If there are traces of pharmaceutical substances in drinking water in Emporia, neither the state nor the federal government requires testing for them.
The issue of trace amounts of those substances and their byproducts has been raised within the past two days as a result of a series of articles published or broadcast in media nationwide.
The Associated Press released the series of water-quality reports after a five-month study involving large and small cities throughout the United States.
The AP conducted a national survey and AP reporters interviewed city managers and water-treatment personnel in randomly chosen cities across the country to determine whether drinking water in those cities contained pharmaceuticals and whether those cities have informed residents about the presence of those contaminants.
The Environmental Protection Agency requires testing for numerous regulated contaminants, but does not require testing for pharmaceuticals, the AP reported.
In 24 major metropolitan cities, the AP reported that tests shows trace amounts of pharmaceuticals had been found in drinking water consumed by an estimated 41 million people.
City Manager Matt Zimmerman said that the story is not a new one.
“This is a story that’s been out there for years,” he said. “If it were considered a problem, the federal government would be mandating that we test for it.”
Emporia does not test for contaminants other than those required for testing.
“The truth is, we meet all of the state and federal testing requirements and we passed those,” Zimmerman said. “... We’re happy to give anybody a copy of the (Consumer Confidence Report) ... but what we don’t do is, we don’t go out there and test for things we’re not required to test for.
“If the state and federal government doesn’t feel they’re a level to be concerned with, why would we go?”
Zimmerman said that testing for those trace substances not identified as hazardous by the state and federal government could become a never-ending task.
“If that was true, we would test for everything. That’s impractical to do,” he said. It also is costly and time-consuming.
“How are you going to test for absolutely everything? The issue with the pharmaceuticals is one of those stories that have gone on for years and years and years.”
Emporia has received state awards and national honors for the quality and taste of its drinking water. It is ranked as the “best-tasting water in Kansas, according to the American Waterworks Association,” Zimmerman said, adding that Emporia water again will compete in the national conference this summer in Atlanta.
Contaminant test results for Emporia for 2007 show that it had no violations from Jan. 1 through Dec. 31. Results of permitted levels of contaminants often were far below the maximums allowed for those substances, according to a brochure published annually about water quality.
Brochures containing the 2007 results already have been mailed to Emporia residents, and copies also are available at the city offices.
The AP story stated that water in major cities such as New York and Philadelphia held traces of pharmaceuticals, including heart medicines, estrogen, anti-convulsants, and medications for high cholesterol and depression.
Mayor Robert Cluck of Arlington, Tex., where a trace of a pharmaceutical had survived the treatment process, refused to name the drug that had been identified in drinking water, the AP reported. Cluck said “identifying it could cause a terrorist to intentionally release more of it, causing significant harm to residents,” the AP story said.
“I don’t want to take that chance,” the AP quoted Cluck as saying. “There is no public hazard and I don’t want to create one.”
The AP quoted Emporia water treatment plant supervisor Ron Rhodes in the second of the three-part series. Emporia had been chosen as one of smaller cities in each state that were polled for the story.
The AP story said that Rhodes would not disclose whether Emporia’s source water or drinking water had been tested for pharmaceuticals.
“Well, it’s because of 9/11. We want everyone to guess,” the AP story quoted Rhodes as saying.
“How, Rhodes was asked, could it endanger anyone to know if Emporia’s water has been screened for traces of pharmaceutical compounds?” the story continued.
“’We’re not putting out more information than we have to put out,’ said Rhodes. ‘How about that?’” the AP reported.
Zimmerman mentioned that while Rhodes may have “overreacted a bit” when the AP reporter called, a request for information can be cause for concern.
“This is water. It’s considered a critical facility in this country,” Zimmerman said. “... We’re not just going to respond to anonymous requests for information.”
Many of the cities polled in the AP survey also were reluctant to reveal information about water quality and its possibly containing traces of pharmaceuticals. Fear of terrorists and contaminated water supplies were on the minds of several who did not want to participate in the AP survey, according to the stories released this week.
Milwaukee, on the other hand, has posted an 11-page report online that details drinking water quality, including test results for 450 unregulated contaminants.
“While they found minute concentrations of continine, a nicotine derivative, they didn’t detect hundreds of other contaminants including estrogen and other hormones, acetaminophen and ibuprofen,” the AP reported.
smith_ron (anonymous) says...
You know, when I walk into a restaurant, I want to know what is in the "Chef's Surprise" before I eat it. When I buy my water from the city, I'd like to know what is in it before I drink it. Why is that a problem?
Mr. Rhodes "overreaction" certainly makes me wonder if he is trying to hide something. If the water is truly clean, then what is the harm in telling us. If it is not, then don't we have the right to know?
March 11, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Blackshirt (anonymous) says...
Whether the testing is necessary or not is a question that remains to be answered but by Mr. Rhodes answer, seems to cast a shadow on the water department in Emporia. "We want everyone to guess", "How about that?". Those comments reak of arrogance are concerning when coming from a public employee. It certainly doesn't shine a very bright light on Emporia.
March 11, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
char9508 (anonymous) says...
RON RHODES COMMENT PRINTED BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS ON MSN.COM REALLY MAKES HIM LOOK LIKE HE IS TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING. WHY DID HE HAVE TO MAKE SUCH COMMENTS AS "BECAUSE OF 9/11, WE WANT EVERYBODY TO GUESS" AND "WE'RE NOT PUTTING OUT MORE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE TO PUT OUT". NO COMMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH BETTER AND MORE PROFESSIONAL.
March 11, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CAFEmporia (anonymous) says...
I agree with smith_ron that the contents of our water should be examined, tested, and made known. This is more than just common sense, it is a health issue.
While there have been complaints "for years and years", as Matt Zimmerman has said, the levels have been thought to have risen (testing has been inconsistent nationwide) and much, much more has become known about the effects of some of these chemicals.
We have a fairly new, state of the art water processing plant which is probably performing its job very well. But unless such testing is done, how would we know?
Thorough water testing should be done as soon as possible. This is an important issue for the city.
CAF
March 11, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justthefacts (anonymous) says...
Ok just remember when your water rates go up a whole bunch because of the extra testing that nobody else requires don't be upset. You can test the water yourself by paying a fee if you are really concerned our you can buy a filter system. Don't make us all pay for something that isn't necessary. At a time when we have commissioners saying they don't want to fund police and fire services we have bigger probleems
March 11, 2008 at 7:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
admireed (anonymous) says...
Which comm. do not want to fund fire and police?
March 11, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smith_ron (anonymous) says...
Ironic that a person who signs his name "justthefacts" does not want to know the facts about the water he or she is drinking. At the very least, I want the testing done and reported so I will know if our state-of-the-art plant is doing the job it is supposed to do. IF not, perhaps it and its manager should leave town.
Speaking of Rhodes, I hope he is a better water plant manager than he is a spokesman and representative of the city of Emporia.
March 11, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
railroadhorn (anonymous) says...
I've had my water tested and you could swim in my drinking water - that's how much chlorine is still present. Not to mention a hardness reading of 11, plus all the gunk that shows up when the water is dyed just enough to see it. Ever spot-rinsed your auto? That's water treated for the aftermath gunk left by most, if not every, town in America. Ever notice how you hair is silky with conditioners? And if you let it rinse long enough, you'll notice your hair becomes less silky - that's from gunk in the water going into our bodies and on our skin. Europe is way ahead of us on treating their municipal water. On top of drugs, if you're drank swimming pool water through your tap for 40-some years since WW1 - scientists can't even say what gets damaged? More cancers probably. The Gazette needs to test some samples. And did you know the Kansas river, which provides water to Lawrence and Topeka is the 4th most polluted river in the US. Lots of things are getting by into tap water.
March 11, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
railroadhorn (anonymous) says...
If you got a swimming pool tester in your house, test your tap water for chlorine. We, along with most people, essentially drink swimming pool water without knowing it.
March 11, 2008 at 10:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cloud (anonymous) says...
Okay, I have a pool and trust me, the water out of the tap is much, MUCH better. Second, Rhoades works at a water plant and was probably not hired for his snappy retorts. He had no way of knowing the AP reporter was who he said he was. To me, Rhoades sounds like a working man trying to get off the phone and back to his job, which is treating water, not talking to reporters.
March 11, 2008 at 11:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mythoughts (anonymous) says...
I don't want to drink drugs. Or heavy metals. Or chlorine. What the heck is going on in this country?
March 12, 2008 at 7:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
railroadhorn (anonymous) says...
cloud - my point isn't about taste. No matter how good it tastes you're drinking chlorine and gunk. And drugs...and who knows what else. Compare your tap water to reverse-osmosis treated water at Countrymart. A gallon for .39 cents. Make coffee with tap and that treated water. Now, tell me which tastes better? Home filtration systems will become more and more common in the furtue.
March 12, 2008 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Absolute (anonymous) says...
I am really bothered by the plant supervisors answers to those questions. Why would he want the people of Emporia to "guess" the quality of our water?
March 13, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lookup (anonymous) says...
Can't a new way of disposing drugs other than flushing them be used? I know when a family member died at my home and hospice was on duty, that's the first thing that was required. I realize the MSNBC article was more about the residual drugs from our bodies, but actual drugs being flushed seems like an obvious thing that can be prevented.
March 13, 2008 at 11:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CassieJo (anonymous) says...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How can I obtain test results on my tap water?
Under new "right-to-know" provisions in the drinking water law,
all tap water suppliers must provide annual water quality reports to their customers.
To obtain a copy, call your water provider (the one that sends your water bills).
You also can test your water yourself, though this can be expensive.
There are state-certified drinking water laboratories in virtually every state
that can test your water. Call your state drinking water program or the
EPA Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800 426-4791) for a list of contacts.
Standard consumer test packages are available through large commercial
labs at a relatively reasonable price.
This information was found on the following website ...
Natural Resources Defense Council
http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qb...
March 14, 2008 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )