drinking water

[Mary C. Simmons, Hydrologic Assistant, Albuquerque, NM]

Al, you wrote:

>About EPA - was that a joke, or do you really avoid EPA?

We (USGS) really have NOTHING to do with EPA--not a joke.  THe USGS is engaged 
in research only.  We do no advising, regulating, cleaning up, policy making, 
or permitting.  We just report what is.  The EPA USES our data sometimes, 
probably not often enough--we COULD get govt agencies to talk to each other 
(what a concept).

>And it's a losing battle trying to keep up with all the new pesticides >and 
herbicides on the market.

Yep.  Its particularly hard keeping up with pesticide data when the main 
source of information on how much and where seems to be DuPont, or the 
"Coalition of Pesticide Producers"  (OK OK, I made up THAT name, but the point 
is, there are damn few sources of information, and virtually none that I know 
of that are "disinterested parties").

>Have you been involved in the UDI (Under Direct Influence) program?  If >so, 
what are your thoughts on it?

I am not familiar with this program.

>Yes, a poisoned water supply IS more expensive to deal with than         >
testing.  Unfortunately, testing doesn't tell you anything until  it's >too 
late

NOT true.  Testing can give early enough information on pollutants, which can 
possibly be cleaned up before any major contamination of the regional aquifer 
system occurs.  

The Texas Conservancy District that did the composite testing of 90 wells 
defends pesticide and herbicide use MIGHTILY, saying that without these, crop 
yields would go down, and they estimated that the people in the lower income 
levels would be forced to pay 4% (four percent) more for food.  4% for 
pesticide/herbicide-free food.  What a deal.

Mary.
_________________________________________________________________________
Mary Simmons
U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division  
Albuquerque, New Mexico 
(505)262-5332
[EMAIL PROTECTED]