Blue Gold, European Water Partnership Blog

With the launch of Blue Gold, the European Water Partnership (EWP) is creating a communication platform for the EWP, its members, the European water community, stakeholders and those interested in water at large.

Blue Gold is in important tool in achieving EWP's mission to be an action-oriented forum for all stakeholders including local, national and European governmental agencies, knowledge institutes, business, non-governmental organizations, public and private financial institutions, end-users and civil society groups. It constitutes a platform for exchanging views, finding solutions for water challenges in wider Europe and stimulating cooperation and partnerships.

Read more...

Global Trends 2025: Water shortages threaten food security, energy supply and geopolitical stability

The word on the world is out and, water-wise, it is far from encouraging. The US National Intelligence Council’s (NIC) Global Trends 2025 report predicts that by the year 2025, 600 million people across 21 countries will experience cropland or freshwater scarcity.

“Among the new entrants will be Burundi, Colombia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Malawi, Pakistan, and Syria. Lack of access to stable supplies of water is reaching unprecedented proportions in many areas of the world and is likely to grow worse,” the report indicates. The potential for a downward spiral is fueled by continued rapid urbanization, population growth, increased agricultural demand and hydroelectric power generation.

Hydroelectric dams, as a source of power, are also likely to cause increased political tension as farmers downstream worry about adequate water flow for crop production. As irrigation consumes 70 percent of H2O in developing countries, the study intimately ties water supply to food security. Also of concern in the report is political security. “With water becoming more scarce in several regions, cooperation over changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult within and between states, straining regional relations.”

The National Intelligence Council cites water as a pivotal issue in emerging global conflicts. “For most countries, strategic rivalries are likely to revolve around trade, investment, technology innovation, and acquisition,” it portends. “However, increasing worries about resources—such as energy or even water—could easily put the focus back on territorial disputes or unresolved border issues.” The greater Middle East is a likely area for such disputes over water, the study foreshadows.

Full report: NIC Global trends 2025

Rising sea threatens millions in Egypt

By Jonathan Spollen, Assistant Foreign Editor, The National

More than two million Egyptians will lose their homes within the next 25 years and at least six million will have been made homeless by the end of this century as a result of rising sea levels caused by climate change, according to a UN report.

The State of the World’s Cities Report 2008/9: Harmonious Cities, by the UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), says a sea level rise of 50cm will lead to major coastal erosion, flooding and a rise in the water table, forcing two million people in Egypt’s north coast and delta region to abandon their homes.

It will also wipe out 214,000 jobs, cost US$35 billion (Dh128.5bn) in lost property and tourism income and result in the destruction of world-famous historic, cultural and archaeological sites.

According to studies by institutes in Egypt, the Mediterranean has been rising two centimetres each year for the past 10 years, meaning it will take at most 25 years before what the UN calls a “catastrophe” will unfold in northern Egypt.

But many analysts believe the impact of rising sea levels will be even greater and felt sooner.

“This is not just something that happens in 2050 or 2100, it is happening now, slowly but surely,” said Salah Soliman, of Alexandria University’s faculty of agriculture who holds regular workshops on combating climate change.

According to Prof Soliman, people in towns and villages across the north coast are already making plans to leave as the sea begins to encroach their land.

Residential and commercial buildings farther inland are beginning to suffer foundation damage as the water table rises, leaving them vulnerable to collapse, especially in the case of earthquakes.

“People know their houses will be demolished in a few years,” Prof Soliman said.

As well as structural damage, farmers throughout the delta are losing crops to the rising water table as the salty seawater contaminates the groundwater and makes the soil infertile.

This is particularly worrying given nearly half of Egypt’s agriculture – including such crops as wheat, rice, corn and cotton – takes place in the delta region.

While the delta accounts for only 2.5 per cent of Egypt’s land mass, more than one-third of the population lives there. Alexandria on the north coast is Egypt’s second biggest city with an estimated population of five million.

Moreover, projections of how many people will be affected by the rising sea levels use current population estimates, but Egypt’s population of 80m is expected to double by 2050.

The north coast is famous for its beautiful sandy beaches, but in past decades many have receded or, as is the case in Alexandria, disappeared.

While certain measures have been taken to slow coastal erosion, such as constructing breakwaters along the beaches, scientists and researchers say it is too late to prevent or reverse the encroachment of the sea and the rise of the water table and planning now needs to focus on “adaptation” and damage limitation.

Boshra Salem, the chairwoman of Alexandria University’s department of environmental sciences, said vulnerable areas should be identified and not built upon, but pointed out that construction work in such areas, particularly along the coastlines, continued unabated.

“There are some touristic projects that are still ongoing in the shores and beaches, and these will definitely be affected,” Prof Salem said.

Relocation plans for people in affected areas are urgently needed and future building in such areas must be avoided, said Prof Soliman, of the university’s agriculture faculty.

As for farmland, he said, one possibility was to develop crops that are resistant to high levels of salt to cope with the inevitable increase in salinity.

Maged George, Egypt’s environment minister, insists the government is working on a national strategy to adapt to climate change and rising sea levels.

Moreover, Mohamed el Shahawy, a climate scientist at the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency, told the Associated Press the government was obtaining a “vulnerability index and detecting the most vulnerable regions”.

Though he admitted Egypt would need international assistance.

“Egypt is trying to protect its shores,” Mr Shahawy said. “After this we will request that the world help. We have to protect ourselves. But it costs so much.”

Another problem both experts and the government face is public apathy. Many Egyptians in the delta region live in dire poverty and are more concerned with putting food on the table.

Sensationalist coverage of the rising sea levels in local media has not helped either, Prof Salem said, leading to public scepticism over how serious it really is.

“Some people believe in it and some don’t. This is because [there were] a lot of exaggerations in the newspapers and TV that were not built on sound scientific data… So people started to worry about other living problems.”

European Water News Linked-in Group

To facilitate interaction between water professionals, European Waternews has created a group in LinkedIn. Are you in LinkedIn and are you working in water management or related, go and connect! You can find likeminded people easier and others can find you. This makes cooperating easier and allows the business to flow, research to be accomplished and stimulates the whole sector. And you will get the group logo in your profile too! Go and connect

007’s Water War Based in Reality, Not Fiction

by Christopher Bergendorff, Science Central

Bond vs the Water Crisis

In the latest James Bond film, “Quantum of Solace,” 007faces a villain who takes control of a country’s “most precious resource”: fresh water. Why H2O? The film’s director, Marc Forster, believes the world is in for a serious water crisis.

“Water will be, really, the next huge problem I think humanity is going to face,” says Forster, adding, “It was very important for me, as we were discussing the theme of the movie, we all wanted to do it about natural resources. And in a sense, focus more about water … that oil is the issue of the past.”

The World Health Organization says more than a billion people worldwide are without access to safe drinking water and more is polluted each day. Peter Gleick, water resources expert and founder/director of the Pacific Institute, an environment and society research center, says Forster was right to focus on water rater than oil.

“There’s a growing debate about the importance of oil to our national security, and I think that without a doubt, oil is critical to our national security,” says Gleick. “But ironically, I would argue that water is even more important to our national security. There are substitutes for oil; there are no substitutes for water.”

He says the film’s plot, with its villains trying to control over water supplies, is in fact a reality today. He thinks the situation is getting worse and says conflicts over water resources are escalating.

“We’re already seeing an increase in violence over water, and I’m afraid that in the next few decades, if we’re not much more serious about solving some of the water problems we have, that we’re going to see those episodes of violence get worse and worse,” says Gleick.

But could the situation get so bad that a Bond-esque villain could hijack a nation’s water supply?

“We already see efforts to control the water resources of regions, or countries, for political purposes. Ironically, I think this art imitating life in many ways,” says Gleick. “The truth is there are problems everywhere around the world in growing severity, associated with our failure to manage water in a sustainable way.”

And a case of art pointing out a social need. Director Marc Forster experienced the water crisis first hand while on location in the Chilean desert. In some places, he saw that fresh drinking water had to be brought in by truck, just to meet the basic needs of the people living there.

“There’s a shortage everywhere you go. And it’s just sort of a reality that they are dealing with that I think that we here in the West are not accustomed to,” says Forster.

Critical Crisis?

