United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4101)
EPA 816-R-01-004
February 2001
&EPA Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey
Second Report to Congress
jj Printed on recycled paper
-------
Pictured left to right from upper left: surface water supply, building anew treatment plant, laying
distribution mains, an elevated storage tank, andchilddrinkingwater.
-------
Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey
Second Report to Congress
1999
II
\\
February 2001
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
Drinking Water Protection Division (4101)
Washington, DC 20460
-------
This 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
1-800-533-NTIS or 1-703-487-4650
This document is also available electronically on the Internet
at www.epa.gov/safewater
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11
Total National Need 12
The Regulatory Need 15
Economic Challenges Faced by Small Water Systems 17
Needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems 17
Households Not Served by Public Water Systems 18
Methods 18
Total Need Compared to the 1995 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey 19
Conclusions 19
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY METHODS 21
Scope of the Survey 21
Documented Costs and Cost Models 23
Developing the Methods 23
Conducting the State Survey 24
Conducting the American Indian and Alaska Native Village Surveys 25
FINDINGS 29
Total 20-Year National Need 29
Total Need by Category 33
The Regulatory Need 37
Economic Challenges Faced by Small Water Systems 40
Community Water Systems Serving Fewer Than 10,000 People 41
Total Need Compared to the 1995 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey 42
Conservative Estimate of Needs 42
Not-for-Profit Noncommunity Water Systems 43
Separate State Estimates 45
FINDINGS: AMERICAN INDIAN AND ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE WATER SYSTEMS 47
American Indian Water System Needs 49
Alaska Native Village Water System Needs 50
HOUSEHOLDS NOT SERVED BY PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS 53
APPENDIX A— METHODS: SAMPLING AND COST MODELING 57
Methods for Estimating State Needs 57
Estimating the Needs of American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems 60
Estimating Costs for Proposed and Recently Promulgated Regulations 62
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 65
APPENDIX C—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR SYSTEMS SERVING 10,000 AND FEWER PEOPLE 77
APPENDIX D—SEPARATE STATE ESTIMATES 81
APPENDIX E—GLOSSARY 83
-------
-------
EXHIBITS
Exhibit ES-1: Total 20-Year Need 12
Exhibit ES-2: Total 20-Year Need by Category 13
Exhibit ES-3: 20-Year Total Need and Regulatory Need 15
Exhibit ES-4: 20-Year Regulatory Need 15
Exhibit ES-5: Average 20-Year Per-Household Need 16
Exhibit ES-6: Total 20-Year American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water System Need by Category 17
Exhibit 1: Location of American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems In the Needs Survey Sample 27
Exhibit 2: Total Need by Current and Future Need 30
Exhibit 3: Overview of Need by State 31
Exhibit 4: Total Need by Category of Need 32
Exhibit 5: 20-Year Total Need and Regulatory Need 37
Exhibits: 20-Year Regulatory Need 38
Exhibit 7: Average 20-Year Per-Household Need 41
Exhibit 8: Total 20-Year Not-for-Profit Noncommunity Water System Need by Category 43
Exhibit 9: Total American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water System Need by Category of Need 47
Exhibit 10: Total 20-Year Need by Category for American Indian Water Systems 49
Exhibit 11: Total 20-Year Need by Category for Alaska Native Village Water Systems 51
Exhibit A-1: Community Water Systems Sampling for the 1999 Needs Survey 57
Exhibit A-2: Cost Curve for New Conventional Filtration Plant 59
Exhibit A-3: American Indian and Alaska Native Village System Sampling for the 1999 Needs Survey 61
-------
Constructed in 1881, the Walnut Street Storage tank in Dedham, Massachusetts, has the
distinction of being the nation's oldest steel reservoir in continuous service. According to the
Dedham Water Company Annual Report dated January 9,1882:
From the top of this structure a remarkably fine view of the surrounding country can
be held....The reservoir complete in place, ready for water, and warranted tight....is
literally a standing monument of excellence.
The Dedham- Westwood Water District will disassemble this tank upon completion of a new
storage facility}
1 Journal of New England Water Works Association, Volume 113, No. 2, June 1999, 5a
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Many dedicated individuals contributed to the 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey. We would like to thank the
American Indian, Alaska Native Village, 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 systems that spent their valuable
time searching through their records and completing the questionnaires we sent to them. We thank them for their assistance.
Bill Reid-The Cherokee Nation
Phyllis A. Attocknie-The Comanche Nation
Melanie Watkins-The Delaware Tribe of Western Oklahoma
Stephen Aoyama-lndian Health Services
Tammy Belone-The Navajo Nation EPA
Earl Hatley-The Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma
Marion Sizemore-The Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma
Dennis Wagner-U.S. EPA Region 10, Alaska Native Village
Coordinator
Chuck Pycha-U.S. EPA Region 5
Geoff Keeler-U.S. EPA Region 10
Karl Powers-Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
Celeste Davis-Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
Orie Williams-Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation
Maria McCarthy-U.S. EPA Region 1
Ray Jerama, Theresa Niemiec-Connecticut
Wendy Coffin-Maine
Jack Hamm, Dan Disalvio-Massachusetts
Richard Skarinka-New Hampshire
Romeo Mendes-Rhode Island
Rodney Pingree-Vermont
Raymond Kvalheim-U.S. EPA Region 2
Roger Tsao-New Jersey
Steve Marshall-New York
Eva Hernandez-Puerto Rico
Christine Lottes-Virgin Islands
Don Niehus-U.S. EPA Region 3
George Rizzo-U.S. EPA Region 3, District of Columbia
Ed Hallock-Delaware
Chris Carski-Maryland
Renee Bartholomew-Pennsylvania
Thomas B. Gray-Virginia
Victor Wilford-West Virginia
Fred Hunter-U.S. EPA Region 4
Tim Johnson-Alabama
Gary Powell-Florida
Steve Payne-Georgia
Donna Marlin-Kentucky
Keith Allen, Sheila Williams-Mississippi
Melanie Bryson-North Carolina
Tom McDonough-South Carolina
Khaldoun Kailani-Tennessee
William Tansey-U.S. EPA Region 5
Cecil Van Etten-lllinois
Shelley Reynolds-Indiana
Richard Benzie-Michigan
Karla Peterson, Brian Noma-Minnesota
Pat Fassnacht-Ohio
James Witthuhn-Wisconsin
Tom Poeton-U.S. EPA Region 6
Trevor Bowman-Arkansas
Steve Hoffman, Jennifer Kihlken-Louisiana
Chuck Thomas-New Mexico
Tim Ward-Oklahoma
Bill Allen, Wayne Wiley, Cindy Yates-Texas
Kelly Beard-Tittone-U.S. EPA Region 7
Roy Ney-lowa
Gerald Mclntyre, Iraj Pourmirza-Kansas
Ronald G. Burgess-Missouri
Steve Rowell, Larry Steele-Nebraska
Minnie Moore Adams-U.S. EPA Region 8 and Wyoming
John Payne-Colorado
Marc Golz, Gary Wens-Montana
Chuck Abel-North Dakota
Jim Anderson-South Dakota
Russ Topham-Utah
Jose Caratini-U.S. EPA Region 9
Susan Cox, Barry Pollock-U.S. EPA Region 9, Pacific Islands
Dick Jeffries-Arizona
Kimthoa Dinh, Uyen Trinh, Dat Tran-California
Angel Marquiz-Guam
Bill Wong-Hawaii
Terry Hall-Nevada
Richard Green, Gerald Opatz-U.S. EPA Region 10
David Kahn, Art Rominus-Alaska
Dick Rogers-Idaho
Mike Grimm-Oregon
Dave Monthie-Washington
EPA Office of Water
David Travers-Needs Survey Coordinator
Clive Davies-Drinking Water Protection Branch Associate
Chief
Prime Contractor-The Cadmus Group, Inc.
-------
Corsicana, Texas, is increasing the capacity of its water treatment plant with a SI 0.8 million loan from the
Texas DWSRFprogram. The expansion will allow Corsicana to extendservice to the City ofFrostwhere the
State declared the water non-potable due to violations of health-based standards. Shown is one part of the
plant expansion—the construction of a large clearwell that willprovide the disinfection time necessary to
inactivate harmful microbiological contaminants.
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted the second survey of the
nation's infrastructure needs. The survey covers the nation's approximately 55,000 com-
munity water systems and 21,400 not-for-profit noncommunity water systems. The total
national need for drinking water investments is large—$ 150.9 billion for the next 20 years.
Of this total, $102.5 billion is needed now to ensure the continued provision of safe drink-
ing water. Large and medium-sized systems account for most of the total need, although
small systems have the greatest needs on a per-household basis. American Indian and
Alaska Native Village systems represent $2.2 billion of the total national need. The results
of this survey support the findings ofthe first survey, conducted in 1995, by documenting
the continued need to install, upgrade, and replace the infrastructure on which the public
relies for safe drinking water.
Rblic water systems must invest in
ifrastructure improvements to
insure that they can continue to
deliver safe drinking water to consumers.
These improvements vary greatly in
complexity and cost: from replacing a low-
capacity well pump that will serve a small
community to constructing a 500 million
gallon-per-day water treatment plant that
will serve a large metropolitan area.
Despite the importance of these projects
for protecting public health, water systems
often encounter difficulties in obtaining
affordable financing for such improve-
ments. Recognizing this problem, Con-
gress established the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) in the
1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments. The DWSRF provides
low-interest loans and other forms of
assistance to public water systems so
they can supply safe drinking water. Since
1997, Congress has appropriated $3.6
billion to the DWSRF.
The Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey is an important tool of the DWSRF
program. The purpose of the survey is to
estimate the documented 20-year capital
investment needs of public water systems
eligible to receive DWSRF funding—
community water systems and
not-for-profit noncommunity water
systems.1 The survey includes
infrastructure needs that are
required to protect public health,
such as projects to preserve the
physical integrity of the water
system, convey treated water to
homes, or ensure continued
compliance with specific SDWA
regulations.
As required by the SDWA, EPA
uses the results of the most recent
survey to allocate DWSRF funds
to the States. Each State develops
a priority system for funding
projects based on public health criteria
specified in the SDWA. Annual appropria-
tions to the DWSRF are allocated to each
State based on its share of the total
national need—with each State receiving
a minimum allotment of 1 percent of
available funds. In addition, EPA uses the
survey as a tool for allocating the Tribal
Set-Aside (up to 1.5 percent of the
DWSRF annual appropriation) to Ameri-
can Indian and Alaska Native Village
water systems.
Sections 1452(h) and
1452(i)(4) of the Safe Drink-
ing Water Act direct the EPA
to conduct the Drinking
Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey every four years. The
results are used to allocate
Drinking Water State Re-
volving Fund monies to the
States and Tribes. The 1999
Needs Survey is due to
Congress by February 6,
2001.
1 Community water systems serve at least 25 people or 15 connections year-round.
Noncommunity water systems serve at least 25 people for more than 60 days, but less
than year-round.
-------
Page 12
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Total National Need
Total Need by System Size and Type.
The survey found that the total infrastruc-
ture need nationwide is $150.9 billion.
This estimate represents the needs of the
approximately 55,000 community and
21,400 not-for-profit noncommunity water
systems that are eligible to receive
DWSRF assistance. The total national
need includes all eligible water systems.
These systems are found in all 50 States,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Pacific
Islands, and the District of Columbia.
American Indian and Alaska Native
Village water systems also are included in
the total need.
The survey includes only infrastructure
needs that are required to protect the
public health. It is important to emphasize,
however, that most of the needs repre-
sent projects that systems would address
as preemptive measures to ensure the
continued provision of safe drinking water,
Exhibit ES-1: Total 20-Year Need
(in billions of January 1999 dollars)
System Size and Type
Large Community Water Systems
(serving over 50,000 people)
Medium Community Water Systems
(serving 3,301 to 50,000 people)
Small Community Water Systems
(serving 3,300 and fewer people)
Not-for-Profit Noncommunity Water Systems
American Indian and Alaska Native Village
Water Systems
Subtotal National Need
Costs Associated with Proposed and
Recently Promulgated Regulations
(Taken From EPA Economic Analyses)
Total National Need
Need
$61.8
$43.3
$31.2
$3.1
$2.2
$141.6
$9.3
$150.9
rather than as remedial actions to correct
an existing violation of a drinking water
standard. In addition, the majority of the
total need derives from the inherent costs
of being a water system which involves
the nearly continual need to install,
upgrade, and replace the basic infrastruc-
ture that is required to deliver safe drink-
ing water to consumers.
As shown in Exhibit ES-1, the nation's
886 largest community water systems
(each serving more than 50,000 people)
account for the greatest share, 41 per-
cent, of the total national need. Medium
and small community water systems also
have substantial needs of $43.3 billion
and $31.2 billion, respectively. The Virgin
Islands and the Pacific Island territories
represent $387.5 million of the total need.
The survey estimates that not-for-profit
noncommunity water systems have $3.1
billion in needs. American Indian water
systems need $1.2 billion in infrastructure
improvements, while Alaska Native
Village systems require $1.1 billion.2
Total Need by Current and
Future Needs. About 68 percent
of the total need, $102.5 billion, is
needed now to continue to protect
the public health and maintain
existing distribution and treatment
systems. Appendix B-2 presents a
further breakdown of the current
need. Current needs are projects
that a system would begin immedi-
ately.
In most cases a current need
would involve installing, upgrading,
or replacing infrastructure to
enable a water system to continue
to deliver safe drinking water. A
system with a current need,
therefore, usually is not in violation
of any health-based drinking water
2 These estimates slightly exceed the total
$2.2 billion American Indian and Alaska Native
Village system need due to rounding.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 13
standard. For example, a surface water
treatment plant may currently produce
safe drinking water, but the plant's filters
may require replacement due to their age
and declining effectiveness, if the plant is
to continue to provide safe water.
Future needs are projects that water
systems expect to address in the next 20
years as part of routine rehabilitation of
infrastructure or due to predictable events
such as reaching the end of a facility's
service-life. Approximately 32 percent of
the total need, $48.4 billion is reported as
future needs.
Total Need by Category. Every project in
the survey belongs to one of five catego-
ries of need: source, transmission and
distribution, treatment, storage, and
"other." Each category represents projects
that are of critical importance to providing
safe drinking water. Exhibit ES-2
illustrates the total 20-year need §
by category.
With $83.2 billion needed
over the next 20 years,
transmission and distribu-
tion projects constitute the
largest category of need.
Although the treatment
plant is usually the most
visible component of a
water system, most of a
system's infrastructure is
buried underground in the
form of transmission and
distribution mains. For this
reason, the transmission
and distribution category
comprises the largest
proportion of the total
need. The transmission
and distribution category
includes the installation
and rehabilitation of raw
Exhibit ES-2: Total 20-Year Need by Category
(in January 1999 dollars)
Storage
$18.4 billion
Transmission and
Distribution
$83.2 billion
Treatment
$38.0 billion
Source
$9.6 billion
Other
$1.9 billion
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
A rupturedwater main in New York City closed a section of a major thoroughfare and limited
service to two hospitals. The majority of the nation's distribution lines were installed in the
mid-1900s. Towns and cities are finding it increasingly necessary to replace old and
deterioratedpipe.
-------
Page 14
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
and finished water transmission
pipes, distribution water mains,
replacement of lead service lines,
flushing hydrants, valves, and
backflow prevention devices. Failure
of transmission and distribution lines
can interrupt the delivery of water.
Broken transmission lines also can
disrupt the treatment process, and
leaking distribution mains can lead
to a loss of pressure causing back-
siphonage of contaminated water.
Treatment projects represent the
second largest category of need,
$38.0 billion over the next 20 years.
This category consists of projects
needed to reduce contaminants
through, for example, filtration,
chlorination, corrosion control, and
aeration. More than half of the total
treatment need, $22.7 billion, is
needed to address contaminants
that pose acute health risks. The
installation, upgrade, or rehabilita-
tion of treatment infrastructure also
Water systems require storage facilities to serve the public during periods of peak
use, to supply water in the event of an emergency, and to preventcontamination by
maintaining water pressure. Two 30 million gallon tanks under construction in Los
Angeles, California, and a 100 gallon tank (insert) underscore the difference in scale
between large and small systems.
is required to remove contaminants
that can cause chronic health
effects or taste, odor, and other
aesthetic problems.
• The total 20-year need for storage
projects is $18.4 billion. This cat-
egory includes projects to construct
new or rehabilitate existing finished
water storage tanks. A water system
with inadequate storage capacity
cannot always provide water at
pressures sufficient to prevent back-
siphonage of microbial contami-
nants. In addition, constructing new
tanks is necessary if the system
cannot meet peak demands. Many
projects in this category involve
rehabilitating existing tanks to
prevent structural failures that can
cause microbiological contamina-
tion.
• The source category includes
projects that are necessary to obtain
safe supplies of surface or ground
water. The infrastructure needs in
this category include the installation
and rehabilitation of drilled wells.
The total 20-year need for source
water projects is $9.6 billion.
