Second Opinion: Safety of Water Supply
Oct. 25 -- How difficult would it be for a terrorist group to contaminate drinking water with microbes or hazardous chemicals that cause illness or even death? If you are looking for a simple answer, there isn't one.
Because of fears that the water supply could be attacked, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies lobbied congress earlier this month for $5 billion to improve water safety and security.
For one thing, water systems — about 170,000 separate ones in the U.S. — need more guards. One ongoing concern cited by the association has been the possibility that terrorists could disrupt the flow of water to large communities by destroying dams or reservoirs. Since Sept. 11, water utilities have been reassessing their security procedures.
As for the contamination of drinking water, it is often emphasized by government officials, infectious disease specialists, and water-utility experts that an enormous quantity of a biological or chemical agent would be required to poison a large water source such as a reservoir.
But should that occur, the water treatment plant would likely detect the invasion and trap the harmful substance in its filters. For extra good measure, the chlorine that is typically used in treating water would, in most cases, greatly diminish the agent's chances for survival.
That's more or less what U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Whitman highlighted last week about anthrax and other possible contaminants. After touring a Maryland water-testing lab, she said it would likely take truckloads of, say, anthrax, to be introduced to a major water system before it had any chance of doing harm.
A Local Threat?
Whitman is probably correct in concluding that the risk in these circumstances is likely to be low. But the key phrase in the paragraph above is "major water system." What about a much smaller arm of a water system — some part of the network of distribution pipes that delivers water to homes, apartments and office buildings?
