Introduction
SDWA is a United States regulation enacted in 1974 that establishes national drinking water quality requirements. The SDWA was first enacted in 1974 and has been altered several times since then (Tiemann, 2014). The act’s health and environmental benefits have been significant, but the expense of putting it into practice has been. The SDWA is a document that establishes guidelines for the collection, use, and control of human sewage. The first section of the paper will give an overview of the SDWA and its primary requirements. The second part of the paper will address amendments to the act, particularly how they will influence civic wellbeing and the environment. The third portion of the paper will discuss the challenges and benefits of implementing the SDWA as protracted herein.
The Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA is a state act that protects public drinking water supplies from unscrupulous individuals and corporations. There’s not much more to it than that, but there’s a lot of misunderstanding around the issue as well as a plethora of misconceptions. The most essential part of life is to drink water, which has always been so. No population may long stay in one location unless it has access to such a supply; it has always been thus. The threefold challenge of supplying a secure water supply entails three distinct difficulties. To be acceptable, a source must be identified, it must not contain pollutants (whether due to source protection or treatment), and the water must be transferred securely to the end consumer. Despite the fact that they are less likely to become sick from contaminated water, our greatest worry is for their safety. Any of these responsibilities must be properly completed, and each one has its own set of complex technical, policy, and legal difficulties. According to Patton et al. (2020), the act’s major impact on public health and the environment, as well as its high cost of implementation, has made it costly legislation to put in place. The SDWA sets strict contaminant levels for drinking water, ensuring that it is safe to consume (Allaire et al., 2018). Water utilities must also follow national standards for water treatment and disinfection under the SDWA.
Background
The SDWA is the primary Federal legislation governing drinking water. The legislation empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to standards for water usage and to provide material aid to States and localities in complying with these standards (Calabrese, 2018). The act also directs EPA to report on the eminence of drinking water in the U.S each year. EPA is required by law under the SDWA to establish first-level public water system regulations that safeguard human health. The SDWA requires EPA to enact standards that are supported by the most recent research and take into account the cost of implementation (Patton et al., 2020). The SDWA also necessitates EPA’s establishment of contaminant levels in drinking water that are deemed safe. More than 90 such criteria have been established fewer than 40 CFR parts 141, subpart.
Over 90 pollutants are regulated by the EPA as maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in civic water bodies. The supreme amount of a chemical that may be present in drinking water is defined by an MCL. If a system’s MCL is exceeded, the system must take remedial action to bring the level of the contaminant back below the MLC. In addition, under SDWA guidelines, EPA is required to establish secondary drinking water rules for public water systems. The EPA has established rules that aim to preserve the look of drinking water, such as taste, odor, and color. The law does not obligate EPA to establish numerical standards for these contaminants; instead, it requires the Agency to set non-enforceable guidance levels (Allaire et al., 2018). 40 CFR parts 141, subpart D contains a series of secondary drinking water regulations propagated by EPA.
The EPA is permitted by the SDWA to provide necessary assistance to states and localities in meeting SDWA standards. The EPA has established numerous programs to provide this assistance, including the State Revolving Funds (SRFs) and the Safe Drinking Water Technical Assistance Program. The SDWA calls for the EPA to publish an annual report on the drinking water in the US. The National Drinking Water Assessment (NDWA) is generated using data from a number of sources, including updated monitoring evidence and findings from the Agency’s national contaminant occurrence survey.
The first report, called “Drinking Water Quality in the United States-2009”, includes a national overview of drinking water quality and describes the major findings of EPA’s national contaminant occurrence survey. This report was published in November 2010The second study, known as “Drinking Water Quality in the United States-2011,” covers drinking water quality in each of the country’s 50 states and the District of Columbia. This study was released in November 2011 (Tiem, 2014). The SDWA has been amended a number of times since it was first passed in 1974. The most recent amendments, which were signed into law on December 16, 2011, are discussed below.
