OnTap Drinking Water News For America’s Small Communities Fall 1996 Volume 5, Issue 3 On Tap is a publication of the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse, sponsored by the Rural Utilities Service. A History Lesson: Contaminated Water Makes a Deadly Drink, page 8 Continued on page 14 Safe Drinking Water Act Reauthorized by Kathy Jesperson NDWC Staff Writer In 1989, the Connecticut state legislature passed three landmark pieces of legislation deal- ing with water conservation, becoming the first state to regulate water conservation. The first law mandated resi- dential retrofit programs for utilities serving more than 1,000 customers or having 250 or more connections. Retrofit- ting means either replacing or modifying existing toilets, showers, and faucets so they use less water. The second law mandated uniform plumbing efficiency standards for toilets, showerheads, urinals, and faucet aerators. And the third law specified water conservation planning as a pre- requisite for state regulatory permit actions, Conservation Doesn’t Have To Hurt Continued on page 7 The drinking water act rewrite will change the way most systems approach monitoring, operator certification, “capacity development,” and what they tell the public about water quality. It also authorizes funding for a drinking water state revolving fund (DWSRF) similar to the existing wastewater SRF. Monitoring Has New Focus The SDWA reauthorization continues a trend toward monitoring flexibility, especially for small communities, according to Robert Johnson, chief executive officer of the National Rural Water Association. “More monitoring decisions will be made by the individual states,” he said, adding that re- sources will be focused on the most pressing needs. including rate increases. All of these new require- ments had to be phased in by January 15, 1991. Only 20 miles south of the capital city of Hartford—where such legislative decisions are made—frustrated city officials in the small town of Portland rolled their eyes. With only 2,200 service connections bringing in revenue, how could they finance more un- funded mandates? And, for that matter, how could this new legisla- tion possibly benefit the town’s water utility or its customers? Utility Changes Its Attitude “One thing was for sure,” says David Kuzminski, Portland’s conser- vation coordinator, “finding the benefit would have to come through a change in attitude. Whether we liked it or not, we had to deal with this thing. And what we did was turn regulation into a positive for the town.” Because Connecticut had already identified a water conservation plan, Portland based its con- servation program on the state’s step-by-step by P.J. Cameon NDWC Staff Writer Editor’s note: As we go to press, the Senate and House of Representatives have finally approved the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) reauthoriza- tion. This article provides initial reaction to the 1996 SDWA reauthorization and a brief explana- tion of some of the key provisions. Drinking water systems around the country will see many changes in the way they operate with reauthorization of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The reauthorization—updating the original SDWA of 1974 and its 1986 amendments—was overwhelmingly approved by Congress and then signed into law by President Clinton August 6.
Transcript
OnTap Fall 1996 1
OnTapDrinking Water News For America’s Small Communities
Fall 1996Volume 5, Issue 3
On Tap is apublication of theNational Drinking
Water Clearinghouse,sponsored by the
Rural Utilities Service.
A History Lesson:
Contaminated
Water Makes a
Deadly Drink,
page 8
Continued on page 14
Safe Drinking WaterAct Reauthorized
by Kathy JespersonNDWC Staff Writer
In 1989, the Connecticut state legislaturepassed three landmark pieces of legislation deal-ing with water conservation, becoming the firststate to regulate waterconservation.
The first lawmandated resi-dential retrofitprograms forutilities servingmore than 1,000customers orhaving 250 or moreconnections. Retrofit-ting means either replacing ormodifying existing toilets, showers, and faucetsso they use less water.
The second law mandated uniform plumbingefficiency standards for toilets, showerheads,urinals, and faucet aerators. And the third lawspecified water conservation planning as a pre-requisite for state regulatory permit actions,
Conservation Doesn’t Have To Hurt
Continued on page 7
The drinking water act rewrite will change theway most systems approach monitoring, operatorcertification, “capacity development,” and whatthey tell the public about water quality. It alsoauthorizes funding for a drinking water staterevolving fund (DWSRF) similar to the existingwastewater SRF.
Monitoring Has New FocusThe SDWA reauthorization continues a trend
toward monitoring flexibility, especially for smallcommunities, according to Robert Johnson, chiefexecutive officer of the National Rural WaterAssociation.
“More monitoring decisions will be made bythe individual states,” he said, adding that re-sources will be focused on the most pressing needs.
including rate increases. All of these new require-ments had to be phased in by January 15, 1991.
Only 20 miles south of the capital city ofHartford—where such legislative decisions aremade—frustrated city officials in the small townof Portland rolled their eyes. With only 2,200
service connections bringing in revenue,how could they finance more un-
funded mandates? And, for thatmatter, how could this new legisla-tion possibly benefit the town’swater utility or its customers?
Utility Changes Its Attitude“One thing was for sure,” says
David Kuzminski, Portland’s conser-vation coordinator, “finding the benefit
would have to come through a change in attitude.Whether we liked it or not, we had to deal withthis thing. And what we did was turn regulationinto a positive for the town.”
Because Connecticut had already identified awater conservation plan, Portland based its con-servation program on the state’s step-by-step
by P.J. CameonNDWC Staff Writer
Editor’s note: As we go to press, the Senate andHouse of Representatives have finally approvedthe Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) reauthoriza-tion. This article provides initial reaction to the1996 SDWA reauthorization and a brief explana-tion of some of the key provisions.
Drinking water systems around the countrywill see many changes in the way they operatewith reauthorization of the federal Safe DrinkingWater Act (SDWA).
The reauthorization—updating the originalSDWA of 1974 and its 1986 amendments—wasoverwhelmingly approved by Congress and thensigned into law by President Clinton August 6.
2 OnTap Fall 1996
R E S O U R C E S
NA
TIO
NAL DRINKING WA
TE
R
C
LEAR IN GHOUSE
Volume 5, Issue 3Fall 1996
Sponsored byRural Utilities
Service
AdministratorWally B. Beyer
Loan SpecialistDonna Roderick
Established in 1991 at WestVirginia University, the NationalDrinking Water Clearinghouse
is funded by the Water andWaste Disposal Division of the
Rural Utilities Service.
National Drinking WaterClearinghouse
Manager, WVU EnvironmentalServices and Training Division
John L. Mori, Ph.D.
Program CoordinatorSanjay Saxena
Technical ServicesCoordinator
David Pask, P. Eng.
PublicationsSupervisorJill A. Ross
PromotionsSupervisorDiana Knott
Managing EditorHarriet Emerson
Staff WritersP.J. Cameon
Lauretta GalbraithKathy Jesperson
Graphic DesignerEric Merrill
On Tap is a free publication,produced four times a year(February, May, August, and
graphs, or other materialssubmitted for publication are
welcome. Please addresscorrespondence to:
Editor, On Tap, NDWCWest Virginia University
P.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506
(800) 624-8301
Permission to quote from orreproduce articles in this
publication is granted whendue acknowledgment is given.
Please send a copy of thepublication in which informationwas used to the On Tap editor
at the address above.
The contents of this publicationdo not necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the RuralUtilities Service, nor doesmention of trade names or
commercial products constituteendorsement or
recommendation for use.ISSN 1061-9291
OnTap
NDWC Celebrates Fifth AnniversaryNDWC Staff Writer P.J. Cameon talked with
several drinking water professionals for his article“Safe Drinking Water Act Reauthorized.” (Seepage 1.) This piece provides initial reaction to theSDWA’s passage. We plan to dedicate the entireWinter 1996 issue of On Tap to the SDWA andwhat it means for small community water systems.
“Contaminated Water Makes a Deadly Drink,”the second installment of Jesperson’s history ofwater treatment and waterborne illness, tells howPestilence—the Fourth Horseman of the Apoca-lypse—ascended from drinking water to ravagenewly emerging cities in the 19th century. Chol-era, viruses, and microbial pathogens took a tollwhile scientists searched for the elusive source ofillness. (See page 8.)
Our second fact sheet, “Tech Brief: Filtration,”is in the center of this issue. Once again,Mohamed Lahlou, NDWC technical assistance
specialist, did the primary research and writing.And Arjita Sharma, NDWC staff re-
searcher, gives an overview of package treat-ment plants. (See page 16.)
As the NDWC begins its sixth year, wewant to express our gratitude to those of youin the field—drinking water professionals,federal employees, and small town officials—who have been so generous with time andexpertise: discussing your work with us,reviewing articles, and contributing ideas.We can’t thank you enough.The NDWC distributes information at a num-
ber of conferences and conventions during theyear. It will be represented at the Association ofState Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)11th Annual Conference, October 14–17, inLaJolla, California. If you attend the ASDWAConference, stop by the NDWC display. We’dlike to meet more of our readers.
Harriet EmersonOn Tap Editor
On Tap subscribers 9,000 20,000
Water Sense subscribers – 4,000
Hotline calls 3,000 7,500
DWIE–BBS accessed 2,000+ 12,000
Products distributed 3,000 6,000
Last full year(FY 1995)
Initial year(FY 1992)
FY=fiscal year
The National Drinking Water Clearinghouse(NDWC) is celebrating its fifth anniversary thisfall. It was established in 1991 by the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture’s Farmers Home Administra-tion (now Rural Development).
Charged with providing information, technicalassistance, and referrals relating to small commu-nity drinking water systems, the concept for theNDWC is based on that of our successful sisterorganization, the National Small Flows Clearing-house, which has provided wastewater informa-tion to the nation since 1979.
Over the years, the NDWC has consistentlyserved growing numbers of people seeking drink-ing water-related information. The last fiscalyear—NDWC’s fourth full year of operation—brought more than twice the requests of our initialyear of service. The chart below reflects thisgrowth in demand for our services.
