34 Findings Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Non-Community Water

Systems

Because of resource constraints, the

Needs Survey did not include

non-community water systems.

Non-community water systems are

made up of transient non-community

water systems and non-transient

non-community water systems.

Transient non-community water

systems serve at least 25 persons more

than 60 days out of the year, but do not

regularly service any given 25 more

than 6 months of the year. Examples of

these systems are gas stations and

road side rest areas. A few are day

camps for children. Non-transient

non-community water systems

regularly serve at least 25 of the same

persons more than 6 months of the

year where those person are not

full-time residents. Examples of this

type of system are factories, schools,

and office buildings.

Only those non-community water

systems that are not-for-profit are

eligible to receive funding from the

Drinking Water State Revolving Loan

Fund. These are the only

non-community water systems that

would be included in the Needs

Survey. EPA estimates that 10 percent

of the roughly 90,000 transient

non-community water systems and

that approximately half of the 20,000

non-transient non-community water

systems are not-for-profit organizations. In total, approximately 19,000

non-community water systems are

not-for-profit systems.

With the data on hand, it is impossible

to accurately estimate the need of

not-for-profit non-community water

systems. However, it is likely that their

needs are less than those of community water systems serving the same

number of people. Non-community

water systems usually have fewer

sources with less capacity, smaller

storage and treatment facilities, and

very limited transmission and distribution systems. Source, storage, and

treatment facilities are smaller for

non-community water systems

because the population served is often

not in full-time residence. The peak

demands faced by community water

systems—due to morning showers and

night-time meal preparation, for

example—do not occur at many

non-community water systems. Also,

non-community water systems do not

have to provide capacity for fire

protection or for irrigation of residential lawns. More importantly, most

non-community water systems consist

of one or perhaps a few buildings and

do not have substantial distribution

and transmission networks.

A rough estimate that significantly

overstates the need of not-for-profit

non-community water systems could

be made by examining the source,

storage, and treatment needs of the

smallest community water systems.

This methodology results in a need of

$125,000 per system. When this need is

applied to the not-for-profit

non-community water systems on a

State-by-State basis, the relative

distribution of need among States is

not significantly affected. For this

reason and because resource constraints prevented EPA from developing a high-quality need estimate for

non-community water systems, an

estimate of need for these systems was

not included in this report.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Findings 35

Separate State Estimates

The Needs Survey did not include

estimates for all types of need. Two

States felt that it was important to

report costs associated with needs not

included in the survey. One reported

needs for anticipated future growth,

and the other reported needs for

refinancing existing loans for drinking

water projects. The need reported by

the States in their separate State

estimates totals $197 million. A list of

the estimates is available in

Appendix D. Separate State estimates

were not included in estimates of need

listed elsewhere in the report.
Alaska Area Native Health Service, OEHE

These Alaska Native children haul water from a public watering point.

Many Alaska Native people do not have water in their homes.
Need for Households Not

Served by Community

Water Systems

Hauled water and water from untreated

surface water sources can be provided

as running water, but often it is stored

in barrels. Hauled water and water

from untreated sources may contain

microbiological contaminants that can

make people ill. A 1984 EPA study of

national rural water conditions found

that total coliform bacteria were

present in the water supplies of

78 percent of households that use

these sources.3

 Coliform bacteria are

an indication that disease-causing

microbiological contamination could

be present.

Households without running water are

of particular concern because opportunities for people to become ill are

abundant when running water is not

available. Running water is important

to basic sanitation. It is needed to flush

toilets, wash hands, prepare food, and

bathe. Living conditions for households without running water are below

those that most of us take for granted.

Because of a lack of data, we do not

know how many households do not

have running water, but homes

without running water can be found

across the nation.

The Needs Survey was not designed to estimate the total need

for households not served by

community water systems. Statistics

from the 1990 Census show that

approximately 16 million households

in the United States are not served by

community water systems. Of these,

close to 15 million households are

served by private drilled or dug wells

and over 1 million households take

their water from other sources such as

cisterns, springs, rivers, lakes, or other

untreated surface water sources. The

risks faced by households not served

by community water systems are not

well understood because of a lack of

information, but the available data

show that public health risks are

significant for many of them.

