FINDINGS

This section of the report presents the results of the effort undertaken in 1999 to estimate

the capital investment needs of the nation’s approximately 55,000 community water systems and 21,400 not-for-profit noncommunity water systems. Appendix B provides greater

detail of the need by State.

Total 20-Year National Need

The Needs Survey found that community

water systems and not-for-profit noncommunity water systems need $150.9 billion

over the next 20 years to install, upgrade,

and replace infrastructure. The survey

required that all needs be accompanied

by documentation that described the

purpose and scope of each project. To be

included in the Needs Survey, projects

had to meet the eligibility criteria established under the DWSRF program. In

general, infrastructure projects were

acceptable if they were needed to protect

public health or to maintain the transmission and distribution of treated water to

homes. Such projects varied greatly in

scale, complexity, and cost—from drilling

a well to serve a small mobile home court

to constructing a high-capacity water

treatment plant for a large metropolitan

area. The survey excluded projects solely

for operation and maintenance, future

growth, and fire flow.1 Projects to rehabilitate or replace deteriorated infrastructure

were not considered operation and

maintenance and, therefore, were included in the survey.

1

 Projects solely for operation and maintenance, dams, reservoirs, future growth, and fire flow are

generally ineligible for DWSRF assistance.

A section of wooden pipe dating from the early 1900s is removed for replacement

by iron or PVC pipe. The service life of a water line can range from 10 to 200

years depending on the pipe material, soil type, and climate conditions.

EPA Region 6
Page 30 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

The estimate of total national need

represents all community water systems

and not-for-profit noncommunity water

systems in the States, Puerto Rico, the

Virgin Islands and the Pacific Island

territories, American Indian communities,

and Alaska Native Villages.

Exhibit 2 shows the total national need by

system size and type, and by current and

future need. The nation’s 886 largest

community water systems (serving more

than 50,000 people) account for $61.8

billion, or 41 percent, of the total need.

Medium and small community water

systems have needs of $43.3 billion and

$31.2 billion, respectively. The Virgin

Islands and the Pacific Island territories

account for $387.5 million of the total

community water system need. The

survey estimates that not-for-profit noncommunity water systems have $3.1

billion in needs. Exhibit 3 presents the

approximate need by State. American

Indian water systems need $1.2 billion in

infrastructure improvements, while Alaska

Native Villages need $1.1 billion2 for

capital projects. Because public water

systems are not expected to have accurate estimates of their capital needs for

recently proposed or promulgated regulations, capital costs from appropriate

Economic Analysis documents were used

to estimate those needs. Proposed or

recently promulgated regulations contribute $9.3 billion to the total national need.

Most of the infrastructure needs in the

survey represent projects that systems

would address as preventive measures to

ensure the continued provision of safe

drinking water, rather than as corrective

actions to address an existing violation of

a drinking water standard. Also, it is

important to recognize that the majority of

the total national need stems from the

inherent costs of being a water system—

which involves the nearly continual need

to install, upgrade, and replace the basic

infrastructure that is required to deliver

drinking water to consumers.

System Size and Type Current

Need

Future

Need Total Need

Large Community Water Systems

(serving over 50,000 people) $47.2 $14.6 $61.8

Medium Community Water Systems

(serving 3,301 to 50,000 people) $29.9 $13.4 $43.3

Small Community Water Systems

(serving 3,300 and fewer people) $22.2 $8.9 $31.2

Not-for-Profit Noncommunity Water Systems $1.1 $2.0 $3.1

American Indian and Alaska Native Village

Water Systems $2.0 $0.2 $2.2

Subtotal National Need $102.5 $39.1 $141.6

Costs Associated with Proposed or Recently

Promulgated Regulations (Taken From EPA

Economic Analyses)

$9.3 $9.3

Total National Need $102.5 $48.4 $150.9

Exhibit 2: Total Need by Current and Future Need

(in billions of January 1999 dollars)

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

2 These estimates slightly

exceed the total $2.2 billion

American Indian and Alaska

Native Village system need due

to rounding.
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 31

20-year need in millions of

January 1999 dollars

– Less than $1,000

– $1,000 - $1,999

– $2,000 - $2,999

– $3,000 - $10,000

– More than $10,000

Puerto Rico

Virgin Islands*

District of

Columbia

American Samoa*

Guam*

Northern Mariana Is.*

Exhibit 3: Overview of Need by State†

† Needs for American Indian and Alaska Native Village water systems are not included in this exhibit.

