Editor's Note: We appreciate the great public service provided by this report from The New York Times. It covers public water systems all over the country, including 48 water systems in Hays County. We've excerpted the findings below for some of the local systems and provided links for the details. Wish we had the time to check with each of the 48 suppliers listed in the report, and apologize in advance if the findings are not completely accurate or have been brought up to standard since the report's publication. Better safe than sorry, though. Seeing this bouquet of contaminants in our local water supplies [how do you even pronounce monochloroacetic acid] certainly adds new meaning to the old saying, "there must be something in the drinking water!"
Send your comments and news tips to online.editor@valleyspringcomm.net, click on the "comments" button at the bottom of the story, or call your local water supplier if you are concerned and want to follow up
Published Thursday, Dec. 17, 2009
By the New York Times
"The 35-year-old federal law regulating tap water is so out of date that the water Americans drink can pose what scientists say are serious health risks — and still be legal. Examine whether contaminants in your water supply met two standards: the legal limits established by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the typically stricter health guidelines.
The data was collected by an advocacy organization, the Environmental Working Group, who shared it with The Times."
Go to this link to check the water quality and contaminant levels of your local Hays County supplier: http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays
Here's what was found in some of our local water systems, large and small:
Texas State University, serves 28,215 people. 1 contaminant below legal limits, but above health guidelines. 11 contaminants found within health guidelines and legal limits.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050003-southwest-texas-state-university
City of San Marcos, serves 41,700 people. 14 contaminants found within health guidelines and legal limits.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050001-city-of-san-marcos
City of Kyle, serves 5,190 people. 1 contaminant below legal limits, but above health guidelines.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050002-city-of-kyle
City of Buda, serves 2,400 people. 1 contaminant below legal limits, but above health guidelines.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050012-city-of-buda
City of Wimberley wsc, serves 4,839 people. 1 contaminant below legal limits, but above health guidelines.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050018-wimberley-wsc
Plum Creek Water Co., serves 3,882 people. 4 contaminants below legal limits, but above health guidelines.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050028-plum-creek-water-co
Cedar Oaks Mesa wsc, serves 645 people. 2 contaminants below legal limits, but above health guidelines.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050031-cedar-oak-mesa-wsc
County Line wsc, serves 2,337 people. 2 contaminants above legal limits. http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050038-county-line-wsc
Serves 2,337 people
Hill Country wsc, serves 1,893 people. 2 contaminants above legal limits. http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050113-hill-country-wsc
Cimarron Park Water Co., serves 2,031 people. 1 contaminant below legal limits, but above health guidelines.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050059-cimarron-park-water-co-inc
Skyline Ranch Estates wsc, serves 168 people. 2 contaminants below legal limits, but above health guidelines.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050078-skyline-ranch-estates-wsc
Goldenwood-West wsc, serves 387 people. 1 contaminant below legal limits, but above health guidelines.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050081-goldenwood-west-wsc
Radiance wsc, serves 93 people. 1 contaminant below legal limits, but above health guidelines.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050075-radiance-wsc
Sierra West subdivision, serves 25 people. 1 contaminant below legal limits, but above health guidelines.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050134-sierra-west-subdivision
Woodcreek Utility Co.-2, serves 1,410 people. 1 contaminant below legal limits, but above health guidelines.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050039-woodcreek-utility-co-2
Woodcreek Utility Co.-1, serves 2,079 people. 7 contaminants found within health guidelines and legal limits.
http://projects.nytimes.com/toxic-waters/contaminants/tx/hays/tx1050037-woodcreek-utility-co-1
1 comment:
Oh no, another liberal program about the safety of our water. Maintaining a free market economy is much more important than clean water. We don't have to drink water. We have to make money and profits. I can always buy bottled water on the open market. Even if a few of our children and pregnant wives get sick from bad water, we have the private for-profit health care system to take care of them.
Post a Comment