Everyone must have a clean drinking water. But millions of Americans are exposed to contaminants that are harmful to tap water.
Despite decades of federal regulations, many work continues to protect public health. Because the federal standards are considered “legal” by the federal standard, It is safe to drink.
EWG has been produced Health -based standard This focuses only on the safety of public health in the light of recent science. In contrast, federal standards should consider cost and validity and rarely update. More than 20 yearsEWG’s No-Compromise approach tried to prevent the family from being exposed to the harmful substances of water and to take responsibility for the pollution source.
The Environmental Protection Bureau lags to ensure safe drinking water for all Americans. EWG develops the gap by advocating safe and clean water by a standard that puts public health first.
Gap
that Safe drinking waterIt was enacted in 1974 and weakened by the amendment in 1996 to regulate drinking water supply. That intention is to protect all Americans’ public health. However, the EPA is only regulated now About 90 contaminants out 324 Substance was detected In American tap water.
In addition, many rules issued by the EPA are old, and some were last updated in the 1990s. Millions of Americans are vulnerable to chemicals that are not safe in drinking water.
Most community water systems meet the legal standards of the EPA. However, these standards can occur at a healthy level, so they do not guarantee safety. This imbalance is particularly problematic in relation to emerging contaminants, some of which are associated with serious health problems such as cancer, brain and nervous system damage, reproductive problems and hormone interruption.
EPA approach to guidelines
Adjusting contaminants in drinking water begins by identifying chemicals, heavy metals and microorganisms that can cause health risks.
EPA is A Pollution Substance Candidate List Substances that require regulation. Experts examine this and decide whether or not the contaminants poses for public health risks enough to ensure legal restrictions. Then EPA can set up the maximum pollutant level or MCL, which is the highest allowable concentration of contaminants in drinking water.
But this process was often very slow and reactive.
In particular, the organs have drew foot to control toxicity. “Eternal chemicals” It is known as a polluted PFA for hundreds of millions of Americans and is associated with serious health risks. EPA took over 20 years Finish the MCL for 6 PFAs compound. To date, they are the only chemicals that have set up new restrictions through the process summarized in the 1996 safety drinking water law amendment.
When the EPA finally sets the MCL, it is set to a very low level. Most health protection drinking water standards For the world PFA.
But these limitations are now threatened. The chemical industry and the metropolitan area have filed a lawsuit to weaken or delay these regulations. They claim that the cost of implementation is too high, but this ignores the full health benefits of the limitations, including the decrease in cancer and cardiovascular disease.
What is the maximum pollutant level?
The process of setting MCL is essential but slow. EPA has been set One new MCL In the case of dangerous chemicals Last 25 years.
However, even if the regulations exist, there are restrictions.
In most cases, the EPA does not update the rules to catch up with the reality of emerging science or public health risks. Institutions must perform cost -benefit analysis before finishing the regulations, and it is much easier to calculate the cost than public health benefits. The cost of implementing and complying with these regulations can be a significant burden on small water systems. This financial problem can affect regulatory decisions with public health costs.
What are the rules for monitoring unprotected contaminants?
One of the main tools used by the EPA to monitor contaminants is: Un regulated pollutant monitoring rulesOr ucmr. This program helps institutions to identify and track emerging contaminants that have not yet been regulated. This program is important for tracking potential risks Like PFAEvaluate the presence in drinking water.
The EPA has released the most recent data in UCMR 5. November 2024. More PFAS test results were expected in February 2025. It is expected to provide important information about 29 PFA compounds to tap water nationwide. However, despite the year -round test plan, there is no clear timeline when the EPA discloses information.
This delay can interfere with the ability of EPA and public health authorities to respond effectively to emerging contaminants, and can risk millions of Americans.
Even now 143 million Americans It is exposed to toxic PFA chemicals in drinking water. This extensive pollution emphasizes the importance of the EPA’s health protection 2024 MCL.
UCMR 5 data can help policy planners to identify the degree of PFAS pollution. However, the release delay shows how the regulatory process does not meet the threat of contamination that increases the US public health and the intimacy.
Health risk of water pollutants
Drinking water contaminants are associated with various health problems, including cancer, reproductive problems, brain damage and hormone interruption. Most studies, however, focus on the effects of individual pollutants, leaving a big difference in understanding how many contaminants can interact in the human body.
A 2019 StudyEWG has found that exposure to 22 general toxic chemicals in US tap water can be overwhelming. 100,000 additional cancer cases.
This result emphasizes important defects in the current regulatory approach of the EPA, which evaluates the cost and advantages of reducing the level of pollutants and one at a time, but only one chemical in tap water.
The EPA did not properly deal with the combined effects of many contaminants, which gave a significant gap in public health protection.
And even if the regulations are prepared, execution is often weak.
EPA and state agencies are trying to monitor limited resource compliance. In addition, it sometimes grants water systems with long -term “temporary” exemptions for violations, which further damages public health protection.
Drinking water standard passed
The federal government has set standard standards, while many states have tried to implement their own and more strict regulations on emerging contaminants such as PFA. And many states have taken the lead in setting up a strong restriction on drinking water pollutants. 1,4-Docsan and Hexagon Beyond federal standards in drinking water.
for example, 11 states We have already set limitations for specific PFA compounds of the public water system, and in other states, we have adopted health recommendations or notification levels. These weekly regulations are especially important for solving local water quality problems, especially when federal standards do not protect public health.
In California Assembly Act 794 Residents are trying to ensure powerful main drinking water standards to protect from harmful PFA contamination. The bill requires the state water committee to implement emergency regulations that match or exceed the current federal standards, and provide flexibility to perform self -analysis and implement more powerful protection if necessary.
This state -level effort often emphasizes the importance of solving the needs and challenges of areas that lack federal regulations.
Both infrastructure method
that Both infrastructure methodIn 2021, the state and community allocate $ 20 billion to modernize the drinking water system, providing an important improvement in water infrastructure. This funding focuses on solving contaminants such as PFA, replacing lead pipes, and upgrading aging infrastructure. But the Trump administration tries to roll back this fund. It is not clear whether the funds are still being paid.
Technologies such as activated carbon and reverse osmotic pressure systems have a significant impact on the underprivileged community where all local communities can benefit the same by removing harmful substances, and have a historically limited access to clean water.
This investment in water infrastructure is essential to provide safe drinking water to millions of Americans. It also supports EPA’s efforts to regulate and monitor pollutants, ensuring the resources needed to meet the updated federal standards.
Recent Supreme Court ruling
The US Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 ruling San Francisco City and County V. EPA Now we limit the nation’s authority to regulate EPA and rainwater contamination. This decision makes it more difficult to control or monitor these contaminants in the source, which can increase the risk of pollution.
This decision removes the core tools used to implement water quality standards for contaminants other than treatment facilities, including emerging contaminants such as PFA. Environmental groups have criticized the ruling to weaken the clean water, but the industry claims to clarify the permit requirements.
This decision can be delayed in modifying water quality and permits or issuing new permits in the future, making the implementation more difficult and delaying progress.
What you can do
If you are worried about the contaminants of tap water Filtration system It can be a practical solution.
Filter options such as activated carbon and reverse osmosis are effective in reducing extensive harmful substances.
EWG tested some things Home water filter pitcher It helps consumers find the best options for their needs.
You can also use EWG Tap water database To learn more about local water pollutants. This database helps you understand the contents of the tap water and make a decision based on information.
We are still a long way to ensure safe drinking water. The executive can weaken the protection of drinking water for PFA, including that the pollutant source is not responsible for discharging the harmful industrial chemicals to the source.
One of the best ways to ensure clean water is to keep the feet of the elected officials at the province, state or federal levels. By I ask the right question And with demanding actions, people can push for strong regulations on harmful pollutants in drinking water.