* The need for American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands is less than $1 billion each.
Page 32 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

System Size and Type

Distribution

and

Transmission

Treatment Storage Source Other Total

Need

Large Community Water Systems

(serving over 50,000 people) $39,031.1 $13,371.3 $4,575.3 $3,718.6 $1,149.8 $61,846.1

Medium Community Water Systems

(serving 3,301 to 50,000 people) $25,526.9 $8,627.6 $6,155.4 $2,519.5 $468.2 $43,297.7

Small Community Water Systems

(serving 3,300 and fewer people) $16,980.0 $5,619.9 $5,710.8 $2,617.5 $226.4 $31,154.7

Not-for-Profit Noncommunity Water Systems $387.8 $611.0 $1,477.3 $620.8 $0.7 $3,097.6

American Indian and Alaska NativeVillage

Water Systems $1,228.4 $408.1 $447.0 $123.2 $12.4 $2,219.0

Subtotal National Need $83,154.2 $28,637.9 $18,365.8 $9,599.6 $1,857.5 $141,615.0

Costs Associated with Proposed or Recently

Promulagted Regulations (Taken From EPA

Economic Analyses)

$9,324.3 $9,324.3

Total National Need $83,154.2 $37,962.2 $18,365.8 $9,599.6 $1857.5 $150,939.4

Exhibit 4: Total Need by Category of Need

(in millions of January 1999 dollars)

Current and Future Needs. Of the total

need, $102.5 billion is the current need.

It is important to note that most systems

with current needs provide safe drinking

water. These systems identified projects

that are required as preventive measures

to avoid water quality problems. For

example, a chlorination unit for deactivating harmful microbial contaminants may

function adequately to provide safe

drinking water now: although its design life

may be exceeded and the system would

replace the unit.

That systems require such an enormous

investment to meet their current needs

reflects the age and deteriorated condition

of the nation’s infrastructure. Many water

systems were constructed 50 to 100

years ago. Operating within resource

constraints relative to their needs, some

systems have adopted a reactive approach to capital investment that involves

2

 Capital projects that will be needed for compliance with proposed or recently promulgated SDWA

regulations are included in the survey as future needs. The estimated capital cost of each of these

regulations is provided in Appendix B.

replacing or upgrading infrastructure only

as it fails. For example, a system may

have the funding only to patch a leak in

the distribution system, even though its

deteriorated condition warrants replacing

several miles of pipe to prevent contamination or the disruption of service.

Future needs account for $48.4 billion of

the total need. Future needs are projects

that water systems would undertake

during the 20-year period of the survey to

ensure the continued provision of safe

drinking water. Future needs address

components of a water system that

operate adequately now, but will exceed

their design-life or performance capabilities within the next 20 years. Examples

include a water storage tank that requires

rehabilitation and an aging pump that

must be replaced because it cannot be

rehabilitated.2

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 33

Total Need by Category

The infrastructure needs of water systems

can be grouped into four major categories–source, transmission and distribution,

treatment, and storage–each of which

fulfills an important function in delivering

safe drinking water to the public. Most

needs were assigned to one of these

categories. An additional “other” category

is composed of projects that do not fit into

the four categories, such as installing

emergency power generators and upgrading facilities to protect against earthquakes and floods. Exhibit 4 shows the

total national need by water system size

and type and category of need.

Transmission and Distribution. Although the least visible component of a

public water system, the buried pipes that

comprise a transmission and distribution

network generally account for most

of a system’s capital value. It is not

uncommon for even medium-sized

systems to have several hundred

miles of pipe.

Transmission and distribution

projects represent the largest

category of need, $83.2 billion over

the next 20 years. Of this total,

$65.6 billion is needed now. Replacing or refurbishing transmission and

distribution mains is critical to

providing safe drinking water.

Failures in transmission and distribution lines can interrupt the delivery of water. Broken transmission

lines can disrupt the treatment

process, and deteriorated distribution mains can pose acute health

risks from the back-siphonage of

contaminated water.

