Water Quality InformationWritten By Actual Experts

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

People often purchase bottled water under the assumption that it’s much safer than what’s coming out of their tap. Marketing schemes lead consumers to believe that large corporations bottle and distribute only the purest water from crystal clear springs. The reality is that bottled water isn’t as safe as people are led to believe. This article discusses the regulatory, environmental, and ethical dilemmas associated with bottled water.

How Is Bottled Water Regulated In The United States?

The Food and Drug Administration regulates bottled water, and the Environmental Protection Agency regulates tap water. People are often surprised to find out that the drinking water standards for both of these agencies are nearly the same. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, certain chemicals that can enter drinking water must be allowable limits. This list of allowable contaminants and their concentrations are identical for bottled and tap water, with the exception of lead. FDA regulates lead more stringently because companies shouldn’t ever have a reason to use lead infrastructure in the bottling process. But still, there is an allowable level of lead in bottled water of 5 parts per billion. EPA, CDC, American Academy of Pediatrics and other health organizations have all acknowledged that there is no safe level of lead for children. FDA must follow their own monitoring guidelines, which are often much more lax than EPA’s for municipal tap water.

Where Does Bottled Water Come From?

A lot of bottled water companies are deceptive as to where they actually source their water. Companies are legally allowed to draw water from artesian wells, mineral water, natural springs, drilled wells, and municipal tap water. That’s correct. Bottled water companies are allowed to use the same treated water as municipal water systems. Additionally, companies are not legally required to disclose where they source their water on the bottle itself. Municipal water systems are actually much more transparent because they’re required to disclose information about source water in annual consumer confidence reports. Depending on the brand, there’s of course a substantial cost associated with purchasing packaged water.

Environmental Effects of Plastic Water Bottles

“Trash Island” in the Northern Pacific Ocean is probably the best physical example of the environmental effects of plastic and plastic water bottles. 91% of plastic isn’t recycled, meaning a majority of virgin, single-use plastic ends up in landfills or the environment. According to a 2016 study by the Ellen Macarthur Foundation, the ocean will contain more plastic by weight than fish in the year 2050. The main ingredient in plastic bottles is polyethylene terephthalate (Pet) which takes 400 years to decompose in the environment. Once degraded, dangerous chemicals such as Bisphenol A (BPA), polyvinyl chloride and other phthalates can leach into the environment. Not to mention the important natural resources required to make plastic water bottles. Plastic is a product of petroleum, which is a non-renewable fossil fuel.

The Ethics of Bottled Water

There’s also an ethical environmental dilemma associated with extracting water from a drought prone area, then selling it across the country or even the world. Nestle owns aquifers in California which has been experiencing a serious drought in recent years. Because Nestle is able to purchase expensive deep drills that municipalities can’t even afford, they’re able to continue extracting water business as usual. Additionally, native american tribes are significantly affected by bottled water companies. Tribes enter lease agreements with companies that are frequently violated. Even if they don’t have a legal agreement the same issues arise with the definition of “reasonable use” under the riparian law.

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd
**Updated July 26, 2019 to include current data

For Hydroviv’s assessment of Jackson, Mississippi drinking water, we collected water quality test data from Jackson's annual Consumer Confidence Report and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced Jackson water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Jackson drinking water.

High Lead Levels in Jackson Drinking Water

Lead enters tap water through old lead service pipes and lead-containing plumbing. 10% (or the 90th percentile) of taps tested for lead contamination had concentrations over 8 parts per billion. However, last year the 90th percentile was 16 parts per billion. It's unusual to see a municipality improve lead levels this drastically in just one year. The federal action level for lead is 15 parts per billion, but agencies such as the Center for Disease Control and American Academy of Pediatrics recognize that there is no safe level of lead for children. Additionally, municipalities are only required to test a handful of homes every few years, so these super high levels reported in Jackson’s annual water quality report might not even reflect the lead levels coming from your faucet. Lead exposure can cause developmental issues, lowered IQ, and damages to the kidneys and brain. In August of 2018, the city of Jackson sent a notice to all residents acknowledging the lead violation. The notice gave standard recommendations for preventing lead exposure, such as allowing tap water to run for 2 minutes before use, avoiding hot water for drinking or cooking, eliminating tap water for baby formula, and getting your child’s lead levels checked by a doctor.

