Water is among the essential commodities sustaining human life, considering that it is used for critical purposes, including drinking, household needs and agriculture. The need for accessible, safe, and affordable water has promoted enacting various legislations to ensure that citizens’ needs are granted. Among the most active laws implemented to safeguard water was the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 (Calabrese, 2018). This law brought a revolution in protecting and conserving this critical product since it had early been exposed to various threats, including depletion. The main provisions in this law were to ensure that water supplied from the source to the faucets was free from natural and artificial contaminants through water treatment and consistent supply to the public (Moeller, 2011). The statute would also propose ways to protect these natural resources to ensure that exploiters are answerable through sanctions. SDWA was amended severally, including restructuring in 1977, 1986, 1996, 2002, 2005, 2011, 2015, and 2018 (Weinmeyer et al., 2017). This constant revision accommodated various provisions to have a universal rule addressing every aspect from access, use and conservation. The prepositions of SDWA, chronological amendments made, their impact on the environment, public health, and implementation cost are examined.
The SDWA Provisions in 1974
Before the SDWA was implemented, citizens of the United States had accessible clean water for domestic and commercial use, but it was neither tested nor regulated. This factor indicates that the government did not maximize monetization opportunities in the water supply to the people. The people were also exposed to health and environmental hazards since the water was not purified (Olden, 2018). The reason is that the natives were at risk of drinking contaminated water, making it easier for them to be infected with water-borne diseases affecting the economy in the long run. Therefore, the gap in the regulation of safety and accessibility of water created the need to implement this act. The 93rd Congress initially passed the SDWA law in 1974 to safeguard the public drinking water supply systems (Weinmeyer et al., 2017). The second reason was to spread awareness on the need to conserve the environment to ensure that causes for water depletion are inhibited.
The impact of this amendment on the environment and public health was immense, considering that it brought a revolution into the initial anti-conservation practices to more eco-friendly ones that promoted change. This law required every water source, whether underground or above, to be protected by ensuring that it is not contaminated through human and industrial activities, including dumping and oil spillage (Weinmeyer et al., 2017). This action ensured that water used by the public was safe for consumption leading to the prevention of other health-related diseases such as cholera. Various microbes live in stagnant water, making it possible for people to be infected with water-borne diseases when they drink the water (Olden, 2018). Other contaminants such as larvae could cause eye, ear and throat infections when people bathe with the water or swim on it. Therefore, the new rules would ensure that such adverse effects are avoided so that people can live healthy life.
The cost of its implementation was divided into various sections, including the expenditures incurred when installing and operating contaminant removal equipment, monitoring and analysis of different samples and oversight costs. All these were estimated to be close to $1 billion in annual costs (Olden, 2018). However, the cost-benefit analysis indicates that the rule’s positive impacts outweighed the expenses incurred (Weinmeyer et al., 2017). As a result, the SDWA has evolved to make the community a better place with accessible clean water making it prone to progressive alterations in the following years.
The Amendment to the Safe Water Drinking Act of 1977
This new amendment was vital since it supported research, information sharing, and personnel training to help execute their mandate with a higher level of competence. SDWA was amended again in 1977 to safeguard the safety of the state’s drinking water supply against contamination (Weinmeyer et al., 2017). Any water intended for human consumption, whether it comes from an above-ground or below-ground source, must comply with the provisions of this regulation. The two major provisions of this statute included the requirements for local governments to establish the water drinking standards and water treatment requirements for the public’s welfare (McDonald & Jones, 2018). The legislation also devised the minimum requirements for the underground injection of fluids to purify the drinking water and its supplies. This rule applied to all the water sources, including the rivers and the reservoirs, since such channels were the major water points.
The rule also required administrators to report any irregularities or safe drinking water supply to ensure all the sources are dependable. It also required the administrators to provide technical assistance by giving grants to federal-owned systems to prepare for any emergencies that may endanger the general public. The cost of its implementation was $50 million, which was also among the most expensive amendments done for a single law (McDonald & Jones, 2018). The health impact of this amendment would be the reduced spread of water-borne diseases leading to a sustainable health system. Other benefits would be accrued, considering that it would reduce the need to boil water or buy bottled water for drinking, which would be economical. This law would also ensure that pipes are not corroded due to the impurities such as lead, which increases wear and tear (McDonald & Jones, 2018). Another benefit would be environmental since this rule protects against pollution since the law promotes integrity, meaning that the contaminants will not exceed the standards set. Through this protection, the water levels rise, supplying the entire system with enough needed resources and preventing issues such as rising temperatures.
The SDWA 1986 Amendment
Policymakers realized a need to consider a few principles when implementing the act for the public water systems to be monitored and contaminants detected effectively. This new amendment is intended to protect drinking water and its sources such as the lakes, springs, wells, reservoirs, and rivers from impurities. The first consideration was that some substances underground could not be controlled or prevented from contaminating the water (Humpreys & Tiemann, 2021). Therefore, the new amendment must monitor and regulate the wide range of compounds available to ensure all the impurities are identified and possible measures implemented to avoid direct or indirect contamination (McDonald & Jones, 2018). Another proposal was that groundwater pollutants must be classified and assessed with more attention to ensure that none is left out. Furthermore, solutions to contamination activities must be reduced by increasing taxations on hazardous products to the environment through high production and distribution levies to ensure a solid solution is attained. Additionally, this amendment also proposed creating a robust information system to evaluate the data produced to ensure that accurate results are obtained from the diverse information.
In 1986, the Safe Drinking Water Act underwent significant revisions to reflect these changes (Humpreys & Tiemann, 2021). By 1989, a target of 83 contamination criteria had been established, with an additional 25 pollutant guidelines to be established every three years. Fortunately, the 1986 Provision led to the discovery of even additional pollutants (Humpreys & Tiemann, 2021). Some of these contaminants included chemical, groundwater, and microbial pollution. They were detected through expert analysis of the components of water using high-tech equipment that enabled them to visualize the contaminants. Organic pollutants and disinfectant by-products of chlorine were found to be impurities. Organic pollutants included everything from pesticides to volatile organic compounds. In addition, it was discovered that lead pipes and lead in new drinking water systems had been found; thus, they were banned. Therefore people were encouraged to adopt new interventions considering staggering facts. Only 5% of the chlorine produced and utilized in the United States is used to disinfect drinking water and wastewater (Moeller, 2011). The current disinfection levels in the country’s drinking water needed to be enhanced since chlorine has significantly reduced water-borne infections.
Microorganism-killing properties of chlorine have made it an effective tool in the fight against public health (Humpreys & Tiemann, 2021). However, the SDWA does not legislate on private wells, so new guidelines have to be established to monitor wells pumping toxins underneath the clean water streams. Amendments ensured that a wellhead security plan protected public wells in each state (Keiser & Shapiro, 2019). Some of the listed contaminants in this amendment included agricultural pesticides, animal and human wastes and naturally occurring substances that pollute the underground waters.
This amendment was a revolutionary step towards sensitizing the public on the different pollutants contaminating water sources (Moeller, 2011). This phase could be named as the information access age since everyone got to understand how water is contaminated, the pollutants by name and the health hazards each creates when people are exposed. Through this classification, people understood the use of chlorine as a purifier and how to dispose of trash appropriately to ensure that water is not contaminated. Public health was also enhanced, considering people understood the dangers of not treating water. Similarly, people discovered the economical way of buying water by chlorinating it instead of buying bottled ones. This statute was among the most expensive interventions since it cost the state an average of $25 million in monitoring and inspections of the various points of high and low contamination and analysis of the possible interventions to be enforced and in other expenditures that resulted in a total cost of 1 Billion (Keiser & Shapiro, 2019). In addition, this strategy ensured that plastic use was reduced significantly, which also promoted a greener environment.
The 1996 Amendment Act
SDWA legislators discovered that the water-related problems created the need for an agency that could help devise strategies and implement interventions to curb the menace of water contamination. Some of the responsibilities not covered in the 1986 amendment included the enforcement responsibilities, assurance of available adequate supplies, and groundwater programs. These were highlighted in this new amendment. Therefore, in 1996, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created to uphold the SDWA rules and ensure water safety and accessibility (Keiser & Shapiro, 2019). EPA partnered with both the federal and state governments through a comprehensive SDWA compliance monitoring program that necessitated imposing strict measures to ensure that citizens and everyone in the US comply with the set requirements. That statute mandated the EPA to create water quality standards for the Great Lakes, addressing 29 hazardous contaminants with tolerable levels for humans, wildlife, and aquatic life (EPA, 2021). EPA also has to assist the States in following the criteria into action according to a set timeline by accessing help from experts such as surveyors and environmental analysts. More defined roles of EPA under the SDWA rule of 1996 included filing Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), cost-benefit analysis, creating a revolving fund program, examining the microbial contaminants and certification of organizations or operators.
The organization was expected to provide the consumer with CCR, a report outlining the crucial information about the quality and safety of drinking water. CCR ensures that information provided by all the water systems aligns with the federal and state requirements to ensure that safety is guaranteed (EPA, 2021). Information to be displayed included the water source, level of contamination and possible adverse health effects to ensure that consumers make the right choices when making purchases or choosing their water providers (EPA, 2021). Another crucial responsibility was that the EPA performs a cost-benefit analysis for every new measure or program to ensure that the benefit outweighs the losses. This strategy was vital since it ensured that government allocations were appropriately used to achieve the desired objectives.
The agency was also mandated to ensure that microbial contaminants are eradicated through efficient anti-pollutant interventions to enhance water protection. Another role given to EPA included handing all the public information and consultation (Keiser & Shapiro, 2019). The rule acknowledged that consumers had the right to know the content of their drinking water, the source, and how it is protected from pollutants. This requirement made this agency the source of information for consumers (EPA, 2021). Another vital role EPA played was to ensure that small water systems were also protected to ensure that the water also maintained the standards set, including protection from contaminants and treatment before use. In addition, assessment of quality was a mandatory exercise that ensured that reservoirs, springs, wells and rivers were protected from susceptible contaminant sources to ensure that they were persevered and protected from contaminants.
In 1996, Congress added section 1417(e), which directs EPA to issue laws establishing health-based quality standards to restrict the amount of lead that can release toxic substances (Keiser & Shapiro, 2019). A standard for the industry has been created since section 1417(d), which was added in 1986, described “lead-free” as containing no over 0.2 percent lead in soldiers and officers and fluxes with not more than 8% lead in pipes and pipe fittings (Allaire et al., 2018). However, the states, not the EPA, are in charge of enforcing the prohibitions that support public access to water with zero impurities, which can result in water-borne diseases among natives.
A significant step towards conserving water sources was when the EPA created the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) and the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWR). These agencies had the mandate to analyze the list for a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) and a Maximum and Contaminant Level (MCL) (Keiser & Shapiro, 2019). MCLG refers to the level of contaminants in a specific source, while the MCL is the possible feasible levels accepted in specific water quantities (Keiser & Shapiro, 2019). Using two organizations enabled the SDWA to assess water contaminants on a large scale, considering its expansion into a more extensive system encompassing various other agencies. The final recommendation after incorporation of MCLG and MLC, EPA required that treatment techniques be applied to the various water sources to ensure that contaminants are eradicated.
The most significant health risk posed by the water supply was the possibility of microbial contamination. Although there were a few outbreaks, public water suppliers working with SDWA could successfully combat the microbial threats. For instance, in 1973, water-borne diseases such as typhoid fever were common in the United States (Calabrese, 2018). The regulatory mechanisms are extensive, covering almost all types of potential water pollutants. Microbial contamination, natural precursor by-products, inorganic compounds, disinfection by-product indicators, radionuclides, corrosion products, volatile and other synthetic organics, and pesticides were identified. “These restrictions are meant to protect consumers, and they were created using conservative health assessments that are meant to overstate the risk factors.
