Would you rather treat a waterborne illness or treat the water? This is a big debate among many people and the government. Treating water that makes it safe to drink water is very expensive, but so is treating someone who has a waterborne illness. There are many countries today that live in an environment where a waterborne disease is common, whereas in countries like the United States may feel that they are exempt from contaminated water and aren’t prone to getting a waterborne illness. Unfortunately, in 1993, “The Environmental Protection Agency reported that 403,000 people became ill, and even more than 100 people died.” (Safe Drinking Water Foundation) Most of the time many of the illnesses aren’t even recorded, it is stated that the cases of waterborne illness are ten times higher than what most report. The legislation and standards of drinking water may vary from country to country.
Water treatment facilities are funded by local municipalities, cities, and from the federal and provincial governments. More than 170,000 public drinking-water systems use groundwater as their source, and the remained to be the surface water. The NPDWR includes both the maximum contaminant level goal and a maximum contaminant level for every contaminant listed. The contaminant level goal shows the level of human health risk but is not an enforceable standard. The contaminant level is the best treatment technology available. The NSDWR used fifteen contaminants nonenforceable standards to figure out why water may have an unnatural color or odor. Water systems are required to test and sample the water frequently to ensure that the contaminant level doesn’t exceed MCL.
“The Safe Drinking Water Act is important to water management in that it illuminates the interconnection of water resources and land resources, and how land use affects water quality.” This ensures that no one becomes ill from drinking their water. Cost analysis estimates the expenses needed to comply with a new drinking water regulation, such as the cost of water monitoring and analyzing water samples and management and oversight cost. It also is used to assess the financial impact of reducing the contaminant of the consumer of water. To estimate the unit costs, EPA will evaluate the expected cost of the installation of equipment and the operation and maintenance of treatment technologies, as well as the financial cost of the necessary capital.
127 our experts are availableright now
The Clean Water Act helps to protect the streams and wetlands that lead to major bodies of water from pollution. The ACt of 1972, acts as the dominant federal law in the U.S controlling water pollution. The cost-benefit of the Clean Water Act has been around since 1972l when it became a law, this is when the government invested more than one trillion dollars towards water pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency proposed rulemaking on the future climate regulations. According to the EPA; “the Clean Water Rule will reduce costs and be more efficient for businesses due to its more straightforward guidelines.” although there are certain permitting requirements that stand in the way and no new permitting requirements have been established many are hopeful that this Act will be more efficient. The EPA’s calculation ranges from $153.4 million to $306.6 million, although these calculations seem encouraging, many still believe that there may be an overestimate of the economic benefits of the costs. The EPA also never identified where they got their sources so people are raising the question of whether or not the results are even reliable.
One case that was used to weaken the Safe Drinking Water Act was The United States v. Alisal Water Corp. which stated the following. In this case, the Plaintiff (Alisal Water Corp.) blames the Defendant ( The United States) public water system to have committed numerous violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act., including but not limited, finding copper and lead in the water. The Alisal Water Corp. operates eight public water system in Salinas, California is seeking prospective injunctive relief, which includes substantial civil penalties and recovery costs. In 1992, the DHS had noticed that there were discrepancies in reports submitted by the public water systems operated by Defendants. Once the DHS investigated this problem, they came to the conclusion that the systems were not complying with the testing requirements and even were altering documents. The plaintiff motioned for Partial Summary Judgment stating that;
“The first motion seeks adjudication of the corporate defendants’ liability with respect to the first eight causes of action. The second motion seeks adjudication of the corporate defendants’ liability with respect to the ninth cause of action. The third motion seeks an adjudication that Robert and Patricia Adcock are personally liable for the violations of the SDWA set forth in the first nine causes of action. Defendants oppose all three motions.” (Environmental Law Reporter) The Plaintiffs’ motions for the partial summary judgment was granted.
In conclusion, we have many important laws that have already been recorded for like the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act. (SDWA) Both of these acts have withstood the test of time, and continue to protect our waters. The Clean Water Act (CWA) has been by our side for 46 years and since then 65 percent of the US waterways have passed the swimmable and fishable standards. We stopped losing acres of wetland by 440,000, that is a huge success for the United States. This shows that the government is trying to do what they can to provide us with a healthier life, even if many people still believe that it may have weakened us, we are making strides to the right path.
The Safe Drinking Water Act is another act that is put in place to protect our quality of water that we drink. This act helps the EPA to hold a minimum standard to protect the tap water which holds a requirement that the owners of the public water systems have to be willing to comply with these primary health standards. The Public Drinking Water System is a program that is protecting the public health by making sure the safety of drinking water remains intact. The evaluations that happen are there so that if we were to show data that exceeds the set standards, they could locate it, and begin preventing and removing the unwanted contaminants in the water.
