Moving Forward for America’s Drinking Water
By Joel Beauvais
Our nation’s record of progress in advancing public health under the Safe Drinking Water Act is significant. But too little water in the West, flooding from extreme weather in the Midwest and Southeast, and the recent water quality issues in Flint, Michigan have rightly focused national attention on America’s drinking water. As a country, we can and must do more to make sure that every American has access to safe drinking water. EPA is committed to working together with our governmental partners, communities and stakeholders to strengthen the nation’s drinking water systems. That is why, today, we are announcing the next steps in that effort. Beginning next month, EPA will lead a series of engagements to inform a national action plan on drinking water, to be released by the end of the year. In addition, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has begun a new study of the science and technology relevant to ensuring the safety of the nation’s drinking water.
THE PROGRESS WE’VE MADE
With public attention rightly focused on drinking water quality in communities across the country, it’s worth remembering how far we’ve come in providing clean safe drinking water. Before Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 – granting EPA the authority and the funding to take action and affirming the leading role of states and municipalities – more than 40 percent of our nation’s drinking water systems failed to meet even the most basic health standards.
Today, over 300 million Americans depend on 152,000 public drinking water systems and collectively drink more than one billion glasses of tap water each day. Our agency has established standards for more than 90 contaminants, and our compliance data show that more than 90 percent of the nation’s water systems consistently meet those standards. Clean water is the lifeblood of healthy, vibrant communities and our nation’s economy. Making sure that all Americans have reliable access to safe drinking water is essential, and a core task for EPA.
Over the years, through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund established by Congress in 1996, $30 billion in low-interest loans have supported infrastructure projects that are delivering drinking water to thousands of communities across the country. This has supplemented local and state finance of drinking water infrastructure – especially in low-income communities and where public health risk is the highest.
And, relatedly, our Clean Water Rule is a major step forward to protect our nation’s precious water resources, including streams that are the source of drinking water for 117 million Americans – over one third of the country’s population.
We’ve come so far. But our work is far from done.
NEW AND REMAINING CHALLENGES
The crisis in Flint, Michigan has brought to the forefront the challenges many communities across the country are facing, including from lead pipes that carry their drinking water and uneven publicly-available information around drinking water quality. At the same time, as new technology advances our detection ability, we’re detecting new contaminants in our water from industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and other sources that can pose risks to public health.
And science now shows that climate change – especially the extreme weather and drought impacts it brings – are placing added stress on water resources and creating uncertainty in many regions of the country.
In some areas, pollution threatens upstream sources like rivers and lakes that feed into our drinking water. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were cut off from drinking water because of a chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia and a harmful algal bloom on Lake Erie that impacted the drinking water for Toledo, Ohio. We need to protect our drinking water sources and the Clean Water Rule is critical to that effort.
Meanwhile, EPA data show that at least $384 billion in improvements will be needed through 2030 to maintain, upgrade and replace thousands of miles of pipe and thousands of treatment plants, storage tanks and water distribution systems that make up our country’s water infrastructure. And if local and state governments do not lean into these investments and instead defer and delay, rebuilding our water infrastructure will only become more expensive.
Too often, the toughest infrastructure challenges are found in low-income, minority communities – both large and small – where inadequate revenue and investment have left many water systems crumbling from age and neglect, and where citizens lack the resources and timely and accurate information about their water quality to do something about it.
These are big challenges and EPA recognizes that no one can tackle them alone.
MOVING FORWARD – ENGAGING KEY PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS ON A NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER
That’s why we’re launching a concerted, strategic engagement with key partners and stakeholders – including state, tribal and local governments, drinking water utilities, and public health, environmental and community stakeholders – to develop and implement a national action plan to address the critical drinking water challenges and opportunities before us.
EPA has already intensified our work with state drinking water programs with a priority focus on implementation of the federal Lead and Copper Rule, including directing EPA staff to meet with officials from every state to make sure they’re addressing any high lead levels and fully implementing the current rule.
We sent letters to every governor and every state environmental and/or health commissioner of states that implement the Safe Drinking Water Act, urging them to work with EPA on steps to strengthen protections against lead and on a broader set of critical priorities to keep our drinking water safe. We’re following up with each and every state on actions to increase public health protection, transparency and accountability.
