National Drinking Water Clearinghouse
West Virginia University
P.O. Box 6064
Morgantown, WV
26506-6064

News and Notes


Engineers Push for Water Trust Fund
In October 2002, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recommended that the federal government create a “water trust fund” to aid the nation’s water systems. Noting an estimated funding gap in water infrastructure investment of $534 billion over the next 20 years, ASCE’s recommendation is at odds with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report that places responsibility on state and local systems.

According to EPA’s The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, state and local governments can close the gap by increasing their capital and operations and maintenance budgets by three percent annually for the next 20 years, with no federal contributions needed.

However, ASCE charges, the report does not consider the impact of future population growth and new construction on the nation’s overburdened water infrastructure systems.

“The case for federal investment is compelling when you consider that failing to meet the investment needs for water infrastructure over the next 20 years puts the public health, environmental, and economic gains of the last three decades in peril,” said H. Gerard Schwartz, Jr., ASCE president. “This report’s assertion that state and local government can shoulder the burden of offsetting the shortfall in water infrastructure funding is unacceptable.

“It is critical that the federal government take a leadership role in solving the problem of our decaying water infrastructure by establishing a flexible federal investment program that includes grants, loans and other forms of assistance coupled with local and state funds, says Schwartz. “Grants are needed for many communities that simply cannot afford to meet public health, environmental, or service-level requirements. Loans and credit enhancements may be sufficient for other types of communities with greater economies of scale, wealthier populations, or fewer assets per capita to replace.”

Founded in 1852, ASCE represents 125,000 civil engineers worldwide and is the nation’s oldest engineering society. For more information visit their Web site at www.asce.org, write to 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191, or call (800) 548-2723.

NSF Gets Homeland Security Funding
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awarded two cooperative agreements to NSF International for work on homeland security. The NSF homeland security project includes identification of priority areas of investigation, selection of potential technologies, test protocol development, and technology evaluation.

The NSF Drinking Water Systems Center (DWSC) and the NSF Water Quality Protection Center (WQPC) will administer the agreements through the NSF/EPA Environmental Technology Verification Program. The first verification reports are scheduled for completion in late 2003.

According to NSF, the DWSC verifies the efficacy of home water treatment systems in providing protection against water contaminants. DWSC has verified the performance of 29 drinking water technologies including technologies for Cryptosporidium and arsenic reduction.

WQPC focuses on equipment designed to treat water used in the cleanup of contaminated buildings and equipment. WQPC verifies technologies for disinfectant mixers, storm water treatment, mercury amalgam separation, wastewater nutrient reduction, and animal waste separation.

“NSF International and its stakeholders are playing a critical role in developing ETV testing protocols and verifying technologies that help to secure the nation’s drinking water,” says Teresa Harten, director of EPA’s environmental technology verification program.

For more information about NSF’s homeland security work, visit their Web site at www.nsf.org or write to P.O. Box 130140, 789 N. Dixboro Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140.
Are you getting too much water?
For years, the National Research Council’s Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) has recommended that adults drink 64 ounces (eight, 8-ounce glasses) of water each day. One recent report seems to validate this recommendation while another questions it.

A study lead by Jacqueline Chan, Ph.D., and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, found that healthy people who drink five glasses of water a day have only half the risk of fatal coronary heart disease, compared with those who drink less than two glasses each day. Chan and her colleagues investigated more than 20,000 participants. They also found that heavy consumption of caffeine, juice, milk, and alcohol was associated with a 46 percent increase in heart attack risk.

In an American Journal of Physiology report, however, Heinz Valtin, M.D., states that he can find no scientific basis for the so-called “8x8” recommendation and suggests that people may not need this much water. He claims that items such as juice, milk, soda, and coffee are made up almost entirely of water and may be reasonable substitutes for it.

Dr. Valtin also says that too much water can lead to “water intoxication,” a situation where the kidneys become overloaded and can’t keep pace with fluid intake. This condition is being reported with increasing frequency in endurance athletes, military personnel, and certain recreational drug users, he says.

The FNB is finishing a review of daily water consumption and expects to release the findings in March 2003. The board will also investigate how water intake affects health, ranging from kidney stones to heart conditions. They will also look at whether or not the fluid in foods is an adequate source of water.
NGWA Encourages Annual Well Checkups
More than 15 million households in the U.S. have their own water wells. And, like furnaces, chimneys and people, these wells benefit from routine checkups.

The National Ground Water Association (NGWA), as part of its 2003 Ground Water Awareness Week, March 16–22, encourages an annual well checkup conducted by a licensed or certified groundwater contractor to ensure the proper operation of the well, prolong its years of service, and monitor the water quality.

According to NGWA, a well checkup should include:

• a flow test to determine system output, along with a check of the water level before and during pumping (if possible), pump motor performance (check amp load, grounding, and line voltage), pressure tank and pressure switch contact, and general water quality (odor, cloudiness, etc.);

• an inspection of well equipment to assure that it is sanitary and meets local code requirements;

• a test of your water for coliform bacteria and nitrates, and anything else of local concern; additional typical tests check for iron, manganese, water hardness, sulfides, and other water constituents that cause problems with plumbing, staining, water appearance, and odor; and

• a concise, clear, written report delivered to you following the checkup that explains results and recommendations and includes all laboratory and other test results.

