CHAPTER 9
WATER ISSUES

Water is precious for many reasons. It is an essential resource for sustaining human, animal, and vegetable life. Agriculture is absolutely dependent on water to produce food crops and livestock. Water is crucial to tourism, navigation, and industry. Enormous amounts are used to generate power, mine materials, and produce goods. Water is an ingredient, a medium, and a means of conveyance or cooling in most industrial processes. Water supplies a vital habitat for many of Earth's creatures, from the whale to the tadpole. There are entire ecosystems that are water-based.

All these competing uses put an enormous strain on Earth's water supply. Overall, the amount of water on Earth remains constant, simply passing from one stage to another in a circular pattern known as the hydrologic cycle. Water in the atmosphere condenses and falls to Earth as precipitation, such as rain, sleet, or snow. Precipitation seeps into the ground, saturating the soil and refilling underground aquifers; it is drawn from the soil by vegetation for growth and returned into the air by plant leaves through the process of transpiration; and some precipitation flows into surface waters such as rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, and oceans. Moisture evaporates from surface water back into the atmosphere to repeat the cycle. (See Figure 9.1.)

Humans have interrupted the cycle to accommodate the many water demands of modern life. Flowing rivers and streams are dammed up. Groundwater and surface water are pumped from their sources to other places. Water is either consumed or discharged back to the environment, usually not in the same condition. Water quality becomes increasingly important. There are two primary issues when it comes to water: availability and suitability.

WATER AVAILABILITY

Even though water covers nearly three-fourths of the planet, the vast majority of it is too salty to drink or nourish crops and too corrosive for many industrial processes. In general, saline water is defined as water that contains at least one thousand milligrams of salt per liter of water. No cheap and effective method for desalinating large amounts of ocean water has been discovered. This makes freshwater an extremely valuable commodity. Even though the overall water supply on Earth is enormous, freshwater is not often in the right place at the right time in the right amount to serve all the competing needs.

Overall Water Use in 2000

For reporting purposes, water use in the United States is classified as in-stream or off-stream. In-stream use means the water is used at its source, usually a river or stream, for example, for the production of hydroelectric power at a dam. Off-stream use means the water is conveyed away from its source, although it may be returned later.

water users

water users. Susan S. Hutson et al., in Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000 (April 2004, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/pdf/circular1268.pdf), find that in 2000 an estimated 408 billion gallons of water per day (Bgal/d) were withdrawn from surface and groundwater sources for off-stream use in 2000. (See Table 9.1.) Of this total, 195 Bgal/d was withdrawn for generation of thermoelectric power, 137 Bgal/d was used for irrigation, and 43.3 Bgal/d went to public water supply. Together, these three uses accounted for 375.3 Bgal/d, or about 92% of the total water used.

Minor uses included miscellaneous industrial (including commercial and mining), livestock and aquaculture, and self-supplied domestic (from private wells). Complete data were not available for all minor uses in 2000.

Together, only three states—California, Texas, and Florida—accounted for 25% of all off-stream water withdrawals in 2000. Irrigation and thermoelectric power generation were the primary uses in these states.

FIGURE 9.1

In-stream water use for the generation of hydroelectric power at dams was not reported by Hutson and her collaborators for 2000, but according to Wayne B. Solley, Robert R. Pierce, and Howard A. Perlman, in Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995 (1998, http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/pdf1995/pdf/circular1200.pdf), it totaled 3.2 million gallons of water per day in 1995. In-stream water usage was highest at dams along the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest and along the Niagara and St. Lawrence River systems in New York. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) notes in "Types of Hydropower Plants" (September 8, 2005, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/hydro_plant_types.html) that in 2005 there were approximately twenty-four hundred dams with hydro-electric-generating capacity in the United States.

freshwater and saline

freshwater and saline. Hutson and her colleagues note that freshwater accounted for 345 Bgal/d, or 85% of total off-stream water withdrawals in 2000. Freshwater is used exclusively for public water supply, domestic self-supply (private wells), irrigation, livestock watering, and aquaculture. It is also an important source

TABLE 9.1

for thermoelectric power plants, industry, and mining. Most freshwater is obtained from surface water sources (rivers and lakes), as shown in Figure 9.2.

According to Hutson et al., in 2000 irrigation and thermoelectric power plants were the largest users of off-stream water, using 137 Bgal/d (34%) and 195 Bgal/d (48%) of total freshwater and salt water withdrawals. However, the vast majority (around 91%) of the water withdrawn for thermoelectric power generation was used for cooling purposes and then discharged, meaning the actual amount of water consumed was only approximately 18 Bgal/d. Thus, irrigation was actually the largest consumer of off-stream freshwater in 2000.

Far less saline water than freshwater was used in 2000. Only 15% of all water used was saline. Hutson and her coauthors indicate that 98% of the saline water used in 2000 came from surface water sources. Thermo-electric power plants are the largest user of saline water. They accounted for 96% of all saline water use in 2000. Again, most of this water was used and returned to the environment. Industry and mining each accounted for 2% of saline water use. Saline water is unsuitable for drinking and other domestic purposes, irrigation, aquaculture, or livestock watering.

Water Use Trends (1950–2000)

According to Hutson and the other researchers, total off-stream water withdrawals in the United States climbed steadily from 1950 to 1980, declined through 1985, and have remained relatively stable since then.

Table 9.1 shows trends in U.S. population and off-stream water withdrawals between 1950 and 2000. The population rose from 150.7 million in 1950 to 285.3 million in 2000, an increase of 89%, whereas water withdrawals went from 180 Bgal/d in 1950 to 408 Bgal/d in 2000, an increase of 127%. In 1950 the per capita (per person) off-stream water withdrawal was around twelve hundred gallons per day. This value climbed steadily over the years, reaching a peak in 1975 of 1,940 gallons per day per person. Per capita use has since declined and was at 1,430 gallons per day per person in 2000.

FIGURE 9.2

Historically, freshwater has accounted for 85% to 95% of all water used. (See Table 9.1.) The percentage was at the high end during the 1950s and has gradually decreased, leveling off around 85% from 1980 through 2000. The nation's saline water withdrawals have consistently been 98% to 99% from surface water sources.

Even though in-stream water use for hydroelectric power is not covered by Hutson et al., Solley, Pierce, and Perlman note that in-stream withdrawals declined 4% between 1990 and 1995, from 3,290 Bgal/d to 3,160 Bgal/d.

Groundwater

Groundwater is water that fills pores or cracks in subsurface rocks. When rain falls or snow melts on the Earth's surface, water may run off into lower land areas or lakes and streams. Some is caught and diverted for human use. What is left absorbs into the soil where it can be used by vegetation, seeps into deeper layers of soil and rock, or evaporates back into the atmosphere. (See Figure 9.3.)

An aquifer is an underground formation that contains enough water to yield significant amounts when a well is sunk. Aquifers vary from a few feet thick to tens or hundreds of feet thick. They can be located just below the Earth's surface or thousands of feet beneath it, and one aquifer may be only a part of a large system of aquifers that feed into one another. They can cover a few acres of

FIGURE 9.3

land or many thousands of square miles. Because runoff water can easily seep down to the water table, aquifers are susceptible to contamination.

Modern technological developments allow massive quantities of water to be pumped out of the ground. When large amounts of water are removed from the ground, underground aquifers can become depleted much more quickly than they can naturally be replenished. Removal of groundwater also disturbs the natural filtering process that occurs as water travels through rocks and sand.

Focus on Irrigation

In 2000 irrigation accounted for 137 Bgal/d (34%) of all the water withdrawn that year. (See Table 9.1.) It was by far the largest single user of groundwater and the second-highest user of surface water (behind thermoelectric power plants). Because irrigation consumes more withdrawn water than do thermoelectric power plants, irrigation is actually the largest consumer of both surface water and groundwater.

Large-scale irrigation is concentrated in the Midwestern farm belt, southern Florida, the fertile valleys of California, and along the Mississippi River.

WATER SUITABILITY

Water is a fundamental need in every society. Families use water for drinking, cooking, and cleaning. Industry needs it to make chemicals, prepare paper, and clean factories and equipment. Cities use water to fight fires, clean streets, and fill public swimming pools. Farmers water their livestock, clean barns, and irrigate crops. Hydroelectric power stations use water to drive generators, whereas thermonuclear power stations need it for cooling. Water quality is important to all users, as differing levels of quality are required for different uses. Even though some industrial users can tolerate water containing high levels of contaminants, drinking water requirements are extremely strict.

Clean Water Act

On June 22, 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, burst into flames, the result of oil and debris that had accumulated on the river's surface. This episode thrust the problem of water pollution into the public consciousness. Many people became aware—and wary—of the nation's polluted waters, and in 1972 Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act.

The objective of the Clean Water Act was to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters." It called for ending the discharge of all pollutants into the navigable waters of the United States to achieve "wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water."

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to assess the condition of their waters and report the extent to which the waters support the basic goals of the Clean Water Act and state water quality standards. Water quality standards are designed to protect designated uses (such as recreation, protection and propagation of aquatic life, fish consumption, and drinking water supply) by setting criteria (e.g., chemical-specific limits on discharges) and preventing any waters that do meet standards from deteriorating from their current condition.

Each state reports to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data indicating:

1. The water quality of all navigable waters in the state
2. The extent to which the waters provide for the protection and propagation of marine animals and allow recreation in and on the water
3. The extent to which pollution has been eliminated or is under control
4. The sources and causes of the pollution

The act stipulates that the states must submit this information to the EPA on a biennial basis (every two years). Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to submit to the EPA a separate list of waters considered impaired and requiring pollution controls.

National Water Quality Databases

Before 2002 the EPA issued a biennial report called the National Water Quality Inventory that summarized the state reports required under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. In 2002 the EPA began electronic collection of state water quality data and urged states to combine data required under Sections 305(b) and 303(d). This information is incorporated into the EPA's Watershed Assessment, Tracking, and Environmental Results information system as shown in Table 9.2. The EPA, in "Overview of WATERS" (May 17, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/waters/about/overview.html), provides a list of interactive databases that allow users to access water quality data for individual states. As of September 2007 not all data were included for all states. In "Status of Water Program Features (Linked to the NHD) by State, Tribe, and Territory" (September 17, 2007, http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters/eventstatus), the EPA indicates which data types were available in 2007.

The EPA also cautions against using state data to form conclusions about national trends in water quality. This is because the states use differing monitoring and assessment methods.

In general, the states assess surface water quality in rivers and streams, lakes, ocean shoreline, and estuaries. Estuaries are areas where ocean and freshwater come

TABLE 9.2

together. Because of the tremendous resources required to assess all water bodies, only a small portion of each water body type is actually assessed for each reporting period.

Water bodies meeting applicable water quality standards for criteria and designated uses are rated "good." Those water bodies meeting water quality standards but expected to degrade in the near future are rated "good, but threatened." Water bodies that do not meet water quality standards are rated "impaired."

National Water Quality Reports

For a better picture of the nation's overall water quality, the EPA recommends probability-based studies conducted at various sites using nationally consistent methods and designs. This approach was used in the EPA's 2007 Report on the Environment: Science Report (http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=140917), which was released in draft form in May ¼ 2007 for public comment. The report presents "indicators" to gauge important aspects of water quality and track trends over time. The EPA acknowledges that data do not exist, or have shortcomings, for some indicators and should be addressed in future research and monitoring efforts.

In the draft report the EPA relies on many sources of water quality data and information, including the following reports:

• The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment's The State of the Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States (2002, http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/pdf_files/sotne_complete.pdf)
• The EPA's Wadeable Streams Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Streams (December 2006, http://www.epa.gov/owow/streamsurvey/pdf/WSA_Assessment_May2007.pdf)
• The U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) The Quality of Our Nation's Waters: National Water-Quality Assessment Program Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992–2001 (Robert J. Gilliom et al., February 15, 2007, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2005/1291/pdf/circ1291.pdf)
• The EPA's National Coastal Condition: Report II (2005) (December 2004, http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr/2005/downloads.html)

The latter report was supplemented by the EPA in June 2007 with publication of National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report (http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nepccr/index.html).

the state of the nation's ecosystems

the state of the nation's ecosystems. The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment is a nonprofit organization based in Pennsylvania that researches environmental issues of importance to national policy makers. In 2002 the center published The State of the Nation's Ecosystems, which presented and assessed various indicators that gauge the condition of natural ecosystems, including water resources. Some portions of the report were updated in 2005.

At the national level the report examines two core indicators related to water quality—nitrogen load/movement and chemical contamination—for which sufficient data exist for analysis. Nitrogen load and movement are important, because excess nitrogen can stimulate algae growth in water bodies, which can reduce oxygen concentrations to dangerous levels for aquatic creatures, such as fish and shellfish. The center found that the Mississippi River carried approximately twice as much nitrate (a form of nitrogen) in the 1990s as it did in the 1950s. Significant nitrogen sources include wastewater treatment plants, runoff from agricultural land and fertilized lawns, and certain industrial discharges. Nitrogen also makes its way into water systems through atmospheric deposition of air pollutants.

In regards to chemical contamination, the report notes that data collected between 1992 and 1998 indicate that multiple contaminants (such as pesticides and other complex organic compounds) were found in high percentages of tested water sources as follows:

• Streams—more than 80% of sites sampled had five or more contaminants detected.
• Streambed sediments—more than 90% of sites sampled had five or more contaminants detected.
• Groundwater—more than 80% of sites sampled had five or more contaminants detected.

wadeable streams assessment

wadeable streams assessment. The EPA describes Wadeable Streams Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation's Streams as "the first nationally consistent baseline of the condition of the nation's streams." It resulted from a sampling effort conducted between 2000 to 2004, in which 1,392 wadeable streams and small rivers in the lower 48 states were sampled. According to the report, wadeable streams and rivers make up 90% of all stream and river miles in the United States.

The assessment examined various physical, chemical, and biological indicators of stream health, including acidification, sedimentation (i.e., the presence of excess particles of soil in the water because of erosion), fish habitat, riparian (streambank) vegetative cover, and biological condition (as indicated by populations of benthic macro-invertebrates, such as dragonflies, mayflies, midges, and beetles). As shown in Figure 9.4, nearly all the stream length examined was in "good" condition in regards to acidification. Approximately half of the stream length was rated "good" with respect to sedimentation levels, fish habitat, and riparian vegetative cover. However, less than 30% of stream length showed a "good" biological condition. A greater percentage of stream length (42%) was rated in "poor" biological condition.

Figure 9.5 shows the most widespread or common stressors of wadeable streams determined from the assessment. These include high concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus in the streams, high levels of riparian disturbance (e.g., from human modifications), and poor streambed sediment characteristics.

the quality of our nation's waters

the quality of our nation's waters. Since 1991 the USGS has operated the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program to assess the condition of the nation's water resources and help policy makers make water management decisions. Data and findings have been disseminated through a series of publications known as The Quality of Our Nation's Waters. The latest report, The Quality of Our Nation's Waters: National Water-Quality Assessment Program Pesticides in the Nation's Streams and Ground Water, 1992–2001, is described by Gilliom et al. as "the most comprehensive analysis to date of pesticides in streams and ground water at the national scale."

Gilliom and his associates include data for water samples collected from 186 streams and 5,047 wells. In addition, 700 stream sites were sampled for fish and 1,052 streams were sampled for streambed sediments. Sampling was conducted in various land-use areas, such as agricultural, urban, undeveloped, and mixed use.

As shown in the left hand side of Figure 9.6, pesticides or their degradation products were detected in water samples more than 90% of the time from streams in agricultural, urban, and mixed land use areas. They were detected 65% of the time in streams in undeveloped areas. With regard to groundwater, pesticides were detected in more than half of the samples taken in agricultural and urban areas, and in one-third or less of the samples from mixed land use and undeveloped area. The right hand side of Figure 9.6 shows the surprisingly high occurrence of organochlorine compounds in fish and sediment samples taken from streams. Most organochlorine pesticides, such as dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT) and chlordane, have not been used in the United States for decades, yet they continue to linger in the environment.

Even though Gilliom and his collaborators find pesticides to be widespread in streams and groundwater, the detected levels were seldom greater than human-health benchmarks set by the EPA. (See Figure 9.7.) A troublesome result from a human-health standpoint is that nearly 10% of the stream water samples in agricultural areas contained one or more pesticides that exceeded the benchmarks. However, none of the stream sites sampled were sources of public drinking water. Gilliom et al. express concern regarding benchmark exceedances in ground-water because many of the wells sampled do supply domestic or public water supplies.

coastal condition reports

coastal condition reports. The National Coastal Condition: Report II presents data from assessments of 100% of the estuaries in the contiguous United States (the lower forty-eight states) and Puerto Rico. The estuary

FIGURE 9.4

waters were assessed for five parameters: water quality, sediment quality, benthic community quality, coastal habitat loss, and fish tissue contamination. The data were collected between 1997 and 2000. Overall, the nation's coastal waters were rated as fair, the same as in the first report issued in 2001.

Section 320 of the Clean Water Act concerns the National Estuary Program (NEP), in which threatened "nationally significant" estuaries receive special protection and restoration efforts. In 2007 the EPA issued a report on the condition of the nation's twenty-eight NEPs in the National Estuary Program Coastal Condition Report. The estuaries were rated based on four of the five parameters used in the 2004 report. The results are shown in Table 9.3 using a scale of one to five, where higher scores indicate better quality. Overall, the EPA rates the quality of the nation's NEPs as 2.7, which is considered "fair" condition.

Beach Closings

In 2000 Congress passed the Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health Act. It requires the EPA to collect information from coastal states regarding beach closings because of environmental problems. In 2004 the states began electronic submission of the data, which were compiled into a database called the Beach Advisory and Closing On-line Notification (BEACON; http://oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/beacon_national_page.main). For the 2006 swimming season, the EPA (June 5, 2007, http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/seasons/2006/national.html) indicates that data were collected on 3,771 beaches. The EPA reports that 1,201 of these beaches (32% of the total) were

FIGURE 9.5

FIGURE 9.6

FIGURE 9.7

closed or issued warnings to swimmers because of high bacteria levels.

focus on water pollution sources

focus on water pollution sources. The main reason that a body of water cannot support its designated uses is that it has become polluted. There are a vast number of pollutants that can make water "impaired," but to control a specific pollutant, it is necessary to find out where it is coming from. Even though there are many ways in which contaminants can enter waterways, sources of pollution are generally categorized as point sources and nonpoint sources.

Point sources are those that disperse pollutants from a specific source or area, such as a sewage drain or an industrial discharge pipe. (See Figure 9.8.) Pollutants commonly discharged from point sources include bacteria (from wastewater treatment plants and sewer overflow), toxic chemicals, and heavy metals from industrial plants. Point sources are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Any facility using point sources to discharge to receiving waters must obtain an NPDES permit for them.

Nonpoint sources are those that are spread out over a large area and have no specific outlet or discharge point. These include agricultural and urban runoff, runoff from mining and construction sites, and accidental or deliberate spills. Agricultural runoff is primarily associated with nutrients from fertilizers, pathogens from animal waste operations, and pesticides. Urban runoff can contain a variety of contaminants, including pesticides, fertilizers, chemicals and metals, oil and grease, sediment, salts, and atmospheric deposits. Nonpoint sources are much more difficult to regulate than point sources and may require a new approach to water protection.

The Future of Water Management

In June 2001 the EPA issued Protecting and Restoring America's Watersheds: Status, Trends, and Initiatives in Watershed Management (http://www.epa.gov/owow/protecting/restore725.pdf). A watershed is defined as a "land area that drains to a body of water such as a stream, lake, wetland, or estuary." In other words, a watershed is determined geologically and hydrologically, rather than

TABLE 9.3

FIGURE 9.8

politically. Figure 9.9 shows a watershed example and the many issues and processes that affect it.

Watersheds are delineated by the USGS and identified with unique eight-digit numbers. There are more than two thousand individual watersheds around the country that are recognized by the USGS and the EPA.

The EPA believes that the nation's water quality problems cannot be solved by further regulating point-source discharges. Instead, the agency advocates a comprehensive approach that crosses jurisdictional boundaries and addresses all the air, water, land, social, and economic issues that affect a particular watershed. The watershed approach would balance competing needs for drinking water, recreation, navigation and flood control, agriculture and forestry, aquatic ecosystems, hydropower, and other uses. Currently, these uses are managed by a variety of agencies at the federal, state, and local levels. The EPA actively encourages the participation of private environmental and conservation groups in the watershed approach.

The EPA operates the program Adopt Your Watershed (http://www.epa.gov/adopt/). This program provides a database that provides information about each of the nation's watersheds. The database identifies thousands of local and regional groups that engage in activities to further water-shed protection and improvement.

OCEAN PROTECTION

Throughout history humans have used the oceans virtually as they pleased. Ocean waters have long served as highways and harvest grounds. Now, however, humankind

FIGURE 9.9

is at a threshold. Marine debris (garbage created by humans) is a problem of global proportions and is extremely evident in countries such as the United States, where there is extensive recreational and commercial use of coastal waterways.

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

Established in 1973, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships regulates many materials that are dumped at sea. The international treaty has been in effect in the United States only since its ratification in 1998. Even though eighty-three countries have ratified the treaty, they have not necessarily complied, as evidenced by the current level of marine debris.

Ocean Dumping Act

Congress enacted the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972 to regulate intentional ocean disposal of materials and to authorize research. Title 1 of the act, known as the Ocean Dumping Act, contains permit and enforcement provisions for ocean dumping. Four federal agencies have authority under the act: the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Title 1 prohibits all ocean dumping, except that allowed by permits, in any ocean waters under U.S. jurisdiction by any U.S. vessel or by any vessel sailing from a U.S. port. The act bans dumping of radiological, chemical, and biological warfare agents, high-level radioactive waste, and medical wastes. In 1997 Congress amended the act to ban dumping of municipal sewage sludge and industrial waste.

Oil Pollution Act

In 1989 the oil freighter Exxon Valdez ran into a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling more than eleven million gallons of oil into one of the richest and most ecologically pristine areas in North America. An oil slick the size of Rhode Island killed wildlife and marine species. A $5 billion damage penalty was levied against Exxon, whose ship captain was found to be at fault in the wreck.

In response to the Valdez oil spill, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which went into effect in 1993. The law requires companies involved in storing and transporting petroleum to have standby plans for cleaning up oil spills on land or in water. Under the act a company that does not adequately take care of a spill is vulnerable to almost unlimited litigation and expense. The law makes the Coast Guard responsible for approving clean-up plans and procedures for coastal and seaport oil spills, whereas the EPA oversees clean-ups on land and in inland waterways. The law also requires that oil tankers be built with double hulls to better secure the oil in the event of a hull breach.

DRINKING WATER

Drinking Water Legislation

Almost any legislation concerning water affects drinking water, either directly or indirectly. The following pieces of legislation are aimed specifically at providing safe drinking water for the nation's residents.

safe drinking water act of 1974

safe drinking water act of 1974. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 mandated that the EPA establish and enforce minimum national drinking water standards for all public water systems—community and noncommunity—in the United States. The law also required the EPA to develop guidelines for water treatment and to set testing, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

To address pollution of surface water supplies to public systems, the EPA established a permit system requiring any facility that discharges contaminants directly into surface waters (lakes and rivers) to apply for a permit to discharge a set amount of materials—and that amount only. It also created groundwater regulations to govern underground injection of wastes.

Congress intended that, after the EPA had set regulatory standards, each state or U.S. territory would run its own drinking water program. The EPA established the Primary Drinking Water Standards by setting maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for contaminants known to be detrimental to human health. All public water systems in the United States are required to meet primary standards. Secondary standards cover nonhealth-threatening aspects of drinking water, such as odor, taste, staining properties, and color. Secondary standards are recommended but not required.

1986 amendments to the sdwa

1986 amendments to the sdwa. The 1986 amendments to the SDWA required that the EPA set maximum containment levels for an additional fifty-three contaminants by June 1989, twenty-five more by 1991, and twenty-five every three years thereafter. The amendments also required the EPA to issue a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) along with each MCL. An MCLG is a health goal equal to the maximum level of a pollutant not expected to cause any health problems over a lifetime of exposure. The EPA is mandated by law to set MCLs as close to MCLGs as technology and economics will permit.

The 1986 amendments banned the use of lead pipe and lead solder in new public drinking water systems and in the repair of existing systems. In addition, the EPA had to specify criteria for the filtration of surface water supplies and to set standards for the disinfection of all surface and groundwater supplies. The EPA was required to take enforcement action, including filing civil suits against violators of drinking water standards, even in states granted primacy if those states did not adequately enforce regulations. Violators became subject to fines up to $25,000 daily until violations were corrected.

water quality control act of 1987

water quality control act of 1987. Section 304 (1) of the revised Clean Water Act of 1987 determines the state of the nation's water quality and reviews the effectiveness of the EPA's regulatory programs designed to protect and improve that water quality. Section 308—known as the Water Quality Control Act—requires that the administrator of the EPA report annually to Congress on the effectiveness of the water quality improvement program.

The main purpose of the Water Quality Control Act is to identify water sources that need to be brought up to minimum standards and to establish more stringent controls where needed. States are now required to develop lists of contaminated waters as well as lists of the sources and amounts of pollutants causing toxic problems. In addition, each state is required to develop "individual control strategies" for dealing with these pollutants.

lead contamination control act of 1988

lead contamination control act of 1988. The Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 strengthened the controls on lead contamination set out in the 1986 amendments to the SDWA. It requires the EPA to provide guidance to states and localities in testing for and remedying lead contamination in drinking water in schools and day care centers. The act also contains requirements for the testing, recall, repair, and/or replacement of water coolers that have lead-lined storage tanks or parts containing lead. It attaches civil and criminal penalties to the manufacture and sale of water coolers containing lead.

The ban on lead states that plumbing must be lead-free. In addition, each public water system must identify and notify anyone whose drinking water may be contaminated with lead, and the states must enforce the lead ban through plumbing codes and the public-notice requirement. The federal government gave the EPA the power to enforce the lead ban law by authorizing the agency to withhold up to 5% of federal grant funds to any state that does not comply with the new rulings.

reinventing drinking water law—1996 amendments to the sdwa

reinventing drinking water law—1996 amendments to the sdwa. In 1996 Congress passed a number of significant amendments to the SDWA. The law changed the relationship between the federal government and the states in administering drinking water programs, giving states greater flexibility and more responsibility.

The centerpiece of the law is the State Revolving Fund (SRF), a mechanism for providing low-cost financial aid to local water systems to build the treatment plants necessary to meet state and federal drinking water standards. The law also requires states to train and certify operators of drinking water systems. If they do not, states risk losing up to 20% of their federal grants. The law requires states to approve the operation of any new water supply system, making sure it complies with the technical, managerial, and financial requirements. The 1996 SDWA gives the EPA discretion in regulating only those contaminants that may be harmful to health, and it requires the EPA to select at least five contaminants every five years for consideration for new standards. A further change is that the EPA, when proposing a regulation, must now determine—and publish—whether or not the benefits of a new standard justify the costs.

Furthermore, the law affirms Americans' right to know the quality of their drinking water and mandates notification. Water suppliers must promptly (within twenty-four hours) alert consumers if water becomes contaminated by something that can cause illness and must advise as to what precautions can be taken. In 1998 states began to compile information about individual systems, which the EPA now summarizes in an annual compliance report. As of October 1999 water systems have been required to make that data available to the public. Large suppliers have to mail their annual safety reports to customers, whereas smaller systems can post the reports in a central location or publish them in local newspapers.

Sources of Drinking Water—Public and Private Supply

According to the EPA, there were 156,675 public water supply systems in operation in fiscal year 2006, serving 301.7 million people. (See Table 9.4.) These included systems that served homes, businesses, schools, hospitals, and recreational parks. Those who did not get their water from a public system were for the most part in rural areas and got their water from private wells. Even though most systems obtain their water from ground-water, most people receive drinking water from surface water sources. This is because a relatively small number of public systems using surface water sources serve large metropolitan areas.

TABLE 9.4

The EPA and state health or environmental departments regulate public water supplies. Public supplies are required to ensure that the water meets certain government-defined health standards. The SDWA governs this regulation. The law mandates that all public suppliers test their water regularly to check for the existence of contaminants and treat their water supplies constantly to take out or reduce certain pollutants to levels that will not harm human health.

Private water supplies, usually wells, are not regulated under the SDWA. System owners are solely responsible for the quality of the water provided from private sources. However, many states have programs designed to help well owners protect their water supplies. Usually, these state-run programs are not regulatory but provide safety information. This type of information is vital because private wells are often shallower than those used by public suppliers. The shallower the well the greater the potential for contamination.

How Clean Is Our Drinking Water?

Safe drinking water is a cornerstone of public health. In accordance with the 1996 SDWA amendments, public water systems are mandated to submit compliance reports to the EPA (March 29, 2007, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/data/pivottables.html) regarding the quality of their drinking water. The EPA indicates that 89% of the nation's community water systems achieved health-related water quality levels or treatment standards in fiscal year 2006.

FIGURE 9.10

According to the EPA, in "Public Drinking Water Systems: Facts and Figures" (February 28, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/factoids.html), community water systems are defined as those that provide drinking water on a year-round basis. Two other classifications are non-transient noncommunity water systems—public water systems that regularly supply water to at least twenty-five of the same people at least six months per year, but not year-round (e.g., schools and hospitals with their own water systems)—and transient noncommunity water systems—public water systems that provide water to places where people remain for only short periods of time (e.g., campgrounds). The number of water systems and the population served during fiscal year 2006 are shown in Table 9.4.

Incidence of Disease Caused by Tainted Water—CDC Surveillance Report

It is difficult to know how many illnesses are caused by contaminated water. People may not know the source of many illnesses and may attribute them to food (which may also have been in contact with polluted water), chronic illness, or other infectious agents. Since 1971 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the EPA have collected and reported data that relate to water-borne-disease outbreaks. These historical data are presented and analyzed by Michael F. Craun et al. in "Water-borne Outbreaks Reported in the United States" (Journal of Water and Health, vol. 4, supp. 2, 2006). Craun and his associates define an outbreak as an incident in which at least two people develop a similar illness that evidence indicates was probably caused by ingestion of drinking water or exposure to water in recreational or occupational settings.

Figure 9.10 shows the average annual number of water-borne outbreaks by decade from 1920 through 2002. According to Craun and his coauthors, there were 207 outbreaks (averaging 17 per year) that caused 433,947 illnesses between 1991 and 2002.

Milwaukee—"The Nation's Worst Drinking Water Disaster"

In April 1993 more than four hundred thousand residents of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, became victims of what is considered the worst drinking water disaster the nation has experienced. Microscopic parasites called Cryptosporidium flourished in the city water supply, causing an outbreak of cryptosporidiosis, a diarrheal disease. At least forty deaths resulted. City and state public health officials conducted an extensive review of the outbreak's effects and causes, and their results were published by William R. Mac Kenzie et al. in "A Massive Outbreak in Milwaukee of Cryptosporidium Infection Transmitted through the Public Water Supply" (New England Journal of Medicine, July 21, 1994).

According to the article, the city was served by two water treatment plants in 1993, both of which accessed water from Lake Michigan. Both plants used a multi-step treatment process including chlorination, other chemical treatments, and filtration. Cryptosporidium are resistant to chlorine and other typical chemical treatments, because the parasites have a very hard outer shell. They also require very fine filtration for removal. Thus, they were able to move unimpeded through the system and into the public drinking water supply. Although one of the plants did notice unusually high levels of turbidity (cloudiness) in the raw water before the outbreak, biological organisms were not suspected as the cause until later. This oversight and mechanical problems at the plant were later blamed for allowing the outbreak to occur. Although the original source of the parasites could not be determined, suspected sources included cattle ranches, slaughterhouses, and sewage treatment plants that discharged to waters draining into Lake Michigan.

PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT WATER ISSUES

Each year the Gallup Organization conducts an annual poll on environmental topics. The last poll was Environment poll (2007, http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=1615&pg=1). As described in Chapter 1, pollsters found that water issues dominate the list of Americans' environmental concerns. The percentage of people expressing a great deal of worry about a particular environmental problem was highest for pollution of drinking water (58%), followed by pollution of rivers, lakes, and reservoirs (53%). Maintenance of the nation's freshwater supply for household needs ranked fourth (51%). Concern over polluted drinking water has diminished since peaking in 2000. (See Table 9.5.) As shown in Table 9.6, concern about polluted surface waters has decreased dramatically since the question was first asked in 1989. By contrast, concern about the nation's freshwater supply for household needs was slightly elevated in 2007 when compared with historical levels. (See Table 9.7.)

TABLE 9.5

TABLE 9.6

TABLE 9.7

CHAPTER 6
WATER ISSUES

Water is precious for many reasons. It is an essential resource for sustaining human, animal, and vegetative life. A living cell is mostly water. An adult human's body is about 65 percent water; blood is 90 percent water. Agriculture is absolutely dependent on water to produce food crops and livestock. Water is crucial to tourism, navigation, and industry. Enormous amounts are used to generate power, mine materials, and produce goods. Water is an ingredient, a medium, and a means of conveyance or cooling in most industrial processes. Water supplies a vital habitat for many of Earth's creatures, from the whale to the tadpole. There are entire ecosystems that are water-based.

All of these competing uses put an enormous strain on Earth's water supply. Overall, the amount of water on Earth remains constant, simply passing from one stage to another in a circular pattern known as the hydrologic cycle. Water in the atmosphere condenses and falls to Earth as precipitation, such as rain, sleet, or snow. Precipitation seeps into the ground, saturating the soil and refilling underground aquifers; it is drawn from the soil by vegetation for growth and returned into the air by plant leaves through the process of transpiration; and some precipitation flows into surface waters such as rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, and oceans. Moisture evaporates from surface water back into the atmosphere to repeat the cycle. (See Figure 6.1.)

Humans have interrupted the cycle to accommodate the many water demands of modern life. Flowing rivers and streams are dammed up. Groundwater and surface water are pumped from their sources to other places. Water is either consumed or discharged back to the environment, usually not in the same condition. Water quality becomes increasingly important. There are two primary issues when it comes to water—availability and suitability.

WATER AVAILABILITY

Water must be considered as a finite resource that has limits and boundaries to its availability and suitability for use.

—Wayne B. Solley, Robert R. Pierce, and Howard A. Perlman in Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995, U.S. Geological Survey, 1998

Although water covers nearly three-fourths of the planet, the vast majority of it is saline (water that contains at least 1000 milligrams of salt per liter of water). It is too salty to drink or nourish crops and too corrosive for many industrial processes. No cheap and effective method for desalinating large amounts of ocean water has yet to be discovered. This makes freshwater an extremely valuable commodity. While the overall water supply on Earth is enormous, freshwater is not often in the right place at the right time in the right amount to serve all of the competing needs.

