Water in General

Before we start to look specifically at the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act it is important to review some basic facts about water related to its usage and scarcity.

The United Nations produced this info-graphic on the Scarcity of water^[1]

As in 2010, water withdrawals in four States—California, Texas, Idaho, and Florida—accounted for more than one-quarter of all fresh and saline water withdrawn in the United States in 2015. California accounted for 9 percent of the total withdrawals for all categories and 9 percent of total freshwater withdrawals for all categories nationwide.

Sources/Usage: Public Domain.

The three largest categories were thermoelectric power, irrigation, and public supply, cumulatively accounting for 90 percent of the national total.^[4]

How We Use Water

The Earth might seem like it has abundant water, but in fact less than 1 percent is available for human use. The rest is either salt water found in oceans, fresh water frozen in the polar ice caps, or too inaccessible for practical usage. While population and demand on freshwater resources are increasing, supply will always remain constant. And although it’s true that the water cycle continuously returns water to Earth, it is not always returned to the same place, or in the same quantity and quality.

The Water Around Us

Water plays a big role in supporting our communities. Without water there would be no local business or industry. Fire-fighting, municipal parks, and public swimming pools all need lots of water. An array of pipes, canals, and pumping stations managed by our public water systems are needed to bring a reliable supply of water to our taps each day.

Where does all this water come from? It starts out as rain or snow and flows into our local lakes, rivers, and streams or into underground aquifers. You can learn more about water in your state, including how it is being protected and where your local drinking water comes from.

Water in Daily Life

In the US, we are lucky to have easy access to some of the safest treated water in the world—just by turning on the tap. We wake up in the morning, take a shower, brush our teeth, grab a cup of coffee, and head out for the day. Water is an important part of our daily lives and we use it for a wide variety of purposes, but do we really understand how much we use?

• The average American family uses more than 300 gallons of water per day at home. Roughly 70 percent of this use occurs indoors.
• Nationally, outdoor water use accounts for 30 percent of household use yet can be much higher in drier parts of the country and in more water-intensive landscapes. For example, the arid West has some of the highest per capita residential water use because of landscape irrigation.

Communities Face Challenges to Meet Demand

Managing water is a growing concern in the US. Communities across the country are starting to face challenges regarding water supply and a need to update aging water treatment and delivery systems, sometimes referred to as “water infrastructure.” Many of the states that have projected population growth increases also have higher per capita water use and can expect increased competition for water resources.  Forty states told the Government Accountability Office in a 2014 report  that they expected to have water shortages over the next ten years that were not related to drought.

Strains on water supplies and our aging water treatment systems can lead to a variety of consequences for communities, such as:

• Higher water prices to ensure continued access to a reliable and safe supply
• Increased summer watering restrictions to manage shortages
• Seasonal loss of recreational areas like lakes and rivers when the human demand for water conflicts with environmental needs
• Expensive water treatment projects to transport and store freshwater when local demand overcomes available capacity

Droughts Create Stress

Droughts happen somewhere in the country every year and climate change has the potential to increase stress on water resources. To create a more sustainable water future, cities and states are coming together to encourage water conservation and efficiency as a way to reduce demand.

Less Water Affects the Environment

When reservoir water levels get lower and ground water tables drop, water supplies, human health, and the environment are put at serious risk. For example, lower water levels can contribute to higher concentrations of natural and human pollutants.

Less water going down the drain means more water available in the lakes, rivers and streams that we use for recreation and wildlife uses to survive. Using water more efficiently helps maintain supplies at safe levels, protecting human health and the environment.

Water suppliers are doing their part to help their customers save water with programs like Water Sense and are also working to improve water efficiency for their own operations.^[5]

Clean Water Act

History of the Clean Water Act

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 was the first major U.S. law to address water pollution. Growing public awareness and concern for controlling water pollution led to sweeping amendments in 1972. As amended in 1972, the law became commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA).

The 1972 amendments:

• Established the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States.
• Gave EPA the authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry.
• Maintained existing requirements to set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters.
• Made it unlawful for any person to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained under its provisions.
• Funded the construction of sewage treatment plants under the construction grants program.
• Recognized the need for planning to address the critical problems posed by nonpoint source pollution.

Subsequent amendments modified some of the earlier CWA provisions. Revisions in 1981 streamlined the municipal construction grants process, improving the capabilities of treatment plants built under the program. Changes in 1987 phased out the construction grants program, replacing it with the State Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund, more commonly known as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. This new funding strategy addressed water quality needs by building on EPA-state partnerships.