Transmission and

distribution projects

include replacing aging

and deteriorated water

mains, refurbishing

pipes to remove buildup on pipe walls,

looping dead-end

mains to improve water

quality, and installing

pumping stations to

maintain adequate

pressure. This category

also includes projects

to address the replacement of appurtenances, such as valves

that are essential for controlling flows and

isolating problem areas during repairs,

and hydrants to flush the distribution

system to maintain water quality.

Rehabilitation of Water Mains

Rehabilitating mains has become

more common due to technological

advancements that provide

cost-effective alternatives to unearthing and replacing pipe. For example,

the application of a cement lining will

prolong the design life of certain

types of pipe. Rehabilitation also may

involve “pigging” lines to remove

internal deposits, known as tubercles,

which constrict water flow and impair

water quality.

This pipe shows clear signs of tuberculation, a condition resulting from the accumulation of

mineral deposits and debris. Tuberculation can reduce pipe capacity and impair drinking

water quality. One method of removing tubercles involves sending a “pig” (insert) through

the system to scour the sides of the pipe.

Montauk Services Inc. and U.S. EPA
Page 34 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Many water systems installed new transmission and distribution mains to keep

pace with the rapid economic and population growth that followed World War II.

The rate at which these pipes deteriorate

varies greatly due to soil characteristics,

weather conditions, construction methods,

and type of pipe. However, it is reasonable to assume that most pipes will

require replacement within 50 to 75 years

of installation. Consequently, much of the

pipe installed in the 1940s may require

replacement over the next 20 years. The

large need associated with the transmission and distribution category reflects this

reality.

Treatment. With $38.0 billion needed

over 20 years, treatment is the second

largest category of need. Fifty-one percent of this total, $19.4 billion, is a current

need. This category includes the installation or rehabilitation of infrastructure to

reduce contamination through, for example, filtration, disinfection, corrosion

control, and aeration. The majority of the

capital costs for proposed and recently

promulgated regulations are related to

treatment, and thus these costs also are

included in this category.

Treatment facilities vary significantly in

scale depending on the quality of source

water and type of contamination. Treatment systems may consist of a simple

chlorinator for disinfection or a complete

conventional treatment system with

coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation,

filtration, disinfection, laboratory facilities,

waste handling, and computer automated

monitoring and control devices.

Treatment technologies primarily address

two general types of contaminants: those

with acute health effects and those with

chronic health effects.

An acute health effect usually occurs

within hours or days after short-term

exposure to a contaminant. Acute illnesses are associated mostly with microbial contaminants, although some chemical contaminants, such as copper and

nitrate, also can cause acute health

effects. Gastrointestinal illness resulting

from the ingestion of microbial pathogens

is the most common acute health effect.

Chronic health effects develop typically

after long-term exposure to low concentrations of chemical contaminants. These

effects include cancer and birth defects.

The largest need associated with contaminants that pose chronic health effects

Water systems differ greatly in size and complexity, from a simple well pump with chlorinator (left) to a large-scale filtration plant.

U.S. EPA and Philadelphia Water Department
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 35

is treatment for lead. Research has

shown that exposure to lead may impair

the mental development of children and

cause other chronic health effects, such

as high blood pressure.

The treatment category also includes

projects to remove contaminants that

adversely affect the taste, odor, and color

of drinking water. Treatment of these

“secondary contaminants” usually involves softening the water to reduce

manganese and calcium levels or applying chemical sequestrants for iron contamination. Although not a public health

concern, the aesthetic problems caused

by secondary contaminants may prompt

some consumers to seek more palatable,

but less safe, sources of water.

Storage. The total 20-year need for

storage projects is $18.4 billion, of which

$10.2 billion is current need. This category includes projects to construct or

rehabilitate finished water storage tanks.

A water system that has sufficient storage

can provide an adequate supply of treated

water to the public even during periods of

peak demand. This enables the system to

sustain the minimum pressure required to

prevent the intrusion of contaminants into

the distribution network. Moreover, many

States require that systems have the

storage capacity to provide a nearly 2-day

supply of water in the event of an emergency, such as a water source being

temporarily unusable.

