The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (copy of SDWA 1974) ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to establish drinking-water standards for all public water systems serving 25 or more people or having 15 or more connections.
This past August, President Bill Clinton signed a bill amending the Safe Drinking Water Act (EPA 96 Amendments page). It is intended to raise the quality of drinking water by committing to
The 1996 SDWA places a large emphasis on prevention of contamination problems in contrast with the 1974 SDWA that had an “after the fact” regulatory purpose. In order to prevent contamination problems, areas in risk must be identified. In accordance with the EPA (EPA homepage) guidelines, the states must individually develop a program based on the natural resources available. Assessment for the state's source waters must be submitted to the EPA within 18 months of the release of the EPA's guidelines. The assessment programs may use data from other State survey activities to encourage efficient use of funding.
The EPA is required, within 6 months, to review existing
state programs and publish guidance that states may use to
meet the new requirements of the provision. Within the states
new programs, two requirements must be met:
States identify these water systems in noncompliance within one year and report to the EPA on their development efforts.
The most cost effective way to strengthen safe water is to ensure
the knowledge and skills of public water system operators. The amendments
require all states to carry out a form of operator certification by using a program
that meets the guidelines established by the EPA or by enforcing an existing
state program that is equivalent to the EPA’s guidelines. If the states do not
comply with operator training they will be subject to penalties affecting their
SRF money in the form of block grants.
The next area of concentration for the amendments is Better Consumer Information. A “right to know” requirement forces systems to prepare consumer confidence reports. The amendments also specify that the public be provided with or give access to other data collected, analyses done or implementation strategies developed under new SDWA programs. Legislators feel that the more informed consumer will cause greater involvement with safe drinking water and its quality for years to come. However, the uninformed consumer may be scared of reported contaminents in their water which cause no health risk. In addition to the consumer reports, the water authority should include an "open door" policy and making themselves accessible to the public. All efforts to better educate the public on all issues affecting their drinking water will increase consumer participation and cooperation.
Consumer confidence reports, required by EPA regulation, forces community water systems to mail an annual water report to each customer. The report will include information about the source water and the level of contaminants in the drinking water. If the community serves between 500 and 10,000 people a report may be published in the newspaper rather than mailing it. Areas with less than 500 people, whose Governor does not require mailing, may give adequate public notice that a report is available for review. People being served by a water system must now be given notice of any violation of a national drinking water standard “that has the potential to have serious adverse effects on human health as a result of short-term exposure” within 24 hours of the violation.
Another amendment the EPA pursued dealt with “Regulatory Improvements”. The goal was to create a more efficient distribution of resouces which in turn would improve the public health’s protection.
The “Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (SRF)” (American Water Works Association)
is by far the most consequential change to the nation’s safe drinking water
provisions. It is meant to help communities to install and upgrade safe
drinking water facilities. There are 30,000 households alone in Virginia
that do not have safe drinking water. The SRF is a more efficient method
of monitoring and upgrading rinking water because they have better resources
and background about their own local water and water related problems. This
portion of the amendments extend the power initiated in the 1986 amendments
that gave states some flexibility to make decisions that can impact their own
drinking water. Training and enforcement will be made easier in a system where
each state is responsible for the water its constituents drink.
Click to download SDWA 1996 Amendments
(AWWA)
Dr. Robert HoehnDr. Leon Geyer, J.D
 Water Treatment Table of Contents |
 Previous Topic |
 Next Topic |