It has happened!

It has happened! Despite the powerful neoliberal protestors, the United Nations has made an historic decision to recognize water as a fundamental and universal human right!

The resolution was brought to the U.N. general assembly several weeks ago from Bolivia, a country which has been fervently involved in issues of water rights for years. Countries like Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, which see water as a commodity rather than a human right, spoke out against the movement to no avail, as 144 nations voted last Wednesday that water should be viewed as a public trust, not a market commodity. There were 41 abstentions, and zero votes of "no." Abstaining was clearly the safer way to dissent for the opposers of this resolution, since voting against human rights is surely no historical record to boast.

Still, the outcome of this debate could not have been better! The right to safe drinking water and sanitation are now part of the guiding language for governments around the world, and we have all taken a huge step forward in the way we perceive and acknowledge human rights, particularly in regard to health and access to those resources which are a fundamental part of a healthful life. As Ms. Maude Barlow, water activist extrodinaire, put it last week on Democracy Now!: "[The resolution] is a moral statement, a guiding principle of the countries of the world, that they have taken a step in the direction of saying that water is a human right and a public trust, and that no one should be dying for a lack of water."

For more information about the vote, and to watch Ms. Barlow's full interview with Amy Goodman, click here.

Water for Life

According to statistics collected by the U.N., there are approximately 880 million people worldwide who live without access to a safe drinking water source. EVERY DAY about 5,000 children die from water-borne illnesses related to poor sanitation and a lack of access to clean drinking water, and every year 2.2 million people die from the same cause. By 2030, the number of people living in areas of severe water stress could rise to 4 billion. This enormously detrimental predicament is being addressed by human rights advocates, development and aid agencies, and local initiatives which fight to have water declared as a human right, implement reliable water system infrastructures, and to promote sustainable water use, so as to stifle and prevent further suffering related to this dire human need. The problem is also being addressed by private companies, who seek to earn large profits from the growing global scarcity of fresh water drinking supplies. It has already been estimated that the global water market is worth nearly 250 billion dollars, and that figure is set to rise to a staggering 660 billion by 2020.

Since 2008, Maude Barlow, outspoken activist and author of the bestselling book Blue Covenent: The Global Water Crisis, has been serving as the Senior Advisor on Water to the United Nations, taking enormous strides towards guaranteeing the right to access safe drinking water for all people. These efforts include the draft of a universal resolution to recognize water as a global human right, expected to be presented to the general assembly later this month by Bolivia, a country which has experienced its own social uprisings in the face of poor sanitation, unclean water, and private water companies. If this resolution is passed, says Barlow, "It would be one of the most important things the United Nations has done since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights."

Still, this historic resolution is facing strong opposition, mostly from Western powers with vested interests in the privatization of water. According to Barlow, countries like Canada, the United States, and Great Britain have shown considerable resistance to the resolution being passed. Developing countries around the world, on the other hand, have a dire interest in seeing this motion adopted by the U.N., as these states suffer most from the effects of climate change, draught, and water commoditization. And as the European Union recognized water as a basic human right in March of this year, it becomes clear that support for this issue is growing rapidly around the world.

Water is the basic ingredient to life everywhere, and for a state or private entity to deny humans their right to access clean and safe drinking water is clearly a violation of international human rights. In order for this moral precedent to become a regulation, it is necessary to have the explicit language put down in an official capacity by the United Nations, By the end of July, this draft should be submitted, and in upcoming months the decision will be made whether to adopt the resolution, and provide people around the world with safe water, and a secure standard of living that includes this most fundamental part to the whole of living a safe and healthy life.

The Story of Bottled Water

Annie Leonard breaks it down:

The Fracking Shale

The Catskill-Delaware Watershed, from which New York City gets its water supply, is made up of 1900 miles of fresh, clear water nestled within the Catskill mountain region of upstate New York. It delivers nearly 1.4 billion gallons of water every day to 9 million residents, and has been praised as being a part of one of the most efficient, high quality water systems in the country, delivering safe, clean drinking water to the city. It is also a part of one of the mostsustainably-run systems, as 95% of the water supply is delivered via gravity alone, and as the watershed itself is used as a natural filtration mechanism, saving New York the cost of building and maintaining excessive water filtration plants.

By investing over $600 million in the conservation and pollution-prevention efforts in and around the NYC Watershed, and by buying up some of the surrounding land, the city and state have safeguarded a precious resource by maintaining its purity at the source, rather than managing water filtration efforts farther down the line, and reducing the amount of added chemicals necessary for purification. New York city has always had clean drinking water: pure and simple.

Still, New York State has put this enormous economic investment, as well as the safety of New York City residents at risk for the sake of supplying contracts to energy companies who wish to use the Watershed for natural gas drilling- namely, hydraulic fracturing, a process which has proven to be disastrous for water supplies in countless regions around the country. Conveniently exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and protected with by trade secrets, companies such as Halliburton continue to receive permits to drill in and around what should be protected areas

The Chesapeake Energy Corp., which had received the first contract to drill on NYC Watershed land, has rescinded on its ambitions, bowing to public pressure and announcing publicly that they have no further plans to drill in the area. But many opponents to hydraulic fracturing believe that this action is not enough, that the compromising extraction technique should be completely banned within the confines of the watershed. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has spoken out in favor of a ban, citing that the company's decision not to drill is in no way legally binding, and that the Department of Environmental Conservation should discontinue its issuance of permits to any potential drillers in the area.

After all, the energy companies are gaga over an enormous subterranean supply of natural gas which extends far beyond the New York City watershed, and offers the opportunity for drilling elsewhere but next to our clean water supply. The Marcellus Shale is the geological mass in question, and it stretches from Ohio and West Virginia eastward to Pennsylvania and New York, and contains up to 516 trillion cubic feet of natural gas throughout its entirety. So, why the watershed?

After public outcry and calls for environmental review, the DEC released a document on the safety and regulation of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas and the wells associated with extraction, and extended the period for public comment to the end of 2009. Currently, the DEC is still considering the many arguments heard from these series of hearings, and will be making a decision about the watershed in the upcoming months. Seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?

Below is a map, generated by the DEC, of the large scope of the Marcellus Shale in New York State, featuring several existing drill sites. Surely there must be some other drilling sites within this mammoth area that do not compromise drinking water supplies...

Phew!

...that was close! For a few weeks it seemed as if hydraulic fracturing could be coming to NYC's backyard, bringing chemicals and contamination to a faucet near you. But fortunately, thanks to the pressure put on by outspoken groups and individuals, the natural gas drilling company Chesapeake Energy Corporation has announced that it has no further plans to drill in the New York City Watershed. As the New York Times put it in their story, the company was "bowing to intense public pressure."

Hurray! That is great news for us. Especially since earlier this month, the New York City Department of Environmental Conservation gave the o.k. for fracturing to take place within our watershed, and imposed very few constraints on the energy companies to be doing so. Activists and water enthusiasts alike protested loudly and immediately, citing allegations and investigations into the dangerous nature of such drilling taking place within close proximity to sources of drinking water. While the energy companies argued that increased extraction was necessary due to the exceptional state of economic affairs, their opponents questioned whether increased profits were worth the potential cost of human safety.

And in a rare case of corporate concession, it seems as if the concerns of the people have been recognized and respected. As Aubrey C. McClendon of the Chesapeake Energy Corporation stated, "We're not going to develop these leases, and we're not taking any more leases, and I don't think anyone else in the industry would dare to acquire leases in the New York City Watershed." No, they wouldn't dare. Because New Yorkers are nothing if not truculent, and once we've set our minds to something, well... there's no messin' with us!

Still, the willingness of this large corporation to back down without facing government pressure brings to light the very absence of that same government pressure. The New York City Watershed provides drinking water to 15 million people, and the contamination of that resource puts each and every one of us at risk. So, why hasn't the D.E.C. stepped in with harsher regulations on fracturing? Better yet, why has it not outlawed fracturing all together in the watershed area? After all, even though the watershed is made up of nearly 1 million acres, it comprises only 8.5% of the drillable land in upstate New York. So it needs to be off-limits all together: not only to the energy companies, but to any and all developers. We in New York City pride ourselves on our clean, safe public drinking water. And we'd like for it to stay that way!

Water: Good for the Soul

A new report issued by a research group at Chicago University is posturing that water may have the same calming effect on human emotional well-being as those foods which we think of as comfort foods. On the same level as mac n' cheese, a tub of ice cream, and that heavenly bar of chocolate... is water! Good for your soul! Who woulda thought?

The researchers found that rats, after being exposed to a level of heat which caused slight pain and discomfort, had displayed the same amount of pain aversion whether they had been given water or sugar as a remedy. This is a sign that it is the simple act of ingestion, not the absorption of sugar, that has a calming effect on the body.

While it's a common remedy for most of us to ease the blues with a little bit of chocolate and sugar, the emotional over-eating of rich, unhealthy foods on a regular basis may lead to such problems as obesity. However, perhaps not so surprisingly, it may be possible for us to achieve the same pain-numbing reaction by simply drinking water, and avoiding all of the unecessary calories.

And after all, the healing effects of water are evident and multifarious. We are all bound to water, we are made of water, so it follows that we may be naturally healed and cleansed by the very element that shapes our lives. It seems ubiquitous to the human experience: when we are feeling overwhelmed, sitting nearby a river or stream has a soothing, meditative power that reaches into our soul and heals us. When we ache, we bathe ourselves in hot water to relax our muscles and our mind. And when we are restless... listening to the soundtrack of the ocean's powerful tides, we are calmed and inspired simultaneously, often lulled into a deep, rejuvenating sleep. So why not, when we are feeling emotional pain, can we not drink water to help us heal!

There are so many reasons to drink more water to maintain a healthier lifestyle. Our bodies and our minds alike are detoxed by its cleansing power. This is yet another example of the healing power of water, and why it is essential to all of us! That is not to say that a little chocolate doesn't make put a smile on my face once in a while, but for a true calming effect... next time perhaps choose water.

Toxic Water Laws

The laws which seek to protect our health against dangerous contaminants in our water supplies are unfortunately not as reliable as we would like them to be. One of our main defenders is The Clean Water Act, which was passed in 1972, and intended to regulate public bodies of water such as rivers, lakes, and tributaries. But it does not necessarily guarantee the safety of these vital resources. Their health is directly linked to our own physical health, as we extract food from them, use them as locales for recreation and family getaways, and rely on them as major sources of our drinking water. Yet the Clean Water Act's loophole ridden nature almost ensures non-compliance on the part of major polluters, and the law is practically ignored by state regulators, allowing for dangerous contamination of our public water sources with very few repercussions.

In a major series related to this water contamination, The New York Times has released a study which found that in the past five years, there have been over 500,000 cases of violation of the Clean Water Act, by a total of 23,000 companies. 60% of the offenses were deemed to be "significant noncompliance," alluding to the fact that the danger levels for these violations are high, involving toxic chemicals being released into our waterways. The Federal Council on Environmental Quality reports that "up to two thirds of all cancers can be attributed to low level toxins [in water]," and that "once contaminated, our ground water will remain so for tens of thousands of years." But the most shocking aspect of this new study is that of the half a million cases of violation, only 3% were ever prosecuted or punished by state regulators. This sends the message, as do the loopholes of other laws such as the Safe Drinking Water Act, that the protection of our public water supplies is a frivolous endeavor, and that our public well-being is relatively unimportant when compared with the potential for profits by major corporations.

Besides the fact that both the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act are battered pieces of legislation to begin with, having been plagued by insufficient funding for enforcement and corrupt loopholes for those embedded with the Washington elite, they are practically ignored by those who are technically mandated to follow them. In an interview given to the New York Times, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that despite some progress having been made since the passage of the Clean Water Act, water supplies in the United States do not meet public health goals and the enforcement of water pollution laws is "unacceptably low."

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, the New York Times was also able to compile a database of information related to water contamination across the entire country that is "more comprehensive than those maintained by states or by the E.P.A." To learn more about water contamination in your area, you may access this brilliant database by clicking here.

Thank you to Charles Duhigg, the investigative reporter who carried out this study, and to the New York Times for publishing such integral information related to our water safety and our collective health.

Frac Facts

Check out these fracturing facts from the U.S. Dept of Energy, which might give some insight into the [lack of] regulations related to natural gas extraction:

21 out of 31 of the states which employ hydraulic fracturing for

natural gas drilling have no regulations specific to the practice

only 4 out of 31 drilling states have detailed regulations

regarding hydraulic fracturing

only 10 states require that fracturing companies disclose

information on the chemicals they are using

0 states require that the volume of fluid left

underground for fracturing be recorded

Sources: State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources, May 2009, U.S. Department of Energy, office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Lab, and the Ground Water Protection Council.

Frickin' Frackin' on Democracy Now!

The outstanding news program Democracy Now!, which is based out of New York City but broadcast on radio, tv, and podcast worldwide, reported yesterday on the case of water contamination in Wyoming and its possible link to hydraulic fracturing. The report includes an interview with Abrahm Lustgarten, an investigative journalist for Pro Publica, who has been researching the situation in Wyoming, as well as an excerpt from the documentary Split Estate by Debra Anderson, which touches on health issues related to fracturing chemicals.

Check out this great piece here: http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/3/fracking_and_the_environment_natural_gas

Of Course

The federal Environmental Protection Agency is now reporting that certain chemicals found in public drinking water supplies might be linked to the act of hydraulic fracturing, a method used to extract natural gases from the earth. Well, duh! The contamination of drinking wells in close proximity to sites of hydraulic fracturing has been studied, criticized, and disputed by the energy companies for many years now; and the appearance of certain telltale chemicals in drinking water has long indicated the guilt of the fracturing companies.

As I shared with you earlier last month, these companies are protected from adhering with the Safe Drinking Water Act, which binds any polluting action from being carried out in or around public drinking water supplies, by a loophole provided by the Bush Administration in 2005. Also, since that loophole was instilled, the powers of the E.P.A. have been restricted, and their ability to investigate water wells for contamination from natural gas drilling has been removed. Also, a trade secret loophole assured that energy companies did not have to publicly reveal exactly what chemicals they used in the process of hydraulic fracturing. Thank you, again, Mr. Cheney.

But a recent discovery of chemicals associated with natural gas drilling in people's drinking water in Wyoming has raised the issue once again, and the E.P.A. has found its own loophole- the Superfund Program. The designation of a site as a Superfund gives the E.P.A. extended sovereignty over the testing and rehabilitation of that area. In the case of the Wyoming water wells, they have the power to investigate chemicals found in drinking water, as well as to subpoena information from the energy companies- allowing them to access the data on what chemicals are being used and in how much abundance.

The agency is currently investigating whether or not the wells are indeed contaminated by fracturing chemicals. So far agricultural poisoning is reasoned out, as no pesticides or herbicides were found among the harmful chemicals; as were common household cleaners, whose chance of contamination is "less than one in a million," according to Dole Ward, and independent water specialist living in Wyoming.

It would not be the first time that fracturing companies stood guilty in the face of the public. Although never proven guilty in a court of law, the Canadian company Encanca has settled out of court with many residents surrounding its drilling sites, and has even bought residents' land and supplied them with fresh drinking water from a separate source, after a woman suffering from poor health found many dangerous contaminants in her water.

It is a terrible shame that local residents of Wyoming have lived with such detrimental components in their water. If the E.P.A.'s findings prove the guilt of hydraulic fracturing, however, it could mean monumental changes in the policy affecting the practice. Perhaps the currently proposed amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which would call for the accountability of the energy companies in terms of public health safety and environmental responsibility, would be passed and made into law; preventing the further contamination of our water wells and reservoirs, and giving us the peace of mind that our water is clean and safe... ahh, now that would be refreshing.

World Water Week

According to statistics collected by the U.N., there are approximately 880 million people worldwide who live without access to a safe drinking water source. EVERY DAY about 5,000 children die from water-borne illnesses related to poor sanitation and a lack of access to clean drinking water, and every year 2.2 million people die from the same cause. By 2030, the number of people living in areas of severe water stress could rise to 4 billion. This enormously detrimental predicament is being addressed by human rights advocates, development and aid agencies, and local initiatives which fight to have water declared as a human right, implement reliable water system infrastructures, and to promote sustainable water use, so as to stifle and prevent further suffering related to this dire human need. The problem is also being addressed by private companies, who seek to earn large profits from the growing global scarcity of fresh water drinking supplies. It has already been estimated that the global water market is worth nearly 250 billion dollars, and that figure is set to rise to a staggering 660 billion by 2020. Basically, there is a lot of money to be made off of the commoditization of our survival. In order to prevent the privatization of water, the most basic necessity to human life, it is imperative that human rights organizations work in conjunction with environmental groups to address the situation at hand; and this past week a global meeting of a variety of stakeholders proved to be an excellent example of such benevolent cooperation.

Last week was marked by a seven-day convention of over 2,500 parties from 130 countries, representing 175 different organizations, all gathering in Sweden to address the world's most urgent water-related issues. The Stockholm Water Symposium was organized by the Stockholm Water Institute, and featured a variety of workshops, lectures, and discussions which focused on water security and provision in terms of development, aid, sustainability, and public health. The global summit offered up an environment within which both contrasting and corresponding state policies would be examined and analyzed, and solutions to the world's pressing needs would be presented. Regarding the availability of water as a natural resource in relation to its comparative uses, many nations from both the industrialized and the developing world were presented with the effects of their agricultural practices. Similarly, the unregulated pollutants in drinking water, such as wastewater, pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptor's, herbicides and pesticides were discussed across country lines; as well as the power of farm lobbyists in effecting policy. In terms of solutions, several ideas and initiatives were discussed, including the formation of plebiscites demanding water as a basic human right; water as a public trust, an idea supported by the U.N. senior advisor on water issues, Ms. Maude Barlow; and ecosystem restoration, which is an emerging movement spreading wide across the globe in hopes of establishing clean and safe watersheds for the benefit of our ecosystems and our drinking supply.

Also this week, a report was publicized at the symposium by the water advocacy organization Circle of Blue, indicating that people worldwide view water issues as surpassing the threats of climate change, becoming the most crucial environmental problem to face humanity. The desperation, disease, and death which are caused by a lack of access to clean drinking water and healthy sanitation practices were seen by a majority of the 1,000 respondents from 15 different countries to be a fundamental human concern. The most prominent facet of this concern, according to the survey, was water pollution and the public health crises that emerge from a lack of proper sanitation. Water scarcity was also a top priority for the respondents. The results varied by state, which developing countries showing greater concern for water issues in general. With most all of the environmental efforts within industrialized nations seeming to revolve around climate change in recent years, the results of this survey prove to be a startling glimpse at the immediate plight of human beings around the world.

And in terms of climate change, the participants in the Stockholm Symposium released a statement last week directed at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, where world leaders will meet to reach a resolution on a global cap on greenhouse gas emissions. The statement asserts that water must be considered as an integral facet of climate change and its effects, and states that "water is a key medium through which climate change impacts will be felt. Managing the resource effectively, including through well-conceived IWRM [Integrated Water Resources Management] approaches and at a trans boundary level, is central to successful adaptation planning and implementation, and to building the resilience of communities, countries, and regions."

The Stockholm Symposium is the second gathering to address water issues in 2009, the first being a forum organized in March by the World Water Council which included governments, water utility companies, and groups associated with environmental research and education. The forum was widely criticized by activists who claimed that the forum was exclusionary and promoted private interests moreso than advocating for the earth and the world's poor. The Stockholm International Water Institutes' program, conversely, was celebrated for its global perspective and its focus on real issues. Hopefully the convergence of participants at this massive gathering will result in resonating thought and policy geared towards water sustainability and improved access to safe drinking water at no charge to those who need it. The next World Water Week has already been set for September 5-11, 2010. Mark your calendars!

Bigger Better Bottle Bill

Earlier this year, a landmark environmental bill passed in the New York state senate with a vote of 32 to 20, and was signed into law by Governor Patterson. The Bigger Better Bottle Bill added a 5 cent refund to those consumers who choose to return their non-carbonated plastic water bottles for processing at recycling centers, adding bottled water to the list of consumer beverages which could be returned in this way. The cash reward offered an incentive for individual recycling which undoubtedly helped to prevent plastic water bottles from piling up in landfills and littering New York City's streets and beaches. The bill also included a provision which required distributors to return 80% of unclaimed deposits to the state, a measure which would generate $115 million in revenue for New York, a state which is currently facing a deficit of $2.1 Billion.

The decision reached by lawmakers in April was almost immediately blocked by those in the bottled beverage industry. In June, the state was sued by several groups, including Nestle Waters North America and the International Bottled Water Association. In addition to opposing new labeling requirements, the plaintiffs argued that the compliance deadlines for new implementations were too constricted, and that exemptions for sugar-water beverages such as Gatorade and other sports drinks were unconstitutional.

The complete passage of the bill was stalled until April of 2010 at the earliest, and environmental groups who had spent years advocating for its passage were deeply disappointed. But good news came quickly, as Monday a decision from Federal District Court Judge Deborah Batts called for the immediate enactment of the expanded law, following an appeal from the state. Her ruling has ended two months of legal disputes over the issue, and has again allowed for the recycling of single-serve plastic water bottles for a cash incentive.

But how much good will this new law really do for New York's recycling efforts? Although now 80% of the unclaimed deposits will be rerouted into the state budget, many environmentalists, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are opposed to the idea that the funds from recycled products would not be given directly to statewide environmental movements, instead being directed into an obscure account within the New York State budget. They argue that the bill will do more to hamper recycling efforts within New York than to encourage them. This remains to be seen.

And does this expanded law redeem the bottled water industry? Hardly. In fact, according to Dr. Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, 90% of the environmental impact of bottled water is inflicted before it reaches the consumer. If you take into account the oil used in manufacturing the plastic bottles, and in shipping and refrigerating the final product, recycling the bottle seems to be a meager counteraction. The NRDC released a report which stated that the 43 million gallons of bottled water received by New York City annually from the European Union results in approximately 3800 tons of carbon dioxide emissions each year. That is the equivalent of 660 cars running continuously all year long. And that is only from the E.U. New York recieves bottled water from many countries around the world.

I would like to congratulate the New York State Senate, Governor Patterson, and more recently Judge Deborah Batts, for passing the expanded bottled bill. It is a commendable stride in the direction of sustainability. However, we still need to find an alternative to single-serve packaged water. We MUST continue to TAPIT!

The Safe Drinking Water Act… is nothing sacred?

When I turn on my faucet in anticipation of a cool, clean refreshing drink, I assume (to an extent) that I am safe from harmful toxins and chemicals. I make this assumption because the Safe Drinking Water Act, put forth by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and further enforced by local governments, claims to monitor public sources of drinking water and ensure their safety from a public health standpoint. But I am wrong in making this assumption, because I forget to consider to loopholes granted to our country’s corporate energy monsters- er, companies. The oil and gas industry is the only constituent granted immunity from following regulations in accordance with the act, due an exemption provided within the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This act was put in place by the Bush Administration, and exempts energy companies who utilize hydraulic fluid fracturing processes in extracting for natural gases from the Earth, a method which has been criticized by many environmental advocacy groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Fracturing is often carried out in very close proximity to sources of public drinking water, and is harmful because of the harmful toxins that it inserts forcibly into the ground. There is currently no policy which requires fracturing companies to reveal the chemicals used during their processes, and thanks to the policies put in place during the Bush-Cheney administration, federal oversight of these companies was removed, allowing them to operate freely, despite their environmental and public health implications. Not surprisingly, Halliburton was the company responsible for the development of hydraulic fracturing in the 1940s, and is one of the most prominent users of the process today.

Currently, an amendment to the Safe Water Drinking Act is being considered by the United States House of Representatives, put forth by several legislators from both the House and the Senate. The Fracking Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, known commonly as the FRAC Act, seeks to close loopholes created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, requiring hydraulic fracturing to once again be monitored by the federal government. It also calls upon energy companies to publicly release information about the chemicals used.

Energy company executives are, true to form, organizing and audibly complaining about the proposed amendment to the legislation. They claim that the change would result in higher costs for natural gas extraction, leading to higher gas prices and job loss in an already unstable economy. In addition to this unwarranted fear-mongering, they are lobbying to law makers, threatening to sue if the regulations are imposed. But the information they provide is outdated and incorrect in many cases.

Our drinking water is not something to be messed around with- we should demand that the EPA and our local and state governments do all that they can to ensure our safety and our health. Please, write to your local representatives and ask them to support this amendment to the Safe Water Drinking Act- don’t let Halliburton contaminate your water just to turn a buck!