Guest Opinion
Living in the United States, we have a great deal of confidence that regulations protect us from health risks. In particular, we trust that our drinking water—overseen by the U.S. EPA and its counterpart state agencies—is reliably safe. However, it is far more variable than many might think. Given that water quality depends on weather, runoff, natural filtration, contaminant and toxin treatment, and the infrastructure that delivers it to each home, it should not be surprising that quality can fluctuate—sometimes to the point of being dangerous—while still operating as a permitted public water supply.
The Safe Drinking Water Act was enacted in 1974, at the height of the environmental movement that followed the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. A cluster of federal environmental statutes were passed by Congress during that era: the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (signed in 1970), the Clean Air Act of 1970, the Clean Water Act of 1972 (a major amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948), the Endangered Species Act of 1973, and the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. President Nixon created the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through a reorganization plan in 1970, consolidating components from other departments. This structure remains the foundation of the EPA’s authority today.
Returning to the Safe Drinking Water Act: major amendments were adopted in 1986 and 1996. Another significant shift came in 2001, when, in the wake of 9/11, credible threats to the nation’s water supply prompted additional security measures, including physical barriers and monitoring systems—protections arguably as important as the regulation of contaminants and toxins. In 2018, Congress passed further amendments to address cybersecurity risks in water systems. Notably, the first known cyberattack on a water system occurred in 2013.
Compliance with the SDWA (2023)
In 2023, 72% of active public water systems (107,559) had no reported violations. Nearly 28% (40,982 systems) violated at least one drinking water standard. More concerning, 4% (6,045 systems) violated a health-based standard, meaning contaminants were detected above allowable limits.
Additionally, 20% of systems (29,703) failed to meet at least one monitoring or reporting requirement, meaning information about contaminants was late, incomplete, or not submitted at all.
That same year, 5,018 systems (3.4%) were designated as enforcement priorities during at least one quarter. The vast majority—93%—were small systems serving 3,300 people or fewer. Federal and state agencies initiated formal enforcement actions at 2,398 systems and informal actions at 27,149 systems. Meanwhile, 24,819 systems corrected violations and returned to compliance.
You may want to check your own water system, many of which provide accessible, user-friendly compliance dashboards.
Most public water systems are small; about 80% fall into this category. Under the SDWA, a small public water system serves fewer than 10,000 users, with subcategories for systems serving 3,301–10,000 people, 501–3,300 people, and 500 people or fewer.
The 1996 amendments to the SDWA introduced provisions allowing variances for small systems when they cannot meet certain contaminant standards. This reflects a practical cost-benefit reality: the cost of reducing contaminants rises exponentially, with the final increments of purification accounting for the majority of total expense. In some cases, achieving near-total contaminant removal may be prohibitively expensive, leaving communities to weigh imperfect water against no access at all. This tradeoff helps ensure widespread access to water in the United States—but also explains why it may not be as safe as assumed.
A cost curve illustrating contaminant removal—such as arsenic—typically shows a “hockey-stick” pattern, where the last small percentage of purification requires disproportionately high investment. This pattern holds true for many toxins.
Perceptions of Drinking Water Safety
There appears to be no consistent, year-to-year national study tracking public perception of drinking water safety. However, a composite of multiple research efforts suggests that confidence in the water supply is declining. Across these studies, only about 37% of respondents expressed trust in their drinking water.
High-profile incidents—most notably the Flint, Michigan water crisis beginning in April 2014—have further eroded public trust, particularly when failures disproportionately affect low-income communities.
How We Measure Up Worldwide
Globally, 73% of the population—about 6 billion people—used safely managed drinking water services in 2022. However, 296 million people still rely on unprotected wells and springs, and 115 million collect untreated surface water from lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams.
An estimated 505,000 deaths each year are attributed to microbiologically contaminated drinking water. Diseases such as cholera, dysentery, typhoid, and polio—often spread through parasites, bacteria, and other pathogens—remain major contributors.
Final Thoughts
Ranking nations by drinking water safety is difficult due to varying laws and standards, but the United States generally maintains a high level of safety.
The 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act significantly improved transparency by requiring public reporting. The annual Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), which must be delivered by July 1 each year, provides households with detailed information about their local water quality. Transparency is a cornerstone of public trust.
At the same time, increasing enforcement actions may signal either a rise in violations or simply more rigorous oversight. Either way, it underscores the importance of vigilance.
You may find yourself looking at your next glass of water a little differently.
To read more articles by Professor Sutton go to: https://profvictoria.substack.com/
Professor Victoria Sutton (Lumbee) is a law professor on the faculty of Texas Tech University. In 2005, Sutton became a founding member of the National Congress of American Indians, Policy Advisory Board to the NCAI Policy Center, positioning the Native American community to act and lead on policy issues affecting Indigenous communities in the United States.
