S.F. drinking water rated poor in new report

With voters set to decide the fate of the state’s largest-ever water bond next week, a new report claims that deteriorating water distribution and treatment systems pose health risks in four major California cities.

The report — released today by the Natural Resources Defense Council, a national environmental group — gave San Francisco a rating of “poor” for how it protects drinking water for its 2.4 million users.

The report claims that San Francisco is one of the few large cities left in the nation with tap water that exceeds the federal maximum level set for a group of potentially harmful byproducts created by disinfecting with chlorine.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the federal government regulates the contaminants, called trihalomethanes, because some studies link high levels with cancer and reproductive problems.

“Any water system that exceeds the new (federal) standard for chemicals that cause cancer and potentially cause miscarriage and birth defects can receive a water quality grade no higher than ‘poor,’ ” said author Erik Olson, an analyst with the environmental group.

“San Francisco included overarching, prominent and unwarranted claims that the city’s water is ‘top quality,’ ignoring the serious trihalomethane problem” in its 2001 annual right-to-know report to customers, Olson said.

At the same time, he said, the report downplayed mandatory warnings about the risks from waterborne microbes in tap water to vulnerable populations such as people with HIV.

San Francisco applied for and received a two-year extension until 2004 to meet the trihalomethane standard. It is converting to another disinfection system that would produce far less contaminants by September 2003.

In the report, which assesses performances of California municipal water companies, Fresno also earned a rating of “poor.” Los Angeles and San Diego were ranked “fair.”

The report is part of a larger look at water systems in 19 cities nationwide. NRDC released the California portion early to promote support for Proposition 50, which includes money for upgrading water treatment and distribution systems. The $3.4 billion bond is the state’s largest.

In response to the environmental group’s allegations, Beverly Hennessey, a spokeswoman for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, said the city’s water quality was improving.

Compared with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standard of 80 parts per billion for trihalomethanes, the city’s running average as of Oct. 1 was 57.9 parts per billion. For 2001, the average was 82 parts per billion, and 84 parts per billion in 2000.

New York, Chicago, Detroit and Cincinnati are also still using chlorine to disinfect water, she said.

“We’re being very pro-active in letting our customers know about water quality issues by sending out a report to each resident in San Francisco,” Hennessey said. She also said the report’s section regarding waterborne microbes was prominently placed within the text.

Environmental groups generally support the $3.4 billion bond measure, which would finance water projects, including improvements to drinking water plants, desalination, wetlands restoration and coastal open space protection.

Such supporters as the Planning and Conservation League say the money is needed to modernize the treatment plants, remove such pollutants as the gas additive MTBE from groundwater, finance water recycling programs and safeguard waterways.

Opponents, including the California Farm Bureau, say the measure would spend money on costly projects, buying expensive coastal and other lands from speculators and developers while not increasing the supply of clean water.

E-mail Jane Kay at jkay@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A – 15 of the San Francisco Chronicle