Drinking Water: Some Households Rely on Untreated Water From Irrigation
Systems (Letter Report, 09/03/98, GAO/RCED-98-244).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the:
(1) location and number of households that rely on irrigation systems or
other special purpose water systems for some or all of their residential
water needs; (2) cost of the water used by such households and the cost
and feasibility of alternative sources; and (3) implementation issues
that are likely to affect the states' and special purpose water systems'
ability to meet the new requirements.

GAO noted that: (1) according to officials of the Environmental
Protection Agency, California and Texas are likely to contain the
largest concentrations of people relying on water from irrigation
systems in the United States; (2) preliminary estimates by irrigation
systems managers indicate that in California, in the counties where
residential use of irrigation water is believed to be most prevalent,
several thousand households are relying on such water for some or all of
their residential water needs; (3) several factors make it difficult to
obtain precise data on the extent of usage, particularly the uncertainty
about whether and how water from irrigation and other special purpose
systems is being used inside the home; (4) given the extensive
availability of irrigation water within these Texas counties and the
lack of alternative sources, state and local officials believe that a
significant number of these households are probably using irrigation
water for at least some residential water needs; (5) the vast majority
of the households relying on such water in both California and Texas are
believed by state, local, and irrigation system officials to be
purchasing bottled or hauled water for drinking and cooking and using
the water from irrigation and other special purpose systems for other
uses; (6) residential users of irrigation systems currently pay from
$100 to $700 per year for untreated water that is supposed to be used
only for nondomestic purposes; (7) the cost of buying bottled or hauled
water currently ranges from $120 to $650 per year; (8) other
alternatives can be considerably more expensive and may not be
affordable without financial assistance; (9) several factors affect the
cost of treatment, including the quality of the source water, the
terrain, the distance between residential customers, and the proximity
of existing community water systems; (10) most residential users of
special purpose water systems are located in areas with relatively low
median incomes, but federal and state funding is available to help
offset the cost of some alternatives; (11) both the difficulty of
identifying residential users and the costs and technical issues
associated with finding alternatives to irrigation water are likely to
present major challenges to states and special purpose water systems
when implementing the new requirements established in the 1996
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act; and (12) state officials also
indicated that their ability to implement the new requirements would be
affected by competing demands for the limited resources of the states'
drinking water programs.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-98-244
     TITLE:  Drinking Water: Some Households Rely on Untreated Water 
             From Irrigation Systems
      DATE:  09/03/98
   SUBJECT:  Water treatment
             Potable water
             Cost analysis
             Water supply management
             Water resources development
             Federal aid to localities
             State aid
             Community development
             Public utilities
IDENTIFIER:  Community Development Block Grant
             California
             Texas
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Committees

September 1998

DRINKING WATER - SOME HOUSEHOLDS
RELY ON UNTREATED WATER FROM
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

GAO/RCED-98-244

Household Use of Irrigation Water

(160405)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development
  NTU - nephelometric turbidity unit
  SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act
  TNRCC - Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
  TWDB - Texas Water Development Board
  USDA - U.S.  Department of Agriculture

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-280572

September 3, 1998

The Honorable John H.  Chafee
Chairman
The Honorable Max Baucus
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate

The Honorable Thomas J.  Bliley, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable John D.  Dingell
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives

Most Americans obtain their residential drinking water from public
water systems regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.  However,
in some instances, American households have not had access to public
water systems and have relied instead on untreated water from
irrigation systems or other "special purpose" water systems.  This
practice has occurred primarily in the arid western states where
irrigation is needed for agricultural purposes and the water is
transported through open canals and ditches.  To help ensure that
these people obtain safe drinking water, the Congress amended the
Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996 and moved to regulate these water
suppliers as public water systems unless they meet certain exclusion
criteria.  The Environmental Protection Agency has developed guidance
to implement these new requirements, which took effect on August 6,
1998. 

In response to a provision in the amendments and discussions with
your staff, we agreed to provide information on (1) the location and
number of households that rely on irrigation systems or other special
purpose water systems for some or all of their residential water
needs (including drinking, cooking, and bathing); (2) the cost of the
water used by such households and the cost and feasibility of
alternative sources; and (3) the implementation issues that are
likely to affect the states' and special purpose water systems'
ability to meet the new requirements.  As agreed, we focused our work
on specific areas within the United States that the Environmental
Protection Agency's officials identified as likely to have the most
households using water from special purpose systems. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

According to officials of the Environmental Protection Agency,
California and Texas are likely to contain the largest concentrations
of people relying on water from irrigation systems in the United
States.  Preliminary estimates by irrigation system managers indicate
that in California, in the counties where residential use of
irrigation water is believed to be most prevalent, several thousand
households are relying on such water for some or all of their
residential water needs.  In Texas, a state agency has estimated that
in the counties where residential use of irrigation water is believed
to be most prevalent, about 11,250 people--or about 2,600
households--have no access to public water systems (or have systems
characterized as deficient) and, therefore, may be relying on
irrigation water to meet at least some of their water needs.  Several
factors make it difficult to obtain precise data on the extent of
usage, particularly the uncertainty about whether and how water from
irrigation and other special purpose systems is being used inside the
home.  However, given the extensive availability of irrigation water
within these Texas counties and the lack of alternative sources,
state and local officials believe that a significant number of these
households are probably using irrigation water for at least some
residential water needs.  The vast majority of the households relying
on such water in both California and Texas are believed by state,
local, and irrigation system officials to be purchasing bottled or
hauled water\1 for drinking and cooking and using the water from
irrigation and other special purpose systems for other uses, such as
bathing and washing dishes. 

Residential users of irrigation systems currently pay from $100 to
about $700 per year for untreated water that is supposed to be used
only for nondomestic purposes such as watering lawns and livestock. 
We found that the cost of buying bottled or hauled water currently
ranges from about $120 to $650 per year.  Other alternatives, such as
connecting residential users to existing community water systems,
installing new community systems, or installing point-of-entry
treatment devices\2 in individual households, can be considerably
more expensive and may not be affordable without financial
assistance.  For example, within the counties we selected for review,
the cost of installing central treatment ranged from $2,100 to
$18,000 per household in recently completed projects.  Several
factors affect the cost of treatment, including the quality of the
source water, the terrain, the distance between residential
customers, and the proximity of existing community water systems. 
Most residential users of special purpose water systems are located
in areas with relatively low median incomes, but federal and state
funding is available to help offset the cost of some alternatives. 

Both the difficulty of identifying residential users and the costs
and technical issues associated with finding alternatives to
irrigation water are likely to present major challenges to states and
special purpose water systems when implementing the new requirements
established in the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
For example, water suppliers will have to identify their residential
users to implement the new requirements, but state program
administrators from both California and Texas expressed concern about
whether people will be forthcoming about the sources and uses of
their residential water, particularly if they may be required to pay
for costly alternatives.  In addition, representatives of irrigation
districts raised concerns about the timing and content of the
Environmental Protection Agency's draft guidance (e.g., that the
implementing guidance was not issued until just before the effective
date of the new requirements), some of which were addressed in the
final guidance.  Finally, state officials also indicated that their
ability to implement the new requirements would be affected by
competing demands for the limited resources of the states' drinking
water programs. 


--------------------
\1 Hauled water refers to bulk, treated water that is delivered to
homes in trucks by commercial operations.  Generally, the water is
stored in a tank located on or adjacent to the home. 

\2 Point-of-entry treatment devices treat all the water that enters a
household, thus providing treated water at every tap. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates public water systems,
which, until 1996, were defined as systems that provide piped water
for human consumption and have at least 15 service connections or
regularly serve at least 25 individuals.  The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has interpreted "human consumption" to
include drinking, cooking, bathing, showering, dish washing, and
maintaining oral hygiene, an interpretation that has been upheld by
the courts.\3

In 1996, the Congress changed the definition of public water system
after learning that (1) some U.S.  households were relying on
untreated water from irrigation canals for some or all of their
residential water needs and (2) a federal appellate court had held
that such canals were not public water systems within the meaning of
SDWA because they do not constitute a system of "piped water" for
human consumption.\4 Specifically, the Congress expanded the
definition of a public water system to include systems that provide
water for human consumption through "constructed conveyances" other
than pipes.  For the most part, this change affects water suppliers,
such as irrigation systems, that provide water through constructed
conveyances such as man-made ditches and canals.\5

Under the 1996 amendments, a water supplier must still serve at least
25 people or have at least 15 service connections to be considered a
public water system.  But in some cases, a connection will not be
considered as a "service connection" for the purpose of determining
how many connections or users are being served.  Thus, systems that
provide water through constructed conveyances other than pipes may
avoid regulation as public water systems if, for some or all of their
connections,

  -- the water is used exclusively for purposes other than drinking,
     bathing, and cooking, or other similar uses;

  -- the EPA Administrator or state primacy agency\6 has determined
     that alternative water (e.g., bottled or hauled water) is
     provided for drinking and cooking and that this water achieves a
     level of public health protection equivalent to that provided by
     the applicable national primary drinking water regulations; or

  -- the EPA Administrator or state primacy agency has determined
     that the water provided for drinking, cooking, and bathing is
     treated centrally or at the point of entry by the provider, a
     pass-through entity,\7 or the user to achieve a level of public
     health protection equivalent to that provided by the applicable
     national primary drinking water regulations. 

The 1996 amendments also exclude from regulation certain irrigation
districts that were in existence prior to May 18, 1994, if (1) the
districts provide primarily agricultural water through piped water
systems with only incidental residential or similar use and (2) the
systems or their users meet the exclusion criteria, described
previously, for alternative water or treatment. 

Although the requirements for irrigation districts that provide piped
water took effect immediately, irrigation systems that provide water
through constructed conveyances were given 2 years, or until August
6, 1998, to comply.  During the 2-year period, EPA developed guidance
to assist state primacy agencies and water suppliers in implementing
the new requirements.  EPA published its guidance in the Federal
Register on August 5, 1998. 

The potential health effects from consuming untreated water from open
canals or ditches can be serious because the water frequently is
contaminated with bacteria, including fecal and other disease-causing
bacteria.  In addition, open canals and ditches are subject to runoff
of pesticides and fertilizers from agricultural fields, and aquatic
herbicides are used in the water to treat for algae and to control
vegetation.  Gastrointestinal illness, or diarrhea, is the most
common illness caused by bacteriological contamination, but certain
pathogens cause hepatitis A infections that may lead to jaundice and
liver damage. 


--------------------
\3 See United States v.  Midway Heights County Water District, 695 F. 
Supp.  1072, 1074 (E.D.  Cal.  1988). 

\4 Imperial Irrigation District v.  United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 4 F.3d 774 (9th Cir.  1993). 

\5 Other types of systems that may be included by the expanded
definition include mining and industrial water systems.  According to
EPA, state, and industry officials, however, virtually all of the
special purpose water systems likely to be affected by the new
definition provide irrigation water.  Thus, in this report, we will
use the term irrigation system to denote any special purpose water
system. 

\6 Under SDWA, EPA has authority to delegate the primary
responsibility for enforcing drinking water program
requirements--commonly referred to as "primacy"--to states that meet
certain requirements.  Today, all states except Wyoming have assumed
primacy for managing their drinking water programs. 

\7 According to the manager of EPA's work group on the new definition
of a public water system, "pass-through entity" refers to a
third-party contractor that operates and maintains centralized or
individual treatment systems and monitors water quality. 


   HOUSEHOLDS USING WATER FROM
   IRRIGATION SYSTEMS ARE LIMITED
   IN LOCATION AND NUMBER
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

According to EPA officials, California and Texas are likely to
contain the largest concentrations of people relying on water from
irrigation systems in the United States.  Estimates derived from
preliminary user surveys and other information indicate that in
California, several thousand households obtain water for human
consumption from irrigation systems within the four counties we
selected for detailed review.  In Texas, a state agency has estimated
that about 2,600 households in the two counties we selected for
detailed review live in areas that either do not have public water
systems or have systems characterized as deficient.  Given the wide
availability of irrigation water within these two counties and the
lack of alternative sources, state and local officials believe that a
significant number of these households are likely to be using
irrigation water for at least some of the purposes defined as human
consumption, such as bathing or washing dishes.  Several factors,
such as better enforcement of the requirements for safe drinking
water in residential developments, indicate that households' reliance
on irrigation water may be on the decline in these counties. 


      RESIDENTIAL USE OF
      IRRIGATION WATER IS LIMITED
      TO CERTAIN AREAS AND
      CIRCUMSTANCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

In California, the residential use of untreated canal water occurs
throughout remote areas in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and
also in Imperial County in the arid southeastern corner of the state,
where an extensive system of irrigation canals supports what has
become one of the most important agricultural counties in the nation. 
EPA and state officials indicated that of the foothill counties,
Nevada, Placer, and Tuolumne counties are likely to have the greatest
number of residential users of untreated canal water.  In Texas,
state officials believe that the residential use of untreated canal
water is concentrated in the lower Rio Grande valley, particularly in
Cameron and Hidalgo counties.  We included these key
counties--Imperial, Nevada, Placer, and Tuolumne in California (see
fig.  1) and Cameron and Hidalgo in Texas (see fig.  2)--in our
review. 

