With Drinking Water, Safe Enough Is the Goal : Jo Craven McGinty, Wall Street Journal 3.12.2016

During a time when focused on one water disaster, the public overlooks others that do not make the headlines. Fortunately, some reporters offer a total picture of the overriding issue. In this case the issue is safe drinking water. Flint Michigan has made headlines and has gotten the attention of Democratic candidates, especially prior to the primaries in that state. McGinty, however, makes us aware of other incidents below the public radar, such as the lead levels in the Newark, New Jersey school district (see The New York Times, 3.12.2016, p.1), Uranium tainted water in California, and a chemical in Teflon found in the water of Hoosick, New York.


All water providers issue an annual Water Quality Report to customers that informs customers of the sources of water and the levels of contaminants as designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of the report is to maintain consumer confidence. The Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act made these requirements law. As anyone who follows the activities of Water Districts and Authorities know, the number of new products with contaminating chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and pathogens that enter our water supply make the addition of substances to the EPA list and their regulation "not possible", according to McGinty.


McGinty explained the criteria that the EPA employs to add substances to the contaminant list: "It might have an adverse effect on human health; it occurs, or is likely to, in public water systems at a troubling level and frequency; and, in the judgment of the EPA administrator, regulation will reduce health risks. In addition, it must be feasible for the nation's 155,000 public water systems to comply, and the benefits must outweigh the expense" (p. A2). Hard hurdles to scale. The last requirement implies that if the EPA has not identified technology to remove efficiently and economically the contaminant, the EPA does not enforce its removal.


When the EPA established the contaminant list in 1998, it contained, according to McGinty, "50 chemicals and 10 microbial contaminants. The latest draft has 100 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbial contaminants. Examples include chemicals used in pesticides and pharmaceuticals as well as pathogens such as E. coli" (p. A2). The EPA has added one contaminant in the last 20 years.
The EPA allows flexibility in the measurement and the frequency of contaminant testing. For example, for lead "the health-based goal is zero. But the EPA's action level for lead is 15 parts per billion. (In Flint, seven locations recently tested above 1,000 parts per billion)" (p.A2). Additionally, the EPA does not require water providers to test some contaminants annually because traces of them normally to not vary substantially. McGinty ended her article with this answer to the question of "Is your water safe: The answer is fluid" (p.A2).