Do you care what is in your drinking water? by gimleteye

The Environmental Working Group is one of the nation's most effective advocates for clean air, water and for improved rules and regulations to protect public health and natural resources. Last Sunday, The Miami Herald published an article on the group's recent report, "Over 300 pollutants in US tap water."

EWG writes, "Water utilities spend 19 times more on water treatment chemicals every year than the federal government invests in protecting lakes and rivers from pollution in the first place. Based on these data, EWG believes the federal government has a responsibility to do a national assessment of drinking water quality. It should establish new safety standards, set priorities for pollution prevention projects, and tell consumers about the full range of pollutants in their water."

It is a fact that federal drinking water standards only test a fraction of the tens of thousands of man-made chemicals in the environment, and not at all the interactions of chemicals with each other on human health. As such, human health is an "external cost" of economic progress and profit. You can't prove the connections between interaction of chemicals found in tap water and illnesses like cancer (at least not yet); but there is broad recognition that environmental stressors have a significant influence on human health. EWG is correct: the moment has come for a much more robust approach to investment in research and pollution detection. (please click, 'read more')

Today's rules are established largely because they are achievable through tolerable costs, as judged by decision-makers. The Herald writes: "Utilities and state and federal regulators don't dispute the numbers, compiled from some 20 million regular tests that 47,677 water plant operators filed to state water and environmental agencies. But they called EWG's report and rankings misleading and skewed to overstate potential risks."

Of course they would: what else would they say?

"Dee Ann Miller, spokeswoman for the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which monitors drinking water quality, said utility customers in Pensacola and Jacksonville had nothing to worry about and that Florida has "some of the highest quality and safest drinking water in the United States.''

"To imply these utilities are supplying unsafe drinking water is both irresponsible and simply not true,'' she said in a written statement.

Rafael Terrero, assistant director of Miami-Dade's Water and Sewer Department, which ranked No. 46 on the list of 100 ``big city'' systems serving more than a quarter-million people, said the county water beat EPA standards by a wide margin.

"To me, it's excellent water,'' he said.

The EPA and DEP have been at odds over a court-ordered plan by the federal agency to impose nutrient standards for Florida surface waters, but both defended oversight of tap water."

I'm not inclined to charitable feelings though. To me, it is not "excellent water". To me, calling our water excellent is like Arthur Anderson issuing Enron 'A' grades right up to its collapse.

If you have prostate cancer or any other health issue that can't be traced to it environmental origin, does it make you feel better that maybe the regulators are wrong, even if they meant well?

Resignation about what is in our drinking water, or carcinogens that you might inhale taking a steamy shower is not an option. Write to your Congressman, to your US Senators, and to President Obama: tell them it is OK to get tough about the shortcomings of regulations governing chemicals and their interactions. It is long past time to take a harder look at what is in our drinking water to protect you, your children, or grandchildren from our "excellent water".