This issue of On Tap covers subjects frompublic health to conservation and filtration.Conservation is always a hot topic. Do low-flowshower heads and inflatable devices in the toilettank really save money? Staff Writer KathyJesperson reports on a conversation with DavidKuzminski, conservation coordinator for Port-land, a small town in Connecticut. (See page 1.)
On August 2, the Safe Drinking Water Act(SDWA) reauthorization passed the House 392-30and the Senate 98-0. President Clinton signed themeasure into law August 6.
According to Gannett News Service, theSDWA is the first—and perhaps only—majorenvironmental legislation enacted by the 104thCongress. Senator Dirk Kempthorne, who spon-sored the measure, says the SDWA is landmarklegislation. He remarked that for the firsttime the government is making fundsavailable to states and communities toimprove their drinking water supplies,and for the first time legislation dealswith source water protection.
OnTap Fall 1996 3
N E W S & N O T E SN E W S & N O T E S
As part of a nationwide initiative to providesafe drinking water to millions of Americansby the turn of the century, U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) Secretary Dan Glickmanannounced that $70 million will be provided to 54communities in 35 states. Funds will be used tobuild, improve, or expand public drinking watersystems.
“This is the largest investment made to datethrough Water 2000, the Clinton administration’sinitiative to address rural America’s most pressingwater needs,” said Glickman during the mid-Julyannouncement.
Launched by the Clinton administration inAugust 1994, Water 2000 targets resources to the
estimated three million households that eitherhave no running water in their homes or seriouswater quality, dependability, or availability problems.
For additional information about Water 2000activities in your area, call your state’s RuralDevelopment (RD) office.
For the telephone number of your state RDoffice, call the National Drinking Water Clearing-house at (800) 624-8301.
For additional information about Water 2000,contact Bart Handford at RUS at (202) 720-1261.
For more information on USDA programsand the Water 2000 initiative, access the USDAhome page on the World Wide Web at http://www.usda.gov.
USDA Announces $70 Million for Water 2000
Water 2000 Chart Available from NDWCfindings down by state listing the number ofhouseholds and level of financial need for each.For example, the chart shows that North Carolinahas the greatest number of people with drinkingwater needs (423,353), while Kentucky has thegreatest financial need ($1 billion) to address itswater problems.
The states are listed two ways: alphabeticallyon front and according to greatest financial needon the back.
For a free copy of the Water 2000 needs as-sessment chart (item #DWPCRE09) or for a freecopy of Water 2000: A Plan for Action (item#DWPCRE02), call the NDWC at (800) 624-8301.
For additional information about Water 2000or the needs assessment, please refer to the spring1996 issue of On Tap or contact Bart Handford atRUS at (202) 720-1261.
• intermediate rate: 5.125 percent (up .250percent from the previous quarter);
• market rate: 5.875 percent (up .500 percentfrom the previous quarter).RUS loans are administered through local or
state Rural Development offices, formerlyknown as Rural Economic and CommunityDevelopment offices. These offices can providespecific information concerning RUS loans andapplications.
For the number of your nearest Rural Devel-opment office, contact the National DrinkingWater Clearinghouse at (800) 624-8301.
After dropping for two consecutive quar-ters, two of the three interest rates for RuralUtilities Service (RUS) water and wastewaterloans have increased. The poverty rateremains unchanged.
RUS issues loans at one of three interestrates, according to community qualificationcriteria. The rates for the fourth quarter offiscal year 1996 apply to all loans issued fromJuly 1 through September 30, 1996. Theserates are:
• poverty line rate: 4.500 percent (un-changed from the previous quarter);
RUS Loan Rates Increase; Poverty Line Rate Unchanged
The National Drinking Water Clearinghouse(NDWC) is now offering the Rural UtilitiesService’s (RUS) Water 2000 needs assessmentchart listing the number of U.S. households thatneed improved drinking water service and theestimated costs for delivering that service.
Water 2000 is the U.S. Department ofAgriculture’s (USDA) effort to have “safe, afford-able drinking water in virtually every home [inthe U.S.]—no matter how remote and dis-tressed—by the year 2000.”
A needs assessment was conducted in 1995and found that nearly three million U.S. house-holds, representing eight million people, eitherlack drinking water service or have serious drink-ing water needs. RUS estimates it will takeapproximately $10 billion to address the needsin all 50 states.
The two-sided chart, “Water 2000: Rural SafeDrinking Water Needs Assessment,” breaks the
4 OnTap Fall 1996
N E W S & N O T E SN E W S & N O T E S
by Jeremy CanodyNDWC Contributing Writer
Editor’s note: The following article is reprintedwith permission from Small Flows, Volume 10,Number 2, Spring 1996. Small Flows is a publi-cation of the National Small Flows Clearing-house.
The U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) recently unveiled anew policy that gives states moreflexibility in assisting small com-munities in trying to complywith environmental regulations.
“With this policy we intendto empower the states,” saidKenneth Harmon, attorney-advi-sor with the EPA Office of
Enforcement and ComplianceAssurance. He added that this programencourages states to offer assistance to smallcommunities that are trying in good faith toachieve environmental compliance. “We are tell-ing states that EPA will accept responses otherthan traditional enforcement.”
The Policy on Flexible State EnforcementResponses to Small Community Violations(Small Communities Policy) implements part ofthe Clinton administration’s Reinventing Envi-ronmental Regulation Initiatives effort announcedMarch 16, 1995.
Harmon said these initiatives seek to enhancethe environmental compliance of small communi-ties and promote alternative strategies forcommunities to achieve environmental and eco-nomic goals. The policy defines small communi-ties as those that are nonprofit, governing entities(incorporated or unincorporated), own municipalfacilities, and have fewer than 2,500 residents.
If a small community is unable to correct allof its environmental violations within 180 days ofa state’s commencement of compliance assistance,the community and the state should negotiate anagreement and schedule that provides for compli-ance by a specified date that is as soon as reasonablypossible for the community. Under appropriatecircumstances, the EPA will allow small commu-nities to prioritize among competing environmentalmandates to correct their worst problems first.
“For example, if a small community has prob-lems with its wastewater and its drinking water,but lacks the resources to address both problemssimultaneously, the state and the community canconduct an analysis of the comparative risks andnegotiate a compliance schedule that allows thecommunity to address its problems in order of
New EPA Policy Gives States More Flexibilityrisk-based priority,” Harmon said. “EPA’s goal isto encourage a comprehensive approach in whicha state looks at all of a small community’s envi-ronmental requirements and helps the communitydevelop a rational schedule for achieving overallcompliance.”
The policy also assures states that EPA willdefer to a state’s decision to waive part or all of
the usual noncompliance penalties if asmall community is working in good
faith and making reasonableprogress toward compliance.
EPA’s policy does not applyto criminal violations or tocircumstances or violations thatpresent an “imminent or sub-
stantial” endangerment to publichealth or the environment.
“This is a carefully craftedpolicy that gives greater flexibility
to small communities to work withstates to fix their environmental problems,
while ensuring that there also is an ‘enforcementbackstop,’ if needed, to protect the public and theenvironment,” said Steve Herman, EPA’s assistantadministrator for Enforcement and ComplianceAssurance.
The policy does not mandate that states mustoffer compliance assistance to small communities.
“Generally, if a small community is makingan effort in good faith, the state can generallyexpect EPA to defer its actions,” Harmon added.
“If some states prefer to maintain the enforce-ment status quo, EPA will be there as the tradi-tional enforcement partner,” Harmon said. “Smallcommunities in such states can expect the samelevel of flexibility they have historically experi-enced with respect to penalty adjustments andcompliance schedules.”
However, as Harmon pointed out, traditionalenvironmental enforcement is typically a piece-meal approach and requires closer EPA review ofa state’s decision not to seek the full expected penalty.
“If, however, a state elects to offer complianceassistance, and does so in a manner consistentwith our policy, the state can generally expectEPA to defer to its actions.”
For more information on the Policy on FlexibleState Enforcement Responses to Small CommunityViolations or for more information on obtainingassistance, contact Harmon at (202) 564-7049, orwrite to the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compli-ance Assurance (2224A), Chemical, CommercialServices and Municipal Division, 401 M St., S.W.,Washington, DC 20460.
EN
VIR
ON
ME
NTAL PR OT ECTION
AG
EN
CY
UNITED STATES
Water Fact
Less than 1 percentof the treated waterproduced by waterutilities is actually
consumed. The restgoes on lawns, inwashing machine,and down toilets
and drains.
55 Facts,Figures & Follies
of WaterConservation,Denver WaterDepartment
OnTap Fall 1996 5
N E W S & N O T E SN E W S & N O T E S
Information Collection Rule Is FinalThe Information Collection Rule (ICR), which
establishes monitoring and data reporting require-ments for large public water systems (PWSs),became final May 1, and was published in theFederal Register May 14.
The intention of the ICR is to provide the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) withinformation about the occurrence of disinfectionby-products (DBPs) and pathogens, includingGiardia, Cryptosporidium, and viruses. The EPAalso will collect engineering data on how PWSscurrently control such contaminants.
This ICR notice finalizes requirements formonitoring microbial contaminants and DBPs bylarge PWSs. It requires large PWSs to provideoperation data and a description of their treatmentplant design.
It also requires some surface water systemsserving more than 100,000 people and ground-water systems serving 50,000 people to conducteither bench- or pilot-scale studies of DBP pre-cursor removal by activated carbon or membranesby July 1999.
Approximately 500 utilities are expected to beinvolved in the data collection effort for a totalcost of $130 million over a three-year periodbeginning in 1997. Although the ICR does notdirectly affect small water systems, the informa-tion collected is eventually expected to impactsystems of all sizes.
The agency plans to use information gener-ated by the ICR, along with concurrent research,to determine whether revisions need to be madeto the current drinking water filtration and disin-fection rule. It also wants to determine the needfor new disinfectant and DBPs regulations.