Gleick believes that the water crisis isn’t a problem for the future, but a dire situation that must be addressed right now at the national, community, and individual level. Most importantly, Gleick believes we must reassess the way we view our freshwater resources.

“We just have to manage water in a much more sustainable way. We’ve not thought about water as a long-term resource, as a vulnerable resource. And yet, increasingly it is,” says Gleick.

“We want to rethink water supply,” he adds. “In the old days, we used to think: build another dam, tap another water aquifer, build another aqueduct to move water from farther and farther away, that was the solution to all of our problems. But that’s no longer enough. We’ve tapped all the water aquifers we can tap.”

He says the solution will need to be a mix of change in behavior, change in policy, and technology advances that help manage water better.

“We have to rethink what we mean by supply, we have to think about reusing waste water, we have to think about rain water harvesting, maybe even desalination of the ocean’s seawater,” he says. “But we also have to rethink demand. We can reuse water much more efficiently, we can reduce the amount of water required to do the things we want to do. We can grow more food with less water, we can make semi-conductors and the goods and services that we want, with less water. We can basically be much more efficient, and reduce our water resources.”

And Forster thinks that this is an issue that far too many people are still unaware of or simply unwilling to deal with.

“It’s just an enormous problem, and people still, I think, are a little bit in denial about it,” says Forster.

Hopefully this holiday season, Bond film fans can take a hint and decipher this not-so-secret message from the world’s favorite secret agent. 

Experts warn of water shortages by 2080

Climate change expected to drastically reduce availability of drinking water

The Associated Press

Half the world’s population could face a shortage of clean water by 2080 because of climate change, experts warned Tuesday.

Wong Poh Poh, a professor at the National University of Singapore, told a regional conference that global warming was disrupting water flow patterns and increasing the severity of floods, droughts and storms — all of which reduce the availability of drinking water.

Wong said the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that as many as 2 billion people won’t have sufficient access to clean water by 2050. That figure is expected to rise to 3.2 billion by 2080 — nearly tripling the number who now do without it.

Reduced access to clean water — which refers to water that can be used for drinking, bathing or cooking — forces many villagers in poor countries to walk miles to reach supplies. Others, including those living in urban shanties, suffer from diseases caused by drinking from unclean sources.

At the beginning of the decade, the World Health Organization estimated that 1.1 billion people did not have sufficient access to clean water.

Most vulnerable region: Asia
Asia, home to more than 4 billion people, is the most vulnerable region, especially India and China, where booming populations have placed tremendous stress on water sources, said Wong, a member of the U.N. panel.

“In Asia, water distribution is uneven and large areas are under water stress. Climate change is going to exacerbate this scarcity,” he told the two-day Asia Pacific Regional Water Conference attended by policy makers, government officials, academics, businessmen and consumer group representatives.

Scientists have said global climate change takes many forms, causing droughts in some areas while increasing flooding and the severity of cyclones in others. Droughts reduce water supply, and floods destroy the quality of water. Rising sea levels, for instance, increase the salt content at the mouths of many rivers, from which many Asians draw their drinking water.

“As human civilization develops, the environment is increasingly affected in negative ways. Floods, drought, changing rainfall patterns and rising temperatures are signs of our misdeeds to nature,” said Rozali Ismail, head of a state water association in Malaysia.

Calls to embrace Kyoto Protocol
Wong and others at the conference called on governments to embrace the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty to fight global warming and protect water resources, as a short-term solution.

But eventually governments must build infrastructure to protect coastal areas, improve management of water basins and adopt new technologies to enhance availability and reliability of water resources, Wong said.

The United Nations is currently campaigning to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol — which regulates the emissions of 37 industrial countries — with another accord at a meeting in Copenhagen in December 2009.

The Kyoto Protocol was signed by 183 nations in 1997. But the United States — long the world’s biggest emitter, though it is now rivaled by China — rejected the plan over concerns it would harm the American economy.

Developing countries such as China and India also refused to accept a binding arrangement that they said would limit their development.

Mapping the future of water supply

By Gretchen Peters, The National

Imagine you are a city planner in 2025. The population of your desert city has grown at a steady three per cent annually for the past 15 years, dramatically increasing urban sprawl.

Meanwhile, climate change has boosted temperatures, reducing the amount of water flowing into two river systems that supply the city.

How will you keep the taps running?

That is the kind of scenario confronting scientists and city planners inside the hi-tech Decision Theater drum at Arizona State University (ASU).

They plug variables into the WaterSim, an interactive, multi-panel computer programme that gauges water supply in response to climate change, drought, population growth and changes in government policy.

Imagine meteorologists are predicting a three-year drought. Can city officials make up the shortfall in supply by repairing chronic leaks in the city pipes?

Michael Tschudi, who helped develop the WaterSim, adjusts the variables with the click of a mouse, watching red dials swing back and forth to indicate shifting supplies.
The programme is highly flexible, able to take into account minute swings in temperature, changes in groundwater runoff and sudden population growth.

Say the levels of the Colorado River drop precipitously: will Phoenix be able to draw enough water from underground reservoirs or should city officials impose regulations, such as a ban on private swimming pools?

“We can plug in various options and see which gets us to where we need to be,” Dr Tschudi said.

The WaterSim is one of a host of projects at ASU’s Decision Center for a Desert City, an institute trying to improve the sustainability of desert communities.

Though much of their work is focused on the western US and Arizona in particular, the centre is attracting the attention of desert communities around the world, including in the Gulf.

In October, it was awarded the Prince Sultan Bin Abdulaziz International Prize for Water, a biannual cash award from the environmental research centre at King Saud University in Riyadh.

“The main thrust of our programme is water,” said Patricia Gober, the centre’s director. “We ask the question: How do we use our scarce recourses in the face of climate change and population growth?”

As anyone living in the UAE knows, desert living presents special challenges and requires careful planning for the future.

The centre, a part of ASU’s school of sustainability, has helped city planners in Phoenix design new neighbourhoods, and draw up building permits that can accommodate the rapidly growing population.

Now home to 4.2 million, it is estimated Phoenix could have 9m residents by 2050.
It has traditionally been a city of single-family homes, many with an irrigated green lawn and a swimming pool out back. That means about two-thirds of the water used in Phoenix goes toward outdoor use – a rate that cannot continue if the city’s population and temperatures continue to rise.

The centre also studies the so-called “urban heat island” – a night-time phenomenon where cities retain heat absorbed from the Sun, making it less comfortable for residents and prompting them to use higher amounts of energy and water.

Urban areas retain heat longer because of the prevalence of building materials such as asphalt and cement, which cool slowly. With 70 per cent of the developed world living in cities, finding ways to keep urban areas cooler will be crucial to reducing energy use, the scientists said.

The effect of the heat island can be dramatic: rapid urbanisation in Phoenix over the past half-century has raised night-time temperatures by more than five degrees Celsius.

Subhrajit Guhathakurta, an associate professor at ASU’s school of planning, has calculated that water use in Phoenix has increased two per cent for every one per cent increase in night-time temperature, a staggering amount for a city where water is scarce.

“One of the main ways to mitigate the heat island effect is with irrigated lands, but that takes more water,” Ms Gober said. “The question is always: Where do we get the most bang for our buck?”

Comparing weather data and detailed maps of new home constructions over the past 15 years, scientists at the centre were also able to map out which type of developments raised temperatures the most.

Urban planners are now looking at zoning only for higher-density home developments for Phoenix, perhaps built around public swimming pools. They are already irrigating public parks and golf courses with untreated water, and offering tax incentives for families who replace their lawns with native desert plants.

ASU scientists are also helping city planners in Phoenix understand how building materials affect the urban heat island.

Harvey Bryan, of the ASU school of design within the school of sustainability, and his research assistants use infrared cameras to examine how different building materials retain heat. Dark asphalt and certain forms of cement glow white on the infrared screen, even hours after the Sun has set.

In addition to Phoenix, Prof Bryan and his team have examined the cities of Las Vegas, Chicago and London, comparing satellite images with pictures shot from helicopters and infrared visuals taken at the pedestrian level.

“At each level we get new data about how the various materials cool off,” he said.
They find that each city, because of its distinct environment, has a unique urban heat island and a unique solution to its problem. It is often simple solutions – not costly new technology – that can make the difference.

