OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

 Evaluation Report 

EPA’s and Mississippi’s Efforts to 

Assess and Restore Public Drinking 

Water Supplies after Hurricane Katrina 

 Report No. 2006-P-00011 

 February 14, 2006 
Report Contributors: Carolyn Blair 

 Geoff Pierce

 Steve Schanamann

 James Hatfield

 Rick Beusse 

Abbreviations 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

PCIE President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency 

TCR Total Coliform Rule 

Cover photo: Damaged pump station located near the Gulf Coast in Biloxi, Mississippi. 

EPA OIG photo. 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006-P-00011

Office of Inspector General February 14, 2006 

At a Glance 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

20060214-2006-P-00011.pdf 

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 the State of Mississippi’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 Safir-Simpson scale, 

made landfall on the 

Mississippi coast. Katrina 

devastated the Gulf Coast of 

Mississippi and rendered many 

public water systems 

inoperable. As a result of the 

hurricane, 585 of the State’s 

1,368 public water systems 

were placed under a boil water 

notice because of potentially 

contaminated drinking water. 

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/ 

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

Public Drinking Water Supplies after Hurricane Katrina

 What We Found 

While we did not assess the extent to which drinking water-related 

communications were received and understood by the public, the information we 

reviewed indicated that the Mississippi Department of Health and drinking water 

system operators provided the public with timely and accurate information about 

the safety and proper treatment of public drinking water supplies. On August 31, 

2005, less than 48 hours after Katrina made landfall, the Department of Health 

issued a blanket boil water notice for all public water systems in the State’s six 

most impacted counties located in the coastal region of Mississippi. 

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

adequate to support the determinations made. EPA Region 4 provided both 

technical and logistical support to Mississippi in making these determinations. 

This support included, but was not limited to, providing Mississippi with a 

mobile laboratory to perform sample analysis, and providing personnel to help 

courier samples to the labs for analysis. Disease monitoring after Hurricane 

Katrina indicated that drinking water supplies were not a source of 

bacteriological contamination. Neither EPA, the Mississippi Department of 

Health, nor local water system operators we spoke with had identified or heard of 

occurrences of waterborne illnesses or diseases from drinking contaminated 

public water supplies in the 2 months following Hurricane Katrina. 

With assistance from EPA and others, the State had assessed the operating status 

of all but 10 of the State’s 1,368 public water systems by September 15, 2005, 

about 2 weeks after Katrina. These systems serve approximately 3.1 million 

people in Mississippi. While considerable progress has been made in assessing 

the operational status of the 1,368 public water systems in Mississippi and 

bringing damaged facilities back on-line, considerable work remains to restore 

the drinking water infrastructure to pre-Katrina conditions. Mississippi officials 

estimated public water system replacements and repairs due to Hurricane Katrina 

will cost approximately $235 million. 

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 

February 14, 2006 

MEMORANDUM 

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

Public Drinking Water Supplies after Hurricane Katrina 

 Report No. 2006-P-00011 

TO: Benjamin H. Grumbles 

 Assistant Administrator for Water 

 James I. Palmer, Jr. 

 Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4 

This memorandum transmits the results of an Office of Inspector General (OIG) evaluation 

regarding our observations of EPA’s and Mississippi’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 contained in this report do not necessarily represent the 

final EPA position. Our observations regarding the effectiveness of the process used by EPA 

and Mississippi to ensure safe drinking water is limited to the public water systems we 

reviewed. 

The Agency agreed with our observations and did not provide any comments to our draft report. 

The Agency’s response to our report can be found in Appendix A. Since our report made no 

recommendations, no further action is required. 

We appreciate the efforts of EPA and Mississippi 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,

 Nikki L. Tinsley 
Attachment 

cc: Steve 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 

Stephanie Lankford, Audit Followup Coordinator, EPA Region 4 

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 

ii 
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 Katrina. 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 the hurricane 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 Mississippi. We plan to address 

questions 1-4 for actions in the State of Louisiana and question 5 in future reports. 

Scope and Methodology 

To determine the processes EPA and the State of Mississippi used to assess the status of the 

public water systems, determine the potability of public drinking water supplies, and 

communicate the status of the public water systems to the public, we interviewed officials and 

reviewed relevant documentation from EPA’s Office of Water in Washington, DC; EPA 

Region 4’s Water Management Division in Atlanta, Georgia; the Mississippi State Department 

of Health in Jackson, Mississippi; and selected public water systems in Mississippi. 

We tested compliance with these processes at four judgmentally selected public water systems in 

Mississippi (Bay St. Louis, Biloxi, Hattiesburg, and Pascagoula). We visited each of these 

1 
systems and interviewed plant operators; toured their drinking water facilities and/or source 

water wells for each of the four public water systems; reviewed onsite records, including water 

quality sampling data and emergency response plans; and reviewed public communications 

concerning the safety of the drinking water. 

Our review focused on community water systems (i.e., public water systems that serve at least 

25 year-round residents) that were impacted by Hurricane Katrina.1 We categorized these public 

water systems by the type of impact suffered from Katrina, ranging from 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. We also 

considered the location of the systems and avoided selecting more than one system from the 

same county. Using the above criteria we selected the following systems for review: 

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

Water System Damage Incurred 

Population 

Served * 

City of Hattiesburg Lost power and water pressure 48,000 

City of Pascagoula Lost power and water pressure; some flooding from the 

storm surge in treatment plants; 4 feet of flood water in one 

plant and 1 to 2 feet of flood water in another 

38,428 

City of Biloxi Lost power and pressure; storm surge flooded pumps and 

wells and severely damaged parts of the distribution system 

25,889 

City of Bay St. Louis Lost power and pressure; all water system equipment, 

including wells and pumps, were completely covered by the 

storm surge; many leaks in the distribution lines 

8,350 

* Numbers represent pre-Katrina population served. 

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

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

water are limited to the four public water systems we visited. 

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

the Comptroller General of the United States. 

Observations 

Under extremely challenging circumstances, EPA Region 4 drinking water officials and their 

Mississippi counterparts have taken extraordinary and commendable efforts to ensure that public 

water service was restored, and to provide potable drinking water as soon as possible after 

Hurricane Katrina. Mississippi State officials quickly contacted local officials to assess the 

damage and assisted in providing equipment to repair the impacted water systems. Local plant 

operators and other officials at the sites we visited remained at their locales, quickly assessed 

their situations after the hurricane, and took the actions necessary to provide safe drinking water 

despite being personally impacted by the storm. The State responded with the public’s safety in 

1 We did not review the effectiveness of operations to provide the public with alternative water supplies (e.g., bottled 

water) while public water systems were inoperable. 

2 
mind by issuing an immediate blanket boil water notice for coastal water systems, and the State 

did not allow these notices to be lifted until testing in accordance with EPA requirements 

confirmed that the drinking water was free from bacterial contamination. Since we did not 

identify any issues requiring the immediate attention of EPA or Mississippi officials, this report 

does not contain any recommendations. 

1. Were people in areas affected by the hurricane provided with timely and accurate 

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

While we did not assess the extent to which drinking water-related communications were 

received and understood by the public, the information we reviewed indicated that the 

Mississippi Department of Health and public water system operators provided the public with 

timely and accurate information about the safety and proper treatment of the drinking water. 

Under the 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. They also must assure that 

water systems meet these standards. EPA granted Mississippi primacy for its drinking water 

program in 1977. Accordingly, the Mississippi Department of Health and the local public 

systems operators were responsible for ensuring the safe operation of public water systems, and 

for issuing notices (i.e., boil water notices) regarding the safety and proper treatment of drinking 

water after Katrina. 

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

is a boil water notice. These notices are issued to inform the public to boil their water in order to 

prevent health impacts from drinking water potentially contaminated with bacteria. These health 

impacts can include nausea, diarrhea, and for some susceptible populations, death. 

On August 31, 2005, less than 48 hours after Katrina made landfall, the Department of Health 

issued a blanket boil water notice for all public water systems in the State’s six most impacted 

counties located in the coastal region of Mississippi.2 It issued this notice as a precaution 

because of the widespread damage incurred in that area. According to State and EPA officials, 

the State placed other systems in the State on boil water notices if, after a preliminary 

assessment, it determined that the system had experienced a loss of power or pressure, or was not 

capable of properly treating the water. In accordance with its established procedures for issuing 

boil water notices, the Department of Health’s public relations office issued the notices to radio 

stations, television stations, and newspapers, and posted the notices on the Department of 

Health’s Web site. 

In addition to the blanket boil water notice issued by the State Department of Health for the 

coastal region, local officials also issued boil water notices to the public in their communities. 

Since the storm severely damaged and impacted normal communications systems, the local 

public water systems had to employ various methods to get their boil water notices to the public. 

We were able to verify some of these local system communications. For example, Biloxi city 

2

 Counties included George, Hancock, Harrison, Jackson, Pearl River, and Stone. 

3 
officials printed newsletters dated September 3 and 4, 2005, that asked the citizens to not drink 

the water or flush their toilets. The newsletters were distributed at emergency distribution 

centers, city facilities, businesses, and churches in the first week of September. The City of 

Hattiesburg also prepared flyers notifying the population that a boil water notice was in effect, 

and information on the boil water notice was aired on a Hattiesburg television station on 

September 1, 2005. An EPA Region 4 Public Health Service officer deployed to the area 

immediately after Katrina told us that radio announcements regarding the need to boil drinking 

water were frequently broadcasted on the local radio stations. 

Lifting any system’s boil water notice had to be approved by the State Department of Health in 

accordance with EPA’s sampling criteria under the Total Coliform Rule (issued June 29, 1989). 

For the four systems we reviewed, all systems had passed the State’s requirements before the 

boil water notice was lifted. 

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? 

The State’s process for determining the safety of drinking water appeared adequate to support the 

determinations made. At the State’s request, EPA provided logistical and technical support to 

the State during this process. This support included, but was not limited to, providing 

Mississippi with a mobile laboratory to perform sample analysis, and providing personnel to help 

courier samples to the labs for analysis. EPA depended on information provided by the State of 

Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina as the basis for its determination that safe drinking water was 

provided to Mississippi residents. 

Any boil water notices issued after Katrina could only be lifted by the State Department of 

Health. For a system to be taken off a boil water notice, the operator had to show that the system 

could maintain continuous power and adequate water pressure, was properly disinfecting the 

water, and that the drinking water had no coliform contamination based on two consecutive days 

of sampling. The sampling and technical requirements for the coliform testing were generally in 

accordance with EPA’s Total Coliform Rule (TCR), which requires all public water systems to 

test for total coliform on a monthly basis at pre-determined sampling sites throughout the 

distribution system. Under the TCR, the size of the population served by the system determines 

the amount of sampling required. The number of samples required to lift the boil water notice 

was conveyed to each affected system when the State contacted them after the event. For 

Katrina, two consecutive days of 100-percent clean samples had to be obtained before a boil 

water notice was lifted. In this regard, the criterion used after Katrina was stricter than the TCR, 

which allows for 5 percent or less of the samples to test positive. 

The process for lifting boil water notices was followed in each of the four systems we reviewed. 

However, in some areas the previously identified normal total coliform sampling locations were 

destroyed or not accessible and alternative sampling sites had to be chosen. In addition to the 

sampling required to lift the Katrina-related boil water notices, the public water systems also 

continued to conduct their regularly scheduled total coliform monthly sampling after the boil 

water notices were lifted. For the public water systems in the four cities we reviewed, a total of 

4 
582 samples testing for total coliform were taken and analyzed during the months of September 

and October 2005. If a positive total coliform sample was identified, the sample was then 

analyzed for Escherichia coli (also known as E. coli). Only 3 of the 582 samples (.5 percent) 

were positive for total coliform, and in each case E. coli was not present. Also, the local 

agencies resampled at the sites where the positive samples were taken until they obtained clear 

samples on consecutive days. Water systems operators told us that the test for total coliform is 

very sensitive and that they believed the positive readings may have been due to sampling or 

sample handling errors and not contamination in the system. We verified the accuracy of the 

sample results reported to the State Department of Health by reviewing the original sampling 

data sheets for all four systems we visited. 

The procedures discussed above were not designed to detect the presence of chemicals or other 

contaminants in the water that could cause health problems from drinking water over a longer 

period. However, Mississippi and EPA public water officials told us they were not concerned 

about potential long-term health risks resulting from chemical or other contamination in 

Mississippi’s drinking water after Katrina for three reasons. First, they explained that the vast 

majority of source water in Mississippi comes from underground aquifers, and that in the hardest 

hit coastal regions of Mississippi, these aquifers maintain positive pressure, meaning that flood 

water should not have infiltrated the source water. To corroborate their explanation, we 

reviewed hydrologic maps showing that coastal systems in the State receive source water from 

positive pressure groundwater aquifers generally ranging from about 250 to about 1,100 feet 

deep. Second, the total coliform test is a good indicator of whether the drinking water system 

has been contaminated by any substance; a negative sample result provides reasonable assurance 

that substances other than coliform did not enter the system. As noted above, 99.5 percent of the 

samples taken in the 2 months following Katrina were negative. Third, the routine sampling 

required by the Safe Drinking Water Act is designed to detect contaminants that could create 

health problems from prolonged exposure. The State will be sampling for these contaminants in 

early 2006 and increased, targeted monitoring will be completed if problems are identified. 

EPA Region 4 appropriately fulfilled its role of oversight and technical assistance to the State, 

helping where it could add value, and leaving the implementation role to the State. Mississippi 

State and local public water system officials we contacted were pleased and complimentary of 

the way EPA fulfilled its oversight and technical assistance role after Hurricane Katrina. 

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? 

Neither EPA, the Mississippi Department of Health, 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. 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 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Dispatch 

dated September 26, 2005, noted that CDC had received reports of clusters of diarrheal disease 

5 
among persons in evacuation centers but that “three weeks after the initial displacement caused 

by Katrina, few cases of diarrheal disease were being reported.” 

The Mississippi State epidemiologist provided us with data on the State’s health monitoring after 

Katrina. This data indicated a higher rate of gastrointestinal illnesses in the first weeks after the 

hurricane for people living in shelters, as was reported by CDC. However, the State 

epidemiologist confirmed that no diarrheal outbreaks or related illnesses had been traced to 

public drinking water supplies. 

EPA, State, and local officials told us that bottled drinking water was plentiful for residents. 

Also, water system operators in the coastal regions we visited told us that most residents were 

familiar with hurricane procedures and already were aware that they should boil their water after 

a hurricane as a precaution to prevent illnesses. 

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? 

Considerable progress has been made in assessing the operational status3 of the 1,368 drinking 

water systems in Mississippi and bringing damaged facilities back on-line. These systems serve 

approximately 3.1 million people. With assistance from EPA and others, the State had assessed 

the operating status of all but 10 of the State’s 1,368 public water systems by September 15, 

2005, approximately 2 weeks after Katrina. At that time, 200 of the original 585 systems that 

had been placed under boil water notices were still under boil water notices because of damage 

incurred from Katrina, and 63 systems were not operating. By September 29, 2005, nearly a 

month after Hurricane Katrina, only 106 public water systems were under boil water notices and 

34 public systems were not operating. The following schedule shows the significant progress 

made to bring impacted systems back on-line. 

Table 2: Progress of Impacted Public Water Systems in Mississippi 

Date 

Number of Systems 

Operating Statewide 

before Katrina 

Number of 

Systems Impacted 

by Katrina * 

Number of 

Systems Still on 

Boil Water Notice, 

by Date 

Number of 

Systems Still 

Not Operating, 

by Date 

8/28/05 1,368 -- -- -- 

9/15/05 1,368 585 200 63 

9/29/05 1,368 585 106 34 

10/17/05 1,368 585 84 30 

12/02/05 1,368 585 40 16 

* Number of systems placed under a boil water notice as a result of Katrina. 

Assessing the initial status of the State’s public water systems was a significant endeavour as 

1,358 systems were contacted either by phone or in person within 2 weeks after the storm. The 

10 systems for which the State was unable to contact an operator were small transient (e.g., rest 

3

 The term “operational” means that the drinking water system has sufficient power and pressure to put water into 

the distribution system, but not that all pre-Katrina customers were receiving water. 

6 
areas) or seasonal (e.g., campgrounds) systems. EPA Region 4 personnel arrived at the State 

Office in Jackson, Mississippi, on August 30, 2005, to assist in this effort. Eventually EPA 

helped the State obtain over 40 Public Health Service engineers to help conduct these assessment 

efforts. 

Getting facilities back on-line (i.e., providing water to customers through the distribution system) 

after the storm required acquiring emergency resources such as generators, fuel, and treatment 

chemicals. These resources were generally obtained through the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), with EPA Region 4’s assistance, or in some cases through other 

organizations such as the Rural Water Association or other States. 

Many systems have already repaired or replaced, or will need to repair or replace, damaged 

infrastructure to bring their systems completely back on-line. FEMA’s Public Assistance 

Program provides financial assistance to publicly-owned water systems for this purpose. EPA 

Region 4 personnel have played a major role in helping Mississippi’s public water systems 

obtain this assistance. EPA Region 4 contacted FEMA and obtained a mission assignment to 

help the State’s publicly-owned water systems assess their damage, and obtain and prepare the 

necessary documentation to apply for assistance under this program. 

As of December 2, 2005, 40 public systems were still on boil water notices; 16 systems remained 

inoperable because the facilities were destroyed or the customers have left. The Director of the 

Mississippi Bureau of Public Water Supply told us that many of the inoperable systems may 

never become operational again and that, presently, there is no way to know whether these 

systems will ever be rebuilt. The Director also noted that some of the systems considered 

operational are serving only a small percentage of their pre-Katrina customers. The system 

operators we spoke to in these areas raised concerns about the future availability of funds to 

repair or maintain their systems. Because of the widespread destruction of homes and 

businesses, and the resulting displacement of residents, these cities’ tax revenues have been 

significantly reduced. 

Estimating the funding that will be needed to repair the systems is difficult. According to the 

Director of the Mississippi Bureau of Public Water Supply, several preliminary cost estimates 

have been done, but it is difficult for individual systems to make assessments while “chasing 

behind debris trucks fixing leaks.”4

 Therefore, estimates to date are based on general data and 

are considered preliminary and quite rough. The Director told us that a system-by-system survey 

of damage and associated costs would be needed to obtain accurate damage assessments. 

According to the Director, the largest issue facing public water systems that are back in service is 

replacing meters, meter boxes, valves, and related materials at individual connections where 

homes were destroyed. Table 3 on the next page provides more information on Mississippi’s 

estimate of its drinking water infrastructure needs. 

4

 As trucks clear debris, fire hydrants and water meters are often torn out of the ground, causing leaks that must be 

repaired to allow the system to operate. 

7 
Table 3: Estimate of Infrastructure Needs for Mississippi Drinking Water Systems, 

November 2005 

Category Description of Infrastructure Need 

Estimated 

Number 

Needed 

Rough Estimate 

of Costs 

Coastal counties 

(167 out of 

185 systems 

impacted) 

Wells needing rehabilitation 

Wells needing replacement 

Tanks needing rehabilitation 

Tanks needing replacement 

Miles of distribution system needing

 replacement 

Replacement of meters, meter boxes, valves, 

 etc. 

Repair or replace 48 compromised wells on 

43 public water supply systems that do not 

meet minimum design criteria. 

Serve residents on private wells with public 

water supply consisting at a minimum of 

2 wells at $400,000 each, 1 elevated storage 

tank at $300,000, about 50 miles of 

distribution system at $2,640,000, and 

900 meters/boxes/valves at $500 each. 

Sub-total: Coastal County Needs 

221 wells 

87 wells 

110 tanks 

2 tanks 

1,282 miles 

1/3 of coastal 

population 

48 wells 

900+ 

$27,600,000 

34,800,000 

11,000,000 

600,000 

68,000,000 

23,300,000 

19,200,000 

4,190,000 

$188,690,000 

Non-coastal 

counties 

(387 systems 

impacted) 

Repair/replacement of impacted wells and 

systems 

387 $46,000,000 

Katrina RelatedDrinking Water 

Infrastructure 

Needs 

Total: Coastal and Non-Coastal Counties $234,690,000 

In addition to approximately $235 million in costs to replace and repair damage due to Hurricane 

Katrina, an estimated $248 million is needed for infrastructure repairs to meet new Safe Drinking 

Water Act standards for disinfection by-products. Thus, the estimate of Mississippi’s total 

drinking water infrastructure needs as of mid-November 2005 is about $483 million. 

8 
Appendix A 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Response to Draft Evaluation Report on EPA’s and Mississippi’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 Tinsley 

Inspector General 

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

Mississippi’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) Mississippi Drinking Water Team during the investigation of Region 4's response 

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

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

Region 4 to actively participate in the investigation. It was clear that Region 4's presence with 

the IG Team during the State interview, and even more so with the public water supplies visited, 

enabled the IG Team 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 thousands of Mississippians. 

We appreciate the ability to provide comment on this draft report. However, because the 

staff from EPA’s Region 4 office was able to clarify and explain the complexities of the 

hurricane response, 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 draft 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 James Giattina, Director of the Water Division in EPA’s 

Region 4 office at (404) 562-9470. 

9 
Appendix B 

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 

 Inspector General 

EPA Region 4 

 Regional Administrator 

Director, Water Management Division 

 Deputy Director, Water Management Division 

Chief, Drinking Water Section, WMD 

Regional Audit Followup Coordinator 

State of Mississippi 

State Health Officer, Department of Health 

Director, Bureau of Public Water Supply, Department of Health 

State Epidemiologist, Department of Health 

10