Throughout history civilizations originated and declined based on the availability of water. Water supply in the United States is becoming a serious problem. The days of an unlimited bounty of water are over.

Overall Water Use in 2000

Water use in the United States is monitored and reported by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in its Estimated Use of Water in the United States, published at five-year intervals since 1950. The latest report available was published in 2004 and includes data through 2000.

For reporting purposes, water use in the United States is classified as in-stream or off-stream. In-stream use means the water is used at its source, usually a river or stream, for example, for the production of hydroelectric power at a dam. Off-stream use means the water is conveyed away from its source, although it may be returned later.

WATER USERS.

The 2000 USGS report found that an estimated 408 billion gallons of water per day were withdrawn from surface and groundwater sources for offstream use in 2000. (See Table 6.1.) Of this total, 47.8 percent was withdrawn for generation of thermoelectric power, approximately 33.6 percent was used for irrigation, and about 10.6 percent went to public water supply. Together these three uses accounted for about 92 percent of the total water used.

Minor uses included miscellaneous industrial (including commercial and mining), livestock and aquaculture, and self-supplied domestic (from private wells). Complete data were not available for all minor uses in 2000.

Together only three states—California, Texas, and Florida—accounted for 25 percent of all off-stream water withdrawals in 2000. Irrigation and thermoelectric power generation were the primary users in these states.

In-stream water use for the generation of hydroelectric power at dams was not reported by USGS for 2000 but totaled 3.16 trillion gallons of water per day in the 1995 report. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, there are approximately 2,000 dams with hydroelectric generating capacity in the United States. Most are located in the Pacific Coast states of California, Oregon, and Washington. In-stream water usage is highest at dams along the

Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest and along the Niagara and St. Lawrence River systems in New York.

FRESHWATER AND SALINE.

In 2000 freshwater accounted for 345.3 billion gallons per day or 85 percent of total offstream water withdrawals. Freshwater is used exclusively for public water supply, domestic self-supply (private wells), irrigation, livestock watering, and aquaculture. It is also an important source for thermoelectric power plants, industry, and mining. Most freshwater is obtained from surface water sources (rivers and lakes), as shown in Figure 6.2.

Irrigation and thermoelectric power plants are the largest users of off-stream freshwater, each accounting for approximately 40 percent of its use. However, the vast majority (around 97 percent) of the water withdrawn for thermoelectric power generation is used for cooling purposes and then discharged, meaning the actual amount of water consumed is much smaller. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that approximately 60 percent of the water withdrawn for irrigation purposes is consumed. This makes irrigation the largest consumer of freshwater.

Nearly all (98 percent) of the saline water used in 2000 came from surface water sources. Far less saline water than freshwater was used in 2000. Only 15 percent of all water used was saline. Thermoelectric power plants are the largest user of saline water. They accounted for 96 percent of all saline water use in 2000. Again, most of this water was used and returned to the environment. Industry and mining each accounted for 2 percent of saline water use. Saline water is unsuitable for drinking and other domestic purposes, irrigation, aquaculture, or livestock watering.

In 2000 California and Texas accounted for 18 percent of all off-stream freshwater use. California and Florida accounted for 40 percent of all saline water use.

SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER.

The USGS estimates that 79 percent of all off-stream water used in 2000 was from surface water. The other 21 percent was from groundwater. Figure 6.3 shows the breakdown of surface water users. Thermoelectric power plants, irrigation, and public water supply were the primary users. Figure 6.4 shows the user breakdown for ground water. Irrigation and public supply were the primary users.

Water Use Trends (1950–2000)

According to the USGS, total off-stream water withdrawals in the United States climbed steadily from 1950 to 1980, declined through 1985 and have remained relatively stable since then. (See Figure 6.5.)

Experts believe the general increase in water use from 1950 to 1980 and the decrease from 1980 to 2000 can be attributed to several factors:

• The expansion of irrigation systems and increases in energy development from 1950 to 1980 increased the demand for water.
• In some western areas the application of water directly to the roots of plants by center-pivot irrigation systems has replaced sprayer arms that project the water into the air, where much is lost to wind and evaporation.
• Higher energy prices in the 1970s and a decrease in groundwater levels in some areas increased the cost of irrigation water.
• A downturn in the farm economy reduced demands for irrigation water.
• New industrial technologies requiring less water, as well as improved efficiency, increased water recycling, higher energy prices, and changes in the law to reduce pollution decreased the demand for water.
• Increased awareness by the general public and active conservation programs reduced the demand for water.

Table 6.1 shows trends in U.S. population and offstream water withdrawals for the period 1950–2000. The population increased by 89 percent over this time period, while water withdrawn increased by 127 percent. In 1950 the per capita (per person) off-stream water withdrawal was around 1,200 gallons per day. This value climbed steadily over the years, reaching a peak in 1975 of 1,940 gallons per day per person. Per capita use has since declined and was at 1,430 gallons per day per person in 2000.

Historically freshwater has accounted for 85–95 percent of all water used. The percentage was at the high end during the 1950s and has gradually decreased, leveling off around 85 percent from 1980 through 2000. The nation's saline water withdrawals have consistently been 98–99 percent from surface water sources.

Although in-stream water use for hydroelectric power is not covered in the 2000 USGS report, the 1995 report notes that in-stream withdrawals declined 4 percent between 1990 and 1995, from 3,290 to 3,160 billion gallons per day.

The Freshwater Supply

Most great civilizations began and flourished on the banks of lakes and rivers. Throughout human history societies have depended on these surface water resources for food, drinking water, transportation, commerce, power, and recreation.

The withdrawal of surface water varies greatly depending on its location. In New England, for example, where rainfall is plentiful, less than 1 percent of the annual renewable water supply is used. In contrast, almost the entire annual supply is consumed in the area of the arid Colorado River Basin and the Rio Grande Valley.

DAMS—UNEXPECTED CONSEQUENCES.

Dams have changed the natural water cycle. The huge dams built in the United States just before and after World War II substantially changed the natural flow of rivers. By reducing the amount of water available downstream and slowing stream flow, a dam not only affects a river but the river's entire ecological system.

Some 100,000 dams regulate America's rivers and creeks. Nationwide, reservoirs encompass an area equivalent to New Hampshire and Vermont combined. Of all the major rivers (more than 600 miles in length) in the 48 contiguous states, only the Yellowstone River still flows freely. America is second only to China in the use of dams. Worldwide, dams collectively store 15 percent of Earth's annual renewable water supply. Globally, water demand has more than tripled since the mid-twentieth century, and the rising demand has been met by building ever more and larger water supply projects.

Being a world leader in dams was a point of pride for the United States during the golden age of dam building, a 50-year flurry of architectural innovation that began with the construction of the massive Hoover Dam on the lower Colorado River in the 1930s and ended in approximately 1980. In the early years the Army Corps of Engineers built most dams for flood control; later projects served narrower interests, such as developers who wanted flood-plain land.

Dams epitomized progress, Yankee ingenuity, and humankind's mastery of nature. However, the very success of the dam-building endeavor accounted, in part, for its decline: by 1980 nearly all the nation's good sites—and many dubious ones—had been dammed. There were few appropriate places left in the United States to build a major dam.

Three other factors, however, accounted for most of the decline: public resistance to the enormous costs; a growing belief that politicians were foolishly spending taxpayers' money on "pork barrel" (local) projects, including dams; and a developing public awareness of the profound environmental degradation that dams can cause.

WHERE HAVE ALL THE RIVERS GONE?

Dams provide a source of energy generation; flood control; irrigation; recreation for pleasure boaters, skiers, and anglers; and locks for the passage of barges and commercial shipping vessels. But dams alter rivers as well as the land abutting them, the water bodies they join, and the aquatic life they contain. All this results in profound changes in water systems and the ecosystems they support.

Many regions have fallen into a zero-sum game in which increasing the water supply to one user means taking it away from another. More water devoted to human activities means serious and potentially irreversible harm to natural systems. Many experts believe that the manipulation of river systems is wreaking havoc on the aquatic environment and its biological diversity. Hundreds of species or subspecies of fish are threatened or endangered because of habitat destruction. When rivers are dammed and water flow is stopped or reduced, wetlands dry up, species die, and nutrient loads carried by rivers into the sea are altered, with many negative consequences. Some rivers, including the large Colorado River, no longer reach the sea at all except in years of very high precipitation.

Concern for damage to the environment led Congress to pass the Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992. The act directed the secretary of state to protect the Grand Canyon basin and its life forms and to monitor the effects of damming the Colorado River. Out of concern for any damage possibly being done to the canyon, for a two-week period in 1996 the Bureau of Reclamation conducted a controlled flood of the canyon by releasing water from the Glen Canyon Dam (up-canyon). The flooding created dozens of new beaches in the Grand Canyon, cleared out many harmful nonnative species, and invigorated fish habitats. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported that the release of water was significant in that "it was the first time in [U.S.] history that the economic agenda of a large water project was put aside purely for the good of the ecological resources downstream."

EROSION IS DEVASTATING.

Deforestation and over-grazing have destroyed thousands of acres of vegetation that play a vital role in controlling erosion. Erosion leads to soil runoff into rivers and streams, causing disruption of stream flow. Destruction of vegetation reduces the amount of water released into the atmosphere by transpiration and less water in the atmosphere can mean less rainfall, which can, in turn, lead to desertification (transformation to desert) of once-fertile regions.

The most severe form of land degradation—desertification—is most acute in arid regions. Where land degradation has begun, the hydrologic cycle is disrupted, leaving water tables depleted and causing the sinking and drying of the land. Although desertification was long thought to be the result of droughts, there is much more involved in the process of degradation and desertification of grazing land, including:

• vegetation loss
• water erosion
• wind erosion
• salinization
• compaction of the land by machinery
• accumulation of toxic substances such as lead, chromium, pesticides, and industrial waste

A few hundred million years ago oceanic waters were still fresh enough to drink. It is the Earth that contains the mineral salts that one tastes in seawater. These salts are leached from soil and rock by runoff water. The runoff concentrations in rivers end up in the oceans or in salt lakes such as Mono Lake in California and the Great Salt Lake in Utah. These lakes are seven times saltier than the sea. Once in these bodies of water the salts have nowhere to go. Continuous runoff and evaporation of water leaves increasingly higher concentrations of salt, gradually causing the oceans or lakes to grow saltier. What is changing, however, is the drastic increase in concentrations of salt in the nation's rivers and on some of its prime agricultural land.

GROUNDWATER.

Groundwater is water that fills pores or cracks in subsurface rocks. When rain falls or snow melts on the Earth's surface, water may run off into lower land areas or lakes and streams. Some is caught and diverted for human use. What is left is absorbed into the soil where it can be used by vegetation; seeps into deeper layers of soil and rock; or evaporates back into the atmosphere. (See Figure 6.6.)

Below the topsoil is an area called the unsaturated zone where, in times of adequate rainfall, the small spaces between rocks and grains of soil contain at least some water, while the larger spaces contain mostly air. After a major rain the zone may become saturated—that is, all the open spaces fill with water. During a drought, the area may become drained and almost completely dry.

With excessive rainfall, water will drain through the unsaturated zone (which has now absorbed as much water as it can hold) to the saturated zone. The saturated zone is always full of water—all the spaces between soil and rocks, and the rocks themselves, contain water. In the saturated zone water is under higher-than-atmospheric pressure. Thus, when a well is dug into the saturated zone, water flows from the area of higher pressure (in the ground) to the area of lower pressure (in the hollow well), and the well fills with water to the level of the existing water table (the level of groundwater). A well dug just into the unsaturated zone will not fill with water because the water in the unsaturated zone is at atmospheric pressure.

The water table is the level at which the unsaturated zone and the saturated zone meet. The water table is not fixed but may rise or fall, depending on water availability. In areas where the climate is fairly consistent, the level of the water table may vary little; in areas subject to extreme flooding and drought it may rise and fall substantially.

An aquifer is an underground formation that contains enough water to yield significant amounts when a well is sunk. The formation of an aquifer is actually a path of porous or permeable material through which substantial quantities of water flow relatively easily. The word "aquifer" comes from the Latin aqua (water) and ferre (to bear or carry). An aquifer can be a layer of gravel or sand, a layer of sandstone or cavernous limestone, a rubble zone between lava flows, or even a large body of massive rock, such as fractured granite.

Aquifers vary from a few feet thick to tens or hundreds of feet thick. They can be located just below the Earth's surface or thousands of feet beneath it, and one aquifer may be only a part of a large system of aquifers that feed into one another. They can cover a few acres of land or many thousands of square miles. Because runoff water can easily seep down to the water table, aquifers are susceptible to contamination.

Modern technological developments allow massive quantities of water to be pumped out of the ground. When large amounts of water are removed from the ground, underground aquifers can become depleted much more quickly than they can naturally be replenished. On almost every continent, many major aquifers are being drained faster than their natural rate of recharge. Depletion is most severe in India, China, the United States, North Africa, and the Middle East. In some areas this has led to the subsidence, or sinking, of the ground above major aquifers. Farmers in California's San Joaquin Valley began tapping the area's aquifer in the late nineteenth century. Since that time dehydration of the aquifer has caused the soil to subside by as much as 29 feet, cracking foundations, canals, and roadways. Removal of groundwater also disturbs the natural filtering process that occurs as water travels through rocks and sand.

Focus on Irrigation

In 2000 irrigation accounted for 40 percent of all the freshwater withdrawn that year. It was by far the largest single user of groundwater and second-highest user of surface water (behind thermoelectric power plants). Because irrigation consumes more withdrawn water than do thermoelectric power plants, irrigation is actually the largest consumer of both surface water and groundwater.

Large-scale irrigation is concentrated in the Midwestern farm belt, southern Florida, the fertile valleys of California, and along the Mississippi River. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 50 million acres were irrigated in 1997, primarily in western states. Figure 6.7 shows total irrigation withdrawals by state. California and Idaho withdrew 15–30 billion gallons of water per day for irrigation during 2000. Many states west of the Mississippi River withdrew at least 1 billion gallons per day for irrigation.

A Water Crisis Looming in the West?

In much of the American West, millions of acres of profitable land overlie a shallow and impermeable clay layer, the residual bottom of an ancient sea, that is sometimes only a few feet below the Earth's surface. During the irrigation season, temperatures in much of the region fluctuate between 90 and 110 degrees Fahrenheit. The good water evaporates and polluted and saline water seep downward. Very little of this water seeps through the clay. As the water supplies are replenished with rainfall, the water table—now high in concentrations of salts and pollutants—rises back up through the root zone (the area containing plant roots), soaking the land and killing crops. (In general, high salt concentrations obstruct germination and impede the absorption of nutrients by plants.)

Several thousand acres in the West have already gone out of production and salt covers the ground like a dusting of snow; not even weeds can grow there. In the coming decades, as irrigation continues, that acreage is expected to increase dramatically. It is this process rather than drought that is believed to have resulted in the decline of ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Assyria, and Carthage.

POPULATION PRESSURES.

Many of the fastest growing states are in the West. The U.S. Census Bureau expects population growth in California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico to be in excess of 50 percent between 1995 and 2025. All of the states neighboring them are expected to grow by 31–50 percent.

This population growth in the West is expected to put enormous pressure on natural resources, including water, and to force huge changes in water consumption practices and prices.

LINGERING DROUGHT.

The natural hydrologic cycle, already under pressure by such human uses as irrigation, is also under strain from years of drought. Although there is no set definition of what constitutes a drought, it is commonly used to describe a period of at least several months in which precipitation is significantly less than that normally expected based on historical records.

According to the Climate Prediction Center of the National Weather Service, drought affected approximately 30 percent of the country in the spring of 2004. Persistent drought was forecast for the entire states of Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming and parts of California, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico. During the 1930s the so-called "Dust Bowl" drought engulfed up to 70 percent of the country.

WATER 2025.

Although drought is a serious concern in the West, it is not the only worry related to water resources. In 2001 the Bush administration asked the Bureau of Reclamation to assess existing water supplies across the west and identify areas likely to experience severe water shortages within the coming decades. The result was a comprehensive report published in May 2003 titled Water 2025: Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West.

The report reviews the factors aggravating the water problems in the West, mainly booming population growth in the most arid regions, aging and poorly maintained water supply infrastructure, and continuing drought. However, the report notes that drought is not the chief cause of the region's water woes. It provides this stark assessment: "Today, in some areas of the West, existing water supplies are, or will be, inadequate to meet the water demands of people, cities, farms, and the environment even under normal water supply conditions."

The Water 2025 program proposes the following approaches to solving the West's looming water crises:

• Modernizing the existing water supply infrastructure
• Employing water conservation measures to more efficiently use existing water supplies
• Establishing collaborative approaches and a market-based transfer system to minimize conflicts between water users
• Conducting research in promising water technology treatment options, such as desalination

The Bureau of Reclamation asked for $11 million in the fiscal year 2004 federal budget to fund the initiatives of the Water 2025 program.

WATER SUITABILITY

The U.S. economy depends on water and studies have repeatedly shown a positive relationship between strong environmental standards and economic growth. Good water quality is important to local and national economic development.

Water is a powerful attraction for people. The EPA's Liquid Assets 2000: America's Water Resources at a Turning Point (May 2000) estimates that the travel, tourism, and recreation industries support jobs for more than 6.8 million people and generate annual sales in excess of $450 billion. The Center for Marine Conservation reports that federal, state, and local governments maintain more than 25,000 recreational facilities along U.S. coasts, while private organizations operate another 20,000. One-third of Americans visit a coast each year, spending about $44 billion. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife's 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, these activities produced revenues of $108 billion that year.

