How Safe Is Our Drinking Water?

The study has some limitations: The quality of the water at one location on a single day doesn’t necessarily reflect the quality of the water supplied by an entire system or at other times. But the ambitious undertaking, with community water systems chosen by CR’s statisticians (PDF) from a representative mix of systems across the country, provides a unique view into some of the most significant challenges in America’s ongoing drinking water crisis.

The challenges don’t stem from a technology problem. Filtration systems can cleanse water of contaminants. Yet they are not being used uniformly by community water systems.

Indeed, almost every sample tested had measurable levels of PFAS, a group of compounds found in hundreds of household products. These chemicals are linked to learning delays in children, cancer, and other health problems. More than 35 percent exceeded a safety threshold that CR scientists and other health experts believe should be the maximum. 

Yet many consumers have never heard of PFAS. 

Hung Ng, a resident of Florida, N.Y., says he has long used home water filters, in part to remove lead. But the 69-year-old says he didn’t know anything about PFAS until he had his water tested as part of this investigation, which found comparatively high levels of the chemicals in his water. 

“Now I’ve got to find something to filter out the PFAS,” Ng says.

CR’s tests revealed other problems as well. About 8 percent of samples had levels of arsenic—which gets into drinking water through natural deposits or industrial or agricultural pollution—above CR’s recommended maximum for drinking water. And almost every sample had measurable amounts of lead, a heavy metal that leaches from corroding water lines and home plumbing fixtures. It is unsafe at any level.

In response to CR’s findings, Environmental Protection Agency spokesperson Andrea Drinkard says that 93 percent of the population supplied by community water systems gets water that meets “all health-based standards all of the time” and that the agency has set standards for more than 90 contaminants. That includes arsenic and lead but does not include PFAS. 

America’s water crisis, while widespread, affects some communities more than others, according to an analysis of more than 140,000 public water systems published by the Guardian in February. It found that access to clean drinking water is highly unequal in the U.S., with water systems that service poorer and rural counties far more likely to have violations than those that provide water to wealthier or urban ones. Water systems in counties with large Latino populations were particularly likely to have violations, the Guardian found.

The PFAS results from CR’s tests are particularly troubling.

Manufacturers use PFAS to make stain-resistant fabrics and carpets, water-repellent clothing, nonstick cookware, and hundreds of other common products. The compounds can seep into water from factories, landfills, and other sources. And because they don’t easily break down in the environment, they’re often called “forever chemicals.” 

Investigation into the health effects of PFAS exposure is ongoing, but some of the strongest evidence about their potential risks comes from research of about 69,000 people in and around Parkersburg, W.Va. The research—part of a settlement between DuPont, which makes some PFAS, and residents of the community—was depicted in the 2019 movie “Dark Waters.” 

It found a “probable link” between exposure to a type of PFAS and six health problems: high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension, and testicular and kidney cancers. Research has also linked some PFAS to learning delays in children.

Most Americans have trace amounts of PFAS in their blood, according to research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. And at least 2,337 communities in 49 states have drinking water known to be contaminated with PFAS, according to a January analysis by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an advocacy organization.

CR’s tests results confirm the ubiquity of the chemicals: We found PFAS in 117 of the 120 samples we tested, from locations across the country. 

Despite mounting evidence of widespread contamination and health risks, the EPA has still not set an enforceable legal limit for PFAS in drinking water. Instead, it has established only voluntary limits, which apply to just two of the better-studied forever chemicals—PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, and PFOS, or perfluorooctanesulfonic acid—at 70 parts per trillion combined. (For context, 1 ppt is the equivalent of one grain of sand in an Olympic-sized swimming pool, according to some estimates.) 

Many public health experts think those levels are far too high. Harvard environmental health professor Philippe Grandjean, PhD, has suggested that the limit should be just 1 ppt for PFOA and PFOS, citing his 2013 research—partly funded by the EPA—showing decreased vaccine response in children exposed to the chemicals. The EWG supports that threshold for total PFAS, pointing to Grandjean’s work as well as other research linking PFAS to health problems in rodents. 

