dEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA816-R-99-010
July 1999
Office of Water (4606)
National Characteristics of
Drinking Water Systems
Serving Populations Under
10,000
-------
National Characteristics
of Drinking Water Systems
Serving Populations Under 10,000
This document was prepared to support the deliberations of
the National Drinking Water Advisory Council's
Small Systems Implementation Working Group
(members listed on page vi)
Prepared for:
Peter Shanaghan, United States Environmental Protection Agency
Designated Federal Official, Small Systems Implementation Working Group
Prepared by:
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
135 Beaver Street
Waltham, MA 02452
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report addresses questions raised by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council's
Small Systems Working Group concerning the characteristics of small drinking water systems in
the United States. The report is a national characterization based on existing data and therefore
may not discuss issues particular to any one State or environment. The data in the report were
drawn primarily from three sources: the 1995 Community Water System Survey, the 1995 Drinking
Water Infrastructure Needs Survey, and FY98 data from the Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS).
The report is divided into 8 sections:
1. Introduction
2. Ownership Characteristics
3. Operating Characteristics
4. Financial Characteristics
5. Infrastructure Needs
6. Compliance and Violations
7. Noncommunity Water Systems
8. Mis sing Data
Findings
Principle conclusions are summarized below:
Inventory
• There are 54,367 community water systems (CWSs), serving about 253 million
people. Approximately 93 percent of CWSs are small systems serving fewer than 10,000
persons. Although these small systems comprise the significant majority of CWSs, they serve just
20 percent of the population served by CWSs.
• There are 20,255 nontransient, noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs), serving about 6
million people.
• There are 95,754 transient, noncommunity water systems (TNCWSs), serving approxi-
mately 17 million people.
• For the purposes of this report, small systems are defined as CWSs, NTNCWSs, and
TNCWSs that serve fewer than 10,000 persons.
-------
Ownership Characteristics
• Ownership type and system size are related. Most systems serving 500 or fewer people are
ancillary or privately owned systems, while most larger systems are publicly owned.
Operating Characteristics
• The smallest systems (systems serving under 501 persons) appear to have experienced little
growth in service population between 1990 and 1994. The only evident growth was found in the
number of systems serving 101 to 500 persons, which increased by only 2.5 percent in median
connections for this period.
• The largest growth in service population among small systems was found in those serving
3,301-10,000 persons. Between 1990 and 1994, systems in this size category experienced a 10
percent increase in the number of connections and an 11.1 percent increase in customers.
• A system's water source is a key factor in determining operating characteristics, and source
corresponds closely to system size. Larger systems are more likely to use surface water or pur-
chased water as their primary source, whereas most small systems use ground water.
• Production per connection increases steadily as system size increases. This increase in
production per connection is likely indicative of the differences between the customer bases of
larger and smaller systems. Large systems tend to have a higher percentage of industrial, commer-
cial, and agricultural customers, whereas small systems serve primarily residential customers, who,
as a group, generally use less water.
• Publicly owned systems serving less than 500 persons generally receive more technical
assistance than privately owned or ancillary systems of the same size.
• Through source water protection and wellhead protection programs, water systems can
improve the quality of their water, decrease the likelihood of waterborne disease outbreaks, and
reduce the need for future capital expenditures for treatment facilities and equipment. The impor-
tance of source water protection is highlighted by the finding that 93 percent of groundwater
systems serving 1,001-3,300 persons and 83 percent of those serving less than 1,001 persons have
a potential source of contamination within 2 miles of their well(s).
Financial Characteristics
• More than 50 percent of systems serving 25 to 100 persons do not keep separate income
and expense statements. This may be attributed to the large number of systems in this size cat-
egory that are ancillary systems and, therefore, do not provide water as their primary
business. Ancillary systems typically do not record water-related expenses separately.
-------
• Water systems' total water revenues are generated from water sales, fees, fines, and general
fund revenues. Systems can also generate revenues from other non-consumption based charges
such as interest earnings. Ancillary systems usually do not generate water sales or water-related
o J J Jo
revenue. Rather, revenue is generated by the principal business of the system of which the provi-
sion of water is merely an ancillary function. Water rates are the primary mechanism through
which customers are charged for service and the main vehicle through which non-ancillary systems
generate revenue.
• Median total water revenue per connection for the smallest CWSs (serving 25-100 persons)
is $0, indicating that at least half of the smallest systems do not charge for water through rates or
fees.
• Revenues per connection across all revenue categories are higher for surface water systems,
perhaps reflecting the greater technical complexity generally associated with surface water sources.
• Unmetered systems tend to be very small systems; only 37% percent of all connections
served by systems serving 25-100 persons are metered.
• For systems serving fewer than 10,001 persons, median expenditures per connection in-
crease as system size increases for all ownership types.
Infrastructure
• Small systems have more than 3 times the per-household need of large systems. The small
systems need is $3,300 per household until the year 2015. Transmission and distribution is the
largest category of need cited by small systems.
• Over 60 percent of small systems also report need in source development, often because
their sources are threatened by contamination or supply problems.
Compliance and Violations
• Systems serving 25-500 persons have many more violations per 1,000 people than do any
other size category of systems. This is true for CWSs, NTNCWSs, and TNCWSs. Of particular
note are MCL violations which, like other types of violations, decrease in frequency with system
size. For every one million customers of CWSs serving 500 or fewer people (of which 39% are
ancillary systems), there are approximately 800 MCL violations and 7,164 total violations. In
contrast, for systems serving over 10,000 persons, there is approximately 2 MCL violations and 10
total violations per one million customers.
-------
Noncommunity Water Systems
• NOTE: The Community Water System Survey (CWSS) provided a unique opportunity to
review data for a variety of system sizes and ownership types. No similar survey exists for non-
community water systems (NCWS). Therefore, because SDWIS is the primary source of informa-
tion on these systems, analysis is limited to information contained in that database, which is largely
inventory and compliance data available from SDWIS.
• Over 97 percent of NTNCWSs serve fewer than 3,301 people and most NTNCWSs have
large service populations per connection.
• TNCWSs serving 3,300 or fewer persons account for over 99 percent of violations com-
mitted by TNCWSs. Of these violations, almost 97 percent were committed by systems serving
fewer than 501 persons. Most of these violations were monitoring and reporting.
-------
Contents
Executive Summary i
Section 1: Introduction 1-1
Section 2: Ownership Characteristics 2-1
Section 3: Operating Characteristics 3-1
Service Population 3-1
Source 3-3
Production 3-4
Technical Assistance 3-5
Personnel 3-6
Source Water Protection 3-7
Section 4: FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS 4-1
Accounting 4-1
Revenues 4-2
Rate Structure 4-6
Expenditures 4-9
Ratios 4-10
Section 5: Infrastructure Needs 5-1
Section 6: Compliance and Violations 6-1
Section 7: NONCOMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS 7-1
NTNCWS 7-2
TNCWS 7-6
MISSING DATA 8-1
APPENDIX A-l
-------
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC)
Small Systems Implementation Working Group Members
Pat Banegas
Jerry Biberstine
Mark Bugher
Michael Dimitriou
Jim Dunlap
Paul Felz
Bruce Florquist
Andrea Griese
J.W. Heliums
Christine Hoover
Leon Jacobs
Diane Kiesling*
Kirk Leifheit
Charles Maddox
Gary Morgan
Yvette DePeiza
John Scheltens
Peter Shanaghan
Dave Siburg
Blanca Surgeon
Curtis Truss
Michael Walsh
Bob Wendelgass
General Manager, Anthony Water and Sanitation District, New Mexico
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators (ASDWA)
West Virginia American Water Company, Huntington Division. National Association of
Water Companies (NAWC)
Aquasource North America
Owner, John Deere Dealership. National Rural Water Association (NRWA)
US EPA Region VIII, Denver, Colorado
Public Works Director, City of Rawlins. American Public Works Association (APWA)
Drinking Water Program, South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. ASDWA
Utilities Management Specialist, Community Resource Group. Rural Community
Assistance Program (RCAP)
Office of the Consumer Advocate, National Association of State Utility Consumer
Advocates (NASUCA)
Commissioner, Florida Public Service Commission
The Kiesling Group
Ohio EPA, Division of Drinking & Ground Water
Manager, Public Drinking Water Section, Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission (TNRCC)
Engineer and Environmental Staff Director, USD A/Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Drinking Water Program
City Engineer, City of Hot Springs, South Dakota. NDWAC
US EPA Headquarters; Working Group's Designated Federal Official
Manager, Public Utilities District (PUD) #1 of Kitsap County, Washington. American
Water Works Association (AWWA)
Rural Community Assistance County Corporation, New Mexico. RCAP
Assistant Director, Springfield, Ohio. AWWA
President, Shorelands Water. NAWC
Pennsylvania State Director, Clean Water Action
* Due to other professional obligations, Ms. Kiesling withdrew from NDWAC and the working group during its early
deliberations.
-------
Section 1: INTRODUCTION
According to FY98 data obtained from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
database, there are 170,376 public water systems (PWSs) in operation in the United States. A PWS
is a "system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes
or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least 15 service connections or
regularly serves an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. A
public water system is either a community water system or a noncommunity water system."
(40 CFR §141.2)
Figure 1.1: Number of Systems by System Type
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Inventory Table (Data from Table 1)
100,000
20,000
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
A community water system (CWS) is "a public water system that serves at least 15
service connections used by year-round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round
residents." (40 CFR §141.2) There are 54,367 CWSs (Figure 1.1) serving about 253 million
people (Figure 1.2). CWSs can be privately owned or publicly owned. A substantial number of
privately owned systems are 'ancillary' systems that provide water as an ancillary function of their
principal business. Mobile home parks are common examples of ancillary systems.
A noncommunity water system (NCWS) is a PWS that is not a CWS. Noncommunity water
systems are divided into nontransient (NTNCWSs) and transient (TNCWSs) systems. A
NTNCWS is a PWS that "regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per
year." (40 CFR §141.2) Examples of NTNCWSs are schools, factories, office and industrial
parks, and major shopping centers. The 20,255 NTNCWSs (Figure 1.1) across the nation serve
about 6 million people (Figure 1.2). Many of these systems are privately owned.
l-l
-------
Figure 1.2: Number of People Served by System Type (in millions)
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Inventory Table (Data from Table 1)
250
200
50
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
ATNCWS is a PWS that "does not regularly serve at least 25 of the same persons over
6 months per year." (40 CFR §141.2) Examples of TNCWSs are highway rest stops, small
restaurants, and recreation areas. The 95,754 TNCWSs (Figure 1.1) serve approximately 17 million
people (Figure 1.2).
Figure 1.3 illustrates the net change in the number of systems from 1992-1994. EPA data
from the 1994 National Compliance Report (NCR) show that the largest decrease in the number of
CWSs by size category is found in systems serving fewer than 500 persons, a decrease of 4.3%.
Figure 1.3: Percent Change in the Number of CWSs by System Size
Source: 1994 National Compliance Report (Data from Table 2)
-2%
-4%
-6%
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
1-2
-------
Three factors contributed to the overall decline in the number of small systems: interconnection of
systems; systems terminating operation; and corrections in the inventory of systems. In contrast to
small systems, there was modest growth in larger CWSs, with a 0.7 percent increase in the number
of systems serving over 10,000 people between 1992 and 1994. There has been a 3.3 percent
overall decline in the number of CWSs nationwide.
This report addresses the characteristics of PWSs in general and CWSs in particular. Approxi-
mately 93 percent of CWSs serve fewer than 10,000 persons. Although these systems comprise a
significant majority of CWSs, they serve only 20 percent of the total population served by CWSs.
For the purposes of this report, small systems will be defined as those systems serving fewer than
10,000 people. These small systems differ from their larger counterparts in many important as-
pects. This report highlights the differences between small and large systems in ownership, operat-
ing characteristics, financial characteristics, infrastructure needs, and compliance with National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs). Noncommunity systems, which are not included
in many of the national surveys that furnish data on water systems, are dealt with separately at the
end of this report. It is important to keep in mind that the small system information in this report
is a national characterization based on existing data. Therefore, the report may not reflect charac-
teristics of small systems in specific environments or situations.
Most of the data for this report were drawn from the three sources outlined below:
Community Water System Survey
EPA conducted the 1995 Community Water System Survey to provide data necessary for the
development and evaluation of drinking water regulations. The survey was completed in two
phases. Phase one involved a preliminary survey and instrument sampling plan, which was fol-
lowed by a pretest of nine water systems. Computer-assisted telephone interviews were then
conducted to determine system eligibility and appropriate respondents for the pilot test and mail
questionnaire. The second phase of the survey was a mailing of 3,700 questionnaires. Water
systems were asked to respond to questions concerning operating and financial characteristics,
including questions regarding source, treatment, distribution, operator certification, revenues, and
expenses. Approximately 54 percent of eligible participants completed the questionnaire.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
EPA's Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey was conducted in 1995 to document the
infrastructure needs of the nation's CWSs for the 20-year period from January 1995 through
December 2014. Infrastructure needs were grouped into four categories: source, treatment,
storage, and transmission and distribution.
Systems were divided into three size classifications: large (serving more than 50,000 people),
medium (serving 3,301-50,000 people), and small (serving fewer than 3,300). All large CWSs
received mailed questionnaires. Infrastructure needs for medium and small CWSs were estimated
using statistical surveys. To identify needs of medium systems, a portion of the medium sized
1-3
-------
systems were surveyed by mailed questionnaire. To determine the needs of the small drinking
water systems, EPA staff and contractors conducted site visits. Needs of the sampled systems
were extrapolated to estimate total need for medium and small systems. The most common
documentation of CWS needs was found in captial improvement plans and engineering reports.
Safe Drinking Water Information System (FY98 data)
The Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS), maintained by EPA, is a database
containing information on public water systems throughout the United States. It contains a variety
of historical and current data on compliance, enforcement, and water system inventory—required
and non-required information. Each State uploads information individually. Data can be accessed
by the public through the World Wide Web.
Most of the SDWIS data in this report was drawn in November 1998. Limited data comes
from the \994NationalCompliance Report and the precursor to the SDWIS database (known as
FRDS).
1-4
-------
Section 2: OWNERSHIP CHARACTERISTICS
All CWSs serve the public, but not all of them are publicly owned. The percentage break-
down of ownership for all CWSs is depicted in Figure 2.1. Only forty-three percent of CWSs are
publicly owned. This group comprises water systems that are owed by municipalities, townships,
counties, water districts, and water authorities. On the other hand, the vast majority of water
system customers, about 84 percent, receive their water from publicly owned systems (Figure 2.2);
publicly owned water systems usually serve much larger populations than privately owned systems.
Thirty-three percent of CWSs are privately owned. Private ownership encompasses a broad
range of owners, from homeowners' associations to investor-owned water companies. Approxi-
mately 15% of CWS customers receive their water from privately owned systems. The remaining
24 percent of CWSs are ancillary systems. Most of these systems serve 500 or fewer persons,
providing water as a convenience to their patrons, employees, or residents. They do not bill users
directly for water service. Mobile home parks account for a majority of ancillary systems.
Ownership type varies by system size (Figures 2.3 to 2.7). In systems serving 25-100 people,
ancillary systems—specifically mobile home parks—dominate ownership (Figure 2.3). They also
comprise almost a third of the systems serving 101-500 people (Figure 2.4). A minority of systems
in these smallest size categories are publicly owned.
A dramatic shift in ownership type occurs in systems serving more than 500 persons (Figures
2.5 to 2.7). Governments own a substantial majority of these systems, and ancillary systems com-
prise an insignificant percentage. Although the percentage of privately owned systems declines
steadily as system size increases, there are privately owned systems in even the largest size catego-
ries.
Figure 2.1: Ownership of Community Water Systems
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
(Data from Table 3)
Figure 2.2: Percentage of CWS Customers Served by
Privately Owned, Publicly Owned, and Ancillary
Systems
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
(Data from Table 4)
Publicly Owned
43%
Population Served
Population Served by Ancillary
by Privately Owned 1%
15%
Population Served
by Publicly Owned
2-1
-------
WATER SYSTEM OWNERSHIP
Figure 2.3: Ownership of Systems Serving Population 25-100
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 3)
Other Privately Owned
Special District
1% Government
7%
Investor Owned
Homeowners' Associatioi
16%
Other Ancillary
Institution
Mobile Home Park
Figure 2.4: Ownership of Systems Serving Population 101-500
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 3)
Other Privately Owned
4%
Investor Owned
18%
Homeowners' Association
12%
Other Ancillary
5%
Special District
6%
Mobile Home Park
22%
2-2
-------
WATER SYSTEM OWNERSHIP
Figure 2.5: Ownership of Systems Serving Population 501-3,300
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 3)
Other Privately Owned
Mobile Home Park
3%
Figure 2.6: Ownership of Systems Serving Population 3,301-10,000
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 3)
Special District
6%
Homeowners' Association
4%
Mobile Home Park
4%
Figure 2.7: Ownership of Systems Serving Population 10,001+
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 3)
Other Privatety Owned
Mobile Home Park
2-3
-------
Section 3: OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Service Population
The median number of connections per system varies from 22 connections for systems serv-
ing 25-100 persons to 1,800 connections for systems serving 3,301-10,000 persons (Figure 3.1).
Median service population varies from 58 people for systems serving 25-100 persons to 5,474
people for systems serving 3,301-10,000 persons (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.1: Median Number of Connections by System Size
Source: FRDS Database as of 7/96 (Data from Table 5)
300
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300 3,301-10,000
Figure 3.2: Median Number of People Served by System Size
Source: FRDS Database as of 7/96 (Data from Table 5)
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
3-1
-------
Although many small systems, such as mobile home parks, are located on the urban fringe in
heavily populated areas, the smallest size categories also include systems that serve rural and less
densely populated areas. The prevalence of rural systems within the small system category is
reflected in the median miles of pipe per connection, which is considerably higher in systems
serving fewer than 10,000 persons than in systems serving more than 10,000 persons (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3: Median Miles of Pipe per Connection by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 6)
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Figure 3.4 shows the growth rate of system customers and connections between 1990 and
1994, as reported by the 1995 Community Water System Survey (CWSS). The smallest systems
appear to have experienced no growth in their customer base and little growth in their number of
Figure 3.4: Median Growth in Customers and Connections by System Size (1990-1994)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 7)
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2% -•
0%
D Connections
• Customers
Systems
servicing 25-
lOOpeople
reported median
growth of(J%
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
3-2
-------
connections. Median connections in systems serving 101-500 persons grew by only 2.5 percent for
this period. Systems serving 3,301-10,000 persons saw the largest rate of growth in their customer
base; 11.1 percent. This group also experienced the largest median increase in connections; 10
percent for the period.
Source
A system's water source is a key factor in determining operating characteristics, and source
corresponds closely to system size. As Figure 3.5 indicates, larger systems are more likely than
smaller systems to use surface water or purchased water as their primary source; most small sys-
tems use ground water. About 96 percent of systems serving 25-100 persons use ground water as
their primary source. Only 47 percent of systems serving over 10,000 persons use ground water as
their primary source. This trend has important implications for treatment and capital investment,
as raw water obtained from ground water sources typically requires less treatment than raw water
from surface water sources.
The percentage of systems that use purchased water as their primary source tends to increase
with system size for systems serving less than 10,000 persons. Of systems serving 25-100 people,
only 2 percent use purchased water as their primary source. Purchased water is the primary source
for 23 percent of systems serving 3,301-10,000 persons.
Figure 3.5: Percentage of Systems by Source and System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 8)
100%
80%
60%
D Ground Water D Surface Water • Purchased Water
40%
20%
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
3-3
-------
Production
The amount of water produced per day has a direct relationship to system size. This relation-
ship is demonstrated in Figure 3.6. As the chart illustrates, median production per connection
increases with system size. Figure 3.6 shows the median number of gallons produced per day
growing from approximately 6,000 gallons per day in systems serving 25-100 persons to about
8,335,000 gallons per day in systems serving over 10,000 persons.
Figure 3.6: Median Thousands of Gallons Produced per Day by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 9)
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
24 77 219
25-100 101-500 501-1,000 1,001-3,300 3,301-10,000 10,001+
The differences in production between small and large systems are likely indicative of differ-
ences in their customer bases. Data discussed in Section 4: Financial Characteristics, depict the cus-
tomer bases served by different sized systems by showing the revenue by customer type. Larger
J J J O J J L O
systems tend to have a higher percentage of industrial, commercial, and agricultural customers,
while smaller systems serve primarily residential customers. Residential customers usually use less
water than industrial, commercial, and agricultural customers, lowering the per connection produc-
tion of small systems. The data show that about 89 percent of revenue for systems serving be-
tween 25 and 100 persons is from residential customers. Systems serving more than 10,000 per-
sons derive only about 53 percent of their revenue from residential customers (Figure 4.7).
For both ground water and surface water systems, the ratio of maximum daily treatment
design capacity to peak daily production declines with system size. Figure 3.7 shows the relation-
ship between the maximum amount of water a system can technically produce and the amount of
water that is actually produced at peak demand. Figure 3.7 demonstrates that small systems have
much larger capacity in relation to their peak daily production than large systems. Systems serving
3-4
-------
25-100 persons have a median ratio of 2.1, while systems serving more than 10,000 persons have a
median ratio of only 1.4. This difference in ratios suggests that large systems have more efficient
operations.
Figure 3.7: Ratio of Maximum Daily Treatment Design Capacity to Peak Daily Production
by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 9)
25-100
101-500
501-1,000 1,001-3,300 3,301-10,000 10,001+
However, the ratio of maximum daily treatment to peak daily production also appears to
reflect the treatment and storage conditions associated with different sources of water. Ground-
water systems generally rely on additional pumping and treatment capacity to meet peak demands.
Surface water systems, in contrast, generally use more capital-intensive treatment techniques and
tend to rely on storage facilities to meet peak momentary and hourly demands.
Technical Assistance
Technical assistance is classified in three categories. Governmental support includes assistance
from federal, State, and local governments. Third-party assistance comprises State rural water
associations, rural community assistance programs, other associations, and contracted engineering
services. Other technical services include technical publications, radio or television, local newspa-
pers, and the Federal Register. The final column in Figure 3.8, which shows the percentage of CWSs
receiving technical assistance by ownership type, indicates that 93 percent of all publicly owned
systems, 82 percent of all privately owned systems, and 68 percent of all ancillary systems receive
technical assistance in some form.
3-5
-------
Figure 3.8: Percentage of All CWSs that Recieve Technical Assistance by Ownership Type
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 10)
100%
80% - -
60% - -
40% - -
20% - -
0%
D Public D Private • Ancillary
25-100 101-500 501-1,000 1,001-3,300 3,301-10,000 10,001+
Personnel
Figure 3.9 shows that the median value of expenditures for direct compensation and benefits
for systems serving 25-100 persons is $0.00, indicating that at least half of the respondents of
systems of this size report no expenditures for employee compensation and benefits. Systems
serving 101-500 persons spend 22 percent of their total expenditures on direct compensation, but
report a median value of $0.00 for employee benefits. This could be due in part to the prevalence
of part-time employees and contracted labor in small systems. Another reason that personnel
Figure 3.9: Median Personnel Expenses as a Percentage of Total Expenses by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 11)
10% -
5% -
• Benefits
EH Direct Compensation
Systems servicing
25-1 00 people
reported median
personnel
expenses of$0
0%
22%
2%
26%
25%
29%
-
28%
-
25-100 101-500 501-1,000 1,001-3,300 3,301-10,000 10,001+
3-6
-------
expenses for systems serving less than 500 persons appear low could be due to the fact that ancil-
lary systems have been included in the data. Benefits and direct compensation for ancillary system
personnel are most likely included in the expenses of the parent company and therefore were often
not reported as a separate water system expense.
