T

he sampling methods for the 1999

Needs Survey were developed by a

workgroup consisting of State,

American Indian, Alaska Native Village,

Indian Health Service (IHS), and U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

representatives. In addition to designing

the methods, the State, American Indian,

and Alaska Native Village representatives

played critical roles in implementing the

survey. The workgroup met four times to

develop the survey methods.

The workgroup based the approach for

the 1999 survey on the methods used in

1995, with refinements from the lessons

learned in conducting the 1995 survey,

findings of a follow-up study that EPA

performed in 1997, and options made

available by technological advances in

database management and the Internet.

Different data collection methods were

used to account for the strengths and

resource constraints of the different sized

systems in the survey. Systems were

organized into three size categories:

Large (serving more than 50,000 people),

medium (serving 3,301 - 50,000 people),

and small (serving 3,300 and fewer

people). Exhibit A-1 shows the data

collection method used, sample size,

target precision levels, and response rate

for each size category.

Methods for Estimating

State Needs

Inventory Verification. To ensure that

the survey accounted for all community

and not-for-profit noncommunity water

systems in the States, the universe of

water systems (from which the samples

were drawn) was obtained from the Safe

Drinking Water Information System

(SDWIS). SDWIS is EPA’s centralized

database for information on public water

systems. It is an ideal choice for determining the inventory, because it is designed

to identify all public water systems. States

verified information on population served,

water sources, and other important

variables for their systems. In some

APPENDIX A— METHODS: SAMPLING

AND COST MODELING

Exhibit A-1: Community Water Systems Sampling for the 1999 Needs Survey

1

 Systems sampled with certainty (census).

Small Systems Medium Systems Large Systems

Population Served 3,300 or fewer 3,301 - 50,000 more than 50,000

Data Collection Method Site Visits Questionnaire Questionnaire

Sample Size 599 2,556 ≤ 40,000 225 > 40,0001 8861

Response Rates 98 Percent 96 Percent 100 Percent 100 Percent

Precision Target 95%±10% Precision Nationally 95%±10% Precision by State
Page 58 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

cases, EPA reviewed State files to verify

the number of systems in a State.

Stratification. The sample design for the

survey was based on the concept of

stratified random sampling. Stratification

made the design more efficient by enabling it to meet precision targets with a

smaller sample size than if the sample

were not stratified. These efficiencies are

achieved if the design accounts for the

fact that some water systems, as a group,

will have different needs than other water

systems. For example, large water

systems generally require much greater

investments than do small systems.

Water systems were stratified using two

source (surface and ground) and several

population groups. Results from the 1995

survey indicated that systems purchasing

treated water have needs more similar to

ground water systems than systems using

and treating surface water sources.

Therefore, systems that solely purchase

water were included in the ground water

strata. Also, in assigning a system to a

size category, the survey included the

population served by other utilities which

purchase water from the system. Systems

that sell water must design their infrastructure, particularly treatment facilities,

to serve the purchasing system populations.

Estimating Needs for Large and Medium Community Water Systems. The

1999 survey included all of the nation’s

1,111 systems serving more than 40,000

people. The needs associated with these

systems contributed directly to each

State’s total need. A random sample of

medium-sized systems serving between

3,300 and 40,000 people was selected in

each State. The survey sampled 2,556

community water systems out of the

national inventory of 7,759 medium-sized

community water systems. This sample

allowed for a high level of precision in

estimating the needs of medium-sized

systems for each State. Because these

medium-sized systems were included in a

sample, and not a census, their needs

were extrapolated to the remainder of the

systems (i.e., those not sampled) in each

State.

The 3,667 medium and large systems in

the survey received a mailed questionnaire package. Systems were asked to

identify capital projects needed to protect

the public health for current customers

and for households without access to safe

drinking water. The questionnaire

prompted systems to provide:

• A description of the infrastructure

need.

• Documentation explaining why the

project is needed.

• An indication whether the project is

a current or future need.

• An indication whether the project

involves installing new or rehabilitating existing infrastructure.

• An indication whether the project is

triggered by a SDWA regulation.

• A cost estimate, if available.

• Documentation of cost, if available.

• Design capacities of projects with or

without costs for cost modeling.

Systems returned the completed questionnaires to the States for review, along

with the supporting need and cost documentation. The States reviewed each

questionnaire to ensure that systems

thoroughly identified their needs and that

all projects were documented and described correctly. The States had the

option of providing supplemental informa-
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 59

tion, if documentation of need

or cost was inadequate. In

many instances the States

contacted the systems to

obtain additional information.

The States then forwarded the

questionnaires to EPA for final

review. Once EPA’s review

was completed the questionnaires were entered into a

database. This database was

made available on the Internet

to provide States with a final

opportunity to review their

systems’ data.

This review process differed

from the procedures used in

1995. Although some States

were involved in data collection

for the 1995 survey, EPA

assumed primary responsibility for reviewing needs and, whenever necessary,

contacting systems to obtain further

documentation. The greater involvement

of the States–with their familiarity with the

systems–accounts in part for the larger

number of projects received for the 1999

survey.

Some of the medium and large drinking

water systems provided capital improvement plans or engineering reports to

document the costs of their infrastructure

projects. However, approximately 42,920

of the 65,430 projects lacked cost estimates. EPA used models to assign costs

to these projects. Cost models were

developed from documented cost estimates provided by the systems in the

survey. For a limited number of infrastructure needs, the cost data collected were

insufficient to develop a cost model. For

these projects additional project cost

information was obtained from the States,

Indian Health Service, manufacturers,

EPA Economic Analyses, and engineering firms. All costs were converted to

January 1999 dollars.

For example, a cost model would have

been used if a system lacked cost documentation for rehabilitating a conventional

filtration treatment plant that no longer

met performance standards. If the system

provided the design capacity of the plant

on the questionnaire, EPA would have

applied the specific cost model for rehabilitating this type of plant. Exhibit A-2

provides an example of a cost curve used

to apply costs to a new conventional

treatment plant project.

Estimating Needs for Small Community Water Systems. The Needs Survey

workgroup agreed that small systems

generally lack the planning documents

and available personnel to complete a

mailed questionnaire. Therefore, needs

data were collected through site visits.