Although SDWA 1996 was among the best systems that led to change in the management of water contaminants, the law was amended again in 2005 to broaden the scope of EPA’s practices. EPA formulation and running cost was estimated at 1 billion inclusion, policy implementation, and reimbursement of all the involved parties (Weinmeyer et al., 2017). The law was integral in the conservation of the environment and securing a better tomorrow since it focused on individual growth and security for tomorrow by protecting water purity.
The impact of EPA on health included reduction of water-borne diseases, promoting better eco-friendly disposal systems to protect the environment and ensuring that no contamination affects water for drinking, which had previously led to the outbreak of water-borne diseases (Olden, 2018). The EPA also creates programs that reduce chemical use and environmental exposure to pollutants, leading to water contamination resulting in water-borne illnesses. The US reported a 5% reduction in water-borne disease prevalence through the EPA (Allaire et al., 2018). This finding indicated high efficacy in counteracting careless use and disposal of chemicals contaminating water sources.
The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002
For various security concerns, the 107th Congress passed the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 to address the rising threats to drinking water protection. All these were addressed by Title IV of the Bioterrorism Act, which revised the SDWA act of 1996 (Olden, 2018). The amendment had various prepositions, including the risk and resilience assessment, emergency assistance, underground injection control programs and penalties for tampering with public water systems. In addition, this new rule justified sanctions for temperance or contamination of water sources, including the rivers and the lakes.
As part of Section 1433, water systems were mandated to analyze their vulnerability to terrorism or other malicious acts and develop emergency response plans (Weiser-Burton, 2019). The law required public water control systems to verify their vulnerability assessments by a specific date, but it did not compel them to maintain their evaluations or response measures. For each community water system that serves more than 3,300 people, the new SDWA rule mandates a risk and resilience evaluation of the system (Weiser-Burton, 2019). A community’s ability to deal with these threats must also be assessed by determining its physical infrastructure, management techniques, and finances. This section sets timelines for certifying to the EPA that they’ve undertaken risk and resilience assessments for community water systems.
Every five years, public water systems serving more than 3,300 people must review their assessments and, if necessary, revise them. Public water systems with fewer than 3,300 people are exempt from the assessments (Weiser-Burton, 2019). This strategy would ensure that the protection of water sources is, maintained. Additionally, each of these communities had to produce an emergency response plan that included the findings of their risk evaluation. By assisting smaller systems on risk evaluation, disaster response protocols, and dangers, EPA would be fulfilling its mandate.
The new law also introduced the underground injection control programs imposed by the EPA, setting the minimum standards for National UIC programs. These interventions were introduced to protect the drinking water sources s from the underground injection that a state license has not permitted (Allaire et al., 2018). It also provides specific instructions on the injection of drugs in wells by classifying the sources into several classes, such as Class VI, whose injection type is carbon dioxide. The wells can only be used for geologic analysis, considering that carbon dioxide is a mitigation tool for greenhouse emissions from coal-powered plants and other significant sources (Calabrese, 2018). Federal law permits the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assist states and public water systems in emergencies by providing guidance and funding under SDWA Part 1442(b). The Bioterrorism Bill enhanced this law to permit payments of not more than $35 million for emergencies to provide enough resources to deal with a crisis.
Another possible intervention through this new rule was the imposition of penalties to those who defied regulatory rules governing water security. This new rule also identified the need to impose penalties on those who defied the rules at any given point by providing the guidelines on the reconstruction process. Anyone who interferes threatens to manipulate or interfere with a public water system is subject to litigation sanctions under section 1432 (Calabrese, 2018). The Bioterrorism Act instituted an increase in criminal and civil sanctions to deter anyone from interfering with public water systems. In addition, increased maximum prison sentences for tampering were implemented.
To tamper, or threaten to alter, is now punishable by up to 10 years in imprisonment. For tampering, the maximum fine is $1 million. In addition, an increase in fines for tampering has been made to $100,000 (Weinmeyer et al., 2017). The penalties for tampering with public water systems would ensure that the water sources are protected and that anyone tampering with the system answers as stipulated in the law. This new amendment was integral in creating a new structure of accountability and collective responsibility among the people. Furthermore, this system ensured that everyone was aware of the conservation strategies and the consequences of defying the rule.
