L.A. Water Is the Toast of National Taste Test : Publisher Rates It as Excellent
It might come as a shock to the woman in West Los Angeles who had to throw out her Thanksgiving turkey soup last month because of its chlorine taste.
It certainly can be expected to startle customers who pay a premium price for “designer water.”
Los Angeles tap water has been ranked by the prestigious Consumers Union as being among the best-tasting in the nation, equaling even some of the most popular brands of bottled water.
“Residents of New York City, parts of Los Angeles, New Orleans and San Francisco are lucky. Their municipal water systems, from what we found, provide flawless or nearly flawless water,” Consumer Reports magazine concludes in its January issue, which is scheduled to hit the newsstands today.
In short, the magazine’s ratings--based on the opinion of a single “sensory consultant” (taste tester)--rated Los Angeles tap water as “excellent,” the same rating earned by expensive bottled waters, including Arrowhead, Poland, Sparkletts, Safeway and Lady Lee.
Houston’s municipal water, on the other hand, was rated “fair” and reportedly left the “teeth feeling slightly gritty.” Even New Orleans’ municipal water, which was otherwise rated “very good,” was deemed to be “bitter and chemical” and left a “slimy aftertaste.”
DWP Effervescent
Los Angeles’ rating has left the city’s Department of Water and Power positively effervescent. It is especially welcome after the adverse publicity stemming from a malfunctioning chlorinator that over the Thanksgiving holiday pumped high levels of the disinfectant into the drinking water supply of 50,000 West Los Angeles customers.
One woman said at the time that such a “bleachy” smell wafted from a pot of turkey soup that she was forced to throw out the broth without so much as a sip from the stirring spoon.
So it was with some relief--but also some caution--that DWP’s Laurent McReynolds greeted the latest findings.
McReynolds, assistant chief engineer for water, told The Times, “We believe we have good quality water.”
But he said he had seen taste tests before and tended not to put too much stock in them--especially since Los Angeles has not always done so well in the past.
“It’s hard to do taste tests on beer and Pepsi and get uniform agreement. When you get to water, it’s even more neutral and you find big variations in opinions. I’ve said that in those tests we come out bad and those we come out good in that it’s a very subjective personal test,” McReynolds said.
In 1980, People Magazine rated Los Angeles water 25th among 37 cities based on opinions of three panelists chosen for the talents of their palates. One was a wine critic for the New York Times, another the author of a wine almanac and the third a syndicated food and drink columnist.
‘Intimate’ With Water
In 1978, New West Magazine chose panelists on the the basis of their “intimate” acquaintance with water. The panel included an Olympic swimming champion, a professional diver, the curator of a big aquarium, a swimsuit designer, a water-quality expert, the music editor of Wet magazine, a seasoned Santa Monica surfer, an executive of a whirlpool bath company, a car wash owner, a fireman, collegiate rower and a member of the U.S. Coast Guard.
In that case Los Angeles came in sixth among 10 cities, based on a sample taken from a drinking fountain in Griffith Park. San Diego came in last, based on a drink from an Ocean Beach fountain.
Consumer Reports said it carried out its tests in a methodical manner.
Los Angeles water was collected from eight locations for purposes of testing its chemical content. (It got good marks). Its overall rating for total dissolved solids (minerals) was an average based on readings from each of the eight locations.
The separate taste test was based on samples taken from Los Angeles areas served by the Los Angeles aqueduct, which is snow melt from the Sierra Nevada. Well water and Colorado River water were not included in the taste test.
(Of the DWP’s 635,000 water customers, those who live in West Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, the Santa Monica Mountains and the Sunland-Tujunga area receive only Los Angeles Aqueduct water.
(Other areas of the city, including the Central City, East Los Angeles and harbor area, drink a blend of aqueduct, well and Metropolitan Water District water. The ratio varies, depending on the time of the year. For example, downtown’s water would be 70% well water and 30% aqueduct water in the summer. The ratio is reversed in winter.)
The samples were taken in June and rushed by overnight mail to Consumers Union at Mt. Vernon, N.Y. They were delivered to the taste tester the next day and chilled before they were tested.
Although the magazine declined to reveal the name of its single “sensory consultant,” it attested to the individual’s prowess. The consultant was described as “an expert taster . . . trained to discern the subtlest of flavors, aftertastes and aromas in a product that ought to have done.”
