Drinking Water Futures Forum
EPA Summaries of Discussion

-------
Futures Forum Question Facilitators
Treatment Technologies
Tommy Holmes, American Waterworks Association
Ed Means, McGuire Environmental Consultants
Source Water Quality and Quantity
Mike 3aque, Ground Water Protection Council
Betsy Henry, US EPA
Phil Metzger, US EPA
Vulnerable Subpopulations
Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defense Council
Diana Neidle, Consumer Federation of America
Marjorie Jones, US EPA
Cost
Michael Arceneaux, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
Carol Kozloff, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners
Dan Gonzalez, US EPA
Small Systems
Vanessa Leiby, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
John Trax, National Rural Water Association
Peter Shanaghan, US EPA
Unserved Populations
Joy Barrett, Rural Community Assistance Program
Vanessa Leiby, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
Joshua Joseph, US EPA
Research
Jim Manwaring, American Water Works Association Research Foundation
Bill Diamond, US EPA
Joan Harrigan Farrelly, US EPA
Ron Bergman, EPA Futures Forum Lead

-------
The Drinking Water Futures Forum
EPA Summary of Major Points of Discussions
December 16,1999 marks the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA), the principal federal law ensuring the quality of Americans' drinking
water. The Act recognizes that providing safe water is a comprehensive and integrated
endeavor, involving water protection and treatment from drinking water source to
consumer's tap.
In pursuit of these objectives, EPA and a number of partners launched a Drinking Water
Futures Forum to evaluate the challenges facing the nation in ensuring a safe supply of
drinking water for the next 25 years. The overall question for the Futures Forum is:
"How can we ensure safe drinking water in 2025?,"
This overall question was divided into 7 sub-questions: innovative drinking water
treatment technologies, source water quality and quantity, the needs of vulnerable
subpopulations, the cost of drinking water, the needs of small systems, how to help
populations not served by community water systems, and drinking water research.
Nearly 20 meetings have been held by EPA and the partners to discuss these
questions and other cross-cutting issues, such as education and outreach, that have
arisen from the initial discussion topics.
The following summaries are an attempt to capture some of the key points of the
discussions. These are EPA's summary only. These are not consensus documents,
and may not reflect the views of all participants in the futures forum discussions, and
any recommendations recorded are not consensus recommendations. They are only
intended to be a brief record of some of the major points of discussion.
The discussion summaries are:
Treatment Technologies
Source Water Quality and Quantity
Vulnerable Subpopulations
Cost
Small Systems
Unserved Populations
Research
Outreach

-------
Treatment Technologies
Discussion Summary
^ Are there emerging or available drinking water technologies that
f • might enable us to "leap frog" the fragmented, individual
$ contaminant-by contaminant regulatory approach to more
^ expeditiously and efficiently bring us closer to our common goal of
safe drinking water for everyone?
¦?

Background:
New regulations focusing on specific contaminants can require water utilities to add
new individual treatment technologies which can come at high cost. Also, the length of
time it takes to regulate a new contaminant leads us to look for treatments that can
remove classes of contaminants. Many discussions centered around newly emerging
technologies that remove multiple contaminants, or incentives that could enable
systems to install better overall technologies rather than just replace existing ones.
Key Concepts and Challenges:
The best approach to ensuring high-quality water at the tap is to develop an
integrated water quality plan coupling source water protection, flexible water
treatment, and distribution system management.
Source water
Source water assessment and watershed control would also play an important
role to minimize treatment requirements
Linkages between SDWA and the Clean Water Act can reduce the discharge of
contaminants into the source water
Treatment
• We should look at newly emerging technologies that remove multiple
contaminants, or incentives that could enable systems to install better
technologies rather than just replace existing ones. "Supertreatment" would
most likely include integrated membranes, advanced oxidation, and use of
chloramines
Drawbacks and limitations of "supertreatment" include "one-size-does-not-fit-?'.'r
cost, retrofitting difficulties, possible "side-effects" of treatment (the need for
discharge permits, unintended byproduct formulation, etc)

-------
To help identify emerging technologies, we should hold an international forum on
drinking water treatment technologies and incentives. In this forum, experts from
this country and around the world would meet to explore new technologies and
potential incentives to use them.
Distribution systems
Deteriorating distribution systems are thought to be one of the biggest problems
in the next 20 years. Costs of overall infrastructure rehabilitation are estimated
at $138 - $325 billion.
Water quality can be subject to deterioration in the distribution system, especially
if the pipes are in need of replacement. Because of this, some believe we
should look for more decentralized treatment.
Operator Training
New and emerging technologies will be successful only if properly operated and
maintained. This will require operator training and education and adequate
financial resources.
Public Education
Consumer perception can drive regulatory actions on treatment. This perception
can be based on taste and odor issues as well as general water quality fears or
watershed activities. We must educate the public on the safety of their water,
and relative risks.
Voluntary Efforts
Any changes to the regulatory structure should promote voluntary efforts above
baseline public health protection (e.g., Partnership for Safe Water)

-------

Source Water Quality and Quantity
Discussion Summary
^ Given the national trends of increasing population, urbanization
1 and development, how can the drinking water program help
. ensure the availability and good quality of drinking water; what are
fj the barriers and some solutions to source water protection; and
? how can we better focus each level of government and the private
sector on better coordination in planning for the future of a safe
and reliable drinking water supply?
Background:
Upstream activities have an impact on drinking water quality. If contaminants are kept
out of the source water, the risk to human health is lessened and the removal costs can
be reduced. The multiple barrier approach to drinking water protection - source water
protection, treatment, distribution system maintenance, monitoring, consumer education
- makes prevention of contamination the first line of defense in providing safe drinking
water. EPA has a Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goal which states
that by 2005, 50% of the population on community water systems will be served by
water systems with source water protection
Economic development and expanding population can affect both surface and ground
water quantity and water quality if not properly managed. If our goal is to continue to
ensure safe drinking water, then source water protection must be the first step.
Key Concepts and Challenges:
Source water protection can play a major role in protecting drinking water, and
should be a part of every drinking water protection program.
Source water assessments
The foundation of effective source water protection is a high quality source water
assessment. The assessment delineates the source of the public drinking water;
identifies potential sources of contamination; determines the drinking water
source's susceptibility or vulnerability to contamination; and makes the
information available to the public and local decision makers. The assessments
must be as comprehensive as possible.
Public Education
• Source water protection will require the support of the community, as protection
measures may involve voluntary actions, best management practices, or local

-------
zoning issues. To educate the community, the results of the assessments need
to be publicized, including through the consumer confidence reports.
Linkages
Link source water protection with source control programs: SDWA mandates
source water assessments but not source water protection, with the exception of
the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. Therefore, effective protection
measures must involve the Clean Water Act (CWA) and other laws with source
control mandates, such as the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA).
Integrate water-related programs by institutionalizing links between source
control jnd drinking water programs, including UIC, a$ well as with other Federal
Programs, at the federal, state, Tribal, and local level. Create incentives at local
level for these linkages. These include:
-	(state level) linking TMDL action plans and source water assessments;
-	(local level) promoting area-wide planning councils, comprehensive water
supply planning, and local land-use decisions to ensure drinking water
sources are protected;
-	(Federal level) developing unified Federal lands policy that incorporates
drinking water priorities and delivers Federal data to other local
assessment areas
We must link drinking water protection actions with watershed protection actions.
Historically, water programs were developed to protect separate parts of the
ecosystem or separate uses of its resources; however, this fragmented approach
can be a barrier to public health protection. Rivers, streams, and ground water
that are drinking water sources also have ecological value, and their functions
cannot be separated. Therefore, we have to make sure that our institutional
programs work together.
Local flexibility
Local flexibility: Because communities needs are different, it is important that
source water protection is instituted at the local level. Through voluntary actions
at home and in the community, individuals can make important contributions to
preventing pollution of source of drinking water, both ground water and surface
water. Communities need access to education approaches and tools that
involve and motivate individuals to act.
Quality and Quantity
Increasing development and population growth can also have a significant efP^
on water quantity. Effective long term management of the drinking water
resources requires consideration of not only upstream or up-gradient activities

-------
that might affect the quality and quantity of the drinking water source, but also
recognition of the downstream water users and demands on the aquifer.
Obstacles include conflicts over water use, especially in arid parts of the country,
and the cost of implementing/managing a source water protection program
Balancing economic growth and development with source water protection-
Source water protection requires strong links between land use planning and
source water quality and quantity protection.

-------
Vulnerable Subpopulations
Discussion Summary
In a country where the population has increasing rates of aging
and cancer survival, how do we ensure that vulnerable
subpopulations (also including children and immuno-
compromised), receive safe water?
Background:
Most people agree that the goal of the drinking water community should be to ensure
that everyone has access to safe and affordable drinking water. Questions exist,
however, on what level of safety is needed, the delivery of that water (at the tap or by
other means), and who is responsible for ensuring that persons receive water that
meets their specific health needs.
Key Concepts and Challenges:
Options for providing "safer" drinking water to vulnerable subpopulations include
improving water quality for all persons, installing a separate distribution system
dedicated solely to providing drinking water for all persons, providing bottled
water for vulnerable subpopulations, and/or using point of use/point of entry
devices.
More information needed
Obstacles to meeting the needs of vulnerable subpopulations include identifying
the vulnerable subpopulations;identifying what is "safe" for them (different
populations have different susceptibilities); explaining to the public why some
people get "safer" water; and delivering and paying the costs of this "safer"
water.
It is unclear what percentage of the population is especially susceptible to
contaminants from drinking water. It may not be possible to identify eveiyone
who is vulnerable; some people may not know themselves (e.g. HIV positive
persons, women in early stages of pregnancy). In addition, many persons cycle
in and out of being "vulnerable," depending on their age, stage, or whether they
are undergoing a particular medical treatment (e.g. chemotherapy or prescription
steroids which can render them immunocompromised).
We need to conduct research to determine who is vulnerable, what they are
vulnerable to, and at what levels. Data gathering should include identifying
those who are highly exposed, as well as those who are highly susceptible.

-------
Questions exist on the effect of the distribution system on water quality. Aging
distribution systems will make it more difficult to provide "safe" water at the tap
for all persons. For the long term, some recommended performing a thorough
analysis of the costs of providing water that meets the health needs of all
persons via improved or replaced infrastructure, as compared to establishing an
alternate delivery system
In the short term, some recommended developing further proposals for providing
safe water to vulnerable populations.
Health care and public outreach
Health care providers and the general public need more education on drinking
water and health issues. We should develop an education program to provide
information to health care providers and consumers about drinking water and
health

-------
Cost
Discussion Summary
Are we paying the real cost of providing a safe supply of drinking
water? What are the cost issues facing the nation's water
systems (including infrastructure repair, replacement, and
expansion, new treatment technologies, and new program
administration activities?) How can these needs be paid for, and
made affordable for the economically disadvantaged? How can
resources be more efficiently allocated among local, state, and
federal governments and the private sector? What are the
opportunities to improve current infrastructure, including the
distribution system?
The costs of providing a safe, sufficient and reliable supply of drinking water can be
high. Cost are high due to issues such as aging infrastructure, high replacement costs,
direct and indirect costs of compliance with SDWA, and the increased need for source
water protection. For smaller systems, cost issues are even more important.
Key Concepts and Challenges:
Water is artificially inexpensive
The price of drinking water often does not reflect the actual, full costs of
providing water. The current costs generally only cover current service, not future
needs, such as infrastructure replacement.
Water is generally cheap in the United States, much cheaper than in many other
countries. The average price of water in the US in 1999 is 51 cents per cubic
meter, versus 115 cents per cubic meter in the United Kingdom and 182 cents
per cubic meter in Germany. In the US the average cost of water actually
dropped between 1998 and 1999.
Costs are high
The costs of infrastructure replacement and removal of pollutants that
increasingly enter source waters due to increasing population and development
are high
• The drinking water community should convene a forum on costs of infrastructure
and costs of providing safe water, and develop options for promoting sustain-;,Me
pricing
Background:

-------
The drinking water community needs to look at assistance options for areas with
low income customers or exceptionally high costs. Options include: 1) Phased-in
rate increases, 2) lifeline or special rates for low income customers, 3)customer
assistance programs coordinated with community-based organizations, 4) funds
for low income customers such as dollar check-offs on water bills, 5) monthly
rather than quarterly billing, and 6) provision of low consumption plumbing
fixtures and consumer education about the need to fix leaks.
Small system needs
• Small systems may not have adequate financial resources to continue to provide
safe drinking water. We need to address the question of who cannot afford
increased rates, and come up with ways to assist them. (See Small Systems
summary)
To improve technical, managerial, and financial capacity for water systems,
regionalization or other forms of consolidation should be considered.
Public education
Increased efforts are needed to educate the public on the costs of providing safe
drinking water.

-------
Small Systems
Discussion Summary
* A' *	What should the structure of the drinking water provision system
be in the future? Can consolidation and restructuring take more
i* advantage of economies of scale? Are there additional activities
11 to help alleviate tribal and small system compliance problems?
1$ What can/will be the drivers affecting the structure of the industry?
Are there innovative or alternative institutional structures for the
provision of.drinking water to small populations?
Background:
Small drinking water systems constitute over 90% of all public water systems. These
systems are increasingly challenged to provide clean and safe water because of the
increasing demand on their technical, financial and managerial capabilities. The small
systems component of the drinking water industry services, and is owned and managed
by, large and diverse groups of people.
In reauthorizing the SDWA in 1996, Congress found, among other things, that: "More
effective protection of public health requires: prevention of drinking water contamination
through well-trained system operators, water systems with adequate managerial,
technical, and financial capacity, and enhanced protection of source waters of Public
Water Systems"
Congress also found that "Compliance with the requirements of the SDWA continues
to be a concern at public water systems experiencing technical and financial limitations,
and Federal, State and local governments need more resources and more effective
authority to attain the objectives of the SDWA". The statute recognized these
challenges and provided tools for capacity development and upgrade of systems.
Key Concepts and Challenges:
•	The 1996 Amendments to SDWA provide significant new authorities and
resources designed to address small system challenges. While these new tools
offer much promise, the challenges facing small systems continue to grow.
•	Water systems of all sizes and ownership types can provide safe and affordable
drinking water under certain circumstances. No one institutional structure is
inherently superior in all cases.
Challenges for small systems
Source water quality may affect a small system's ability to comply with drinking
water standards

-------
Drinking water is an industry whose costs are rising, placing more strain on small
systems
Even with government incentives, existing public, private, and not-for-profit
entities will not be able to provide solutions for all troubled systems. A few
systems serve such a high percentage of low-income customers, are so isolated,
have source water of such poor quality and/or limited quantity, or are otherwise
hampered, that existing entities cannot provide solutions.
Economic forces such as the move toward privatization have the potential of
changing the structure of the drinking water industry. There is significant
potential for the administrative consolidation of physically non-connected
systems.
Water utilities will need enhanced and expanded knowledge and skills in order to
be successful over the next twenty five years and beyond.
Over the next 25 years, the water industry as a whole will move closer to the
ideal of financially self-sufficient and self-sustaining utilities.
Potential assistance
Long-term, area-wide planning is essential if economically efficient institutions
and least-cost service options are to be identified.
To assist small systems, EPA chould create a panel to explore incentives to help
small systems be successful in meeting SDWA requirements.
The drinking water community chould explore the possibility of a partner-based
"Environmental Extension Service" for training for small water systems. Some of
the options discussed include mentoring from large water systems, building on
the Agriculture Department's Cooperative Extension Service to put a
environmental extension representative in every county or other geographic
area, and modeling programs on the Partnership for Safe Water.

-------
Unserved Populations
Discussion Summary

What are our responsibilities to help provide safe drinking water to
those not served by public water systems? How could we meet
such responsibilities (e.g., education?)
Background:
To fulfill the Safe Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) mandate to provide clean and safe
water to the nation, EPA has set a goal that "By 2005, the population served by
community water systems providing drinking water that meets all 1994 health standards
will increase to 95% from baseline of 83% in 1994." However, since SDWA regulates
public water systems, and because those who receive their water from public water
systems receive the health benefits from the regulations, a fundamental issue for the
drinking water community is whether better protection for those not served by public
water systems can and should be provided through SDWA or through other
mechanisms.
Private well owners are responsible for the safety of their own water, including testing,
and there is not a SDWA mandate protecting drinking water from private wells.
Key Concepts and Challenges:
Challenges to unserved populations
There can be serious barriers to ensuring clean, safe water for Americans not
served by public water systems, including access to or the lack thereof of
technology, infrastructure, and money. Additional barriers can include
geography, income and education.
Information still needed
More information is needed to better classify the "unserved" and thereby provide
a clearer picture of the need to reduce the potential risk this problem might pose.
Many participants felt that the definition of "unserved populations" was too
narrow and did not take into account individuals who may be receiving water
from systems that may be inadequate or contaminated. Some wanted the
definition to be broader and include individuals that were "underserved," and
some thought that the definition was too broad and individuals who were served
by modern individual wells should not be included.

-------
Research is needed so that accurate information may be obtained on the
unserved population with which to make better decisions.
To better understand who the unserved are, their location, and current and future
risks, the drinking water partners should establish a working group to collect
statistical information and data on unserved populations.
Coordination of assistance activities
The drinking water community must find ways of working with other groups both
in and out of government to help leverage support to help address some of the
economic and social problems that might pose a barrier to safe and affordable
drinking water. Community outreach and education afe important tools in this
equation.
The organizations involved in unserved populations issues - including EPA, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Rural Utilities Service, the
Rural Community Assistance Program, and the states - should coordinate their
activities.
Regionalization and consolidation could help to provide sen/ice to additional
people
Public outreach
EPA should create an education program targeted at unserved populations

-------

Research
Discussion Summary
What science research and data are necessary to achieve
public health objectives, satisfy SOWA standards for sound
science, and meet near and long term statutory requirements
in the areas of health effects, treatment technology and
• distribution systems, analytical methods, and special issues
J» (i.e., sensitive subpopulations, mixtures). What level of
$ research investment is adequate to address these needs?
^ What is the most efficient, effective and timely combination of
public and private efforts to undertake the necessary drinking
water research and data collection? If there is a gap between
programmatic research needs and available resources, what
is the best way for EPA and interested stakeholders to decide
on priorities?
Background:
Research is key to understanding contaminants, how they affect public health, and how
to combat them. Sound research, data and assessments are the backbone of an
effective and progressive drinking water risk-management program. Research is critical
to assuring the safety of drinking water and increasing the public's confidence in the
value of its drinking water investments.
A key element of the 1996 SDWA Amendments was the Congressional recognition of
the importance of science as the foundation for a protective and credible drinking water
public health program. The Amendments strengthened the science provisions of the
law including requiring the use of "the best available, peer reviewed science and
supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific
practices..." SDWA Section 1412 (b)(3)(A). In support of this initiative, Congress and
the Administration in 1996-1997 directed an increase in the drinking water research
budget to address the most urgent needs.
Key Concepts and Challenges:
Comprehensive approach to research
Develop a drinking water research program that comprehensively addresses
both near-term and future research needs, and that allows regulators and water
systems to address future health needs and develop regulations that are
supported by strong science and data.
A coordinated, comprehensive and targeted approach is needed that will alio#
for the development of a drinking water strategic research plan which will include
near and long term needs.

-------
Develop coordinated research plans for specific, high-priority research areas that
include governmental and private research programs. Some of these areas
include distribution systems; vulnerable subpopulations; source water quality;
quantity, assessment, and protection; treatment technologies; and multiple
exposure pathways.
Coordinate research among EPA, other federal agencies, and private sector
While EPA and other groups have done a good job coordinating research efforts
and developing research plans for specific contaminants, these efforts need to
be broadened to other rule areas in light of the number and complexity of
regulations on the horizon. Therefore, EPA and stakeholders will need to
coordinate extensive research efforts that will address complex issues such as
identifying priority needs, developing comprehensive research plans, reviewing
the adequacy of resources and looking at options.
Decision makers and stakeholders need to make sure that current research
answers high priority, near-term questions, such as (M/DBP cluster, Arsenic), the
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) and the 6-year revision of existing standards.
Other priority needs include emerging contaminants, sensitive sub-populations,
distribution systems and others.
Funding
Without adequate funding for research, the best planning efforts of EPA and the
drinking water community could be ineffective, with resulting negative impacts on
health or costs. Many involved in the futures forum felt that the current public and
private research investments are inadequate to fully meet the SDWA 96 public
health requirements and deadlines. This could translate into delayed public
health standards, relying on conservative uncertainty assumptions instead of real
data, and decreased quality in regulatory and risk management decision making.
Therefore, the drinking water community must come together to determine the
best way to close this resource gap.
We need to invest an adequate amount in EPA, other Federal agency, and
industry research to address current research priorities.
Ongoing FACA Committee
To improve openness and coordinate, EPA should form an ongoing FACA
Group/ National Drinking Water Advisory Working Group on Research to ensile
that planning needs are addressed

