OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

 Evaluation Report 

EPA’s and Louisiana’s Efforts 

to Assess and Restore 

Public Drinking Water Systems 

after Hurricane Katrina 

Report No. 2006-P-00014 

March 7, 2006 
Report Contributors: Carolyn Blair 

Geoff Pierce 

Jim Hatfield 

Tim Roach 

Rick Beusse 

Abbreviations 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

LDHH Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

PCIE President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency 

Cover Photo: In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, floodwaters covered this St. Bernard 

Parish pumping station. The water tower was not damaged. EPA OIG Photo. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006-P-00014 

Inspector General March 7, 2006

At a Glance 


Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Why We Did This Review 

This review was conducted in 

conjunction with the 

President’s Council on Integrity 

and Efficiency as part of its 

examination of relief efforts 

provided by the Federal 

Government in the aftermath of 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

We conducted this evaluation 

to assess the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 

and Louisiana’s efforts to 

ensure that the public was 

provided with safe drinking 

water after Katrina. 

Background 

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane 

Katrina, a Category 3 hurricane 

on the Saffir-Simpson scale, 

devastated parts of Louisiana 

and rendered many drinking 

water systems inoperable. By 

August 31, 2005, the Louisiana 

Department of Health and 

Hospitals issued boil order 

advisories for 15 parishes 

affected by the hurricane. 

For further information, 

contact our Office of 

Congressional and Public 

Liaison at (202) 566-2391. 

To view the full report, 

click on the following link: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/ 

20060307-2006-P-00014.pdf 

EPA’s and Louisiana’s Efforts to Assess and Restore 

Public Drinking Water Systems after Hurricane Katrina

 What We Found 

Our review indicated that the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals and 

drinking water systems operators provided the public with timely and accurate 

information about the safety and proper treatment of drinking water. According 

to EPA staff, 59,260 drinking water flyers were distributed in parishes affected 

by the hurricane. Two publications related to drinking water protection, What to 

Do after the Flood and Emergency Disinfection of Drinking Water, were 

published in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. 

Louisiana’s process for determining the safety of drinking water appeared 

adequate to support the determinations made. EPA Region 6 provided critical 

assistance to Louisiana in making these determinations. This assistance included 

assessing water systems, collecting and analyzing drinking water samples, and 

providing information to the public about drinking water quality. Disease 

monitoring after Hurricane Katrina indicated that drinking water supplies were 

not a source of bacteriological infection. Neither EPA, the Louisiana Department 

of Health and Hospitals, nor local water system operators we spoke with had 

identified or heard of occurrences of waterborne illnesses or diseases from 

drinking contaminated water in the 2 months following Hurricane Katrina. 

With assistance from EPA and others, the Louisiana Department of Health and 

Hospitals had assessed the operational capacity of 600 public water systems in 

areas affected by the hurricane by September 20, 2005, and all systems by the 

end of October 2005. While there has been considerable progress in assessing 

the operational status of 1,591 drinking water systems in Louisiana and bringing 

damaged facilities back on-line, substantial work remains to restore the drinking 

water infrastructure to pre-Katrina conditions. Louisiana officials are in the 

process of tabulating the estimated cost of replacements and repairs. The most 

recent public water system recovery estimates for Hurricane Katrina are about 

$380 million. Three of the four water systems in our study account for 

approximately $360 million of this estimate. 

Our review did not identify any conditions requiring corrective actions and no 

recommendations are made. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

March 7, 2006 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: EPA’s and Louisiana’s Efforts to Assess and Restore 

Public Drinking Water Systems after Hurricane Katrina 

 Report No. 2006-P-00014 

TO: Benjamin H. Grumbles 

 Assistant Administrator for Water 

 Richard Greene 

 Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6 

This memorandum transmits the results of an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office 

of Inspector General (OIG) evaluation regarding our observations of EPA’s and Louisiana’s 

efforts to assess and restore public drinking water supplies after Hurricane Katrina. The 

evaluation did not identify any conditions requiring corrective actions and no recommendations 

are made. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and the findings in this report do not 

necessarily represent the final EPA position. Our observations regarding the effectiveness of 

the process used by EPA and Louisiana to ensure safe drinking water is limited to the public 

water systems we reviewed. 

The Agency agreed with our observations and provided only technical comments to our draft 

report. We incorporated the technical comments in the final report as appropriate. The 

comments from EPA’s Office of Water are in Appendix A and the comments from EPA’s 

Region 6 are in Appendix B. Since our report made no recommendations, no further action is 

required. 

We appreciate the efforts of EPA and Louisiana officials and staff in working with us to develop 

this report. If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 

(202) 566-0847 or Carolyn Copper, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation, 

at (202) 566-0829. 

 Sincerely, 

Bill A. Roderick 

Acting Inspector General 
Attachment 

cc: Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator 

George M. Gray, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator for Research and Development 

Ann Klee, General Counsel 

Mike Mason, Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Water 

Helen Swan, Audit Followup Coordinator, EPA Region 6 

Rick Linthurst, Acting Deputy Inspector General for Planning, Audit, and Evaluation, OIG 

Carolyn Copper, Acting Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation, OIG 

Mark Bialek, Counsel, OIG 
Purpose 

The President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE), a group of Federal audit and 

investigative organizations, is conducting multiple audits, evaluations, and investigations of the 

Federal Government’s response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. This review was conducted in 

conjunction with the PCIE as part of its examination of relief efforts provided by the Federal 

Government in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As such, a copy of the final report 

will be forwarded to the PCIE Homeland Security Working Group, which is coordinating 

Inspectors General reviews of this important subject. As a member of the PCIE, the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Inspector General evaluated several issues 

related to EPA’s response. One of these evaluations was to assess EPA’s efforts to ensure that 

the public was provided with safe drinking water after Katrina. Our objectives were to answer 

the following questions: 

1. Were people in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina provided with timely and accurate 

information about the safety and proper treatment of their drinking water? 

2. What is EPA’s process for determining that water treatment facilities are providing safe 

drinking water, and does this process appear adequate to support these determinations? 

3. Have any waterborne illnesses or diseases from drinking contaminated water been 

identified, and if so, what steps were taken to identify and mitigate the contaminated 

water source? 

4. What progress has been made in assessing the operational status of drinking water 

systems and what is the process for getting damaged facilities back on-line? 

5. Did EPA follow its emergency response protocols, including those lessons learned from 

the World Trade Center and its responsibilities as delineated in the National Response 

Plan, to ensure the public had access to safe drinking water? 

This report addresses questions 1-4 for actions in the State of Louisiana. Another report 

addressed questions 1-4 for actions in the State of Mississippi. We plan to address question 5 in 

a future report. 

Scope and Methodology 

We interviewed staff and managers from EPA Region 6 and the Louisiana Department of Health 

and Hospitals (LDHH). We reviewed documents relevant to the status of water systems 

provided by EPA and LDHH. 

On November 16 and 17, 2005, we visited four judgmentally selected Louisiana water systems 

impacted by Hurricane Katrina. These four systems include one of the systems for the City of 

New Orleans and systems for St. Bernard, Lafourche, and Jefferson Parishes. We interviewed 

drinking water staff and managers; toured facilities; and reviewed water quality sampling data, 

emergency operating procedures, and public communications concerning the safety of the 

1
drinking water. To select our sample of four systems, we categorized community water systems 

(i.e., public water systems that serve at least 25 year-round residents) by the type of impact 

suffered from Hurricane Katrina, ranging from a loss of power and water pressure to significant 

structural damage. From these different categories we selected systems serving a large 

population relative to the other systems in the same damage category. Prior to the hurricane, 

these four systems served about 16 percent of Louisiana’s population that relied on community 

water systems for their drinking water. We did not review the effectiveness of operations to 

provide alternative water systems (e.g., bottled water) while the public water systems were 

inoperable. Details on the four systems we reviewed are in Table 1. 

Table 1: Summary of Impacted Drinking Water Systems Selected for Review 

Water System 

(and City or Parish) Damage Incurred 

Population 

Served * 

St. Bernard 

(St. Bernard Parish) 

Loss of power and pressure, 3.5 feet of water in treatment 

facility, and damage to distribution system

 67,900 

Carrollton 

(New Orleans) ** 

Loss of power and pressure, extensive flood damage to 

treatment facility and distribution system, loss of 350 

vehicles 

429,000 

Lafourche Water District #1 

(Lafourche Parish) 

Loss of pressure and leaks in distribution system 78,760 

West Jefferson 

(Jefferson Parish) 

Initial loss of power (operated on generators) and 

pressure, and approximately 112 pipe breaks in 

distribution system 

209,972 

* Numbers represent pre-Katrina population served. 

** New Orleans is served by two water treatment facilities. Residents on the west bank of New Orleans are served 

by the Algiers water system. 

Since the drinking water systems we reviewed were not randomly selected, our observations 

regarding the effectiveness of the process used by Louisiana and EPA to ensure safe drinking 

water is limited to the four drinking water systems we visited. 

We conducted this evaluation in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, issued by 

the Comptroller General of the United States. 

Observations 

EPA Region 6 drinking water staff, their Louisiana counterparts, and local water systems’ staff 

undertook extraordinary efforts to ensure that public water service was restored under difficult 

circumstances in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (a Category 3 hurricane on the SaffirSimpson scale). Louisiana State officials contacted water systems to assess the damage and 

assist systems in recovering operations as quickly as communications and travel conditions 

allowed. Water system staff and others at the sites we visited remained at their facilities during 

and after the hurricane despite being personally impacted by the storm. The State drinking water 

staff responded with the public’s safety in mind by issuing boil order notices for systems 

impacted by the storm. The State did not lift the boil order notices until bacteriological analyses 

conducted in accordance with EPA requirements confirmed that the water was safe to drink. 

Since we did not identify any issues requiring the immediate attention of EPA or Louisiana 

2
officials, this report does not contain any recommendations. Details on what we found regarding 

each of the four questions addressed follow. 

1. Were people in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina provided with timely and accurate 

information about the safety and proper treatment of their drinking water? 

The information we reviewed indicated that the LDHH and drinking water system operators 

provided the public with timely and accurate information about the safety and proper treatment 

of the drinking water. 

A standard mechanism for alerting the public to a potential problem with the public water supply 

is a boil water notice. By following the boil water notice, consumers reduce exposure to 

potential bacteriological contamination that can cause nausea, diarrhea, and for some susceptible 

populations, death. 

On August 29, 2005, the day Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, LDHH issued a news release 

warning consumers in four water districts to boil their water. The Jefferson Parish water system 

was part of that first advisory. By August 31, LDHH issued boil order advisories for 15 parishes 

affected by the hurricane, which included the other three systems in our sample. LDHH also 

issued news releases that contained instructions for treating water (boiling, bleach, or iodine) to 

remove possible pathogens. Consumers could learn about the status of their water system 

through daily public notices issued by LDHH through radio and television stations, daily press 

briefings, LDHH’s Web site, and other methods. 

Water system managers and EPA staff described their efforts to inform the public about drinking 

water. Because of power outages, a manager at the Lafourche water system drove to a nearby 

local radio station with information about the boil order. In St. Bernard Parish, staff said 

information on the system’s status was provided to the public via newspaper notices, the Internet, 

and public information officers. Staff pointed out that most of the parish population was not able 

to return to their homes during that time period. According to EPA staff, 59,260 drinking water 

flyers were distributed in parishes affected by the hurricane. Two publications related to 

drinking water protection, What to Do after the Flood and Emergency Disinfection of Drinking 

Water, were published in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. 

The LDHH has detailed procedures for issuing and lifting boil order notices. The four systems 

we reviewed had met the State’s requirements before the boil order notice was lifted. The 

requirements for lifting boil water notices are discussed in more detail in the following section. 

2. What is EPA’s process for determining that water treatment facilities are providing safe 

drinking water, and does this process appear adequate to support these determinations? 

Under the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act, States may apply to EPA for “primacy, or authority to 

implement and enforce the Act within their jurisdictions, if they can show that their drinking 

water standards will be at least as stringent as the national standards.” EPA granted Louisiana 

primacy for its drinking water program in 1977. Therefore, responsibility for water treatment 

facilities to provide safe drinking water primarily resides with the State rather than EPA. 

3
The State’s process for determining the safety of drinking water following Hurricane Katrina 

appeared adequate to support the determinations made. LDHH hurricane recovery procedures 

require boil order advisories for public water systems that lose power or pressure during a 

hurricane or flood. The boil order advisory continues until water system operators notify LDHH 

that the system has power and pressure, has been flushed to remove potentially unsafe water, is 

properly disinfecting the source water supply, and has passed bacteriological sampling. Only 

LDHH may lift a boil water notice. 

Bacteriological sample collection and analyses were conducted by generally following the 

requirements of EPA’s Total Coliform Rule, which requires public water systems to test for total 

coliform bacteria on a monthly basis at pre-determined sampling sites throughout the distribution 

system. Under the Total Coliform Rule, the size of the population served by the system 

determines the amount of sampling required. After Hurricane Katrina, LDHH allowed variations 

in the number of samples required and used alternative sample locations due to damage or 

inaccessibility to pre-determined sample sites. A system’s boil order was lifted only if all 

samples tested negative for total coliform. This requirement was more restrictive than the Total 

Coliform Rule, which allows 5 percent or less positive samples. If samples tested positive for 

total coliform, additional sampling was required with direct LDHH staff involvement. 

In some cases, LDHH may partially lift boil order notices. LDHH approved a partial boil order 

lifting for two of the drinking water systems we evaluated – St. Bernard Parish and Carrollton – 

when damaged sections were valved off and tests indicated the water was safe to drink in certain 

locations: 

•	 The St. Bernard Parish water system manager noted that the partial boil order was lifted 

for one street, which served temporary schools, hospitals, and housing sites. Most of 

St. Bernard Parish had not been repopulated at the time of our visit in November 2005. 

At that time, only 100 customers were relying on this water system, mostly related to 

emergency operations. Before the hurricane the system had served 67,900 people. 

•	 The Carrollton treatment facility, which serves a large portion of the City of New 

Orleans, gradually opened portions of the distribution system, with most of the Carrollton 

facility serving the city by December 8. While many sections of the city were devastated 

by Katrina, some sections were only minimally impacted, and partial boil water lifts 

allowed those areas to continue to operate. Prior to Katrina, the Carrollton treatment 

facility served about 429,000 people. 

Table 2 shows when boil order notices were issued, the results of water testing, the dates systems 

were inspected, and the dates the boil water notices were lifted for the four water systems we 

reviewed. 

4
Table 2: Progress of Four Water Systems through Early December 2005 

Water 

System 

Boil Water 

Notice 

Issued 

Water Sampling Results 

for Lifting Boil Notice 

Dates of 

Physical 

Inspections 

Date 

Boil Notice 

Lifted 

St. Bernard 08/31/05 Total Samples = 39 

Total Positive = 1 

An additional 35 samples were 

analyzed and all tested negative 

for total coliform 

9/15/05 

9/20/05 

12/07/05 

Carrollton 08/31/05 Total Samples = 247 

Total Positive = 1 

An additional 3 samples were 

collected from the positive sample 

site and all tested negative for 

total coliform 

9/12/05 

9/17/05 

9/20/05 

10/06/05 

(partial) 

12/08/05 

(partial) 

Lafourche Water 

District #1 

08/31/05 Total Samples = 23 

Total Positive = 0 

9/11/05 

9/19/05 

09/03/05 

West Jefferson 08/29/05 Total Samples = 301 

Total Positive = 3 

An additional 9 samples were 

analyzed and all tested negative 

for total coliform 

9/13/05 

9/20/05 

09/13/05 

Five of the 610 samples collected by these water systems tested positive for total coliform. This 

represents less than 1 percent of the samples taken (0.8 percent). For the three systems with 

positive samples, these systems collected and tested additional samples, all of which tested 

negative for total coliform. 

St. Bernard Parish was also the site of an oil spill, as approximately 1,050,000 gallons of mixed 

crude oil escaped from a dislodged above-ground storage tank on September 3, 2005. The St. 

Bernard water system managers reported that, based on visual inspections, they saw no evidence 

of oil in the drinking water system. As a further precaution, all surface water systems in the New 

Orleans area that rely on the Mississippi River for source water underwent additional chemical 

testing. While this was not required, staff from LDHH believed it was important to determine 

whether chemical contaminants were affecting drinking water quality. There were initial 

positive readings for acetone, but additional testing indicated these were false positives. LDHH 

reported its greatest concern was related to short-term exposure to bacteria rather than short-term 

exposure to other contaminants. For the drinking water systems we reviewed, over 99 percent of 

the initial samples taken did not identify the presence of total coliform. When testing indicated 

the presence of total coliform, additional sampling and analyses were required from the original 

sampling locations that produced the positive samples. The boil water notices were not lifted 

until this additional testing was negative for total coliform. 

EPA provided logistical and technical support to the State during this process. This support 

included, but was not limited to, EPA staff working in teams with staff from LDHH and the 

Louisiana Rural Water Association to assess damaged water systems. Between September 8 

5
and 20, these teams assessed the operational capacity of 600 public water systems in the areas 

affected by the hurricane. EPA also provided two mobile labs to analyze bacteriological samples 

from public water systems and staff to courier samples to the labs for analysis. Additionally, 

sample kits were provided by EPA to Parish Health Units where private well owners could 

obtain them. Results were communicated back to the well owners after analyses were 

completed. 

3. Have any waterborne illnesses or diseases from drinking contaminated water been 

identified, and if so, what steps were taken to identify and mitigate the contaminated water 

source? 

None of the staff from EPA, LDHH, or local water systems that we spoke with identified or had 

heard of occurrences of waterborne illnesses or diseases from drinking contaminated water in the 

2 months following Hurricane Katrina. In mid-November, Louisiana’s State Epidemiologist 

reported to us that there have been no illnesses attributed to contaminated drinking water. In 

accordance with its role and responsibilities under the National Response Plan, the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 

monitors areas for outbreaks of disease and illnesses after a disaster. A CDC dispatch dated 

September 30, 2005, noted that CDC had received reports of clusters of diarrheal disease among 

persons in evacuation centers, but “three weeks after the initial displacement caused by Katrina, 

few cases of diarrheal disease were being reported.” 

Additionally, in a further effort to reduce potential exposure to contaminated drinking water, 

LDHH developed special procedures for reopening restaurants under a boil order advisory. 

Restaurants are usually closed when boil water notices are issued, but the widespread damage 

caused by Hurricane Katrina required LDHH to modify some of its long-standing policies. Food 

establishments that sought approval to reopen after the hurricane had to undergo an inspection by 

LDHH and have access to potable water for food preparation and cleaning. 

4. What progress has been made in assessing the operational status of drinking water 

systems and what is the process for getting damaged facilities back on-line? 

EPA and LDHH staff developed a database of assessments conducted by teams in the immediate 

aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. After Hurricane Rita made landfall in Texas on September 24, 

2005, the database was expanded to include systems affected by Hurricane Rita as that storm 

impacted more water systems and caused re-flooding in the New Orleans area. In September and 

October 2005, these teams had assigned status codes for 1,591 public water systems (see 

Table 3). 

6
Table 3: Water System Status Codes and Descriptions 

Status Code Description 

OUT Out of Contact – under boil order advisory. 

INOP Contact Made with System – no power and off-line. It is assumed that pressure is lost 

and is under a boil order. 

GENLP Generator with Lost Pressure – currently operating on emergency power/generator and 

system lost pressure and/or treatment. Under a boil order advisory. 

GENOK Generator and No Pressure Loss – currently operating on emergency power/generators 

but system did not lose pressure and/or treatment. 

OK Normal power restored (or never lost) and system never lost pressure and/or treatment 

(No Problem with System). 

NEED System Operating – disinfected and flushed and is ready for bacterial sampling. 

CLEAR System online and bacterial samples came back clear. Boil notice lifted. 

LDHH staff updated the database between September 6 and December 7. This information 

allowed LDHH officials to track the operational status of water systems. As of December 7, 

2005, LDHH reported that of the 1,591 public water systems tracked, 1,490 were operating 

without boil order notices. The 

remaining 101 systems were on boil 

order notices, deactivated, or in 

Status 

Boil Order Notices 

No. of 

Systems 

24 

Deactivated 62 

In Process of Being Cleared for Service 9 

Closed to Business but Still Active in Inventory 3 

Rebuilt 2 

Consolidated with Larger System 1 

Table 4: Status of Systems Not Operating 

another status (see Table 4). 

Challenges to reestablishing full 

operations continue. Within our 

sample, water system staff and others 

described challenges to recovery. 

For example, cleanup crews in the 

St. Bernard Parish water system 

inadvertently damaged fire hydrants 

when lifting debris stacked next to 

the hydrants, forcing water lines to shut down and be flushed. Water system officials said this 

will likely continue until the cleanup is finished. Additionally, the loss of almost the entire 

67,900-customer fee base also presents problems for the water system’s recovery; a planned 

replacement of a 50-year-old portion of the treatment facility is now uncertain because of the 

loss of this fee base. 

Outside assistance helped water systems recover from the hurricane. The Sewerage and Water 

Board of New Orleans’ Executive Director noted that the city received assistance from other 

water systems. Thirty-five staff from the drinking water plant in Portland, Oregon, assisted in 

efforts to assess damage caused by the hurricane. LDHH officials said the Louisiana Rural 

Water Association helped small systems acquire power generators and assisted in assessments 

that were necessary for reopening. 

Under the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Public Assistance Program, water systems 

could apply for funds to replace equipment damaged in the hurricane. On February 24, 2006, 

7
LDHH provided an estimate of $380 million for the cost of water system recovery attributed to 

Hurricane Katrina. Three of the four water systems in our study (Carrollton, St. Bernard, and 

West Jefferson1) account for approximately $360 million of this estimate. 

1 West Jefferson and East Jefferson Water Districts share a combined estimate. 

8
Appendix A 

EPA Office of Water Comment 

FEB 23 2006 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Response to Draft Evaluation Report on EPA’s and Louisiana’s Efforts to Assess 

and Restore Public Drinking Water Supplies after Hurricane Katrina, 

Assignment No. 2005-001748 

FROM: Benjamin H. Grumbles 

 Assistant Administrator 

TO: Nikki L. Tinsley 

 Inspector General 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your Office’s draft report, EPA’s and 

Louisiana’s Efforts to Assess and Restore Public Drinking Water Supplies after Hurricane 

Katrina. The hurricanes which struck the Gulf Coast region last fall were significant, not only in 

their effects, but in the response they required from the local to the federal levels. We are proud 

of the efforts made by personnel from utilities, state programs, non-governmental organizations 

and our own employees in working to restore drinking water services after the storm. 

The Agency is very appreciative of the cooperative approach used by the Inspector 

General's (IG) Louisiana Drinking Water Team during the investigation of Region 6's response 

to Katrina. The many details of the Agency's response to assist the State of Louisiana and its 

public water systems, along with the duration of the response, made it critically important for 

Region 6 to actively participate in the investigation. It was clear that Region 6’s presence with 

the IG Team enabled them to fully understand the context and significance of the information 

being conveyed. The end result of your cooperative approach is a report that accurately reflects 

the Agency's activities and successful response to this unfortunate and significant event in the 

lives of the citizens of Louisiana. 

We appreciate the ability to provide comment on this draft report. We have some minor 

technical corrections to recommend, which have been forwarded via email to Carolyn Blair and 

Tim Roach of your staff. We do not believe that any additional points need to be raised for 

inclusion in the final report. We will continue to provide support to the state as needed to 

address long-term recovery needs for communities and public water supplies in the affected area. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this final report. If you have further 

questions, please contact Cynthia Dougherty, Director of the Office of Ground Water and 

Drinking Water at (202) 564-3750 or Miguel Flores, Director of the Water Division in EPA’s 

Region 6 office at (214) 665-7101. 

9
Appendix B 

EPA Region 6 Comment 

Region 6 has reviewed the draft February 7, 2006, OIG Evaluation Report entitled EPA's and 

Louisiana's Efforts to Assess and Restore Public Drinking Water Systems after Hurricane 

Katrina. The report accurately reflects our collective (local, state, federal) response. We do not 

believe any additional points need to be raised for inclusion in the final report, but we 

recommend the following technical corrections for your consideration: 

1. In the second paragraph on the page labeled "At a Glance," make the following change: 

"Disease monitoring after Hurricane Katrina indicated that drinking water supplies were 

not a source of bacteriological contamination infection." 

2. In the third paragraph on page 4, we suggest changing the sentence to read "In some 

cases, LDHH staff members may partially lift boil order notices", since it is an Agency 

action. 

3. Table 2, page 5. The LDHH website indicates the dates the Boil Water Advisories were 

lifted for portions of the areas served by the New Orleans Carrollton water system were 

October 6, 2005 and December 8, 2005. Two additional dates that Boil Water Advisories 

were partially lifted for St. Bernard Parish are November 22, 2005 and December 7, 

2005, per the LDHH website. 

4. In the last paragraph under the response to question 2 (top of page 6), add Louisiana 

Department of Health and Hospitals before Louisiana Rural Water Association - ...EPA 

staff working in teams with staff from the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals 

and the Louisiana Rural Water Association to assess.... 

5. Last paragraph on page 7. Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans is the title the 

agency uses on their letterhead. 

6. In the last paragraph on page 7 (second to last paragraph overall), change Portland, 

Louisiana to Portland, Oregon. 

10
Appendix C 

Distribution 

EPA Headquarters 

Office of the Administrator 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water 

 Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development 

Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 

Agency Followup Official (the CFO) 

 Agency Followup Coordinator 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

 General Counsel 

 Acting Inspector General 

EPA Region 6 

 Regional Administrator 

Director, Water Quality Protection Division 

 Chief, Source Water Protection Division, WQPD 

Chief, Drinking Water Section 

Regional Audit Followup Coordinator 

State of Louisiana 

Secretary, Department of Health and Hospitals 

Chief Engineer, Engineering Services, Center for Environmental Services, 

Office of Public Health 

Safe Drinking Water Program Administrator, Engineering Services 

Louisiana State Epidemiologist, Department of Health and Hospitals 

11