Supporters of the Safe Water Act (SWA) often cite its benefits in reducing waterborne illness. However, some opponents argue that the legislation is unnecessary and costly. This literature review provides an overview of the research on the SWA, with a focus on its effectiveness in preventing waterborne illness. Overall, the evidence suggests that the SWA has been effective in reducing waterborne illness. A study by EPA found that waterborne disease rates decreased by 36% after the passage of the SWA (Tiem, 2014). In addition, a number of studies have shown that investments in water infrastructure led to decreases in waterborne illness rates.
Overview of Major Requirements of the SDWA
The SDWA was passed in 1974 to guarantee that all Americans had clean water. To meet this objective, the act established a number of requirements for public water systems. The following are some of them:
- Testing water for contaminants
- Reporting test results to the EPA
- Ensuring that water is treated properly to remove contaminants
- Providing information about water quality to consumers
Since its passage, the act has undergone several adjustments in an effort to keep up with advances in science and technology. For example, in 1996, the act was amended to require public water systems to test for Cryptosporidium, a parasite that can cause severe gastrointestinal illness. Balaza & Ray (2014) reiterate the act has had a significant impact on public wellness and the environment. By setting rigorous standards for public water systems, the act has helped to ensure that millions of Americans have access to reliable water. However, the act is not without its critics.
Some argue that the act is too costly to implement and that it places unnecessary burdens on public water systems (Roberson, 2014). Despite these criticisms, the SDWA remains a vital piece of legislation in ensuring the safety of water used by all Americans. While the SDWA has been successful in protecting public drinking water supplies, it faces several impediments. One such impediment is the lack of resources available to the EPA to enforce the SDWA. In addition, many states have not enacted their own drinking water regulations that are stricter than the NPDWRs set by the EPA. This has resulted in a patchwork of drinking water regulations across the country. Another impediment to the SDWA is the lack of public funding for water infrastructure. Many municipalities are facing aging or inadequate water infrastructure, and they do not have the financial resources to address these deficiencies. According to Warren et al. (2020), the SDWA provides federal funding for water infrastructure projects, but this funding is often insufficient to meet the needs of municipalities. Despite these impediments, the SDWA has been successful in safeguarding general drinking water supplies. The EPA has set stringent National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, and it has been effective in enforcing these regulations (Allaire et al., 2018). In addition, the SDWA has provided billions of dollars in federal funding for water infrastructure projects.
What Amendments Have Been Made to the Act since It Was Passed In 1974?
Since its passage, the act was amended to require public water systems to test for Cryptosporidium, a parasite that can cause severe gastrointestinal illness. Later in 2005, it was amended to establish new drinking water standards for arsenic and other contaminants. And finally, 2009 saw the act further amended to provide funding for the construction of new water treatment plants (Allaire et al., 2018). The introduction of the Total System Contaminant Rule and accelerated biomonitoring has improved the quality and safety of America’s drinking water supplies. Despite some concerns, the SDWA is still an essential piece of legislation protecting safe drinking water for all citizens.
Environment and Implementation
Despite its many benefits, the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been without its critics. Some argue that the act is too costly to implement and that it places unnecessary burdens on public water systems. Others argue that the act does not go far enough in protecting the environment and public health. While it is true that the Safe Drinking Water Act can be expensive to implement, this cost should not be underestimated (Khan & Cwiertny, 2020). A safe drinking water supply from a public water system is an important resource, and ensuring its quality is a responsibility we all must care about. Furthermore, the long-term savings caused by the Safe Drinking Water Act’s enforcement are offset in large part through decreases in healthcare expenditures.
Finally, the choice to support or reject the SDWA is a question of values. Do we think that providing safe and clean drinking water is an inalienable right of all Americans? If that’s the case, we should be prepared to make substantial investments to guarantee that this fundamental right is protected (Khan & Cwiertny, 2020). In a nutshell, the SDWA is one of the most vital laws in terms of ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans. The act helps to protect millions of people from waterborne illnesses by establishing proper requirements for civic water systems and assuring that our drinking water springs are clean and safe. Despite its critics, the SDWA is an essential component of our national infrastructure and a critical resource for everyone.
The Impact of the Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed in 1974 with the goal of ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans. The legislation has been amended over the years, most recently in 1996, and has been credited with reducing waterborne illness rates by 36% Alexander, 2019). In a study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), waterborne diseases decreased by 36% after the passage of the SDWA (Alexander, 2019). This decrease is primarily attributed to investments in water infrastructure made as a result of the act.
A number of studies have also shown that the SDWA leads to reductions in waterborne illness rates. For example, a study by the National Academy of Sciences found that between 1980 and 2000, there was a 50% decrease in gastrointestinal illnesses caused by drinking water (Lesthaeghe, 2014). In another study, researchers found that there was a significant decrease in waterborne illness rates after the installation of a new water treatment plant (Warren, 2016). While the SDWA has been effective in reducing waterborne illness rates, there are still challenges to be addressed. For example, some communities have struggled with complying with the act’s regulations (Alexander, 2019). In addition, recent outbreaks of waterborne illnesses such as Legionnaires’ disease suggest that more work needs to be done to ensure safe drinking water for all Americans. Despite these challenges, the evidence suggests that the SDWA has been successful in improving water safety and reducing waterborne illness rates. Investments in water infrastructure have led to decreases in waterborne illness rates, and the act continues to be an important tool in ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans.
Examining Topical Issues Surrounding the Act
The IRAC method can be used to analyze SDWA and its effects on waterborne illness rates. The next section explicates the emerging issues surrounding SDWA, while subsequent sections delve into how the act has been effective in reducing waterborne illness rates. Finally, a closer review of arguments will be exemplified to support the premise that SDWA should continue to be an important tool in ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans.
Emerging Issues
Despite the successes of the SDWA, there are still challenges that need to be addressed. One such challenge is compliance with the act’s regulations. Some communities have struggled to meet the requirements of the SDWA, which can lead to waterborne illness outbreaks. For example, in 2013, the city of Lake Huron to the Flint River as a water source (Roberson, 2014). The new water supply was not treated properly and led to a Legionnaires’ disease outbreak that killed 12 people. Balazs& Ray (2014) add another pivotal challenge facing the SDWA is ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans. Recently, there have been several outbreaks of waterborne illnesses such as Legionnaires’ disease and Cryptosporidium. These outbreaks suggest that more work needs to be done to make sure Americans have access to safe water.
Tenets behind the Act
Over time, the SDWA’s effectiveness as a regulatory document to safeguard public health has been questioned. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized by the SDWA to promulgate nationwide drinking water standards that public water systems must follow in order to protect human health (Amrose et al., 2015). In addition, the EPA Office of Drinking Water was established as a result of the legislation.
Therefore, notably, the 1996 SDWA Amendments gave the EPA more enforcement power and greater financial assistance for public water systems. Customers were also required to be informed about their water quality under the amendments. As a result, one of the purposes of the Safe Drinking Water Act is to guarantee that everyone in America has access to safe drinking water. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal legislation regarding public water systems. The act also creates national drinking water standards that public water systems must adhere to and provides financial assistance to public water systems, as well as the obligation to inform consumers about their water quality.
According to a report by the EPA, there have been efforts made to guarantee that public water systems comply with EPA regulations in order to protect human health (Erskine, 2019). The rules are intended to guarantee that public water systems are operated securely and that drinking water is free of pollutants. The EPA has implemented a variety of SDWA regulations, including the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) and the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWR) (Erskine, 2019). The SDWA of 1996 Amendments (SDWA Amendments) demonstrated EPA’s increased enforcement power and financial help for civil water arrangements.