In Chicago, for example, Prof Bryan has recommended the city install rooftop gardens, which appear to have a tremendous cooling affect in the northern, relatively humid climate.

“The mayor likes the plan so much he is talking about making roof gardens a requirement on new buildings,” Prof Bryan said.

But that programme would not work as well in desert climates, where the lack of moisture means roof gardens would have to be watered.

In desert cities such as Phoenix, he often recommends city planners pave their streets less deeply, and use lighter shaded pavement, which would reflect the Sun’s rays.

“If we continue to put in more pavement, we have to consider the impact on temperature,” he said. “We believe we can bring down city temperatures by reducing the amount of dark asphalt.”

Ms Gober said the economic downturn in the United States, which has brought a real estate boom in Phoenix to a grinding halt, may have a silver lining from an environmental standpoint.

“One positive thing that can come out of the recent housing crisis is that we take a breath and look where we are going and whether it is sustainable,” she said. “We should take this moment to think about what kind of city we want to build.”

Cash crunch hits Abu Dhabi water company

By Travis Pantin, The National

The global credit shortage is making it difficult for the Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity Company (Adwea) to finance new infrastructure projects and the company has been forced to seek short-term financing to make up for the flight of traditional large-scale lenders.

“This is a challenge for us,” said Abdulla Saif al Nuaimi, the director of privatisation at Adwea, at a conference in Abu Dhabi on Sunday. “The markets are not like before.”

The global financial crisis has made international and regional banks reluctant to lend money, especially in the amounts required for Adwea’s large-scale projects. The credit shortage has created concerns among analysts that vital infrastructure and property developments in the country may have to be postponed or cancelled for lack of funding.

Mr Nuaimi said Adwea is seeking short-term financing as a stopgap measure, until international credit conditions return to normal. “We believe the market will not continue to be like that … Within one-to-two years, we think things will be settled,” he said.

In the meantime, the company is seeking “bridge” financing, or short-term loans usually extended in exchange for equity shares. The loans will keep Adwea’s operations running until the international credit market stabilises, at which point Adwea will seek funding at better rates, Mr Nuaimi said.

A Shower Meter That Measures Water Use While Y0u Scrub

There are many useful ways to conserve water. The ECO Showerdrop from Product Creation bills itself as being the world’s first low-cost, universal shower meter.

The company, based in Britain, uses a numerical display to show how many liters of water you’ve used and how much time you’ve spent in the shower.

The shower meter also comes with a man-shaped icon that displays the volume of water recommended for a shower (as suggested by British water authorities). When the icon indicates you’ve used 35 liters, a buzzer sounds for five seconds. The meter continues to measure water use up to 99 liters, after which point, well, get out already.

The company says that customers in the United States can tailor the ECO Showerdrop to read in gallons and can change the recommended 35-liter benchmark.

The recently introduced ECO Showerdrop has no United States distributor yet, but stateside customers can purchase the product for £10 (around $16) and shipping from the online retailer Ethical Superstore www.ethicalsuperstore.com. 

San Francisco restaurants switch to tap water

By Tracey Taylor, Financial Times

At The Blue Plate, a popular bistro in the Mission district of San Francisco, chilled water is offered in old-fashioned, heavy glass milk bottles. Across the Bay at Chez Panisse in Berkeley, Alice Waters thought carefully before choosing decanters etched with the restaurant’s name in which to serve filtered water, still or lightly carbonated in-house, according to customer preference.

What you won’t find at either restaurant is the once ubiquitous bottle of Perrier or San Pellegrino. Selecting one’s brand of mineral water may once have been considered as important a decision as choosing the right wine, but those days may be numbered in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Environmental concerns are the main motivation – both the perceived unnecessary food miles involved in shipping water from France, Italy or Fiji, and the impact of clogging landfill sites with plastic bottles.

Earlier this year the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, a former restaurateur himself, called for city restaurants to serve tap water. This followed his decision to cut the city’s budget for bottled water last year, saving an annual $500,000 (£323,000).

To some in the business, Newsom’s request was viewed as political gesturing because a number of restaurant owners had long since ditched the bottle.

“I don’t think he should be congratulated for advocating something that should have been done years ago,” says Mark Pastore who owns Incanto, where bottled water has never been on the menu.

Since it opened six years ago, this popular neighbourhood spot in San Francisco’s Noe Valley, has served free filtered, chilled water, no ice. Pastore says the primary reason is hospitality.

“I wanted to remove that awkward moment when the customer is confronted with the choice between tap or bottled,” he says.

Pastore says the Bay Area is fortunate in having excellent water on tap. The quality of the water that flows from the foothills of the Sierras and supplies much of the Bay Area is said to be among the best in the nation. When the American Waterworks Association Research Foundation recently tested 20 water systems around the country for compounds used in medicines, household cleaners and cosmetics, it found San Francisco’s water almost alone in being free of contaminants.

Old habits die hard, however, and Americans drink more bottled water than milk, coffee or beer. It’s a $16bn (£10bn) industry and restaurant sales make up about 6 per cent of that.

Pastore says he hasn’t had any complaints, particularly once customers understand what is being offered and why. And it’s been nothing but positive feedback from diners at Chez Panisse too, says restaurant manager, Mike Kossa-Rienzi, who says it used to get through 25,000 bottles of San Benedetto a year before it switched to filtered tap water in 2006.

Even as more eco-conscious customers embrace the trend, there is likely to be residual resistance from restaurants with an eye on the bottom line. A restaurant can price a bottle it has bought for $1 or $2 for between $5 and $10. That is a much higher profit margin than for wine which, typically, is marked up by around 200-300 per cent. Mayor Newsom conceded this when he acknowledged that not every restaurant would be able to afford to take bottled water off the menu.

Financial pressure on the industry has been exacerbated by wage inflation and food costs, as well as diminishing sales volume, according to Kevin Westlye, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. For Westlye the issue is also one of choice.

“Restaurants must please their customers and that means offering the widest choice, including bottled water for those who prefer it,” he says.

He believes, however, that most restaurants are evaluating how to become more sustainable. At upscale seafood restaurant Aqua in downtown San Francisco, the majority of patrons have traditionally favoured Norwegian Voss spring water at $8.50 a bottle. But Renee Simms, speaking for the restaurant, says more than half their customers now order tap water and the management decided to switch to a local bottled water.

“It just seems smarter,” she says. 

Mining mess could poison Peru’s water

LIMA (Reuters) - Peru’s government said on Wednesday it fears the coming rainy season could cause an environmental mess by destabilizing tailing ponds near a river that provides drinking water to the capital, Lima.

Gold Hawk Resources of Canada, a tiny metals company, stopped production in May at the processing plant for its Coricancha mine as a preventative measure.

An emergency decree the government issued in July helped stop farmers from irrigating crops on the hills above the tailing site over concern the irrigation water could put pressure on the walls of the ponds, which contain toxic chemicals.

But now the rainy season is approaching.

“With the rains, there could be filtration on the hillside and cause a disaster that would affect the central highway, a mining facility, a hydroelectric plant, and the tailings would reach the Rimac River, causing a big disaster of contamination,” said Environment Minister Antonio Brack.

The company says it is waiting for a permit from the government that would allow it to open a new tailing facility that has been built in a safe location, 18 miles away from the plant, which sits 55 miles east of Lima.

The ponds, close to the Rimac river that runs into the Pacific Ocean, have about 744,000 metric tonnes of tailings, the government said.

Brack said the mines and energy ministry is preparing another emergency measure to finance the clean-up of a potential slide in the area.

Peru’s civil defense agency has also recommended the contents of the existing tailing ponds be emptied to “avoid a possible collapse that could result in the loss of lives.”

(Reporting by Marco Aquino, Terry Wade and Teresa Cespedes; Editing by Christian Wiessner)

Aquaterra 2009 Open for Registration

Amsterdam RAI will host Aquaterra 2009 from 10 to 12 February 2009. Professionals involved with the management and development of delta and coastal areas around the world will put this event in their diaries. The organisers have opened the registration on the event website.

Aquaterra contributes to robust and sustainable developments and focuses on bringing together all stakeholders, questioning, showing and discussing a variety of international cases, projects, and concepts.

