December 28, 2009 3:19:26 AM PST
One of the key things you have to remember when it comes to water quality is that there are an almost infinite number of compounds that people could say "they should be testing for this!" and if we did test for all of them, the city'd be broke in nothing flat. Historically, dangerous compounds are identified when a significant health issue is identified in the population that can be traced back to that compound. Then it gets added to the list of things to test for. The issue of synergistic effects, combinations of multiple compounds in the water simultaneously, is almost impossible to predict or test for, as there are so many combinations and ratios possible. Folk like Parekh here in LA are trying to be more advanced than the regulations (which always are the last to change) but even our best scientists can't predict what we should be looking for.
The LA Times has been covering the borate issue in LA's water supply - they covered the distribution of the UV-blocking balls last summer when they were distributed. The contamination down in Santa Monica (it's MTBE from the Mobil tank farm out there - my work history is env engineering in the oil industry) has been covered fairly clearly in the news, and the affected wells are not being used for municipal supply. I know our environmental assessments always had to check for PCE (perc) when we were checking our gas station sites, and there were several locations where nearby dry cleaners *had* generated contamination issues which they were legally required to address. Our local agencies often require more stringent assessments/limits than the EPA. Arsenic, though, we never had to test for as our operations didn't include arsenic.
Maywood's supply is just unacceptable. I'm really surprised there's not at least a turbidity requirement they have to meet as far as suspended solids/color.
I'm more disturbed by the response of the general public who thwart efforts of those like Parekh who are trying to provide cleaner water because they don't think that's worth the money. That said, I also do think that many people who object to trace compounds that *might* over generations possibly give them cancer... well, there's home treatment units out there they can use to do that final polishing step they think their water needs - most of the folk worried about such things have the financial resources to manage that (sad, the link between finance and education on these issues, but often true). The costs involved in making municipal supplies distilled-level pristine are seriously prohibitive. And even if we did treat it that highly, distribution systems are prone to allowing contamination en route so it wouldn't stay *quite* that pristine. Our water is so much safer than it was a century ago, I really still don't feel a need to complain about it.
I *absolutely* think we need to do more work on keeping contaminated effluents out of water supplies, because really, prevention is *SO* much easier than removal when it comes to water treatment...