Water Quality InformationWritten By Actual Experts

 Analies Dyjak and Ernesto Esquivel  |  Water Nerds 

Often times, when a public water system becomes impaired a municipality responds by claiming that they’re “in compliance.” Municipalities may in fact be in compliance with federally regulated contaminants, but fail to mention the various harmful unregulated contaminants that are in their water systems. So what does being in compliance with water quality standards mean for your water?

The Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act have resulted in the regulation of various contaminants found in water sources all across the nation. Many of these regulations limit the concentration of harmful contaminants found in our water. Although legally these levels are labeled as safe, the sheer presence of some of these contaminants is harmful to human health. This puts many people at risk for health issues. In addition, there are plenty more contaminants that are not regulated in municipal drinking water treatment. This makes it harder to hold entities accountable for disposing these unregulated contaminants into water sources.

When a public water system comes under scrutiny for water quality issues, the municipality often responds by claiming that they’re “in full compliance with federal standards.” Unfortunately, they don’t typically give much context to how regulations and compliance work. The best example of this was when a municipal water provider tried to put residents minds at ease by claiming to be “in compliance” with GenX. The peculiar thing is that GenX is not a federally regulated contaminant, so how could they be in compliance? Let’s also not forget the time a superintendent of an elementary school said on record “we do not test because it (lead) has never been brought up as a concern, nor is it a requirement to do so.” As you can see, it is easy for harmful contaminants to be found in public water systems that are “in full compliance.”

How Is Municipal Drinking Water Treatment Regulated?

In the United States, drinking water is regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act. States have primacy over water quality regulations, which means that they are responsible for meeting federal standards. This also means states can take it upon themselves to create more stringent drinking water standards. For example, the state of California did a complex study that analyzed several federally regulated and unregulated contaminants to create standards of their own. States that do not have their own water quality standards are subject to federal standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Approximately 90 contaminants are regulated under the SDWA, and states are legally required to meet these enforceable Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL). States cannot be out of compliance for contaminants that don’t have mandated MCL’s.
EPA’s compliance and enforcement process is as follows:

• An environmental problem is identified
• Congress passes laws to address environmental problems
• EPA issues regulations to implement the laws
• Compliance assistance helps the regulated community understand and comply with regulations
• Compliance monitoring assesses compliance through inspections and other activities
• Enforcement actions are taken when the regulated community does not comply or cleanup is required

The two major statutes with enforceable drinking water compliance components are the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National Pollution Elimination System Permit Program. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Consumer Confidence Report Rule was created in 1998 to hold Community Water Systems (CWS) accountable for providing clean water to municipalities. National Pollution Elimination System Permit (NPDES) regulates pretreatment discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of the United States. Both are extremely important in ensuring that municipal water quality meets federal regulations.

Lead and Copper Rule

Some harmful contaminants found in drinking water are lead and copper. These metals are known for their harmful effects on human health. As a result, the lead and copper rule was created in 1991 by the EPA in an effort to reduce the levels of lead and copper found in drinking water across the country. This rule states that if the 10% of customers tap water contains lead levels of 15 parts per billion or 1.3 parts per million for copper, then the system must take action to inform its customers of the contaminants. However, if a state so wishes, they can create more stringent regulations on these contaminants. Despite all these regulations the CDC and the EPA recognize that there is no known safe lead level.

Pretreatment Compliance

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) uses technology-based effluent guidelines, which are developed by the Environmental Protection Agency on an industry-to-industry basis. Under NPDES permitting, facilities are required to use Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT) in order to comply with standards. Additionally, discharging into a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) does not require a NPDES permit. However, the discharge into the POTW must comply with pretreatment requirements. Often, water contamination originates from industrial discharge, and NPDES permitting helps to reduce the impact.

Consumer Confidence Report Rule

By July 1st of each year, all Community Water Systems are required to prepare and distribute an annual Consumer Confidence Report (CCR). This brief document must include a summary of the water source or sources, detected contaminants, proof of compliance, and supplemental educational information. The caveat to this is that only federally regulated contaminants are required to be listed in the annual Consumer Confidence Report. Contaminants such as Chromium 6, PFAS, and Bromide do not need to be reported by municipalities, in order to be in compliance. With permission by the governor of a state, CCR’s can be made available upon request if a CWS services fewer than 500 people. A CCR must be posted on the internet if a CSW services 100,000 or more people. States typically post Consumer Confidence Reports here. 