The ICR will provide data to support the selec-tion of one of the regulatory options proposed in
the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule onJuly 29, 1994, and future regulations for DBP.
For the complete text of the ICR, see the Fed-eral Register, May 14, 1996. For further informa-tion, contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at(800) 426-4791. For a summary of the ICR, seeEPA’s Office of Ground Water and DrinkingWater homepage at http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/OGWDW/icrindex.html.
AWWA To Sponsor Crypto Symposium
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) has issueda call for papers to be presented at an International Symposiumon Waterborne Cryptosporidium, March 2–4, 1997.
Cryptosporidium, a significant concern to the water industry,has been the focus of research efforts by industry professionalsand public health experts for many years.
The symposium, which will consist of paper and posterpresentations, hopes to provide a forum for the exchange ofinformation on the most recent Cryptosporidium research occur-ring worldwide.
Topics will include source water protection measures, watertreatment processes, detection methods, risk assessment, healtheffects and treatment, and communications.
The symposium is sponsored by the AWWA, AWWAResearch Foundation, Association of California Water Agencies,International Life Sciences Institute, International Water SupplyAssociation, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,National Water Resources Association, National Water ResourcesInstitute, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Water EnvironmentFederation.
For more information on specific topics and submission re-quirements, contact Brian Murphy, water quality engineer, atAWWA, 666 West Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235. You can alsocall him at (303) 347-6194 or e-mail [email protected].
EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner saidthat while the recent coliform violation did notconstitute a public health threat, it does “reflect acontinued pattern of deterioration, neglect, anduneven operation” of the D.C. water system.
The agency ordered the district to make animmediate evaluation of needed repairs and in-spections; begin upgrades for drinking waterdistribution systems; initiate system flushing,disinfection programs, and reservoir clearings;and devise a financial plan to assure that resourcesare available to make necessary improvements.
There’s trouble on tap for the nation’s capital.In early July, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) announced a series of specialprecautionary measures designed to ensure thatWashington, D.C.’s drinking water meets federalstandards.
According to The Bureau of National Affairs,Inc., the EPA stepped in after the nation’s capitalissued a notice of coliform violation followed bya boil-water alert. The alert was almost immedi-ately rescinded, leaving residents confused as towhether it was safe for elderly and those withcompromised immune systems to drink tap water.
Trouble Hits Washington’s Water System
6 OnTap Fall 1996
EPA’s Project XL Encourages ExcellenceOn March 16, 1995, President Clinton
launched the Project XL Community Program,one of 25 initiatives directed at Reinventing Envi-ronmental Regulation. XL stands for “Excellenceand Leadership.”
In response to this initiative, the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) introducedseveral XL projects, including the Project XLCommunity Program.
Under the president’s plan, a limited numberof communities will have the opportunity todemonstrate excellence and leadership in environ-mental protection by exploring alternative envi-ronmental management strategies that achievehigher levels of environmental quality. By mid1997, EPA plans to select and initiate 50 projects.
As part of the Project XL CommunityProgram, EPA is working with state and tribalagencies to grant communities flexibility inimplementing environmental regulations inexchange for a commitment to achieve greaterenvironmental performance.
EPA asks communities to demonstrate spe-cific environmental management actions tailoredto local conditions. It wants projects to deliverbetter environmental quality than the uniformcontrol approaches used by legislative mandates.
Improved environmental quality can beachieved either directly through the project’senvironmental activities or through cost-savingmethods resulting from the project.
Each Project XL Community Program willundergo four phases before EPA considers it avalid, alternative environmental strategy. Eachproject is proposed, accepted for development ofthe final agreement, implemented, and evaluated.
A final project agreement should includeexplicit goals, quantitative data (if possible),benchmarks, and requirements that include mea-surable performance objectives.
Through the Project XL Community Program,EPA encourages projects that will build, support,and promote cooperation among key stakeholders,such as citizens, businesses, government, andnonprofit organizations at the community level.
Communities submitting proposals shoulddemonstrate that they have the technical andfinancial capabilities to implement their proposals.In addition, EPA favors proposals that demon-strate ways of creating economic opportunity inconjunction with improved environmental quality.
EPA is looking for projects that might serve asmodels for other states, tribes, local governments,regional entities, and communities nationwide.
Although no funding grants are provided forapplicants, participating communities will have theopportunity to develop environmental manage-ment strategies to fit local needs. In turn, this mayincrease environmental and economic efficiency.
For more information on the Project XL Com-munity Program, contact Chris O’Donnell, direc-tor of the EPA’s XL Community Pilot Program, at(202) 260-2763.
To receive a fax of the Project XL CommunityProgram information package and/or XL Pipe-line Newsletter, call (202) 260-8590.
EPA also maintains a Project XL site on theWorld Wide Web at: http.//www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/xl_about.html.
Groundwater Hero Recognized
inventories. This methodology continues to be used by com-munities throughout Texas and the nation. It is estimated thatthe volunteers saved El Paso $100,000.
Haverstick continues to assist the city and the countyhealth district on various environmental protection activities,including working with his team to inventory drinking watersupplies and septic tank systems in colonias throughoutEl Paso County. He also helped develop a groundwaterprotection video.
The Groundwater Foundation plans to make this anannual award. Next year, the honor will be called the “VernHaverstick Groundwater Hero Award,” in honor of its firstrecipient.
To request a nomination form for 1997, call The Ground-water Foundation at (800) 858-4844. Nominations are dueJanuary 15, 1997. The award will be announced by May 1.
N E W S & N O T E SN E W S & N O T E S
The Groundwater Foundation recently named a Texasman its first-ever “Groundwater Hero.” The Foundationestablished its hero award to recognize an outstandinggroundwater steward working behind the scenes on thelocal level—an individual who has excelled in efforts toprotect a precious resource.
Vern Haverstick of El Paso was named groundwaterHero during ceremonies at the Watershed ’96 Conference inBaltimore, Maryland. Haverstick became involved in ground-water protection in 1989, when he participated in theEl Paso Wellhead Protection Project.
He helped recruit two dozen citizen volunteers to con-duct a potential contaminant source inventory aroundEl Paso’s 138 public water supply wells. Haverstick and histeam of volunteers spent countless hours developing meth-odology to conduct comprehensive groundwater protection
OnTap Fall 1996 7
C O V E R S T O R YC O V E R S T O R Y
Drinking Water Act ReauthorizedContinued from page 1 Drinking Water Fund Approved
The rewrite authorizes $9.6 billion in federalfunds—divided into annual installments—to“capitalize” the DWSRF. The funding install-ments, however, must be appropriated by Con-gress each year.
“States will apply to the EPA for capitaliza-tion grants. States will set up their own funds andprovide loans to eligible drinking water systems,”said Jamie Bourne, EPA’s manager of theDWSRF. “The DWSRF will play an integral rolein helping systems, particularly small systems,come into and maintain SDWA compliance andprotect public health.”
The reauthorization requires that 15 percent ofthe capitalization grant funds be made availablefor small systems (those serving fewer than10,000 people). In addition, a state may use up to30 percent of the capitalization grant funds forspecial assistance for disadvantaged small systems.
Keeping the Public InformedEach water system, as directed by the reautho-
rization, must prepare an annual “consumer confi-dence report” describing the quality of thesystem’s water.
These reports are to be written in “plainEnglish” and made available to every customer,according to Shanaghan.
For larger systems, the reports must be mailedto each household, but smaller systems need onlyensure that the reports are publicized and madeavailable.
Systems already must notify the public when acontaminant exceeds maximum allowable levels.This new requirement covers all detected contami-nants found in the drinking water supply, regard-less of whether they exceed allowable levels.
Johnson said the systems must identify eachcontaminant and then explain what potentialhealth hazard its presence poses.
Rewrite Has Other AspectsThe SDWA reauthorization includes many
other provisions that could impact small watersystems. These include studying water conserva-tion efforts and assessing the threat of contamina-tion in each system’s source water.
“Certainly, source protection is important tous and every water system in the country,”Johnson said.
More detailed explanations of the SDWArewrite will be provided in upcoming issues ofOn Tap.
“It’s reasonable and logical. It’s good publichealth policy,” Johnson continued.
Johnson said the changes within the SDWAreauthorization allow more emphasis to be placedon drinking water contaminants that pose thegreatest health risks, such as Cryptosporidium.
Capacity Development StressedThe “capacity development” provisions for
small systems are among the most important inthe SDWA reauthorization, according to PeterShanaghan, small system coordinator for the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The provisions are designed to help systemsgain adequate technical, financial, and managerialresources, or capabilities, to comply with healthstandards.
First, states are required to ensure that anyproposed new water systems have these resources.Second, states are required to develop and imple-ment a strategy to identify existing water systemsmost in need of help with these resources. Thestrategy will also help states prioritize systemsaccording to need.
“It’s a common-sense framework withinwhich states can help small systems developcapabilities for the long haul,” Shanaghan said.
Boosting Certification StandardsThe reauthorization directs EPA to work with
states to develop minimum certification require-ments for all water system operators, accordingto Shanaghan.
“It represents an important opportunity forsmall systems to focus on ensuring they haveappropriately trained and qualified personneloperating their water treatment plants,” he said.
EPA will work with states to develop guide-lines for certification and recertification of opera-tors, Shanaghan said. Existing state programs willbe presumed to be satisfactory, so long as theyachieve the public health protection objectives ofthe guidelines.
“The thrust of the provision is for EPA towork with states to develop guidelines for what iseffective,” he said. “The objective is not to rein-vent the wheel, but to make incremental improve-ments as needed.”
Vanessa M. Leiby, executive director of theAssociation of State Drinking Water Administra-tors, said she welcomed the reauthorization’slanguage concerning certification requirements.
