By Alex Formuzixs, EWG Communications Director

In 2010, EWG identified chromium-VI contamination in the drinking water of 31 of the 35 cities we tested. One Kentucky city has stepped up to solve that problem.

A change in how drinking water is treated in Louisville, Ky., has dramatically reduced contamination by suspected carcinogen chromium-6.

Environmental Working Group tests made public in December 2010 showed that chromium-6 levels in the Louisville water supply were higher than the safe limit proposed at the time by California public health officials. The dangers of pollution by this industrial chemical, a suspected carcinogen also known as hexavalent chromium, came to national attention in the 2000 film Erin Brockovich.

James Bruggers of the Louisville Courier-Journal reported on Dec. 31 that Louisville Water Co. managers, troubled by the EWG report, discovered that the culprit was lime, a softening agent used at one of its water treatment plants. By adding lime earlier in the process, Bruggers wrote, the utility lowered the chromium-6 level of the plant's finished tap water by 80 percent.

In response to EWG's report that found chromium contamination in 31 of 35 city water supplies tested, the federal Environmental Protection Agency early last year issued guidance to states and water utilities nationwide on how to test for the carcinogen. The agency has since announced plans to set a stringent safety standard for chromium-6 contamination in tap water.

Which states are taking steps to inform residents of chromium-6 in their drinking water? EWG senior scientist Rebecca Sutton reported on Enviroblog last July that California, Hawaii, Illinois and Wisconsin are actively working on the problem. Others, among them Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Oregon, have inadequate testing plans or none at all.

Check for your city's results, if tested, here. EWG's Tips for Safer Drinking Water (left) cover chromium-VI and other contaminants.

By Rebecca Sutton, PhD, EWG Senior Scientist

On July 27, 2011, the state of California put in place a strong, first-in-the-nation, health-based safety goal for hexavalent chromium (or chromium-6), the "Erin Brockovich" chemical, in drinking water. This is an important step toward setting a long-overdue, mandatory limit for this contaminant.

Across the nation, water agencies have conducted hundreds of voluntary tests for this pollutant in response to EWG's startling discovery in 2010 that chromium-6 contamination is widespread in Americans' water supplies.

EPA calls for more testing, but some states aren't helping
When the Environmental Protection Agency, in its own response to EWG's findings, issued a guidance on chromium-6, it suggested that all public water utilities test for it. The EPA said,

"enhanced monitoring will enable public water systems to: better inform their consumers about the levels of chromium-6 in their drinking water, evaluate the degree to which other forms of chromium are transformed into chromium-6 in their drinking water and assess the degree to which existing treatment is affecting the levels of chromium-6."

Oddly, environmental agencies in some states have been an unexpected stumbling block in gathering information about the prevalence of this contaminant in U.S. tap water. Charged with enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act, these agencies have the option to collect and make public voluntary measurements of chromium-6 taken by local water utilities, but the agencies can also refuse the data altogether. Some have an open and transparent attitude that puts consumer information and safety first.

Others, however, have made a decision to deliberately ignore any information on chromium-6. By rejecting a role in the national effort to assess this threat to tap water quality, some state agencies may delay federal regulation of this cancer-causing contaminant. This is, to state the obvious, disheartening.

Some states are part of the solution
A few forward-looking states are dealing with chromium-6 concerns directly:

• California - The Drinking Water Program of California's Department of Public Health provides a summary of results from its long-standing chromium-6 testing program. In the past, water utilities in California used a test that couldn't measure chromium-6 levels below 1 part per billion, but they can now choose to use the more sensitive methodology outlined by the EPA. The information already collected in California will help the state set a reasonable, health-protective limit for chromium-6.
• Hawaii - A leader in transparency and consumer information, the Safe Drinking Water Branch of Hawaii's Department of Health provides online results of drinking water tests conducted on the Big Island as well as Kauai, Maui and Oahu.
• Illinois - The Drinking Water Division of Illinois' Environmental Protection Agency has crafted a statewide strategy for chromium-6 and encourages all community water supplies to test for the contaminant.
• Wisconsin - The Bureau of Drinking Water and Ground Water of Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources reports that any data provided by utilities will be included in its public database.

Some states turn their backs
The Drinking Water Branch of Georgia's Environmental Protection Division and the Division of Water of Kentucky's Department for Environmental Protection told EWG they do not collect information on chromium-6 from utilities.

The Water Quality Division of Oklahoma's Department of Environmental Quality and the Drinking Water Protection Program of Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality have no policies on what to do with chromium-6 data, though testing is underway in both states.

Each state's environmental agency is responsible for monitoring and enforcing tap water standards established by the EPA. Those states that do not collect the voluntary chromium-6 measurements by local water utilities, as suggested by EPA, may prevent federal regulators from obtaining an accurate picture of just how widespread this contaminant is. This information is crucial to establishing a sound, mandatory standard that protects all Americans - not just Californians - from the risks posed by this cancer-causing pollutant.

What's your state doing about chromium-6?
If only four states step up to the plate, there won't be enough data to support a national standard. So go ahead, call or email your state environmental agency (they're easy to find by searching for "state departments of natural resources" online) and ask them to join California, Hawaii, Illinois and Wisconsin in collecting this important information and making it available to consumers, scientists and regulators.

Leave a comment to let us know what you've learned.

By Morgan Andersen, EWG Summer Government Affairs Assistant and Alex Keller, EWG Summer Water Analyst

A new report from Government Accountability Office, Congress's investigative arm, shows that a number of states have made serious errors in tap water safety data reporting. GAO attributed the lapses to inadequate funding and oversight.

The GAO report, released July 19 by Reps. John Dingell (D-MI), Edward Markey (D-MA) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), highlights serious deficiencies in state compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. It comes a week after another GAO report detailed many problems in the implementation of another aspect of the Safe Drinking Water Act: its provisions for monitoring unregulated water contaminants.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates certain contaminants nationwide and issues other guidelines for water quality. However, the EPA grants states the right to monitor and regulate drinking water contaminants if their rules meet or exceed federal standards.

GAO finds serious monitoring lapses

The investigative agency found that when EPA audited 19 states in 2007, fully one-fifth of health-based violations were not reported completely or correctly. In a 2009 audit of 14 states, the percentage of incorrect or incomplete violation reports climbed to 26 percent. In 91 percent of these instances, GAO found, state authorities had failed to cite offending water systems or report the violations.

The GAO estimated that in 2009, states did not report 84 percent of monitoring violations. Many of the systems that had failed to monitor their water quality also incurred actual health-based violations.

Depending on the severity of a water system's lapses, states are empowered to take enforcement actions ranging from advisories to fines. GAO found that states failed to report correctly 27 percent of the enforcement actions lodged against community water systems.

The GAO attributed reporting failures to "inadequate training, staffing, and guidance, and inadequate funding to conduct those activities" on behalf of the states and water utilities.

GAO also scolded EPA for failing to maintain high standards for state reporting and for poor management of compliance assistance funding.

Less reliable data, potentially unsafe water

EPA Administrator Jackson has shown great leadership in developing a comprehensive Drinking Water Strategy. The new strategy was developed to better leverage existing legislation to protect the nation's drinking water supply.

It lays out four goals: "[1] Address contaminants as a groups rather than one at a time so that enhancement of drinking water protection can be achieved cost-effectively. [2] Foster development of new drinking water technologies to address health risks posed by a broad array of contaminants. [3] Use the authority of multiple statutes to help protect drinking water. [4] Partner with states to share more complete data from monitoring at public water systems (PWS)."

While the administrator's actions are welcome, the GAO report is evidence that the EPA should develop its own tap water database and enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act more aggressively.

EPA discontinued its drinking water quality audits last year for lack of money. The GAO said these audits might resume this year but at a slower pace. Without the information generated by this program, Americans have less assurance that their water quality actually meets national standards.

The GAO reports shows that EPA demands too little of the states. The agency's 2006 goal aimed to see that 90 percent of health-based drinking water violations were reported completely and correctly. A 10 percent margin of error is far too high when it comes to serious health risks.

Worse, the EPA has no goal for complete, accurate data on monitoring violations.
The agency attempts to spend its budget on those water systems with the most serious compliance problems. If it does not know which systems are worst, it cannot spend taxpayer money effectively.

The EPA's new Enforcement & Compliance History Online -- ECHO -- database is a notable improvement in advancing public knowledge of water quality nationwide. But if the data feeding into it are flawed, its value is limited.

In response to the GAO report, EPA officials have promised to audit incoming data more intensely. As well, they say that the agency's access to information will advance when its Safe Drinking Water Information System is updated sometime around 2014. It has promised other technical improvements to fill its data gaps.

A problem you can't see is a problem you can't fix

The EPA has been loudly and unfairly criticized for overreaching and needlessly consuming taxpayer money. Yet GAO's findings bring to light how critical it is for Congress to fund the audits that allow EPA to investigate its own workings. Without this funding, the agency will not be able to carry out the enforcement measures it needs to ensure the safety of the American people.

Indeed, top Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee used the report to severely criticize their Republican counterparts for proposing cuts of over $134 million from the EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program, which gives states and water utilities needed funding to assist with legal compliance and the protection of public health.

"Rather than slashing funding for this critical public health resource, Congress should be moving legislation to improve the reporting and policing of drinking water violations," said Waxman, who serves as the committee's ranking member.

Given the evidence the GAO has provided, it is deeply troubling that the EPA risks losing even more funding.

Instead of crippling the EPA's ability to identify and target health violations in tap water reporting, Congress should ensure that the agency can fund internal reviews and fix critical problems. Moreover, the EPA itself should do more to target the worst compliance issues.

All in all, the EPA seems to be moving in the right direction with a strategy that contemplates a more highly integrated and robust approach to gathering data on water safety. Next generation technologies could help it pinpoint the areas and utilities that need compliance funding the most.

But without accurate data in the first place, it's the old story - garbage in, garbage out.

Environmental Working Group's Senior Counsel Dusty Horwitt made his fourth appearance today (March 1, 2011) before the New York City Council's Committee on Environmental Protection to highlight the risks posed by the weakly regulated boom in natural gas drilling.

What keeps him going back to the Big Apple (and no, it's not only the bagels)?

This time it was the Delaware River Basin, a watershed that serves 15 million people from New York to Delaware and could be in danger of being tainted by natural gas drilling unless adequate safeguards are in place.

"The DRBC and New York State have the power - and the responsibility - to protect clean water for millions of citizens. Given what we know of gas drilling's recent track record, the risks are still too great to allow drilling near water supplies."

By Jason Rano, EWG Senior Legislative Analyst

Much has been said and written about the surprising flood of legislation that came out of the lame-duck Congress in the waning days of 2010 - repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, extending (temporarily) the Bush-era tax cuts, overhauling the nation's food safety system, ratifying the START treaty and providing health care assistance to 9/11 workers. It was a lot for any month-long stretch, never mind one in the era of Congressional gridlock.

With hardly any fanfare, however, another important bill passed, one that will go a long way toward protecting Americans' health. Significantly, it also demonstrated that legislating in the public's interest need not get caught in the partisan crossfire.

On Jan. 4, President Obama signed into law the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act. It cleared Congress thanks to the leadership of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), working with two leading Republican senators - EPW's senior minority member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and in the House Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.),

What will the new law do?
The law will reduce the amount of lead allowed in faucets and plumbing fixtures to a tiny fraction of the old limit - from 8 percent to 0.25 percent. This is important because most of the lead that ends up in drinking water leaches out of pipes and fixtures through which the water flows. Lead poisoning can cause memory loss, infertility, impaired intellect and cardiovascular, skeletal, kidney and renal problems.

In the aftermath of last year's election, many in the environmental community have reflected on the implications of the Senate's failure to pass climate change legislation and the rightward shift of the new Congress. Out of that have come calls, including from Environmental Working Group, to "get back to basics" on environmental issues, including focusing on protecting public health.

The bipartisan lead legislation will do just that.

By Rebecca Sutton, PhD, EWG Senior Scientist

When you see news reports about a cancer-causing chemical in drinking water everywhere you turn, you probably have a few questions. Of course you can read EWG's full report, but on the off chance you're pressed for time and just want to know the basics, we put together these 11 questions and answers.

1. What is hexavalent chromium?
Hexavalent chromium (or chromium-6) is a highly toxic form of the naturally occurring metal chromium. It is a well-known human carcinogen when inhaled, and recent evidence indicates it can cause stomach or gastrointestinal cancer when ingested in drinking water. However, a different form, trivalent chromium, is an essential nutrient.

People typically are exposed to chromium-6 by consuming contaminated water or food, and in some workplaces by breathing contaminated air. That's a concern especially for those working in metallurgy or leather-tanning facilities. Ingesting or inhaling contaminated soil particles may also be a source of exposure. Widespread industrial use has led to detections of hexavalent chromium in two-thirds of current or former Superfund toxic waste sites.

2. How does it get into tap water?
Chromium-6 can get into water as a result of industrial contamination from manufacturing facilities, including electroplating factories, leather tanneries and textile manufacturing facilities, or from disposal of fluids used before 1990 in cooling towers. It also occurs naturally in some minerals. The widely used tap water disinfectant chlorine can transform trivalent chromium into the toxic hexavalent form.

3. Why is it a problem?
Exposure in tap water has been linked to cancers of the stomach and gastrointestinal tract in both animals and people. California's Environmental Protection Agency has issued a draft public health goal based on the conclusion that levels of chromium-6 greater than 0.06 parts per billion (ppb) in tap water may increase cancer risk.

Some people may be especially susceptible. Fetuses, infants and children are more sensitive to carcinogenic chemicals. In addition, people with less acidic stomachs appear to have a limited ability to convert chromium-6 to the benign trivalent form (chromium-3), putting them at greater risk. Using common antacids and proton pump inhibitors can lower stomach acidity. Other conditions that can inhibit stomach acid production include infection with Helicobacter pylori (a common bacterium linked to ulcers), pernicious anemia, pancreatic tumors, mucolipidosis type IV and some autoimmune diseases.

4. How can I find out if my tap water has hexavalent chromium in it?
California requires water utilities to test and report levels of chromium-6 in their water. For Californians, this is a good way to find out if this contaminant is a concern in your area. Unfortunately, these tests only measure levels at or above 1 ppb, more than 16 times above the suggested public health goal of 0.06 ppb.

Of the 438 community water sources in California that have provided test data to EWG, 223 detected levels above 1 ppb, and 93 detected levels above 5 ppb. This means more than 13.7 million Californians drink tap water contaminated with chromium-6.

Elsewhere, water utilities only test and report levels of total chromium -- which includes both the toxic form and the essential nutrient chromium-3. Moreover, these tests only detect levels at or above 10 ppb, more than 160 times higher than California's proposed public health goal. If your tap water has detectable levels of total chromium, it's quite possible that it has levels of hexavalent chromium that exceed California's suggested public health goal. The ratio of chromium-3 to chromium-6 varies in different water supplies, so it is difficult to estimate how much of each might be in your water.

Contact your local water utility or check EWG's tap water database to learn if chromium has been detected in your tap water.

5. My tap water has high levels of chromium-6. What should I do?
If your tap water contains high levels, your best bet is to install a reverse osmosis filter certified to remove it. Reverse osmosis filters, especially when combined with superior carbon filter technology, are the best way to remove the largest number of contaminants.
EWG assembled a list of reverse osmosis water filters certified to remove hexavalent chromium and available for purchase on Amazon.com.

See EWG's water filter buying guide for more information on how to choose a water filter.

While drinking bottled water might seem like a good way to avoid exposing yourself to hexavalent chromium in tap water, there is no guarantee that bottled water has lower concentrations of this contaminant. If you drink bottled water, choose brands that provide water quality information indicating their water has levels of chromium-6 below 0.06 ppb or that use reverse osmosis filtration to treat their water.

Because infants can be especially sensitive to carcinogenic chemicals, it is particularly important to use safer water when preparing infant formula. Water treated with a reverse osmosis filter will contain fewer contaminants and be safer for babies than bottled water.

6. Can I test my own tap water for chromium-6?
Most commercial water quality laboratories do not offer this test.

7. Besides drinking water, how else can I be exposed?
Other sources of exposure to hexavalent chromium include contaminated food and contaminated workplace air, especially for those working in metallurgy or leather-tanning facilities. Contaminated soil particles may also be a source of exposure via ingestion or inhalation. Widespread industrial use has led to detections of chromium-6 in two-thirds of current or former Superfund sites.

8. Are some people more vulnerable to the effects?
Yes. Fetuses, infants, and children have a higher sensitivity to carcinogenic chemicals. Their developing organ systems are more susceptible to damage from chemical exposures, and less able to detoxify and excrete chemicals.

In addition, people with less acidic stomachs appear to have a limited ability to convert chromium-6 to chromium-3, exposing them to higher levels of the toxic form and putting them at greater risk. Using common antacids and proton pump inhibitors can reduce stomach acidity. Other conditions that can inhibit stomach acid production include infection with Helicobacter pylori (a common bacterium linked to ulcers), pernicious anemia, pancreatic tumors, mucolipidosis type IV and some autoimmune diseases.

9. What other chemicals in my tap water should I be concerned about?
Check out EWG's tap water database for an in-depth look at water contaminants, including drinking water quality information for 48,000 communities in 45 states and the District of Columbia.

10. What is EPA doing to promote safe drinking water?
Not enough. In the case of hexavalent chromium, the EPA has taken no specific action to limit amounts in drinking water. The agency has left in place an inadequate standard for total chromium, set nearly 20 years ago. It does not distinguish between toxic hexavalent and nutritionally essential trivalent chromium and cites "allergic dermatitis" as the only health concern. The agency has not set a new, enforceable drinking water standard for any contaminant since 2001.

Recently, however, the federal government has begun to focus a critical eye on chromium-6 and other water contaminants. EWG recommends that the EPA set a legal limit for hexavalent chromium in drinking water as quickly as possible and require water utility testing to assess exposures nationwide.

11. Is bottled water a safe alternative?
Drinking bottled water might seem like a good way to avoid exposing yourself to hexavalent chromium, but there is no guarantee that bottled water contains less of this contaminant. Furthermore, there is no legal limit for chromium-6 in bottled water, so consumers cannot assume it is free of it. EWG has assessed bottled water quality and the industry's labeling practices and isn't impressed with either. If you drink bottled water, choose brands that provide water quality information indicating that the water has less than 0.06 ppb of chromium-6 or that use reverse osmosis filtration to purify it. Overall, test results strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. As EWG's Jane Houlihan says,

"It's buyer beware with bottle water. The bottled water industry promotes its products as pure and healthy, but our tests show that pollutants in some popular brands match the levels found in some of the nation's most polluted big city tap water systems. Consumers can't trust that what's in the bottle is anything more than processed, pricey tap water."

You may have kicked the bottled water habit, but has your state government?

EWG has exposed the many downsides of bottled water, from low quality to high costs, piles of plastic waste to inadequate regulation. The new Story of Bottled Water video sums up the saga nicely.

The message hasn't reached most of our state capitols
Of all the things they could be funding (my kids' education, for example), states are spending taxpayer dollars on bottled water (yes, even though they're responsible for your public drinking water infrastructure!) - and not just for those understandable emergency situations or parts of the state where the water isn't drinkable.

According to an analysis by EWG partner Corporate Accountability International (CAI), states are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on bottled drinking water for state employees (can you say: state budget crisis?).

Here's an idea: Use the money for our public water systems
Many public water systems are in desperate need of costly upgrades - which states can't afford. It would make good sense to cut bottled water expenditures and spend it on unfunded infrastructure upgrades, instead.

While the amount being spent on bottled water isn't enough to fill states' (huge) infrastructure funding gaps, savings of any kind are important for state budgets these days (especially those with nothing but positive outcomes), and any additional funding for our failing water systems is welcome.

Plus, states shouldn't send the message that their tap water isn't good enough for state employees to drink. Bottled water companies already create that misperception to their benefit - and the detriment of tap water, which has an image problem.

Some local governments are getting off the bottle
Three states (Illinois, New York, and Virginia) and more than 100 cities have taken steps to cut spending on bottled water. For example, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom passed an executive order that phases out city spending on bottled water and invests the recouped funds in the city's public water system. As a result, the city is saving $500,000 a year simply by not buying bottled water. As the CAI report notes,

"...spending taxpayer money on bottled water is an unnecessary expense that sends the wrong message about the importance of the public water systems cities are entrusted to maintain."

So it's not just about ditching the silly bottled water, it's about the very serious job of maintaining the nation's drinking water systems, a lot of which are in bad shape.

New York has made the most progress by directing state agencies to phase out the purchase and use of single-serve and "large format" bottles. Governor David A. Patterson states his reasoning for taking action - which EWG applauds:

"Taxpayers have spent billions of dollars to ensure that we have clean drinking water supplies. If we are going to make such significant investments, we should reap the benefits and use that water."

Want to know more?
Read Corporate Accountbiity's Getting States Off the Bottle report. If you live in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania or Vermont, it'll tell you who's supplying the bottled water, what state agencies are buying it, and what the state could be doing instead.

And by all means, kick the bottled water habit if you haven't already. It's probably one of the easier vices to drop, right?