Drinking water quality in the United States
Drinking water quality in the United States is generally good. In 2016, over 90 percent of the nation's community water systems were in compliance with all published U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Over 286 million Americans get their tap water from a community water system. Eight percent of the community water systems—large municipal water systems—provide water to 82 percent of the US population.
Most of the public water systems that are out of compliance are small systems in rural areas and small towns. Drinking water quality in the U.S. is regulated by state and federal laws and codes, which set Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and Treatment Technique requirements for some pollutants and naturally occurring constituents, determine various operational requirements, require public notification for violation of standards, provide guidance to state primacy agencies, and require utilities to publish Consumer Confidence Reports.
There are many chemicals and substances for which there are no regulatory standards applicable to drinking water utilities. EPA operates an ongoing research program to analyze various substances and consider whether additional standards are needed.
In early US history, drinking water quality in the country was managed by individual drinking water utilities and at the state and local level. In 1914 the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) published a set of drinking water standards, pursuant to existing federal authority to regulate interstate commerce, and in response to the 1893 Interstate Quarantine Act. As such the standards were directly applicable only to interstate common carriers such as railroads. For local drinking water utilities, these standards were basically recommendations and not enforceable requirements. However, many municipal utlities began to voluntarily adopt the standards.
Ultimately the PHS standards were adopted and expanded as national drinking water standards after passage of the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and U.S. water quality became subject to a whole new generation of federal standards.
Enforcement of standards
The SDWA requires EPA to issue federal regulations for public water systems. There are no federal regulations covering private drinking water wells, although some state and local governments have issued rules for these wells. EPA enters into primary enforcement authority (primacy) agreements with state governments, so in most states EPA does not directly enforce the SDWA. State rules can be different from EPA's, but they must be at least as stringent.
EPA defines a public water system (PWS) as an entity that provides water for human consumption to at least 25 people (or at least 15 connections) for at least 60 days a year. There are three types of public water system: community systems (like cities or trailer parks); non-transient, non-community systems (like factories or schools with their own water source); and transient non-community systems (like rural restaurants or camps).
Enforcement of drinking water standards in small water systems is less consistent than enforcement in large systems. As of 2016 more than 3/4ths of small community water systems that were classified as having serious health violations by EPA still had the same violations three years later. Some violations included an overabundance of lead, exceeding allowed rates for nitrate and fecal coliform. Around half of the most contaminated water systems were located in Kansas, Texas and Puerto Rico. EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance noted that the agency faced “a daunting list of challenges” in its continuing efforts, particularly with small systems that “lack the basic infrastructure, resources and capacity to provide clean drinking water.”
Consumer Confidence Reports
EPA's Consumer Confidence Rule of 1998 requires community public water suppliers to provide customers with annual reports of drinking water quality, called Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR). Each year by July 1 anyone connected to a public water system should receive in the mail an annual water quality report that tells where your water comes from and what's in it. Consumers can find out about these local reports on a map provided by EPA.
The regulation requires water suppliers to list the water sources, report detected contaminants and the system's compliance with National Primary Drinking Water Regulations in the annual reports. Suppliers may also provide additional information such as explanation of the system's treatment processes, advice on water conservation and information about protecting the community's water sources.
Common drinking water contaminants
Studies have shown that there can be more than 80 common contaminants in treated drinking water that may pose a risk to human health. These contaminants fall into two separate categories, acute and chronic effects.
- Acute effects occur within hours or days of the time that a person consumes a contaminant. People can suffer acute health effects from almost any contaminant if they are exposed to extraordinarily high levels (as in the case of a spill). In drinking water, microbes, such as bacteria and viruses, are the contaminants with the greatest chance of reaching levels high enough to cause acute health effects. Acute effects contaminants are the most commons type that are found in drinking water. Acute contaminants are usually easy for the human body to fight off and don't normally have long lasting health effects.
- Chronic effects occur after people consume a contaminant at levels over EPA’s safety standards over the course of many years. The drinking water contaminants that can have chronic effects include chemicals (such as disinfection byproducts, solvents and pesticides), radionuclides (such as radium), and minerals (such as arsenic). Examples of these chronic effects include cancer, liver or kidney problems, or reproductive difficulties.
Though these chronic contaminants are rare in the US, there are many parts of the world that battle with these chronic contaminants and have to face the possible hazards on a daily basis. A few common water-borne contaminants include aluminum, ammonia, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chloramine, chromium, copper, fluoride, bacteria and viruses, lead, nitrates and nitrites, mercury, perchlorate, radium, selenium, silver, and uranium. Some of these contaminants are easy to detect through human senses, such as smell and taste, and other contaminants are impossible to detect with the human eye. Some of the most dangerous contaminants are consumed without any notice. It is extremely important to know the difference between chemical and biological contaminants. Chemical contaminants are elements or compounds that can either be naturally occurring or man-made. These contaminants usually result in external/internal damages to the body. Biological contaminants are organisms that are found in water these contaminates include viruses and bacteria and are usually fought off by the bodies immune system.
Substances for which there are federal standards
As of 2019 EPA has promulgated 88 standards for microorganisms, chemicals and radionuclides. The standards are organized into six groups:
- Disinfection byproducts
- Inorganic chemicals
- Organic chemicals
EPA has issued standards for Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Legionella, coliform bacteria and enteric viruses. EPA also requires two microorganism-related tests to indicate water quality: plate count and turbidity.
Cryptosporidium is a parasite that has a thick outer shell and thus is highly resistant to disinfection with chlorine. It gets into rivers and lakes from the stools of infected animals. Municipal water treatment plants usually remove Cryptosporidium oocysts through filtration. Nevertheless, at least five outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis in the U.S. have been associated with contaminated drinking water, including a well-publicized one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1993.
The Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule ("LT2 rule") of 2006 requires evaluation of surface water treatment plants and that these plants take specific actions to minimize the potential for Cryptosporidium infections.
Disinfectants such as chlorine can react with natural material in the water to form disinfection byproducts such as trihalomethanes. Animal studies indicate that none of the chlorination byproducts studied to date is a potent carcinogen at concentrations normally found in drinking water. According to the "GreenFacts" website, there is insufficient epidemiological evidence to conclude that drinking chlorinated water causes cancers. The results of currently published studies do not provide convincing evidence that chlorinated water causes adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Most people associate fluoride with the practice of intentionally adding fluoride to public drinking-water supplies for the prevention of tooth decay. However, fluoride can also enter public water systems from natural sources, including runoff from weathering of fluoride-containing rocks and soils and leaching from soil into groundwater. Fluoride pollution from various industrial emissions can also contaminate water supplies. In a few areas of the United States, fluoride concentrations in water are much higher than normal, mostly from natural sources. In 1986, EPA established a maximum allowable concentration for fluoride in drinking water of 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L). After reviewing research on various health effects from exposure to fluoride, the Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water of the National Research Council concluded in 2006 that EPA's drinking water standard for fluoride does not protect against adverse health effects. Just over 200,000 Americans live in communities where fluoride levels in drinking water are 4 mg/L or higher. Children in those communities are at risk of developing severe tooth enamel fluorosis, a condition that can cause tooth enamel loss and pitting. It can also increase the risk of bone fractures. The report concluded unanimously that the present maximum contaminant level goal of 4 mg/L for fluoride should be lowered.
Lead typically gets into drinking water after the water leaves the treatment plant. The source of lead is most likely pipe or solder in older service connections or older plumbing inside homes, from which lead "leaks" into the water through corrosion. EPA's lead and copper rule (LCR), last revised in 2007, defines an "action level" of 15 parts per billion (ppb) for lead, which is different from a Maximum Contaminant Level. The symptoms of lead poisoning may include abdominal pain, constipation, headaches, ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder), irritability, memory problems, inability to have children, and tingling in the hands and feet. It causes almost 10% of intellectual disability of otherwise unknown cause and can result in behavioral problems. Some of the effects are permanent. In severe cases anemia, seizures, coma, or death may occur.
Congress passed the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act in 2011. This amendment to the SDWA, effective in 2014, tightened the definition of "lead-free" plumbing fixtures and fittings. To implement the amendment, EPA published a proposed rule in 2017. The final rule is pending as of 2020.
EPA published another proposed rule on November 13, 2019 addressing lead issues. The proposal would mandate additional requirements for sampling tap water, corrosion control, replacement of lead service lines, public outreach and testing water in schools.
