The city of Flint will finally replace aging water lines for 18,000 homes, after the state of Michigan agreed to pay the cost of the project as part of a legal settlement. A federal judge approved the deal on Tuesday and said that the job will have to be completed by 2020. Around 700 homes have already had their pipes replaced.

The costs will be covered by a combination of state and federal funds. Michigan will pay $87 million, and put $10 million aside for unforeseen costs. Part of the project will also be funded by the $100 million that Flint was granted by Congress at the end of last year, but some of that money will also be used to update Flint’s water treatment plant.

Residents and activists that brought the lawsuit are relieved to finally see some action. “The greatest lesson I’ve learned from Flint’s water crisis is that change only happens when you get up and make your voice heard,” said Melissa Mays, one of the plaintiffs and one of the first people who alerted officials after realizing that something was wrong with the city’s water.

Progress!!! The fight isn’t over yet but this a HUGE win for us #FlintWaterCrisis https://t.co/8PNHMPluDX

— Little Miss Flint (@LittleMissFlint) March 27, 2017

In 2014 it was discovered that tap water in Flint was contaminated, after the city stopped extracting its water from Lake Huron and, in an effort to save money, started taking it from the Flint River. It turned out that the water was so corrosive that it quickly eroded the city’s water pipes, collecting iron, lead, and other metals on its way to residents’ homes. Lead is dangerous and can cause long-term physical and mental damage. A dozen people have died from Legionnaires’ disease in the city.

In December 2016, Michigan’s attorney general announced felony charges against two former Flint emergency managers and two other former city officials, saying, “All too prevalent in this Flint Water Investigation was a priority on balance sheets and finances rather than health and safety of the citizens of Flint.” The politicians’ decision to switch water sources to save $5 million resulted in a loss of over $1.5 billion, according to estimates.

A) it only took 3 years to get the ruling
B) 2020?!?!?! Wtf https://t.co/pPqSHOuhX7

— Tatiana Torres (@princessdeleon) March 27, 2017

As part of the agreement the state must also keep providing residents with free bottled water and conduct inspections to ensure that residents have proper filters installed on their taps–and provide such filters for free. Other aspects of the settlement include new water monitoring requirements and that the state maintains current Medicaid funding levels.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Flint to Replace 18,000 Water Lines, Michigan Agrees to Pay $97 Million appeared first on Law Street.

The United States is viewed both domestically and internationally as one of the most water secure nations in the world. The 2011 California drought represents one of the first developments to challenge this notion in many years. California’s four-year rain shortage has brought the realization that a community can’t survive without a water source to the attention of many Americans and that the United States isn’t immune to water scarcity. This year’s El Niño finally brought rain to California, but seemingly just as the drought was temporarily broken on the West Coast, media attention fell onto another water-related crisis: Flint, Michigan.

Flint and Beyond

Three years ago Michigan Governor Rick Snyder appointed Darnell Earley as the Emergency Manager of Flint, giving him complete control over the city’s budget and charged him with saving the city from bankruptcy. In 2014, in a move calculated to save the city millions of dollars, Earley made the executive decision to relocate the city’s drinking source from the distant Lake Huron to the much closer Flint River. While the Flint River may have been more economically convenient, the water was not properly treated with an anti-corrosion chemical to prevent erosion of lead pipes. The water was understood to be toxic from years of being used as a chemical dumping ground by Flint’s now extinct automobile industry, which also made it significantly more corrosive than most sources.

The water looked and smelled unpleasant, and while it wasn’t fully understood at the time the switch was made, water in Flint contained dangerous quantities of lead residue from local pipelines. After the switch, Flint residents experienced hair loss and fell seriously ill, leading them to quickly contact city officials. Earley, the Governor’s office, and the State Health Department were all contacted but largely ignored complaints. It took two entire years before a team of researchers from Virginia Tech did an official study that proved the water was highly toxic. The health consequences of those two years will last a lifetime for the people of Flint, and has rendered the entire community unstable.

Flint serves as a chilling example of how dependent an area and its people are on their water source and marks a shift in national attention toward the idea of water instability in America. The story of the Flint water crisis went viral and has been covered widely since the revelations. In January 2016, Time Magazine published an article on Flint titled, “The Poisoning of an American City,” which was featured on its cover.

Flint became one of just a few nationally-circulated stories of a community experiencing water pollution since before the Clean Water Act was passed and in the months following the Flint crisis, similar stories have been popping up all over the country. On January 23, attention turned to St. Joseph, Louisiana, where the drinking water runs brown from aging and malfunctioning pipelines. Then on February 21, CNN covered a story on Crystal City, Texas where the faucets and showerheads dispense sludge due to sediment buildup in their storage tanks.

A History of Water Legislation in the United States

Many will argue that America is currently experiencing its most water-secure period in history. Prior to the 70s, the United States had essentially no regulation for pollution and chemical dumping was widely practiced by the industrial sector. In the late 60s only about one-third of U.S. waters were considered safe to swim in and fish from. According to a 1970 report from Bureau of Water Hygiene, a sample of American tap water supplies found that 36 percent exceeded the limits of established drinking water standards. It required several major tragedies to change the political attitude toward water as a public health issue, including toxic spills and oil leaks. Perhaps the most memorable of these events happened in 1969 in Cleveland when the Cuyahoga River lit on fire due to its high quantity of flammable waste. The image of a burning river emblazoned Time Magazine and led to a national outcry.

America’s first water-related piece of legislation was the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, which was followed by five additional bills written between 1956 and 1970. In 1972, in response to major pollution disasters, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was revised and expanded in order to give it a much larger scope of control. The newly dubbed Clean Water Act of 1972 was passed with bipartisan support and in spite of a veto from President Nixon, representing the most influential piece of water-related legislation in American history.

While previous water quality bills ultimately held the states responsible for interpretation and enforcement, the Clean Water Act marked a departure from this line of thinking–giving the federal government direct authority to regulate water quality. The act gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the power to set industrial wastewater standards, made it illegal for individuals to dump waste in navigable waters, and forced industrial and municipal facilities to obtain permits to discharge their waste. These permits could also be revoked–effectively shutting down a business if the discharges were found to exceed EPA standards. Industries across America were forced to upgrade their technology in order to generate smaller waste streams and use a secondary treatment on the waste that they did create. The Clean Water Act targeted the largest sources of pollution–toxic waste dumping, oil spills, and large sewage leaks–using better technology as the primary solution.

The Clean Water Act was amended three times during the 70s and 80s to strengthen its ability to regulate waste. The EPA’s power was further increased by the Ocean Dumping Act in 1972 and the Safe Drinking Act in 1974. These efforts had a huge influence on reducing large scale pollution and has successfully increased the percentage of swimmable and fishable waters in the United States from one-third to almost 60 percent, as well as dramatically decreasing the load of contaminants in drinking water across the nation.

So Where Are We Now?

While considerable progress has been made, the Clean Water Act was written with the goal of making the United States’ waters swimmable and fishable by 1983. However, in 2016 the EPA has admitted that over 40 percent of U.S. waterways don’t meet national standards. While regulations have significantly improved, they’ve failed to protect many communities from pollution. Flint, Crystal City, and St. Joseph are extreme examples of water sources gone wrong, but they’re far from unique. Citizens across the country are regularly exposed to dangerous chemicals through the drinking water. The Natural Resource Defense Council studied major cities all across the United States and found that many of them had tap water that contained a number of contaminants. The most common and deadly of these contaminants were lead, pathogens, arsenic, radon, and perchlorate rocket fuel.

The D.C.-based Environmental Working Group conducted a similar study that took place over the course of five years, testing for 316 different contaminants in water supplied to 48,000 communities throughout the country. They found the same trend of pollutants appeared regularly in drinking water throughout the country, especially in concentrated urban areas. They ranked different communities on the percentage of chemicals found in the water, the number of different chemicals present, and the level of danger of each individual community.

Both the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Working Group found that some of the most severely polluted areas in the U.S. were major cities, including San Diego, Las Vegas, Jacksonville, Albuquerque, Houston, and Denver, all of which had a number of dangerous contaminants in their drinking water exceeding the EPA’s safe limits. Across the nation, cities have been using inaccurate water testing practices, withholding information from their citizens, and completely bypassing EPA guidelines.

“Sewage Contaminated Water” courtesy of Tony Webster via Flickr

Obstacles to Keeping Water Clean

Regulating the discharges of America’s entire industrial and municipal sectors is a task of momentous proportions and many dangerous chemicals don’t specifically have regulations attached to them. As such, many companies can get away with dumping illegally. If an industry is particularly critical to the economy of an area, it may have a blind eye turned to its actions, at least from local governments. Furthermore, there are also cases like Flint where much of the damage had already been done. The auto industry responsible for the majority of the dumping in the Flint River, with the exception of Flint Motors, died out long ago. All the companies that could now be fined or forced to pay for the cleanup have gone bankrupt.

There are also several legal loopholes that certain industries can use to legally pollute groundwater. Perhaps the most significant of these is the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which allocated federal subsidies to different energy sources with the majority of the funds going to the fossil fuel industry. However, beyond covering subsidies, the act also gave hydraulic fracturing companies the privilege to legally inject water based pumps into the ground without publicly releasing the chemicals used in the underground pumping process. This became known as the Halliburton Loophole, due to the fact that the Energy Policy Act was designed by a team directed by Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of Halliburton.

A large part of the problem is also that the Clean Water Act regulates pollution that comes from point sources, or identifiable and quantifiable streams of pollution, such as oil leaks or sewage streams. However, up to 50 percent of America’s pollution is estimated to come from non-point sources, which are widespread and difficult to track or control. Pollution can often enter water sources simply by getting carried along with rainwater. Non-point sources include animal feces, particularly from livestock and pets (whose feces contain different, more harmful bacteria and pathogens as a result of their unique diets); nitrogen and phosphorus from lawn fertilizers; and agricultural pesticides, dirt, general sediments, and rock salt; the leaking residue of aging septic tanks; and numerous other examples. Aging and deteriorating piping systems can also transport contaminants directly to your home as water moves through them.