Over the years, many other laws have changed parts of the Clean Water Act. Title I of the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, for example, put into place parts of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1978, signed by the U.S. and Canada, where the two nations agreed to reduce certain toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes. That law required EPA to establish water quality criteria for the Great Lakes addressing 29 toxic pollutants with maximum levels that are safe for humans, wildlife, and aquatic life. It also required EPA to help the States implement the criteria on a specific schedule.^[6]

The Clean Water Act Aims to Protect and Restore America’s Waterways

Across the United States, lakes and rivers connect to form watersheds that span across state boundaries, and these waters are critical to our national infrastructure. Congress took early precautions to protect them with the first major water pollution prevention law, called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, passed in 1948. The law became known as the Clean Water Act after Congress passed a major overhaul to the law in 1972. This updated law established the basic structure for regulating harmful waste in the waters of the United States and allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to create pollution control programs and set water quality standards for all known contaminants in surface waters.

Perhaps most importantly, the Clean Water Act made it illegal for any person to dispose of any pollutant from a “point source” into open waterways except as allowed by permit granted by the appropriate federal or state agency.[1] A point source is “any single identifiable source of pollution from which pollutants are discharged, such as a pipe, ditch, ship or factory smokestack.”[2] We think of factories generating waste or sewage treatment plants as point sources, but farms, irrigation canals and even forestry operations can also qualify if their waste products qualify as pollutants.

Congress passed the Clean Water Act to protect the quality, integrity, and usefulness of these waters. The stated objective of the Clean Water Act is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”[3]

The Act addresses water pollution by regulating point-source discharges, or any “discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance,” of pollutants into the territorial waters of the United States. [4] This is an intentionally broad category. A point source discharge can be any discrete disposal, including equipment such as a pipe or hose, man-made ditches, industrial facilities, mining, or oil extraction. These discharges must obtain a permit if they are dumping directly into surface water.[5] Discharges also include municipal wastewater overflows, stormwater management, discharges from animal feeding operations, commonly known as “CAFOs”, or any other discrete or traceable contamination into a water source.[6]

While the Clean Water Act is intentionally broad, it is not limitless. The law does not extend to non-point sources, such as runoff carrying fertilizers and pesticides from over-irrigated agricultural land. Unless the water is contaminated from a specific source, the Clean Water Act does not apply. A direct discharge of pollutants only violates the Clean Water Act if the pollution ends up in “waters of the United States,” including streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal ocean, estuaries, and tributaries that are connected to waters that are means of interstate commerce.[7] Waters used in farming and ranching activities that are not connected to other streams and rivers or ponds contained in private property and the like may be beyond the reach of the Clean Water Act.

Over time, the federal courts have had several opportunities to define exactly what qualify as waters protected by the Clean Water Act. In the landmark case of Rapanos v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with the question of whether an isolated wetland could be regulated under the Clean Water Act. The Court ruled that wetlands may fall within the scope of the Clean Water Act, but only if they are next to or connected to a navigable waterway. Because there was no continuous connection between the wetland at issue in the Rapanos case and the rest of the waters of the United States, the Clean Water Act did not apply.[8]

The Clean Water Act is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, which monitors water quality and regulates compliance of environmental laws within local  governments, and has the authority to issue administrative orders under the law and seek civil or criminal penalties for violators.[9]  The Agency protects the public health and welfare by using programs based on the latest science and technology, and serves a role in monitoring, implementing and issuing permits under the Clean Water Act. However, the law allows for this authority to be delegated in part to state environmental agencies, which also play an important role in enforcing the laws.

Federal-State Cooperation Under the Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act works to address pollution problems and promote agreement among the community by relying on a framework of cooperative federalism. In other words, both the states and the federal government play important roles in carrying out the law. The state environmental agencies and the EPA perform important functions under programs created by the Clean Water Act, including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, designed to improve water quality.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES (pronounced “Nip-Dees”) permit program controls point sources that discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States. Point sources can discharge pollutants into waters without penalty if they obtain a permit issued through the NPDES program. These permits are issued to facilities that discharge any materials directly into surface waters. Examples of facilities that commonly require NPDES permits include factories, industrial buildings, and municipal facilities.

The Clean Water Act allows for enforcement from the EPA to the states, and NPDES compliance monitoring takes place at the state level, with state environmental agencies issuing and enforcing permits. The Environmental Protection Agency oversees the authorized state agencies to carry out the NPDES program within their borders and directly applies the program for states that chose not to delegate under the Clean Water Act. [10]

Wetland Protection, Stormwater Runoff, and Other Programs Under the Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act requires the adoption of water quality standards, and monitors waters affected by pollution, lists impaired or threatened waters, and sets limits for total maximum daily pollution that is necessary to restore a waterbody. The law also creates a nationwide program for the protection of America’s wetland resources and the prevention of water pollution from stormwater runoff.