Effectiveness of the SDWA
While there are still challenges that need to be addressed, evidence suggests that the SDWA has been laser-focused on positive change. One way to measure the effectiveness of the SDWA is by looking at the decrease in waterborne illness rates. Since the enactment of the SDWA, there has been a decline in waterborne illness rates across all states (Alexander, 2019). This decline can be attributed to investments in water infrastructure and alignment with the state water requirements. Another way to measure the effectiveness of the SDWA is by looking at public opinion surveys. These surveys show that the majority of Americans believe that their drinking water is safe and that they trust the EPA to protect their health.
The Safe Drinking Water Act is an important tool in ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans. The act has been changing a considerable number of times, most notably with the SDWA of 1996 (SDWA Amendments). The amendments strengthened the act by giving the EPA more enforcement authority and increasing financial assistance to public water systems. The amendments also required public water systems to provide customers with information about their water quality. It can be inferred that the SDWA has made salient strides to contain waterborne illness rates (Pal et al., 2018). This has been backed by financing water infrastructure to decrease waterborne illness rates, and the act continues to be an important tool in ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans. The act is also popular with the American public, with the majority of Americans believing that their drinking water is safe and trusting the EPA to protect their health.
There are still challenges that need to be addressed, but the SDWA has been a critical tool in ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans. The act has undergone notable changes several times, most notably with the SDWA of 1996 (SDWA Amendments). The amendments strengthened the act by giving the EPA more enforcement authority and increasing financial assistance to public water systems. The amendments also required the civic water body to distribute information to customers on the water quality.
Analysis of the SDWA
Khan & Cwiertny (2020) debunk the SDWA 1974 as one passed in response to concerns about the quality of intake water in the U.S. The act established several regulations to control the operation of civic water systems and the quality of drinking water. In this case, public water systems are required to adhere to the set EPA requirements to protect human health. The regulations are designed to ensure that public water systems are operated safely and that drinking water is free of contaminants. According to Khan & Cwiertny (2020), the EPA has issued a number of regulations related to the SDWA, including the (NPDWR) and the (NSDWR).
The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (SDWA Amendments) gave the EPA more enforcement authority and increased financial assistance to public water systems. The amendments also required public water systems to provide customers with information about their water quality. It can be inferred that the act has been successful in improving water safety and reducing waterborne illness rates (Neu et al., 2020). Investments in water infrastructure have led to decreases in waterborne illness rates, and the act continues to be an important tool in ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans. The act is also popular with the American public, with the majority of Americans believing that their drinking water is safe and trusting the EPA to protect their health.
All in all, this critical piece of legislation has been a fantastic tool in ensuring that all Americans have access to clean, safe drinking water. Let us hope that it continues to be amended and improved as necessary so that we can protect the health of all Americans in the future. The act is also popular with the American public, with the majority of Americans believing that their drinking water is safe and trusting the EPA to protect their health.
There are still challenges that need to be addressed, but the Safe Drinking Water Act has been a critical tool in ensuring safe drinking water for all Americans. The act has been amended several times, most notably with the Safe Drinking Water Act of Amendments of 1996 (SDWA Amendments). The amendments strengthened the act by giving the EPA more enforcement authority and increasing financial assistance to public water systems. The amendments also required public water systems to provide customers with information about their water quality.
Despite being enacted over 25 years ago, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) remains a contentious issue. The act sets federal standards for drinking water quality and requires public water systems to monitor and test their water supplies. However, critics argue that the SDWA is not sufficiently funded and that the standards it sets are not stringent enough. Proponents of the SDWA argue that it has been successful in improving water quality across the country (Oh, 2018). They also point out that the act is regularly updated to reflect the latest scientific knowledge about water safety. Furthermore, they argue that the SDWA is adequately funded and that the standards it sets are appropriate for protecting public health.
The debate over the Safe Drinking Water Act is likely to continue for some time. However, it is clear that the act has had a positive impact on water quality in the United States. Critics of the SDWA argue that the standards it sets are not stringent enough and that the act is not sufficiently funded. However, proponents of the SDWA argue that the act has been successful in improving water quality across the country and that the standards it sets are appropriate for protecting public health. Without a doubt, the Safe Drinking Water Act is a critical piece of legislation that should be defended and strengthened.
