What's on Tap? -- Grading Drinking Water in U.S. Citi
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
WHAT’S ON TAP? Grading Drinking Water in U.S. Cities Author Erik Olson Contributors Jonathan Kaplan Marie Ann Leyko, Ph.D. Adrianna Quintero Daniel Rosenberg Nancy Stoner Sarah Wood Natural Resources Defense Council June 2003 Natural Resources Defense Council ABOUT NRDC The Natural Resources Defense Council is a national nonprofit environmental orga- nization with more than 550,000 members. Since 1970, our lawyers, scientists, and other environmental specialists have been working to protect the world’s natural resources and improve the quality of the human environment. NRDC has offices in New York City, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Visit us on the World Wide Web at www.nrdc.org. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS NRDC wishes to thank The Bauman Foundation, Beldon Fund, Carolyn Foundation, Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, The Joyce Foundation, Henry Philip Kraft Family Memorial Fund of The New York Community Trust, and The McKnight Foundation for their support for this study. We would also like to thank more than 550,000 members of NRDC, without whom none of our work would be possible. Finally, the author thanks his NRDC colleagues and the many peer reviewers for their insightful comments and highly professional assistance in polishing this report, as well as Anne, Chris, and Luke for their support and encouragement during this lengthy project. NRDC Reports Manager NRDC President Emily Cousins John Adams Editor NRDC Executive Director Dana Nadel Foley Frances Beinecke Production NRDC Director of Communications Bonnie Greenfield Alan Metrick Copyright 2003 by the Natural Resources Defense Council. ii CONTENTS Executive Summary v Water Quality and Compliance vi Right-to-Know Reports x Source Water Protection xi Bush Administration Actions Endanger America’s Drinking Water Supplies xiii Chapter 1: Background 1 WHAT’S Water Quality and Compliance 2 ON TAP? Right-to-Know Reports 8 Source Water Protection 9 Grading Drinking Alternatives to Tap Water 11 Water in U.S. Cities For People with Weakened Immune Systems 13 June 2003 Chapter 2: Water Quality and Compliance 16 Findings 16 Recommendations 22 Chapter 3: Right-to-Know Reports 28 Findings 28 Recommendations 35 Chapter 4: Source Water Protection 38 Findings 38 Recommendations 42 Chapter 5: Common Tap Water Contaminants 44 Microbiological Contaminants 44 Inorganic Contaminants 49 Organic Contaminants 55 Radioactive Contaminants 64 Chapter 6: What’s the Score? 74 Water Quality and Compliance Grades 74 Right-to-Know Report Grades 76 Source Water Protection Grades 77 Chapter 7: Tap Water at Risk 80 Attacking the Nation’s Water Protection Laws 80 Undermining Water Standards 85 Slashing Funding for Water Quality 87 Recommendations 88 iii Natural Resources Defense Council City Summaries 91 Albuquerque, NM 91 Atlanta, GA 98 Baltimore, MD 105 Boston, MA 110 Chicago, IL 120 Denver, CO 126 Detroit, MI 131 Houston, TX 139 Manchester, NH 149 New Orleans, LA 156 Newark, NJ 163 Philadelphia, PA 171 Phoenix, AZ 182 Seattle, WA 194 Washington, DC 203 iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY very day more than 240 million of us in this country turn on our faucets in order Eto drink, bathe, and cook, using water from public water systems. And as we do, we often take the purity of our tap water for granted. We shouldn’t. Before it comes out of our taps, water in most cities usually undergoes a complex treatment process, often including filtration and disinfection. As good as our municipal water systems can be (and they can be very good), they also can fail—sometimes tragically. In 1999, for example, more than 1,000 people fell ill at a county fair in upstate New York after ingesting an extremely virulent strain of E. coli bacteria; a three-year-old girl and WHAT’S an elderly man died when their bodies could not fight off the pathogen.1 This is just ON TAP? one incident; health officials have documented scores of similar waterborne disease Grading Drinking outbreaks in towns and cities across the nation during the past decade. Water in U.S. Cities So, just how safe is our drinking water? In a careful and independent study, NRDC evaluated the quality of drinking water supplies in 19 cities around the June 2003 country.2 We selected cities that represent the broadest range of American city water supplies and reviewed tap water quality data, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) compliance records, and water suppliers’ annual reports (material required by law in order to inform citizens of the overall health of their tap water; also called “right-to-know reports”).3 In addition, we gathered information on pollution sources that may contaminate the lakes, rivers, or underground aquifers that cities use as drinking water sources. Finally, we evaluated our findings and issued grades for each city in three areas: water quality and compliance right-to-know reports source water protection NRDC found that, although drinking water purity has improved slightly during the past 15 years in most cities, overall tap water quality varies widely from city to city. Some cities like Chicago have excellent tap water; most cities have good or mediocre tap water. Yet several cities—such as Albuquerque, Fresno, and San Francisco—have water that is sufficiently contaminated so as to pose potential health risks to some consumers, particularly to pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems, according to Dr. David Ozonoff, chair of the Environmental Health Program at Boston University School of Public Health and a nationally known expert on drinking water and health issues. While tap water quality varies, there is one overarching truth that applies to all U.S. cities: unless we take steps now, our tap water will get worse. Two factors pose imminent threats to drinking water quality in America: First, we are relying on pipes that are, on average, a century old. The water systems in many cities—including Atlanta, Boston, and Washington, D.C.—were built toward the end of the 19th century. Not only is our water supply infra- structure breaking down at alarming rates (the nation suffered more than 200,000 water main ruptures in 2002), but old pipes can leach contaminants and breed bacteria in drinking water. Second, regulatory and other actions by the Bush administration threaten the purity of American tap water. These actions include: weakening legislative protections for v Natural Resources Defense Council source waters, stalling on issuing new standards for contaminants, delaying the strengthening of existing standards, and cutting and even eliminating budgets for protective programs. NRDC’s study demonstrates that in order to improve water quality and protect public health, we must: invest in infrastructure upgrade treatment and distribution facilities improve public understanding through the efficacy of right-to-know reports safeguard source water. Furthermore, we must enlist our elected officials in the solution and urge them to: invest in infrastructure and treatment strengthen and enforce existing standards fund programs that improve tap water quality WATER QUALITY AND COMPLIANCE Findings Healthy city water supplies in this country resemble each other in three distinct ways: they have good source water protection, treatment, and maintenance and operation of the system. Every problem water supply, however, is unhealthy in its own way: it may fail in just one of the three discrete areas mentioned above, or it may have a combination of factors that contribute to the system’s ailments. Fresno, for example, has no source water protection; Newark and San Francisco do not have adequate treatment systems in place; Atlanta has poor maintenance of its distribution system. Any of these factors will introduce contaminants into the water. A Handful of Contaminants Found in Most Cities WATER QUALITY AND COMPLIANCE NRDC observed that while tap water can contain a vast array of contaminants, a handful of particularly harmful contaminants surfaced repeatedly in our study. City 2001 Grade Chicago. Excellent They include: Baltimore. Good lead, which enters drinking water supplies from the corrosion of pipes or faucets and Denver . Good Detroit. Good can cause permanent brain damage and decreased intelligence in infants and children Manchester . Good pathogens (germs) such as coliform bacteria or Cryptosporidium, a microscopic New Orleans. Good Atlanta . Fair disease-carrying protozoan that presents health concerns, especially to individuals Houston . Fair with weakened immune systems including HIV/AIDS patients, the elderly, children, Los Angeles . Fair Newark . Fair and people who have undergone organ transplants or cancer chemotherapy or who Philadelphia . Fair have certain chronic diseases San Diego . Fair by-products of the chlorination process such as trihalomethanes and haloacetic Seattle. Fair Washington, D.C. Fair acids, which may cause cancer and, potentially, reproductive problems and Albuquerque . Poor miscarriage Boston . Poor Fresno . Poor several other carcinogens and other toxic chemicals, including arsenic (which is Phoenix . Poor naturally occurring or derives from mining and industrial processes), radioactive San Francisco . Poor radon, the pesticide atrazine (affecting the water of more than 1 million Americans), vi What’s On Tap? and perchlorate from rocket fuel (present in the water supplies of more than 20 million Americans). Few Violations, Often Weak Standards Overall, NRDC’s study revealed a relatively small number of cities that were in outright violation of national