Fact Sheets: Tap Water

United Water — owned by Paris-based Suez Environnement (Suez) — wants to build a desalination plant on the Hudson River to serve Rockland County, New York. The company says that the treatment plant is not only “necessary” but also the “most cost-effective” and “sustainable” way to meet the area’s long-term water needs. Suez’s performance history, however, calls these claims into question.

Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” have enabled the oil and gas industry to extract natural gas from rock formations deep below ground, called shales. Fracking entails injecting a large amount of water, sand and toxic chemicals at a pressure high enough to fracture the shale and release the natural gas. The oil and gas industry now wants access to natural gas from the Marcellus and Utica shale formations underlying large regions of the State of New York.

For-profit water companies usually hike household water prices after buying municipal water and sewer systems. Many companies employ an aggressive rate increase strategy to recoup their investment and boost profits, usually aiming for a new hike every other year. Over time, this can add hundreds of dollars to a consumer’s annual water bill.

Local governments across the country have uncovered a smart way to reduce costs and improve the performance of their water systems: They are exiting management contracts with private water companies and bringing water services under public control. A number of cities and towns have saved millions of dollars by running their water utilities with public employees instead of private contractors. For these communities, public operation is a much better deal.

A new wave of water privatization formed in the wake of the recent financial crisis. With municipal budgets in the red, various cities and towns across the country considered auctioning off their water and sewer systems to generate funds. But the sale or lease of water assets is not a smart way to balance budgets. Privatization could further weaken public finances, jeopardize water resources and saddle generations of consumers with debt.

A growing list of household and personal care products are advertised as “antibacterial” because they contain a chemical called triclosan. While the manufacturers of these products want you to think triclosan protects you from harmful bacteria, it turns out that it may be doing more harm than good.

Who knew that washing your hands could harm your health and the environment? Thanks to the chemical industry, a hazardous antibacterial compound called triclosan is now an ingredient in many household and personal care products such as soaps, cleaners, cosmetics, clothing, and even children‚ toys. While consumers might think triclosan can protect them from harmful bacteria, it turns out that the use of this dangerous chemical in household products is no more effective than soap and water — and may be doing more harm than good.

Filtering water at home is cheaper and safer than depending on bottled water. Indeed, as much as 40 percent of bottled water is purified tap water.2 Choosing a water filter can seem like a daunting process, but it does not have
to be.

Fluoride is a chemical compound that is often found in drinking water and has been the source of great controversy. Fluoride leaches into drinking water from natural soil erosion and from man-made sources such as discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories. In addition, almost 70 percent of the people in the United States on community water systems drink water with fluoride added. The practice of water fluoridation began more than 50 years ago when studies indicated that low levels of fluoride in drinking water could prevent tooth decay. Water systems typically make the decision to fluoridate drinking water at the local level, although in some instances it is determined by the state. The federal government does not mandate it.