By Alex Rindler, Government Affairs Associate

Nearly 40 Marine veterans diagnosed with male breast cancer today urged President Obama to support legislation in Congress that would provide health care for those made ill by carcinogenic chemicals that contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

"We, the undersigned, are constituents of the largest male breast cancer cluster ever identified - 73 men," begins a letter circulated by the Environmental Working Group on December 14, 2011 and signed by veterans, their dependent children and surviving family members. "What happened to us is no coincidence."

Over a period of 30 years, an estimated one million servicemen and women, their families and civilian workers at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune were exposed to tap water polluted by known carcinogens. These include trichloroethylene (TCE), vinyl chloride and benzene - all classified as known human carcinogens by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.

It took too long to act
The Marine Corps leadership was aware of the contamination years before steps were taken to remove the chemicals from the drinking water. Thousands of veterans from the base have filed for disability compensation with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, but only a handful have been approved for benefits so far. Mike Partain, a son and grandson of Marine officers who was born at Camp Lejeune and was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2007, poses important questions:

"These men are just one small group of the tens of thousands of Marines, sailors, their families and base employees who have been affected by their exposures to the fouled drinking water. Will the medical help we need arrive only after we have all passed away? How many men with breast cancer will it take for our country to recognize that everyone exposed to the contaminated drinking water at Camp Lejeune was poisoned? Where is this nation's honor for our veterans and their families?"

Help may be on the way
Two pending bills - the Caring for Camp Lejeune Veterans Act of 2011, introduced by Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), and the Janey Ensminger Act, introduced by Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.) - would provide medical care and services to the affected veterans and family members. Both have bipartisan support. And EWG's support.

The Camp Lejeune incident, the largest documented case of drinking water contamination at a domestic military facility, is the subject of the award-winning film Semper Fi: Always Faithful. The film, which takes its name from the Marine Corps motto, was recently short-listed for an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary Feature.

Watch the trailer here:

Semper Fi: Always Faithful Trailer from Rachel Libert on Vimeo.

Want to see it yourself? Find a screening near you.

By Jane Houlihan, EWG Senior V-P for Research

More than 300 pollutants contaminate the water Americans drink, an EWG analysis of almost 20 million public records found. Truly pure tap water is a rare commodity in the U.S., but until now, at least, consumers have had an easy way to find out what's in the glass they're holding.

That could change if two Florida Congressmen get their way.

Under federal law, nearly every water supplier is required to mail to its customers an annual water quality report, called a Consumer Confidence Report, and many utilities also post them online. These documents list the pollutants detected in the water during the year by the utility's testing, how those contaminants might harm people's health, any violations of water quality standards, how the water is treated, and more -- the basics everyone should know about their water. Here's an example.

A bill (HR 1340) introduced by Republicans Bill Young and Gus Bilirakis would make it much harder for the public to get this vital information. Under their proposal, utilities would no longer need to mail the reports to customers unless testing found that a regulated contaminant had exceeded the legal limit (called the Maximum Contaminant Level or MCL) during the year. If not, reports could just be posted on the Internet. The two representatives argue that it's unnecessarily expensive to require the mailed reports.

This idea would be fine if the legal limits for tap water fully protected people's health and covered every contaminant in their water. Neither is true. The annual water quality reports that customers now get in the mail also list unregulated pollutants that EPA requires utilities to test for - chemicals for which no legal limit has been set - as well as those detected at legal but still troubling levels.

Why are these facts important to know?

• More than half of the pollutants found in tap water are not subject to any health or safety limits and can legally be present in any amount, and;
• The fact that a regulated pollutant is found at a level below the allowable limit is no guarantee of safety. The Environmental Protection Agency has set legal limits for 40 percent of regulated contaminants higher than the health-based levels its scientists recommend, often because achieving a lower level is considered too costly or technically impractical. The annual water quality report lists contaminants found in the water regardless of whether they exceed the legal limit or not.

The EPA stresses to utilities the importance of the annual water quality reports:

"It is important to communicate to your customers, and your customers have the right to know, the source of the water and what is in the water they drink. [Consumer Confidence Reports] help consumers make informed choices that affect the health of themselves and their families. They also encourage consumers to consider and appreciate the challenges of delivering safe drinking water. Educated consumers are more likely to help protect their drinking water sources and to understand the true costs of safe drinking water."

How can people make informed choices about their water ­- choices that affect their health ­- if they don't know what's in it? How many would know to go to their utility¹s website and download an annual water quality report after July 1 each year? Would you? And what about the one-fifth of all Americans who don't use the Internet, according to a 2010 study by the Pew Research Center? They cancall the utility and ask for a report, but how many will?

When everyone gets the report in the mail, more people learn about their water than would otherwise. In fact, the EPA urges utilities to send the report in a separate mailing, not with water bills, so that renters and other non-bill payers will be sure to get a copy.

EWG's message to utilities is this: be sure to use recycled paper, and then send a report to everyone who drinks your water. Until tap water is pure and safe for everyone, EWG believes that it's crucial to get the word out about what's in water and how to protect drinking water sources from pollution in the first place - loud and clear, online, in the mail and any other way the information can get out.

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

A new report from the 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 quality database (to fill that gap, EWG creates one from local data) 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 meets national standards.

The GAO reports also shows that EPA demands too little of the states. The agency's 2006 goal was for 90 percent of health-based drinking water violations to be 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 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. They also 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 cannot 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 this new GAO 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 (which this report shows is lacking), it's the old story - garbage in, garbage out.

By Alex Keller, EWG Summer Water Analyst

Recently, we took a look at the water-saving potential of residential "gray" water, which, naturally, leads people to wonder: Can I use this technology in my home, too?

The answer? It depends.

Some states stricter than others
Nearly all states have long required that households dispose of used water through the sewer system, no matter its quality and purpose. Georgia exemplifies the antiquated status quo in gray water law: all used water must be filtered and treated like sewage. Homeowners who want to use gray water -- water from baths, showers and laundry -- would have to install a full-fledged treatment system. This makes no financial sense, so they don't.

But recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency endorsed gray water use in order to conserve fresh water, and some states have been moving to relax their laws to permit gray water to be channeled to landscaping and toilets. Several states -- California, New Mexico and Texas -- are encouraging responsible gray water use in order to alleviate water shortages in drought-prone regions. The added benefit: they reduce the amounts of chemicals being used in wastewater treatment.

But individual state laws vary widely. For instance:

• California and New Mexico permit do-it-yourself projects that meet basic health standards. California, New Mexico and Texas allow surface drip irrigation of plants if it minimizes contact with humans and domestic animals and doesn't lead to ponding or runoff.
• Other states, among them Arizona and Utah, have intricate regulations that make the installation of home gray water systems prohibitively difficult, specifically:

Arizona has separate laws for surface and subsurface gray water use - with "surface" defined to mean soil to a depth of two feet. The state requires a filtration device and a settling tank to separate solids from gray water. Fecal coliform levels in gray water released within two feet of the ground's surface must be monitored daily. This task is not feasible for most homeowners.

Utah allows only subsurface drip irrigation. A local health department must clear the design before its installation.

When considering a gray water system, research your local wastewater laws carefully. Every state has its own set of regulations and guidelines, and municipalities often add more restrictions.

Where your gray water comes from and where it goes matter
Gray water includes untreated water from bathtubs, showers, bathroom sinks and washing machines, although specific definitions vary from state to state. Most gray water definitions don't include:

• Kitchen sinks and dishwashers, because the water contains food waste;
• Garage drains and other drainages likely to be contaminated with toxics or hazardous chemicals.

In some communities, gray water may be used for drip irrigation and toilet flushing. Building systems for these purposes is relatively simple.

In other places, you can use gray water only for underground irrigation. That means you must construct trenches and subterranean drainage fields that meet restrictions to protect the water table, flood plains, nearby water bodies and land uses.

A gray water system usually has a holding tank to regulate flow and maintain releases within legal limits. Most states that permit gray water use require that these tanks be covered or enclosed to prevent them from becoming breeding places for mosquitoes and from creating other water-related health problems.

Gray water pipes and tanks generally must be labeled as such and frequently must read "non-potable" to prevent accidental consumption.

Increasingly, gray water laws focus on results, not design. By establishing clear, simple safety expectations for residential gray water systems, states and municipalities can minimize paperwork, technical details and headaches for everyone involved.

How to install a gray water system
Guides for DIY-gray water systems are plentiful. Many are free and accessible online through states and municipalities or from manufacturers of gray water recycling equipment.

Here are a useful few sites:

• Grey Water Action
• Oasis Design Builders Guide
• Oasis Design Laundry How To
• Sustainable Backyard

Prefabricated gray water systems can cost a few thousand dollars, so they may not be for everyone. Some locations like Arizona offer government rebates to offset installation costs.

Even if a gray water system is not for you, you can save water around the home by using classic strategies such as running your washer when it's full and aiming outdoor sprinklers judiciously.

Have you installed a residential gray water system? If so, please share your experiences! Here's one personal account to learn from.

[A big thanks to Flickr CC and krikit for the hose water pic.]

By Jason Rano, EWG Senior Legislative Analyst, Morgan Andersen, EWG Summer Government Affairs Assistant, and Alex Keller, EWG Summer Water Analyst

A Government Accountability Office investigation released last week has found that the Environmental Protection Agency's efforts to protect drinking water and public health from dangerous contaminants are inadequate.

During a hearing of the Senate Environment and Public Works, David Trimble, GAO Director of Natural Resources and Environment, testified that in 2003 and 2008, EPA's unregulated contaminant monitoring program decided not to regulate 20 contaminants.

These decisions were based on data availability, not concern about public health, Trimble said. The agency lacked significant occurrence and health effect data, the GAO found, because it did not require testing for nine contaminants, as the law permits. Some of the data the agency acquired was collected with insensitive methods.

EPA Needs Better Internal Guidance and Policies
The report by the GAO, Congress's watchdog arm, emphasized that the agency needed to develop better internal guidance and policies to carry out its responsibilities under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. In 11 of the 20 decisions EPA's Office of Water did not consider children's health as required by law and failed to develop specific testing levels for children.

Part of the problem, according to GAO, was that the agency has not developed internal guidance on when and how to analyze the effects of contaminants on children. The GAO concluded that EPA has not defined when a contaminant is of great public health concern and has not developed a process to decide which contaminants merit higher priority for study. The report singled out EPA's dismissal of the risks of perchlorate, a chemical used in rocket fuel and munitions. The report found that this decision, made by the Bush administration in 2008, was not based on a full, publicly visible review of the available scientific evidence. The Obama administration reversed the decision soon after taking office.

Robert Perciasepe, EPA's deputy administrator, responded that the agency was moving to address many of these shortcomings and to act more rapidly and transparently. He said that the agency hoped to increase efficiency by regulating multiple similar chemicals as a group and that it was giving priority to the protection of vulnerable populations such as women and children.

What about Chromium-6?
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) asked whether residents of Norman, Okla., are at risk from chromium-6 in drinking water. EWG fans will remember from our December 2010 report, "Cancer-causing Chromium-6 Pollution in U.S. Tap Water," that Norman had the highest detected level of hexavalent chromium of 35 city water supplies tested.

Dr. Steven Patierno, head of the George Washington University Cancer Institute and a defense witness in chromium-6 lawsuits, testified that Norman residents are "absolutely not" at risk. After his statement, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) sharply questioned his credibility and told him "[i]f people came with your attitude and... appeared in court in favor of the defense we wouldn't get anywhere....That's just not going to get us anywhere when money gets involved in the equation."

The National Toxicology Program, an arm of the National Institutes of Health, has developed what it calls "strong evidence" that water containing chromium-6 causes cancer in lab animals. An EPA draft toxicology assessment released last September also cited significant cancer concerns.

Chairwoman Boxer said she and the committee would look closely at the EPA's progress in implementing the GAO report's recommendations to ensure that all Americans, particularly women and children, have access to reliably safe drinking water. We certainly hope they do. It would be hard for the agency to do any less.

By Alex Keller, EWG Summer Water Analyst

When I was growing up in Pennsylvania, my mother used to admonish me to conserve water during droughts. "Turn off the faucet while you brush your teeth," she'd say, "and take a shorter shower." Most people have heard this advice. But is it the most effective way to reduce water use?

This might come as a surprise, but fully half of home water use occurs outdoors. Watering a garden, lawn or those new trees commonly requires more water than washing the day's dishes, doing a load of laundry or taking an entire family's worth of showers.

Deconstructing home water use
Research by Colorado-based water engineering firm Aquacraft has found that 46 to 59 percent of residential water consumption goes on outdoors. In summer, a time of intense lawn watering and (naturally) heaviest water shortages, outdoor use claims up to 78 percent of the total.

That's a lot of water out of the hose.

As one would expect, research has shown outdoor water use to be strongly tied to climate. A lawn of turf grass in an arid region, of course, needs more watering than the same lawn in a wetter area. Those hot, dry areas tend to have a lot of swimming pools, as well - another water hog.

Ironically (and perhaps tragically), the places using the most water outside are the places that often have the least water to spare. People in the arid Southwest use 59 to 67 of their scarce water outdoors, compared to only 22 to 38 percent in cooler, wetter regions.

The good news is that there are efficient methods to irrigate lawns and gardens.

Treated water for you - and your plants?
If you draw your water from a municipal utility rather than a well, all the water piped to your home has been treated to drinking water quality -- at a significant cost to ratepayers. When we spray treated water on lawns and golf courses and pipe it through the toilet, that's overkill.

Researchers and water conservation departments say that much of the water we use inside, depending on its first use, can be recycled for certain forms of irrigation as what is commonly known as gray water.

Gray water is a win win
In a 2010 study, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Water Research Foundation estimated that gray water reuse systems can save at least 30 percent of total household water consumption. Yet the same study found that only 7 percent of American households are using these systems. Even in California and Texas, the two states where gray water technology has gained greatest acceptance, fewer than 15 percent of households have installed such systems.

Gray water is a promising concept popular with smart growth advocates around the globe because it offers immediate savings. Municipal utilities encourage gray water systems because they ease pressure on the water treatment plant and reduce wastewater. Homeowners can offset the installation costs of gray water systems with lower water bills - a definite plus these days - and guiltlessly enjoy outdoor plants, even in arid regions.

Sound like a good idea? Come back soon for our next blog in which we take a look at some of the laws on gray water use in different states and assess different ways household water can be reused.