All You Need To Know About Bottle Vs. Tap Water

Bridging the water divide: It's not only about taste

By Carolyn Butler
Tuesday, May 18, 2010; HE02

For months now, my husband and I have been fighting about water.

Drinking water, that is. He thinks it's time to ditch our monthly bottle delivery service, because of both the expense and green guilt over all that plastic.

I concede these points but continue to play my trump card: concerns about the quality of local tap water and any potential impact on our family's health. The horrific headlines about dangerous lead levels in the District's water supply from earlier in the decade are still too fresh in my mind; it also doesn't help that lately, filling a glass from our faucet or drawing a bath smells like we're draining a swimming pool.

We had more or less come to a standstill in the water wars when I received an e-mail from the District's Water and Sewer Authority at the end of April, warning people in our neighborhood not to use the tap because of abnormally high amounts of chlorine at a local reservoir.

This type of "chlorine spike" is a concern because the disinfectant can react with organic matter in the water and produce higher levels of some disinfection byproducts that have been associated with an increased risk of cancer and DNA damage, said Nneka Leiba, a health research analyst at the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based environmental advocacy group. The April problem was isolated, however, and resolved within a few hours.

While it is comforting to know that our water is being monitored so closely and that this sort of glitch is almost immediately publicized, there are clearly some reasons to be wary of the tap, on both a national and local level. For example, a recent EWG analysis of nearly 20 million records from 45 states identified 316 pollutants found in the nation's tap water system since 2004. Of these contaminants, 114 are regulated and were found in concentrations above federal guideline level; the rest are currently unregulated. "That means these 202 contaminants" -- which include gasoline additives and rocket fuel -- "can be present in tap water at any level and it would be fine, because there are no safety standards," Leiba said.

This report didn't include the District because of a bureaucratic record-keeping issue, but Leiba said she worries about the high concentration of organic matter in the Potomac River, the District's source water, as well as the day-to-day levels of chemical byproducts and agricultural pollutants such as arsenic that end up in the tap.

WASA officials don't deny problems, past or present, but they say they're doing everything possible to keep drinking water safe. "In any system this large, you're going to have days where everything doesn't work as hoped, but our goal is to catch incidents quickly, take the necessary steps and report them to customers straight away, so they can be safe," said WASA general manager George Hawkins. He notes that in addition to some 60,000 federal aqueduct tests a year, WASA collects about 9,500 water samples and conducts 31,000 tests of its own, and then reports some monthly and all yearly monitoring data on its Web site. (According to this information, WASA was in compliance with all federal EPA guidelines for water quality and safety for 2009, and is for 2010 so far, as well.)

Since 2000, the city has regularly used chloramine instead of chlorine, specifically to reduce the levels of disinfection byproducts in the water. As for lead leaching in from old pipes, Hawkins admits that it has not yet been eliminated from all home taps, although it is currently well below the EPA action level for problems. "But any lead is cause for concern," he said. The agency recently stopped replacing water mains that are made of lead in all but a few cases, since research found that such replacements do not reduce the amount of lead coming into a house -- and might actually increase it for a time -- unless the lead pipe connecting the main to the house is also replaced. For people who can't afford such work, Hawkins recommends a simple water filter -- preferably one certified by NSF International -- which can significantly reduce the amount of metals and other pollutants in your tap water.

And how about that delightful chlorine odor and taste?

It's actually a preventive health measure -- the result of a temporary system-wide switch from chloramine back to the slightly stronger chlorine, intended to prevent bacteria buildup and make sure local water lines are clean. The substitution, which started in February, ends this week.

"We saw an uptick we didn't like and wanted to eliminate the issue before it became a problem -- to nip it in the bud," said Watkins, who acknowledges that many people notice the change in smell and flavor. For those who simply can't stomach the District's finest tap vintage, either with or without seasonal additives, Hawkins again suggests using a water filter, along with running your cold water tap for five to 10 minutes and keeping water in an open pitcher in your fridge, to help eliminate the eau de swimming pool.

Given such issues, is it any surprise that bottled water sales skyrocketed in the past decade? But just because it comes in a pretty container and by various estimates costs up to 2,000 times more than tap water, that doesn't mean its quality is higher, say experts. In fact, a recent EWG report found that 10 brands of bottled water contained a range of pollutants, including disinfection byproducts, arsenic, caffeine and pharmaceuticals.

"Testing revealed that some -- not all -- brands look remarkably like tap water, with the same signature contaminants," according to EWG's Leiba, who said that despite labels touting clear mountain springs, various studies estimate that more than 40 percent of bottled waters are sourced from purified municipal public water. "Unlike municipalities, bottled water manufacturers aren't required to disclose any of this information on their labels or Web sites -- so most of the time you have no idea what you're getting."

Indeed, all water is not monitored equally: Bottled water is regulated as a food product by the Food and Drug Administration, while tap water falls under the jurisdiction of the EPA and the Safe Drinking Water Act. "These regulations, while similar, are not identical, and in most cases, tap water is better regulated -- it's monitored more carefully, the rules for bacteria and viruses, in particular, are stricter, and the reporting to the public is better," said Peter Gleick, author of "Bottled & Sold: The Story Behind Our Obsession With Bottled Water."

In the course of researching his book, Gleick found more than 100 instances of bottled water contamination leading to recalls in this country alone, a full third of which were never made public. The toxins included mold, fecal bacteria, glass particles and even crickets. "I'm not arguing that bottled water is worse quality than tap water -- I'm arguing that we don't know because we're not looking, and that when we do look hard enough and test, we find problems," said Gleick.

So what's a warring couple to do in the meantime, when it seems like the famed poetic lament "Water, water everywhere, nor any drop to drink" has never been more relevant? The experts go with filters. High-quality carbon filters can get rid of contaminants such as asbestos, lead, mercury and disinfection byproducts, while more-expensive reverse osmosis filters will also remove inorganic pollutants including nitrates and perchlorate. But, said Leiba, "Even simple filters can make a big difference in quality."

That may be just the armistice we need.

Federal Government Exempts Itself From Clean Water- Interesting

Hey All:

It has been a while since my last post. I am going to try and keep this more up to date and will be making some significant changes in the coming weeks/months. Focus of this blog will shift from general politics to the politics of clean water- a passion of mine and the right of all people.

Below, see a recent article from WTOP for discussion purposes. Question- How can we expect to improve water quality if even the Federal government will not do its fair share?


WASHINGTON - The federal government is refusing to pay millions of
dollars in water bills, and that means the additional cost will
trickle down to you.

In response to unfunded mandates by the Environmental Protection
Agency, many local authorities are charging new fees.

The District of Columbia began itemizing the Impervious Area Charge on
monthly bills in order to defray the costs of this mandate to clean up
stormwater runoff that makes its way into the Anacostia River and then
into the Potomac River. The Potomac runs into Chesapeake Bay, the
nation's largest estuary.

Stormwater runoff is a leading cause of water pollution in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

George Hawkins, general manager of D.C.'s Water and Sewer Authority,
tells WTOP if the federal government doesn't pay its bill, then
someone will have to make up the difference.

"If we don't have the revenue we anticipate from the federal
government, we will have to make up for it from other sources."

Nathan Gardner-Andrews, counsel for the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies, says those other sources will be local residents and
businesses.

"To the extent that the federal government refuses to pay its fair
share, then the economic burden falls even more squarely on the
shoulders of local rate payers," Gardner-Andrews says.

In the District, the fee is based on how much land you own, which
means the average homeowner pays about $2.20 a month. The fee for the
federal government -- which owns nearly 20 percent of the land and is
WASA's biggest customer -- is more than $2 million a year.

Hawkins says it's ironic that one federal agency is imposing the
requirements that necessitate the new fees while another agency is
refusing to pay the fees.

"Particularly since the work that we are doing is a direct result of
federal mandates. The federal government should step up and do its
part since they are such a very significant landowner in the city."

Hawkins says the federal government owns more than 30 percent of the
land that generates the stormwater runoff.

The federal government won't pay the fee because it says the fee is a
tax. WTOP has obtained a letter sent to WASA and the U.S. Department
of Treasury from Lynn Gibson, acting general counsel for the
Government Accountability Office:

"The Impervious Surface Area charges adopted by the District appears
to be a tax on property owners. If this is so, GAO's appropriated
funds are not available to pay the assessment due on April 15, 2010,"
Gibson says.

"Accordingly, we are instructing the Department of Treasury not to
make a payment to the District."

Susan A. Poling, managing associate general counsel for GSA, says
"under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution, the
United States government is immune from taxation from states, cities
and other municipalities."

The dispute comes down to whether the Impervious Area Charge is a tax or a fee.

Poling says that has yet to be determined in this case.

"Whether something is a tax or a fee requires a good look at the
facts. The federal government can easily pay something that is a fee
where we are getting some kind of service, like a water bill. But we
are immune from taxation."

The dispute over stormwater fees is not limited to the District. The
GAO has sent similar letters to local municipalities across the
country:

In 2006, King County, Wash., was one of the first to get a letter.
Four years later, King County and the GAO have still not resolved the
problem.

In Seattle, taxpayers have had to make up more than $1.6 million in
drainage fees the federal government has refused to pay. "We're
pondering a wide range of solutions, including legal action,"
Assistant City Attorney Greg Narver says.

In Vancouver, Wash., the city attorney's office says the unpaid fees
are costing local taxpayers about $8,000 per month.

In Gwinett County in Georgia, it's costing residents $160,000 a year.

The City of Cincinnati took the issue to court. In 2007, the federal
government reached a settlement with Cincinnati over $100,000 in
unpaid surface water management fees the departments of Health and
Human Services and Veterans Affairs refused to pay the city. Uncle Sam
agreed to pay $17,000.
According to a 2009 GAO opinion, the settlement has "no bearing" on
the determination of other disputed fees.

Hawkins says he has a meeting scheduled with GAO to try and resolve
the billing dispute, but says if that doesn't work he hasn't ruled out
suing the federal government.

"There is a judgment call to be made here that's at a policy level."
Hawkins says. "We can appeal to the Obama Administration and if that
doesn't work then we'll take whatever legal steps we need to take."

Uncertainties Run Amok

So what has happened since our last musing. The United States economy continues to be a rollercoaster ride few citizens on Wall Street or Main Street are currently enjoying. In one day, the economy lost more than $1 trillion in value by plunging 777 points throughout the course of business. This sent ripples throughout the global economy causing anxiety and general unease among most major western economies. The markets then "rebounded" gaining over 200 points all the while eeringly teetering on the brink of collapse. I will continue to say that such drastic changes in market conditions are signs of great uncertainty and anxiety and point to the fact that the largest of our problems await. I will say again that no-one should feel comfortable when market actions are directly affected by the actions, or inactions, of the United States Congress.

Meanwhile, the Senate passed a larger version of the financial "bailout" or "rescue" or whatever its being called in the current debate. The bill passed by the Upper Chamber has a few more "sweeteners" designed to provide political cover for Members to vote yes. This seems fine, and normally works in attracting new votes in the legislative arena, except this issue is now so high-profile and the election is so close (5 weeks) that in this case poison by any other name remains poison. Once Members vote yes, or switch their votes to yes from no, that becomes an instant talking point for the opposition candidate for the next five weeks. I can see it now, and so can the Members, "Congressman X voted to bailout greedy investment bankers while doing nothing to protect your family and our community from the horrors of foreclosure, the strain provided by rising commodity prices and the pressures of rising energy prices". If only it were that simplistic, the only problem is, in elections it is.

Our Presidential candidate's continue to tell us that passage of this bill is of critical import, but neither of them have really taken any actions to show this truism other than showing up for a vote they are supposed to show up for anyway. I imagine that if one of these candidates did speak honestly with the American people and made this a hallmark issue of their campaign, an "action item" if you will, than that candidate would see a significant rise in their polling numbers across the board. Is it possible that instead of using campaign dollars in varying state's of strategic value that a candidate could approach the national television networks and ask to pay for a 15 minute chunk of time addressing the American people? It sets a dangerous precedent for future cycles, but it almost assures a victory in 2008. But a move such as that would require political leadership and anyone who knows anything in the nation's capitol can tell you that is a tough thing to come by in today's day and age.