Disinfection Byproducts In Jackson Drinking Water

DBPs are formed when chlorine-based disinfectants that are routinely added to the water supply to kill bacteria, react with organic matter. According to the most recent report, concentrations of haloacetic acids averaged 54 parts per billion but reached levels as high as 45 parts per billion. Concentrations of trihalomethanes averaged 58 parts per billion but reached levels as high as 68 parts per billion. For a bit of perspective, EPA’s maximum contaminant level for haloacetic acids is 60 parts per billion and 80 parts per billion for trihalomethanes. Health and regulatory agencies have very little knowledge about the adverse health effects of DBPs, and their toxicity. EPA has stated that they have been linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer, as well as kidney, liver, and central nervous system problems.

Chromium 6 In Jackson Drinking Water

Chromium 6 is a highly toxic metal that is currently unregulated by the EPA. Chromium 6 pollution is associated with metal processing, tannery facilities, chromate production, stainless steel welding, and pigment production. Concentrations of Chromium 6 average 48.5 parts per trillion. This is double the concentration determined to have a negligible impact on cancer risk. EPA has acknowledged that Chromium 6 is a known human carcinogen through inhalation, but is still determining its cancer potential through ingestion of drinking water. Lung, nasal and sinus cancers are associated with Chromium 6 exposure. Ingestion of extremely high doses of chromium 6 compounds can cause acute respiratory disease, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hematological, hepatic, renal, and neurological distress which may result in death.

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

For Hydroviv’s assessment of Mountain View, California’s drinking water, we collected water quality test data from the city’s website and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced Mountain View’s water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Mountain View’s drinking water.

Where Does Mountain View Source Its Drinking Water?

Mountain View supplies 8 million gallons of water to 80,000 residents on a daily basis. The city purchases 88% of its drinking water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). A majority of this water is drawn from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park. 10% of Mountain View’s water is purchased from Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). Half of the SCVWD water is drawn from the San Joaquin Delta and the other half comes from local surface water and groundwater reservoirs. The remaining water comes from groundwater wells around the city.

Lead In Mountain View Drinking Water

In recent years, Mountain View has had a huge problem with lead in drinking water. 10% of sites that were tested for lead had concentrations over 7.7 parts per billion. Though Mountain View's water quality is currently in compliance with the federal Action Level of 15 parts per billion, Environmental Protection Agency and Center for Disease Control EPA both recognize that there is no safe level of lead, especially for children. Additionally, these measurements may not be a true indication of your tap water if your home has lead plumbing or lead fixtures. Treated water leaving the plant may be in compliance with loose EPA standards, but could become contaminated once it enters older infrastructure. Lead enters tap water through old lead service pipes and lead-containing plumbing. Houses built before 1986 were most likely built with lead plumbing and lead fixtures. Lead exposure can cause developmental issues, lowered IQ, and damages to the kidneys and brain.

Chromium 6 In Mountain View Drinking Water

Chromium 6 is a highly toxic metal that is currently unregulated by the EPA. In recent years, Mountain View's water quality has had a major problem with this dangerous contaminant. Chromium 6 pollution is associated with metal processing, tannery facilities, chromate production, stainless steel welding, and pigment production. The report found an average concentration of 1 parts per billion of Chromium 6 in Mountain View drinking water. These levels are as high as 50 times higher than the concentration determined to have a negligible impact on cancer risk. EPA has acknowledged that Chromium 6 is a known human carcinogen through inhalation, but is still determining its cancer potential through ingestion of drinking water. Lung, nasal and sinus cancers are associated with Chromium 6 exposure. Ingestion of extremely high doses of chromium 6 compounds can cause acute respiratory disease, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hematological, hepatic, renal, and neurological distress which may result in death.

