A Comprehensive Examination of the Contaminants in Drinking Water in Public Schools in California, 2017-2022.

OBJECTIVES: Reports of unsafe school drinking water in the United States highlight the importance of ensuring school water is safe for consumption. Our objectives were to describe (1) results from our recent school drinking water sampling of 5 common contaminants, (2) school-level factors associated with exceedances of various water quality standards, and (3) recommendations. METHODS: We collected and analyzed drinking water samples from at least 3 sources in 83 schools from a representative sample of California public schools from 2017 through 2022. We used multivariate logistic regression to examine school-level factors associated with lead in drinking water exceedances at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommendation level (1 part per billion [ppb]) and state action-level exceedances of other contaminants (lead, copper, arsenic, nitrate, and hexavalent chromium). RESULTS: No schools had state action-level violations for arsenic or nitrate; however, 4% had ≥1 tap that exceeded either the proposed 10 ppb action level for hexavalent chromium or the 1300 ppb action level for copper. Of first-draw lead samples, 4% of schools had ≥1 tap that exceeded the California action level of 15 ppb, 18% exceeded the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bottled water standard of 5 ppb, and 75% exceeded the AAP 1 ppb recommendation. After turning on the tap and flushing water for 45 seconds, 2%, 10%, and 33% of schools exceeded the same standards, respectively. We found no significant differences in demographic characteristics between schools with and without FDA or AAP exceedances. CONCLUSIONS: Enforcing stricter lead action levels (<5 ppb) will markedly increase remediation costs. Continued sampling, testing, and remediation efforts are necessary to ensure drinking water meets safety standards in US schools.

Effectiveness of a School Drinking Water Promotion and Access Program for Overweight Prevention.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Drinking water promotion and access shows promise for preventing weight gain. This study evaluated the impact of Water First, a school-based water promotion and access intervention on changes in overweight. METHODS: Low-income, ethnically diverse elementary schools in California's Bay Area were cluster-randomized to intervention and control groups. Water First includes classroom lessons, water stations, and schoolwide water promotion over 1 school year. The primary outcome was overweight prevalence (BMI-for-age-and-sex ≥85th percentile). Students (n = 1249) in 56 fourth-grade classes in 18 schools (9 intervention, 9 control) from 2016 to 2019 participated in evaluation at baseline, 7, and 15 months. Data collection was interrupted in 8 additional recruited schools because of coronavirus disease 2019. RESULTS: Of 1262 students from 18 schools, 1249 (47.4% girls; mean [SD] age, 9.6 [0.4] years; 63.4% Hispanic) were recruited. From baseline to 7 months, there was no significant difference in changes in overweight prevalence in intervention schools (-0.2%) compared to control schools (-0.4%) (adjusted ratio of odds ratios [ORs]: 0.7 [confidence interval (CI): 0.2-2.9] P = 0.68). From baseline to 15-months, increases in overweight prevalence were significantly greater in control schools (3.7%) compared to intervention schools (0.5%). At 15 months, intervention students had a significantly lower change in overweight prevalence (adjusted ratio of ORs: 0.1 [CI: 0.03-0.7] P = .017) compared to control students. There were no intervention effects for obesity prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: Water First prevented increases in the prevalence of overweight, but not obesity, in elementary school students.

Drink Tap: A Multisector Program to Promote Water Access and Intake in San Francisco Parks.

Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), or drinks with added sugars, show promise in decreasing purchases and consumption of SSBs. Some have called for coupling such taxes with improvements in access to safe drinking water as a strategy for reducing inequities in SSB intake, yet no studies have examined such an approach. Drink Tap is a San Francisco-based program in which public tap water stations were installed in parks and public spaces (winter 2017) and promotional efforts (fall and winter 2018) encouraged water intake. At the same time, San Francisco and surrounding communities were also implementing SSB taxes. We conducted a quasi-experimental study to examine whether water access and promotion combined with SSB taxes affected beverage intake habits more than SSB taxes alone. We conducted 1-hour observations (N = 960) at 10 intervention parks (Drink Tap plus SSB taxes) and 20 comparison parks (SSB taxes only) in San Francisco Bay Area cities before (July-September 2016) and after (June-August 2019) implementation of Drink Tap. We found significant adjusted percentage increases in drinking water among visitors to intervention parks, compared with comparison parks: water from park water sources (+80%, P < .001) and water from reusable bottles (+40%, P = .02). We found no significant reductions in visitors observed drinking bottled water, juices, or SSBs. The Drink Tap intervention led to increases in water intake from park sources and reusable bottles across parks that surpassed increases achieved through SSB taxes alone. Jurisdictions should consider coupling tap water access and promotion with policies for reducing intake of SSBs.

Water Safety in California Public Schools Following Implementation of School Drinking Water Policies.

INTRODUCTION: Recent legislation requires public and charter schools in California to test drinking water for lead. Our objective was to describe 1) results from this testing program in the context of other available water safety data and 2) factors related to schools and water utilities associated with access to safe drinking water in schools. METHODS: Our study focused on a random sample of 240 California public and charter schools. We used multivariable logistic regression, accounting for clustering of tested water sources in schools, to examine school-level factors associated with failure to meet lead-testing deadlines and any history of water utility noncompliance. RESULTS: Of the 240 schools, the majority (n = 174) tested drinking water for lead. Of the schools tested, 3% (n = 6) had at least 1 sample that exceeded 15 parts per billion (ppb) (California action level) and 16% (n = 28) exceeded 5 ppb (bottled water standard). Suburban schools had lower odds of being served by noncompliant water systems (OR = 0.17; CI, 0.05-0.64; P = .009) than city schools. Compared with city schools, rural schools had the highest odds of not participating in the water testing program for lead (OR = 3.43; CI, 1.46-8.05; P = .005). Hallways and common spaces and food services areas were the most frequent school locations tested; one-third of all locations sampled could not be identified. CONCLUSION: In our study, geography influenced access to safe drinking water in schools, including both water utility safety standards and school lead-testing practices. Considerations for improving the implementation of state lead-testing programs include establishing priority locations for sampling, precisely labeling samples, and developing well-defined testing and reporting protocols.