[Gondring]

“And I think language in that order is about those things where we can be protective for a reasonable amount of money,”

What's wrong with that?

[...] they don't know that science will back up their proposals.

Of course. Chromium-VI, for example, is less toxic to some animals than Chromium-III, yet for us it's by far the opposite. They don't know--more study is needed and it might very likely not go their way.

Frankly, though, the real problem that needs to be addressed is multi-contaminant risks, with effects from levels that are individually below regulatory limits. My guess is that trace contamination in the general environment is a far greater hazard than Cr(VI) or ClO₄^- in the drinking water, but that's not a professional opinion.

[jazusamo]

Agreed. If we have a real problem it has to be addressed and the science has to be done.

They want to cram this down all the states throats without the science is what it looks like to me.