Hauled Water and Untreated

Surface Water Sources. The more

than 1 million households that take

water directly from cisterns, springs,

rivers, lakes, and other untreated

surface water sources make up just

over 1 percent of the total households

in the nation. Census data show that

2 percent of American Indian households on federally recognized Tribal

lands and 20 percent of mainland

Alaska Native households take their

water from these sources.

3 U.S. EPA. Office of Drinking Water. National

Statistical Assessment of Rural Water

Conditions. EPA 570/9-84-003, June 1984.
38 Need for Households Not Served by Community Water Systems Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

The pump (insert) draws water

from this irrigation pond and

distributes it, without treatment,

to this colonias community.

38 Needs for Households Not Served by Community Water Systems Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Hauled Water and Untreated Sources—Three Examples

Colonias—Colonias along the Mexican

border often do not have a safe supply

of running water. In many of these

communities, people haul water from a

central watering point or untreated

surface water source. Even in cases

where water is piped, many households draw untreated water from

irrigation canals or unsafe ground

water sources that present a significant

threat of disease. In 1995, it was

estimated that 339,000 residents lived

in colonias in Texas border counties

alone. Waterborne and communicable

diseases are common throughout the

border area. In some towns on the

Texas-Mexico border, one-third of

children contract hepatitis A by age 8,

and nine out of ten adults by age 35.4

In a few border counties, the rate of

hepatitis A is more than triple that of

the rest of the State. The lack of safe

piped water and wastewater disposal is

a significant factor contributing to the

high incidence of disease.

The Navajo Shonto Chapter—Water

for the Navajo Shonto area is available

from one central watering point that is

in need of rehabilitation. The area

served covers approximately a 15-mile

radius. A photograph of this watering

point is in Appendix B. Although no

official count has been taken of the

people served by this watering point, it

is estimated that 400 to 500 people

haul water from this location to their

homes. Hauled drinking water faces a

risk of contamination during loading,

unloading, transport, and storage.

Washeterias Serving Alaska

Communities—Especially during cold

weather, the only drinking water

available to many Alaska Native

communities is from the community

washeteria. A washeteria is a single

building with showers, toilets, and

washing machines. The washeteria

often doubles as a water treatment

plant with heated water storage.

Residents haul drinking water back to

their homes from a watering point at

this location. In most cases, water is

hauled on a boardwalk that is also

used to haul sewage to disposal sites.

Sewage spills are not uncommon and

the risk of contamination is great.

José Rodriquez

4 Comptroller of the State of Texas, Fiscal

Notes, July 1995, p.l.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Need for Households Not Served by Community Water Systems 39

Microbiological contaminants are the

greatest health risk faced by owners of

private wells, but other contaminants

also pose a risk. In January 1996, the

Michigan Department of Public Health

recommended that owners of private

wells in 10 counties test their water for

arsenic. State testing indicates that

water from about 2 percent of wells

State-wide might exceed the current

community water system standard

of 50 μg/l.

Communities and households with

private wells, especially those in

agricultural areas, face the additional

risk of nitrate contamination. Nitrate

contamination causes “blue baby

syndrome” and can lead to the death

of infants. In 1986, the United States

Geological Survey performed a

National Water Quality Assessment

case study of the Delmarva Peninsula,

which includes most of Delaware and

the eastern shores of Maryland and

Virginia.6

 The study covered over 6,000

square miles, nearly half of which is

used for farming. Fifteen percent of the

wells sampled exceeded the EPA

maximum contaminant level of 10 mg/l

for nitrate. Seven other State and

national studies of private rural well

conditions report nitrate concentrations in excess of 10 mg/l in 2.4 percent

to 23 percent of the wells sampled.

