treatment to the
distribution system. In addition,
distribution lines to extend service to
existing households not currently
connected to the water system are not
attributed to the  SDWA. Although they
are not required  for compliance with
the SDWA, these transmission and
distribution needs are essential for
ensuring a safe supply of water for
drinking  and other uses.

Only a small portion of storage and
source needs—$0.6 billion of the
current need  and $0.1  billion of the
future need—are attributable to the
SDWA. These needs are for projects to
replace contaminated sources or
improve  disinfectant contact time.
Non-SDWA source and storage needs
are for new or rehabilitated wells,
surface supplies, or storage facilities.
Projects for these needs are to ensure
continued water service or to provide
an adequate supply of water during
periods of peak usage.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                                    Findings   27
Need for American Indian and
Alaska Native Water Systems

The total 20-year need for the 884
American Indian and Alaska Native
water systems is $1.3 billion; $0.56 bil-
lion for American  Indian systems and
$0.77 billion for Alaska Native systems.
Of this total, approximately $1.1 billion
is needed now to  replace existing
infrastructure or to extend  a water
system's service to nearby households
that do not have safe running water.
The survey of American Indian  and
Alaska Native water systems was
conducted in consultation with  IMS.
American Indian and Alaska Native
representatives participated in survey
design and implementation.

This section of the report provides an
overall picture of the needs of Ameri-
can Indian and Alaska Native water
systems. The IMS  Sanitary  Deficiency
System  (SDS) provides information on
specific  needs and ranks communities'
needs based on threats to public
health.

Needs reported here for American
Indian and Alaska Native systems are
conservative. Projects solely for future
growth were not included,  nor were
needs for non-community water
systems. But more importantly for the
American Indian and Alaska Native
survey, only needs associated with
existing water systems were collected.
Data were not gathered for homes or
  The remoteness of American Indian and Alaska
  Native communities often requires that
  communities bring in equipment and construc-
  tion material by unconventional means.
groups of homes that do not currently
have running water and are too distant
from existing water systems
for interconnection. A greater
proportion of American Indian
and Alaska Native households
lack running water than do
households in the country as a
whole.
The Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey places the total 20-year
need for American Indian and Alaska
Native water systems at $1.3 billion.
Needs for American Indian and
Alaska Native water systems are high,
averaging almost $43,500 per house-
hold for Alaska Native communities
and over $6,200 per household for
American Indian systems for the
20-year period covered by the survey.
These needs are high for a number of
reasons. Many American Indian and
Alaska Native people now carry their
water from a public watering point at  a
community water system. Providing
piped water to these households often
involves substantial expansion and
modification of existing facilities. This
is especially true in Alaska  Native
communities.

-------
 28   Findings
                                         Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Distribution mains in many
arctic Alaska Native communi-
ties must be constructed above
ground because ice-rich
permafrost soils are often
unstable. Water must be
circulated and heated so that it
does not freeze during arctic
winters.
Because many American Indian and
Alaska Native systems are located in
areas remote from other communities,
tying into a larger water system or
joining with other communities to form
a consolidated water system is often
impractical. Some of these systems
face significantly higher costs because
of the difficulty in obtaining and
transporting materials. American
Indian and Alaska Native systems
encounter additional problems
because of arid or permafrost condi-
tions, both  of which make water
sources difficult to find.  Finally, like
other small communities, they often
lack economies of scale.

These problems are made worse by
the fact that about 30 percent of
American Indians and Alaska Natives
have incomes below the poverty level.
Many American Indian and Alaska
Native people live through traditional
subsistence farming, hunting, and
fishing and do not generate significant
cash income.
Like other systems throughout the
country, most needs faced by Ameri-
can Indian and Alaska Native systems
are associated with transmission and
distribution and with treatment. Alaska
Native systems, because of the limited
availability of sources during the
winter, also have high storage costs.
These categories and unique aspects of
the needs of American Indian and
Alaska Native water systems are
discussed in greater detail below.

Alaska Native Water Systems

Transmission and Distribution.
Transmission and distribution account
for about half of the total Alaska Native
water system need. Alaska Native
communities often face unique
challenges in constructing transmis-
sion and distribution systems.  Because
of freezing and structural stability
problems associated with permafrost,
they are frequently unable to use
construction methods typical of the
lower 48 States. This is particularly true
for communities located near or north
of the Arctic Circle. Often, the most
cost effective construction method
available to these communities is
aboveground construction of housed
and insulated mains called "utilidors."
To be effective and reliable, mains
must be constructed in "loops" so that
water can be heated and continually
circulated to prevent freezing. For the
same  reasons, water must be circu-
lated to and from homes through
looped circulating service lines. Many
system components, including
circulation pumps, boilers, and
generators, must be paired to provide
the redundancy necessary to minimize
risk of failures that would result in
frozen water lines and pumps. Such
failures would be certain to cause
extended loss of service and require
extensive repair or complete replace-
ment of the system.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Findings   29
                    Schematic of an Arctic Alaska Water System
           Q/   (O
            Redundant Pumps
                                                                      Service
                                                                       Line // Return
                                                                         * f   Line
    Supplying water in arctic conditions presents unique engineering challenges. To be structurally sound,
    heated facilities such as the water treatment facility and storage tank must be constructed on pilings or
    large pads made of imported gravel. In addition to the components diagramed here, the water treatment
    plant often houses a washeteria with showers, toilets,  and laundry facilities.

-------
30   Findings
  Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                           Treatment and Storage. Together,
                           projects to install or replace treatment
                           and storage facilities for Alaska Native
                           communities represent over a third of
                           their reported need. Approximately
                           80 percent of Alaska Native water
                           systems have needs for treatment.
                           Approximately 85 percent of Alaska
                           Native water systems have needs for
                           storage.

                           Approximately half of all Alaska Native
                           communities rely on surface water
                           sources; the rest rely on ground water.
                           Treatment of ground water and surface
                           water present very similar problems
                           and expenses in arctic conditions. The
                           limited  ground water sources available
                           are often of poor quality, containing
                           very high concentrations of iron and
                           manganese. These contaminants must
                           be removed by techniques commonly
                           associated with surface water treat-
                           ment as practiced in the lower  48
                           States.  As a result, the processes
                           employed for treating ground water
and surface water sources, and the
associated capital improvement costs,
are very similar despite differences in
the contaminants and associated
health risks.

Treatment of surface water in arctic
conditions can present unusual and
difficult problems. Winter darkness,
permafrost, frozen source water,
subzero temperatures, and arctic
weather conditions can make it
impractical to pump water from a
surface water source to the treatment
plant. Some  communities in Alaska's
North Slope  Borough have a "window
of opportunity" for treatment which
lasts only six to eight weeks during the
summer. These communities treat a
full year's supply of water in this short
period of time. Successful operation of
this type  of system requires insulated
and heated storage facilities with
capacity of 365 days of water as
compared to the one or two days
storage common to systems in more
Atqasuk, an Alaska Native water system, is located north of the
Arctic Circle. Water for the community must be treated and stored
for the winter during a brief "window of opportunity" when ice
melts each summer. The cartridge filters below cannot provide
adequate treatment and need to be replaced with a conventional
filtration plant. Also, the water system does not have adequate
storage to provide the community with running water year-round.
New insulated storage, like the tank shown, is needed.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                                    Findings   31
temperate climates. Compounding
problems and expenses, facilities must
be capable of treating and pumping
water at six or more times the rate that
would be needed if they could treat
daily. Finally, paired components such
as boilers, pumps,  and standby
generators are necessary to heat and
circulate  water to keep storage,
treatment, and distribution systems
from freezing.

The total capital improvement costs for
Alaska Native communities are driven
upward further due to the short
construction season and the cost of
transporting equipment and materials.
In many cases, materials and equip-
ment must be brought in on barges
when summer temperatures make
rivers navigable. In some cases,
airlifting  materials  becomes necessary.

American Indian Water Systems

Transmission and Distribution.
American Indian water systems can
also face problems associated with
their location. Many American Indian
communities are distant from other
towns and communities, so they must
construct and maintain their own water
systems. The cost-saving option of
connecting to and purchasing water
from an existing system usually is not
available for these  systems because
they are so remote. Because of the
rural, widely-dispersed nature of many
American Indian communities, more
linear feet of water transmission and
distribution line is necessary per
customer served. Almost 40 percent of
American Indian needs are for
transmission and distribution.

Treatment. About a third of American
Indian needs are for treatment. Water
sources can be difficult to find in the
arid country in which many American
Indian communities are located and,
when found, water is often of poor
quality. American Indian communities
frequently are forced to use sources
that are expensive to treat. Over half of
American Indian systems have needs
for treating their ground water sources,
while about 30 percent of similarly-
sized ground  water systems regulated
by the States  have treatment needs.

For many American Indian water
systems, surface waters are the best
sources available. Treatment of surface
water is usually more expensive than
ground water treatment and is crucial
because of the potential health threat
from microbiological contaminants.
Seventy-five percent of American
Indian surface water systems have
capital improvement needs for
treatment, compared to 50 percent of
similarly  sized surface water systems
regulated by the States.

Exhibit 9  shows the location of Ameri-
can Indian Tribal lands and Alaska
Native water  systems. A detailed
breakdown of American Indian and
Alaska Native need can be found in
Appendix B, Exhibits B-6 through B-8.
Pictured is a recently drilled
well being tested and developed
for an American Indian water
system in Northeast Washington
State. Previously drilled wells
near the community have dried
up. Several miles of transmis-
sion main are needed to bring
water from this new well.