The problem is not just with water pollution but also with excessive over-withdrawal from water sources. A body of drinking water is restored naturally with rainfall that runs–both as surface water and groundwater–into lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. However, if a community continuously withdraws water at a faster rate than the watershed can restore it, the level of accessible drinking water will lower and lower until the body of water is completely undrinkable. This problem is seen at its worst in highly populated urban areas and tourist destinations where large water withdrawals are necessary to sustain the community.

Major American waterways such as the Colorado River and Lake Mead, both of which provide water to tens of millions of people, are at risk of drying up within the next few decades. Long-term water use is often not taken into account by city planners; for instance, Los Angeles and Las Vegas are currently America’s two fastest growing cities and both are built on literal deserts. El Niño’s unorthodox rain patterns have brought temporary relief to these areas, but the pattern of dry, arid weather will eventually resume and the California drought shows every sign of resurfacing. These problems are also not limited to the West–40 out of 50 states are currently predicted to have one or more regions that will experience water shortage within the decade.

Recent Policy Developments

The most relevant recent water-related policy development happened in 2014 when the Obama Administration passed the Waters of the United States Rule, also known as the Clean Water Rule. The purpose of the rule was both to give more regulatory oversight to the Environmental Protection Agency and to expand the definition of protected waters beyond lakes and rivers to also include smaller waterways such as streams and tributaries, which ultimately flow into lakes and rivers and thus impact the health of our drinking water.

Republican members of Congress have objected to the Clean Water Rule on the grounds that it unfairly increases federal power where the government has no right to assert control over businesses, farmers, and private landowners. The rule’s opponents have attempted to overturn it using the Congressional Review Act, and on January 13, the House of Representatives effectively voted to overturn the rule. Only six days later, on January 19, President Obama responded by vetoing the overturn. Without the necessary two-thirds majority required to override his veto, the Clean Water Rule will continue to be U.S. law.

Conclusion

With the rate and severity of droughts increasing, so does our understanding of the sheer volume of polluted water sources throughout the nation, and it’s more important than ever to take water instability seriously. Despite some progress in the past few years, the same dangers are just as alive today as they were in the pre-seventies era. This is illustrated well by the fact that in 1969 the burning Cuyahoga River made the cover of Time magazine and 57 years later we see yet another polluted waterway–this time the Flint River–back on the magazine’s cover. If there’s a positive side to the recent surge in media attention toward these events it’s the idea of a water crisis as a tangible, possible thing that could happen in America may now be present in the minds of American citizens and voters.

There is no silver bullet to water instability; any approach to making American watersheds sustainable must involve a number of different methods. Some cities in America have banned the use of chemical rock salt for roads and others have banned the use of phosphorous and nitrogen-based fertilizers. In response to the drought, California set strict laws regulating the amount of water each citizen was allowed to use and that each establishment was allowed to offer. As the population continues to grow, especially in urban centers, more and more areas may have to regulate water withdrawal with an eye to the future. Perhaps one of the most needed changes is for more and more areas to regularly test their water for contaminants to determine its safety and create a baseline measure to determine changes. The most important element of water sustainability is to act now and plan for the future, understanding that the health of a community directly correlates to the health and security of its water source.

Resources

ATTN: U.S. Cities are Underreporting Heavy Metals in their Water Supply

Daily Finance: 10 American Cities with the Worst Drinking Water

Encyclopedia.com: Clean Water Act of 1977

EPA: Summary of the Clean Water Act

EPA: What the Clean Water Rule Does

The Guardian: Flint Water Crisis: Congressman says EPA guilty of ‘Flat-out Incompetence’

NRDC: Study Finds Safety of U.S. Drinking Water at Risk

The New York Times: A Question of Environmental Racism in Flint

The New York Times: Events that Lead to Flint’s Water Crisis

The New York Times: Unsafe Levels of Lead in Tap Water Not Limited to Flint

Salon: It’s Not Just a Flint Problem: Other U.S. Cities are Suffering from Toxic Water

Salon: America’s Water Crisis is so Much Bigger than California

Water Encyclopedia: Clean Water Act

The Water Project: Water Scarcity in U.S.

Earth Works Action: The Halliburton Loophole

CNN: Water Runs Black in Texas Town Already Wracked by Corruption Arrests

Environmental Protection Agency: Natural Gas Extraction – Hydraulic Fracturing

The Hill: House Votes to Overturn Obama Water Rule

Time: The Burning River that Sparked a Revolution

USA Today: Obama Vetoes Attempt to Kill Clean Water Rule

The News-Star: Water Woes Plague St. Joseph

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Water Instability in the United States: Can Anything be Done? appeared first on Law Street.

By now everyone has heard about the current water crisis in Flint, Michigan. The city’s drinking water has been contaminated with lead, making it harmful and potentially life-threatening to drink, and almost everyone is pointing fingers in an attempt to find someone to blame for this catastrophic event. All across the country, people have taken to social media to protest what they feel has been a complete failure on the part of Flint’s government. But it’s kind of hard to tell whether or not the situation is actually getting any better.

#FLINT: “a staggering level of ineptitude, if not criminal negligence.”

— Bette Midler (@BetteMidler) January 23, 2016

It’s a shame that one of the recent hostages is a Flint resident, and he had better water when he was captive than when he got home #TeamDl

— DL Hughley (@RealDLHughley) January 23, 2016

Photos of a local poster began circling the internet after being taken down by the State of Michigan due to backlash from the community. The poster–which featured two adorable babies bathing, along with messages confirming it was okay to wash your children in Flint water just as long as they didn’t accidentally drink it–is a shining example of just why everyone is so riled up. The situation is horrifying and negatively affecting some of the most helpless residents in Flint. Even the Girl Scouts of America have voiced their concerns, proving that this water crisis is an issue affecting everyone.

The government in Flint has been working to raise money and support for its city, even reaching out to President Obama in an attempt to have the Flint crisis declared a federal disaster so they can receive federal funding to try to remedy the situation. The President denied federal disaster status, but did give the city emergency funds of $5 million dollars. Unfortunately for Flint, that money boils down to almost nothing in the grand scheme of things, so Governor Rick Snyder has appealed his case to President Obama, hoping to have the status of the Flint emergency reconsidered. Some have estimated the city is going to need as much as $1 billion dollars in the upcoming year after looking at just how deep this lead-filled water problem goes.

The good news is people are stepping up to help the residents of Flint. Celebrities are reaching out and using their star power to donate money and water to the cause.

Pearl Jam donate $300,000 to city of Flint, Michigan amid water crisis: https://t.co/uNddI1WDsC pic.twitter.com/tWGeReyaAQ

— Consequence of Sound (@coslive) January 23, 2016

Big Sean Is Donating $10,000 To The Kids Of Flint — And You Can Help, Too https://t.co/gtMRv3wTDN

— MTV (@MTV) January 23, 2016

Jimmy Fallon donates $10,000 to Flint charity during city’s ongoing water crisis https://t.co/brHFjUKAJBpic.twitter.com/Jpe1Y57IbL

— TIME.com (@TIME) January 25, 2016

A firefighter in Chicago, who was horrified to hear about the water conditions in Flint, decided to start asking for water bottle donations, and has collected over 130 cases of water; he plans to drive them to Flint at the end of the week. Residents of Western Michigan have banded together to gather water testing kits, water filters, bottled water, and money to donate to the city in addition to sending over 200 volunteers to help hand out supplies to local Flint citizens with no access to clean drinking water. Even people outside of the Midwest have been helping out by starting dozens of GoFundMe pages to raise money for the city–and the results have been staggering.

It really is heartwarming to see how many people nation-wide are helping Flint without any reservations, which will be instrumental in sustaining the people of Flint until this crippling problem is resolved. Hopefully, with some hard work, financial support, and a new plan for handling the water supply, Flint residents will soon have the clean water they deserve. Until then, it’s time to keep the altruistic spirit of volunteerism alive and help out our friends in need.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post How Has the Nation Responded to Flint’s Cries for Help? appeared first on Law Street.

Could your surroundings impact your health as much as your diet, genetics, and lifestyle? The field of environmental health seeks to understand how the natural and manmade elements of our homes, work, and leisure environments impact health. To understand environmental impacts on health, experts examine a tremendous range of factors from community noise levels to the availability of public parks; some even look at dust.

I know that seems strange, because when you look at dust, I’m sure you probably see nothing but unsightly grime that makes you sneeze. But when researchers at the California Department of Toxic Substances Control look at dust, they see a possible indicator of chemicals people might be exposed to from various synthetic materials commonly found in homes.

Dust holds clues to multiple facets of your domestic life. Companies use an array of chemicals, including flame retardants, to manufacture your appliances, furniture, and even curtains. Your appliances, furniture, and curtains also contribute to the powdery detritus obscuring your coffee table. Dust offers researchers a way to investigate the holistic chemical composition of the average home atmosphere, all from the contents of a vacuum cleaner.

So why do we spend time studying dust and hundreds of other tiny environmental factors? Well, the experts in the University of Michigan video below estimate that 25-33 percent of disease globally stems from our environments. If we understood what specifically caused that percentage, we could take the first steps toward developing interventions.

With so many aspects to consider, it’s hard to make a solid connection between one environmental factor and a health outcome. But solid connections do make for golden evidence in influencing policy decisions that promote better health outcomes. A relatively new science called biomonitoring could help environmental health scientists make those golden connections by linking a pollutant directly to a health problem.

What is biomonitoring?

Biomonitoring quantifies bodily absorption of pollutants by measuring chemical amounts in human specimens like blood or urine. In the dust example mentioned above, researchers could incorporate biomonitoring by comparing the chemical composition of dust samples with the chemical levels present in residents’ blood or urine samples. This would allow them to look beyond what chemicals are present and find out if people are actually absorbing them, since atmospheric presence doesn’t automatically indicate absorption.

For example, an elemental mercury spill in a Massachusetts school caused panic when air samples revealed high mercury vapor air levels after the initial clean up. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health responded to the panic by offering urine tests. It turned out they had nothing to worry about–none of the samples indicated elevated urine mercury levels.

We worry about chemical levels in the environment because of what they might be doing to human health, but they need to be absorbed in order to cause harm. Environmental health scientists can bypass the need to study the presence of environmental pollutants one by one, by using biomonitoring to directly assess human impact. Outside of individual cases, cross-population biomonitoring data could reveal locations with disproportionate chemical exposures, a red flag that something fishy is going on.

According to the Association of Public Health Laboratories, manufacturers in the United States use more than 100,000 chemicals, yet we don’t understand what they could all do to human health. Combine this uncertainty with the rise of chronic diseases and you have a concerned public that demands many answers. Biomonitoring strives to find out which of these 100,000 chemicals make it into our bodies so we can figure out what to do about it.

How can biomonitoring affect health policy?

In the 1970s when researchers discovered that lead exposure could cause serious health problems, the U.S. implemented laws to bar it from many products like food cans, paint, and gasoline. Biomonitoring through blood testing has confirmed decreased blood lead levels since the laws were enacted, but also pointed out that low income and minority children still have levels above the CDC safe reference value, with lead in housing being the major source. After hearing these results, officials looked to housing policies as a way to decrease the problem:

• The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required landlords to disclose lead hazards in all residences built before 1978.
• HUD made lead safety mandatory for federally funded housing and created grants for removing lead hazards from current buildings.
• The EPA began regulating painting and repair practices in all residences built before 1978.

These efforts achieved lower levels of lead hazards in government-funded housing, but did little to decrease levels in low-income or non-assisted housing.

At the state level, officials focused on finding children with elevated blood lead levels and then tried to remove lead from their environments. Some states, including Maryland, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island, implemented more prevention-based laws, but many still struggle with compliance.

To respond to a high concentration of children with elevated blood lead levels, Philadelphia officials combined public health with law in the Philadelphia Lead Court. The court was designed to increase compliance of city health codes related to lead hazards. If the court hears of a lead hazard, it issues an order to the property owner to remedy the situation. If they don’t complete hazard control activities, they’re sent to the Lead Court.

Before the court, property owners complied with lead regulations seven percent of the time. After the court was established, the compliance rate spiked to 77 percent.

These intervention successes were made possible through biomonitoring, and the connections between health and a contaminant that it revealed.

Biomonitoring and Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing (or fracking), a new and unconventional method for extracting natural gas, poses a possible health hazard to the people who live closest to fracking wells. Self reports show a disproportionate amount of respiratory problems like itchy eyes, coughing, and nose bleeds among people living near fracking wells.

Read More: Fracking is Short-Sighted in Light of Temporary U.S. Oil Boom

In this New Haven Register article, researcher Dr. Peter Rabinowitz summarizes the limitations of this self-reported data:

It’s more of an association than a causation. We want to make sure people know it’s a preliminary study. … To me it strongly indicates the need to further investigate the situation and not ignore it.

Use of biomonitoring in this instance could provide more clarity on which chemicals are present and could be causing health problems in the residents. A doctor from Aspen Integrative Health in Colorado has already tested some people who live close to drilling sites for chemical exposures. His results showed some elevated levels, but didn’t provide any conclusive links. The results could serve as a baseline comparison for other communities wishing to test residents.

The new federal rules on fracking don’t include any biomonitoring measures, but they take small steps toward understanding the possible health effects of fracking by requiring more care and accountability from drilling companies. Per the new rules, government workers can inspect fracking wells for safety, companies will have to tell the public what chemicals they use in their extraction processes, and companies will have to abide by new rules on chemical storage and disposal of flowback water.

Making Connections

The future of our health depends on our ability to make connections as we constantly introduce new chemicals into our lives through food, construction, manufacturing, and more. Environmental health scientists, supplemented by biomonitoring, work to make those connections in the hope that their findings will result in legal and policy decisions that keep people healthy.

Daunting as achieving these connections may be, daily advances, like this new University of Miami instrument to detect atmospheric mercury, bring us closer to understanding the interaction of our environment and our health. If we encourage advances in biomonitoring and other new technologies, all the vague correlations of the past could become solid connections.

Resources

 Primary

Environmental Health Perspectives: Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status: Results of a Household Survey in Washington County, Pennsylvania

The Network for Public Health Law: Environmental Public Health

Additional

Association of Public Health Laboratories: Biomonitoring: Analysis of Human Exposure to Chemicals

Association of Public Health Laboratories: Measuring For Potentially Dangerous Chemicals

Public Health Law Research: Local Housing Policy Approaches to Preventing Childhood Lead Poisoning

Public Health Law Research: Public Health and Law Collaboration: The Philadelphia Lead Court Study

Public Health Law Research: Philadelphia’s Lead Court is Making a Difference

Association of Public Health Laboratories Blog: Biomonitoring and the Public Health Laboratory: Everything You Want to Know

Association of Public Health Laboratories: Biomonitoring: An Integral Component of Public Health Practice

EurekAlert: Researchers Develop New Instrument to Monitor Atmospheric Mercury

The New York Times: New Federal Rules Are Set For Fracking

Washington Post: Obama Administration Tightens Federal Rules on Oil and Gas Fracking

NPR: Interior Department Issues New Federal Rules On ‘Fracking’

The Network for Public Health Law: Environmental Public Health

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Biomonitoring: A New Way to Look at Health Policy appeared first on Law Street.

Hammers swinging and chisels carving, the great arched stone structure rises from the ground. It is 54 AD, and the Aqua Claudia is nearing completion. One of many aqueducts in central Italy, this structure would provide clean and running water to the city of Rome. In the centuries to follow, Rome’s health, trade, and population would boom, propelling it to the pinnacle of greatness in the ancient world. Water has always been vital to the prosperity of human civilizations. As the world globalizes and markets become integrated, we continue to face challenges with regard to water in 2015. Scarcity, abundance, economic forces, and technology all play concerning roles in our need to more effectively manage our water, vital to not only our prosperity but our survival.

An ancient Roman aqueduct. Courtesy of Wolfgang Staudt via Flickr.

Some arguments suggest that scarcity of a resource is paradoxically beneficial, as it pushes people to band together and cooperate in an attempt to secure their needs, ration what they have, and communicate. However, this is overly optimistic; scarcity is tied to violence. While in the modern era this does not necessarily involve resource wars–as in countries fighting each other over access–it often involves internal struggles and alienation of groups. For example, powerful people gain more power by governing access to a scarce resource. In this sense, the issue is largely one of distribution. This is one of the primary concerns with any resource in global politics; whether regarding countries in the developed world in relation to those in the underdeveloped world, or rich and powerful people in relation to the poor and marginalized ones within the same country, some groups enjoy lavish abundance while others go wanting. There remains plenty of water to go around, it is just a matter of who gets it and how.

Another reason why distribution is a challenge is because of poor infrastructure and economic vectors. Already facing energy shortages and blackouts, officials in Pakistan predict a water crisis on top of what will arrive soon. A significant cause of these concerns is mismanagement; thus poor distribution methods and insufficient economic structures disallow the huge population from receiving the water it needs. Of course there are also climate change-related factors involved, but a properly organized system would be able to account for these dynamics to some degree, as well.

Pakistan’s Water and Energy Minister, Khawaja Muhammed Asif, is of the opinion that the country’s resource challenges are largely due to internal behaviors, stating, “There is a national habit of extravagance.” This means that some people are using a huge amount of water unnecessarily, while others are thirsty. Furthermore, New York Times writer Salman Masood points out that water politics have been tied into jihadist activities; Islamist militants regularly accuse India of denying Pakistan its rightful water, and the leader of the 2008 train attacks in Mumbai often cites these perceived dynamics as one of his primary grievances. However, Masood continues, India’s water storage infrastructure is leaps and bounds superior to that of Pakistan, containing over three times the capacity to save it for a not-rainy day.

The Indus River, lifeblood of villages and civilizations. Courtesy of indiawaterportal.org via Flickr.

There exist many proposals regarding what to do about water shortages and accessibility. One such idea involves towing icebergs to locations in need, but this is highly impractical. In addition to the high costs of such an operation, large amounts of the iceberg would melt in transit, and this delivery system does not address the endemic structural deficiencies.

Another idea involves desalinization plants. These draw on the enormous quantities from the oceans, as otherwise only three percent of the Earth’s water is fresh. This process has some benefits, drawing from the seemingly endless supply, but it is also very expensive to put into play and operate. Furthermore, it is often not wisely appropriated. There has recently been a debate over whether to build a desalinization plant in New York’s Rockland County. The primary motive for resistance is that there is simply no need. In addition to the fact that the region receives a high amount of rainfall, water consumption has actually been dropping as water-using technologies such as washing machines and toilets have become more efficient. Constructing the plant would cost $150 million unnecessarily. Furthermore, it would desalinize the briny water from the lower Hudson River, where it meets the ocean, which could be potentially damaging to the estuary life. Most desalinization plants draw directly from the sea.

A desalinization plant in Spain. Courtesy of James Grellier via Wikipedia.

This debate is a product not of scarcity but of abundance; there is plenty of water to go around so the desalinization plant is unnecessary. But economic structures and finances abound, so additional challenges arise. In most parts of the United States, water is so abundant and the physical infrastructure and economic style for delivering it is so effective that water is often wasted. It is so inexpensive that there is little incentive to conserve. But the problem goes far beyond household consumption. Over three quarters of all water use in the United States occurs in the agricultural industry. Flooding fields, using enormous sprinklers for hours at a time, and other inefficient means of irrigation and watering abound because there is so much water and no consequences for using it all.

