Double Check Facilities w/ multiple PWS IDs

[nfultz]

In the SDWA data set, it seems like there are four facilities that join to multiple Water System IDs. Odd.

#   hifld_facilityid n       FRS_ID     PWSID  REGISTRY_ID
# 1         10002476 2 110005364658 WA5322330 110005364658
# 2         10002476 2 110005364658 WA5327510 110005364658
# 3         10002287 2 110021747822 NY6030008 110021747822
# 4         10002287 2 110021747822 NY6030009 110021747822
# 5         10000994 2 110060258858 WI7010058 110060258858
# 6         10000994 2 110060258858 WI7010105 110060258858
# 7         10001183 2 110068077191 ID4010141 110068077191
# 8         10001183 2 110068077191 ID4010240 110068077191

[shapironick]

Thank you, Neal! We'll double check these next week!

[shapironick]

Hi @danihoague, could you check out these 4 carceral facilities that seem to have multiple PWSIDs? Its strange because we don't understand why one prison would have multiple water treatment plants. This will take some sleuthing. You can search between the files that GG has in the drive about violations, our HIFLD data (maybe these ones are just particularly big? so you could look at pop and capacity #s) and you can also look at this data of all PWS https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jLc2hnDx6MdlxtbXgIgje_g-H5VhmZ2j/view?usp=sharing or searching the FRS IDs in echo echo.epa.gov we just want to know what is up here. let us know what you find! many thanks!

[danihoague]

Hi @shapironick and @nfultz !!! The following is what I have found. Everything on GG's spreadsheets look fine. I think the problem is the complicated ownership of these water systems.

I have listed the following with the last 3 numbers of their PWSID and the # of people served as listed on the EPA.gov website. I cross-checked the HIFLD facility capacity data from the uncollapsed_with_cap_pop_doj_v2_3 spreadsheet.

WA- (https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110005364658) 1 is a state government owned system (330, serving 430) and 2 is a privately owned system (510, serving 105). Both are community water systems sourced from groundwater. The HIFLD 2020 data says that the facility population is 139.

NY- (https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110021747822) 3 is owned by the local government and 4 is owned by the state government. Interestingly, both (008, serving 2,000 and 009, serving 1,600) are community water systems that “purchase” surface water. The HIFLD 2020 data says that the facility population is 1,392.

WI- (https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110060258858) Both 5 and 6 are federally owned but 5 (058, serving 25) is a transient non-community water system and the other (105, serving 1,500) is a ground water community system. The HIFLD capacity data lists that the facility population is 958.

ID- (https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110068077191) 7 (141, serving 3162) is a privately owned ground water community water system and 8 (240, serving 2060) is also a privately owned ground water community water system. The HIFLD 2020 data lists the facility population as 2,181.

Questions to ponder:

Do the population discrepancies indicate that the facility is not at full capacity (based on the HIFLD population data) and that the water systems capacity is meant to serve the total number of people listed on their PWSID? What does purchasing surface water mean? What is the difference between local gov ownership and state gov ownership?

Possible solutions: Could the violations for the two water systems listed per facility be combined?

I am sending these questions to the EPA ECHO helpdesk! Let me know your thoughts. Thanks!!!

[shapironick]

Thank you Dani! Great work! In reviewing these do you think that any of the FRS IDs might be incorrectly associated with a carceral facility? The state vs private one especially makes me think there might be an error there.

On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 2:26 PM Danielle Hoague @.***> wrote:

Hi Nick and Neal!!! The following is what I have found. Everything on GG's spreadsheets look fine. I think the problem is the complicated ownership of these water systems.

I have listed the following with the last 3 numbers of their PWSID and the

of people served as listed on the EPA.gov website. I cross-checked the

HIFLD facility capacity data from the uncollapsed_with_cap_pop_doj_v2_3 spreadsheet.

WA-WA https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110005364658

1 https://github.com/Carceral-Ecologies/Carceral-ECHO-data/issues/1 is

a state government owned system (330, serving 430) and #2 https://github.com/Carceral-Ecologies/Carceral-ECHO-data/issues/2 is a privately owned system (510, serving 105). Both are community water systems sourced from groundwater. The HIFLD 2020 data says that the facility population is 139.

NY- NY https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110021747822

3 https://github.com/Carceral-Ecologies/Carceral-ECHO-data/issues/3 is

owned by the local government and #4 https://github.com/Carceral-Ecologies/Carceral-ECHO-data/issues/4 is owned by the state government. Interestingly, both (008, serving 2,000 and 009, serving 1,600) are community water systems that “purchase” surface water. The HIFLD 2020 data says that the facility population is 1,392.

WI- WI https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110060258858 Both #5 https://github.com/Carceral-Ecologies/Carceral-ECHO-data/issues/5 and #6 https://github.com/Carceral-Ecologies/Carceral-ECHO-data/issues/6 are federally owned but #5 https://github.com/Carceral-Ecologies/Carceral-ECHO-data/issues/5 (058, serving 25) is a transient non-community water system and the other (105, serving 1,500) is a ground water community system. The HIFLD capacity data lists that the facility population is 958.

ID- ID https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-facility-report?fid=110068077191

7 https://github.com/Carceral-Ecologies/Carceral-ECHO-data/pull/7

(141, serving 3162) is a privately owned ground water community water system and #8 https://github.com/Carceral-Ecologies/Carceral-ECHO-data/pull/8 (240, serving 2060) is also a privately owned ground water community water system. The HIFLD 2020 data lists the facility population as 2,181.

Questions to ponder:

Do the population discrepancies indicate that the facility is not at full capacity (based on the HIFLD population data) and that the water systems capacity is meant to serve the total number of people listed on their PWSID? What does purchasing surface water mean? What is the difference between local gov ownership and state gov ownership?

Possible solutions: Could the violations for the two water systems listed per facility be combined?

I am sending these questions to the EPA ECHO helpdesk! Let me know your thoughts. Thanks!!!

— You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/Carceral-Ecologies/Carceral-ECHO-data/issues/30#issuecomment-925342718, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABZH332GTIRKZBWO5K3UOB3UDJCXNANCNFSM5EDPUPXQ . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675 or Android https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub.

-- Nicholas Shapiro Assistant Professor UCLA Institute for Society and Genetics Carceral Ecologies https://www.instagram.com/carceralecologies/, Director Office: (310) 206-2366

[danihoague]

Hi @shapironick !

I am almoooooost positive that the FRS IDs are associated with these water systems. I double checked them by looking up their PWSIDs in the SDWIS EPA database and found that each one is associated with their facilities. I sent an email to the helpdesk as follows:

"Thank you for all of your answers to my questions thus far! Your insight is greatly valued! have another question about four FRS IDs that are associated with multiple PWSIDs. I would like to know if both water systems are serving the same facility and why. Any advice would be stellar.

Each of these 4 facilities have 2 PWS associated with them for different reasons (from what I can tell). I linked each facility as found on the echo.epa.gov website in the table below. I see that some of them are privately owned and government owned or community and non-community water systems. Is it possible that one of them are associated with the wrong FRS ID and should not be associated with the facility? I have other hypotheses and would like to discuss them with you if possible. Any of your attention to this matter would be immensely helpful!"

I also linked a table with the 4 facilities listed. Let me know your thoughts.