Policy Sciences

, Volume 41, Issue 3, pp 205–220 | Cite as

Is an exemption from US groundwater regulations a loophole or a noose?

Article

Abstract

In the United States, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) regulates most groundwater used for drinking water. The Act covers most urban areas but because it does not cover small water systems, it implicitly exempts nearly half of those living in rural America. In large measure, monitoring required by the SDWA has illustrated the prevalence of naturally occurring arsenic in groundwater in concentrated areas throughout the country. Even though many in Congress seem aware of this threat and have, indeed, supported more stringent arsenic standards, Congress, on the whole, has failed to update the SDWA to cover those water systems left unprotected by the Act. Conventional political science theory suggests that effective congressional oversight depends on Congress creating both active (e.g., hearings and commissioned studies) and passive oversight mechanisms (i.e., citizen suits and opportunities for constituent feedback). In this case, Congress had, in fact, created sufficient tools to detect a serious problem but, having identified it, nevertheless failed to respond. Why? In exploring Congress’s inaction, we find something unexpected: the structure of the SDWA has created perverse incentives not only for unregulated water systems but also for regulated systems to push to keep exempted water systems unregulated. The outcome is that those outside of the SDWA’s protections remain outside and continue to drink contaminated water by the glass full. So, while Congress created a loophole, it may have inadvertently tied a noose.

