NATIONAL STATISTICAL ASSESSMENT
OF RURAL WATER CONDITIONS
Executive Summary
-------
570984003
Executive Summary
NATIONAL STATISTICAL ASSESSMENT
OF RURAL WATER CONDITIONS
Report prepared for
The Office of Drinking Water
US Environmental Protection Agency
by
JOE D. FRANCIS, Principal Investigator
BRUCE L. BROWER
WENDY F. GRAHAM
OSCAR W. LARSON III
JULIAN L. McCAULL
HELENE MORAN VIGORITA
Department of Rural Sociology
Cornell University
Illustrations and Graphics by:
Susan B. Lent
Word Processing by:
Betty L. Van Amburg
LK3ASW
U.S EIWIROWWBWAL P/tOTTC'iTO^ (VS'-K
CC-;VALLIS £i\iVir7o«KEr.T.',.'_ ;::~y.
ZOO SKI 33TH OT7!^2T
COHVAUJS OR30GD1 OTOSO
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Information about rural water conditions has long been fragmentary and
incomplete. The information that existed generally has been limited to the results
of unsystematic, localized surveys concentrated narrowly on a few prominent local
water quality problems. These surveys have not generally employed compatible
sample designs or methodologies. As a result, it has been difficult to formulate a
unified understanding of rural water conditions, and difficult to devise informed,
comprehensive policies and programs for rural water supplies.
To some extent, the absence of wide-ranging and detailed knowledge of
rural water conditions is related to the nature of rural water supplies. Rural water
systems are frequently individual and small multiple-connection systems, which fall
outside the regulatory and funding programs of the major "water agencies" of
government. With enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Congress set
in motion two major efforts to develop systematic, current data on rural water
supplies across the nation. First, in response to growing concern with the quality
of drinking water eind its effects on human health, the Safe Drinking Water Act
provided for a uniform, national set of water quality standards and extended the
monitoring and regulatory responsibility of the US government over smaller water
supplies. Second, the Act mandated a one-time national statistical assessment of
the current status of rural domestic water characteristics.
The one-time study was to be an intensive examination of a wide range of
factors, but for only a sample of households and systems. The institutionalized
national monitoring program was to extensively cover a few factors on all
community systems. This document is concerned with the intensive, one-time
national statistical assessment of rural water conditions.
-------
Executive Summary - 2
THE CALL FOR ASSESSMENT AND RESPONSE
The enabling legislation mandating the one-time assessment study was
contained in Section 3(a) of the Act. It reads:
Sec. 3(a). The Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency shall (after consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture
and the several States) enter into arrangements with public or
private entities as may be appropriate to conduct a survey of the
quantity, quality and availability of rural drinking water supplies.
Such survey shall include, but not be limited to, the consideration
of the number of residents in each rural area . . .
(1) presently being inadequately served by a public or private
drinking water supply system; or by an individual home
drinking water supply system;
(2) presently having limited or otherwise inadequate access to
drinking water;
(3) who, due to the absence or inadequacy of a drinking water
supply system, are exposed to an increased health hazard; and
CO who have experienced incidents of chronic or acute illness,
which may be attributed to the absence or inadequacy of a
drinking water supply system.
The study called for in this provision of the Act has been completed and
what follows is a summary of the five-volume, approximately 1,900 page report,
submitted to Congress in conformance with the stipulations of the Act. The study
and report, labelled the National Statistical Assessment of Rural Water Conditions
(NSA), focused primarily on the quality, quantity, availability, cost, and afford-
ability of domestic water in rural households throughout the continental United
States. Additionally, some corollary information was presented on water systems
serving these households.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE STUDY
Primary responsibility for oversight of the contents and conduct of the
study was allocated to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Within EPA, the
national assessment study was placed under the aegis of the Office of Drinking
Water. The planning of the content, scope, and execution of appropriate
procedures for conducting the study involved the Office of Drinking Water, various
private consulting firms, university researchers, and professional organizations.
Subsequently, proposals were solicited and a group of rural sociologists from the
Department of Rural Sociology at Cornell University was selected to further
conceptualize the study, oversee the sampling and data collection, analyze the
results, and write the report summarized herein.
In Section 3(a) of the Act, the Administrator of EPA was directed to
consult with the Secretary of Agriculture in the formulation and overview of the
study. During the formulation stage of study, two meetings were held with a
specially formed study group composed of representatives from Farmers' Home
-------
Executive Summary - 3
Administration, Economic Research Service of the Economic Development
Division, and the Statistical Research Service of the Statistical Division of US DA.
The meetings were primarily devoted to discussions of (1) the general scope of the
study effort, (2) the types of data to be collected, (3) the manner in which this
study effort would complement and inform USDA programs and research, (
-------
Executive Summary - 4
Data collection involved, at each selected household, personal interviews
with occupants, physical inspection of on-premises water supplies, drawing samples
of the major household water supply, various observations on sources of potential
contamination; and, where appropriate, separate interviews with managers and
operators of off-premises water supply systems which provided water to these rural
households.
TransCentury Corporation was selected by the EPA, after competitive bid,
to administer the data collection activities. Oversight and general coordination of
these activities was accomplished in coordination with the Cornell University
research group.
Interviewers underwent a two-week intensive training course on all aspects
of the data collection effort, including the drawing, packaging, labelling, and
transportation of specimens of "tap" water. Quality control of the field work
included constant and comprehensive monitoring. Data coders were also inten-
sively trained and monitored.
Water samples collected at each household participating in the study were
shipped to central laboratories for analysis of as many as 40 separate biological,
physical, chemical, or radiological properties. Responsibility for these analyses
was shared by several organizations including the Energy Resources Corporation,
the Medical School of the University of South Carolina, the Mississippi State
Chemical Laboratory, the EPA-MERL Laboratory (Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory) in Cincinnati, and the EPA-EMSL Laboratory (Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory) in Las Vegas.
The sampling plan for the study defined the target population to conform
to the US Bureau of the Census' definition of rural population and households:
civilian, noninstitutionalized persons located in unincorporated or incorporated
places of less than 2,500 population, or located in rural areas not designated as a
place. The sample was proportional to rural population (and households) in: (1) the
four broad census regions—Northeast, North Central, South, and West; (2) located
in areas designated as Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas; (3) in rural
communities of 2,499 to 1,000 population, under 1,000 population, or open country.
The county was designated as the primary sampling unit. From the approximately
3,000 counties in the continental US, 400 were selected. Within those counties, a
total of 2,654 households and their associated water supply systems were evalu-
ated. They represented an estimated 21,974,000 occupied rural households. Of
these, an estimated 8,765,000 households were served by individual, single connec-
tion systems; 2,228,000 households were served by 845,000 intermediate systems
(two through fourteen connections); and 10,981,000 households were served by
34,000 community systems (fifteen or more connections). Total counts of
households and systems were derived using standard statistical weighting pro-
cedures. Each unit's weight, in broad terms, was the inverted sampling fraction
adjusted for nonresponse.
Collected data were compiled by the Cornell research group for statistical
analysis and report production. All aspects of the report underwent extensive
scrutiny by various review mechanisms.
-------
Executive Summary - 5
MAJOR FINDINGS
This study considered five dominant dimensions of the status of domestic
water: quality, quantity, availability, cost, and affordability. Rural residents were
asked about health effects but the results were modest in that very few rural
residents reported adverse health conditions which they associated with the water
supply. Attempts to secure detailed information about the health effects of the
water being consumed would have required a large-scale epidemiological investiga-
tion, which was not possible within the scope of this study.
Information was secured from both the households and water supply
systems. The major findings and conclusions will be presented first from the
household perspective, then from information collected at the systems.
WATER QUALITY
Water quality was assessed using as many as 40 indicators, including all of
the contaminants given primary and many given secondary maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs) by the EPA (see Table 1). The study used the MCL levels to establish
benchmarks for comparing various segments of the rural population. These
benchmarks, or reference values as they were called, were not totally isomorphic
to the MCLs. The MCLs included components which could not be reasonably
accommodated in the study such as: (1) retesting provisions; or, (2) in the case of
fluoride, a range of MCL values. However, reference values were chosen to match
the MCL specified level, whenever possible, to provide perspective on inter-
pretation.
A quality assurance program was in effect in each of the participating
laboratories. A follow-up attempt to secure results on the quality assurance was
not entirely successful. Some records had been discarded, others were not in an
easily usable format, and some were inaccessible. Quantification of the quality
assurance results for the purposes of this report was not complete. However, there
was no indication that quality assurance programs at the laboratories deviated
from quality assurance procedures that were EPA-approved at the time of the NSA
study.
The NSA investigation of rural water quality suggested problems of greater
magnitude and prevalence (especially regarding mercury, lead, cadmium, silver,
and selenium) than had been generally expected, based on data from monitoring
community water systems and from other studies. Since it is the first nationally
systematic consideration of rural domestic water quality, there is no direct
verification of its findings in previous work. There is also no way, within the
confines of the study, to absolutely ensure that the reported levels of metals (or
the levels of any of the other constituents) were valid indications of water supply
contamination, nor to prove they were artifacts induced in some way by the study
itself. On the other hand, since no previous study has looked as extensively at
individual home supplies, intermediate systems, and small community systems, this
study may have been the first opportunity to view the extent of water quality
problems. But, rather than conclusively proving the status of rural water quality,
the study strongly suggests important avenues for concern, and stands as a guide to
further work.
-------
Executive Summary - 6
Table 1
Constituents Measured In NSA Survey
Catccorv
Miccobial
Physical
and
Chemical
Inorganic
Organic
Radioactive
Has Primary (P),
Secondary (S),
or
Constituent No (N) MCL
Total co' li form
Fecal coliform
Fecal streptococcus
Standard plate count
Fecal coliform/fecal
streptococcus ratio
Turbidity
Color
Temperature
Specific conductance
Total dissolved solids
(as determined from
conductance)
Hardness
(as determined from
calcium and magnesium)
Calcium
Magnesium
Nitrate-N
Sulfates
Iron
Manganese
Sodium
Lead
Arsenic
Selenium
Fluoride
Cadmium
Mercury
Chromium
Barium
Silver
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2,
-------
Executive Summary - 7
Among those contaminants which are covered by primary MCLs (because
they are potential health hazards), total coliform emerged as the most prevalent
problem, exceeding the reference value in 28.9 percent of all rural households.
Among constituents which tend to be aesthetically objectionable or impose
economic costs (e.g., degrading to plumbing, laundry, etc.), iron was the most
common.
The presence of total coliform organisms was the most common single
problem and received the greatest attention in the analysis. Coliform organisms
represent a problem in that they are used as indicators of the possible presence of
pathogenic bacteria. The rate of total coliform presence in excess of one coliform
per 100 milliliters of water (28.9 percent nationwide) was 15.5 percent among
households served by community systems, and over 40 percent among those served
by intermediate and individual systems (43.3 and 42.1 percent, respectively).
Households served by systems with fewer than fifteen connections that were not
wells (i.e., cisterns, springs, surface water, hauled, purchased bottled) had more
than one coliform per 100 milliliters of water in 77.7 percent of cases. In general,
households with low income (under $10,000) and low education (less than high
school) were more commonly found to have coliform problems than other house-
holds. Poorly accessible and privately owned supplies tended to have coliform
problems more often than other supplies. Households served by dug and bored
wells, wells in which the water leaves the casing above ground level, wells with
inadequate covers, inadequately maintained wells, and shallow wells all tended to
have high coliform levels more commonly than those served by wells without those
characteristics. Small systems, with few connections, repeatedly exceeded coli-
form levels more frequently than most large community systems.
Fecal coliforms were found among 12.2 percent of all rural households, but
among only 4.5 percent of households using community water systems. Fecal
coliform counts were above 200 organisms per 100 milliliters of water (a suggested
upper limit in water used for swimming) for 1.6 percent of rural households.
Standard plate counts of more than 500 organisms per milliliter of water
were encountered at 19.3 percent of households. In this case, the percentage of
households with the problem, which used community water systems, was not
dramatically lower than for those using intermediate and individual systems.
Turbidity was measured above one NTU among 16.5 percent of rural
households. That rate varied from 23.8 percent in the North Central to 8.5 percent
in the West. Households using community systems were least likely to have more
than one NTU readings, 8.9 percent, compared to 24.0 percent for intermediate
systems, and 24.7 percent for individual systems.
Color was measured above fifteen standard color units among only 2.3
percent of all rural households.
Total dissolved solids, estimated from specific conductance readings, was
found above 500 milligrams per liter among 14.7 percent of all rural households.
Households in the North Central and West were over that level 23.9 and 22.2
percent, respectively. The Northeast, on the other hand, had only 5.0 percent of
households with levels above 500 milligrams per liter.
Magnesium was found above 125.0 milligrams per liter in only 0.1 percent
of rural households.
-------
Executive Summary - 8
Nitrate-N concentrations above 10.0 milligrams per liter occurred among
2.7 percent of households. Regionally, the proportion over that level was 0.3
percent in the Northeast, compared to 5.8 percent in the North Central.
Sulfates exceeded 250 milligrams per liter among only 4.0 percent of rural
households, but households in the West and the North Central were over at rates of
11.7 percent and 7A percent, respectively. The Northeast and South had household
supplies at that level in less than 1 percent of the cases.
Iron concentrations over 0.3 milligrams per liter were found in 18.7 percent
of all rural households. North Central households exceeded that level among 28.2
percent of households, compared to 7.0 percent in the West. Households served by
community water systems were over at the rate of 7.7 percent across the nation.
By contrast, the percent of households with iron concentrations over 0.3 milligrams
among intermediate and individual systems was 28.7 percent and 29.9 percent,
respectively.
The pattern of manganese occurrence was very similar to iron. Households
with more than 0.05 milligrams per liter occurred among 14.2 percent of the cases.
The rate in the North Central was highest (19.9 percent); and lowest (4.7 percent)
in the West. Households served by community systems were over that level at a
rate of 7.2 percent, compared to 23.3 percent and 20.7 percent, respectively,
among households served by intermediate and individual systems.
Sodium levels higher than 100 milligrams per liter appeared in 14.2 percent
of rural households nationwide. That rate was as low as 6.0 percent in the
Northeast, and as high as 19.2 percent in the North Central.
Lead was above 0.05 milligrams per liter at 16.6 percent of the households.
The percent of households exceeding that level was lowest in the Northeast (9.6
percent) and highest in the South (23.1 percent). It was discovered subsequent to
the data collection that a thin line of blue paint which marked the breakpoint on
the glass ampules of nitric acid preservative contained cadmium and lead. It is
likely that the average lead contamination due to the paint was 36 parts per billion
(0.036 milligrams per liter). Assuming relatively constant contamination from the
paint at that level, the estimated proportion of rural households over 0.05
milligrams dropped to 9.2 percent nationwide.
Arsenic levels in rural household water were encountered above 0.05
milligrams per liter in only 0.8 percent of all rural households. The preponderance
of those households were found in small rural communities (population less than
1,000). Households in those communities were found with the high arsenic levels
among 6.6 percent of the cases.
Selenium, nationwide, was found above 0.01 milligrams per liter among
13.7 percent of households. Most of that occurred in the North Central and West.
Households in the Northeast and South had high rates in roughly 2 percent or fewer
of the cases. In the North Central, that rate was much greater at 25.7 percent, but
in the West a remarkable 41.3 percent of all rural households had more than 0.01
milligrams per liter of selenium.
Fluoride concentrations exceeded 1.4 milligrams per liter in only 2.5
percent of all rural households. The rate in the West, at 6.2 percent, was more
than double the rate found in any of the other regions.
-------
Executive Summary - 9
Cadmium was measured above 0.01 milligrams per liter among 16.8 percent
of all rural households. Only 1.6 percent of rural households in the Northeast were
over that level while 27.1 percent of those in the West were high. Households
served by both community and intermediate systems had the high cadmium rates in
more than 20 percent of the cases (21.2 percent and 26.9 percent, respectively)
while 7.9 percent of the households with individual systems registered high. Here
again, however, the paint on the acid preservative ampules apparently imparted
some cadmium background to the readings. The average contamination was
probably in the neighborhood of .92 parts per billion (0.00092 milligrams per liter).
With that assumption, the national rate of high cadmium values dropped to 15.9
percent.
Mercury was found among 24.1 percent of all rural households to be in
concentrations exceeding 0.002 milligrams per liter. That proportion climbed as
high as 31.8 percent: in the North Central, and dropped as low as 10.4 percent in the
West.
Chromium was virtually nonexistent above concentrations of 0.05 milli-
grams per liter throughout the US.
Barium concentrations over 1.0 milligram per liter were rarely found (0.3
percent of all rural households).
Silver exceeded 0.05 milligrams per liter among 4.7 percent of all rural
households. Among the types of systems serving rural America, community
systems had the lowest rates (2.1 percent), and individual systems had the highest
rates (7.1 percent).
Endrin, lindane, methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2,4-D, and 2,4,5-TP were vir-
tually never detected among rural household water supplies.
Gross alpha radiation in excess of acceptable exposure occurred among 0.5
percent of rural households—predominantly in the South. Unacceptable gross beta
radiation was never encountered in the survey.
While these findings are startling, they must be kept in perspective. The
large percentages of rural households with high contamination levels was a function
of the level chosen to represent "high"—in this case, the primary MCLs. Again,
these levels should not be interpreted as the proportion of households with
domestic water exceeding an MCL since no resampling for verification, as required
for MCLs, was performed. The levels established as MCLs generally incorporate
substantial safety margins. So, even though these levels were identified as "high,"
and they were higher than was generally expected, they should be evaluated
concurrent with the fact that widespread water-related health problems were not
apparent throughout the rural US.*
*The Environmental Protection Agency has participated with other agencies on
another national research effort on drinking water quality. The national Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (HANES I) has an augmentation survey of adults
aged 25 to 74 years in the United States in 1974-1975. The HANES I study differed
from the rural water survey in its purpose, in its statistical sampling plan, in the
-------
Executive Summary - 10
Of course, the long term effects of waterborne contamination at currently
encountered levels is not known. Even the relatively short-run impairment of
health from what it would be without the ingestion of these substances is unclear.
Rather than being clear indicators of possible health effects, these high percent-
ages of households with water quality problems, especially coliform bacteria,
reflected the marginality of rural water supplies against the backdrop of the
primary MCLs mandated for community water systems.
In terms of general water quality, considering all constituents, households
in the North Central had the poorest quality water followed by households in the
West. Households in the Northeast tended to have the best water quality.
Households served by community systems tended to have the best overall
water quality, followed closely by individual systems (usually wells), with those on
intermediate systems generally having the poorest quality. Households in SMSA
areas and those in large communities tended to have better quality water because
they had higher proportions of households on community water systems.
WATER QUANTITY
Relatively few rural households across the US reported a shortage of
domestic water. Perhaps because of the essential nature of water, most rural
households have made arrangements for adequate quantity, on a regular basis, to
satisfy most or all their needs. Moreover, the perception of occupants at most
rural households was that their water supplies were ample: about 80 percent
reported that the major household supply completely satisfied their water require-
ments, and another approximately 16 percent reported that it usually or almost
always provided sufficient water.
Though most households had adequate quantities of water, a significant
number did not. An estimated 700,000 households reported that their supply
usually or always provided an insufficient quantity. Most often the insufficiency
was attributable to deterioration or inadequate construction of the physical
facilities. However, at the extreme, roughly 370,000 rural households hauled water
from an off-premises supply, on a regular basis.
water collection, in the water preservation, and in the laboratory analytical
techniques. But some of the contaminants examined were the same. In general,
the HANES I Augmentation Study results for metals showed lower concentrations
than the rural water survey. Various inquiries into the differences have provided
no satisfactory resolution.
The Augmentation Study Survey of adults aged 25 to 74 years in the United
States of the national Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I (HANES I) is
currently in preparation and will be published jointly by the National Center for
Health Statistics and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
-------
Executive Summary - 11
Among households not connected to community systems, problems of
insufficient quantity were more commonly experienced by those supplied by small
systems (two through fourteen connections) than by those with their own individual
system. Among households with their own supply, those with dug wells more
frequently experienced insufficient quantity.
Among rural households connected to a community water system, the
median daily household consumption was 664 liters (175 gallons). The median daily
per capita consumption was 227 liters (60 gallons).
Consumption of domestic water was not uniform across the US. Western
households had a consistently higher consumption pattern than rural households in
other regions. No table differences occurred between households located inside
and outside SMSAs, or among places of different size.
Among households connected to community systems, locational factors
were less important in accounting for variability of consumption than: (1) unit cost
(cost per 1,000 gallons); (2) number of people in the household; and (3) number of
water-using devices in the household. Although of less importance, the afford-
ability of water and type of ownership of the system were systematically related to
variation in consumption. In general, the higher the unit cost, other things
constant, the lower the consumption. As would be expected, the greater the
number of occupants and the greater the number and usage of water-using devices
(dishwashers, washing machines, swamp coolers, as well as toilets and bathing
facilities), the greater the consumption. Likewise, the lower the ratio of cost of
water to the household's total income, the larger the consumption. Somewhat
unexpectedly, households connected to privately owned systems tended to consume
approximately 50 percent more water than those connected to publicly owned
systems, even after controlling for a number of other, potentially confounding
factors.
AVAILABILITY
Most rural households had a readily available domestic water supply.
Quantity referred to the usual amount of water. Availability, on the other hand,
was defined, for purposes of this study, in terms of two components: (1) the supply's
reliability, or uninterrupted service, and (2) the supply's accessibility—one which
provided water, under sufficient pressure, when needed and for which the source
was not at an inconvenient distance relative to the point-of-use by household
occupants.
A total of 5.6 million rural households (roughly 26 percent) experienced
water supply breakdowns during the year preceding the interview. Among those
households, the majority experienced only one or two interruptions of service.
About 15 percent of these households (3.2 million) indicated the breakdowns lasted
more than six hours.
In terms of regional differences, household supplies in the South seemed to
be somewhat less reliable than in the other regions. Although the reliability of
SMSA and nonSMSA supplies was similar, there were differences according to the
size of place classification. Generally, households in small rural communities
-------
Executive Summary - 12
reported supply breakdowns more frequently than households in large rural com-
munities or other rural areas. Similarly, water supply breakdowns which were
considered severe—lasting more than six hours—occurred more often among
households situated in small rural communities.
Compared with households using individual or community systems, a larger
proportion of households served by intermediate systems reported one or more
supply breakdowns. In addition, a greater proportion of households served by inter-
mediate systems reported breakdowns that were severe.
Regarding accessibility, sources were generally located at convenient
distances from the household. Among rural households connected to community
systems, connections involved only piping from the edge of the property to the
house, generally a modest distance. Moreover, among households with their own,
on-premises supply, over half were located within 10 meters (33 feet) of the house.
However, comparatively greater distances were recorded at approximately 15
percent of the households—implying the need for more extensive piping or other
mode of conveyance. For the approximately 370,000 households that had to haul
water, accessibility imposed a far greater relative hardship.
Supplies were less accessible in the South and West than in the Northeast
and North Central. Though accessibility of SMSA and nonSMSA supplies was
similar, households located in open country were relatively less accessible than
those located in villages.
COST AND AFFORDABBLITY
The cost of water was not estimated for rural households using their own
supply or for those connected to a system that didn't explicitly charge for water on
a regular basis. Assessment of the cost of water was restricted to rural households
served by community systems which had a billing system. Perceptions of cost,
however, were assessed for all rural households.
Compared to many other consumable items in the US economy, water is
inexpensive. The median household monthly cost per thousand gallons was $1.35
nationally. The median total monthly bill for water was $7.00. A ratio of billed
cost to total household income (times 100), as a measure of affordability, indicated
that three-quarters of all rural households were paying less than 1 percent of their
income for water. Across the nation, water was found, at the extremes, to be as
inexpensive as $.08 and as expensive as $23.41 per thousand gallons. Occupants in
the majority of rural households (79 percent) felt the water was reasonably priced
or inexpensive. Domestic water was perceived as expensive or very expensive at
about 14 percent of households.
Costs of domestic water were not uniform across the US. Regionally the
median cost per thousand gallons ranged from a high $2.00 in the West to $1.33 in
the South. Households within SMSAs had lower water costs than those located
outside SMSAs. The respective medians were $1.08 and $1.62. Median water costs
varied only slightly according to the size of community in which the household was
located.
-------
Executive Summary - 13
Despite these findings, a greater proportion of rural households in both the
South and West felt the water was expensive or very expensive. A greater
proportion of residents living within SMSAs reported their water costs were high
than was reported by those living outside SMSAs. Likewise, perceived costs tended
to rise the larger the size of place.
In addition to locational differences, several other factors were found to be
systematically related to household water costs. Regarding the amount billed
monthly, the single most important factor was, as expected, the amount of water
consumed. After adjusting for this factor, it was still discovered that total
monthly costs increased with the number of household occupants, and the education
level of the head of the house. Households connected to privately owned systems
paid more than those connected to publicly owned systems. On the other hand, the
longer the household had been connected to the system, the lower the total
monthly cost.
It was found that lower unit costs (price per thousand gallons) were
associated with (1) the size of the water system providing the water, (2) the
system's source water, and (3) the amount of water consumed at the household.
Generally, the larger the system, the lower the unit cost. Systems using ground
water usually had lower unit costs, probably due to the lowered treatment and
storage costs. Some price break resulted for households with large monthly
consumption.
WATER SYSTEMS
In this study, water systems were examined in order to specify technical,
economic, and organizational features associated with delivering water to rural
households. Rural water systems were classified according to three major system-
size categories: individual systems (single connection), intermediate systems (two
through fourteen connections), and community systems (fifteen or more connec-
tions). The community systems were further classified as independent (with self
sufficient features) versus consolidated systems (with operating or organizational
features integrated with other systems or administrative bodies).
Overall, individual systems were by far the most prevalent, numbering
8,765,000. In contrast, there were 845,000 intermediate systems and only 34,000
community systems. Because of this multiple-connection feature, however,
intermediate systems and especially community systems were far more important
in rural water delivery than implied by their numbers. When taking into account
the number of rural households served by each type of system, community systems
were most prominent (serving 10,981,000 households), followed by individual
systems (serving 8,765,000 households), and intermediate systems (serving
2,228,000 households). See Figure 1.
Community water systems were defined for purposes of the study as those
having fifteen or more connections. The standard EPA definition of public water
systems is somewhat different. It refers to fifteen or more connection systems
used by year-round residents or to systems which regularly provide service to 25 or
more year-round residents. The NSA study's definition yielded a count of 34,000
community water systems. Had the study's definition been altered to ten or more
-------
Executive Summary -
Figure 1
Comparison of Number of Systems and
Number of Households Served in Rural America
^M^*
1 *I*X".,O" * x v ' x * A •< >
mmmm
E
.22
20
_ I 8
_ I 6
•/,
! I'l'j i ! i I I ! I • t I il I ! i I ' : i • !
t't i r! n i'.' • <. 111 > • i n > • • •!!
fit«) M I • • ! 'Ml ' i 5 « i• I i I Ii
! ! I > t I f•t•!•IMIf)t iIf!Ii
" n < I f 11 111 > i I' i • <«• i'' :;
;•(•« • i :!. 11. • i f i i < • 1111111
_ I 4
_ 12
- 10
r- 8
'jffitivyti
$$$$&$
l_ 4
i- 2
SYSTEMS
(in miiiicr.s)
SERVING
HOUSEHOLDS
(in millions)
-------
Executive Summary - 15
connections, the count of community water systems serving rural America would
have been about 47,200. The latter count is probably much closer to the standard
EPA definition.
Individual Systems
Of the 8.8 million individual systems in rural America, 90 percent relied on
wells. Other types of supply—surface water, springs, cisterns, hauled and
purchased supplies—comprised the balance of individual systems across the coun-
try. These supplies were more often associated with poor quality water.
Nearly six of every ten individual wells were installed by drilling, which is
one of the more highly recommended methods of installation because of the usually
good contamination protection it offers. Dug or bored wells, which were often
linked with bacterial contamination, represented nearly 18 percent of all individual
wells. Individual wells were generally located 50 feet or more from most potential
contamination sources, with the exception of sewage disposal systems. About one-
fifth of all wells were within 50 feet of sewage disposal. Field inspection classified
62 percent of rural wells as appearing to have wellheads which were adequately
sealed from solid or liquid pollutants.
Bacteriological tests and chemical (or physical) water tests by rural
residents were not common. Slightly more than one-third of all rural households
with individual systems had tested the water at least once, with bacteriological
tests being more frequent than chemical tests. Test results, when they could be
recalled, were generally classified broadly as "acceptable." But, nearly 45 percent
of the bacteriological test results and nearly two-thirds of the chemical results
were not known. This lack of knowledge may be attributable to the respondent's
lapse of memory, poor filing practices, the length of time since the test was
completed, or may have implied incomplete or uninterpretable reporting of test
results.
Treatment practices can in many situations alter the quality of the source
water provided to rural households. Among individual systems, the most common
treatment device was a water softener (used in 18 percent of systems). Other
water treating devices were rarely found.
Intermediate Systems
Intermediate systems were similar to individual systems. Over 90 percent
had only two or three connections and less than 2 percent were metered. About 88
percent relied on wells, the majority of which were installed by percussion or
rotary drilling (65 percent). Dug and bored wells comprised 17 percent of all
intermediate systems wells.
Intermediate system wells were generally not located close to potential
sources of contamination, except for roughly 16 percent which were within 50 feet
of a sewage disposal system. Field inspection classified 67 percent of intermediate
system wells as acceptably sealed against pollutants.
-------
Executive Summary - 16
Water quality tests were performed less frequently among intermediate
systems than individual systems. Bacteriological testing had been done at least
once during the lifetime of the system at 22 percent of systems. Testing for
chemical properties of the water had been done at 10 percent of systems. In
contrast to individual systems, among those intermediate systems which tested,
owners could usually provide information about the testing history as well as the
test results. Of the bacteriological tests performed, over 91 percent showed
acceptable counts of bacteriological content. As to treatment practices, among
intermediate systems, softening—the most common treatment process—occurred
in only 6 percent of the systems.
Information on average daily use and maximum daily (design) capacity
collected at water systems provided some indication of the quantity of water
provided to rural households connected to those systems. About one-third of
intermediate systems had information on production and design capacity. Among
those with readings, the median for average daily use was 758 liters, or about 200
gallons. The median design capacity was 44,000 liters (11,600 gallons). The median
of the maximum daily design capacity was nearly 60 times the median "average
daily usage" level among intermediate systems serving rural households. This
difference suggests that some intermediate systems, similar to larger community
systems, overbuild to a certain degree, allowing for expansion, fire protection, or
increased consumption.
