IS "OLD" WATER SUBJECT TO "NEW" CONTAMINATION?

According to a recent report, "ancient" deep groundwater is becoming contaminated.* Scientists tested approximately 6,500 wells world wide with the objective of determining which reached deep "old" water formed more than 1,200 years using radioactive carbon decay dating. They concluded that more than half of wells more than 250 meters (820 feet) deep produced mostly "old" groundwater.

However, more than one-half of the "fossil" groundwater wells showed elevated levels of tritium, said to be a radioactive isotope of hydrogen resulting from nuclear bomb testing. This finding suggested that some of the water in these wells originated after the nuclear tests in the 1950s decade.

The researchers concluded that "younger" water containing contaminates could mix with "old" water in an aquifer or a well itself could mix the waters. Thus, "old" water could become polluted by "young" water, essentially bridging "generation gaps".

What this report appears to suggest is that recharging of even deeper aquifers can introduce contaminates into those waters. In other words, deep waters are not necessarily immune from the polluted impacts of surface waters, shallow ground waters and earth excations.

Age may have its privileges, but it also may have its consequences.

______________________________________________

*Sumner,"Pollution Reaches Old Groundwater,"
Science News, May 27,2017, p.12

© Daniel J. Kucera 2017

FLY WITH US, SAID THE BEE

A recent news telecast reported that the U.S. Air Force is funding research on how bees and other insects fly.* The project, said to cost $9 million is being conducted at the University of Washington. The research seeks to learn the flying secrets of such critters to enable development of more sophisticated and efficient aircraft.

In the telecast, the reporter stated: "when you watch in slow motion with the help of a high-speed camera, you get a whole new perspective on the mysterious and incredibly complex world, of insect flight. So how does a bee with such a giant body and such tiny wings actually fly?", he asked a researcher. Came the reply, "It beats its wings really fast, and you can't even see that."

The project is known as the Center for Excellence on Nature-Inspired Flight Technologies and Ideas. The emphasis appears to be on "Nature". As the researcher stated, "We look to nature. Are there ideas and principles that nature is using to solve hard flight control problems? Can we use those ideas to inspire new technologies, and can we use technology to deepen our understanding of how nature solves its problems?" To borrow and reverse a phrase from a well-known boxer, is the idea "to sting like a butterfly and float like a bee?"

It is interesting to see a situation where science is relying upon "Nature" to enhance human flight technology. Accordingly,"Nature" necessarily must have intelligent design which enables successful insect flight and which, in turn, is deemed instructive to human design.

On hot summer days, it is common to see honey bees drinking water at the edges of bird baths, puddles and ponds. Bees need water during the honey flows in order to process honey. Perhaps water researchers should examine how bees efficiently ingest water from such sources, transport it to their hives and purify it for incorporation in the honey production. Maybe Nature's design has another lesson for us.

_____________________________________________

*PBS Newshour, July 17, 2015

SOURCE WATER CONTAMINATION--THE ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM

Suppose that a water utility is in compliance with all applicable safe drinking water standards and regulations. Then, one day, an unregulated chemical contaminate migrates in the ground to its wells or spills into a river just above its intake. Suppose further that this contaminant is not removed by conventional treatment processes and enters into the utility's finished water and is distributed system-wide to its customers. Will the utility face possible liability for unsafe water at customers' taps? Or is compliance with standards and regulations a defense to such claims?

It will be interesting to see how the current West Virginia chemical spill situation fully plays out. In 2002, the California Supreme Court held that claims for damages from contaminated drinking water against regulated water utilities who met all standards were preempted by the jurisdiction of the state public utilities commission. However, claims against unregulated water utilities were allowed to proceed, even though the utilities met the applicable standards *

One of the more immediate effects of the West Virginia chemical spill situation is the introduction in the US Senate of the Chemical Safety and Drinking Water Protection Act, proposing tighter regulation of chemical facilities with the objective of enhancing protection against chemical spills which could threaten water sources of supply. The proposed statute would require regular state inspections of above ground chemical storage facilities; require industries to develop state approved emergency response plans ; allow states to recover their response costs; and aid utilities in having tools and information to respond to emergencies. On February 4, a Senate hearing was held on the West Virginia spill issues.

