Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
“feel-good science,” paired with more consumer information presented in
readily understandable form, and calls for increased attention to assess-
ment and protection of source waters. The significance of the 1996 SDWA
amendments lies in the fact that they are a radical rewrite of the law that the
USEPA, states, and water systems had been trying to implement for the past
10 years. In contrast to the 1986 amendments (which were crafted with little
substantive input from the regulated community and embraced a command-
and-control approach with compliance costs rooted in water rates), the 1996
amendments were developed with significant contributions from water sup-
pliers and state and local officials and embody a partnership approach that
includes major new infusions of federal funds to help water utilities—espe-
cially the thousands of smaller systems—comply with the law. In
Table 3.4
,
we provide a summary of many of the major provisions of the new amend-
ments, which are as complex as they are comprehensive.
implementing SDWA
On December 3, 1998, at the oceanfront of Fort Adams State Park, Newport,
Rhode Island, in remarks by President Clinton to the community of Newport,
a significant part of the 1996 SDWA and amendments were announced—
the expectation being that the new requirements would protect most of the
nation from dangerous contaminants while adding only about $2 to many
monthly water bills. The rules require approximately 13,000 municipal water
suppliers to use better filtering systems to screen out
Cryptosporidium
and
other microorganisms, ensuring that U.S. community water supplies are safe
from microbial contamination. In his speech, President Clinton said:
This past summer I announced a new rule requiring utilities across the
country to provide their customers regular reports on the quality of
their drinking water. When it comes to the water our children drink,
Americans cannot be too vigilant.
Today I want to announce three other actions I am taking. First, we're
escalating our attack on the invisible microbes that sometimes creep into
the water supply. … Today, the new standards we put in place will sig-
nificantly reduce the risk from
Cryptosporidium
and other microbes, to
ensure that no community ever has to endure an outbreak like the one
Milwaukee suffered.
Second, we are taking steps to ensure that when we treat our water,
we do it as safely as possible. One of the great health advances to the
20th century is the control of typhoid, cholera, and other diseases with
disinfectants. Most of the children in this audience have never heard
of typhoid and cholera, but their grandparents cowered in fear of it,
and their great-grandparents took it as a fact of life that it would take
away significant numbers of the young people of their generation. But
as with so many advances, there are tradeoffs. We now see that some
of the disinfectants we use to protect our water can actually combine
with natural substances to create harmful compounds. So today I'm