CR’s chief scientific officer, James Dickerson, PhD, agrees that when it comes to PFAS, “the lower the better.” CR’s scientists say the maximum allowed amount should be 5 ppt for a single PFAS chemical and 10 ppt for two or more. That is in line with standards for bottled water that an industry group, the International Bottled Water Association, has its members adhere to.

Among the 120 samples CR tested, more than a third had PFAS levels above 10 ppt, and more than a quarter exceeded 5 ppt for a single PFAS chemical.

Two samples had PFAS levels above the federal advisory level of 70 ppt, with the highest amount—80.2 ppt—coming from a sample that Jim Vaughn, a 76-year-old retired electrical equipment salesman, collected at his church in Pittsboro, N.C. 

Vaughn wasn’t particularly surprised, he says. Places such as Pittsboro—a community of about 6,700 on the fringes of North Carolina’s Research Triangle, which is anchored by three universities and filled with industry and high-tech business—are used to getting “dumped on,” he says. 

“It’s that little feeling of helplessness. Is there something that the town will do about it? Or will we let it ride?”

Indeed, residents of Pittsboro have reason to worry, beyond the results of CR’s tests. In 2007, an EPA study (PDF) found PFAS contamination in the Cape Fear River Basin, a major source of drinking water for the eastern half of North Carolina. Some of the highest levels came from the Haw River in the basin’s north end—where Pittsboro gets its water. 

Ongoing research out of Duke University, in nearby Durham, has also raised concerns. It found that levels of PFAS in a study of 49 Pittsboro residents’ blood are two to four times higher than that of the general U.S. population. Heather Stapleton, PhD, the project’s lead investigator, says Vaughn’s test results align with her team’s findings. 

Stapleton’s team found a striking similarity between the levels of PFAS in the blood of Pittsboro residents and residents of the cities of Wilmington and Fayetteville, downstream from Pittsboro, raising concerns that the drinking water in those communities could be contaminated with PFAS, too, she says. 

“If you think about the number of communities that could be impacted, it’s close to a million people, or 10 percent of North Carolina’s population,” she says. 

Chris Kennedy, town manager for Pittsboro, says the town was not a source of PFAS but that it was “diligently working towards removing PFAS from our potable water supply.” He adds that the town is installing filters at the water treatment plant to remove at least 90 percent of PFAS by the end of 2021 and is taking steps “to reduce contamination into the Haw River, which will provide the best results long term.”

More than 1,200 miles away from Pittsboro, Sandy and Scott Phillips sat around their kitchen table in Texas on a weekday in February reflecting on the test results for their water samples. 

Last year, looking to downsize, they built the custom home of their dreams in a new development in Round Rock, 20 miles north of Austin. Sandy Phillips especially enjoyed picking out everything from the floors to the kitchen cabinets.

“We paid a little extra for the white cabinets because I just love the clean look,” she says. 

What the couple didn’t get to pick was their tap water supplier. Soon after moving in, they began to notice the water had an unusual odor, prompting them to invest thousands in a water softening and reverse osmosis water filtration system.

Not long after, the couple got their water tested as part of CR’s project, taking samples from water before it was filtered. The results were concerning: high not just in PFAS (32.8 ppt) but also in arsenic, at 3.3 parts per billion. “We get this gorgeous house,” Sandy Phillips says, “and then the water is terrible.” 

Bill Brown, general manager of the Jonah Water Special Utility District, the couple’s water supplier, says it “has complied with all federal and state minimum contaminant level standards for arsenic and lead for many years.” He says that while CR’s results conflicted with its records, the water district will investigate. He did not comment on the PFAS found in the Phillipses’ water. 

In the early 2000s, the EPA considered a drinking water limit for arsenic of 3 ppb, before settling on 10 ppb as an amount that balances the costs for water system operators while reducing health risks. CR scientists have long said the EPA should set a limit of 3 ppb or lower, in line with what other health experts and environmental advocacy groups, such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), have called for.

