China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Summary of Major Environmental Laws and Regulations
Published in Mark Edward Byrnes, Field Sampling Methods for Remedial Investigations, 2023
To ensure that drinking water is safe, the SDWA sets up multiple barriers against pollution. These barriers include source water protection, treatment, distribution system integrity, and public information. Public water systems are responsible for ensuring that contaminants in tap water do not exceed the standards. Water systems treat the water, and must test their water frequently for specified contaminants and report the results to states. If a water system is not meeting these standards, it is the water supplier’s responsibility to notify its customers. Many water suppliers now are also required to prepare annual reports for their customers. The public is responsible for helping local water suppliers to set priorities, make decisions on funding and system improvements, and establish programs to protect drinking water sources.
The Safe Drinking Water Act
Published in Louis Theodore, R. Ryan Dupont, Water Resource Management Issues, 2019
Louis Theodore, R. Ryan Dupont
The Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act place great reliance on state and local initiatives in addressing water problems (U.S. EPA 2004, Tiemann 2017). With the enactment of the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments and the 1987 Water Quality Act, significant additional responsibilities were assigned to the EPA and the states. To ensure that drinking water is safe, the SDWA sets up multiple barriers against pollution. These barriers include source water protection, treatment, distribution system integrity, and public information. PWSs are responsible for ensuring that contaminants in tap water do not exceed the standards. Water systems treat the water and must test their water frequently for specified contaminants and report the results to state drinking water regulatory agencies. If a water system is not meeting these standards, it is the water supplier’s responsibility to notify its customers. Many water suppliers now are also required to prepare annual reports for their customers. The public is responsible for helping local water suppliers to set priorities, make decisions on funding and system improvements, and establish programs to protect drinking water sources.
The integrated watershed management planning experience in Manitoba: the local conservation district perspective
Published in Dan Shrubsole, Dan Walters, Barbara Veale, Bruce Mitchell, Integrated Water Management in Canada, 2018
Colleen Cuvelier, Cliff Greenfield
Source water protection extends beyond protecting water in the watershed and can include protective measures for the drinking water treatment system and the distribution system carrying treated water to homes. Manitoba’s planning process is focused on protecting water at its source or before it reaches municipal distribution systems.
Assessing the capacity gaps of decentralized rural water management: qualitative evidence from Ghana
Published in Water International, 2022
Benjamin Dosu, Caitlin Hanrahan, Tom Johnston, Harry Spaling
Limited local capacity forces small and poorly resourced municipalities to be less proactive in planning to protect their drinking water sources instead of pursuing reactive measures such as investing in inexpensive water treatment technologies. For instance, the absence of local capacity in technical, institutional, financial and social dimensions poses significant barriers to implementing source water protection plans in many local communities (Hanrahan & Dosu, 2017; Rawlyk & Patrick, 2013). The absence of or limited local capacity affects the extent of community involvement in rural water management. As the critics argue, community-based water management tends to shift the central government’s technical responsibilities to local amateur communities with little or no technical know-how to handle such responsibilities. This lack of technical know-how stems from limited rural financial capacity to replace missing parts and a lack of locally trained mechanics to handle faulty water infrastructure.
Chlorine and ozone disinfection and disinfection byproducts in postharvest food processing facilities: A review
Published in Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 2022
Adam M.-A. Simpson, William A. Mitch
The importance of controlling pathogens during food processing is growing in concert with the growth in the consumption of minimally processed fruits and vegetables (Wang et al., 2014) and ready-to-eat foods. Amid rising concerns over foodborne pathogen outbreaks in the United States, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was passed in 2011 (USFDA, 2011). The FSMA will develop guidelines for irrigation water handling and other practices to minimize the introduction of pathogens, both preharvest and postharvest. However, given the hardiness of foodborne pathogens, such as Listeria monocytogenes, and the opportunities for cross-contamination within processing facilities, source control measures alone are inadequate. To control pathogens in drinking water, drinking water providers developed multiple treatment barriers (e.g., source water protection, filtration, and chlorine disinfection) to prevent consumer exposure to pathogens (Marron et al., 2019). A similar multiple barrier approach is needed for controlling foodborne pathogen outbreaks. In particular, disinfectants applied within postharvest food processing facilities serve as a key barrier to prevent consumer exposure to pathogens. This review focuses on chemical disinfectants, particularly chlorine and ozone, after briefly describing postharvest food processing treatment trains.
Setting the stage for IWRM: the case of the upper Kiskatinaw River, British Columbia
Published in International Journal of Water Resources Development, 2019
Numerous examples exist elsewhere in BC and across Canada that demonstrate the value of collaborative watershed stewardship at both local and regional scales (Shrubsole, 2017). Giving priority to drinking water source protection must overcome cross-jurisdictional boundaries and agency mandates to achieve meaningful results. Our experience has shown that land-use planning in BC and elsewhere has recognized the importance of identifying, characterizing and managing risks to drinking water through the widely adopted, multi-barrier approach for source water protection (Environment Canada, 2001). The work is further enhanced by framing watershed stewardship within the context of a hydroscape (Pringle, 2001). Nevertheless, only limited progress has been made in fostering effective operational models of source water protection to consider a greater array of IWRM, including assessments of contaminant risk and hydro-ecological features and interactions. Present challenges lie in trying to foster preventative source water protection objectives within the current regulatory context of results-based management and mitigation frameworks, where development permitting may not fully consider those objectives. Wetland protection, ground–surface water interactions and cumulative land-use change are all key indicators of watershed health and thus sustainability of domestic water supply, yet these components remain poorly understood. Climate change and other landscape perturbations (e.g., drought, fire, mountain pine beetle infestations) are also now providing significant impetus to promote the IWRM approach with emphasis on source water protection.