Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
May 1, 2007
4. Water Quality -
Fluoridation may occur at the source -
Eureka times Standard
Opinion:
Bottled water mystery
State consumers have a right to know what they're paying for. -
The
Opinion:
Toxic delays -
The Press
__________________________________________________
Fluoridation may occur at the source
John Driscoll/The Times-Standard
The Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District will consider ongoing requests and concerns about adding fluoride to the water on a regional basis at its meeting Thursday.
The district recently convened a water task force to look at the issue. The group decided to wait until each of the district's wholesale customers took a position on fluoridation.
It's likely that treating water at the district's
But once the modification is made, all seven customers --
”Once we do it, we do it,” said water district General Manager Carol Rische.
Fluoride is widely considered by the health community to be good for dental health, but it has been a source of controversy among some. A November ballot initiative to remove the substance from Arcata water failed by a wide margin.
Rische said that some customers have asked if the possibility of de-fluoridating could be examined, in case one or more customers doesn't want the treatment.
At the end of the day, Rische said, if the district decides not to go with fluoride, there's nothing that will prevent any of its customers from doing it on a one-by-one basis.
She added that the water district board would like any decision to be unanimous, and has not yet decided how to handle a request that's not unanimous.
Also at the meeting, district Director Alderon Laird will give an informal presentation on public trust policy. That item is set for 10:15 a.m.
The board meeting begins at 9 a.m. at the district's
http://www.times-standard.com/local/ci_5791848
Opinion:
Bottled water mystery
State consumers have a right to know what they're paying for.
The
Millions of Californians now opt to drink their water from individual plastic bottles bought at stores. Setting aside the very real problem of all these bottles and all the energy and pollution that goes into creating them, bottled water is emerging as a primary drinking water source.
As far as regulations go, bottled water purveyors exist in a kind of netherworld. They aren't required to post the same water quality information about their supplies that water districts release about tap water.
This industry can't have it both ways. If it is to be a cornerstone of the state's drinking water supply, consumers need the confidence of being able to know, quickly, exactly what is in the bottle. If the information about tap water is just a few mouse clicks away, why not for the more expensive stuff as well?
Senate Bill 220 by Ellen Corbett, D-San Leandro, seeks to beef up the posting of information about bottled water beyond what is now required by the federal Food and Drug Administration. Her bill raises one of those old questions that
The simple answer: Because, as the saying goes, the consumer is always right. In the end, this is good business. The industry will learn that whenever it experiences that same kind of highly publicized incident that other FDA-regulated foods (pet foods and spinach, to name two) have experienced that such incidents erode public confidence overnight.
SB 220 wouldn't mandate the world's smallest fine print on bottled water. It would not require that every trace of magnesium, lead or arsenic is there for the consumer to behold. It would require an annual "consumer confidence report" that itemizes the water quality tests that the bottled water companies are already required to conduct under state regulations. The bottle's packaging would have to identify the source of the water and could make reference to get more information.
Most consumers probably think that basic requirements such as the posting of understandable information about the quality of bottled water already exist. And in fact, some companies, such as Nestle, the bottlers of San Pellegrino, already comply with many of the requirements of this bill. But many others do not.
The industry, which opposes SB 220, counters that it has a good safety record (true, but there have been lapses), which is proof that the existing federal program is adequate. The FDA, which has so many food products to regulate -- and doesn't even regulate water that is bottled and sold within a single state -- has other problems on its hands. (Remember the pet food crisis?)
Requiring a standard method of disseminating basic health and safety information is not exactly onerous. It's the kind of industry practice that can keep the industry out of the news and keep people drinking their products. What's good for tap water is good for bottled water -- information. We hope the industry will work with Corbett so that the end result is workable for the companies and useful for the consumers. SB 220 deserves to move through the Legislature. #
http://www.fresnobee.com/274/story/44764.html
Opinion:
Toxic delays
The Press Enterprise
10:26 PM PDT on Monday, April 30, 2007
Federal regulators need to stop finding excuses for inaction and set a safe drinking-water standard for perchlorate. The EPA's delay in setting perchlorate rules hinders pollution tracking and stalls cleanup efforts.
Perchlorate, a chemical in explosives and rocket fuel, can impair thyroid function, which regulates growth and metabolism. The toxin taints water supplies across the Inland region.
The lack of any federal perchlorate standard delays progress in fighting the pollutant. Because the EPA does not regulate perchlorate, the agency does not track either perchlorate pollution or cleanup efforts. So federal environmental regulators have no idea how much perchlorate contaminates the nation's water supplies.
The absence of federal guidance also creates public confusion and a patchwork of differing state rules. States that want to set standards have to act on their own.
But a federal standard would carry far more weight with polluters, especially because much of the perchlorate pollution stems from work on government contracts for munitions and rocket fuel. Polluters can now use the lack of a federal regulation to obstruct state and local efforts to assign responsibility for the pollution and its cleanup.
A National Academy of Sciences review in 2005 recommended a safe standard of 24.5 parts of the chemical per billion parts of water for perchlorate from all sources. But that mark is almost certainly too high for drinking water, because perchlorate also shows up in food.
A more comprehensive analysis by the Centers for Disease Control last year found far smaller doses of the chemical a threat to women with lower iodide levels -- about one-third of the nation's women.
Yet the EPA continues to call for more research on the chemical before proposing a standard. Further research on perchlorate would be useful, certainly. But waiting for more studies leaves the public exposed to a health hazard. The best available science provides a solid basis for regulators to act now. #
No comments:
Post a Comment