Systems serving more than 3,300 people report expenditures for direct compensation and
benefits totaling more than one-third of total expenses. In general, both direct compensation and
benefits appear to increase with system size. This could be attributed to the higher levels of certifi-
cation and technical sophistication required for the operation of larger systems.
Source Water Protection
Water systems can improve the quality of their raw water, decrease the likelihood of water-
borne disease outbreaks, and reduce the need for future capital expenditures for treatment plants
and equipment by adopting source water and wellhead protection programs. Figures 3.10 and
3.11 show the percentage of groundwater systems (Figure 3.10) and surface water systems (Figure
3.11) reporting potential sources of contamination within 2 miles of their intake or well. More
than 84 percent of all systems have at least one potential source of contamination within 2 miles of
their water intake or well. A higher percentage of larger systems tend to have multiple potential
contamination sources near their intakes or wells.
Figure 3.10 shows that with the exception of three potential contaminant categories (feedlots,
sewage discharge, and septic systems/other sewer), ground water systems serving over 10,000
people comprised the greatest percentage of systems reporting potential contamination within 2
miles of wells for each contaminant category. Septic systems and other sewer systems pose the
Figure 3.10: Percentage of Groundwater Systems Reporting Potential Sources of
Contamination within 2 Miles of Well(s) by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 12)
3-7
-------
greatest threat of potential contamination for small systems. Figure 3.10 also shows that 76 per-
cent of groundwater systems serving 1,001-3,300 people have septic or other sewer systems within
2 miles of their well(s) and 69 percent of small systems serving less than 1,001 people reported
septic systems or other sewer systems as potential sources of contamination.
Figure 3.11 shows that for surface water systems serving more than 1,000 people, agricultural
runoff poses the greatest threat of potential contamination. For surface water systems serving less
than 1,001 people, septic systems and other sewer systems are reported as the greatest potential
sources of contamination. Almost 65 percent of surface water systems serving over 10,000 people
reported urban runoff as a potential source of contamination within two miles of the intake.
Figure 3.11: Percentage of Surface Water Systems Reporting Potential Sources of
Contamination within 2 Miles of Water Intake by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 12)
Despite the obvious need for source water protection, Figure 3.12 shows that just 28 percent
of the smallest systems and only 50 percent of systems serving 10,000 or more persons participate
in some form of source water or wellhead protection program. Some small systems might be less
likely to adopt wellhead protection or source water protection programs than larger systems
because they lack the technical and financial resources to implement and manage such programs.
Four widely-used methods of source water protection are: zoning or land use controls, best
management practices, education on land use impacts, and watershed ownership. Figure 3.13
depicts the breakdown of the measures used by systems that participate in protection programs.
Each of these measures can be an effective barrier to contamination, but the greatest gains in
public health protection are most likely to be realized when a combination of several methods is
used.
3-8
-------
Figure 3.12: Percentage of Systems Participating in Source Water or Wellhead Protection
Programs by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 13)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
25-100
101-500
501-1,000 1,001-3,300 3,301-10,000 10,001+
Of systems that do implement source water or wellhead protection programs, the most
widely-used methods are zoning or land use controls, best management practices, and education on
land use impacts. Watershed ownership is the method least used by water systems in every size
category. Systems serving 25-100 persons use education on land use impacts, best management
practices, and zoning or land use controls most often. This is most likely because these measures
are less costly and less complex than measures such as watershed ownership.
Figure 3.13: Of Systems Participating in Source Water or Wellhead Protection:
Percentage of Systems Adopting Particular Measures by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 13)
80%
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300 3,301-10,000 10,001+
3-9
-------
Section 4: FINANCIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Accounting
Larger systems are significantly more likely than smaller systems to use generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP). As shown in Figure 4.1, fewer than 30 percent of systems serving
25-100 persons report using GAAP, while GAAP is used in approximately 90 percent of systems
serving more than 1,000 persons.
Figure 4.1: Percentage of Systems that Use GAAP by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 14)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Use of GAAP is likely related to the ability of systems to identify all costs, set appropriate
rates, and maintain accurate records of expenses and revenue. Figure 4.2 shows that revenue in
systems serving 25-100 persons that use GAAP is more than twice as large as revenue in like-sized
systems that do not use GAAP.
Larger systems are more likely to separate financial statements for income and expenses from
other financial reporting statements; only 4 percent of systems serving over 10,000 people do not
have separate financial statements for drinking water operations (Figure 4.3). For systems serving
25-100 persons, more than 50 percent do not use this fundamental financial capability. This trend
might be attributed to the large number of ancillary systems in this category and to the fact that
ancillary systems do not record water-related expenses separately.
4-1
-------
Figure 4.2: Median Revenues of Systems Serving 25-100 Persons by Use of GAAP
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 15)
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
Systems that Use GAAP
Systems that Do Not Use GAAP
Figure 4.3: Percentage of Systems that Do Not Have Separate Financial Statements for their
Drinking Water Operation by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 16)
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300 3,301-10,000
10,001+
Revenues
Water systems' total water revenues are generated from water sales, fees, fines, and other water-
related revenue. Systems can also generate revenues from non-consumption based charges, such as
interest earnings. Publicly owned water systems sometimes receive additional contributions from
4-2
-------
governments through general fund revenues. Ancillary systems do not generate water sales or
water-related revenue. Rather, revenue is generated by the principal business of the system, of
which the provision of water is merely an ancillary function. Water rates are the primary mecha-
nism through which customers are charged for service and the main vehicle through which non-
ancillary systems generate revenue.
When discussing total water system revenue, it is useful to break it into water sales and water-
related revenue. Water sales (or rates) comprise the revenue collected for the actual provision of
water, based on consumption. Water-related revenues comprise several types of non-consumption
based charges, such as connection fees, inspection fees, usage fees, and revenue from municipal
general funds. Figure 4.4 depicts median total water revenue per connection for each size category.
Figure 4.4: Median Total Water Revenue per Connection
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 17)
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
Systems
servicing
25-100
people
reported
median
total water
revenue of
$0
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Total water revenue, water sales revenue, and water-related revenue generally increase per
connection as system size increases. Median total water revenue per connection for systems serving
25-100 persons is $0, indicating that at least half of the smallest CWSs do not charge for water
through rates or fees. Systems serving more than 10,000 persons report approximately $313 per
connection in median total water revenue.
The upward trend in revenue per connection with system size could reflect numerous factors.
Larger systems may have higher usage per connection, caused in part by a higher percentage of
commercial, agricultural, and multifamily housing connections. Larger systems are also far less
likely to be ancillary systems (thus reporting no water revenue) than smaller systems.
4-3
-------
Source also affects water system revenue, and larger systems are more likely to use surface
water sources. Figure 4.5 shows that total revenue per connection is consistently higher for surface
water systems than for groundwater systems across all size categories. This trend likely reflects the
greater complexity generally associated with surface water sources. These systems often require
more technically sophisticated and capital-intensive treatment, which in turn requires more highly-
trained personnel. These factors lead to higher expenditures by the water system for the treatment
and provision of water. Higher costs are passed on to water users in the form of higher water
rates and fees, thus generating higher water revenues.
Figure 4.5: Median Total Revenue per Connection by Source and System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 17)
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
Systems
servicing
25-100
people
reported
median
total water
revenue of
$0
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Median water sales revenue per connection is higher for privately owned systems than for
publicly owned systems. However, median water-related revenues per connection are higher for
publicly owned systems (Figure 4.6). In privately owned systems, nearly all total water revenue
comes from water sales, while publicly owned systems tend to have slightly lower water sales rev-
enues that are supplemented by less visible water-related revenues such as connection fees, other
non-consumption based charges, grants, and general revenues.
Although the proportion of revenue from various sources differs in publicly and privately
owned systems, total revenues per connection are fairly similar, with privately owned systems
generating about $8 more than publicly owned systems per connection. It is significant that the
majority of ancillary systems do not report any water revenue at all (median revenue for ancillary
systems is $0 in all revenue categories).
4-4
-------
Figure 4.6: Median Water-Sales and Water-Related Revenue per Connection by Ownership
Type
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 17)
$4.12
$231
$242
• WaterRel
D Water Sale
,
s
Ancillary
systems
reported
median
water sales
revenue per
connection
of$0
Public Private Ancillary
Small system revenue is primarily dependent upon residential customers. Eighty-nine percent
of small system water sales revenue is derived from residential customers for systems serving less
than 100 persons, as shown in Figure 4.7. Large systems derive approximately 53 percent of their
revenues from residential customers.
Figure 4.7: Total Water Revenue by Customer Type and System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 18)
100%
80% - -
60% - -
40% - -
20% - -
25-100
D Residential
• Commercial/ Industrial
• Wholesale
• Other
101-500
501-1,000 1,001-3,300 3,301-10,000 10,001+
4-5
-------
Rate Structure
Approximately 74 % of all CWS residential connections are metered. Water meters allow
systems to monitor consumption and establish rates that are based on usage. Figure 4.8 shows that
as system size increases, systems are more likely to meter connections. The use of metered rate
structures shows a similar increase.
Figure 4.8: Percentage of Connections Metered by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 19)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Several types of rate structures are used by systems with metered billing: uniform rates, declin-
ing block rates, increasing block rates, and seasonal rates. Uniform rates are used by a large per-
centage of systems overall; as shown in Figure 4.9. The use of uniform rates is particularly domi-
nant among smaller systems, which are much more likely to use a uniform rate structure than
another rate structure because of its simplicity. Although larger systems also rely on uniform rates,
they tend to use more sophisticated rate structures more frequently, such as declining or increasing
block rates (Figure 4.9). This diversity is likely due to the many types of customers these systems
serve.
4-6
-------
Figure 4.9: Use of Metered Rate Structures by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 19)
100%
80% - -
60% - -
40% - -
20% - -
25-100
D Uniform Rate • Declining Block Rate
• Increasing Block Rate • Seasonal Rate
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
The financial health of water systems can depend on their ability to establish water rates that
accurately reflect the cost of providing water. Figure 4.10 shows that the last rate increase in
systems serving 25-100 persons was a 30 percent increase. In recent years, the costs of providing
water have increased significantly; water systems may therefore need to negotiate rate increases
fairly regularly. Figure 4.11 shows that it has been at least two years since the last rate increase for
systems of all size categories.
Figure 4.10: Percentage of Last Rate Increases by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 20)
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300 3,301-10,000
10,001+
4-7
-------
Figure 4.11: Years Since Last Rate Increase by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 20)
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Figure 4.12: Comparison of Water Expenditures with other Household Expenses
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey (1997)
Expense Category [ Expei
Transportation ;
Food ;
Health Care i
Entertainment ;
Gasoline & Motor Oil
Electricity
Telephone Services \
Natural Gas & Fuel Oil I
Pets, toys, etc.
Alcoholic Beverages
Water & Other Public Services
Tobacco Products
TOTAL
ure
6,457
4,801
1,841
1,813
1,098
909 i
809 i
409 i
327 1
309 1
286 :
264
34,819
% of Total
Expenditures
18.5%
13.8%
5.3%
5.2%
3.2%
2.6%
2.3%
1.2%
0.9%
0.9%
0.8%
0.8%
62.4%
4-8
-------
Rate increases within the water system industry have not kept pace with increases of other
industries. Figure 4.12 shows that water expenditures are well below other household expenses—
including expenditures for utilities, electricity, and telephone services. Only 0.8 percent of house-
hold expenditures are devoted to costs associated with the provision of water.
In spite of substantial rate increases, the data show that very small water systems are still not
raising enough revenue to cover costs (Figure 4.13). Most systems serving fewer than 500 persons
still have expenditures that exceed revenues. The data also show that the gap between revenues and
expenditures widens as system size increases. This is probably because large systems are more
likely to incorporate capital or emergency expenditures into their water rates, and are more likely
to accurately estimate the true cost of water.
Figure 4.13: Comparison of Water Expenditures per Connection with Water Revenues per
Connection
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 17 and Table 21)
$300
$250
$200
$150 - -
$100 - -
$50 --
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Expenditures
As defined in the 1995 CWSS, total expenses include compensation for employees, energy
costs, costs for chemicals and other materials, outside lab fees, other contractor services, deprecia-
tion expenses, water purchasing expenses, interest payments, principal payments, capital improve-
ments, and contributions to sinking funds. The 1995 CWSS organizes expenditures into three
categories: operating expenses, debt service expenditures (such as principle and interest payments),
and other expenses (such as capital improvements). This report uses operating and debt service
expenditures to define expenditures. Principal payments, contributions to sinking funds, and capital
improvements are excluded.
4-9
-------
Operations and maintenance expenses (O&M) include all direct costs of production, such as
labor, materials, chemicals, electricity, taxes, and payments in lieu of taxes. Nationally, CWSs spend
$16.9 billion for O&M expenses; 76.5 percent of total industry expenses. Of the water industry's
remaining expenses, depreciation accounts for $2.4 billion, interest expenses were $2.7 billion, and
all other expenses totaled $0.1 billion.
O&M is usually greater in larger systems because of the increasingly complex infrastructure,
which also demands highly trained (and more experienced) operators. The equipment used by large
systems can also be more costly to repair and maintain than the equipment found in smaller sys-
tems, particularly given that large systems are more likely to use a surface water source.
For systems serving fewer than 10,001 persons, median expenditures per connection increase
as system size increases for all ownership types (Figure 4.14). Figure 4.14 also shows that expendi-
tures per connection for privately owned systems are higher than those for publicly owned systems,
with the exception of two size categories.
Figure 4.14: Median Expenditures per Connection for Public, Private, and Ancillary Systems
by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 21)
$350
$300
$250
$200
Systems
servicing
25-100
people
report
median
total water
revenue of
SO
$150
$100
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Ratios
Financial ratios are frequently used to gauge the financial health of water systems. Two of
the most frequently used financial ratios are the operating ratio and the debt service ratio. Some
very clear distinctions emerge between small and large systems when examining their respective
financial ratios.
4-10
-------
The operating ratio is a system's total operating revenue divided by its operating and
maintenance expenses. O&M expenses is the sum of direct compensation (managers, operators,
and others), benefits, energy (electricity and other), chemicals (disinfectant, precipitation, and
other), materials and supplies, outside lab services, other outside contractors, water purchases,
pilot/other cash, other operating expenses, federal taxes, State taxes, and local taxes. Depreciation,
primary business expenses, interest payments, principal payments, other debt service, capital
improvements, advanced contributions to sinking funds, and other expenses are excluded.
Total operating revenues is defined as the sum of water sales, and the following water
related revenues: connection fees, inspection fees, developer fees, usage fees, other fees, and gen-
eral fund revenues. Interest earned, primary business revenues, fines/penalties, and other water
related revenues are excluded from the total. Systems that reported zero operating expenses were
excluded from the analysis.
Generally, an operating ratio below 1 is considered to be an indicator of weak financial
health. Ratios above 1.5 are usually a good indicator of a system with a strong financial situation.
Figure 4.15 shows that more than half of systems serving fewer than 101 people have operating
ratios below 1. As system size increases, the ratios improve. More than half of systems in the
largest size category have an operating ratio above 1.5.
Figure 4.15: Operating Ratio Breakdown by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 22)
System Size Percentage of Systems with Operating Ratios:
Greater than 2
11%
8%
15%
12%
16%
24%
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Less than 1
61%
43%
29%
23%
17%
13%
1— 1.5
21%
28%
39%
45%
41%
35%
1.5 — 2
6%
21%
16%
20%
27%
28%
4-11
-------
The debt service coverage ratio measures the ability of water systems to cover their debt
service after all operating expenses have been paid. Debt service coverage is computed by divid-
ing net available revenue by annual principal and interest (i.e., debt service charges). Net available
revenues is the cash available to pay debt service expenses after current O&M expenses have been
paid. It is equal to total water revenues (i.e., operating plus non-operating revenues) less O&M
expenses.
The numerator in the debt service coverage ratio represents annual net revenues available to
pay debt service, and the denominator is the amount of debt to be retired and the interest on that
debt for one year. It is a critical ratio used by lenders and bond rating services. This ratio should
exceed 1.0, and analysts consider a range of 1.0 to 1.5 as acceptable. Systems without debt service
expenses may be financially healthy and not in need of the large investments that require systems to
do into debt. On the other hand, a system without debt may not be properly leveraging its re-
sources and assests to make necessary investments.
As shown in Figure 4.16, a vast majority of the smallest systems have no debt. Of those
systems serving fewer than 100 people that do have debt, most have debt service coverage ratios
below 1. As with operating ratios, the debt service coverage ratio improves with system size. A
significant majority of large systems have debt service coverage ratios above 1.
Figure 4.16: Debt Service Coverage Ratio Breakdown by System Size
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey (Data from Table 22)
System Size Percentage of Systems with Debt Service Coverage Ratios:
Less than 1 1 — 1.5 Greater than No Debt
1.5 Service
25-100 7% 0% 5% 88%
101-500 18% 7% 10% 65%
501-1,000 25% 5% 23% 46%
1,001-3,300 29% 9% 29% 34%
3,301-10,000 24% 19% 26% 32%
10,001+ 20% 16% 36% 27%
4-12
-------
Section 5: INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
Much of the nation's drinking water infrastructure suffers from long term neglect and deterio-
ration. An EPA-sponsored infrastructure needs survey of 4,000 CWSs conducted in 1995 found
widespread infrastructure deterioration in all sizes of water systems.
The total dollar need for all systems for the 20-year period from 1995 to 2015, shown in
Figure 5.1, is $138.4 billion. Of this total, small systems need approximately $37.2 billion. It is
important to note that the definition of "small systems" used in the 1995 Needs Survey differs
from the definition used elsewhere in this report. Small systems in the 1995 Needs Survey are
defined as systems serving 3,300 and fewer people, while systems serving 3,301 to 10,000 are
included in the medium system category. The 1995 Needs Survey shows that the total need for
systems serving 25 to 10,000 persons is $53.1 billion.
Figure 5.1: Total 20-Year Need by Component of Need and System Size
(billions of dollars)
Source: 1995 Infrastructure Needs Survey
System Size
Large Systems
(serving more
than 50, 000)
M edium
Systems
(serving 3,301
to50,000)
Small Systems*
(serving 3,300
and fewer)
American
Indian and
Alaska Native
Systems
Total
Transmission
and
Distribution
$30.5
j> 2 2 . 2
$23.8
$0.6
$77.2
Treatment
$17.2
$12.0
$6.7
$0.3
$36.2
Storage
$3.5
$4.2
$4.2
$0.3
$12.1
Source
$5.6
$2.8
$2.5
$0.1
$11.0
Other
$1.6
$0.3
$0.04
$0.03
$1.9
Total
$58.5
$41.4
$37.2
$1.3
$138.4
*Note: The rest of this report defines sm all system s as system s serving 1 0,000 or fewer persons.
Note: Totals m ay not sum exactly due to rounding.
Figure 5.2 reveals that small systems have more than three times the per-household need of
large systems. Small systems' infrastructure needs amount to $3,300 per household over the 20-
year period. These systems demonstrate greater need per household because they must spread the
considerable cost of infrastructure improvement and replacement over a relatively small customer
base. Large systems have the lowest need per household (less than $1,000) because infrastructure
costs are shared by much larger service populations.
5-1
-------
Figure 5.2: Need Per Household by System Size
Source: 1995 Infrastructure Needs Survey (Data from Table 23)
There are four major categories of need for all CWSs: transmission and distribution, treat-
ment, storage, and source. For CWSs, transmission and distribution needs total $77.2 billion, more
than half of the total dollar need for CWSs (Figure 5.1). The overwhelming need in small systems
for transmission and distribution infrastructure is demonstrated in Figure 5.3. Eighty-one percent
of systems serving fewer than 3,301 persons require replacement of poorly designed or deteriorat-
ing distribution and transmission infrastructure.
Two-thirds of small water systems, as shown in Figure 5.3, reported a need for improvements
to storage facilities, making it the second-most prevalent category of need among small systems.
Storage is critical for water systems because it ensures the positive water pressure necessary to
prevent contamination. It also provides water for periods when demand exceeds the capacity of
source and treatment facilities. Small system storage needs per household are larger than the needs
of medium and large systems because the majority of these systems rely on small wells without
back-up systems. Most larger systems have existing storage facilities.
Source needs range in size and type. Figure 5.1 reveals that source development is a small
portion of the total dollar need for CWSs. While the dollar figure is comparatively low, Figure 5.3
shows that source development is a need for many small systems (65 percent). Wells (especially
smaller wells) can be clogged by sediment, calcium carbonate deposits, and accumulation of iron
bacteria; this can lead to supply and contamination problems. Treatment need is the least prevalent
category of need for small systems. Figure 5.3 shows that only 34 percent of small systems have
treatment needs.
5-2
-------
Figure 5.3: Percentage of Small Systems Reporting Needs by Category of Need
Source: 1995 Infrastructure Needs Survey (Data from Table 24)
Distribution Upgrades
Storage Upgrades
Source Upgrades
Treatment Upgrades
In 1998, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) published its own estimate of
infrastructure needs related to distribution in Infrastructure Needs for the Public Water Supply Sector.
AWWA's Monte Carlo analysis, which did not include small systems, estimated a greater need than
EPA's 1995 Needs Survey for infrastructure investment for distribution in large and medium
systems. The study incorporated the estimate for small systems from the EPA's Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey. Again, small systems were defined in this study as those systems serving
fewer than 3,301 persons, medium systems were defined as those serving 3,301-50,000 persons, and
large systems were defined as those serving more than 50,000 persons.
Figure 5.4: AWWA Estimate of 20-Year Total Need (in billions of dollars)
Source: 1998 Infrastructure Needs for the Public Water Supply Section (Data from Table 25)
$200
$160
$120
Small
Medium
Large
5-3
-------
Section 6: COMPLIANCE AND VIOLATIONS
The FY98 SDWIS data track compliance with NPDWRs in CWSs. Figure 6.1 shows the
percentage of CWSs that have had violations by system size and type of violation. These violations
include maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), monitoring and reporting violations (M/R), treat-
ment technique violations (TT), and other violations. M/R violations make up the largest percent-
age of violations for each system size. Systems serving 25-500 persons also have the largest per-
centage of M/R violations at 21.1%. M/R violations decrease as system size increases. MCL
violations are most prevalent in systems serving between 25 and 500 people.
Figure 6.1: Percentage of CWSs with Violations by System Size
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table (Data from Table 26)
20%
16%
12%
DMCL BM/R BTT B Other
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Figure 6.2 shows violations per 1,000 people served for CWSs. Systems serving 25-500
persons have the greatest number of violations per 1,000 people for all violation types. The
number of violations per 1,000 persons decreases as system size increases for all violation catego-
ries. For every one million persons served by the smallest category of systems, there are approxi-
mately 807 MCL violations and 7,164 total violations. In contrast, for every one million customers
of systems serving over 10,000 persons, there are less than 2 MCL violations and 10 total viola-
tions. M/R violations are the most frequent violation type for all size systems, with over 160
violations occurring per one million persons served by CWSs.
6-1
-------
Figure 6.2: Violations per 1,000 People Served for CWS
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table (Data from Table 27)
System Size
<10,001
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
Total
10,001+
All
Violation Type
MCL
0.8072
0.0722
0.0143
0.1200
0.0016
0.0251
TT
0.2079
0.0428
0.0099
0.0436
0.0017
0.0100
M/R
5.9245
0.3027
0.0896
0.7828
0.0062
0.1604
Other
0.2247
0.0146
0.0029
0.0307
0.0004
0.0061
All
7.1644
0.4323
0.1167
0.9770
0.0098
0.2015
Although small systems, especially those serving 25-500 persons, have the highest percentage
of systems with MCL violations among CWSs, Figure 6.3 demonstrates that this percentage is
largely a reflection of the number of small systems in the United States. The percentage of systems
with MCL violations in each size category closely tracks the percentage of systems within that
category for all system sizes.
O J J
Figure 6.3: Comparison of CWSs with MCL Violations by System Size
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table (Data from Table 1 and Table 26)
60%
50%
40%
30%
25-500
501-3,300
D Percentage of Systems
• Percentage of Systems with MCL Violations
3,301-10,000
10,001+
6-2
-------
Section 7: NONCOMMUNITY WATER
SYSTEMS
The previous sections of this report contain information on the operating and financial
practices and the infrastructure needs of CWSs. Much of this data was drawn from several na-
tional surveys of CWSs. There are no comparable national surveys examining NCWSs. The
primary sources of information on NCWSs are the federally-maintained SDWTS database and the
reports written based on SDWIS data. Therefore, available data focuses on inventory and compli-
ance information. There is much about the financial and operating characteristics of NCWSs left
to be studied.
There are two types of NCWSs: nontransient noncommunity water systems (NTNCWSs) and
transient noncommunity water systems (TNCWSs). There are about 116,009 NCWSs in the United
States serving over 23 million people. Over 98 percent of NCWSs use ground water as their
primary source. As shown in Figure 7.1, over 99 percent of systems serve fewer than 3,301
people.
Figure 7.1: Percentage of NCWSs by System Size
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table (Data from Table 28)
501-3,300
4.6%
3301-10,000 10,001+
0.2% "A r 0.1%
Figure 7.2 shows the breakdown by ownership type for all NCWSs. Almost a quarter of these
systems are restaurants. Schools, churches, day care centers, summer camps, and medical facilities
combined make up another quarter of all NCWSs.
7-1
-------
Figure 7.2: Ownership of all NCWSs
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table (Data from Table 29)
Day Care Centers
0.9%
Schools
7.8%
Campgrounds/RV Parks
4.7%
Summer Camps
5.2%
NTNCWS
ANTNCWS is "a public water system that is not a community water system and that
regularly serves at least 25 of the same persons over 6 months per year." (40 CFR §141.2)
Examples of NTNCWSs are schools, factories, office and industrial parks, and major shopping
centers. Approximately 20,000 NTNCWSs across the nation serve some 6 million people. About
97 percent of these systems use ground water as their primary source.
Figure 7.3: Percentage of NTNCWSs by System Size
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table (Data from Table 28)
3,301-10,000
0.4%
7-2
-------
Figure 7.3 shows that close to 99 percent of NTNCWS serve fewer than 3,301 people; 86
percent of NTNCWSs have a service population of less than 501 persons. Figures 7.4 and 7.5
show that NTNCWSs serving fewer than 100 persons have a median service connection of 1 and a
median service population of 48, and systems serving between 501 and 1,000 people have a service
connection of 1 and a median service population of 700. These data indicate that a single service
connection usually serves a large number of people.
Figure 7.4: Median Number of Connections by NTNCWS Size
Source: 1994 National Compliance Report (Data from Table 5)
15
10
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,000+
Figure 7.5: Median Number of Customers by NTNCWS Size
Source: 1994 National Compliance Report (Data from Table 5)
18,000
3,000
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,000+
7-3
-------
Figure 7.6 shows the percent of NTNCWS violations detailed by system size. Like CWSs, the
most common type of NTNCWS violation is a M/R violation. Figure 7.7 shows that the smallest
size category of NTNCWSs has more violations per 1,000 customers than does any other size
category. As with CWSs, the number of violations per 1,000 people decreases as system size
increases (except for systems serving over 10,000 persons, which experience more M/R violations
per 1,000 customers than systems serving 3,301-10,000 persons).
Compared with the smallest size category of CWSs, NTNCWSs that serve 25-500 people
experience almost half as many MCL violations per 1,000 customers. There are only about 491
MCL violations per one million customers of the smallest NTNCWSs compared to over 800 MCL
violations for CWSs of the same size. The largest NTNCWSs have a similar number of MCL
violations per 1,000 customers compared to similar sized systems. This trend is reversed when
comparing the incidence of total violations, where NTNCWSs serving under 501 persons experi-
ence over 1,000 more total violations per one million customers than the same size category of
CWSs. The largest category of NTNCWSs has almost 200 more total violations than CWSs of the
same size.
Figure 7.6: Percentage of NTNCWSs With Violations by Violation Type for each Size
Category
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table (Data from Table 26)
20%
16%
12%
DMCL DM/R DTT • Other
0%
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
The proportion of NTNCWSs with MCL violations accounted for by each size category of
systems is illustrated in Figure 7.8. The smallest systems make up about 85 percent of all
NTNCWSs, but account for a slightly greater share of systems reporting MCL violations (89
percent). Generally, the other system sizes of NTNCWSs seem to account for violations propor-
tionally.
7-4
-------
Figure 7.7: Violations per 1,000 People Served for NTNCWS
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table (Data from Table 27)
System Size
<10,001
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
Total
10,001 +
All
Violation Type
MCL
0.491
0.048
0.004
0.234
0.002
0.212
TT
0.064
0.004
0.000
0.029
0.000
0.026
M/R
8.299
0.712
0.127
3.910
0.293
3.564
Other
0.089
0.014
0.002
0.045
0.000
0.041
All
8.944
0.777
0.134
4.218
0.294
3.843
Figure 7.8: Comparison of NTNCWSs with MCL Violations by System Size
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table (Data from Table 1 and Table 26)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
25-500
501-3,300
D Percentage of Systems
• Percentage of Systems with MCL Violations
0.4%
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Based on NCR data, the number of NTNCWSs serving more than 10,000 people increased
5.9 percent from 1992 to 1994 (see Figure 7.9). The data show a 3.2 percent decrease in the num-
ber of NTNCWSs serving 500 or fewer people, and a 3.6 percent decrease in the number of
NTNCWSs serving 3,301-10,000 people. Over the same time period, the number of systems
serving over 10,000 people increased by 5.9 percent. These changes could be due to the consolida-
tion of NTNCWSs into CWSs or to the correction of inventory errors.
7-5
-------
Figure 7.9: Percent Change in the Number of TNCWSs by System Size (1992-1994)
Source: 1994 National Compliance Report (Data from Table 2)
0%
-2%
-4%
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
TNCWS
ATNCWS is "a noncommunity water system that does not regularly serve at least 25
of the same persons over six months per year." (40 CFR §141.2) Examples of TNCWSs are
highway rest stops, restaurants, and recreation areas. More than 95,000 TNCWSs serve approxi-
mately 17 million people. Like NTNCWSs, the vast majority of TNCWSs have 3,300 customers
or fewer (Figure 7.10).
Figure 7.10: Percentage of TNCWSs by System Type
Source: 1994 National Compliance Report (Data from Table 28)
501-3,300
2.6%
3,301-10,000
0.2%
10,001+
0.1%
7-6
-------
Figures 7.11 and 7.12 show that the smallest size category of TNCWSs has a median service
connection of 1 and a median service population of 30 persons, suggesting that TNCWSs have a
limited distribution system. Even the largest TNCWSs have a median number of only 2 connec-
tions.
Figure 7.11: Median Number of Connections by TNCWS Size
Source: 1994 National Compliance Report (Data from Table 5)
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,000+
Figure 7.12: Median Number of Customers by TNCWS Size
Source: 1994 National Compliance Report (Data from Table 5)
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
7-7
-------
Figure 7.13 shows the percentage of TNCWSs with each type of violation by system size.
Like with other types of water systems, TNCWSs violate M/R rules most frequently. But com-
pared to NTNCWSs, a lower percentage of systems in each size category commit a M/R violation.
Figure 7.14 shows that the smallest TNCWSs experience many more violations per 1,000
Figure 7.13: Percentage of TNCWSs With Violations by Violation Type for each Size Category
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table (Data from Table 26)
16%
12%
DMCL BM/R BTT • Other
4%
0%
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
people than do any other size category of TNCWSs. As with CWSs and NTNCWSs, the number
of violations per 1,000 people generally declines as system size increases (except for treatment
technique violations, which were less common per 1,000 people for systems serving 501-3,300
persons than for systems serving 3,301-10,000 persons). For every one million customers, the
Figure 7.14: Violations per 1,000 People Served for TNCWS
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table (Data from Table 27)
System Size
<10,001
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
Total
10,001 +
All
Violation Type
MCL
0.660
0.061
0.006
0.459
0.000
0.310
TT
0.032
0.002
0.032
0.025
0.000
0.026
M/R
3.306
0.229
0.056
2.279
0.001
1.543
Other
0.278
0.014
0.008
0.190
0.000
0.041
All
4.277
0.306
0.101
2.953
0.001
1.999
7-8
-------
smallest of TNCWSs incurred 660 MCL violations (more than NTNCWSs, but less than CWSs)
and the largest of TNCWSs had no violations (less than both NTNCWSs and CWSs). When all
types of violations are taken into consideration, TNCWSs experienced fewer violations per 1,000
customers than both CWSs and NTNCWSs across all size categories.
Figure 7.15 shows that systems serving up to 500 persons actually account for a smaller share
of systems with violations than might be expected since systems this size constitute approximately
97 percent of TNCWSs. On the other hand, TNCWSs serving between 501 and 3,301 people have
a disproportionate percentage of systems with at least 1 violation.
Figure 7.15: Comparison of TNCWSs with MCL Violations by System Size
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table (Data from Table 1 and Table 26)
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
D Percentage of Systems
• Percentage of Systems with MCL Violations
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
The 1994 NCR data show a decrease between 1992 and 1994 in TNCWSs of all sizes (see
Figure 7.16) except for those serving over 10,000 people. The largest decrease in TNCWSs was
found in those serving between 3,301 and 10,000 people—a decrease of 16.1 percent.
7-9
-------
Figure 7.16: Percent Change in the Number of TNCWSs by System Size
Source: 1994 National Compliance Report (Data from Table 2)
25-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
7-10
-------
MISSING DATA
The following questions were raised by the working group and could not be addressed due to
insufficient or unreliable data:
• The percentage of total expenses that each expense category represents, by si^e and by ownership type.
• Mean and median percentage of systems violating standards for individual contaminants.
• Financing sources: percentages of private and public funding sources for debt financing by system si^e and
ownership type;funding for capital investments by si^e and ownership type.
• Universe of threatened systems: financial ratios of threatened systems; comparison of operating and debt
coverage ratios of threatened systems with these systems' compliance records.
• Percentage of systems purchasing treated water or raw water by si^e and by ownership type.
• Mean and median total expenditures for capital improvements per customer and per connection by si^e
and by ownership type.
• The water rates for systems with and without treatment.
' The number of paid staff.
• The length of service of water system operators and managers; the number of certified operators reported
per system by si^e and ownership type; and the percentage of systems reporting a certified operator by si^e and
ownership type.
• Collection rates.
• flapping water rates and compliance rates to income.
• Percentage of systems reporting a need for cross-connection control equipment by ownership type.
• Types of management structures used by water systems.
• Level of capitalisation.
8-1
-------
APPENDIX
Data Tables
A-l
-------
Table 1: Number of People Served and Number of Systems by System Type
(Data for Figures 1.1, 1.2, 6.3, 7.8, and 7.15)
Source: SDWIS 98Q4 frozen inventory table
System Type
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
Number of People Served
Percentage of Total
Number of Systems
Percentage of Total
Number of People Served
Percentage of Total
Number of Systems
Percentage of Total
Number of People Served
Percentage of Total
Number of Systems
Percentage of Total
System Size
<501
5,232,692
2.1%
32,430
59.7%
2,414,623
38.7%
17,294
85.4%
7,608,051
45.4%
92,784
96.9%
501-3,300
19,807,889
7.8%
14,043
25.8%
2,784,933
44.6%
2,856
14.1%
2,724,266
16.3%
2,690
2.8%
3,301-10,000
25,090,995
9.9%
4,303
7.9%
447,258
7.2%
85
0.4%
1,007,691
6.0%
178
0.2%
10,001+
202,398,998
80.1%
3,591
6.6%
597,801
9.6%
20
0.1%
5,416,541
32.3%
102
0.1%
All
252,530,574
100.0%
54,367
100.0%
6,244,615
100.0%
20,255
100.0%
16,756,549
100.0%
95,754
100.0%
Small System
Percentage of
National Total
19.9%
93.4%
90.4%
99.9%
67.7%
99.9%
A-2
-------
Table 2: Percentage Change in the Number of Water Systems
(Data for Figures 1.3, 7.9, and 7.16)
Source: 1994 National Compliance Report
System Type
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWs
All
Time Period
1992-1994
1992-1994
1992-1994
1992-1994
System Size
<501
-4.3%
-3.2%
-6.7%
-5.8%
501-3,300
-1.9%
-0.7%
-3.1%
-1.9%
3,301-10,000
-2.1%
-3.6%
-16.1%
-2.8%
<10,001
-3.5%
-3.0%
-6.7%
-5.3%
10,001+
0.7%
5.9%
4.9%
0.8%
All
-3.3%
-2.9%
-6.7%
-5.2%
A-3
-------
Table 3: Ownership of Water Systems by System Size
(Data for Figure 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
Owner Type
Population Served
25-100
101-500
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,000+
Public
Special District
Other Government
0.7%
7.0%
5.7%
29.1%
5.3%
63.4%
6.2%
70.4%
9.1%
76.4%
Private
Homeowner's Association
Investor Owned
Other Privately Owned
16.4%
17.8%
5.3%
12.1%
18.1%
4.4%
9.1%
13.9%
3.6%
4.0%
12.3%
4.2%
1.0%
9.2%
1.4%
Ancillary
Institution
Mobile Home Park
Other Ancillary
Respondents
4.1%
33.3%
15.5%
131
3.5%
22.3%
4.8%
243
0.2%
2.9%
1.7%
404
0.1%
4.4%
0.4%
197
0.1%
4.3%
0.4%
348
All
43.0%
33.0%
24.0%
1,323
A-4
-------
Table 4: Percent of Population Served by Owner Type
(Data for Figure 2.2)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey and FRDS Database as of 7/96
Owner Type
Public
Private
Ancillary
Respondents
System Size
25-100
7.8%
40.6%
51.6%
245
101-500
34.4%
36.0%
29.6%
402
501-1,000
61.4%
35.2%
3.4%
276
1,001-3,300
74.4%
24.9%
0.7%
282
3,301-10,000
77.8%
22.2%
0.0%
282
10,001+
87.4%
12.6%
0.0%
493
All
84.1%
15.1%
0.8%
1,980
Respondents
1,043
745
192
1,980
A-5
-------
Table 5: Median Population and Service Connections
(Data for Figures 3.1, 3.2, 7.4, 7.5, 7.11, and 7.12)
Source: FRDS Database as of 7/96
System
Type
cws
NTN
CWS
TNG
Measure
Population
Connections
Population
Connections
Population
Connections
Size Category
< 101
58
22
48
1
30
1
100-500
225
79
235
1
200
1
501-1,000
726
259
700
1
750
1
1,001-3,300
1,775
607
1,500
2
1,571
2
3,301-10,000
5,474
1,800
4,750
17
5,000
2
< 10,001
250
83
102
1
50
1
10,001+
23,000
6,892
18,000
32
29,500
2
All
300
98
102
1
50
1
Percentage of Public vs. Private (within Size Category /within Ownership Category)
System Type
CWSs
NTNCWSs
All
Owner Type
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
System Size
<501
23.9%
76.1%
28.3%
71.7%
25.3%
74.7%
34.6%
80.2%
77.1%
90.2%
43.6%
83.2%
501-3,300
65.5%
34.5%
52.4%
47.6%
63.4%
36.6%
39.3%
15.1%
22.5%
9.4%
35.7%
13.4%
3,301-50,000
80.1%
19.9%
29.3%
70.7%
79.6%
20.4%
23.7%
4.3%
0.4%
0.4%
18.7%
3.1%
50,000+
79.3%
20.7%
na
na
79.3%
20.7%
2.5%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
2.0%
0.3%
Total
42.1%
57.9%
31.6%
68.4%
39.3%
60.7%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
A-6
-------
Table 6: Median Miles of Pipe per Connection by System Size
(Data for Figure 3.3)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
System Size
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Miles of Pipe
per
Connection
0.0295
0.0258
0.0262
0.0326
0.0231
0.0143
Number of
Respondents
168
297
208
237
225
402
A-7
-------
Table 7: Median Percentage Growth in Customers and Connections by Size Categories
(Data for Figure 3.4)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
Type of
Growth
Connections
Respondents
Customers
Respondents
<101
0
176
0
182
101-500
2.5%
321
0
314
501-1,000
5.9%
225
7.2%
208
1,001-3,300
7.8%
251
7.6%
228
3,301-10,000
10.0%
236
11.1%
225
<10,001
5.3%
1209
5.7%
1157
10,000+
7.0%
445
7.5%
437
All
na
na
na
na
-------
Table 8: Percentage of Systems by Source and System Size
(Data for Figure 3.5)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
System Size
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
All
Primary Water Source
Ground Water
95.7%
85.2%
76.6%
68.2%
57.6%
47.4%
79.8%
Surface Water
2.6%
5.3%
6.6%
16.2%
19.8%
37.8%
9.6%
Purchased
Water
1.7%
9.5%
16.9%
15.6%
22.6%
14.7%
10.6%
Respondents
245
403
NA
NA
NA
493
NA
A-9
-------
Table 9: Daily Drinking Water Production by CWSs by Owner-type and System Size
(Data for Figures 3.6 and 3.7)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
Owner
Type
All
Type of Water
Production
Median Production
(gal per day)
Respondents
Peak Daily
Production (gal.)
Respondents
Treatment Design
Capacity (gal.)
Respondents
Ratio of TDC to PDF
Public
Median Production
(gal per day)
Respondents
Peak Daily
Production (gal.)
Respondents
Treatment Design
Capacity (gal.)
Respondents
System Size
25-100
5,501
179
9,740
139
20,000
119
2.05
7,315
44
13,500
38
25,000
33
101-500
24,000
335
32,700
240
66,548
213
2.04
27,397
139
44,000
100
85,000
91
501-1,000
76,712
254
142,000
172
252,000
163
1.77
80,304
141
150,000
95
252,000
93
1,001-3,300
219,178
267
337,500
196
651,736
188
1.93
245,249
158
415,000
122
750,000
115
3,301-10,000
706,849
275
1,206,000
204
1,937,000
200
1.61
775,068
146
1,360,000
111
2,000,000
113
< 10,001
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
115,343
328
219,300
466
470,000
445
10,000+
8,335,356
476
11,847,500
422
16,000,000
414
1.35
9,865,205
345
12,959,000
306
17,110,000
298
All
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
506,630
973
1,100,000
772
2,000,000
743
A-10
-------
Table 9 Continued
Owner
Type
Private
Ancillary
Type of Water
Production
Median Production
(gal per day)
Respondents
Peak Daily
Production (gal.)
Respondents
Treatment Design
Capacity (gal.)
Respondents
Median Production
(gal per day)
Respondents
Peak Daily
Production (gal.)
Respondents
Treatment Design
Capacity (gal.)