Keywords

Groundwater Congressional oversight Safe Drinking Water Act Arsenic 

References

  1. Adelman, D. E., & Barton, J. H. (2002). Environmental regulation for agriculture: Towards a framework to promote sustainable intensive agriculture. Stanford Environmental Law Journal, 21, 3–43.Google Scholar
  2. Barabak, M. (2001). LAT poll shows plurality supports bush on environment but disagrees with arsenic, Kyoto decisions. Los Angeles Times, April 30.Google Scholar
  3. Calabrese, E. J., Gilbert, C. E., & Pastides, H. (1990). Safe Drinking Water Act: Amendments, regulations and standards. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Center for Disease Control. (2003). Fact sheet: Arsenic and drinking water from private wells. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/healthywater/factsheets/pdf/arsenic.pdf. Accessed on December 24, 2007.
  5. Congressional Budget Office. (1995). The Safe Drinking Water Act: A case study of an unfunded federal mandate. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  6. Congressional Research Service, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division. (1982). A legislative history of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  7. Connecticut Division of Environmental Health. (2002). Fact sheet: Naturally occurring arsenic in private well water. Hartford, CT: Division of Environmental Health.Google Scholar
  8. Copeland, C. (1999). Rural water supply and sewer systems: Background information. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  9. Copeland, C. (2007). Rural water supply and sewer systems: Background information. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  10. Environmental Protection Agency. (1999). National characteristics of drinking water systems serving populations under 10,000. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  11. Environmental Protection Agency. (2001). National primary drinking water regulations: Arsenic and clarifications to compliance and new source contaminants monitoring. Federal Register, 66, 20580.Google Scholar
  12. Environmental Protection Agency. (2002). Drinking water from household wells. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  13. Environmental Protection Agency. (2003). Water on tap: What you need to know. Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.Google Scholar
  14. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Drinking water in schools and child care facilities. Available at http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/schools/guidance.html. Accessed on February 27, 2008.
  15. Fialka, J. J. (2001). Arsenic and wild space: Green activists from across spectrum unite against bush. Wall Street Journal, April 11, A20.Google Scholar
  16. Gibbons, Rep. [NV]. (2001). Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. Congressional Record – House, 147, 4748.Google Scholar
  17. Hughes, M. F., Kenyon, M., & Kitchin, K. T. (2007). Research approaches to address uncertainties in the risk assessment of arsenic in drinking water. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 222, 399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2004). Some drinking-water disinfectants and contaminants, including arsenic (Vol. 88). World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  19. Jehl, D. (2001). E.P.A. to Abandon New Arsenic Limits for Water Supply. New York Times, March 21.Google Scholar
  20. Maine Bureau of Health. (2002a). Have you tested your well for arsenic? Augusta, ME: Department of Human Services. Available at http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/eohp/wells/documents/ASBROCH3.pdf. Accessed on December 24, 2007.
  21. Maine Bureau of Health. (2002b). Healthy Maine Report 2010. Augusta, ME: Department of Human Services. Available at http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/boh/healthy_maine_2010.htm. Accessed on December 24, 2007.
  22. McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 165–179. doi:10.2307/2110792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller, G. J. (2005). The political evolution of principal-agent models’. Annual Review of Political Science, 8, 203–225. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Moe, T. M. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 739–777. doi:10.2307/2110997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moe, T. M. (1985). Control and feedback in economic regulation: The NLRB. The American Political Science Review, 79, 1094–1116. doi:10.2307/1956250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moe, T. M. (1987). Interests, institutions and positive theory. In K. Orren & S. Skowronek (Eds.), Studies in American political development (pp. 236–299). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Musil, R. K. (2001). Arsenic on tap. New York Times, April 24, A18.Google Scholar
  28. New Jersey Geological Survey & Bureau of Safe Drinking Water. (2005). Arsenic water treatment for residential wells in New Jersey. Trenton, NJ: Department of Environmental Protection. Available at http://www.nj.gov/dep/pwta/Arsenic_Treatment.pdf. Accessed on December 24, 2007.
  29. National Research Council. (1999). Arsenic in drinking water. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  30. National Research Council. (2001). Arsenic in drinking water. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  31. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Reed, S. [RI]. (2002). Statements on introduced bills and joint resolutions. Congressional Record – Senate, 148, 10678.Google Scholar
  33. Reid, Sen. [NV]. (2001). Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. Congressional Record – Senate, 147, 8557.Google Scholar
  34. Reid, J. C., Pippin, C. G., & Haven, W. T. Assessing the source for arsenic in groundwater. North Carolina, Piedmont. Available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/gwp/documents/ArsenicstudyReidetal.pdf. Accessed on March 3, 2008.
  35. Shogren, E. (2001). House OKs measure to cut arsenic in water. Los Angeles Times, July 28, A1.Google Scholar
  36. Siegel, M., Hinkebein, T., Dwyer, B., & Brady, P. (2004). Arsenic in the groundwaters of New Mexico: Challenges and potential solutions. Available at http://www.unm.edu/~cstp/Reports/H2O_Session_4/4-2_Siegel.pdf. Accessed on December 28, 2007.
  37. Sunstein, C. R. (2002). The arithmetic of arsenic. The Georgetown Law Journal, 90, 2255–2303.Google Scholar
  38. Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Beyond the precautionary principles. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151, 1003–1058. doi:10.2307/3312884.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tiemann, M. (1996). Safe Drinking Water Act: Implementation and reauthorization. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  40. Tiemann, M. (2005). Arsenic in drinking water: Regulatory developments and issues. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  41. Tiemann, M. (2006). Safe Drinking Water Act: Issues in the 109th congress. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.Google Scholar
  42. U.S. House Committee of Conference. (2001). Making appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002 and for other purposes. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  43. U.S. Senate. (2002). 107th Congress, 2nd session. 2002. S. 3127, Private Well Testing Assistance Act of 2002. Available at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s107-3127. Accessed on October 10, 2002.
  44. University of Maine Cooperative Extension. (1999). Fact sheet #2: Home well water quality. Augusta, ME: Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
  45. Walsh, Rep. [NY]. (2001). Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. Congressional Record – House, 147, 4743–4744Google Scholar
  46. Weingast, B. R. (1984). The Congressional Bureaucratic System: A principal-agent perspective (with applications to the SEC). Public Choice, 44, 147–188. doi:10.1007/BF00124821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weingast, B. R., & Morgan, M. J. (1983). Bureaucratic discretion or congressional control? Regulatory policymaking by the Federal Trade Commission. The Journal of Political Economy, 91, 765–800. doi:10.1086/261181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Welch, A. H., Westjohn, D. B., Helsel, D. R., & Wanty, R. B. (2000). Arsenic in groundwater of the United States: Occurrence and geochemistry. Ground Water, 38, 589–604. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2000.tb00251.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Houston Law CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Nicholas School of the EnvironmentDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  3. 3.Baker Botts LLPHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations