Presentation Abstract

Conveying Risk and Progress: Communicating With the Public About Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water
J.C. Davis
Southern Nevada Water Authority, Las Vegas, NV

The public’s reaction to the notion of pharmaceuticals in their drinking water is understandably visceral and negative for two reasons. First, most people have difficulty comprehending concentrations in the parts per trillion, so they use a “present” or “absent” litmus test when it comes to contaminants. Second, unlike other contaminants, the presence of pharmaceuticals reinforces the relationship between treated wastewater and the source water supply.

When a topic such as pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) receives scientific attention, mainstream media interest is bound to follow. Municipal water agencies are placed in the unenviable position of explaining an issue about which there are far fewer answers than questions. To minimize public anxiety, utilities need to be able to convey two key concepts: relative exposure and progress.

On the issue of exposure, there are many natural sources that contain far greater concentrations of endocrine disrupting compounds than drinking water. For instance, a person might be exposed to more phytoestrogen from a dash of soy sauce than by a year’s worth of drinking water. The problem is that such an approach does not dispel the concern but merely shifts it to another target. More appropriate is to identify a commonly used pharmaceutical product such as ibuprofen, compare concentrations in water to a single dosage, and use that context to explain that people would have to consume thousands (perhaps millions) of glasses of water per day to get the equivalent of one Advil ®. Given the ability of instruments to detect contaminants at previously inconceivable levels, the industry must begin to shift its regulatory emphasis from detection to health effects.

Progress speaks to the question, “What are you doing about it?” Regardless of whether or not something appears to be a legitimate health risk, the public inherently wants their utility to be progressive and take whatever measures are necessary to address the perceived problem. Fortunately, in the case of PPCPs, progress has been exceptionally fast. Scientists have a good understanding of how to find these compounds and what processes remove them, so the remaining question is whether removing these compounds justifies the costs to ratepayers. It is critical in conveying this concept that utilities refer to ratepayer or the public’s money when discussing the value of additional treatment-related expenditures. Being frugal with public funds is commendable; doing so with the utility’s money is not viewed as such. By conveying that treatment technologies are available but that investing in them may not be necessary, the utility is reducing the perceived health risk.

Top of page