|
The history of water fluoridation in the US goes back to around 1945 where it was first introduced into drinking water supplies in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It was initially believed that adding fluoride to drinking water in small concentrations where it did not occur naturally would strengthen teeth and prevent cavities. The US Center for Disease Control reported in 2020 that nearly 73% of the US population are receiving fluoridated water through public water systems. Washington lags that statistic with 65% of the public water systems adding fluorine to their drinking water treatment processes. Camas currently adds fluorine to its drinking water supplies.
Like so many other chemicals we once thought could be safely added to our food or water supplies as a benefit to our health, studies on chemicals like fluoride have produced new adverse health findings which are causing water providers to question whether or not to add it to water. In September of 2024, CNN Health reported that a Federal judge "ordered the US EPA to further regulate fluoride in drinking water because high levels could pose a risk to the intellectual development of children." The findings from the judge may have been partly influenced from results of a US government report released in August 2024 by the US Department of Health and Human Services that can be found here. So the question at this point is whether or not there is a SAFE level of fluoride that can provide a demonstrable health benefit, while not posing adverse health risks especially to children. The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) and EPA currently state that the addition of fluroide is a "community choice" and is not required, however, if fluoride IS added, there are DOH requirements for sampling, monitoring and notification about fluoride levels in drinking water. IF there is one thing certain, it's that there is a considerable amount of present uncertainty about the addition of fluoride and the City is contemplating whether or not it should be added in the future. In the Camas Consumer Confidence Report for 2023 (an annual water quality report for our drinking water), the levels of fluoride tested in our water ranged from 0.13 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 1.11 mg/L. Washington code (WAC 246-290-460) states the optimal fluoride concentration is 0.7 mg/L and provides an operating tolerance between 0.5 mg/L to 0.9 mg/L. The City is required to conduct daily monitoring, taking fluoride samples downstream from the injection point and submitting monthly reports to DOH. It is worth following this important topic as it develops given the uncertainty of future drinking water regulations juxtaposed with potential health concerns. There will likely be a public hearing in early 2025 (February to April timeframe) where citizens can weigh in on whether or not fluoridation in Camas should continue. For additional information, go to page 46 of this LINK to see the Public Works Department's recent presentation on Water System Fluoridation to the City Council.
0 Comments
6/3/2024 It's really legal to discharge PFAS used in industrial processes to surface water...should it be??Read NowOn April 10, 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final National Priority Drinking Water Regulation for 6 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to control the maximum contamination allowed for these compounds in our drinking water. Drinking water providers have 5 years to reduce the 6 named PFAS compounds in their water to levels below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). While this new regulation is a great step in the right direction - controlling the very water we are consuming, a far more complex issue looms on the horizon...controlling PFAS sources BEFORE they enter our drinking water. "Wait" you say. "PFAS discharges from industries that use PFAS as a part of their production process aren't fully regulated under the Clean Water Act?"
Strange perhaps, but true. As noted in a March 12, 2024 Congressional Research Service report, despite a requirement under the Clean Water Act to establish technology based Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) for industrial dischargers, "the EPA has not yet published any final technology-based effluent limits or water quality criteria to address any PFAS, nor has it established requirements for PFAS in biosolids." Without EPA's designation of PFAS as a hazardous substance or toxic pollutant, industries can legally discharge PFAS to surface waters or to ponds to concentrate solids while evaporating liquids, thus allowing the PFAS concentrations to accumulate in these facilities. Solids control facilities can leak. They can flood. Either way, the surface water discharges and solids control facilities can be near continuous sources to our surface waters and potentially our groundwater. Where is this all headed? The good news is that the EPA has a roadmap for updating ELGs and is scheduled to complete most of its work in 2024 according to its 2021 PFAS Strategic Roadmap. EPA is also working on a risk assessment for biosolids and expects to determine whether or not to regulate PFOA and PFOS in particular when found in biosolids. Even when an ELG is not developed, under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) authority, states or the EPA may choose to regulate industrial dischargers through technology based effluent limits. The EPA is also scheduled to develop human health criteria for PFOS and PFOA in surface waters under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act in 2024. It may be legal, but is it ok? So, at the present time, it appears that industries are largely unregulated in discharging specific PFAS compounds to surface waters by the Clean Water Act. This issue is drawing a considerable amount of attention in our Congress. Given how much we now know about PFAS and the risks of specific compounds like PFOA and PFOS, is it really ok to keep discharging this to the environment? What can be done? Write your elected officials and members of Congress to act on the bills related to PFAS quickly. So far in the 118th Congress, no bills related to PFAS in surface water have passed in either chamber. Let's work to change that.  Camas specifically, but also greater Clark County is a wonderful place to live. It's an area richly blessed with a diverse abundance of natural resources that allows humans, plants and animals to somehow co-exist, adapting to the inevitable changes brought about by growth. This co-existence, however is being challenged as development continues in our backyards.
How is this development allowed? The comprehensive planning underway in Camas and Clark County is meant to address Washington's Growth Management Act "mandate" brought about by recognition that our area's natural attractions and strong economy are projected to draw some 200,000 more residents to Clark County by 2045. The "mandate" is that the state expects each County to accommodate projected population shifts and growth with smart, participative and comprehensive planning to best manage the ensuing development. Does the development have to be in MY backyard? Some may ask "why do we have to grow; can't growth happen somewhere else?" Well, that's where each voice must be heard to recognize growth must happen somewhere, but a better question perhaps, is where does it make best sense? The current planning process designates Urban Growth Areas (UGA's) as the preferred places set aside for various regulations and controls for commercial or residential developments to occur, with intent to control sprawl, use existing infrastructure (vs extending infrastructure over long distances), attempting to distinguish between urban and rural areas and concentrating development in more ideal places. When development and nature clash. So if growth is coming and development is inevitable, why would a developer propose a development known as the Schnell Farms PUD in an already stressed, ecologically sensitive area - the Lacamas Prairie - that is sandwiched between the Vancouver and Camas UGAs? There's no doubt its rural nature, natural beauty and being adjacent to Lacamas Creek are attractive features, but regardless of the developer's intentions here, there are adverse impacts to developing so close to this sensitive conservation area. According to an article published in 2022 in the Columbian, the Lacamas Prairie is "Washington's best surviving remnant of the dwindling ecosystem known as the Willamette Valley wet prairie. It once covered more than one million acres along the Willamette and Columbia Rivers." The vast majority of this area was converted to farmland in the early 1900's. This unique ecosystem now occupies approximately just 2,000 acres in our state, with Washington's Department of Natural Resources working hard to restore the 1,600 acre patch known as the Lacamas Prairie Natural Area. The impacts. Biodiversity stress to rare plants, further ecosystem fragmentation to an already challenged piece of terrain, changes in hydrology due to excessive runoff from impervious surfaces, and additional nutrient loading are just a few adverse impacts we have seen occur in similar places. Recently taken off the threatened and endangered species list, Bradshaw's lomatium among several other rare plant species are named as residents of this unique ecosystem. Bulldozing these unique plants off the landscape induces further stresses to this challenged ecosystem which is already encroached and impacted from the recent and ongoing North Shore development in Camas. Developing patchwork hardscapes with non-native plants being substituted for the native plants now growing there further reduces biodiversity and fragments the natural plant-animal connections in place now. Changing the natural hydrology also impacts this ecosystem, quickly concentrating rainfall into stormwater pipes that rapidly convey water away from the prairie instead of allowing the water to naturally soak into the ground like a sponge, serving as a source of life to plants currently stressed by increasing periods of summer drought. And with residential development comes additional nutrients and pesticides from the properties that will ultimately be covered in ornamental plants and lush green lawns - neither suitable for sustaining the insects nor animals now dwelling on this prairie. These nutrients are quickly conveyed through stormwater pipes, or in overland runoff during high intensity rain events, ultimately discharging into Lacamas Creek which is already THE major source of nutrients causing harmful algal blooms each summer season, making the water unsafe for human recreation and extremely hazardous - even fatally toxic - to pets. What can I do?? Here are a few constructive things each resident who cares about the future of Lacamas Prairie and Lacamas Lake can do... 1) Put your voice on record about the need to develop in UGAs, leaving larger buffers for environmentally stressed areas, in Clark County's Comprehensive Planning process. There is a public meeting on 5/7/2024 where you can learn more about the process and participate in other upcoming events. 2) Write and address your elected officials with your concerns about the adverse impacts involved in developing naturally sensitive areas like the Lacamas Prairie. 3) Volunteer for organizations who are striving for a better balance to growth in our region and taking actions at the local level to make a positive change. In addition to our crew at the Camas Earth Day Society, there are others in the region such as Friends of Clark County who are also meaningfully engaged in a green future for Clark County. Why would anyone be interested in a dimensional pairing of numbers on Earth Day? Well, it's all about the Global Wave to Halt Plastics sponsored by Earthday.org for the year 2024. The message behind the paired numbers is the organization's goal to demand the reduction of the use of plastics by 60% by the year 2040.
Old problem with new consequences. The 2024 campaign "Planet vs Plastics" is really about a rapid expansion of plastic production and use in so many phases of our daily lives, and the problem didn't just happen overnight. The production and use of plastics started decades ago, but according to Earthday.org, today's reality reflects that "plastic production now has grown to more than 380 million tons per year. More plastic has been produced in the last ten years than in the entire 20th century, and the industry plans to grow explosively for the indefinite future." If this expansion continues, the volume of plastic that is generated - that journeys into not only landfills but litters our oceans and waterways - will continue to degrade into microplastics, ending up in our water supplies, posing a huge threat to every form of life on our planet. What can we do? It would be easy to fold our arms and say there is nothing we can do to stop this eventual outcome, but there IS something each of us can do. First, we can stop the purchase and use of plastic water bottles. According to Earthday.org, the reality is that it takes 6 times more water to produce the plastic container than the volume of water in the container itself! Another impactful area is the clothing industry. "Approximately 85% of garments end up in landfills or incinerators, with only 1% being recycled. Nearly 70% of clothing is made from crude oil, resulting in the release of dangerous microfibers when washed and continued contribution to long-term pollution in landfills." The Challenge - let's learn more and DO more now. Let's think about our consumption and the convenience that's being marketed into our daily lives and take those small but impactful local steps to change our future. Be a voracious reader about this mounting plastic problem. Be a change agent. Take an action today to make tomorrow better. In a website announcement on April 10th, 2024, the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) stated they will be adopting the EPA's new Federal drinking water regulation for PFAS. A comparison of Washington State Action Levels (SAL) with the new EPA mandated maximum contaminant levels (MCL) follows:
According to information published by the DOH:
* GenX chemicals have not been found in Washington State ** Hazard Index is a long established approach EPA uses to understand health risk from a mixture of chemicals. The index is made up of a sum or fractions. Each fraction compares the level of each PFAS measured in the water to the health-based water concentration The DOH has announced that "State SAL's will remain in effect until the Washington State Board of Health adopts the new federal MCLs which can take up to two years." Like the writing and passage of any law, this will take time for the state to adopt the Federal regulation (which is more stringent in nearly every category) as their own legally binding law in Washington. This law should be in place before the EPA's required mandate to have treatment in place within the prescribed five year limit to treat water to meet MCLs for the stated PFAS chemicals. Further, the DOH has stated they will work with public water systems to address treatment, reduction of exposure, and work to leverage any state and federal funding they can. It is encouraging that the state of Washington will move beyond simple reporting requirements when PFAS is found in the drinking water, to now mirror Federal requirements that mandate actual TREATMENT levels. This more restrictive rule will reduce exposure risks from the stated PFAS chemicals in our drinking water and is a step in the right direction for the state of Washington. The EPA has worked diligently over more than a decade to study and issue a Safe Drinking Water rule that sets the maximum contaminant level (MCL) allowed in drinking water for several different Per - and Polyfluoroalykl Substances (PFAS) compounds and mixtures of these compounds. Known as "forever chemicals" their complex chemical structures do not readily break down in the environment and are known to bioaccumulate in humans and mammals and create numerous health risks.
So how bad is our groundwater? It is estimated by the US Geological Survey that PFAS now contaminates approximately 45% of the nation's drinking water sources including public and private wells. Two specific compounds, Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) as well as perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), pose the highest risk in drinking water and the MCL for these two substances has been set at 4 parts per trillion (ppt) or nanograms per liter (ng/L). Both PFOA and PFOS have been found in concentrations exceeding this new MCL for drinking water in several of the City's wells and nearly ALL system tests for the reservoirs that store and pipes that convey our drinking water. Well 13 (which has temporarily been shut down) has exceeded this new standard for PFOS by over 6 times the required MCL. And what does this mean for me as a resident drinking water supplied by the City of Camas? The City has up to five years to design and install treatment to reduce these contaminants below the required maximum contaminant levels. The good news is that a consultant hired by the City earlier this month has begun fast-tracking the design of treatment for just one of the contaminated wells (Well 13) to bring that well into compliance with the new rule (which will become a US Regulation once published in the Code of Federal Regulations later this year). And now for the rest of the story...While Camas is in compliance with the state of Washington's advisory levels on each of the wells, the reality is all they MUST do right now is notify the residents if/when a well exceeds the state action level. No treatment is required until the Federal regulation prescribed cutoff (compliance for treatment 5 years from now). Moreover, how do we address the other contaminated wells and system tests that have exceeded the new established MCL? The elephant in the room. We must quit ignoring the "elephant in the room" - the source of the PFAS - and put steps in place to identify and quickly remediate that source and have the responsible party(ies) who caused that contamination pay for its cleanup. Finding the source is complex, however we have good science and knowledge about how groundwater moves, how surface waters interact with groundwater, and how groundwater quality is ultimately influenced by our actions on the land. While we do not know the source, we must vocalize finding the source as a priority to our elected officials and overseeing agencies. Without your voice, it's our pocketbooks that are paying the $1.6M dollar contract to the consultants advising the City on next steps while the contamination continues. Additionally, the estimated cost for constructing the treatment system for Well 13 stands at $6.5 M dollars. That cost does NOT include the annual operation and maintenance costs for running that treatment system. What you can do to help. Helping out is a few clicks away. One way to have your voice heard is by clicking on this interactive map link to provide input to the City of Camas for their "Our Downtown Camas 2045" campaign. The map allows you to drop a pin and leave a short comment for opportunities or concerns you might have affecting areas such as public health and safety. You will already see several pins near the mill site where specific comments were shared. You can also support our online petition to expand the GP Mill cleanup investigation. We encourage you to follow this issue with us as we are tracking other important events such as a Public PFAS workshop session sponsored by the Department of Ecology early in the summer. Stay tuned. |
AuthorGlen DeWillie is interested in exploring the risks and potential underlying problems causing degraded water quality in our surface and groundwater resources that impact our very lives. It is his hope to bring some of these issues to light, while working to find innovative solutions that result in improved water for recreation and drinking water consumption for all Camasonians. Archives
December 2024
Categories |
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly