The tap water appreciation topic

[ballast_regime]

I decided to look up the EPA watershed quality of every city mentioned on this thread, just as a comparison. Watershed quality uses a formula established by the EPA that measures the quality of water by using 15 different indicators, such as pollutants, turbidity, sediments, and toxic discharges. The scale is 0 - 100, with 100 being the best.

Some of the results might surprise you. Remember that this number doesn't necessarily indicate taste, but it has some bearing. I.e., the higher the number, the better tasting the water should be. Two cities with equal numbers may have different tastes, for obvious reasons.

Chicago, IL: 31

Corpus Christi, TX: 74

Cupertino, CA: 41

El Paso, TX: 58

Houston, TX: 37

Lawrence, KS: 44

Louisville, KY: 13

Miami, FL: 48

New Orleans, LA: 41

New York, NY: 42

Philadelphia, PA: 1 (Really)

Santa Barbara, CA: 42

Seattle, WA: 58

The city with the highest quality water that I could find was Denver, CO: 90.

Much peace,

Ian Lowe

ballast/regime

Edited July 23, 2003 by ballast_regime (log)

[fresco]

Is it possible that sediments, etc., may actually improve the taste of the water?

[ballast_regime]

Fresco:

Depends on who you are and what kinds of sediment you're referring to. I prefer softer water, like Fiji, with less of a metallic mouth-feel, but I know plenty of people who prefer the brittle, tinny feel of many mineral waters. For the most part, I cannot imagine sediment (of the kind the EPA is likely to measure) enhancing water's taste.

Much peace,

IML

b/r

[DVSDave]

Is it possible that sediments, etc., may actually improve the taste of the water?

This thread intrigued me, mainly because I did a blind tasting of several popular (and unpopular) waters with unwitting friends.

Would it be okay if I dig up my notes and publish my findings? Or will I face the wrath of the dreaded "sparkling, still, or, ahem, tap" water dilemma forever?

[Fat Guy]

Please do.

Ian, what makes you say that higher number equals better taste? Aren't the EPA's criteria mostly safety-related? Does that score include the secondary, voluntary standards that have a very serious impact on taste?

[ballast_regime]

Fat Guy:

Obviously, there are various factors outside the EPA's watershed quality that can affect taste. As a general rule of thumb, higher numbers denote greater levels of overall purity, and not just pollutants. Of course, there can be other factors that further degrade the quality of water before it reaches your tap (pipes, the number of water processing plants, and so on) that watershed quality does not take into account. It is probably best to say that watershed quality is a way of ranking the quality of water at the source: the "land that catches rain and snow and drains or seeps into a marsh, stream, river, lake or groundwater," as the Purdue Watershed site puts it. The EPA does take into account the amounts of sediment, nutrient, pollutant, and bacterial loadings that affect the "taste-and-odor" elements of water. We could establish a more intensive system, I'm sure, but there isn't a lot of research about which cities use which processing methods, pipes, etc. I was mainly posting this as a reference point, and nothing else.

Much peace,

Ian Lowe

ballast/regime

Edited July 23, 2003 by ballast_regime (log)

[fresco]

What I'd love to see--and I know there are some organizational obstacles--is an eGullet tap water tasting, with best and worst decided by a panel of worthies. This is, I think, the kind of thing this site could do better and perhaps more easily than most other organizations. It would sure generate a lot of interest.

[ballast_regime]

The primary issue at hand with an eGullet tasting would be the subjectivity involved. It would work better if the tasting was like the wine tastings hosted by Frank Prial in the NYT, where a bunch of people sitting around could have every water sample in front of them.

IML

b/r

P.S. Speaking of which, it's probably late enough that tomorrow's Dining In/Out section has been posted online. Time to hop over and see.

[Fat Guy]

I've not studied the issue much, but my understanding was that the EPA doesn't give a crap about how water tastes -- the regulations and measuring programs are all about safety. Taste doesn't come up until the secondary standards. It seems the composite number you're talking about does include some of the secondary standards, or doesn't it?

