Drinking Water History and Quality Plan
Sydney Williams
01/04/2025
When you think of daily life, it is easy to forget how often water plays a role. From the flush of a toilet to laundry being washed, to showering at the end of the day, water plays a huge role in our daily lives. Throughout the world checks and balances are required for clean and safe water to be delivered to the public. This allows protection against waterborne diseases, nutrient pollution and other negative impacts of contaminated water. Rich in history and discovery, the path to safe drinking water is an interesting one. Regulations, filtration systems and precautionary actions have come a long way, but there is still room for improvement.
From the beginning of human-kind, clean drinking water has been a top priority. Originally, it was believed that clear water was clean water. The only reason for intervention was for esthetic reasons: concerns with color, odor and taste mostly (“The History of Drinking Water Treatment,” 2000). Around 4,000 B.C, the first effort was made at harnessing clean drinking water when Sanskrits and Greeks encouraged boiling water, filtering through charcoal and even straining it before ingesting (“The History of Drinking Water Treatment,” 2000).
Over time, the study of water shed light on contaminated water and its dangers running deeper than just appearance. Studies into developing filtration for truly clean drinking water were invented. In Paisley, Scotland, the development of the first large scale water treatment facility was created, in the early 1800’s, which distributed clean drinking water to the entire town (Hall et al., 2000). In the mid-1800's there was a huge breakthrough in understanding bacteria in the water. An epidemiologist, Dr. John Snow, proved cholera was a waterborne disease. Cholera is an acute diarrheal infection plaguing the London area. Dr. John Snow was able to make the connection of the outbreak in London to a “public well that was contaminated by sewage” (“The History of Drinking Water Treatment,” 2000). Around the same time in France, Louis Pasteur, a chemist, “demonstrated the ‘germ theory’ of disease, which explained how microscopic organisms could transmit disease through media like water” (“The History of Drinking Water Treatment,” 2000). These scientists opened the door to understanding water contamination. Quickly, research began to blossom, and modernized water treatment facilities began to develop in these areas.
Although other countries seemed to dive into research on contaminated water and cleaning methods early on, the United States took longer to grasp an effective water treatment system. In the early 1900’s, Americans tried to combat the turbidity with sand filtration, as turbidity meant there were particles of contaminants in the water. By 1908, the United States discovered the use of chemicals, such as chlorine worked as a disinfectant for the water (“The History of Drinking Water Treatment,” 2000). This was far behind European tactics, who had implemented multiple disinfectants into their drinking water decades earlier.
In 1914, the first U.S. Federal regulations on drinking water were put in place. This provided standards for contaminant levels in drinking water for “drinking water [delivered by] interstate carriers” (“The History of Drinking Water Treatment,” 2000). Over the years, revisions were made, resulting in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act being instated in 1948. This opened more conversation about what contaminant levels should be considered safe for consumption and was renamed the Clean Water Act in 1972 (History of the Clean Water Act, 2024). The Clean Water Act continues to protect all avenues of water usage that need to remain clean to be safe. This includes water used for bathing, washing clothes and dishes, preparing food, and even heating and cooling systems. Two years after the Clean Water Act was instated, the Safe Drinking Water Act developed, which was put in place to specifically focus on protecting “the quality of drinking water in the U.S.” (Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act | US EPA, 2024). Both the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act are still used today.
Although water quality started with simply wanting to improve the esthetics of water, it slowly became apparent that clean water had more to do with contamination. Today, the largest contributor to water pollution and degradation worldwide is runoff from agricultural production (Denchak, 2023). Streams, rivers, wetlands and even lakes are overrun with nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus from over-fertilized farmland. This is a concern since an overabundance of nutrients becomes very dangerous when ingested. For example, too much nitrogen can result in restriction of oxygen in the bloodstream (Nitrogen and Water | U.S. Geological Survey, 2016).
To combat nutrient pollution, farm conservation practices are utilized worldwide. Farm conservation practices are methods used to reduce soil erosion, fertilizer runoff, and animal waste runoff as a way to combat nutrient pollution in our waterways. These methods include the use of rotational crops, livestock grazing and nutrient management plans (Regenerative Agriculture’s Top Eight Conservation Practices, n.d.). Nutrient management plans specifically outline how much fertilizer should be used on farmland to reduce over-fertilizing. Unfortunately, the development of these plans is farm specific and requires one-on-one consultations and analysis. The execution of these plans is quite expensive when factoring in staffing, upgraded equipment and implementation costs. Even with the outpouring of federal and state-level funding, there has been little progress made over the years.