-------
32   Findings
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                                                         Top of mesa where the
                                                                         traditional community is
                                                                         located.
      The Hopi Indian community of Polacca in northeastern Arizona provides water to traditional
      American Indian homes located on the top of a mesa. Provision of safe drinking water under
      these circumstances presents some unusual and difficult problems. Water from the town's wells
      must be pumped, via an aboveground transmission line, up the rock face of the mesa to the
      homes. The exposed transmission line is subject to breaks caused by freezing and corrosion.
      When the pipe breaks, water pressure in the mesa system can be lost, making the upper
      community vulnerable to contamination. In addition, the mesa community relies on a hydrop-
      neumatic tank to provide pressure in the water system. During power failures, water is pulled
      down the transmission main by gravity, causing negative pressure in distribution piping on the
      mesa and inviting contamination of the system. To prevent these health risks, the transmission
      main would have to be protected from freezing by being buried below the frost line  or by other
      methods of insulation and/or heating. Also, standby power or an elevated storage tank would
      have to be provided on the mesa top.
     Chuck Villa, water system
     operator, looking down at
     the exposed transmission
     main ascending the face of
     the cliff.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Findings   33
   Exhibit 9:  Location of American Indian Tribal Lands and Alaska Native Water Systems
                               0
                            a
                                         a
                                                    nt?
                                                    Location of American Indian Tribal Lands
                                                   |  | - Federal Reservations larger than 50 square miles

                                                    O - Federal Reservations smaller than 50 square miles and
                                                        Federal Groups without Reservations
                                                       - Location of Alaska Native water systems
Not to scale

-------
34  Findings
  Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                          Non-Community Water
                          Systems

                          Because of resource constraints, the
                          Needs Survey did not include
                          non-community water systems.
                          Non-community water systems are
                          made up of transient non-community
                          water systems and non-transient
                          non-community water systems.
                          Transient non-community water
                          systems serve at least 25 persons more
                          than 60 days out of the year, but do not
                          regularly service any given 25 more
                          than 6 months of the year. Examples of
                          these systems are gas stations and
                          road side rest areas. A few are day
                          camps for children. Non-transient
                          non-community water systems
                          regularly serve at least 25 of the same
                          persons more than 6 months of the
                          year where those person are not
                          full-time residents. Examples of this
                          type of system are factories, schools,
                          and office  buildings.

                          Only those non-community water
                          systems that are not-for-profit are
                          eligible to  receive funding from the
                          Drinking Water State Revolving Loan
                          Fund. These are the only
                          non-community water systems that
                          would be included in the Needs
                          Survey. EPA estimates that 10 percent
                          of the roughly 90,000 transient
                          non-community water systems and
                          that approximately half of the 20,000
                          non-transient non-community water
                          systems are not-for-profit organiza-
                          tions. In total, approximately 19,000
                          non-community water systems are
                          not-for-profit systems.

                          With the data on hand, it is impossible
                          to accurately estimate the need of
                          not-for-profit non-community water
                          systems. However, it is likely that their
needs are less than those of commu-
nity water systems serving the same
number of people. Non-community
water systems usually have fewer
sources with less capacity, smaller
storage and treatment facilities, and
very limited transmission and distribu-
tion systems. Source, storage, and
treatment facilities are smaller for
non-community water systems
because the population served is often
not in full-time residence. The peak
demands faced by community water
systems—due to morning showers and
night-time meal  preparation, for
example—do not occur at many
non-community water systems. Also,
non-community water systems do not
have to provide capacity for fire
protection or for irrigation of residen-
tial lawns. More importantly, most
non-community water systems consist
of one or perhaps a few buildings and
do not have substantial distribution
and transmission networks.

A rough estimate that significantly
overstates the need of not-for-profit
non-community water systems could
be made by examining the source,
storage, and treatment needs of the
smallest community water systems.
This methodology results in a need of
$125,000 per system. When this need is
applied to the not-for-profit
non-community water systems on a
State-by-State basis, the relative
distribution of need among States is
not significantly affected. For this
reason and because resource con-
straints prevented EPA from develop-
ing a high-quality need estimate for
non-community water systems, an
estimate of need for these systems was
not included in this report.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey                                                       Findings  35
Separate State Estimates

The Needs Survey did not include
estimates for all types of need. Two
States felt that it was important to
report costs associated with needs not
included in the survey. One reported
needs for anticipated future growth,
and the other reported needs for
refinancing existing loans for drinking
water projects. The need reported by
the States in their separate State
estimates totals $197 million. A list of
the estimates is available in
Appendix D. Separate State estimates
were not included in estimates of need
listed elsewhere in the report.

-------
These Alaska Native children haul water from a public watering point.
Many Alaska Native people do not have water in their homes.

-------
Need  for  Households Not
Served  by  Community
Water  Systems
     The Needs Survey was not de-
     signed to estimate the total need
     for households not served by
community water systems. Statistics
from the 1990 Census show that
approximately 16 million households
in the United States are not served by
community water systems. Of these,
close to 15 million households are
served by private drilled or dug wells
and over 1 million households take
their water from other sources such as
cisterns, springs, rivers, lakes, or other
untreated surface water sources. The
risks faced by households not served
by community water systems are not
well understood because of a lack of
information, but the available data
show that public health risks are
significant for many of them.

Hauled Water and Untreated
Surface Water Sources. The more
than 1 million households that take
water directly from cisterns, springs,
rivers, lakes, and other untreated
surface water sources make up just
over 1 percent of the total households
in the nation. Census data show that
2 percent of American Indian house-
holds on federally recognized Tribal
lands and 20  percent of mainland
Alaska Native households take their
water from these sources.
Hauled water and water from untreated
surface water sources can be provided
as running water, but often it is stored
in barrels. Hauled water and water
from untreated sources may contain
microbiological contaminants that can
make people ill. A 1984 EPA study of
national rural water conditions found
that total coliform bacteria were
present in the water supplies of
78 percent of households that use
these sources.3 Coliform bacteria are
an indication that disease-causing
microbiological contamination could
be present.

Households without running water are
of particular concern because opportu-
nities for people to become ill are
abundant when running water is not
available. Running water is important
to basic sanitation. It is needed to flush
toilets, wash hands, prepare food, and
bathe. Living conditions for house-
holds without running water are below
those that most of us take for granted.
Because of a lack of data, we do not
know how many households do not
have running water, but homes
without running water can be found
across the nation.
                                 3 U.S. EPA. Office of Drinking Water. National
                                 Statistical Assessment of Rural Water
                                 Conditions. EPA 570/9-84-003, June 1984.

-------
38   Needs for Households Not Served by Community Water Systems
         Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                    Hauled Water and Untreated Sources—Three Examples
                    Colonias—Co/on/as along the Mexican
                    border often do not have a safe supply
                    of running water. In  many of these
                    communities, people haul water from a
                    central watering point or untreated
                    surface water source. Even in cases
                    where water is piped, many house-
                    holds draw untreated water from
                    irrigation canals or unsafe ground
                    water sources that present a significant
                    threat of disease. In  1995, it was
                    estimated that 339,000 residents lived
                    in colonias in Texas  border counties
                    alone. Waterborne and communicable
                    diseases are common throughout the
                    border area. In some towns on the
                    Texas-Mexico border, one-third of
                    children contract hepatitis A by age 8,
                    and nine out of ten adults by age 35.4
                    In a few border counties, the rate of
                    hepatitis A  is more than triple that of
                    the  rest of the State. The lack of safe
                    piped water and wastewater disposal is
                    a significant factor contributing to the
                    high incidence of disease.
The Navajo Shonto Chapter—Water
for the Navajo Shonto area is available
from one central watering point that is
in need of rehabilitation. The area
served covers approximately a 15-mile
radius. A photograph of this watering
point is in Appendix B. Although no
official count has been taken of the
people served by this watering point, it
is estimated that 400 to 500 people
haul water from this location to their
homes. Hauled drinking water faces a
risk of contamination during loading,
unloading, transport, and storage.

Washeterias Serving Alaska
Communities—Especially during cold
weather, the only drinking water
available to many Alaska Native
communities is from the community
washeteria. A washeteria is a single
building with showers, toilets, and
washing machines. The washeteria
often doubles as a water treatment
plant with heated water storage.
Residents haul drinking water back to
their homes from a watering point at
this location. In most cases, water is
hauled on a boardwalkthat is also
used to haul sewage to disposal sites.
Sewage spills are not uncommon and
the  risk of contamination is great.
    •
                  .<•''••'
                                                                     The pump (insert) draws water
                                                                     from this irrigation pond and
                                                                     distributes it, without treatment,
                                                                     to this colonias community.
                                                                    4 Comptroller of the State of Texas, Fiscal
                                                                    Notes, July 1995, p.I.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
         Need for Households Not Served by Community Water Systems  39
Private Wells. Approximately
15 million households in the U.S. are
served by private wells. Most of these
private wells provide an adequate
quantity of high-quality water. Much
like community water systems,
however, some of these wells produce
ground water that is not safe to drink.
Unlike community water systems, very
little is known about the degree of
contamination at private wells.
Although private wells are tested
occasionally for microbiological
contaminants and nitrate, almost no
testing is done for pesticides, solvents,
and inorganic chemicals. Often, private
wells are tested  only once, immedi-
ately after being drilled. According to
the National Ground Water Associa-
tion, 24 States do not require private
wells to be tested at all.

Two studies examined the occurrence
of total coliform bacteria in water
produced by private wells. A 1995 CDC
survey of more than 5,500 private wells
in nine midwestern  States estimates
that approximately  41 percent of the
wells in those States are contaminated
with total coliform bacteria.5 Even
more significantly, the CDC study
shows that over 27  percent of the
private wells produced samples that
were contaminated  with E. Co//. The
presence of this bacteria indicates
recent fecal contamination. The results
of the National Statistical Assessment
of Rural Water Conditions, published
by EPA in June 1984, support the
findings of the CDC. This nationwide
study found total coliform bacteria in
over 40 percent  and fecal coliform
bacteria in  20 percent of households
served by private wells.
Microbiological contaminants are the
greatest health risk faced by owners of
private wells, but other contaminants
also pose a risk. In January 1996, the
Michigan  Department of Public Health
recommended that owners of private
wells in 10 counties test their water for
arsenic. State testing indicates that
water from about 2 percent of wells
State-wide might exceed the current
community water system standard
of 50 ng/l.

Communities and households with
private wells, especially those in
agricultural areas, face the additional
risk of nitrate contamination.  Nitrate
contamination causes "blue baby
syndrome" and can lead to the  death
of infants. In 1986, the United States
Geological Survey performed a
National Water Quality Assessment
case study of the Delmarva Peninsula,
which includes most of Delaware and
the eastern shores of Maryland and
Virginia.6 The study covered over 6,000
square miles, nearly half of which is
used for farming. Fifteen percent of the
wells sampled exceeded the EPA
maximum contaminant level of 10 mg/l
for nitrate. Seven other State and
national studies of private rural well
conditions report nitrate concentra-
tions in excess of 10 mg/l in 2.4 percent
to 23 percent of the wells sampled.
5 Center for Disease Control and Prevention, et.al. A Survey of the Presence of Contaminants in Water in
Private Wells in Nine Midwestern States. Report in Draft.

6 Hamilton, Pixie and Robert J. Shedlock. Are Fertilizers and Pesticides in the Ground Water? A Case
Study of the Delmarva Peninsula, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. United States Geological Survey
Circular 1080. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1993

-------
40   Need for Households Not Served by Community Water Systems
        Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                            One reason for contamination
                            at private wells may lie in
                            improper siting and construc-
                            tion of older wells. Although all
                            States now have well construc-
                            tion standards, an unknown
                            number of private wells were
                            constructed before those
                            standards were established.
                            Because of space constraints, a
                            lack of understanding of health
                            implications, and a desire to
                            minimize cost, some older
                            private wells are located too
                            close to the home's septic
                            system or other sources of
                            contamination.

                            Possible Solutions. A lack of
                            information makes it impos-
                            sible to understand fully the  needs for
                            households without a safe supply of
                            running water. Many community water
                            systems are making efforts to address
                            a portion of this problem by  extending
                            their service. Some Needs Survey
                            respondents estimated needs for
                            connecting nearby existing homes that
                            do not have a safe or adequate supply
                            of water. These conservative estimates
                            show that the need for connecting
                            these homes would be at least
                            $6.0 billion.
Several States provided partial cost estimates for
needs associated with establishing new water
systems at communities without safe running
water. These communities include those that lack
running water and those that depend on contami-
nated private wells. Estimates from those States
are provided below, but are not included in totals
elsewhere in the report.
  State
  Minnesota
  New York
  South Dakota
  Texas
  Virginia
  Washington
Cost Estimate
$5.4 million
$276.4 million
$578.9 million
$147.9 million
$12.1 million
$5.4 million
              Water System Expansion - An Example


        Counties in Alabama planned to spend $4.3 million in FY
        1995 for expansions of existing water systems to serve rural
        areas. Within Clay county, the city of Ashland has agreed to
        add 74,000 feet of water mains, 175 service connections, and
        30 fire hydrants in an effort to extend transmission lines
        beyond city limits. Private wells in this county have shown
        fecal contamination and contain high levels of iron. When
        this project is completed, Ashland will have provided service
        to 471  additional people.
     Another potential solution for house-
     holds without a safe supply of running
     water is reconstruction of older
     existing wells.  Older existing wells
     could be upgraded to modern con-
     struction standards or replaced by new
     wells that are drilled away from
     sources of contamination. Constructing
     a new well may be the best solution for
     a household or group of households
     that do not have a supply of safe
     running water. In many cases, an
     aquifer is available to provide safe
     drinking water, but wells must be
     properly sited and constructed to  make
     this solution successful. Further study
     is necessary to understand the needs
     faced by households not served by
     community water systems.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Need for Households Not Served by Community Water Systems   41
       Some homes without water service from public water systems store drinking
       water in cisterns like the one being filled in the photograph above.

-------
Hydropneumatic storage tanks use compressed air to pressurize small
water systems. The insert is a close-up of corrosion on this tank. As
these tanks age, corrosion can cause water quality to deteriorate and
even pose a direct threat to  safety. Hydropneumatic tanks can explode
if they lose structural integrity. More than 6,500 small water systems
currently need new hydropneumatic tanks or need to have their tanks
refurbished.

-------
Appendix  A—Methodology
A      workgroup was convened in
      1994 to develop an approach for
      determining the drinking water
infrastructure need for community
water systems nationwide. The
workgroup included staff and represen-
tatives of State drinking water
agencies, American Indian and Alaska
Native water systems, the Indian
Health Service, and EPA regions and
headquarters. The workgroup met in
January  1994, August 1994, June 1995,
and September 1995 to develop the
survey methodology and design the
resulting Report to Congress.

The methodology took  into account the
strengths and resource constraints of
the different sizes of drinking water
systems  and developed different
processes for collecting information
from each one. Systems were broken
down into three size
classifications: large
(those serving more than
50,000 people), medium
(those serving from 3,301
to 50,000 people), and
small (those serving 3,300
and fewer people).
Exhibit A-1 shows the
data collection method
used, target precision
levels, and number of
systems  surveyed for
each size classification.
      American Indian and Alaska Native
      water systems were surveyed sepa-
      rately.

      Estimating Needs for Water
      Systems in the States: Large and
      Medium Systems. All 794 large
      community water systems and 2,760 of
      the 6,800 medium systems in the
      States received a mailed questionnaire
      package. Systems were asked to
      complete a matrix identifying those
      capital projects needed to continue
      supplying safe drinking water to their
      customers. The matrix included
      descriptions of each need, cost
      estimates for the project, and docu-
      mentation. The questionnaire also
      requested information that could be
      used to model costs for those infra-
      structure projects that did not include a
      cost estimate.
Exhibit A-1:  Approach to Statistical Survey in the States
Small Systems
Up to 3,300 people
Site Visit
Sample
95%+ 10% Precision
Nationally
540 Sampled
537 Completed
Medium Systems
3,301 - 50,000 people
Questionnaire
Sample
Large Systems
More than 50,000 people
Questionnaire
Census
95% + 10% Precision by State
2,760 Sampled
2,563 Completed
794 Sampled
784 Completed

-------
A-2   Appendix A
                                         Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
      Acceptable Documentation

  The following types of documents were used
  to justify the need for projects. Asterisks
  indicate documents that also provide
  acceptable cost estimates.
  Capital Improvement Plan*
  Master Plan*
  Facilities Plan*
  Preliminary Engineer's Estimate*
  State Priority List
  Bilateral Compliance Agreement
  Administrative Order/Court Order/Consent
     Decree
  EPA or State Filtration or Ground Water
     Under Direct Influence Determination
  Documentation of a Maximum Contaminant
     Level Violation, Treatment Technique
     Violation, or Lead and Copper Rule
     Exceedance
  Grant or Loan Application Form*
  Comprehensive Performance Evaluation
     Results
  State-Approved Local/County Comprehen-
     sive Water and Sewer Plan
  Sanitary Survey
  Signed and dated statement from State, site-
     visit contractor, or system engineer
     clearly detailing infrastructure needs.
All questionnaires completed by water
systems in States were sent to State
drinking water staff for review. State
staff reviewed the needs of the
systems to ensure that all documenta-
tion was adequate, and forwarded the
                 questionnaires to
	  EPA headquarters
                 for final review.
                 Following this
                 review, responses
                 were entered into a
                 database containing
                 drinking water
                 infrastructure needs
                 from all systems
                 surveyed.
                  Many large and
                  medium drinking
                  water systems were
                  able to provide
                  high-quality
                  documented
                  estimates of the cost
                  of the infrastructure
                  need they had
                  identified. If
                  documented cost
                  estimates were not
                  provided, EPA used
                  cost models to
                  generate costs for
                  documented
                  projects. Cost
                  models were
                  developed from the
                  estimates provided
                  by other large and
                  medium water
                  systems. For a
                  limited number of
                  infrastructure needs,
the survey collected insufficient
information to develop cost models.
Costs for these needs were modeled
based on engineers' reports for similar
projects around the country. All costs
were converted to January 1995
dollars.
State-by-State and national needs for
large drinking water systems were
determined by summing the docu-
mented costs and modeled costs for all
large systems. Large systems that did
not respond were assigned a need of
zero. For medium water systems, EPA
calculated each State's need by
extrapolating the results from the
sample to the State as a whole. To
assure accurate estimates of total State
costs, EPA visited States to verify the
number and size of the water systems
in each State's database. This process
allowed EPA to extrapolate with
confidence to arrive at a total medium-
system need for each State.

Estimating Needs for Systems in
the States: Small Systems. The
workgroup estimated small water
system needs using a national
statistical model. To identify needs,
EPA staff visited 537  of the over 46,500
small water systems  to determine
needs through on-site assessments. In
most cases, State representatives
accompanied EPA staff on the visits.
Information collected during these
assessments was reviewed by State
and EPA staff and then entered into the
national database.

Most small systems did not have
documented cost estimates for the
projects identified. Because of this,
data provided by States, engineering
firms, and larger systems were used to
develop cost models for small water
system needs. The costs derived from
these models were used to extrapolate
total costs from the systems surveyed
to the nation as a whole. State
inventories of small systems were
checked for accuracy.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                                Appendix A  A-3
Estimating Needs for American
Indian and Alaska Native Water
Systems. American Indian and Alaska
Native water systems fall into two size
categories: medium and small. There
are 15 medium American Indian
systems. All 15 were sent question-
naire  packages. These systems and
their Tribal governments completed
the questionnaires in the same manner
as the large and medium systems in
the States. The completed question-
naires were sent to the appropriate
EPA region  and then to EPA headquar-
ters for review. In cases in which
project costs were unavailable, EPA
estimated costs using models devel-
oped for medium systems in the
States. Responses and modeled costs
represent the total needs for medium
American Indian water systems.

Over 98 percent of American Indian
and all Alaska Native systems are
small. The workgroup's procedure for
estimating needs for these systems
used existing IMS databases and
information collected  from a sample of
water systems. The IMS databases
provided system-by-system  informa-
tion on the need, taking into account
the individual characteristics of each
one. These databases, however, did
not contain  information on all the
needs collected by the survey.
Therefore, data from sampled systems
were used to develop adjustment
factors for the IMS data. These
adjustment factors reflect the differ-
ence between the IMS costs and the
costs  reported by the  systems sur-
veyed. Separate adjustment factors
were developed for American Indian
and Alaska Native systems. Total
needs for American Indian and Alaska
Native water systems were derived
from the IMS data and the adjustment
factors.
For small American Indian systems,
information was collected from 57 of
the 682 systems nationwide. EPA staff
or contractors, often accompanied by
Tribal representatives, EPA regional
Indian Coordinators, and Indian Health
Service representatives, made on-site
assessments at each of these systems
and identified needs. Project costs
were estimated using the models
developed for small systems in the
States.

Drinking water infrastructure needs for
the 187 Alaska Native communities
were estimated by a roundtable of the
Alaska Native Health Board, the Alaska
Area Native Health Service  (part of the
IHS), the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (Village
Safe Water), and EPA. This  group
selected 20 representative Alaska
Native water systems and identified
needs for those systems. Five of the 20
systems were then visited to verify the
accuracy of the needs assigned by the
roundtable.

Needs Associated with the Safe
Drinking Water Act. A portion of the
needs collected in the survey are
attributable to the SDWA. For existing
regulations, systems were able to
identify projects needed for compli-
ance. In these cases, survey responses
were used to derive the  SDWA need.
However, most systems were unable to
identify projects needed to  comply
with proposed and recently promul-
gated regulations. Needs for these
SDWA regulations are based on the
national cost estimates published in
the Federal Register when the regula-
tions were proposed. Needs for other
future regulations were taken from
preliminary economic analyses
prepared in anticipation of  promulgat-
ing regulations.

-------
Rudimentary roof catchments provide drinking water for some households
in the United States.

-------
Appendix  B—Summary of  Findings
Needs for Water Systems in the States*

     Exhibit B-1—Total Need by Category
     Exhibit B-2—Current Need by Category
     Exhibit B-3—Total Need by System Size
     Exhibit B-4—Current Safe Drinking Water Act Need
     Exhibit B-5—Total SDWA and SDWA-Related Need

Needs for American Indian and Alaska Native Water Systems

     Exhibit B-6—Total Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Water Systems by EPA Region
     Exhibit B-7—Need by Category for American Indian and Alaska Native Water Systems
     Exhibit B-8—Total SDWA and SDWA-Related Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Water
                Systems
* Needs for water systems in the States do not include needs for American Indian and Alaska Native water systems. Needs for Palau (approximately
 $17.2 million) are not included in this report because Palau is not eligible to participate in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

-------
B-2   Appendix B
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Distribution and transmission line
breaks result in loss of service and
can lead to contamination. Breaks
can sometimes be dramatic. The
road collapsed under these cars, at
right, after a water main break in
Fort Lauderdale. Below, a work
crew repairs a water main break in
San Francisco.
                                                              Exhibit B-1: (facing page)
                                                               Total Need by Category

                                                               The total infrastructure need for
                                                               water systems regulated by the
                                                               States is $137.1 billion.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Appendix B  B-3
Exhibit B-1: Total Need by Category (20-year need in millions of Jan. '95 dollars)

State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Subtotal
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Is.
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Total
Transmission and
Distribution
869.8
478.3
522.5
1,012.6
8,833.8
929.2
805.6
248.3
110.8
2,170.5
1,897.7
137.3
337.9
3,067.9
925.2
1,612.9
1,181.5
1,349.9
1,046.5
545.6
721.3
3,636.8
2,751.1
1,374.4
1,031.2
938.1
378.5
471.3
252.6
402.6
2,469.8
589.0
6,600.3
1,491.8
321.4
2,680.6
1,083.1
1,063.9
2,854.7
1,172.6
429.2
718.9
306.4
972.7
7,157.6
536.4
267.8
1,416.9
2,345.8
576.7
1,025.3
213.4
76,336.0
12.2
33.3
10.5
139.5
195.4
76,531.5
Treatment
483.4
143.5
640.7
780.8
4,979.1
631.7
352.3
62.4
12.7
1,317.3
895.4
152.4
111.2
1,502.0
470.9
368.4
521.7
575.9
573.7
199.1
302.7
1,536.8
1,252.3
537.0
251.4
520.8
165.2
306.4
162.7
170.0
658.2
168.9
2,057.0
738.3
179.7
1,316.7
670.7
550.6
1,269.2
591.2
170.5
511.9
141.4
661.2
3,078.5
316.1
108.9
965.8
732.0
340.8
525.4
113.2
35,846.0
4.8
5.6
18.7
44.4
73.4
35,919.4
Storage
189.9
93.3
112.4
144.2
1,544.1
149.3
104.0
30.3
8.2
402.1
229.8
46.9
70.1
469.8
173.5
167.5
169.3
136.7
190.7
83.3
143.5
442.0
222.7
222.6
170.4
242.7
71.6
78.1
42.0
94.3
290.5
95.2
535.4
255.4
53.5
538.1
177.8
266.1
428.1
217.5
31.3
122.4
63.8
179.6
995.5
105.7
48.8
218.7
607.1
105.7
177.5
29.4
11,788.6
3.3
10.6
2.4
34.0
50.4
11,839.0
Source
111.2
49.5
70.9
83.0
2,812.3
199.4
83.6
27.6
0.0
362.5
265.5
93.1
69.3
228.9
79.7
91.6
97.3
152.1
131.3
32.5
69.6
281.5
171.9
275.4
118.2
113.8
44.8
90.7
58.6
47.9
163.5
176.3
760.0
218.8
30.1
271.2
85.1
255.8
179.1
271.9
17.9
103.4
53.0
44.7
1,018.1
75.1
31.6
275.6
240.5
63.7
125.2
33.0
10,807.3
1.9
57.1
2.6
5.1
66.6
10,873.9
Other
4.9
6.6
7.3
3.9
644.5
39.5
11.2
3.0
0.0
82.9
6.4
1.2
1.7
80.9
25.4
15.5
6.6
9.6
11.2 1
4.9
47.7
47.9
38.9
28.3
4.9
63.5
2.5
6.3
9.0
2.2
31.2
13.3
129.8
9.8
2.2
99.7
14.7 1
11.8
25.0
0.8
7.7
4.2
4.2
13.0
114.9
12.1
2.2
66.9
105.4
3.3
13.9
1.8
1,906.2
0.3
0.0
1.0
0.2
1.5
1,907.7
Total
1,659.2
771.2
1,353.7
2,024.5
18,814.0
1,949.1
1,356.7
371.6
131.6
4,335.3
3,294.8
430.9
590.2
5,349.7
1,674.7
2,255.9
1,976.5
2,224.2
1,953.5
865.5
1,284.7
5,945.1
4,436.8
2,437.6
1,576.1
1,878.9
662.6
952.9
524.9
717.0
3,613.2
1,042.7
10,082.5
2,714.1
586.9
4,906.3
2,031.4
2,148.2
4,756.0
2,254.0
656.7
1,460.8
568.7
1,871.2
12,364.6
1,045.4
459.3
2,943.9
4,030.8
1,090.2
1,867.2
390.7
136,684.2
22.5
106.7
35.1
223.1
387.3
137,071.5

-------
B-4   Appendix B
 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
  Periodically, storage tanks must be
  drained, sandblasted, and covered with
  epoxy paint. If this refurbishment is not
  done, water quality can deteriorate and
  microbiological contamination can
  occur. Pictured above is an outside view
  of a storage tank needing rehabilitation.
  The insert is an underwater photo of the
  inside wall of a water storage tank that
  is overdue for rehabilitation. These are
  rust deposits that can harbor bacteria
  and lower water quality. Over one third
  of the water systems in the country need
  to rehabilitate storage tanks.
Exhibit B-2: (facing page)
 Current Need by Category

