"Tap water is perfectly fine" people threw a lot of shade at people who only drink bottled water, but both should be using Reverse Osmosis filtration right now. Think of it as verifying the response you got from the API is correct...
The other thing about RO water systems is that they are not very efficient. For every gallon of pure(-ish) water that a home system generates, it typically has to throw away 5 gallons of salty water.
https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/system.php?pws=CA3810011
Contains Carbon Tetrachloride, Hexavalent Chromium (PG&E v. Erin Brockovich anyone?), Haloacetic acids, and Trihalomethanes, all carcinogens. All are reduced by reverse osmosis use.
You say "not efficient" when it's more like an extra 1-2 gallons waste, and yet the outcome is much cleaner water that makes up a large portion of your biology. I'd say that's a pretty efficient way to be healthier, especially when drinking water is a very tiny sliver of water consumption. The average person uses 3,000 gallons of water a month and you're sweating an extra 5 gallons for drinking?
Efficiency: see https://www.epa.gov/watersense/point-use-reverse-osmosis-sys...
For example, a typical point-of-use RO system will generate five gallons or more of reject water for every gallon of permeate produced. Some inefficient units will generate up to 10 gallons of reject water for every gallon of permeate produced. In recent years, membrane technology has improved and some point-of-use RO systems have been designed to operate more efficiently, with some manufacturers advertising a 1:1 ratio of permeate to concentrate production, meaning only one gallon of reject water is generated for each gallon of treated water.
To do it for all water- showers, washing dishes, laundry, etc- would require RO for all potable water for the city water supply.
Depending on where in California you are, that much extra water consumption (since the waste will have an even higher concentration of harmful chemicals) isn't exactly an option.
https://www.epa.gov/watersense/point-use-reverse-osmosis-sys...
The biological need for "water" is tuned to expect "water" to involve all sorts of trace minerals and compounds, some desired and some undesired, as well as some kind of stream of gut flora contributors and immune system challenges.
Thinking of RO and other forms of heavily or industrially purified H20 as the same thing is a technologist's mistaken idealization, and to a cynical eye reads a lot more like ancient Hellenic ideas about simple essential fluids than anything either scientific or sustainable.
It may be a necessary compromise because of modern contamination or because modern demand forces us to rely on increasingly worse supplies, but it's a long way from "verifying the response". It's more like an ugly last resort hack.
The rest is equally preposterous.
Just sad we made such a mess.
It's easy to dream up rules and government mandates or budget items, which would be more directly interesting if we lived in an actual democracy (no matter what country on earth today) but rather we have to understand why state and business as we've enabled them to operate structurally would ever work toward those directives, and not just to an appeasingly greenwashed extent. And then think what other tools are available to us besides voting and waiting, given all that. Don't we all know devops here? Where's the structural analysis and systemically-impacting follow-up discussion? Instead people talk about the quality of individual masters and operators
All we have to do is stop allowing industries to dump in our most important natural resource. How stupid can we be?