Safe Drinking Water Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. §§ 300f et seq.) is the federal law protecting public drinking water systems — authorizing the EPA to set Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for substances in water supplied to the public. EPA regulates approximately 98 contaminants with enforceable MCLs across roughly 148,000 public water systems serving ~300 million Americans. Systems must test regularly, treat to meet MCL standards, and notify the public when violations occur. The two primary regulatory tools: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) set legally enforceable MCLs for health-based contaminants; National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWRs) are non-enforceable guidelines for aesthetic properties (taste, color, odor). The SDWA has been significantly strengthened through subsequent legislation: the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act appropriated $15 billion to replace lead service lines — an estimated 6–10 million of which remain in service nationwide — plus additional funding for PFAS remediation. The 2024 EPA PFAS rule — setting the first-ever national MCLs for PFOA and PFOS at 4 parts per trillion — represents the most significant SDWA regulatory expansion in decades and will require thousands of water systems to install treatment technology for contaminants detected in tap water serving millions of Americans.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 42 U.S.C. § 300f — Definitions (public water system: piped system providing water for human consumption with at least 15 connections or serving 25+ people; community water system, non-transient non-community system, transient non-community system)
• 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1 — National primary drinking water regulations (EPA sets MCLs as close to health-based goals as feasible considering technology and cost; MCL Goals set at level with no known health effects; must review every 6 years; contaminant candidate list for future regulation)
• 42 U.S.C. § 300g-2 — State primacy (states may assume primary enforcement responsibility if they adopt standards at least as stringent as federal and have adequate enforcement programs)
• 42 U.S.C. § 300g-3 — Enforcement (EPA administrative orders, civil penalties up to $65,506/day per violation, federal district court enforcement; citizen suits authorized)
• 42 U.S.C. § 300g-4 — Variances and exemptions (small system variances from MCLs if system cannot afford compliance; best available technology for small systems; exemptions with compliance schedules)
• 42 U.S.C. § 300g-9 — Capacity development (states must develop strategy to ensure all new and existing public water systems have technical, managerial, and financial capacity to comply)
• 42 U.S.C. § 300h — Underground injection control (UIC program regulates injection of fluids underground to protect underground sources of drinking water; five classes of injection wells; state primacy available)
• 42 U.S.C. § 300i — Emergency powers (EPA may take emergency action if contamination presents imminent and substantial endangerment to health)
• 42 U.S.C. § 300j-12 — State Revolving Fund (federal capitalization grants to states for low-interest loans to public water systems for infrastructure improvements; additional set-asides for disadvantaged communities)
• 42 U.S.C. § 300j-19 — Lead service line replacement and PFAS treatment (mandatory inventories of lead service lines; funding for replacement; PFAS treatment technology assistance)

Implementing Regulations (CFR)

• 40 CFR Part 141 — National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (196 sections across 23 subparts — the enforceable drinking water standards that public water systems must meet; sets MCLs, treatment technique requirements, monitoring schedules, and public notification rules for approximately 98 regulated contaminants):

  • Subpart B/F — MCLs and MCLGs (2+6s): Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs, non-enforceable) and Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs, enforceable); Subpart G (§§ 141.60–141.66) sets the actual MCL table — arsenic 10 ppb, nitrate 10 ppm, lead action level 15 ppb, benzene 0.005 ppm, total trihalomethanes 0.080 ppm, total coliform (trigger-based), radionuclides (gross alpha 15 pCi/L, combined radium 5 pCi/L, uranium 0.030 mg/L); MCLGs are set at zero for carcinogens and at health-protective levels for other contaminants; MCLs are set as close to the MCLG as is "feasible" with best available treatment technology considering cost
  • Subpart H — Filtration and Disinfection (7s): the Surface Water Treatment Rule — all public water systems using surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water must provide filtration and disinfection; the 4-log virus inactivation and 3-log Giardia inactivation requirements define what "adequate disinfection" means; allowable disinfectants (chlorine, chloramine, ozone, UV); the Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBP) Rule limits chlorination byproducts (trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids) that form when chlorine reacts with natural organic matter
  • Subpart I — Lead and Copper Rule (14s): action level (AL) of 15 ppb lead — if 90th percentile tap samples exceed the AL at a system, the system must take corrosion control treatment, provide public education, replace lead service lines, and collect tap samples more frequently; 2024 Lead and Copper Rule Improvements require all systems to complete lead service line inventories, replace all lead service lines within 10 years if the AL is exceeded, and apply the 10 ppb trigger level for proactive planning; copper AL is 1.3 ppm; lead MCL is technically the AL trigger (not a traditional MCL) because EPA could not set a feasible MCL lower than the AL
  • Subpart Q — Public Notification (11s): tiered notification system — Tier 1 (immediate/24-hour notification for acute health risk violations like E. coli, nitrate, disinfection byproduct violations affecting system at risk — notify within 24 hours via broadcast media, direct contact, or posting); Tier 2 (30-day notice for violations that pose health risk but not immediate — mail or hand delivery to every customer); Tier 3 (annual water quality report — Consumer Confidence Report — mailed to all customers by July 1 each year, covering all detected contaminants, MCL compliance, source water information, and health effects language)
  • Subparts T/W — Enhanced Filtration and Cryptosporidium (32+24s): the Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) — systems using surface water must monitor source water for Cryptosporidium and provide treatment based on detected concentrations; systems with high Cryptosporidium levels must add UV disinfection, ozone, or other Cryptosporidium-specific treatment achieving up to 5.5-log inactivation/removal
  • Subpart Y — Revised Total Coliform Rule (11s): monitoring requirements for total coliform (TC) bacteria — a treatment technique standard, not an MCL; TC-positive samples trigger follow-up E. coli testing; any E. coli detection is an acute violation requiring immediate notification; systems must assess coliform problems and take corrective actions (Level 1 assessment for minor problems, Level 2 assessment by a state-certified professional for significant issues); coliform MCL violations occur when >5% of monthly samples test positive (systems sampling >40 times/month)
  • Subpart Z — PFAS Standards (6s): the April 2024 PFAS rule — first-ever national MCLs for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances; PFOA individual MCL 4 ppt; PFOS individual MCL 4 ppt; PFNA MCL 10 ppt; PFHxS MCL 10 ppt; HFPO-DA (GenX) MCL 10 ppt; PFBS/PFHxS/PFNA/HFPO-DA/PFBS as a mixture — hazard index of 1.0; compliance deadline by April 2027; systems exceeding MCLs must install granular activated carbon (GAC), high-pressure membranes (nanofiltration, reverse osmosis), or ion exchange treatment; estimated cost to comply: $772M to $1.2B annually across affected systems; the rule is subject to ongoing litigation

• 40 CFR Part 142 — National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation (62 sections — the framework governing how states take on and exercise primary enforcement responsibility ("primacy") for drinking water standards; state-level implementation is the norm; only a handful of jurisdictions have EPA as direct enforcer). Key provisions:

  • § 142.10 — Requirements for state primacy: a state achieves primacy by demonstrating it has (1) adopted regulations at least as stringent as EPA's national primary standards; (2) adequate legal authority to enforce those regulations; (3) a systematic program for conducting sanitary surveys of public water systems; (4) a laboratory certification program; and (5) authority to assess administrative penalties and take emergency action; 49 states, the District of Columbia, and most territories hold primacy (Wyoming is the only state where EPA directly enforces)
  • § 142.11–142.12 — Obtaining and updating primacy: states submit applications to EPA's Regional Administrator; primacy is granted by EPA determination and published in the Federal Register; when EPA adopts a new or revised national standard, states must update their own regulations to be at least as stringent within 2 years (or 18 months for some standards) or risk loss of primacy; EPA may grant up to 2 years of additional time if the state is diligently working on revisions
  • §§ 142.14–142.15 — State records and reports: primacy states must maintain records of all public water system monitoring results, violation notices, enforcement actions, and sanitary survey findings; annual reports to EPA include inventories of all public water systems, violation counts, and enforcement statistics; this reporting feeds EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) database that is publicly accessible
  • § 142.16 — Special primacy requirements: states must adopt specific notification, monitoring, and reporting requirements that match or exceed EPA's national standards; state public notification requirements must be at least as protective as federal Tier 1/2/3 notification timelines; lead service line inventory requirements adopted at the federal level in 2024 require parallel state regulatory updates
  • § 142.17 — Review and withdrawal of primacy: EPA conducts periodic reviews of state programs; if EPA finds a state has substantially failed to enforce, it must notify the state and provide opportunity to correct deficiencies; if the state fails to correct, EPA may withdraw primacy and assume direct enforcement responsibility; withdrawal is rare but has occurred historically in states with prolonged enforcement failures
  • §§ 142.20–142.24 — State variances and exemptions: primacy states may grant variances (relief from MCL compliance when the best available technology is not technically/economically feasible given local conditions) and exemptions (temporary relief while a water system implements a compliance schedule); states must submit variance/exemption programs to EPA for approval; EPA may rescind a state's variance/exemption authority if the state grants relief inconsistent with SDWA standards
  • §§ 142.301–142.308 — Small system variances: a distinct variance category for public water systems serving ≤10,000 people — these systems may receive a small system variance from a specific MCL if (a) they cannot comply due to limited resources, (b) there is a variance technology available that protects public health sufficiently, and (c) the variance includes a compliance schedule; EPA publishes lists of approved variance technologies for small systems by contaminant

  The state primacy structure means the entity you deal with for drinking water compliance is almost always your state drinking water program, not EPA directly. State programs may be more stringent than federal minimums (California, Massachusetts, and other states set standards below EPA's MCLs for some contaminants). The most recent Part 142 amendments (63 FR 23367, 1998) updated the primacy revision framework; subsequent major revisions have been driven by new national standards (PFAS, Lead and Copper Rule Improvements) requiring state regulatory updates under the 2-year timeline.

• 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146 — Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program (60 + 53 sections): the two-part regulatory framework implementing SDWA Part C, which protects underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from contamination by regulating the injection of fluids underground. EPA or an authorized state program administers the UIC program using six well classes based on the type and risk level of injection:

  • Class I — Industrial and municipal waste disposal into deep isolated formations (below the lowermost USDW); includes hazardous waste injection wells, which face the strictest standards including financial assurance requirements and mechanical integrity testing
  • Class II — Oil and gas wells: injection of brine and other fluids associated with oil and gas production, enhanced oil recovery, and storage of hydrocarbons; the most numerous class (hundreds of thousands of wells); the class used for wastewater disposal from hydraulic fracturing operations; state primacy is the norm for Class II
  • Class III — Solution mining: injection to extract minerals (potash, salt, uranium, sulfur) by dissolving them underground
  • Class IV — Banned: injection of hazardous or radioactive waste into or above a USDW is prohibited under § 144.13; Class IV wells were used historically before EPA determined they posed unacceptable risk to drinking water sources
  • Class V — Miscellaneous injection wells not in other classes: stormwater drainage wells, geothermal heat pumps, agricultural drainage wells, injection wells for aquifer storage and recovery; subject to a "no endangerment" standard — owners must ensure their wells do not endanger USDWs
  • Class VI — Geologic carbon sequestration: CO2 injection for long-term underground storage; established by EPA in 2010 to support carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology; Class VI wells must obtain an individual permit (cannot be authorized by rule under § 144.18) with site characterization, area of review, mechanical integrity testing, post-injection monitoring, and long-term site care requirements

  The core prohibition (§ 144.12) applies to all classes: no injection activity may allow movement of fluid into a USDW. Part 146 sets the technical criteria that implement this standard — siting requirements (wells must inject below the lowermost USDW), construction standards (surface casing, cement requirements, casing integrity), operating requirements (maximum injection pressure limits to prevent fracturing), mechanical integrity testing (pressure tests and radioactive tracer surveys), and plugging and abandonment procedures. States may apply for UIC primacy (the authority to run the program in lieu of EPA), and most states hold Class II primacy for oil-and-gas wells. States with primacy must maintain standards at least as stringent as federal requirements under Part 142.

