As if Nipomo didn’t have enough water drama, Erin Brockovich had to bring her two cents to the Facebook table, which received attention from several media outlets: including the SLO Tribune, Cal Coast News, and KSBY. And, I guess, you can now add the Sun to that list.
Damn bandwagons.
Brockovich protested against the Nipomo Community Service District’s (NCSD) switch in water treatment chemicals, which was announced on May 11—by the way. She started her Aug. 28 post by saying, “Water consumers in Nipomo, California … YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.” What are you Nipomoans being lied to about? Chloramine, which Brockovich protests the safety of.
Why the switch? Well, Nipomo started getting deliveries of Santa Maria water in July through pipes that cost millions of dollars to build, because the NCSD was pulling an unsustainable amount of water out of a basin with water levels dropping low enough to warrant concerns about saltwater intrusion.
The project was years in the making and weathered lawsuits, money worries, and disgruntled citizens with loud voices. But despite all the hubbub and changing plans, Nipomo residents will now have a somewhat dependable water supply.
What does Santa Maria treat its water with? I’m so happy you asked! Chloramine, a compound formed when a small amount of ammonia is added to chlorine. Hence, Nipomo’s decision to change over from chlorine, the NCSD’s previous treatment compound. Talk about odor, by the way. Draw yourself a bird bath with that chlorinated water, and you’d feel like you just walked up to the public pool. Pew! It seriously made you think twice about actually drinking the water.
Brockovich specifically targets Michael LeBrun in her long, ranting post. He’s the NCSD’s director. Because of this Facebook post (Facebook! That’s where news happens.), LeBrun was interviewed in a KSBY segment to address the NCSD’s choice to switch to a compound that Santa Maria already uses, as well as Brockovich’s accusation that he’s “telling you lies because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.”
She sounds like a crazy person, not the consumer advocate her website,
brockovich.com, claims her to be.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency states on its website: “The typical purpose of chloramines is to provide longer-lasting water treatment as the water moves through pipes to consumers. … Chloramines have been used by water utilities for almost 90 years, and their use is closely regulated. More than one in five Americans uses drinking water treated with chloramines. Water that contains chloramines and meets EPA regulatory standards is safe to use for drinking, cooking, bathing, and other household uses.”
A statement released by the NCSD on Aug. 31 responded to news reports caused by the Brockovich Facebook post. The release said cities like Philadelphia, Los Angeles, San Diego, Tampa Bay, and Washington, D.C., all used chloramine. The release also admits that chloramine could have an effect on kidney dialysis patients as well as aquariums and the fish in them. Mind you, though, when the district first made the announcement in May, the NCSD explicitly stated that it could affect those two things in particular, recommending that dialysis patients consult with their doctors and aquarium owners check with local pet stores.
It certainly doesn’t seem like the NCSD or LeBrun were attempting to hide or lie about anything. But then again, maybe the EPA’s lying, too.
And for the icing on the crazy-town cake—drum roll, please: “And as for the fluoride … do your own research … what a ridiculous waste and frankly … damn shame,” is how she capped off her NCSD-lynching Facebook post. It was kind of a random way to end the rant, which didn’t mention fluoride prior to the final statement.
Did you know American cities started putting fluoride in water supplies in the 1940s under the ruse that it helps prevent childhood tooth decay? Apparently, it was really a communist plot to undermine public health. Can you say “cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo?” Crazy.
But, I’m going to give Brockovich a little leeway and assume she’s referring to the thought that too much fluoridation isn’t good for teeth or bones. She could be on to something. I mean, European countries stopped adding it to their drinking water.
The EPA does admit that exposure to too much fluoride “may” lead to some adverse health effects, including a higher incidence of bone fractures in adults, but also puts out the caveat that “this health effects language is not intended to catalog all possible health effects for fluoride. Rather, it is intended to inform consumers of some of the possible health effects associated with fluoride in drinking water.”
What does that mean exactly? The EPA’s not copping to anything actually being wrong with the amount of fluoride it says is OK to add to drinking water, which is 4 parts per million.
But really, I don’t understand why she’s so upset about the chloramine thing. It seems like she’d be more upset with the Santa Ynez Water Conservation District and its beat-around-the-bush insistence that the EPA’s done residents a disservice by upping the standards for allowable chromium 6 in drinking water and not giving the district enough time to play catch-up.
We are in a drought, after all. The EPA now considers chromium 6 to be carcinogenic in amounts higher than 10 parts per billion. The standard used to be 50 parts per billion. Chromium 6 is mostly a naturally occurring compound, generated from soil, rocks, etc. The new regulation puts the Santa Ynez district in quite a bind. Basically, the district can no longer use half the wells it pulls water out of during a time where all its wells aren’t usable in the first place and State Water Project water is in short supply.
But I guess the EPA could be lying about chromium 6, too, although I’m not sure why it would. It seems like they’ve got an eye on drinking water and human health, even if it causes small water districts and rural customers to wince a little at the dwindling water supply the new regulations left for them.
Then again, maybe Brockovich would see it as the government specifically targeting rural communities as a way to control them. Who knows? We could find out if she decides it’s Facebook worthy.
The Canary doesn’t need social media; she’s got a whole column. Send comments to canary@santamariasun.com.
This article appears in Sep 3-10, 2015.