Recent Changes

The wiki will not allow the graph. Click on link and go to page 10.
From: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/needssurvey/pdfs/2003/report_needssurvey_2003_es.pdf (Page 10)
water standards. These peopleLocal governments may have a limited number often neglects larger risksthe more specific problems and spends money on insignificant risks.noexistant problems. In the stepped in. While the need for some federal regulation is nesecary it will always be local governments who will be the most effecive in dealing with water standard problems.
Contaminants in water supply. If these levels were true we would all have helath problems.
-article found on http://cei.org/node/20914
Don’t we need more federal regulation to keep our drinking water safe?

Issue:
Should there be more federal regulation on drinking water?
drinking water:
Clean
Clean Water Action: drinking water.
Environmentalists, including Senator Russ Feingold, who want to keep rivers, streams, and other bodies of water clean would support increased federal regulation. Protected water sources provide a good living environment for wildlife and a good source of drinking water.
stepped in.
The
The water supply new regulations.
Researchers, particularly those who have specialized in empirical research on the useful life of pipe: This group is in favor of increased federal regulation of drinking water. Increased regulations would cause differently engineered pipes to be designed. Researchers would have to conduct tests on the new types of pipes and their income and workload would increase.
Pro: The government needs to implement more regulations on drinking water to maintain the health of the public. The many contaminants found in water can be extremely hazardous if they are not severely reduced or eliminated completely. The federal government sets these levels and makes sure that local water supplies follow this mandate. Even so, local governments and private water suppliers have direct responsibility for the quality of the water that flows to your tap. The federal government needs to have more control and regulations over local water supplies so that Americans are protected from deadly chemicals.

Issue:
Should there be more federal regulation on drinking water?
Interest Groups involved in the discussion of whether to have increased federal regulations on drinking water:
Clean Water Action: An organization of 1.2 million members working to empower people to take action to protect America's waters, build healthy communities and to make democracy work for everybody. They are in favor of stricter and tougher regulations by the federal government on drinking water.
Environmentalists, including Senator Russ Feingold, who want to keep rivers, streams, and other bodies of water clean would support increased federal regulation. Protected water sources provide a good living environment for wildlife and a good source of drinking water.
States, their Governors and Legislators: States are not in favor of increased federal regulation of drinking water. States have limited number of resources but they would be able to narrow in on specific problems and increase the well-being of the public. Federal regulation often neglects larger risks and spends huge sums of money on insignificant risks. In the past local government and private firms has done more for water quality then the federal government. Much of the improvement in water quality occurred before the federal government stepped in.
The water supply industry and its associations: The water supply industry is not in favor of increased federal regulations on drinking water. Stricter regulations might cause the industry to usher in some new, more expensive technologies and services. If there were more federal regulation, profit for this industry would go down as it would have to spend money to accommodate the new regulations.
Researchers, particularly those who have specialized in empirical research on the useful life of pipe: This group is in favor of increased federal regulation of drinking water. Increased regulations would cause differently engineered pipes to be designed. Researchers would have to conduct tests on the new types of pipes and their income and workload would increase.
Pro: The government needs to implement more regulations on drinking water to maintain the health of the public. The many contaminants found in water can be extremely hazardous if they are not severely reduced or eliminated completely. The federal government sets these levels and makes sure that local water supplies follow this mandate. Even so, local governments and private water suppliers have direct responsibility for the quality of the water that flows to your tap. The federal government needs to have more control and regulations over local water supplies so that Americans are protected from deadly chemicals.
The effects of arsenic in drinking water can include thickening and discoloration of the skin, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting; diarrhea; numbness in hands and feet; partial paralysis; and blindness. Arsenic has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate. Lead in drinking water can cause damage to brain, red blood cells, and kidneys, especially for young children and pregnant women. Copper in drinking water can cause stomach and intestinal distress, liver or kidney damage, and complications of Wilson's disease in genetically predisposed people. These are just a few of the contaminants that can be found in drinking water if not properly treated.

Environmental Protection Agencyhttp://www.pollingreport.com/enviro.htm
Environmental Pessimism
htmldiff1
Top Ten Environmental Policy Terms
htmldiff2Environmental Impact Statement- a statement needed to be written before any federal agency undertakes an activity that will “significantly” affect the quality of the human environment.