Availability indicators included the number and severity of system break-
downs, and the ease or difficulty in acquiring water from the source. About one-
quarter of intermediate systems reported breakdowns of any kind, and few reported
any difficulty obtaining water from ground or surface sources. The majority which
did report breakdowns had experienced only one or two during an entire year.
Despite these favorable findings, a very high proportion of households connected to
intermediate systems reported reliability problems in the sense that nearly all
breakdowns resulted in a loss of service to water users.
Most intermediate systems did not report revenues or any monetary
charging structure for the water service they provided. This fact suggested that
water was very cheap for intermediate system customers, but may have also
indicated that system owners bear the entire cost of installation, operation and
maintenance.
Independent Community Systems
Independent community systems were self-contained systems which
secured water from their own sources, treated the water, distributed it, and
managed their own organizational and financial affairs. They comprised about 88
percent of the 34,000 community systems in rural America.
Although independent community systems had more extensive extraction,
treatment, and conveyance arrangements than intermediate systems, they still
were very small in comparison to the larger, more complex systems such as those
based in large cities. The median number of connections was 59 and the median
length of distribution lines was 1.5 miles. About half of these systems metered
their connections. Similar to smaller systems, the predominant source of water
-------
Executive Summary - 17
was ground water (90 percent). The labor-time demands involved in operation and
maintenance of the system were modest, with many requiring two or fewer man-
days of labor per month.
Water testing and treatment were much more frequent and extensive at
independent community systems than at systems with fewer than fifteen connec-
tions. Fully 91 percent had conducted bacteriological tests and about 54 percent
had done chemical testing. Treatment equipment was installed at nearly two-
thirds of all independent systems. Most independent systems relied on facilities
outside their own organizations for performing water quality tests. For the most
part, bacteriological tests conducted during the year prior to the study (1977)
reportedly met the levels prescribed by regulations affecting the systems. In
general, there were too few chemical and physical tests performed to suggest
meaningful patterns.
About 63 percent of independent community systems provided average
daily usage and design capacity figures. Among those which reported, the median
for average daily usage was 136,000 liters (36,000 gallons). The median design
capacity was 546,000 liters (144,000 gallons). Maximum daily production capacities
among independent systems were four times larger, on the average, than the
estimated average daily use. Though this ratio was less than for intermediate
systems, it was large enough to accommodate fire protection, increased usage, and
increasing the number of connections because of the larger volume being produced
daily.
Independent community systems were less reliable than intermediate
systems. A larger proportion of independent systems (55 percent, compared to 26
percent) had breakdowns, although fewer resulted in an interruption of service to
customers. As was true for intermediate systems, few had difficulties in obtaining
water from any source.
Consolidated Community Systems
The consolidated community systems relied on interdependent links with
other organizations. One type of consolidated system had a number of separate,
individual facilities of which each served one community, but which were jointly
owned and administered by a central company. Another type consisted of a facility
which purchased water from another organization—a situation which was the
distinguishing feature at nearly 90 percent of the consolidated systems.
The consolidated systems tended to be the largest of the systems serving
rural America. The median number of connections for the 4,000 consolidated
systems was about 153—two and one-half times the median number for indepen-
dent community systems. Likewise, consolidated systems employed more system
operators and metered a larger proportion of all connections.
Testing for water quality was more extensive at consolidated community
systems than at independent community systems. Bacteriological testing was done
at almost all (98 percent) consolidated systems, and chemical testing was per-
formed at about 90 percent of systems. Results for bacteriological tests were not
uniformly interpretable. But, about 96 percent of the systems reporting tests had
acceptable results for either the previous twelve tests or for those tests conducted
-------
Executive Summary - 18
over the last year. The variety of constituents tested, disparities in the age of the
tests, and the lack of information on analytic procedures combined to render the
chemical testing results uninterpretable.
Similar to independent community systems, consolidated community
systems could produce, on the average, over four times the quantity of water that
was consumed on a daily basis. The median for average daily use was 162,000 liters
(43,000 gallons) among the 88 percent of consolidated systems which had the
information. Design capacity was obtained for half of the consolidated systems.
The median design capacity was 719,000 liters (190,000 gallons).
About 50 percent of consolidated systems had breakdowns during the year
preceding the study. This proportion was slightly smaller than for independent
systems (55 percent), but still considerably greater than for intermediate systems
(26 percent). This finding could be interpreted to mean that problems of reliability
were more often associated with larger, more complex systems. However, it was
also the case that these larger systems more frequently had alternatives in the
event of some malfunctions (such as auxiliary pumps, storage capacity sufficient to
cover demand during a breakdown, and so forth).
-------
Executive Summary - 19
CONCLUSIONS
1. Most rural households had a domestic water supply which was acceptable
by most of the quality indicators used, was in sufficient quantity to meet
consumption demands, was readily available on a continuous basis, had a reasonable
cost, and was affordable. But, the exceptions were not rare and the difficulties
were not always minor.
2. The overwhelming majority of rural households had water judged to be of
acceptable quality for any particular characteristic studied. But, almost two-
thirds of all rural households had water judged unacceptable for at least one of the
constituents which have been given primary MCLs (excluding turbidity). Bacterial
contamination, in particular, was the predominant problem encountered.
