If you were to rely only on the EPA’s guidelines for tap water safety, you would probably assume that your tap water is just fine. That’s because the overwhelming majority of community water systems offer water that complies with the EPA’s federal regulations.
But the latest research suggests these government-enacted standards don’t tell the full story.
First, there’s an issue with outdated information. As we all know, unfortunately the government doesn’t move at the speed of innovation. Every change to federal rules and regulations requires time-consuming studies, impact reports and other red tape.
As Maya Angelou said: “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”
We now know better. Groups like EWG have worked tirelessly to study the impacts of tap water contaminants on people of all shapes and sizes, and yet federal limits for new contaminants in tap water have not been updated in almost 20 years!
Further, there’s a universality problem. One size does not fit all. Federal limits were designed with a “standard” full-sized adult in mind. But what about the many people who drink tap water who don’t fall into that category? The children, pregnant women, people of small stature, etc. — presumably they would have an even lower tolerance for tap water pollutants, and yet there’s only one set of regulations guiding the federally allowable limits.
EWG’s Database of Drinking Water Contaminants Helps People Protect Themselves and Their Families
There’s a world of difference between water that “meets all government standards” and water that’s “safe and healthy to drink.”
When it comes to what you put in your body, you want to strive for water that’s both of those things!
As we’ve discussed elsewhere on the blog, the federal government’s standards for drinking water pollutants are not necessarily complete, up-to-date and adequate.
The good news is the Environmental Working Group, or EWG, provides a free and accessible Tap Water Database that offers a much fuller picture of what contaminants exist in your tap water, as well as helpful resources surrounding acceptable levels of the same.
Until the EPA can catch up with the latest findings on what’s safe for our drinking water, EWG offers the best resource for safeguarding yourself and your loved ones and staying informed about what’s in your water.
But why are the EPA’s water standards so out of date?
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Has Made Your Tap Water Safer — But That’s Not the Whole Story
The passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) in 1974 was a — pardon the pun — watershed moment for tap water safety. Amazingly, the government had done next to nothing to regulate drinking water quality before that!
A Brief History of
Government Water Laws
1886 and 1899
River and Harbor Acts
Curbed waterway pollution
1912
U.S Public Health Service Act
Sought to prevent waterborne illnesses
1948
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
First national law preventing pollution
1972
Clean Water Act
Allowed EPA to regulate pollution in national waters
1974
Safe Drinking Water Act
Allowed EPA to set and enforce safe drinking water standards
The act single-handedly improved the cleanliness and safety of what comes out of your tap by setting legally allowable limits for dangerous contaminants. That’s a good thing.
But nearly 50 years on, many pollutants are still underregulated, including perchlorate, chromium-6 and PFAS.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Has Its Work Cut Out
With the creation of enhanced drinking water standards, the SDWA needed to designate an entity to enact and enforce them. That entity was the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA.
With the passage of the SDWA, the EPA gained full authority to set national health standards for drinking water. The EPA delegated enforcement to the states. If the states fell short in their tasks, the EPA reserves the right to step in and enforce.
Further, the states are able to create limits and guidelines for secondary or nuisance contaminants — that is, pollutants that don’t pose serious health risks, but which are still problematic for other reasons (e.g., dry skin, scale on faucets, etc.).
There’s another big “blind spot” of the SWDA: it’s meant to apply standards only to public water systems that serve more than 25 people.
That means that if you’re on a private well system, you’re entrusted with monitoring your water on your own.
This has created a scenario where governmental standards are helpful, but perhaps not enough. If you want to be truly proactive about your health, you should consider having your water tested regularly and investing in the proper water treatment equipment.
SWDA Standards Are Slow to Evolve With Current Understanding
The government is many things, but “innovative” certainly isn’t one of them. It’s doubtful that anyone has commended the government for being quick to make a change, too.
Those are the key limitations of the SWDA: Because the government requires numerous impact reports, studies and other bureaucratic processes, it takes a very long time for the EPA to adjust its allowable pollutant limits.
The EPA currently imposes limits for 90 drinking water contaminants. While that may sound like a pleasingly long list, keep in mind that no new pollutants have been added to that since 1996!
Of course, that by no means implies that no pollutants have merited addition to the list for the last quarter century. Sadly, it’s merely indicative that ever since 1996, with the passage of a new amendment that mandated greater testing and analysis in order to determine whether a pollutant was worthy of being added to the list. Since then, the EPA has been in a state of deadlock when it comes to adding contaminants to the list.
A Push and Pull: EPA Can’t Regulate Anything, But It May Be Underregulating
In a perfect (and totally nonexistent) world, the EPA would impose limits on a vast and wide-ranging list of tap water pollutants. By doing so, we could ensure that people were getting the cleanest, safest and healthiest water every time they turned on their taps.
But as is a theme with anything government-run, cost is an issue. Time, layers of bureaucracy and expense all work together to limit the amount of contaminants that can be added to the EPA’s list, and all those factors contribute to the fact that there haven’t been any new pollutants added for 25 years.
That’s where nonprofits like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) come in. They step in to fill the gaps left by the EPA. EWG runs a free resource, the Tap Water Database, that analyzes your tap water and all the contaminants found therein. The best part is that it’s free.
To Start, Try the EPA. To Go Deeper, Try the EWG
We are by no means intending to slam the job that the EPA does. We are simply demonstrating that both the EPA and the SWDA have limitations. Thankfully, non-profit groups like EWG exist to offer a fuller picture of what’s in your tap water, and to clue you in on some pollutants that you may like to be aware of.