For more information, visit NGWA’s consumer Web site, www.wellowner.org. The site addresses many common consumer questions with free information relating to groundwater resources and private water well ownership. Additional information is also available by calling NGWA customer service at (800) 551-7379.
EPA Realeases Water Infrastructure Analysis
In September 2002, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, a report that examines the estimated funding needs of the nation’s water systems.

“This report looks at infrastructure in the broad sense—everything it takes to deliver clean, safe water to America’s homes and businesses and then remove and treat the wastewater that results,” says Christie Whitman, EPA administrator.
“From the simplest pipe to the most complex treatment system, we looked at the entire picture.”

Assuming no growth in revenues, the total need for clean water—in both capital and operations and maintenance—exceeds $270 billion over 20 years. For drinking water, the gap approaches $265 billion for the same period. The size of the gap can be reduced substantially if a real growth in revenues is projected over the same period. Assuming a three percent annual real growth in revenues, for example, the gap shrinks by nearly 90 percent on the clean water side and by about 80 percent on the drinking water side.

“The actual gap may end up somewhere in between these numbers—and there are an enormous number of considerations that will go into determining where the gap ends up. The important thing about this report is that it enables us to engage the discussion with a better understanding of what the dimensions of the challenge really are,” Whitman says.

For fiscal year 2003, the administration has already proposed the largest combined request for the state drinking water and clean water revolving loan funds in history: $2.1 billion. Whitman said that meeting the challenge will require harnessing the power of the public and private sectors both for financing and for the development of new technologies and innovations.

In 2003, EPA plans a national forum, that will bring together prominent experts and stakeholders to discuss innovative approaches on how to best meet infrastructure challenges.

For a copy of the Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, visit EPA’s Web site at www.epa.gov/owm/featinfo.htm or write to EPA/OGWDW (4606M), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Ariel Rios Building, Washington DC, 20460.

New Federal Security Agency
One of the final acts of the 107th Congress was to pass legislation establishing a Department of Homeland Security (DHS). President George W. Bush signed the bill on November 25, 2002.

The new department will combine 170,000 federal workers from 22 existing agencies into four divisions: Border and Transportation Security; Emergency Preparedness and Response; Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Countermeasures; and Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. Tom Ridge, director of the White House’s Office of Homeland Security, will head DHS.

For those in the water industry, the bill consolidates several important activities. According to Water Engineering and Management, the DHS will include “the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office, now in the Commerce Department; the National Infrastructure Protection Center, now part of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and the National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center, currently part of the Energy Department.” Additionally, the Federal Emergency Management Agency will be housed within the DHS.

The 107th Congress also passed the Bioterrorism Act of 2002 that, among other things, requires water systems to assess their vulnerability to terrorist attacks. (See the article “Security and Emergency Planning” on page 34 for more information about vulnerability assessments.)

RUS Loans: Poverty Rate Unchanged; Others Up
Interest rates for Rural Utilities Service (RUS) water and wastewater loans have been announced. The poverty rate remains the same, while the intermediate and market rates increased slightly.

RUS interest rates are issued quarterly at three different levels: the poverty line rate, the intermediate rate, and the market rate. The rate applied to a particular project depends on community income and the type of project being funded.

To qualify for the poverty line rate, two criteria must be met. First, the loan must primarily be used for facilities required to meet health and sanitary standards. Second, the median household income of the area being served must be below 80 percent of the state’s non-metropolitan median income or fall below the federal poverty level. As of April 1, 2002, the federal poverty level was $18,100 for a family of four.

To qualify for the intermediate rate, the service area’s median household income cannot exceed 100 percent of the state’s non-metropolitan median income.

The market rate is applied to projects that don’t qualify for either the poverty or intermediate rates. The market rate is based on the average of the Bond Buyer Index.

The rates, which apply to all loans issued from January 1 through March 31, 2003, are:

poverty line: 4.5 percent (unchanged from the previous quarter);
intermediate: 4.75 percent (up 0.125 percent from the previous quarter); and
market: 5.0 percent (up 0.125 percent from the previous quarter).

RUS loans are administered through state Rural Development offices, which can provide specific information concerning RUS loan requirements and applications procedures.

For the phone number of your state Rural Development office, contact the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse at (800) 624-8301 or (304) 293-4191. The list is also available on the RUS Web site at www.usda.gov/ rus/water/states/ usamap.htm.

Urban Poverty Is Bad; Rural Poverty Worse
Where are the highest incidences of poverty in the U.S.? Many people would guess “in the inner cities.” However, you may be surprised to learn that poverty is often worse in rural areas than in urban ones.

For the 2.5 million children in rural America, the boom decade of the ‘90s never arrived, says America’s Forgotten Children: Child Poverty in Rural America, a new study by Save the Children. In fact, 195 of the 200 consistently poorest counties are rural. The study notes extreme pockets of poverty along the U.S.–Mexico border, on Native American reservations, in California’s Central Valley, in the Mississippi Delta, and in Appalachia.

Poverty persists in these areas because they tend to be isolated and lack money and expertise to support community and economic endeavors. Because of low population density in many of these areas (among other things), they also lack public infrastructure for water, wastewater, and transportation, thus exacerbating existing problems.