In 2006, the New York State Department of Health reported that organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams included 11 sampling sites in the Croton watershed. All 11 sampled streams contained detectable levels of human pharmaceutical compounds. In March, the Associated Press published a series of reports documenting the results of its investigation that detected the presence of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water supplies of 24 of 28 U.S. metropolitan areas – including the New York City supply. In response to the AP reports, the New York City Council held public hearings on this issue on April 3, 2008. Riverkeeper helped prepare testimony that was presented by NYPIRG on behalf of the Clean Drinking Water Coalition (CDWC).

While detectible levels of pharmaceuticals in the NYC drinking water are quite low, cumulative impacts of consumption over time are not well documented and the CDWC has long advocated for comprehensive sampling of the City's drinking water. In response to the recent AP reports, DEP issued a statement that, "New York City's drinking water continues to meet all federal and state regulations regarding drinking water quality in the watershed and the distribution system." This is true, but only because all of the pharmaceuticals reported in drinking water supplies are unregulated in treated tap water. Although the drugs found by the AP research were at low concentrations, measured in parts per billion or parts per trillion, any level is legal and currently the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not require water utilities to test for these substances.

At the recent New York City Council hearings, the CDWC called for the City to support or undertake the following actions to protect the City's drinking water supply:

1) Establish a national strategy to address how these contaminants make their way into the environment. EPA must assume a leadership role and take action. Congress directed EPA to screen pesticides for hormonal activity in humans through the enactment of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996, and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 (Section 136) authorized EPA to screen for drinking water contaminants as well. While EPA did develop an Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee in 1996, there has been very little progress. After 11 years and in response to a lawsuit filed by environmentalists, 73 out of 87,000 chemicals were finally placed on a draft list of chemicals EPA intends to screen for.

2) Include pharmaceuticals, personal care products and endocrine disruptors in the Contaminant Candidate Listing (CCL). Section 1412(b)(1) of the SDWA requires EPA to publish a list of unregulated contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require control through national primary drinking water regulation. The CCL merely advises people that the contaminant may be regulated in the future. Of the 287 pharmaceuticals analyzed for inclusion in the CCL, only one – nitroglycerin – was added. Strnagely, nitroglycerine was listed not because of its contaminant status, but because it can be used to make explosives. EPA has not only failed to screen for these PPCP contaminants, but also failed to even add them to the CCL.

3) Hold the pharmaceutical industry accountable by calling for them to reformulate medications to allow for more efficient human intake thereby making them more environmentally friendly. As has been widely reported in the media, even the pharmaceutical industry is taking note. In remarks at an industry conference, Mary Buzby, Director of Environmental Technology for drug maker Merck & Co. Inc. said, "There’s no doubt about it, pharmaceuticals are being detected in the environment and there is genuine concern that these compounds, in the small concentrations that they're at, could be causing impacts to human health or to aquatic organisms."

4) Upgrade Wastewater Treatment Plants to technologies that will remove pharmaceuticals during treatment. The tools and technologies exist to remove pharmaceuticals from our water supplies – including reverse-osmosis, membrane filtration, carbon filtering and exposure to ozone or ultraviolet light – and such technologies should be employed.

5) Establish pharmaceutical "take-back" programs, which are collection programs aimed at reducing the quantity of unused pharmaceuticals entering the environment. These initiatives provide the legal framework and the logistic resources required to allow the general public to turn in pharmaceuticals to be disposed of safely. Several states, cities, and counties throughout the United States – including Alachua County, Florida, Clark County, Washington, Kendall County, Illinois, La Crosse, Wisconsin, Olmsted Falls, Ohio and Southern California – have successfully initiated long-term pharmaceutical collection programs, while others have organized single-day or annual collection events.

6) Provide states with more funding. There should be increased funding for research into the potential aquatic and human health impacts from exposure to trace concentrations of these contaminants. Our concern is not so much what we know, but what we don't know. The studies conducted by NYSDOH and USGS in New York were funded through SDWA monies and that funding has been used up. Although Congress reauthorized additional funding in FY04, appropriations have not been forthcoming.