3. The quality of the water available in most rural households was due to
numerous factors, but a few can be highlighted. Most rural households (on the
order of 90 percent) relied on ground water. High quality well technology and well
construction practices were generally evident throughout rural America. Their
employment apparently helped minimize alteration of the water from the quality it
had at the source until it was delivered to the tap.
4. Larger, more frequently monitored community water systems generally
delivered water of higher quality than smaller and less frequently monitored
systems.
5. By comparison with community systems, individual and intermediate
systems employed less complex technologies and less frequently used water
treatment devices. Therefore the quality of the water delivered to the household
was mainly a reflection of the quality of the source water (which was ground water
for 90 percent of these systems). As long as the fundamental quality of the ground
water source remains intact, further improvements in well technology and con-
struction practices would beneficially affect the quality of delivered water by
ensuring the protection of the quality from source to tap. A larger benefit would
probably result from presently deficient wells being replaced or brought up to
current standards of good practice for well construction. Direct regulation of
small (usually individual) water systems would probably not dramatically alter
water quality because of the common lack of treatment devices and the improb-
ability of their installation due to the relatively large capital costs for the
individuals involved.
Therefore, perhaps the greatest protection for the continuing quality of
water from noncommunity water systems would be the preservation of ground
water quality, particularly the freedom from bacterial contamination. Acceptable
well construction practices for households using individual and intermediate wells
appeared to reduce bacterial contamination potential. Proper siting of wastewater
disposal, or wastewater removal by public sewer systems were also associated with
lower bacterial contamination for households served by individual systems. Addi-
tional improvement in water quality among water systems with fewer than fifteen
-------
Executive Summary - 20
connections might result from wider availability of water testing services and
public education on their availability, their importance, and on possible response
alternatives to identified problems.
6. The more extreme the rural householder's evaluation of the water supply,
whether good or bad, the better was the correspondence with the composite
indicators of laboratory-measured quality. Households which were very positive
about their supply usually rated well on the laboratory measures. Households in
which the water supply was given a poor rating also tended to have laboratory-
measured deficiencies.
Responses to questions regarding the relative cost of the supply and the
respondent's willingness to pay more for an improved supply were both useful
indicators of the quality as measured by the laboratories. In general, households
reporting low relative costs or strong willingness to pay more for an improved
supply, tended to have poor water quality according to composites of laboratory
measures. Households which reported their supply was expensive or where the
respondents lacked a willingness to pay more for an improved supply tended to have
superior quality water according to the laboratory indicators.
7. It was noted that average daily consumption of water was greatest in the
West. This was so even though the unit cost of water was highest in the West.
Rural households of the West generally relied upon their major household supply—
usually a community water system—for virtually every water need around the
home, yard, and garden.
Over the last fifty years or so, there has been a federal subsidization of
Western water through low interest construction loans on large scale reclamation
projects. Water cost comparisons among large Northeastern cities and large
Western cities have frequently resulted in the observation that Western cities often
charged far less for domestic water than those in the Northeast. That effect was
not borne out by the NSA for systems serving rural Westerners. Most of the
community water systems in the West were relatively small and they were charging
on the average the highest rates among systems serving rural America. (Possibly,
there is an important economy of scale related to the acquisition and transport of
the water. Large systems are more likely to be primary customers, that is, to have
a direct arrangement in terms of payment and piping with large scale reclamation
projects. Smaller systems, on the other hand, may end up being secondary
customers which buy from large systems at some higher price. But even when a
small system obtains its water directly from a large scale reclamation project, or
from a smaller local project, or from a deep well, the relative cost per connection
would generally be higher than that experienced by large systems. Thus, even with
the federal subsidization of much of the developed water in the West, the average
unit cost for water among rural Western households was higher than for other rural
parts of the country.)
8. Intermediate systems were found to provide generally inferior service
compared to community and individual systems. It is suspected the reasons for this
lay with the nature of the design.
-------
Executive Summary - 21
Apparently most of these small systems were not originally designed or
intended to be integrated, multiple-connection systems, but were originally
installed as individual systems to which additional households were later connected.
For instance, a relative, hired hand, or friend could build a home adjacent to a
house with an existing individual supply. Because of the cost of installing a new
system, occupants of the new household might ask, or be invited, to hook up to the
existing well rather than install a separate facility. It appeared that many small
intermediate systems seem to have started as individual systems and evolved to
become two and three connection systems without any accompanying redesign.
Many of these extended connections were probably homeowner installed.
The result of these extensions and modifications to the original system is a
strain on the capacity of the system. These apparently stressed systems provided,
as a group, the poorest overall service of any system configuration studied. A
higher proportion of households connected to intermediate systems experienced
problems with water quality, they more frequently had insufficient quantity, and
they tended to report a greater number of breakdowns.
The trend in many parts of the country toward falling ground water levels
and increasing well construction costs may increase the likelihood of more rural
households entering into multiple connection arrangements on individual systems
not designed for that purpose.
This executive summary captures in only the broadest form the detail of
the full, 1,900 page, report. The five volume document describes attributes of
rural water users, households, supplies, and systems as they related to the quality,
quantity, availability, and cost of rural domestic water conditions. Each topic is
explored for the nation as well as for various subnational categorizations. The
study is a one-time effort which strives to be comprehensive, rather than
exhaustive on any particular topic. The report is the first systematic, nationally
representative examination of the broad issues related to rural domestic water.
------- |