We’re now taking the next step forward. In the coming weeks, EPA will launch a targeted engagement with key state co-regulators, regulated utilities, and nongovernmental stakeholders on priority issues related to implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act. The focus of that engagement will include:
- Advancing Next Generation Safe Drinking Water Act Implementation: Identify key opportunities and initiate work on critical next steps to strengthen and modernize state and federal implementation of Safe Drinking Water Act regulations and programs, including ways to increase public data transparency and accountability.
- Addressing Environmental Justice and Equity in Infrastructure Funding: Identify additional steps federal, state, tribal and local governments, and utilities can take to better ensure that drinking water infrastructure challenges of low-income environmental justice communities and small systems are being appropriately prioritized and addressed, including through increased information, sharing and replicating best practices, and building community capacity.
- Strengthening Protections against Lead in Drinking Water: Prioritize opportunities to collaborate and make progress on implementing the current Lead and Copper Rule, particularly in environmental justice communities and expand and strengthen opportunities for stakeholder engagement to support the development of a revised rule.
- Emerging and Unregulated Contaminant Strategies: Develop and implement improved approaches through which EPA, state, tribal and local governments, utilities and other stakeholders can work together to prioritize and address the challenges posed by emerging and unregulated contaminants such as algal toxins and perfluorinated compounds (PFCs).
In each of these areas, we will work together with our partners and stakeholders to set a strategic agenda and identify and implement priority, near-term actions we can take in the coming months. By the end of this year, we will release a summary of our progress and a national action plan for the future.
At the same time, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) is beginning a new study of the science and technology relevant to ensuring the Nation’s drinking-water quality. PCAST will seek input from EPA, other relevant agencies, and a wide range of experts on ideas on investments in new technology and infrastructure to protect drinking water resources, detect pollutants, advance treatment to remove contaminants and pathogens, and develop improved infrastructure for the future. Following this review, PCAST will recommend actions the federal government can take, in concert with cities and states, to promote application of the best available science and technology to drinking-water safety. This builds on current efforts by the Administration to draw on the power of existing and breakthrough technology to boost innovation in water supply.
We owe it to our kids today and to future generations to take steps now and develop future actions to ensure that all Americans have affordable access to high-quality water when and where they need it. We look forward to partnering with the public and stakeholders in the development of this plan.
OBD2 scanner
Apr 26, 2016 @ 13:14:49
Great post! thanks so much!
OBD
Apr 26, 2016 @ 13:15:51
Great post! can you post more.
Thanks so much!
Affordable Gutter Cleaning Service
Apr 26, 2016 @ 18:33:57
I prefer tap water to all of these purified drinking sources. I have actually found out that the tap water has more minerals for our bodies. I encourage my children to drink tap water over botted or purified.. It pleases me to know that our government is taking the steps to ensure our future water rescource.
Vick Wadhwa
Apr 27, 2016 @ 20:44:27
Thank you for a great post, it is very informative. I have a question, and a couple of suggestions about the $384 billion needed to upgrade and maintain the national water infrastructure. Has the EPA done an evaluation of how this money could be raised through various routes, and even better, how the total bill could be lowered? Here are two suggestions to illustrate some possibilities.
1) Pollution is obviously a huge challenge, and as you noted, there are many new (unregulated) contaminants in our waters from industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and other sources that can pose risks to public health. My suggestion is that at least a part of the needed funds should be raised from industries that produce and use these chemicals… since they are contributing to the problem and making profits, they should contribute to the solution by paying for the cost of addressing that pollution, and further they should find ways to stop the pollution — this will surely happen if they are forced to bear substantial cost.
2) There are approx. 134 million households in the country, and $384 billion is about $2,865 per household. As of today, it is possible to install a reliable reverse-osmosis filter system under the kitchen sink (for drinking and cooking water needs) for under $300, and that system can be maintained at an annual cost of less than $100. Such filters remove or greatly reduce all types of contaminants, including unregulated chemicals. Unfortunately such broadly effective filters also remove good minerals from the water, but such minerals can be added back into purified water for drinking purposes at a relatively low cost, by using an electrolyte product such as EMdrops. The point is that the total cost of purifying drinking and cooking water in households is far less than the estimated cost of completely overhauling the national water infrastructure. In other words, it may be possible to have a far less expensive, but highly effective “hybrid” approach to water quality issues — e.g. reduce pollution by making the polluters pay, improve the water infrastructure just enough to keep the system operating reliably, and provide assistance, education and incentives to consumers to appropriately purify and mineralize water for their needs at the point of use.
rife
Apr 28, 2016 @ 14:04:14
You should look up the MSDS for sodium fluoride which is intentionally put in our water. Furthermore the fluoride leechs lead from pipes.
Marjorie Shapiro
Apr 28, 2016 @ 16:14:28
After the disaster in Flint, Michigan, there is growing awareness that lead is more widespread than just Flint. Lead is indeed a problem that is affecting many American Cities. One easy way to lessen the burden of lead in drinking water is to put an immediate end to chemical water fluoridation. Ending chemical water fluoridation will immediately make water safer. Here is why:
Fluoride is itself a neurotoxin, an endocrine disruptor and a carcinogen and therefore the EPA should years ago have lowered the MCL from the current 4ppm. The EPA needs to stop stalling and do that now.
In addition to fluoride in itself being toxic, fluoridation chemicals which are the toxic waste from the fertilizer industry, contain trace amounts of arsenic and lead. The EPA sets the MCLG for lead and arsenic at zero. In light of the fact that 72% of the country adds lead and arsenic to the water as a by product of fluoridation, the MCLG for these contaminants is meaningless. Fluoridation chemicals are highly corrosive and leach lead into pipes. Ending water fluoridation will lessen the lead burden and decrease the need to add more chemicals, (anti corrosives) to the water.
Keep pollution from industry out of Americas drinking water. End chemical water fluoridation now.
Eric
Apr 28, 2016 @ 18:33:27
Restoring Watersheds would have multiple benefits including:
Biodiversity/Habitats that clean water/air, improve genetic diversity of mammals Preventing diseases like lyme/chronic wasting/bluetongue, Recreation (hiking/canoeing/hunting/biking)in many area’s near towns, Prevent Erosion, and many more!
Please Protect at least 100 yards along rivers/creeks and 50 yards along waterways.
This will also increase abundance of once abundant animals including birds/butterflies/bees as increase biodiversity in regions throughout!
Taxi Den Bosch
Apr 30, 2016 @ 11:11:01
Thanks for this intresting articel!
Taxi Den Bosch
Apr 30, 2016 @ 11:12:34
Thanks for this intresting articel! i realy appreciation.
Ajit Das
May 01, 2016 @ 11:10:09
Water is very important for our life. It really gives a clear idea. I am impressed to read it
Charles Lum
May 01, 2016 @ 22:46:32
Interestingly this topic has been shared. During the Flint publicity my wife and I were having a conversation about the different water that we had tasted; bottle, purified, from the pipe, etc. She brought to my attention that she could somewhat taste the difference in the water from all the places (states) that we have been stationed. According to her the Georgia/Alabama water has more of a chlorine taste – it is noticeable during showers. Hawaii’s water does not really have a taste and it appears to be clean water. Texas water is similar to Hawaii, but you can tell a slight difference and there tends to be little particles floating within the water.
This leads to my question: if there is one set standard for clean water, why is there a difference in the waters noted above? I would think that with one set standard all the water within the United States would be of the same quality regardless of the location or the social class living within the area.
Jose
May 02, 2016 @ 00:43:23
Great post!
Alexandra Beer
May 02, 2016 @ 16:12:56
When moving forward and developing and initiating new strategies to better provide US communities with drinking water, how are communities involved? How can local governments and nonprofits express drinking water concerns for their communities in a way that will bring attention to issues and encourage the EPA and government to take initiative and address the water challenges of the individual community? Specifically, what can my community do to bring attention to and address environmental justice and equity in our infrastructure funding?
Movies 2016
May 03, 2016 @ 09:41:24
i agree with u..u told that 100% sure..Environmental justice eqality in our own country..
Movies 2016
May 03, 2016 @ 09:42:43
Specifically, what can my community do to bring attention to and address environmental justice and equity in our infrastructure funding.
Rafael
May 03, 2016 @ 13:15:53
Nice article, thanks a lot!
Quality Backlinks Service
May 03, 2016 @ 16:53:41
bring attention to and address environmental justice and equity in our infrastructure funding.
Quality Backlinks Service
May 03, 2016 @ 16:54:29
what can my community do to bring attention to and address environmental justice and equity in our infrastructure funding.
Donna Tucker
May 04, 2016 @ 11:11:27
Great article. Safe drinking water is most essential part of our life. Thanks
nyscof
May 06, 2016 @ 12:26:54
What good are all these meetings that eventually give out reports which eventually get ignored. The EPA paid the National Research Council to review fluoride toxicology studies. In 2006, the NRC said the EPA’s maximum contaminant level of fluoride is too high to protect health and must be lowered. But EPA has ignored this report for ten years, so far, because they are protecting the US fluoridation program for political reasons and not the American public. We have no reason to trust the EPA anymore. EPA is mandated to review fluoride science every six years or so; but they don’t
Also ignored were most, if not all, the fluoride research the NRC said was imperative to conduct before fluoridation could be labeled safe for everyone. For example:
“Carefully conducted studies of exposure to fluoride and emerging health parameters of interest (e.g., endocrine effects and brain function) should be performed in populations in the United States exposed to various concentrations of fluoride.” p.12
“More research is needed to clarify fluoride’s biochemical effects on the brain.” p.222
“The possibility has been raised by the studies conducted in China that fluoride can lower intellectual abilities. Thus, studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short- and long-term memory. p.223
“Studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride should be undertaken to evaluate neurochemical changes that may be associated with dementia. Consideration should be given to assessing effects from chronic exposure, effects that might be delayed or occur late-in-life, and individual susceptibility.” p.223
“The effects of fluoride on various aspects of endocrine function should be examined particularly with respect to a possible role in the development of several diseases or mental states in the United States. Major areas for investigation include the following: * thyroid disease (especially in light of decreasing iodine intake by the U.S. population); * nutritional (calcium-deficiency) rickets; * calcium metabolism (including measurements of both calcitonin and PTH); * pineal function (including, but not limited to, melatonin production); and * development of glucose intolerance and diabetes.” p.267
“Fluoride should be included in nationwide biomonitoring surveys and nutritional studies; in particular, analysis of fluoride in blood and urine samples taken in these surveys would be valuable.” p.11
“To assist in estimating individual fluoride exposure from ingestion, manufacturers and producers should provide information on the fluoride content of commercial foods and beverages.“ p.87
“The concentrations of fluoride in human bone as a function of exposure concentration, exposure duration, age, sex, and health status should be studied.” p.11
“Better characterization of exposure to fluoride is needed in epidemiology studies investigating potential effects. Important exposure aspects of such studies would include the following: collecting data on general dietary status and dietary factors that could influence exposure or effects, such as calcium, iodine, and aluminum intakes.” p.88
“Information is particularly needed on fluoride plasma and bone concentrations in people with small-to-moderate changes in renal function as well as in those with serious renal deficiency.” p.11
“More research is needed on bone concentrations of fluoride in people with altered renal function, as well as other potentially sensitive populations (e.g., the elderly, post-menopausal women, people with altered acid-balance), to better understand the risks of musculoskeletal effects in these populations.” p.180
“A systematic study of clinical stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis should be conducted to clarify the relationship between fluoride ingestion, fluoride concentration in bone, and clinical symptoms. “ p.12
“More studies of communities with drinking water containing fluoride at 2 mg/L or more are needed to assess potential bone fracture risk at these higher concentrations.” p.12
“The biological effects of aluminofluoride complexes should be researched further, including the conditions (exposure conditions and physiological conditions) under which the complexes can be expected to occur and to have biological effects.” p.88
“Thus, more studies are needed on fluoride concentrations in soft tissues (e.g., brain, thyroid, kidney) following chronic exposure.” p.102
“More work is needed on the potential for release of fluoride by the metabolism of organofluorines.” p.102
“the relationship between fertility and fluoride requires additional study.” p.193