The Clean Water Act requires the EPA and the states to develop and enforce drainage limitations to help protect waters. These limitations are on the quantity, rate, or concentration of a pollutant that is coming out of the point source.[11] The Clean Water Act authorizes either the Environmental Protection Agency or the individual states to set clear water quality standards that help experts determine what pollutant limitations should be applied to properly protect a body of water. The EPA must publish the state’s water quality standards if the state fails to do so. In addition, the EPA must compile a report to Congress every other year to ensure the nation’s water quality goals are being met.[12]

The Clean Water Act also includes a ban on the filling of wetlands. The goal of the Clean Water Act’s wetlands protection program is to minimize losses to waters and to compensate for unavoidable losses through restoration. Like the NPDES program, anyone seeking to dredge or fill a regulated wetland must obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act, which will not be issued if either:

1. There is a practical alternative that is less damaging to the environment, or
2. If the wetlands would be damaged by the activity.

Applicants seeking permits to dredge or fill wetlands must show that steps have been taken to avoid a negative impact and that compensation will be provided for any remaining unavoidable impact.[13] The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corp of Engineers are both responsible for implementing the Clean Water Act’s wetland protection policies, including on-site investigations and enforcement actions against unpermitted discharges.[14]

The last key program under the Clean Water Act is the identification and regulation of toxic water pollutants. The Toxic Pollutant List includes pollutants known to be hazardous to human health. Individual pollutants known to harm human health are known as priority pollutants, and there are currently 126 priority water pollutants directly regulated by the EPA.[15] Because they are so dangerous, toxic and priority water pollutants have strict limitations. Anyone discharging these pollutants must use the best technology economically available and set pre-treatment standards to help prevent their damaging effects.[16]^[7]

Pharmaceuticals and sewage Treatment Plants

The source of pharmaceuticals in water is not just from manufacturing plants. You probably know that antibiotics and drugs are used in the livestock industry, and for streams receiving runoff from animal-feeding operations, pharmaceuticals such as acetaminophen, caffeine, cotinine, diphenhydramine, and carbamazepine, have been found in USGS studies. Another source of pharmaceuticals in stream water is you and me. Essentially, drugs that people take internally are not all metabolized in the body, and the excess ends up in our wastewater leaving homes and entering the sewage-treatment plants. It might sound surprising that these drugs could be detected in streams miles downstream from wastewater-treatment plants, but many plants do not routinely remove pharmaceuticals from water.  It is estimated that over 1/2  of prescription drugs are removed by sewage treatment plants before discharging into rivers.^[8]

Safe Drinking Water Act

INTRODUCTION TO THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

WHAT IS PURE WATER?
We know that all life is dependent on water and that water exists in nature in many forms – clouds, rain, snow, ice, and fog; however, strictly speaking, chemically pure water does not exist for any appreciable length of time in nature. Even while falling as rain, water picks up small amounts of gases, ions, dust, and particulate matter from the atmosphere. Then, as it flows over or through the surface layers of the earth, it dissolves and carries with it some of almost everything it touches, including that which is dumped into it by man.

These added substances may be arbitrarily classified as biological, chemical (both inorganic and organic), physical, and radio logical impurities. They include industrial and commercial solvents, metal and acid salts, sediments, pesticides,herbicides, plant nutrients, radioactive materials, road salts, decaying animal and vegetable matter, and living microorganisms, such as algae, bacteria, and viruses. These impurities may give water a bad taste, color, odor, or cloudy appearance (turbidity), and cause hardness, corrosiveness, staining, or frothing. They may damage growing plants and transmit disease. Many of these impurities are removed or rendered harmless, however, in municipal drinking water treatment plants.

Pure water means different things to different people. Homeowners are primarily concerned with domestic water problems related to color, odor, taste, and safety to family health, as well as the cost of soap, detergents, “softening,” or other treatments required for improving the water quality. Chemists and engineers working for industry are concerned with the purity of water as it relates to scale deposition and pipe corrosion.

Regulatory agencies are concerned with setting standards to protect public health. Farmers are interested in the effects of irrigation waters on the chemical, physical, and osmotic properties of soils, particularly as they  influence crop production; hence, they are concerned with the water’s total mineral content, proportion of sodium, or content of ions “toxic” to plant growth.

One means of establishing and assuring the purity and safety of water is to set a standard for various contaminants. A standard is a definite rule, principle, or measurement which is established by governmental authority. The fact that it has been established by authority makes a standard rigid, official, and legal; but this fact does not necessarily mean that the standard is fair or based on sound scientific knowledge.  Where human health data or other scientific data are sparse, standards have sometimes been established on an interim basis until better information becomes available. ^[10]

The Safe Drinking Water Act arose in response to public concern over the health, aesthetic and recreational impacts of deteriorating environmental conditions. In 1960, the United States Public Health Service found that more than half of drinking water systems failed to meet proper standards regarding disinfection, clarification, or water pressure. The Environmental Defense Fund also published a report in 1974 that linked cancer deaths in New Orleans to contaminated drinking water sourced from the Mississippi River.[19] By this point, Congress was compelled to act.

The Safe Drinking Water Act authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to establish standards to protect tap water. To ensure these standards are being met, the EPA conducts on-site visits and reviews information local governments submit about their public drinking water sources. If water sampling results show that a contaminant is present at an unsafe level, the EPA must work with the state to prevent or remove contaminants. Consumers affected by the contamination must be notified about the conditions of their public drinking water.[20]

Contaminants regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act must meet certain criteria. First, the contaminant must have the potential to create adverse health effects. Second, there must be a substantial likelihood that it will appear in public water systems at a level to cause concern. Finally, the EPA or implementing state agencies may only regulate contaminants if it would reduce the public health risk.

The Safe Drinking Water Act allows the EPA to delegate authority to state environmental agencies. To date, 49 states have assumed administrative control over the supervision of public water supplies. [21]  The recent boom in natural gas from a modern extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing has created new problems in the cooperative rule established by the law. Hydraulic fracturing (sometimes referred to as “fracking”) involves the injection of massive amounts of fluid into underground areas that may contain groundwater resources. Both the injection of fluid and the potential contamination of a drinking water source are activities regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, but each state has created its own rules regarding hydraulic fracturing. This has raised concerns that under-regulation in this field will threaten water safety and human health, because many state agencies don’t have thorough restrictions on hydraulic fracturing activities.[22]^[11]

The Safe Drinking Water Act

The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (P.L. 93-523) was signed into law in 1974 and amended several times thereafter. The act authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to establish a cooperative program among local, state, and federal agencies for drinking water. Under the SDWA, the primary role of the federal government was to develop national drinking water regulations that protect public health and welfare. The states could request the responsibility of implementing the regulations and monitoring the performance of public water systems. The public water systems themselves were responsible for treating and testing their own drinking water to ensure that the quality consistently met the standards set by the regulations. As directed by the SDWA, the USEPA developed primary and secondary drinking water regulations designed to protect public health and welfare. These regulations establish several important definitions. Approximately 152,000 publicly owned water systems provide piped water for human consumption in 2022, of which roughly 50,000 (33%) are community water systems (CWSs). Of all CWSs, 9% provide water to 79% of the population. Over 92 percent of the population supplied by community water systems receives drinking water that meets all health-based standards all of the time. They include the following:

Public Water System means a system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances if the system has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves 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. Basically, a community system serves water to a residential population, whereas a noncommunity system serves water to a nonresidential population. A Community Water System means a public water system which serves at least 15 service connections used by permanent residents or regularly serves 25 permanent residents.

A Noncommunity Water System means a public water system that is not a community water system. Examples include separate water systems which serve motels, restaurants, campgrounds, churches, lodges, rest stops along interstate highways, and roadside service stations. A Nontransient Noncommunity Water System regularly serves the same population at least six months of a year. Examples include separate water systems which serve schools, workplaces, and hospitals. A Public Transient Noncommunity Water System is a public water system that is not a public community water system and serves a transient population at least 60 days out of the year.

Please note that if the establishments mentioned above are served by a community water system they are considered to be a part of that system and therefore are not subject to separate regulation. For example, a campground may serve hundreds of people daily, but they are probably different people each day so no individual drinks very much of the campground’s water. Since certain contaminants have adverse health effects only when consumed regularly over a long period, the distinctions between public community, noncommunity and nontransient noncommunity systems are important in determining which contaminants must be monitored to protect public health.^[12]

This law focuses on all waters that are or may be designed for drinking or for other potable use. It includes rivers, lakes, reservoirs, springs and groundwater wells. Along with federal, state, and tribal regulatory partners, the Environmental Protection Agency works to protect human health and the environment through the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure that the laws and regulations are being obeyed.^[13][/footnote]

Water borne Disease Outbreaks

At the beginning of the 20th century, diseases commonly transmitted by water, such as cholera and typhoid, were major causes of death in the United States (1). Reliable provision of treated, safe drinking water dramatically reduced the burden of these diseases and has been recognized as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century (2). Despite this achievement, waterborne disease in the United States persists (3–5).