Site visits were conducted by water

system specialists who had extensive

experience working with small systems

and who received training in the project

eligibility and documentation criteria

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

100,000,000

1,000,000,000

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Costs ($)

Millions of Gallons per Day

Exhibit A-2: Cost Curve for New Conventional Filtration Plant
Page 60 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

established for the survey. In most cases,

State personnel also attended the site

visits. Based on the results of the site visit,

EPA completed the survey questionnaire

and developed documentation for each

project. The questionnaires were reviewed by EPA and entered into a database. The database was made available

for the States to review on the Internet.

Most small systems lacked documented

cost estimates. Therefore, the models

were used to assign costs to the majority

of their needs.

Unlike the medium and large systems, the

design for small systems is driven by a

budgetary constraint— there were not

sufficient funds to complete the approximately 22,000 site visits necessary to

accurately estimate the needs of small

systems on a State-by-State level. Also

the large investment required to generate

State-level estimates of need would not

be justified, given that medium and large

systems generally comprise most of the

States’ needs. Therefore, the survey used

a national sample for systems serving

3,300 and fewer people. The needs of

small systems in the national sample

were extrapolated to calculate the total

national small system need. This need

then was apportioned among the States

based on the number of small systems in

each stratum in each State.

Estimating Needs for Not-for-profit

Noncommunity Water Systems. There

are approximately 21,400 not-for-profit

noncommunity water systems

(NPNCWSs) nationwide. For the 1999

survey, EPA conducted site visits to a

sample of approximately 100 NPNCWSs.

This sample was not stratified into size

and source categories, because EPA

lacked the empirical data necessary to

develop strata. Also, stratification would

increase the sample size. The added

costs of visiting more systems were not

justified, because the needs of

NPNCWSs were expected to represent a

small proportion of the total national need.

Data collection and cost modeling were

completed using the same methods

applied to small community water systems.

Precision Targets. The survey was

designed to provide a high level of precision for each State’s estimate of need.

Because medium and large systems

usually represent the majority of a State’s

need, the survey established a precision

target of 95 percent ± 10 percent for the

combined needs of these systems. This

means that, for each State, there is a 95

percent likelihood that the true need lies

within 10 percent of the survey’s estimated need for medium and large systems. For example, if the survey estimates that a State’s total medium and

large system need is $2.0 billion, then the

actual need for these systems is probably

between $1.8 and $2.2 billion (that is,

10 percent of the estimated need).

The survey design provided a national

level estimate of small community water

system needs with a precision target of

95 percent ± 10 percent. A precision

target of 95 percent ± 30 percent was

established for the NPNCWSs.

Estimating the Needs of

American Indian and

Alaska Native Village Water

Systems

American Indian Water Systems. The

1999 survey estimated the infrastructure

needs of medium-sized American Indian

water systems using a census. Each of

the 19 community water systems serving

more than 3,300 people completed a

questionnaire. EPA offered technical
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 61

American Indian

Small Systems

American Indian

Medium Systems Alaska Native Systems

Population Served 3,300 or fewer 3,301 - 50,000 All populations

Data Collection Method Site Visits Questionnaire Questionnaire

Sample Size 78 19 174

Response Rates 100 Percent 100 Percent 100 Percent

Precision Target 95%±10% Precision

Nationally Systems Sampled With Certainty (Census)

Exhibit A-3: American Indian and Alaska Native Village System Sampling for

the 1999 Needs Survey

assistance to help these systems identify

eligible needs and prepare documentation. In addition, drinking water projects

from IHS’s Sanitation Deficiency System

(SDS) were pre-printed on each questionnaire. The SDS was not designed to

capture the full extent of the needs

allowable for the survey, so these data

served as a baseline to which systems

added projects. For example, SDS

contains only current needs, while the

survey asks for current and future needs.

The systems returned the completed

questionnaire and documentation to EPA

for final review.

A sample of 78 small American Indian

systems was randomly selected. Site

visits were conducted by drinking water

system specialists who had extensive

experience working with small systems,

had received special Needs Survey

training, and had previous experience with

American Indian water systems. In some

cases, IHS and Tribal officials attended

the site visits. EPA was responsible for

completing the questionnaire and documenting needs and costs.

Alaska Native Village Water Systems.

Current and future needs of Alaska Native

Village water systems were identified

through a census of water systems that

serve predominantly Alaska Natives. The

inventory consisted of 2 medium systems

and 172 small systems. A list of projects

needed for each small system was

developed by EPA in consultation with

Village representatives, Village Safe

Water, IHS, and State officials. Site visits

to 5 Alaska Native Village water systems

were performed to confirm the need

assessments.

Needs for the two medium Alaska Native

Village water systems were obtained

through phone interviews with the systems. Based on the responses from the

water systems, EPA prepared the questionnaires and documentation.

Using cost models developed with data

from systems in the State and American

Indian portions of the survey would not

reflect the unique construction challenges

that face Alaska Native Villages. For

example, in some areas, water tanks and

treatment plants need to be elevated on

pilings to prevent the heated facilities from

subsiding into the permafrost. Therefore,
Page 62 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

a roundtable meeting of IHS and EPA

engineers was held to provide guidelines

for determining project costs. In assigning

costs to projects, water systems were

grouped into three geographic areas

roughly corresponding to the northern,

central, and southern parts of the State.

These areas coincided roughly with the

different factors that influence project

costs, such as the means used to transport equipment. This process omitted

water systems located on the North

Slope, because they had prepared master

plans and capital improvement plans that

documented the costs of all of their

needs. IHS provided cost documentation

for projects constructed in Alaska Native

Villages throughout the State. These

costs were used to estimate the average

costs of projects in each geographic area.

Costs for some projects were derived

from the cost models developed for the

State and American Indian systems. The

models were used to assign costs to

small-scale projects (e.g., flushing hydrants) for which IHS costs were unavailable.

Precision Targets. Because all of the

Alaska Native Village and medium-sized

American Indian water systems were

included in the survey, the needs of these

systems were calculated with certainty.

The estimates of need for small American

Indian water systems have a national

precision level of 95 percent ± 10 percent.

Estimating Costs for

Proposed and Recently

Promulgated Regulations

A portion of the needs collected in the

survey are attributable directly to SDWA

regulations. Systems were able to identify

projects needed for compliance with

existing regulations. However, most

systems had not yet identified the infrastructure needed to comply with proposed

and recently promulgated regulations.