“Further effort is necessary to characterize the direct and indirect mechanisms of fluoride’s action on the endocrine system and the factors that determine the response, if any, in a given individual. Such studies would address the following.. * identification of those factors, endogenous (e.g., age, sex, genetic factors, or preexisting disease) or exogenous (e.g., dietary calcium or iodine concentrations, malnutrition), associated with increased likelihood of effects of fluoride exposures in individuals. * consideration of the impact of multiple contaminants (e.g., fluoride and perchlorate) that affect the same endocrine system or mechanism.” p.266
“Studies are needed to evaluate gastric responses to fluoride from natural sources at concentrations up to 4 mg/L and from artificial sources.” p.302
“Additional studies should be carried out to determine the incidence, prevalence, and severity of renal osteodystrophy in patients with renal impairments in areas where there is fluoride at up to 4 mg/L in the drinking water.” p.302
“The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans needs to be carefully documented in communities exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.” p.303
“In addition, studies could be conducted to determine what percentage of immunocompromised subjects have adverse reactions when exposed to fluoride in the range of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water.” p.303
“It is paramount that careful biochemical studies be conducted to determine what fluoride concentrations occur in the bone and surrounding interstitial fluids from exposure to fluoride in drinking water at up to 4 mg/L, because bone marrow is the source of the progenitors that produce the immune system cells.” p.303
“Further research on a possible effect of fluoride on bladder cancer risk should be conducted.” p.338
“in vivo human genotoxicity studies in U.S. populations or other populations with nutritional and sociodemographic variables similar to those in the United States should be conducted.” p.338-9
“The possibility of biological effects of SiF6 , as opposed to free fluoride ion, should be examined.” p.88
“More research is needed on the relation between fluoride exposure and dentin fluorosis and delayed tooth eruption patterns.” p.12
“To permit better characterization of current exposures from airborne fluorides, ambient concentrations of airborne hydrogen fluoride and particulates should be reported on national a regional scales, especially for areas of known air pollution or known sources of airborne fluorides. Additional information on fluoride concentrations in soils in residential and recreational areas near industrial fluoride sources also should be obtained” p.87
“Two small studies have raised the possibility of an increased incidence of spina bifida occulta in fluorosis-prone areas in India; larger, well-controlled studies are needed to evaluate that possibility further.” p.196
“Carefully conducted studies of exposure to fluoride and emerging health parameters of interest (e.g., endocrine effects and brain function) should be performed in populations in the United States exposed to various concentrations of fluoride.” p.12
Jose
May 11, 2016 @ 10:21:48
Specifically, what can my community do to bring attention to and address environmental justice and equity in our infrastructure funding?
Esabt
May 12, 2016 @ 06:47:40
how can we doing for change this situation
tanx is great post and good idea
Esabt
May 12, 2016 @ 06:49:21
what can we do for solve this problem
tanx for your post
Jim Mullowney
May 13, 2016 @ 11:49:01
If you look at the world of chemicals the most dangerous are Cytotoxic Chemotherapy drugs, a Billion times more dangerous to the environment than birth control pills according to a study commissioned by the European Commission in 2014. We know this.
10% of Known Carcinogens are cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs.
Chemicals known to miscarriages, birth defects, and cancer in those accidentally exposed to cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs are well documented. Federal regulations mandate stringent safety protocols at almost every stage of the production, transport and distribution, handling, administration, and disposal of cytotoxic drugs. For instance, manufacturers, pharmacies, and oncology centers all have procedures in place to protect employees from exposure to harmful cytotoxic drugs and are regulated or recommended by [OSHA and NIOSH, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Oncology Nursing Society, and the Hematology/Oncology Association.] The Environmental Protection Agency strictly regulates the disposal of unused cytotoxic substances and any container or instrument contaminated by them. It is a crime to dispose of containers holding even trace amounts of these drugs, the wrapper the drugs came in and anything that came in contact with the drug through any means other than through the chemical waste disposal industry.
However, as much as 90% of common cytotoxic drugs infused or injected into a patient are excreted in active form through the patients’ sweat, vomit, urine, and feces. Family, caregivers and loved ones risk exposure to cytotoxic drugs, and the environment and water supply will be contaminated by active cytotoxic chemicals excreted by patients.