Chloramine In Mountain View Drinking Water

While most municipalities use chlorine as the primary drinking water disinfectant, Mountain View’s drinking and tap water is disinfected with chloramine. Chloramine is primarily responsible for what many customers report as the “bad taste” or “pool smell” of tap water. Unlike chlorine, chloramine does not dissipate if a container of water is left in the refrigerator overnight. Most one-size-fits-all water filters use filtration media that doesn’t do a great job removing chloramine, but the filters that we design and build at Hydroviv for Norman use a special filtration media that is purposefully designed to remove chloramine.

It’s important to note that only a handful of contaminants are required to be included in annual Consumer Confidence Reports, and that there are hundreds of potentially harmful unregulated contaminants that aren’t accounted for. If you’re interested in learning more about water filters that have been optimized for Mountain View tap water quality, feel free to visit www.hydroviv.com to talk to a Water Nerd on our live chat feature or send us an email at hello@hydroviv.com.

Other Articles We Think You Might Enjoy:
5 Things To Know About Chromium 6 In Drinking Water
Lead In Drinking Water
Chloramine In Drinking Water

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

Flint, Pittsburgh, Providence, and Portland are just some of the major U.S. cities dealing with high levels of lead in drinking water. Since Pittsburgh just began adding Orthophosphate to its distribution system, we decided to put together an article explaining what exactly this treatment technique is, and other popular municipal treatment techniques used for lead mitigation.

Why Is Lead Such A Big Problem And What Are We Doing To Fix It?

The 2014 drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan made municipalities around the country turn the mirror on their own problems with lead contamination. Lead remains a major issue for cities and towns throughout the entire country. It may feel like Americans have been talking about lead exposure for years, so why is it still such a big problem? The answer is pretty simple: Homes in the U.S. built before 1986 most likely contain lead pipes, plumbing, and solder. To make matters worse, water distribution lines also tend to adhere to this cutoff date. Lead is still a big part of infrastructure in the United States.

Since municipalities are tasked with mitigating lead exposure, we wanted to go over some popular treatment techniques that are being used throughout the United States, and their effectiveness at removing lead from drinking water.

Orthophosphate: Corrosion Inhibitor

Orthophosphate is a common system-wide corrosion inhibitor. It’s created by combining phosphoric acid with zinc phosphate and sodium phosphate. Together these chemicals create a mineral-like crust on the inside of lead service lines. If municipalities are willing to follow a strict dosing and monitoring schedule, orthophosphate can be extremely effective at reducing lead levels in drinking water.

Other larger cities around the country have also adopted Orthophosphate as a solution for lead-contaminated drinking water. In June of 2004, Washington, D.C. introduced orthophosphate to its distribution system, following major District-wide lead contamination.

According to EPA, the health effects of phosphates are not well known and FDA has stated that they’re “generally recognized as safe.” The Lead and Copper Rule requires the use of polyphosphate or orthophosphate whenever a municipality is in exceedance of lead standards set by EPA. Both have been cited as effective, but some municipalities disagree. According to city officials in Madison, Wisconsin, utility providers tried both of these additives and neither of them effectively reduced lead levels in drinking water. Because they were unable to find a corrosion inhibitor that worked, Madison officials decided to mandate the removal of all lead service lines.

It’s important to remember that orthophosphate isn’t a permanent fix, nor does it magically remove lead pipes. Orthophosphate has been cited by EPA as an “interim Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment (OCCT) modification.” It will also increase your water bill. In Washington, D.C., orthophosphate costs DC Water customers approximately $700,000 annually.

Problems With Partial Lead Service Line Replacements

Partial service line replacements are another mitigation tool used to reduce lead exposure. To put it candidly: it's extremely invasive. People are often surprised to learn that lead levels actually increase in the months following a partial service line replacement. Water that comes in contact with lead-laden debris or freshly uncovered piping can easily become contaminated. This type of disruption negates any sort of expensive treatment being used by a utility provider, like orthophosphate. If a municipality is in exceedance with the 15 part per billion Action Level, they are mandated (under the Lead and Copper Rule) to replace a certain percentage of lead service lines every year. If you’re curious municipal requirements under the Lead and Copper Rule, click here!

Who Pays For Lead Line Replacements?

Ratepayers are typically responsible for paying for public water line replacements. However, homeowners are responsible for covering the cost of replacing lead service lines that distribute water directly into their homes. According to EPA, a homeowner that elects to do so can expect to pay anywhere from $2,500 to $8,000 per line. This is not feasible for most households in the United States. Additionally, people are still at risk of lead exposure because lead pipes may still exist at various locations throughout a distribution system. Some municipalities offer subsidies or rebates on private lead service line replacements, but not all. In Madison, Wisconsin for example, homeowners who are eligible can apply for a rebate which covers up to $1,500 of the line replacement.

Can pH Reduce Lead In Drinking Water?

Many municipalities believe that adjusting the pH of drinking water is the best way to reduce lead exposure, and here’s why: Acidic water increase corrosivity, which causes lead pipes to leach into drinking water. The idea is that by making water more alkaline (opposite direction on the pH scale), the corrosivity will decrease. This may sound good in theory, but a municipality must still correct for chloride when doing so. According to the World Health Organization, chloride “increases the electrical conductivity of water and thus increases its corrosivity” and “increases the rate of pitting corrosion of metal pipes.” Similar to the other treatments mentioned in this article, changing the pH of drinking water does not get rid of lead service lines. Additionally, maintaining a balanced pH throughout an entire distribution system is not an easy task.

How Do You Know If Lead Treatment Works?

Lead is different from other contaminants because problems arise at the tap, rather than the source water. The only way to truly know if a corrosion control method is working is to test every single tap (which is completely unfeasible). Under the Lead and Copper Rule, most municipalities are only required to test 50-100 homes every 3 years or every monitoring period. This is not nearly enough data for a larger municipality like New York City. There’s just no way to know if a system-wide treatment technique is working to the best of its ability, so the burden and responsibility is on the consumer.

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 passed in the Senate on October 10th, 2018 in a 99-1 majority vote. The purpose of the bill is to update existing marine and freshwater infrastructure throughout the United States. Unfortunately, AWIA fails to address emerging contaminants that are currently impacting communities around the country. This article provides a brief overview of the bill, some of its major gaps, and what we think are priority drinking water issues.

What Does America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 Include?

Flood Control Management:

Aside from the direct immediate threat from a storm surge, flooding can have serious impacts after the fact. An increased threat of biological contamination into a water supply, non-point source pollution, and damages to water distribution infrastructure are just some of the long term implications from flooding. AWIA plans to reauthorize and increase funding to reduce impacts from climate related events, as well as restoration projects. Projects impacted by this water legislation include dam restoration, funding for levee systems, and stormwater capture.

Reauthorization of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA):

Under WIFIA, states that are eligible can apply for Clean Water State Revolving Funds and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. WIFIA also includes development and implementation activities, such as lead service line replacements. AWIA plans to reauthorize funding for these programs.

Reauthorization of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF):

Through the DWSRF, states can receive funding for various types of water-related projects. States are then required to prioritize projects that; address issues that pose a serious threat to human health, are necessary for a water system to reach compliance under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and assist high-risk water systems. AWIA plans to reauthorize funding for this program.

Our Take:

There’s no question that updating water infrastructure in the United States is completely necessary. However, the 2018 Water Infrastructure Act will not create meaningful changes to drinking water. A majority of the bill aims to reauthorize existing provisions, and make minor adjustments to certain acts. AWIA emphasizes the level at which policies address drinking water quality in this country: poorly. The bill reiterates the status quo, with zero attention to the new and emerging contaminants that are violently impacting communities around the country. Chromium 6, Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), and Perchlorate are all industrial contaminants that were not touched upon in this bill. AWIA is also far too broad in scope. The provisions combined marine with freshwater infrastructure, without strictly focusing attention on drinking water.