PODCAST TRANSCRIPT

TOPIC: EPA OIG Report, “State Program Deficiencies and Inadequate EPA Oversight of State Enforcement Contributed to the Drinking Water Crisis in Jackson, Mississippi”

--------------

KELLYJUNE: Hello, and thank you for joining us today for another podcast by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Inspector General. I’m KellyJune, spokesperson for the EPA OIG, and with me is Morgan Collier, Evaluator-In-Charge for a report the OIG recently issued titled State Program Deficiencies and Inadequate EPA Oversight of State Enforcement Contributed to the Drinking Water Crisis in Jackson, Mississippi. Welcome, Morgan. 

MORGAN: Thank you. It’s great to be here.

KELLYJUNE: Morgan, could you give us a brief history of the Jackson, Mississippi drinking water crisis? 

MORGAN: Sure. The drinking water issues in Jackson have been longstanding. Our evaluation found that as early as July 2015, Jackson’s drinking water distribution system experienced issues related to equipment malfunctions and water pressure. More recently, in 2021 and 2022, Jackson experienced three weather-related events that wreaked havoc on its drinking water system. In February 2021 and December 2022, Jackson experienced two freezing events that caused pipes to freeze and lose pressure. And in August 2022, Jackson experienced record rainfall and flooding, which caused increased water flow at a local reservoir, which in turn meant that the city’s treatment plant could not produce potable water or maintain water pressure. As a result of these weather events, tens of thousands of Jackson’s public drinking water system customers did not have access to any water at all. It was after the third weather event in August that the Mississippi governor and the president declared an emergency. This emergency declaration happened on August 30, 2022.

KELLYJUNE: Thank you. In September 2022, after the magnitude of this crisis became apparent, Inspector General Sean W. O’Donnell announced that the EPA OIG would commit a multidisciplinary team to examine the oversight and administration of Jackson’s drinking water system. This report is the third oversight product issued as a result, the first was a management alert issued in August of 2023 and the second an audit report issued in May of 2024. Could you tell us how this report differs from the first two products?

MORGAN: The inspector general’s multidisciplinary approach meant that we had two teams looking at the issue through different lenses. The first team focused on the federal funding and spending decisions related to Jackson’s drinking water system. The second team, which is the team I was part of, focused on whether Jackson’s system complied with the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the EPA’s response to any noncompliance. 

As far as the three products we have issued related to the Jackson drinking water crisis to date, the first team, in its preliminary research, discovered that the EPA had issued guidance that incorrectly told states they were not required to review reports written by independent, nonfederal auditors about their drinking water loan programs. This meant that states, including Mississippi, may have been missing opportunities to correct any financial capacity and other deficiencies identified in these reports. The OIG issued a management alert on August 15, 2023, so that the EPA could immediately rectify this specific issue while our overall projects were ongoing. Then, on May 13, 2024, that first team released its final report, finding that Jackson may have been able to address its drinking water issues better and earlier if it had received more funding options and assistance from Mississippi. And finally, this most recent report details what my team found in terms of Jackson’s compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

KELLYJUNE: And what were the findings?

MORGAN: We had two levels of findings: at the state level, and then at the EPA level. I’ll talk about the state level findings first. Mississippi, through its State Department of Health, is in charge of implementing and enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act for its water systems, which obviously includes Jackson’s system. And according to that law and its associated regulations, Mississippi must conduct what are called sanitary surveys for all of its surface water systems at least once every three years. Sanitary surveys are intended to assess a water system’s capability to treat and deliver safe drinking water. We found that Mississippi conducted sanitary surveys and annual inspections for Jackson however these reports did not accurately reflect the condition or the overall capacity of Jackson.   

KELLYJUNE: Can you be more specific? 

MORGAN: Of course. We noted that in all but one of the sanitary surveys or annual inspections from 2015 through 2020, the state surveyors identified either no significant deficiencies or just one significant deficiency. But, in the February 2020 sanitary survey, which was done concurrently with an on-site EPA inspection, the state surveyors identified 18 significant deficiencies. As one EPA employee told us, these deficiencies – quote – “did not happen overnight” – unquote. And when the state surveyors did identify a significant deficiency, they did not consistently communicate these issues to Jackson. In some cases, we found that they either sent written notification of significant deficiencies several months after the sanitary survey or inspection was conducted, or they did not notify Jackson at all.

KELLYJUNE: What about issues that the state surveyors didn’t classify as significant? Were these reported as a result of the sanitary surveys?

MORGAN: Great question. EPA guidance doesn’t describe how states should notify the EPA of public water system deficiencies that don’t rise to the level of a significant deficiency. For Jackson, we found that the Mississippi surveyors frequently identified deficiencies that fell short of the – quote –  “significant deficiency” – unquote – classification and Mississippi had no procedures to resolve deficiencies observed in multiple sanitary surveys. This meant that the EPA and Jackson remained unaware of many systemic issues. For example, from 2017 through 2021, Jackson had 7,321 line breaks. This is an annual average of 55 line breaks per 100 miles of line, far exceeding the industry benchmark of no more than 15 breaks per 100 miles of line per year. Line breaks can cause a loss of water pressure, which can cause contaminants to enter the water system. This means that Jackson residents were at risk of being exposed to harmful bacteria; parasites; viruses; or pathogens such as E. coli. As a result of these line breaks, Jackson issued frequent boil water notices – approximately 1,570 of them in a period of about eight years. However, the number of boil water notices or line breaks were not reported in the sanitary surveys.