For all delta professionals in the world, Aquaterra provides:
• A platform for presenting and sharing knowledge and experience
• A place to meet and develop collaboration with potential partners
• Bridging the gap between sectors and finding mutual interests.

Website: http://tinyurl.com/69mtk7

Contributing to European Regional Document for 5th World Water Forum

The Thematic coordinators within the European Regional Process are currently undertaking the writing of the Regional Document. Everyone is very much welcomed to contribute to it, not later than 15 November 2008.

To have your say in the elaboration of the first drafts of this document, please get in touch
with the coordinators of the eight European themes or with the EWP. Additionally, if you would like to give your comments on the drafts (available on the EWP website from 15 November) you can do so until 1 December by sending them to Lucilla Minelli.

The European Regional Document aims to provide a clear overview of the actions taken per theme, the challenges Europe faces and the recommendations to address these challenges, making sure to follow up on the work done for the fourth World Water Forum and initiatives already undertaken in Europe. It will also focus on best practices in Europe.

The European Regional Document should serve as a guidance document for future policy development in Europe on the themes and as input in the political process during the Forum.  

This Document will consist of a chapter for each of the themes of the European Regional Process, focusing on the best practices in Europe and leading to key European messages and policy recommendations for each of the themes. More information on the European Regional Process and a detailed set up of the Document are available at the website of the European Regional Process. 

Bottled Water Quality Investigation: 10 Major US Brands, 38 Pollutants

Bottled water contains disinfection byproducts, fertilizer residue, and pain medication

Authors: Olga Naidenko, PhD, Senior Scientist; Nneka Leiba, MPH, Researcher; Renee Sharp, MS, Senior Scientist; Jane Houlihan, MSCE, Vice President for Research, Environmental Working Group (EWG)

The bottled water industry promotes an image of purity, but comprehensive testing by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reveals a surprising array of chemical contaminants in every bottled water brand analyzed, including toxic byproducts of chlorination in Walmart’s Sam’s Choice and Giant Supermarket’s Acadia brands, at levels no different than routinely found in tap water. Several Sam’s Choice samples purchased in California exceeded legal limits for bottled water contaminants in that state. Cancer-causing contaminants in bottled water purchased in 5 states (North Carolina, California, Virginia, Delaware and Maryland) and the District of Columbia substantially exceeded the voluntary standards established by the bottled water industry.

Unlike tap water, where consumers are provided with test results every year, the bottled water industry does not disclose the results of any contaminant testing that it conducts. Instead, the industry hides behind the claim that bottled water is held to the same safety standards as tap water. But with promotional campaigns saturated with images of mountain springs, and prices 1,900 times the price of tap water, consumers are clearly led to believe that they are buying a product that has been purified to a level beyond the water that comes out of the garden hose.

To the contrary, our tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted. Given the industry’s refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified.

Figure 1. Pollutants in Walmart and Giant Bottled Water Exceed Industry and California Standards

The California legal limit of 10 parts per billion (ppb) for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) in bottled water has been set by the California Health and Safety Code, Division 104, Part 5 (Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, CDPH 2008). The industry standard, Bottled Water Code of Practice, published by the International Bottled Water Association (IBWA 2008a), also sets a limit for TTHMs at 10 ppb. Two of the TTHM chemicals, bromodichloromethane and chloroform, are regulated in California under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, also known as Proposition 65 (OEHHA 2008). For bromodichloromethane, a concentration above 2.5 ppb exceeds a cancer safety standard, as established by the state of California (OEHHA 2008). The standard is based on the Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level for bromodichloromethane at 5 micrograms per day. For a water consumption rate of 2 L/day (Title 27, California Code of Regulations, Article 7, Section § 25721), this corresponds to a contaminant concentration in water of 2.5 ppb. The concentration values indicated by the bars correspond to findings from the specific brand purchased at the specific location. For the entire dataset, see section Walmart and Giant Water Exceeds Safety Limits. Two independent samples of Sam’s Choice water were purchased in Oakland, CA, with total trihalomethane levels at 21 and 23 ppb and levels of bromodichloromethane at 7.7 and 8.5 ppb. Two independent samples of Acadia water were purchased in Stafford, VA with total trihalomethane levels at 22 and 23 ppb.

Laboratory tests conducted for EWG at one of the country’s leading water quality laboratories found that 10 popular brands of bottled water, purchased from grocery stores and other retailers in 9 states and the District of Columbia, contained 38 chemical pollutants altogether, with an average of 8 contaminants in each brand. More than one-third of the chemicals found are not regulated in bottled water. In the Sam’s Choice and Acadia brands levels of some chemicals exceeded legal limits in California as well as industry-sponsored voluntary safety standards. Four brands were also contaminated with bacteria.
Walmart and Giant Brands No Different than Tap Water

Two of 10 brands tested, Walmart’s and Giant’s store brands, bore the chemical signature of standard municipal water treatment — a cocktail of chlorine disinfection byproducts, and for Giant water, even fluoride. In other words, this bottled water was chemically indistinguishable from tap water. The only striking difference: the price tag.

In both brands levels of disinfection byproducts exceeded safety standards established by the state of California and the bottled water industry:

* Walmart’s Sam’s Choice bottled water purchased at several locations in the San Francisco bay area was polluted with disinfection byproducts called trihalomethanes at levels that exceed the state’s legal limit for bottled water (CDPR 2008). These byproducts are linked to cancer and reproductive problems and form when disinfectants react with residual pollution in the water. Las Vegas tap water was the source for these bottles, according to Walmart representatives (EWG 2008).

* Also in Walmart’s Sam’s Choice brand, lab tests found a cancer-causing chemical called bromodichloromethane at levels that exceed safety standards for cancer-causing chemicals under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65, OEHHA 2008). EWG is filing suit under this act to ensure that Walmart posts a warning on bottles as required by law: “WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.”

* These same chemicals also polluted Giant’s Acadia brand at levels in excess of California’s safety standards, but this brand is sold only in Mid-Atlantic states where California’s health-based limits do not apply. Nevertheless, disinfection byproducts in both Acadia and Sam’s Choice bottled water exceeded the industry trade association’s voluntary safety standards (IBWA 2008a), for samples purchased in Washington DC and 5 states (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and California). The bottled water industry boasts that its internal regulations are stricter than the FDA bottled water regulations(IBWA 2008b), but voluntary standards that companies are failing to meet are of little use in protecting public health.

Broad Range of Pollutants Found in 10 Brands

Altogether, the analyses conducted by the University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory of these 10 brands of bottled water revealed a wide range of pollutants, including not only disinfection byproducts, but also common urban wastewater pollutants like caffeine and pharmaceuticals (Tylenol); heavy metals and minerals including arsenic and radioactive isotopes; fertilizer residue (nitrate and ammonia); and a broad range of other, tentatively identified industrial chemicals used as solvents, plasticizers, viscosity decreasing agents, and propellants.

The identity of most brands in this study are anonymous. This is typical scientific practice for market-basket style testing programs. We consider these results to represent a snapshot of the market during the window of time in which we purchased samples. While our study findings show that consumers can’t trust that bottled water is pure or cleaner than tap water, it was not designed to indicate pollutant profiles typical over time for particular brands. Walmart and Giant bottled water brands are named in this study because our first tests and numerous followup tests confirmed that these brands contained contaminants at levels that exceeded state standards or voluntary industry guidelines.

The study also included assays for breast cancer cell proliferation, conducted at the University of Missouri. One bottled water brand spurred a 78% increase in the growth of the breast cancer cells compared to the control sample, with 1,200 initial breast cancer cells multiplying to 32,000 in 4 days, versus only 18,000 for the control sample, indicating that chemical contaminants in the bottled water sample stimulated accelerated division of cancer cells. When estrogen-blocking chemicals were added, the effect was inhibited, showing that the cancer-spurring chemicals mimic estrogen, a hormone linked to breast cancer. Though this result is considered a modest effect relative to the potency of some other industrial chemicals in spurring breast cancer cell growth, the sheer volume of bottled water people consume elevates the health significance of the finding. While the specific chemical(s) responsible for this cancer cell proliferation were not identified in this pilot study, ingestion of endocrine-disrupting and cancer-promoting chemicals from plastics is considered to be a potentially important health concern (Le 2008).
With Bottled Water, You Don’t Know What You’re Getting

Americans drink twice as much bottled water today as they did ten years ago, for an annual total of over nine billion gallons with producer revenues nearing twelve billions (BMC 2007; IBWA 2008c). Purity should be included in a price that, at a typical cost of $3.79 per gallon, is 1,900 times the cost of public tap water.1 But EWG’s tests indicate that in some cases the industry may be delivering a beverage little cleaner than tap water, sold at a premium price. The health consequences of exposures to these complex mixtures of contaminants like those found in bottled water have never been studied.

