And both the water and its delivery system are sufficiently clean to make disinfectants/bactericides like ozone or chlorine unnecessary?
Because, if so, filtering agri-chemicals out of the water shouldn't make it necessary to add a disinfectant (chlorine) that wasn't necessary before?
And if the water is ozone-treated, there's no reason I know of why you'd have to switch to chlorine. Except, I think, that chlorine is cheaper and more forgiving of poor infrastructure (it remains in the water and kills off any mild accidental bacterial contamination).
So is the water genuinely just oxygenated by exposing a large surface area to air, rather than treated with ozone to kill bacteria?
Yes.
In principle, you're right. But it would be more desirable to not put the agri-chemicals in the groundwater in the first place and thus avoid having to remove them altogether.
And of course, much the same political logic applies as to pesticides: If you are allowed to clean the water, there is going to be political pressure to add chlorine or ozone instead of spending the required money on maintaining the infrastructure at levels that prevent bacterial pollution in the first place. It's cheaper in the short term, and in the long term there'll be a new mayor anyway.
- Jake Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam
