Group pans valley water

It meets all federal safety standards, but Las Vegas' drinking water is among the worst in the nation, according to a new report by the Washington, D.C.-based Environmental Working Group.

The water delivered to taps by the Las Vegas Valley Water District ranked 98th out of 100 cities studied because it contains a "chemical cocktail" of regulated and unregulated substances, the nonprofit environmental advocacy group said

The ranking was based on the district's own water quality data, which shows trace levels of 30 different chemicals in the tap water it supplies to about 1.3 million valley residents. Some of the chemicals include arsenic, lead, radon and bromate, which is a byproduct of water treatment.

"I don't know if we can say Las Vegas' water is unsafe based on this data," said Leeann Brown, spokeswoman for the group. "We're certainly safe in saying it's not in good condition."

Not so fast, said water district spokesman J.C. Davis, who criticized the new rankings as sensational and misleading, a scare tactic aimed at promoting the authors' policy objectives.

"I understand the function of EWG and what they're trying to accomplish, which is even more strict safety standards than the EPA already has," Davis said.

"The fundamental point is the vast majority of drinking water across the country meets all applicable drinking water standards. We just don't happen to have the standards they (the working group) would like us to," he said.

Richard Wiles helped found the nonpartisan Environmental Working Group in 1993 and now serves as its senior vice president of policy.

He said the group wants stricter federal standards for drinking water and a greater emphasis on testing and regulating chemicals for which there currently are no standards.

Until that happens, consumers have a right to know exactly what is in the water they drink and what they can do to protect themselves, Wiles said.

That's why his environmental watchdog group spent the past three years collecting water quality reports and sampling data from 48,000 communities across the country, and compiling it in a searchable, online database.

Along with detailed reports on individual water systems, pollutants and their possible health effects, the database includes information on home water filters and other tips for improving water quality.

Only the cities of Riverside, Calif., (99th) and Pensacola, Fla., (100th) ranked below Las Vegas.

The Truckee Meadows Water Authority, which supplies drinking water to Reno, ranked 96th.

North Las Vegas ranked 93rd, even though it gets its treated drinking water from the same place as the water district -- Lake Mead.

The top-rated water utilities were in Arlington, Texas, Providence, R.I., and Fort Worth, Texas.

Wiles said Las Vegas' ranking isn't the result of any specific pollutant but the potential cumulative effects of so many different chemicals.

"This water is considered legal and safe, and that's because we consider all these chemicals individually," Wiles said. "Over the long haul, it raises serious questions about the quality of the water if you're going to be drinking it over a lifetime."

Davis noted that Las Vegas drinking water already undergoes ozonation, one of the most advanced treatment methods in the world.

It would be expensive and inefficient to provide more intensive treatment for the valley's entire water supply, most of which is used for landscaping anyway, Davis said.

"There's a balance to be struck," he said. "You're talking about reducing a contaminant that is already below a level that is considered safe. What, if any, public health benefit comes from that? If five is safe, why is two any better?"

About 90 percent of the valley's water washes down from the Rocky Mountains and comes here by way of the silt-laden Colorado River, so Las Vegas has some of the "hardest" water in the country as measured by its mineral content.

The regulated contaminants most commonly found in local tap water are byproducts of the water disinfection process.

Davis said the water district might have fared worse than other utilities because it tests for more substances, including a number of chemicals that are not regulated and the district is not required to report.

"The more proactive you are in trying to understand what's in your source water ... the more you are penalized in reports like this," he said.

Wiles said the database is meant as an information resource, not an indictment of individual water purveyors, which are already burdened by too little federal oversight and action where source water is concerned.

According to the environmental watchdog group, utilities spend 19 times more money each year on water treatment chemicals than the federal government spends to keep pollution out of lakes and rivers in the first place.

"We allow pollution of water sources and hope that we can get it cleaned up at the tap," Wiles said. "We need money and policies to protect water sources so the utilities get much cleaner water to deliver to the public."

Wiles said that's why drinking water can meet all federal safety standards yet still contain detectable quantities of 20 different chemicals.

"Is that the best we can do?" Wiles said. "The answer is no. We can do better. We should do better."

Contact reporter Henry Brean at hbrean@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0350.

city water quality

The Environmental Working Group ranked the drinking water delivered by 100 large utilities nationwide. Henderson did not make the list because the group determined the utility serves fewer than 250,000 people.

TOP-RATED

1. Arlington, Texas

2. Providence, R.I.

3. Fort Worth, Texas

4. Charleston, S.C.

5. Boston

6. Honolulu

7. Austin, Texas

8. Fairfax County, Va.

9. St. Louis

10. Minneapolis

LOWEST-RATED