My children were born in 2001. In 2002, an EPA-mandated change from chlorine to chloramine in the secondary disinfection caused an unanticipated increase in lead in the water, to levels 20-100 times what is considered by EPA to be acceptable. Last month EPA admitted that their "acceptable" lead levels in drinking water were based on corrosion, not health standards. Currently the EPA lead and copper rule is not under review -- and I bet that my children will be well past their majority before this issue is resolved. That is what you get with EPA: unanticipated ill effects from their own rules, followed by decades of inaction.

This is not an isolated incident. In the completely unrelated matter of ship fouling control, the onerously expensive EPA review process has impeded the development of new biocides, which means that everybody uses only cuprous oxide. The result is a huge buildup of copper in the harbors, which would not have occurred if other biocides were available. The perverse effect is that EPA's rules actually increase environmental damage.

I like the model of underwriters laboratory, or of the national sanitary foundation, for water quality. Let a private non-profit establish the standards, leaving the local authority and utility in charge of meeting those standards. This allows the standards to evolve quickly, as soon as the science is ready, leaving the hard engineering decisions to those that actually drink and pay for the water.