Improved farming tactics through the use of nutrient management plans would drastically decrease the nutrient pollution in our waterways, but even if sufficient funding was available there is no guarantee farmers would implement the plans. Some states have recognized this point of concern and work to address it. Implemented in 1994, and again in 2010 with revisions, Michigan’s Fertilizer Act has put pressure on this situation. This law prohibited the use of phosphorus fertilizers for “home, commercial and municipal application” except for in very specific circumstances as an effort to combat excess nutrients from entering our environment (Gibb & Bhakta, 2012). Although this greatly reduced the amount of nutrient pollution, it only addresses phosphorus fertilizers and not nitrogen, which continues to be widely used.
Michigan chose to take a less direct course of action, as well, to combat nutrient pollution by setting standards to reduce soil erosion. Healthy soil is able to absorb more nutrients, resulting in less runoff. Seeing as soil erosion commonly occurs with unhealthy soil, addressing soil erosion also inadvertently addresses nutrient pollution. The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Program (SESC) requires permits to be pulled in any “earth change activity which disturbs one or more acres of land or which is within 500 feet of a lake or stream” (Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program (SESC), n.d.). This is enforceable by county throughout Michigan with the help of Municipal Enforcing Agencies (MEAs) and Authorized Public Agencies (APAs).
Michigan seems to be taking steps in the right direction, but sadly the same cannot be said on the federal level. There are currently no federal laws against the over-use of fertilizers. Guidelines have been made regarding the use and manufacturing of fertilizers, but nothing legally binding. I would like to see stricter laws against the over-use of fertilizers on the state and federal level as well as enforcement of the regulations. This sounds great in theory but expensive and time-consuming to execute. There is no such thing as a new law being approved quickly. It takes a lot of time and effort to have a motion move through on the federal and state level.
An alternative to addressing the use of fertilizers in an effort to limit nutrient pollution is to simply intervene before it reaches consumers. Water treatment facilities play a vital role in protection against pollution by filtering out excess nutrients from waterways before the water reaches our homes. This critical line of defense ensures that our drinking water remains safe and is routinely cleaned and tested for harmful contaminants. However, if regulatory measures regarding fertilizer usage remain lax, we can expect nutrient pollution to escalate. In order to safeguard public health, additional filtration systems may be required to eliminate these excess nutrients out of our water supply. This would impose a significant financial burden on treatment facilities (Where This Occurs: Ground Water and Drinking Water | US EPA, 2024).
Real change would come with a mixture of all methods: Nutrient Management Plans, State and Federal funding, laws and regulations on both the state and federal level, and improved water treatment facilities. There is room for growth in all areas, but many hurdles remain. Funding, time and manpower all pose serious problems.
To see progress, I would start with the distribution of information to farmers. This would involve startup cost of qualified designers and educators alike to create broad Nutrient Management Plans. The use of government funding to pay these professionals and government backing would require state and/or federal approval before distribution. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is likely to weigh in on this matter as well to ensure authenticity and accuracy prior to distribution. Resource Conservationist Susan Lamb would be a point of contact when creating generalized Nutrient Management Plans (Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning, n.d.). Susan is currently listed as the point of contact when it comes to personalized plans through the EPA.
Mass distributed through email and online servers would have minimal cost, but allowing printed copies to be available at farm and fleet stores nationally would be important as well. Many farmers are considered “old school” and trust their local venders more than the internet. Mass distribution of 25,000 leaflets would cost around $600, a cost easily achievable (Parker, 2024).
The fight against nutrient pollution doesn’t stop at pamphlets. Understanding that different states have different needs, federal laws are not likely to be a productive method to reduce nutrient pollution. State laws are the better route to see real change. There needs to be a cap placed on the amount of fertilizers being used on commercial agriculture operations as well as family farms. This amount would need to be calculated by looking at the individual crops being produced, soil health and desired outcomes of each farm. Soil testing, if completed regularly, would be able to shine light on the needs of each unique farm. Soil testing alone can cost up to $14 per acre, a bill many farmers cannot afford (Carlson, 2024). This would require more federal or state-level funding for farmers.
For this to come to fruition, each state government would need to be petitioned for a change. A bill must be created prior to a law being established. This process is lengthy, starting with addressing legislation. After the introduction to Legislature, “the course [the proposed bill] takes is subject to a more structured legislative procedure” (Michigan Legislature, 2023). If a proper bill is established, it must make it through the State Senate and House of Representatives. From there it will be proposed to the Committee, who will decide if there is to be a public hearing for the bill. This is when the public can testify for or against the bill (Michigan Legislature, 2023). A favorable outcome results in more checks and balances, eventually landing the bill on the Governor's desk to be signed or vetoed. From start to finish, this process can sometimes take years to complete. It isn’t a cheap process either. Between 2019 and 2020, it was estimated to cost over $17,000 per bill or resolution filed and $125,000 per enacted bill (Hyden, 2022).