“The states are pleased with the flexibility thathas been provided in this provision, as well as therecognition that most states currently have opera-tor certification programs in place,” Leiby said.
For moreinformation aboutthe SDWAreauthorization,contact the EPASafe DrinkingWater Hotline at(800) 426-4791 ore-mail them [email protected]
8 OnTap Fall 1996
E D U C A T I O NE D U C A T I O N
A History Lesson:Contaminated Water Makes a Deadly Drink
Continued on next page
Cholera killed thousands.
Despite the obvious nuisance they must havecaused, these seemingly thoughtless actions con-tinued, states Duffy. However, when Pestilence—the Fourth Horseman of the Apocalypse—rodeinto town, the consequences of actions such asthese would be realized.
Pestilence Thunders into TownPestilence dared to show its ugly face, and
it bore more than one name—cholera, typhus,typhoid, malaria, and yellow fever were amongits favorites. As cities grew increasingly crowded,both waterborne and other diseases flourished.But it would take a long time for humankind tounderstand the cause of its misery.
“That invisible organisms also thrive and swimaround in a watery environment was beyondimagination until a few centuries ago,” saysJames Olsztynski in “Plagues and Epidemics,”Plumbing and Mechanical Magazine, July 1988.“And their connection with disease wasn’t estab-lished until a scant 100 years ago.
“People believed divine retribution causedplagues and epidemics, or else bad air, or theconjunction of the planets and stars, any and allof these things,” he continues. What else couldexplain healthy people dying within hours ofbecoming ill or soldiers struck down on the
battlefield with no sign ofwounds?
Progress Is SlowOlsztynski notes that even
though the microscope wasinvented in 1674, it still tookanother 200 years for scientists“to discover its use in isolatingand identifying the specificmicrobes of a particular disease.”So no progress was made untilthe 19th century.
Prior to discovering thesedisease-causing microbes, how-ever, some 17th century expertsdebated whether or not the pres-ence of these minute organismswas really a problem, notesNelson M. Blake in Water for theCities, 1956. Some thought thepresence of these “animalcules”
could be used as evidence of the purity of thewater, as these delicate creatures could not beexpected to live in poisonous waters.
by Kathy JespersonNDWC Staff Writer
Editor’s note: This is the second installment ofa three-part series on the history of water treat-ment and waterborne diseases. The final articlewill discuss modern drinking water treatmentmethods and some of the current regulations.
Small, nomadic bands of people once roamedthe Earth, camping and hunting with the seasons.Barely aware of each other, these ancient peoplelived and worked like extended families. But thatisolation didn’t last long. Soon the wandering bandsbegan to settle into larger groups—recognizingthe benefits of sharing skills and safety in num-bers, thus creating what we now call civilization.
They formed cities and towns. Populationsincreased. Through this closeness, people beganto share more and more resources—such as com-munal water supplies. But early city dwellers didnot know much about source water protection.Privies were often built within a few yards of apublic well, and domestic animals roamed freely.
Pollution BeginsBesides polluting water with fecal matter, city
residents often made no provisions for garbagecollection. In manycities, town officialseven encouragedbutchers, fishmongers,and other trades peopleto throw refuse into thestreets, assuming thatroaming animals woulddispose of it, statesJohn Duffy, author andhistorian, in The Sani-tarians, a 1990 text-book that traces thehistory of the sanitarymovement.
Even though theanimals did eat theirshare of the garbage inthe streets, they had atendency to die whennot properly cared for.Duffy notes some inter-esting statistics from as late as the 19th century:In May 1853 a New York City inspector reportedthat 439 large dead animals had been removedfrom the streets, along with the bodies of 93 cats,71 dogs, 19 hogs, 17 sheep, and four goats.
OnTap Fall 1996 9
Continued from previous page An Accomplice Is SoughtHowever, observant physicians noted that not
all diseases were transmitted through contactbetween individuals. The two greatest epidemicsof the 19th century—yellow fever and Asiaticcholera—states Duffy, clearly showed evidencethat some factor other than direct contact withdisease victims was necessary to spread the disease.And so, despite draining marshy lands, prevent-ing the cutting down of forests, and implementingquarantine, the sickness continued.
Typhus and waterborne typhoid fever ragedthrough urban areas, says Olsztynski. Anotherwaterborne disease, he continues, would prove tobe one of history’s most virulent killers. Choleracould wipe out its victims in as little as 12 hours.“It struck so suddenly,” says Olsztynski, “that aman in good health atdaybreak could be buriedby nightfall.”
Cholera Strikes“The ailment seemed
capable of penetrating anyquarantine of harbor orcity,” he continues. “Itchose its victims errati-cally, with terrifyingsuddenness, and withgross and grotesque results.Acute dehydration turnsvictims into wizened cari-catures of their formerselves. The skin becomesblack and blue, the handsand feet drawn and puck-ered.”
Olsztynski relates an account of a choleraoutbreak in Paris as described by the Germanpoet Heinrich Heine: “A masked ball in progress . .. suddenly the gayest of the harlequins collapsed,cold in the limbs, and underneath his mask, violetblue in the face.
“Laughter died out, dancing ceased, and in ashort while carriage loads of people hurried fromthe Hotel Dieu to die and, to prevent a panicamong the patients, were thrust into crude gravesin their dominoes [long, hooded capes worn withhalf a mask]. Soon the public halls were filledwith dead bodies, sewed in sacks for want ofcoffins . . . long lines of hearses stood in queue . . . .”
Horrible scenes such as this one played outworldwide. The Industrial Revolution was dawn-ing—adding fuel to the already burning fire.Cholera outbreaks became as plentiful as urbanslums, says Olsztynski. People poured into cities
Therefore, just knowing these microbesexisted wasn’t enough to stop the plagues andepidemics that would become firmly entrenchedin communities throughout the 19th century.Early sanitary reformers were still confused as tothe real source of waterborne diseases. Theytheorized that since the connection between thesediseases and weather was so obvious, it must bethe culprit, says Duffy. Summer fevers and winterrespiratory infections were thought to be sureevidence of this.
It Must Be in the AirMedical societies appointed committees to
study the weather-disease relationship, Duffystates. “As the 19th century advanced, the searchfor disease causation grew even more desperate,”increasing the studies of this type.
“For example,” says Duffy, “the MedicalSociety of New Jersey appointed a standing com-mittee for this purpose in 1810 and 10 years laterasked it to include birth and death records in itsstudies.” Individual physicians also frequentlykept daily meteorological records during epidemics.
In addition to the perceived correlationbetween weather and disease, early medical soci-eties and physicians also saw a connection be-tween disease and “the impact of sunshine ondamp or swampy ground. “The widely acceptedexplanation for this phenomenon was that clear-ing the land exposed damp ground to the sun’srays thereby releasing miasma [disease-causingelements],” he explains.
In 1820 New Orleans, Duffy continues, aleading Creole physician noted that the “numberof Europeans who became victims of the emana-tions from newly cleared land, and heated for thefirst time by the rays of sun, is incalculable.”
Relying on this logic, the Massachusetts Sani-tary Commission of the early 1800s sought betterventilation for homes to remove any noxiousodors and fumes that might cause disease, accord-ing to the University of Toledo Libraries’ 1996Internet fact page, 19th Century Medicine—ASpecial Collection Exhibit: The Public HealthMovement.
Also, the tendency for epidemics to be con-centrated in low-lying, poorly drained areas—usually occupied by the poor—added credence tothe sunshine-dampness-disease theory, notesDuffy. But many in the medical profession, alongwith the public, thought that disease was merelysymptomatic of some constitutional imbalanceand could be kept out of the community by quar-antining ill individuals.
E D U C A T I O NE D U C A T I O N
Continued on page 10
Pipeline PublishesPublic Health Issue
Do you want to learn more aboutpublic health issues? The current issueof Pipeline examines the importanceof wastewater treatment for protectingthe health and environment of smallcommunities. Potential health and envi-ronmental risks posed by inadequatetreatment are also described.
For further information or a freesubscription to Pipeline, contact theNational Small Flows Clearinghouse at(800) 624-8301.
10 OnTap Fall 1996
Contaminated Water Makes a Deadly DrinkContinued from page 9 systems,” states Olsztynski. It was during these
epidemics that big news was indeed unfolding.In 1884, Robert Koch, an eminent German
microbiologist, isolated Vibrio cholerea from thepolluted Elbe River in Germany, proving onceand for all the relationship between pollutedwater and disease, says Joseph A. Salvato, P.E., inEngineering and Sanitation, 1992.
Koch’s work—along with the 1854 study ofJohn Snow, the Westminster, England, physicianwho traced multiple cholera deaths to a singlewater pump (see Summer 1996 On Tap )—wouldfinally point physicians and researchers in theright direction.
Poor Sanitation Is AttackedWhat the scientists found is that these diseases
were almost always born of poor sanitation, statesOlsztynski. Dysentery, typhus, typhoid fever, andcholera are all transmitted through the urine orfeces of an infected person.
When Snow made the connection between thewell pump and cholera victims on Broad Street,he found that the house at 40 Broad Street with itsoverflowing cesspool was very likely the source.“There had been four fatal cases of cholera at thehouse,” says Salvato. “A privy emptying into acesspool, which served more like a tank, over-flowed to a drain passing close to the well . . . .
“The mortar joints of the well were com-pletely disintegrated . . . and the drain was like asieve through which house drainage must havepercolated for a considerable period into thewell,” Salvato explains.
In another study Snow conducted, he foundthat Londoners who obtained their water supplyfrom the River Lea had a low incidence ofcholera, while those who were supplied by thesewage-laden Thames River had a high incidence
of cholera. Snow compared income, livingconditions, employment choice, and other charac-teristics, finding that the source of water was themain variable, says Salvato.
