4.7 Article

Understanding and Improving Enforcement and Compliance with Drinking Water Standards

期刊

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
卷 33, 期 5, 页码 1647-1663

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11269-019-2189-4

关键词

Water quality; Maximum contaminant level (MCL) violations; Public water systems; Safe drinking water act; Enforcement

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The quality of public drinking water poses a critical risk to public health, yet U.S. public water systems (PWSs) frequently produce water that violates drinking water standards. The causes of such violations and the effects of enforcement actions on reducing those violations remain poorly understood. We use a ten-year database of water quality violations across 2487 Connecticut (CT) water systems to test a novel analytical model that investigates drivers of water quality violations and explores the effects of enforcement actions by the state drinking water program (DWP) on the durations of violations. PWS characteristics associated with increased violations in CT include: state-ownership, groundwater dependence, and rural location. Non-transient, non-community (NTNC) systems committed fewer violations overall, but their violations lasted significantly longer than those committed by other PWS types. PWSs respond differently to formal versus informal enforcement actions, with informal enforcement actions (i.e. a letter and technical assistance) curbing duration of violations more effectively than the comparatively punitive, formal enforcement actions. Lastly, we find the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement targeting tool (ETT) somewhat helpful for restoring PWS compliance in combination with informal enforcement action, but our analysis suggests the ETT is less effective in isolation. We demonstrate a novel analytical model that provides actionable information to state DWPs charged with enforcing drinking water standards to protect the quality of public water supplies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据