  Recent developments: Class VI well permitting for CCS has accelerated under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which significantly expanded tax credits for carbon sequestration; EPA received more Class VI applications in 2023-2024 than in the prior decade combined. The Trump administration (2025) proposed streamlining Class VI permitting timelines — a rare bipartisan issue because CCS is relevant to both carbon reduction goals and oil/gas industry operations.

• 40 CFR Part 145 — State UIC Program Requirements: the procedural and substantive framework governing how states obtain primacy to administer the Underground Injection Control program in lieu of direct EPA enforcement — the mechanism through which the UIC program becomes state-run for most of the country:

  • § 145.11 — Permitting authority requirements: state programs must have legal authority to issue, deny, revoke, and modify UIC permits; programs must be able to require corrective action for wells endangering USDWs, implement emergency suspension of operations, and enforce permit conditions; the state's legal authority is the threshold requirement — states without adequate legal tools cannot receive primacy regardless of technical capability
  • § 145.12 — Compliance evaluation: states must have procedures for receiving, evaluating, and investigating all notices and reports required of permittees; compliance evaluation includes review of mechanical integrity test results, monitoring reports, and injection pressure records; state programs must investigate potential violations and maintain an active compliance monitoring program
  • § 145.13 — Enforcement authority: state programs must have the ability to immediately restrain (by order or court action) any person creating an imminent hazard to a USDW; they must also be able to seek civil penalties and criminal sanctions; the federal/state enforcement relationship allows EPA to take direct action if the state fails to act, but EPA generally defers to state enforcement unless the state response is clearly inadequate
  • § 145.22 — Elements of a program submission: states seeking primacy must submit to EPA: the complete text of the proposed state UIC regulations, a description of the agency's organizational structure and resources, a Memorandum of Agreement with EPA specifying reporting and inspection standards, and an attorney general's certification that the state's legal authority is adequate; Class VI (CO2 sequestration) primacy requires a separate submission because of the program's technical complexity — no state currently has Class VI primacy
  • §§ 145.31–145.34 — Program approval and revision: EPA has 90 days to determine whether a primacy program submission is complete; EPA then publishes the submission for public comment and holds a public hearing before making a final approval decision; once approved, primacy is permanent unless the state's program falls below federal standards; states must notify EPA of any proposed state regulation changes that affect primacy; EPA may withdraw primacy if a state fails to correct deficiencies in its program within a specified period
  • § 145.50–145.52 — Indian Tribes: Indian tribes may apply for primacy authority over UIC programs on tribal lands if the tribe has a governing body and regulatory authority over injection activity on those lands; the process mirrors state primacy but is administered through EPA Regional Offices

• 40 CFR Part 147 — State, Tribal, and EPA-Administered Underground Injection Control Programs (218 sections): the compendium regulation that codifies the individual UIC program approvals for every state and tribe that has obtained primacy. Each state's or tribe's approved program appears as a separate subpart specifying which well classes are covered, whether the program is EPA-administered or state-administered, and any class-specific modifications to the federal baseline. States with primacy administer their UIC programs in lieu of EPA under 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146 — Part 147 is the authoritative register of which jurisdictions have taken over which programs. Where a state lacks primacy for a particular well class, EPA directly administers that class using the federal rules in Parts 144 and 146. Part 147 also identifies the tribal programs with UIC primacy and specifies EPA's direct administration of wells on tribal lands where no primacy has been granted.

• 40 CFR Part 148 — Hazardous Waste Injection Restrictions: the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) program applied specifically to Class I hazardous waste injection wells — prohibiting the underground injection of specified hazardous wastes unless the waste meets treatment standards or the owner demonstrates the injection will not result in migration into a USDW:

  • § 148.1 — Scope: Part 148 identifies hazardous wastes restricted from disposal into Class I injection wells (the deep-well injection facilities used for industrial hazardous waste disposal); restrictions were phased in from 1988 through 1990 based on the RCRA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA 1984) schedule; Part 148 applies to owners/operators of Class I hazardous waste injection wells subject to 40 CFR Part 122 permits
  • §§ 148.10–148.18 — Waste-specific prohibitions: specific categories of RCRA-listed hazardous wastes are prohibited from injection by name:
    • Solvent wastes (§ 148.10): F001–F005 spent solvents (tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, methanol, acetone, etc.) — effective August 1988
    • Dioxin-containing wastes (§ 148.11): F020–F028 dioxin wastes — effective August 1988; complete prohibition with no no-migration petition available
    • "California list" wastes (§ 148.12): wastes containing PCBs ≥50 ppm, halogenated organics ≥1,000 mg/kg, or other specified contaminants — effective August 1988
    • First, second, and third third wastes (§§ 148.14–148.16): the RCRA Subtitle C listed wastes that EPA phased in for land disposal restriction in three tranches through 1989–1990; most industrial K and F-listed wastes
    • Characteristic hazardous wastes (§ 148.17): wastes characteristically hazardous (ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic under § 261.3) are restricted from injection unless the characteristic is removed before injection
  • §§ 148.20–148.22 — No-migration petitions: an owner or operator of a Class I injection well may petition EPA for an exemption from Part 148 restrictions by demonstrating with clear and convincing evidence that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the wastes remain hazardous; the petition must include modeling of injection zone chemistry, hydrogeology, and long-term containment; EPA grants no-migration petitions for a fixed term (typically 10 years) subject to monitoring conditions; this is the only available pathway for injecting otherwise-restricted wastes

  Part 148 reflects Congress's strong policy statement in HSWA 1984 that land disposal — including deep-well injection — of hazardous waste was presumptively prohibited unless EPA affirmatively determined it was safe. The no-migration petition process places the burden on the facility operator to prove safety, reversing the traditional regulatory presumption. In practice, Class I hazardous waste injection facilities that hold no-migration petitions have demonstrated safe long-term containment, and EPA has renewed petitions for major industrial injection facilities in Texas and Louisiana where deep geological formations provide reliable isolation.

Implementing Regulations — Sole Source Aquifers

• 40 CFR Part 149 — Sole Source Aquifers (15 sections — implements SDWA §§ 1424(e) and 1427, which authorize EPA to designate aquifers as "sole source" or "critical" drinking water sources and restrict federally funded projects that may contaminate them):

  • § 149.1 — Critical Aquifer Protection Areas (Subpart A): provides criteria for identifying critical aquifer protection areas under SDWA § 1427; a critical aquifer protection area is a portion of an aquifer that is the sole or principal source of drinking water for an area and for which there are no reasonably available alternative sources; EPA may provide grants to state and local governments to protect these critical areas through land use controls, wellhead protection programs, and contamination monitoring
  • §§ 149.100–149.104 — Edwards Underground Reservoir (Subpart B): specific regulations protecting the Edwards Underground Reservoir in Texas — the sole or principal drinking water source for the San Antonio metropolitan area; the Edwards is one of the most productive and important sole-source aquifers in the United States, providing water for approximately 2 million people; under Subpart B, any federal financial assistance for construction projects in the contributing zone of the Edwards aquifer must be reviewed for potential contamination before the project proceeds; EPA may withhold federal funds for any project that poses "a significant hazard to the aquifer"
  • § 149.101 — Definitions: "contaminant" means any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance that may adversely affect the quality of the aquifer's water; the Edwards aquifer's "critical zone" (the recharge zone) and "contributing zone" are defined geographically
  • § 149.102 — Project review: any federal agency considering financial assistance for a project in the Edwards contributing zone must submit the project to EPA for review; EPA has 30 days to respond with concerns; if EPA determines a project will pose a significant hazard, federal assistance is withheld unless project modifications eliminate the hazard
  • § 149.3 — Sole Source Aquifer Designation (Subpart A): EPA may designate an aquifer as a sole source aquifer upon petition from state or local government or on EPA's own initiative; once designated, any project receiving federal financial assistance that may contaminate the aquifer requires EPA review under the "substantial hazard" standard; designations cover over 70 aquifers nationwide, including Long Island's aquifer system (serving New York), the Biscayne Aquifer (Miami-Dade area), and the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer (Washington/Idaho)