Koch also conducted studies. After he isolatedthe cholera bacteria in 1884, and after FilippoPacini, an Italian microbiologist, showed that thebacteria did, in fact, cause the disease, Kochinvestigated an incidence of cholera in twoadjacent 1892 German cities.
Both cities pumped water from the Elbe River.Hamburg pumped water from a point upstream,while Altona pumped its water downstream fromthe city sewer outfalls, says Salvato. Surprisingly,the cholera outbreak occurred in Hamburg. Thedifference was the water Altona used had beenfiltered through a slow sand filter, and in Ham-Continued on next page
E D U C A T I O NE D U C A T I O N
to find employment and living conditions deterio-rated. “There was little or no provision at all forcesspools or fresh water supplies,” he says.
“Tenements rose several stories high, butcesspools were only on the ground floor with noclear access to sewers or indoor running water . . . .In most cases, barrels filled with excrement weredischarged outside, or the contents of chamberpots flung from open windows—if there wereany—to the streets below.”
Amid the filth, cholera struck England onOctober 26, 1831, in the town of Sunderland,reports Olsztynski. William Sproat holds a specialspot in history as being the first Englishman todie of the disease on that day. Cholera then madeits way to the American continent, striking first inMontreal, then in Quebec. Soon Detroit and NewYork City reported cases. By July 4, 1832, theNew York City government ordered a daily chol-era report. The death toll in the city amounted toapproximately 3,000 with most of the cases fall-ing on the poorer citizens, says Duffy.
Economic Factors Complicate SearchBut there were economic considerations to
deal with also. England was at the height of itsIndustrial Revolution and reaping huge profitsfrom a booming textile industry when the diseasehit. A massive quarantine—especially of ship-yards—would be catastrophic to the country’seconomic base, notes Duffy.
In New York City, some doctors flatly refusedto admit that cholera was contagious, saysOlsztynski. The New York City Board of Healthremained unmoved by the growing threat, anddenied that the disease had even entered the city,reports Duffy. However, the New York MedicalSociety recognized the need for immediate actionand announced that the disease was, in fact, inNew York City.
“Many businessmen promptly denounced thesociety for needlessly disrupting the economiclife of the city,” says Duffy. “One of them com-plained that the public would scarcely havenoticed the disease if it had not been forewarned.And John Pintard, a prominent merchant andbanker, called the announcement ‘an impertinentinterference’ with the board of health.”
Mystery Is SolvedBut the war cholera waged on the world would
not be in vain. “It was through cholera epidemicsthat epidemiologists finally discovered the linkbetween sanitation and public health—whichprovided the impetus for modern water and sewage
“Water treatment
has practically
eliminated cholera,
typhoid, and
dysentery in
developed areas
of the world.”
Joseph A. Salvato,P.E., Engineering
and Sanitation
OnTap Fall 1996 11
NDWC Offers Personnel Management Book“Small systems cannot afford to waste a
single pair of hands,” says Ellen Miller of theEllen Miller Group. That’s why she thinksPractical Personnel Management for SmallSystems is so needed.
Miller says the book—thesecond volume in the WaterBoard Bible series—is intendedfor busy people. It serves as aguide for supervisors, city councilmembers, water boards, andemployers responsible for hiringand managing personnel for waterand wastewater utilities.
Filled with sidebars that highlightsome of the book’s best advice, it isset up in an easy-to-read format. Italso contains illustrations and somereal-life problems and solutions.
For example, chapter five outlines how tohire the people who know their jobs and do themwell. The book also covers employment law and
offers advice on coping with customers.Available through the National Drink-
ing Water Clearinghouse (NDWC), this108-page book costs $9 plus shippingand handling, and can be ordered bycalling (800) 624-8301. Request item#DWBKMG15.
The first book in this series, WaterBoard Bible: The Handbook of Mod-ern Water Utility Management, isalso available from the NDWC. Callthe above number and ask for item#DWBKMGO5. It costs $13.80 plusshipping and handling.
R E S O U R C E SR E S O U R C E S
Contaminated Water Makes a Deadly Drink
burg it was not.“Water treatment has practically eliminated
cholera, typhoid, and dysentery in developedareas of the world,” says Salvato. Along withmicrobiology, sanitary engineering, and educationin hygiene and public health, says Salvato, watertreatment—including chlorination—can stopwaterborne disease long before it can devastateentire communities.
Public Health Wins BattleBy 1900, the ignorance of the cause of these
diseases had been eliminated, and most stateswithin the U.S. established public health agen-cies, says Duffy. But these agencies often oper-ated “without legal powers, without aid, andwithout sympathy.” However, Duffy continues,despite their dismal existence, many made goodprogress in getting states to recognize the impor-tance of the American public’s health.
Although the first American health boardswere formed in the early 1800s, it would takemore than 150 years before safe drinking waterwould have its own act of Congress. In 1974, theSafe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was passed,and for the first time in history, drinking waterwas regulated by the federal government. Reau-thorized and amended in 1986 and 1996, this acthas been protecting the water supplies of the U.S.for more than 20 years. (See article on 1996SDWA reauthorization, page 1.)
For more information about how water andwastewater treatment protects public health, callthe National Drinking Water Clearinghouse orthe National Small Flows Clearinghouse at (800)
624-8301. See page 19 to order a copy of thereport, A Global Decline in MicrobiologicalSafety of Water: A Call for Action.
Other national and international organiza-tions offer excellent information about publichealth matters, including:
The World Health Organization,525 23rd. St., N.W.Washington, DC 20037(202) 861-3200www.who.ch/programmes/inf/pub-inf.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention1600 Clifton Road, N.E.Atlanta, GA 30333(404) 639-3534www.cdc.gov/cdc.html
References:Blake, N. M. 1956. Water for the cities. Syracuse,
N.Y.: Syracuse University Press.
Duffy, J. 1990. The sanitarians. Chicago: Universityof Illinois
Olsztynski, J. 1988. Plagues and epidemics. Plumbing& Mechanical Magazine5, no. 5 (July): 42–56.
University of Toledo Libraries. 1996. The publichealth movement. [A page of From quackery tobacteriology: the emergence of modern medicine in19th century]. 19th century medicine—a specialcollections exhibit. [revised February 1995; citedJune 6, 1996]. Located at www.cl.utoledo.edu;WORLD WIDE WEB.
Salvato, J. A. 1992. Engineering and sanitation.4th ed. Somerset, N.J.: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
Continued from previous page
12 OnTap Fall 1996
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) is considering several minor changes to thenational primary drinking water regulations forlead and copper. Its intention is to eliminateunnecessary requirements, streamline and reducethe reporting burden, and promote consistentnational implementation.
Proposed changes do not affect the lead actionlevel, maximum contaminant level goals(MCLGs) for copper, or the basic regulatoryrequirements.
The proposed revisions were published inApril 1996, and EPA received all comments onthe proposed regulations by July 11, 1996. Pro-mulgation of the final rule is expected in June 1997.
Why get the lead out?Lead builds up in the body over many years
and can damage the brain, red blood cells, kid-neys, and the nervous and reproductive systems.It also can cause hypertension. Pregnant womenand small children are particularly at risk. Lead isfound throughout the environment in air, soil,household dust, lead-based paint, and food.
Drinking water is rarely the sole source oflead contamination; however, the EPA estimatesthat drinking water can constitute 20 percent ormore of an individual’s lead exposure. Infants,whose primary diet consists of liquids—babyformula or concentrated juice prepared withwater—could be at very high risk.
Lead is unusual among contaminants in that itrarely occurs naturally in water, but is primarilythe result of corrosion of materials containinglead in the water distribution system and house-hold plumbing. This includes lead-based solderused to connect copper pipe, brass and chrome-plated brass faucets, or pipes in some servicelines. (The inclusion of lead with copper and zincin the alloy brass makes it easier to cast and tomachine.)
What regulations govern lead and copper?In 1986, Congress banned the use of solder
high in lead, and restricted the lead content infaucets, pipes, and other plumbing materials.
In June 1991, the EPA promulgated MCLGsfor copper, the lead action level for lead, andnational primary drinking water regulations forlead and copper. The agency’s goal was to providemaximum human health protection by reducingcopper levels at consumers’ taps to as close to theMCLGs as possible and keeping the amount oflead below the lead action level.
Regulations established requirements forcommunity water systems and nontransient
noncommunity water systems. Systems mustconduct periodic monitoring and optimize corro-sion control. They must also educate the publicwhen the level of lead at the tap exceeds the leadaction level, treat source water if it contributessignificantly to high lead or copper levels at thetap, and replace lead service lines if the lead atthe tap continues to exceed the lead action level.
Basically, what the lead action level means isthat definite actions must be taken if 10 percent ofsamples contain more than 15 parts per billion (or0.015 milligrams per liter) of lead.
What changes does EPA recommend?Most of the proposed changes, recommended
by an EPA work group composed of EPA head-quarters and regional staff and several state drink-ing water officials, deal with the following topics:
• requirements for systems deemed to haveoptimized corrosion control,
• accelerated reduced monitoring,• monitoring waivers for “all plastic” systems,• selection of sample sites under reduced
monitoring,• systems that have reduced the number and
frequency of monitoring and that changetreatment or water source,
• entry point monitoring for water qualityparameters in groundwater systems,
• nontransient noncommunity watersystems sampling locations and times,
• public education,• source water monitoring,• holding times for acidified lead and copper
samples, and• reporting requirements for systems and states.EPA also requested comments on several
paperwork burden reduction suggestions, includ-ing reducing the frequency of entry point waterquality paperwork monitoring, allowing flushingand bottled water instead of corrosion control innontransient noncommunity water systems, andeliminating the requirement for systems to justifynot recommending specific corrosion control.
