By: Victoria Nash
Water is the best choice of drink for quenching your thirst, but is the water in your dwelling just water? Water comes in many forms to the consumer, iced, hot, in plastic bottles and even in consumer-friendly boxes. However, the easiest way to enjoy this in your home is water in a glass from the tap. According to the EPA, the easiest way to enjoy water may not be the healthiest choice because the water you consume from the tap is not just simple H20. A new study published from the U.S Geological Survey on August of 2023 has found even more hidden substances in our tap and well water.
Water is regarded by doctors as the healthiest fluid a person can ingest, since its caffeine free, calorie free and alcohol free. For thousands of years, it was the first liquid humans solely survived on before milk in the agricultural revolution. Previously, drinking water was from lakes, mountains, streams, and carried in animal horns or other animal products. These earlier humans had to tote around small amounts of water and create their civilization near a drinkable water source. Today, we do not need to live near a body of water to survive as communities pipe in their water from water treatment facilities. These treatment facilities have been closely watched under supervision of Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, later named the Clean Water act.
The Water Pollution Control Act was later amended to become more of an enforceable agency. When the act was amended in 1956, with the purpose of “setting of water quality standards which are State and Federally enforceable; it became the basis for interstate water quality standards.” Later, in 1966 the Clean Water Restoration Act imposed a $100 fine on polluters who failed to submit a report. With so many different laws being amended enforcing the laws became difficult, hence, the 1972 amendment created the EPA as a consolidated authority. By 1983 “Congress gave the Administrator the legal tools necessary to make inroads into the problems of water pollution control, while continuing to recognize the primary rights and responsibilities of the States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.”.
The EPA gives regulations and recommendations for communities to abide by at the community’s discretion. Today, “EPA ensures that public drinking water systems comply with health-based federal standards for contaminants, which includes performing regular monitoring and reporting.” The EPA uses scientific testing such as sampling waters in different towns and cities and measuring 94 chemicals in the samples and measuring the chemicals by ppb or parts per billion. There are legal restrictions on some chemicals such as fluoride, haleoacetic acid, trichloroacetic acid and there are other chemicals such as Bromodichloromethane, which do not have a legal limit. The EPA measures the harm of these chemicals based on bioaccumulation factors, exposure factors and toxicity factors.
The EPA measures water samples multiple times a year and gives their sample results back to the community in an easy to digest format. With the help of a non-profit, the EWG breaks down data into simpler forms showing which chemicals are in their tap water. The U.S. Geological Survey found chemicals in tap water that the EPA testing methods may have missed called “forever chemicals” or PFAS.
According to the EPA’s data with the latest science and technology to measure toxins in water samples, measuring lead, chlorine, fluoride, and leached pesticide chemicals of toxic water. For example, the safe amount of bromodichloromethane is .01 ppb, which is usually found as a gas or dissolved in water. If ingested at high levels, it can cause cancer, harm to reproduction and child development, changes to fetal development. The EPA allows .01 ppb in the drinking water, and according to California Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, bromodichloromethane at .06 ppb in a sample of drinking water raises your chances of getting cancer by one in a million. However, the water in Colombia Louisiana is 83.7 ppb of bromodichloromethane, while the national average is 5.79 ppb.
According to 42 USC CHAPTER 6A, SUBCHAPTER XII: SAFETY OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS, §300f(D) they have a process in place when the levels fall below the standard. This section states, “assure a supply of drinking water which dependably complies with such maximum contaminant levels; including accepted methods for quality control and testing procedures to insure compliance with such levels and to insure proper operation and maintenance of the system, and requirements as to (i) the minimum quality of water which may be taken into the system and (ii) siting for new facilities for public water systems.”
In communities such as Colombia Louisiana, which has 8,375 concentration higher than the safe amount, clearly enforcement of requirements is lacking.
The U.S. Geological Survey created a more in-depth study on “forever chemicals” or PFAS that the EPA missed. These forever chemicals are linked to thyroid disease, cancer, high cholesterol, decreased fertility, liver damage, and hormone suppression. The geological Survey lab found there was at least one PFAS chemical in 45% of the U.S. drinking water samples. Their lab used far more lab tests on three samples per source. Their lab used liquid chromatography, while the EPA method of solid phase extraction to extract the chemicals from the water. Their lab found there was at least one PFAS chemical in 45% of the U.S. drinking water samples.
The EPA is measuring samples often, reporting data often, but missing on the accountability of enforcing this toxic data. These measurements from the EPA and Geological Survey organizations are important to communities, however, reporting alarming data and not fixing the issues that the Clean Water Act was designed to protect is problematic. We have the laws, standards and regulations in place to resolve toxic water— all of which must be recognized and utilized to their full potential to ensure the safety of our future population.
Student Bio: Victoria Nash is a second-year student at Suffolk University Law School. She is a Staff Writer for the Journal of High Technology Law. She graduated from the College of the Holy Cross with a Bachelor of Liberal Arts.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog are the views of the author alone and do not represent the views of JHTL or Suffolk University Law School.
