Is D.C. Water Safe?
Independent testing could put to rest concerns about WASA.

Monday, March 3, 2008

MUCH HAS changed in the four years since hazardous levels of lead were found in the District's tap water. Thousands of lead service lines were replaced; a new chemical treatment has dramatically reduced lead levels; and federal standards consistently have been met. Still, questions persist about the safety of the water, and that probably says more about the distrust surrounding the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) than about the water itself. It's a reason why the agency, which so badly handled the lead crisis, must go the extra mile in winning the public's confidence.

The foremost issue facing WASA is whether to continue with its ambitious program to replace the city's 35,000 lead service pipes. The program, which has already cost $93 million and will require an additional $315 million, is under review because of the apparent success of the new water treatment in lowering lead leaching. Then, too, most homeowners aren't replacing the pipes on their property, calling into question the effectiveness of partial replacement. Add in the considerable cost, and authorities who are under the gun to make other major capital improvements with limited resources are right to pause and take stock.

WASA is conducting a series of meetings to explain the issues and hear public concerns. More confidence-building is needed, and here we think D.C. Council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) has a good idea in suggesting independent testing of the drinking water. Highlighting the need for such an outside look was last month's troubling findings by a respected Virginia Tech professor and water expert. Marc Edwards, a 2007 MacArthur Fellow, used WASA data and his own testing to show dangerously high levels of lead in hundreds of D.C. homes following the replacement of lead service lines. WASA has yet to render a judgment on his analysis, pending its own review.

Lead levels in D.C. water have been in compliance with Environmental Protection Agency standards since 2005, but findings such as those of Mr. Edwards cause advocates to question WASA's methods. WASA officials know that they have only themselves to blame for having lost the public trust; it's encouraging that the authority's general manager and some members of the board are open to outside review.