  The Sole Source Aquifer program is one of the SDWA's most significant but least-publicized provisions. Sole source aquifer designation does not impose monitoring or treatment requirements on water systems — instead, it functions as a project review overlay: federal agencies must coordinate with EPA before providing financial assistance (grants, loans, permits) for projects in designated aquifer areas. The program has been used to block or modify landfills, underground storage tank installations, and development projects in sensitive recharge zones. Recent designations: EPA has received petitions for new sole source aquifer designations in several states and periodically reviews existing designations. No major Part 149 regulatory amendments in recent years; the Edwards aquifer provisions have been stable since promulgation.

How It Works

The SDWA protects public health by regulating the nation's public drinking water supply — from the source to the tap. It authorizes EPA to set standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, cities, and water suppliers who implement those standards. For each regulated contaminant, EPA sets a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) — the level with no known health risk, including a safety margin — and an enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) as close to the MCLG as feasible using the best available treatment technology, taking cost into consideration. Currently, approximately 98 contaminants have MCLs, covering microorganisms, disinfectants, disinfection byproducts, inorganic chemicals (arsenic, lead, nitrate), organic chemicals (benzene, TCE), and radionuclides. In 2024, EPA finalized the first-ever national drinking water standards for PFAS ("forever chemicals"), setting MCLs of 4 parts per trillion for PFOA and PFOS individually — one of the most significant new drinking water regulations in decades, affecting thousands of water systems and requiring billions in treatment infrastructure investment. The revised Lead and Copper Rule (LCR Improvements, 2024) requires mandatory lead service line inventories, replacement of all lead service lines within 10 years for systems exceeding the 15 ppb action level, and a new 10 ppb trigger level requiring systems to begin planning for replacement before reaching the action level.

The SDWA operates through cooperative federalism: EPA sets standards, but 49 states have "primacy" to implement and enforce rules for public water systems in their jurisdictions, with authority to set more stringent standards than federal MCLs. The primary federal financing mechanism is the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) — EPA provides annual capitalization grants to states, which make low-interest loans to public water systems for treatment upgrades, distribution repairs, source water protection, and capacity development. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021) provided an additional $15 billion for the DWSRF, including dedicated funding for lead service line replacement and PFAS. The SDWA also includes source water protection provisions: states must assess source water areas, identify contamination threats, and develop protection programs. The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program regulates the injection of waste fluids underground to prevent contamination of drinking water sources — covering industrial waste disposal wells, oil and gas injection wells, and other subsurface injection activity.

How It Affects You

State Variations

Pending Legislation

• HR 4168 (Rep. Fitzpatrick, R-PA) — PFAS National Drinking Water Standard Act: makes EPA's PFAS drinking water regulation statutory. Status: Introduced.
• HR 4816 (Rep. Nunn, R-IA) — Safe Drinking Water for Disadvantaged Communities Act: requires IIJA drinking water SRF funds for lead pipe projects as forgivable loans. Status: Introduced.
• S 1324 (Sen. Shaheen, D-NH) — Modifies Safe Drinking Water Act for state grants to disadvantaged communities and private wells. Status: Introduced.
• HR 2656 (Rep. Torres, D-CA) — Removing Nitrate and Arsenic in Drinking Water Act: grants prioritizing disadvantaged communities. Status: Introduced.

Recent Developments

• EPA finalized first-ever PFAS drinking water standards (2024), affecting thousands of water systems nationwide
• Revised Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (2024) mandate full lead service line replacement for systems exceeding action levels
• Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021) provided $15B in additional DWSRF funding, the largest-ever federal investment in drinking water infrastructure
• Increasing focus on environmental justice — disadvantaged communities receive priority funding and technical assistance for compliance
• Cybersecurity of water systems has become an enforcement and assistance priority following several high-profile incidents
• In March 2026, EPA invited nominations for the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC), the 15-member advisory body established under the Safe Drinking Water Act to advise the EPA Administrator on safe drinking water programs and policies.