This paper was submitted to my Issues in Social Justice: Globalizing Water class, and was subsequently used as a required reading for a class called Comparative Government. I also submitted it to my school's social justice magazine PAX, per the request of another teacher. I'm quite proud of it, and it discusses an issue I have recently become passionate about, and have never discussed on my blog: access to safe water. Hope you enjoy! After the semester is over, I will be writing an in-depth reflection of what I learned in the class and how it made me a better activist, so stay tuned for that!
Water pollution is a serious problem
both nationally and globally. Toxins, heavy metals, and other pollutants can
affect the taste, appearance, and most importantly, the safety of a community’s
water supply. In the United States, in the city of Maywood, California, there
are serious issues with water contamination that local governing bodies are
attempting to rectify. There has been a great deal of press coverage about this
community and the struggles it has had with cleaning up their water, and the
local government has been transparent about legislation related to this issue.
On the other hand, in the city of Beijing, the government claims to be making
changes and improvements to deal with the water supply, yet very little visible
progress has been made. These two case studies, while similar in that both
communities are dealing with the consequences of water pollution, vary in the
solutions proposed by the people and the governing bodies, how effective their
respective solutions have been, and how open to discussing these issues the
communities’ governing bodies have been.
In Maywood, California, there are two
types of contaminants found in their water supply: manganese and
trichloroethene (TCE). TCE is more hazardous, but manganese is more prevalent
in the Maywood water supply, so the bulk of the information available about
Maywood’s water pollution problem focuses on manganese pollution. TCE was only
found in one of the three water systems analyzed in a 2010 study, while
manganese was found in high concentrations in wells from all three water
systems analyzed in this study (GeoTrans, Inc. 2010). TCE has a
variety of uses, but unfortunately for the people of Maywood, none of those
uses include being a safe additive to water. TCE is used to dissolve greasy,
oily substances, particularly substances built up on machinery. It is also
found in cleaners for upholstery, paint removers, glues, and correction fluid.
If it is not disposed of properly, it can easily get into water supplies. In
studies performed on rodents, TCE was shown to have more severe effects if
ingested rather than inhaled, which is why its presence in a water supply is
such a serious problem. Symptoms of TCE exposure include a euphoric high much
like what one would experience after taking drugs, numbness in the facial
muscles and tissue, lethargy, and weakness. There have also been studies that
suggest possible links between TCE and an increased risk of miscarriages, as
well as an increased risk of cancer. However, it is important to note that
correlation does not imply causation, and therefore it cannot be assumed that
TCE is the only reason for these findings. There may be complicating factors
aside from TCE that are affecting the rates of cancer and miscarriages (United
State Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2000). Manganese, on the other
hand, mostly leads to unpleasant aesthetic qualities in the water, such as a
brown tint that can stain clothes. Manganese is only dangerous in large
quantities, but the aesthetic effect it has on water certainly makes the water
unpleasant to use and consume. This is certainly not the worst water-related
problem to have, but it still is an issue of concern for the people in the
community.
According to the City of Maywood Water
Quality Assessment, TCE was found in only 1 of 3 water suppliers’ water
supplies. However, the amount of TCE was found to be under the allowed level of
5, but it occasionally came very close to being 5. Despite the fact that TCE
has come close to being a health hazard and despite the fact that much of the
problem with manganese involves the way it affects the way the water looks,
much of the focus has been on the overabundance of manganese in the water
supply (GeoTrans,
Inc. 2010). It seems that the more
pressing issue in this community is related to aesthetics, rather than public
health (Becerra, 2013).
There are several stakeholders in this
issue, such as politicians, business owners, activists, and community members.
Mayor
Oscar Magana dealt with having brown water when he was just a teen living in
the community. Since he sympathizes with the community that is still facing the
challenges he faced as a teen, the issue of water pollution has remained an
important area of concern for him. Activists have also taken an interest in the
water pollution in Maywood. Activists worked with a member of Del Amo Action
Committee, Cynthia Babich, in order to make progress with this issue. As a
group, they were able to convince members of a governmental department, called
the Department of Toxic Substances Control, to test their water for manganese.
This testing led to the discovery of high, but still legal, amounts of TCE in
Maywood’s water supply. Roger Kintz and Rick Fears, both of whom work in the Department
of Toxic Substances Control, are working to improve the situation. In 2010,
several solutions were proposed to rectify the overabundance of manganese in
the water supply (Becerra, 2013). Three
different water supply companies proposed solutions to this issue. The first
company suggested mixing water with high concentrations of manganese with water
that has little or no manganese, which is more of a short-term solution. This
company also proposed solutions with longer-lasting effects including
processing the water to take out the manganese or building brand-new or
modifying older wells so that less manganese gets into the water in the first
place. The second company suggested mixing water with high and low manganese
levels as well, but chose different locations than the first. The long-term
solution, which would cost one million dollars or more, was to run a pipe from
a well to their treatment site in order to process the water and remove the
manganese. The third and final company’s proposal includes, yet again, blending
the water to lower the concentration of contaminants, but they focused on TCE
rather than manganese. They also suggest costly additions to the water system
such as a facility to remove TCE from the water, replacing the water system
entirely with components that do not produce TCE, or blocking TCE-contaminated
sections of the water system to prevent TCE from getting into the water.
Despite the cost of $250,000-$1.5 million, these solutions seem to be the most
sensible, and the most focused on what should be the more pressing issue.(GeoTrans,
Inc. 2010) Cost could become a complicating factor, though. It is important for
the decision-makers in this community to budget accordingly so that this issue
can be resolved without causing financial problems. (Becerra,
2013) Another complicating factor is that other contaminants could get in the
water if these structures are not made correctly, but so far, these solutions
are being implemented correctly and the situations are showing improvement.
(GeoTrans,
Inc. 2010; Becerra, 2013)
In contrast to Maywood’s relatively
minor issues with discolored water and potentially dangerous chemicals in the
water, the people of Beijing, China are dealing with much worse pollutions, and
more severe consequences because of this pollution. For example, a canal called
the North Canal, was found to have pollution levels that are “nearly 95 times
higher than what is deemed safe.” Another water issue is the lack of sewage
treatment plants in nearly half of Beijing, which has resulted in severe fecal
contamination in many bodies of water. (Shuang, 2013). Other water pollutants include chemical
runoff from farming, heavy metals, and in a particularly disturbing instance,
dead pigs (Tan, 2014).
Beijing is not the only city in China
facing serious problems as the result of water contamination. Cities known as
“cancer villages” are popping up all over China. As the name suggests, these
are cities, which, due to water contamination, have seen a major increase in
cancer deaths and diagnoses over the last few decades (Shuang, 2013). Another
major health concern as a result of Beijing’s water pollution is diseases that
lead to severe diarrhea. These types of diseases can lead to rapid dehydration,
particularly in children. While it is important that all people have access to
clean water, it is particularly important that children have access to clean water
in order to facilitate development and to avoid potentially life-threatening
diarrheal illnesses (Carlton et al., 2012).
The Chinese government has proposed
several potential solutions to the pollution problem. Unfortunately, the
primary source documents that outline the specific measures to be taken
regarding this issue are not available to the general public, or at least not
at Spring Hill. The security settings on our server prevented me from accessing
a document that outlines the Chinese government’s specific plans to deal with
this issue, but I was able to find a secondary source that summarizes the
initiatives taken to tackle this issue. The Chinese government has been dealing
with environmental issues such as water pollution for about thirty years. It
seems odd that so little progress seems to have been made in all that time.
Various initiatives have been taken over the years in order to deal with this
issue, each one spanning five years. The most recent one deals with the
pollution issues by continually testing the polluted water and keeping track of
the health of the citizens. Overseeing what the water companies are doing is a
very important step for the Chinese government to take because “28% of
municipal plants and 53% of private plants were not complying with water
quality monitoring requirements. Over 16% of water samples did not meet drinking
water standards, most often on account of microbial parameters” (Carlton et
al., 2012).
Various measures are being discussed to
deal with the widespread dangerous pollution in Beijing and other parts of
China, which the activist group China Water Risk outlined on their website.
There are several legislative changes in the works to deter polluters. There
will be harsher punishments for people who pollute. There will be stricter
water safety standards for industries and businesses that contribute the most
to the pollution, such as tanners and ceramic makers. A new bill is also being
voted on that provides free water for farmers and outlines specific water
safety guidelines for people in agricultural fields. These guidelines will
include topics such as how to dispose of animal carcasses. One would hope this
would prevent future incidents involving dead pigs in Chinese water
supplies. In terms of steps that affect
all citizens, rather than just those in agricultural fields, environmental
reports, such as water quality reports, will be available to the public. This
is a very important step, because it will allow Chinese citizens to educate
themselves about the issues surrounding water safety and will allow them to
make informed decisions about how to dispose of human and agricultural waste
without contaminating the water. Another important step in providing safe water
for all people is allocating more funds to water treatment efforts. There will
also be standardized water treatment guidelines so that everyone in Beijing and
other areas in China will have equal access to potable water. Despite these
proposed changes, it will be a long time before the decisions are made final
(Tan, 2014).
The main basis for comparison of these
two cases involves the fact that these cases are both modern examples of the dangers
of water pollution. The most illuminating aspects of these cases can be found
in how they differ. There are socioeconomic and political aspects that affect
both the causes of the water pollution and the responses to the pollution. In
Maywood, clearly the pollution problem is much less significant than the
pollution in Beijing. Maywood’s pollution is predominantly manganese, which is
causing mostly aesthetic issues with the water. It seems to be a rather clear
statement of their socioeconomic status if their biggest problem is stained
clothing and brown water. Their priorities may not be in quite the right order.
While TCE is not yet at a life-threatening level in the Maywood water supply,
the levels of TCE have been very close to dangerous levels. It seems that
reducing the levels of TCE to even lower, safer levels might be a more pressing
issue than discoloration that could be filtered out relatively easily. However,
Maywood legislation and citizens of Maywood disagree. On the other hand, China
is facing significantly worse problems than Maywood. A variety of contaminants
have been found in Chinese water, from agricultural runoff, to fecal matter, to
the infamous, aforementioned dead pigs. (Tan, 2014). Rather than dealing with
discolored clothing, the people of Beijing and other areas in China are dealing
with water that has the potential to make them very sick, as made evident by
the surge in cancer diagnoses. There is a clear difference in how the governing
bodies of Maywood and Beijing are dealing with their water issues. In Maywood,
the citizens have a voice in town hall meetings, grassroots movements,
government jobs, and in the newspapers. In return, government offices are being
transparent about what they are doing to fix the issues they are facing, and
progress has been made (Becerra, 2013). On the other hand, it is very difficult to
find specific plans outlined by the Chinese government about how to deal with
the water issues, and it is therefore difficult to tell if notable progress has
been made and if they are keeping up with their end of the bargain. This points
to a difference in governmental practices and their willingness to protect
their citizens (Tan, 2014).
Overall, the water pollution in Maywood
and the water pollution in Beijing have very different causes and very
different solutions. As such, the approaches taken by their respective
governing bodies are very different as well. If these solutions are not
effective enough, it would be interesting to see if any of the solutions that
Fr. Chamberlain discussed in his presentations might be potential solutions to
aid in the water pollution issues these areas are experiencing. Specifically,
Arborloos might be a useful means of prevent further fecal contamination in
China’s water supply. Also, bone and ceramic filters could help with chemical
and heavy metal pollution. PUR water packets could be beneficial in both
Beijing and Maywood (Chamberlain, 2014). Clean water is a vital, universal
human right. In time, maybe it will become a right that is attainable for the
people of Beijing, Maywood, and other communities dealing with water pollution.
PS: This was not a part of my paper, but, readers, I challenge you to research about an issue you don't know much about. You may find something new to be passionate about, much like I did! God bless!
Sources
Becerra,
H, (2013, June). Maywood gets straight talk about its water quality. Los
Angeles Times, 1-3. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/29/local/la-me-maywood-water0629-20130630.
Carlton,
E.J., Liang, S., McDowell, J.Z., Li, H., Luo, W., and Remais, J.V. Regional
disparities in the burden of disease attributable to unsafe water and poor
sanitation in China (2012). Bulletin of
the World Health Organization 2012 (90), 578-587. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/90/8/11-098343/en/
doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.098343
Chamberlain,
J. (2014) Water for emerging regions: Science, Challenges, Solutions. Spring
Hill College, Mobile, AL.
GeoTrans,
Inc. (2010). City of Maywood water quality assessment. City of Maywood: Los Angeles County, California. 1-69. Retrieved
from http://asmdc.org/speaker/pdf/MaywoodWaterQuality.pdf
Shuang,
L. All five of Beijing’s major water systems seriously polluted (2013). The
Epoch Times, 1-2. Retrieved from http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/251030-all-five-of-beijings-major-water-systems-seriously-polluted/
Tan,
D. The war on water pollution. China Water Risk. Retrieved from http://chinawaterrisk.org/resources/analysis-reviews/the-war-on-water-pollution/
United
State Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2000). Trichloroethylene, 1-3.
Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/tri-ethy.html