According to Christian Daughton, former Chief of environmental chemistry for the EPA “the best control measure for such highly toxic drugs may simply be the prevention
of urine and feces from entering sewers.” This same study found Cyclophosphamide in the water at 13 ug/l in comparison the water in Flint had between 5 and 25 ug/l.
Other studies found cyclophosphamide in the urine of cancer patients family members at much higher levels than people working with the drugs for decades.
Please go to http://www.cytotoxicsafety.org to see a video of Dr. Peter Boyle, former head of the International Agency for the Research on Cancer testify in the Rhode Island Senate in favor of a bill to require the Drug companies to pay for the collection of the human waste.
The EPA cannot continue to ignore this problem and now is a good time to act.
We put a car on the moon, we can collect pee in a cup.
All the documents I refer to can be found at http://www.cytotoxicsafety.org
Club Penguin Walkthrough
Jun 01, 2016 @ 22:16:39
I’m the only tap water drinker in my house for the reasons that I think the minerals in the water are actually good for me. I do read the local water reports. Where I live, it’s not like a Flint, Michigan! Buying bottled water unless necessary, just seems so silly. Expensive and a total waste of resources.
nathaniel
Jun 02, 2016 @ 17:30:29
I am grateful for the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as a 1st generation U.S. Citizen I understand the thought behind clean water being a direct correlation to health and economy. I think I can claim at least 1/2 of the billion of glasses each day lol. Thank you for this awesome post and.
paul
Jun 11, 2016 @ 07:11:57
I think this is true, drinking lot of water and regular exercise keeps us young and fit.
آتلیه عروس
Jun 13, 2016 @ 15:40:11
drinking lot of water and regular exercise keeps us young and fit.
Health Diseases
Jun 16, 2016 @ 02:55:18
I prefer purified drinking sources. I do not rely on tap water. Simple tap water may contain harmful Bactria, virus and drinking impure water may cause so many water borne diseases. I recommend everyone, drink only pure clean and filtered water and always pay special attention to the water you and your family drinking.
apkmart
Jun 18, 2016 @ 15:58:40
nice post can u write one more article
apkmart
Jun 18, 2016 @ 16:00:08
WOw nice artile and iam looking for dangerious apps
Tom Rhule
Jul 05, 2016 @ 16:47:57
I live in West Virginia, where Maximum Contaminant Limits are little more than part of a scheme to convince locals that their local tap water is safe. The reason for that is because of the widespread permitted industrial dumping of exotic yet patent-protected chemistry of hydraulic fracturing waste and coal slurry prep waste throughout the state have ruined source waters of many communities, yet are not being properly monitored under the antiquated Safe Drinking Water Act.
West Virginian is losing population as residents are either leaving the state or dying off at record rates because the EPA has propped up what is essentially a protection racket for extraction industry polluters permitted by the WV DEP, and our Bureau of Public Health. Even our state’s Homeland Security Department has protected the permit fraud by convincing our lawmakers that state agencies should be protected from public scrutiny by exempting them Freedom Of Information Act requests, and requiring non-disclosure agreements of local citizens who are taking part in the EPA-required Source Water Assessment and Protection program.
Our state even exempts ALL horizontal hydraulic frack waste from being considered as hazardous, not matter how toxic, in many cases allowing it to be injected into Class II wells that have been punched through abandoned coal mines and next to abandoned gas wells without any external mechanical integrity testing and even with extremely poor cement logs.
Without ever requiring the waste that is being pumped into hundreds of Class II injection wells to be properly characterized, the WV DEP lets industry get by with disposing of unconventional sourced waste down wells that are designated by both state and federal law for conventional sourced waste only.
Layla Shea
Aug 03, 2016 @ 21:07:24
Very helpful information. Thanks for sharing.
cinemabox
Nov 17, 2016 @ 22:04:25
How to change the situation. I have also seen some serious videos on this. Anyways thanks for the meaningful post.
Denver sewer repair
Dec 18, 2016 @ 10:33:27
Very Useful Post and great Shared to Drinking Water, Thanks author your Awesome tropic and outstanding information.