Private Wells. Approximately

15 million households in the U.S. are

served by private wells. Most of these

private wells provide an adequate

quantity of high-quality water. Much

like community water systems,

however, some of these wells produce

ground water that is not safe to drink.

Unlike community water systems, very

little is known about the degree of

contamination at private wells.

Although private wells are tested

occasionally for microbiological

contaminants and nitrate, almost no

testing is done for pesticides, solvents,

and inorganic chemicals. Often, private

wells are tested only once, immediately after being drilled. According to

the National Ground Water Association, 24 States do not require private

wells to be tested at all.

Two studies examined the occurrence

of total coliform bacteria in water

produced by private wells. A 1995 CDC

survey of more than 5,500 private wells

in nine midwestern States estimates

that approximately 41 percent of the

wells in those States are contaminated

with total coliform bacteria.5

 Even

more significantly, the CDC study

shows that over 27 percent of the

private wells produced samples that

were contaminated with E. Coli. The

presence of this bacteria indicates

recent fecal contamination. The results

of the National Statistical Assessment

of Rural Water Conditions, published

by EPA in June 1984, support the

findings of the CDC. This nationwide

study found total coliform bacteria in

over 40 percent and fecal coliform

bacteria in 20 percent of households

served by private wells.

5

 Center for Disease Control and Prevention, et.al. A Survey of the Presence of Contaminants in Water in

Private Wells in Nine Midwestern States. Report in Draft.

6

 Hamilton, Pixie and Robert J. Shedlock. Are Fertilizers and Pesticides in the Ground Water? A Case

Study of the Delmarva Peninsula, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia. United States Geological Survey

Circular 1080. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1993
40 Need for Households Not Served by Community Water Systems Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey

Cost Estimate

$5.4 million

$276.4 million

$578.9 million

$147.9 million

$12.1 million

$5.4 million

State

Minnesota

New York

South Dakota

Texas

Virginia

Washington

Several States provided partial cost estimates for

needs associated with establishing new water

systems at communities without safe running

water. These communities include those that lack

running water and those that depend on contaminated private wells. Estimates from those States

are provided below, but are not included in totals

elsewhere in the report.

One reason for contamination

at private wells may lie in

improper siting and construction of older wells. Although all

States now have well construction standards, an unknown

number of private wells were

constructed before those

standards were established.

Because of space constraints, a

lack of understanding of health

implications, and a desire to

minimize cost, some older

private wells are located too

close to the home’s septic

system or other sources of

contamination.

Possible Solutions. A lack of

information makes it impossible to understand fully the needs for

households without a safe supply of

running water. Many community water

systems are making efforts to address

a portion of this problem by extending

their service. Some Needs Survey

respondents estimated needs for

connecting nearby existing homes that

do not have a safe or adequate supply

of water. These conservative estimates

show that the need for connecting

these homes would be at least

$6.0 billion.

Counties in Alabama planned to spend $4.3 million in FY

1995 for expansions of existing water systems to serve rural

areas. Within Clay county, the city of Ashland has agreed to

add 74,000 feet of water mains, 175 service connections, and

30 fire hydrants in an effort to extend transmission lines

beyond city limits. Private wells in this county have shown

fecal contamination and contain high levels of iron. When

this project is completed, Ashland will have provided service

to 471 additional people.

Water System Expansion - An Example

Another potential solution for households without a safe supply of running

water is reconstruction of older

existing wells. Older existing wells

could be upgraded to modern construction standards or replaced by new

wells that are drilled away from

sources of contamination. Constructing

a new well may be the best solution for

a household or group of households

that do not have a supply of safe

running water. In many cases, an

aquifer is available to provide safe

drinking water, but wells must be

properly sited and constructed to make

this solution successful. Further study

is necessary to understand the needs

faced by households not served by

community water systems.
Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey Need for Households Not Served by Community Water Systems 41 Jim Wendte

Some homes without water service from public water systems store drinking

water in cisterns like the one being filled in the photograph above.