More than 95 percent of U.S. foreign trade passes through U.S. harbors and ports. American farmers depend on water to produce and sell billions of dollars worth of food and fiber annually. Each year the Great Lakes, the Gulf of Mexico, and many other coastal areas produce billions of pounds of fish and shellfish. The National Marine Fisheries Service estimated the value of U.S. commercial fishing at about $3.2 billion in 2002. According to the

USGS, manufacturers use about 9 trillion gallons of fresh water every year.

Water is a fundamental need in every society. Families use water for drinking, cooking, and cleaning. Industry needs it to make chemicals, prepare paper, and clean factories and equipment. Cities use water to fight fires, clean streets, and fill public swimming pools. Farmers water their livestock, clean barns, and irrigate crops. Hydroelectric power stations use water to drive generators, while thermonuclear power stations need it for cooling. Water quality is important to all users, as differing levels of quality are required for different uses. While some industrial users can tolerate water containing high levels of contaminants, drinking water requirements are extremely strict.

Clean Water Act

On June 22, 1969, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio, burst into flames, the result of oil and debris that had accumulated on the river's surface. This episode thrust the problem of water pollution into the public consciousness. Many people became aware—and wary—of the nation's polluted waters and, in 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) commonly known as the Clean Water Act.

The objective of the Clean Water Act was to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters." It called for ending the discharge of all pollutants into the navigable waters of the United States and to achieve "wherever possible, water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water." The second provision was that waters be restored to "fishable/swimmable" condition.

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to assess the condition of their waters and report the extent to which the waters support the basic goals of the Clean Water Act and state water quality standards. Water quality standards are designed to protect designated uses (such as recreation, protection and propagation of aquatic life, fish consumption, and drinking water supply) by setting criteria (for example, chemical-specific limits on discharges) and preventing any waters that do meet standards from deteriorating from their current condition.

Each state prepares and submits to the EPA a report documenting (1) the water quality of all navigable waters in the state, (2) the extent to which the waters provide for the protection and propagation of marine animals and allow recreation in and on the water, (3) the extent to which pollution has been eliminated or is under control, and (4) the sources and causes of the pollution. The act stipulates that these reports must be submitted to the EPA every two years.

National Water Quality Inventory

Every two years the EPA releases the National Water Quality Inventory, which is prepared from the state assessments. The 2000 report was released in August 2002 and was the latest available in June 2004. The report summarizes information about the quality of the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, reservoirs, estuaries, wetlands, coastal waters, coral reefs, and groundwater. The EPA reports that wetlands, coastal waters, coral reefs, and groundwater are poorly represented in state monitoring programs because few states have adopted water quality standards for them.

SURFACE WATER QUALITY.

In 2000 the states assessed surface water quality in rivers and streams, lakes (including the Great Lakes), ocean shoreline, and estuaries. Estuaries are areas where ocean and freshwater come together. Due to the tremendous resources required to assess all water bodies in the United States, only a small portion of each water body type is actually assessed for the report.

Table 6.2 summarizes the findings of the report for surface waters. It found that the states had assessed the quality of 19 percent of their river and stream miles, 43 percent of their lake acres (92 percent of Great Lakes shoreline), 36 percent of estuaries, and 5 percent of ocean shoreline.

Water bodies meeting applicable water quality standards for criteria and designated uses were rated "good."

Those water bodies meeting water quality standards, but expected to degrade in the near future were rated "good, but threatened." Water bodies that did not meet water quality standards were rated "impaired."

Only slightly more than half of the assessed rivers and streams were rated good. Slightly less than half of assessed lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and estuaries were rated good. None of the Great Lakes shoreline assessed was found to be in good and unthreatened condition. In fact, 78 percent of the assessed Great Lakes shorelines were rated impaired and the remaining 22 percent were threatened. This is especially significant, because nearly all (92 percent) of the shorelines were assessed. By contrast, only 14 percent of ocean shoreline was rated impaired. However, only a tiny percentage (5 percent) of it was assessed.

Table 6.3 lists the leading pollutants and sources blamed for impairment of assessed rivers, lakes, and estuaries. The primary pollutants are pathogens, siltation, nutrients, metals, pesticides, oxygen-depleting substances, and habitat alterations.

Pathogens are bacteria and viruses that enter water bodies from animal waste, failing septic systems, urban runoff, storm sewers, and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). CSOs are sewer systems in which storm water flows into pipes already carrying raw sewage headed for a sewage treatment facility. During a large rainfall or snowmelt the system's capacity may be overwhelmed, causing the mixture of untreated sewage and storm water to bypass the sewage treatment facility and flow directly into receiving waters. (See Figure 6.8.) In 1994 the EPA ordered communities with CSOs to take "immediate and long-term actions" to address CSO problems. However, according to a U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report presented to Congress in June 2001, CSOs are still used in approximately 900 cities in the United States.

Pathogens in water used for recreational purposes can pose human health risks due to incidental swallowing and skin contact. In addition, pathogens can accumulate in shellfish, prompting officials to issue warnings against eating shellfish taken from certain waters.

Siltation was another leading cause of surface water impairment in 2000. Siltation is the addition of sediment to water bodies. The sediment can be carried by wind or by runoff from construction sites and other nonvegetated lands, eroding banks, and road sanding operations. Siltation alters aquatic habitats by suffocating fish eggs, causing infection and disease among fish, scouring submerged aquatic vegetation, preventing sunlight from reaching aquatic plants, and burying habitat areas of bottom-dwelling species. The loss of those species then impacts fish and other species that feed on them. Silt in the water can also interfere with drinking water treatment processes and recreational use of surface water bodies. (See Figure 6.9.)

Nutrients in water bodies are primarily nitrogen and phosphorus introduced via runoff of fertilizers and animal waste, failing septic systems, CSOs, and atmospheric deposition. Excessive nutrients pollute water bodies by spurring an overgrowth of plants, algae, and toxic and nontoxic blooms of planktonic marine organisms, such as "red tides" and Pfiesteria. This results in oxygen depletion and decomposition of plant matter. Fish suffocate, and unpleasant odor and taste result. (See Figure 6.10.)

Algal growth off the mouth of the Mississippi River has caused a massive area called an hypoxic zone, which is extremely low in oxygen and devoid of aquatic life. The hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico averaged 8,500 square miles during the summer of 2002. It is blamed on excessive inflow of nutrients from fertilizer use in the agricultural areas bordering the Mississippi River. The EPA reports that a similar hypoxic zone in Long Island Sound may have killed millions of shellfish in the summer of 2000.

Metals are introduced to water bodies through industrial discharges, automobile fluid leaks, normal wear of automobile brake linings and tires, wear of metal roofs on buildings, and atmospheric deposits from power plants and waste incinerators. Many metals are toxic to aquatic organisms and pose a potential threat to humans via fish consumption. Mercury in particular can pose a serious health threat.

Oxygen-depleting substances are a leading cause of estuary impairment. Estuaries, which are home to many shellfish species and are used as nursery areas for aquaculture enterprises, usually have large cities nearby. Urban sources, including municipal and industrial discharges, urban runoff, and storm sewers are the most prevalent sources of estuary pollution. Other causes of impairment include hydrological modifications (damming rivers and altering the flow of water) and habitat modifications.

The Great Lakes (Lakes Huron, Michigan, Superior, Ontario, and Erie) contain nearly 20 percent of the fresh surface water on Earth. However, they are impaired by a variety of contaminants introduced via storm water runoff, surface water and wastewater discharges, groundwater, and air deposition.

Only 15 states have coastal waters within their jurisdiction. The three leading pollutants blamed for ocean shoreline impairment were pathogens (bacteria), oxygen-depleting substances, and turbidity (high particle content in the water, causing muddy or cloudy appearance). The sources of those contaminants were urban runoff/storm sewers, nonpoint (having no specific point of release) sources, and land disposal.

DO THE NATION'S SURFACE WATERS MEET THE FISHABLE/SWIMMABLE GOAL?

A goal of the Clean Water Act was to return U.S. waters to a fishable/swimmable condition. Meeting the fishable goal means providing a level of water quality that protects and promotes the population of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. As a result of polluted waters, fish often become contaminated. When humans eat these fish, they can suffer health effects from the toxins. In May 2003 the EPA published Update: National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories. The report noted that 348 new fish advisories were issued in 2002, and 166 were rescinded, bringing the total number of advisories to 2,800. (See Figure 6.11.) This number is up from 2,618 total advisories in effect in 2001.

A total of 94,715 lakes were under advisory in 2002. The total lake area under advisory increased from 28 percent in 2001 to 33 percent in 2002, while the number of river miles under advisory increased from 13.7 percent in 2001 to 15.3 percent in 2002. In addition, 100 percent of the Great Lakes and their connecting waters and 71 percent of U.S. coastal waters of the 48 contiguous states were under advisory in 2002.

The USDA, EPA, and seven other federal agencies released the National Coastal Condition Report in September 2001. The report examined the ecological health of the nation's coasts based on seven indicators:

• water clarity
• dissolved oxygen concentrations
• loss of coastal wetlands
• eutrophic condition
• sediment contamination
• benthic condition
• accumulation of contaminants in fish tissue

The report concluded that overall the nation's coasts were in fair to poor condition. Indicators receiving the best marks included water clarity and dissolved oxygen. The poorest rated indicators were coastal wetland loss, eutrophic (high level of nutrients) condition, and benthic (regarding the bottom of a body of water) condition.

In May 2003 the EPA reported in its BEACH Watch Program that 2,823 beaches provided information about beach advisories and closings for the 2002 swimming season. Of these beaches, 2,031 were coastal and 792 were on inland waterways. There were 709 beaches with at least 1 advisory or closing during 2002 (25 percent of those reporting). This percentage was down slightly from 2001 when 27 percent reported advisories or closings. The vast majority of the problems (75 percent) were attributed to elevated bacteria levels. Unfortunately, 43 percent of the pollutant sources could not be identified. Sources that could be identified included storm water runoff (21 percent), wildlife (11 percent), boat discharges (3 percent), and a number of sewage-related causes.

FOCUS ON WATER POLLUTION SOURCES.

The main reason that a body of water cannot support its designated uses is that it has become polluted. There are a vast number of pollutants that can make water "impaired," but in order to control a specific pollutant, it is necessary to find out where it is coming from. Although there are many ways in which contaminants can enter waterways, sources of pollution are generally categorized as point sources and nonpoint sources.

Figure 6.12 shows examples of point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Point sources are those that disperse pollutants from a specific source or area, such as a sewage drain or an industrial discharge pipe. Pollutants commonly discharged from point sources include bacteria (from wastewater treatment plants and sewer overflow), toxic chemicals, and heavy metals from industrial plants. Point sources are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Any facility using point sources to discharge to receiving waters must obtain an NPDES permit for them.

Nonpoint sources are those that are spread out over a large area and have no specific outlet or discharge point. These include agricultural and urban runoff, runoff from mining and construction sites, and accidental or deliberate spills. Agricultural runoff is primarily associated with nutrients from fertilizers, pathogens from animal waste operations, and pesticides. Urban runoff can contain a variety of contaminants, including pesticides, fertilizers, chemicals and metals, oil and grease, sediment, salts, and atmospheric deposits. (See Figure 6.13.) The EPA estimates that as much as 65 percent of surface water pollutants come from nonpoint sources. These sources are much more difficult to regulate than point sources and may require a new approach to water protection.

Groundwater Quality

In "The Hidden Freshwater Crisis" (December 9, 2000, http://www.worldwatch.org/) Worldwatch Institute researcher Payal Sampat warned, "We're polluting our cheapest and most easily accessible supply of water. Most groundwater is still pristine, but unless we take immediate action, clean groundwater will not be there when we need it."

The EPA's National Water Quality Inventory for 2000 reported that 39 states assessed water quality in aquifers in their states and identified sources of contamination. In general, groundwater quality in the nation is good. The EPA reports that groundwater can support its many different uses but is potentially threatened by a variety of sources. The leading sources were underground storage tanks containing toxic chemicals, septic systems, landfills, spills, fertilizers, large industrial facilities, and hazardous waste sites. (See Figure 6.14.)

The Federal Role in Protecting Groundwater

Parts of several federal laws help to protect groundwater. The 1972 Clean Water Act provides guidance and money to the states to help develop groundwater programs. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (SDWA; PL 93-523) and the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (PL 104-182) require communities to test their water to make sure it is safe and help communities finance projects needed to comply with SDWA regulations. The 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act includes many programs designed to clean up hazardous waste, landfills, and underground storage tanks. New storage tanks must be made of strong plastics that will not rust or leak contaminants into the water table.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (PL 96-510) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (PL 99-499; PL 99-563; and PL 100-202) require the cleanup of hazardous wastes that can seep into the groundwater. These two laws also require that cities and industry build better-managed and better-constructed garbage dumps and landfills for hazardous materials so that groundwater will not be polluted in the future.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (61 Stat 163; amended 1988, PL 100-532) regulates dangerous chemicals used on farms. The act requires the EPA to register the pesticides farmers use against insects, rats, mice, and so on. If the EPA thinks the pesticides might be dangerous to the groundwater, it can refuse to register them.

THE STATUS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT.

Both political conservatives and environmentalists credit the Clean Water Act with reversing, in a single generation, what had been a decline in the health of the nation's water since the mid-nineteenth century. In the 1990s, however, some politicians proposed legislation to change the Clean Water Act, giving more authority to the states and more weight to economic considerations. These politicians and their supporters (coalitions of industry, agriculture, and state and local governments) argue that enough has been accomplished and that now it is time to make the law more flexible. They claim that the huge cost of maintaining clean water risks making the United States noncompetitive in the international market. Government regulations, they think, demand more than is necessary to maintain drinkable water.

The Future of Water Management

In June 2001 the EPA issued a report titled Protecting and Restoring America's Watersheds. A watershed is defined as a "land area that drains to a body of water such as a stream, lake, wetland, or estuary." In other words, a watershed is determined geologically and hydrologically, rather than politically. Figure 6.15 shows a watershed example and the many issues and processes that affect it.

The EPA believes that the nation's water quality problems cannot be solved by further regulating point-source discharges. Instead, the agency advocates a comprehensive approach that crosses jurisdictional boundaries and addresses all of the air, water, land, and social and economic issues that affect a particular watershed. The watershed approach would balance competing needs for drinking water, recreation, navigation and flood control, agriculture and forestry, aquatic ecosystems, hydropower, and other uses. Currently, these uses are managed by a variety of agencies at the federal, state, and local level.

Actually, the idea is not new. It was originally suggested in 1890 by John Wesley Powell, then director of the USGS. He suggested that the West be divided into watershed units that would be governing bodies and coordinate management of the natural resources within their jurisdiction. More than a century later, the idea is receiving serious consideration.

WHERE WATER IS POWER—INTERNATIONAL WATER WARS?

As it becomes rarer, because of the growing population and the pollution of water supplies, usable water is expected to become a commodity, like iron or oil, leading some experts to predict that, at some point, water will be more expensive than oil. Of the 200 largest river systems in the world, 120 flow through 2 or more countries. All are potential objects of world political power struggles over this critical resource.

Three areas of the world are particularly short of water—Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Other dry areas include the southwestern United States, parts of South America, and large areas of Australia.

Middle Eastern countries are especially threatened as growing nations compete for a shrinking water supply. Freshwater has never come easily to this area. Rainfall occurs only in winter and drains quickly through the parched land. Most Middle Eastern countries are joined by common aquifers. The United Nations (UN) has cautioned that future wars in the Middle East could be fought over water.

The oil-rich Middle Eastern nation of Kuwait has little water but has the money to secure it. In order to use seawater, Kuwait has constructed large-scale, oil-powered water desalination plants. Saudi Arabia, farther down the Arabian Peninsula, leads the world in water desalination. As of March 2004 it has 30 desalination plants that produce nearly 600 million gallons of water per day. This output accounts for 30 percent of global desalinated water production. Desalinated water meets 70 percent of the country's drinking water needs. The remainder comes from groundwater. Saudi Arabia is a leader in the pumping of fossil water—water accumulated in an earlier geologic age lying deep in aquifers beneath Africa and the Middle East.

The United States and Mexico have been bickering over a 1944 treaty that granted Mexico water from the Colorado River in exchange for a lesser amount from the Rio Grande to be given to Texas farmers. U.S. officials claim that Mexico owes them more than 1.3 million acre-feet (or 423 trillion gallons) of water. In March 2002 the issue was raised by President George W. Bush with Mexican president Vicente Fox. Mexican officials blame nine years of drought for their inability to turn over the water. The mighty Rio Grande was once a navigable waterway that marked the 2,000-mile border between the 2 countries. By 2002 it was merely a trickle. Dams, inefficient irrigation methods, drought, and invasion of nonnative weeds are blamed for diminishing the river.

OCEAN PROTECTION

Throughout history humans have used the oceans virtually as they pleased. Ocean waters have long served as highways and harvest grounds. Now, however, humankind is at a threshold. Marine debris (garbage created by humans) is a problem of global proportions and is extremely evident in countries like the United States where there is extensive recreational and commercial use of coastal waterways. The oceans have become overfished and badly polluted. An estimated half of fish species in the United States are overexploited—more are being caught than can be replenished by natural reproduction. Coastal wetlands are decreasing. Louisiana, for example, loses about 50 square miles of estuaries each year. Sewage, wastewater, and runoff foul the remaining wetlands and ocean waters and trash is piling up on many shorelines. Toxic chemicals contaminate fish caught for food.

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

Established in 1973, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships regulates numerous materials that are dumped at sea. The international treaty has been in effect in the United States only since its ratification in 1998. Although 83 countries have ratified the treaty, they have not necessarily complied, as evidenced by the current level of marine debris.

Ocean Dumping Act

Congress enacted the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act in 1972 (PL 92-532) to regulate intentional ocean disposal of materials and to authorize research. Title 1 of the act, known as the Ocean Dumping Act, contains permit and enforcement provisions for ocean dumping. Four federal agencies have authority under the act—the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Coast Guard. Title 1 prohibits all ocean dumping, except that allowed by permits, in any ocean waters under U.S. jurisdiction by any U.S. vessel or by any vessel sailing from a U.S. port. The act bans dumping of radiological, chemical, and biological warfare agents, high-level radioactive waste, and medical wastes. In 1997 Congress amended the act to ban dumping of municipal sewage sludge and industrial waste.

The act authorizes the EPA to assess civil penalties of up to $50,000 for each violation, as well as criminal penalties (seizure and forfeiture of vessels). For dumping of medical wastes the act authorizes civil penalties of up to $125,000, criminal penalties of up to $250,000 and five years in prison, or both.

In July 1999 the world's second largest cruise line pleaded guilty in federal court to criminal charges of dumping oil and hazardous chemicals in U.S. waters and lying about it to the Coast Guard. Royal Caribbean agreed to pay a record $18 million fine, the largest ever paid by a cruise line for polluting waters, in addition to the $9 million in criminal fines the company agreed to pay in a previous plea agreement. Six other cruise lines have pleaded guilty to illegal waste dumping since 1993 and have paid fines ranging up to $1 million. The cases have focused attention on the difficulties of regulating the fast growing cruise line industry in which most major ships sailing out of U.S. ports are registered in foreign countries.

Oil Pollution Act

In 1989 the oil freighter Exxon Valdez ran into a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling more than 11 million gallons of oil into one of the richest and most ecologically pristine areas in North America. An oil slick the size of Rhode Island killed wildlife and marine species. A $5 billion damage penalty was levied against Exxon, whose ship captain was found to be at fault in the wreck.

In response to the Valdez oil spill, Congress passed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (PL 101-380) that went into effect in 1993. The law requires companies involved in storing and transporting petroleum to have standby plans for cleaning up oil spills on land or in water. Under the act a company that does not adequately take care of a spill is vulnerable to almost unlimited litigation and expense. The law makes the Coast Guard responsible for approving cleanup plans and procedures for coastal and seaport oil spills, while the EPA oversees cleanups on land and in inland waterways. The law also requires that oil tankers be built with double hulls to better secure the oil in event of a hull breach.

DRINKING WATER

Drinking Water Legislation

Almost any legislation concerning water affects drinking water, either directly or indirectly. The following pieces of legislation are aimed specifically at providing safe drinking water for the nation's residents.

SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT OF 1974.

The SDWA mandated that the EPA establish and enforce minimum national drinking water standards for all public water systems—community and noncommunity—in the United States. The law also required the EPA to develop guidelines for water treatment and to set testing, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

To address pollution of surface water supplies to public systems, the EPA established a permit system requiring any facility that discharges contaminants directly into surface waters (lakes and rivers) to apply for a permit to discharge a set amount of materials—and that amount only. It also created groundwater regulations to govern underground injection of wastes.

Congress intended that, after the EPA had set regulatory standards, each state would run its own drinking water program. Since 1974, 54 states and territories have been granted "primacy"; that is, they have been given the primary responsibility for enforcing the requirements of the SDWA. In order to be granted primacy a state must adopt drinking water standards at least as stringent as the national standards (those established by the EPA), and it must be able to conduct monitoring and enforcement programs that meet federal standards.

The EPA established the Primary Drinking Water Standards by setting maximum containment levels (MCLs) for contaminants known to be detrimental to human health. All public water systems in the United States are required to meet primary standards. Secondary standards cover non-health-threatening aspects of drinking water such as odor, taste, staining properties, and color. Secondary standards are recommended but not required.

SOLE-SOURCE AQUIFERS.

Under the SDWA, the EPA has the authority to designate certain groundwater supplies as the sole source of drinking water for a community (referred to as "sole-source aquifers") and to determine if federal financially assisted projects may contaminate these aquifers. If the EPA determines that contamination could occur, no commitment of federal financial assistance—such as grants, contracts, loan guarantees, and so on—can be made for that project.

As of April 2004 the EPA had designated 73 sole-source aquifers nationwide. To be designated as a sole-source aquifer for an area, at least 50 percent of the population in a given area must depend on the aquifer for drinking water; a significant public health hazard would result if the aquifer were contaminated, and no reasonable alternative drinking water supplies exist.

1986 AMENDMENTS TO THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT.

The 1986 amendments to the SDWA required that the EPA set MCLs for an additional 53 contaminants by June 1989, 25 more by 1991, and 25 every 3 years thereafter. The amendments also required the EPA to issue a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) along with each MCL. An MCLG is a health goal equal to the maximum level of a pollutant not expected to cause any health problems over a lifetime of exposure. The EPA is mandated by law to set MCLs as close to MCLGs as technology and economics will permit.

The 1986 amendments banned the use of lead pipe and lead solder in new public drinking water systems and in the repair of existing systems. In addition, the EPA had to specify criteria for filtration of surface water supplies and to set standards for disinfection of all surface and groundwater supplies. The EPA was required to take enforcement action, including filing civil suits against violators of drinking water standards, even in states granted primacy if those states did not adequately enforce regulations. Violators became subject to fines up to $25,000 daily until violations were corrected.

WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT OF 1987.

Section 304 (1) of the revised Clean Water Act of 1987 (PL 100-4) determines the state of the nation's water quality and reviews the effectiveness of the EPA's regulatory programs designed to protect and improve that water quality. Section 308—known as the Water Quality Control Act—requires that the administrator of the EPA report annually to Congress on the effectiveness of the water quality improvement program.

The main purpose of the Water Quality Control Act is to identify water sources that need to be brought up to minimum standards and to establish more stringent controls where needed. States are now required to develop lists of contaminated waters as well as lists of the sources and amounts of pollutants causing toxic problems. In addition, each state is required to develop "individual control strategies" for dealing with these pollutants.

LEAD CONTAMINATION CONTROL ACT OF 1988.

The Lead Contamination Control Act of 1988 (PL 100-572) strengthened the controls on lead contamination set out in the 1986 amendments to the SDWA. It requires the EPA to provide guidance to states and localities in testing for and remedying lead contamination in drinking water in schools and day care centers. The act also contains requirements for the testing, recall, repair, and/or replacement of water coolers with lead-lined storage tanks or parts containing lead. It attaches civil and criminal penalties to the manufacture and sale of water coolers containing lead.

The ban on lead states that plumbing must be lead-free. In addition, each public water system must identify and notify anyone whose drinking water may be contaminated with lead, and the states must enforce the lead ban through plumbing codes and the public-notice requirement. The federal government gave the EPA the power to enforce the lead ban law by authorizing the agency to withhold up to 5 percent of federal grant funds to any state that does not comply with the new rulings.

REINVENTING DRINKING WATER LAW—1996 AMENDMENTS TO THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT.

In 1996 Congress passed a number of significant amendments (PL 104-182) to the SDWA. The law changed the relationship between the federal government and the states in administering drinking water programs, giving states greater flexibility and more responsibility.

The centerpiece of the law is the State Revolving Fund (SRF), a mechanism for providing low-cost financial aid to local water systems to build the treatment plants necessary to meet state and federal drinking water standards. The law also requires states to train and certify operators of drinking water systems. If they do not, states risk losing up to 20 percent of their federal grants. The law requires states to approve the operation of any new water supply system, making sure it complies with the technical, managerial, and financial requirements. The 1996 SDWA gives the EPA discretion in regulating only those contaminants that may be harmful to health, and requires the EPA to select at least five contaminants every five years for consideration for new standards. A further change is that the EPA, when proposing a regulation, now must determine—and publish—whether or not the benefits of a new standard justify the costs.

Furthermore, the law affirms Americans' "right to know" the quality of their drinking water and mandates notification. Water suppliers must promptly (within 24 hours) alert consumers if water becomes contaminated by something that can cause illness and must advise as to what precautions can be taken. In 1998 states began to compile information about individual systems, which the EPA now summarizes in an annual compliance report. As of October 1999 water systems have been required to make that data available to the public. Large suppliers have to mail their annual safety reports to customers, while smaller systems can post the reports in a central location or publish it in a local newspaper. (Information on individual water systems is available on the EPA website at http://www.epa.gov.)

In 1996 Congress directed the EPA to issue a new standard for arsenic in drinking water by January 1, 2001. The existing standard at that time was 50 parts per billion (ppb). The EPA proposed a standard of 5 ppb in June 2000. However, this was too late to resolve scientific and public debate about the new standard in time to meet the January 1 deadline, so Congress extended the deadline. A new standard of 10 ppb became effective in February 2002, but public water systems were given until January 2006 to meet it.

Sources of Drinking Water—Public and Private Supply

According to the EPA there were 161,201 public water supply systems in operation in 2003, serving 302.9 million people. (See Table 6.4.) These included systems that served homes, businesses, schools, hospitals, and recreational parks. About 273.3 million Americans got their water from a community water system. Those who did not get their water from a public system were for the most part in rural areas and got their water from private

wells. Although most systems obtain their water from groundwater, most people receive drinking water from surface water sources. This is because a relatively small number of public systems served large metropolitan areas.

The EPA and state health or environmental departments regulate public water supplies. Public supplies are required to ensure that the water meets certain government-defined health standards. The SDWA governs this regulation. The law mandates that all public suppliers test their water on a regular basis to check for the existence of contaminants and treat their water supplies constantly to take out or reduce certain pollutants to levels that will not harm human health.

Private water supplies, usually wells, are not regulated under the SDWA. System owners are solely responsible for the quality of the water provided from private sources. However, many states have programs designed to help well owners protect their water supplies. Usually, these state-run programs are not regulatory but provide safety information. This type of information is vital because private wells are often shallower than those used by public suppliers. The shallower the well the greater is the potential for contamination.

Chemicals and Contaminants in Drinking Water

All drinking water contains minerals dissolved from the Earth. In small amounts some of these are acceptable because they enhance the quality of the water (for example, by giving it a pleasant taste). A few, such as zinc and selenium, in very small amounts, contribute to good health. Other naturally occurring minerals are not desirable because they may cause a bad taste or odor (as excessive amounts of iron, manganese, or sulfur often do) or because they may be harmful to health.

The health effects from drinking contaminated water can occur either over a short or long period of time, depending on the type of pollutant. Short-term, or acute, reactions are those that occur within a few hours or days after drinking tainted water. Long-term, or chronic, effects occur after water with relatively low doses of a pollutant has been consumed for several years or even over a lifetime. Fortunately, the ability to detect contaminants has improved over the past few decades. Scientists can now identify specific pollutants in terms of 1 part contaminant in 1 billion parts of water. In some cases contaminants can be measured in the trillionths.

Water supplies may contain a wide variety of contaminants that can cause serious health risks. While bacterial infections generally make their presence known quickly by causing illness with fairly obvious symptoms, the effects of noxious chemicals may not be apparent for months, or even years, after exposure. Some pollutants are known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents), while others are suspected of causing birth defects, miscarriages, and heart disease. In many cases the effects occur only after prolonged exposure, but no one can say for sure what is a safe level of exposure.

LEAD.

When water leaves the treatment plant it is relatively free of lead, but it can pick up the metal from lead pipes (and pipes with lead solder) in distribution systems or homes, resulting in tap water containing significant amounts of this highly toxic substance. Unlike many water contaminants, lead has been extensively studied for its prevalence and effects on human health and for ways to eliminate it from the water supply.

Most people understand that drinking water contaminated with lead is very dangerous. Ingested lead causes extremely serious health problems, especially in children, whose developing bodies absorb and retain more lead than adults' bodies do. According to EPA reports, even very low level exposures can result in lowered intelligence, impaired learning and language skills, loss of hearing, reduced attention spans, and poor school performance. High levels damage the brain and the central nervous system, thereby interfering with both learning and physical development. While drinking water is not the only means of lead contamination (lead exists in some paints, soils, and older food containers), the EPA estimates that it accounts for between 10 and 20 percent of total lead poisoning in young children.

Pregnant women are another high-risk group. Lead is believed to cause miscarriages, premature births, and impaired fetal development. It has also been linked to high blood pressure, fatigue, and hearing loss.

Lead is rarely found in either the surface water or groundwater that are the sources of drinking water for most Americans. Lead usually enters the water supply after it leaves the treatment plant. The industries that release the most lead into the environment include lead smelting and refining, copper smelting, steelworks, manufacturers of storage batteries and china plumbing fixtures, iron foundries, and copper mining.

Normally, areas served by lead service lines or residences containing lead interior piping or copper piping with lead solder installed after 1982 are considered high risk. Since 1986 it has been illegal to use lead solder that contains more than 0.2 percent lead. But ripping out and replacing lead piping is extremely expensive. As an alternative some cities are using chemicals to make the water less acidic so that it picks up less lead.

In 1991 the EPA's Lead and Copper Rule set a maximum contaminant level goal for lead at 0 milligrams per liter (mg/L), with water systems required to take action if lead levels reach 0.015 mg/L. The EPA believes this is the lowest level to which water systems can reasonably be required to control the contaminant. If a water supply is found to exceed that amount in more than 10 percent of the homes served, it must be tested twice a year. If levels remain above the standard, the supplier must take steps to reduce those levels. The water supplier must also notify the public about the elevated levels via newspapers, radio, television, and other means and must inform its consumers of additional measures they may take to reduce the levels in their homes.

NITRATES AND NITRITES.

Nitrates and nitrites are nitrogen-oxygen chemicals that combine with organic and inorganic compounds. Once taken into the body, nitrates are converted into nitrites. Nitrates are most frequently used as fertilizer. Primary sources include human sewage and livestock manure, especially from feedlots. Since they are soluble, nitrates can easily migrate into groundwater.

Nitrates in drinking water are an immediate threat to small children. In some babies high levels of nitrates react with red blood cells to cause an anemic condition commonly known as "blue baby." The MCL for nitrates has been set at 10 parts per million (ppm) and for nitrites at 1 ppm. If contaminant levels exceed these standards, a water provider must take steps to reduce the levels—either through ion exchange, reverse osmosis, or electrodialysis—and must notify the public of their presence.

MERCURY.

Mercury is unique among metals in that it can evaporate when released into water or soil. Large amounts of mercury are released naturally from the Earth's crust. Metal smelters, cement manufacture, landfills, sewage, and combustion of fossil fuels are also important sources of mercury release. Mercury is especially dangerous when released into water because it

tends to accumulate in the tissues of fish. When tainted fish are eaten by humans, mercury poisoning is often the result. The MCL for mercury has been set at 2 ppb.

MICROBIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS.

Many kinds of biological organisms exist in drinking water. These include certain types of bacteria, viruses, or parasites. (See Table 6.5.) These tiny organisms get into the water supplies when the water is contaminated with human or animal wastes. The bacteria, viruses, and parasites that contaminate drinking water can cause flu-like symptoms, including headaches, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and dehydration. Although usually not life threatening, they can be debilitating and uncomfortable for their victims.

One type of microscopic parasite that is a common cause of illness is Giardia lamblia. Once thought to be harmless, it is now believed to be the most frequent cause of waterborne epidemics in the United States. Its symptoms include mild-to-severe gastrointestinal pain, vomiting, and diarrhea. Giardia is particularly threatening because it can enter the water supply in any number of ways, including as sewage overflow. It is also easily transmitted from person to person making places with high concentrations of people (for example, day care centers and schools) particularly susceptible to outbreaks.

Cryptosporidium is a one-celled, infectious parasite that frequently contaminates the water supply. Although there are tests for Cryptosporidium, current testing methods cannot determine with certainty whether Cryptosporidium detected in drinking water is alive or whether it can affect humans. In addition, the technology often requires several days to get results, by which time the tested water has already been used by the public and is no longer in the community's water pipes. Consequently, water utilities do not routinely test to detect its presence. (A water utility may voluntarily test for the microorganism, and it is also possible that a state may require water systems to test for it. Otherwise, it is unlikely that a given water system tests for Cryptosporidium.)

Because Cryptosporidium is highly resistant to chlorination, disinfection of water is not a reliable method of preventing exposure to it. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the EPA report that the organism can be killed by boiling water for one minute. Outbreaks of Cryptosporidium have generally occurred when turbidity (cloudiness of water due to high particle content) reached 0.9 to 2.0 nephelometric turbidity units.

Coliform bacteria from human or animal wastes can also pose serious health problems. Waterborne diseases such as typhoid, cholera, infectious hepatitis, and dysentery have all been traced to untreated drinking water.

Modern Drinking Water Treatment

The water treatment process begins with choosing the highest quality source available. Raw water must be transported from the source to the treatment plant while groundwater is usually pumped directly into the plant. In many cases the only treatment needed before the water is distributed to consumers is disinfection. Groundwater is naturally filtered as it seeps through layers of rock and soil. However, sometimes it must be treated to remove contaminants that may have percolated down from the surface to the aquifer. In addition, some groundwater must have certain minerals or gases removed to make the water less "hard" (high in natural minerals). Hard water can clog pipes, stain fixtures, and make soap hard to lather.

Surface water is sent to the water treatment plant through aqueducts or pipes. An initial screen at the intake pipe removes large objects. The water is then aerated to eliminate gases and add oxygen. Once the water is inside the plant, chemicals may be added both to clean the water and also to make it more palatable. If the water is hard, lime or soda is added to remove the calcium and magnesium. Chlorine or other such disinfectants may be used as well.

The water is mixed well with the various chemicals, then sent to sedimentation basins where the heavy particles (floc) settle to the bottom and are removed. The water is then sent to filtration beds for polishing—the removal of any remaining small particles and disease-causing protozoa, bacteria, and viruses. (Although filtration removes some viruses, most pass through the filtration process.)

Additional treatment may be required if the raw water contains high levels of toxic chemicals. The pollutants that are the most difficult to detect and remove are often the ones with the greatest potential for severe health effects for large portions of the population.

At various points in the treatment process, the water is monitored by computers and other technological procedures. As the water leaves the treatment plant, chlorine is added as a disinfectant to keep it free of organisms as it travels to customers.

The water then goes to reservoirs where it is stored until needed. These reservoirs may be elevated towers, where gravity brings the water to the consumer without unnecessary energy expense, or ground-level containers that require pumps to move the water. (See Figure 6.16.) The water that flows from the tap should be clear, tasteless, and safe to drink.

Chemicals Deliberately Added to Drinking Water

Water purification facilities deliberately add certain chemicals to drinking water to destroy contaminants that may cause illness and to improve the taste, smell, and look of the water.

CHLORINE.

The most extensively used disinfectant in the United States is chlorine, which is used to kill infectious microorganisms and parasites. Disinfection with chlorine or similar chemicals can prevent outbreaks of salmonellosis, dysentery, and Giardia. Chlorination first began in the early 1900s as an attempt to eliminate cholera and typhoid.

Chlorination is not risk free, however. Chlorine reacts with organic chemicals to form trihalomethanes (THMs) that have been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. In 1979 the EPA established regulations limiting the amount of THMs to 0.1 mg/L for water supplies serving 10,000 people or more. The EPA and the medical community continue to study the effects of chlorine. Most concerns about chlorine involve possible damage to the Earth's ozone layer. Some water systems now use ozone gas instead of chlorine. Ozone, bubbled through water, can kill more microorganisms than chlorine and may present less risk.

FLUORIDE.

Fluoride was first added to drinking water in 1945 to prevent tooth decay. Since that time most community water systems in the United States have introduced water fluoridation. Because the fluoridation of drinking water proved effective in reducing dental cavities, researchers also developed other methods to deliver fluoride to the public (toothpastes, rinses, and dietary supplements). The widespread use of these products has assured that virtually all Americans have been exposed to fluoride. The American Dental Association estimated in 1992 that each $1 expenditure for water fluoridation results in a savings of approximately $80 in dental treatment costs.

There have been concerns about the effects of fluoridation since it was first introduced. The Public Health Service has recommended further assessment of potential problems, although it notes that fluoridation is believed to be greatly beneficial for a number of bone-related conditions.

How Clean Is Our Drinking Water?

Safe drinking water is a cornerstone of public health. Fortunately, the nation's drinking water is generally safe. The vast majority of U.S. residents receive water from systems that have no reported violations of MCLs and no flaws in treatment techniques, monitoring, or reporting. Nevertheless, numerous studies have found some deficiencies in those systems, and recent measurements suggest areas of potential danger.

In accordance with the 1996 SDWA amendments, public water systems are mandated to submit compliance reports on the quality of their drinking water. Figure 6.17 shows the states with systems that violated water quality levels or treatment standards in fiscal year 2002.

Incidence of Disease Caused by Tainted Water—CDC Surveillance Report

It is difficult to know how many illnesses are caused by contaminated water. People may not know the source of many illnesses and may attribute them to food (which may also have been in contact with polluted water), chronic illness, or other infectious agents. The EPA notes that some researchers think that the actual number of drinking water–related diseases may be 25 times the reported number. They believe most are not reported because victims believe them to be "stomach upsets" and simply treat themselves.

Since 1971 the CDC and the EPA have collected and reported data that relate to waterborne-disease outbreaks.

The latest report available from the CDC, Surveillance for Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks—United States, 1999–2000 (November 2002), includes data about outbreaks associated with drinking water, recreational water, and occupational exposure. The CDC defines an outbreak as an incident in which at least two people develop a similar illness that evidence indicates was probably caused by ingestion of drinking water or exposure to water in recreational or occupational settings.

According to the CDC, from January 1999 through December 2000 there were 39 outbreaks that sickened 2,068 people and caused two deaths associated with drinking water reported in 25 states. The specific microbe or chemical cause of the outbreaks was identified in 22 of the cases. Pathogens were blamed in 20 of the cases, while chemicals were blamed in the other two cases. Infectious organisms were suspected of being the cause in the remaining 17 cases. Most (72 percent) of the 39 outbreaks were linked to ingestion of groundwater, primarily from private wells not regulated by the EPA.

The CDC report notes that the proportion of drinking water outbreaks associated with surface water increased from 12 percent during 1997–1998 to 18 percent during 1999–2000. The proportion linked with groundwater sources increased by 87 percent from the previous reporting period.

The CDC found evidence that during 1999–2000 recreational water exposure in 23 states caused 59 outbreaks that sickened 2,093 people and caused four deaths. The illnesses involved included gastroenteritis, dermatitis, primary amebic meningoencephalitis, leptospirosis, Pontiac fever, and chemical keratitis. Most of the victims were exposed at swimming pools, interactive fountains, or hot tubs. Two outbreaks associated with occupational exposure caused leptospirosis and Pontiac fever.

Milwaukee—"The Nation's Worst Drinking Water Disaster"

In April 1993, 403,000 residents of Milwaukee became victims of what is considered the worst drinking water disaster the nation has experienced. Cryptosporidium flourished in the city water supply, which had been turbid for several days. For a week more than 800,000 residents were without potable (drinkable) tap water. By the end of the disaster more than 40 people lost their lives because of the outbreak. In addition to the human suffering, the disease cost an estimated $37 million in lost wages and productivity.

Among the possible causes for the outbreak were the advanced age and flawed design of the Milwaukee water plant, which returned dirty water back to the reservoir. Other explanations included failure of plant personnel to react quickly when turbidity levels rose; critical monitoring equipment that was broken at the time turbidity levels peaked; a water intake point that was vulnerable to contamination; and a slaughterhouse, feedlot, and sewage treatment plant that were located upriver from the plant. Water treatment experts blamed the complacency of officials and false assumptions based on a history of quality water dispersal.

As a result of the disaster, Milwaukee launched one of the most aggressive drinking water programs in the country. Each week the city monitors for Cryptosporidium and has set a zero standard for the parasite. It has also adopted a turbidity standard five times tougher than federal regulations. Turbidity, although harmless in itself, is often a precursor to the presence of organisms such as Cryptosporidium.

PUBLIC OPINION ABOUT WATER ISSUES

In March 2004 the Gallup Organization conducted its annual poll on environmental topics. As shown in Figure 1.8 in Chapter 1 the pollsters found that water issues top the list of Americans' environmental concerns. The percentage of people expressing a great deal of worry about a particular environmental problem was highest for pollution of drinking water. More than half of those asked (53 percent) indicated they feel a great deal of concern about it. Pollution of surface waters ranked second with 48 percent.

Maintenance of the nation's fresh water supply for household needs ranked fourth with 47 percent. Gallup concluded that Americans are significantly more worried about water issues than other environmental issues, such as air pollution or plant and animal resources.

As shown in Table 6.6, concern about drinking water was down in 2004 compared to all previous years. In 1990 nearly two-thirds of the people asked expressed a great deal of worry about drinking water pollution. The percentage increased to 72 percent in 2000 and then decreased in each subsequent year. Concern about surface water pollution also shows a downward trend over the years. (See Table 6.7.) The percentage of people expressing a great deal of concern about this issue in 1989 was at a high of 72 percent. In 2004 only 48 percent of those asked expressed this opinion.

When asked about fresh water supplies for household needs, Gallup poll respondents have indicated varying levels of concern over the years. Table 6.8 shows that the percentage of people feeling a great deal of concern about this issue increased from 42 percent in 2000 to 50 percent in 2002 and then decreased to 47 percent in 2004.

Water Resources

Demand for water

Decisions affecting water supplies

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Demand and supply conditions are more complex for water than for most goods, partly because of the variety of ways in which water is useful. Residential and recreational demands for water are for such diverse uses as drinking, washing, filling swimming pools, carrying away waste, fishing, water skiing, and viewing. Comparing values in these uses is exceedingly difficult.

For most industrial processes water is a minor consideration. However, for steam generation of power, oil refining, foundries, and other coolant uses, there is demand to take in water of relatively low temperature and return it at a higher temperature. In a few processes, such as paper and textile production, there is demand to take in a large quantity of water of high quality and return it in low-quality condition, in that it then contains inorganic compounds. This is also true of irrigation, which has more effect on quantity of river flows than any other demand category, both in the United States and in the world as a whole. Irrigation affects quality because of the leaching of salts from the soil through which the water seeps during its return flow. Hydroelectric generation requires a special quantity condition (an amount at a place of fall), but it makes fewer demands on quality.

Water is essential to earthly life. At times water may be so plentiful that it is free. (At other times there may be such an oversupply that its value is negative, as in a flood.) Or the water may be nearly free, in the sense of being plentiful at a natural source but requiring effort to bring it through a spigot. Or it may be so scarce at the source that, at a zero price, more would be demanded than is available.

In addition to scarcity of quantity, scarcity of desired quality characteristics is common. Because water taken in may be discharged in a changed quality condition, one use of water can affect the quality of the water supply available to other users.

A continued decline can be expected in the fraction of demand for water met from free sources. The growth of population, the growth in per capita demand for water, and the increasing concentration of population in urban centers imply gradually rising supply prices for water of a given quality at the place of demand.

Development of a water facility serving many users is frequently less costly than for each user to attempt to satisfy his own needs individually. For instance, while individual wells and septic tanks are still used for residences in the open country, one reservoir and one sewage treatment plant will serve many thousands in a dense area. The frequently extreme economies of scale in constructing water facilities lead to water’s being supplied under local monopoly conditions, as in the cases of municipal water and outputs from a large dam. The economies of scale lead sometimes to the fulfilling of various demands for water under conditions of joint supply, for example, by a multipurpose dam, which supplies water for irrigation, power, recreation, and flood control.

Markets provide only one of the institutional means through which the uses of water supplies are determined and through which investments affecting supplies are made. Laws and administrative mechanisms also regulate water use; and in addition to private companies, governments at all levels make investments to obtain water and alter its quality.

Demand for water

Irrigation. In some cases, water can be analyzed in the traditional manner for a purchased input. For example, if the water withdrawn from a river for irrigation is of naturally good quality and if there is no downstream use affected by return flows, attention can be centered on the backward-sloping schedule showing how a change in the price paid for water would affect the amount of water a farmer chooses to take. At a sufficiently low price, a maximum amount would be chosen. If the charge is gradually raised above this point, the number of acre-feet of water demanded will decrease because a farmer will find it increasingly in his interest to bear the costs associated with using less water at higher charges per acre-foot. Possibilities for economizing on water include reducing ditch losses, varying the number of crops per year from a given field, shifting toward less water-intensive crops, and varying the proportion of his land which he irrigates. If the charge for water should become sufficiently high, no water would be used—landowners would resort to non-irrigated farming or would not farm at all on that particular land.

The schedule that has been described depicts a situation in which all the water chosen can be obtained at a given price. One could use the farmer-demand schedules to set a charge per acre-foot at which all demands added up to the total quantity diverted. In practice, predetermined quantities may be delivered to farms on an irrigation project. Yet, estimating the demand schedule can be helpful in indicating how value obtained from using the water depends on amounts delivered. The schedule could be used to make direct allotments of water to farmers, and thus achieve the same allocation as if purchases at a charge per acre-foot were allowed. There is a presumption that allotting water on this basis helps to obtain a maximum value from use of the water because the value to each farmer of having an extra acre-foot is then near the price per acre-foot and so tends to be the same for all farmers. Under these conditions, few if any reallocations of water from lower-value to higher-value uses might be possible.

The demand schedule for irrigation water is seldom estimated explicitly. Through judgment and informal comparing of possible levels of water application, a fair approximation to allocation for maximum value may nonetheless be achieved within many irrigation projects. In the allocation of water among different irrigation projects within a river system and among irrigation and other uses, failure to consider the demand schedule for water probably results in greater shortfalls from maximum value. Transfers between withdrawal sites are impeded by laws against selling water rights, by legally established use priorities, and by interstate compacts. As a result, the value of an extra acre-foot may be grossly different among uses, even though the water could be easily transferred by changing the point of withdrawal.

In the eastern United States, the riparian doctrine, attaching use of water to adjacent lands, tends to restrict water usage that would affect persons downstream. The effect on value obtained from water use is not, however, as great as one might at first suppose, since water is not generally scarce in quantity terms in the East. In the western United States the appropriative doctrine gives right to use of the water on land where it was first used, even though this may preclude downstream use. If the first use were always the most valuable use, this system would give allocation for maximum value, but current demands can become appreciably different from historical demands.

Some of the grosser geographical and temporal disparities between the values of extra water have been eliminated by the construction of interbasin canals and facilities to even out supplies through storing above and below ground. The costs may have exceeded the addition to value made possible by these investments; however, one use of supplies made available has been to meet higher-value demands.

The fact that there are large differences in the prices people would be willing to pay for additional water does not necessarily mean that additions to total value would be great if water were reallocated. For demands that are price inelastic, only limited quantities need to be reallocated to equalize marginal values, with a correspondingly limited increase in total value obtained from using water.

Some of the greatest losses connected with legal procedures may be due to delay. Streamlining court procedures could avoid the years now required to settle a case when water use is disputed.

Making water rights salable. How great the gains would be from following the frequently made suggestion that water rights be made salable is unknown. Some costs of new investments in water supplies might be avoided because growing demands could be partially met by buying out old uses instead of building new facilities. Yet, harmful effects on third parties (persons not directly involved in a water transaction but affected by it) may be particularly great in such cases. One challenging problem in making water rights salable is the avoidance of deleterious consequences for goals other than maximum value from water use, including prevention of the rapid decline of whole communities. Further problems are involved in devising procedures for complex situations. Because water flows, persons affected by transfers of water rights are often farther removed than those affected by ordinary property right transfers. If water rights are sold, it becomes necessary to devise means of reflecting the interests of these affected persons— interests similar to those protected by zoning in the case of ordinary property rights. Variation in quantity and quality of flows makes the rights transferred more difficult to specify than when selling a piece of land. Interrelations between users give rise to situations in which the operation of market incentives does not result in obtaining maximum value from use of water. In pump irrigation, for instance, where a number of individual farmers are utilizing a common underground supply, it is likely to be drawn down more quickly than is consistent with obtaining maximum value. [See Conservation, article onECONOMIC ASPECTS, for a discussion of the common-pool problem.]

Flood control. The demand schedule for flood protection shows the benefits achieved when various quantities of water are withheld. Each point on the schedule indicates the income that would be derived with that amount of flood protection minus the income that would have been derived if the last increment of flood protection were not provided. Planners contemplating the benefits of various sizes for a particular flood protection dam are roughly approximating this schedule. Greater attention to alternative sizes in the planning process could lead to designs that more nearly maximize the excess of benefits from flood protection over its costs.

It is difficult to sell increments of flood protection to those who benefit, since flood protection to one piece of property is likely to imply flood protection to many others. It is even unusual for a number of persons who would be affected by the same flooding to join together as a group to provide themselves with protection, although in many cases the group gains would exceed the costs. In the United States the federal government pays the cost of flood control. This creates a local incentive to press for flood control measures, since a flood control project represents an income transfer into the community. The incentive exists as long as there are any flood control benefits. A community might gain more if given a lump sum equal to the cost of constructing the dam, but this is not a choice available legislatively.

A much discussed alternative to building dams is zoning to restrict use of flood plains (see White et al. 1958). One might suppose that zoning would be inefficient because people would then be forced to find higher-cost locations; that is, one might suppose that unencumbered free choice would lead to the optimum location of activity, with people taking account of the risks of flooding. It has been contended, however, that adequate account is not taken of this particular risk. Underdiscounting is certainly encouraged if people expect that flood protection will be provided. Zoning might lead to a net gain by helping to avoid the costs of over-protecting against floods.

Residential intake. In some towns water charges to residential users do not vary with the amount of water taken, and people give little thought to how much they use. Hirshleifer, DeHaven, and Milli-man (1960) have reviewed evidence showing that among cities per capita water use tends to vary inversely with the amount charged per gallon of water. At charges severalfold higher than ordinarily observed, water intake would begin to be reduced toward necessity levels and would become highly inelastic. For a particular location, the amount demanded would finally be reduced to zero as people chose other places of residence. But because this would occur only at high prices for water, charges for water have a negligible influence on where most people live.

Demand schedules can be conceived for quality characteristics of water in residential use. The demand is undoubtedly inelastic with respect to characteristics affecting health, but there would be considerable response to charges connected with quality characteristics affecting only taste. Quality characteristics must almost necessarily be the same for all users served by a facility, and the characteristics are therefore not sold individually to each user. A nonprice method of determining quality prevails; reliance is on administrative standards. These standards have been described by the National Research Council Committee on Water:

The components of standards include technical analyses of requirements, estimation of social norms and acceptability, codification of previously acceptable practice, and professional regard for “better” practice. In the case of municipal water supply, for example, standards are set partly on grounds of health protection (scientific analysis of tolerance of human beings for coliform count and of effectiveness of treatment in reducing organic content), partly on estimation of the acceptability of given levels of color and taste, partly on confidence in traditional treatment (filtration and chlorination), and partly out of a desire to continuously upgrade the product. (1966, p. 38)

But standards may be set, in part at least, with a view to costs of different levels of quality, indicating some response of standards to market demand.