   Figure 1:  California Counties
   Included in GAO's Review

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure 2:  Texas Counties
   Included in GAO's Review

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The irrigation canals found throughout the foothills of the Sierra
Nevada were originally hand-dug earthen ditches constructed in the
19th century for use in gold mining, according to irrigation system
managers.  Later, these canals began to be used for agricultural
irrigation or for the logging industry, and more recently, the canals
have also served as a source of residential water for pockets of
homeowners living in remote areas of the foothills.  Until the past
few years, according to state, county, and irrigation system
officials, some counties permitted homes to be built in areas that
lacked public drinking water systems but had access to untreated
irrigation water.  The counties generally required that a homeowner
relying on irrigation water install a point-of-entry system to treat
the water. 

In both Imperial County, California, and the lower Rio Grande valley
of Texas, an extensive network of agricultural irrigation canals has
existed since the early 20th century, predating much of the current
residential development.  Imperial County and Cameron and Hidalgo
counties in Texas have many hundreds of miles of irrigation canals
and ditches and thousands of residents whose homes are not connected
to public water systems.  Residential use of untreated canal water is
found both in isolated rural areas where the nearest public water
system may be miles away and in very low-income communities, often
called colonias,\8 that were initially constructed without basic
water and sewer infrastructure.\9

Although colonias developed all along the U.S.-Mexican border, they
are particularly common in Texas, where, until recently, there has
been little regulation of residential development in the
unincorporated areas outside municipalities.  Thus, the development
and sale of parcels of land without access to public services such as
adequate water and sewage were permitted under state law.  This lack
of regulation, coupled with the need for affordable housing in the
border region, facilitated the growth of colonias over the last 40 to
50 years.  All of the organizations we contacted that work with
colonia residents were aware of households in these communities that
use irrigation water in their homes.  Although much progress has been
made in bringing water and sewer services to these communities, some
still lack basic services, and even after water service has been
installed, some residents cannot afford the cost of connecting to the
system. 


--------------------
\8 Although there is no generally agreed-upon definition, "colonia"
generally refers to a rural unincorporated subdivision along the
U.S.-Mexican border in which one or more of the following conditions
exist:  substandard housing, inadequate roads and drainage, and
substandard or no water and sewer facilities.  Available data,
although limited, indicate that residents of colonias are mostly
Mexican-American; many work as seasonal farm laborers and have
incomes below the poverty level.  See Rural Development:  Problems
and Progress of Colonia Subdivisions Near Mexico Border
(GAO/RCED-91-37, Nov.  5, 1990). 

\9 According to EPA, residential use of canal water is also
widespread among suburban homes located near the 11 towns in central
Imperial County. 


      DIFFICULTIES EXIST IN
      DETERMINING PRECISE EXTENT
      OF RELIANCE ON WATER FROM
      IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

Although precise data are not available, our review suggests that in
both California and Texas, several thousand households are probably
using untreated water from irrigation systems for one or more of the
purposes EPA defines as human consumption, including drinking,
cooking, bathing, showering, dish washing, and maintaining oral
hygiene.  Little is known about exactly how untreated water is being
used inside the home, but state and local officials believe that few
people are directly ingesting such water through drinking and
cooking.  According to these officials, most households buy bottled
or hauled water for the latter purposes and may be using the
untreated water for purposes such as bathing and washing dishes. 

In California, within the counties we selected for detailed review,
several major water suppliers have made preliminary efforts to
determine how many of their residential customers are using
irrigation water for human consumption.  For example, a 1993 customer
survey conducted by the Imperial Irrigation District in Imperial
County identified approximately 2,800 households with piped
connections to the irrigation canals.  Since that time, several
communities have extended their water lines to provide treated water
to nearby colonias, and the district now estimates that it has about
2,200 residential connections.  Likewise, the Tuolumne Utility
District in Tuolumne County conducted a preliminary survey of its
customers; on the basis of this effort, the district's officials
believe that at most, 230 of their 625 customers may use the
irrigation water for human consumption. 

Farther north, in Placer and Nevada counties, other water suppliers
estimated the number of households that may be consuming untreated
water on the basis of whether the households are receiving irrigation
water year-round.  Since in the Sierra Nevada foothills agricultural
customers do not usually need irrigation water during the rainy
winter months, EPA and state officials maintain that year-round use
of canal water may indicate that the water is used for human
consumption.  The Placer County Water Agency reported that it has
about 3,700 residential accounts, of which one-half to one-third
receive water throughout the year.  The Nevada Irrigation District,
based in Nevada County, has 4,680 residential customers, including
770 that receive water all year, according to a district official. 
Managers from these districts were quick to mention that the
year-round purchase of irrigation water does not necessarily mean
that the water is used for human consumption; some customers may be
using the water only for fire protection or flushing toilets. 

While our review showed that thousands of households may have
connections to irrigation canals, the irrigation managers in
California we interviewed believed that few people are drinking the
untreated water.  Rather, such customers are, for the most part,
believed to be buying bottled or hauled water for drinking and
cooking or to be relying on point-of-entry water treatment units to
process all of the water entering the home. 

In Texas, little or no data have been gathered yet by state agencies
or irrigation districts on the number of households relying on
untreated irrigation water.  However, some efforts have been made to
identify the number of people who do not have access to safe drinking
water, some of whom are likely to be dependent on irrigation water. 
For example, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) estimated that
as of December 1996, the most recent date for which data are
available, 45,965 people--or roughly 11,000 households--in the
state's border region were without adequate water service.\10 These
individuals were in areas not served by public water systems or had
systems determined to be deficient.\11

According to TWDB, about 11,250 of these people--or about 2,600
households--were in Cameron and Hidalgo counties, where residential
reliance on irrigation water is believed to be most prevalent.  In
addition, new colonias continue to develop in these counties, some of
which may not yet have been counted by TWDB. 

While it is not known how many of the households identified by TWDB
were relying on canal water, state and water agency officials have
told us that using canal water is often the most feasible option
available for households without treated water, given the lack of
suitable groundwater and the lack of state-regulated water haulers. 
For example, an investigator from the state attorney general's office
who works in Cameron and Hidalgo counties told us that untreated
irrigation water is used "quite extensively" there and that its use
is "normal practice" in homes without access to drinking water.  He
estimated that people were using untreated water in 8 of the 10
colonias in which he has conducted investigations during the last 4
years. 

Several officials familiar with conditions in the lower Rio Grande
valley told us that even where centralized treatment systems are
available, significant numbers of colonia households may not be able
to afford the cost of connecting to the systems and, thus, may be
using irrigation water.  Connection fees, including the cost of the
water lines from the street into the home, the water meter, meter
box, and other fees, range from several hundred dollars to several
thousand, according to state officials. 

In addition to the colonia residents who are likely to be using
irrigation water, irrigation canals are the only source of water for
some households in remote areas, according to officials from the
Lower Rio Grande Valley Water District Managers Association.  Many of
these households contract with the districts to pay for "yard water"
for watering yards and livestock, and some may be using the water
inside the home.\12 To varying degrees, the irrigation districts also
have some unauthorized users who set up a connection from an existing
customer's line or find some other means to obtain water.  The
managers could not estimate how many households obtain water without
authorization nor whether this water is used for human consumption. 
The officials generally believe that most of their thousands of
paying, nonfarm customers have access to treated water from public
systems. 

As in California, Texas officials do not believe that many households
routinely use the untreated canal water for drinking or cooking. 
They indicated that some households purchase water for such purposes
from vending machines that have become prevalent in recent years. 
Others get treated water for drinking and cooking from the home of a
friend or relative who has a connection to a public water system. 
Hence, the officials believe that the household use of irrigation
water in the lower Rio Grande valley is generally confined to
bathing, showering, and washing dishes. 


--------------------
\10 The border region is defined as the 33 Texas counties within 100
kilometers of the U.S.-Mexican border.  The Texas Water Development
Board, among other responsibilities, provides grants and loans from
state and federal sources for the water and sewer needs of the
state's economically distressed areas and administers the drinking
water state revolving fund. 

\11 In addition to the water needs identified, TWDB and the Texas
Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) estimated that
nearly 335,000 people living in Texas along the Mexican border did
not have wastewater service from a centralized system.  These
agencies estimated that the Texas border region needs $2.5 billion
(in 1995 dollars) for improvements to water and wastewater systems. 
(Texas Border Region Environmental Infrastructure Needs Assessment,
TWDB/TNRCC, Apr.  1997.)

\12 Because of the severe drought conditions in the lower Rio Grande
valley during the summer of 1998, some irrigation districts have had
to cut off the water supplied to these users.  According to the
president of the association, the districts have recently been
receiving complaints from customers who say that they have no other
source of household water. 


      RELIANCE ON WATER FROM
      IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MAY BE
      DECLINING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

There are indications that the number of households relying on water
from irrigation systems has declined in recent years and will
continue to decline in California and, to some extent, in Texas as
well.  In California, several factors have been at work to decrease
the reliance on irrigation systems for residential use.  Among these
have been the increasing suburbanization of areas north and east of
Sacramento, such as Placer County.  What were once isolated areas
with few homes are now more densely populated with middle- and
upper-income communities that have begun to demand the same services,
such as centralized water treatment, available in the city.  As more
people move into these areas, the per household cost of installing a
central water treatment system declines, which can also make it more
feasible to install such a system. 

Also, both local and state governmental efforts have been helping to
decrease the reliance on untreated water from irrigation systems for
residential uses.  For example, some county departments, such as
Placer County's Division of Environmental Health, no longer allow the
construction of homes that are not connected to an approved water
system.  For several years, the California Department of Health
Services has had a program in place to establish public water systems
that supply treated water to clusters of homes served by irrigation
systems.  As a result of this program, some irrigation systems,
including the Nevada Irrigation District and the Placer County Water
Agency, also operate public water systems that are subject to SDWA
requirements. 

Moreover, irrigation system managers in California cited the
unwillingness of financial institutions to loan money to homebuyers
for residences not connected to a centralized water treatment system
as a factor contributing to the decline in the reliance on irrigation
water.  The managers believe that the financial institutions'
policies have already forced, and will continue to force, the
remaining residential users of untreated irrigation water to pay for
connections to the nearest public water system.  A manager from the
Nevada Irrigation District said that largely because of these
policies, his district sees 75 to 80 conversions of residences from
irrigation water to public water systems each year. 

Texas has also been experiencing a decline in the number of
households relying on water from irrigation systems, according to
several officials who work in the lower Rio Grande valley.  These
officials attribute the decline to the many governmental and private
efforts made to bring drinking water to these areas. 

Despite such efforts, household consumption of irrigation water may
continue to occur in Texas well into the future.  For example, TWDB
and TNRCC have predicted that the populations of the four most
populous counties along the border with Mexico--including Cameron and
Hidalgo--will double, on average, their 1990 levels by the year 2020. 
Officials working in this area confirmed that small clusters of homes
in areas not served by public water systems are continuing to be
built, even as older colonias are finally receiving such services. 
If, in addition to the expected population increases, these counties'
high poverty and unemployment rates continue, the issues of water
access and affordability could persist.  Much will depend on how
successful Texas officials are in enforcing new laws intended to
prevent substandard developments. 


   THE COST OF IRRIGATION WATER
   AND ITS ALTERNATIVES VARY
   WIDELY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

As states and irrigation systems begin to implement the new
definition of a public water system, residential users of irrigation
systems could face significantly higher water costs, depending on the
nature of their alternative water source.  While several types of
financial assistance are available to offset the cost of some
alternatives, in most instances these programs serve multiple
purposes, and water suppliers will have to compete with other types
of projects to obtain the funding needed to meet the new
requirements. 


      HOUSEHOLDS CURRENTLY SERVED
      BY IRRIGATION SYSTEMS OFTEN
      HAVE MULTIPLE SOURCES OF
      WATER
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

According to state and irrigation district officials, most of the
households that obtain water from irrigation canals also use bottled
or hauled water for drinking and cooking.  Although, in some
districts, residential users have historically had the right to use
irrigation water at no cost, we found that most irrigation districts
currently charge users from $100 to about $700 per year.  Bottled
water is sold at a variety of retail outlets, such as supermarkets
and gas stations, as well as at stand-alone facilities at a cost of
20 to 25 cents per gallon.  The cost of hauled water is 35 to 40
cents per gallon and may include the cost of renting the tank used to
store the water.  Overall, we found that the cost of buying bottled
or hauled water for drinking and cooking ranges from about $120 to
$650 per year.\13

Both California and Texas regulate water haulers, and these purveyors
are widely used in California.  However, Texas officials told us that
there are no state-regulated water haulers in the lower Rio Grande
valley, so residents do not have access to water from this source. 
State and local officials in Texas told us that residents not served
by public water systems sometimes obtain treated water through
informal arrangements such as trucking in barrels of water obtained
from relatives or friends with access to a public water supply. 

