The New York Times
www.nytimes.com

In New Mexico, Debate Over Arsenic Strikes Home

By TIMOTHY EGAN
April 14, 2001

Turn on the faucet in the biggest city in New Mexico and what comes out the tap poses an instant question. It tastes fine, looks normal and contains the highest arsenic levels of any major American city's drinking water.

Until a few weeks ago, the guidance from Washington was that arsenic on the level seen here posed a cancer threat over prolonged exposure. Then the Bush administration changed the federal posture, arguing that the new guidelines may have been regulatory overkill.

And while the president's move caused a political furor that has taken on a life beyond the somewhat arcane subject matter, here in New Mexico and other parts of the West the political debate is secondary. While some people here are confused by what exactly the government is saying about a basic necessity of life, cash-strapped municipal officials are relieved.

New Mexico may be rich in arsenic, which occurs naturally in the volcanic soils here, but it is poor in tax revenue. With nearly one in five residents living below the poverty line, the state is among the poorest in the country. The city of Albuquerque estimated that compliance with the stringent federal standards that were withdrawn last month would have cost as much as $200 million.

"What we would like is some definitive scientific evidence that this would be worth doing," Mayor Jim Baca, a Democrat, said of compliance. "I'm a pretty strong environmentalist, but I was convinced that the data didn't justify the new level."

Others believe that the federal government has left Albuquerque in limbo.

"This is not India - I'd like to be able to drink the water," said Jeanne Bassett, executive director of the New Mexico Public Interest Research Group, which has pressed city officials to raise the water standards. "Some people are now spending more on bottled water than they do on gas."

In Albuquerque, the city water is used by schools, runs through drinking fountains, and is praised by city leaders for its taste. But smaller communities around Albuquerque have taken a different approach.

The town of San Ysidro, which has even higher arsenic levels than Albuquerque, has installed home-filtering devices on the taps in all houses. A neighboring Indian community, Isleta Pueblo, has sued the city to bring down the arsenic content in water that flows down the Rio Grande.

"It's amazing - the federal government has basically defaulted from where it was supposed to be," said Jim Piatt, the environment manager for Isleta Pueblo. "If people in power could just be honest, and say, `We're trying to prevent cancer, and let's see what the science says,' we could get something done. But now, I don't know what to expect from the federal government."

They have known for years that the water coursing through the volcanic soils beneath this high-desert city and pumped through the taps of nearly half a million people contained high levels of arsenic. An ancient form of poison, arsenic in drinking water can cause cancer of the liver, bladder, lungs, kidney and prostate after prolonged exposure, according to the National Academy of Sciences. The question has always been: How much arsenic poses a real health risk?

Until last month, when the Bush administration withdrew strict new standards for arsenic in the nation's water supply, Albuquerque was struggling to devise a plan to bring its drinking water up to levels that the scientific panel had deemed safe.

Still, most of this state's political leaders, Democrats and Republicans, say that New Mexico has lived a long time with its high arsenic levels and that the cost of making the water cleaner is simply too high. They also say even though the research is incomplete, they have little evidence of cancer clusters caused by arsenic in this state.

The current standard for arsenic in drinking water, established in 1942, is 50 parts per billion. At that level, the National Academy of Sciences found in 1999, people have a 1- in-100 chance of getting cancer from the arsenic over a lifetime of exposure. The academy urged a tougher standard to protect public health.

In January, in the final days of the Clinton administration, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a standard of 10 parts per billion, which matches that recommended by the World Health Organization.

The federal agency said the new standard would give about 13 million Americans who now drink water with high arsenic content more protection from cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and neurological problems.

Most places with the highest arsenic levels are in the West, among them Fallon, Nev., with levels of more than 100 parts per billion; Norman, Okla., home of the University of Oklahoma, with 8 to 18 parts per billion, and Albuquerque, with levels ranging from 2 to 40 parts per billion, depending on the different wells that feed its water supply.

Despite the Bush administration reversal, the University of Oklahoma is going ahead with plans to bring its arsenic down, said David L. Boren, the university president.

Mr. Boren, a former Democratic senator from Oklahoma, noted that he lived on campus, drank the water, and wanted to be assured that he was not putting himself or students and faculty at risk.

Here in Albuquerque, Mayor Baca said he had no fear of drinking the water, which is pumped by wells from a natural reservoir beneath the city. "I've been drinking it for 56 years and I feel just fine," he said.

But the Indians who live just downstream from Albuquerque say they do not trust the current levels. Using its sovereign power, the Isleta Pueblo, with a population of about 4,000, sued the city to force it to clean the waste water it dumps into the Rio Grande. Lower courts ruled for the tribe, and those rulings stood when, four years ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.

The tribe has been asking the city to set arsenic standards at a level far less than the current federal standard of 50 parts per billion. Isleta leaders say that the Bush administration, by questioning the science of arsenic and health risks, has knocked out some of their negotiating leverage with Albuquerque.

Christie Whitman, the E.P.A. administrator, says the administration is studying the evidence linking arsenic with cancer, and will establish a new level based on evidence of the health risk.

Mrs. Whitman can find plenty of support for throwing out the tough new standards among city officials here.

"I feel arsenic is an essential metal - you can't live without it," said Roy Robinson, Albuquerque's water utility manager. "It's like salt: too much of it will pickle you, too little of it will kill you."

The 10-parts-per-billion standard was "based on conjecture, not science," Mr. Robinson said. The E.P.A. had initially considered 5 parts per billion, and environmental groups that study water contamination asked for an even lower level of 2 or 3.

The research is scant on the effect of arsenic on American communities, largely because the population is so mobile. Scientists have looked to Asian cities for comparisons. The National Academy of Sciences, which determined that current levels pose a health risk, has a reputation for caution in making such determinations. Opponents of strict environmental regulation often cite the panel in backing up their arguments.

"There's been this refrain, whenever people don't want tighter environmental standards, they say there is no sound science," said Representative Tom Udall, a Democrat who represents New Mexico north of Albuquerque.

"What the administration has done now is completely irresponsible," Mr. Udall added. "They seem to be saying they don't like the science. So what are people supposed to do?"

Mr. Udall and Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, have both proposed bills that would provide money for cities to upgrade their water systems.

But some people here believe that New Mexico's poverty will ultimately trump any effort to get rid of its arsenic. The E.P.A. had estimated that reducing arsenic to 10 parts per billion would cost larger communities anywhere from 86 cents to $32 a year, per household, to bring the water in compliance.

"We are the poorest state in the country," said Ms. Bassett of the New Mexico Public Interest Research Group. "But shouldn't people be able to turn on the taps and not have a cancer-causing metal come at you?"