Almost every sample CR tested had measurable levels of arsenic, including 10—or about 8 percent—with levels between 3 and 10 ppb. Previous tests from CR and others have shown elevated levels in juices and baby foods. 

Hundreds of water systems have exceeded the EPA’s 10-ppb limit. And though research indicates that the percentage of systems violating the rule has dropped over time, a 2017 NRDC study (PDF) found that more than 500 systems provided water with excessive arsenic to 1.8 million people in the U.S. in 2015.

Research suggests that exposure to even low levels of arsenic can pose health risks over the long term. A 2014 study in the journal Environmental Health found an association between water with arsenic of 5 ppb or greater and a 5- to 6-point IQ reduction in children.

Two states—New Hampshire and New Jersey—have lowered their arsenic limit to 5 ppb, citing warnings from studies. The EPA itself even sets its “maximum contaminant level goal”—the level below which there is no known or expected risk to health—at zero for arsenic.

The Phillipses, in Texas, were especially fortunate to have installed a filtration system because the results of their unfiltered tap test showed high levels of not only arsenic but also lead, at 5.8 ppb. (CR’s follow-up tests of the couple’s filtered water showed trace amounts of lead and levels of arsenic and PFAS well within CR’s recommended limits.)

The risks of lead, and problems with how water utilities test for it, became a national concern when news of the water crisis in Flint, Mich., exploded in 2015. Scientists and the EPA agree that there’s no safe exposure level of lead. But taking into consideration the feasibility of achieving lower levels, the EPA says utilities have to take significant steps to lower lead levels—including replacing lead service lines—only when 10 percent of samples from homes in their service areas exceed 15 ppb. 

Consumer advocates say those EPA regulations are problematic—a reality underscored by the testing results of water being piped into a condo owned by Stephen and Robin Newberg in New Britain, Conn. 

Lead typically works its way into drinking water through lead pipes that feed people’s homes or in the home’s plumbing itself. That underscores the need for more robust residential water testing, including samples from far more homes than currently required, experts say.

While New Britain’s annual water quality report for customers indicates that its average lead level is 6 ppb, the Newbergs’ results showed a concentration of 31.2 ppb, more than double the EPA’s action level of 15 ppb. 

Stephen Newberg, a former postal worker, says he drinks filtered water and his wife drinks bottled water, so he’s not personally worried. But the 66-year-old sits on the board of his condo, and he’s concerned about the possibility of the heavy metal being in his neighbors’ water. He plans to raise the issue at an upcoming meeting. The results caught him and his wife off guard: “The lead really did surprise us,” he says. 

Ramon Esponda, New Britain’s deputy director of public works, says that the city complies with the EPA’s lead regulations, based on its 2020 tests, which found an average lead level of 2 ppb. Esponda says that results of a single sample may be thrown off by new fixtures, recent plumbing work, or other factors. After this article published, Esponda told CR the city retested the Newbergs’ water and found lead levels of 3 ppb. CR’s experts say lead levels are indeed known to vary, but the fact that the Newbergs’ earlier tests showed high levels remains concerning.

The installation of new lead service lines—pipes that connect a water main in a street to individual buildings—was banned in 1986. But an estimated 3 million to 6 million homes and businesses nationwide still get water through older lines that contain lead, according to EPA estimates. An untold number of homes have plumbing fixtures made of the heavy metal. Exposure can especially pose risks in children, such as reduced IQ and behavioral problems. 

The Newbergs’ results were the only ones in CR’s tests to be above the EPA action level. But almost every sample had measurable levels of lead, and health experts emphasize that no amount of lead is safe. 

Erik Olson, senior strategic director of health and food at the NRDC, says the Newbergs’ results illustrate several problems with how the EPA regulates lead. One is that water systems may test for lead only once every three years, and smaller systems can get waivers to test every nine years. Another is that the sample sizes are generally small.

“Even in a large city, they may only test 50 homes,” Olson says. Systems are supposed to test homes that have lead service lines or plumbing and fixtures, but that requirement is often skirted, too, he says. “There’s very little oversight, and they may not be testing the highest-risk homes.”

CR’s Dickerson agrees that the EPA needs to require municipalities to take many more samples from taps inside homes, to better protect consumers. 

The EPA, in the waning days of the Trump administration, finalized changes to the lead regulation that would require testing in elementary schools and established new rules regarding the steps water systems must take when lead is detected. 

But the NRDC, the NAACP, and other groups recently sued the EPA, saying those steps didn’t go far enough, and urged the Biden administration to improve on them. In particular, the NRDC says, the revised rule would leave lead service lines in place for decades. 

EPA spokesperson Drinkard, citing the pending litigation, says the agency has no additional information to share.

People seeking cleaner drinking water do have some options for reducing their exposure to dangerous contaminants. (See "How to Test and Treat Your Drinking Water.") But consumer advocates say that fixing the problem shouldn’t be up to consumers. 

“Americans shouldn’t have to navigate bureaucracy and be forced to make significant investments in order to access clean tap water,” says Brian Ronholm, CR’s director of food policy. “The implementation of strong standards would ensure everyone has access to clean water, regardless of income levels.” 

Legislation passed last year by the House of Representatives would have authorized $22.5 billion to replace lead service lines across the U.S., according to the NRDC, but the bill died in the Senate. The NRDC called for the Biden administration and Congress to enact legislation requiring the expeditious removal and replacement of lead lines. “The only way to really solve the lead problem is to remove lead from the system,” Olson says.

Congress is also focusing on PFAS. In January, a congressional task force urged the Biden administration to take immediate steps to address PFAS contamination by, among other things, directing the EPA to phase out any uses for the chemicals deemed “non-essential,” to finalize a standard for PFOA and PFOS, and to accelerate cleanup. 

Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., a member of the task force, responded to the findings from CR’s tests, saying they show that “we do not have any time to waste as we battle these toxic chemicals.” She renewed her call for PFAS to be banned and designated as hazardous. “Congress must pass my PFAS Action Act and take other concrete action to protect our drinking water, our environment, and our public health,” Dingell says.

CR agrees that a standard must be set as soon as possible. “The burden shouldn’t be on consumers to monitor contaminants in drinking water,” Ronholm says. 

Pittsboro’s Jim Vaughn says that while government and industry debate, residents of his town are left with unsafe water. “The town that has the polluters in it, they’re getting their water from upstream, so what’s their impetus” to fix the problem, he says. “The ones downstream have no power over the ones upstream to force them to do that. I just don’t think it’s fair.”

Consumer Reports teamed up with our members and readers of the Guardian US to investigate the nation’s drinking water. From a pool of more than 6,000 potential volunteers, CR statisticians winnowed the group to 120 people representing a cross section of the country and the water systems that service it. That included 12 samples from each of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 10 jurisdictional regions. Testers were chosen to provide a mix of urban and rural locations, as well as small and large water systems. We were particularly interested in PFAS, chemicals notorious for both their health risks and their perseverance in the environment. 

Each participant received test kits for PFAS, as well as for arsenic, lead, and other contaminants, plus a video showing how to collect the samples. That included gathering samples of water before it went through any filter or treatment system that participants might have in their homes. When tests were complete, we sent volunteers advice tailored to their results.

We can’t draw conclusions about any specific water system, because results from one location on a single day don’t necessarily reflect a system’s overall quality, but together the results provide powerful insights into problems faced by the nation as a whole. See test results for each location (PDF).

“While much of CR’s testing is done in our labs with our scientists, projects like these need real people,” says James Dickerson, PhD, CR’s chief scientific officer. “We are grateful to the readers who helped and shared their stories with us.” Learn more about how you can participate in future projects.

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to include the results of tap water tests taken by the city of New Britain in response to CR’s findings from the home of Stephen and Robin Newberg in New Britain, Conn. received after publication. This article also appeared in the May 2021 issue of Consumer Reports magazine. Reporting in North Carolina for the Guardian was supported by the Water Foundation.