Premium
Using community economics to compare arsenic compliance and noncompliance
Author(s) -
McGavisk Emily,
Roberson J. Alan,
Seidel Chad
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal ‐ american water works association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.466
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1551-8833
pISSN - 0003-150X
DOI - 10.5942/jawwa.2013.105.0015
Subject(s) - compliance (psychology) , environmental health , census , arsenic , public health , medicine , gerontology , psychology , nursing , social psychology , population , materials science , metallurgy
Arsenic regulation in drinking water sparked great controversy; rule‐makers sought to be protective of public health while remaining mindful of national compliance costs. The revised arsenic standard was finalized more than a decade ago, but more than 500 systems still remain noncompliant. The purpose of this study was to determine whether median household income (MHI) has played a role in compliance. Systems that had arsenic concentrations exceeding the current drinking water standard between 1998 and 2005 were split into three groups—compliant, noncompliant, and closed—based on their system status in 2011. MHI was assigned using census data for the primary county served. The median MHI of counties containing noncompliant systems ($44,694) falls below that of systems that reached compliance ($46,047) or were closed ($46,798) by 2011. Although the results indicate that income may play a factor in compliance, case studies also show that nonquantifiable factors have compliance implications.