It is a shame that drinking water has become such a complex issue. When we grew up, you could simply turn on the faucet and drink whatever came out of it. In a way, we have all lost our innocence since then. Now we know better. And sadly, now we know that we have to take a close look at what is that we are being asked to drink.

As a result of recent amendments to federal law, many water suppliers must now provide their customers with fairly exhaustive lists of potentially harmful substances that may be found in their drinking water. Possible contaminants vary all over the United States. Industrial areas may have certain kinds of pollutants. Rural areas may be susceptible to other kinds of pollutants.

When you receive these reports, you really should look at them, if you will permit me to so suggest. What I mean by this is that we are so inundated with junk mail that we tend to miss the few things that really count. These water quality reports really do count because they can affect your health.

When you read them, consider this: just because your water quality may meet minimal government water quality requirements, does not mean that you should accept the water or be happy with it. You may find that there are certain substances in your water, such as pesticides, or solvents, or metals, that are below levels that legally mandate action, but that are still high enough to warrant concern. For example, I would not be happy if my water had continuous moderate levels of pesticides, even if the levels were not technically high enough to compel the water company to take corrective action.

In recognition of our water quality problems, many people have now purchased water filtration devices. Here is the caveat with regard to these devices you need to know what you have in your water before you install such a system. For example, a system that will do a good job at removing metals, may not help you if you have solvents in your drinking water. Before you spend money or develop a false sense of confidence, you really need to do your homework.

The federal EPA has a list of contaminants that may be found in drinking water. It is also required to establish acceptable limits of these substances. Once again, the EPA does not require water companies to take corrective action unless specific pollutants exceed certain levels. While levels for many substances have been set, there are no limits, or the limits are being re-evaluated for others. Two that the EPA are looking at now are sulphate and arsenic both being naturally occurring substances.

In recent years, the EPA has recognized that there are possible health concerns concerning sulfate in drinking water following reports of people contracting diarrhea after ingesting it. Some people seem to be more affected than others.

EPA has been looking at this issue since the late 1990s. So has the Centers For Disease Control. The EPA estimates that 3% of the drinking water systems in the Country may have elevated sulphate levels. While that is a small percentage, it can translate into a lot of real people. Thus, the EPA may provide us with a new acceptable level shortly.

Arsenic is clearly potentially harmful if too much is consumed. But how much is too much? The federal government has set allowable arsenic levels since the 1940s, well before there was an EPA. But reports are suggesting that arsenic can cause a variety of cancers and more stringent levels may be in the works.

When the EPA establishes new water quality levels, it does so through a process called rule making. Rule making is a public process which involves publication of a draft rule, followed by comments from the public and a possible hearing or hearings. After the comments and hearing transcripts are evaluated, a final rule is published and that becomes the law.

Any reader has the right to send a comment and that comment will be read by the EPA before it adopts a final rule. To do so, find out what rules are in the proposal stage by going to the EPA web site, or if you can access it, the Federal Register. These documents will provide you with deadlines by which comments must be received, and an address to which comments should be submitted. I have participated in this process myself and can report that it is a worth while process that allows your voice to be heard when it can make a difference.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.