Rather,  lead enters drinking water primarily as a result of the corrosion of  materials containing lead in the water distribution system and in  household plumbing. The Safe Drinking Water Act is the key federal law protecting public water  supplies from harmful contaminants. Drinking water is provided to District of Columbia residents under a  unique organizational structure:    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Washington Aqueduct draws water  from the Potomac River and filters and chemically treats it to meet EPA  specifications. The District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority buys its drinking  water from the Aqueduct. In the case of drinking water in the District of Columbia,  one of the key relationships is the one between WASA, the deliverer of  water to District customers, and EPA’s Philadelphia Office, the regulator  charged with overseeing WASA’s compliance with drinking water  regulations. Aside from the tap water monitoring issue, EPA’s Philadelphia Office  acknowledges that its oversight of WASA public notification and education  efforts could have been better, noting that “In hindsight, EPA should have  asked more questions about the extent, coverage and impact of DC  WASA’s public education program, and reacted to fill the public education  gaps where they were evident.” To address the problem, the Philadelphia  Office reported on its website that it will have to make some  improvements in the way it exercises its own oversight responsibilities. We will also examine interrelationships that include other  key agencies, such as the Aqueduct and the D.C. Department of Health. We  will also examine how other water systems in similar situations interacted  with federal, state, and local agencies. These experiences may offer  suggestions on how coordination can be improved among the agencies  responsible for protecting drinking water in the District of Columbia. Experiences of Other Water Systems Highlight Effective Ways to Inform and Educate the Public

WASA is not the first system to exceed the action level for lead. I would like to touch on the  activities of two such systems, the Massachusetts Water Resources  Authority and the Portland, Oregon, Water Bureau. Each of these systems  has employed effective notification practices in recent years that may  provide insights into how WASA, and other water systems, could improve  their own practices. According to Portland Water Bureau  officials, the program consists of four components: (1) water treatment for  corrosion control; (2) free water testing to identify customers who may be  at significant risk from elevated lead levels in drinking water; (3) a home  lead hazard reduction program to prevent children from being exposed to  lead from lead-based paint, dust, and other sources; and (4) education on  how to prevent lead exposure targeted to those at greatest risk from  exposure. However, according to a joint study by the D.C. Department of Health and  the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published in March  2004, it is difficult to discern any effect of lead in drinking water on  children’s blood lead levels because the older homes most likely to have  lead service lines are also those most likely to have other lead hazards,  such as lead in paint and dust. Researchers Face Gaps in Knowledge Regarding the Risks Posed by Lead in Drinking Water

A good deal of research has been conducted on the health effects of lead,  in particular on the effects associated with certain pathways of  contamination, such as ingestion of leaded paint and inhalation of leaded  dust. As we continue our work, we will examine the plans  of EPA and other organizations to fill these and other key information  gaps. For children with high  levels of lead exposure from paint, soil, and dust, drinking water is thought  to contribute a much lower proportion of total exposure. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States.
Why GAO Did This Study

Concerns have been raised about lead in District of Columbia drinking water and how those charged with ensuring the safety of this water have carried out their responsibilities. The 1991 Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) requires water systems to protect drinking water from lead by, among other things, chemically treating it to reduce its corrosiveness and by monitoring tap water samples for evidence of lead corrosion. If enough samples show corrosion, water systems officials are required to notify and educate the public on lead health risks and undertake additional efforts. The Washington Aqueduct, owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, treats and sells water to the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), which delivers water to D.C. residents. EPA's Philadelphia Office is charged with overseeing these agencies. GAO is examining (1) the current structure and level of coordination among key government entities that implement the Safe Drinking Water Act's regulations for lead in the District of Columbia, (2) how other drinking water systems conducted public notification and outreach, (3) the availability of data necessary to determine which adult and child populations are at greatest risk of exposure to elevated lead levels, and what information WASA is gathering to help track their health, and (4) the state of research on the health effects of lead exposure. The testimony discusses preliminary results of GAO's work. GAO will report in full at a later date.

What GAO Found

This statement discusses GAO's preliminary observations and highlights areas of further examination. One of the key relationships in the effort to ensure the safety of the District's drinking water is the one between WASA, the deliverer of water, and EPA's Philadelphia Office, which oversees WASA's compliance with drinking water regulations. Recent public statements and corrective actions by these parties clearly indicate that coordination and communication between them could have been better in the years preceding the current lead controversy. GAO's future work will examine (to the extent appropriate) the interrelationships among other key agencies (such as the Aqueduct and the D.C. Department of Health); how other water systems in similar situations interacted with federal, state, and local agencies; and what the experiences of these other jurisdictions may suggest concerning how improved coordination can better protect drinking water in the District of Columbia. Other water systems facing elevated lead levels used public notification and education practices that may offer lessons for conducting outreach to water customers. For example, some of the practices of the two water systems we have begun to examine--the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority and the Portland (Oregon) Water Bureau--include tailoring their communications to varied audiences in their service areas, testing the effectiveness of their communication materials, and linking demographic and infrastructure data to identify populations at greatest risk from lead in drinking water. WASA faces challenges in collecting the information needed to identify District citizens at greatest risk from lead in drinking water. Specifically, WASA has partial information on which of its customers have lead service lines, and is in the process of obtaining more complete information. GAO's future work will examine the efforts of other water systems to go one step further by linking data on at-risk populations (such as pregnant mothers, infants, and small children) with data on homes suspected of being served by lead service pipes and other plumbing fixtures that may leach lead into drinking water. Nationally, much is known about the hazards of lead once in the body and how lead from paint, soil, and dust enter the body, but little research has been done to determine actual lead exposure from drinking water, and the information that does exist is dated. In our future work, we will examine the plans of EPA and other organizations to fill this key information gap.