Several Proposals Result from LawsuitsTwo other proposed revisions resulted from
legal challenges to the 1991 Lead and CopperRule brought by the American Water Works Asso-ciation (AWWA) and the Natural ResourcesDefense Council (NRDC).
First, as a result of settlement discussions withAWWA in that litigation, EPA agreed to proposeregulatory provisions that would authorize statesto invalidate results of lead and copper sampling
Lead and Copper Reg Changes Proposed
R E G U L A T I O N SR E G U L A T I O N S
Water Fact
If every one in theUnited States
flushed the toiletjust one less timeper day, we couldsave a lake full ofwater about a milelong, a mile wide,and four feet deep
every day.
55 Facts,Figures & Follies
of WaterConservation,Denver WaterDepartment
Continued on next page
OnTap Fall 1996 13
Is filtering mandated for iron and manganese? The “Tech Brief: Disinfection” in the Sum-
mer 1996 issue of On Tap states: “Groundwatersystems that disinfect may have to add filtrationif the water contains iron and manganese. In fact,insoluble oxides form when chlorine, chlorinedioxide, or ozone are added to these systems.”
Is the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse(NDWC) suggesting filtration in this situation, oris filtration mandated under amendments to theSafe Drinking Water Act?
The information published in “Tech Brief:Disinfection” is from the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s (EPA) booklet Technologiesfor Upgrading Existing or Designing New Drink-ing Water Treatment Facilities (EPA/625/4-89/023). It is a suggestion and is not mandated byfederal regulations.
Primary standards deal with contaminants thatare a threat to human health. Contaminants, suchas arsenic and asbestos, are regulated under theEPA’s National Primary Drinking Water Standards.These standards are mandatory and enforceable.A water system in violation of Primary DrinkingWater Standards must notify the public.
Substances covered under the EPA NationalSecondary Drinking Water Standards are not
considered to pose a threat to human health.Iron and manganese are listed as secondarycontaminants.
Treatment levels recommended under second-ary standards are suggested levels and are notenforceable. They may have aesthetic effects andcan alter the taste, color, or odor of drinking water.
However, individual states are free to enactregulations that are stricter than the federal regu-lations. Therefore, readers need to check theirstate regulations.
The following products offer information ondrinking water standards and can be ordered freefrom the NDWC. Call (800) 624-8301 and requestthe item numbers cited: The Safe Drinking WaterAct Pocket Guide (item #DWPCGN01) and Sec-ondary Drinking Water Regulations: Guidance forNuisance Chemicals (item #DWBRRG19). Ship-ping and handling charges apply.
The following products can be ordered freefrom the EPA Office of Research and Developmentat (513) 569-7562: Technologies for UpgradingExisting or Designing New Drinking WaterTreatment Facilities (EPA /625 /4-89/ 023); andEnvironmental Pollution Control Alternatives:Drinking Water Treatment for Small Communi-ties (EPA/625/5-90/025).
Lead and Copper Reg Changes Proposed
QUESTIONS & ANSWERSQUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Continued from previous pageunder certain conditions. Second, the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the District of Columbia held thatthe EPA had failed to provide adequate notice andopportunity for public comment regarding theprovision in the regulations defining the extent towhich a public water system has “control” overlead service lines, for purposes of determining thesystem’s obligation to replace such lines.
The NRDC challenged the Lead and CopperRule’s exclusion of transient noncommunitywater systems. The court granted the EPA’srequest to gather more information to justify theexclusion.
EPA believes excluding transient noncom-munity water systems is appropriate becausechronic health effects associated with lead shouldnot be an issue for such systems as gas stations,motels, restaurants, and campgrounds. By defini-tion, individuals are not expected to be exposedon a regular basis at transient noncommunitywater systems.
The court ruled in favor of the EPA in twoother NRDC challenges to the 1991 rule: thedecision to establish a treatment technique in lieuof a maximum contaminant level, and schedulesfor completing the rule’s treatment requirements.
In this case, the court held that the EPA’sdecisions were consistent with the Safe DrinkingWater Act.
The National Drinking Water Clearinghouse(NDWC) offers a number of products that dealwith contaminants, including lead and copper. Fora free copy of the Lead and Copper Rule DecisionDiagram, a poster that shows a step-by-step pro-cess for small systems to follow in complying withthe Lead and Copper Rule, call the NDWC at(800) 624-8301 and request item #DWBRPE10.Shipping and handling charges apply.
For a complete listing of NDWC products,call our toll-free number above and request acopy of NDWC’s 1995–96 Guide to Products andServices, item #DWCAT.
For further information on regulations, callthe Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791,or e-mail [email protected].
If you have Internet access, a Lead and Cop-per Rule Proposed Minor Revisions fact sheet(EPA /812 /F-96/ 001) is available on the EPA’sOffice of Water home page at http://www.epa.gov/OW/OGWDW/docs/fact1.html.
Q
A
14 OnTap Fall 1996
C O V E R S T O R YC O V E R S T O R Y
Conservation Doesn’t Have To HurtContinued from page 1 town money and water. To get the message out,
Kuzminski took the show on the road.“One thing was clear,” he continues. “People
had no concept of where their water was comingfrom—it’s just supposed to come out of the faucetwhen you turn it on.”
Collection, treatment, and distribution wereforeign words to many Portland residents, heexplains. And the concept of water conservationwas equally alien.
Utility Develops Education Program“We developed educational materials to ex-
plain why we need to conserve water, and sentthem out as bill stuffers,” Kuzminski says. One ofthose bill stuffers, Water Conservation Starts byFixing Leaks . . . explains how consumers cansave money just by fixing leaking faucets. Forexample, a dripping faucet wastes approximatelyone gallon of water every 15 minutes. And astreaming faucet wastes approximately one gallonof water every minute.
“We also designed a series of presentations toget our point across,” Kuzminski continues. “Wedid presentations for the League of Women Vot-ers, the Exchange Club, Junior Women’s Club,senior citizens, and anyone else who would listen.”
In one presentation at Portland Middle School,Kuzminski brought along 300 one-gallon jugs ofwater. Part of the presentation required that thestudents carry those jugs of water from one placeto another.
“The purpose of the demonstration was togive the students a ‘hands-on’ idea of exactlyhow much 300 gallons of water is,” Kuzminskiexplains. “I emphasized to the students that everytime you run the dishwasher—it’s 15 of thosegallons down the drain. Or every time you flushthe toilet—it’s five gallons.”
After conducting several of these programs,Kuzminski realized organizing a water conserva-tion program would be a serious, long-termendeavor—taking much more than just a tokeneffort. That would be the only way the town couldget its residents to take conservation seriously.
Kids Distribute KitsBut educating the town’s residents about the
benefits of water conservation was only part ofthe effort. The next challenge was distributing theretrofit kits and making sure the residents knewhow to install them. And that took some planning.
First, the utility developed notification cardsthat let customers know the kits were available.Then order forms for the kits were sent out,
guidelines. This 30-step design detailsConnecticut’s water conservation requirementsand includes information about how to assessyour service area, solicit community input,develop a goal, distribute conservation kits,and track program results.
Step one of Portland’s program, saysKuzminski, was taking a proactive, aggressiveapproach to implementing a conservation pro-gram. Step two was actually deciding what theprogram would consist of. “In our case,” saysKuzminski, “this step was already decided by theConnecticut Legislature.”
Under Connecticut’s retrofit program, thestate requires that water utilities supply up to twofree water conservation kits to their customers.These kits contain several water conservationcomponents, including a low-flow showerheadthat reduces the flow to 2.5 gallons per minute(gpm) from an average of 7–10 gpm.
The kit also contains two low-flow faucetaerators—which reduce water flow to 1.5 gpm.Another water-saving device in the kit is atoilet dam or displacement bag. These mecha-nisms replace or displace the water in the tank,thus reducing the amount of water used to flushthe toilet.
Also included in the kits are dye tablets fordetecting toilet leaks, instructions for installingthe retrofit kits, reorder cards, and a booklet fullof water-saving ideas.
“The neat thing about installing these kits inyour home is that once they’re in place, it doesn’trequire any effort on your part to save water,”says Kuzminski. And Portland’s water utilityknows that’s true, he says, because “customersusing the retrofit kits experienced a 10 percentreduction in their water bills.”
Town Seizes OpportunityKuzminski says that before the town couldrecognize such savings, he and other town
officials had to find a way to get the pro-gram off the ground. They found thatthe best way to confront this new regu-lation was to see it as an opportunity,rather than just another federal mandate
to be dealt with.“We recognized a chance to make the
utility more user friendly,” says Kuzminski.“But we’re a small system without much money.So we needed to be creative in getting the mostbang for our buck.”
What Kuzminski and the other town officialsdid was develop an innovative educationalprogram, using local resources, which saved the
Faucet aerator affordsa full-force spray whileconserving water andcutting energy costs.
“People had no
concept of where
their water was
coming from—it’s
just supposed to
come out of the
faucet when you
turn it on.”
David Kuzminski,ConservationCoordinator,
Portland,Connecticut
Continued on next page
OnTap Fall 1996 15
C O V E R S T O R YC O V E R S T O R Y
followed by reminder notices to help the utilitytrack the success of the kits.
“Distribution could have been costly, depend-ing on how we went about it,” says Kuzminski.“Some towns direct mailed the kits. Some hadmeter readers deliver them. In Portland, we devel-oped an innovative and extraordinarily successfulpartnership with the high school.
“Utilities sometimes don’t realize the resourcesavailable to them right under their noses,” saysKuzminski. “Using the talents of elementaryand high school students can be one of the bestways for a utility to maintain a high profile withinthe community, besides being an inexpensiveresource.”