Non-Regulatory Need
(in billions of January 2003 dollars)
From:The wiki will not allow the graph. Click on link and go to page 10.
From: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/needssurvey/pdfs/2003/report_needssurvey_2003_es.pdf (Page 10)
Con: The public would be better served if states and local authorities had more control in regulations on water standards. These people have limited number of resources but they would be able to narrow in on specific problems and increase the well-being of the public. Federal regulation often neglects larger risks and spends huge sums of money on insignificant risks. In the past local government and private firms has done more for water quality then the federal government. Much of the improvement in water quality occurred before the federal government stepped in.
Contaminants in water are never at a high enough risk to pose a cancer risk. The EPA overestimates the negative effects of chlorine, arsenic, and radon in the US water supply.

Acute effects occur within hours or days of the time that a person consumes a contaminant. People can suffer acute health effects from almost any contaminant if they are exposed to extraordinarily high levels (as in the case of a spill). In drinking water, microbes, such as bacteria and viruses, are the contaminants with the greatest chance of reaching levels high enough to cause acute health effects. Most people's bodies can fight off these microbial contaminants the way they fight off germs, and these acute contaminants typically don't have permanent effects. Nonetheless, when high enough levels occur, they can make people ill, and can be dangerous or deadly for a person whose immune system is already weak due to HIV/AIDS, chemotherapy, steroid use, or another reason.
Chronic effects occur after people consume a contaminant at levels over EPA's safety standards for many years. The drinking water contaminants that can have chronic effects are chemicals (such as disinfection by-products, solvents, and pesticides), radionuclides (such as radium), and minerals (such as arsenic). Examples of the chronic effects of drinking water contaminants are cancer, liver or kidney problems, or reproductive difficulties.
From the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Under the Act, DEP is authorized to assess and collect civil penalties, fines, and/or other fees for each violation. A penalty may be assessed whether or not the violation is willful or negligent. Figure 9 shows the number of penalty actions performed across the state has averaged approximately 28 per calendar year.
{http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersupply/lib/watersupply/dwpmfigure9_08.jpg} fig9
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
State-widePenalties
27
20
39
22
17
25
30
42
67
91
Source: http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/watersupply/cwp/view.asp?a=1450&q=512634
From the 2003 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment:
The total regulatory need is $45.1 billion, or only 16 percent of the total national need. While most of the total need is not driven by compliance with a particular regulation, properly maintaining a system’s infrastructure is not only economical in the long run, but also is protective of public health. These nonregulatory costs include routine installation, upgrade, and replacement of basic infrastructure and are borne by the system regardless of regulations.
Exhibit ES-4: 20-Year Regulatory and
Non-Regulatory Need
(in billions of January 2003 dollars)
From: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/needssurvey/pdfs/2003/report_needssurvey_2003_es.pdf
Con: The public would be better served if states and local authorities had more control in regulations on water standards. These people have limited number of resources but they would be able to narrow in on specific problems and increase the well-being of the public. Federal regulation often neglects larger risks and spends huge sums of money on insignificant risks. In the past local government and private firms has done more for water quality then the federal government. Much of the improvement in water quality occurred before the federal government stepped in.
Contaminants in water are never at a high enough risk to pose a cancer risk. The EPA overestimates the negative effects of chlorine, arsenic, and radon in the US water supply.

Issue:
Should there be more federal regulation on drinking water?
Pro: FederalThe government needs to implement more regulations on drinking water to maintain the health of the public. The many contaminants found in water can be extremely hazardous if they are not severely reduced or eliminated completely. The federal government sets these levels and makes sure that local water supplies follow this mandate. Even so, local governments and private water suppliers have direct responsibility for the quality of the water that flows to your tap. The federal government needs to have more control and regulations over local water supplies so that Americans are protected from deadly chemicals.
The effects of arsenic in drinking water can include thickening and discoloration of the skin, stomach pain, nausea, vomiting; diarrhea; numbness in hands and feet; partial paralysis; and blindness. Arsenic has been linked to cancer of the bladder, lungs, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver, and prostate. Lead in drinking water can cause damage to brain, red blood cells, and kidneys, especially for young children and pregnant women. Copper in drinking water can cause stomach and intestinal distress, liver or kidney damage, and complications of Wilson's disease in genetically predisposed people. These are just a few of the contaminants that can be found in drinking water if not properly treated.
Federal regulation of
Contaminants in water can cause serious problems for people like gastrointestinal diseases, Legionnaires Disease, and a substantial increase in the chance of cancer.
- article found on http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwh/index.html