Consequently, the costs of these regulations were based on the Economic

Analysis (EAs) that EPA published when

proposing or finalizing each regulation.

The survey did not cover the costs of

regulations that were proposed after July

1, 2000.

The costs associated with future and

recently promulgated regulations are

included only in the total national need,

not in each State’s need. In general, an

EA assigns the cost of complying with a

new regulation on the basis of a system’s

size and water source. The use of EAs to

allocate these costs to each State is

problematic, given that the cost of a

regulation is not necessarily a direct

function of the number of systems in each

size and source category. For example,

the cost of complying with a new regulation will vary significantly from State-toState if the contaminant occurs mostly in

specific regions of the country. Allocating

costs based solely on the inventory of

systems would fail to capture this variation.

U.S. EPA
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 63
Filtration plants consist of a series of treatment stages, each of which is critical to the production of safe water.

Shown is a filter bed that is clogged with mud and treatment chemicals. The clarifier that should have removed

these particulates in the preceding stage is in poor condition and needs to be replaced.

Dan Fraser
APPENDIX B—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Exhibits B-1- B-8 do not include the costs associated with proposed or recently promulgated SDWA regulations.

Needs for Water Systems in the States

 (community water systems and not-for-profit noncommunity water systems)

Exhibit B-1—Total Need by Category

Exhibit B-2—Current Need by Category

Exhibit B-3—Total Need by System Size

Exhibit B-4—Current Regulatory Need

Exhibit B-5—Total Regulatory Need

Needs for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems

Exhibit B-6—Total Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Systems by EPA Region

Exhibit B-7—Total Need by Category for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems

Exhibit B-8—Total Regulatory Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Water Systems

Needs Attributable to Future Drinking Water Regulations

Exhibit B-9—Total Proposed or Recently Promulgated Regulatory Need
Page 66 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 67

Exhibit B-1: Total Need by Category (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)

State

Transmission and 

Distribution

Treatment Storage Source Other Total

Alabama 622.1 186.1 175.7 91.7 5.3 1,080.9

Alaska 345.4 105.0 101.6 31.5 1.7 585.2

Arizona 781.9 434.8 244.7 130.6 30.4 1,622.4

Arkansas 834.1 287.6 238.9 141.6 31.8 1,534.0

California 10,709.3 2,354.1 2,393.8 1,565.7 466.2 17,489.1

Colorado 1,285.8 642.8 304.2 246.0 51.6 2,530.4

Connecticut 569.1 234.4 128.6 59.0 15.7 1,006.7

Delaware 130.4 107.2 33.5 31.8 1.1 304.0

District of Columbia 388.4 0.0 25.6 0.0 0.0 414.1

Florida 1,766.2 1,043.9 366.3 500.5 47.4 3,724.3

Georgia 1,438.7 463.4 308.3 165.9 30.2 2,406.4

Hawaii 89.3 17.7 23.0 14.6 2.0 146.7

Idaho 261.0 90.4 107.1 53.3 4.1 515.9

Illinois 3,392.2 1,459.7 850.6 358.6 88.4 6,149.5

Indiana 890.8 379.7 295.1 114.3 13.7 1,693.5

Iowa 1,990.3 407.1 282.5 148.9 17.8 2,846.6

Kansas 782.0 487.7 226.8 122.2 27.2 1,645.9

Kentucky 1,185.1 319.7 182.5 70.5 11.5 1,769.3

Louisiana 690.2 231.4 224.0 106.9 20.4 1,272.8

Maine 283.2 82.5 96.4 30.9 5.5 498.6

Maryland 986.2 357.5 195.5 101.7 30.2 1,671.0

Massachusetts 3,907.2 1,323.4 463.1 168.6 14.1 5,876.4

Michigan 4,545.6 1,330.3 601.8 268.6 42.1 6,788.4

Minnesota 1,346.9 994.4 453.1 247.0 58.1 3,099.4

Mississippi 697.0 317.3 228.4 108.1 10.0 1,360.7

Missouri 1,342.6 362.0 308.2 154.2 12.8 2,179.8

Montana 483.0 186.0 130.1 69.2 3.6 871.9

Nebraska 448.1 219.8 96.9 62.0 5.3 832.0

Nevada 351.2 42.0 135.5 30.0 43.8 602.4

New Hampshire 233.3 105.5 108.0 49.4 3.3 499.4

New Jersey 2,593.7 425.6 425.6 183.0 31.0 3,658.9

New Mexico 526.9 246.8 114.0 128.9 25.3 1,042.0

New York 8,590.8 2,852.7 994.3 674.4 43.1 13,155.3

North Carolina 1,402.9 551.3 504.2 218.4 30.3 2,707.1

North Dakota 274.2 90.5 71.2 49.3 4.6 489.9

Ohio 2,585.7 1,022.9 798.8 401.0 150.5 4,959.0

Oklahoma 1,480.3 486.6 262.4 101.1 10.4 2,340.8

Oregon 1,442.4 575.7 470.5 183.5 36.9 2,709.1

Pennsylvania 3,148.3 939.9 800.2 313.5 56.2 5,258.2

Puerto Rico 1,040.5 612.5 229.0 52.8 37.0 1,971.8

Rhode Island 396.1 110.8 43.1 22.3 4.8 577.1

South Carolina 376.1 258.6 132.2 47.0 6.7 820.5

South Dakota 216.5 111.3 67.6 39.5 4.9 439.7

Tennessee 686.7 414.3 252.2 49.0 8.0 1,410.1

Texas 7,935.5 2,625.6 1,524.3 811.9 170.0 13,067.3

Utah 256.5 123.1 88.6 43.2 2.4 513.9

Vermont 175.1 48.5 59.8 20.7 2.9 306.9

Virginia 1,023.9 518.9 282.1 189.9 40.6 2,055.4

Washington 2,368.4 504.7 684.6 341.2 48.4 3,947.4

West Virginia 572.5 222.9 158.6 59.8 6.2 1,020.0

Wisconsin 1,634.7 723.9 496.6 224.2 18.6 3,098.0

Wyoming 233.3 127.1 48.7 30.7 2.4 442.2

Subtotal 81,737.8 28,167.2 17,838.6 9,428.6 1,836.3 139,008.5

American Samoa 18.5 7.4 7.0 2.7 0.7 36.4

Guam 75.6 1.7 9.9 22.9 4.7 114.7

North Mariana Is. 25.7 21.0 14.8 10.9 2.5 74.8

Virgin Islands 68.3 32.5 48.4 11.3 1.1 161.7

Subtotal 188.1 62.6 80.2 47.8 8.9 387.5

Total 81,925.8 28,229.9 17,918.8 9,476.4 1,845.1 139,396.1
Page 68 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Exhibit B-2: Current Need by Category (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)