Disposal. In some cases the demand for water involves the economics of a waste product. This is exemplified by a town’s discharge of sewage into a river. Through biological action and dilution, the water will begin to purify as it moves downstream. But users in the stretch where purification is incomplete will be adversely affected. To the town discharging the sewage, the water pollution may be costless, but it is not costless if one takes account of users downstream who must treat water taken in or turn to alternative sources. One might, therefore, consider instituting a gradually rising charge to the town per unit of effluents discharged. The schedule of the amount of pollutants emitted as the charge is varied is the demand to use water as a medium of waste disposal. Kneese (1964) has examined the feasibility of such a system of charges, which would give users incentives to take account of the effects of their pollutants on downstream users. A user would then have to find that quantity on his demand schedule for emitting pollutants where the price he is prepared to pay just equals the cost that an extra unit of pollutant imposes on others.

The optimum degree of pollution—that which maximizes the value of the water resources to man—can at best be approximated. Lack of measuring devices to identify pollution impedes decisions affecting water quality. Knowledge about biological and chemical reactions is imperfect. Insofar as sewage and industrial pollution have been controlled, direct regulation has been the method most often used. There are barriers to altering standard-of-purity requirements, particularly in response to changing conditions. Waste disposal has generally been added gradually as activities have developed along rivers. Early polluters tend to establish “squatter’s rights” to their actions. Even when given the authority, regulating agencies have hesitated to require drastic changes in practices of polluters of long standing.

Group effort to control pollution may be less costly than individual efforts: a plant can treat several pollution sources; certain rivers can be maintained at high quality while others nearby are used as open sewers (a purpose of some multipurpose dams is to provide water in periods of low flow, to keep quality at acceptable levels). There is as yet no generally prevalent means for organizing to undertake group measures affecting water quality.

Values difficult to quantify. If a project affects the production of goods and services which are sold, then benefits can be estimated as the increase in real market value of national income resulting from the project. This is the approach implied for most of the water uses discussed above.

Market valuations can sometimes be used even when the outputs made possible by the water are difficult to value—by estimating benefits as the saving in costs over the cheapest alternative way of providing the outputs. This method has been used to estimate benefits from pollution abatement, municipal water supply, and navigation. A proviso, sometimes violated, is that the alternative way of providing the outputs should be justifiable. One should not falsely claim large benefits by assuming an alternative way which is more expensive than the benefit that would be obtained.

If something must be purchased in order to enjoy a recreation or aesthetic benefit, such as the land around a reservoir which gives access to use and sight of the water, the increase in sale value due to the water gives a clue to the magnitude of benefit. Because there are generally areas of public access to beaches and lakes, most water resource projects have some benefits whose enjoyment is not associated with anything salable. An approach to estimating public access benefits is to observe the efforts that people make to obtain the benefits. If a certain proportion of a distant population bears the expense of travel and time to visit a park, then it may be conjectured that, ceteris paribus, there is a saving in travel and time cost for a like proportion living nearby, who would be willing to travel far but do not have to. The Hotelling-Claw-son approach to estimation of park recreation benefits is based on this idea (see Clawson 1959).

But with regard to some of the most important benefits, it is difficult to think of any behavior permitting inferences about value. Thousands of commuters and tourists per day cross a river full of black water with detergent foam on it, and each person is revolted for a minute or two by the sight and the sickly smell. Irreplaceable assets are particularly difficult to evaluate. A dam may flood a famous, unique wild area or a sacred site that is the mecca for a Southwest Indian tribe.

Even if objective ways can be found to measure the value beneficiaries put on outputs, there remains the question of whether to accept people’s tastes. For instance, it may be desirable to encourage people to engage in outdoor recreation as a way of improving the quality of their lives— regardless of whether they originally feel this need.

Lacking objective guides to valuation, the public tends to split into two groups, one feeling that benefits which lack good market indicators have near zero value and the other feeling that they are almost infinitely valuable. To provide better guides remains a challenge to social science research.

General formulation. The present discussion has hinted at the variety of demands for water. More comprehensively, the demand for water is concerned with four magnitudes: quantity taken, quantity returned, quality taken, quality returned. Each user takes a quantity of water of some quality and may return a different quantity of changed quality. The ratio of quantity taken to quantity returned can sometimes be considered as fixed, but not always, so there may be significant variation in all four magnitudes. There may be costs associated with all the magnitudes. The demand for water is a set of simultaneous relations indicating how the magnitudes vary with each cost. These relations are

T = f_T(p) ,

D = f_D(p) ,

L_T1 = f_t1(p) ,

L_TK = f_T(p) ,

L_D1 = f_D1(p) ,

L_DN =f_DN,(p)

where T is the quantity of water taken in, D is the quantity discharged, and the L’s refer to quality-characteristic magnitudes taken in and discharged, e.g., pounds of compound or heat content—all magnitudes measured in rates per unit time. The demand for each quantity and quality magnitude can depend on all other costs and revenues. The vector p stands for (P_T, P_n, P_Ti,…, P_Tx, P_D1,…, P_Dx,R₁,…,R_N), where the P’s are the incremental values associated with the water quantity and quality magnitudes and the H’s are the prices of non-water inputs and outputs. Because of variation over time, especially seasonal variation, and because water may return from a use, with a lag, to a significantly different location from that at which it was taken in, place and time subscripts not shown here may be needed in some cases.

The above discussion of the difficulty of quantifying values concerned the estimation of the P’s in the absence of good market indicators. Most of the examples discussed earlier were simplified by assuming that every P except one in a particular situation was zero. As rivers become more crowded, this becomes less and less likely.

Demands are more elastic with respect to the P’s in the long run than in the short run, especially for industries whose location decisions are influenced by water availability. Development of new technologies in response to scarcity of water quantity and quality characteristics makes long-run demand more elastic. An example is the development of devices for extensive recycling of coolant water where river temperatures have become a problem. Much other engineering research on water treatment is affecting the demand for water by reducing costs, partly in response to incentives to economize with respect to particular quality characteristics.

Decisions affecting water supplies

Traditional benefit-cost analysis. Estimates of benefits and costs are made to help in deciding whether to undertake many particular federal water projects. Guidelines for agencies making the estimates have been prepared by a group of government economists known as the Subcommittee on Evaluation Standards (see U.S. Inter-agency Committee …1950). Benefit-cost analysis seeks to estimate, on the basis of investment theory and welfare economics, the contribution of projects to real national income. It has been intensively studied by Eckstein (1958), Krutilla and Eckstein (1958), and others. [See related discussions in Investment, article onthe investment decision; economics of defense.] The remainder of the present article will emphasize the unsettled questions important for water resource development.

Further valuation difficulties. Irreversibilities in decisions about water abound, and systematic procedures for making such decisions are needed. Ciriacy-Wantrup (1952) points out that resources may be used to the point where replenishing them becomes very expensive. An example is drawing down ground water levels until sea water intrudes. Uncertainty considerations are paramount, since unforeseeable future demand for resources may ex post facto make it desirable to have conserved the resource, even if this is not indicated by a present value calculation based only on expected demands. Therefore, even if agreement were to be reached on the appropriate discount rate, the problem would remain of making choices affecting benefits in different time periods. [See Conservation, article oneconomic aspects.]

Another problem of irreversibility is the phasing of related projects. Here again, uncertainty must be considered, and therefore the need for maintaining flexibility.

As a third type of irreversibility, consider the decision whether to reserve land for recreation around a reservoir. Costs are likely to be lower, in relation to the benefits, if the land is reserved before other urban uses come in. As congestion increases, recreation demands rise; but costs may rise more rapidly, due to the increasing acquisition price of the land, reflecting the value of alternative uses at the time of acquisition. The present value of net benefits for alternative starting years declines and in time may become negative as the starting year becomes more distant. Thus, the gains possible from early initiation of the project are lost forever as time passes.

A standard assumption is that costs reflect the alternative values that would be obtained in the absence of a project. Yet, if a project results in more productive employment, the wage rate overstates costs to society. Suppose a flood control project results in employment of geographically immobile workers who would otherwise be unemployed. As a result of increased production of tomatoes, say, on the protected land, workers in other regions who would be satisfying this demand in the absence of the project will be forced out of tomato production. But if the displaced workers are mobile and have skills suited to growing industries elsewhere, they will probably find alternative employment. In this case the project has a net employment-creating effect. Identifying these chains of events and estimating their importance is a challenge.

Another problem concerns the effect of a water resource project on local government services. In declining regions, past outmigration of productive persons has left concentrations of children and older persons, coupled with a relatively low local tax base. As a result, government services, particularly education, tend to be inferior. From the national point of view, more optimum expenditures on the services would be a benefit, as indicated by the high rates of return that have been found for investments in education. Thus, there is a need to quantify the indirect effects a project may have through changing local tax bases.

The importance of such geographical impacts is recognized in calculations of “secondary” benefits of increased income to local areas. But these calculations fail to indicate where activities in the rest of the economy are displaced. Moreover, guides are lacking as to what is a desirable distribution of economic activity spatially. Further analyses could yield regional development objectives, that recognize interrelations of regions, as part of a more consistent approach to the income-distributional effects of projects.

Policy. Income-distribution goals, broadly interpreted, greatly complicate the task of choosing projects. An example of how they have entered planning is the cost allocation procedures used as a basis for levying repayment charges. The separa-ble-costs-remaining-benefits method, which has been accepted in principle by government agencies, allocates proportionally to the gains received by beneficiaries costs not associable with any purposes. Yet, the method is seldom followed in a straightforward manner. For instance, interest is waived on costs of irrigation on federal projects, which amounts to a subsidy of about half the cost. Similarly, pricing of project outputs often reflects income-distributional objectives rather than attempting to give incentives to achieve maximum value from use of the water.

Besides favorable influence on the size distribution of income, distributional desiderata include protecting against sudden economic loss, protecting identity of cultural and social groups, providing equality of opportunities for children without extreme interference with the tastes of parents, to name only a few. Some persons feel that distributional goals should be overriding, while, at the other extreme, some persons still view distributional considerations as undesired interferences with the water value goal, resulting from an imperfect political process. There is surprisingly little serious discussion about the goals of policies (other than the water value goal), the weights to be assigned to the goals, or the alternative means of reaching the goals. This results in inability to distinguish between policy pressures that accurately reflect social welfare and those that run counter to it.

Even though we are hindered by lack of understanding of goals, it would be useful to attempt to develop criteria for evaluating the variety of institutional variables that influence water use, including those related to water contracts, water districts, laws, and governmental organization. Explanations of policy formation are needed to predict the effectiveness of possible reforms. These include analytical studies of how water laws and other institutions have responded previously to changing conditions. It would also be helpful to have theoretical models of legislative behavior predicting outcomes of water decisions on the basis of constituency interests, party positions, coalition formation, and the views of particular influential men. Ideologies and abstract ideas (the conservation movement, the appeal of dams as monuments) affect voting, particularly that of groups with a minor economic stake.

External pressures on legislatures and agencies are related to the value of water in alternative uses. If pressures from primary beneficiaries and secondary beneficiaries are proportional, the secondary beneficiaries do not change the pressure pattern. Pressures from those who might suffer sharp losses reflect distributional considerations that seem desirable. Pressures for secondary capital gains, e.g., a rise in local retail land values, are often strong and in the direction of a more unequal income distribution.

Analysis of pressures could yield quantitative estimates of gains and losses from legislative behavior under alternative arrangements. Estimates are needed of the true alternative (opportunity) costs of water projects, namely, the other activities legislatures would authorize if water project budgets were lower.

G. S. Tolley

[See alsoConservation; Cost.]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, Edward A.; and Löf, George 1959 Technology in American Water Development. Published for Resources for the Future. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Brewer, Michael 1962 Public Pricing of Natural Resources. Journal of Farm Economics 44:35-49.

Ciriacy-Wantrup, Siegfried Von (1952) 1963 Resource Conservation: Economics and Policies. Rev. ed. Berkeley: Univ. of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Experimental Station.

Ciriacy-Wantrup, Siegfried Von 1956 Concepts Used as Economic Criteria for a System of Water Rights. Land Economics 32:295-312.

Clawson, Marion 1959 Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of Outdoor Recreation. Washington: Resources for the Future.

Eckstein, Otto 1958 Water-resource Development: The Economics of Project Evaluation. Harvard Economic Studies, Vol. 104. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

Hirshleifer, Jack; Dehaven, James C; and Milliman, Jerome W. 1960 Water Supply: Economics, Technology and Policy. Univ. of Chicago Press.

Kneese, Allen V. 1964 The Economics of Regional Water Quality Management. Published for Resources for the Future. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Krutilla, John V.; and Eckstein, Otto 1958 Multiple Purpose River Development. Published for Resources for the Future. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.

Maass, Arthur et al. 1962 Design of Water-resource Systems: New Techniques for Relating Economic Objectives, Engineering Analysis, and Governmental Planning. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

National Research Council, Committee On Water 1966 Alternatives in Water Management: A Report. Publication 1408. Washington: National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council.

Smith, Stephen C. 1961 The Rural-Urban Transfer of Water in California. Natural Resources Journal 1: 64-75.

Symposium on the Economics Of Watershed Planning, Knoxville, 1959 1961 Economics of Watershed Planning. Edited by G. S. Tolley and Fletcher E. Riggs. Ames: Iowa State Univ. Press.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Select Committee On National Water Resources 1961 Report. 87th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Report No. 29. Washington: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Geological Survey 1960 A Primer on Water, by Luna B. Leopold and Walter B. Langebein. Washington: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Inter-Agency Committee On Water Resources (1950) 1959 Proposed Practices for Economic Analysis of River Basin Projects: Report. Subcommittee on Evaluation Standards. Rev. ed. Washington: Government Printing Office.

White, Gilbert F. et al. 1958 Changes in Urban Occu-pance of Flood Plains in the United States. University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Research Paper No. 57. The Department.

WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION

WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION. Water covers about three-quarters of the earth and makes up more than two-thirds of the human body. Without water (which supports animal habitats, the food chain, and human life) life as we understand it would be impossible. An abundant and invaluable resource, water can be poisoned and poorly used.

Each of us lives in a watershed, a landmass that drains into a body of water. Natural forces, such as gravity and condensation, distribute rainwater throughout the watershed, giving life to the plants and animals within.

When Europeans first began settling the New World, natural resources were considered basically inexhaustible. Over the centuries, however, trees were clear cut, animals over-hunted, and water used without concern for conservation or for maintaining it in an unpolluted state. As settlers pushed westward, they continued earlier practices—using (sometimes abusing) natural resources without thought for the future.

The largest damage human beings caused to the environment came with the Industrial Revolution. Factories dumped toxic materials freely into waterways and filled the air with particulate pollutants. Expansionists cut down trees to build railroads and settle new lands without regard to watersheds or the disruption of ecosystems. Forests, which are important to watersheds because of their ability to absorb water and prevent flooding, were completely cut down for timber throughout the country. The business of men was deemed more important than the business of nature, and those few voices that spoke out against expansion were labeled antiprogress.

Although Yellowstone, Sequoia, and Yosemite National Parks were created in the late nineteenth century, it was not until Theodore Roosevelt assumed the presidency in 1901 that a widespread program of conservation began. The word "conservation" probably originates with Gifford Pinchot, head of the United States Forest Service during the administration of Theodore Roosevelt. Roosevelt, greatly influenced by environmentalists such as John Muir, took advantage of the Forest Reserve Act of 1891 that permitted the president to set aside lands as national forests. Presidents William Henry Harrison, Grover Cleveland, and William McKinley had transferred some 50 million acres of timberland into the federal reserve system prior to Roosevelt; the conservation movement fully supported Roosevelt as he expanded these efforts, eventually adding another 150 million acres. Congress would complement Roosevelt's measures in 1911 with the Weeks Act, which allowed for multiple uses of public lands. Conservation in this era was not done for the benefit of nature itself, but for the benefit of people. A broad-based deep respect for nature, or even a firmly preservationist ethic, was in the future.

The Dust Bowl

The Dust Bowl of the 1930s would show Americans how nature could inflict more harm to man than man could to nature. Already in the midst of the Great Depression, the West and Southwest experienced lengthy droughts. Drought is actually the most deadly natural phenomenon in the world; agriculture eventually collapses as crops will not grow without water, the parched topsoil blows away, and animals and humans starve. The years of drought in the 1930s hurt not just the farmer, but all those who depended on him. Crop yields reached all-time lows, and migrant workers, without crops to help harvest, quickly became vagrants.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, elected president in 1932, did not hesitate to apply his New Deal to nature. With the help of Congress, he created the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The TVA built dams, at once helping to preserve the natural resources of the Tennessee Valley, but also inadvertently destroying some of them. The CCC enlisted able-bodied young men to dig ditches, plant trees, and beautify parks.

Silent Spring

World War II and the Cold War put the issue of conservation on the backburner for some time, but a new movement would emerge in the 1960s, initiated by the writings and efforts of one woman. By far the most influential piece of literature written on the subject, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) forecast the terrible consequences of the damage being done to the environment by field chemicals such as DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloro-ethane). Carson, a marine biologist, had studied the effects of chemicals and pesticides on plants, animals, and water. She found that these chemicals disturbed the natural balance of the ecosystem, poisoning birds and fish, and endangering the humans who eat them. "The most alarming of all man's assault's upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials." Carson wrote, "This pollution is for the most part irrecoverable; the chain of evil it initiates not only in the world that must support life but in living tissues is for the most part irreversible. In this now universal contamination of the environment, chemicals are the sinister and little recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of the world—the very nature of its life" (p. 6).

Silent Spring sent a shock wave throughout the nation. Many people had assumed that the government protected them from harmful substances such as DDT. They were outraged to learn that industry might be poisoning them. The outcry was tremendous, the environmentalist movement grew, and Congress was forced to act.

Legislation and Other Government Initiatives

In 1969 Congress passed the National Environment Policy Act. This Act established a general policy for protecting the environment; it required that all government agencies give proper consideration to the environment before initiating or approving projects. In 1970 Congress passed the Clean Air Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The Clean Air Act regulates air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. The Occupational Safety and Health Act provides for worker safety, protecting workers from toxic chemicals, excessive noise, mechanical dangers, poor climate conditions, and unsanitary settings. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was created to enforce these standards nationwide.

In 1970, under President Richard Nixon, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was formed. The EPA was established to enforce environmental standards, conduct research, help other organizations in reducing pollution through grants and technical assistance, and make recommendations to the president and the Council of Environmental Quality on ways to protect the environment. William D. Ruckelshaus was appointed the EPA's first administrator; he promised that the agency would "be as forceful as the laws that Congress has provided." Since its formation, the EPA has taken an active role in reducing hazardous emissions, restricting toxic wastes, and cleaning up oil spills and other environmental disasters.

In 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, which would come to be known as the Clean Water Act (CWA). This Act established standards for regulating water pollution and gave the EPA the power to develop pollution control programs. The CWA also set water quality standards and limited contaminants in surface water. Industries were required to obtain a permit to discharge pollutants into water and were fined if they were found to be dumping waste into bodies of water.

The Act proved to be very effective. According to the EPA, in 1972 only a third of the nation's waters were safe for fishing and swimming; that had increased to twothirds by the early twenty-first century. Wetland losses were estimated to be about 460,000 acres a year, whereas today they are estimated to be between 70,000 and 90,000 acres a year. Agricultural runoff in 1972 was estimated to cause 2.25 billion tons of soil to erode and phosphorus and nitrogen to be deposited in many waters; runoff has been cut by about one billion tons annually, and phosphorus and nitrogen deposits have decreased.

Congress also passed the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act in 1972. This Act authorized the EPA to study the effects of pesticides and to regulate their distribution. Users, from the small-time farmer to large utility companies, were required to register with the EPA if purchasing pesticides. Later amendments to the Act forced pesticide users to take certification exams. In addition, all pesticides used must be registered with the EPA.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was the first law passed specifically to protect plants, animals, and their habitats. The Act created two lists: one for endangered species and one for threatened species; anyone can petition for a plant or animal to appear on the list. Currently, 632 species are listed as "endangered"; 190 are listed as "threatened." Killing, trading, or transporting any of these species is expressly prohibited. The Act also allows the EPA to issue emergency suspensions of certain pesticides that may adversely affect endangered species.

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 authorized the EPA to establish standards for owners or operators of public water systems. In 1976, Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act, which gave the EPA the power to track the 75,000 industrial chemicals being produced by or imported into the United States. This Act was accompanied by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which granted the EPA the authority to regulate hazardous waste from "cradle to grave." Later amendments provided for the regulation of underground tanks storing hazardous materials such as petroleum and for the phasing out of waste disposal on land.

The 1980 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act provided a "Superfund" for the EPA. The Act allows the EPA to respond quickly to oil spills and other disasters when those responsible cannot be found, or when the situation has become uncontrollable. The EPA can later recover costs from parties deemed responsible. This Act was strengthened by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990—a response to the Exxon Valdez disaster off of Prince William Sound in Alaska.

Conservation has also been advanced through management techniques. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 incorporated the efforts of government and industry to find cost-effective ways to reduce pollution. The Act made it easier for industries to comply with government regulations by opening the door for innovative operating strategies.

International Efforts

The Kyoto Protocol, which opened for signature before the United Nations in 1998, called for thirty-eight industrial countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (which are thought to destroy earth's ozone layer, thus leading to global warming) by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008–2012, including a 7 percent reduction by the United States. President George W. Bush has refused to sign the treaty. In May 2001, seventeen national science academies urged acceptance of Kyoto, declaring that "it is now evident that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change. Business as usual is no longer a viable option." In an address to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in February 2002, Bush called for voluntary action to slow the rising use of greenhouse gases.

Initially, the Bush administration had also expressed doubts as to how much of global warming was actually caused by humans. But in a dramatic turnaround in May 2002, the administration blamed human action for global warming for the very first time. Although Bush still declined to sign the treaty, a report was sent to the United Nations outlining the effects that global warming may have on the American environment.

Terrorism has brought a grim new face to conservation and preservation of resources. Fears have been expressed by both the government and the public that terrorists may, for example, try to contaminate drinking water. In June 2002, EPA administrator Christie Todd Whitman announced the first round of water security grants, part of a $53-million package designed to help water utilities across the nation address susceptibilities. Whitman noted that there are "168,000 public drinking water facilities," alerting the nation to possible wide scale contamination. The grants will be divided among approximately 400 different areas. "These grants," Whitman declared, "will help ensure that the water people rely on is safe and secure."

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brands, H. W. TR: The Last Romantic. New York: Basic Books, 1997.

Budiansky, Stephen. Nature's Keepers: The New Science of Nature Management. New York: Free Press, 1995.

Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962.

Findley, Roger W., and Farber, Daniel A. Environmental Law in a Nutshell. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing, 1983.

Gore, Albert. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992.

Richardson, Joy. The Water Cycle. New York: Franklin Watts, 1992.

Snow, Donald, ed. Voices from the Environmental Movement: Perspectives for a New Era. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1992.

Stanley, Phyllis M. Collective Biographies: American Environmental Heroes. Springfield, N.J.: Enslow, 1996.

Weber, Michael L., and Judith A. Gradwohl. The Wealth of Oceans. New York: Norton, 1995.

DavidBurner

RossRosenfeld

See alsoClean Air Act ; Clean Water Act ; Endangered Species ; Forest Service ; Water Pollution ; Yellowstone National Park ; Yosemite National Park .

Water Resources

WATER SCARCITY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION

PRICING AND PRIVATIZATION OF WATER

FATE OF PRIVATIZATION IN INDIA AND CHINA

WATER CONFLICTS

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The planet Earth is inherently short of freshwater, the proportion of which is as little as 3 percent of all available water. The remaining 97 percent of water is saline and is stored in the oceans. Of the 3 percent of water that is freshwater, only 0.3 percent flows through surface water systems such as rivers and lakes; the remaining 2.97 percent is frozen in glaciers and ice caps or held in the ground.

This inherent scarcity has been worsened by the accelerated diversion of water for agricultural, commercial, industrial, and residential uses, which has increased greatly in response to a growing world population that reached 6.5 billion people in 2006. As much as 95 percent of that growth has taken place in the water-deficit developing world, predominantly in Asia and Africa. Among all human uses, agriculture tends to use 70 percent of the available freshwater. According to experts, 1 ton of grain requires 1,000 tons of water. As agriculture increasingly is becoming dependent on irrigation, especially in Asia, the most populous continent, the availability of water for industrial, commercial, and municipal uses has been shrinking.

WATER SCARCITY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION

The impact of dwindling water supplies on humankind is evident worldwide. According to a 2006 report by the United Nations Development Program, over 1 billion people are without clean drinking water and over 2.4 billion lack basic sanitation. Access to clean drinking water is lowest in Africa, and Asia has the largest number of people without basic sanitation. The human toll of the inaccessibility of water and sanitation runs as high as 2 million child deaths a year (United Nationals Development Program 2006). In all, in the early years of the twenty-first century 12 million people died each year from drinking contaminated water.

In 2003 the United Nations World Water Development Report estimated that $110 billion to $180 billion would be needed each year to provide safe drinking water to the poor in developing countries. Although an annual outlay of that size for water resource development seems prohibitive for low-income nations, the economic benefits of such an outlay would be two to three times as large. Recognizing those benefits, the United Nations Millennium Development Project planned to widen the access of the poor to safe drinking water by 50 percent by 2015. The economic benefits of increased access to safe drinking water in terms of health, longevity, and time saved in fetching water range from $300 billion to $400 billion a year.

PRICING AND PRIVATIZATION OF WATER

International development agencies such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) plan to broaden the access of the poor to safe water by pricing water use and privatizing water resources. Water pricing means consumers will pay the fees, taxes, or charges for water supplies they use. It has been argued that water privatization can meet the water needs of the poor effectively. In 2005 Segerfeldt pointed out that public water systems in developing countries tend to serve wealthy and middleclass households, whereas the poor are left to draw from municipal water mains. However, 80 percent of the poorest parts of the population in fifteen developing countries are not served by municipal water supplies (Segerfeldt 2005). Although privatization is intended to bring the entire water supplies and treatment systems of developing countries into the private market, in the first decade of the twenty-first century only 3 percent of the poor worldwide were served by private-sector water supplies.

Critics see water privatization as a “global water grab” with disastrous outcomes in places such as Cochabamba, Bolivia. Between 1989 and 1999 the proportion of Bolivian households connected to the public water system fell from 70 percent to 60 percent. Water was available only sporadically; 99 percent of the wealthier households were receiving the subsidized water, whereas in some poorer suburbs less than 4 percent were receiving water.

FATE OF PRIVATIZATION IN INDIA AND CHINA

In 2002 Vandana Shiva blamed the World Bank and the ADB for creating water markets to benefit multinational corporations (MNCs). Privatization, she argued, is preceded by a hike in water tariffs to “secure private sector investment in risky countries” (Shiva 2005). The tariff increase, Shiva asserted, exceeds by ten times the “full cost recovery,” although this is rationalized by privatization supporters. Using the case of her native India, Shiva stated that private operators will harvest public investment of 1 trillion rupees for private gains through water privatization in India (Shiva 2005).

Pricing and privatization of water are intended to rationalize water use. In light of worldwide extreme income inequalities, however, it is feared that privatization will save water by diverting it from the poor to the rich and from rural areas to urban centers. In 2005 Shiva argued that the best way to conserve water is to make a radical shift from water-intensive chemical farming to organic farming, along with a reversal in export-led agricultural production, which amounts to exporting “virtual water” to the rich consumers of the North at the expense of the poor in the South.

Like India, China is poor in freshwater supplies, the per capita availability of which is one-fourth of the world average (Yu and Danqing 2006). The pollution of rivers and groundwater from industrialization and urbanization has exacerbated the water shortage. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, two-thirds of Chinese cities had an insufficient supply of freshwater and 110 of them had critically inadequate access to freshwater.

Beijing’s plan to meet the water needs of urban centers angered Chinese rural residents. On July 6, 2000, thousands of farmers in the Yellow River Basin in eastern China clashed with police over a government plan to recapture runoff from a local reservoir for cities, industries, and other uses (Postel and Wolf 2001). The incident took place in Shandong, the last province through which the Yellow River runs before reaching the sea. Worldwide water disputes have been occurring in the downstream regions of overtapped river basins (Postel and Wolf 2001). The Yellow River has been running dry in its lower reaches on and off since 1972, and its dry spell grew to a record 226 days in 1997. As a result, per person use of water in China, which already was severely low, fell by 1.7 percent in seven years (Yu and Danqing 2006).

WATER CONFLICTS

The Indus Basin Intrastate water shortages have spilled over into interstate water conflicts. In the first decade of the twenty-first century India and Bangladesh were worrying about alleged Chinese attempts to divert the waters of Yarlung Zangbo River (which in India is called Brahmaputra, and in Bangladesh Jamuna) into the Yellow River. The Yarlung Zangbo passes through the Tibet Autonomous Region into the Indian states of Arunachal Pradesh and Assam and into Bangladesh. Even starker conflicts have been simmering between India and Bangladesh over the Ganges River and between India and Pakistan over the Jhelum River. In the 1960s and early 1970s India unilaterally constructed a barrage (dam) on the Ganges River at Farakka, near the border with Bangladesh, to divert more river water to the port of Calcutta (Postel and Wolf 2001). That diversion left Bangladesh with significantly less water for irrigation during the dry season, causing increased migration of its population across the border into the Indian states of West Bengal (Postel and Wolf 2001) and Assam. Although the Indus River Basin Treaty between India and Pakistan of the 1960s has held, the growing water and power needs of each nation are fueling the conflicts as never before. The major conflict between Islamabad and New Delhi has erupted over the controversial construction of Bhagliar Dam over the Jhelum River in the disputed territory of Jammu and Kashmir; that conflict was being arbitrated by the World Bank.

Euphrates and Jordan River Basins Euphrates and Jordan River Basin nations have long argued over their shared surface water systems. Syria and Iraq experienced a reduction of almost 50 percent in the average flow of the Euphrates after the 1970s (Allan 1998). Both countries have been anticipating additional reductions in the flow of Tigris as well. The Euphrates and Tigris rivers originate in Turkey, which has diverted their water by building dams. In the case of the Jordan basin, the river system rises in four tributaries (Lowi 1995): the Yarmouk in Syria, the Banias in Israeli-occupied Syria, the Hasbani in Lebanon, and the Dan in Israel. The Banias, Hasbani, and Dan meet in northern Israel to form the Upper Jordan River, which flows into Lake Tiberias, and then the Lower Jordan. Israel has become the upstream riparian basin on the Upper Jordan system, and Syria is upstream on the Yarmouk. Jordan and the Palestinians, as downstream riparian basins vis-à-vis both Israel and Syria, have remained in the worst positions in the basin (Lowi 1995).

About one-half of Israel’s annual supply of groundwater and one-quarter of its total renewable supply of freshwater originate in two subterranean basins in the West Bank (Lowi 1995). By virtue of its occupation of the West Bank, Israel has been controlling water in the territory. The result has been that approximately 80 percent of West Bank water is exploited in Israel and by Israeli settlers in the territory, leaving only 20 percent for the Palestinian population (Lowi 1995). Although Lowi does not think that water disputes alone could cause active conflict between Israel and the countries of the Jordan River Basin, Adel Darwish (2003) and John Bulloch and Darwish (1993) believe that water disputes underlie the political conflict in the region. King Hussein of Jordan and the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, each of whom signed peace treaties with Israel, vowed never to go to war with Israel except to protect water resources (Darwish 2003). Bulloch and Darwish (1993) claim that water was the hidden agenda for past conflicts and has been a major obstacle to a lasting peace in the region. The Six Day War, they argue, started because Syrian engineers were working to divert part of the water flow from Israel. The Israeli leader Ariel Sharon backed up their argument by saying: “People generally regard 5 June 1967 as the day the Six-day war began. That is the official date. But, in reality, it started two and a half years earlier, on the day Israel decided to act against the diversion of the Jordan” (quoted in Darwish 2003).

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

It is feared that global warming will cause further stress in the already water-short nations of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Although bilateral and multilateral watersharing mechanisms are important to ensure critical water supplies, the significance of conservation and further development of water resources cannot be overemphasized. There are a number of technological means to augment water resources, including but not limited to cloud seeding, desalination, wastewater reuse, rain harvesting, and importing water from relatively wet zones (Postel and Wolf 2001). Of equal importance are a shift from water-intensive chemical farming to less water-intensive farming methods and a reversal in export-led agricultural production, which amounts to the export of virtual water from the water-short South to the water-surplus North (Shiva 2005).

SEE ALSO Agricultural Industry; Arab-Israeli War of 1967; Gender; Global Warming; Inequality, Political; Irrigation; Needs; Nutrition; Poverty; Poverty, Indices of; Privatization; Public Health; Sharon, Ariel; Women and Politics

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allan, Tony. 1998. Avoiding War over Natural Resources. Global Policy Forum. http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/docs/resource2.htm.

Bulloch, John, and Adel Darwish. 1993. Water Wars: Coming Conflicts in the Middle East. London: Victor Gollancz.

Darwish, Adel. 2003. Analysis: Middle East Water Wars. BBC News, May 30. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2949768.stm.

Lowi, Miriam R. 1995. Water and Power: The Politics of a Scarce Resource in the Jordan River Basin. Cambridge, U.K., and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Postel, Sandra L., and Aaron T. Wolf. 2001. Dehydrating Conflict. Foreign Policy 126: 60–67. http://www.edcnews/Reviews/Postel_Wolf2001.pdf.

Segerfeldt, Fredrik. 2005. Water for Sale: How Business and the Market Can Resolve the World’s Water Crisis. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

Shiva,Vandana. 2002. Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution and Profit. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Shiva, Vandana. 2005. Water Privatization and Water Wars. ZNet Daily Communications. http://www.Zmag.org/Sustainers/Content/2005-07/12Shiva.cfm..

United Nations. 2003. First UN World Water Development Report, 2003: Water for People, Water for Life. United Nations: World Water Assessment Program. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.

United Nations Development Program. 2006. Human Development Report 2006: Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty, and the Global Water Crisis. Washington, DC: UNDP.

Yu, Au Loong, and Liu Danqing. 2006. The Privatization of Water Supply in China. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Transnational Institute. http://www.tni.org/books/waterchina.pdf.

Tarique Niazi