Reflecting on the Safe Drinking Water Act: Achievements and Ongoing Challenges
In the early 1970s, environmental concerns gripped the American public as reports of pollution in major water bodies like the Mississippi River surfaced. The federal government took action, suing companies such as Reserve Mining Company for endangering water supplies by discharging harmful substances into Lake Superior. Amidst this backdrop, Congress passed landmark legislation targeting air and water quality. But the question of safe tap water remained.
This led to the inception of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) in 1974, signed into law by President Gerald Ford. This was a significant step in safeguarding public health, ensuring the provision of clean and safe drinking water across the nation. Today, the majority of Americans enjoy high-quality potable water thanks to this act.
According to Radhika Fox, the assistant administrator for water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “the Safe Drinking Water Act is an example of the essential work that our government can and must do to stand up for our well-being.”
Despite its successes, the act faces numerous challenges as it moves into its next fifty years. An estimated two million Americans still lack access to running water or indoor plumbing. Disparities persist, with Black and Hispanic populations more likely to encounter substandard water quality. Small water systems, often under-resourced, are particularly prone to regulatory violations.
The SDWA saw a significant setback in 2005, when exemptions were granted to the oil and gas industry, removing federal oversight on certain chemical fluids used in fracking. Additionally, the act does not tackle issues like aging infrastructure, climate change, or private well regulation.
Environmental groups urge the EPA to expand regulation of contaminants linked to severe health risks. The agency has recently moved to establish standards for PFAS, persistent pollutants found in numerous consumer goods. Perchlorate, another hazardous substance, is also under scrutiny following a court mandate.
However, some experts argue for a shift in focus. Chad Seidel of Corona Environmental Consulting emphasizes the need for infrastructure investment, suggesting that neglecting such basics could lead to increased health risks. “I believe the health risks of regressing are higher than the risk of unregulated contaminants,” Seidel stated.
Small water systems, accounting for the majority of the country’s 50,000 public water systems, often lack the financial and managerial resources necessary for effective operation. Consolidation into larger entities is suggested as a solution to enhance service quality.
The 1996 amendments to the SDWA introduced a revolving loan fund to support local water improvements. Despite substantial federal contributions, state and local governments still shoulder most infrastructure costs. Concerns are growing over Congress potentially diminishing these funds through earmarks.
Financial assistance for low-income households, similar to existing energy bill support programs, is also advocated to help utilities manage costs without overburdening vulnerable customers. The temporary aid provided during the pandemic has since expired, highlighting the need for a permanent solution.
Despite these financial and operational challenges, a rising mistrust of tap water is evident, particularly among Black and Hispanic communities. This is reflected in increased bottled water sales and the proliferation of commercial water kiosks. High-profile water crises in places like Flint and Jackson have exacerbated this distrust.
As Manny Teodoro of the University of Wisconsin-Madison notes, water is unique among government services as it is “the only government service you ingest,” underscoring the personal nature of the public’s relationship with water providers.
—
Read More Michigan News