It is somewhat ironic, then, that on a national scale we care so little about using our water but are very aware of its purity, content, and condition. Several weeks ago, some oil from a spill was found in the Yellowstone River. This serves as drinking water for many people, as well as plays a vital role in the delicate ecosystem of the region. The spill came from a burst pipeline, fueling further concerns about the safety of this delivery system. Just recently, President Obama exercised his veto power for the first time in five years by striking down the necessary legislation to make the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline a reality.

Whether there is not enough water and methods of procuring it must be hammered out, or there is an abundance and measures to regulate and protect it must be put into place, effectively handling water is the key not only to prosperity, but to survival.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Challenges of Water Management and Consumption appeared first on Law Street.

We tend to envision our oceans as blue and our lands as green; the residents of Toledo, Ohio, however, had a bit difference experience recently when they were faced with green water.

When municipal officials declared they found toxins in the city’s drinking water supply, residents refrained from using it entirely. Naturally they did not drink or cook with it, but the contamination was deemed so severe that even boiling the water beforehand would not be sufficient. Emma G Fitzsimmons of The New York Times relates that children and people with weak immune systems were urged not to bathe in such water either. As local bottled supplies ran dry, the National Guard arrived to disperse fresh water.

Eventually, investigators determined that a large Lake Erie algae bloom, the source of water for the city of Toledo and 11 million residents in the lake’s vicinity, was the source of the contamination. Algae refers to a very broad spectrum of aquatic organisms ranging from the microscopic and single celled to the giant kelp of the Eastern Pacific. A bloom results in the production of a large amount of peptides, compounds consisting of multiple linked amino acids, in this case called microcystin. This particular peptide is toxic to humans, inducing vomiting, diarrhea, and liver damage, Fitzsimmons relates.

A 2012 algal bloom in Lake , courtesy of Olga Nohra via Flickr

Algal blooms resulting from human activity are often caused by massive introduction of phosphorous into an aquatic system. Lake Erie has been plagued by blooms in the past, particularly in the 1960s and 1980s. These occasions tended to be the result of poor septic infrastructure and consequent excessive discharge of waste into the lake. Since then, those threats have been somewhat ameliorated; however, agricultural runoff continues to provide undesired phosphorous discharge into water bodies such as Erie.

It is difficult to impose barriers on the leakage of phosphorous into Lake Erie. Journalist Michael Wines clarified that,

“The federal Clean Water Act is intended to limit pollution from fixed points like industrial outfalls and sewer pipes, but most of the troublesome phosphorous carried into waterways like Lake Erie is spread over thousands of square miles.”

This process is called “non-point pollution.” There have been some initiatives to try and reduce the pollution output in the first place, by providing farmers with methods of reducing fertilizer use, for example. But enacting laws that set limits on pollution is a daunting task. They must go hand in hand with voluntary efforts by those involved with the sources of pollution, to more accurately calculate how much fertilizer and materials are necessary, rather than carelessly applying an estimated amount.

An issue that must be addressed throughout the course of the dialogue on this event is the fact that algal blooms choke off other aquatic life. They absorb a massive amount of oxygen from the water, and other biodiversity are hard pressed to survive. This should be sufficient motivation in and of itself to mitigate the causes of blooms. Furthermore, substantial damage to the ecosystems of a place like Lake Erie causes fish catches to plummet, causing threats to our food supplies and commercial endeavors. The health of the lake’s biodiversity is also tied into lay fishing and other forms of recreation, which in turn brings to mind the importance of tourism and the state of the regional economy.

Simultaneously, another city farther east is also concerned with the state of its drinking water. New York City is famous for its pure and high quality drinking water. This is in large due to the vigorous efforts of organizations such as Riverkeeper, that maintain a presence in the Hudson River estuary in attempt to protect it from polluters, dumpers, and violators of other environmental and water protection laws. The source of water for more than nine million urban residents has come under threat recently from a rise in oil shipment by rail right along river’s edge in the so labeled “bomb trains,” or cars that are prone to spillage and explosion. On top of this, one of the primary aqueducts in the water infrastructure is leaking, journalists Aaron Ernst & Christof Putzel reveal. If it bursts, over half the city could be left without drinking water. In the meantime, plans are for it to be diverted through a bypass tunnel while repairs take place, which could take several years.

One of New York City’s reservoirs in the Catskills, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

This case is the inverse of from Toledo; the problem is not the quality of the water, but the ability to deliver it. However, in the New York area there are many dangers to the quality of the water, and similarly the mediums by which Toledo’s water arrives in the city are an important factor when addressing phosphorous discharge and the quality of water resources. The cities face multiple and similar challenges: urban drinking water, water infrastructure, and reservoir protection. These concerns will only grow as cities expand and pressure on natural resources requires new approaches. If only two to three percent of the Earth’s water is freshwater, and the United States agricultural industry accounts for more than 75% of the nation’s water consumption, then civilian residents and policy makers face many challenges in ensuring that enough water remains drinkable and accessible to the people.

It is evident, then, that we humans are deeply entrenched in our environments. An ecosystem is very delicate, complex, and interconnected; a series of events in a remote corner may multiply and have unforeseen consequences elsewhere. It is vital for us to be more responsible in how we treat our water. We need it, the rest of the environment needs it, and we need the environment.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lake Erie Algae Bloom Raises Questions on Water Policy appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s work backwards: there is a nuclear power plant in upstate New York called Indian Point, and it needs to be shut down.

Nuclear reactors are notorious for their cooling systems; the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima meltdowns all occurred because of cooling system failures. Located in Buchanan in Westchester County, the Indian Point nuclear plant sits at the edge of the Hudson River. It draws in two billion gallons of river water every day in order to cool its reactors, discharging it back into the river eight degrees warmer. This has catastrophic consequences for the fish, eggs, larvae, and other aquatic life there. In fact, more than a billion of them die every year, said Paul Gallay, president of Riverkeeper, an organization devoted to protecting the Hudson River and its tributaries (read more about this important organization here).

In a process called entrainment, fish and river life are sucked into the cooling intakes and annihilated. For decades conservationists have advocated for a closed cooling system, which has not come to fruition because it would require a financial investment that Entergy, the plant operator, is not willing to make. Rather, the company has proposed installing screens at the mouths of the intakes. Researchers have revealed that this is a far cry from a solution, not doing enough to protect the river’s biodiversity. In addition, it does not address the warm water discharge.

The Indian Point Reactor, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

The quality of the reactor itself and its operation therein are sorely lacking as well. Security guards consistently fail mock attack tests, there is no viable evacuation plan for the surrounding region, and the reactor is deteriorating with age. The Indian Point closure debate is particularly hot right now because the site’s 40-year license is about to expire and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering granting them a 20-year renewal. The reactor provides a substantial percentage of the power used by New York City and the surrounding area; instead of shutting it down, why not repair and renovate?

In addition to closed cycling cooling, there are things that can be done in order to make Indian Point a bit safer, including fire safety measures and dry cask storage. These actions are insufficient; they do not change the underlying threats due to the reactor’s age, such as embrittlement, corrosion, and metal fatigue. Considering these problems are irreparable, why not tear it down and build a new reactor? Forty years ago, population geographies were different. Indian Point’s location is undesirable, due to its proximity to communities. Furthermore, several fault lines run through the area.

Unenforced “Keep Out” buoys, courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin

Nuclear energy is an efficient and clean means of powering our world. A controversial and provocative documentary called Pandora’s Promise (2013) makes a case for its desirability. Watch the trailer here:

One pound of uranium, the size of a person’s finger, yields as much energy as 5,000 barrels of oil. Nuclear energy does not pollute the air the way fossil fuels do. The amount of nuclear waste is overestimated: all the United States’ spent fuel rods would occupy a space no larger than a football field. Proposed “fourth generation reactors” are even more efficient and can recycle waste into another round of energy productivity. Renewables may be best for the long term sustainability of civilization, but right now, considering we continue to expand our energy demands, we need something realistic and nuclear is the way to go. These are some of the arguments the documentary presents, many of which are reasonable and worthy of consideration.

According to Gallay, Riverkeeper does not have a stance on nuclear power in general, but renewable energy and energy efficiency are two separate but interrelated things. We cannot argue that our needs for energy are increasing so drastically, while we waste 30 percent of the power we use. We can make many lifestyle changes so as to limit the growth of our demands. The idea of fourth generation nuclear plants is a fruitless quest for a Holy Grail. Rather, we should utilize the options we already have in hand. Declarations that carbon emissions in New York State would skyrocket if Indian Point were to close can be neutralized by a more wholehearted embrace of renewable energy systems. The economic infrastructure for them is more firmly established than ever, and market penetration is at an all time high. Furthermore, the sources of 650 of 2,000 potential megawatts are already in place and good to go.

These statistics are specifically in reference to New York State, but the conceptual framework is just as applicable to the United States at large and its national energy policy. Nuclear power has many advantages over fossil fuels, but it is not the ultimate answer. There are some notable outliers, such as France. Gabrielle Hecht’s The Radiance of France brilliantly chronicles the country’s national embrace of nuclear energy in the second half of the 20th century and the cultural values therein, as a means of assuaging the damage done by two world wars and as an attempt to reclaim its status as a member of the top of the geopolitical order. When the 21st century arrived, France had achieved energy independence and was even exporting its surplus to other countries. The general health of the environment and air there is notable; however, at the start of its program in the late 1940s, wind and solar power were barely in the conversation, and the state of technology did not allow for the viability of options such as geothermal energy. Just because France found success with its nuclear embrace half a century ago does not mean that the United States should pursue the same course now. We are fortunate enough to have at our fingertips a wider array of more preferable options.

It is time to make some substantial decisions regarding national energy policy and the directions in which we want to go. The Indian Point debate is a good starting point, and shutting it down would provide a great opportunity to set ourselves on a more renewable, and environmentally and socially responsible course.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nick Fedele via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time to Shut Down New York’s Indian Point Nuclear Plant appeared first on Law Street.