What are Secondary Standards?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Primary Drinking Water Regulations that set mandatory water quality standards for drinking water contaminants. These are enforceable standards called "maximum contaminant levels" or "MCLs", which are established to protect the public against consumption of drinking water contaminants that present a risk to human health. An MCL is the maximum allowable amount of a contaminant in drinking water which is delivered to the consumer .

In addition, EPA has established National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations that set non-mandatory water quality standards for 15 contaminants. EPA does not enforce these "secondary maximum contaminant levels" or "SMCLs." They are established only as guidelines to assist public water systems in managing their drinking water for aesthetic considerations, such as taste, color and odor. These contaminants are not considered to present a risk to human health at the SMCL.

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/consumer/2nds...dstandards.html

[=Mark]

The problem with an eGullet national tasting besides the subjective nature of such an undertaking is that the chemistry of tap water begins to change as soon as it leaves the local water system, not unlike decanted wine. It would be hard not to consider these changes in tap water that had been in shipment for several days.

The best water I ever had was from an artesian well on a farm in the tidewater of Virginia. Made for the best "Adult Beverages" I've ever tasted from a non-commercial still...

[fresh_a]

As an interesting aside, many cafes in Paris are starting to charge per glass and carafe of tap water, normally about 30-40 Euros cents. Many people are outraged by this...

[slkinsey]

...a formula established by the EPA that measures the quality of water by using 15 different indicators, such as pollutants, turbidity, sediments, and toxic discharges.

I note the conspicuous absence of a category for dissolved minerals, which is one of the most potent influences on taste.

[babyluck]

Best (tie):

Indian Lake in the Adirondacks. Unfortunately, there was so much runoff this year that it tasted like lakewater.

Gravity-fed spring water at the El Monte ecolodge in Mindo, Ecuador.

Worst: The church camp I went to as a kid in the Catskills (sulfur), NJ when the processing plant in Sayreville floods. I even drank tap water in Haiti () accidentally and it tasted better than Westfield on a good day. Hey, when it's hot out and I see a garden hose, I automatically drink from it. No, I didn't get sick -- that time.

[afoodnut]

I decided to look up the EPA watershed quality of every city mentioned on this thread, just as a comparison.  Watershed quality uses a formula established by the EPA that measures the quality of water by using 15 different indicators, such as pollutants, turbidity, sediments, and toxic discharges.  The scale is 0 - 100, with 100 being the best.

Some of the results might surprise you.  Remember that this number doesn't necessarily indicate taste, but it has some bearing.  I.e., the higher the number, the better tasting the water should be.  Two cities with equal numbers may have different tastes, for obvious reasons.

Chicago, IL:  31

Corpus Christi, TX:  74

Cupertino, CA:  41

El Paso, TX:  58

Houston, TX:  37

Lawrence, KS:  44

Louisville, KY:  13

Miami, FL:  48

New Orleans, LA:  41

New York, NY:  42

Philadelphia, PA:  1 (Really)

Santa Barbara, CA:  42

Seattle, WA:  58

The city with the highest quality water that I could find was Denver, CO:  90.

Much peace,

Ian Lowe

ballast/regime

I have to vouch for Colorado water, at least most of the time. Last year, in the worst throes of the drought, water started tasting weird, because reservoirs were low, and different treatments had to be used.

Our water comes primarily from snowpack/runoff, not rainfall. Boulder is sometimes noted because the city "owns a glacier" to supply water; it's true that there's a glacier in the watershed, but of course its snowmelt is a tiny percentage of the runoff. Rocky Mountain water is delicious.

[ballast_regime]

Fat Guy:

It is true that there are "secondary standards," or secondary constituents, that can greatly affect taste -- such as calcium, sodium, iron, and so on -- that are outside EPA regulations. Often these constituents can change the taste, color or odor of the water. This is not to say that a lot of the guidelines set up by the EPA have no bearing on taste. They do, as turbidity (which can lead to eutrophication-related taste issues), acceptable contaminant levels, treatment technique, etc., all have a huge bearing on the initial taste of water before it's treated. A part of the EPA's evaluation of water quality does deal with the incidence of taste and odor problems within treated water. So, as I've said before, the higher the watershed quality number, the greater the level of overall purity prior to treatment and hence a greater likelihood of one having better tasting water. I.e., it would be hard to make Philadelphia water taste better than Colorado water, even if one removed the majority of dissolved trace minerals from the former and not the latter, because the Philadelphia already tastes bad to begin with.

