LADWP Statement Regarding Environmental Working Group’s
Water Quality Rankings Report
The recently issued Environmental Working Group (EWG) water quality rankings report gives readers the impression that Los Angeles’ drinking water is less than the highest quality and states that LADWP exceeds the legal limits for various chemicals or chemical compounds in our water. Both summations are incorrect.
Interested parties are encouraged to read the analysis and report featured on the front page of the December 17, 2009 issue of the New York Times, which lauds LADWP’s efforts to protect our water supply and go beyond what is required by law.
The water we provide our customers meets or exceeds all state and federal guidelines for water quality and is not in violation of legal limits, as the report claims and LADWP does not stop at what is legally required, we frequently exceed state and federal standards.
Providing the highest quality drinking water day in and day out is at the very core of our existence. In doing so, we actively monitor and anticipate emerging water quality issues and take proactive steps to address them. As such, we perform over 300,000 water quality tests each year, not just for compliance, but also for research, and operational improvements.
The EWG report was misleading in very fundamental ways:
- Under the methodology used by EWG, the LADWP was unfairly penalized for having in place one of the most extensive testing regimens of any utility in the nation and compared us to utilities that do not have such extensive testing. This means that the subsequent number of chemical detections by one utility was unfairly compared to findings of other utilities that may not even test for the same list of chemicals.
- The EWG conducted no testing of its own, but instead relied on tests conducted by each individual utility. This methodology ignores the important fact that different water systems test for different chemicals, at different frequencies, and at varying detection levels, all based on unique factors specific to the utility’s source water. Any one of these factors could have significantly skewed the results.
Case in point: The survey includes results from 6,962 tests performed in another
- The report makes no distinction between trace detection and detection of various chemicals at higher, more significant levels. Trace detection of a chemical does not necessarily indicate a potential health risk. Implying otherwise ignores basic, well-established water quality science. There are many chemicals regulated in drinking water because of their potential for long-term exposure risk, and thus should be monitored and evaluated in terms of annual averages and a single detection should not be interpreted as a health risk or legal violation. Worse, the report takes an overly simplistic zero-risk and zero-contaminant approach that is not achievable in the real world nor would it necessarily offer a significant risk reduction.
Case in point: total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) are regulated at a level of 80 parts per billion (ppb.) The standard for TTHMs is calculated for a lifetime of exposure for an average person drinking 2 liters of water with 80 ppb or greater of TTHMs daily, averaged over a full year. Individual exceedances of 80 ppb are therefore allowable and considered acceptable, as long as the average exposure to an individual does not exceed 80 ppb over a whole year of daily drinking. In the EWG report, LADWP is penalized for individual exceedances that were not representative of what was actually served to customers over an entire year, which is how it should be measured.
Our customers should know that while our water is of the highest quality and we meet or exceed all federal and state guidelines, we have also been working vigorously to improve the quality of our drinking water, in anticipation of future regulations and new information on improved technologies and treatment possibilities.
For example, recent new regulations require the City to remove all open reservoirs from service and to reduce the level of disinfection by-products in our system. To meet the new regulations, LADWP is:
- Removing
- Removing from service, covering or treating the water from all other open-air reservoirs including Elysian,
- Expanding our use of chloramines rather than chlorine as a means of ensuring the safety of the water within the system, while minimizing disinfection by-products.
- Constructing major trunkline projects, including the River Supply Conduit, the First Street Trunkline and the City Trunkline that will maximize the value and use of existing covered reservoirs.
LADWP has an excellent track record of water quality compliance with federal and state regulators. Any suggestion to the contrary does a great disservice to our valued customers and to the dedicated men and women who tirelessly work to maintain our high standards.
We agree that a greater focus on the quality of our source water is important but formulating rankings that call in to question the safety of a city’s water supply unnecessarily alarms the public.
###
