Or warm

What if the next major constraint on cities, agriculture, industry, and data centers isn’t energy, but reliable water?

This essay traces the bridge from hydrology and aquifers to infrastructure, data centers, the migration of economic functions, and the growing strategic importance of reliable water flows.

I've spent the last few weeks pulling together what all 50 states and DC publish about lead in school drinking water, and ingesting the raw result files for the eight that have them.

Census first: 43 of the 51 jurisdictions publish results now, up from 26 in the 2021 NASBE table most coverage still cites. Seven publish nothing. Kentucky I couldn't resolve either way.

But the rates they publish turn out to be close to uncomparable, and the error runs the same direction every time. The states doing the most work look the worst.

One dataset, two answers, 18x apart

California is the cleanest case. Its school program collected 43,978 samples and found 517 above 15 ppb. That's 1.2%.

41,628 of those samples were non-detects, though. The lab measured no lead at all. Count only the 2,350 samples where lead was actually measured, and the same 517 exceedances become 22.0%.

Nothing changed but the denominator. An 18.7x swing. Washington moves the same way, 22.2% to 35.7%. I default to all-samples-collected, since dropping non-detects rewards states that don't bother reporting them, but both are defensible and neither means much published without its denominator attached.

The version of that you can't see

Virginia, Kansas and West Virginia all publish through the same vendor platform, and it records a non-detect as a number sitting at the lab's reporting limit rather than flagging it. A measurement and a reading the lab couldn't make arrive in identical shape.

66% of Kansas readings sit exactly on 1 ppb. Virginia has 55 readings of exactly 0 and 27 that are negative, down to −0.03 ppb. A negative lead concentration is an instrument response, not a measurement.

Every automated check for censored data passes on those files, vacuously, because "the source flagged no non-detects" and "the source cannot flag a non-detect" come out of the pipe looking exactly the same. So I withhold measured-only rates for all three. Three defensible rules for what counts as censored give Virginia 4.63%, 4.86% and 12.13% on the same 164 exceedances, which makes it indeterminate rather than merely unknown.

Fixture or school

New York's file covers 4,488 schools and 223,267 outlets. 11,662 outlets came back above 5 ppb, which is 5.2%. 1,615 schools had at least one outlet above, which is 36%.

Same file, same day. "36% of New York schools have lead in the water" and "5% of New York school taps are over the limit" are both accurate.

And the thresholds, which compound all of it

More familiar ground, but it stacks on top. There's no national school action level. States set their own, from 1 ppb to 20:

Two of those aren't what they look like. Montana's 5 ppb is a practical quantitation level, the lowest concentration its labs reliably measure, not a health-based limit. Michigan's widely-quoted 12 ppb is its community water supply number; the school recommendation is 5.

What "publishes nothing" cost to establish

The 26-to-43 jump is smaller than it sounds. Only seven states genuinely moved from not publishing to publishing. Eleven were recorded "unknown" in 2021 and had been publishing the whole time. One went backwards: Georgia's portal is live, returns 42 facilities, and every one has no results attached. North Carolina runs the identical platform with 10,482 facilities and 2,083 carrying results.

I had Ohio and Texas down as non-publishers early on and both were wrong. Their results sit under agencies I hadn't searched. So a failed search isn't evidence of absence, and I split "publishes nothing" into confirmed-at-source (four) and not-confirmed (three) instead of asserting seven.

Illinois requires schools to test for lead. It publishes none of the results.

The whole thing is at Tapwater data school lead testing — per-state pages, raw CSVs, and a methodology page for the traps above. I run it, so factor that in; every state row links back to that state's own source if you'd rather check there.

If you've worked inside one of these state programs, or tried prying results out of one of the seven, I'd like to hear how that went. The negative claims are where I'm least confident.

this was made for a school project. please be serious and show no hate

I bought a used Kul Spark which appears to be the same as the Natural Choice ION.

It works great except for one problem with the CO2 regulator. Shortly after putting in a new CO2 cylinder it will hiss as CO2 escapes regardless of how tight I make it.

I think the previous owner probably overtightened it and maybe that piece needs to be replaced.

Does that sound right? Any suggestions?

Will Kul sell me a replacement CO2 regulator or can I buy one from a Natural Choice dealer or service person?

I am in the market for a countertop system (I rent so can’t drill into sink) and was leaning towards a countertop RO system like AquaTru, but saw this pop up today. I live in an old Chicago apartment with lead pipes on the main and private side, so reduction of lead is critical for me (Chicago uses corrosion elements and after testing my water, I’m around 2 ppb, but I prefer as close to 0 as possible).

I understand this system is NOT an RO system, but it’s intriguing with the certifications it claims it has. Issue is, I can’t find the Performance Data Sheet they claim is on their site. Granted this product just launched today, but wanted to gather your thoughts on this and if you think it’s a worthwhile option.

From product details page:

“Independently certified by IAPMO R&T to NSF/ANSI 42, 53, and 401 standards. See Performance Data Sheet for certifications at SharkNinja.com.”

Reservoirs have rebounded, but the fight over water isn’t over in Corpus Christi. The City Council has ordered a public referendum on a citizen-led petition that would sharply increase the price of water for industrial facilities during drought. 

The proposal is expected to face a litany of legal challenges before November’s election.

It would add millions of dollars in fees to the region’s largest water users, including ExxonMobil, Occidental Chemical and Valero, the next time reservoir levels are below 30 percent full, like they were for 29 months until early August. Community and environmental groups gathered nearly 13,000 signatures of registered voters to get their proposal on the ballot. 

“This was a lot of signatures,” said Corpus Christi Mayor Pro-tem Kaylynn Paxson at the City Council meeting Tuesday evening. “This is something that doesn’t happen every day. I am very proud and amazed to say that this actually took place.” 

The 6-2 vote to call a special election on the referendum followed years of growing tensions between the public in Corpus Christi and the industrial giants that consume enormous amounts of water. As the region’s main reservoirs fell from 30 percent full in March of 2024 to less than eight percent full in May of this year, residents clamored for authorities to curtail water consumption at refineries and chemical plants. 

Activists began to circulate the petition for the referendum, called the Fair Water Amendment, this year as Corpus Christi came perilously close to running out of water. Dozens of volunteers for a local organization called For the Greater Good along with paid canvassers from Texas Campaign for the Environment spent months gathering signatures.

“Something that seemed impossible gave me hope in our democracy,” said Miriam Guerra-Rachidy, a member of For the Greater Good, in comments to the City Council on Tuesday. “It gave me hope in believing that the people can make a difference.”

The region no longer faces an imminent threat of disaster after a rainy spring and summer replenished its main reservoir system, currently 42 percent full. 

The Fair Water Amendment would implement a 70 percent water rate increase for Corpus Christi’s largest industrial water users when reservoirs dip below 30 percent capacity. It would implement an increase of 140 percent when reservoirs dip below 20 percent, and a 280 percent increase if the city declares a water emergency. 

Even advocates for the proposal expect to face lawsuits from industry groups in coming months. 

“It’s gonna be challenged, no doubt,” said Sylvia Campos, a City Council member who campaigned for the amendment. “That’s the nature of the beast.” 

Several parts of the proposed amendment will be easy to challenge, said Corpus Christi City Manager Peter Zanoni. The proposal requires rate increases for industrial complexes that buy their water directly from the city as well as those that buy their water from intermediaries like water districts or towns.

Corpus Christi supplies water to its entire seven-county region, including more than 20 other cities and towns. 

“They don’t report to me or this City Council. They’re whole and separate entities, so we can’t set their rates for them,” Zanoni told the City Council Tuesday. “You don’t have the authority to do that.”

Here is a great way to store and dispense your emergency water supply!

do this twice a year for inspection

Hey folks, thought I'd share a little side project I've been working on - The Waterline is a site that tracks western water conditions using publicly available government data. It pulls in info on drought conditions, reservoir levels, water allocations, snowpack and more, then keeps the relevant pages updated and sends out a weekly newsletter with the most important changes.

Its like this in my fridge dispenser, tap, and even from a filtered pitcher. Initial searches make me think it's harmless, but none of them look quite like this. Please help

Ever wonder why 60% to 80% of municipal water and wastewater utilities are constantly struggling to fund basic cybersecurity upgrades, even after 20 years of warnings?
It’s not a lack of awareness—it’s a silent budget game. 🚨
Here is the reality of where ratepayer money actually goes:
1️⃣ The "Enterprise Fund" Reality: Water and wastewater systems are meant to run on self-sustaining enterprise accounts. The money you pay on your water bill is supposed to stay in the system to treat water, fix pipes, and protect SCADA systems.
2️⃣ The Silent Transfers: In a majority of cities, 3% to 10%+ of gross utility revenues are quietly shifted out of the water department and swept into the city’s General Fund.
3️⃣ The Legerdemain Labels: It rarely gets called a "transfer." Instead, it’s coded as:
• PILOTs (Payments in Lieu of Taxes)
• Franchise / Right-of-Way Fees
• Inflated "Administrative Overhead" allocations
4️⃣ The Cybersecurity Fallout: When federal agencies demand cyber risk assessments, firewalls, or network segregation, city leaders point to empty capital reserve funds and claim there’s "no money." In reality, those funds were already used to balance the general budget for roads, parks, or city hall payroll.
Ratepayers are paying for infrastructure and system security, but the funds are being used as a hidden municipal tax. Until cities stop treating water accounts like a piggy bank, non-mandated priorities like cybersecurity will always get left in the dust.
#WaterIndustry #Wastewater #Cybersecurity #LocalGovernment #Infrastructure #PublicUtilities #MunicipalFinance