The 2005 Amendment
The SDWA establishes criteria for safeguarding groundwater and ensuring the safety of the public drinking water supply in the United States. However, many limitations, including the scope of practice, had put pressure on the efficacy of this law. Therefore, an amendment was sought through the small system SDWA of 2005 (Calabrese, 2018). This new policy created new roles for the administrator to ensure that environmental protection and public health are safeguarded. This act amends the Safe Drinking Water Act by requiring the creation of a task force to analyze the limitations to using defined treatments. This activity would ensure that water treatment options such as chlorine are safe and effective in weakening the impurities. Another role is developing concept guidelines for regions governed and encouraging such treatment options. The strategy would ensure that when proposing a national standard for drinking water, the toxicity level and the time required for contamination symptoms are considered when impure water is used.
Under this new rule, feasible technological equipment had to be used to reflect on the various sources of contaminants (Calabrese, 2018). It was the first time that high-tech equipment was utilized in analyzing the impurities to provide a viable result. In addition, the affordability criteria would be determined by cost-benefit analysis and not the direct expense on specific equipment to ensure that enough resources are available for the process to continue. This rule also prohibited the introduction and enforcement of drinking water regulations for public sources that provided water for less than 10,000 people (Weinmeyer et al., 2017). The reason is that these populations were considered not enough to make new regulations or systems, indicating that only the state-level regulations were implemented.
Proposals to investigate novel technologies or approaches for compliance with the standard and challenges related to technology transfer have been established in pilot initiatives. Revisions to the technical support regulations clarify that water systems must obtain enough assistance and training to comply with the ultimate rules (Moeller, 2011). Disinfectants and disinfectant by-products, arsenic and compliance and new source monitoring are prioritized above systems that comply with stated rules (Weinmeyer et al., 2017). First, the administrator must be supplied with enough technical help and training before the system can be enforced. All these strategies were established to protect the quality and safety of water by providing technical assistance on conducting risks and resistance assessments to ensure that all the considerations were met.
The average cost of this law was undisclosed, considering the fact that it was just an extension of the previous obligations prescribed under the rule. However, environmental and population health impacts are detectable, considering that it also provided a new strategy for enhancing care (Moeller, 2011). People who use water from public water systems benefit significantly from regulation since it reduces the detrimental consequences of contamination. These regulations significantly impact human health, an essential outcome since all water-borne diseases are eradicated. Other advantages include a better sense of taste, considering the fact that impurities degrade the quality of water by altering the taste, which also hinders usage.
The 2011 Amendment
The development of this amendment led to significant strides in the promotion of better conservation rules alongside protection rules. Due to the mandate given to EPA under the 1996 amendment, they could develop new rules such as the pure water analysis to ensure the water safety is guaranteed (Allaire et al., 2018). This new amendment required the use of Lead-Free Pipes, Valves, Fixings, Fittings, and Fluxes for Drinking water. EPA finalized this rule to ensure water is not contaminated (Weiser-Burton, 2019). In addition, adjustments to current rules were made to comply with Congress’s reduction of lead in the Drinking Water Act (RLDWA).
Companies and dealers must attest that their items meet the standards within three years of the proposed publication deadline in the federal register. Because of this, jurisdictions, manufacturers, inspectors, and customers all have a consistent understanding of what “Lead-Free” plumbing means and the benefits of having this new rule (Weinmeyer et al., 2017). Also, in 2011, RLDWA Section 1417 developed exemptions from the injunctions of use or introduction into commercial transactions of “pipes, pipe fitting, plumbing fittings or fixtures,” including backflow preventers (Weiser-Burton, 2019). These devices are used purely for non-potable services like production, processing industry; irrigation; outdoor watering; or other uses where the water is not anticipated to be used for human consumption.
As part of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA must identify the number of pollutants in drinking water. There should not be any adverse health consequences when evaluating the appropriate margin of safety (Allaire et al., 2018). It is dubbed maximum contaminant level targets to refer to these non-enforceable health objectives based only on the possibility of health consequences (Calabrese, 2018). Since lead is a hazardous metal that can damage human health even at lower levels of exposure, the Environmental Protection Agency has set a zero maximum contamination level objective for lead in drinking water. As a tenacious substance, lead has the potential to accumulate in the body and eventually, it may cause health issues such as mental retardation and anemia.
