If you lived in one of those "red zones" shown on the map in that article, you may not have much in the way of "low arsenic" water to lower the concentration. I don't know where you live. I live in Colorado. It's dry out West and water rights are huge issues here. There's an old saying that "Whiskey is for sipping and water is for fighting over."

Many Western communities, especially small ones, have limited options when it comes to water supply. As the map also shows, this part of the country also has the worst arsenic problems. What's a community of perhaps a few hundred to a few thousand people to do if their sole water supply has high arsenic levels? Today, they have to comply with the 50 ppb levels. How much will it cost them to lower that to 10 ppb? What happens if they can't afford it?

Until I see some hard numbers, I still oppose this as poor science and bad public policy. I want to see the evidence showing whether the current 50 ppb levels used for decades are indeed dangerous to people's health. I want to see numbers that indicate what a safe level should be if not 50 ppb. Is the 10 ppb number arbitrary or was it based on good science? I've yet to see any evidence one way or the other. Finally, once the safe level is determined, how much will it take to achieve that level? You see, I want science before law. Is that really too much to ask?