The Wall Street Journal reported that, after the chemical spill in West Virginia contaminated its water system, the affected utility's officials said they were unfamiliar with the contaminant and did not know it was being stored.about one mile upstream from its river intake. ** In 1996, a federal program required states to conduct source water assessments regarding their respective water utility systems. However, the program did not require development of source water protection plans. After 9/11, water utilities were required to conduct vulnerability assessments, but these were intended to identify threats from terrorism, not pollutants.

It would seem that a proactive water utility could consider some possible measures to mitigate against risk of contamination of its sources of supply, including:

1. A utility could seek to establish more effective channels of communication with state agencies involved in monitoring industrial activity in proximity to the utility's sources of supply, including any state source water protection plan.

2. Years ago, a Chicago television weather man invented a "vice president in charge of looking out the window" to make sure his forecast were consistent with what actually was happening outside. A utility could conduct its own survey of nearby chemical storage and process facilities--in other words, actually look for itself and ask questions. And, based on such investigation, it could develop an assessment of risks to its system.

3. A utility should have an emergency response plan in place which anticipates the possibility of contamination from an unknown or unregulated contaminate introduced into its source water by chemical spill, chemical migration, or other toxic spill.

4. A utility should have adequate insurance coverage for possible contamination outbreaks.

Surprises may be welcome for milestone birthday parties, but not for water utility operations!

________________________________________________________

* Hartwell Corporation v. Superior COurt of Ventura County, 38 P.3rd 1098 (CA 2002)

** February 4, 2014, P. A3

BEWARE OF WATER HOGS

Last week, the press reported that at least 6,000 dead pigs were fished out of the Huangpu River and tributaries. The river runs through the center of Shanghai and is the source of supply of the City's drinking water for some 23 million residents. According to some reports, officials there have expressed concerns that the pigs could become a cause of water contamination.

In the United States, I have heard of Asian carp jumping out of rivers. I also have heard of something called a pig in the poke. But I have never heard of pigs floating in rivers.

Over a ham on rye sandwich, I began to salivate how the United States might deal with 6,000 dead pigs bubbling in a river which provides drinking water for a major city. I could not find a provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act or EPA regulations for water hogs--such as so many pigs per liter (or is it litter) or so many pig parts per million. My guess is that by the time EPA could promulgate a standard, sausage would be be squeezing from faucets. On second thought, perhaps none of this should be a surprise. We are used to seeing a lot of pork coming out of Congress. Why not the same for rivers?

Maybe the whole story is simply some publicity fabrication by a movie studio for a new 1950s style science fiction movie, such as "Earth versus Floating Pigs--They Came From Inner Space."

Or maybe this is much dodo about nothing. According to one report, the Chinese government testing showed no known health concern for humans in the river water-- only a pathogen affecting pigs. So, the days when one would go to a river for fishing may now be replaced by days going to a river for bringing home the bacon.

Oink if you support water hogs!

GOOD BUGS, BAD BUGS

Is your drinking water "bugging" you? Two recent articles in the American Chemical Society journal "Environmental Science & Technology" reportedly offer contrasting views of bacteria that may be found in drinking water.

According to one report, well water which is not disinfected may be the cause of up to 1.1 million cases per year of acute gastrointestinal illness--nausea, diarrhea, etc. Such effects may increase as water system infrastructure ages beyond its useful life and deficiencies arise. The study claims that more than 100 million people in the United States receive well water which is not disinfected or not adequately disinfected to control disease-causing nasties. ("Risk of Viral Acute Gastrointestinal Illness from Nondisinfected Drinking Water Distribution Systems", September 12, 2012).

However, the other article suggests that water systems may be able to "manipulate" infrastructure to enable finished water to contain beneficial bacteria. The study explained that ordinarily water utilities control bacteria by using filters to eliminate nutrients for bacteria and by applying chlorine and other disinfection methods to kill them. Indeed, some jurisdictions require a chlorine residual through out the distribution system. The report suggests that the pH of water can determine which bacteria continue in the treatment process, and by changes to the pH and how filters are cleaned, beneficial bacteria could remain in water received by customers. ("Beneficial Community Structure in the Drinking Water Microbiome Is Governed by Filtration Processes", August 8, 2012).

The good bacteria/bad bacteria situation may be tempered by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and U.S.EPA regulations. There are national primary drinking water standards for control of microorganisms in water with which all public water systems must comply. Generally, such systems are those serving 15 service connections or which regularly serve 25 persons. Under EPA's 2010 proposed revisions to its total coliform rule, public water systems subject to microbial contamination will have to perform an assessment of their system and correct any deficiency in their treatment or distribution facilities.

As a grade school kid, I remember sitting at the kitchen table looking at a drop of tap water through my A.C. Gilbert microscope. I do not know if I saw good bugs, or bad bugs, or just a dirty slide previously used for the grasshopper I had dissected. Frankly, I'm not sure I cared to know, anyway.

GOOD TO THE LAST DROP?

Use of water softening equipment has been prevalent for some time, particularly where hard water from wells is the source of supply. Typically, water softeners employ the ion exchange method, using salt in the form of pellets or blocks.

From time to time, there has been debate over potential health effects of using salt in this way, which can result in some salt being added to the softened water. In addition, in at least one state-California-some communities have banned water softeners using salt because of perceived adverse impacts of effluent salt brine on waste water treatment plants.

Interestingly, American history may provide a unique alternative to the traditional water softener method. According to an 1831 New York scientific report, urine provided am effective water softener for high concentrations of minerals being experienced due to runoff from graveyards and outhouses.

The report purportedly stated: "This liquid, [urine] when stale or putrid, has the remarkable property of precipitating the earthy salts from their solution, or in other words, it makes hard waters soft. Although the fastidious may revolt from the use of water thus sweetened to our palate, it is perhaps fortunate that this mixture is daily taking place, for otherwise the water of this city would become, in a much shorter space of time than it actually does, utterly unfit for domestic consumption." (Quote from Nelson Blake, "Water For Cities" in ON TAP magazine, Summer 2005)

In a way, this water softening technique may have been attempted in 2011. It was reported that a man was caught on a security camera urinating into one of Portland, Oregon's finished water reservoirs. The city, however, responded by draining the reservoir of some 8 million gallons. The man was quoted as saying that he thought it was a waste water treatment plant. (Oregonian.com, June 15, 2011) A policeman was quoted as saying "It's really an unfortunate incident that probably could have been avoided if he had just chosen a bush." (KGD.com, June 16, 2011) The man later allegedly pleaded guilty to "misuse of a reservoir" and was sentenced to community service (KPTV.com August 30, 2012).

An analysis has been made of the residential sewage flows in London during the royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. The flows decreased when the first guests arrived at Westminster Abbey, decreased more rapidly when the royal family arrived and reached the largest decrease when Kate arrived. Flows did not return to normal until after the kiss on the balcony of Buckingham Palace. (WE&T magazine, August 2011) Perhaps this analysis suggests that urine water softening may not be reliable.

WILL USEPA REGULATE NITROSAMINES IN DRINKING WATER?

Apparently,USEPA is considering whether to regulate nitrosamines in drinking water provided by public water supplies. What is the world are nitrosamines?

Nitrosamines are a group of approximately 300 organic compounds, most of which have been found to be carcinogenic in a variety of experimental animals. They are found in certain foods, such as fried bacon, cured meets and beer, in tobacco products, in rubber products, in certain cosmetics; and in gastric juices of the human stomach. Mouth bacteria can turn nitrates found in certain vegetables into nitrites, which can form nitrosating agents. Foods containing amines can react with these agents to produce nitrosamines in the stomach.

In public water supplies, nitrosamines can be formed by disinfection of water using chloramines.

In the September, 2012 issue of Journal AWWA, J. Alan Roberson discusses USEPA's potential regulation of nitrosamines in drinking water ("Regulating Nitrosamines Now Will Be Controversial"), p. 10). He points out that controversy could arise because, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, USEPA must conclude that such regulation will result in a meaningful health risk reduction. For example, he points to research concluding that oral intake of nitrosamines from drinking water comprised only 0.2% compared with other outside sources and that generated in body fluids. Advanced treatment installed by a utility to comply with a standard for nitrosamines in drinking water, therefore, may not achieve any meaningful health risk reduction.

Moreover, the article points out, such advanced treatment may be like punching a pillow on one end, which then bulges out on the other end. Treatment for nitrosamines using chlorine or ozone could result in formation of more regulated disinfection byproducts requiring more control.

Logically, what all this seems to boil down to is the necessity for a thorough cost/benefit analysis of any potential regulation of nitrosamines in drinking water. Only in that way can unnecessary cost burdens ultimately imposed on users by higher rates can be avoided. Prudent water utilities will not only monitor this regulatory process, but also participate in it.

GETTING THE LEAD OUT

Lead in drinking water has been a regulatory target for some time. Water public utilities rarely, if ever, furnish treated water containing lead. Rather, typically, lead enters drinking water from sources within a customer's property--such as from use of lead based solder for connecting copper pipes, use of faucets made from brass, and use of lead service lines from the distribution main in the street to the premises.

Under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, U.S.EPA has been dealing with lead issues since at least 1986, reducing the permitted lead content in plumbing materials. In addition, there has been a focus in possible reduction, in some circumstances, of the aggressiveness of water supplied by a utility.

In 2011, Congress enacted the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act, which imposes a new, more strict definition of "lead-free" plumbing. Under the Act, "lead-free" means that solder and flux must not contain more than 0.2% lead, and the wetted surface of drinking water pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings and fixtures cannot exceed a weighted average of 0.25% lead.

The Act states that no person may use any pipe, pipe or plumbing fitting, fixture, solder or flux that is not so "lead-free" in the installation or repair of any public water system or any plumbing in a house or non-residential facility which provides water for human consumption. The Act provides a formula for calculating the weighted average lead content of wetted surfaces. Exemptions from the lead-free requirement are provided for non-consumption uses, such as toilets, bidets, urinals, shower valves, outdoor watering fixtures, etc.

The Act becomes effective January 4, 2014. However, U.S.EPA likely will soon propose regulations to implement the Act. A proposed rule may be published in October, 2012, with a final rule by the end of 2013. It is possible that, in addition to banning items that do not comply with the lead-free requirement, the regulations may establish other requirements, such as specific product identification and compliance procedures.

As the Act can affect not only water utilities but also homeowners, plumbing contractors, manufacturers, vendors and the like, it may be prudent for interested parties to be aware of both the Act and the implementation regulations.

GOOD WATER FOR GOLD SEEKERS

I just finished reading "All Roads Lead To Deadwood".* It is a book which details the many trails, and their travelers, on stage coaches and on oxen/mule freight wagons, heading to the gold camps of Deadwood, Black Hills, Dakota Territory, in 1876-90.

Passengers and freight originated from such towns as Cheyenne, Fort Pierre, Medora, Bismarck and Sidney. Gold discoveries were a magnet in the frontier West, and no magnet was stronger at the time than the gold deposits in Deadwood, particularly after Custer's 1874 expedition into the Black Hills.

Travel on these "roads" was hazardous. In Winter, there were blizzards and 40 degree below zero temperatures. In Spring, there were flash floods, rains that turned soil into mush, and swollen rivers to be crossed without benefit of bridges. And, at all times, there was the threat, and reality, of ambush by Indians and road agents.

Nevertheless, stage and freight outfits had concern for the "comforts" of travelers.
Each trail had stations about every 10 to 20 miles, where passengers and freighters would stop for a meal or rest, and horses, oxen and mules would be fed or changed.

While many of these stations offered alcoholic and entertainment opportunities, the book makes it clear that drinking water was a key feature of a successful rest stop operation. It describes many of the stations as "here was a fine well with good water." Stations generally had "good water" except for a few that had water termed "alkaline"-which tended to make travelers sick. One trail had an area of many springs, often simply called "holes". At some locations, a barn or shed would be built over a spring-the cold flowing water had the effect of creating refrigeration within the building.

At one relay station, on Oak Creek, there "was a watering stop with the well built into the bank of the stream. It had excellent water."(P.202) A trail from Sidney, Nebraska, had a stage stop where "the water from Beaver Creek was clear but cathartic caused by the high lithium content. Good water was available at five cents a bucket and three dollars for a wagon load-but the water was only for drinking as the women still made coffee from creek water." (P.80) No doubt, that morning coffee gave quite a wake-up!

For the most part, therefore, drinking water available to these travelers appeared to be simply "good", unless something obvious such as alkalinity made it "not good." There were, of course, no EPA, no Maximum Contaminant Levels, no primary or secondary drinking water standards and no regulations requiring treatment of water.

Interestingly, while the book details many situations when stage drivers and passengers and freighters were killed by Indians, bandits, weather or in fighting, it gives no indication that anyone died from drinking "good water." So, it seems, all who endured the hazards of travel then made it to Deadwood to seek their fortune. In 1890, the railroad reached Deadwood, and overland stages to the Hills road into history.

One may speculate that what made drinking water "good" at these stations was the fact that it came from wells, springs and streams untainted by "civilization." Perhaps it is a sad commentary on "modern" times that drinking water must be subjected to extensive governmental regulation and treatment because of the reality or simply perception that civilization has contaminated sources of supply. On the other hand, maybe I am still back in the 1880s, as I still get all my drinking water from an untreated well, and it is good.

______________________
*(Klock, 1979)

ON WISCONSIN...OFF DISINFECTION

As discussed in a prior post, one of the most important advances in public water supply was implementation of treatment with chlorination. Adopted by utilities in early 20th century, disinfection of water ended typhoid fever as a serious concern in this country. (See "Safe Drinking Water: A Beginning", Water Lawg, January 12, 2010)

So, I was surprised to learn recently that some 60 communities in Wisconsin allegedly do not disinfect their public water supply, whether by chlorination or by any alternative methodology. Apparently, the state legislature repealed any disinfection requirement, asserting that it was an unnecessary financial and administrative burden.

Pursuant to the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, USEPA has adopted Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for several categories of microorganisms. Public Water Supplies must comply with MCLs for all water delivered to users. USEPA states that "there is convincing evidence that addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of microbial contaminants." (See water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm)

In apparent contrast to Wisconsin, Illinois regulations require disinfection treatment with chlorine or other protocol approved by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Illinois also requires chlorination before finished water enters the distribution system sufficient to maintain a specified chlorine residual in the distribution mains.

Bacteria and viruses can enter a public water supply from either surface water supplies or ground water wells. They also can enter through defects in mains or even as a result of unprotected back flows. Regardless whether disinfection is a regulatory requirement, a public water supply still must comply with MCLs for bacteria, viruses and other contaminants. A utility electing to not provide disinfection treatment may also want assure that it has adequate insurance coverage.

PROVIDERS OF RELIABLE WATER SERVICE

When we turn on a faucet, we expect a strong flow of clear, safe water. We understand that such water is delivered to our faucet through a system of underground pipes and some kind of treatment facility. Reliable, safe water service, however, requires more than unseen infrastructure. Behind that infrastructure are numerous unseen men and women who design, install, operate and maintain the pipes, pumps and treatment facilities that make reliable water service possible. Perhaps we tend to take these people for granted much as we may take good water service for granted.

I want to highlight four of these people. I have worked extensively with each through my career and have learned much from each of them.

Bill was a civil engineer and head of a one hundred year old engineering firm. He worked at a roll top desk from 1880, and his office had the aura of time standing still to match. However, Bill was an expert in water system design. He designed water facilities for major cities as well as small communities. He lectured on water issues not only in the united States but internationally as well. Bill also was an expert on ratemaking. In one of my trials, he deftly explained complex rate concepts to the judge in an understandable manner.

Bob also was a civil engineer, but he followed a different path that led him to becoming president of a large investor-owned water utility. Bob took great pride in the quality of the utility's operations and the quality of the water it provided. His water earned several taste awards. Bob worked hard to foster and maintain good relations with the communities he served. For example, in one rate case field hearing held by the regulatory agency to hear customer concerns, no customers even attended. Bob also successfully sought to bring his good water service to nearby communities whose own water systems had become inadequate or unreliable. Indeed, one of his pipe lines is some 30 miles in length.

Phil was the general manager of a regional water supply public agency. During his long career with his agency, he facilitated expansion of the water treatment facilities, development of a new source of supply, computerized operations to generate operational efficiencies, and maintained water quality that met applicable standards. Phil had great faith in people, and he managed his small staff consistent with that faith.

Ed was an accountant for a large investor-owned water utility having systems in several states. He developed financial and accounting statements to show cost of service requirements for rate cases as well as for operations. To be able to provide reliable and efficient water service, a utility must have an understanding of its costs to provide such service and its corresponding revenue requirements. Ed had an uncanny ability to grasp the meat of an economic or financial issue and to demonstrate solutions through his accounting statements and testimony.

What do these men all have in common? They dedicated their careers to providing safe, reliable water service. They were gentlemen, who treated others with respect. They have passed but are not forgotten.

EPA'S PROPOSED NEW DRINKING WATER STANDARDS QUESTIONED

On February 2, 2011, EPA announced at a Senate hearing that it will develop a regulation to establish a national drinking water standard for perchlorate. This decision reverses a position taken by the agency under the Bush administration. Perchlorate is both naturally occurring as well man-made, used in such products as rocket fuel and explosives. It is believed that perchlorate may affect the thyroid's ability to produce hormones for developing fetuses and infants. EPA also said it will develop a regulation to establish a drinking water standard for up to 16 toxic chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as industrial solvents, which are believed may cause cancer. (See:water.epa.gov/contaminants/unregulated/perchlorate.cfm)

At the same hearing, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) presented testimony questioning the wisdom of EPA's decision to regulate perchlorate. According to one AWWA witness, "EPA's decision to move forward on perchlorate regulation is perplexing....Water providers share the Agency's interest in protecting public health through the provision of safe water. However, the weight of scientific evidence suggests national regulation of perchlorate in drinking water does not accomplish this goal." Another witness stated "We should allow the best available science, not the political process, to be the ultimate driver in regulatory decisions." AWWA also pointed out that the Food and Drug Administration and EPA's inspector general previously had concluded that a national standard for perchlorate would not provide a meaningful opportunity to reduce risk, and AWWA'a own assessment was consistent with these conclusions. (See:awwa.org/files/GovtPublicAffairs/GADocuments/AWWAtestimonyEPWFeb2011.pdf)

This interplay between a federal regulatory agency and a major regulated trade group, before a Congressional committee hearing, suggests some observations:

1. EPA's decision may have been a preemptory move to avoid Congress dictating a political mandate as to a specific drinking water standard for perchlorate and VOCs. As such, the decision is understandable, but at the same time, it also becomes a political decision itself.