Through the partnership, the utility workedout a three-year civic project with Portland HighSchool’s student government club.
Prior to distributing the kits, the students werefamiliarized with the kits so they could answercustomers’ questions. Going door-to-door, thestudents distributed 600 kits in the first year,650 kits the second, and 600 kits in the last yearof the project.
“By our participation, we saved the town a lotof money,” says Chris Swanson, a Portland HighSchool senior. Swanson, who has participatedin the project every year since he was a sopho-more, says the townspeople really appreciatedreceiving the kits.
“We emphasized that the consumer would savemoney as well as the town,” he says. “They wouldbe using less water so their bills would be lower.”
Kuzminski Develops WalterAfter the students passed out the kits, how-
ever, the utility began to get some phone calls.“It seems there was still some confusion abouthow to use the kits,” says Kuzminski. “That’swhen I designed Walter.”
Walter the Water Saver—better known simplyas Walter—depicts all of the components of theretrofit kits in a working model. “I developed themodel myself from scratch,” says Kuzminski.“People who see it think it’s the neatest thingsince sliced bread. You can see it, feel it, touch it.And get a real idea of how the conservation kitswork.”
Walter not only provides a working view ofthe conservation kits, it also demonstrates thedifference between conventional plumbing fixturesand the low-flow fixtures supplied in the kits.
Flowing side-by-side into Plexiglas™ tanks,the fixtures demonstrate the difference to theconsumer. Walter also has a working toilet tank,complete with a glass window, which demon-
Continued from previous page strates how toilet dams or the Toilet TummyTM
(a leak-proof plastic bag filled with water thatdisplaces a minimum of .6 gallons of water in thetank) works, as well as how they are installed.
“We also installed a water meter to further getthe conservation message across and to educatethe consumer on what a water meter looks like,”says Kuzminski. “Walter is an excellent educa-tional tool.”
Students Help Determine SuccessKuzminski says the students were also an
important part of the follow-up program.After the kits were distributed, the stu-dents conducted a phone survey todetermine the success of the retrofitkits. They found that there was aneight percent reduction in theamount of water used within thetotal customer base and a fourpercent reduction among residentialcustomers.
An added bonus they discovered through thesurvey was that consumers are much more sup-portive of the utility if they know how it operates.
“If they know what you’re up against, andwhat it takes to get that glass of water into theirhomes, they appreciate what you’re doing,”explains Kuzminski.
However, Kuzminski says he was not preparedfor just how successful the program was going tobe. “One thing a utility needs to consider is that ifthe customer base is successful in what you’veasked them to do, it’s going to reduce its income,”he explains. “When we were going over out bud-get for next year, we realized we were 10 percentshort—the amount the customers had saved.”
Even though these kinds of conservationeffects may make a utility’s budget a little tighter,the long-term benefits of water conservation arerecognized when the need for finding or develop-ing a new water source is eliminated—which isone of the most important reasons to conservewater resources. And less water used means lesswastewater that needs to be treated at the localtreatment facility.
To make a conservation program successfultakes a serious effort from the utility and thecommunity, Kuzminski says. “You need to main-tain a high community profile, and develop goodrelationships with the media, local organizations,and clubs. Without these ingredients, a goodwater conservation program would be almostimpossible.”
For more information about Portland’s conserva-tion program, call Kuzminski at (860) 342-6769.
Portland provides itscitizens with aConnecticut WaterConservation kit thatincludes a 2.5 gallonper minute showerhead.
16 OnTap Fall 1996
Package Plants Are Option for Small Systemsby Arjita SharmaNDWC Staff Researcher
Small or rural water systems often find itdifficult to comply with the Safe Drinking WaterAct due to lack of financial resources or technicalexpertise.
As the number of people served by a systemdecreases, the cost of providing safe drinkingwater per customer increases. Costs include capi-tal expenses, engineering services, plan reviewand approval, water quality analyses, and routineoperation and maintenance.
Package plants are treatment systems designedfor small water systems that are easy to operateand have minimal installation requirements. Apackage plant is sold by the manufacturing com-pany as a complete unit.
A conventional or stick-built treatment plantis designed from scratch by the consultingagency where various units may be purchasedfrom different companies.
What are the advantages?Package treatment plants, besides being less
expensive to install than conventional plants, alsopromise low operation and maintenance require-ments. A package plant (including equipment andhook-up expenses) may cost between $75,000and $200,000. This feature makes package plantsattractive to communities that must operate on atight budget.
Many treatment technologies are availableto small systems as package plants. Thesetechnologies or a combination of them can be
incorporated into a package plant to provide com-prehensive water treatment.
• filtration:bag and cartridge filtersmembrane filtration, including reverse osmosis, ultrafiltrationslow sand filtrationconventional filtration methods, such as
using powdered activated carbon orgranular activated carbon
• softening
What are the selection criteria?There are numerous considerations when
selecting a technology for a community. Otheroptions, such as connecting to the water plant of aneighboring community, should be thoroughlyresearched prior to setting up the plant.
Lack of locally available technical expertisemakes many small communities rely heavily onthe engineering firm contracted to carry out theproject. The community should ensure that thefirm considered for the job has a good reputation.
If possible, corroboration of the proposedtechnology by an independent agency should beContinued on next page
T E C H N O L O G I E ST E C H N O L O G I E S
Flocculator(s)
Clearwell
SecondaryDisinfectionCoagulantsPrimary
Disinfection
Slow Sand Filter
Layout of Typical Package Treatment Plant
Units 1 and 2 are
interchangeable,
depending upon
the design.
Settling Basin(s)
To the Consumer
2
1
OnTap Fall 1996 17
Also, treated water needs to consistently havea turbidity of 0.5 nephelometric turbidity units.Package plants are successful in situations whereraw water quality is fairly consistent.
In areas where raw water quality varies, suc-cess of a package plant is directly correlated tothe skill level of the operator. Communities needto ensure that their operators keep up with thelatest changes in water treatment technology andattend regular training sessions to keep informedabout technological changes and advances.
Package plants have great potential, especiallyfor small systems. They can result in economicaland space-saving systems that are flexible when itcomes to expansion of existing facilities. In mostcases, the addition of a similar package plant cando the trick. However, the designers and operatorshave to be particularly careful in coming upwith an adequate system to suit the needs of thecommunity.
The engineers have to match the financialneeds, and technological and financial resourcesavailable so as to arrive at the best solution forthe community. Most often the failure of a pack-age plant is due to faulty application and seldomdue to the technology.
References:American Water Works Association (AWWA). 1994.
Package water treatment plant operation and fielddata: a field study. Vol. 1 and Package watertreatment selection guidance: a manual for smalland rural water systems. Vol. 2. Denver: AWWA.
Campbell, S., B. W. Lykins, Jr., J. A. Goodrich, D.Post, and T. Lay. 1995. Package plants for smallsystems: a field study. Journal AWWA 87, no. 11(November): 39–47.
Rader, L. 1993. On the road again: time is on your sideor when is a magic box not magic? Mountain StateWater Line 9, no. 3 (fall): 29–31.
sought. Communities may contact either theRural Water Association in the state or theregion’s Rural Community Assistance Program.Both organizations can provide technical infor-mation or a second opinion.
The engineers should ensure that the technol-ogy selected has been tested and is being usedsuccessfully in other systems. Quite often, eachsystem’s unique qualities are not consideredwhile selling a plant to a community, and this canresult in failure of the system.
A package plant should be matched with theappropriate water quality needs, operator skill,and financial capabilities. These criteria areunique to each community. If a new technology isbeing implemented, pilot studies should be con-ducted in the field prior to installation.
The type and amount of contaminants presentin the raw water dictate the kind of technology tobe employed. However, existing regulations andany upcoming regulations that may affect thecommunity should be considered.
Management of waste generated in the treat-ment process is essential. Based upon state regu-lations or the utility’s economic situation, allwaste disposal options may not be available. Anycosts incurred in waste management will have tobe figured into the operational and maintenancecosts of the utility.
Another factor to be considered is the localavailability of resources, such as chemicals andreplacement parts, to be used for water treatment.If materials are not available locally, not onlydoes the transportation cost go up, but in case ofan emergency, it becomes even more difficult toprocure the material.
What about operation and maintenance?The Surface Water Treatment Rule of 1992
requires that all systems with surface water, orgroundwater under the influence of surface water,as their source of supply need to provide filtrationand disinfection.
The contact times required for treatment totake place is greater than what package plants canusually provide (often as little as 20 minutes).Thus, an additional contact basin may be required.In many package treatment plants in West Virginia,for example, inadequate contact time during pre-treatment has been a problem. To overcome this,the state proposes that if mechanical settlers arebeing used, at least two hours of pretreatmenttime need to be provided; and if mechanicalsettlers are not in use, a pretreatment time fourhours or more needs to be provided.
Continued from previous page
T E C H N O L O G I E ST E C H N O L O G I E S
The California/Nevada Section of the American WaterWorks Association (AWWA) will host a Small Systems Work-shop October 18 in Palm Springs, California.
This special workshop is geared specifically to the needs ofwater utilities serving 10,000 or fewer people.
Workshop topics will include regulatory compliance strate-gies, financial programs, technical assistance available to ruralutilities, sampling techniques, chlorination alternatives, regula-tory updates, and economical sanitary surveys.
The workshop will be held in conjunction with the AWWAFall Conference October 15–18.
For additional information, call J.J. Warren at the AWWACalifornia/Nevada Section office at (909) 930-1200.