Public Notification Rule

The Public Notification Rule was revised in 2000 under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It ensures that consumers will be notified when a Public Water System (PWS) is impaired. A PWS must notify consumers if they violate an EPA or state drinking regulation, or if they provide drinking water that poses a health risk to consumers. Additionally customers must be notified when; the water system fails to test its water, the system has been granted variance, and if the system has been granted an exemption for a new regulation. Again, the caveat to this rule is that only regulated contaminants are required to be disclosed when detected. For example if a Public Water System detects extremely high levels of PFAS, they are not legally required to disclose that to the public. 

There are three types of Public Water Systems:

Community Water Systems (CWS): serves at least 15 service connections used by year round residents. Regulated under the Consumer Confidence Report Rule. Household drinking water is the primary example of a CWS.

Non-Transient Non-Community Water System (NTNCWS): serves 25 of the same people for at least 6 months of the year. Schools, factories, and office buildings are some examples.

Transient Non-Community Water Systems (TNCWS): serves individuals in areas where people do not remain for long periods of time. This includes gas stations, campgrounds, and shopping malls.

What Does Compliance Actually Mean?

A municipality is in compliance if treated drinking water meets federal or state drinking water standards. A Public Water System may be in full SDWA compliance, but this doesn’t account for the thousands of unregulated contaminants in our water systems. If a municipality detects a dangerous contaminant that does not have an MCL, the water system is still legally in compliance with the SDWA. “Health goals” and “health advisory levels” are non-enforceable limits that agencies typically use when addressing contamination. It’s important to look out for this type of language when assessing water quality standards. As we’ve said numerous times in previous articles and videos, it can take decades before federal agencies and toxicologists are able to set Maximum Contaminant Levels. There is also the lingering question of whether any level of contamination is acceptable.

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Nerd

On May 21st, 2018, The Water Safety Act was proposed into both the North Carolina House and Senate. The goal of this joint bill is to provide a solution to the PFAS contamination in the Cape Fear River. Effluent discharge of GenX, a type of Per and Polyfluroalkyl Substances (PFAS) from the Chemours plant in Fayetteville, North Carolina has contaminated drinking water throughout a majority of the state. Opponents of the bill are worried that imposing the burden of water testing onto private entities will eliminate the states enforcement power. Proponents believe that the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality hasn’t taken sufficient action in mitigating this water quality crisis, and that it’s now the job of outside organizations to fix the problem.

Overview of the Drinking Water Safety Act

• $450,000 to the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) for water quality sampling and testing of treatment techniques, to address per and polyfluroalkyl substances (PFAS), including GenX, and other contaminants
• $530,839 to the Department of Health and Human Services to create a Water Health and Safety Unit
• $8,000,000 to the North Carolina Policy Collaboratory (NCPC) at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill
• $1,300,000 to the Department of Environmental Quality
• $25,000 to the Rural Economic Development Division

A major component of this drinking water safety act is to establish a permanent alternative water supply for private well users that have detected GenX contamination. This is the number one priority and largest concern coming from individuals in the Cape Fear watershed area. If a direct linkage from the Chemours plant to a household drinking water source is detected, the company must pay for a filtration system rather than just providing bottled water.
Sponsors of the bill focused on solutions that would provide drinking water to effected citizens in the Cape Fear area. The proposed bill is extremely heavy on data collection and analysis. The majority of funding, ($8,000,000) is proposed to be allocated to Universities and private entities to analyze household water quality data. Funding will either come from the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality or the overall state budget to contract out scientific research.

The proposed bill also increases accountability within the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The bill is calling for all NPDES permit holders to re-submit their inadequately completed permits back into the NCDEQ to be reviewed by scientists and the public. The resubmittal must disclose all potential pollutants and a Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number if available. If a CAS number is unavailable, chemical composition of contaminants must be properly and thoroughly disclosed.

What are Opponents Saying?

Governor Cooper called for an increase in the NCDEQ funding to bring back science-related jobs, engineers, medical researchers, and permit reviewers. However, Senate leaders claim that the NCDEQ has failed to resolve the water contamination crisis so far and that the responsibility should be imposed elsewhere. Opponents of the bill are worried that outside agencies won’t prioritize water quality data from the Cape Fear area and that receiving results will take longer than anticipated.

