Written by Owen Ebner

Posted by Michael Sauers

July 29, 2024

Introduction

The United States has some of the cleanest and safest water around the world, while the water quality does vary from location to location, overall it is of high quality. Many have access to this clean water, while others do not. Access to clean and safe drinking water is often thought to be a natural right for all humans. Throughout America communities of color are more likely to experience a lack in water quality than white communities. According to the CDC, 90% of Americans get their water from a tap that is connected to a community water system, the other 10% belong to private wells for their water (CDC, 2020). The EPA is not required to check up on private wells and maintain its water quality, but they are required to test and manage community water systems. A study by the Natural Resource Defense Council in 2019 revealed that drinking water systems in communities of color were more likely to spend more time in violation of the water infrastructure and water quality, as well as more likely to be in violation of more contaminants, as well as increased time between the discovery of the issue and the time it took to fix it (Fedinick et al., 2019).

Literature Review

There is a large body of research pertaining to communities of color and their likelihood to experience a lack in water quality. According to a study done by the American Journal of Public Health, there is a significant lack of data available that is up to date do to the lack of uploads into databases or lack of databases in general for community water systems (VanDerslice, 2011). This goes to show that agencies are either slow to upload data, or there is no data to be uploaded. With no data, it is hard to tell how safe each community source actually is, as no data is available to the public. This also includes a low amount of data on water infrastructure, as it can be hard to check up and maintain the large number of pipes in use for the entire United States. When it comes to water infrastructure, there are many homes that lack the piping and plumbing for access to clean water, within the 50 largest metropolitan areas, nearly 514,000 people lack piped water access in their own homes (Meehan et al., 2020). This is an alarming statistic that paints a clear picture of lack of plumbing in the most urbanized areas in the United States. These are areas where plumbing should be standard and fully up to code.

This isn’t just an issue of water infrastructure, but an issue of water quality too. The EPA only allows certain percentages of contaminants in our water and these are at very small percentages that will not have an effect on human health. An outbreak of harmful algae blooms in Stockton, California was 49 times above the allowed percentage within the water (Bothwell, 2021). A very concerning number, this follows the line of the lack of data that is available to the public on the true quality of the water. By implementing new regulations for the flow of freshwater and the nutrient quality, this can be avoided. A study conducted in 2016 showed that there is a clear link between high minority, low income communities with toxic outliers and they were less likely to receive any notice on the polluters within their water compared to high income communities with little to no minorities (Collins, 2016). Meaning that if there is a toxic polluter, it is more likely to be in a low income, high minority community and will take even longer to be noticed by officials when compared to a high income, low minority community. There should be no difference in response time and recognition of the pollutant no matter who lives in the community.

Similarly in other Western Countries, a study completed in Canada looked at the exposure to drinking water contaminants in rural areas. The results showed that the cleaner water was found in wealthier communities, compared to the median of lead contamination which was higher in communities of the lowest socioeconomic status (Delpla et al., 2015). These results are a window into the environmental racism that is at play each and everyday. While these results do differ depending on how rural the community is, they show us a difference in the water quality depending on where you live. Water quality is solely dependent on where you live, there are other factors that are in play, but a relook at water infrastructure is needed. The American Journal of Public Health produced a study that looked into the amount of information available to the public; they found that many states lacked any geo-referenced data having to do with community water systems as well as a lack of data on the physical conditions of the water itself (VanDerslice, 2011). A revamp of the water system could benefit its consumers, using a regional system that is constantly monitored and regulated could have positive effects, as it would make the spread of information among communities on the water quality easier, as well as make the data on contamination and water quality more available to the public (Balazs et al., 2014). Making this information available could increase response time and decrease the amount of people exposed to any potential contaminants.

