The recent DWP public relations stunt to drop 400,000 black plastic balls on a reservoir in Silver Lake led me to take a closer look at the utility's 2006 annual water quality report which claimed "all' water everyone in L.A. drank that year met "all" state and federal health safety standards.
But hidden in plain sight in the fine print in language that obscured the truth was the fact that much of the water contained contaminants above those standards. The DWP, following inadequate environmental laws, claimed the opposite by taking an average of all its water tests -- not specifying how long and in what areas people got tainted water that far exceeded the average for the year.
Well the 2007 DWP water quality report came out this week and probably showed up in your mail in the last day or two.
Again, DWP General Manager David Nahai -- the conservationist whose personal use of water far exceeds the average L.A. residents -- again hides the truth behind a lump sum annual average.
"Last year, all 200 billion gallons of water supplied to the 4 million residents of Los Angeles met or surpassed all health-based drinking water standards," Nahai wrote.
Again, the DWP acknowledges that chlorine used to disinfect water sometimes results in creation of carcinogens that studies suggest could be harmful to health, especially to pregnant women and unborn fetuses. The department continues to promise to use chloramines instead of chlorine soon, something that has been an issue for years.
In the tables we find that the disinfection process in 2007 led to levels of trihalomethanes (TTHM) that average 68 units, which is slightly below the standard of 80. However, the range was 18 to 132 units, meaning a lot of water exceeded the standard.
The same was true for haleoacetic acids, another by product of disinfection, which averaged 42 units compared to a standard of 60. However, the range was 7 to 173 units.
Not to worry though, if you want to take DWP's word for it
.
But hidden in plain sight in the fine print in language that obscured the truth was the fact that much of the water contained contaminants above those standards. The DWP, following inadequate environmental laws, claimed the opposite by taking an average of all its water tests -- not specifying how long and in what areas people got tainted water that far exceeded the average for the year.
Well the 2007 DWP water quality report came out this week and probably showed up in your mail in the last day or two.
Again, DWP General Manager David Nahai -- the conservationist whose personal use of water far exceeds the average L.A. residents -- again hides the truth behind a lump sum annual average.
"Last year, all 200 billion gallons of water supplied to the 4 million residents of Los Angeles met or surpassed all health-based drinking water standards," Nahai wrote.
Again, the DWP acknowledges that chlorine used to disinfect water sometimes results in creation of carcinogens that studies suggest could be harmful to health, especially to pregnant women and unborn fetuses. The department continues to promise to use chloramines instead of chlorine soon, something that has been an issue for years.
In the tables we find that the disinfection process in 2007 led to levels of trihalomethanes (TTHM) that average 68 units, which is slightly below the standard of 80. However, the range was 18 to 132 units, meaning a lot of water exceeded the standard.
The same was true for haleoacetic acids, another by product of disinfection, which averaged 42 units compared to a standard of 60. However, the range was 7 to 173 units.
Not to worry though, if you want to take DWP's word for it
.
Ron Kaye
I'm so glad you ferret out this stuff for us. A notice in the mail or one in my DWP bill is ignored, and if it stands alone, gets trash without being opened.
I think I'm coming to the conclusion that I'm better off not reading all this stuff. And I'm concluding that no matter what we do or what guarantees they give us, everything is contaminated with something or other.
If it not the food or water itself...it's the plastic container it comes in or the rusty old pipes it flows through. And it doesn't matter if it's so-called health food or normal, average junk food. It's all wrapped in plastic.
It's one reason I try to buy meat at Whole Foods; it's not vacuum packed which uses a gas for sealing, and when you open the package of meat this horrid odor wafts up at you. Most noticeably with pork and hamburger products.
I believe the final total of black ball when they get done dumping all of them will be more than a billion.
Don'tcha wish we had that much balls?
If they cannot properly operate existing technology to produce clean water, and if they lie about that fact, I'm even less inclined to trust them when they urge us to drink recycled toilet water.
How about, as an alternative to toilet water, we stop trying to cram a million more people into the city limits each year? Indeed, while we're at it, perhaps we could even persuade a few thousand -- or hundred thousand -- who are here illegally to return to their own country.
One way to conserve water is to reduce the demand by reducing our population density. Wouldn't that be nicer than switching to toilet water and sponge baths?
Great post!