Determining if school water is safe to drink depends heavily on local conditions and the age of the building infrastructure. While water from a municipal treatment plant is generally safe, the internal plumbing presents localized hazards. Older internal systems and inconsistent usage patterns allow water to sit stagnant, creating an environment where contaminants can leach or grow. This means water safety is a building-by-building concern requiring active management and monitoring.
Sources of Contamination and Specific Health Concerns
The primary source of concern for school drinking water is the leaching of heavy metals, mainly lead and copper, from aging plumbing materials. Lead is not typically present in the water supply itself but enters the water through contact with lead service lines, solder, or brass fixtures. Even fixtures labeled “lead-free” before 2014 could contain up to 8% lead. The inconsistent usage in schools, such as during breaks, causes water to sit stagnant, which increases the time for lead and copper to dissolve.
Exposure to lead is a serious health risk for children because their developing bodies absorb it more easily than adults. Ingestion of lead, even at low levels, is associated with neurodevelopmental issues and impacts on cognitive function. Copper also leaches from plumbing and has a federal action level based on acute health effects such as abdominal pain and gastrointestinal illness. Elevated copper levels can pose a risk, especially to younger children.
Secondary concerns include microbial contamination like Legionella bacteria, which thrives in stagnant water. Extended school closures, where water sits unused, can cause the disinfectant residual added by the utility to decay, allowing these organisms to grow. While Legionella is often transmitted via aerosols, it represents a risk for Legionnaires’ disease or Pontiac fever, particularly for individuals with compromised immune systems. The plumbing itself can also harbor biofilms that protect various pathogens, affecting the school’s water quality.
Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
The regulatory landscape for school water testing is inconsistent, as federal mandates do not uniformly cover all schools. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) primarily regulates public water systems, but many schools are served by an existing municipal system. While the federal Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sets an action level of 15 parts per billion (ppb) for lead, this rule often applies to the water utility, not the school building itself. The LCR action level is based on the 90th percentile of samples taken, not an absolute health standard, and does not guarantee safety below that threshold.
This gap in federal oversight means testing and reporting requirements for schools vary significantly from state to state. Some states, like New York, have taken proactive steps, lowering the action level for schools to 5 ppb and mandating triennial testing. Other states may only encourage testing or require schools to discuss lead issues publicly if they choose not to test. When elevated lead levels are detected, state or local law typically mandates immediate action, such as shutting off the fixture and providing an alternate source of drinking water.
Reporting requirements usually involve notifying parents and staff of any exceedances above the action level and posting the results and remediation plans on the school’s website. Schools must use first-draw sampling, which is taken after the water has been sitting motionless in the pipes for 8 to 18 hours, to capture the highest potential metal levels. This variability in testing frequency and action levels highlights the lack of a consistent, nationwide standard. The difference in regulatory oversight means a “passing” test result in one state might be considered an exceedance requiring action in another.
Proactive Measures for Families and Schools
Families and school administrators can take proactive steps to mitigate contamination risks, regardless of local testing mandates. Routine flushing is a low-cost, effective practice that involves running the cold water tap before use to clear out stagnant water. This action is especially important after periods of low usage, such as weekends or extended closures, as it helps remove water where metals have concentrated. For refrigerated fountains, a longer flush time may be necessary to cycle out all the water from the cooling tank.
Installing point-of-use filtration devices is an effective measure, provided the filters are certified by a third party like NSF International to remove lead. These filters treat the water right where it is consumed. They should be regularly maintained and replaced according to the manufacturer’s instructions to prevent contaminants from building up. For long-term solutions, schools should advocate for the replacement of older fixtures and plumbing components with certified lead-free options that meet current NSF/ANSI standards.
Parents can actively seek out and review publicly available water quality reports from the school or district website. If test results are not readily accessible, parents can communicate their concerns to the school board and advocate for comprehensive testing of all drinking and food preparation outlets. When a high lead level is found, parents should be aware that boiling the water does not remove lead and can actually concentrate the metal due to evaporation. Providing a certified alternate source of drinking water is the necessary immediate response.