Under the current LCR, if tests show that the level of lead in drinking water is in the area of 15 ppb or higher, it is advisable—especially if there are young children in the home—to replace old pipes, to filter water, or to use bottled water. EPA estimates that more than 40 million U.S. residents use water "that can contain lead in excess of 15 ppb". In Washington, DC these concerns have led to a $408 million program carried out since 2004 to replace lead service connections to about 35,000 homes. The effectiveness of the program has, however, been put in question in 2008 by WASA, the city's utility. In 2016, more than 5,000 drinking water systems were found to be in violation of the lead and copper rule.
A typical utility action is to adjust the chemistry of the drinking water with anti-corrosive additives, but replacement of customer pipes is also an option. Most communities have avoided customer pipe replacement due to the high cost.
However, some water systems have undertaken programs to remove all lead service lines, especially after the publicity surrounding the Flint water crisis in 2016. In 2018, NPR reported about 180 towns have removal programs that use financing from federal, state, or local taxpayers, other water customers, and charitable donations to provide grants or loans to property owners to cover the cost of removal. This includes systems in Boston (Massachusetts Water Resources Authority), Cincinnati (Greater Cincinnati Water Works), Gary (Indiana American Water), Detroit (Detroit Water and Sewerage Department), and Lansing. Madison, Wisconsin removed all of its lead service pipes over 11 years, starting in 2001.
Incidents of widespread lead contamination in U.S. cities include:
- Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. drinking water (started in 2001, still continuing in 2018)
- Flint water crisis (started in 2014, still continuing in 2019)
- Pittsburgh water crisis (started in 2014, discovered in 2016, still continuing in 2018)
- Newark water crisis (in schools, started in 2016, still continuing in 2019)
Groundwater contamination in Hinkley, California was caused by water containing hexavalent chromium being dumped on the ground by Pacific Gas and Electric from 1952 to 1966. The contamination resulted in a $333 million settlement in 1996.
Substances for which there are no federal standards
EPA maintains the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), a list of substances which are being considered for possible regulation in the federal drinking water program. In an effort to assess the importance of certain substances as contaminants, the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations have required some public water systems to monitor for some of those substances.
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) is a synthetic perfluorinated carboxylic acid and fluorosurfactant. It has been used in the manufacture of such prominent consumer goods as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE; Teflon and similar products). PFOA has been manufactured since the 1940s in industrial quantities. PFOA persists indefinitely in the environment. It is a toxicant and carcinogen in animals. PFOA has been detected in the blood of more than 98% of the general US population in the low and sub-parts per billion (ppb) range, and levels are higher in chemical plant employees and surrounding subpopulations.
In the United States there are no federal drinking water standards for PFOA, PFOS or PFNA (collectively referred to as perfluorinated alkylated substances or PFAS) as of late 2019. EPA began requiring public water systems to monitor for PFOA and PFOS in 2012, and published drinking water health advisories, which are non-regulatory technical documents, in 2016. In March 2020 EPA announced its proposed regulatory determinations for two PFAS contaminants. In a Federal Register notice, the agency requested public comment on regulating PFOA and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).
In November 2017 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection announced plans to develop its own drinking water standards for PFOA. New Jersey published a standard for PFNA in September 2018, the first state to do so. The state set the MCL at 13 parts per trillion (ppt). Other states that have issued PFAS standards include Michigan, New York and Vermont.
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) is used as a gasoline additive, as well as in various industrial manufacturing processes. The compound has contaminated groundwater and soil across the U.S., and its use has been banned in some states, including California and New York. (See MTBE controversy.) EPA included MTBE on its first Contaminant Candidate List, published in 1998, but has not announced whether it will develop a regulation.
Perchlorate has been detected in public drinking water supplies of over 11 million people in 22 states at concentrations of at least 4 parts per billion (ppb). Above a certain concentration perchlorate alters the production of thyroid hormones by the body, chemicals that are essential for proper development of the fetus and for normal metabolic functioning of the body. According to patient advocate and writer Mary Shomon, people with thyroid conditions, as well as pregnant women and their fetuses are particularly at risk. However, according to the Perchlorate Information Bureau, an industry-supported group, sound scientific and medical research shows that the low levels of perchlorate being detected in drinking water are not dangerous to human health. Still according to the same source, these studies on adults, newborns and children provide reason to believe that low levels of perchlorate (even at levels many times higher than the minute amounts being found in some drinking water supplies) also have no measurable effect on pregnant women or fetuses.
One source of perchlorate in drinking water is the past production of solid rocket propellants using perchlorate, combined with poor disposal practices. Industrial accidents and agricultural fertilizers are also suspected as sources of contamination of drinking water by perchlorate. Perchlorate is also found in breast milk at significant levels, possibly attributable to perchlorate in drinking water and foods. The challenge of defining an acceptable level of perchlorate in drinking water sets two opposing groups with significantly different views against each other. In a draft risk assessment made in 2002, EPA suggested that levels higher than 1 part per billion (ppb) pose a health risk. In contrast, the Defense Department contended that perchlorate at 200 ppb has no lasting effect on humans. Perchlorate is one of only four of the seventy chemicals for which EPA has set public health goals that have a safety factor of 10, rather than the usual safety factors of 100 or 1000.:21 In 2004 eight states had non-binding advisories for perchlorate in drinking water, ranging from 1 to 18 ppb. Only two states—Massachusetts and California—set legally binding maximum contaminant levels on the allowable amount of perchlorate in drinking water, at 2 ppb and 6 ppb respectively.
EPA issued an "Interim Health Advisory" for perchlorate in 2009, while it continued to evaluate whether to issue regulatory standards. In 2011 the agency announced that it would develop regulations for perchlorate. Following a 2016 consent decree issued by a federal district court in New York, EPA published a proposed rule on June 26, 2019. The Agency is proposing an Maximum Contaminant Level of 0.056 mg/L for public water systems.
Many pharmaceutical substances are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. They have been found in tiny concentrations in the drinking water of several US cities affecting at least 41 million Americans, according to a five-month inquiry by the Associated Press published in March 2008. Pharmaceutical substances are used worldwide and are a big part of some peoples lives. These substances not being regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act has potential to have major impact on the lives of many individuals. At any point a region can face strong pollution and the pharmaceuticals made in that area can have a large chance of being contaminated as well causing possible harm to the consumers. According to the AP report, researchers do not yet understand the exact risks from decades of persistent exposure to random combinations of low levels of pharmaceuticals.
Pharmaceuticals are included in a broader group of substances currently being studied by EPA, "Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs)." This group includes classes of common consumer products such as cosmetics, fragrances, vitamins and sunscreen products. These cosmetics listed have the potential to pose health risks to its consumers strictly due to the lack of regulations of clean water use. This can cause many problems, those who receive water borne illnesses from these cosmetics may scapegoat the illness to their water sources. the Safe Drinking Water Act is put in place in attempt to protect public health. Monitoring can occur though taking part in testing ones water and pharmaceuticals though monitoring under the Disinfection Byproduct rule. This rule if approved by the State, residual disinfectant concentrations for chlorine, chlorinates, and chlorine dioxide may be measured using DPD colormetric test kits.  This method has the potential to limit these harmful contaminants from both water and pharmaceutical use. Without disinfection methods as shown here, there would be little to no alternatives when it comes to finding a safe and effective way to be sure the products being used are safe. Due to all the regulations put at hand individuals should feel safe using water products, as these products are used in everyone's daily life.
EPA proposed regulations for radon in 1991 and 1999. In 2010 it was reported that EPA had not finalized the proposal due to concerns raised by some utilities about high costs for controlling radon. However, nine states had issued their own radon guidelines.
- Drinking water quality legislation of the United States
- Water quality (ambient/environmental)
- Water supply and sanitation in the United States
- Beauvais, Joel (April 26, 2016). "Moving Forward for America's Drinking Water". EPA Blog. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
- "Public Water Systems". Atlanta, GA: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). April 7, 2014.
- Joseph Cotruvo, Victor Kimm, Arden Calvert. “Drinking Water: A Half Century of Progress.” EPA Alumni Association. March 1, 2016.
- "Basic Information on the CCL and Regulatory Determination". Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). EPA. July 19, 2019.
- United States. "An act granting additional quarantine powers and imposing additional duties upon the Marine-Hospital Service." (Commonly known as the "Interstate Quarantine Act of 1893.") 27 Stat. 449-452 52nd Congress, 2nd session, Chapter 114. February 15, 1893.
- Gurian, Patrick L.; Tarr, Joel A. (February 2011). "The origin of federal drinking water quality standards". Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 164 (1): 17–26. doi:10.1680/ehah.9.00009.
- "An Overview of the Safe Drinking Water Act" (PDF). Drinking Water Academy. EPA. May 2002.
- EPA Alumni Association: Senior EPA officials discuss early implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, Video, Transcript. (see p. 3)
- United States. Safe Drinking Water Act. Pub.L. 93–523; 88 Stat. 1660; 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq. December 16, 1974.
- "Safe Drinking Water Act". EPA. January 12, 2017.
- "Private Drinking Water Wells". EPA. April 26, 2019.
- Understanding the Safe Drinking Water Act (Report). EPA. June 2004. EPA 816-F-04-030.
- "Background on Drinking Water Standards in the Safe Drinking Water Act". EPA. February 8, 2017.
- Ungar, Laura; Nichols, Mark (March 22, 2016). "Report: EPA must do more to ensure safe water". USA Today.
- "Consumer Confidence Reports". EPA. May 19, 2017.
- "Find Your Local CCR". Consumer Confidence Reports. EPA. Retrieved April 6, 2019.
- "A Guide to Understanding Your CCR". Drinking Water. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Centers for Disease Control. 2015.
- "CCR Information for Consumers: Basic Information". EPA. September 27, 2019.
- Best Practices Fact Sheet: Consumer Confidence Report (Report). EPA. July 2015. EPA 816-F-15-002.
- Drinking Water Glossary (Report). EPA. 2004. EPA 816-F-04-035.
- "Common Hidden Contaminants". Lisle, IL: Water Quality Association. Retrieved March 29, 2019.
- "Types of Drinking Water Contaminants". Contaminant Candidate List and Regulatory Determination. EPA. September 29, 2016.
- "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations". EPA. September 17, 2019.
- MacKenzie, William R. (September 2007). "Cryptosporidium in Milwaukee's water supply caused widespread illness". Healio. Thorofare, NJ: Slack Inc. Retrieved August 16, 2013.
- "Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule Documents". Drinking Water Requirements for States and Public Water Systems. EPA. November 2, 2016.
- "Scientific Facts on Water Disinfectants & disinfectant by-products summary by GreenFacts of the ICPS Environmental Health Criteria 216". Brussels, Belgium: GreenFacts. Retrieved August 27, 2008.
- Dartmouth Medical School. Dartmouth Toxic Metals Superfund Research Program. Hanover, NH (2009). "In Small Doses." Video.
- Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards (Report). Washington, DC: National Research Council, Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water. 2006. p. 352. ISBN 978-0-309-10128-8.
- New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY (2018). New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Title 10, SubPart 5-1 - Public Water Supplies. "Public Water Systems; Maximum Contaminant Levels; Monitoring Requirements; Notification Requirements". Section 5-1.52 - Tables.
- Lead and Copper Rule: A Quick Reference Guide (Report). EPA. 2008. EPA 816-F-08-018.
- "Lead Information for Workers". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. September 30, 2013. Archived from the original on October 18, 2016. Retrieved October 14, 2016.
- "Lead poisoning and health". World Health Organization. 23 August 2019. Archived from the original on 18 October 2016. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
- United States. Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. Pub.L. 111–380; 124 Stat. 4131. Approved January 4, 2011.
- EPA (January 17, 2017). "Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder and Flux for Drinking Water; Proposed Rule." 82 FR 4805
- "Use of Lead Free Pipes, Fittings, Fixtures, Solder and Flux for Drinking Water". EPA. January 27, 2020. Summary of 2017 proposed rule.
- EPA (November 13, 2019). "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Proposed Lead and Copper Rule Revisions." 84 FR 61684.
- "Proposed Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule". EPA. February 19, 2020. Summary of 2019 proposed rule.
- Lead in Your Drinking Water; Actions You Take To Reduce Lead In Drinking Water (Report). EPA. June 1993. EPA 810-F-93-001.
- Duggan, Paul (January 26, 2008). "Doubts on Lead Pipe Replacement". Washington Post.
- Ganim, Sara (June 29, 2016). "5,300 U.S. water systems are in violation of lead rules". cnn.com.
- "Lead and Copper Rule Implementation Tools". Drinking Water Requirements for States and Public Water Systems. EPA. July 22, 2019.
- Wines, Michael; Schwartz, John (February 8, 2016). "Unsafe Lead Levels in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint". New York Times.
- Flints Water Crisis Spurs Other Cities To Remove Lead Pipes
- Avoiding A Future Crisis, Madison Removed Lead Water Pipes 15 Years Ago
- EPA. "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Monitoring requirements for unregulated contaminants." Code of Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 141.40. Revised December 20, 2016.
- Lindstrom, Andrew B.; Strynar, Mark J.; Libelo, E. Laurence (August 25, 2011). "Polyfluorinated Compounds: Past, Present, and Future". Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (19): 7954–7961. doi:10.1021/es2011622. PMID 21866930.
- "PFAS laws and Regulations". EPA. July 30, 2018.
- "Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS". EPA. February 13, 2019.
- EPA (March 10, 2020). "Announcement of Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for Contaminants on the Fourth Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List; Request for public comment." 85 FR 14098
- O'Neill, James M. (November 2, 2017). "N.J. sets stringent standard on cancer-causing chemical PFOA in drinking water". The Record (Bergen County). Woodland Park, NJ.
- Fallon, Scott (September 6, 2018). "New Jersey becomes first state to regulate dangerous chemical PFNA in drinking water". North Jersey Record. Woodland Park, NJ.
- "Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for Perfluorononanoic Acid and 1,2,3-Trichloropropane; Private Well Testing for Arsenic, Gross Alpha Particle Activity, and Certain Synthetic Organic Compounds". New Jersey Register. Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. September 4, 2018. 50 N.J.R. 1939(a).
- "Per- and polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS); State Legislation". Washington, D.C.: National Conference of State Legislatures. March 11, 2020.
- "Contaminant Candidate List 1". EPA. June 11, 2017.
- Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council. 2005. doi:10.17226/11202. ISBN 0-309-09568-9. Committee to Assess the Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion.
- Shomon, Mary (February 20, 2016). "Suspect Salads: Lettuce May Be Toxic To Your Thyroid! Toxic Rocket Fuel Found in Samples of Winter Lettuce". VeryWell. New York: About, Inc.
- Perchlorate Information Bureau, Sacramento, CA. "The Facts About Perchlorate."
- "Perchlorate Information". Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Retrieved April 26, 2017.
- Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory for Perchlorate (Report). EPA. December 2008. EPA 822-R-08-25.
- "Perchlorate in Drinking Water". Sacramento, CA: California State Water Resources Control Board. April 3, 2020.
- "Perchlorate in Drinking Water". Drinking Water Contaminants—Standards and Regulations. EPA. March 31, 2017.
- EPA (February 11, 2011). "Drinking Water: Regulatory Determination on Perchlorate." Federal Register, 76 FR 7762
- Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency and Gina McCarthy, 16 Civ. 1251 (ER). United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Consent Decree filed October 17, 2016.
- EPA (June 26, 2019). "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Perchlorate." Proposed Rule. Federal Register. 84 FR 30524.
- "AP Probe Finds Drugs in Drinking Water" by Jeff Donn, Martha Mendoza, and Justin Pritchard, Associated Press, March 9, 2008 Archived April 4, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
- "Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products". EPA. 2010. Archived from the original on September 5, 2015.
- "Drinking Water Contaminants – Standards and Regulations". EPA. May 22, 2017.
- "Proposed Radon in Drinking Water Regulation". EPA. June 14, 2014.
- Vaidyanathan, Gayathri (December 7, 2010). "States Pursue Radon Limits in Drinking Water as EPA Action Lags". The New York Times.
- EPA Alumni Association: Drinking Water, Half Century of Progress – a brief history of U.S. efforts to protect drinking water
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Drinking Water Quality in the US
- Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands: A Synthesis of the Scientific Literature edited by George E. Dissmeyer, U.S. Forest Service.