In the United States, outbreaks associated with large public drinking water systems have sharply declined in the past 40 years (3,6), likely the result of improvements in regulation and operation. However, transmission of disease via drinking water systems still occurs, often attributable to aging infrastructure, operational challenges, and the private or unregulated water systems (e.g., private wells) that serve an estimated 43 million persons (7). At the same time, the complexity and scope of water use has increased; drinking, sanitation, hygiene, cooling, and heating needs are supported by 6 million miles of plumbing inside US buildings (i.e., premise plumbing) (8,9). Premise plumbing water quality can be compromised by long water residency times, reduced disinfectant levels, and inadequate hot water temperatures, creating environments where pathogens (e.g., nontuberculous mycobacteria [NTM], Pseudomonas, and Legionella) can amplify in biofilms (10). People can be exposed to these pathogens through contact, ingestion, or inhalation of aerosols (e.g., from showerheads, building cooling towers, or decorative fountains).

Domestic waterborne transmission of 17 diseases in the United States caused ≈7.15 million (95% CrI 3.88–12.0 million) waterborne illnesses to occur annually during the study period, including 601,000 ED visits (95% CrI 364,000–866,000), 118,000 hospitalizations (95% CrI 86,800–150,000), and 6,630 deaths (95% CrI 4,520–8,870), and incurred $3.33 billion (95% CrI $1.31–$8.71 billion) in hospitalization and ED visit costs. This estimate includes drinking, recreational, and environmental water exposures. Although the risk of illness from enteric pathogens readily controlled by water treatment processes still exists, this analysis highlights the expanding role of environmental pathogens (e.g., mycobacteria, Pseudomonas, Legionella) that can grow in drinking water distribution systems; plumbing in hospitals, homes, and other buildings; recreational water venues; and industrial water systems (e.g., cooling towers). This snapshot of waterborne disease transmission in the United States circa 2014 contrasts with historical waterborne disease transmission before the implementation of drinking water treatment and sanitation systems (e.g., cholera, typhoid fever, and other enteric pathogens) (1).^[14]

This graph shows an apparent decline in the number of water borne outbreaks in relationship to the implementation and the amendments to the SDWA.   CW are community water systems, NCWs are non community water systems, NPWs are public non transient water systems

^[15]

HEALTH EFFECTS OF DRINKING WATER CONTAMINANTS

Chemicals in drinking water which are toxic may cause either acute or chronic health effects. An acute effect  usually follows a large dose of a chemical and occurs almost immediately. Examples of acute health effects are nausea, lung irritation, skin rash, vomiting, dizziness, and, in the extreme, death.

The levels of chemicals in drinking water, however, are seldom high enough to cause acute health effects. They are more likely to cause chronic health effects, effects that occur after exposure to small amounts of a chemical over a long period. 

Examples of chronic health effects include cancer, birth defects, organ damage, disorders of the nervous system, and damage to the immune system.Evidence relating chronic human health effects to specific drinking water contaminants is very limited. In the absence of exact scientific information, scientists predict the likely adverse effects of chemicals in drinking water using laboratory animal studies and, when available, human data from clinical reports and epidemiological studies.

USEPA classifies compounds for carcinogenicity potential according to the “weight of evidence” approach as stated in the Agency’s Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment. These Guidelines specify five carcinogenicity classifications:
Group A – Human carcinogen (sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies).

Group B – Probable human carcinogen.
Group B1 – At least limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.
Group B2 – Usually a combination of sufficient evidence in animals and inadequate data in humans.
Group C – Possible human carcinogen (limited evidence of carcinogenicity in the
absence of human data).
Group D – Not classifiable (inadequate human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity).
Group E – Evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans (no evidence of carcinogenicity in at least two adequate animal tests in different species or in both epidemiological and animal studies).

The possible health effects of a contaminant in drinking water differ widely, depending on whether a person  consumes the water over a long period, briefly, or intermittently. Thus, MCLs and monitoring requirements for systems serving permanent populations (Public Community Water Systems and Nontransient Non-community Water Systems) may be more stringent than those regulations for systems serving transient or intermittent  users (Public Noncommunity Water Systems).

Maximum contaminant levels are based, directly or indirectly, on an assumed drinking water rate of two liters per person per day. MCLs for organic and inorganic contaminants (except nitrate) are based on the potential  health effects of long-term exposure, and they provide substantial protection to virtually all consumers. The uncertainty in this process is due in part to the variations in the knowledge of and the nature of the health risks of the various contaminants.