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.
------- |