Our Analysis:

While we do believe that allowing universities to perform outside water testing will expedite data analysis, universities should not replace the duties of a regulatory body. University labs are not subject to the same standards as accredited water testing labs, which could weaken enforcement efforts if those lab results are submitted as evidence in a court case. Reallocating funds from a state agency is extremely risky in terms of future policy making. Additionally, stripping funding from the NCDEQ reduces necessary enforcement and monitoring power to ensure compliance with the bill. The Bill would also give primary authority to the Governor to make decisions about the Chemours plant. Depending on the motive of the North Carolina Governor, this could either be extremely favorable for future contamination, or disastrous. Outside agencies that are performing water quality testing won’t have a regulatory body watching their every move. Laboratories could potentially prioritize other data over Cape Fear and results could take longer than anticipated. Whether the NCDEQ has failed to take action due to scientific uncertainty or lack of funding, the proposed joint bill offers a short-term solution to GenX contamination.

The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) has taken little to no action to mitigate exposure of PFAS chemicals from the Chemours plant in Fayetteville. The NCDEQ provides constituents with information on health effects of GenX, exposure routes, sampling information, and drinking water alerts, but has failed to provide a solution to the problem. Admittedly, the bill doesn’t enact a long-term plan for dealing with PFAS contamination. It will act as a band-aid to provide quick solutions to a problem that will take years of mitigation. 
Our filters have been laboratory tested to remove PFAS. If you have any questions regarding PFAS contamination in North Carolina, or about purchasing a water filtration system, send us an email at hello@hydroviv.com.

Emma Schultz, M.S. 

Many schools across the country have recently made the news for lead in drinking water, often at dangerously high levels. Since the Flint, Michigan water crisis brought lead contamination and lead poisoning into the spotlight in 2015, there has been a push for increased water testing in schools around the country. It’s often unlikely that these high test results are new; it is much more likely that this has been an ongoing undetected problem. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 90,000 public schools, as well as half a million child care facilities, are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. While these statistics are dated (2002), they are still referenced by EPA. Since the utility is the responsible party for testing water, schools are not required to test, unless voluntarily or if local laws are more stringent. Most opt out because voluntary lead testing is extremely expensive. Water frequently stagnates in school pipes, due to nights, weekends, and summers when water usage is drastically diminished. This stagnation leads to leaching of lead, and therefore lead accumulation, when there are lead pipes or lead-containing valves and fittings. Many public schools across the country have an aging infrastructure, and with age comes the increased likelihood of lead-containing plumbing.

It is important to note that there is no such thing as a safe level of lead school water contamination. No level of lead is safe, especially when it comes to sensitive populations such as children. The EPA federal floor of 15 parts per billion, set in 1991, is much higher than EPA and CDC have admitted is safe (they agree, there is no safe level of lead). In addition, 10% of samples are legally allowed to exceed the 15 ppb threshold without resulting in any utility violations. In contrast, The American Academy of Pediatrics proposes that lead in school drinking water should not exceed 1 ppb.

Flint, Michigan

Flint has become synonymous with lead contamination. When the city switched their municipal water source from treated water from the City of Detroit (DWSD) to the Flint River in 2014 to save money, they failed to properly treat the river’s water, which led to widespread leaching of lead across the city’s network of aging pipes. Although Flint re-connected to DWSD water in October of 2015, the damage had already been done. Due to widespread lead poisoning following the switch, the city was declared to be in a state of emergency in January of 2016. Since then, the state has provided bottled water to the residents of Flint at a cost of over $16 million.

Flint has once again made national headlines, for several issues related to lead in their drinking water. Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder announced on Friday, April 6th, that the “City of Flint’s water quality [is now] restored” and “the scientific data now proves the water system is stable and the need for bottled water has ended.” Governor Snyder’s announcement summarized the extensive testing that has taken place in Flint’s public and private schools since 2015 and concluded that “tests that were above acceptable levels were at individual points of use within schools and do not reflect overall water quality within any school building.”

Flint’s mayor Karen Weaver lashed back at Governor Snyder on Monday April 9th, stating that Flint “did not cause the man-made water disaster, therefore adequate resources should continue being provided until the problem is fixed and all the lead and galvanized pipes have been replaced.” State Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich of Flint agreed with Mayor Weaver, and added that "we won't feel safe drinking our water until every bad pipe is replaced, and the administration that caused this disaster needs to make sure bottled water stays available until that happens." Meanwhile, the supply of bottled water, which has come at a cost of $22,000 per day to the state of Michigan, is expected to run out by the end of this week.

The recent benediction from the governor regarding Flint’s water quality comes shortly after Flint Community Schools (FCS) has undergone three rounds of water testing in 2018 which has also made national news headlines. This testing is the first since 2016 in Flint’s public schools; students across all FCS schools have been relying on bottled water since September of 2015. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality has reported that a majority of school taps and faucets are now well below the federal Action Level for lead [remember that the nationwide Action Level for lead in municipal drinking water, as established by EPA in the 1991 Lead and Copper Rule, is 15 parts per billion].