In addition to bottled and hauled water, some households in
California and Texas obtain water for residential purposes from
private wells.  However, neither state maintains accurate records on
the number and location of such wells or whether they are actively
used.  Moreover, concerns about the quality and reliability of the
groundwater resources in the areas we selected for detailed review
also raise questions about the extent to which people are relying on
private wells.  For example, in both the lower Rio Grande valley and
the southeastern desert area of California, the groundwater is not
considered drinkable because of the high levels of dissolved solids. 
Although the groundwater quality is much better in the foothills of
the Sierra Nevada, state and local officials told us that drilling a
well into bedrock is very costly and that finding a reliable supply
is hit or miss.  These officials also told us that some people have
obtained connections to irrigation canals because their wells have
run dry. 


--------------------
\13 To estimate these costs, we obtained cost data from local water
purveyors and irrigation districts.  When the only information
available was the price per gallon, we relied on EPA for assumptions
about the average number of people per household and water usage in
order to estimate annual costs of bottled or hauled water.  According
to EPA, the average number of people per household is three and each
individual consumes an average of 2 liters of water per day for
drinking and cooking.  In a three-person household, this equates to
1.6 gallons per household per day or a total average consumption of
584 gallons per household per year. 


      THE COST AND FEASIBILITY OF
      ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES
      VARY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Under the 1996 amendments to SDWA, irrigation systems may be excluded
from coverage under the act and therefore avoid regulation as public
water systems if (1) bottled or hauled water is provided for drinking
and cooking or (2) water for drinking, cooking, and bathing is
treated centrally or at point of entry by the provider, a
pass-through entity, or the user.\14 In each case, the alternative
water must achieve the equivalent level of protection provided by the
applicable national primary drinking water standards.  In addition,
according to EPA's guidance, irrigation systems may pass the costs of
providing alternative water on to their customers. 

As noted earlier, we found that households that supplement the water
obtained from irrigation systems with bottled or hauled water for
drinking and cooking are spending roughly $120 to $650 per year.  If
an irrigation district assumes responsibility for providing the
bottled or hauled water, as contemplated in EPA's guidance, the cost
of administering this effort could increase costs to users.\15 For
example, the Tuolumne Utilities District in Tuolumne County,
California, estimated that the cost of providing bottled water to
about 60 isolated households would be $82,000 per year if the
residents were to pick up the water at a central location and
$343,000 per year if the water were delivered to individual
households by the district.  This amounts to $1,367 or $5,717 per
household per year depending on whether the water is delivered.\16 In
contrast, the Imperial Irrigation District in Imperial County,
California, recently estimated that having water delivered by a water
hauler would cost each household $50 to $55 per month, or $600 to
$660 per year. 

Point-of-entry treatment units that are capable of treating raw water
from irrigation canals so that it meets the applicable quality
standards currently cost $4,000 to $5,000 each, according to
California officials.\17 Some households are already using
point-of-entry treatment, but state officials questioned the
effectiveness of some types of devices.  For example, we were told
that the swimming pool filters used by some households do not provide
sufficient treatment.  California officials told us that effective
units are relatively expensive because they must treat raw water that
is of poor quality, removing bacteriological contamination and
periodically high levels of turbidity.\18 In addition, regular
maintenance and water quality monitoring are required to ensure that
the units continue to perform effectively, and the officials have no
assurance that this will be done.  As a result of these concerns,
California has only once approved the use of point-of-entry treatment
as part of a public water system\19 and Texas has never done so. 

Additional costs may be incurred in some situations where
point-of-entry treatment is the alternative selected for compliance. 
According to irrigation district officials, in some instances, the
units may have to be installed at the property line--rather than
inside the home--to provide maintenance personnel with easy access. 
This approach would require the construction of a meter box and a
shed to protect the unit from the elements, particularly in areas
where freezing occurs in the winter months. 

The cost of installing a central water treatment system can also vary
significantly, depending primarily on the distance between
residential customers and the proximity of existing water lines or
treatment plants.  For example, in the case of projects sponsored by
TWDB to bring treated water to colonias in Cameron and Hidalgo
counties, the cost per connection ranged from about $2,200 to $3,700. 
The median cost of a connection was about $2,600 in these projects. 
For isolated households or very small communities located far from
existing water lines, the cost per connection can be much higher. 
For example, according to a TWDB official, in another project at a
colonia located outside the lower Rio Grande valley, water lines had
to be extended nearly 10 miles to an existing water treatment plant. 
The cost per connection for each of the 31 households in this small
colonia was nearly $17,000 when the funding commitment was made in
1996.\20

The manager of a rural water supply corporation that provides treated
water in the lower Rio Grande valley agreed that the cost of
connecting isolated households can be substantial.  He estimated that
in 1998, the cost of installing pipelines from public main water
lines to homes ranges from $2.25 to $3.00 per foot.  Thus, a customer
who lives 3 miles from the nearest public water main would have to
pay more than $35,000 for the pipeline alone.  The manager told us
that he periodically gets inquiries about hooking up to his system,
but people often become discouraged after learning how much it would
cost. 

Similarly, in California, an official with the Placer County Water
Agency agreed that location can greatly affect the cost of providing
treated water.  While the cost of connecting a household to one of
this agency's treated water systems is, on average, about $6,000, the
cost can be much higher, depending on the location of the household. 
For example, in 1996, the agency constructed a small water system to
serve 97 households at a total cost of $1.5 million.  The average
cost per household, including the cost of pipelines from the water
main to individual homes, the connection fees, and interest, was
$15,000 to $18,000.  According to the official, the high cost was
attributable to the small number of households served by the system,
the distance between customers, and the hilly terrain. 

Considering the relatively low median income in some areas, some
alternative water sources may not be feasible without financial
assistance.  In Cameron and Hidalgo counties in Texas, the median
household incomes were $17,336 and $16,703, respectively.\21

Within California, some areas had significantly higher income levels. 
Median household income ranged from $22,442 in Imperial County to
$37,601 in Placer County. 


--------------------
\14 Irrigation systems may also avoid regulation as public water
systems if the water is used exclusively for purposes other than
drinking, bathing, and cooking, or other similar uses. 

\15 The bulk purchase of water by irrigation districts may offset at
least some of these increased costs. 

\16 The lower estimate does not consider the costs incurred by
individuals if they were required to pick up the water from a central
location.  Such costs would increase the costs to households above
the $1,367 estimate cited here.  The higher estimate includes the
cost of delivery trucks that would be purchased and operated by the
Tuolumne Utilities District.  However, EPA's guidance does not state
that irrigation systems must deliver alternative water to their
residential customers.  Instead, the guidance states that the
supplier must provide the water to the users at a reasonable
location, not merely make it available.  According to the guidance,
whether the alternative water is being provided at a reasonable
location, such as the user's doorstep or property line, will be
determined by the state primacy agency on a case-by-case basis. 

\17 EPA officials maintain that although costlier units may be
necessary in some situations, units ranging from $2,000 to $2,500
will generally provide adequate treatment. 

\18 Turbidity is a cloudiness in water caused by minute suspended
particles, such as clay, silt, and microscopic organisms.  High
levels of turbidity may reduce the efficiency of disinfection
treatment and mask the presence of microbiological contaminants. 

\19 Several years ago, California approved the use of point-of-entry
treatment in the Gibson Canyon area of the Solano Irrigation District
after the district did a feasibility study to examine the possibility
of installing these treatment devices at individual households
instead of providing central treatment.  The annual cost per
household for these devices was estimated to be $1,133 over 20 years. 
Eventually, Gibson Canyon residents opted for central treatment. 

\20 In addition to the cost of installing water lines in a community,
individual households must pay connection fees to extend the lines
from the street into the home.  TWDB officials told us that their
funding may not be used to pay for any installation on private
property.  As noted earlier, these connection or hookup fees range
from several hundred dollars to several thousand, according to state
and local officials. 

\21 Data on median household income were extracted from the 1990 U.S. 
Census database and represent 1989 income levels, the most recent
data available on a countywide basis.  The national median household
income for the same period was $30,056. 


      FUNDING IS AVAILABLE TO HELP
      OFFSET THE COST OF SOME
      ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

Several sources of funding are available to finance drinking water
projects in rural or disadvantaged communities, including projects
that will provide treated water to households that rely on irrigation
systems.  For example, financial assistance is available from the
U.S.  Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Water and Waste Disposal
programs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD)
Community Development Block Grant program, the North American
Development Bank, and EPA and state funds earmarked for water and
wastewater projects in colonias.  In some instances, eligibility for
financial assistance is determined by the project's location, the
median household income of local residents, or both. 

More recently, the Congress authorized a new state revolving loan
fund for drinking water projects under the 1996 amendments to SDWA. 
Under this program, local communities can obtain low-interest loans
for constructing or upgrading drinking water systems; states must use
a minimum of 15 percent of all dollars credited to the revolving loan
fund for assistance to small systems that serve fewer than 10,000
people.  States also have the option of providing additional loan
subsidies, such as principal forgiveness or below market interest
rate loans, to disadvantaged communities.  In California, several
irrigation districts have submitted "preapplications" to get projects
on the state's priority list for funding to provide treated water to
households that currently rely on irrigation canals.  In Texas, state
officials had not identified such households at the time of the
state's needs assessment and, thus, did not include irrigation
systems on the state's priority list. 

In addition to the programs that provide funding for basic water
infrastructure, some programs, including HUD's Community Development
Block Grant program and USDA's Water and Waste Disposal programs, may
be used to pay for residential plumbing connections.  In Texas, EPA
has also made about $15 million available for this purpose.  Such
assistance is important because connection fees can be substantial,
depending on the nature of the connection and the types of fees
charged by the water authority.  In addition, many residences in the
colonias need to be upgraded; some water authorities will not approve
a connection unless a residence has an enclosed bathroom, which some
colonia residences lack. 


   A NUMBER OF ISSUES MAY AFFECT
   STATES' AND WATER SUPPLIERS'
   ABILITY TO MEET NEW
   REQUIREMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

State and irrigation system officials identified a number of
potential obstacles to the effective implementation of the new
definition of a public water system.  The issues range from practical
problems, such as identifying the customers that are relying on
untreated water and finding affordable alternatives, to questions
about EPA's interpretation of the 1996 amendments and the impact of
implementing the new SDWA requirements on irrigation systems' ability
to comply with existing state laws. 


      DIFFICULTIES EXIST IN
      IDENTIFYING RESIDENTIAL
      USERS OF IRRIGATION WATER
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

According to EPA's guidance, the state is responsible for making a
determination about whether individual water suppliers, such as
irrigation districts, meet the new definition of a public water
system, and this determination rests on two key elements:  (1)
whether the supplier is "providing" water within the meaning of the
statute and (2) whether the water is being used for human
consumption.  EPA's guidance states that for the supplier to be
providing water to users, an explicit or implied arrangement or
agreement of some kind must exist between a supplier and individuals
using water.  In the absence of an explicit arrangement or agreement,
the state should decide whether an implicit arrangement or agreement
exists on the basis of (1) whether the supplier knows or should know
that water is being taken and (2) whether the supplier has consented
to its being taken.  Similarly, the determination of whether the
water is being used for human consumption is to be based on whether
the supplier knows or should know that such use is occurring.  The
guidance suggests that water suppliers undertake "reasonable" actions
within their authority, such as conducting user surveys, to determine
whether and how water obtained from irrigation systems is being used
for human consumption, as defined by EPA. 

In both California and Texas, circumstances make it difficult to
identify households that are relying on irrigation systems for
domestic water.  For example, state program managers expect that
people will be untruthful about the source and uses of their
residential water, particularly if they may be required to pay for
costly alternatives.  Representatives of irrigation districts also
expressed concern about whether people will be forthcoming about
their water use.  District officials believe that they will not be
able to determine whether irrigation water is actually being used
inside the home without trespassing on private property or digging up
residents' lawns to locate pipes.  They note that even when the
connections into a home are obvious, some residents are likely to
report incorrectly that the irrigation water is only being used to
flush toilets or for some other purpose that does not fall within
EPA's definition of human consumption. 

Identifying residential users will be difficult in Texas because,
according to state officials, most users are unauthorized and are
taking irrigation water surreptitiously.  Some irrigation districts
have contracts with residential users for "yard water" to water lawns
and livestock and could use these customer lists as a starting point
to identify households that could be using the water for bathing or
other categories of human consumption.  Identifying unauthorized
users may be problematic, however.  Irrigation district officials
told us that patrolling hundreds of ditches and canals to detect
unauthorized connections would place a huge burden on the districts,
some of which have only one or two employees.  However, according to
EPA's guidance, a supplier would not be expected to go beyond its
normal inspections or operation of water conveyances to discover
unauthorized diversions, and a supplier that takes actions that a
property owner would ordinarily take to maintain his or her property
rights should be able to demonstrate that there is no implied
arrangement to "provide" water. 

A related issue is whether irrigation systems "should know" that
households located in areas that are not served by public water
systems--and where the quality or quantity of the groundwater is not
suitable for private wells--are likely to be relying on untreated
water from irrigation canals for human consumption.  EPA officials
told us that the determination of which households constitute service
connections will have to be made on a case-by-case basis considering
all relevant circumstances. 

In California, state officials say that it will be some time before
they are even able to identify the universe of water suppliers that
provide water through constructed conveyances and have enough
residential users to meet the new definition of a public water
system.  According to one estimate, California has about 900
governmentally chartered districts that perform some type of
water-related function.  In addition to irrigation districts, a
variety of other entities may provide water for agricultural purposes
and, thus, could be subject to the new requirements.  These include
county and state water districts, water conservation districts, flood
control districts, water reclamation districts, and special act
districts.\22

Another problem in both California and Texas, according to state and
irrigation district officials, is that in an unknown number of cases,
more than one household may be obtaining irrigation water from a
single authorized connection.  Since such accounts are billed to a
single household, irrigation district officials cannot readily
determine how many households are actually receiving the irrigation
water. 


--------------------
\22 Special act districts were created by legislation or by "special
acts" that pertained specifically to them.  For example, the Placer
County Water Agency was created in 1957 by the Placer County Water
Agency Act passed by the California legislature. 


      ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES
      RAISE COST AND TECHNICAL
      ISSUES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

The cost of alternative water sources can be significant,
particularly in the case of centralized or point-of-entry treatment. 
Although bottled or hauled water can be considerably less expensive
than some of the treatment alternatives, Texas officials have
reservations about allowing this option because it may not protect
public health sufficiently.  Allowing the use of bottled or hauled
water for drinking and cooking would mean that people could continue
to use untreated water for bathing and other domestic purposes. 
According to Texas officials, this raises concerns about potential
health effects from exposure to untreated irrigation water. 

Texas officials also have reservations about allowing the use of
point-of-entry treatment as a compliance option because, as we noted
earlier, they are skeptical about finding an effective device, given
the likelihood of bacteriological contamination and periodically high
levels of turbidity in irrigation water.\23 The officials also have
concerns about the amount of maintenance and monitoring required to
ensure that these devices are continuously providing safe drinking
water. 

California officials told us that while connecting households to
centralized treatment systems is the most protective and desirable
alternative, they believe that the costs of implementing this option
are formidable.  In some areas, the median household income is too
high for the residents to be eligible for some types of financial
assistance.  In addition, they told us that the state's Proposition
218 will make it difficult to gain the support of existing customers
of water districts to help pay the costs of hooking up additional
households.  Proposition 218 prohibits any local government in
California, including special districts, from imposing or increasing
any special tax unless at least two-thirds of the voters approve. 
Thus, according to these officials, Proposition 218 would have the
effect of making it more difficult for water districts to issue bonds
to finance capital improvements.\24


--------------------
\23 According to EPA regulations, turbidity, which is measured in
nephelometric turbidity units (NTU), should not exceed 5 NTU at any
time; however, California and Texas officials told us that turbidity
in irrigation canals can range as high as 150 or 200 NTU. 

\24 EPA officials point out, however, that it may not prove necessary
to issue bonds where funding is provided under the state revolving
loan fund. 


      CONCERNS EXIST ABOUT TIMING
      AND CONTENT OF EPA'S
      IMPLEMENTING GUIDANCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

In commenting on EPA's draft guidance on implementing the new
definition of a public water system, irrigation districts and other
water suppliers raised several concerns about the timing and content
of the guidance.  Among other things, they argued that in its efforts
to develop implementing guidance, EPA consumed nearly all of the
2-year grace period that was intended to give water suppliers time to
achieve compliance by the August 6, 1998, effective date of the new
requirements.  In addition, because the guidance is not legally
binding and does not impose legal requirements as a regulation would,
water suppliers say that they are left with uncertainty about what
they need to do to comply with the new provisions of federal law. 
Furthermore, the guidance recommends, in several instances, that the
states establish requirements or make case-by-case determinations.\25
Thus, even though EPA issued its final guidance by the effective date
of the requirements, these water suppliers believe that they will not
have time to meet the compliance deadline because of the
responsibilities that EPA has delegated to the states. 

According to EPA, the requirements in the law itself constitute the
legally binding obligations for water suppliers.  EPA officials told
us that the guidance is only intended to facilitate implementation
and provide clarification on some issues. 

State officials in both California and Texas told us that they, too,
had been awaiting EPA's final guidance so that it could be used as a
basis for their own implementation strategies.  However, they said
that as a practical matter, implementing the new definition of a
public water system will be an iterative process; as they learn of
irrigation systems that may be subject to the new requirements, they
will work with the systems, make the necessary determinations, and
ensure compliance. 

Some irrigation districts, citing legislative history, commented that
EPA went beyond the intent of the Congress when, in its guidance, the
agency said that states should determine whether a water supplier
qualifies as a public water system on the basis of whether the
supplier "knows or should know" that residential connections exist or
that the individuals are using the water for human consumption. 
According to the Association of California Water Agencies, there is
no reason that irrigation districts "should know" whether or how
people are using irrigation water inside their homes when the
supplier (1) is not in the business of selling or distributing
treated water and (2) does not issue permits for private wells or
permits for home occupancy.  In addition, many water suppliers
require their residential users to sign some type of waiver stating
that they must not use or are not using irrigation water for human
consumption.  The Imperial Irrigation District commented that such
waivers should be considered as evidence of whether or not the
supplier knows or consents to such use. 

In responding to these comments, EPA modified its draft guidance to
clarify how the "knows or should know" standard will be applied.  For
example, instead of expecting water suppliers to take "any necessary
actions" to determine whether people are using irrigation water for
human consumption, the revised guidance states that water suppliers
should make "reasonable" efforts "within their authority" to
determine the nature of their customers' water use.  Also, EPA agreed
that waivers could be used as evidence of a lack of consent by the
supplier, but should not be determinative on this issue.  In
addition, as noted earlier, EPA officials expect that these
determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis considering all
relevant circumstances. 

The Association of California Water Agencies also commented that EPA
ventured beyond the intent of the law when the agency decided that
alternative water must be "provided" by the irrigation districts. 
They argued that the law is silent on who is to be responsible for
providing the bottled or hauled water.  Moreover, they pointed out
that it makes no difference who the provider is--as long as the water
quality meets the applicable standards.  However, EPA officials told
us that on the basis of the legislative history, their view is that
the Congress clearly intended that alternative water would be
provided by the water suppliers. 


--------------------
\25 For example, the guidance says that state primacy agencies should
(1) determine what form of records they will need from water
suppliers regarding their efforts to identify households using the
water for human consumption and (2) make case-by-case determinations
on whether particular water suppliers meet the new definition of a
public water system. 


      IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW
      SDWA REQUIREMENTS MAY AFFECT
      COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING
      STATE LAWS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.4

In both California and Texas, implementing the new SDWA requirements
could affect irrigation systems' ability to comply with existing
state laws.  For example, under the 1996 amendments to SDWA,
irrigation districts and other special purpose systems that also have
residential users must be regulated as public water systems unless
they can meet certain exclusion criteria.  However, by state law,
irrigation districts in Texas are not authorized to provide drinking
water.  Texas officials say that amending the state drinking water
statute to incorporate the new definition of a public water system
does not resolve the problem; additional statutory changes will be
required to amend the state law governing irrigation districts. 

Under the applicable state laws, the California and Texas irrigation
districts cannot refuse to supply irrigation water to any taxpaying
member of a district who requests a connection.  However, if these
households use the irrigation water inside their homes, under EPA's
guidance, the district may be subject to liability under SDWA if it
knew or should have known that the water was being used for human
consumption--even if the district provides the water only on the
condition that it will not be used for human consumption.\26
Irrigation district representatives expressed concern that until
recently, county planning authorities were approving new development
without evidence of a safe drinking water source.  Residents who
turned to the irrigation canals for domestic water may now be counted
as "service connections," and the irrigation districts could be
subject to regulation as public water systems if they cannot use the
exclusion provisions within the statute to avoid regulation. 

Another implementation issue, cited by Texas officials, was the
potential infringement by irrigation districts on the designated
service areas granted to rural water supply corporations.  Regulated
under the state's Public Utilities Regulatory Act, these corporations
are nonprofit organizations, run by boards of directors, that receive
franchise rights to provide drinking water in a specific geographic
area.  Within its certified area, a water supply corporation has the
responsibility to provide drinking water as well as the exclusive
right to do so--that is, no one else is allowed to provide drinking
water to residents within that area.  Texas officials expressed
concern that if irrigation districts are regulated as public water
systems and must supply treated water to residential users, the
districts would be impinging on the exclusive rights of water supply
corporations to supply these users.  They estimated that 50 to 80
percent of the people who are currently getting water for residential
uses from the irrigation canals are within the service areas of water
supply corporations. 


--------------------
\26 As noted earlier, EPA believes that waivers are ineffective in
protecting a supplier against SDWA liability in instances in which
the supplier knows or should know that the water it supplies to a
user is being used for human consumption.  However, that does not
mean that waivers or warnings to customers have no evidentiary role
in an enforcement proceeding. 


      HIGHER PRIORITIES AND
      LIMITED RESOURCES MAY HAMPER
      STATES' IMPLEMENTATION OF
      THE NEW REQUIREMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.5

As a result of the 1996 amendments to SDWA, states gained significant
new responsibilities, including the implementation of the new state
revolving loan fund for drinking water projects, source water
assessment and protection programs, capacity development programs for
small water systems, expanded operator certification programs, and
several new contaminant regulations that are expected to have a major
impact on public water systems.  According to state officials in both
California and Texas, the bulk of their attention and resources will
be devoted to these higher-priority activities rather than
implementing the new definition of a public water system. 
Nevertheless, each state has begun to develop an implementation
strategy.  EPA officials also acknowledged that implementing these
new requirements is a relatively low priority compared with the
agency's other responsibilities under the 1996 amendments. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

We provided a draft of this report to EPA, the California Department
of Health Services, and the Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission.  We obtained comments from EPA officials, including the
Director of the Implementation and Assistance Division of the Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water, and state officials responsible
for overseeing drinking water quality.  EPA agreed with the report,
noting that it accurately captures the issues pertaining to the
domestic use of untreated irrigation water, and state officials also
agreed with the facts in the report.  The EPA and state officials
also provided updated information and technical comments, which we
incorporated throughout the report as appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

The scope and methodology we used for our work are discussed in
appendix I.  We performed our work from September 1997 through
September 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. 

We will send copies of this report to the EPA Administrator and other
interested parties.  We will also make copies available to others on
request.  Please call me at (202) 512-6111 if you or your staff have
any questions.  Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix II. 

Peter F.  Guerrero
Director, Environmental
 Protection Issues


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

In conducting our review, we collected data from a wide variety of
sources, including the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water and Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, the U.S.  Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Rural Utilities Service, the National Rural Water Association, the
National Water Resources Association, the National Mining
Association, the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators,
and selected states.  We chose California and Texas for detailed
review because they (1) were identified by EPA officials as the
states likely to be the most affected by the new definition of a
public water system, (2) are agricultural states with many irrigation
districts, and (3) have colonias with inadequate water and wastewater
infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexican border. 

Within these states, we focused on selected counties where reliance
on irrigation systems is most common according to federal and state
officials.  In Texas, residential use of these systems is
concentrated in the lower Rio Grande valley in Cameron and Hidalgo
counties.  In California, residential use is most prevalent in the
southern desert area (Imperial County) and the foothill areas of the
Sierra Nevada (Nevada, Placer, and Tuolumne counties). 

To determine the number and location of households that rely on
irrigation systems for some or all of their residential water needs,
we gathered data using a case study approach in California and Texas. 
Within each state, we interviewed officials responsible for managing
the public drinking water program and financing water infrastructure
improvements, including the California Department of Health Services,
the California Department of Water Resources, the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission, the Texas Water Development Board,
the Texas Office of the State Attorney General, and the local offices
of USDA's Rural Utilities Service.  In addition, we met with
representatives of irrigation districts from each of the selected
counties, including the Association of California Water Agencies and
the Lower Rio Grande Valley Water District Managers Association, and
other knowledgeable officials.  To supplement the testimonial
evidence, we obtained and analyzed relevant reports and other
supporting documentation. 

The state and local officials we interviewed in California and Texas
also provided information on the sources and costs of the water used
by households relying on irrigation systems and the cost and
feasibility of alternative sources.  Where residential customers
contracted for irrigation water, we collected data on the average
cost per household.  In addition, we obtained cost data from
purveyors of bottled and hauled water in the selected counties.  To
the extent possible, we obtained actual cost data on completed
projects involving the connection of clusters of households to
existing public water systems or the construction of new small
systems in previously unserved areas.  In addition, within EPA's
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, we obtained cost data from
the Treatment Technology Team, which is responsible for developing
information on affordable and effective compliance technologies for
small water systems.  Unless otherwise stated, all costs included in
our report are stated in current year dollars. 

To identify implementation issues that are likely to affect the
states' and irrigation systems' ability to comply with the new
definition of a public water system, we interviewed EPA officials
responsible for developing guidance on the new requirements as well
as state and irrigation district officials responsible for
implementing the new requirements.  We also reviewed EPA's draft and
final guidance as well as the comments received on the draft
guidance. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

Luther Atkins
Charles Bausell
Ellen Crocker
Steve Elstein
Karen Keegan
Steve Licari
Luann Moy
Susan Swearingen


*** End of document. ***