Unlike public water utilities, bottled water companies are not required to notify their customers of the occurrence of contaminants in the water, or, in most states, to tell their customers where the water comes from, how and if it is purified, and if it is merely bottled tap water. Information provided on the U.S. EPA website clearly describes the lack of quality assurance for bottled water: “Bottled water is not necessarily safer than your tap water” (EPA 2007b). The Agency further adds following consumer information:

Some bottled water is treated more than tap water, while some is treated less or not treated at all. Bottled water costs much more than tap water on a per gallon basis… Consumers who choose to purchase bottled water should carefully read its label to understand what they are buying, whether it is a better taste, or a certain method of treatment (EPA 2007b).

In conjunction with this testing program, EWG conducted a survey of 228 brands of bottled water, compiling information from websites, labels and other marketing materials. We found that fewer than half describe the water source (i.e., municipal or natural) or provide any information on whether or how the water is treated. In the absence of complete disclosure on the label, consumers are left in the dark, making it difficult for shoppers to know if they are getting what they expect for the price.

Figure 2. Walmart and Giant Are Bottling Tap Water

The municipal water sources of the Walmart’s Sam’s Choice and Giant’s Acadia bottled waters were identified either by calling the company representatives (Walmart) or from the label (Giant). Data on the levels of disinfection byproducts (total trihalomethanes or TTHMs) in these municipal water sources were obtained from Blairsville (GA) Water Department, Las Vegas Valley Water District, and Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. These data were from tap water tests carried out in 2007, which the water utilities disclosed to their customers in the annual reports. For every utility the range of values from lowest to the highest represents the concentrations of TTHMs that were found in the tap water over the course of the year.

This study did not focus on the environmental impacts of bottled water, but they are striking and have been well publicized. Of the 36 billion bottles sold in 2006, only a fifth were recycled (Doss 2008). The rest ended up in landfills, incinerators, and as trash on land and in streams, rivers, and oceans. Water bottle production in the U.S. uses 1.5 million barrels of oil per every year, according to a U.S. Conference of Mayors’ resolution passed in 2007, enough energy to power 250,000 homes or fuel 100,000 cars for a year (US Mayors 2007). As oil prices are continuing to skyrocket, the direct and indirect costs of making and shipping and landfilling the water bottles continue to rise as well (Gashler 2008, Hauter 2008).

Extracting water for bottling places a strain on rivers, streams, and community drinking water supplies as well. When the water is not bottled from a municipal supply, companies instead draw it from groundwater supplies, rivers, springs or streams. This “water mining,” as it is called, can remove substantial amounts of water that otherwise would have contributed to community water supplies or to the natural flow of streams and rivers (Boldt-Van Rooy 2003, Hyndman 2007, ECONorthwest, 2007).
Recommendations

Currently there is a double standard where tap water suppliers provide information to consumers on contaminants, filtration techniques, and source water; bottled water companies do not. This double standard must be eliminated immediately; Bottled water should conform to the same right-to-know standards as tap water.

To bring bottled water up to the standards of tap water we recommend:

* Full disclosure of all test results for all contaminants. This must be done in a way that is readily available to the public.

* Disclosure of all treatment techniques used to purify the water, and:

* Clear and specific disclosure of the name and location of the source water.

To ensure that public health and the environment are protected, we recommend:

* Federal, state, and local policymakers must strengthen protections for rivers, streams, and groundwater that serve as America’s drinking water sources. Even though it is not necessarily any healthier, some Americans turn to bottled water in part because they distrust the quality of their tap water. And sometimes this is for good reason. Some drinking water (tap and bottled) is grossly polluted at its source – in rivers, streams, and underground aquifers fouled by decades of wastes that generations of political and business leaders have dismissed, ignored, and left for others to solve. A 2005 EWG study found nearly 300 contaminants in drinking water all across the country. Source water protection programs must be improved, implemented, and enforced nationwide (EWG 2005b). The environmental impacts associated with bottled water production and distribution aggravate the nation’s water quality problems rather than contributing to their solution.

* Consumers should drink filtered tap water instead of bottled water. Americans pay an average of two-tenths of a cent per gallon to drink water from the tap. A carbon filter at the tap or in a pitcher costs a manageable $0.31 per gallon (12 times lower than the typical cost of bottled water), and removes many of the contaminants found in public tap water supplies.2 A whole-house carbon filter strips out chemicals not only from drinking water, but also from water used in the shower, clothes washer and dishwasher where they can volatilize into the air for families to breathe in. For an average four-person household, the cost for this system is about $0.25 per person per day.3 A single gallon of bottled water costs 15 times this amount.

EWG’s study has revealed that bottled water can contain complex mixtures of industrial chemicals never tested for safety, and may be no cleaner than tap water. Given some bottled water company’s failure to adhere to the industry’s own purity standards, Americans cannot take the quality of bottled water for granted. Indeed, test results like those presented in this study may give many Americans reason enough to reconsider their habit of purchasing bottled water and turn back to the tap.

Footnotes.
1 A recent survey documented bottled water prices ranging from $0.89 to $8.26 per gallon (Food and Water Watch 2007). Retail prices vary widely depending on whether people are buying bottled water in bulk or individual bottles. Given this wide range in prices, EWG assumed a flat $1.00 per liter price per liter (or $3.79 per gallon), which is what most consumers would pay for a typical liter bottle of water bought from a convenience store. In comparison, EPA estimates that tap water costs consumers about $0.002 per gallon, on average, nationwide (EPA 2004).
2 EWG compared the prices and capacities of 7 faucet-mounted and pitcher filters. The prices ranged from $19.99 to $39.99 with treatment capacities ranging from 40 gallons to 100 gallons. With this information, we estimate an average cost of these types of systems as $0.31 per gallon.
3 EWG compared 5 different whole house carbon filter units and documented prices in the range between $64.99 to $795 per unit, with life spans between 3 and 36 months. Thus, the annual cost is in the range of $260 - $595 with an average of $375. This leads to an estimated cost of $1.00/day that translates into $0.25 daily cost per person for an average four-person household.
EWG’s Guide to Safe Drinking Water

View EWG’s guide to Safe Drinking Water
Drinking plenty of good, clean water is important for a healthy body. Read EWG researchers’ top tips to learn how to stay hydrated while cutting down on your exposures to common drinking water pollutants.
Bottled water

Drink filtered tap water instead. You can read the bottle label, but you still won’t know if the water is pure and natural, or just processed, polluted, packaged tap water. EWG found 38 contaminants in 10 popular brands.
Tap water

Learn what’s in it. Tap water suppliers publish all their water quality tests. Bottled water companies don’t. Read your annual tap water quality report. Look up your city’s water in EWG’s National Tap Water Atlas. (Private well? Get it tested.)
Filtered tap water

Drink it, cook with it.

* Carbon filters (pitcher or tap-mounted) are affordable and reduce many common water contaminants, like lead and byproducts of the disinfection process used to treat municipal tap water.
* Install a reverse osmosis filter if you can afford it, to remove contaminants that carbon filters can’t eliminate, like arsenic and perchlorate (rocket fuel).

Filters

Change them. Change your water filters on time. Old filters aren’t safe – they harbor bacteria and let contaminants through.
On the go

Carry water in safe containers. Hard plastic bottles (#7 plastic) can leach a harmful plastics chemical called bisphenol A (BPA) into water. Carry stainless steel or other BPA-free bottles. Don’t reuse bottled water bottles. The plastic can harbor bacteria and break
down to release plastics chemicals.
While Pregnant

Stay hydrated with safe water. It’s especially important for women to drink plenty of water during pregnancy. Follow all the tips
above, and take your doctor’s advice on how much to drink.
Infants

Use safe water for formula. Use filtered tap water for your baby’s formula. If your water is not fluoridated, you can use a carbon filter. If it is, use a reverse osmosis filter to remove the fluoride, because fluoridated water can damage an infant’s developing teeth. If you choose bottled water for your infant, make sure it’s fluoride-free. Learn more at http://www.ewg.org/babysafe.
Breathe Easy

Use a whole house water filter. For extra protection, a whole house carbon filter will remove contaminants from steamy vapors you
and your family inhale while showering and washing dishes.
Walmart and Giant Water Exceeds Safety Limits

The Environmental Working Group’s bottled water testing turned up a surprise finding: bottled waters from Walmart (the Sam’s Choice brand) and Giant Foods (Acadia brand) showed high levels of disinfection byproducts (DBPs) known as trihalomethanes, chemicals linked to cancer and birth defects. These chemical contaminants are the tell-tale markers that are typically found in municipal tap water.

* Walmart’s Sam’s Choice bottled water purchased in the San Francisco bay area was polluted with disinfection byproducts called trihalomethanes at levels that violate the state’s legal limit for bottled water. These byproducts are linked to cancer and reproductive problems and form when disinfectants react with residual pollution in the water. The legal limit is 10 parts per billion (ppb) in bottled water in California (CDPR 2008); Walmart’s bottled water purchased in Oakland and Mountain View contained more than double the limit (21 to 37 ppb). Las Vegas tap water was the source for these bottles, according to Walmart representatives (EWG 2008).

* Also in Walmart’s Sam’s Choice brand, lab tests found a cancer-causing chemical called bromodichloromethane at levels that exceed safety standards under California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65, OEHHA 2008). EWG is filing suit under this act to ensure that Walmart posts a warning on bottles as required by law: “WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.” The limit for this chemical under Proposition 65 is 2.5 ppb, using the state’s standard assumptions for water consumption; levels in Walmart’s water from Mountain View and Oakland ranged from 7.7 to 13 ppb.

* These same chemicals also polluted Giant’s Acadia brand at levels in excess of California’s safety standards, but this brand is sold only in Mid-Atlantic states where California’s health-based limits do not hold sway. Nevertheless, disinfection byproducts in both Acadia and Sam’s Choice bottled water exceeded the industry trade association’s voluntary safety standard (IBWA 2008) of 10 ppb for trihalomethanes, for samples purchased in 5 states and Washington DC. Acadia water with levels exceeding the industry’s safety limit was purchased in 3 states (Maryland, Delaware and Virginia) and Washington, DC and was bottled from municipal tap water supplies in Maryland’s DC suburbs, according to the bottle label. The Walmart water was purchased in California and North Carolina and was bottled from municipal tap water supplies in Las Vegas and Georgia, according to Walmart representatives (EWG 2008).

Most developed nations have guidelines to control disinfection byproducts in drinking water so as to minimize consumers’ exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals while maintaining adequate disinfection and control of water-borne bacteria (Richardson 2007). EPA tap water regulations allow some quantities of these byproducts, which form when residual organic pollutants combine with chlorine and other water disinfection chemicals. Yet, largely unknown to consumers is the fact that FDA, the agency charged with overseeing bottled water quality, permits the same level of DBPs in bottled waters as allowed by the EPA for tap water (FDA 2008b). FDA-sanctioned presence of known carcinogens in bottled water highlights the woeful insufficiency of federal regulations over bottled water production. As a result of the FDA’s hands-off approach to bottled water standards, quality among brands and even among different bottles within a single brand varies tremendously. As uncovered by EWG, while some bottled waters appear to be purified or treated more than tap water, others contain excessive levels of chemical pollutants.

EWG analysis of bottled waters sold by the Walmart and Giant Foods stores, discovered that every one of five Acadia brand waters and four out of eleven Sam’s Choice brand waters contained disinfection byproducts, especially trihalomethanes (THMs), such as chloroform and bromodichloromethane, chemicals considered carcinogenic to humans (Richardson 2007) and included as such in the California’s Proposition 65 list (OEHHA 2008). The trihalomethane levels detected in the nine samples are below the weak and nearly meaningless FDA limit of 80 parts per billion (ppb) for these chemicals in bottled water. However, all samples exceeded the bottled water industry self-proclaimed maximum level of 10 ppb for total THM contamination, with average trihalomethane levels of 25 ppb in Acadia’s brand waters and 24 ppb in THM-containing Sam’s Choice brand waters (Tables 1 and 2). These findings clearly demonstrate that in the absence of strong, enforceable federal standards, voluntary industry guidelines do not provide uniform bottled water quality promised to the consumers.

Table 1. Acadia Filtered Drinking Water
Purchase Location Contaminants Concentration Detected in Bottled Water
Middletown, DE Chloroform 25 ppb
Bromodichloromethane 3.7 ppb
Total Trihalomethanes 29 ppb
Fluoride 0.91 ppm
Silver Spring, MD Chloroform 12 ppb
Bromodichloromethane 1.9 ppb
Total Trihalomethanes 14 ppb
Fluoride 0.76 ppm
Stafford, VA (1) Chloroform 19 ppb
Bromodichloromethane 2.7 ppb
Total Trihalomethanes 22 ppb
Dichloroacetic Acid 2 ppb
Fluoride 0.94 ppm
Stafford, VA (2) Chloroform 20 ppb
Bromodichloromethane 3 ppb
Total Trihalomethanes 23 ppb
Fluoride 0.87 ppm
Washington, DC Chloroform 31 ppb
Bromodichloromethane 4.9 ppb
Total Trihalomethanes 36 ppb
Fluoride 1.07 ppm

Table 2. Sam’s Choice Purified Drinking Water
Purchase Location Contaminants Concentration Detected in Bottled Water
Mountain View, CA Chloroform 15 ppb
Bromodichloromethane 13 ppb
Chlorodibromomethane 8.2 ppb
Bromoform 0.8 ppb
Total Trihalomethanes 37 ppb
Oakland, CA (1) Chloroform 10 ppb
Bromodichloromethane 8.5 ppb
Chlorodibromomethane 4.2 ppb
Total Trihalomethanes 23 ppb
Oakland, CA (2) Chloroform 9.6 ppb
Bromodichloromethane 7.7 ppb
Chlorodibromomethane 3.7 ppb
Total Trihalomethanes 21 ppb
Fayetteville, NC Chloroform 12 ppb
Bromodichloromethane 2.3 ppb
Total Trihalomethanes 14 ppb
Camden, DE Chloroform ND*
Total Trihalomethanes ND
Cromwell, CT Chloroform ND
Total Trihalomethanes ND
Columbia, MD Chloroform ND
Total Trihalomethanes ND
Stafford, VA Chloroform ND
Total Trihalomethanes ND
Portland, OR Chloroform ND
Total Trihalomethanes ND
Vancouver, WA Chloroform ND
Total Trihalomethanes ND
Los Angeles, CA Chloroform ND
Total Trihalomethanes ND

*ND (not detected): samples did not contain these chemicals above detection limits.

In addition to being more than twice higher than the voluntary standard to which the bottled water industry clearly fails to adhere, the detected THM levels exceeded the health-protective limit of 10 ppb set for THMs in bottled water by the state of California (CDPH 2008). EWG testing raised especial concerns about Sam’s Choice brand water retailed in California. Among the four tested Sam’s Choice bottled waters from California stores, three contained trihalomethanes, and all three were over the 10 ppb CA state limit, with average concentration of 27 ppb.

The mixture of trihalomethanes in California-retailed Sam’s Choice waters included chloroform, a known human carcinogen (NTP 2005) regulated in California under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65). According to the California EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), a safety standard for oral exposure to chloroform is at 10 ppb concentration (OEHHA 2008). The standard is based on the Proposition 65 No Significant Risk Level for ingested chloroform at 20 micrograms per day. For a water consumption rate of 2 L/day (Title 27, California Code of Regulations, Article 7, Section § 25721), this corresponds to a 10 ppb concentration of contaminant in drinking water. The levels of chloroform detected in three out of four Sam’s Choice bottled waters from CA are between 9.6 and 15 ppb, very close to or over this limit. And while this level of exposure may be tolerated by a healthy person with average daily water consumption, it could pose greater risks for persons who consume significantly larger quantities of water every day or for vulnerable subpopulations.

In addition to chloroform, two other trihalomethanes were detected in Sam’s Choice waters purchased in California: bromodichloromethane (average concentration 9.7 ppb) and chlorodibromomethane (average concentration 5.3 ppb). Acadia’s brand contained bromodichloromethane at 3.2 ppb average concentration. Both bromodichloromethane and chlorodibromomethane are genotoxic and carcinogenic in animal studies (Richardson 2007). Like chloroform, bromodichloromethane is listed in the California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (OEHHA 2008), with the safety standard of 5 micrograms per day, corresponding to 2.5 ppb concentration in water. The concentration of bromodichloromethane in three California samples of Sam’s Choice water exceeded this guideline between three and five times, potentially posing an unacceptable risk to bottled water drinkers.
Why are disinfection byproducts tainting bottled water?

The bottled water industry builds its sales marketing the image of purity and casting doubt on the quality of tap water, leading bottled water drinkers to believe that they are purchasing a pristine product with no health risks whatsoever (Doss 2008, Edberg 2008). Less touted by the industry is the fact that bottled water manufacturers can and do use ordinary municipal tap water supplies to fill up the bottles (FDA 2008b). After the water has been pumped from the source and treated at taxpayers’ expense, bottled water companies sell it back to the consumers at a vastly increased cost. As uncovered by the EWG investigation, some bottled waters contain signature tap water pollutants, essentially defeating consumers’ purpose of seeking better water quality.

Under FDA regulations, bottled waters are legally allowed to contain the same quantities and types of chemical contaminants as public water supplies (FDA2008b). These lax rules for contaminants in bottled water benefit the most those bottled water suppliers who unscrupulously use taxpayer-supported tap water supplies to make their products. While FDA requires source labeling for bottled water drawn from municipal water supplies, manufacturers can avoid mandated disclosure by claiming to use additional purification (21 CFR 165.110(a)(3); FDA 2008b). To illustrate, the label on the Sam’s Choice Purified Drinking Water purchased in Oakland, CA does not mention the source of water, instead describing the product as “Purified by reverse osmosis filtration or distillation.” Nevertheless, this sample contained 10 ppb chloroform, 8.5 ppb bromodichloromethane, and 23 ppb total trihalomethanes, all in excess of California state standards (CDPH 2008).

Customer service representatives from Walmart provided EWG researchers with the identity of each municipal water supply used to fill the bottles EWG tested, matching the printed code number on each bottle to their supplier list. This was accomplished through a series of phone calls between EWG researchers and representatives on the companies’ 1-888 numbers.

EWG investigation of the sources of four THM-containing Sam’s Choice waters indicated that in every case, levels of THMs in the bottled water were close to levels of THMs in the local municipal water (Table 3). The safety of consumers would have been much better served if the FDA mandated a complete and unambiguous label disclosure whenever a bottled water has been sourced from tap water. Such transparent labeling would give the consumers the information to decide whether or not a certain bottled water best suits their needs.

Table 3. Comparison of Sam’s Choice Purified Drinking Water with Local Source Tap Water
Purchase Location Contaminants Concentration Detected in Bottled Water Level (Range) Detected in Source Water in 2007
Mountain View, CA Total Trihalomethanes 37 ppb 51.1 (7.8- 88) ppb1
Fluoride ND 0.78 (0.38- 0.86) ppm
Oakland, CA (1) Total Trihalomethanes 23 ppb 51.1 (7.8- 88)1
Fluoride ND 0.78 (0.38- 0.86)
Oakland, CA (2) Total Trihalomethanes 21 ppb 51.1 (7.8- 88)1
Fluoride ND 0.78 (0.38- 0.86)
Fayetteville, NC Total Trihalomethanes 14 ppb 19.7 (5.64- 31.07 ppb)2
Fluoride ND 0.94 (0.78- 1.13) ppm

1 Las Vegas Valley Water District 2008
2 Blairsville Water Department 2008

As demonstrated by the EWG test results, when FDA-approved drinking water purification technologies are conscientiously applied, complete elimination of trihalomethanes can be achieved. Of the eleven tested samples of Sam’s Choice Purified Drinking Water, seven of them did not contain any trihalomethanes. These included Sam’s Choice waters purchased in Connecticut, Washington, Oregon, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia and in the city of Los Angeles. In contrast, four of the waters from the same brand - those purchased in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and the cities of Mountain View and Oakland in California - contained trihalomethanes at levels that exceeded the industry’s voluntary limit, the State of California standard for bottled water and “no significant risk levels” for carcinogens under Proposition 65. Such a disparity between different bottles from the same brand likely stems from non-uniform application of purification technologies by the bottlers at different sites, indicating that brand loyalty may not guarantee the bottled water quality that consumers seek.

EWG also examined the labeling of the Giant Food’s Acadia brand of Filtered Drinking Water. This brand discloses on its label the public water source from which the bottled water was prepared and the treatment method applied (filtration through activated charcoal). While the Acadia labeling is in compliance with the letter of the law, it fails to alert the consumers that the bottled water contains levels of chloroform and other trihalomethanes that are above the industry’s voluntary standard of 10 ppb. Overall, the levels of trihalomethanes and fluoride in the five tested samples of Acadia water were very close to the levels in the local source water (Table 4).

Table 4. Comparison of Acadia Filtered Drinking Water with Local Source Tap Water
Purchase Location Contaminants Concentration Detected in Bottled Water Level (Range) Detected in Source Water in 20071
Middletown, DE Total Trihalomethanes 29 ppb 43.8 (8.44-113) ppb
Fluoride 0.91 ppm 1.04 (0.52-1.40) ppm,
0.91 (0.10-1.10) ppm
Silver Spring, MD Total Trihalomethanes 14 ppb 43.8 (8.44-113) ppb
Fluoride 0.76 ppm 1.04 (0.52-1.40) ppm, 0.91 (0.10-1.10) ppm
Stafford, VA (1) Total Trihalomethanes 22 ppb
43.8 (8.44-113) ppb
Fluoride 0.94 ppm 1.04 (0.52-1.40) ppm,
0.91 (0.10-1.10) ppm
Stafford, VA (2) Total Trihalomethanes 23 ppb 43.8 (8.44-113) ppb
Fluoride 0.87 ppm
1.04 (0.52-1.40) ppm,
0.91 (0.10-1.10) ppm
Washington, DC Total Trihalomethanes 36 ppb 43.8 (8.44-113) ppb
Fluoride 1.07 ppm 1.04 (0.52-1.40) ppm,
0.91 (0.10-1.10) ppm

1 Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission 2008

In summary, the presence of disinfection byproducts in bottled waters highlights insufficient government oversight and inappropriate labeling of the bottled water products. As a result of the hands-off attitude of the FDA and cost-saving shortcuts taken by the industry itself, shoppers remain in a “Buyer Beware” situation, paying premium prices for bottled water but not getting the anticipated quality. Consumers could have obtained much better drinking water simply by installing a home tap water filter at a fraction of the bottled water cost. Consumers’ right to know, market fairness, and individual shoppers’ health are all affected by the sales of bottled waters that are no better than tap water - and vastly more expensive.
Test Results: Chemicals in Bottled Water

Chemical contaminants in drinking water pose a health risk for all of us, although some people may be more vulnerable to these pollutants than the general population. These more sensitive populations include infants, the elderly, as well as people with weakened immune systems due to viral infections, immune disorders, cancer, chemotherapy or recent organ transplants (CDPH 2008; EPA 2005a). Concerned about tap water quality, some consumers turn to bottled water, hoping to find a guarantee of safety and quality (Doss 2008; IBWA 2008d). But the reality is very different from this expectation: all bottled waters tested by EWG contained some chemical contaminants while bottled waters sold by two national retailers contained signature pollutants at levels very close to water.
Water treatment chemicals: disinfection byproducts and fluoride

Water treatment byproducts in tap water Toxic disinfection byproducts (DBPs) such as chloroform, bromodichloromethane, and haloacetic acids, are formed when disinfectants (chlorine, ozone, chlorine dioxide or chloramine) react with organic matter, urban and agricultural contaminants, bromine, and iodide during the treatment of drinking water (EPA 2008a). While only eleven DBPs are currently regulated in the U.S., up to 600 different chemicals may form as byproducts of disinfection (Richardson 1998, 1999a,b, 2003), including 74 DBPs that are not regulated but that may be associated with either DNA damage or carcinogenicity (Richardson 2007). In 2002, EWG review of DBP health effects found that nearly thirty peer-reviewed epidemiologic studies linked these byproducts to increased risks of cancer, including up to 9,300 cases of bladder cancer (reviewed in EWG 2002). DBP exposure may be also associated with miscarriages or reduced birth weight, a public health risk that is under active investigation (Hoffman 2008; Savitz 2006; Wright 2004). Additional health problems from DBP exposure may include rectal and colon cancers, kidney and spleen disorders, immune system problems and neurotoxic effects (EPA 2001a; EPA 2007a; Richardson 2007).

