Water Quality InformationWritten By Actual Experts

Aakriti Pandey  |  Contributor

Editor's Note: This article is part of a new initiative to include stories on our blog that link scientific policy to everyday life. Recently, the new administration proposed changes to the EPA budget that would gut the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI), which could impact the water quality of major cities (e.g. Chicago, Milwaukee) 

An upward slope

A downward slide

Analies Dyjak  |  Policy Analyst

This past Tuesday, February 20th, 2018, a lengthy lawsuit of eight-years ended in an $850 million settlement in favor of the state of Minnesota.

If you’re unfamiliar with the water crisis in Minnesota, here’s a quick recap:

In 2010 the state of Minnesota filed suit against 3M, a manufacturing company based out of Maplewood, Minnesota. The lawsuit came about because of allegations that 3M had been knowingly and improperly disposing of perfluorinated chemicals (PFC’s) such as perflurooctanoic acid (PFOA), and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) for decades. This probably sounds familiar to GenX contamination in North Carolina. 3M publicly stated their phase-out of PFC-like compounds in 2000. In 2004, 67,000 households in communities such as Lake Elmo, Oakdale, Woodbury and Cottage Grove had traces of PFC’s in their drinking water. In 2010, the state of Minnesota initially asked for $5 billion from 3M for natural resource and environmental degradation. In a last ditch effort to avoid trial, the state of Minnesota was granted an $850 million settlement on behalf of 3M. 3M claims that the settlement doesn’t make them guilty of poisoning thousands of people in Minnesota, but rather to show their commitment to environmental stewardship.

How Did The PFC Contamination Get Into Drinking Water?

3M had been disposing of PFC’s in their privately owned landfills as well as certain public landfills in Washington County since the 1950’s. It’s uncertain if 3M disclosed to the public landfills that PFOA’s and PFOS’s would be a part of their industrial hazardous waste permits. Additionally, cap technology in the in the 1950’s and up to the 1970’s was not nearly as advanced as it is today. Once the chemicals were disposed of in the landfill, over time they leached through the lining and into surrounding groundwater.

Health Effects of PFC’s, PFOA’s and PFOS’s

Health experts in Minnesota have seen higher rates of cancers, leukemia, premature births and lower fertility rates in suburbs near 3M manufacturing. This is a pretty constant trend when looking into long term exposure of perfluorinated chemicals. A University of California, Berkeley professor reported a 30% increase in low birth-weights and premature births between the years of 2001 and 2006 in Oakdale, a suburb of a 3M manufacturing plant.

Where Will the Money GO?

According to the Minnesota Attorney General, the settlement will be used to fund projects involving drinking water and water sustainability (whatever that means). $850 million may seem like a substantial peace offering, but the state came to the conclusive amount of $5 billion for a reason. This was the well-researched amount of money that state experts determined for damage done by 3M. Does this mean that the drinking water problem is completely fixed? No. It’s not guaranteed that every household will receive compensation and funding for a proper filtration system. The same UC Berkeley professor estimated the economic cost of the pollution; $1.5 billion in natural resource damages, $830 million in financial damages to existing households, and $309 million for people moving to the area by 2050. So although the settlement is significant, it won’t nearly be able to remediate all existing damages.

Summary

The settlement in Minnesota is a win for the environmental and the millions of individuals affected by 3M. There is still uncertainty regarding how the settlement money will be allocated, and which projects will be prioritized.

_______________________________________________________________

Brief History of 3M in Minnesota

3M initially began producing PFC’s in the 1950’s. Of course commercial-scale production of PFC’s were almost completely unregulated during this time. The Clean Water Act and National Environmental Policy Act weren’t codified until 1970. Knowledge of PFC-like contaminants was minimal and economic pressure was high.

Prior to any knowledge of PFC’s, 3M focused its attention on remediation efforts to volatile organic compounds (VOC’s). VOC’s were first found in groundwater in Washington County in 1966. Because of this, state permitting agencies and 3M were all aware of the hydrology of this area.

Other Articles We Think You'll Enjoy

Daphne Abrams M.S.Ed.  |  Scientific Contributor 

I became interested in the impact of mining a few years ago when I started teaching an environmental science class in northwestern Nevada. Nevada has a rich history of pioneers and mining (It is the silver state after all). While mining can be a source of revenue and prosperity for an area, it also has a huge environmental impact that can last many decades after the mining activity ends. This article discusses how this has played out in the Carson River.

Historical Mining Activities And EPA Superfund Sites

EPA’s Superfund program is responsible for cleaning up highly contaminated land and responding to environmental emergencies, oil spills and natural disasters in order to minimize long-lasting contamination from these events. Even though the government has categorized these sites as highly toxic, they are sorely underfunded when it comes to cleanup and often forgotten about altogether. This is particularly problematic because one in five Americans live within 3 miles of a Superfund site. The closest two Superfund sites to the school that I teach at are two abandoned mining sites. One is the Carson River Mercury Site, which is the legacy of silver and gold mining in the area, and the other is from the abandoned Rio Tinto Copper Mine. 

Lasting Impacts Of Historical Mining Activity On The Carson River

Between the contamination from these two Superfund sites, roughly eighty miles of the Carson River is paralyzed by heavy metal toxicity. Even though contamination likely occurred in the 1800s, there are still advisories not eat fish caught in that stretch of the Carson River, due to concerns about mercury, which biomagnifies up food the food chain.

What's Being Done About Contamination From Historical Mining Activities?

While it seems hard to debate against cleaning up these types of historical toxic messes, the Senate and House voted to overturn the “Stream Protection Rule” shortly after President Trump took office, as part of the new administration's campaign promise to relax environmental regulations.

Do You Have More Questions About How Does Mining Affect Water Today?

Hydroviv makes 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 Twitter or Facebook!

Eric Roy, Ph.D. 

A new report was released which confirmed that an outbreak of Legionnaires' disease in Flint, Michigan that killed 12 people and sickened at least 87 during 2014 and 2015 was likely caused by low chlorine levels in the municipal water system. It's another example of Flint's broader water crisis that resulted from widespread incompetence and fraud. We will add to this article as more questions come in.

What Is Legionnaires' Disease?

Legionnaires is a pneumonia, caused the bacterium Legionella pneumophila. Legionella pneumophila grows in water, and can enter the lungs through tiny water droplets. If a person doesn't have a robust immune system, they can become very sick, or even die.

Where Is Legionella Found?

According to Marc Edwards (A professor at Virginia Tech), Legionella is found in about 25 percent of all water samples collected nationally. It's a common bacterium, but it's usually kept under control in municipal water.

How Is Legionella Typically Controlled In Municipal Tap Water

In properly treated municipal water, Legionella is kept under control by chlorine-based disinfectants, so the bacterium cannot reach dangerous levels. In Flint, it appears that not enough chlorine was added to the water to leave enough residual chlorine to keep the bacterium under control, which is what caused the Legionnaires' outbreak in Flint.

Is Flint Still At Risk Of Legionnaires Disease?

According to Edwards, chlorine in Flint's water is now at the correct level, so the likelihood of Legionnaires' disease popping back up is minimal. It is our opinion at Hydroviv that concerned Flint residents should take every piece of advice issued by Dr. Edwards. If he says that there is enough chlorine, there is enough chlorine.

Updated March 9, 2020 to include Vice Article

Eric Roy, Ph.D.

Last week, the New York Times wrote an article about about a new craze called "Raw Water" or "Live Water" where people are buying untreated water that has been collected from a spring, and sold for high prices (often more than $30 per bottle). Normally with this type of rubbish, we take the position of "If people are dumb enough to fall for this... they deserve to lose their money," but this is different because there is a real risk of harm to children and other unwilling participants. We've been getting asked a lot of questions about this article (and others like it), so we'll use this article to answer some of the frequently asked questions. To be clear, the focus of this article is on raw/living water portion of the article, not the company that makes a device that pulls moisture from the atmosphere.

What Are People Referring To When They Talk About Raw Or "Living" Untreated Water?

Simply put, this movement refers to raw water as water collected directly from a spring or other natural source and sold to people without the water being disinfected or otherwise treated. The "living" aspect of it refers to the algae and bacteria that are found in the untreated water. No matter what anyone tells you... water is NOT alive.

What Are Benefits Of Drinking Raw Water?

There are no scientifically documented benefits of drinking raw water. Proponents report "feeling x,y,z," which is another way of saying "placebo effect."

Why Is Drinking Raw Water Such A Terrible Idea?

Raw water can contain bacteria, viruses, parasites, and other things that can make you extremely sick. From mild stomach problems, to Giardia, and even sometimes death, there is no way to control biological contamination in raw water. Even if you have the unfounded belief that spring water is sterile (it's not), contamination can come from the bottler's hands, bottle, or anything that comes in contact with the water or container. Aside from the dangerous health impacts, raw water is extremely expensive. One company out of California charges $16 for a 2.5 gallons container of raw water. 

Why Does Raw Water Turn Green?

In non-disinfected waters... light + nutrients = algae growth. Spring water is often contaminated with nitrates & phosphates from human activities, so when that water is exposed to light, the algae are able to undergo photosynthesis and grow. That's why the water turns green... you're essentially setting up a terrarium in your bottle.

This is bad, because an algae bloom is providing a food source for potentially harmful bacteria to thrive.

Is Raw Water Free Of Chemical Contaminants?

No. Even seemingly pristine springs in remote areas can be contaminated by a variety of chemicals. This is because springs are fed by shallow groundwater, which is very susceptible to contamination from the surrounding areas. There are various websites that highlight areas where individuals have collected water from springs. Some of the springs are near to municipal source water, which knowingly must be treated and tested before being distributed to residents. Some raw water springs are near busy highways where petrochemicals runoff into surrounding groundwater. 

What's Wrong With The New York Times Article On Drinking Raw Water?

The focus of this article (over 90% of the content) was dedicated to the stories of the founders of the companies who stand to profit and supporters of the movement, not scientists or medical experts. The only scientist interviewed was quoted in two short paragraphs near the end of the article. This type of coverage gives the article the feeling of a supportive "puff piece" if you only take a cursory glance at it.

More Questions About Untreated Water?

We'll be updating as questions continue to come in. If you have one, please send it