 Approximately $75.7 billion is for
 projects needed now to protect
 public health at water systems
 regulated by the States.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Appendix B  B-5
Exhibit B-2: Current Need by Category (in millions of Jan. '
95 dollars)



State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Subtotal
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Is.
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Total
Transmission and
Distribution
478.4
335.3
382.4
789.6
5,522.9
487.1
265.7
151.3
101.1
1,618.1
1,282.2
108.1
188.7
1,486.2
612.0
1,181.9
866.2
674.4
729.7
392.4
543.6
2,301.7
1,798.8
313.9
671.7
545.2
190.3
254.8
145.0
210.6
1,409.1
475.7
4,639.1
1,134.2
114.0
1,419.8
815.7
525.0
1,924.1
680.4
187.3
382.7
156.5
525.3
4,103.7
280.3
161.1
1,097.8
1,336.0
429.1
488.8
132.6
47,047.9
9.5
31.1
7.7
108.6
156.9
47,204.8
Treatment
101.4
43.0
375.5
427.1
2,085.2
233.7
82.8
6.6
0.0
397.0
336.5
85.1
26.4
330.7
116.9
70.5
256.3
134.2
191.5
66.9
143.2
399.3
412.4
55.9
29.0
136.5
35.9
176.7
53.6
42.8
149.0
92.6
1,061.9
176.6
37.9
418.9
278.6
178.2
388.8
312.0
47.6
173.3
37.2
223.6
1,106.2
74.8
37.8
454.7
317.8
158.8
164.1
38.2
12,781.0
1.7
0.7
1.3
12.2
15.9
12,796.9
Storage
134.6
65.8
91.0
108.5
978.9
86.3
47.3
17.1
8.2
333.5
148.9
43.3
40.6
239.6
124.3
93.1
131.8
90.9
141.9
52.2
98.7
404.5
135.7
115.9
127.0
175.1
40.3
48.2
29.2
34.9
153.8
75.3
392.6
191.1
35.8
356.8
139.1
161.9
327.9
67.2
29.1
87.5
29.8
98.7
576.3
69.9
32.6
166.7
459.5
82.8
132.9
20.9
7,875.6
2.7
10.4
2.3
24.0
39.4
7,915.0
Source
80.4
37.1
49.7
50.2
2,465.7
117.0
38.9
17.0
0.0
305.3
145.2
90.9
43.4
183.5
60.9
48.2
60.1
38.5
85.4
19.8
39.6
219.7
120.0
113.8
84.0
85.5
23.4
69.8
17.3
22.6
94.9
164.4
679.6
152.2
12.5
182.4
66.4
89.5
139.0
258.4
14.7
50.0
23.0
32.1
413.0
59.7
25.0
164.7
174.2
54.0
83.9
29.3
7,696.4
1.6
57.0
2.5
3.3
64.4
7,760.7
Other
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
Total
794.8
481.3
898.6
1,375.4
11,053.8
924.1
434.8
192.1
109.3
2,654.0
1,912.8
327.4
299.1
2,240.0
914.1
1,393.8
1,314.4
938.0
1,148.6
531.3
825.1
3,325.1
2,466.8
599.5
911.7
942.3
290.0
549.5
245.2
310.9
1,806.8
807.9
6,773.2
1,654.1
200.2
2,377.9
1,299.8
954.6
2,779.9
1,317.9
278.7
693.5
246.5
879.8
6,199.2
484.6
256.6
1,884.0
2,287.5
724.8
869.8
221.1
75,402.1
15.6
99.2
13.7
148.1
276.6
75,678.7

-------
 B-6  Appendix B
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
New York City is in the process of
constructing tunnels designed to add
redundancy and deliver hundreds of
millions of gallons of water per day to
city residents. Workers, at right, are
drilling holes for dynamiting. A worker,
below, inspects a recently concreted
tunnel to ensure it is ready to be put on
line. Redundancy will help the city
ensure an adequate water supply in the
event of a tunnel failure and will enable
inspections and maintenance of the
city's two other main tunnels.
                                                                Exhibit B-3: (facing page)
                                                                 Total Need by System Size
                                                                 The largest share of the total
                                                                 need is for infrastructure
                                                                 improvements at large water
                                                                 systems, those serving more
                                                                 than 50,000 people.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Appendix B  B-7
Exhibit B-3: Total Need by System Size (20-year need in millions of Jan
'95 dollars)


State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Subtotal
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Is.
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Total
Large Systems
387.4
90.7
584.5
257.6
13,475.1
679.1
541.7
189.2
131.6
1,960.9
946.3
17.8
81.4
1,791.9
337.2
306.9
519.3
612.2
473.2
230.2
746.5
3,266.8
1,817.4
519.4
25.0
476.4
82.4
230.6
287.1
72.5
1,905.4
273.3
6,388.4
621.7
129.5
2,252.3
399.5
655.6
1,896.9
1,103.4
449.6
350.4
76.7
231.9
6,195.8
448.2
21.2
1,626.8
1,282.9
114.8
725.4
91.8
58,379.6
79.1
79.1
58,458.7
Medium Systems Small Systems
687.9
136.4
344.2
1,101.5
3,306.0
627.6
466.1
21.7
0.0
1,182.8
1,429.8
326.2
105.2
2,178.4
656.9
1,168.2
614.5
1,015.7
659.4
326.6
273.9
2,425.2
1,711.4
1,257.6
573.8
369.9
203.7
250.1
90.7
225.0
1,383.2
426.1
1,645.4
823.2
227.5
1,521.5
543.9
828.2
1,258.1
786.2
159.9
674.8
176.4
1,162.0
2,782.1
317.1
129.9
589.8
1,232.0
281.5
456.1
94.1
41,235.2
6.2
20.0
31.4
111.7
169.3
41,404.5
584.0
544.1
425.0
665.4
2,032.9
642.4
348.9
160.7
0.0
1,191.6
918.8
86.9
403.6 1
1,379.4
680.6
780.8
842.7
596.3
820.9
308.6
264.4
253.0
908.1 1
660.7
977.3
1,032.6
376.6
472.2
147.1
419.4
324.6
343.3
2,048.7
1,269.3
229.9
1,132.5
1,088.0
664.4 1
1,601.0
364.3
47.1
435.6
315.6
477.4
3,386.7
280.0
308.2
727.4
1,515.9
693.8
685.7
204.8
37,069.5
16.2
7.6
3.7
111.3
138.9
37,208.4
Total
1,659.2
771.2
1,353.7
2,024.5
18,814.0
1,949.1
1,356.7
371.6
131.6
4,335.3
3,294.8
430.9
590.2
5,349.7
1,674.7
2,255.9
1,976.5
2,224.2
1,953.5
865.5
1,284.7
5,945.1
4,436.8
2,437.6
1,576.1
1,878.9
662.6
952.9
524.9
717.0
3,613.2
1,042.7
10,082.5
2,714.1
586.9
4,906.3
2,031.4
2,148.2
4,756.0
2,254.0
656.7
1,460.8
568.7
1,871.2
12,364.6
1,045.4
459.3
2,943.9
"4,030.8
1,090.2
1,867.2
390.7
136,684.2
22.5
106.7
35.1
223.1
387.3
137,071.5

-------
  B-8   Appendix B
                            Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                                 TREATMENT OF SURFACE WATER
                                   Chemical Addition

                                      . Rapid Mix
  Lake, River, or Holding Basin
                                                          Disinfectant Addition
Usually, surface water is treated using a
conventional filtration process designed to
remove suspended solids, organic and
inorganic contaminants, pathogenic
organisms, and tastes and odors. Almost
40 percent of water systems with surface
water sources have a need to  build, rebuild,
or improve surface water treatment plants.
This schematic shows how these plants
work.

1.    Chemical Addition: Chemicals, usually
     coagulants and disinfectants, are added
     to untreated surface water to make
     contaminants, including pathogenic
     organisms, easier  to remove.

2.    Rapid Mix:  In this  stage, chemicals are
     quickly blended with untreated  water to
     facilitate chemical  reactions.

3.    Flocculation:  The  water is slowly mixed
     in flocculation basins. The slow, gentle
     mixing allows chemically destabilized
     particles to come into contact with each
     other so that larger, more easily
     removable "floe" particles are formed.

4.    Sedimentation: "Floe" particles are
     allowed to settle out of the water and
     are subsequently removed as "sludge."
     Many of the contaminants from the
source water and chemicals
added in Step 1 are removed
in this process. The cleaner,
"clarified" water is then
transferred to the filters.

Filters: The remaining "floe"
particles are removed as the
water passes through the
granular media of the filters.
The clean, filtered water is
collected in piping manifolds
beneath the filters.

Disinfectant Addition:
Disinfectant (usually
chlorine) is added to the
filtered water as it is
transferred to the clearwell
or finished water storage.

Clearwell Detention: The
water is held in the clearwell
long enough to allow the
disinfectant to inactivate any
remaining pathogens. A
disinfectant residual is
maintained in the distribu-
tion system to protect
against contamination that
might occur after the water
has left the treatment plant.
Exhibit B-4: (facing page)
 Current Safe Drinking Water Act
 Need
 Approximately $12.1 billion is
 needed now to meet current
 SDWA requirements. Eighty-four
 percent of this need is to protect
 against microbiological contami-
 nants that pose an acute risk to
 health.
 Exhibit B-5:  (pages B-10
 and B-11)
 Total SDWA and SDWA-Related
 Need
 Over the next 20 years, approxi-
 mately $16.2 billion is for compli-
 ance with existing SDWA
 regulations, and $14.0 billion is for
 compliance with proposed SDWA
 regulations. Another $35.7 billion
 is for SDWA-related need.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Appendix B   B-9
Exhibit B-4: Current Safe Drinking Water Act Need (in millions of Jan.
'95 dollars)



State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Subtotal
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Is.
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Total
SWTR
63.6
27.3
181.4
376.9
1,318.7
213.4
72.1
2.8
0.0
266.9
301.0
37.9
17.2
207.2
98.5
61.7
226.7
108.8
69.9
52.8
118.1
378.8
379.0
37.5
1.1
104.2
26.7
156.1
31.1
30.0
45.9
28.1
1,064.3
137.0
15.8
358.1
233.5
143.4
315.8
285.9
40.1
154.7
26.5
159.8
999.6
51.8
29.5
335.6
269.0
125.5
143.4
36.7
9,967.8
1.4
0.5
1.2
10.2
13.3
9,981.1
TCR
0.4
1.7
1.5
0.8
6.2
1.2
1.4
0.6
0.0
3.7
2.7
0.2
1.5
2.3
2.7
2.0
1.2
0.3
2.9
0.7
0.9
0.6
2.4
8.4
4.4
3.4
1.3
1.1
0.5
1.7
0.9
1.3
5.4
4.1
0.5
2.4
1.1
3.0
4.1
0.3
0.1
3.2
0.8
0.3
6.6
0.6
0.8
2.2
7.5
3.3
2.8
0.4
110.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
110.2
Nitrate
0.0
0.2
6.6
0.1
171.8
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.2
13.1
0.2
0.2
7.3
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
8.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.5
0.1
0.3
3.0
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.9
0.0
0.7
5.9
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.1
227.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
227.6
Lead and
Copper Rule
4.1
6.8
5.0
2.2
15.0
2.0
4.3
1.1
0.0
42.3
6.1
0.4
0.9
62.1
26.5
2.4
2.3
1.8
6.5
3.4
0.6
32.0
29.1
8.5
2.2
4.0
0.9
2.3
0.6
1.1
103.8
3.6
139.9
5.6
0.7
221.1
11.2
7.4
77.8
1.9
4.3
6.8
1.7
2.3
12.4
0.6
2.0
20.1
10.6
5.7
20.0
0.5
936.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.2
937.7
Phase I, II, V
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
232.6
0.3
1.5
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.2
0.1
0.4
28.9
7.8
0.4
3.7
0.6
47.7
0.1
0.0
18.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
4.4
0.1
1.1
0.3
1.7
11.2
0.0
27.3
0.4
0.0
14.3
0.6
6.7
1.3
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.3
1.2
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.4
2.5
5.8
0.1
428.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
428.1
TTHMs
3.1
0.0
0.0
32.8
67.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
23.8
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.0
1.1
1.0
13.1
0.1
3.2
0.1
0.3
8.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
180.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
180.5
Other*
2.9
0.5
0.4
3.0
4.1
2.3
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.6
1.6
0.0
0.6
13.9
1.2
1.1 1
3.2
4.9
48.2
1.3
1.1 1
0.9
2.2
0.4
0.2
2.5
0.6
0.2
8.4
1.2
13.4
0.5
6.1
3.8
0.4
2.5
10.4
2.3
4.7
1.7
0.1 1
1.6
0.7
2.6
10.6
7.4
0.8
2.2
3.2
4.6
0.4
0.6
188.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
188.8
Total
74.6
36.6
195.0
416.1
1,816.0
219.4
80.3
4.6
0.0
328.1
311.9
38.7
20.7
329.9
136.9
67.8
244.8
116.7
176.1
58.5
120.8
431.0
414.7
55.8
8.0
142.6
29.8
169.2
41.5
36.0
175.6
33.7
1,245.0
152.4
30.6
598.7
263.0
163.1
404.4
298.6
44.8
166.9
31.7
165.5
1,037.6
66.9
33.4
360.8
291.5
141.9
172.7
38.3
12,039.3
1.5
0.6
1.2
11.4
14.7
12,053.9
 * Includes arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, fluoride, mercury, selenium, combined radium-226, -228, and gross alpha particle activity.

-------
B-10   Appendix B
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Exhibit B-5: Total SDWA and SDWA-Related Need (20-year need in millions of Jan.
'95 dollars)



State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Subtotal
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Is.
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Total

SWTR
122.0
33.4
182.8
471.4
1,694.1
277.3
111.7
6.3
0.0
283.3
383.6
38.1
28.5
320.2
108.9
114.6
249.0
180.2
85.5
96.3
145.4
894.4
412.1
96.9
1.3
146.0
66.3
168.7
34.2
59.2
62.0
38.7
1,142.2
194.5
67.8
524.4
304.4
296.3
353.7
314.9
63.4
200.2
53.6
230.0
1,371.6
63.9
33.3
374.8
318.6
144.1
169.7
40.4
13,174.3
1.8
0.6
1.2
14.0
17.6
13,191.9

TCR
2.1
2.0
1.7
1.0
7.6
1.4
1.6
0.7
0.0
4.5
3.2
0.2
1.7
6.9
6.2
2.4
1.4
0.3
3.5
0.8
1.0
0.7
2.9
8.8
7.5
3.9
1.6
1.4
0.6
1.9
1.1
1.5
6.4
4.8
0.6
2.9
1.3
3.3
4.9
0.4
0.2
3.4
0.9
0.4
8.1
0.8
1.0
2.6
8.5
3.4
3.2
0.5
140.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
140.0

Nitrate
0.0
0.2
6.6
0.1
172.0
0.1
0.2
1.6
0.0
0.4
0.3
0.0
0.2
13.1
0.2
0.2
7.3
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.2
0.2
0.2
8.4
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.9
0.5
0.1
0.3
11.4
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.9
0.0
0.7
5.9
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.1
237.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
237.7
Existing
Lead and
Copper Rule
4.4
11.4
5.4
2.5
18.1
4.8
10.8
1.3
0.0
43.5
10.5
0.5
1.2
85.4
27.9
3.2
6.0
32.2
7.2
5.9
1.0
48.8
102.3
188.1
4.0
4.7
1.4
4.3
0.7
2.1
124.1
3.9
217.4
13.7
1.0
229.4
12.3
7.8
288.3
2.0
45.5
7.1
1.9
2.5
14.7
1.4
2.2
20.6
12.2
5.9
110.6
0.6
1,764.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.2
1,765.7
Regulations
Phase I, II, V
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.4
250.4
0.3
1.5
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.2
0.1
0.4
55.1
7.8
0.4
3.7
0.6
47.7
0.1
0.0
18.1
7.8
0.0
0.0
4.4
0.1
1.1
9.5
1.7
11.2
0.0
47.0
0.4
0.0
14.3
0.6
6.7
4.3
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.1
10.0
1.6
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.4
2.5
5.8
0.1
520.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
520.4

TTHMs
3.1
0.0
0.0
32.8
79.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
2.3
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.6
1.8
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
23.8
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.0
1.1
1.0
13.7
0.1
3.2
0.1
0.3
8.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
6.5
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
194.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
194.3


Other* Subtotal
2.9
0.5
0.4
3.0
4.1
2.3
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.6
1.6
0.0
0.6
13.9
1.2
1.1
,2
4.9
48.2
1.3
1.1
0.9
2.2
0.4
0.2
2.5
0.6
0.2
8.4
1.2
13.4
0.5
6.1
3.8
0.4
2.5
10.4
I
1.7
0.1
1.6
0.7
2.6
10.6
7.4
0.8
2.2
3.2
4.6
0.4
0.6
188.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
188.8
134.8
47.6
197.1
511.1
2,225.8
286.4
126.6
9.9
0.0
346.5
399.5
38.9
32.7
497.0
152.2
122.0
271.1
218.9
194.0
104.6
148.7
963.6
527.6
295.1
13.0
185.6
70.0
184.1
54.1
66.3
212.1
44.8
1,421.1
218.6
83.5
773.8
343.6
316.6
656.7
327.8
109.2
212.9
59.2
245.7
1,413.8
80.0
37.5
400.9
343.7
160.8
290.0
42.2
16,219.8
1.9
0.7
1.2
15.2
19.0
16,238.8
* Includes arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, fluoride, mercury, selenium, combined radium-226, -228, and gross alpha particle activity.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Appendix B  B-11
Exhibit B-5: Total SDWA and SDWA-Related Need (cont.)