It is important to note that there is no such thing as a safe level of lead in drinking water. No level of lead is safe, especially when it comes to sensitive populations such as children. The EPA federal floor of 15 parts per billion, set in 1991, is much higher than EPA and CDC have admitted is safe (they agree, there is no safe level of lead). In addition, 10% of samples are legally allowed to exceed the 15 ppb threshold without resulting in any utility violations. In contrast, The American Academy of Pediatrics proposes that lead in school drinking water should not exceed 1 ppb.

While the majority of Flint school water taps and faucets tested in 2018 are indeed below the Action Level, and are a far cry from some of the horrifying 2016 test results, problems continue to plague some schools. Doyle-Ryder Elementary, built in 1981, is one of those schools. Of the 21 rooms tested at Doyle-Ryder during the third round of testing in March, 5 exceeded the 15 ppb Action Level, with individual tap results as high as 105, 126, and 155 ppb. This is nearly 25% of the rooms testing above the Action Level. Comparing individual taps tested in 2016 and 2018, it can be observed that some of the previous offenders (such as Sink Faucets 02CF039 and 02CF041) are still supplying high levels of lead. This suggests that faucet and connection replacement plumbing have yet to occur. While the 2016 guidelines suggest that “flushing [a] tap for three minutes following periods of stagnation is likely to reduce lead concentrations and lead exposure,” 2018’s first round of testing found lead levels in Sink Faucet 02CF041 twice as high (85 ppb) post-flushing compared to pre-flushing. Additionally, tap flushing in Flint school water isn’t a realistic way to reduce lead exposure.

Of the schools tested, only Pierce Elementary did not have any test results above the 15 ppb threshold (though one tap tested at 15 ppb pre-flushing). Eisenhower Elementary, Freeman Elementary, and Holmes Stem Academy did not exceed the Action Level in the first round of testing, but did in subsequent tests. Testing protocol was changed somewhat after the first round of testing to test all taps prior to flushing the system, and take two samples post-flushing. News outlets reported in February that more samples were found to contain lead in the second round of testing. This appears to be true, though some of the high results come from taps prior to flushing.

Some of the higher individual tap lead levels at FCS schools, as tested in 2018, are as follows.

*A note about Northwestern High School: one of the rooms in which a high test result was found was the school’s auditorium, which at the time of first round testing was measured at 122℉. This indicates that there are additional infrastructure concerns that may confound test results.

 As reported by Michigan Live, FCS students drink bottled water that has been provided “through donations from Walmart, Coca-Cola, Nestle and PepsiCo. [FCS] has said it's secured a continued supply of water through at least June.” While the Department of Environmental Quality is pleased with the testing results, work clearly remains for these schools, with Doyle-Ryder and Neithercut Elementaries, and Northwestern High School displaying the greatest need for further improvements. Given the ongoing litigation pertaining to Flint students’ exposure to lead poisoning through drinking water - wherein a more than $4 million agreement was reached on Monday - it would benefit not just the students but also the Michigan Department of Education and Flint area school districts to continue replacing the faucets and connection plumbing that was targeted in 2016 as problematic. The rhetoric being bandied about that flushing the systems leads to reduced lead concentrations and lead exposure has been shown in several instances to be inaccurate.

Other articles we think you might enjoy: 

Stephanie Angione, Ph.D.  |  Scientific Contributor

Pesticides are chemicals used to kill environmental pests including insects, weeds, fungi and rodents. These are commonly divided into insecticides (used to specifically target and kill insects) and herbicides (used to kill undesirable plants or “weeds”). The most widely used agricultural pesticides are herbicides, which account for 40% of all pesticide use in the US. In typical agriculture, pesticides are applied to crops in order to provide protection against destructive insects and invasive weeds or fungi. By design, pesticides kill or deter pests and thus are toxic to their intended target organisms. Additionally, many pesticides are toxic to humans, and organochlorine pesticides are 9 of the 12 most toxic organic chemicals, as outlined by the Stockholm Convention in 2001.

Which Pesticides Are Most Commonly Found In US Water Systems?

The most comprehensive information available about pesticide occurrence at the national level is part of a 10-year program by the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA), part of the US Geological Survey (USGS). It provides information about pesticide concentrations in streams and groundwater from data collected between 1991-2001.

Major findings of this study are that pesticides exist in both streams and groundwater throughout the US, in both urban and rural areas, but seldom occur at concentrations that will affect human health. Of the water systems studied, pesticides were found 90% of the time in streams throughout the US in urban and agricultural areas. Groundwater sources were less affected by pesticide contamination, with shallow groundwater sources in agricultural and urban areas having pesticides 61% and 55% of the time respectively.

The most commonly detected pesticides in stream water include five agricultural herbicides, atrazine, metolachlor, cyanazine and acetochlor and five non-agricultural herbicides in urban areas, including simazine, prometon, tebuthiuron, 2,4-D and diuron and three insecticides – diazinon, chlorpyrifos and carbaryl (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Percentage of samples found with pesticide contamination in agricultural and urban stream water (upper) and groundwater (lower).

Additionally, pesticides detected the most frequently in fish and streambed sediment were organochloride pesticides and degradation products (Figure 2). Organochlorides were used heavily in the 1950s and 1960s and were largely abandoned by the 1980s. However these compounds including DDT are very persistent in soils, sediments and animals, and were thus found at high levels in stream sources.

Figure 2: Percentage of samples of fish tissue containing organochlorine pesticides and degradation products in agricultural and urban streambeds

Despite the widespread existence of pesticides in water systems, levels of pesticides only exceeded human health benchmarks in about 10% of agricultural streams, and 7% of urban streams studied. It should be noted that for public water supply intakes that withdraw water from streams in the US, only 12% are from an agricultural land-use areas, and only 1% from an urban land-use areas. As for groundwater, only 1% of wells sampled had pesticide levels above human health benchmarks.

As for the pesticides present at these excessive concentrations, the most commonly found were atrazine, cyanazine, diazinon and dieldrin. Notably, stream contamination was commonly atrazine and cyanazine and well contamination was dieldrin, which is no longer used but is a known persistent pollutant.

While the compounds discussed above were detected the most frequently in the study period from 1992-2001, pesticide usage changes as new pesticides are developed. A new study of streams sampled in the US in 2015 by the USGS indicates the existence of the relatively new class of pesticides- neonicotinoids, in US water systems. The study found at least one neonicotinoid detected in 53% of all samples, with imidacloprid detected the most frequently (37%). Guidelines on the effects of neonicotinoids in humans and safe levels of exposure have not yet been systematically investigated.

In addition, a 2022 study revealed that very high levels of PFAS were detected in 6 of 10 varieties of pesticides commonly used in rural and agricultural environments. 

For more information on tracking of common pollutants and pesticides in drinking water, the USGS has an interactive map to examine levels of pesticides nationwide.

How Is Pesticide Contamination Regulated?

The EPA regulates pesticides nationally under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act to protect human health and the environment. Aside from the 141 banned and severely restricted pesticides, the EPA has set limits on the allowable amount of pesticides in food and drinking water. Many pesticides including alachlor, atrazine, carbofuran, chlordane, 2,4-D, glyphosate, heptachlor, and simazine are included in the national primary drinking water standards that outline the maximum contaminant level for each compound. Public water suppliers are required to maintain levels below the maximum contaminant level for all compounds listed. The EPA has also established 394 human health benchmarks for pesticides that are registered for use on food crops but are not regulated under the national primary drinking water standards.

How Do I Find Out If My Drinking Water Is Contaminated With Pesticides?

If you are concerned about the effects of pesticides in your drinking water and are served by a public water system, your local water supplier is required to issue a Consumer Confidence Report that lists contaminant levels in the water supply. If you have a private well, a laboratory can test your drinking water.

Although the EPA regulates many pesticides as drinking water contaminants, there are many that are not. Additionally, levels of pesticide contamination can vary widely depending on the agricultural season and pesticides can be used in water systems to control pests like mosquitos.

If you get water from a household well, the local health department should have information about ground water quality and contaminants of concern, but it is often a good idea to have your water tested by a certified laboratory for contaminants. The EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800-426-4791) can provide additional resources in your local area. It is also important to consider the proper use of pesticides at home if you have a private well, as pesticide runoff can contribute to well contamination.

How Do I Remove Pesticides From Drinking Water?

A home water filtration system can remove pesticides from drinking water that may not fall under EPA regulation. Water filter systems that use activated carbon as part of the filtration media blend or reverse osmosis can be effective in removing pesticides from water. Contrary to what some people tell you, boiling/freezing water does NOT remove pesticides from drinking water!

Do You Have More Questions About Pesticides In Drinking Water?

At Hydroviv, we make it our business to help you better understand your water. As always, feel free to take advantage of our “help no matter what” approach to technical support! Our Water Nerds will work to answer your questions, even if you have no intention of purchasing one of our water filters. Reach out by dropping us an email (hello@hydroviv.com) or through our live chat. You can also find us on Instagram, Twitter or Facebook!