2. This interplay illustrates EPA's broad regulatory reach, which affects public water supplies of every size. As such, this reach could be viewed as well beyond the original intent of the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution, which was to control trade barriers and tariffs imposed by states against trade from other states.

3. Drinking water regulations should have sound scientific justifications, and not be the result of knee-jerk reactions to media, interest groups and politicians.

4. Every regulation imposes costs upon water utilities for monitoring, testing, reporting and treatment. These costs ultimately are borne by customers. Imposition of new standards should be supported by a sound cost/benefit justification.

USEPA ANNOUNCES PROPOSED TOTAL COLIFORM RULE REVSIONS

USEPA has announced that it is proposing to revise its Total Coliform rule. That rule, first effective December 31, 1990, establishes limits for total coliform levels in treated drinking water provided by affected public water supplies.

"The coliforms are a broad class of bacteria which live in the digestive tracts of humans and many animals. The presence of coliform bacteria in tap water suggests that the treatment system is not working properly or that there is a problem in the distribution system that moves treated water from the treatment plant to customer homes." (www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/basicinformation.html)

The presence of total coliforms in drinking water generally is controlled by disinfection applications, of which chlorination is the oldest methodology and probably still the most commonly used, although other approaches also are being used.

The Total Coliform rule establishes a maximum contaminant level (MCL) or limit for total coliforms, which is an enforceable, absolute standard. It also establishes a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero, which is an non-enforceable health based goal. Compliance with the MCL is determined by required sampling of treated water.

The presence of coliforms in water does not necessarily constitute pathogens, but instead can serve as a signal that there may be a problem with the integrity of the system or its operation that could permit pathogens or other bacteria to enter the system.

The proposed revisions to the rule will require water utilities to find and fix the problem that permits microbacterial presence when sampling results are positive. They also provide incentives for better system operation and update public notice requirements. To learn more about the proposed revisions see www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/index.html

SAFE DRINKING WATER: A BEGINNING

There is an old saying that "you never miss the water until the well goes dry." In the United States, we take for granted today that when we open a faucet safe drinking water will flow. However, until about one hundred years ago, that was not always the case.

In the Winter 2010 issue of The Bent, a magazine of Tau Beta Pi, the national engineering honor society, of which I am a member, Trudy E. Bell offers insight into the origins of modern water purification. (Bell, "Engineers and Enteric Fever:Designing Against Disease," p. 13, et seq.)

Typhoid fever was prevalent in this country in the late 1800s. In 1908, Whipple, a consulting engineer, wrote that "infected water probably caused more typhoid fever than all other causes combined." (Bell, p.14) During 1890-92, approximately 4,500 people died from typhoid fever in Chicago, and the number of cases is estimated at approximately 50,000. Comparable rates were experienced in several other cities. (Bell, p.15)

Typhoid fever is caused by a bacteria of the salmonella family. It results from human ingestion of fecal matter from infected humans. At the time, public water supplies were taken without treatment from lakes and streams to which raw sewage was discharged.

Two engineering discoveries in that period enabled purification of drinking water: first the discovery that intermittent slow-sand filtration both clarified water and removed 99% of bacteria in water. The second discovery, a few short years later, was chlorination, a process to disinfect water quickly adopted by public water supplies and still commonly in use today. (Bell, p. 15-17)

After these discoveries, Whipple wrote in 1921 that "the typhoid fever death rates [in cities] are becoming so low that they can no longer be regarded as sufficient to measure the healthfulness of a water supply." (Bell, p.17)

Today, water utility systems, as well as wastewater utility systems, use a variety of filtration and disinfection methodologies to treat drinking water and discharges of wastewater. Further, Congress has intervened with two major legislative actions to facilitate safe water: the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300f, et seq.) and the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.) These statutes impose legal compliance requirements on water and wastewater utility systems respectively.