-------
Public Outreach and Education
Discusion Summary

Question: (Not an original question, but emerged from all other
discussions) What public education and outreach components
• need to be included in an effective, sustainable drinking water
$ protection program of the future? What are the next steps that
^ we, as the drinking water community, need to be working on now
„ _? and in the next few years to put us on course to make this vision a
& reality?
Background:
All futures forum discussions emphasized the importance of public outreach and
education to effective drinking water protection. An informed and involved public is the
key to the success of future drinking water protection activities, including improved
treatment and source water protection. The 1996 amendments to SDWA emphasized
program accountability through public right to know. New public information provisions;
including consumer confidence reports, source water assessments, and revised public
notification, and new EPA databases make available unprecedented amounts of
information.
Key Concepts and Challenges:
The Consumer Confidence Reports are changing people's perceptions. Citizens
are becoming public water suppliers' allies rather than "victims" of safety
concerns or increased costs—and we are only just beginning. Communities are
beginning to understand that their drinking water needs to be protected from
source to tap.
Our next step is to build on consumer confidence reports and improved use of
the Internet to enable each person to find information about his or her local
drinking water and how he/she can help protect the source water, make
individual health decisions, engage in the rulemaking process, and support
continued high quality treatment.
The public gets most of its information about drinking water from the media, and
this tends to be negative (i.e., outbreaks). The drinking water community needs
to work together to assure that timely, accurate information is available through
many credible sources. Be proactive rather than reactive.
Groups to target
Engage constituencies who have not traditionally been involved in drinking water,
but who should care, such as the elderly, people with HIV/AIDS, children's

-------
advocates and parents, land owners (including agriculture), Environmental
Justice offices and organizations, churches (provide social services; also own
land and hospitals), education organizations, and teachers.
Include information to targeted audiences such as health care providers, persons
on private wells not regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, vulnerable
subpopulations with special health needs, and local communities concerned
about their specific drinking water quality.
Get drinking water information into the education system (curriculum/projects/
tours) from the bottom up. Begin at earliest grade levels and increase quantity of
information at all levels.
Outreach themes
Remember that "all drinking water is local." Effective outreach has to br pg
issues to the local level. Tell consumers where they can find information and
what they can do with it.
Any campaign should emphasize prevention and conservation from the outset.
Start talking about drinking water quantity as well as quality. Overall expense
and resource allocation includes providing, protecting, treating, and delivering tap
water. Significant use of water for landscaping and other purposes increases
demand and costs overall. Engage public in quantity issues as well as quality -
it's not only the responsibility of the water system to assure that there is enough
water.
We must do a better job of communicating the economic benefits of safe,
affordable, and available drinking water, which is the base needed for successful
economic development. Quantify the benefits of prevention. Agressively market
these benefits to utilities, local leaders, and consumers.
EPA should increase amount and distribution of information about water issues
beyond public drinking water (e.g. private wells, septic systems). NOTE: People
in the group recognize that EPA does not have statutory authority over these
areas, but still feel that these issues are important and that these consumers
need information.
Include public education as a part of comprehensive planning. Instead of always
responding to crises, practice crisis prevention.
Foster and strengthen non-traditional partnerships. Water suppliers and public
interest groups need to work together at all levels and should jointly convene^
meetings at all levels to inform public and share information. Partner with non-
profit organizations, hospitals, and community leaders to increase credibility.

-------
Use the Internet as much as possible.
Promote actions
Use the new drinking water information to promote civic participation in drinking
water. Outreach should be understandable to consumers, and should give
people actions that they can take. Cross local jurisdictions and get people
involved in watershed planning.
Promote tax laws and regulations which encourage stewardship, protection, and
conservation. Water suppliers and others should include land owners as
partners in discussions about drinking water programs and community planning.
Recognize, support, and reward good actors (e.g. prelection, stewardship) as a
way to encourage others.
Recommendation
Conduct a vigorous public education and outreach effort to enable each person
to find information about his or her local drinking water and how he/she can help
protect the source water, make individual health decisions, engage in the
rulemaking process, and enable continued high quality treatment. This includes
information to health care providers and for persons on private wells not
regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and for vulnerable subpopulations with
special health needs.

-------