EPA JURISDICTION: THIS IS A PROPOSED ACTION IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS, A STATE WITH PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS. HOWEVER, THE SAFE DRINKING WAT- ER ACT ALLOWS THE EPA TO TAKE DIRECT ENFORCEMENT ACTION AT THE REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OR THE HEAD OF THE APPROPRIATE STATE AGENCY. WE HAVE SUCH A REQUEST. PARTIES: MR. A.C. PAXTON IS THE OWNER OF THE COLLEGEVILLE WATER & SEWER CO. (SERVING A MOBILE HOME PARK) SINCE 1978. HE HAS BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE STATE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS SINCE THAT TIME. CAUSE OF ACTION: THE STATE HAS ASKED THAT WE START IN JAN. 1982, EVEN THOUGH VIOLATIONS OF THE SAME NATURE WERE OCC- URRING BEFORE THAT. THE VIOLATIONS ARE OF THE REQUIREMENT TO MONITOR THE WATER ONCE PER MONTH (FOR A SYSTEM SERVING MORE THAN 25 BUT LESS THAN 100 PERSONS) AND HAVE IT ANAL- YZED FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANTS. THE DEFENDANTS HAVE SAMPLED ONLY SIX TIMES OVER THE LAST 36-MONTH PERIOD. THE DEPT. OF HEALTH HAS SENT MR. PAXTON OVER 20 LETTERS ADVISING HIM TO SAMPLE. WHEN A SUPPLIER OF WATER DOES NOT SAMPLE, IT IS REQUIRED ALSO TO NOTIFY ITS USERS THAT IT DID NOT MONITOR. TKHE DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT SO NOTIFIED ITS USERS ON AT LEAST 30 NECESSARY OCCASIONS. THE SAME LET- TERS SENT TO MR. PAXTON ADVISED HIM TO PROVIDE SUCH NOT- ICE TO HIS USERS. THE CONSISTENT DISREGARD OF THE NUMER- OUS ATTEMPTS BY THE STATE TO OBTAI