When deciding on what bills to try and achieve, looking at how other countries are addressing it could be beneficial. For example, Michigan could learn a thing or two from Scotland, who is the first Hydro-Nation and aims “to be the world leader in the responsible management of water resources” (The Scottish Government, July 2020). Unlike in Michigan, funding is provided for financial support for “owners and users of private water supplies to support improvements to the quality of their supply” (The Scottish Government, July 2020). Michigan, on the other hand, only provides loans through the Household Well Water Program to make such improvements. Michigan residents are required to pay back while Scotland residents are not.
The same can be said when looking into overall solutions. Michigan seems to rely more heavily on chemical treatment of water while Scotland works to find more natural methods. One of these methods is Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). SUDS are a “sequence of water management practices and facilities designed to drain surface water” with a sustainable approach for “routing run-off through a pipe to a watercourse” (Diffuse Pollution in the Urban Environment, n.d.). With this proactive approach, Scotland only has 229 water treatment facilities (Our Vital Role - Scottish Water, n.d.). Comparatively, Michigan has 263 facilities (Facilities List - Michigan Water Environment Association, n.d.).
Although Michigan and Scotland differ in some ways when it comes to nutrient pollution management, they both have prioritized land management practices and funding. The U.S. Department of Agriculture provides funds to Michigan farmers for implementation of soil conservation practices. This reduces nutrient pollution from agriculture, which is a point of focus with 10 million acres in Michigan dedicated to agriculture (20 Michigan Agriculture Facts You Might Not Have Known, 2023). Some practices that qualify for funding include “forest management plans, ... pest and nutrient management plans, timber stand improvement, tree and windbreak planting, ...” (USDA Announces Conservation Funding for Michigan Farmers and Forest Owners, 2024). There is special funding available for Source Water Protection areas as well where agricultural practices are known to affect the water quality. The goal is to implement “conservation practices that protect water quality such as cover crops, residue management, and prescribed grazing” (USDA Announces Conservation Funding for Michigan Farmers and Forest Owners, 2024).
Similarly, Scotland has the Agri-Environment Climate Scheme (AECS) which promoted land management practices to help “protect and enhance Scotland’s natural heritage, improve water quality...” and more (The Scottish Government, 2024). Funding is provided for farmers to implement organic farming practices such as prioritizing soil health, minimizing fertilizer use and free-range livestock (Scottish Organic Producers Association (SOPA), n.d.).
Both Scotland and Michigan also take their water testing very seriously as a defensive way of combating nutrient pollution. Safe drinking water is of utmost importance to both. In Scotland, the Drinking Water Quality Regulator (DWQR) is dedicated to performing water testing and ensuring compliance with Scottish water standards (The Scottish Government, August 2020). Michigan conducts elaborate water testing as well with the Division of Environmental Health (DEH) (Drinking Water Policies and Laws, n.d.).
Over the years, efforts and understanding toward clean and safe drinking water have made leaps and bounds. Unfortunately, nutrient pollution continues to be a problem that is difficult to solve worldwide. Michigan and Scotland, alike, struggle to find the remedies needed to mitigate nutrient pollution. Although they have similarities, the differences in their tactics could hold the answer. A balance between natural remedies and chemical intervention, a balance between precautions and reactions.
Through the use of state law, public regulation and education, and sustainable farming practices, I believe nutrient pollution can be greatly reduced. If tackled at the source, less treatment facilities – and in turn less chemical intervention — would be needed. The collaboration of multiple groups including state and federal governments, farmers, and educators are needed for this to come to fruition and continue to progress. By turning funding towards prevention instead of treatment, the world could see a major reduction in nutrient pollution and a major improvement in water quality.
Prior to researching the depths of water quality, I was unaware of the journey it has taken to get where we are today. With safe drinking water being readily available to me at all times, it is easy to forget everything that goes into producing it. It is also easy to forget that not everyone is so fortunate. Our treatment facilities keep Michigan's water clean enough for consumption. However, Michigan's agricultural industry continues to make this difficult. Since conducting this research, I have learned there is no simple solution to nutrient pollution and water quality. A complex system of multiple moving parts is necessary to see real change with time and money playing a huge role in sought improvements, two components that are difficult to harness when it comes to environmental change.