It is therefore safe to say that the watershed quality index is a good rule of thumb, but not necessarily fact. The only time I would imagine the index being unhelpful would be in the case of comparing two places that have rankings that are very close, such as Lawrence, KS (my hometown) and Cupertino, CA, because there could be minor differences in secondary standards, pipe quality, etc., that make one taste better than the other.

Much peace,

Ian Lowe

ballast/regime

Edited July 23, 2003 by ballast_regime (log)

[bloviatrix]

My friend still has a house right near there, in Red Hook, and he actually brings a few dozen empty bottles up there every weekend, fills them from his well, and uses that as his drinking water the rest of the week.

My in-laws bring empty jugs with them to fill up with NYC tap water when they come to visit. And they live just across the river in Jersey.

[fifi]

Wait a minute...

I am remembering that there has been taste testings of water from various cities. I think it was a few years ago because we got a big laugh out of the fact that Houston rated pretty high. Our nutcase mayor even had a scheme to bottle and sell Houston water to help out his lame budget. The sad thing is, he was serious! There is some group out there that judges tap water. Maybe someone with better google skills than mine can turn it up. I haven't been successful.

[ballast_regime]

San Francisco now sells their own bottled water. Houston's current mayor, Lee Brown, was involved in an imbroglio with Azurix, a privately-held water corporation owned by Enron, over contracts to build a Lake Houston water plant. Ultimately, Azurix lost. Texas has awarded Houston many top-water honors. I googled left and right, but ultimately couldn't find a single webpage related to Lee Brown's desire to sell bulk water. Perhaps it's another mayor other than Brown?

I grew up in Houston (and New Orleans and Phoenix), and it's water quality is pretty decent. I would rate it "OK" to "good."

Much peace,

IML

ballast/regime

[fresco]

There was a time when Walkerton, Ontario, had the worst water anywhere:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/walkerton_report.html

[KatieLoeb]

worst: philly. sorry guys.

Philadelphia, PA: 1 (Really)

Tommy - I knew you would say that before I even opened up the thread. But of course your right. The water here is awful, and seems to be getting worse as time goes on. I can actually smell the water when I turn on my shower. Yech!

There's a filter on my kitchen tap for cooking/drinking water. That makes it vaguely passable.

[slkinsey]

I grew up in Houston (and New Orleans and Phoenix), and it's water quality is pretty decent.  I would rate it "OK" to "good."

Interesting. I grew up in Boston and live in NYC -- both cities known for having great tap water. Now my parents live in Houston, and my girlfriend's family is in Phoenix so I spend a fair amount ot fime in both places. I would describe the tap water in those two cities as "potable, but I would very much prefer to drink something else." Whenever I am in Houston it is a constant struggle to hydrate myself enough for singing, because the water tastes so unpleasant I have to force myself to drink enough. Only ice makes this possible.

[tommy]

Only ice makes this possible.

and when the ice melts? oh boy. nothin worse than melted ice cubes made from bad water. they're often yucky when made from good water as well.

[fifi]

Perhaps it's another mayor other than Brown?

Nope, it was Brown. And they were going to sell it in bottles, not bulk. I even remember seeing in the Chronicle that they had a label design with a graphic of the skyline. The whole thing was insane.

[ballast_regime]

slkinsey:

Again, I'm not a big fan of any tap water I've ever tried. For me to say Houston is "OK" to "good" isn't saying very much, and Phoenix' water is good for making espresso because it has high calcium levels (Illy considers it to have the best water in the country for making espresso, other than one or two other places). My brother lives in Boston, and I haven't been impressed with the water. New York's is decent -- definitely better than anything else I've just mentioned, but Colorado is much, much, much better.

Much peace,

IML

b/r

[nyfirepatrolchef]

Though under the auspices of NYC Water Board, I believe Im still on supply by the Long Island wells of the late Jamaica Water Supply. Despite the nasty things theyve said about it over the years, Ive yet to sprout a tail or have my liver sprout through my navel.