Auburn, Nov. 8---Earlier this year, critics hammered the Bush administration for suspending a decision by the Clinton administration to adopt stricter arsenic standards in drinking water.

But at least one expert believes the administration’s decision to suspend the standard does not reflect insensitivity toward drinking water safety.

"Until very recently a lot of the debate regarding arsenic standards in drinking water has tended to be political rather than grounded in detailed studies showing the need for a stricter standard," says Dr. Jim Hairston, water quality coordinator for the Alabama Cooperative Extension System.

In fact, Hairston says, the Environmental Protection Agency has been criticized in some quarters for allowing political pressure to influence policy-making. The Environmental Protection Agency is the federal organization entrusted with safeguarding the nation’s drinking water supply.

As he sees it, the Bush administration’s decision to suspend the previous administration’s arsenic standard likely stemmed from a genuine desire to restore a more methodical, science-based approach to policy-making. The Clinton administration proposal calls for reducing acceptable levels of arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 10 ppb.

"It’s unlikely the Bush administration suspended these standards just for the sake of doing so," Hairston says. "Scientists both within and outside EPA have expressed concern that the agency has occasionally set standards without sufficient scientific data to back them up."

Recently, an updated report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) provided the Bush administration with the justification it previously lacked to tighten the standards. The report, released on September 11 by a panel especially appointed to review arsenic risks, has left the administration with little choice but to adopt more stringent standards, Hairston says.

It found a greater risk of lung and bladder cancer as well as elevated blood pressure and diabetes from increased exposure to arsenic.

The report’s findings are based on three new epidemiological studies from Taiwan and Chile, all of which reveal an association between bladder and lung cancer and prolonged exposure to arsenic in drinking water.

The findings prompted EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman to reduce acceptable levels from 50 ppb to the 10 ppb previously mandated by the Clinton administration.

While some Bush administration critics are pleased with the decision, others have mixed emotions or believe the new standards don’t go far enough.

The National Resources Defense Council, which had originally sued the Clinton administration in May 2000 to lower the level from 50 ppb, is among those with mixed emotions.

Although the Council had originally proposed of 3 ppb, heavy criticism from mining and wood-preserving industries prompted it to alter this to 10 ppb instead.

Nevertheless, Hairston believes this will not stop many groups, including the Council, from pushing for tighter standards when more arsenic studies are completed.

"Some people already are advocating standards as low as 5 and even 3 ppb," he says. "Considering it took almost 50 years to lower the acceptable levels from 50 to 10 ppb, they’re concerned it may take just as long to lower levels even further. So they figure they’d better get a good head start."

The Bush administration’s decision to adopt 10 ppb arsenic standard also appears to have been influenced by congressional testimony of several groups who fear lowering standards any further would cost too much while securing only marginal benefits.

Even so, the Bush administration’s decision to adopt the 10 ppb standard has alienated one group that previously supported the administration’s earlier decision to suspend the Clinton standard.

The National Rural Water Association, which represents more than 2,000 small communities nationwide, fears the standards will force households to pay between $100 and $500 more for drinking water.

Whitman vows her agency will make money available to local drinking water systems to soften the blow as they adjust to these new standards. But spokespersons for the association say this isn’t good enough. They predict a huge grassroots backlash will follow when consumers learn just how much it will cost to comply with these new standards.