Apart from the health benefits, control of lead exposure is integral for a better ecosystem. Lead is a persistent pollutant in the environment, and it can be introduced into marine sediments through deposits from emitters of lead pollution in the air (Calabrese, 2018). Direct discharge of waste streams into water bodies and mining are also other sources of lead exposure in ecosystems. Increased lead levels in the environment can cause extensive environmental contamination, which affects lower development and reproduction in plants and animals and neurological problems.
Lead poisoning results in the suppression of natural processes of plants such as germination, limiting growth and development. Additionally, lead has been shown to significantly reduce root growth, seedling development, plant growth, transpiration, chlorophyll production, and water and protein content in plants (Allaire et al., 2018). These processes are integral in ensuring that agricultural processes are sustained. This factor indicates that when the ecosystem is protected from toxins, food production is enhanced and forest deterioration inhibited, which affects the entire system (Weiser-Burton, 2019). The 2011 amendment made regulation of toxins an achievable task. Although the cost of implementation is was not revealed, its impact has outweighed any tag that could be placed on it since lead has adverse health effects on people and the environment exposed to it.
The Drinking Water Protection Act of 2015
This law was created to reinforce the provisions in the previous amendments that supported water safety. The Drinking Water Protection Act of 2015 strengthened RLDWA by initiating a strategic approach to protect the water systems. For instance, Health Research Engineers must authorize new water system expansion projects before they can be implemented (Weiser-Burton, 2019). Operation permits, which may include specific limitations and are specified and approved by a Health Authority Drinking Water Officer, are also required of water system operators to ensure that their systems comply with the new standards created (Weiser-Burton, 2019). The water system operators must also ensure that water treatment and quality standards are met through consistent monitoring and evaluations to maintain drinking water. Unlike the other amendments that generalized water protection, this new amendment only focused on enhancing drinking water security to avoid poisoning from contamination.
The law also required that operators have a license if they are serving more than 500 individuals through the environmental operators’ certification program (Moeller, 2011). Additionally, this new rule required water ministers to create a reliable communication system to accurately provide all the accurate information regarding drinking water safety for prompt response (Allaire et al., 2018). The health effect of this rule includes reduced loss of life because of responsiveness of the team and reduction of microbial such as the gastrointestinal illness which causes discomfort. The same provision would ensure that the environment is protected by enhancing the standards of protection limited to only safe practices.
America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018
America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 (AWIA) was enacted to enhance the quality and safety of t drinking water, promote investments in infrastructure, improve health service and quality of life, provide job opportunities, and strengthen the economy. The AWIA requirements are the most significant revisions to the SD WA1996 Legislative changes, and they compel the implementation of more than 30 programs (Calabrese, 2018). These programs include; SDWA infrastructure loans, water risk and resilience analysis, community information rights, water infrastructure improvement, and management assessment strategies.
AWIA permits the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to grant long repayment terms for infrastructure projects, mandates the supply of extra subsidies to nation disadvantaged populations, and broadens the scope of source water protection eligibility for assistance under the regional aid set-aside (Allaire et al., 2018). Another provision is that risk assessments and emergency response plans (ERPs) must be developed or updated for community water systems that serve more than 3,300 people (Allaire et al., 2018). The law defines the aspects of risk assessments and environmental risk assessments (ERAs) that ERP must address and the timeframes by which water systems shall conform to EPA that the risk assessment and ERP are completed. Additionally, the law requires that the state and community-based emergency service commissioners alert the appropriate Federal agency of any identified leaks and give hazardous chemical inventory data to public water systems, among other things.