Respondents
System Size
25-100
5,490
70
7,200
55
28,800
44
4,932
65
7,750
46
5,000
42
101-500
27,397
121
38,985
74
72,000
67
11,951
75
16,750
66
40,000
55
501-1,000
68,493
110
110,833
72
255,500
66
91,233
3
208,000
5
297,000
4
1,001-3,300
175,836
108
250,000
74
547,200
72
115,068
1
200,000
1
3,301-10,000
574,238
127
1,084,000
93
1,440,000
87
< 10,001
84,795
536
150,000
368
327,500
336
8,219
144
14,000
117
27,900
102
10,000+
4,663,014
131
7,531,000
116
10,250,000
116
All
145,753
667
312,640
484
720,000
452
8,219
144
14,000
117
27,900
102
A-ll
-------
Table 10: Percentage of CWSs that Receive Technical Assistance by Ownership Type and System Size
(Data for Figure 3.8)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
Owner
Type
Public
Private
Ancillary
All
Percentage of
Systems that
Specified Technical
Assistance (TA)
Government TA
Other TA
Third Party TA
Any
Respondents
Government TA
Other TA
Third Party TA
Any
Respondents
Government TA
Other TA
Third Party TA
Any
Respondents
Government TA
Other TA
Third Party TA
Any
Respondents
System Size
25-100
74.2%
29.8%
61.1%
92.5%
60
52.8%
19.0%
41.6%
71.8%
97
51.8%
7.0%
30.6%
62.8%
88
54.0%
13.7%
37.4%
68.7%
245
101-500
65.8%
35.9%
70.7%
87.9%
161
62.8%
28.4%
60.4%
80.7%
143
56.0%
11.7%
43.0%
73.3%
98
61.8%
26.0%
58.8%
81.0%
402
501-1,000
67.8%
32.4%
79.1%
90.0%
151
76.5%
32.9%
81.6%
96.0%
120
47.1%
74.7%
78.1%
100.0%
5
70.2%
34.0%
80.0%
92.4%
276
1,001-3,300
78.0%
28.2%
88.3%
95.9%
164
61.9%
32.3%
83.9%
95.1%
117
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
1
73.5%
29.0%
87.3%
95.7%
282
3,301-10,000
82.0%
37.2%
88.9%
96.2%
150
60.3%
43.7%
90.5%
94.2%
132
na
na
na
na
na
77.2%
38.6%
89.3%
95.8%
282
< 10,001
72.9%
32.9%
79.9%
92.2%
686
61.0%
27.1%
61.1%
82.1%
609
53.1%
10.0%
36.5%
67.6%
192
63.7%
25.1%
62.4%
82.5%
1487
10,000+
77.1%
56.7%
87.3%
95.5%
357
74.9%
67.4%
86.2%
93.7%
136
na
na
na
na
na
76.8%
58.0%
87.2%
95.2%
493
All
73.4%
36.2%
81.0%
92.7%
1043
61.4%
28.1%
61.8%
82.4%
745
53.1%
10.0%
36.5%
67.6%
192
64.6%
27.3%
64.1%
83.3%
1980
A-12
-------
Table 11: Median Personnel Expenses as a Percentage of Total Expenses by System Size
(Data for Figure 3.9)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
Personnel
Expense
Direct
Compensation
Manager
Operator
Other
Benefits
System Size
< 101
0
0
0
0
0
101-500
22%
0
4%
0
0
501-1,000
26%
0
5%
1%
2%
1,001-3,300
25%
2%
7%
3%
3%
3,301-10,000
29%
4%
8%
5%
5%
< 10,001
na
na
na
na
na
10,000+
28%
2%
4%
10%
6%
All
na
na
na
na
na
A-13
-------
Table 12. Potential Sources of Contamination Within 2 Miles of Water Supply Intakes
(Data for Figures 3.10 and 3.11)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
Potential Source of Contamination
Industrial/
Manufacturing
Facilities
Agricultural
Runoff
Animal
Feedlots
Urban Runoff
Sewage
Discharge
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
100 or Less
9.2%
0.0%
9.1%
34.6%
28.4%
34.5%
7.5%
4.6%
7.5%
15.8%
8.1%
15.7%
18.9%
13.6%
18.6%
101-500
11.6%
8.4%
11.4%
42.4%
45.9%
42.3%
15.8%
5.6%
15.8%
18.1%
3.0%
18.1%
17.2%
10.0%
16.6%
501-1,000
16.8%
9.0%
15.5%
55.9%
38.8%
53.1%
24.3%
14.7%
22.5%
26.8%
8.0%
25.3%
32.1%
11.7%
29.8%
<1,001
11.5%
6.8%
11.2%
41.4%
40.0%
41.2%
13.8%
8.1%
13.8%
18.6%
5.6%
18.4%
20.3%
11.3%
19.7%
1,001-3,300
31.3%
11.3%
27.8%
59.3%
57.8%
57.8%
28.2%
19.0%
25.3%
39.0%
22.0%
35.1%
33.7%
16.5%
29.2%
3,301-10,000
47.4%
19.4%
38.7%
60.0%
64.7%
57.1%
25.1%
10.8%
19.6%
56.0%
42.2%
51.4%
34.8%
18.4%
31.0%
10,000+
64.3%
49.0%
56.6%
60.6%
74.1%
65.7%
17.6%
18.9%
17.8%
67.6%
64.8%
65.8%
30.0%
36.2%
32.6%
All System
Sizes
18.3%
22.4%
18.9%
45.5%
58.5%
46.5%
16.4%
14.3%
16.1%
25.4%
33.2%
26.7%
23.3%
21.0%
22.9%
A-14
-------
Table 12 Continued
Potential Source of Contamination
Hazardous
Waste Site
Solid Waste
Disposal
Nitrates
Pesticides,
Rodenticides,
Fungicides
Mining, Oil, or
Gas Activities
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
100 or Less
4.5%
0.0%
4.3%
5.7%
0.0%
5.5%
9.8%
6.2%
9.6%
5.8%
8.6%
5.9%
4.1%
8.8%
4.4%
101-500
3.2%
1.3%
3.1%
2.7%
1.3%
2.8%
17.5%
9.1%
16.8%
9.5%
7.1%
9.2%
8.0%
6.0%
8.2%
501-1,000
1.8%
0.0%
1.6%
4.0%
0.0%
3.3%
18.3%
21.5%
17.4%
19.6%
9.6%
17.6%
13.2%
11.9%
13.0%
<1,001
3.5%
0.6%
3.3%
4.1%
0.6%
3.9%
14.4%
12.2%
14.1%
9.6%
8.2%
9.4%
7.3%
8.3%
7.6%
1,001-3,300
7.1%
0.0%
5.1%
7.5%
2.2%
6.5%
24.6%
23.5%
22.9%
21.9%
14.0%
19.1%
18.9%
10.0%
16.4%
3,301-10,000
8.8%
1.4%
6.9%
18.3%
.4%
12.1%
20.3%
34.5%
21.2%
24.5%
11.8%
18.6%
14.1%
18.1%
14.9%
10,000+
15.1%
8.5%
12.0%
18.3%
13.4%
15.8%
36.5%
29.8%
33.0%
27.5%
19.5%
24.4%
21.8%
21.2%
20.5%
All System
Sizes
4.7%
2.9%
4.5%
6.0%
4.7%
5.8%
17.0%
23.9%
17.2%
12.8%
13.5%
12.5%
9.7%
14.1%
10.3%
A-15
-------
Table 12 Continued
Potential Source of Contamination
Petroleum
Products
Solvents
Septic
Systems/Other
Sewage
Discharges
Other
All
Contaminants
Number of
Observations
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Groundwater
Source
Surface water
Source
All Sources
Total
100 or Less
24.8%
8.2%
24.2%
4.1%
0.0%
3.9%
75.8%
36.6%
74.5%
5.3%
8.8%
5.4%
82.9%
63.7%
82.2%
206
101-500
23.9%
1.3%
22.4%
5.5%
0.0%
5.2%
63.8%
41.4%
61.3%
2.4%
10.8%
2.7%
83.5%
71.3%
81.2%
323
501-1,000
37.4%
6.9%
32.8%
8.9%
1.0%
7.9%
62.8%
50.2%
61.0%
4.9%
10.6%
4.8%
83.2%
73.0%
81.1%
223
<1,001
26.4%
4.4%
24.9%
5.5%
0.3%
5.2%
68.5%
43.0%
66.3%
4.0%
10.3%
4.1%
83.2%
70.1%
81.6%
752
1,001-3,300
54.5%
23.9%
46.8%
14.4%
1.0%
11.6%
76.3%
56.8%
69.0%
3.3%
3.3%
3.7%
93.1%
85.4%
89.4%
243
3,301-10,000
59.2%
14.1%
46.3%
39.1%
9.7%
28.8%
62.2%
52.6%
58.8%
6.0%
5.2%
4.9%
89.7%
89.9%
87.7%
242
10,000+
68.4%
43.6%
57.2%
51.5%
27.9%
40.8%
65.3%
62.8%
63.5%
2.9%
6.3%
4.6%
93.2%
93.9%
92.8%
445
All System
Sizes
33.6%
22.2%
32.0%
10.6%
10.2%
10.5%
68.9%
53.7%
65.8%
4.0%
6.6%
4.1%
85.2%
84.3%
84.0%
1692
A-16
-------
Table 13. Source Water Protection Methods by Primary Water Source
(Data for Figures 3.12 and 3.13)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
Source Water Protection Program/ Specific
Protection Measure
% Systems with any Source Water Protection
Education on land use impacts
Watershed ownership
Zoning or land use controls
Best management practices
Other
100 or Less
27.5%
59.5%
37.9%
58.9%
62.6%
11.2%
101-500
31.2%
59.1%
27.7%
54.0%
54.2%
16.3%
501-1,000
38.5%
68.3%
36.6%
71.9%
66.4%
0.2%
1,001-3,300
35.0%
69.7%
49.0%
69.7%
64.5%
2.0%
3,301-10,000
40.1%
69.1%
34.4%
77.9%
60.5%
8.8%
10,001+
50.3%
65.3%
46.8%
67.9%
58.2%
18.1%
A-17
-------
Table 14: Percentage of Systems that Use GAAP by System Size
(Data for Figure 4.1)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
System Size
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Percent of Systems
that Use GAAP
29.31%
58.93%
79.90%
89.75%
89.28%
91.91%
Respondents
216
363
251
262
250
447
A-18
-------
Table 15: Median Revenues of Systems Serving 25-100 Persons by Use of GAAP
(1995 Data for Figure 4.2)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
System Type
Systems that use GAAP
Systems that Do Not Use GAAP
Median Revenues
$8,761
$2,970
Respondents
61
4
A-19
-------
Table 16: Percentage of Systems that Do Not Have Separate Income and Expense Statements for their
Drinking Water Operation by System Size
(Data for Figure 4.3)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
System Size
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Percentage of Systems that Do
Not Have Separate Income and
Expense Statements
51.8%
24.7%
12.1%
5.3%
2.4%
3.7%
Respondents
216
363
251
262
250
447
A-20
-------
Table 17: Median Water Revenues and Water-Related per Connection (in dollars)
(Data for Figures 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.13)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
Revenue
Category
Median Water
Sale Revenues
Median Water
Related
Revenues
Median Total
Water Revenue
System
Type
Public
Private
Ancillary
Surface
Ground
All
Public
Private
Ancillary
Surface
Ground
All
Public
Private
Ancillary
Surface
Ground
All
Size Category
<101
173.25
37.50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
180.53
77.14
0
0
0
0
101-500
149.41
226.95
0
146.37
128.85
131.74
0
0
0
0
0
0
168.53
239.57
0
176.36
133.29
143.96
501-1,000
209.82
243.01
0
256.66
181.09
222.05
2.13
0.39
0
2.11
0.97
1.48
217.32
249.71
0
264.13
190.69
223.44
1,001-3,300
225.14
230.48
0
270.92
195.80
228.01
3.85
5.61
0
5.79
3.32
3.97
247.18
245.33
0
290.47
204.00
245.87
3,301-10,000
239.98
270.79
na
288.63
214.98
252.05
5.33
10.80
na
8.66
6.65
7.92
261.91
298.39
na
300.37
232.54
273.68
<10,001
209.37
228.53
0
230.86
172.30
na
2.12
1.25
0
1.11
0.79
na
225.28
239.87
0
241.94
181.82
na
10,001+
273.99
337.44
na
324.11
235.36
288.02
8.94
0.88
na
5.13
7.05
5.74
295.05
355.35
na
330.86
248.52
312.50
All
230.93
241.81
0
258.85
185.14
na
4.12
1.03
0
2.24
1.60
na
246.81
254.16
0
272.60
200.59
na
A-21
-------
Table 18: Source of Total Water Revenue by Customer Type and System Size
(Data for Figure 4.7)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
System Size
25-100
101-500
501-1,000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001+
Revenue Source
Residential
88.5%
69.0%
70.6%
56.5%
55.9%
52.6%
Commercial/
Industrial
0.6%
8.4%
8.5%
13.4%
16.0%
20.2%
Wholesale
0.2%
0.4%
0.2%
0.7%
1.0%
1.4%
Other
10.7%
22.2%
20.6%
29.5%
27.2%
25.8%
A-22
-------
Table 19: Rate Structure and Billing Profile for Residential Customers by System Size
(Data for Figures 4.8 and 4.9)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
Rate Structure
Percentage of Connections
Metered
100 or
Less
36.6%
101-500
71.8%
501-
1,000
87.4%
1,001-
3,300
93.7%
3,301-
10,000
92.0%
10,001+
97.1%
All Sizes
73.5%
Metered Charges
Uniform Rate
Declining Block Rate
Increasing Block Rate
Seasonal (Peak) Rate
85%
3%
12%
0%
67%
16%
16%
1%
61%
22%
15%
2%
62%
26%
11%
2%
54%
33%
12%
2%
50%
29%
19%
2%
na
na
na
na
A-23
-------
Table 20: Rate Structure Increase and Billing Profile for Residential Customers
(Data for Figures 4.10 and 4.11)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