State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Subtotal
American Samoa
Guam
Northern Mariana Is.
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Total
Proposed Regulations
D/DBPR
174.2
25.4
94.3
116.7
1,037.3
157.9
113.9
24.1
7.3
280.6
260.2
14.7
28.1
488.3
148.0
95.4
92.1
193.4
174.1
39.9
66.1
314.3
362.8
91.9
77.6
131.7
34.0
33.0
49.0
41.2
233.6
27.4
390.7
244.3
36.1
349.1
140.0
106.0
438.9
134.2
56.3
154.0
29.6
182.5
793.4
120.7
28.5
236.8
166.1
74.8
142.9
33.2
8,886.3
0.8
3.3
0.5
4.0
8.5
8,894.9
ESWTR Information
tovv in -^ I. .. r» i
Collection Rule
97.8
17.5
46.8
73.9
593.7
108.6
71.1
11.2
5.2
56.8
148.9
1.7
10.4
295.1
70.8
41.8
61.1
143.0
75.0
25.4
35.3
183.6
221.4
26.8
7.4
63.9
19.4
7.2
30.8
24.2
113.2
7.2
241.1
149.3
21.0
184.5
106.6
65.2
277.9
85.9
36.8
93.8
15.6
118.0
482.8
74.5
17.7
159.7
72.1
60.2
60.6
24.4
5,043.9
0.7
1.1
0.0
7.6
9.3
5,053.2
0.7
0.1
0.7
0.5
10.1
1.1
0.8
0.2
0.1
3.1
1.8
0.1
0.1
2.8
0.9
0.6
0.5
1.0
1.1
0.2
0.5
2.1
2.5
0.4
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
1.6
0.1
2.4
1.4
0.3
2.4
0.8
0.5
2.8
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.1
0.8
5.3
0.9
0.1
1.8
0.8
0.3
1.0
0.2
59.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
59.2
Subtotal
272.7
43.0
141.8
191.2
1,641.1
P 267.6
185.9
35.5
12.7
340.5
N 41 0.8
16.5
38.5
786.2
219.7
137.8
153.7
337.4
250.1
65.5
101.9
499.9
586.7
119.1
85.0
196.2
53.5
40.3
80.2
65.6
k 348.4
34.7
634.3
395.0
57.3
535.9
247.3
171.6
719.7
220.8
93.6
248.6
45.3
301.4
1,281.6
196.1
46.3
P 398.3
238.9
135.3
204.5
57.7
13,989.4
1.4
4.4
0.5
11.6
17.9
14,007.3
SDWA-Related Need
Distribution
Improvement (TCR)
372.7
226.8
271.2
643.6
3,868.9
421.8
531.4
153.2
75.6
1,135.3
769.5
59.4
183.6
1,455.3
619.6
486.8
632.8
484.8
626.8
371.0
332.5
1,816.3
1,335.4
536.9
637.2
557.4
251.9
262.9
75.8
237.3
1,127.8
267.2
2,485.9
737.9
220.1
1,321.3
604.7
455.4
1,661.5
137.6
238.3
261.1
146.3
363.2
2,700.8
317.8
159.3
524.8
1,281.4
330.3
582.8
104.3
35,463.5
4.9
30.2
3.4
58.4
96.9
35,560.4

-------
 B-12  Appendix B
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Permafrost conditions and arctic
temperatures make water system
construction in Alaska Native
communities challenging. A utilidor,
shown to the right, houses drinking
water distribution mains. Often
distribution mains cannot be placed
underground because ice-rich
permafrost soils can be unstable and
burying the lines is not cost  effective.
Above ground, piping must  be insulated
from arctic conditions. Even when pipes
are insulated, the water must be
circulated and heated with diesel boilers
to prevent freezing. When a  community
does not  have a distribution system that
delivers water to households, residents
must haul water from a watering point
like the one shown below. The danger
of contamination is significant because
the water is hauled on the same board
walk used to carry away human waste.
                                                               Exhibit B-6: (facing page)
                                                                Total Need for American Indian
                                                                and Alaska Native Water
                                                                Systems by EPA Region

                                                                The needs for American Indian
                                                                and Alaska Native water systems
                                                                totals $1.3 billion.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Appendix B  B-13
Exhibit B-6: Total Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Water Systems
by EPA Region (20-year need in millions of Jan. '95 dollars)

EPA Region
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3 1
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9 2
Region 10 3
Alaska Native Systems
Total
Total Need
0.3
1.8
--
15.6
41.2
34.5
5.7
95.5
320.5
45.5
772.0
1,332.6
                      Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

                      1 There are no American Indian water systems in EPA Region 3.
                      2 Navajo water systems are located in EPA Regions 6, 8, and 9, but for the purposes of
                       this report, all Navajo needs are shown in EPA Region 9.
                      3 Needs for Alaska Native water systems are not included in the EPA Region 10 total.
                                            Locations of EPA Regions

-------
 B-14  Appendix B
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Many American Indians get their
drinking water from watering points.
The Shonto watering  point, pictured to
the right, provides water to over 400
Navajo people. Residents use trucks to
haul water to their homes up to 15
miles away. The sign  at the watering
point states that there is a water
shortage and asks that the  water be
used for household purposes only.
Hauled water is vulnerable to
microbiological contamination. The fill
hose, as well as containers for storage
and transport,  can cause contamination.
The pump jack at Burnham, shown
below, operates a watering point that
serves 150 Navajo people. The pump
jack is solar powered, but has a diesel
backup for cloudy days. Fuel stored in
the metal tank poses  a direct threat of
contamination to the  aquifer and the
well. The Navajo Nation EPA is working
with both communities to improve
sanitary conditions and safety
precautions.
                                                                Exhibit B-7: (facing page)
                                                                 Need by Category for American
                                                                 Indian and Alaska Native Water
                                                                 Systems
                                                                 Approximately $1.1 billion is
                                                                 needed now to address problems
                                                                 that pose public health risks.
                                                                 Almost $0.2  billion is needed in
                                                                 the future to ensure the availabil-
                                                                 ity of safe drinking water over
                                                                 the next 20 years.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Appendix B  B-15
Exhibit B-7: Need by Category for American Indian and Alaska Native
Water Systems (20-year need in millions of Jan. '95 dollars)

Category of Need
Transmission and Distribution
Treatment
Storage
Source
Other
Total
Current Need
606.8
186.2
239.2
72.7
31.2
1,136.1
Future Need
42.5
92.8
34.4
25.3
1.5
196.5
Total Need
649.3
279.0
273.7
98.0
32.7
1,332.6
                 Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

-------
B-16  Appendix B
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
If adequate storage is not available, the
distribution system can lose pressure.
This condition is dangerous because it
can lead to contaminants being drawn
into the distribution system. The
elevated tank, shown to the right, is
severely corroded and should be
replaced. In some cases, systems
replace elevated storage tanks with
stand pipes, pictured below. These stand
pipes have recently been constructed on
a hillside at Polacca, a Hopi community
in Arizona. Even without the hillside
location, these cost-effective tanks can
be tall enough to pressurize a water
system and hold substantial reserves of
water.
                                                               Exhibit B-8: (facing page)
                                                                Total SDWA and SDWA-Related
                                                                Need for American Indian and
                                                                Alaska Native Water Systems
                                                                For American Indian  and Alaska
                                                                Native water systems, the  need
                                                                for compliance with existing
                                                                SDWA regulations is $96.6 mil-
                                                                lion, approximately $75.6 million
                                                                of which is needed now. A total of
                                                                $26 million is for compliance with
                                                                proposed SDWA regulations.
                                                                Another $185 million is for SDWA-
                                                                related need.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Appendix B  B-17
Exhibit B-8: Total SDWA and SDWA-Related Need for American Indian and Alaska
Native Water Systems (20-year need in millions of Jan. '95 dollars)

Regulation
Current Need
Future Need
Total Need
Existing Regulations
Regulations for Contaminants
with Acute Health Effects 1
Regulations for Contaminants
with Chronic Health Effects 2
Subtotal
74.8
0.8
75.6
21.0
—
21.0
95.8
0.8
96.6
Proposed Regulations
Disinfectants and Disinfection
Byproducts Rule
Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule
Information Collection Rule 3
Subtotal
—
—
—
—
18.0
8.0
—
26.0
18.0
8.0
—
26.0
SDWA-Related Need
Distribution Improvements (TCR)
174.4
10.9
185.3
                  Note:  Numbers may not total due to rounding.

                  1  Regulations for contaminants with acute health effects include the Surface Water Treatment Rule,
                    the Total Coliform Rule, and the nitrate standard.
                  2  Regulations for contaminants with chronic health effects include the Lead and Copper Rule, the
                    Phase I, II, and V rules, and safety standards for TTHMs, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium,
                    fluoride, mercury, selenium, combined radium-226, -228, and gross alpha particle activity.
                  3  No capital costs are associated with the ICR for American Indian and Alaska Native water systems.

-------
The Bull Run watershed is Portland, Oregon's drinking water source.

-------
Appendix  C—Future
Regulations Not  Included  in
the Total Need
  n the future, EPA may set new or
  revised safety standards for
  additional contaminants. Future
regulations being considered under the
SDWA are for radon and other radionu-
clides, arsenic (revision), and sulfate.
Needs for these future regulations are
not included as part of the total need in
this report because regulatory sce-
narios and cost estimates have not
been finalized. New or revised stan-
dards for these contaminants may
result in needs ranging between
$1.7 billion and $14.8 billion, depending
on how they are regulated. Exhibit C-1
shows the estimated range of need by
regulation. Needs for the Ground Water
Disinfection Rule, which is a priority for
regulation, are not included in this
report because cost estimates have not
been developed.
    Exhibit C-1: Estimated Need for Future Regulations Not Included in the Total Need
                           (in millions of Jan. '95 dollars)

Regulation/
Contaminant
Radon
Radionuclides other than Radon
Arsenic
Sulfate
Total
Range of Options
Least Stringent Most Stringent
3,000 pCi/l 200 pCi/l
varies by contaminant varies by contaminant
20 ng/l 2 ng/l
500 mg/l, alt. source for 500 mg/l, central treatment
infants/public ed. required

Range of Need Estimate
Low Estimate High Estimate
$102.1 $2,594.9
$1,270.8 $4,587.1
$278.9 $7,126.8
$27.9 $460.3
$1,679.7 $14,769.1




-------
C-2   Appendix C                                                       Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
                            EPA has analyzed a range of alterna-
                            tives for regulating radon and the other
                            radionuclides—radium-226, radium-
                            228, uranium, adjusted gross alpha,
                            and beta and photon emitters. The
                            high and low cost estimates  in
                            Exhibit C-1 reflects costs for  regulating
                            radon at 200 pCi/l and 3,000 pCi/l.
                            Exhibit C-1 also shows cost estimates
                            for regulating radium-226 and radium-
                            228 at 5 pCi/l and 20 pCi/l, uranium at
                            20 |j,g/l and 80 |j,g/l, and adjusted gross
                            alpha at 15 pCi/l. No capital costs are
                            expected to be associated with beta
                            and photon emitters.

                            Arsenic is currently regulated at
                            50 |j,g/l, but EPA has analyzed the cost
                            of regulating this contaminant at a
                            more stringent level. Exhibit  C-1 shows
                            estimated costs for regulating arsenic
                            at levels of 2 |j,g/l and 20 |j,g/l.

                            EPA has proposed four alternatives for
                            regulating sulfate at 500 mg/l. The least
                            capital-intensive options (reflected in
                            the low cost  on Exhibit C-1) require
                            water systems with high sulfate levels
                            to provide alternative sources of water
                            to infants and, under one scenario,
                            provide public education to exposed
                            adults. The most capital-intensive
                            option (reflected in the high cost on
                            Exhibit C-1) requires central treatment,
                            which is usually reverse osmosis.

-------

-------
The small system operator shown above is flushing iron from the
water system's distribution system. More than 3,100 small systems
have an unmet need to treat for iron and manganese. These
secondary contaminants make water reddish-brown and stain sinks
and laundry.

-------
Appendix D—Separate
State  Estimates
    The Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey did not include some types of need. Two States felt
    it was important to report costs associated with these needs. In response, EPA provided States
    with the opportunity to submit separate estimates of need that include these costs. Exhibit D-1
shows each State's estimate. Maine's estimate is for refinancing existing loans for filtration plants. New
Mexico's need estimate is for planned growth in Albuquerque. These estimates were not included in
estimates of need listed elsewhere in the report.
                       Exhibit D-1:  Separate State Estimates
                       State
Separate State Estimate
     (in millions)
                Maine
           $97.2
                New Mexico
          $100.1

-------
                                                   N,TRATE LtVELS EXCEED  FEDERAL
                                                         MAXIMUM LIMITS
                                                VMTtK UKSAFt  FOR PREGNANT
                                                 AND IWAMT5 UNDER  6 MONTHS  OLD
                                                          LS CALL  :
                                                           I-H-S- - 381-7226               v

                                                           HEALTH HEFT-- 383-1221       '    ''
                                                                                         •  r
Nitrate contamination can cause "blue baby syndrome " and lead to the death of infants. When their well became contami-
nated with nitrate, residents ofSilNakya, a Tohono O'Odham community, were forced to find another source of water. The
pictured transmission line now brings water from a neighboring community 11 miles away.
                                      i
                          J

-------
Appendix  E-Glossary
Acute health effects: health effects resulting from exposure to a contaminant that causes severe
symptoms to occur quickly—often within a matter of hours or days. Examples include gastrointestinal illness
and "blue baby syndrome."

"Blue baby syndrome":  a potentially fatal condition for infants where nitrate reduces the blood's ability to
carry oxygen.

Capital  improvement plan (CIP): a document produced by a local government, utility, or water system
that thoroughly outlines, for a specified period of time, all needed capital projects, the reason for each
project, and their costs.

Chafee-Lautenberg Report to Congress: a Report to Congress prepared in response to a request in
EPA's 1993 Appropriation Act. The Chafee-Lautenberg Report included a figure of $8.6 billion in 1991 dollars
for capital costs for SDWA compliance. Inflated to the 1995 dollars used in the Needs Survey, this equates to
$9.7 billion. (EPA Publication Number 10-R-93-000, September 1993)

Chronic health effects: health effects resulting from long-term exposure to low concentrations of certain
contaminants. Cancer is one such health effect.

Coliform bacteria:  a group of bacteria whose presence in a water sample indicates the water may contain
disease-causing  organisms.

Community water system:  a public water system that serves at least 15 connections used by year-round
residents or that regularly serves at least 25 residents year-round. Examples include cities, towns, and
communities such as retirement homes.

Cryptosporidium parvum:  a protozoan parasite (often referred to as Cryptosporidium) that causes the
disease cryptosporidiosis. This pathogenic organism is ubiquitous in surface water, including surface water
used as a drinking water source.  Cryptosporidium lives in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals and
most often reaches surface water bodies through contamination from sewage, agriculture (e.g., run-off from
cattle  feed  lots and pastures), or wildlife activity.

Current infrastructure needs: new facilities or deficiencies in existing facilities identified by the State or
system. Water systems should begin construction for current needs as soon as possible to avoid a threat to
public health.

Engineer's report: a document produced by a professional engineer that outlines the need  and cost for a
specific infrastructure project.

Existing regulations: drinking water regulations promulgated under the authority of the Safe Drinking
Water Act by EPA before publication of this report; existing regulations can be found in the  Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 141.

-------
 E-2  Appendix E                                                      Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Finished water: water that is considered safe and suitable for delivery to customers.

Future infrastructure needs: infrastructure deficiencies that a system expects to address in the next
20 years due to predictable deterioration of facilities. Future infrastructure needs do not include current
infrastructure needs. Examples are storage facility and treatment plant replacement where the facility
currently performs adequately, but will reach the end of its useful life in the next 20 years. Needs solely to
accommodate future growth are not included in the report.

Giardia lamblia:  a protozoan parasite (often  referred to as Giardia) that causes the disease giardiasis. This
pathogenic organism is ubiquitous in surface water, including surface water used  as a drinking water source.
Giardia lives in the digestive tract of warm-blooded animals and most often enters surface water bodies
through contamination from sewage, run-off from cattle feed lots, or wildlife activity.

Ground water: any water obtained from a  source beneath the surface of the ground.

Ground water under the direct influence of surface water: any water obtained from a source beneath
the surface of the ground that has vulnerabilities to contamination similar to surface water. For regulatory
purposes, direct influence is determined for  individual sources in accordance with State law, regulation, and
policy.

Growth:  expansions of population, service area, or industrial uses projected to occur after the time of the
survey. Capital improvement needs planned solely to accommodate projected future growth are not
included in the survey. Projects can, however,  be designed for growth expected during the design-life of the
project. For example, the survey would allow a treatment plant needed now and expected to treat water for
20 years. Such a plant could be designed for the population anticipated to be served at the end of the 20-year
period.

Infrastructure needs:  the capital  costs associated with ensuring the continued protection of public health
through rehabilitating  or building facilities needed for provision of safe drinking water. Categories of need
include source development and rehabilitation, treatment, storage, and transmission and distribution.
Operation and maintenance needs are not considered infrastructure needs and are not included  in this
report. A portion of infrastructure needs is for SDWA compliance.

Large water system: in this report, this phrase refers to a community water system serving more than
50,000 people.

Medium water system: in this report, this phrase refers to a community water system serving from 3,301
to 50,000 people.

Microbiological contamination: the significant occurrence in a water supply of protozoan, bacteriologi-
cal, or viral contaminants.

Non-community water system:  a public  water system that is not a community water system and that
serves a non-residential population of at least 25 individuals or 15 service connections daily for at least 60
days of the year. Examples include schools and churches.

Pathogen:  a  disease causing organism.

Public water system:  a system for the provision of water for human consumption, if the system has at
least 15 service connections or regularly serves an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out
of the year.

-------
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey                                                      Appendix E   E-3
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): a law passed by Congress in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996 to
ensure that public water systems provide safe drinking water to consumers. (42 U.S.C.A. §§300f to 300J-26)

SDWA need:  a capital expenditure required for compliance with SDWA regulations.

SDWA-related need: a capital expenditure required for distribution piping replacement. Distribution piping
replacement is considered a SDWA-related  need because the monitoring required under the TCR helps to
identify problems in the distribution system.

Small  water system:  in this report, this phrase refers to a community water system serving 3,300 people
or fewer. This definition was chosen based  on resource constraints and system capabilities. Other definitions
have been used. For example, the SDWA at §1452(a)(2) defines a small system as a system that serves fewer
than 10,000 people.

Source rehabilitation and development: a category of need that includes the costs involved in develop-
ing  or improving sources of water for communities.

State: in this report, this term refers to all 50 States of the United States, Puerto Rico, the District of
Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. (See definition of
"Water systems in the States.")

Storage: a category of need that addresses finished water storage needs faced by community water
systems.

Surface water: all water which is open to the atmosphere and subject to surface run-off including streams,
rivers,  and lakes.

Transmission and  distribution:  a category of need that includes replacement or rehabilitation of
transmission or distribution lines which carry drinking water from the source to the treatment plant or from
the  treatment plant to the home.

Treatment: a category of need that includes conditioning water or removing microbiological and chemical
contaminants. Filtration of surface water sources, pH adjustment, softening, and disinfection are examples of
treatment.

Waterborne disease outbreak: the significant occurrence of acute infectious illness, epidemiologically
associated with the ingestion of water from a public water system.

Water systems in the States: in this report, this phrase refers to water systems regulated by any of the 50
States  of the United  States, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands. This includes those States and territories for  which the EPA serves as
the  primary regulatory body. This group does not include American Indian or Alaska  Native water systems.

Watering point:  a  central source from which people without piped water can draw  drinking water and
transport it to their homes.

-------