References:
Association of State Dam Safety Officials. (2002). THE COST OF REHABILITATING OUR NATION’S DAMS. https://damsafety.org/sites/default/files/Cost%20of%20Rehab%20Report-2016%20Update_1.pdf
Carlson, J. (2024, September 13). How much does a soil test cost? HomeGuide. https://homeguide.com/costs/soil-test-cost
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning. (n.d.). Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/conservation-basics/conservation-by-state/maryland/comprehensive-nutrient-management-planning
Denchak, M. (2023, January 11). Water pollution: Everything you need to know. NRDC. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/water-pollution-everything-you-need-know
Diffuse pollution in the urban environment. (n.d.). Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). https://www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/water/diffuse-pollution/diffuse-pollution-in-the-urban-environment/#sustainable
Drinking water policies and laws. (n.d.). https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/safety-injury-prev/environmental-health/topics/care-for-mi-drinking-water/policies-and-laws
Facilities list - Michigan Water Environment Association. (n.d.). https://www.mi-wea.org/facilities.php
Gibb, T., & Bhakta, B. (2012, February 3). Michigan Fertilizer Act helps protect water quality. Michigan State University. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/michigan_fertilizer_act_helps_protect_water_quality#:~:text=Amendments%20to%20the%20Law%20prohibit,rates%20outlined%20in%20the%20law.
Hall, E. L., Dietrich, A. M., & American Water Works Association. (2000). A Brief History of Drinking Water. In Water Resource Board: State of Rhode Island. http://www.wrb.ri.gov/data_education/Education_Drinking_Water_History.pdf
Hyden, M. (2022, February 22). Matters of dollars and cents, what does legislation really cost? R Street Institute. https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/matters-of-dollars-and-cents-what-does-legislation-really-cost/
History of the Clean Water Act. (2024, June 12). US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/history-clean-water-act#:~:text=The%20Federal%20Water%20Pollution%20Control,to%20sweeping%20amendments%20in%201972.
Michigan Legislature. (2023). A Student’s guide to the LEGISLATIVE PROCESS in Michigan. https://www.legislature.mi.gov/Publications/StudentGuide.pdf
Nitrogen and water | U.S. Geological Survey. (2016, August 9). https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/nitrogen-and-water
Our vital role - Scottish Water. (n.d.). https://www.scottishwater.co.uk/About-Us/Who-We-Are/Our-Vital-Role
Parker, S. (2024, August 16). Everything You need to know about Leaflet Distribution Price. Oppizi. https://www.oppizi.com/blog/flyer/everything-you-need-to-know-about-leaflet-distribution-price/
Regenerative Agriculture’s top eight conservation practices. (n.d.). Chesapeake Bay Foundation. https://www.cbf.org/issues/agriculture/eight-key-conservation-practices-used-in-regenerative-agriculture.html
Scottish Organic Producers Association (SOPA). (n.d.). https://www.sopa.org.uk/
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program (SESC). (n.d.). https://www.michigan.gov/egle/about/organization/water-resources/soil-erosion/sesc-overview
Summary of the Safe Drinking Water Act | US EPA. (2024, July 31). US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-safe-drinking-water-act#:~:text=(1974),above%20ground%20or%20underground%20sources.
The History of Drinking Water Treatment. (2000). In Environmental Protection Agency.
The Scottish Government. (2020, August 10). Water Quality Regulator says Scotland’s tap water quality remains high. https://www.gov.scot/news/water-quality-regulator-says-scotlands-tap-water-quality-remains-high-1/
The Scottish Government. (2024, February 14). Supporting sustainable agriculture. https://www.gov.scot/news/supporting-sustainable-agriculture/
The Scottish Government. (2020, July 30). Scotland and the sustainable development goals: a national review to drive action. https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotland-sustainable-development-goals-national-review-drive-action/pages/9/
USDA announces conservation funding for Michigan farmers and forest owners (2024, October 21). Natural Resources Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/news/usda-announces-conservation-funding-for-michigan-farmers-and-forest-owners
U.S. Global Water Strategy. (n.d.). U.S. Agency For International Development. https://www.usaid.gov/water-and-sanitation/us-global-water-strategy
Where this occurs: ground water and drinking water | US EPA. (2024, November 18). US EPA. https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/where-occurs-ground-water-and-drinking-water#:~:text=As%20ground%20water%20works%20its,pose%20serious%20public%20health%20threats.
World Water Quality Alliance (WWQA) – a partnership effort. (n.d.). UNEP - UN Environment Programme. https://www.unep.org/explore-topics/water/what-we-
20 Michigan agriculture facts you might not have known. (2023, August 29). Pure Michigan | Official Travel & Tourism Website for Michigan. https://www.michigan.org/article/trip-idea/michigan-agriculture-facts-might-not-have-known
Comments