Trihalomethanes — Four chemicals found in EWG bottled water tests are in a group of disinfection byproducts called trihalomethanes (THMs) - chloroform, bromoform, bromodichloromethane, and chlorodibromomethane. Together, these chemicals can be present at the same 80 ppb concentration in bottled water as the EPA limit for THMs in tap water (EPA 2008b; FDA 2008b). The legal limit of 80 ppb was set as a compromise between protecting public health and the treatment costs for lowering THM levels in municipal water (EPA 2007a). This limit still equates to several thousands of bladder cancer cases nationwide from people ingesting THMs in drinking water (EPA 2001a; EPA 2005b). Various trihalomethanes were detected in four brands of bottled water, including Sam’s Choice and Acadia, at two to three times greater levels than the bottled water industry’s voluntary standard of 10 ppb (IBWA 2008).

During the first round of testing, chloroform was found in four brands at concentrations between 3.8 and 19 ppb. The second round of testing identified samples with up to 31 ppb concentration of chloroform. Among all THM-containing bottled waters in this study, average concentrations of 15 ppb chloroform were detected. Both the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. National Toxicology Panel (NTP) state that chloroform is “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen” (NTP 2005). Chloroform is listed as a carcinogen in the California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (also known as Proposition 65), with safety standards for oral ingestion at 10 ppb (OEHHA 2008). The primary routes of human exposure to chloroform are ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact with water while showering, swimming, cleaning, and cooking, so that practically all humans are exposed to low levels of the chemical (NTP 2005). Moreover, EPA was forced by a court order to weaken its health-based goal for chloroform from 0 ppb to 70 ppb as a result of a legal challenge filed by the Chlorine Chemistry Council and the Chemical Manufacturers Association (now the American Chemistry Council) (EPA 2008c).

Bromodichloromethane was detected in four brands and the total of eleven samples at concentrations between 0.6 and 13 ppb, with average of detected values at 4.5 ppb. EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) classifies bromodichloromethane as a probable human carcinogen (EPA 1993) and EPA set a health-based goal (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal) for this cancer-causing chemical at zero (EPA 2008b). California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act lists 2.5 ppb as a safety standard for bromodichloromethane, a level that is exceeded by several fold for nine of the eleven THM-containing bottled waters. Two other THMs, chlorodibromomethane and bromoform, were found in Sam’s Choice brand water, of which three samples contained chlorodibromomethane at concentrations between 3.7 and 8.2 ppb.

Haloacetic acids - Our tests found two water disinfection byproducts called haloacetic acids in bottled water, dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid, both at 2 ppb concentration. Haloacetic acids are genotoxic and carcinogenic; they can also produce significant metabolic disturbances (Robertson 2007). Both EPA and the International Agency for Research on Cancer consider dichloroacetic acid likely to be a carcinogen in humans (EPA 2003). While the available toxicity data for tricloroacetic acid is more limited, EPA IRIS assessment for this chemical reports cancer effects in rodents and classifies it as a possible human carcinogen (EPA 1996). Haloacetic acids are also linked to developmental defects in embryos grown outside the womb (whole embryo cell culture) (Hunter 1996). Prior to 2002, haloacetic acids were not regulated in drinking water at all. Now they are regulated as a group of five acids with a cumulative legal limit of 60 ppb in drinking water, whether tap or bottled (EPA 2008b; FDA 2008b). Similar to regulation of THMs in drinking water, the standard for haloacetic acid is not a health-based limit. Instead, it balances health and treatment cost by placing a dollar amount of the disease and equating that to treatment costs, so it still allows illness (EPA 2007a).

Disinfection byproducts were found in 4 brands
Chemical Number
of Brands Range of Detections, ppb* Average of Detected Values, ppb*
Total Trihalomethanes 4 4.4 - 37 21
Chloroform 4 3.8 - 31 15
Bromodichloromethane 4 0.6-13 4.5
Bromoform 1 0.8 0.8
Chlorodibromomethane 1 3.7 - 8.2 5.4
Haloacetic Acids
Dichloroacetic acid 2 2 2
Trichloroacetic acid 1 2 2

*ppb = parts per billion (micrograms per liter)

Fluoride was found in five brands at concentrations between 0.15 and 1.07 ppm (parts per million, same as mg/L). Fluoride in bottled water may be coming from natural sources or, for the bottled water brands that use tap water, fluoride may originate from municipal water treatment (FDA 2008b). The value of fluoride-containing toothpaste to dental health is clear; fluoride is a potent chemical that strengthens teeth and kills microbes on contact, reducing the incidence of cavities (Hellwig 2004; ten Cate 1999; Twetman 2003). But, as recently reviewed by the National Research Council (NRC) a substantial and growing body of peer-reviewed science strongly suggests that ingesting fluoride in drinking water may present serious health risks (NRC 2006). Children who drink fluoridated water are at increased risk of developing fluorosis, a defect of the permanent teeth resulting in dark staining and, in severe cases, substantial corrosion of the enamel (Hong 2006; McDonagh 2000; NRC 2006). The Center for Disease Control (CDC) stated that about 30% of children who drink fluoridated water have some degree of fluorosis (Beltran-Aguilar 2005).

Levels of fluoride now detected in bottled water, 0.15-1.07 ppm, are within legal limits (EPA 1989, FDA 2008b), but emerging science suggests that legal limits may not sufficiently protect health, especially for infants and others who are particularly vulnerable (NRC 2006).

Fluoride was found in 5 brands
Chemical Number
of Brands Range of Detections, ppm* Average of Detected Values, ppm*
Fluoride 5 0.15-1.07 0.67

*ppm = parts per million (milligrams per liter, mg/L)

Fertilizer pollution: Nitrate and Ammonia

Fertilizer chemicals in tapwater Nitrate — Nitrate is a fertilizer ingredient that widely pollutes drinking water sources nationwide. It poses particular risks for infants, who are susceptible to a form of methemoglobinemia, or blue-baby syndrome, caused by nitrate replacing the oxygen normally carried by red blood cells (Knobeloch 2000). For babies and small children, the most common source of nitrate exposure is from infant formula, when it is mixed with well water (Kross 1992).

Nitrate was found in six brands, at concentrations between 0.1 - 1.7 ppm, with average level (among the six positive brands) of 0.5 ppm. Although nitrate levels detected in bottled water are below the legal limit of 10 ppm, this limit provides no margin of safety for infants. According to EPA, infants below the age of six months who drink water containing nitrate in excess of the drinking water standard could become seriously ill and, if untreated, may die (EPA 2001b). Moreover, studies of infants in Europe have found that three to four percent of methemoglobinemia cases in infants occur at even lower levels, below the legal limit (Sattelmacher 1964; Simon 1962). Additionally, exposure to nitrates in drinking water for pregnant women has been linked to possible adverse reproductive and developmental effects (Manassaram 2006). While the spectrum of nitrate-associated adverse health outcomes remains a subject of active research, a 2006 review by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientists summarized nine different epidemiologic studies conducted between 1982 and 2004 that observed nervous system defects, miscarriage, premature birth, impaired growth of babies in utero, and various birth defects linked to higher nitrate levels in drinking water (Manassaram 2006).

Nitrate pollution is also associated with potential endocrine-disrupting effects. Emerging science suggests that nitrate derived from agricultural run-off is capable of