State

Transmission and 

Distribution

Treatment Storage Source Other Total

Alabama 434.4 108.4 101.3 28.2 4.9 677.2

Alaska 169.2 36.3 46.4 19.1 1.5 272.5

Arizona 591.7 321.7 112.1 68.9 28.9 1,123.3

Arkansas 593.0 164.2 130.2 97.3 29.5 1,014.2

California 9,207.7 1,773.1 1,517.2 1,144.1 430.1 14,072.3

Colorado 882.0 449.6 141.6 168.1 50.9 1,692.1

Connecticut 493.0 161.2 52.7 23.8 4.4 735.1

Delaware 73.5 95.1 17.2 23.6 0.9 210.4

District of Columbia 388.4 0.0 25.6 0.0 0.0 414.1

Florida 1,454.6 756.7 178.4 310.1 37.1 2,736.9

Georgia 1,041.3 270.8 143.1 105.5 22.4 1,583.1

Hawaii 80.2 9.8 13.3 10.5 2.0 115.8

Idaho 186.8 42.9 45.8 32.7 3.4 311.5

Illinois 2,582.6 1,076.4 440.9 218.7 73.5 4,392.1

Indiana 716.7 214.9 135.9 61.9 11.5 1,140.8

Iowa 1,843.4 265.1 149.6 86.8 11.3 2,356.2

Kansas 638.7 367.3 130.8 86.3 26.4 1,249.4

Kentucky 919.3 275.1 117.8 54.4 9.6 1,376.2

Louisiana 546.6 130.2 114.9 58.0 7.3 857.0

Maine 237.6 37.1 41.1 15.7 4.8 336.2

Maryland 877.2 286.1 100.9 71.5 29.2 1,365.0

Massachusetts 3,615.0 1,062.3 377.0 88.1 10.4 5,152.8

Michigan 2,367.8 802.5 327.5 143.7 33.4 3,674.9

Minnesota 875.3 468.4 208.2 133.7 32.4 1,718.1

Mississippi 605.3 200.2 109.6 58.4 8.2 981.8

Missouri 1,107.6 194.7 156.5 102.4 10.8 1,572.1

Montana 369.3 84.1 66.4 32.0 3.1 554.8

Nebraska 343.4 144.9 45.9 33.9 4.2 572.2

Nevada 281.6 18.6 70.7 17.4 43.3 431.6

New Hampshire 194.6 40.4 44.8 23.9 2.7 306.5

New Jersey 1,781.0 317.1 158.2 88.5 23.2 2,368.0

New Mexico 455.6 71.5 43.1 52.8 24.9 648.0

New York 6,925.3 2,481.8 665.8 412.1 33.3 10,518.2

North Carolina 1,040.4 336.2 220.5 129.6 23.9 1,750.5

North Dakota 162.6 37.1 31.6 32.4 3.0 266.6

Ohio 2,235.9 704.3 443.3 259.4 73.6 3,716.4

Oklahoma 1,162.7 268.5 118.5 49.8 7.7 1,607.3

Oregon 1,347.4 470.0 369.2 130.1 35.0 2,351.6

Pennsylvania 2,347.4 550.0 360.1 188.2 36.4 3,482.1

Puerto Rico 1,013.5 585.6 206.0 45.8 36.8 1,887.6

Rhode Island 263.4 100.0 18.1 15.9 4.1 401.4

South Carolina 298.0 146.0 54.4 30.2 4.4 532.9

South Dakota 163.6 70.0 36.6 18.8 4.1 293.1

Tennessee 503.6 211.2 157.0 29.5 7.0 908.2

Texas 6,029.6 1,469.8 766.2 442.7 152.1 8,860.5

Utah 192.3 66.5 53.0 27.1 1.9 341.0

Vermont 156.5 28.1 36.4 11.2 2.6 234.8

Virginia 609.8 362.5 137.5 59.5 32.7 1,202.1

Washington 2,105.8 272.8 356.4 170.5 45.1 2,950.5

West Virginia 500.8 134.4 95.2 35.4 5.3 771.0

Wisconsin 1,047.5 359.5 190.2 117.2 10.4 1,724.8

Wyoming 207.0 64.8 28.9 17.5 2.3 320.5

Subtotal 64,267.5 18,965.9 9,709.4 5,682.7 1,507.6 100,133.2

American Samoa 17.9 6.7 6.9 2.6 0.6 34.7

Guam 72.2 1.4 7.9 21.0 1.3 103.7

North Mariana Is. 24.0 10.8 14.7 10.8 1.4 61.7

Virgin Islands 63.8 21.7 30.8 10.5 1.1 127.8

Subtotal 177.8 40.5 60.3 44.9 4.3 327.9

Total 64,445.4 19,006.4 9,769.7 5,727.6 1,511.9 100,461.0
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 69

Exhibit B-3: Total Need by System Size (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)

State Large CWSs Medium CWSs Small CWSs NPNCWSs Total

Alabama 120.9 549.7 407.3 2.9 1,080.9

Alaska 31.9 317.6 189.2 46.5 585.2

Arizona 712.2 471.8 424.3 14.1 1,622.4

Arkansas 391.3 638.6 498.5 5.6 1,534.0

California 12,310.8 2,896.7 2,204.4 77.2 17,489.1

Colorado 1,109.2 917.5 502.8 1.0 2,530.4

Connecticut 547.0 215.0 223.8 20.9 1,006.7

Delaware 158.4 25.2 117.9 2.5 304.0

District of Columbia 414.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 414.1

Florida 2,163.1 553.7 910.2 97.2 3,724.3

Georgia 984.9 654.7 756.4 10.5 2,406.4

Hawaii 18.1 28.2 99.6 0.8 146.7

Idaho 37.9 88.2 361.0 28.7 515.9

Illinois 2,020.8 2,738.6 1,306.2 83.9 6,149.5

Indiana 237.7 722.6 599.0 134.3 1,693.5

Iowa 336.2 1,800.3 696.2 14.0 2,846.6

Kansas 507.3 513.6 622.4 2.6 1,645.9

Kentucky 312.3 1,100.5 355.7 0.8 1,769.3

Louisiana 234.2 291.5 735.8 11.4 1,272.8

Maine 28.4 194.1 249.8 26.2 498.6

Maryland 1,116.6 226.5 253.2 74.8 1,671.0

Massachusetts 2,628.4 2,998.8 224.1 25.1 5,876.4

Michigan 3,647.1 1,919.3 862.4 359.6 6,788.4

Minnesota 730.7 1,498.5 665.9 204.3 3,099.4

Mississippi 157.3 337.5 858.6 7.3 1,360.7

Missouri 623.5 645.1 881.4 29.8 2,179.8

Montana 125.1 340.3 368.0 38.6 871.9

Nebraska 226.7 261.7 331.5 12.2 832.0

Nevada 377.2 57.6 156.8 10.8 602.4

New Hampshire 44.9 90.3 317.1 47.1 499.4

New Jersey 1,721.7 1,464.0 318.2 155.0 3,658.9

New Mexico 433.2 270.8 326.2 11.7 1,042.0

New York 9,305.0 2,015.4 1,739.0 96.1 13,155.3

North Carolina 600.2 916.9 908.5 281.5 2,707.1

North Dakota 120.1 164.0 201.7 4.1 489.9

Ohio 1,689.9 2,096.7 957.5 214.9 4,959.0

Oklahoma 810.7 792.2 721.0 17.0 2,340.8

Oregon 907.5 1,198.2 561.1 42.3 2,709.1

Pennsylvania 1,722.1 1,946.5 1,375.0 214.5 5,258.2

Puerto Rico 1,110.6 479.9 380.4 0.9 1,971.8

Rhode Island 352.9 180.5 31.5 12.3 577.1

South Carolina 297.9 197.3 313.0 12.3 820.5

South Dakota 55.4 136.2 244.2 3.9 439.7

Tennessee 106.8 939.2 342.2 21.9 1,410.1

Texas 6,684.2 3,691.7 2,655.1 36.3 13,067.3

Utah 196.0 45.4 262.7 9.9 513.9

Vermont 0.0 82.7 224.1 0.1 306.9

Virginia 846.0 508.8 630.8 69.8 2,055.4

Washington 1,401.1 1,201.3 1,256.5 88.4 3,947.4

West Virginia 96.0 337.5 549.7 36.7 1,020.0

Wisconsin 878.4 1,159.5 692.0 368.1 3,098.0

Wyoming 80.7 234.7 117.6 9.3 442.2

Subtotal 61,770.7 43,153.1 30,987.2 3,097.6 139,008.5

American Samoa 0.0 19.3 17.1 0.0 36.4

Guam 57.2 50.9 6.5 0.0 114.7

North Mariana Is. 18.2 33.7 22.9 0.0 74.8

Virgin Islands 0.0 40.7 121.0 0.0 161.7

Subtotal 75.4 144.6 167.5 0.0 387.5

Total 61,846.1 43,297.7 31,154.7 3,097.6 139,396.1
Page 70 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Exhibit B-4: Current Regulatory Need (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)

State SWTR TCR

Nitrate/ 

Nitrite 

Lead and 

Copper Rule

TTHMs Other* Total

Alabama 62.2 9.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.9 75.8

Alaska 32.6 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.0 0.2 33.9

Arizona 270.6 0.1 5.3 1.4 0.0 0.8 278.3

Arkansas 104.5 0.3 0.1 3.1 0.0 1.7 109.6

California 1,320.2 4.5 32.5 12.0 0.0 33.5 1,402.8

Colorado 428.1 0.0 4.9 8.5 0.0 0.8 442.3

Connecticut 148.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.3 149.8

Delaware 70.7 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 71.3

District of Columbia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Florida 181.0 1.2 0.4 2.9 30.2 4.2 219.9

Georgia 180.0 1.5 0.4 6.5 0.0 1.3 189.7

Hawaii 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 3.9

Idaho 26.7 0.3 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.4 28.9

Illinois 664.7 41.8 61.3 35.2 0.0 27.2 830.3

Indiana 59.3 1.4 0.2 21.0 0.0 4.9 86.7

Iowa 114.5 228.6 67.5 3.2 0.8 70.1 484.7

Kansas 262.7 0.0 4.4 4.5 0.0 3.5 275.1

Kentucky 229.0 3.5 0.0 16.7 0.9 1.1 251.2

Louisiana 64.7 0.1 0.2 3.5 0.0 5.5 74.1

Maine 24.6 0.3 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.4 27.1

Maryland 250.3 0.8 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.5 252.7

Massachusetts 1,057.0 0.3 0.1 18.0 0.0 0.6 1,076.0

Michigan 549.5 5.5 2.5 213.5 2.8 10.5 784.3

Minnesota 60.3 2.2 0.2 47.8 0.0 55.9 166.5

Mississippi 71.2 1.0 0.1 3.6 2.0 3.5 81.5

Missouri 131.2 0.3 0.3 4.0 0.0 2.3 138.2

Montana 54.5 0.4 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.4 57.3

Nebraska 114.2 0.1 2.9 10.7 0.0 6.9 134.9

Nevada 5.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.4 6.6

New Hampshire 23.7 0.5 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.4 26.1

New Jersey 237.2 5.9 0.1 92.0 0.0 25.7 360.9

New Mexico 32.8 0.1 0.2 1.2 0.0 1.7 36.1

New York 2,491.1 3.9 0.8 177.4 0.0 11.1 2,684.3

North Carolina 221.3 2.9 0.6 3.2 0.0 1.5 229.4

North Dakota 38.8 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.5 41.3

Ohio 453.6 2.2 0.3 26.7 0.0 2.9 485.7

Oklahoma 231.2 0.2 2.5 15.8 0.0 1.7 251.3

Oregon 425.1 0.4 0.3 4.4 0.0 0.8 430.9

Pennsylvania 495.6 2.2 0.6 65.3 0.0 2.9 566.6

Puerto Rico 601.4 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.4 605.1

Rhode Island 92.2 0.7 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.1 99.4

South Carolina 126.1 1.0 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.8 129.5

South Dakota 11.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.5 12.6

Tennessee 179.1 0.2 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.1 183.4

Texas 1,184.3 9.5 0.9 13.1 0.7 15.8 1,224.2

Utah 52.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.7 54.2

Vermont 20.2 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.2 21.9

Virginia 315.7 1.3 0.4 7.3 0.0 0.8 325.4

Washington 195.0 15.8 0.9 5.5 0.0 2.4 219.6

West Virginia 102.7 0.4 0.1 5.1 0.0 1.2 109.5

Wisconsin 157.4 4.1 3.7 171.1 1.7 118.0 456.1

Wyoming 58.5 0.1 0.1 3.7 0.0 0.2 62.6

Subtotal 14,287.4 356.1 197.1 1,039.1 39.1 430.8 16,349.7

American Samoa 3.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9

Guam 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North Mariana Is. 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1

Virgin Islands 38.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 39.2

Subtotal 45.8 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 47.3

Total 14,333.3 357.1 197.1 1,039.5 39.1 430.8 16,396.9
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 71

Exhibit B-5: Total Regulatory Need (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)

State SWTR TCR

Nitrate/ 

Nitrite 

Lead and 

Copper Rule

TTHMs Other* Total

Alabama 110.4 9.3 0.0 2.4 0.0 1.9 124.1

Alaska 164.0 0.9 0.1 0.5 59.0 0.2 224.7

Arizona 328.7 0.8 5.4 1.4 0.0 0.8 337.1

Arkansas 143.0 5.2 0.1 3.1 0.0 1.7 153.1

California 1,672.1 8.1 35.6 12.2 0.9 35.7 1,764.5

Colorado 615.0 0.6 6.8 9.1 0.0 2.7 634.3

Connecticut 196.3 1.8 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.3 199.2

Delaware 70.7 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.2 71.6

District of Columbia 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Florida 262.8 2.5 0.4 3.0 30.2 4.2 303.1

Georgia 314.3 2.8 0.4 6.5 0.0 1.3 325.3

Hawaii 3.8 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 4.8

Idaho 40.7 1.0 0.2 1.3 0.0 0.4 43.6

Illinois 833.9 53.5 61.3 38.3 0.0 28.3 1,015.4

Indiana 109.5 1.9 0.2 21.0 0.0 4.9 137.4

Iowa 174.9 229.4 67.5 3.3 0.8 70.2 546.0

Kansas 308.7 0.6 4.4 4.5 0.0 6.2 324.5

Kentucky 260.9 3.6 0.0 17.0 0.9 1.1 283.5

Louisiana 96.4 0.8 0.2 3.6 0.6 5.5 107.2

Maine 49.2 0.6 0.1 1.7 0.0 0.4 52.1

Maryland 285.3 1.2 0.1 1.0 0.0 0.5 288.2

Massachusetts 1,208.5 49.0 0.1 18.0 0.0 2.3 1,277.8

Michigan 813.5 6.6 2.5 256.6 2.8 10.5 1,092.4

Minnesota 325.0 4.9 0.2 136.4 0.0 108.8 575.3

Mississippi 71.7 1.9 0.1 3.7 2.0 3.5 82.9

Missouri 164.9 1.6 0.3 4.1 0.0 2.3 173.2

Montana 119.2 1.2 0.3 1.7 0.0 0.4 122.7

Nebraska 114.8 0.6 2.9 32.0 0.0 6.9 157.2

Nevada 14.7 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.4 16.1

New Hampshire 40.4 1.2 0.2 1.3 0.0 1.2 44.4

New Jersey 255.3 6.3 0.1 92.0 0.0 25.7 379.4

New Mexico 176.7 0.7 0.2 1.3 0.0 1.7 180.6

New York 2,571.2 6.4 8.2 180.9 0.0 28.3 2,794.9

North Carolina 306.1 4.7 0.6 3.2 0.0 1.5 316.1

North Dakota 65.8 0.3 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.5 68.6

Ohio 653.5 3.2 19.2 26.8 0.0 2.9 705.6

Oklahoma 361.3 0.8 2.5 15.8 0.0 1.7 382.2

Oregon 473.4 1.3 0.3 4.4 0.0 0.8 480.1

Pennsylvania 741.4 4.1 0.6 81.3 0.0 3.0 830.5

Puerto Rico 618.1 0.2 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.4 621.9

Rhode Island 98.5 0.8 0.0 6.5 0.0 0.1 105.8

South Carolina 209.6 1.4 0.1 1.5 0.0 0.8 213.4

South Dakota 31.3 0.4 0.1 0.9 0.0 0.5 33.2

Tennessee 285.4 0.4 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.1 289.9

Texas 2,047.3 12.1 0.9 13.2 0.7 15.8 2,089.9

Utah 87.3 0.4 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.7 89.8

Vermont 24.8 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.2 26.8

Virginia 396.4 2.4 0.4 10.6 0.0 0.8 410.5

Washington 250.8 19.7 0.9 5.6 0.0 2.4 279.3

West Virginia 157.1 0.8 0.1 5.1 0.0 1.2 164.4

Wisconsin 309.2 9.9 4.3 176.8 1.7 122.4 624.4

Wyoming 111.1 0.3 0.1 3.7 0.0 0.2 115.4

Subtotal 19,145.1 468.9 229.0 1,225.6 99.7 516.2 21,684.5

American Samoa 4.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0

Guam 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

North Mariana Is. 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1

Virgin Islands 49.7 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 50.1

Subtotal 56.8 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 58.2

Total 19,201.9 469.9 229.0 1,226.0 99.7 516.2 21,742.7
Page 72 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Exhibit B-6: Total Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Village Systems

 by EPA Region (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars) 

Category of Need Total Need

Region 1 3.9

Region 2 6.0

Region 3 1 0.0

Region 4 17.8

Region 5 157.3

Region 6 151.9

Region 7 14.3

Region 8 133.4

Region 9 2 548.9

Region 10 3 118.3

Alaska Native Systems 1,067.2

Total 2,219.0

R1

R10

R10

R9

R8

R6

R7

R5

R4

R3

R2

Locations of EPA Regions 

1

 There are no American Indian water systems in EPA Region 3.

2

 Navajo water systems are located in EPA Regions 6, 8, and 9, but for purposes of

 this report, all Navajo needs are shown in EPA Region 9.

3

 Needs for Alaska Native Village water systems are not included in the EPA Region 10 total.
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 73

Exhibit B-7: Need by Category for American Indian and Alaska Native Village

 Water Systems (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars) 

Category of Need Current Needs Future Needs Total Need

Transmission and Distribution 1,173.4 55.0 1,228.4

Treatment 369.2 38.9 408.1

Storage 398.8 48.2 447.0

Source 99.5 23.7 123.2

Other 12.4 0.0 12.4

Total 2,053.2 165.8 2,219.0
Page 74 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Exhibit B-8: Total Regulatory Need for American Indian and Alaska Native Village

 Water Systems (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars) 

Category of Need Current Needs Future Needs Total Need

Regulations for Contaminants 

with Acute Health Effects

159.8 4.7 164.5

Regulations for Contaminants 

with Chronic Health Effects

0.1 0.0 0.1

Total 160.0 4.7 164.6
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 75

Exhibit B-9: Total Proposed and Recently Promulgated Regulatory Need 

 (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)

Range of Costs

Low Estimate High Estimate

Stage 1 Disinfection/Disinfectants Byproduct Rule 2,354.7

Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 1,248.6

Long-Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 176.1

Filter Backwash Recycling Rule 143.9

Ground Water Rule 854.1 1,048.7 1,048.7

Arsenic Rule 877.1

Radon Rule 132.0 5,282.6 2,537.1

Radionuclides Rule 81.9 938.2 938.2

Total 9,324.3

Category of Need

Estimate Included 

in the 1999 Needs 

Survey

In calculating the $9.3 billion need associated with proposed or recently promulgated regulations, the survey used EPA’s lead option, unless one

was not available in which case the survey used the more conservative estimate. These estimates include only the capital costs (i.e., exclude

operation and maintenance costs).
The City of Port Orange, Florida, received $9.1 million in DWSRF

assistance to upgrade and expand its ground water treatment

facility. Shown is an aerial view of the project site (left) and the

construction of a new lime softening tank (insert).

Florida Department of Environmental Protection
APPENDIX C—SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR

SYSTEMS SERVING 10,000 AND FEWER PEOPLE

Needs for Water Systems in the States

 (community water systems)

Exhibit C-1—Total Current and Future Need for Systems Serving 10,000 and Fewer People

Exhibits C-1 does not include the costs associated with proposed or recently promulgated SDWA regulations.
Page 78 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 79

Exhibit C-1: Need for Systems Serving 10,000 and Fewer People (20-year need in millions of January 1999 dollars)

CWSs Serving 10,000 and Fewer People CWS Need (All Sizes) Percent of Need for CWSs

State Current Need Future Need Total Need Total Need

Serving 10,000 and Fewer 

People

Alabama 448.7 225.5 674.2 1,078.0 62.5%

Alaska 198.7 258.0 456.7 538.7 84.8%

Arizona 386.1 199.4 585.6 1,608.3 36.4%

Arkansas 567.2 287.6 854.8 1,528.5 55.9%

California 2,183.2 839.3 3,022.5 17,411.9 17.4%

Colorado 550.5 258.8 809.3 2,529.4 32.0%

Connecticut 165.1 96.3 261.4 985.8 26.5%

Delaware 80.7 38.3 119.0 301.6 39.5%

District of Columbia 0.0 0.0 0.0 414.1 0.0%

Florida 867.8 291.3 1,159.1 3,627.1 32.0%

Georgia 702.1 334.2 1,036.3 2,395.9 43.3%

Hawaii 94.0 29.7 123.7 145.9 84.8%

Idaho 276.1 134.9 411.0 487.2 84.4%

Illinois 1,699.0 764.8 2,463.8 6,065.7 40.6%

Indiana 784.7 300.7 1,085.4 1,559.3 69.6%

Iowa 743.2 341.0 1,084.2 2,832.6 38.3%

Kansas 575.5 226.1 801.7 1,643.2 48.8%

Kentucky 582.0 233.3 815.2 1,768.5 46.1%

Louisiana 640.2 251.3 891.5 1,261.5 70.7%

Maine 212.9 82.7 295.6 472.3 62.6%

Maryland 218.9 104.5 323.4 1,596.2 20.3%

Massachusetts 670.1 126.5 796.7 5,851.3 13.6%

Michigan 1,180.6 536.7 1,717.3 6,428.8 26.7%

Minnesota 783.4 398.6 1,182.0 2,895.1 40.8%

Mississippi 738.9 312.7 1,051.6 1,353.4 77.7%

Missouri 827.1 401.2 1,228.2 2,150.0 57.1%

Montana 337.5 150.8 488.2 833.3 58.6%

Nebraska 299.5 154.3 453.8 819.9 55.3%

Nevada 124.9 55.6 180.4 591.6 30.5%

New Hampshire 234.0 114.7 348.7 452.3 77.1%

New Jersey 500.2 358.9 859.2 3,503.9 24.5%

New Mexico 430.5 131.7 562.3 1,030.3 54.6%

New York 1,655.7 746.9 2,402.6 13,059.3 18.4%

North Carolina 997.9 406.5 1,404.4 2,425.6 57.9%

North Dakota 160.0 132.7 292.7 485.8 60.2%

Ohio 1,280.7 382.4 1,663.2 4,744.1 35.1%

Oklahoma 955.1 310.7 1,265.8 2,323.8 54.5%

Oregon 698.2 230.9 929.0 2,666.8 34.8%

Pennsylvania 1,619.3 673.9 2,293.2 5,043.6 45.5%

Puerto Rico 367.6 82.9 450.5 1,970.9 22.9%

Rhode Island 38.7 24.7 63.3 564.8 11.2%

South Carolina 245.8 139.1 384.8 808.2 47.6%

South Dakota 186.4 90.7 277.1 435.8 63.6%

Tennessee 583.2 245.0 828.2 1,388.2 59.7%

Texas 2,911.4 1,406.3 4,317.7 13,031.0 33.1%

Utah 198.8 87.8 286.6 504.0 56.9%

Vermont 221.0 72.0 293.1 306.8 95.5%

Virginia 542.3 253.2 795.5 1,985.6 40.1%

Washington 971.8 530.1 1,501.9 3,859.0 38.9%

West Virginia 606.2 172.7 778.9 983.3 79.2%

Wisconsin 788.6 424.2 1,212.8 2,729.9 44.4%

Wyoming 171.9 104.9 276.8 432.9 63.9%

Subtotal 33,303.9 14,557.3 47,861.2 135,910.9 35.2%

American Samoa 15.3 1.7 17.1 36.4 46.9%

Guam 26.7 2.3 29.0 114.7 25.2%

North Mariana Is. 25.3 12.6 37.9 74.8 50.7%

Virgin Islands 105.1 16.7 121.8 161.7 75.3%

Subtotal 172.4 33.3 205.7 387.5 53.1%

Total 33,476.2 14,590.6 48,066.8 136,298.5 35.3%
This 1,000-gallon storage tank is mounted on top of a stone structure to provide a

pressure gradient.

U.S. EPA
I

n response to the Needs Survey workgroup’s request, EPA gave States the opportunity to prepare separate

estimates of needs which were not included in the survey because they are ineligible for DWSRF funding. EPA

also invited the submission of needs that the States felt were underestimated by the survey. Four States

responded:

• Arizona stated that between $565 million and $987 million in infrastructure improvements would be needed

for compliance with the new Arsenic Rule.

• Kentucky submitted costs, totaling $74 million, for projects to create two new regional water systems.

These systems would provide new sources of water, and new treatment and distribution systems for areas

facing chronic water shortages and deteriorated infrastructure. The State provided this estimate after the

close of the data collection period. Therefore, these projects may include needs already addressed by other

systems in the State’s sample. To avoid the possibility of double-counting this estimate is presented separately.

• Nevada estimated that a capital cost of $400 million would be required to bring the State’s water systems

into compliance with the new Arsenic Rule.

• Washington estimated that Seattle’s water system would require approximately $51 million in DWSRFineligible investments to comply with the Endangered Species Act, such as constructing fish ladders at

dams.

APPENDIX D—SEPARATE STATE

ESTIMATES
Sebago Lake, in Maine, provides water to Portland and surrounding communities.

Saint Joseph’s College, Standish, Maine
APPENDIX E—GLOSSARY

Acute health effects: health effects resulting from exposure to a contaminant that causes severe symptoms to

occur quickly—often within a matter of hours or days. Examples include gastrointestinal illness and “blue baby

syndrome.”

Capital improvement plan (CIP): a document produced by a local government, utility, or water system that

thoroughly outlines, for a specified period of time, all needed capital projects, the reason for each project, and their

costs.

Chronic health effects: health effects resulting from long-term exposure to low concentrations of certain contaminants. Cancer is one such health effect.

Coliform bacteria: a group of bacteria whose presence in a water sample indicates the water may contain

disease-causing organisms.

Community water system: a public water system that serves at least 15 connections used by year-round residents or that regularly serves at least 25 residents year-round. Examples include cities, towns, and communities

such as retirement homes.

Current infrastructure needs: new facilities or deficiencies in existing facilities identified by the State or system

for which water systems would begin construction as soon as possible to avoid a threat to public health.

Engineer’s report: a document produced by a professional engineer that outlines the need and cost for a specific

infrastructure project.

Existing regulations: drinking water regulations promulgated under the authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act

by EPA; existing regulations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 141.

Finished water: water that is considered safe and suitable for delivery to customers.

Future infrastructure needs: infrastructure deficiencies that a system expects to address in the next 20 years

due to predictable deterioration of facilities. Future infrastructure needs do not include current infrastructure needs.

Examples are storage facility and treatment plant replacement where the facility currently performs adequately,

but will reach the end of its useful life in the next 20 years. Needs solely to accommodate future growth are not

included in the Needs Survey.

Ground water: any water obtained from a source beneath the surface of the ground which has not been classified as ground water under the direct influence of surface water.

Growth: needs planned solely to accommodate projected future growth are not included in the survey. Eligible

projects, however, can be designed for growth expected during the design-life of the project. For example, the

survey would allow a treatment plant needed now and expected to treat water for 20 years. Such a plant could be

designed for the population anticipated to be served at the end of the 20-year period.
Page 84 1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Infrastructure needs: the capital costs associated with ensuring the continued protection of public health through

rehabilitating or building facilities needed for continued provision of safe drinking water. Categories of need include

source development and rehabilitation, treatment, storage, and transmission and distribution. Operation and maintenance needs are not considered infrastructure needs and are not included in this document.

Large water system: in this document, this phrase refers to a community water system serving more than 50,000

people.

Medium water system: in this document, this phrase refers to a community water system serving from 3,301 to

50,000 people.

Microbiological contamination: the occurrence in a water supply of protozoan, bacteriological, or viral contaminants.

Noncommunity water system: a public water system that is not a community water system and that serves a

nonresidential population of at least 25 individuals or 15 service connections daily for at least 60 days of the year.

Examples of not-for-profit noncommunity water systems include schools and churches.

Public water system: a system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or,

after August 5, 1998, other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least 15 service connections or regularly serves an average of at least 25 individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year.

Regulatory need: a capital expenditure required for compliance with regulations.

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA): a law passed by Congress in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996 to ensure

that public water systems provide safe drinking water to consumers. (42 U.S.C.A. §300f to 300j-26)

Small water system: in this document, this phrase refers to a community water system serving 3,300 people or

fewer.

Source rehabilitation and development: a category of need that includes the costs involved in developing or

improving sources of water for public water systems.

State: in this document, this term refers to all 50 States of the United States, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia,

American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands.

Storage: a category of need that addresses finished water storage needs faced by public water systems.

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA): an advanced control system that collects all system

information for an operator and allows him/her, through user-friendly interfaces, to view all aspects of the system

from one place.

Surface water: all water which is open to the atmosphere and subject to surface run-off including streams, rivers,

and lakes.

Transmission and distribution: a category of need that includes replacement or rehabilitation of transmission or

distribution lines which carry drinking water from the source to the treatment plant or from the treatment plant to the

consumer.
1999 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Page 85

Treatment: a category of need that includes conditioning water or removing microbiological and chemical contaminants. Filtration of surface water sources, pH adjustment, softening, and disinfection are examples of treatment.

Watering point: a central source from which people without piped water can draw drinking water for transport to

their homes.