So here's to the lower house of Congress. Our future as a nation rests squarely in your hands, at least our prosperity for the next 5 to 10 years. A "no" vote almost ensures our continued demise, while a "yes" vote could save us from the worst economic meltdown our nation has seen in generations. This is one of those votes where elected officials have to make a tough decision. That decision is a value judgement, which is more important, the future of our nation or the future of their job? I would argue that both are intertwined and a true public servant would be able to convey that compelling message with candor and vigor to their constituents.

Congress's Chance to Be Remarkable

The United States Congress has found itself in a relatively precarious position, the world outside of Washington, DC cares about what its doing and its actions (or inactions) will immediately effect the United States, in fact they already have.

Yesterday, U.S. financial markets dropped precipitously with the Dow sinking 372 points, the nation saw the end of the two-decade old investment banking era in the U.S and Japanese investors agreed to buy up to a $9 billion dollar stake in Morgan Stanley.

As a result of these events, the surprisingly resilient dollar reached a breaking point and nosedived in value causing oil to surge to $120.92 a barrel, the largest such jump in recent history. This chain of events has solidified the fact that the U.S. is facing the hard realities of a recession.

At the root of our economic problems lie two major concerns. Credit is nearly non-existent due to the financial market meltdown thus reducing investment opportunities and the dollar's purchasing power has declined greatly, making available capital less potent.

The fact that Congress needs to approve this $700 billion bailout now appears to be a foregone conclusion. Un-wise investments that began as private risks are now finding themselves as unwieldy public debt loaded on the back of the American taxpayer.

Congress can begin by preemptively absorbing the $700 billion estimated in bad debt that is "toxic" to our nation's markets. The Congress is correct in assuring this needs to be done with strong oversight to ensure the debt being absorbed is the correct debt to be absorbing. Further, the plan needs continued oversight to ensure this newly acquired government debt is worked to provide the highest possible value in the long-term, providing much-needed cover to the American taxpayer.

One thing we must also remember is that the passage of this rescue plan is not the final chapter in this saga, rather it is merely the beginning. The devaluation of the dollar and its correlation to surging oil prices makes it clear we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

We use approximately 20.68 billion barrels of oil a day of which approximately 12 billion barrels are imported from foreign sources. Knowing this information, and the effects continued dependence will have on our economy, it is irresponsible to not advocate for responsible diversification of our energy supply combined with incentives for businesses and individuals to reduce their daily consumption.

On the supply side, we should expand our use of current natural gas supplies as new technologies have made previous unreachable reserves accessible. The Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania, the Barnett shale in Texas and the New Albany shale in the Illinois Basin in southwest Indiana serve as a few examples of what has become accessible in recent years. Natural gas. and more accurately Liquefied Natural Gas, is not the answer but in the short -term, as T. Boone Pickens is quick to point out, it could be the new diesel. We should also rework the renewable fuels standard to continue to supply ethanol in reliable amounts , but at levels that do not provide instability to domestic food markets.

We also need to increase the use of additional abundant renewable resources. The U.S. has a plethora of wind resources in major areas such as the Great Plains from northwestern Texas and eastern New Mexico northward to Montana, North Dakota, and western Minnesota. Congress should authorize the development of sustainable class 5 wind resources in North Dakota, Montana, Minnesota, Nebraska and other areas in the great-plains and begin offering incentives for the creation of these fields immediately. It should also include increased incentives for solar technologies keeping this energy source available and affordable for both industrial and residential consumers. These steps would not only serve to create new energy supplies, but would also create new jobs and new sources of revenue for an ailing economy.

At the same time, we need to continue our current efforts toward increased energy efficiencies. However, we need to turn our focus to increased efficiencies on an industrial level as two-thirds of our energy consumption is consumed by power producers and providers and other industrial users. When Congress returns from the 2008 elections, fresh with a mandate of change of some sort, they should pass incentives for power producers and providers and major industrial sources to decrease their energy uses significantly over the next ten to fifteen years through tax rebates and other incentives. These short term measures could be a great place to start in what seems to be a vexing transformational landscape.

Thoughts for McCain, Obama and the Congress

In these tumultuous times when a "conservative" White House continues to bail out hundreds of millions of dollars to save a once sound U.S. economy lets take a moment to pause and reflect on recent occurrences.

The U.S. housing market, a key part of the Bush Administration's "Ownership Society" tumbled last year due to predatory lending practices that put American consumers at risk. This occurred because in free markets we tend to let individuals be guided by their own intelligence or lack thereof. Lenders delved out a massive amount of interest-only mortgages which switched-over from introductory rates of around 1% to long-term rates that are much higher. Citizens seeking the American dream did not plan for this switch resulting in massive foreclosures in sub-prime mortgages with U.S. home foreclosures in May jumping 90% from a year earlier as a small example.

This lending instability rattled our leading financial institutions and created great instability in the financial market (an underpinning of our new economy) resulting in the fall of Bear Stearns, a firm which survived the stock market crash of 1929 without laying off any employees. Then came the crash of Merril Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and now AIG, phew (sweating, shortness of breath). Meanwhile, as a result of the subprime crises, the dollar has hit historic lows and has been significantly devalued. If the birth of credit was in the 1920's its re-birth will be seen in 2009 and 2010 as a jittery government will likely pass reactive policies that will far outreach the regulatory measures that would have kept this all in-check in the first place.

So what has our government done to safeguard the American people and ensure the stability of our sound economy. Well, hmm, umm the Congress (Democratically controlled) passed the Economic Stimulus Package of 2008. This package qualified low and middle income tax payers for a $600 tax rebate check. The law also offered businesses a one-time depreciation tax deduction equal to 50% of the cost of specified kinds of new investment during 2008. Finally, it increased the limits imposed on mortgages eligible for purchase by government sponsored enterprises (read bailout). All these actions in my view serve the purpose of applying a band-aid to a gaping flesh wound.

The Executive Branch led by a "conservative President" has also shelled out billions of dollars to keep the economy on "solid" footing. In fact, in the past month and a half the government has provided nearly $314 billion, yes billion, to help bail out Bear Stearns ($29 billion), Fannie and Freddie ($200 billion) and AIG ($85 billion). Oh and lets not forget we are already running a $500 billion deficit for fiscal year 2008 alone. The saying comes to mind that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

In these troubling times we need a strong leader, Republican or Democrat, a leader who can provide some certainty to the American people during these times of instability. An individual who can provide a little comfort, and assure us that bright minds are developing a plan that will lead to a brighter future. Unfortunately we have George W. Bush. He decided that the best way to ease these jitters on Wall Street and Main Street would be a 2 minute press conference, yes a 2 minute press conference. The content of this conference was telling us the government has done the aforementioned items. No future vision, no future plan, no assurance, nothing. We were lucky to get "The American people are concerned about the situation in our financial markets and our economy, and I share their concerns".

So where do we go from here? Well, we could invest in infrastructure which would have two beneficial results. One immediate result would be the creation of tens of thousand of jobs in communities across the nation (think CCC in the 30's and the highway system in the 50's for two such examples). This would also improve our decaying infrastructure which would provide long-term economic benefits as goods movement would increase in speed, congestion would lessen and the cost of transporting goods would decrease significantly, thus resulting in great savings to the consumer. For as bad as the current situation is, it will be much worse if we don't have a reliable transportation and infrastructure network that can support the transportation of goods from port to port, by road, rail and air.

We should also keep in mind that this nation has always faced difficult times by employing its strongest assets, those are our intellect and can-do spirit. The world has begun to realize it is growing to large for its current infrastructure. That reliance on fossil fuels alone will no longer be adequate in the next 35-50 years. We should put our entrepreneurial spirit to work in developing and leading the charge on the development and distribution of renewable fuels and increased efficiency technologies. Both actions would create jobs and reduce the costs of energy production and distribution, all the while reducing the costs of business. Oh and sorry environmentalists, but if we want to be serious and responsible about this we will likely have to drill for increased resources in the interim. Believe it or not, this can be accomplished in a responsible and limited manner, supplying just enough petroleum and/or LNG to get us to the next generation of energy supply. I say we start with ANWR, if everyone in Alaska wants it, it cant be all that bad.

Keep these thoughts in mind as we elect the next President. One should think who will really tackle all the above in a comprehensive way. Regardless of the promises being offered on the campaign trail, the 44th President will have a serious reality to face. That reality is that Federal coffers are going to be tight to say the least, and as such, we need to take care of the underpinnings that will allow us to address additional concerns in the future while remaining competitive in a global marketplace.