One of the challenges facing this situation is showing that places like Flint, Michigan are not the only cities that are facing water quality issues where communities of color are receiving low quality drinking water. These are hard places to identify because of the lack of information available on water quality. These failures of water quality represent failures within the public utilities sector affecting the protection of individuals’ health. Not only are black populations largely affected, but the Hispanic population is affected even more heavily (Switzer et al., 2017). California is in the process of implementing new laws and regulations to maintain water quality in all communities. There are still over one million people in California who still lack access to clean drinking water. California has implemented the Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund, which aims to decrease the cost of access to running water and increase the quality of the water for every community in California (Ehlers, 2020). This is a step in the right direction towards improving the access to and the quality of drinking water within California, and potentially leading by example for many other states.

Proposed Methods

The present study poses a research question that asks if communities of color have equitable access to quality of water compared to communities within a higher socioeconomic status. Based on previous findings, this has been found to be a constant issue across the United States. Access to clean drinking water and clean water infrastructure is thought to be a natural human right, it is worth examining the role that environmental racism and socioeconomic status play in the ability to attain healthy drinking water in the United States. It is expected that among two geographically similar communities it will be found that the community composed of individuals within minority groups and/or lower socioeconomic brackets will have lower quality of drinking water and water infrastructure.

Materials

The community composition of minority groups and socioeconomic status will be driven from the 2020 US Census. The quality of water will be measured in parts per million, looking for possible contaminants from multiple different sources within these two communities. The instruments that will be used are pocket pH meters, this will be used to measure the pH of the water source. Using Hanna instruments, specifically the HI99192, which is a high grade portable pH reader. The instrument has a special probe for drinking water quality measurement. Use of the Hanna Instrument HI98192 to help measure the salinity, resistivity, total suspended loads, and other contaminants is key. These high grade instruments will measure up to very fine qualities, offering the quality measurement of the drinking water. Using accurate information creates accurate results, which within the field of water quality, it is important to have the highest quality instruments to receive the highest quality results. These high grade instruments allow for the results to be as accurate as possible given the instruments used to measure the water quality. The more accurate the results, furthers the overall impact of the study.

Procedure

Using the US Census, I will look for two communities of different socioeconomic status and minority group composition and take samples from multiple water sources and compare. There will be multiple samples taken from each source, as well as an in depth look at the communities’ water infrastructure. Public records will be used to check and see if the infrastructure such as pipes and sewer systems are up to the latest standards. Checking on water infrastructure can identify the contamination problem quicker, as the lack of quality in water infrastructure can be seen by the eye, even though tests will still be run to ensure the water infrastructure is up to code. All ground water systems that can be identified will be examined as any contaminants in the area may seep into the soil and into the groundwater table, hidden from view. It is important that the groundwater system is tested (if there is one), to provide data on any possible contamination that are related to the groundwater table and if this contamination source can be located. This will provide information on the physical status of the water infrastructure, which depending on its quality can have an impact on the drinking water quality. Samples will be taken using the materials as listed in the above section.

Statistical Analysis

Using an independent samples t test, the data from both communities will be compared to each other. The use of maps to physically show the differences in the locations and where the water sources are located. Using ArcGIS, I will map each testing location in relation to other test sites, as well as in relation to communities where each sample was taken from. This will provide physical evidence in terms of location and contaminants that affect each drinking water source. It will be used to provide further information on the locations of each sample site, giving an overview of the area based on its water resources and surrounding area. This helps paint a picture of the geographic locations and the differences between the two solely based on location. It will be composed using the results from the independent samples t test, as well as raw data points from the communities. These will help pinpoint exact sources that may be contaminated, as well as providing a comparison to another sample location.

Conclusion

The important implications and practical applications of the research findings coming from this proposed study should not be understated. This study can require a reevaluation of the public utilities objectives and management of priorities and monetary allocations. By exposing the gaps in their framework, a shift in focus can be made to prioritize monetary allocations to communities who have been historically underserved within the realm of water quality and water resources. In the midst of current social movements, another important element to highlight is systemic inequity in the realm of environmental justice. Knowing the adverse health effects and life outcomes that can arise from poor water quality and infrastructure, it is vital that the results from this study are used to continue to elevate the quality of life for exploited communities and further the cause of environmental justice.