• Other needs account for an esti-
mated $1.9 billion. This category
captures needs that cannot be
assigned to one of the prior catego-
ries. Examples include emergency
power generators, computer and
automation equipment, and im-
provements for flood or earthquake
protection.
Conservative Estimate of Need.
Although the total estimate of need is
large, it is important to emphasize that
the methods used by the survey
produce a conservative estimate of
need. The second chapter, Findings,
discusses this issue in greater detail.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 15
The Regulatory Need
The SDWA aims to ensure that public
water systems meet national standards to
protect consumers from the harmful
effects of contaminated drinking water.
Although all of the infrastructure projects
included in the survey promote the
SDWA's public health objectives, some
are directly attributable to SDWA regula-
tions. This report refers to these needs
collectively as the "regulatory need." The
total regulatory need is divided into two
broad categories: existing SDWA regula-
tions and recently promulgated and
proposed regulations.
As shown in Exhibit ES-3, the total regula-
tory need accounts for 21 percent, or
$31.2 billion, of the total national need.
This statistic reveals that most of the total
need results from the costs of installing,
upgrading, and replacing the basic infra-
structure that is required to
deliver drinking water to
consumers—costs that are
borne by water systems
independent of the SDWA.
For a need to be included
in the survey, however, it
must be required to protect
public health. Therefore, if
a system fails to address a
need, then a health-based
violation of a standard
eventually may occur.
Exhibit ES-3: 20-Year Total Need and Regulatory Need
(in January 1999 dollars)
Total 20-Year
Need
$150.9 billion
20-Year
Regulatory Need
$31.2 billion
Exhibit ES-4: 20-Year Regulatory Need
(in millions of January 1999 dollars)
Existing SDWA Regula-
tions. The estimated need
directly associated with
existing SDWA regulations
is $21.9 billion. Exhibit ES-
4 displays the regulatory
need by type of regulation
and identifies how much of
the need is a current need
and how much is a future
need.
Regulations
Existing SDWA Regulations
Surface Water Treatment Rule 1
Total Coliform Rule 1
Nitrate/Nitrite Standard1
Lead and Copper Rule
Total Trihalomethanes Standard
Other Regulations 2
Subtotal National Need
Costs Associated with Proposed and
Recently Promulgated Regulations
(Taken From EPA Economic Analyses) 3
Total National Need
Current
Need
$14,492.1
$358.1
$197.1
$1,039.6
$39.1
$430.8
$16,556.9
$16,556.9
Future
Need
$4,873.3
$112.8
$31.9
$186.5
$60.6
$85.4
$5,350.4
$9,324.3
$14,674.8
Total Need
$19,365.4
$470.9
$229.0
$1,226.2
$99.7
$516.2
$21,907.4
$9,324.3
$31,231.7
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
1 Regulations for contaminants that cause acute health effects.
2 Includes regulated VOCs, SOCs, lOCs, and Radionuclides.
3 Includes regulations for contaminants that cause acute and/or chronic health effects. In the Economic Analyses,
the compliance costs with some regulations are given as a range. In calculating the $9.3 billion need, the survey
used EPA's lead option, unless one was not available in which case the survey used the more conservative
estimate.
-------
Page 16
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
The SDWA requires that
States use 15 percent of
their DWSRF allotment
for providing financial
assistance to small water
systems. In reality, States
have committed an
average of 41 percent of
their allotments to small
systems.
Microbial Contaminants. Projects
to address microbiological contami-
nation account for 91 percent, or
$19.8 billion, of the total existing
regulatory need. Under the SDWA,
the Surface Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR) and the Total Coliform Rule
(TCR) are designed to reduce the
amount of microbial contaminants in
drinking water. Microbial contami-
nants, such as Giardia and E. coli,
can cause acute gastrointestinal
illness and, in extreme cases, death.
The installation of a treatment plant to
filter a surface water source and the
installation of a disinfection system are
examples of needs associated with this
category.
Chemical Contaminants. Infrastructure
needs to protect the public health from
chemical contaminants comprise $2.1
billion of the total existing regulatory need.
This category includes projects necessary
Exhibit ES-5: Average 20-Year Per-Household Need
(in January 1999 dollars)
for compliance with the Nitrate/Nitrite
Standard, Lead and Copper Rule, Total
Trihalomethanes Standard, and other
regulations that set maximum allowable
limits for organic and inorganic contami-
nants. Examples of projects in this cat-
egory are aerating water to remove
volatile organic compounds and applying
corrosion inhibitors to reduce the leaching
of lead from pipes.
Proposed or Recently Promulgated
Regulations. The total need for proposed
and recently promulgated regulations is
$9.3 billion. Of this total, $2.6 billion is for
the regulation of acute contaminants
under the Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR), Long
Term I Enhanced Surface Water Treat-
ment Rule (LT1), Ground Water Rule, and
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule. The
remaining $6.7 billion is for chronic
contaminants regulated under the Stage 1
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts
Rule (DBPR), Arsenic Rule,
Radon Rule, and Radionuclides
Rule.
Large Medium Small American Alaska Native
Systems Systems Systems Indian Village
Systems Systems
Does not include the costs associated with proposed or recently promulgated SDWA regulations.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 17
Economic Challenges
Faced by Small Water
Systems
Approximately 45,000 of the nation's
55,000 community water systems serve
fewer than 3,300 people. Small water
systems face many unique challenges in
providing safe drinking water to consum-
ers. The substantial capital investments
required to rehabilitate, upgrade, or install
infrastructure represent one such chal-
lenge. Although the total small system
need is modest compared to the needs of
larger systems, the costs borne on a per-
household basis by small systems are
significantly higher than those of larger
systems. Exhibit ES-5 compares the
average 20-year need per-household for
water systems.
Needs of American Indian
and Alaska Native Village
Water Systems
Total American Indian and Alaska
Native Village Water System Needs.
The total need for American Indian and
Alaska Native Village systems is $2.2
billion over 20 years. Exhibit ES-6
presents the total need by category for
these systems. The significance of this
need in terms of public health is under-
scored by considering the per-household
costs, which average $6,500 for Ameri-
can Indians and $51,500 for Alaska
Natives. The difficulty in transporting
materials to remote areas, the lack of
economies of scale for small system
projects, and the limited annual con-
struction period in some regions contrib-
ute to the high per-household costs for
these systems.
Exhibit ES-6: Total 20-Year for American Indian and
Alaska Native Village Water System Need by Category
(in January 1999 dollars)
Storage
$0.4 billion
Transmission and
Distribution
$1.2 billion
Treatment
$0.4 billion
Source
$0.1 billion
Other
$0.01 billion
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
Does not include the costs associated with proposed or recently promulgated SDWA
regulations.
The construction of a treatedwater storage tanknears completion in Nuiqsut, one of
the most northerly communities in Alaska. In many Alaska Native communities,
water tanks and treatment plants must be elevated on pilings to prevent the heated
facilities from subsiding into the permafrost.
-------
Page 18
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
American Indian Needs. The total 20-
year need for American Indian systems is
$1.2 billion. Of this total, approximately
$1.0 billion is currently needed to ensure
the continued provision of safe drinking
water. Transmission and distribution
projects account for 65 percent of the total
need, followed by projects in the treat-
ment, storage, and source categories of
need.
Alaska Native Village Needs. The total
20-year need for Alaska Native Village
systems is $1.1 billion. Of this total,
approximately $1.0 billion is needed now
to ensure the continued provision of safe
drinking water. The largest categories of
need in descending order are transmis-
sion and distribution, storage, and treat-
ment.
Water systems use a variety of treatment technologies to remove
harmful contaminants from drmkingwater. For example, aeration
units (pictured) are used to remove volatile organic compounds and
certain secondary contaminants, such as hydrogen sulfide.
Households Not Served by
Public Water Systems
Data from the 1990 census indicate that
approximately 16 million households are
not served by public water systems. This
survey was restricted to public water
systems eligible for DWSRF assistance. It
therefore, was not designed to estimate
the needs for households that use private
wells, haul water from non-public sys-
tems, or lack running water. However, the
survey addressed these needs in a limited
way by including projects to extend
service from existing public water systems
to homes that do not have access to safe
drinking water. Approximately $6.0 billion
is needed for such projects. This figure
underestimates the true scale of the need,
given that most systems in the survey
focused their efforts on identifying projects
for current consumers.
Methods
The approach for the survey was devel-
oped by EPA in consultation with a
workgroup consisting of representatives of
the States, American Indians and Alaska
Native Villages, and the Indian Health
Service. The workgroup refined the
methods used in 1995 based on lessons
learned from the 1995 survey and options
made available from technological ad-
vancements in the Internet.
Methods Used to Assess State
Needs
The survey used questionnaires to collect
infrastructure needs from medium and
large water systems. EPA mailed ques-
tionnaires to all 1,111 of the nation's
largest water systems serving over
40,000 people and to a random sample of
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 19
2,556 of the 7,759 medium systems
serving over 3,300 people. Approximately
96 percent of these systems returned the
questionnaire: with 100 percent of the
largest water systems responding.
Small systems serving fewer than 3,300
people often lack the specialized staff and
planning documents needed to respond
adequately to the questionnaire. There-
fore, EPA conducted site visits to 599
randomly selected small community water
systems and 100 not-for-profit noncom-
munity systems to identify and document
their infrastructure needs.
Methods Used to Assess Ameri-
can Indian and Alaska Native
Village Water System Needs
Each of the 19 American Indian systems
serving more than 3,300 people com-
pleted a questionnaire. To assess the
needs of small systems serving fewer
than 3,300 people, EPA conducted site
visits to a random sample of 78 American
Indian water systems.
In Alaska, the availability of key personnel
and data resources (such as aerial
photographs) allowed for a census of the
174 Alaska Native Village water systems.
The survey included 2 medium-sized
systems and all 172 small systems.
Current and future needs for Alaska
Native Village systems were documented
by EPA in consultation with district engi-
neers, Village Safe Water, and Alaska
Native Village representatives.
Total Need Compared to
the 1995 Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs
Survey
The 1995 Needs Survey estimated a total
national need of $152.6 billion3-as com-
pared to the $150.9 billion estimate of this
survey. The Findings section discusses
the $1.7 billion difference between the
surveys' estimates in greater detail.
It is important to note that the fundamen-
tal methods used to collect and evaluate
needs in 1999 remained largely un-
changed from the 1995 survey. Most
importantly, the 1999 survey retained the
stringent documentation and eligibility
requirements of the 1995 survey.
Conclusions
The 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey, the second such national
survey by EPA, estimates that the
nation's public water systems need to
invest $150.9 billion over the next 20
years to ensure the continued provision of
safe drinking water to consumers. This
finding lends support to the results from
the previous survey which also identified a
substantial need for infrastructure invest-
ments. The need to replace, upgrade, and
install infrastructure will continue to
increase as these systems age. The large
magnitude of the need reflects the chal-
lenges confronting water systems as they
deal with an infrastructure network that
has aged considerably since the systems
were constructed, in many cases, 50 to
100 years ago.
3 The 1995 Needs Survey reported the total need as
$138.4 billion. Adjusted to 1999 dollars this amount is
$152.6 billion.
-------
This 31-year-old storage tank ruptured in Westminster, California, sending a 6-footwave of water through the city that damaged
or destroyed about 50 buildings andover a dozen vehicles. Storage tanks shouldbe replacedor periodically rehabilitated to
preserve their structural integrity.
-------
OVERVIEW OF SURVEY METHODS
^^Tne second Drinking Water Infra-
I structure Needs Survey involved
I the collective efforts of the States,
American Indian and Alaska Native
Village representatives, the Indian Health
Service, EPA, and thousands of water
systems-all of which participated in
identifying and documenting infrastructure
needs. This chapter provides an overview
of the methods used by these participants
to assess drinking water needs. It also
describes the refinements made to the
methods used in the 1995 survey to
improve the accuracy of this survey's
results.
Scope of the Survey
Goal and Purpose. The goal of the 1999
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
Survey was to estimate the documented
20-year national infrastructure need for
the approximately 55,000 community and
21,400 not-for-profit noncommunity public
water systems eligible to receive DWSRF
assistance. A total of approximately 4,000
public water systems participated in the
survey.
The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) Amendments direct EPA to use
the results from the latest needs survey to
allocate DWSRF funds. For this purpose,
the survey was designed to provide
statistically precise estimates of need for
each of the States. The DWSRF funds
are allocated based on each State's share
of the total national need (although, under
SDWA, each State receives a minimum
allotment of 1 percent).
The results of the survey are also used to
allocate the set-aside—up to 0.33 percent
of the DWSRF—for the U.S. Territories.
Therefore, the survey generated separate
estimates of need for Guam, American
Samoa, the Commonwealth of Northern
Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin
Islands.
For American Indian and Alaska Native
Village water systems, EPA calculated the
total infrastructure need for each EPA
Region. The results are used to allocate
the Tribal Set-Aside of up to 1.5 percent
of the DWSRF to the Regions based in
part on each Region's share of the total
American Indian and Alaska Native
Village need.
Infrastructure Needs. To fulfill the
survey's purpose as a tool for allocating
DWSRF funds, all of the infrastructure
needs in the survey were required to meet
the basic eligibility criteria established
under the DWSRF program.1 In general,
projects eligible for funding facilitate
compliance with the SDWA's National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations or
otherwise significantly further the health
protection objectives of the Act.
Categories of Need. The survey as-
signed each project to one of five catego-
ries of need: source, transmission and
distribution, treatment, storage, and
"other." This classification allowed for an
understanding of where on a broad scale
the nation's water systems need to make
capital investments.
1 The survey excluded DWSRF-eligible needs which do not involve the installation,
replacement, or rehabilitation of infrastructure: for example, refinancing loans, conducting
studies, and acquiring other water systems.
-------
Page 22
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
The source water category com-
prises projects necessary to obtain
sufficient supplies of surface or
ground water. Examples include
wells, surface water intakes, and
spring collectors.
The transmission and distribution
category includes the pipes that
transport water to consumers. This
category represents the needs
associated with installing or rehabili-
tating raw and finished water trans-
mission pipes, distribution water
mains, flushing hydrants, valves,
and backflow prevention devices.
The treatment category consists of
projects needed to address prob-
lems such as the presence of
microbial pathogens and chemical
contaminants.
The storage category includes
projects to construct new or rehabili-
tate existing finished-water tanks.
The rust on the hydropneumatic tank (foreground) signals the need for
rehabilitation, while the severe corrosion on the other tankwill require its
replacement. Such deterioration can promote microbial growth and impair water
quality.
• The "other" category captures
needs that cannot be assigned to
one of the prior categories. Ex-
amples include laboratory equip-
ment, emergency power generators,
computer and automation projects,
and improvements for flood or
earthquake protection.
Current and Future Needs. The survey
identifies current and future needs for the
20-year period from January 1, 1999
through December 31, 2018. Current
needs address infrastructure projects
which systems would implement as
preventive measures to avoid water
quality problems. An example of a current
need is replacing an old and leaking
section of distribution line that is suscep-
tible to contamination.
Future needs are projects that a water
system expects to undertake in the next
20 years. These include the routine
rehabilitation of infrastructure and the
replacement of a facility that performs
adequately now, but will need to be
replaced over the next 20 years to ensure
the continued provision of safe drinking
water. For example, a system may
anticipate that it will need to replace its
chlorinator within the next 10 years.
Credibility of the Findings. The survey
required that documentation describing
the purpose and scope of a project
accompany each need. This requirement
was necessary to verify that all of the
projects submitted to the survey met the
eligibility criteria for DWSRF funding. The
survey established specific documenta-
tion requirements to ensure that uniform
requirements would be applied to the
States, U.S. Territories, and Tribes in
determining the adequacy of documenta-
tion and the eligibility of needs. These
requirements not only lend credibility to
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 23
the findings, but also address the issue of
fairness when the results are used to
apportion DWSRF funds. Of the 86,057
projects submitted to the survey, 14
percent were deleted for failing to meet
the documentation criteria or for appear-
ing to be ineligible for DWSRF funding.
Documented Costs and
Cost Models
In addition to developing requirements for
documenting needs, the survey set
rigorous documentation criteria for as-
sessing the legitimacy and scope of
project costs. EPA required that each
project cost submitted to the survey be
supported by documentation to indicate
that the cost had undergone an adequate
degree of professional review. The
documentation criteria also allowed EPA
to review all of the components of a
project that were included in a cost
estimate. This enabled EPA to model
portions of the project that might have
been excluded from a cost estimate, or to
delete DWSRF-ineligible portions of the
submitted cost. For example, if a system
identified a need to replace a section of
old and leaking pipe, but lacked cost
documentation, the system could supply
the length and diameter of pipe to be
replaced. Based on this information, the
cost for this project could be modeled.
The number of projects submitted without
cost documentation increased significantly
in 1999 compared to the previous survey.
Of 74,339 accepted projects, 67 percent
were submitted without costs or docu-
mentation of cost. This increase necessi-
tated a greater reliance on cost modeling.