KELLYJUNE: If sanitary surveys are intended to be a tool to identify and address issues that may threaten the safety of drinking water, then why didn’t that happen for Jackson?

MORGAN: You are right, KellyJune. The sanitary surveys, instead of bringing deficiencies to light, obscured some of Jackson’s long-standing challenges, allowing these challenges to compound over time, which ultimately contributed to the system’s failure. Jackson’s sanitary surveys and annual inspections were a missed opportunity for Mississippi to document, elevate, and resolve the city’s persistent issues. 

KELLYJUNE: Are sanitary surveys the only tool used by states and the EPA to determine compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act?

MORGAN: No, they aren’t. For example, the EPA maintains a reporting system for violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act called the Safe Drinking Water Information System, which is commonly referred to as SDWIS. However, despite several water quality issues related to Jackson’s drinking water, including lead action level exceedances, Mississippi often did not enter these violations into SDWIS as required. In fact, from 2012 through 2017, Mississippi did not enter any violations into SDWIS, and the EPA remained unaware of Jackson’s drinking water violations. Not only that, but Jackson was not notified of the issues in a timely manner either, which means that the city could not, in turn, inform its customers that their drinking water did not meet standards. 

KELLYJUNE: If the EPA had an earlier awareness that Jackson’s water system was struggling, what might have occurred?

MORGAN: This gets to the crux of our findings at the EPA level. The EPA uses data reported in SDWIS to evaluate whether and what federal enforcement actions need to be taken against any noncompliant water systems. Had Mississippi entered Jackson’s Safe Drinking Water Act violations into SDWIS, it likely would have triggered the EPA to make the city’s system an enforcement priority sooner than it did. Mississippi’s inaction prolonged Jackson’s noncompliance.

KELLYJUNE: You mentioned earlier that Mississippi was in charge of both implementing and enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act for its water systems. Does that make Mississippi the primary authority for Jackson’s enforcement?

MORGAN: Yes, that’s right, since Mississippi was granted primacy in 1977, or authority by the EPA to implement and enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act for its water systems. And even though Mississippi was granted primacy, ultimately the EPA retains oversight authority. In other words, the EPA is responsible for making sure that Mississippi – quote – “has adopted and is implementing adequate procedures” – unquote – to enforce drinking water regulations. 

KELLYJUNE: And you found the EPA was not doing that? 

MORGAN: Well, we found that Mississippi didn’t have implementation procedures for its Public Water System Supervision compliance and enforcement program and haven’t since primacy was granted more than forty-five years ago. In annual reviews and priority reviews, EPA’s Region 4 recommended Mississippi develop and implement a written strategy or procedure to describe Mississippi’s enforcement process to ensure standardization of state enforcement activities. Our evaluation also noted this as an inadequacy of the state’s enforcement program. As a result of our Recommendation 6, the EPA is working with Mississippi to build internal procedures for the state’s drinking water compliance and enforcement program.

KELLYJUNE: That’s great that the EPA is now working with Mississippi but before we discuss the recommendations can you expand on the EPA’s role in response to the Jackson drinking water crisis? 

MORGAN: The EPA undertook several enforcement actions against Jackson to bring its drinking water system into compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. In addition, the EPA used its emergency grant authority under SDWA section 1442(b) for the first time, to provide funds and technical assistance to Mississippi and Jackson. While the EPA used its enforcement and emergency authorities, the EPA could have referred the case to the Department of Justice at the same time that it issued its initial emergency administrative order in March 2020. However, it was another two-plus years before the Agency referred the case to the Department of Justice in August 2022 and filed a civil action against Jackson in November 2022.

KELLYJUNE: The OIG report claims that – quote – “[l]ayers of inadequate oversight and enforcement  contributed to Jackson’s drinking water crisis” – unquote –. What recommendations does this report provide to help the EPA prevent such a situation in the future?

MORGAN: We issued seven recommendations to various offices in the EPA, including that EPA Region 4 assess Mississippi’s sanitary survey program; develop a methodology to verify the adequacy of Mississippi’s sanitary surveys; verify that Mississippi has procedures to ensure water systems report compliance monitoring data to the state and that the Mississippi Public Health Laboratory has appropriate procedures; train Mississippi personnel on using and entering data into SDWIS; and evaluate whether Mississippi is implementing enforcement procedures. We also recommended that the EPA Office of Water update its guidances to include a sanitary survey checklist and a process for states to elevate systemic issues. And we recommended that the EPA Office of Water and EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance work together to develop guidance on how the Agency can use authority granted under the Safe Drinking Water Act section 1442(b) grant authority to address public health in emergency situations. 

While the EPA agreed with all seven of our recommendations, resolution efforts are still in progress for four of the recommendations, meaning the Agency’s proposed corrective actions to address the recommendation did not meet the intent of the recommendation. The unresolved recommendations relate to the EPA assessing Mississippi’s sanitary survey program, verifying Mississippi has procedures in place for the reporting and monitoring of data, training of Mississippi personnel on data entry and the evaluation of Mississippi’s enforcement procedures. Updates on the resolution process will be posted on our website.

KELLYJUNE: Morgan, thank you again for your time and for this excellent report.

MORGAN: Thanks for having me.

KELLYJUNE: And to our listeners, thanks for joining us. The full report from today’s podcast, as well as other OIG reports and project notifications, are on our website at www.epaoig.gov. We urge anyone with information about fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement involving an EPA or Chemical Safety Board operation or program to contact the EPA OIG Hotline by calling 888-546-8740, emailing oig.hotline@epa.gov, or submit a complaint form via our website.