Small System Workshop To Be Held
18 OnTap Fall 1996
R E S O U R C E SR E S O U R C E S
Activities Teach Kids About Drinking WaterAre you looking for a way to teach children
about drinking water?First graders can learn about the water cycle
by creating a biosphere in a glass jar or they canbuild a water distribution system with paper toweltubes and pasta. Twelve-year-olds can demon-strate water contamination with food coloring orbuild a miniature filter system in a soft drinkbottle.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) has compiled a 16-page Science Demon-stration Projects in Drinking Water (K–12) book-let for children from kindergarten through highschool.
The booklet includes a brief selection ofdrinking water-related projects organized bygrade categories: kindergarten–fourth; middleschool–eighth grade; and ninth–12th grade. Divi-sions between grade categories are arbitrary and
varying; by expanding or simplifying language,projects can be tailored to specific grade levels.
General areas covered include chemical andphysical aspects of water, drinking water con-tamination and treatment, distribution and supply,and water conservation. These projects are repre-sentative of many such projects developed byprofessionals in the science, engineering, andeducation communities. Reference and creditinformation is included with each activity.
For a free copy of Science DemonstrationProjects in Drinking Water (K–12), call (513)569-7966, or write to EPA, Public Affairs Office,26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati,OH 54268 and request (EPA /570 /9-90/007).
This booklet is also available from the Na-tional Drinking Water Clearinghouse. Call (800)624-8301, and request item #DWBLPE02. Thecost is $2.30 plus shipping and handling.
NETCSC Holds Training, Seeks Co-SponsorsMeeting the drinking water needs of small
communities involves communicating with awide variety of audiences. And sometimes localofficials, regulatory officials, and technical assis-tance providers find communication difficult.
That’s why the training session “Communicat-ing Drinking Water Issues to Small Communi-ties” was offered as part of the Rural CommunityAssistance Corporation’s recent conference inLake Tahoe, Nevada.
Co-sponsored by the National EnvironmentalTraining Center for Small Communities
(NETCSC) and the National Drinking WaterClearinghouse (NDWC), this training sessioncovered effective meeting management, effectivewriting, and small community outreach.
Two dozen participants attended the workshopwhere they learned how to plan and offer thetraining to others.
Mike Aiton, NETCSC special assistant, saidthat everyone seemed pleased with this trainingsession. “Our follow-up results showed thateveryone who returned an evaluation wouldrecommend the training to a colleague and thateveryone rated the training material as excellentor very good.”
Sanjay Saxena, NDWC program coordinator,echoed Aiton’s opinion on the quality of the ses-sion. “All the trainers did an excellent job, and thetrainees were interested and highly motivated.”
NETCSC expects to offer “CommunicatingDrinking Water Issues to Small Communities” inthe future and wants to identify potential co-spon-sors. The duties of a co-sponsor depend upon theneeds of each session. Past partners have helpedto identify potential participants, mailed promo-tional material, and organized field demonstrationsite visits. Others assisted by selecting hotel andtraining sites and helping with registration andsession logistics.
Previous partners have included public interestand advocacy groups; federal, state, and localagencies; and national and regional trainingorganizations.
If your organization is interested in co-spon-soring a training session, contact Aiton at (800)624-8301.
Journal Calls for Papers
The Small Flows Journal, the only juried technicaljournal devoted specifically to small community waste-water issues, is soliciting papers for upcoming issues.
The Small Flows Journal provides a forum for newresearch, ideas, and methodologies for solving waste-water issues for small communities. Small communitiesare defined as those with populations of fewer than10,000 or those handling less than one million gallonsof wastewater flows per day.
The journal is published by the National Small FlowsClearinghouse (NSFC), a sister organization of theNational Drinking Water Clearinghouse.
For additional information about the journal, authorguidelines, and publication deadlines, contact CathleenFalvey, editor, at (800) 624-8301, ext. 526. For moreinformation about the NSFC, call the toll-free numberlisted above and request a free information packet.
OnTap Fall 1996 19
R E S O U R C E SR E S O U R C E S
NDWC Offers Drinking Water Resource GuideThe National Drinking Water Clearinghouse
(NDWC) has developed a drinking water resourceguide that lists nearly 75 federal, national, profes-sional, and trade organizations.
Developed for people interested in drinkingwater issues, the Outreach Resource Guide: ADirectory of Small Community Drinking WaterInformation includes each organization’s addressand phone number, mission statement, water-related activities, publications, and area offices.
“Many organizations are interested in andconduct activities that have to do with drinkingwater,” says Sanjay Saxena, NDWC programcoordinator. “This guide includes the major fed-eral, national, professional, and trade organiza-tions in one document for easy reference, with thehope of spurring additional partnerships amonggroups to address small community issues.”
The resource guide is available via theNDWC’s Drinking Water Information Exchange
(DWIE) electronic bulletin board system.To access DWIE, you need a computer with a
modem and proper communications software.There are no toll charges to access the system,which can be reached by calling (800) 932-7459.DWIE may also be accessed through the Internetby connecting to the FedWorld bulletin board.Once in FedWorld, select the gateway option,then choose #81 from the menu.
For more information about DWIE, call theNDWC at (800) 624-8301 and request a freebrochure (item #DWBRPR04).
To receive a copy of the Outreach ResourceGuide: A Directory of Small Community Drink-ing Water Information, call the NDWC at thenumber above and request item #DWBKGN30.The cost is $6, plus shipping and handlingcharges.
In a statement about the report, Rita Colwell,Ph.D., D.Sc., president of the University ofMaryland Biotechnology Institute and chair of theacademy’s board of governors, warns, “Microbio-logically safe drinking water can no longer beassumed, even in the United States and otherdeveloped countries, and the situation will worsenunless measures are taken in the immediatefuture—the crisis is global.”
The report makes recommendations for improv-ing global water quality, including the need toeducate governments and the public about therisks of diseases caused by contaminated water.
A free copy of the report can be obtainedthrough a written request to the American Acad-emy of Microbiology via fax, (202) 942-9380, ore-mail, [email protected]. You may alsowrite the Academy at 1325 Massachusetts Ave.,N.W., Washington, DC 20005.
What do you do if you suspect there’s some-thing wrong with your drinking water? If youhave access to the Internet, there’s a new firststep you can take: see the Water Doctor.
WETnet: Indiana Water Agencies presents aninnovative online service called Water Doctor.This Web site contains information to help youdiagnose your water problem.
Is there a problem with color, taste, or smell?Simply click on the “problem,” and Water Doctorsuggests possibilities.
There is easy-to-access information aboutissues in water quality testing and treatment,when to test your water, when and how often toretest your water, where to test, and how watertreatment systems work.
WETnet: Indiana Water Agencies’ can beaccessed at http://ingis.acn.purdue.edu:9999/wetnet.html.
Report Discusses Global Water CrisisAmericans often take safe, clean drinking
water for granted and give little thought to whathappens to wastewater. Cholera and other waste-water-related diseases are usually viewed asthreats only for other, less developed countries.
However, according to a report released inMay by the American Academy of Microbiology,waterborne disease is not a thing of the past indeveloped counties. The report further warnsthat complacency about wastewater treatment canbe dangerous.
The report, A Global Decline in the Microbio-logical Safety of Water: A Call for Action, esti-mates that, worldwide, 80 percent of infectiousdiseases may be water related.
Diarrheal diseases traced to contaminatedwater kill approximately two million childrenand cause about 900 million episodes of illnesseach year.
Water Doctor Makes Diagnosis Easy
20 OnTap Fall 1996
C O N T E N T SC O N T E N T S
NA
TIO
NAL DRINKING WA
TE
R
C
LEAR IN GHOUSE
National Drinking Water ClearinghouseWest Virginia UniversityP.O. Box 6064Morgantown, WV 26506-6064
NonprofitOrganization
U.S. Postage PaidPermit No. 34
Morgantown, WV
NDWC Mission StatementThe National Drinking Water Clearinghouse
assists small communities by collecting,developing, and providing timely information
relevant to drinking water issues.
ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED
Posters Help Kids Learn about Water,Conservation Products Help Save WaterNote: The free items listed below are limited toone of each per order. Call (800) 624-8301 toorder products. Please allow four to six weeks fordelivery. Actual shipping charges are added toeach order.
Water: The Resource that Gets Used andUsed and Used for EverythingItem #DWBLPE07 Color (English)Item #DWBLPE42 Color (Spanish)Item #DWBLPE11 Black and White (Spanish)Available in both English and Spanish, this
poster depicts water’s many uses and shows howwater is recycled and used again. Posters aresuitable for elementary school students. Defini-tions of water terms, a game, and water consump-tion and usage charts are included on the back ofthe first two posters.
Cost: $0.00
Water Cycle: Nature’s Recycling SystemItem #DWBLPE35This poster illustrates the hydrologic cycle
and defines the water cycle. Water facts and con-servation information are provided on the backof the poster. Activities for school children arealso included.
Cost: $0.00
Your Hometown Clean Water TourItem #DWBLPE20This poster provides information about the
importance of protecting the earth’s water sup-plies. It addresses how the general public can helpprevent water pollution and develop water conser-vation and water quality protection habits.
Cost: $0.00
Computer Search—Water ConservationItem #DWBLCM11This National Small Flows Clearinghouse
computer search contains abstracts of 118 articlesrelated to water conservation and reuse. Subjectscovered include water-saving appliances anddevices that can be used in homes, cost and per-formance, and the various uses of recycled water.
Cost: $10.20
Yes, You Can: Two Small Towns ShowHow To Save Money and WaterItem #DWBRPE08This brochure outlines how the communities
of Lorena, Texas, and Bern, Kansas, savedmoney and water through public education aboutconservation.
Cost: $0.00
Give Water A HandItem #DWPCPE49This product consists of two guidebooks—the
Leader Guidebook and the Youth Action Guide—aimed at initiating Give Water A Hand, a projectthat involves educating students age nine–14about how to make a difference in their commu-nity and environment. The books suggest a num-ber of activities.