Rate Increase Data
Percentage of Last
Increase
Average Number of
Years Since Last
Increase
Number of
Respondents
Owner Type
Public
Private
Ancillary
All
Public
Private
Ancillary
All
All
100 or Less
45.52%
35.25%
10.38%
30.15%
2.03
2.61
1.63
2 27
245
101-500
25.22%
19.63%
10.47%
21.03%
3.53
4.10
1.88
3.61
402
501-1,000
27.51%
18.88%
50.00%
25.07%
2.78
3.16
1.00
2.88
276
1,001-3,300
29.49%
24.06%
na
28.39%
3.80
3.85
na
3.81
282
3,301-10,000
15.56%
18.95%
na
16.30%
3.09
3.98
na
3.27
282
10,001+
14.55%
14.41%
na
14.53%
2.53
2.60
na
2.54
493
All
24.19%
23.23%
12.04%
23.06%
3.18
3.49
1.72
3.17
1980
A-24
-------
Table 21: Median Total Expenditures per Customer and per Connection
(in dollars; excludes principal payments, contributions in sinking funds, and capital improvements)
(Data for Figures 4.13 and 4.14)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
System Type
Public
Private
Ancillary
All
Unit of
Measure
Connection
Respondents
Customer
Respondents
Connection
Respondents
Customer
Respondents
Connection
Respondents
Customer
Respondents
Connection
Respondents
Customer
Respondents
Size Category
< 100
180.06
54
91.66
50
138.49
91
67.58
78
64.41
73
26.75
80
96.17
218
43.24
208
100-500
205.03
148
80.52
148
218.24
137
75.95
126
74.50
85
22.95
92
187.13
370
65.83
366
501-1,000
203.12
144
85.12
142
231.78
113
82.86
105
23.57
4
0
5
214.17
261
83.30
252
1,001-3,300
239.87
162
89.16
154
234.48
113
86.55
104
50.44
1
18.92
1
237.50
276
87.82
259
3,301-10,000
234.08
144
85.49
144
286.23
129
89.50
126
na
na
na
na
254.50
273
87.46
270
10,001+
256.43
349
75.39
350
277.84
132
87.05
132
na
na
na
na
259.25
481
77.23
482
All
231.37
1,001
81.05
988
243.79
715
83.74
671
58.79
163
23.26
178
227.92
1,879
78.76
1,837
A-25
-------
Table 22: Operating and Debt Service Coverage Ratios for Community Water System by System Size
(excludes ancillary systems)
(Data for Figures 4.15 and 4.16)
Source: 1995 Community Water System Survey
Operating Ratio
Debt Service Ratio
Ratio Value
< 1
1—1.5
1.5—2
>2
<1
1—1.5
>1.5
No debt service
System Size
25-100
61.41%
21.49%
6.07%
11.03%
7.17%
0.24%
4.57%
88.02%
101-500
42.90%
27.66%
21.41%
8.03%
18.13%
7.24%
10.09%
64.54%
501-1,000
29.09%
39.07%
16.37%
15.46%
25.13%
5.41%
23.03%
46.43%
1,001-3,300
23.32%
44.78%
19.67%
12.23%
28.73%
9.04%
28.72%
33.51%
3,301-10,000
16.93%
40.80%
26.59%
15.68%
23.72%
18.57%
25.83%
31.89%
<10,001
35.36%
34.41%
18.36%
11.86%
20.07%
7.27%
16.94%
55.73%
10,001+
12.65%
35.43%
27.89%
24.03%
20.44%
16.10%
36.27%
27.19%
A-26
-------
Table 23: Need Per Household by System Size
(Data for Figure 5.2)
Source: 1995 Infrastructure Needs Survey
System Size
Small Systems
Medium Systems
Large Systems
Need per Household
$3,300
$1,200
$970
A-27
-------
Table 24: Percentage of Small Systems Reporting Needs by Category of Need
(Data for Figure 5.3)
Source: 1995 Infrastructure Needs Survey
Type of Need
Distribution Upgrades
Storage Upgrades
Source Upgrades
Treatment Upgrades
Percentage of Systems Reporting
Need
81%
66%
65%
34%
A-28
-------
Table 25: AWWA Estimate of 20-Year Total Need (in billions of dollars)
(Data for Figure 5.4)
Source: 1998 Infrastructure Needs for the Public Water Supply Section
System Size
Small Systems
Medium Systems
Large Systems
20-Year Total Need
(in billions)
$26
$198
$101
A-29
-------
Table 26: Percentage of Systems with Violations by System Type and System Size
(Data for Figures 6.1, 6.3, 7.6, 7.8, 7.13, and 7.15)
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table
Violation
Type
MCL
TT
M/R
Other
All
System Type
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
System Size (% of System Type with Violation by System Size; % within Violation Category by System Size)
<501
7.5%
4.9%
4.0%
1.5%
0.5%
0.1%
21.1%
19.0%
15.6%
1.9%
0.8%
1.2%
26.4%
22.7%
18.5%
65.2%
89.0%
96.6%
45.1%
90.9%
89.4%
71.4%
88.5%
97.2%
66.7%
84.1%
97.5%
67.7%
88.2%
97.1%
501-3,300
1.4%
3.5%
4.6%
2.6%
0.3%
0.1%
13.1%
14.1%
14.9%
1.4%
0.8%
0.9%
18.7%
17.7%
18.0%
21.3%
10.7%
3.2%
32.5%
9.1%
3.2%
19.2%
11.0%
2.7%
21.2%
15.3%
2.2%
20.8%
11.4%
2.7%
3,301-10,000
6.3%
2.4%
2.8%
3.0%
0.0%
3.4%
11.5%
15.3%
8.4%
1.3%
1.2%
2.2%
18.7%
17.6%
11.8%
7.3%
0.2%
0.1%
11.6%
0.0%
6.4%
5.2%
0.3%
0.1%
6.3%
0.6%
0.4%
6.4%
0.3%
0.1%
<10,001
5.7%
4.7%
4.0%
1.9%
0.5%
0.1%
18.1%
18.4%
15.5%
1.7%
0.8%
1.2%
23.6%
22.0%
18.5%
93.8%
99.9%
99.9%
89.2%
100.0%
99.0%
95.8%
99.8%
100.0%
94.2%
100.0%
100.1%
94.9%
99.9%
99.9%
10,001+
6.2%
5.0%
1.0%
3.3%
0.0%
0.0%
11.3%
20.0%
5.9%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
17.9%
20.0%
6.9%
7.4%
0.1%
0.1%
10.8%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2%
0.1%
0.0%
5.7%
0.0%
0.0%
5.1%
0.1%
0.0%
All
5.8%
4.7%
4.0%
2.0%
4.9%
0.1%
17.6%
18.4%
15.5%
1.7%
0.8%
1.2%
23.2%
22.0%
18.5%
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.0%
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.1%
100.0%
100.0%
99.9%
A-30
-------
Table 27: Violations per 1,000 People Served
(Data for Figures 6.2, 7.7, 7.14)
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table
Violation
Type
MCL
TT
M/R
Other
All
System Type
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
All
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
All
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
All
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
All
CWSs
NTNCWSs
TNCWSs
All
Violations per 1,000 People Served
<501
0.807
0.491
0.660
0.684
0.208
0.064
0.032
0.098
5.924
8.299
3.306
4.995
0.225
0.089
0.278
0.230
7.164
8.944
4.277
6.006
501-3,300
0.072
0.048
0.061
0.069
0.043
0.004
0.002
0.034
0.303
0.712
0.229
0.340
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.015
0.432
0.777
0.306
0.457
3,301-10,000
0.014
0.004
0.006
0.014
0.010
0.000
0.032
0.011
0.090
0.127
0.056
0.089
0.003
0.002
0.008
0.003
0.117
0.134
0.101
0.116
<10,001
0.120
0.234
0.459
0.187
0.044
0.029
0.025
0.039
0.783
3.910
2.279
1.299
0.031
0.045
0.190
0.059
0.977
4.218
2.953
1.584
10,001+
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.0002
0.000
0.001
0.006
0.293
0.001
0.006
0.0004
0.000
0.000
0.0003
0.012
0.294
0.001
0.010
All
0.025
0.212
0.310
0.047
0.010
0.026
0.017
0.011
0.162
3.564
1.543
0.322
0.006
0.041
0.129
0.015
0.203
3.843
1.999
0.395
A-31
-------
Table 28: NCWSs Source Water Characteristics
(Data for Figures 7.1, 7.3, 7.10)
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table
NTNCWSs
Size Category
<501
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
Subtotal
10,000+
Total
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size Category
Percentage of All NTNCWSs
< 10,001
Percentage of All NTNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size Category
Percentage of All NTNCWSs
< 10,001
Percentage of All NTNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size Category
Percentage of All NTNCWSs
< 10,001
Percentage of All NTNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size Category
Percentage of All NTNCWSs
< 10,001
Percentage of All NTNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size Category
Percentage of All NTNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage of All NTNCWSs
Ground
16,783
97.7%
83.9%
83.9%
2,602
94.7%
13.0%
13.0%
57
82.6%
0.3%
0.3%
19,442
97.2%
97.2%
97.2%
7
100.0%
0.0%
19,449
97.2%
Surface
394
2.3%
2.0%
2.0%
145
5.3%
0.7%
0.7%
12
17.4%
0.1%
0.1%
551
2.8%
2.8%
2.8%
0
0.0%
0.0%
551
2.8%
Total
17,177
100.0%
85.9%
85.9%
2,747
100.0%
13.7%
13.7%
69
100.0%
0.3%
0.4%
19,993
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
7
100.0%
0.0%
20,000
100.0%
A-32
-------
Table 28 Continued
TNCWSs
Size Category
<501
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
Subtotal
10,000+
Total
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size
Category
Percentage of All TNCWSs
< 10,001
Percentage of All TNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size
Category
Percentage of All TNCWSs
< 10,001
Percentage of All TNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size
Category
Percentage of All TNCWSs
< 10,001
Percentage of All TNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size
Category
Percentage of All TNCWSs
< 10,001
Percentage of All TNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size
Category
Percentage of All TNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage of All TNCWSs
Ground
90,614
98.4%
95.6%
95.5%
2,387
95.2%
2.5%
2.5%
152
84.4%
0.2%
0.2%
93,153
98.3%
98.3%
98.2%
92
90.2%
0.1%
93,245
98.3%
Surface
1,452
1.6%
1.5%
1.5%
121
4.8%
0.1%
0.1%
28
15.6%
0.0%
0.0%
1,601
1.7%
1.7%
1.7%
10
9.8%
0.0%
1,611
1.7%
Total
92,066
100.0%
97.2%
97.1%
2,508
100.0%
2.6%
2.6%
180
100.0%
0.2%
0.2%
94,754
100.0%
100.0%
99.9%
102
100.0%
0.1%
94,856
100.0%
A-33
-------
Table 28 Continued
NCWSs
Size Category
<501
501-3,300
3,301-10,000
Subtotal
10,000+
Total
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size
Category
Percentage of All TNCWSs
Raw Nunibe
Percentage Within Size
Category
Percentage of All TNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size
Category
Percentage of All TNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size
Category
Percentage of All TNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage Within Size
Category
Percentage of All TNCWSs
Raw Number
Percentage of All TNCWSs
Ground
107,397
98.3%
Surface
1,846
1.7%
Total
109,243
100.0%
95.1%
4,989
94.9%
266
5.1%
5,255
100.0%
4.6%
209
83.9%
40
16.1%
249
100.0%
0.2%
112,595
98.1%
2,152
1.9%
114,747
100.0%
99.9%
99
90.8%
10
9.2%
109
100.0%
0.1%
112,694
98.1%
2,162
1.9%
114,856
100.0%
A-34
-------
Table 29: Type of Non-Community Water Systems
(Data for Figure 7.2)
Source: SDWIS FY98Q4 Frozen Violations Table
Type of System
Restaurants
Churches
Hotels/Motels
Schools
Summer Camps
Campgrounds /RV Parks
Day Care Centers
Medical Facilities
Nursing Homes
Other
Percentage of NCWSs
22.6%
9.8%
7.8%
7.8%
5.2%
4.7%
0.9%
0.9%
0.1%
40.2%
A-35
------- |