For the 1999 survey, 59 models were
developed to assign costs to 95 different
infrastructure needs, from replacing
broken valves to building new treatment
plants. The cost
documentation
submitted by water
systems was the
sole source of data
for all but 19 of the
cost models. For
some types of
need, the survey
data proved inad-
equate for generat-
ing a statistically
significant model.
Therefore, cost
data from addi-
tional sources,
including engineer-
ing firms and State
DWSRF programs,
were obtained to
supplement the
data submitted by
survey respon-
dents.
Developing
the Methods
The methods for
the 1999 survey
were developed by
a workgroup
consisting of State,
American Indian,
Alaska Native
Village, Indian Health Service, and EPA
representatives. The workgroup decided
to adopt the general design of the first
survey in 1995. However, the workgroup
refined some of the methods based on
lessons learned in conducting the 1995
survey, findings from a 1997 follow-up
study that EPA conducted to assess the
first survey, and options made available
by advances in Internet communications.
Acceptable Documentation
The following types of documents were
used to justify the need and/or cost of a
project
For Need and/or Cost Documentation
• Capital Improvement Plan or Master Plan
• Facilities Plan or Preliminary Engineering
Report
• Grant or Loan Application Form
• Engineer's Estimate
• Intended Use Plan/State Priority List
• Indian Health Service Sanitation Defi-
ciency System Printout
For Need Documentation Only
• Comprehensive Performance Evaluation
(CPE) Results
• Sanitary Survey
• Source Water Protection Plan
• Monitoring Results
• Signed and dated statement from State,
site visit contractor, or system engineer
clearly detailing infrastructure needs.
For Cost Documentation Only
• Cost of Previous Comparable Construction
-------
Page 24
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Water from the Charles River inMassachusetts pours into a deteriorated
transmission main which the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA)
had drained after detecting a leak. MWRA replaces or rehabilitates approximately
7 miles of pipe per year, some of which is more than 100 years old. Many older
water systems will find it increasingly necessary to replace substantial portions of
distribution networks thatwere installed50 to 1 OOyears ago.
The workgroup modified the design
of the survey questionnaire by
providing more examples and
simplifying the forms.
The 1999 survey created a user-
friendly website that allowed the
States to readily identify which
projects required additional docu-
mentation of need or cost.
The 1999 survey included the
infrastructure needs of the 21,400
not-for-profit noncommunity water
systems eligible for DWSRF assis-
tance. These systems were not
included in the 1995 survey.
For the American Indian portion of
the 1999 survey, the number of
small systems selected to partici-
pate was increased to provide a
more precise estimate of national
need.
The workgroup developed the following
improvements for the 1999 survey:
• In 1995, all systems serving more
than 50,000 people were included in
a census. The 1999 survey ex-
panded the census to include
systems serving more than 40,000
people. This change increased the
precision of the survey's estimates
for the largest systems that repre-
sent the greatest share of the
nation's infrastructure needs.
• For the first survey, EPA was
primarily responsible for collecting
information from systems that did
not respond to the survey or that
submitted inadequate documenta-
tion. For the 1999 survey, this
responsibility was assumed by
States. The involvement of those
more familiar with the surveyed
systems improved the response
rate and the identification of needs.
• The use of a census for Alaska
Native Village water systems
increased the precision of the need
estimates compared to the sampling
methods used for the first survey.
Conducting the State
Survey
The survey used a questionnaire to collect
infrastructure needs from medium and
large water systems. A package contain-
ing a questionnaire, instructions, an
example of a completed questionnaire,
and a list of commonly asked questions
was sent to each system in the survey.
Packages were mailed to all 1,111 of the
nation's largest systems serving more
than 40,000 people and to a random
sample of 2,556 medium systems serving
more than 3,300 people.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 25
The systems returned the questionnaires
and accompanying documentation to their
State contacts. The States reviewed each
questionnaire to ensure that systems
identified all of their needs and that the
projects fulfilled the eligibility and docu-
mentation criteria. If these criteria were
not met, the States had the option of
contacting the system to obtain more
information. EPA conducted a final review
of each project and entered the informa-
tion into a database. Web-based commu-
nications allowed the States to review the
data, including any changes made by
EPA. The website provided States with
the information necessary to identify
projects not meeting the established
criteria and provided the States with an
opportunity to submit additional documen-
tation of project need or cost.
Small systems serving 3,300 or fewer
people generally lacked the personnel
and planning documents necessary to
complete the questionnaire. Therefore,
the infrastructure needs of small systems
were obtained through site visits to
approximately 599 systems—with at least
6 systems selected in each State. EPA
conducted an additional 100 site visits to
assess the needs of not-for-profit non-
community water systems.
Conducting the American
Indian and Alaska Native
Village Surveys
Developing the American Indian Meth-
ods. The 1999 survey used the same
tools (questionnaires and site visits) to
estimate the needs of American Indian
and Alaska Native Village water systems
as were used for systems in the State
portion of the survey. Exhibit 1 displays
the location of the American Indian and
Alaska Native Village water systems
included in the survey.
All 19 American Indian systems serving
more than 3,300 people completed a
questionnaire. EPA offered technical
support to systems that requested assis-
tance in identifying eligible needs and
preparing documentation. The question-
naires for each system contained pre-
printed need and cost information derived
from the Sanitation Deficiency System
(SDS) of the Indian Health Service (IMS).
The SDS provides information on specific
needs and ranks communities' needs
based on threats to public health. This
information served as a baseline of needs
to which the systems added projects for
the survey.
The survey conducted 78 site visits to a
random selection of small systems
serving fewer than 3,300 people. Of the
approximately 781 American Indian water
systems, 762 systems are small.
All needs and costs submitted by Ameri-
can Indian systems were required to meet
the documentation criteria established for
the survey. To be considered adequate,
documentation of need had to explain the
-------
Page 26
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
purpose of the project, while documenta-
tion of cost had to indicate that the cost
had been subject to professional review. If
cost documentation was unavailable, the
system was asked to provide information
that enabled EPA to model the cost.
Developing the Alaska Native Village
Methods. The availability of key person-
nel and data resources (e.g., aerial
photographs) allowed EPA to use a
census to assess the needs of Alaska
Native Village water systems. A question-
naire was mailed to the two medium-sized
systems serving more than 3,300 people.
Infrastructure needs for 172 small sys-
tems were identified on questionnaires by
representatives from the Alaska Native
Village Health Consortia, IMS, and Village
Safe Water with assistance from EPA.
assigned to one of four geographical
zones to account for distinct regional
variations in costs. For most types of
need, costs were established for each
region. EPA developed these costs based
on projects funded by IMS in Alaska
Native Villages. However, the cost models
that were developed from data provided
by systems in the State and American
Indian portions of the survey were used to
assign costs to a few small-scale projects
(e.g., flushing hydrants) for which IMS
costs were unavailable.
A round-table of IMS and EPA engineers
was convened to provide guidance on
developing project costs. Villages were
Many American Indians obtain their drinking water from watering points such as the one
picturedhere.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 27
Exhibit 1: Location of American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems In the
Needs Survey Sample
O Small American Indian systems in the sample
L Medium American Indian systems
Alaska Native Village water systems
Numbers indicate the number of medium/small
American Indian systems, respectively
-------
Some water systems employ short-term measures to postpone the expense of replacing and rehabilitating infrastructure.
Here a water system uses a broom to prop up a chemical feed line. With a $4.4 million D WSRFloan, a neighboring water
system expandedits treatment capacity to serve the community previously servedby this deteriorated system.
-------
FINDINGS
This section of the report presents the results of the effort undertaken in 1999 to estimate
the capital investment needs of the nation's approximately 55,000 community water sys-
tems and 21,400 not-for-profit noncommunity water systems. Appendix B provides greater
detail of the need by State.
Total 20-Year National Need
The Needs Survey found that community
water systems and not-for-profit noncom-
munity water systems need $150.9 billion
over the next 20 years to install, upgrade,
and replace infrastructure. The survey
required that all needs be accompanied
by documentation that described the
purpose and scope of each project. To be
included in the Needs Survey, projects
had to meet the eligibility criteria estab-
lished under the DWSRF program. In
general, infrastructure projects were
acceptable if they were needed to protect
public health or to maintain the transmis-
sion and distribution of treated water to
homes. Such projects varied greatly in
scale, complexity, and cost—from drilling
a well to serve a small mobile home court
to constructing a high-capacity water
treatment plant for a large metropolitan
area. The survey excluded projects solely
for operation and maintenance, future
growth, and fire flow.1 Projects to rehabili-
tate or replace deteriorated infrastructure
were not considered operation and
maintenance and, therefore, were in-
cluded in the survey.
A section of wooden pipe dating from the early 1900s is removed for replacement
by iron orPVCpipe. The service life of a water line can range from 10 to 200
years depending on the pipe material, soil type, and climate conditions.
1 Projects solely for operation and maintenance, dams, reservoirs, future growth, and fire flow are
generally ineligible for DWSRF assistance.
-------
Page 30
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
The estimate of total national need
represents all community water systems
and not-for-profit noncommunity water
systems in the States, Puerto Rico, the
Virgin Islands and the Pacific Island
territories, American Indian communities,
and Alaska Native Villages.
Exhibit 2 shows the total national need by
system size and type, and by current and
future need. The nation's 886 largest
community water systems (serving more
than 50,000 people) account for $61.8
billion, or 41 percent, of the total need.
Medium and small community water
systems have needs of $43.3 billion and
$31.2 billion, respectively. The Virgin
Islands and the Pacific Island territories
account for $387.5 million of the total
community water system need. The
survey estimates that not-for-profit non-
community water systems have $3.1
billion in needs. Exhibit 3 presents the
approximate need by State. American
Indian water systems need $1.2 billion in
infrastructure improvements, while Alaska
Native Villages need $1.1 billion2 for
capital projects. Because public water
systems are not expected to have accu-
rate estimates of their capital needs for
recently proposed or promulgated regula-
tions, capital costs from appropriate
Economic Analysis documents were used
to estimate those needs. Proposed or
recently promulgated regulations contrib-
ute $9.3 billion to the total national need.
Most of the infrastructure needs in the
survey represent projects that systems
would address as preventive measures to
ensure the continued provision of safe
drinking water, rather than as corrective
actions to address an existing violation of
a drinking water standard. Also, it is
important to recognize that the majority of
the total national need stems from the
inherent costs of being a water system—
which involves the nearly continual need
to install, upgrade, and replace the basic
infrastructure that is required to deliver
drinking water to consumers.
Exhibit 2: Total Need by Current and Future Need
(in billions of January 1999 dollars)
System Size and Type
Large Community Water Systems
(serving over 50,000 people)
Medium Community Water Systems
(serving 3,301 to 50,000 people)
Small Community Water Systems
(serving 3,300 and fewer people)
Not-for-Profit Noncommunity Water Systems
American Indian and Alaska Native Village
Water Systems
Subtotal National Need
Costs Associated with Proposed or Recently
Promulgated Regulations (Taken From EPA
Economic Analyses)
Total National Need
Current
Need
$47.2
$29.9
$22.2
$1.1
$2.0
$102.5
$102.5
Future
Need
$14.6
$13.4
$8.9
$2.0
$0.2
$39.1
$9.3
$48.4
Total Need
$61.8
$43.3
$31.2
$3.1
$2.2
$141.6
$9.3
$150.9
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
2 These estimates slightly
exceed the total $2.2 billion
American Indian and Alaska
Native Village system need due
to rounding.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 31
Exhibit 3: Overview of Need by Statef
American Samoa*
Guam*
Northern Mariana Is*
20-year need in millions of
January 1999 dollars
| |- Less than $1,000
Q- $1,000-$1,999
Q- $2,000 - $2,999
Q- $3,000-$10,000
I I- More than $10,000
•
t Needs for American Indian and Alaska Native Village 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.
-------
Page 32
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Exhibit 4: Total Need by Category of Need
(in millions of January 1999 dollars)
System Size and Type
Large Community Water Systems
(serving over 50,000 people)
Medium Community Water Systems
(serving 3,301 to 50,000 people)
Small Community Water Systems
(serving 3,300 and fewer people)
Not-for-Profit Noncommunity Water Systems
American Indian and Alaska NativeVillage
Water Systems
Subtotal National Need
Costs Associated with Proposed or Recently
Promulagted Regulations (Taken From EPA
Economic Analyses)
Total National Need
Distribution
and
Transmission
$39,031.1
$25,526.9
$16,980.0
$387.8
$1,228.4
$83,154.2
$83,154.2
Treatment
$13,371.3
$8,627.6
$5,619.9
$61 1 .0
$408.1
$28,637.9
$9,324.3
$37,962.2
Storage
$4,575.3
$6,155.4
$5,710.8
$1,477.3
$447.0
$18,365.8
$18,365.8
Source
$3,718.6
$2,519.5
$2,617.5
$620.8
$123.2
$9,599.6
$9,599.6
Other
$1,149.8
$468.2
$226.4
$0.7
$12.4
$1,857.5
$1857.5
Total
Need
$61,846.1
$43,297.7
$31,154.7
$3,097.6
$2,219.0
$141,615.0
$9,324.3
$150,939.4
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
Current and Future Needs. Of the total
need, $102.5 billion is the current need.
It is important to note that most systems
with current needs provide safe drinking
water. These systems identified projects
that are required as preventive measures
to avoid water quality problems. For
example, a chlorination unit for deactivat-
ing harmful microbial contaminants may
function adequately to provide safe
drinking water now: although its design life
may be exceeded and the system would
replace the unit.
That systems require such an enormous
investment to meet their current needs
reflects the age and deteriorated condition
of the nation's infrastructure. Many water
systems were constructed 50 to 100
years ago. Operating within resource
constraints relative to their needs, some
systems have adopted a reactive ap-
proach to capital investment that involves
replacing or upgrading infrastructure only
as it fails. For example, a system may
have the funding only to patch a leak in
the distribution system, even though its
deteriorated condition warrants replacing
several miles of pipe to prevent contami-
nation or the disruption of service.
Future needs account for $48.4 billion of
the total need. Future needs are projects
that water systems would undertake
during the 20-year period of the survey to
ensure the continued provision of safe
drinking water. Future needs address
components of a water system that
operate adequately now, but will exceed
their design-life or performance capabili-
ties within the next 20 years. Examples
include a water storage tank that requires
rehabilitation and an aging pump that
must be replaced because it cannot be
rehabilitated.2
2 Capital projects that will be needed for compliance with proposed or recently promulgated SDWA
regulations are included in the survey as future needs. The estimated capital cost of each of these
regulations is provided in Appendix B.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 33
Total Need by Category
The infrastructure needs of water systems
can be grouped into four major catego-
ries-source, transmission and distribution,
treatment, and storage-each of which
fulfills an important function in delivering
safe drinking water to the public. Most
needs were assigned to one of these
categories. An additional "other" category
is composed of projects that do not fit into
the four categories, such as installing
emergency power generators and up-
grading facilities to protect against earth-
quakes and floods. Exhibit 4 shows the
total national need by water system size
and type and category of need.
Transmission and Distribution. Al-
though the least visible component of a
public water system, the buried pipes that
comprise a transmission and distribution
network generally account for most
of a system's capital value. It is not
uncommon for even medium-sized
systems to have several hundred
miles of pipe.
Transmission and distribution
projects represent the largest
category of need, $83.2 billion over
the next 20 years. Of this total,
$65.6 billion is needed now. Replac-
ing or refurbishing transmission and
distribution mains is critical to
providing safe drinking water.
Failures in transmission and distri-
bution lines can interrupt the deliv-
ery of water. Broken transmission
lines can disrupt the treatment
process, and deteriorated distribu-
tion mains can pose acute health
risks from the back-siphonage of
contaminated water.
Transmission and
distribution projects
include replacing aging
and deteriorated water
mains, refurbishing
pipes to remove build-
up on pipe walls,
looping dead-end
mains to improve water
quality, and installing
pumping stations to
maintain adequate
pressure. This category
also includes projects
to address the replace-
ment of appurtenances, such as valves
that are essential for controlling flows and
isolating problem areas during repairs,
and hydrants to flush the distribution
system to maintain water quality.
Rehabilitation of Water Mains
Rehabilitating mains has become
more common due to technological
advancements that provide
cost-effective alternatives to unearth-
ing and replacing pipe. For example,
the application of a cement lining will
prolong the design life of certain
types of pipe. Rehabilitation also may
involve "pigging" lines to remove
internal deposits, known as tubercles,
which constrict water flow and impair
water quality.
This pipe shows dear signs oftuberculation, a condition resultingfrom the accumulation of
mineral deposits and debris. Tuberculation can reduce pipe capacity andimpair drinking
water quality. One method of removing tubercles involves sending a "pig" (insert) through
the system to scour the sides of the pipe.
-------
Page 34
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Water systems differ greatly in size and complexity, from a simple well pump with chlorinator (left) to a large-scale filtration plant.
Many water systems installed new trans-
mission and distribution mains to keep
pace with the rapid economic and popula-
tion growth that followed World War II.
