Drinking Water

Although most Americans get their drinking water from public water systems regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, some households lack access to public water systems and rely instead on untreated water from irrigation systems or other "special purpose" water systems. This practice occurs primarily in the arid western states, where irrigation is needed for farming and the water is transported through open canals and ditches. California and Texas likely contain the largest concentrations of people in the United States relying on water from irrigation systems, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials. The vast majority of the households relying on such water are believed to be purchasing bottled or hauled water for drinking and cooking and using the water from irrigation systems for other purposes, such as bathing or washing dishes. Residential users of irrigation systems now pay between $100 and $700 per year for untreated water that is supposed to be used only for nondomestic purposes, such as watering lawns. The cost to buy bottled or hauled water ranges from about $120 to $650 year. Other alternatives, such as connecting residential users to existing community water systems, installing new community systems, or installing point-of-entry treatment devices, can be considerably more expensive and may not be affordable without financial assistance. 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 by the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

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.