Another provision was the water infrastructure improvement grants, which provided financial assistance to support public water systems in remote and underprivileged towns. This strategy would help reduce lead in water distribution systems, gives financial support to households for lead lines maintenance, and conduct lead testing in learning and child care institutions. Another integral mandate is controlling asset management and development interventions (Allaire et al., 2018). AWIA required the state to raise the standards in capacity development strategies to incorporate a comprehensive description of how the asset management plans will be conducted considering unique aspects such as the training and technical assistance essential in water conservation processes (Keiser & Shapiro, 2019). The state must also update the strategies to ensure that asset management is enhanced so that EPA can review and update the documents certifying the projects. Other prepositions are yet to be added into this new rule, including the water system restructuring rule and a detailed report to Congress addressing the small system practices. These new clauses will ensure that every system complies with the national compliance standards, whether large or small.
These changes indicate that the law may be subjected to new amends as time goes by to ensure that every other detail about water conservation is included. AWIA is a vital rule since it has impacted the health and environmental conservation standards (Keiser & Shapiro, 2019). For instance, the rule requires public water officials to assist underserved communities by testing, treating, or replacing their drinking water if exposed to lead to ensure that the people are secured from chemical contamination, which causes various types of cancer (Hodgson, 2019). In addition, the environmental benefits of this statute include reducing the lead contamination into the rivers, which may affect the soil quality and the sources of water due to exposure to this metal.
The cost of implementing this law is unmatched, considering that replacing water infrastructure can cost between $ 30 and $ 50 Billion (Keiser & Shapiro, 2019). Other operational costs such as treating water systems and reporting on issues have not been included in this budget, indicating that it could stretch up to billions of dollars if all of the mentioned prepositions are enforced. SDWA has evolved through amendments at different stages to ensure that the people are protected from any water contaminants. The reason is that every amendment brought a new perspective into the protection of water, which enhanced security achieving the government’s objective to maintain its security and purity.
Water sources were initially unprotected, indicating that the systems were prone to various threats, including contamination. Therefore, SDWA was the initial regulation that changed water system regulation and protection. Congress enacted the law in 1974 with significant provisions, including mitigation processes against contamination of water sources by human activities such as dumping industrial wastes into the river, among other activities. The 1977 amendment came to reinforce this rule by supporting water treatment and training officials to examine and report threatening water contamination levels. However, these provisions were still not adequate, leading to the 1986 amendment that enhanced the process of impurities identification and introduced the treatment of water using chlorine. All these provisions were new, creating a significant impact on water protection. In 1996, the EPA was created to reinforce efforts into conserving water. Other essential policy improvements included the amendment in 2002, 2005, 2011, 2015 and 2018. These stirred change into the protection sources, water treatment, and funding infrastructure. The benefits to the environment include conversation of water sources and reduced contamination of the environment that causes illnesses such as cancer and gastrointestinal issues.
References
Allaire, M., Wu, H., & Lall, U. (2018). National trends in drinking water quality violations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(9), 2078-2083. Web.
Calabrese, E. J. (2018). Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). CRC Press.
Hodgson, E. M. (2019). Thirsty for justice: How the Flint water crisis highlights the insufficiency of the citizen suit provision of the safe drinking water act. S. Ill. ULJ, 44, 347. Web.
Humpreys. H., E., & Tiemann, M. (2021). Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): A summary of the act and its major requirements. Congressional Research Service. Web.
Keiser, D. A., & Shapiro, J. S. (2019). US water pollution regulation over the past half-century: burning waters to crystal springs? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 51-75. Web.
McDonald, Y. J., & Jones, N. E. (2018). Drinking water violations and environmental justice in the United States, 2011–2015. American Journal of Public Health, 108(10), 1401-1407. Web.
Moeller, D. W. (2011). Environmental health. Harvard University Press.
Olden, K. (2018). The EPA: Time to re-invent environmental protection. American journal of public health, 108(4), 454-456. Web.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2021). Background on Drinking Water Standards in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Web.
Weiser-Burton, K. (2019). Clean Drinking Water: A Stream of Success and Opportunity for Reform. Utah L. Rev., 503. Web.
Weinmeyer, R., Norling, A., Kawarski, M., & Higgins, E. (2017). The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and its role in providing access to safe drinking water in the United States. AMA Journal of Ethics, 19(10), 1018-1026. Web.