The rate at which these pipes deteriorate
varies greatly due to soil characteristics,
weather conditions, construction methods,
and type of pipe. However, it is reason-
able to assume that most pipes will
require replacement within 50 to 75 years
of installation. Consequently, much of the
pipe installed in the 1940s may require
replacement over the next 20 years. The
large need associated with the transmis-
sion and distribution category reflects this
reality.
Treatment. With $38.0 billion needed
over 20 years, treatment is the second
largest category of need. Fifty-one per-
cent of this total, $19.4 billion, is a current
need. This category includes the installa-
tion or rehabilitation of infrastructure to
reduce contamination through, for ex-
ample, filtration, disinfection, corrosion
control, and aeration. The majority of the
capital costs for proposed and recently
promulgated regulations are related to
treatment, and thus these costs also are
included in this category.
Treatment facilities vary significantly in
scale depending on the quality of source
water and type of contamination. Treat-
ment systems may consist of a simple
chlorinator for disinfection or a complete
conventional treatment system with
coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation,
filtration, disinfection, laboratory facilities,
waste handling, and computer automated
monitoring and control devices.
Treatment technologies primarily address
two general types of contaminants: those
with acute health effects and those with
chronic health effects.
An acute health effect usually occurs
within hours or days after short-term
exposure to a contaminant. Acute ill-
nesses are associated mostly with micro-
bial contaminants, although some chemi-
cal contaminants, such as copper and
nitrate, also can cause acute health
effects. Gastrointestinal illness resulting
from the ingestion of microbial pathogens
is the most common acute health effect.
Chronic health effects develop typically
after long-term exposure to low concen-
trations of chemical contaminants. These
effects include cancer and birth defects.
The largest need associated with con-
taminants that pose chronic health effects
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 35
is treatment for lead. Research has
shown that exposure to lead may impair
the mental development of children and
cause other chronic health effects, such
as high blood pressure.
The treatment category also includes
projects to remove contaminants that
adversely affect the taste, odor, and color
of drinking water. Treatment of these
"secondary contaminants" usually in-
volves softening the water to reduce
manganese and calcium levels or apply-
ing chemical sequestrants for iron con-
tamination. Although not a public health
concern, the aesthetic problems caused
by secondary contaminants may prompt
some consumers to seek more palatable,
but less safe, sources of water.
Storage. The total 20-year need for
storage projects is $18.4 billion, of which
$10.2 billion is current need. This cat-
egory includes projects to construct or
rehabilitate finished water storage tanks.
A water system that has sufficient storage
can provide an adequate supply of treated
water to the public even during periods of
peak demand. This enables the system to
sustain the minimum pressure required to
prevent the intrusion of contaminants into
the distribution network. Moreover, many
States require that systems have the
storage capacity to provide a nearly 2-day
supply of water in the event of an emer-
gency, such as a water source being
temporarily unusable.
A system's optimal storage capacity
generally depends on the population it
serves. For example, a water system
operated by a small homeowners asso-
ciation may need a 2,000-gallon hydrop-
neumatic (pressurized) storage tank to
provide sufficient water pressure and to
prevent the operation of pumping facilities
each time a consumer opens a faucet. By
contrast, a larger system serving a metro-
politan area may need several hundred
million gallons of storage to satisfy similar
operational requirements.
Storage tanks must be regularly drained, sandblasted, andcoatedwith epoxypaint. Such rehabilitation is necessary to
maintain the tanks' structural integrity and to prevent the intrusion of contaminants. Water systems commonly use
underwater divers to inspect the inside of their tanks. These pictures, taken by a diver, show (left) stalactites formed by
the leaching ofcalciumfrom a tank's roof, (middle) deep corrosion nearly requiring the tank's replacement, (upper
right) a wide crack causing the loss of5,000 gallons of water per day, and (lower right) discarded litter.
-------
Page 36
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Approximately 89 percent of the nation's water systems use groundwater as a primary source, although these systems generally serve
far fewer people than do surface water systems. Examples of different types ofsource-relatedinfrastructure include a vertical pump to
extractwellwater (left), an intake structure to pump surface water (middle), and a perforated pipe to collect springwater (right).
Source. The total 20-year need for
source water infrastructure is $9.6 billion.
Of this total, $5.8 billion is a current need.
The source category includes needs for
constructing or rehabilitating surface
water intake structures, raw water pump-
ing facilities, drilled wells, and spring
collectors.
Drinking water is obtained from either
ground water or surface water sources.
Wells are considered ground water
sources, and rivers, lakes, and other open
bodies of water are considered surface
water sources. Whether drinking water
originates from ground or surface water
sources, its quality is an important compo-
nent in protecting public health. A high
quality water supply can minimize the
possibility of microbial or chemical con-
tamination and may eliminate the need to
install expensive treatment facilities. Many
source water needs relate to constructing
new surface water intake structures or
drilling new well fields to obtain improved
raw water quality.
A water source also should provide
enough water under all operating condi-
tions to enable the water system to
maintain minimum pressures. Low water
pressure may result in the intrusion of
contaminants into the distribution system
through back-siphonage. The survey
includes projects to expand the capacity
of intake structures and wells to address
supply deficiencies.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 37
Other Needs. Needs not included in the
previous categories are labeled "other"
needs. These needs account for $1.9
billion of the total 20-year need. Examples
of "other" projects include laboratory
equipment to test water for chemical and
microbiological contaminants, emergency
power generators to provide continued
pumping or treatment during power
outages, and upgrades to protect infra-
structure against floods or earthquakes.
The Regulatory Need
Although all of the projects in the survey
are needed to attain or maintain compli-
ance with the SDWA regulations, some
projects are directly attributable to specific
regulations under the Act. These projects
are collectively referred to as the "regula-
tory need." Most of the regulatory need
involves the upgrade, replacement, or
installation of treatment technologies.
Of the total national need, 21 percent, or
$31.2 billion, is for compliance with
current, new, and proposed SDWA
regulations. This statistic reveals that
most of the total need derives from the
costs of installing, upgrading, and replac-
ing the basic infrastructure that is required
to deliver drinking water to consumers-
costs that water systems would face
independent of any SDWA regulations.
However, for a project to be included in
the survey, it must be required to protect
public health. Therefore, if a system fails
to address a need, then a health-based
violation eventually may occur.
Also, by requiring systems to conduct
routine monitoring of a contaminant, a
SDWA regulation could prompt a system
to identify a need that otherwise would
have eluded detection until water quality
or service became impaired. Thus, SDWA
regulations, most notably the Total
At a storage facility near Los Angeles, workers install seismic cables to provide
structural resiliency for earthquake protection
Exhibit 5: 20-Year Total Need and Regulatory Need
(in January 1999 dollars)
Total 20-Year
Need
$150.9 billion
20-Year
Regulatory Need
$31.2 billion
-------
Page 38
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Exhibit 6: 20-Year Regulatory Need
(in billions of January 1999 dollars)
Regulations
Existing SDWA Regulations
Surface Water Treatment Rule1
Total Coliform Rule1
Nitrate/Nitrite Standard1
Lead and Copper Rule
Total Trihalomethanes Standard
Other Regulations2
Subtotal National Need
Costs Associated with Proposed or Recently
Promulgated Regulations (Taken From EPA
Economic Analyses)3
Total National Need
Total Need
$19.4
$0.5
$0.2
$1.2
$0.1
$0.5
$21.9
$9.3
$31.2
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
1 Regulations for contaminants that cause acute health effects.
2 Includes regulated VOCs, SOCs, lOCs, and Radionuclides.
3 Includes regulations for contaminants that cause acute and/or chronic health effects. In the
Economic Analyses, the compliance costs with some regulations are given as a range. In
calculating the $9.3 billion need, the survey used EPA's lead option, unless one was not
available in which case the survey used the more conservative estimate.
Coliform Rule, may enhance a system's
awareness of the condition of its infra-
structure and, consequently, increase the
reporting of needs.
It is important to note that the regulatory
need includes only those projects that
systems identified and documented as
being directly associated with a SDWA
regulation. For projects to be counted as a
regulatory need, systems had to submit
documentation, such as a laboratory slip,
showing an exceedance or imminent
violation of an MCL or treatment tech-
nique requirement. A project without this
documentation, even if it promotes com-
pliance with a SDWA regulation, would
not be counted as a regulatory need. For
example, a ground water system may
identify the need to replace an aging
chlorinator used to inactivate microbial
pathogens, but may lack the documenta-
tion to attribute the project to a specific
regulation (in this case the Total Coliform
Rule). The project would be included in
the survey, but not as a regulatory need.
The stringent documentation criteria,
therefore, likely result in an understate-
ment of the true regulatory need. How-
ever, the documentation is necessary to
ensure that the regulatory need estimate
has credibility.
The total regulatory need is divided into
two broad categories: existing SDWA
regulations ($21.9 billion), and recently
promulgated or proposed regulations
($9.3 billion). Exhibit 6 displays the regula-
tory need by type of existing regulation.
The SDWA was enacted to protect
consumers from the harmful effects of
contaminated drinking water by requiring
that public water systems meet national
standards. Pursuant to the SDWA, EPA
has set standards for 81 inorganic,
organic, and microbial contaminants. EPA
also requires water systems to install
particular types of treatment, known as
treatment techniques, to protect the public
health from an additional 9 contaminants.
Existing Regulations: Microbial Con-
taminants. The Surface Water Treatment
Rule (SWTR) and the Total Coliform Rule
are the SDWA regulations that address
microbial contamination. Projects directly
attributable to these regulations account
for $19.8 billion, or 91 percent, of the total
existing regulatory need.
The SWTR accounts for almost all of the
microbial contaminant-related need and
most of the total regulatory need. This
statistic reflects the fact that the majority
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 39
of the nation's large municipal systems
use surface water sources. Under the
SWTR, all systems using surface water
sources must install treatment to minimize
microbial contamination. In most cases,
this means installing filtration plants to
inactivate or remove microbial pathogens,
such as the bacterium E. coli, the virus
Hepatitis A, and the protozoan Giardia
lamblia. Projects associated with this
regulation also include rehabilitating and
upgrading existing treatment facilities.
Existing Regulations: Chemical Con-
taminants. Existing SDWA regulations to
minimize chemical contamination ac-
counts for $2.1 billion of the total regula-
tory need. This estimate includes projects
attributable to the Nitrate/Nitrite Standard,
Lead and Copper Rule, Total
Trihalomethane standard, and the other
regulations that set MCLs or treatment
techniques for organic and inorganic
chemicals. Examples of projects include
aerating water to remove volatile organic
compounds, such as tetrachloroethylene,
and applying corrosion inhibitors to
reduce the leaching of lead from pipes in
home plumbing. This category includes
over 80 inorganic or organic chemicals for
which infrastructure projects may be
needed.
Most chemical contaminants are associ-
ated with chronic health effects including
cancer, reproductive difficulties, and liver
or kidney problems. However, nitrate
levels above the health-based standard
can cause an acute illness, known as
"blue baby syndrome," in which infants
are deprived of oxygen in the blood-
stream. Also, excessive copper levels can
induce acute gastrointestinal illness.
Proposed or Recently Promulgated
Regulation Infrastructure Needs. The
total need to comply with proposed or
recently promulgated regulations is $9.3
billion. Of this total, $2.6 billion is to
address microbial contaminants that have
acute health effects. This estimate is
derived from the Economic Analyses
(EAs) that EPA published when proposing
each regulation. Water systems can
readily identify the infrastructure needs
required for compliance with existing
regulations, but most systems have not
yet determined the infrastructure needed
to attain compliance with future or recently
promulgated regulations. Relying on
systems to identify the costs of complying
with these regulations would significantly
Current and Future Regulatory Needs
Of the $31.2 billion total regulatory need, $16.6
billion is the current need for maintaining and
attaining compliance with existing regulations. Most
water systems with current regulatory needs are
presently not in violation of any health-based
standard. Rather, these systems identified needs that
would enable them to continue to maintain compli-
ance with existing regulations. Future regulatory
needs include projects in which systems will need to
invest due mostly to the routine rehabilitation or
replacement of infrastructure. For example, most
conventional filtration plants require the refurbish-
ment of pumps, filters, chemical feed units, and
other components within a 20-year period. All of the
costs associated with the proposed or recently
promulgated regulations are included as future
regulatory needs.
-------
Page 40
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Workers repair a water
main break in Philadelphia.
Deteriorated distribution
pipe is susceptible to
microbiological
contamination andean
disruptwater service.
understate the true need of compliance.
Therefore, the survey used EAs to esti-
mate these compliance costs.
The 1999 survey differs from the first
needs survey in the allocation of the costs
associated with proposed or recently
promulgated regulations. Although the
method for calculating the capital costs of
these regulations is unchanged, the costs
are not apportioned to each State due to
the regional occurrence of some contami-
nants. Applying the EAs on a state-level
might over- or understate some States'
actual needs for compliance.3
The regulations addressed by this cat-
egory include the Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule
(IESWTR), Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disin-
fection Byproducts Rule (DBPR), Arsenic
Rule, Radon Rule, Groundwater Rule,
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule, Long
Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treat-
ment Rule, and the Radionuclides Rule.
The total costs of these regulations are
included in the survey as future regulatory
needs. Capital cost estimates for each of
these rules are provided in Appendix B.
Economic Challenges
Faced by Small Water
Systems
Approximately 45,000 of the nation's
55,000 community water systems serve
fewer than 3,300 people. Small water
systems vary widely in size and complex-
ity. In general, systems serving more than
500 people have a configuration typical of
larger public water systems: a water
source, several miles of transmission and
distribution piping, multiple storage tanks,
and a treatment system. Systems serving
fewer than 500 people are usually much
simpler in design and consist of a ground
water well, a small storage tank, and a
few hundred feet of pipe. Some small
systems purchase treated water from
larger public water systems, and therefore
lack the source water and treatment
components of a complete water system.
Regardless of their size and configuration,
small water systems face many unique
challenges in providing safe drinking
water to consumers. The substantial
capital investments required to rehabili-
tate, upgrade, or install infrastructure
represent one such challenge. Although
the total small system need may seem
3 See the section in Appendix A, "Estimating the Costs
for Future and Recently Promulgated Regulations," for a
more detailed discussion.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 41
minor relative to the needs of larger
systems, the per-household costs
borne by small systems are signifi-
cantly higher than those of larger
systems. Exhibit 7 compares the
average 20-year per-household
need for water systems of different
sizes and for American Indian and
Alaska Native Village water sys-
tems.
The per-household cost for infra-
structure improvements is almost
4-fold higher for small systems than
for large systems. Small systems
lack the economies of scale that
allow larger systems to spread the
costs of capital improvements
among their many consumers. For
example, the installation of a new
1.2 MOD conventional treatment
plant designed to serve a commu-
nity of 1,000 people may cost
approximately $2.5 million,
whereas a 20 MOD plant serving
100,000 people may cost $30.3
million. The cost per-household is ap-
proximately 88 percent higher for the
smaller community. Moreover, larger
systems usually purchase material in
quantities that result in significant savings
on a unit basis.4
Community Water Systems
Serving Fewer Than 10,000
People
Small water systems face considerable
economic challenges in delivering safe
drinking water. The SDWA targets water
systems serving fewer than 10,000
people for special consideration by the
DWSRF program. States must provide a
minimum of 15 percent of the available
Exhibit 7: Average 20-Year Per-Household Need
(in January 1999 dollars)
Large
Systems
Medium
Systems
Small
Systems
American
Indian
Systems
Alaska Native
Village
Systems
Does not include the costs associated with proposed and recently promulgated SDWA regulations.
funds for loans to small systems. Through
June 2000, States have exceeded this
requirement by providing approximately
41 percent of their funds to small water
systems.
The survey estimates that systems
serving fewer than 10,000 people repre-
sent 35 percent of the total national need
for community water systems. In many
States, these systems' needs comprise
well over 50 percent of the total need.
Appendix C presents the 20-year needs
for small systems serving fewer than
10,000 people by State.
4 These estimates are derived from the cost models.
See Appendix A—"Methods and Cost Modeling" for a
discussion of how the cost models were developed.
-------
Page 42
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Total Need Compared to
the 1995 Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs
Survey
The 1995 Needs Survey estimate of
$152.6 billion5 exceeds the findings of this
survey by $1.7 billion. A comparison of
the surveys is complicated by the slightly
different methods and project eligibility
criteria used to calculate the needs. The
1995 Needs Survey, for example, in-
cluded the $5.2 billion capital need associ-
ated with dams and untreated water
reservoirs. After EPA completed the first
Needs Survey, these needs were deter-
mined to be ineligible for DWSRF assis-
tance and were consequently excluded
from the 1999 survey. Conversely, unlike
the 1995 survey, the 1999 survey in-
cludes $3.1 billion in needs of not-for-
profit noncommunity water systems that
are eligible for DWSRF funding. The
varying estimates of costs associated with
the proposed and recently promulgated
regulations also contributes to the differ-
ence between the surveys.
Despite these slight variations, the funda-
mental methods used to collect and
evaluate needs in 1999 remained largely
unchanged from the 1995 survey. Most
importantly, the 1999 survey retained the
stringent documentation and eligibility
requirements of the 1995 survey.
Conservative Estimate of
Needs
The methods developed for the survey
yield a conservative estimate of need.
Despite the large magnitude of the total
national need, the survey likely underesti-
mates the true need due to the stringent
documentation criteria and the use of a
questionnaire to identify the needs of
medium and large systems. Also, the
scope of the survey is limited to those
needs eligible to receive DWSRF assis-
tance-thus excluding capital projects
related solely to dams, raw water reser-
voirs, future growth, and fire protection.
For example, a transmission project to
extend service to an area where the
construction of new homes is expected
would be considered future growth and,
therefore, omitted from the survey.
Site visits are the most effective method
to collect information on infrastructure
projects. To accommodate the limited
resources of personnel and documenta-
tion available to most small systems
serving 3,300 and fewer people, site visits
were used to estimate the needs of small
community water systems and not-for-
profit noncommunity water systems. The
site visitors assessed every major compo-
nent of a water system from source to
service line for inclusion in the survey.
They also generated the documentation
necessary to support each need and cost.
Each site visit resulted in a thorough
identification and documentation of needs
over 20 years.
5 The 1995 Needs Survey reported the total need as
$138.4 billion. Adjusted to 1999 dollars this amount is
$152.6 billion.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 43
Resource constraints prevented the use
of site visits to assess the needs of the
3,667 medium and large systems in the
survey. Instead, these systems were
asked to complete survey questionnaires
and provide documentation for all
projects.
In completing the questionnaire, many
medium and large systems relied exclu-
sively on planning documents, such as
Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs), that
often covered just one to five years, rather
than the 20-year scope of the survey.
Thus, these systems likely overlooked
eligible projects that will be needed
beyond the timeframe of their planning
documents. For example, many systems
used CIPs to identify the need to replace
sections of old and leaking pipe. In reality,
the amount of pipe that may need to be
replaced over a 20-year period may
greatly exceed that portion identified in the
CIPs. In addition, planning documents
usually reflect the financial resources
available to systems. Therefore, even
though a system may need to replace
most of its deteriorated distribution net-
work over the next 20 years, the CIP may
include a much smaller portion owing to
the projected availability of funds. Despite
measures taken to minimize underreport-
ing, the continued reliance on medium
and large systems to identify and docu-
ment their needs produced a conservative
estimate of need, particularly because
these systems represent most of the total
national need.
Not-for-Profit
Noncommunity Water
Systems
The survey estimates that not-for-profit
noncommunity water systems need to
invest $3.1 billion in infrastructure im-
provements over the next 20 years. Of
this total, $1.1 billion is needed now to
ensure the continued protection of public
health. Exhibit 8 presents the noncommu-
nity need by category.
Noncommunity water systems are either
transient or nontransient systems. Tran-
sient noncommunity systems serve at
least 25 of the same persons for no more
than 6 months of the year. Examples
include gas stations, campgrounds, and
roadside rest areas. Nontransient non-
community systems serve at least 25 of
the same people for more than 6 months
per year, but less than year-round. Ex-
amples include factories, schools, and
office buildings.
Exhibit 8: Total 20-Year for Not-for-Profit Noncommunity
Water Systems Need by Category
(in January 1999 dollars)
Storage
$1,477.3 million
Transmission and
Distribution
$387.8 million
Other
$0.7 million
Source
$620.8 million
Treatment
$611.0 million
Does not include the costs associated with proposed SDWA regulations.
-------
Page 44
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
The scope of the survey was restricted to
the approximately 21,400 not-for-profit
noncommunity water systems that are
eligible to receive DWSRF assistance.
EPA estimates that approximately 10
percent of transient noncommunity
systems and 50 percent of nontransient
noncommunity systems are not-for-profit
systems.
The needs of noncommunity systems
comprise a small proportion of the total
national need. This result reflects the
limited infrastructure required for a
noncommunity system compared to a
community water system. The lower
needs of noncommunity systems is due
mostly to their relative lack of transmis-
sion and distribution infrastructure. Many
noncommunity systems consist of so few
buildings-often just one-that the miles of
pipe typically required for even the
smaller-sized community water systems
are unnecessary.
With respect to the other categories of
need, noncommunity systems have fewer
sources, limited storage requirements,
and smaller treatment facilities than most
community water systems. The absence
Infrastructure Needs of the U.S. Pacific Islands and the Virgin Islands
The SDWA established a 0.33 percent set-aside of the
DWSRF to provide grants to community water
systems in American Samoa, the Commonwealth of
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the
U.S. Virgin Islands. As it did with the States, EPA
used a combination of questionnaires and site
visits to assess the needs of water systems on
the islands. These systems face many chal-
lenges in delivering safe drinking water. The
expense of transporting materials to the
islands, the limited availability of water
resources, and pervasive salt water intrusion
require capital investments that are substantial,
particularly when considered on a per-house-
hold basis.
In America Samoa and CNMI, the primary
source of drinking water is a thin layer of
groundwater which lies above the seawater.
High salinity levels have forced many water
systems to shut-down wells or install expensive
reverse osmosis units to remove the saltwater.
Drinking water in Guam is obtained from ground
water and surface water sources. The main municipal
water supplier in Guam has difficulties meeting the
treatment performance standards of the Surface Water
Treatment Rule that protect against microbial con-
tamination.
AM
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 45
of a full-time population accounts for
these reduced infrastructure needs. In
addition, noncommunity systems gener-
ally do not experience the peak demands
in use-associated with morning showers,
watering lawns, and meal preparation-
with which community water systems
must contend in designing their facilities.
The noncommunity need should not be
discounted because of its modest contri-
bution to the total national need. The rapid
turnover of consumers at transient sys-
tems and the sensitive populations at
some nontransient systems, such as
schools and day care centers, mean that
the infrastructure needs of these systems
have an important public health dimen-
sion.
Separate State Estimates
In response to the Needs Survey
workgroup's request, EPA provided
States with the opportunity to prepare
separate estimates of needs which were
not included in the survey due to DWSRF
ineligibility. EPA also invited States to
submit needs that the States felt were
underestimated by the survey. Four
States submitted separate estimates,
which are provided in Appendix D.
-------
The expense of burying pipe leads some systems to develop expedient but precarious solutions such as the one
picturedhere. Water service will be disruptedifpipes are not buried or otherwise adequately protected.
-------
FINDINGS: AMERICAN INDIAN AND
ALASKA NATIVE VILLAGE WATER
SYSTEMS
In 1999, EPA conducted a survey to estimate the 20-year capital needs of American Indian
and Alaska Native Village water systems. This section of the report presents the total need for
these systems. The section also describes the need by category and the existing regulatory
need. Appendix B presents the American Indian need by EPA Region.
^^Tne survey estimates that American
I Indian and Alaska Native Village
I water systems need to invest $2.2
billion in capital improvements over the
next 20 years. Of this total, $2.0 billion is
needed now to ensure the continued
provision of safe drinking water. Exhibit 9
presents the total need by category for
American Indian and Alaska Native
Village systems.
The public health significance of this need
is underscored by considering the per-
household needs of American Indian and
Alaska Native Village water systems. As
Exhibit 7 shows, these household needs
are the highest in the
nation-averaging $6,500
per-household for Ameri-
can Indians and $51,500
per-household for Alaska
Native Villages. It is to be
expected that American
Indian and Alaska Native
Village systems would
have high per-households
needs because most of
these systems are small,
serving between 25 and
3,300 people. Small
systems lack the economies
The majority of American Indian
systems, 762 of 781, are small
systems serving between 25 and
3,300 people. The remaining 19
systems are of medium size
serving between 3,300 and 50,000
people. A similar breakdown in
size applies to the Alaska Native
Village systems: 172 systems are
small and 2 systems are of medium
size.
of scale that
Exhibit 9: Total American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water System Need
by Category of Need
(in millions of January 1999 dollars)
American Indian Water Systems
Alaska Native Village Water Systems
Storage
$137.4 million
Transmission and
Distribution
$743.4 million
Storage
$309.7 million
Treatment
$179.3 million
Transmission and
Distribution
$485.0 million
Treatment
$228.7 million
Source
$43.1 million
Other
$0.8 million
Does not include the costs associated with proposed or recently promulgated SDWA regulations.
-------
Page 48
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
i -. .
• •
- -
Workers install a section of water main on the
Navajo reservation in Arizona. Many American
Indian systems have disproportionately high
distribution needs relative to their size, because
they serve widely dispersed homes in remote
locations.
reduce the per-household
needs of larger systems.1
However, American
Indian and Alaska Native
Village systems have
substantially higher needs
than the small systems in
the State portion of the
survey. For American
Indian systems, the
widely dispersed and
remote location of many
communities and the
limited availability of water
resources are among the
logistical challenges that
account for these high
per-household needs.
Alaska Native Village
water systems face
higher costs due to their
remote arctic locations
and the unique design
and construction stan-
dards required in perma-
frost conditions.
The isolation of many American Indian
communities and Alaska Native Villages
makes it infeasible to obtain water from
neighboring water systems. In less
remote areas, water systems often find
that consolidation with other systems can
reduce or eliminate the needs associated
with treatment and source development.
Also, a group of homes lacking safe
drinking water can connect to a nearby
system without the expense of laying
miles of pipe or creating a new water
system. These options are not available
to remote American Indian communities
and Alaska Native Villages.
The problem of delivering safe water in
these communities is compounded by
their poor economic condition. According
1 For more discussion, see the earlier section, "Eco-
nomic Challenges of Small Water Systems."
to the 1990 census, approximately 32
percent of American Indians and Alaska
Natives live below the poverty line, com-
pared to the national average of 13
percent. Also, the median household
income of American Indians and Alaska
Natives is just 66 percent of the national
average. These communities, therefore,
often lack the internal financial resources
to invest in water infrastructure.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) estimates
that approximately 20,000 households in
American Indian communities and Alaska
Native Villages lack potable water sup-
plies. Some of these households must
haul their drinking water from community
watering points. In the course of being
transported and stored, sometimes in
unsanitary conditions, hauled water is
vulnerable to microbial contamination. For
example, in arctic areas of Alaska, the
common practice of hauling buckets of
human waste along the same walkways
used for hauling drinking water poses
significant public health risks. Households
without access to a watering point must
obtain their water from alternative sup-
plies, such as untreated surface sources
that are subject to contamination from
waterborne bacteria, viruses, and proto-
zoa.
Irrespective of where these households
obtain their water, a lack of running water
tends to limit hand-washing and bathing.
Consequently, these households face an
increased risk from such communicable
diseases as Hepatitis A, shigellosis, and
Impetigo.
Although the risk of waterborne and
water-related diseases remains an impor-
tant public health concern, the occurrence
of these diseases has declined in many
American Indian communities and Alaska
Native Villages. The construction of water
systems and waste disposal facilities was
a critical factor in this decrease. The
challenge many American Indian commu-
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 49
nities and Alaska Native
Villages now face is the lack
of financial and technical
resources necessary to
operate and maintain these
new water systems. The
survey found that a dispro-
portionately large number of
these treatment facilities
required replacement rather
than rehabilitation. Without
adequate operation and
maintenance, water systems
will cease to provide safe
drinking water well before the
end of their design life. Thus,
in many American Indian
communities and Alaska
Native Villages, new water systems often
deteriorate to an extent that premature
replacement of the facilities is required.
American Indian Water
System Needs
The total 20-year need for American
Indian systems is $1.2 billion. Of this total,
approximately $1.0 billion is needed now
to provide safe drinking water. Exhibit 10
presents the total need by category for
American Indian systems.
Transmission and distribution projects
account for 65 percent of the total Ameri-
can Indian need, a finding which reflects
the long lengths of main often needed to
transport water from a source to a treat-
ment facility and from the facility to remote
users. The cost of extending service to
each home may be prohibitive in some
communities given the distances involved.
In these circumstances, more affordable
options include drilling private wells to
serve individual homes and constructing
treated water stations from which water
can be hauled and stored under sanitary
conditions.
Exhibit 10: Total 20-Year Need by Category for
American Indian Water Systems
(in millions of January 1999 dollars)
Categories of Need
Distribution and
Transmission
Treatment
Storage
Source
Other
Total Need
Current
Need
$691.6
$157.2
$106.3
$64.9
$11.6
$1,031.5
Future
Need
$51.8
$22.1
$31.1
$15.2
$0
$120.3
Total Need
$743.4
$179.3
$137.4
$80.1
$11.6
$1,151.8
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
Does not include the costs associated with proposed SDWA regulations.
Treatment represents the second largest
category of need at $179 million. Although
some American Indian systems have
surface water treatment facilities, many
systems are located in dry regions where
ground water is the only available source.
The fact that approximately 93 percent of
American Indian systems rely on ground
water also reflects their small size, since
most small systems in the country use
ground water sources. The treatment
needs of American Indian systems
therefore are typical of ground water
systems-with disinfection being the most
common form of treatment.
Many American Indian systems are
located in arid areas where the aesthetic
quality of the ground water is poor. The
survey estimates that $26 million is
needed for projects to remove secondary
contaminants that impart an unpleasant
taste, odor, or color to the water.
Of the remaining categories of need, $137
million is needed to install or rehabilitate
water storage tanks. Another $80 million
is needed to develop and maintain ad-
equate sources of water-a significant
challenge for many American Indian
systems due to the scarcity of water
resources. Representing $12 million in
-------
Page 50
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
A storage tankunder construction in White Mountain, Alaska, is encasedin
insulation to preventwater in the system from freezing. Constructingwater
systems to withstand extreme weather conditions is one reason Alaska Native
Village systems have highper-householdneeds.
needs, the "other" category comprises the
remaining 1 percent of the total need. This
category includes projects for installing
emergency power generators and up-
grading facilities to protect against floods
and earthquakes.
Regulatory Need for American Indian
Systems. Infrastructure needed for
compliance with existing SDWA regula-
tions comprise 5 percent, or $57 million,
of the total 20-year American Indian need.
The regulatory need category includes
projects which are necessary to attain or
maintain compliance with a maximum
contaminant level (MCL) or treatment
technique requirement. Approximately 98
percent of these projects involve the
upgrade, replacement, or installation of
treatment technologies required for
compliance with the Surface Water
Treatment Rule. Less than 2 percent of
the regulatory need is for compliance with
the Total Coliform Rule. The remainder is
for compliance with the Lead and Copper
Rule.
Alaska Native Village Water
System Needs
The total 20-year need for Alaska Native
Village systems is $1.1 billion. Of this
total, approximately $1.0 billion is needed
now to ensure the continued provision of
safe drinking water. Exhibit 11 shows the
total Alaska Native Village need by
category. The Alaska Native Village need
contributes a disproportionately large
share to the total national need on a per-
household basis.
The main reason for this high per-house-
hold need is that Alaska Native Village
systems must contend with significantly
higher transportation and construction
costs. For communities located on the
coast or near navigable rivers, equipment
often must be transported by barge during
the summer months. In the absence of
navigable waterways or roads, communi-
ties must rely on helicopters or airplanes
to transport equipment.
Another factor contributing to the high per-
household need is the unique construction
standards required to accommodate arctic
conditions. For example, storage tanks,
treatment facilities, and other water
system components must be placed on
large gravel beds or support structures,
called pilings, to prevent the transfer of
heat from a water system component to
the permafrost. Without these measures,
the underlying permafrost would subside
and destabilize the component.
Transmission and distribution projects
comprise the largest category of need,
representing $485 million, or 45 percent of
the total need. Alaska Native Village water
systems usually require only a modest
amount of pipe to provide service to each
residence, given the close proximity of the
homes to each other. However, the
transmission and distribution of water in
many Alaska Native communities requires
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 51
the use of supplemental
infrastructure that is not
needed in more temperate
climates. In arctic areas,
distribution networks consist
of insulated, above-ground
mains, known as utilidors. To
prevent water in the system
from freezing, the water in
these mains is heated and
the distribution network is
looped to provide continuous
circulation of water through-
out the entire system-from
the treatment plant and
storage tank, to the homes
and back to the plant.
Exhibit 11: Total 20-Year Need by Category for
Alaska Native Village Water Systems
(in millions of Jan. '99 dollars)
Categories of Need
Distribution and
Transmission
Treatment
Storage
Source
Other
Total Need
Current
Need
$481.8
$212.0
$292.5
$34.6
$0.8
$1,021.7
Future
Need
$3.2
$16.8
$17.1
$8.5
$0
$45.5
Total Need
$485.0
$228.7
$309.7
$43.1
$0.8
$1,067.2
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
Does not include the costs associated with proposed SDWA regulations.
With $310 million needed over the next 20
years, water storage projects represent
the second largest category of need.
Storage facilities in arctic systems require
heavy insulation and the continuous
circulation and heating of water to prevent
freezing. In addition, the formation of ice
renders many surface water sources
inaccessible for most of the year. Conse-
quently, many surface water systems
must treat and store an entire year's
supply of water within 8 to 12 weeks
during the summer. These systems
require treatment plant and storage
capacities that greatly exceed what would
normally be necessary for similarly sized
systems in the lower 48 States.
Treatment comprises 21 percent of the
need for a cost of $229 million. Although
ground water systems are not subject to
the seasonal limitations which require the
over-sizing of facilities, the quality of the
water often is poor. High levels of iron and
manganese require these systems to
install expensive treatment facilities to
improve the taste and color of the water.
The total 20-year need for source projects
is $43 million. Most of these projects are
for drilling or rehabilitating wells. Alaska
Native Village systems also included
projects to install or upgrade surface
water intake structures.
Regulatory Need for Alaska Native
Village Systems. For Alaska Native
Village systems, all of the projects directly
attributable to the existing SDWA are for
compliance with the Surface Water
Treatment Rule (SWTR). These projects
total $108 million, or 47 percent, of the
entire Alaska Native Village need for
treatment.
Total American Indian and Alaska
Native Village Needs Compared to the
1995 Results. The total need for Ameri-
can Indian systems and Alaska Native
Village systems increased by $533.8
million and $216.2 million, respectively,
compared to the 1995 findings. This
increase results largely from refining the
methods used to estimate the needs. For
the American Indian survey, the sample
size was increased to provide a more
precise estimate of national need. Simi-
larly, the use of a census for Alaska
Native Village systems increased the
precision of the need estimate compared
to the sampling methods used in the first
survey.
-------
The wells serving the city ofHollywood, Florida, had severe microbiological
contamination whichfouledthe membrane treatment system. In addition, the
combinedoutput of the wells couldnot meet demandandthedistributionsystem
routinelyfailedto reach minimum pressure standards. With a $13 million DWSRF
loan, the city drilled 12 new wells and added 1.5 miles of raw water lines.
-------
HOUSEHOLDS NOT SERVED BY
PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
EPA estimates that approxi-
mately 16 million households
obtain their drinking water from
sources other than public water systems.
Of these households, nearly 15 million are
served by private drilled or dug wells,
while 1 million use untreated surface
water such as lakes, rivers, and springs.
The adequacy of these supplies in terms
of quality and quantity cannot be compre-
hensively assessed on a national or even
individual State level due to a lack of data.
This owes largely to the fact that most
private supplies are not subject to the
same rigorous federal or state monitoring
requirements as public water systems.
In addition, an unknown number of people
live in homes without running water. This
population faces an increased risk of
waterborne diseases and related ill-
nesses, because a safe supply of running
water is essential to basic sanitation.
Needs Included in the Survey. For
households without access to safe drink-
ing water, two DWSRF-eligible options
are available for addressing the problem.
An existing public water system can
extend service to these households or a
new public water system can be con-
structed to provide drinking water.
Although systems had the opportunity to
identify these DWSRF-eligible needs, the
survey likely underestimates the true
needs for households without access to
safe drinking water. The lack of compre-
hensive data on the water quality at
private wells obscures the extent of the
problem for many water systems and
States. Thus, respondents may have
overlooked these needs for lack of public
health data. Also, in responding to the
survey, most water systems concentrated
their efforts on identifying projects for their
current, rather than potential, customers.
Therefore, the survey estimate of $6.0
billion to extend service to homes without
safe drinking water understates the true
need.
Private Wells. A lack of monitoring data
prevents a comprehensive assessment of
the quality of water supplied by private
wells. Although EPA believes that most of
the households served by private wells
likely receive safe drinking water, several
studies have found that contamination
rates in some areas are very high.
Pipe is installed to provide safe drinking water to homes in Rensselaer
County, New York, that had previously used untreated water from a
transmission line. The DWSRF contributed $4.9 million in funding assistance
to this project.
-------
Page 54
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Based on data from six states, a
1997 General Accounting Office
study reported bacterial and nitrate
contamination as high as 42 and 18
percent, respectively, of the private
wells tested.1
A 1995 Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention report found that
total coliform bacteria exceeded the
health-based standard in 46, 37,
and 23 percent of the private wells
tested in Illinois, Nebraska, and
Wisconsin, respectively. The study
also detected nitrate concentrations
above the standard in 15, 15, and 7
percent of the wells sampled in
these states, respectively.2
Although data on pesticides, heavy
metals, and volatile organic com-
pounds are extremely limited, one
study found that lead exceeded 15
ppb (an action level for public water
systems) in 19 percent of the wells
tested in Pennsylvania.3
The proximity of this
smallgroundwater
system to a gasoline
station provides an
example of a poorly sited
well. Spills or leakage
from underground
gasoline storage tanks
could contaminate the
groundwater. Wells
such as this one should
be replaced by new wells
that are drilled aw ay
from potential sources of
contamination or,
alternatively, the source
of contamination should
be eliminated.
;
Improper siting and construction is one of
the main causes of contamination in older
private wells. Because of land availability
constraints, a lack of understanding of
health implications, and a desire to
minimize cost, some older private wells
are located too close to septic systems or
other potential sources of contamination.
The length of the well casing also influ-
ences the susceptibility of wells to micro-
bial contamination, with the probability of
contamination increasing as casing length
decreases.4 Although all States now have
well construction standards, an unknown
number of private wells were constructed
before these standards were established.
Hauled Water and Untreated Surface
Water Sources. More than 1 million
households obtain water directly from
cisterns, springs, rivers, and lakes. Drink-
ing water from untreated surface sources
is often stored in barrels or cisterns which
are susceptible to microbiological con-
tamination. Census data show that 2
percent of American Indian households
on federally recognized Tribal lands and
20 percent of mainland Alaska Native
Village households obtain their water from
untreated surface sources.
1We//, Well, Well Water 1997. Environmental Health
Perspectives 105(12):1290-1292.
2Center 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.
3Swistock, B.R., W.E. Sharpe, and P.O. Robillard. A
Survey of Lead, Nitrate and Radon Contamination of
Private Individual Water Systems in Pennsylvania. 1993.
Journal of Environmental Health 55(5):6-12.
"Tuthill A., D.B. Meikle, M. C.R. Alavanja. 1998.
Coliform Bacteria and Nitrate Contamination of Wells in
Major Soils of Frederick, Maryland. Journal of Environ-
mental Health 60(8): 16-20.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 55
Colonias and Washeterias. A significant
number of consumers commonly use
untreated sources of water or water
hauled from unsanitary sources in areas
called colonies along the Texas-Mexico
border and in Alaska Native communities.
Colonias—Nearly 400,000 people
live in communities, known as
colonias, which extend along the
border with Mexico. These commu-
nities have the largest concentration
of people living without basic ser-
vices in the nation. Most colonias do
not have a safe supply of running
water. Therefore, people must haul
water from central watering points or
untreated sources such as irrigation
canals. The lack of water service to
homes in colonias tends to limit
hand-washing and bathing. Conse-
quently, these households face an
increased risk from communicable
diseases including Hepatitis A,
shigellosis, and Impetigo.
The Needs Survey includes the
capital needs of colonias only to the
extent that States have identified the
water systems serving these com-
munities. The survey likely underes-
timates the needs of colonias, as
most States have yet to locate all of
these systems for inclusion in their
inventory.
Washeterias Serving Alaska
Native Communities—Approxi-
mately 30,000 Alaskans, or 30
percent of the population, live in
rural communities without adequate
water and sewer facilities. The only
drinking water available to many
Alaska Natives is from the commu-
nity washeteria, particularly during
The City of El Paso, Texas, received a $15 million loan from the Texas DWSRF
program to expand the capacity of the Jonathan Rogers Treatment Plant. This
project will provide water to colonias that lack access to safe drinking water.
cold weather when snow and ice
make alternative sources of water
inaccessible. 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, usually by walking along a
boardwalk, from a watering point at
the washeteria. In most cases, the
access boardwalk is also used to
haul sewage to disposal sites. As
sewage spills are not uncommon,
there is a high risk of contaminating
the drinking water. Other sources of
water include rain, melting snow,
rivers, lakes, individual wells, and
individual storage tanks. In addition,
container vehicles are used to
transport water to, and sewage
from, these communities.
-------
Workers retrieve a tunnel boring machine (TBM) used to excavate an underground
passage for a transmission line. TBMs allow water systems to bore through rock at
rates faster than conventional drilling and blasting methods. By avoiding the need to
tear up streets and set underground explosives, TBMs also minimize traffic disruption
and noise for the surrounding areas.
-------
APPENDIX A— METHODS: SAMPLING
AND COST MODELING
^^Tne sampling methods for the 1999
I Needs Survey were developed by a
I workgroup consisting of State,
American Indian, Alaska Native Village,
Indian Health Service (IMS), and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
representatives. In addition to designing
the methods, the State, American Indian,
and Alaska Native Village representatives
played critical roles in implementing the
survey. The workgroup met four times to
develop the survey methods.
The workgroup based the approach for
the 1999 survey on the methods used in
1995, with refinements from the lessons
learned in conducting the 1995 survey,
findings of a follow-up study that EPA
performed in 1997, and options made
available by technological advances in
database management and the Internet.
Different data collection methods were
used to account for the strengths and
resource constraints of the different sized
systems in the survey. Systems were
organized into three size categories:
Large (serving more than 50,000 people),
medium (serving 3,301 - 50,000 people),
and small (serving 3,300 and fewer
people). Exhibit A-1 shows the data
collection method used, sample size,
target precision levels, and response rate
for each size category.
Methods for Estimating
State Needs
Inventory Verification. To ensure that
the survey accounted for all community
and not-for-profit noncommunity water
systems in the States, the universe of
water systems (from which the samples
were drawn) was obtained from the Safe
Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS). SDWIS is EPA's centralized
database for information on public water
systems. It is an ideal choice for determin-
ing the inventory, because it is designed
to identify all public water systems. States
verified information on population served,
water sources, and other important
variables for their systems. In some
Exhibit A-1: Community Water Systems Sampling for the 1999 Needs Survey
Population Served
Data Collection Method
Sample Size
Response Rates
Precision Target
Small Systems
3,300 or fewer
Site Visits
599
98 Percent
95%±10% Precision Nationally
Medium
3,301 -
Systems
50,000
Questionnaire
2,556 < 40,000
96 Percent
225 > 40.0001
100 Percent
Large Systems
more than 50,000
Questionnaire
8861
100 Percent
95%±10% Precision by State
1 Systems sampled with certainty (census).
-------
Page 58
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
cases, EPA reviewed State files to verify
the number of systems in a State.
Stratification. The sample design for the
survey was based on the concept of
stratified random sampling. Stratification
made the design more efficient by en-
abling it to meet precision targets with a
smaller sample size than if the sample
were not stratified. These efficiencies are
achieved if the design accounts for the
fact that some water systems, as a group,
will have different needs than other water
systems. For example, large water
systems generally require much greater
investments than do small systems.
Water systems were stratified using two
source (surface and ground) and several
population groups. Results from the 1995
survey indicated that systems purchasing
treated water have needs more similar to
ground water systems than systems using
and treating surface water sources.
Therefore, systems that solely purchase
water were included in the ground water
strata. Also, in assigning a system to a
size category, the survey included the
population served by other utilities which
purchase water from the system. Systems
that sell water must design their infra-
structure, particularly treatment facilities,
to serve the purchasing system popula-
tions.
Estimating Needs for Large and Me-
dium Community Water Systems. The
1999 survey included all of the nation's
1,111 systems serving more than 40,000
people. The needs associated with these
systems contributed directly to each
State's total need. A random sample of
medium-sized systems serving between
3,300 and 40,000 people was selected in
each State. The survey sampled 2,556
community water systems out of the
national inventory of 7,759 medium-sized
community water systems. This sample
allowed for a high level of precision in
estimating the needs of medium-sized
systems for each State. Because these
medium-sized systems were included in a
sample, and not a census, their needs
were extrapolated to the remainder of the
systems (i.e., those not sampled) in each
State.
The 3,667 medium and large systems in
the survey received a mailed question-
naire package. Systems were asked to
identify capital projects needed to protect
the public health for current customers
and for households without access to safe
drinking water. The questionnaire
prompted systems to provide:
• A description of the infrastructure
need.
• Documentation explaining why the
project is needed.
• An indication whether the project is
a current or future need.
• An indication whether the project
involves installing new or rehabilitat-
ing existing infrastructure.
• An indication whether the project is
triggered by a SDWA regulation.
• A cost estimate, if available.
• Documentation of cost, if available.
• Design capacities of projects with or
without costs for cost modeling.
Systems returned the completed ques-
tionnaires to the States for review, along
with the supporting need and cost docu-
mentation. The States reviewed each
questionnaire to ensure that systems
thoroughly identified their needs and that
all projects were documented and de-
scribed correctly. The States had the
option of providing supplemental informa-
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 59
Exhibit A-2: Cost Curve for New Conventional Filtration Plant
o
tion, if documentation of need
or cost was inadequate. In
many instances the States
contacted the systems to
obtain additional information.
The States then forwarded the
questionnaires to EPA for final
review. Once EPA's review
was completed the question-
naires were entered into a
database. This database was
made available on the Internet
to provide States with a final
opportunity to review their
systems' data.
This review process differed
from the procedures used in
1995. Although some States
were involved in data collection
for the 1995 survey, EPA
assumed primary responsibility for review-
ing needs and, whenever necessary,
contacting systems to obtain further
documentation. The greater involvement
of the States-with their familiarity with the
systems-accounts in part for the larger
number of projects received for the 1999
survey.
Some of the medium and large drinking
water systems provided capital improve-
ment plans or engineering reports to
document the costs of their infrastructure
projects. However, approximately 42,920
of the 65,430 projects lacked cost esti-
mates. EPA used models to assign costs
to these projects. Cost models were
developed from documented cost esti-
mates provided by the systems in the
survey. For a limited number of infrastruc-
ture needs, the cost data collected were
insufficient to develop a cost model. For
these projects additional project cost
information was obtained from the States,
Indian Health Service, manufacturers,
EPA Economic Analyses, and engineer-
1,000,000,000
100,000,000 -
_ 10,000,000 -
1,000,000 -
100,000
10,000 -
1,000
0.01
0.1 1 10 100
Millions of Gallons per Day
1000
ing firms. All costs were converted to
January 1999 dollars.
For example, a cost model would have
been used if a system lacked cost docu-
mentation for rehabilitating a conventional
filtration treatment plant that no longer
met performance standards. If the system
provided the design capacity of the plant
on the questionnaire, EPA would have
applied the specific cost model for reha-
bilitating this type of plant. Exhibit A-2
provides an example of a cost curve used
to apply costs to a new conventional
treatment plant project.
Estimating Needs for Small Commu-
nity Water Systems. The Needs Survey
workgroup agreed that small systems
generally lack the planning documents
and available personnel to complete a
mailed questionnaire. Therefore, needs
data were collected through site visits.
Site visits were conducted by water
system specialists who had extensive
experience working with small systems
and who received training in the project
eligibility and documentation criteria
-------
Page 60
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
established for the survey. In most cases,
State personnel also attended the site
visits. Based on the results of the site visit,
EPA completed the survey questionnaire
and developed documentation for each
project. The questionnaires were re-
viewed by EPA and entered into a data-
base. The database was made available
for the States to review on the Internet.
Most small systems lacked documented
cost estimates. Therefore, the models
were used to assign costs to the majority
of their needs.
Unlike the medium and large systems, the
design for small systems is driven by a
budgetary constraint— there were not
sufficient funds to complete the approxi-
mately 22,000 site visits necessary to
accurately estimate the needs of small
systems on a State-by-State level. Also
the large investment required to generate
State-level estimates of need would not
be justified, given that medium and large
systems generally comprise most of the
States' needs. Therefore, the survey used
a national sample for systems serving
3,300 and fewer people. The needs of
small systems in the national sample
were extrapolated to calculate the total
national small system need. This need
then was apportioned among the States
based on the number of small systems in
each stratum in each State.
Estimating Needs for Not-for-profit
Noncommunity Water Systems. There
are approximately 21,400 not-for-profit
noncommunity water systems
(NPNCWSs) nationwide. For the 1999
survey, EPA conducted site visits to a
sample of approximately 100 NPNCWSs.
This sample was not stratified into size
and source categories, because EPA
lacked the empirical data necessary to
develop strata. Also, stratification would
increase the sample size. The added
costs of visiting more systems were not
justified, because the needs of
NPNCWSs were expected to represent a
small proportion of the total national need.
Data collection and cost modeling were
completed using the same methods
applied to small community water sys-
tems.
Precision Targets. The survey was
designed to provide a high level of preci-
sion for each State's estimate of need.
Because medium and large systems
usually represent the majority of a State's
need, the survey established a precision
target of 95 percent ± 10 percent for the
combined needs of these systems. This
means that, for each State, there is a 95
percent likelihood that the true need lies
within 10 percent of the survey's esti-
mated need for medium and large sys-
tems. For example, if the survey esti-
mates that a State's total medium and
large system need is $2.0 billion, then the
actual need for these systems is probably
between $1.8 and $2.2 billion (that is,
10 percent of the estimated need).
The survey design provided a national
level estimate of small community water
system needs with a precision target of
95 percent ± 10 percent. A precision
target of 95 percent ± 30 percent was
established for the NPNCWSs.
Estimating the Needs of
American Indian and
Alaska Native Village Water
Systems
American Indian Water Systems. The
1999 survey estimated the infrastructure
needs of medium-sized American Indian
water systems using a census. Each of
the 19 community water systems serving
more than 3,300 people completed a
questionnaire. EPA offered technical
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 61
Exhibit A-3: American Indian and Alaska Native Village System Sampling for
the 1999 Needs Survey
Population Served
Data Collection Method
Sample Size
Response Rates
Precision Target
American Indian
Small Systems
3,300 or fewer
Site Visits
78
100 Percent
95%±10% Precision
Nationally
American Indian
Medium Systems
3,301 - 50,000
Questionnaire
19
100 Percent
Alaska Native Systems
All populations
Questionnaire
174
100 Percent
Systems Sampled With Certainty (Census)
assistance to help these systems identify
eligible needs and prepare documenta-
tion. In addition, drinking water projects
from IHS's Sanitation Deficiency System
(SDS) were pre-printed on each question-
naire. The SDS was not designed to
capture the full extent of the needs
allowable for the survey, so these data
served as a baseline to which systems
added projects. For example, SDS
contains only current needs, while the
survey asks for current and future needs.
The systems returned the completed
questionnaire and documentation to EPA
for final review.
A sample of 78 small American Indian
systems was randomly selected. Site
visits were conducted by drinking water
system specialists who had extensive
experience working with small systems,
had received special Needs Survey
training, and had previous experience with
American Indian water systems. In some
cases, IMS and Tribal officials attended
the site visits. EPA was responsible for
completing the questionnaire and docu-
menting needs and costs.
Alaska Native Village Water Systems.
Current and future needs of Alaska Native
Village water systems were identified
through a census of water systems that
serve predominantly Alaska Natives. The
inventory consisted of 2 medium systems
and 172 small systems. A list of projects
needed for each small system was
developed by EPA in consultation with
Village representatives, Village Safe
Water, IMS, and State officials. Site visits
to 5 Alaska Native Village water systems
were performed to confirm the need
assessments.
Needs for the two medium Alaska Native
Village water systems were obtained
through phone interviews with the sys-
tems. Based on the responses from the
water systems, EPA prepared the ques-
tionnaires and documentation.
Using cost models developed with data
from systems in the State and American
Indian portions of the survey would not
reflect the unique construction challenges
that face Alaska Native Villages. For
example, in some areas, water tanks and
treatment plants need to be elevated on
pilings to prevent the heated facilities from
subsiding into the permafrost. Therefore,
-------
Page 62
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
a roundtable meeting of IMS and EPA
engineers was held to provide guidelines
for determining project costs. In assigning
costs to projects, water systems were
grouped into three geographic areas
roughly corresponding to the northern,
central, and southern parts of the State.
These areas coincided roughly with the
different factors that influence project
costs, such as the means used to trans-
port equipment. This process omitted
water systems located on the North
Slope, because they had prepared master
plans and capital improvement plans that
documented the costs of all of their
needs. IMS provided cost documentation
for projects constructed in Alaska Native
Villages throughout the State. These
costs were used to estimate the average
costs of projects in each geographic area.
Costs for some projects were derived
from the cost models developed for the
State and American Indian systems. The
models were used to assign costs to
small-scale projects (e.g., flushing hy-
drants) for which IMS costs were unavail-
able.
Precision Targets. Because all of the
Alaska Native Village and medium-sized
American Indian water systems were
included in the survey, the needs of these
systems were calculated with certainty.
The estimates of need for small American
Indian water systems have a national
precision level of 95 percent ±10 percent.
Estimating Costs for
Proposed and Recently
Promulgated Regulations
A portion of the needs collected in the
survey are attributable directly to SDWA
regulations. Systems were able to identify
projects needed for compliance with
existing regulations. However, most
systems had not yet identified the infra-
structure needed to comply with proposed
and recently promulgated regulations.
Consequently, the costs of these regula-
tions were based on the Economic
Analysis (EAs) that EPA published when
proposing or finalizing each regulation.
The survey did not cover the costs of
regulations that were proposed after July
1,2000.
The costs associated with future and
recently promulgated regulations are
included only in the total national need,
not in each State's need. In general, an
EA assigns the cost of complying with a
new regulation on the basis of a system's
size and water source. The use of EAs to
allocate these costs to each State is
problematic, given that the cost of a
regulation is not necessarily a direct
function of the number of systems in each
size and source category. For example,
the cost of complying with a new regula-
tion will vary significantly from State-to-
State if the contaminant occurs mostly in
specific regions of the country. Allocating
costs based solely on the inventory of
systems would fail to capture this varia-
tion.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 63
-------
Filtration plants consist of a series of treatment stages, each of which is critical to the production of safe water.
Shown is a filter bed that is cloggedwith mud and treatment chemicals. The clarifier that should have removed
these particulates in the preceding stage is in poor condition andneeds to be replaced.
-------
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Needs for Water Systems in the States
(community water systems and not-for-profit noncommunity water systems)
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 Regulatory Need
Exhibit B-5—Total Regulatory Need
Needs for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems
Exhibit B-6—Total Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Systems by EPA Region
Exhibit B-7—Total Need by Category for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems
Exhibit B-8—Total Regulatory Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems
Needs Attributable to Future Drinking Water Regulations
Exhibit B-9—Total Proposed or Recently Promulgated Regulatory Need
Exhibits B-1- B-8 do not include the costs associated with proposed or recently promulgated SDWA regulations.
-------
Page 66 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 67
Exhibit B-1: Total Need by Category (20-year need in millions of January 1999 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
North Mariana Is.
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Total
Transmission and
Distribution
622.1
345.4
781.9
834.1
10,709.3
1,285.8
569.1
130.4
388.4
1,766.2
1,438.7
89.3
261.0
3,392.2
890.8
1,990.3
782.0
1,185.1
690.2
283.2
986.2
3,907.2
4,545.6
1,346.9
697.0
1,342.6
483.0
448.1
351.2
233.3
2,593.7
526.9
8,590.8
1,402.9
274.2
2,585.7
1,480.3
1,442.4
3,148.3
1,040.5
396.1
376.1
216.5
686.7
7,935.5
256.5
175.1
1,023.9
2,368.4
572.5
1,634.7
233.3
81,737.8
18.5
75.6
25.7
68.3
188.1
81,925.8
Treatment
186.1
105.0
434.8
287.6
2,354.1
642.8
234.4
107.2
0.0
1,043.9
463.4
17.7
90.4
1,459.7
379.7
407.1
487.7
319.7
231.4
82.5
357.5
1,323.4
1,330.3
994.4
317.3
362.0
186.0
219.8
42.0
105.5
425.6
246.8
2,852.7
551.3
90.5
1,022.9
486.6
575.7
939.9
612.5
110.8
258.6
111.3
414.3
2,625.6
123.1
48.5
518.9
504.7
222.9
723.9
127.1
28,167.2
7.4
1.7
21.0
32.5
62.6
28,229.9
Storage
175.7
101.6
244.7
238.9
2,393.8
304.2
128.6
33.5
25.6
366.3
308.3
23.0
107.1
850.6
295.1
282.5
226.8
182.5
224.0
96.4
195.5
463.1
601.8
453.1
228.4
308.2
130.1
96.9
135.5
108.0
425.6
114.0
994.3
504.2
71.2
798.8
262.4
470.5
800.2
229.0
43.1
132.2
67.6
252.2
1,524.3
88.6
59.8
282.1
684.6
158.6
496.6
48.7
17,838.6
7.0
9.9
14.8
48.4
80.2
17,918.8
Source
91.7
31.5
130.6
141.6
1,565.7
246.0
59.0
31.8
0.0
500.5
165.9
14.6
53.3
358.6
114.3
148.9
122.2
70.5
106.9
30.9
101.7
168.6
268.6
247.0
108.1
154.2
69.2
62.0
30.0
49.4
183.0
128.9
674.4
218.4
49.3
401.0
101.1
183.5
313.5
52.8
22.3
47.0
39.5
49.0
811.9
43.2
20.7
189.9
341.2
59.8
224.2
30.7
9,428.6
2.7
22.9
10.9
11.3
47.8
9,476.4
Other
5.3
1.7
30.4
31.8
466.2
51.6
15.7
1.1
0.0
47.4
30.2
2.0
4.1
88.4
13.7
17.8
27.2
11.5
20.4
5.5
30.2
14.1
42.1
58.1
10.0
12.8
3.6
5.3
43.8
3.3
31.0
25.3
43.1
30.3
4.6
150.5
10.4
36.9
56.2
37.0
4.8
6.7
4.9
8.0
170.0
2.4
2.9
40.6
48.4
6.2
18.6
2.4
1,836.3
0.7
4.7
2.5
1.1
8.9
1,845.1
Total
1,080.9
585.2
1,622.4
1,534.0
17,489.1
2,530.4
1,006.7
304.0
414.1
3,724.3
2,406.4
146.7
515.9
6,149.5
1,693.5
2,846.6
1,645.9
1,769.3
1,272.8
498.6
1,671.0
5,876.4
6,788.4
3,099.4
1,360.7
2,179.8
871.9
832.0
602.4
499.4
3,658.9
1,042.0
13,155.3
2,707.1
489.9
4,959.0
2,340.8
2,709.1
5,258.2
1,971.8
577.1
820.5
439.7
1,410.1
13,067.3
513.9
306.9
2,055.4
3,947.4
1,020.0
3,098.0
442.2
139,008.5
36.4
114.7
74.8
161.7
387.5
139,396.1
-------
Page 68
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Exhibit B-2: Current Need by Category (20-year need in millions of January 1999 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
North Mariana Is.
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Total
Transmission and
Distribution
434.4
169.2
591.7
593.0
9,207.7
882.0
493.0
73.5
388.4
1,454.6
1,041.3
80.2
186.8
2,582.6
716.7
1,843.4
638.7
919.3
546.6
237.6
877.2
3,615.0
2,367.8
875.3
605.3
1,107.6
369.3
343.4
281.6
194.6
1,781.0
455.6
6,925.3
1,040.4
162.6
2,235.9
1,162.7
1,347.4
2,347.4
1,013.5
263.4
298.0
163.6
503.6
6,029.6
192.3
156.5
609.8
2,105.8
500.8
1,047.5
207.0
64,267.5
17.9
72.2
24.0
63.8
177.8
64,445.4
Treatment
108.4
36.3
321.7
164.2
1,773.1
449.6
161.2
95.1
0.0
756.7
270.8
9.8
42.9
1,076.4
214.9
265.1
367.3
275.1
130.2
37.1
286.1
1,062.3
802.5
468.4
200.2
194.7
84.1
144.9
18.6
40.4
317.1
71.5
2,481.8
336.2
37.1
704.3
268.5
470.0
550.0
585.6
100.0
146.0
70.0
211.2
1,469.8
66.5
28.1
362.5
272.8
134.4
359.5
64.8
18,965.9
6.7
1.4
10.8
21.7
40.5
19,006.4
Storage
101.3
46.4
112.1
130.2
1,517.2
141.6
52.7
17.2
25.6
178.4
143.1
13.3
45.8
440.9
135.9
149.6
130.8
117.8
114.9
41.1
100.9
377.0
327.5
208.2
109.6
156.5
66.4
45.9
70.7
44.8
158.2
43.1
665.8
220.5
31.6
443.3
118.5
369.2
360.1
206.0
18.1
54.4
36.6
157.0
766.2
53.0
36.4
137.5
356.4
95.2
190.2
28.9
9,709.4
6.9
7.9
14.7
30.8
60.3
9,769.7
Source
28.2
19.1
68.9
97.3
1,144.1
168.1
23.8
23.6
0.0
310.1
105.5
10.5
32.7
218.7
61.9
86.8
86.3
54.4
58.0
15.7
71.5
88.1
143.7
133.7
58.4
102.4
32.0
33.9
17.4
23.9
88.5
52.8
412.1
129.6
32.4
259.4
49.8
130.1
188.2
45.8
15.9
30.2
18.8
29.5
442.7
27.1
11.2
59.5
170.5
35.4
117.2
17.5
5,682.7
2.6
21.0
10.8
10.5
44.9
5,727.6
Other
4.9
1.5
28.9
29.5
430.1
50.9
4.4
0.9
0.0
37.1
22.4
2.0
3.4
73.5
11.5
11.3
26.4
9.6
7.3
4.8
29.2
10.4
33.4
32.4
8.2
10.8
3.1
4.2
43.3
2.7
23.2
24.9
33.3
23.9
3.0
73.6
7.7
35.0
36.4
36.8
4.1
4.4
4.1
7.0
152.1
1.9
2.6
32.7
45.1
5.3
10.4
2.3
1,507.6
0.6
1.3
1.4
1.1
4.3
1,511.9
Total
677.2
272.5
1,123.3
1,014.2
14,072.3
1,692.1
735.1
210.4
414.1
2,736.9
1,583.1
115.8
311.5
4,392.1
1,140.8
2,356.2
1,249.4
1,376.2
857.0
336.2
1,365.0
5,152.8
3,674.9
1,718.1
981.8
1,572.1
554.8
572.2
431.6
306.5
2,368.0
648.0
10,518.2
1,750.5
266.6
3,716.4
1,607.3
2,351.6
3,482.1
1,887.6
401.4
532.9
293.1
908.2
8,860.5
341.0
234.8
1,202.1
2,950.5
771.0
1,724.8
320.5
100,133.2
34.7
103.7
61.7
127.8
327.9
100,461.0
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 69
Exhibit B-3: Total Need by System Size (20-year need in millions of January 1999 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
Wy o m i n g
Subtotal
American Samoa
Guam
North Mariana Is.
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Total
Large CWSs
120.9
31.9
712.2
391.3
12,310.8
1,109.2
547.0
158.4
414.1
2,163.1
984.9
18.1
37.9
2,020.8
237.7
336.2
507.3
312.3
234.2
28.4
1,116.6
2,628.4
3,647.1
730.7
157.3
623.5
125.1
226.7
377.2
44.9
1,721.7
433.2
9,305.0
600.2
120.1
1,689.9
810.7
907.5
1,722.1
1,110.6
352.9
297.9
55.4
106.8
6,684.2
196.0
0.0
846.0
1,401.1
96.0
878.4
80.7
61,770.7
0.0
57.2
18.2
0.0
75.4
61,846.1
Medium CWSs
549.7
317.6
471.8
638.6
2,896.7
917.5
215.0
25.2
0.0
553.7
654.7
28.2
88.2
2,738.6
722.6
1,800.3
513.6
1,100.5
291.5
194.1
226.5
2,998.8
1,919.3
1,498.5
337.5
645.1
340.3
261.7
57.6
90.3
1,464.0
270.8
2,015.4
916.9
164.0
2,096.7
792.2
1,198.2
1,946.5
479.9
180.5
197.3
136.2
939.2
3,691.7
45.4
82.7
508.8
1,201.3
337.5
1,159.5
234.7
43,153.1
19.3
50.9
33.7
40.7
144.6
43,297.7
Small CWSs
407.3
189.2
424.3
498.5
2,204.4
502.8
223.8
117.9
0.0
910.2
756.4
99.6
361.0
1,306.2
599.0
696.2
622.4
355.7
735.8
249.8
253.2
224.1
862.4
665.9
858.6
881.4
368.0
331.5
156.8
317.1
318.2
326.2
1,739.0
908.5
201.7
957.5
721.0
561.1
1,375.0
380.4
31.5
313.0
244.2
342.2
2,655.1
262.7
224.1
630.8
1,256.5
549.7
692.0
117.6
30,987.2
17.1
6.5
22.9
121.0
167.5
31,154.7
NPNCWSs
2.9
46.5
14.1
5.6
77.2
1.0
20.9
2.5
0.0
97.2
10.5
0.8
28.7
83.9
134.3
14.0
2.6
0.8
11.4
26.2
74.8
25.1
359.6
204.3
7.3
29.8
38.6
12.2
10.8
47.1
155.0
11.7
96.1
281.5
4.1
214.9
17.0
42.3
214.5
0.9
12.3
12.3
3.9
21.9
36.3
9.9
0.1
69.8
88.4
36.7
368.1
9.3
3,097.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3,097.6
Total
1,080.9
585.2
1,622.4
1,534.0
17,489.1
2,530.4
1,006.7
304.0
414.1
3,724.3
2,406.4
146.7
515.9
6,149.5
1,693.5
2,846.6
1,645.9
1,769.3
1,272.8
498.6
1,671.0
5,876.4
6,788.4
3,099.4
1,360.7
2,179.8
871.9
832.0
602.4
499.4
3,658.9
1,042.0
13,155.3
2,707.1
489.9
4,959.0
2,340.8
2,709.1
5,258.2
1,971.8
577.1
820.5
439.7
1,410.1
13,067.3
513.9
306.9
2,055.4
3,947.4
1,020.0
3,098.0
442.2
139,008.5
36.4
114.7
74.8
161.7
387.5
139,396.1
-------
Page 70
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Exhibit B-4: Current Regulatory Need (20-year need in millions of January 1999 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
North Mariana Is.
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Total
SWTR
62.2
32.6
270.6
104.5
1,320.2
428.1
148.5
70.7
0.0
181.0
180.0
3.0
26.7
664.7
59.3
114.5
262.7
229.0
64.7
24.6
250.3
1,057.0
549.5
60.3
71.2
131.2
54.5
114.2
5.4
23.7
237.2
32.8
2,491.1
221.3
38.8
453.6
231.2
425.1
495.6
601.4
92.2
126.1
11.0
179.1
1,184.3
52.1
20.2
315.7
195.0
102.7
157.4
58.5
14,287.4
3.9
0.0
3.0
38.8
45.8
14,333.3
TCR
9.2
0.5
0.1
0.3
4.5
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.2
1.5
0.0
0.3
41.8
1.4
228.6
0.0
3.5
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.3
5.5
2.2
1.0
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.5
5.9
0.1
3.9
2.9
0.0
2.2
0.2
0.4
2.2
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.0
0.2
9.5
0.1
0.0
1.3
15.8
0.4
4.1
0.1
356.1
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.0
357.1
Nitrate/
Nitrite
0.0
0.1
5.3
0.1
32.5
4.9
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.2
61.3
0.2
67.5
4.4
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.5
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
2.9
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.8
0.6
0.1
0.3
2.5
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.1
3.7
0.1
197.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
197.1
Lead and
Copper Rule
2.4
0.5
1.4
3.1
12.0
8.5
0.7
0.3
0.0
2.9
6.5
0.6
1.2
35.2
21.0
3.2
4.5
16.7
3.5
1.7
1.0
18.0
213.5
47.8
3.6
4.0
1.7
10.7
0.6
1.3
92.0
1.2
177.4
3.2
1.9
26.7
15.8
4.4
65.3
3.2
6.5
1.5
0.9
3.0
13.1
1.2
1.3
7.3
5.5
5.1
171.1
3.7
1,039.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
1,039.5
TTHMs
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
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
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
39.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
39.1
Other*
1.9
0.2
0.8
1.7
33.5
0.8
0.3
0.2
0.0
4.2
1.3
0.4
0.4
27.2
4.9
70.1
3.5
1.1
5.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
10.5
55.9
3.5
2.3
0.4
6.9
0.4
0.4
25.7
1.7
11.1
1.5
0.5
2.9
1.7
0.8
2.9
0.4
0.1
0.8
0.5
1.1
15.8
0.7
0.2
0.8
2.4
1.2
118.0
0.2
430.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
430.8
Total
75.8
33.9
278.3
109.6
1,402.8
442.3
149.8
71.3
0.0
219.9
189.7
3.9
28.9
830.3
86.7
484.7
275.1
251.2
74.1
27.1
252.7
1,076.0
784.3
166.5
81.5
138.2
57.3
134.9
6.6
26.1
360.9
36.1
2,684.3
229.4
41.3
485.7
251.3
430.9
566.6
605.1
99.4
129.5
12.6
183.4
1,224.2
54.2
21.9
325.4
219.6
109.5
456.1
62.6
16,349.7
4.9
0.0
3.1
39.2
47.3
16,396.9
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 71
Exhibit B-5: Total Regulatory Need (20-year need in millions of January 1999 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
North Mariana Is.
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Total
SWTR
110.4
164.0
328.7
143.0
1,672.1
615.0
196.3
70.7
0.0
262.8
314.3
3.8
40.7
833.9
109.5
174.9
308.7
260.9
96.4
49.2
285.3
1,208.5
813.5
325.0
71.7
164.9
119.2
114.8
14.7
40.4
255.3
176.7
2,571.2
306.1
65.8
653.5
361.3
473.4
741.4
618.1
98.5
209.6
31.3
285.4
2,047.3
87.3
24.8
396.4
250.8
157.1
309.2
111.1
19,145.1
4.0
0.0
3.0
49.7
56.8
19,201.9
TCR
9.3
0.9
0.8
5.2
8.1
0.6
1.8
0.3
0.0
2.5
2.8
0.1
1.0
53.5
1.9
229.4
0.6
3.6
0.8
0.6
1.2
49.0
6.6
4.9
1.9
1.6
1.2
0.6
0.3
1.2
6.3
0.7
6.4
4.7
0.3
3.2
0.8
1.3
4.1
0.2
0.8
1.4
0.4
0.4
12.1
0.4
0.4
2.4
19.7
0.8
9.9
0.3
468.9
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.0
1.0
469.9
Nitrate/
Nitrite
0.0
0.1
5.4
0.1
35.6
6.8
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.2
61.3
0.2
67.5
4.4
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
2.5
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
2.9
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
8.2
0.6
0.1
19.2
2.5
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.9
0.1
4.3
0.1
229.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
229.0
Lead and
Copper Rule
2.4
0.5
1.4
3.1
12.2
9.1
0.7
0.3
0.0
3.0
6.5
0.6
1.3
38.3
21.0
3.3
4.5
17.0
3.6
1.7
1.0
18.0
256.6
136.4
3.7
4.1
1.7
32.0
0.6
1.3
92.0
1.3
180.9
3.2
1.9
26.8
15.8
4.4
81.3
3.2
6.5
1.5
0.9
3.0
13.2
1.2
1.3
10.6
5.6
5.1
176.8
3.7
1,225.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.4
1,226.0
TTHMs
0.0
59.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
30.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.9
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
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
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.0
99.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.7
Other*
1.9
0.2
0.8
1.7
35.7
2.7
0.3
0.2
0.0
4.2
1.3
0.4
0.4
28.3
4.9
70.2
6.2
1.1
5.5
0.4
0.5
2.3
10.5
108.8
3.5
2.3
0.4
6.9
0.4
1.2
25.7
1.7
28.3
1.5
0.5
2.9
1.7
0.8
3.0
0.4
0.1
0.8
0.5
1 .1
15.8
0.7
0.2
0.8
2.4
1.2
122.4
0.2
516.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
516.2
Total
124.1
224.7
337.1
153.1
1,764.5
634.3
199.2
71.6
0.0
303.1
325.3
4.8
43.6
1,015.4
137.4
546.0
324.5
283.5
107.2
52.1
288.2
1,277.8
1,092.4
575.3
82.9
173.2
122.7
157.2
16.1
44.4
379.4
180.6
2,794.9
316.1
68.6
705.6
382.2
480.1
830.5
621.9
105.8
213.4
33.2
289.9
2,089.9
89.8
26.8
410.5
279.3
164.4
624.4
115.4
21,684.5
5.0
0.0
3.1
50.1
58.2
21,742.7
-------
Page 72
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Exhibit B-6: Total Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Systems
by EPA Region (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)
Category of Need
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9 2
Region 10
Alaska Native Systems
Total
Total Need
3.9
6.0
0.0
17.8
157.3
151.9
14.3
133.4
548.9
118.3
1,067.2
2,219.0
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 purposes of
this report, all Navajo needs are shown in EPA Region 9.
3 Needs for Alaska Native Village water systems are not included in the EPA Region 10 total.
Locations of EPA Regions
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 73
Exhibit B-7: Need by Category for American Indian and Alaska Native Village
Water Systems (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)
Category of Need
Transmission and Distribution
Treatment
Storage
Source
Other
Total
Current Needs
1,173.4
369.2
398.8
99.5
12.4
2,053.2
Future Needs
55.0
38.9
48.2
23.7
0.0
165.8
Total Need
1,228.4
408.1
447.0
123.2
12.4
2,219.0
-------
Page 74
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Exhibit B-8: Total Regulatory Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Village
Water Systems (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)
Category of Need
Regulations for Contaminants
with Acute Health Effects
Regulations for Contaminants
with Chronic Health Effects
Total
Current Needs
159.8
0.1
160.0
Future Needs
4.7
0.0
4.7
Total Need
164.5
0.1
164.6
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 75
Exhibit B-9: Total Proposed and Recently Promulgated Regulatory Need
(20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)
Category of Need
Stage 1 Disinfection/Disinfectants Byproduct Rule
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
Filter Backwash Recycling Rule
Ground Water Rule
Arsenic Rule
Radon Rule
Radionuclides Rule
Total
Range of Costs
Low Estimate
854.1
132.0
81.9
High Estimate
1,048.7
5,282.6
938.2
Estimate Included
in the 1999 Needs
Survey
2,354.7
1,248.6
176.1
143.9
1,048.7
877.1
2,537.1
938.2
9,324.3
In calculating the $9.3 billion need associated with proposed or recently promulgated regulations, the survey used EPA's lead option, unless one
was not available in which case the survey used the more conservative estimate. These estimates include only the capital costs (i.e., exclude
operation and maintenance costs).
-------
M.' s^,;\ jA-
> /i *R
&
TTze Crfy of Port Orange, Florida, received $9.1 million in D WSRF
assistance to upgrade andexpanditsgroundwater treatment
facility. Shown is an aerial view of the project site (left) and the
construction of a new lime softening tank (insert).
-------
APPENDIX C—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR
SYSTEMS SERVING 10,000 AND FEWER PEOPLE
Needs for Water Systems in the States
(community water systems)
Exhibit C-1—Total Current and Future Need for Systems Serving 10,000 and Fewer People
Exhibits C-1 does not include the costs associated with proposed or recently promulgated SDWA regulations.
-------
Page 78 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Page 79
Exhibit C-1: Need for Systems Serving 10,000 and Fewer People (20-year need
in millions of January 1999 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
North Mariana Is.
Virgin Islands
Subtotal
Total
CWSs Serving
Current Need
448.7
198.7
386.1
567.2
2,183.2
550.5
165.1
80.7
0.0
867.8
702.1
94.0
276.1
1,699.0
784.7
743.2
575.5
582.0
640.2
212.9
218.9
670.1
1,180.6
783.4
738.9
827.1
337.5
299.5
124.9
234.0
500.2
430.5
1,655.7
997.9
160.0
1,280.7
955.1
698.2
1,619.3
367.6
38.7
245.8
186.4
583.2
2,911.4
198.8
221.0
542.3
971.8
606.2
788.6
171.9
33,303.9
15.3
26.7
25.3
105.1
172.4
33,476.2
10,000 and Fewer
Future Need
225.5
258.0
199.4
287.6
839.3
258.8
96.3
38.3
0.0
291.3
334.2
29.7
134.9
764.8
300.7
341.0
226.1
233.3
251.3
82.7
104.5
126.5
536.7
398.6
312.7
401.2
150.8
154.3
55.6
114.7
358.9
131.7
746.9
406.5
132.7
382.4
310.7
230.9
673.9
82.9
24.7
139.1
90.7
245.0
1,406.3
87.8
72.0
253.2
530.1
172.7
424.2
104.9
14,557.3
1.7
2.3
12.6
16.7
33.3
14,590.6
People CWS
Total Need
674.2
456.7
585.6
854.8
3,022.5
809.3
261.4
119.0
0.0
1,159.1
1,036.3
123.7
411.0
2,463.8
1,085.4
1,084.2
801.7
815.2
891.5
295.6
323.4
796.7
1,717.3
1,182.0
1,051.6
1,228.2
488.2
453.8
180.4
348.7
859.2
562.3
2,402.6
1,404.4
292.7
1,663.2
1,265.8
929.0
2,293.2
450.5
63.3
384.8
277.1
828.2
4,317.7
286.6
293.1
795.5
1,501.9
778.9
1,212.8
276.8
47,861.2
17.1
29.0
37.9
121.8
205.7
48,066.8
Need (All Sizes) Percent of Need for
Serving 10,000 and
Total Need
People
1,078.0
538.7
1,608.3
1,528.5
17,411.9
2,529.4
985.8
301.6
414.1
3,627.1
2,395.9
145.9
487.2
6,065.7
1,559.3
2,832.6
1,643.2
1,768.5
1,261.5
472.3
1,596.2
5,851.3
6,428.8
2,895.1
1,353.4
2,150.0
833.3
819.9
591.6
452.3
3,503.9
1,030.3
13,059.3
2,425.6
485.8
4,744.1
2,323.8
2,666.8
5,043.6
1,970.9
564.8
808.2
435.8
1,388.2
13,031.0
504.0
306.8
1,985.6
3,859.0
983.3
2,729.9
432.9
135,910.9
36.4
114.7
74.8
161.7
387.5
136,298.5
CWSs
Fewer
62.5%
84.8%
36.4%
55.9%
17.4%
32.0%
26.5%
39.5%
0.0%
32.0%
43.3%
84.8%
84.4%
40.6%
69.6%
38.3%
48.8%
46.1%
70.7%
62.6%
20.3%
13.6%
26.7%
40.8%
77.7%
57.1%
58.6%
55.3%
30.5%
77.1%
24.5%
54.6%
18.4%
57.9%
60.2%
35.1%
54.5%
34.8%
45.5%
22.9%
11.2%
47.6%
63.6%
59.7%
33.1%
56.9%
95.5%
40.1%
38.9%
79.2%
44.4%
63.9%
35.2%
46.9%
25.2%
50.7%
75.3%
53.1%
35.3%
-------
This 1,000-gallon storage tank is mounted on top of a stone structure to provide a
pressure gradient.
-------
APPENDIX D—SEPARATE STATE
ESTIMATES
In response to the Needs Survey workgroup's request, EPA gave States the opportunity to prepare separate
estimates of needs which were not included in the survey because they are ineligible for DWSRF funding. EPA
also invited the submission of needs that the States felt were underestimated by the survey. Four States
responded:
• Arizona stated that between $28.2 million and $ 49.3 million in infrastructure improvements would be
needed for compliance with the new Arsenic Rule.
• Kentucky submitted costs, totaling $74 million, for projects to create two new regional water systems.
These systems would provide new sources of water, and new treatment and distribution systems for areas
facing chronic water shortages and deteriorated infrastructure. The State provided this estimate after the
close of the data collection period. Therefore, these projects may include needs already addressed by other
systems in the State's sample. To avoid the possibility of double-counting this estimate is presented sepa-
rately.
• Nevada estimated that a capital cost of $400 million would be required to bring the State's water systems
into compliance with the new Arsenic Rule.
• Washington estimated that Seattle's water system would require approximately $51 million in DWSRF-
ineligible investments to comply with the Endangered Species Act, such as constructing fish ladders at
dams.
-------
Sebago Lake, in Maine, provides water to Portland and surrounding communities.
-------
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."
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.
Chronic health effects: health effects resulting from long-term exposure to low concentrations of certain contami-
nants. 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 resi-
dents or that regularly serves at least 25 residents year-round. Examples include cities, towns, and communities
such as retirement homes.
Current infrastructure needs: new facilities or deficiencies in existing facilities identified by the State or system
for which water systems would begin construction 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; existing regulations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 141.
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 Needs Survey.
Ground water: any water obtained from a source beneath the surface of the ground which has not been classi-
fied as ground water under the direct influence of surface water.
Growth: needs planned solely to accommodate projected future growth are not included in the survey. Eligible
projects, however, can 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.
-------
Page 84 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
Infrastructure needs: the capital costs associated with ensuring the continued protection of public health through
rehabilitating or building facilities needed for continued provision of safe drinking water. Categories of need include
source development and rehabilitation, treatment, storage, and transmission and distribution. Operation and main-
tenance needs are not considered infrastructure needs and are not included in this document.
Large water system: in this document, this phrase refers to a community water system serving more than 50,000
people.
Medium water system: in this document, this phrase refers to a community water system serving from 3,301 to
50,000 people.
Microbiological contamination: the occurrence in a water supply of protozoan, bacteriological, or viral contami-
nants.
Noncommunity water system: a public water system that is not a community water system and that serves a
nonresidential population of at least 25 individuals or 15 service connections daily for at least 60 days of the year.
Examples of not-for-profit noncommunity water systems include schools and churches.
Public water system: a system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or,
after August 5, 1998, other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least 15 service connections or regu-
larly serves an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year.
Regulatory need: a capital expenditure required for compliance with regulations.
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)
Small water system: in this document, this phrase refers to a community water system serving 3,300 people or
fewer.
Source rehabilitation and development: a category of need that includes the costs involved in developing or
improving sources of water for public water systems.
State: in this document, 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.
Storage: a category of need that addresses finished water storage needs faced by public water systems.
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA): an advanced control system that collects all system
information for an operator and allows him/her, through user-friendly interfaces, to view all aspects of the system
from one place.
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
consumer.
-------
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 85
Treatment: a category of need that includes conditioning water or removing microbiological and chemical contami-
nants. Filtration of surface water sources, pH adjustment, softening, and disinfection are examples of treatment.
Watering point: a central source from which people without piped water can draw drinking water for transport to
their homes.
------- |