Moreover, the consultant was not asked to offer his “preferences” but merely to report whether the water being sampled was bitter, astringent, musty, sweet, soapy, metallic, salty, had a plastic or chlorine taste or any other characteristic that could be identified.
An assistant in an adjacent room poured water samples from coded bottles into a glass. The water was then taken to the taster for his evaluation. Water from nearly 300 bottles was sampled.
The consultant did not rate the waters. That task was left to the magazine, which based its grades on the consultant’s descriptions.
‘Standard of Excellence’
His findings were compared against a “standard of excellence” established in advance by the magazine after consultation with the taste tester. Waters were ranked from “excellent” to “poor” with gradients of “very good,” “good” and “fair,” in between.
The methodology was defended by Steven Feiertag, project leader for the Consumer Reports study.
In a telephone interview from Mt. Vernon, Feiertag said other water taste tests were based strictly on the preference of the judges. “This is very unscientific. Our is not a preference test. It’s done somewhat differently,” Feiertag said.
Although he said that only one consultant’s opinion was sought, “we don’t feel too uncomfortable about it since we’re not asking preference. Basically, we asked this person to describe the water. We feel confidant, especially since more than one sample (from the same source) was involved,” he added. He said the consultant offered very similar opinions about different water samples from the same source. The samples were not tasted sequentially, but tasted at random.
COMPARING THE TASTE OF WATER HOW CONSUMER UNION COMPARED MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS
Cost/ Dissolved Sodium, mg/ System Glass Rating Solids* 8 oz. Glass Los Angeles Municipal -- Excellent 462 12 New York Municipal -- Excellent 70 2 New Orleans Municipal -- Very Good 245 5 San Francisco Municipal -- Very Good 74 2 Chicago Municipal -- Good 220 2 Houston Municipal -- Fair 423 19
System Fluoride* Comments Los Angeles Municipal 0.4 New York Municipal 1.0 New Orleans Municipal 0.9 Bitter, chemical taste. San Francisco Municipal 1.0 Flat, with bitter aftertaste. Chicago Municipal 1.0 Chlorine taste. Houston Municipal 0.4 Left mouth feeling gritty.
HOW CONSUMER UNION COMPARED BOTTLED WATER
Cost/ Dissolved Sodium, mg/ System Glass Rating Solids* 8 oz. Glass Still Waters Lady Lee Drinking Water 4 Excellent 94 2 Safeway Drinking Water 5 Excellent 28 1 Sparkletts Drinking Water 5 Excellent 35 1 Poland Spring Natural Spring 5 Excellent 67 -- Arrowhead Mountain Spring 6 Excellent 140 3 Evian Natural Spring 23 Excellent 400 1 Alhambra Drinking Water 5 Very Good 31 1 Sparkling Waters Cragmont Club Soda 12 Excellent 435 26 White Rock Seltzer 15 Excellent 163 5 Seagram’s Seltzer 14 Very Good 169 4 Perrier Naturally Sparkling 25 Very Good 565 4 Canada Dry Club Soda 18 Very Good 667 55 Schweppes Club Soda 18 Excellent 556 41 Poland Spring Carbonated 21 Excellent 77 -- Lady Lee Sparkling 14 Very Good 375 10 Arrowhead Sparkling 14 Very Good 173 4
System Fluoride* Comments Still Waters Lady Lee Drinking Water -- Relatively astringent. Safeway Drinking Water 0.4 -- Sparkletts Drinking Water 0.1 -- Poland Spring Natural Spring 0.1 -- Arrowhead Mountain Spring -- Relatively astringent. Evian Natural Spring -- -- Alhambra Drinking Water 0.1 Chlorine taste. Sparkling Waters Cragmont Club Soda 1.0 -- White Rock Seltzer -- Relatively salty. Seagram’s Seltzer 1.0 Relatively bitter. Perrier Naturally Sparkling -- Bitter aftertaste. Canada Dry Club Soda 1.0 Relatively salty. Schweppes Club Soda 0.8 Aggressive bubbles. Poland Spring Carbonated 0.1 -- Lady Lee Sparkling 0.4 Bitter aftertaste. Arrowhead Sparkling 0.1 Metallic taste.
*Parts per million