When people get thirsty, they go to the kitchen and fill a glass from the tap to satisfy their thirst. To have water available via their faucet fifty years ago was a significant difference (Oh, 2018). The water was not as clean as it is today, and municipalities and states were increasingly concerned about the rising amounts of pollutants in the water that might endanger its customers’ health. The Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) was a response to these concerns and regulated the discharge of pollutants into waterways, which in turn improved the quality of water that people drank and swam.
Impact on Public Health
Since the passage of the SDWA, drinking water quality has improved significantly. According to EPA’s National Drinking Water Assessment (NDWA), over the past decade, 91 percent of Americans’ drinking water supplies met all health-related regulatory standards (Cumming, 2020). EPA’s latest national contaminant occurrence survey found that almost all public water systems meet the Agency’s regulatory limits for contaminants. However, some communities still face challenges in providing safe and reliable drinking water. For example, the NDWA found that arsenic and nitrates are among the contaminants most frequently found in drinking water supplies that do not meet all health-related regulatory standards.
The SDWA has helped to reduce these and other contaminants in drinking water. For example, the MCL for arsenic was reduced from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb as a result of the 1996 amendments to the SDWA. Cumming (20120) notes the act also requires EPA to set standards for new contaminants as they are identified. In response to this mandate, EPA has developed regulations for over 90 contaminants since the passage of the SDWA.
Impact on Environment
One of the key goals of the Safe Drinking Water Act is to protect public health and the environment. Since the passage of the SDWA, EPA has made significant progress in meeting this goal. For example, the Agency has developed regulations for over 90 contaminants since the passage of the SDWA (Larson, 2014). These regulations have helped to reduce the amount of these contaminants in drinking water and protect public health and the environment. EPA also works with states and localities to ensure that they have the tools they need to protect drinking water (Weststrate, 2019). For example, EPA has developed a program to help states and localities assess their water systems and set priorities for improvement. This program helps states and localities identify and address any deficiencies in their drinking water programs. In order to achieve this, the Agency also partners with states and localities to provide training and technical assistance.
Cost of Implementation
The Safe Drinking Water Act is a lengthy piece of legislation that needs significant financial and technical resources to put into effect. The act establishes EPA’s authority to provide funding and technical assistance to states and municipalities in order to meet SDWA standards. To provide this support, the Agency has established various programs, including the State Revolving Funds (SRFs) and the Safe Drinking Water Technical Assistance Program. Since its inception, the SRFs have disbursed over $27.5 billion in financial aid to States and localities for drinking water infrastructure projects (Weststrate, 2019). The Safe Drinking Water Technical Assistance Program has given more than $390 million in technical assistance to States and localities.
While the SDWA’s dollar costs are difficult to estimate, they have undoubtedly been significant. The act has helped to improve drinking water quality and protect public health and the environment while also incurring large expenditures for states and municipalities (Katner et al., 2020). The EPA is obligated by SDWA to develop national primary drinking water standards for pollutants that may create health concerns and are expected to be present in public supply systems.
Section 1412 describes how EPA should select pollutants for regulation, as well as the procedure and timetable by which it must do so. The regulations apply to “public water systems” owned by private individuals or municipal governments that serve at least 15 service connections or regularly serve at least 25 people (Weststrate, 2019). For more than 90 pollutants, the EPA has established drinking water disinfectant and by-product standards or treatment methods for microorganisms (including Cryptosporidium and Legionella), radionuclides, organic chemicals (benzene), inorganic chemicals (arsenic and lead), among others.
Selection of Disinfectants and Regulatory Procedures
The SDWA also directs EPA to establish a monitoring program for unidentified chemicals in order to assist with the collection of occurrence data for substances that aren’t regulated but are suspected to be present in public water supplies. Every five years, the Environmental Protection Agency is required to publish a rule (Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule [UCMR]) identifying no more than 30 unregulated contaminants that must be tracked by public water systems (McDonald & Jones, 2018). This list incorporates not only the contaminant candidate lists but also additional data. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to make a regulatory decision for at least five of the chemicals on the CCL every five years. Once EPA decides to regulate a contaminant, it must propose a rule within 24 months and issue a “national primary drinking water regulation” within 18 months after the proposal.
Conclusion
As depicted in discussions presented herein, the Safe Drinking Water Act is a complex piece of legislation that has had a significant impact on public health and the environment. The act has helped to improve the safety of drinking water and to protect public health from a number of chemical contaminants. The cost of compliance has been high, however, and water utilities have had to invest billions of dollars in new equipment and systems. Looking forward, there are several challenges that must be addressed in order to further improve the safety of drinking water. These include ensuring that all Americans have access to safe water, reducing the number of chemical contaminants in drinking water, and addressing the emerging issue of microplastics in water supplies. Addressing these challenges will require significant investment and cooperation between federal, state, and local governments, as well as the private sector. With dedication and concerted effort, however, it is hoped that further progress can be made in improving the safety of America.
References
Alexander, K. (2019). Safe Drinking Water Act Could Be Safer. Water Log, 39, 1.
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.
Amrose, S., Burt, Z., & Ray, I. (2015). Safe drinking water for low-income regions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 40, 203-231.
Balazs, C. L., & Ray, I. (2014). The drinking water disparities framework: On the origins and persistence of inequities in exposure. American journal of public health, 104(4), 603-611.
Calabrese, E. J. (2018). Safe Drinking Water Act. CRC Press.
Cumming, L. A. (2020). The Feud Is Getting Old: Why the Oil and Gas Industry Should Lobby for the Federal Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Penn St. L. Rev., 125, 905.
Erskine, L. (2019). The Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) is a federal law to regulate drinking. Master of Public Health Competencies: A Case Study Approach: A Case Study Approach, 137.
Katner, A. L., Brown, K., Pieper, K., Edwards, M., Lambrinidou, Y., & Subra, W. (2018). America’s path to drinking water infrastructure inequality and environmental injustice: The case of flint, Michigan. In The Palgrave Handbook of Sustainability (pp. 79-97). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Khan, S. J., & Cwiertny, D. M. (2020). Editorial Perspectives: What is “safe” drinking water, anyway? Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology, 6(1), 12-14.
Larson, C. D. (2017). Historical development of the national primary drinking water regulations. In Safe Drinking Water Act (pp. 3-16). CRC Press.
Lesthaeghe, R. (2014). The second demographic transition: A concise overview of its development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(51), 18112-18115.
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.
Neu, H. M., Lee, M., Pritts, J. D., Sherman, A. R., & Michel, S. L. (2020). Seeing the “Unseeable,” A Student-Led Activity to Identify Metals in Drinking Water. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(10), 3690-3696.
Oh, U. Y. (2018). Trends and Determinants of Water-Drinking Practices: A Mixed-Methods Study (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill).
Pal, M., Ayele, Y., Hadush, M., Panigrahi, S., & Jadhav, V. J. (2018). Public health hazards due to unsafe drinking water. Air Water Borne Dis, 7(1000138), 2.
Patton, H., Krometis, L. A., & Sarver, E. (2020). Springing for safe water: Drinking water quality and source selection in central Appalachian communities. Water, 12(3), 888.
Roberson, J. A. (2014). The middle‐aged Safe Drinking Water Act. Journal‐American Water Works Association, 106(8), 96-106.
Tiemann, M. (2014). Safe drinking water act (SDWA): A summary of the act and its major requirements (pp. 7-5700). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Warren, C. C. (2016). An American Reset-Safe Water & a Workable Model of Federalism. Duke Envtl. L. & Pol’y F., 27, 51.
Weststrate, J., Dijkstra, G., Eshuis, J., Gianoli, A., & Rusca, M. (2019). The sustainable development goal on water and sanitation: learning from the millennium development goals. Social Indicators Research, 143(2), 795-810.