A system’s optimal storage capacity

generally depends on the population it

serves. For example, a water system

operated by a small homeowners association may need a 2,000-gallon hydropneumatic (pressurized) storage tank to

provide sufficient water pressure and to

prevent the operation of pumping facilities

each time a consumer opens a faucet. By

contrast, a larger system serving a metropolitan area may need several hundred

million gallons of storage to satisfy similar

operational requirements.

Storage tanks must be regularly drained, sandblasted, and coated with epoxy paint. Such rehabilitation is necessary to

maintain the tanks’ structural integrity and to prevent the intrusion of contaminants. Water systems commonly use

underwater divers to inspect the inside of their tanks. These pictures, taken by a diver, show (left) stalactites formed by

the leaching of calcium from a tank’s roof, (middle) deep corrosion nearly requiring the tank’s replacement, (upper

right) a wide crack causing the loss of 5,000 gallons of water per day, and (lower right) discarded litter.

John Conrady
Page 36 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Source. The total 20-year need for

source water infrastructure is $9.6 billion.

Of this total, $5.8 billion is a current need.

The source category includes needs for

constructing or rehabilitating surface

water intake structures, raw water pumping facilities, drilled wells, and spring

collectors.

Drinking water is obtained from either

ground water or surface water sources.

Wells are considered ground water

sources, and rivers, lakes, and other open

bodies of water are considered surface

water sources. Whether drinking water

originates from ground or surface water

sources, its quality is an important component in protecting public health. A high

quality water supply can minimize the

possibility of microbial or chemical contamination and may eliminate the need to

install expensive treatment facilities. Many

source water needs relate to constructing

new surface water intake structures or

drilling new well fields to obtain improved

raw water quality.

A water source also should provide

enough water under all operating conditions to enable the water system to

maintain minimum pressures. Low water

pressure may result in the intrusion of

contaminants into the distribution system

through back-siphonage. The survey

includes projects to expand the capacity

of intake structures and wells to address

supply deficiencies.

Approximately 89 percent of the nation’s water systems use ground water as a primary source, although these systems generally serve

far fewer people than do surface water systems. Examples of different types of source-related infrastructure include a vertical pump to

extract well water (left), an intake structure to pump surface water (middle), and a perforated pipe to collect spring water (right).

U.S. EPA and Dan Fraser
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 37

Other Needs. Needs not included in the

previous categories are labeled “other”

needs. These needs account for $1.9

billion of the total 20-year need. Examples

of “other” projects include laboratory

equipment to test water for chemical and

microbiological contaminants, emergency

power generators to provide continued

pumping or treatment during power

outages, and upgrades to protect infrastructure against floods or earthquakes.

The Regulatory Need

Although all of the projects in the survey

are needed to attain or maintain compliance with the SDWA regulations, some

projects are directly attributable to specific

regulations under the Act. These projects

are collectively referred to as the “regulatory need.” Most of the regulatory need

involves the upgrade, replacement, or

installation of treatment technologies.

Of the total national need, 21 percent, or

$31.2 billion, is for compliance with

current, new, and proposed SDWA

regulations. This statistic reveals that

most of the total need derives from the

costs of installing, upgrading, and replacing the basic infrastructure that is required

to deliver drinking water to consumers–-

costs that water systems would face

independent of any SDWA regulations.

However, for a project to be included in

the survey, it must be required to protect

public health. Therefore, if a system fails

to address a need, then a health-based

violation eventually may occur.

Also, by requiring systems to conduct

routine monitoring of a contaminant, a

SDWA regulation could prompt a system

to identify a need that otherwise would

have eluded detection until water quality

or service became impaired. Thus, SDWA

regulations, most notably the Total

At a storage facility near Los Angeles, workers install seismic cables to provide

structural resiliency for earthquake protection

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Total 20-Year

Need

$150.9 billion

20-Year

Regulatory Need

$31.2 billion

Exhibit 5: 20-Year Total Need and Regulatory Need

(in January 1999 dollars)
Page 38 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

pathogens, but may lack the documentation to attribute the project to a specific

regulation (in this case the Total Coliform

Rule). The project would be included in

the survey, but not as a regulatory need.

The stringent documentation criteria,

therefore, likely result in an understatement of the true regulatory need. However, the documentation is necessary to

ensure that the regulatory need estimate

has credibility.

The total regulatory need is divided into

two broad categories: existing SDWA

regulations ($21.9 billion), and recently

promulgated or proposed regulations

($9.3 billion). Exhibit 6 displays the regulatory need by type of existing regulation.

The SDWA was enacted to protect

consumers from the harmful effects of

contaminated drinking water by requiring

that public water systems meet national

standards. Pursuant to the SDWA, EPA

has set standards for 81 inorganic,

organic, and microbial contaminants. EPA

also requires water systems to install

particular types of treatment, known as

treatment techniques, to protect the public

health from an additional 9 contaminants.

Existing Regulations: Microbial Contaminants. The Surface Water Treatment

Rule (SWTR) and the Total Coliform Rule

are the SDWA regulations that address

microbial contamination. Projects directly

attributable to these regulations account

for $19.8 billion, or 91 percent, of the total

existing regulatory need.

The SWTR accounts for almost all of the

microbial contaminant-related need and

most of the total regulatory need. This

statistic reflects the fact that the majority

Exhibit 6: 20-Year Regulatory Need

(in billions of January 1999 dollars)

Regulations Total Need

Existing SDWA Regulations

Surface Water Treatment Rule1 $19.4

Total Coliform Rule1 $0.5

Nitrate/Nitrite Standard1 $0.2

Lead and Copper Rule $1.2

Total Trihalomethanes Standard $0.1

Other Regulations2 $0.5

Subtotal National Need $21.9

Costs Associated with Proposed or Recently

Promulgated Regulations (Taken From EPA

Economic Analyses)3

$9.3

Total National Need $31.2

Coliform Rule, may enhance a system’s

awareness of the condition of its infrastructure and, consequently, increase the

reporting of needs.

It is important to note that the regulatory

need includes only those projects that

systems identified and documented as

being directly associated with a SDWA

regulation. For projects to be counted as a

regulatory need, systems had to submit

documentation, such as a laboratory slip,

showing an exceedance or imminent

violation of an MCL or treatment technique requirement. A project without this

documentation, even if it promotes compliance with a SDWA regulation, would

not be counted as a regulatory need. For

example, a ground water system may

identify the need to replace an aging

chlorinator used to inactivate microbial

1

 Regulations for contaminants that cause acute health effects.

2

 Includes regulated VOCs, SOCs, IOCs, and Radionuclides.

3

 Includes regulations for contaminants that cause acute and/or chronic health effects. In the

 Economic Analyses, the compliance costs with some regulations are given as a range. In

 calculating the $9.3 billion need, the survey used EPA’s lead option, unless one was not

 available in which case the survey used the more conservative estimate.

Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 39

of the nation’s large municipal systems

use surface water sources. Under the

SWTR, all systems using surface water

sources must install treatment to minimize

microbial contamination. In most cases,

this means installing filtration plants to

inactivate or remove microbial pathogens,

such as the bacterium E. coli, the virus

Hepatitis A, and the protozoan Giardia

lamblia. Projects associated with this

regulation also include rehabilitating and

upgrading existing treatment facilities.

Existing Regulations: Chemical Contaminants. Existing SDWA regulations to

minimize chemical contamination accounts for $2.1 billion of the total regulatory need. This estimate includes projects

attributable to the Nitrate/Nitrite Standard,

Lead and Copper Rule, Total

Trihalomethane standard, and the other

regulations that set MCLs or treatment

techniques for organic and inorganic

chemicals. Examples of projects include

aerating water to remove volatile organic

compounds, such as tetrachloroethylene,

and applying corrosion inhibitors to

reduce the leaching of lead from pipes in

home plumbing. This category includes

over 80 inorganic or organic chemicals for

which infrastructure projects may be

needed.

Most chemical contaminants are associated with chronic health effects including

cancer, reproductive difficulties, and liver

or kidney problems. However, nitrate

levels above the health-based standard

can cause an acute illness, known as

“blue baby syndrome,” in which infants

are deprived of oxygen in the bloodstream. Also, excessive copper levels can

induce acute gastrointestinal illness.

Proposed or Recently Promulgated

Regulation Infrastructure Needs. The

total need to comply with proposed or

recently promulgated regulations is $9.3

billion. Of this total, $2.6 billion is to

address microbial contaminants that have

acute health effects. This estimate is

derived from the Economic Analyses

(EAs) that EPA published when proposing

each regulation. Water systems can

readily identify the infrastructure needs

required for compliance with existing

regulations, but most systems have not

yet determined the infrastructure needed

to attain compliance with future or recently

promulgated regulations. Relying on

systems to identify the costs of complying

with these regulations would significantly

Current and Future Regulatory Needs

Of the $31.2 billion total regulatory need, $16.6

billion is the current need for maintaining and

attaining compliance with existing regulations. Most

water systems with current regulatory needs are

presently not in violation of any health-based

standard. Rather, these systems identified needs that

would enable them to continue to maintain compliance with existing regulations. Future regulatory

needs include projects in which systems will need to

invest due mostly to the routine rehabilitation or

replacement of infrastructure. For example, most

conventional filtration plants require the refurbishment of pumps, filters, chemical feed units, and

other components within a 20-year period. All of the

costs associated with the proposed or recently

promulgated regulations are included as future

regulatory needs.
Page 40 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

understate the true need of compliance.

Therefore, the survey used EAs to estimate these compliance costs.

The 1999 survey differs from the first

needs survey in the allocation of the costs

associated with proposed or recently

promulgated regulations. Although the

method for calculating the capital costs of

these regulations is unchanged, the costs

are not apportioned to each State due to

the regional occurrence of some contaminants. Applying the EAs on a state-level

might over- or understate some States’

actual needs for compliance.3

The regulations addressed by this category include the Interim Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment Rule

(IESWTR), Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR), Arsenic

Rule, Radon Rule, Groundwater Rule,

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule, Long

Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, and the Radionuclides Rule.

The total costs of these regulations are

included in the survey as future regulatory

needs. Capital cost estimates for each of

these rules are provided in Appendix B.

Economic Challenges

Faced by Small Water

Systems

Approximately 45,000 of the nation’s

55,000 community water systems serve

fewer than 3,300 people. Small water

systems vary widely in size and complexity. In general, systems serving more than

500 people have a configuration typical of

larger public water systems: a water

source, several miles of transmission and

distribution piping, multiple storage tanks,

and a treatment system. Systems serving

fewer than 500 people are usually much

simpler in design and consist of a ground

water well, a small storage tank, and a

few hundred feet of pipe. Some small

systems purchase treated water from

larger public water systems, and therefore

lack the source water and treatment

components of a complete water system.

Regardless of their size and configuration,

small water systems face many unique

challenges in providing safe drinking

water to consumers. The substantial

capital investments required to rehabilitate, upgrade, or install infrastructure

represent one such challenge. Although

the total small system need may seem

3

 See the section in Appendix A, “Estimating the Costs

for Future and Recently Promulgated Regulations,” for a

more detailed discussion.

Workers repair a water

main break in Philadelphia.

Deteriorated distribution

pipe is susceptible to

microbiological

contamination and can

disrupt water service.

Philadelphia Water Department
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 41

minor relative to the needs of larger

systems, the per-household costs

borne by small systems are significantly higher than those of larger

systems. Exhibit 7 compares the

average 20-year per-household

need for water systems of different

sizes and for American Indian and

Alaska Native Village water systems.

The per-household cost for infrastructure improvements is almost

4-fold higher for small systems than

for large systems. Small systems

lack the economies of scale that

allow larger systems to spread the

costs of capital improvements

among their many consumers. For

example, the installation of a new

1.2 MGD conventional treatment

plant designed to serve a community of 1,000 people may cost

approximately $2.5 million,

whereas a 20 MGD plant serving

100,000 people may cost $30.3

million. The cost per-household is approximately 88 percent higher for the

smaller community. Moreover, larger

systems usually purchase material in

quantities that result in significant savings

on a unit basis.4

Community Water Systems

Serving Fewer Than 10,000

People

Small water systems face considerable

economic challenges in delivering safe

drinking water. The SDWA targets water

systems serving fewer than 10,000

people for special consideration by the

DWSRF program. States must provide a

minimum of 15 percent of the available

funds for loans to small systems. Through

June 2000, States have exceeded this

requirement by providing approximately

41 percent of their funds to small water

systems.

The survey estimates that systems

serving fewer than 10,000 people represent 35 percent of the total national need

for community water systems. In many

States, these systems’ needs comprise

well over 50 percent of the total need.

Appendix C presents the 20-year needs

for small systems serving fewer than

10,000 people by State.

$790 $1,250

$3,000

$6,500

$51,500

Large

Systems

Medium

Systems

Small

Systems

American

Indian

Systems

Alaska Native

Village

Systems

Exhibit 7: Average 20-Year Per-Household Need

(in January 1999 dollars)

Does not include the costs associated with proposed and recently promulgated SDWA regulations.

4

 These estimates are derived from the cost models.

See Appendix A—“Methods and Cost Modeling” for a

discussion of how the cost models were developed.
Page 42 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Total Need Compared to

the 1995 Drinking Water

Infrastructure Needs

Survey

The 1995 Needs Survey estimate of

$152.6 billion5 exceeds the findings of this

survey by $1.7 billion. A comparison of

the surveys is complicated by the slightly

different methods and project eligibility

criteria used to calculate the needs. The

1995 Needs Survey, for example, included the $5.2 billion capital need associated with dams and untreated water

reservoirs. After EPA completed the first

Needs Survey, these needs were determined to be ineligible for DWSRF assistance and were consequently excluded

from the 1999 survey. Conversely, unlike

the 1995 survey, the 1999 survey includes $3.1 billion in needs of not-forprofit noncommunity water systems that

are eligible for DWSRF funding. The

varying estimates of costs associated with

the proposed and recently promulgated

regulations also contributes to the difference between the surveys.

Despite these slight variations, the fundamental methods used to collect and

evaluate needs in 1999 remained largely

unchanged from the 1995 survey. Most

importantly, the 1999 survey retained the

stringent documentation and eligibility

requirements of the 1995 survey.

Conservative Estimate of

Needs

The methods developed for the survey

yield a conservative estimate of need.

Despite the large magnitude of the total

national need, the survey likely underestimates the true need due to the stringent

documentation criteria and the use of a

questionnaire to identify the needs of

medium and large systems. Also, the

scope of the survey is limited to those

needs eligible to receive DWSRF assistance–thus excluding capital projects

related solely to dams, raw water reservoirs, future growth, and fire protection.

For example, a transmission project to

extend service to an area where the

construction of new homes is expected

would be considered future growth and,

therefore, omitted from the survey.

Site visits are the most effective method

to collect information on infrastructure

projects. To accommodate the limited

resources of personnel and documentation available to most small systems

serving 3,300 and fewer people, site visits

were used to estimate the needs of small

community water systems and not-forprofit noncommunity water systems. The

site visitors assessed every major component of a water system from source to

service line for inclusion in the survey.

They also generated the documentation

necessary to support each need and cost.

Each site visit resulted in a thorough

identification and documentation of needs

over 20 years.

5

 The 1995 Needs Survey reported the total need as

$138.4 billion. Adjusted to 1999 dollars this amount is

$152.6 billion.
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 43

Resource constraints prevented the use

of site visits to assess the needs of the

3,667 medium and large systems in the

survey. Instead, these systems were

asked to complete survey questionnaires

and provide documentation for all

projects.

In completing the questionnaire, many

medium and large systems relied exclusively on planning documents, such as

Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs), that

often covered just one to five years, rather

than the 20-year scope of the survey.

Thus, these systems likely overlooked

eligible projects that will be needed

beyond the timeframe of their planning

documents. For example, many systems

used CIPs to identify the need to replace

sections of old and leaking pipe. In reality,

the amount of pipe that may need to be

replaced over a 20-year period may

greatly exceed that portion identified in the

CIPs. In addition, planning documents

usually reflect the financial resources

available to systems. Therefore, even

though a system may need to replace

most of its deteriorated distribution network over the next 20 years, the CIP may

include a much smaller portion owing to

the projected availability of funds. Despite

measures taken to minimize underreporting, the continued reliance on medium

and large systems to identify and document their needs produced a conservative

estimate of need, particularly because

these systems represent most of the total

national need.

Not-for-Profit

Noncommunity Water

Systems

The survey estimates that not-for-profit

noncommunity water systems need to

invest $3.1 billion in infrastructure improvements over the next 20 years. Of

this total, $1.1 billion is needed now to

ensure the continued protection of public

health. Exhibit 8 presents the noncommunity need by category.

Noncommunity water systems are either

transient or nontransient systems. Transient noncommunity systems serve at

least 25 of the same persons for no more

than 6 months of the year. Examples

include gas stations, campgrounds, and

roadside rest areas. Nontransient noncommunity systems serve at least 25 of

the same people for more than 6 months

per year, but less than year-round. Examples include factories, schools, and

office buildings.

Transmission and

Distribution

$387.8 million

Storage

$1,477.3 million

Treatment

$611.0 million Source

$620.8 million

Other

$0.7 million

Exhibit 8: Total 20-Year for Not-for-Profit Noncommunity

Water Systems Need by Category

(in January 1999 dollars)

Does not include the costs associated with proposed SDWA regulations.
Page 44 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

The SDWA established a 0.33 percent set-aside of the

DWSRF to provide grants to community water

systems in American Samoa, the Commonwealth of

Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, and the

U.S. Virgin Islands. As it did with the States, EPA

used a combination of questionnaires and site

visits to assess the needs of water systems on

the islands. These systems face many challenges in delivering safe drinking water. The

expense of transporting materials to the

islands, the limited availability of water

resources, and pervasive salt water intrusion

require capital investments that are substantial,

particularly when considered on a per-household basis.

In America Samoa and CNMI, the primary

source of drinking water is a thin layer of

groundwater which lies above the seawater.

High salinity levels have forced many water

systems to shut-down wells or install expensive

reverse osmosis units to remove the saltwater.

Drinking water in Guam is obtained from ground

water and surface water sources. The main municipal

water supplier in Guam has difficulties meeting the

treatment performance standards of the Surface Water

Treatment Rule that protect against microbial contamination.

Infrastructure Needs of the U.S. Pacific Islands and the Virgin Islands

A water distillation plant, operated by the Virgin Islands

Water and Power Authority, is shut down and disassembled

for repair. Seawater is pumped through screens, then distilled

to remove the salts and make the water potable. This facility

also uses an ion separation process to extract chlorine from

the seawater for use as a disinfectant.

The scope of the survey was restricted to

the approximately 21,400 not-for-profit

noncommunity water systems that are

eligible to receive DWSRF assistance.

EPA estimates that approximately 10

percent of transient noncommunity

systems and 50 percent of nontransient

noncommunity systems are not-for-profit

systems.

The needs of noncommunity systems

comprise a small proportion of the total

national need. This result reflects the

limited infrastructure required for a

noncommunity system compared to a

community water system. The lower

needs of noncommunity systems is due

mostly to their relative lack of transmission and distribution infrastructure. Many

noncommunity systems consist of so few

buildings–often just one–that the miles of

pipe typically required for even the

smaller-sized community water systems

are unnecessary.

With respect to the other categories of

need, noncommunity systems have fewer

sources, limited storage requirements,

and smaller treatment facilities than most

community water systems. The absence Dan Fraser
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 45

of a full-time population accounts for

these reduced infrastructure needs. In

addition, noncommunity systems generally do not experience the peak demands

in use–associated with morning showers,

watering lawns, and meal preparation–

with which community water systems

must contend in designing their facilities.

The noncommunity need should not be

discounted because of its modest contribution to the total national need. The rapid

turnover of consumers at transient systems and the sensitive populations at

some nontransient systems, such as

schools and day care centers, mean that

the infrastructure needs of these systems

have an important public health dimension.

Separate State Estimates

In response to the Needs Survey

workgroup’s request, EPA provided

States with the opportunity to prepare

separate estimates of needs which were

not included in the survey due to DWSRF

ineligibility. EPA also invited States to

submit needs that the States felt were

underestimated by the survey. Four

States submitted separate estimates,

which are provided in Appendix D.
The expense of burying pipe leads some systems to develop expedient but precarious solutions such as the one

pictured here. Water service will be disrupted if pipes are not buried or otherwise adequately protected.

Dave Clark