at Save the Water | October 24, 2022 

Many people feel helpless when it comes to advocating for positive change. There are big issues to resolve, such as water contamination. People may feel like no matter how much they ask for cleaner water, the issue is out of their control.

However, there are many examples of people’s advocacy for their own well-being for major change. Such events should inspire us to work towards a healthier future.

The Story of the Short Beach Neighborhood in Branford, Connecticut 

Long Island Sound, an island group in the United States that includes the Short Beach neighborhood, has suffered from fecal contamination in the water for many years. 

There are many negative health effects due to fecal contamination of water: 

• Increased spread of diseases, such as cholera, polio, and hepatitis A
• Malnutrition and dehydration due to diarrhea 
• Loss of money due to the time spent on accessing clean water
• Insects that spread disease may reproduce in fecal water and spread disease to clean water containers 

The Short Beach neighborhood had been experiencing high rates of Escherichia coli bacteria. The suspected cause was a the sewage system breach into the stormwater. 

A team of students and faculty members from Yale University wanted to work with the local health department to map local sewage systems. A clear map with these locations would allow them to assess the possible sources of contamination.

The Power of Citizens to Push for Change

The local health department and students from Yale University recruited eight citizen science volunteers. The volunteers were given  written protocol. The laboratory was able to measure the levels of bacterial contamination.  

The department and students used volunteers to foster an engaged relationship between academic researchers, local governments,health departments, and neighborhood residents. This is a way to ensure long-term cooperation that results in sustainability. It can prevent the problem from coming back in the community after the researchers have left.

An important aspect of this project was that the community was still involved even after the sampling of the water. Attendees from the neighborhood discussed the results of the water contamination levels at Civic Association meetings. They were able to give their input on recommended policies for improving the local water quality.

Sustainable Projects in the Future

The transparency of the researchers and the involvement of neighborhood residents helped the project become sustainable. The people living in the area are actively involved in ensuring a clean source of water. 

Strong engagement of citizens in their own health is a great method that will save resources. Volunteers need to see that their contributions are heard. This means that communication is necessary in these projects in order to engage the volunteers. 

Fecal contamination rates of all water sources went above the Connecticut Department of Public Health guidelines. With this knowledge, the state will be able to intervene and ensure clean water. This successful story should be an inspiration to citizens everywhere. It shows that they can make a difference in their communities by volunteering and engaging in making their neighborhoods better. 

By Emma Cheriegate, Staff Researcher & Writer at Save the Water | October 29th, 2021

Credit programs to mitigate pollution are no stranger to current-day environmental conversations. The idea of emitters gaining buyer credits for reducing their pollution isn’t new, with many existing carbon credit programs to choose from. 

A lesser-known trading system also exists, but for water. Water quality trading, under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), is an option for sources of water pollution to gain credits by reducing pollution. 

Reducing pollution is a costly and complex process, and certain sources (such as a sewage treatment plant) face higher prices than others. Water quality trading is the process in which a point source pays for credits that represent pollution reductions. However, these pollution reductions occur at another location, like a farm, (where achieving the reduction is cheaper), not the original point source. This way, the source is able to meet regulatory requirements without going into significant debt.

Water pollution is an ever-changing issue in the United States, and federal legislation for it dates back to 1948. So, how have guidelines evolved over time, and is WQT a viable way of reducing contamination in our water?

What is Water Quality Trading, and how is it helpful?

Facilities operate under permits that manage the amount of nutrient discharge allowed into water bodies, like a nearby river. Nitrogen and phosphorus are common discharge nutrients released by point sources such as industrial facilities, and nonpoint sources such as runoff from nearby roads. By including water quality trading options, both point and nonpoint sources have the option to meet permit requirements through a water trading credit program. Under the EPA, polluters can receive credits for reducing the following items:

• Nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus
• Size of sedimentation loads
• Discharged water’s temperature (such as for wastewater treatment facilities)

For instance, a sewage treatment plant (point source) can satisfy this regulatory requirement by reducing the number of nutrients/pollution released and subsequently receive credits that save on business costs in the long run. This improves water quality by preventing a buildup of nutrients that influence an abundant growth of algae. That buildup would ultimately choke the ecosystem, overrun habitats, and reduce the amount of oxygen required to allow life to thrive in the water.  

What lies ahead for Water Quality Trading

In early February of 2019, the EPA released a policy that re-emphasizes their view on the significance of water quality trading. The document advocates for the incorporation of this “market-based” system in attempts to improve water quality throughout the United States. It illustrates the important role of incentivization in influencing organizations and corporations in complying with environmental protection efforts. The policy, which is a short 5-page document, is concise in its structure, allowing for easy adoption and incorporation in business practices, making its use widely accessible.

There are several issues that hinder the efforts to incorporate water quality trading into our economic market: identifying buyers, facilitating communication between involved parties, the absence of defined pollution limitations, and a lack of flexibility in existing programs. The World Resources Institute, a notable non-profit organization that analyzes natural resource policy, points out three ways the EPA aims to increase participatory use of WQT programs:

• Specify limits for complex (nonpoint) pollutant sources 
• Governmental assistance in designing and implementing trading programs
• Voiced federal support for stormwater trading

WQT programs are still relatively new, and the sources of pollution intensify as urbanization continues and populations increase in number. As the scale of the conversation about related issues increases, additional professionals join in. This enhances communication between fields like economy, ecology, and politics, and allows for more research and development to take place. As confidence in the programs rises and associated problems are resolved, WQT’s prevalence in the market is likely to follow suit.

Plastics Containing BPA and BPS Are a Problem

Basic materials and items people use on a daily basis are not always safe for human or environmental health. Of course, things like high arsenic levels are a common and easily understood concern. However, new toxins are being discovered every day. Toxins are, of course, dangerous, causing estrogenic activity, and are found even in children’s plastic cups and plates. [1] Perhaps the most well known toxin that is found in plastic products today is Bisphenol A (BPA). BPA is widely used in everything from plastic baby-bottles to cash register receipts. On top of this, BPA is concerning because of its weak estrogenic activity. [2] With the public outcry against BPA growing, many manufactures have abandoned it in favor of Bisphenol S (BPS), a BPA alternative. In 2006, Appleton, the largest manufacturer of thermal papers in North America switched from BPA to BPS. [3] Research has shown that BPS also interferes with the way cells respond to estrogen nearly mimicking BPA. [2] With BPA leaving our daily life and BPS entering, what can be done?

BPS Poses a Danger to Human Health.

There are two issues present here: (1) The immediate danger that BPS poses to human health; (2) The regulations around chemical compounds. Considering how the outcry against BPA is only resulting in the widespread use of the similarly toxic BPS, the problem lies beyond the compounds themselves. To be sure, the real issue is the system by which chemical substances or mixtures are allowed to be used in food, drugs, pesticides and, other products. Currently, the main measure in place to test the possible harm of chemical products is the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). [4]  The act was passed under the Ford Administration and served as a continuation of the Nixon administration’s environmental policy (Clean Air Act of 1972, Clean Water Act of 1972, Endangered Species Act of 1973, etc). [5] TSCA allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to test, evaluate and establish rules on the uses of chemical substances.

While the act was an impressive feat in 1976, it has yet to be updated and suffers from two major flaws: companies may use chemicals prior to testing the possible health risks and the EPA’s powers to remove a chemical already in the marketplace are limited. [6] Since 1976 over 22,000 chemicals have been added to the EPA’s inventory of chemicals used in production – only about 200 have been fully assessed. [7] When the law was passed there were 62,000 chemicals on the EPA’s list. [7] The time and resources needed to scientifically investigate a chemical and deem it an “unreasonable risk” to public health is massive, and since manufactures may use a chemical prior to testing, the law is highly ineffective.

Solution in Progress

What can be done to protect human and environmental health in light of this ineffective legislation? Legislative reform of the TSCA is the most effective change that can be made. There are already numerous groups and politicians working to make this change a reality. In 2013, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act was introduced with bipartisan support. This reform had 25 cosponsors including prominent voices such as Marco Rubio (FL) and Tomas Udall (NM). While this act does not fully modernize the TSCA, it does extend the powers of both the EPA and state/local governments to regulate chemical use. [8] The American Chemistry Council considers modernization of the TSCA not only beneficial for public health but acts in the best interest of chemistry as a discipline, making innovation a necessity. [9] Perhaps most revealing is that the EPA itself is currently in support of modernizing and improving the TSCA. [10]

What Can I Do?

Citizens can make their voices heard by supporting bills such as the Chemical Safety Improvement Act that look at public and environmental health first. Specifically, by placing pressure on elected officials, be it through social media, phone calls, letter writing, or email, voters can make their voices heard and be significant in making changes. If you have a business and want to add your name to the growing list of companies asking for TSCA reform there is a petition below from the American Sustainable Business Council Action Fund. Individuals can also sign the petition below from CREDO, calling for TSCA reform.

Business for TSCA Reform

Individuals for TSCA Reform

 References

1. He, Guochen, and Michael Denison. (January, 2014). “Detection of Estrogenic Activity in Plastic Cups and Plates.” Denison Laboratory. http://www.ceh.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Denison-Laboratory-Analysis.pdf – accessed on May 30, 2014
2. Grignard, E, S Lapenna, and S Bremer. “Weak Estrogenic Transcriptional Activities of Bisphenol A and Bisphenol S.” Toxicol in Vitro 26, no. 5 (August 2012): 727-31.
3. Bienkowski, Brian. (January, 2013). “BPA Replacement Alters Hormones at Low Doses, Study Finds.” Environmental Health News. http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2013/bpa-alternative-alters-hormones – accessed on May 30, 2014.
4. Environmental Protection Agency. (March, 2014). “Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act.” https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act – accessed on May 30, 2014.
5. Vig, Norman & Michael E. Kraft. “Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century”. CQ Press, 2012
6. Environmental Defense Fund. (2014).  “Nation’s Toxic Chemical Law Fails to Protect Us.” http://www.edf.org/health/chemicals/our-scientist-works-reform-chemicals-policy -accessed on May 30, 2014.
7. National Resource Defense Council. (Year Unknown). “More than 80,000 chemicals available in the United States have never been fully tested for their toxic effects on our health and environment.” http://www.nrdc.org/health/toxics.asp – accessed on May 30, 2014.
8. U.S Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. (May, 2013). “Senators Lautenberg And Vitter Reach Groundbreaking Agreement To Reform Nation’s Chemical Laws.” http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=ccf8cd45-e41f-28bd-0252-9984333f7335 – accessed on May 30, 2014.
9. American Chemistry Council. (2014). “TSCA Modernization.” https://www.americanchemistry.com/Policy/Chemical-Safety/TSCA/ – accessed on May 30, 2014.
10. Environmental Protection Agency. (December, 2012). “Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation.” https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/essential-principles-reform-chemicals-management-0

By Emily Stallings, staff writer for Save The Water | May 14th 2014

Plentiful water in Germany

Germany, as well as other European countries, is known for its stellar drinking water. There are over 450 brands of German bottled water. For a country of approximately 83 million people, a plethora of drinking water options exist. In comparison, the United States has a population of 314 million people and roughly 100 companies.1,2,3 Whether it’s with bubbles, still, or anything in between, you will likely see a German household stocked with a few dozen liters of high-quality mineral water. There aren’t just a few shelves of water in the German supermarket, but several aisles.

Then there is German beer. With roughly 1,250 breweries, Germany has four times more breweries than the entire European Union’s supply combined.4 Most diners at German restaurants have a liter of mineral water, beer, and the occasional Riesling. If you order water, you will receive mineral or spring, as it is social taboo to serve Leitungswasser, or tap water. The Germans love their mineral and spring waters, and they take steps to ensure its quality.

Germany’s environmental impact

The country is proactive with its environment, since these natural waters, as well as beer, are widely consumed. Yale University’s 2014 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) gives additional insight into each nation’s environmental performance, and Germany ranks sixth in the world. It is also worth noting that European nations have 13 of the 15 top spots in the EPI.5 One interesting example of Germany’s environmental impact is the garbage disposal system. Each household contains four separate waste bins for disposal. If the garbage doesn’t fall into one of the four bin categories, the household must physically take it to the appropriate disposal location. Glass is an item that must be physically taken to its proper recycling location, usually nearby, which is further divided into clear, brown, and green glass.6 Figure 1 shows how Germany, as well as other European nations, disposes of its waste.

The European Union as a whole has one of the most efficient waste disposal systems in the world. The environmental actions of a nation have effects on the natural water quality, and Germany is certainly a leader among European countries.

German mineral water companies pride themselves on their high quality, particularly Gerolsteiner. The company does not artificially treat the water but obtains it from a volcanic rock well, Volcanic Eifel, 200 meters below the Earth’s surface. Gerolsteiner continually monitors water level, temperature, and mineral content of each well. The result is the world’s most consumed sparkling mineral water.7

So, when in Germany, drink up! You are drinking some of the best water in the world.

References:

1. Fine Waters. 1999. “Bottled Water of the World.” http://www.finewaters.com/Bottled_Water/Germany/index.asp
2. United States Census Bureau. 2014. “U.S. and World Population Clock.” http://www.census.gov/popclock/
3. Statistische Amter Des Bundes Und Der Lander. 2014. “Population – Germany.” http://www.statistik-portal.de/Statistik-Portal/en/en_zs01_bund.asp
4. German Beer Institute. 2004. “German Breweries A Tradition of Variety, Flavor and Excellence.”  http://www.germanbeerinstitute.com/breweries.html
5. Yale University. 2014. “Country Rankings.” Environmental Performance Index.  http://epi.yale.edu/epi/country-rankings
6. American Women’s Club of Cologne. 2014.”All About Recycling in Germany.” How To Germany. http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/recycling.html
7. Gerolsteiner. n.d. “The path of the water: From the well to the consumer.” http://www.gerolsteiner.com/index.php?id=1563

The river Nile, the longest river in the world (4,258 miles),1 flows from the lakes of Central Africa to the Mediterranean Sea. Its water resources are shared by eleven countries, namely, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, South Sudan, Sudan and Egypt. Egypt and Sudan are the countries downstream of the river.1

Most cities and citizens of Egypt depend on the Nile as it forms the primary daily source of water. It is necessary for industrial and agricultural needs, drinking and daily use. “Egypt faces an annual water deficit of around 20 billion cubic meters,” stated Khaled Wasef, Irrigation Ministry Spokesman, to Elwady News.2

Besides the population growth and lack of water, there is another huge danger: pollution. Water is polluted when a direct or indirect change occurs in its elements or in its physical or chemical properties. The Nile faces daily pollution problems. There are several sources of pollution into the Nile,3 including industrial wastewater discharge, pesticidal and chemical fertilizer residue from an agricultural application, agricultural water drainage, radioactive discharge, and oil pollution.

A report by the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights titled “Water Pollution: A ticking time bomb threatening the life of the Egyptians” says that approximately 38 million people drink polluted water. It also reports that the amount of untreated or partially treated industrial pollutants that enter the water supply is estimated at about 4.5 million tons per year. It pointed out that the high rates of poisoning cases are caused by pollution from the different cities of Egypt; 35% by Cairo, 12% by Giza, and 50% by Qalyubiyah. According to several reports and studies, on water, 100,000 people are diagnosed with cancer every year, and 15,000 people get kidney failure along with other diseases due to the water pollution in Egypt.4

The pollutants are divided into heavy metals dumped by the factories into the river, while the rest is 10% of sewage remnants from floating hotels. While the President of the Company for Drinking Water in Egypt said that this percentage was harmless due to the flow of the river, the annual report issued by the Environment Affairs Ministry (2008) indicates that the pollution of drinking water has reached a complex stage that is hard to face.4 Reports indicate that 38 million Egyptians drink from sewage polluted waters and that farmlands are irrigated by sewage polluted water as well, leading to the spread of many diseases such as cholera, typhoid, schistosome, and hepatitis.

Egyptian traditions and customs also facilitate the spread of pollution, as they rid their waste by casting it into the river while bathing and cleaning their animals in this same river water. These customs can cause the spread of diseases, especially schistosome.

Mediterranean Sea

Further north, we find pollution has also reached the Mediterranean Sea near the Egyptian coasts.

It is estimated that 720,000,000 tons of sewage, 142,000 tons of mineral oil, 66,000 tons of mercury, 4,200 tons of lead and 40,000 tons of phosphates are dumped into the Mediterranean each year.5

Other major sources of sea water pollution include washing oil tankers with sea water6. The most serious case was when 0.3 % (corrected to 0.1%) of crude oil that was being transported by sea was discharged until 1977 which was 1 million tons of a total of 700 million tons6. That was a whopping 600 tons being spilled per day and these quantities were discharged into the sea by washing vessels. Other unintentional pollution leaks from oil tankers. As for other intended pollution, individuals and sailing boats discard their waste and unneeded belongings by throwing them into the sea.

Mariout Lake and Gulf of Mex

According to an Environment Affairs Ministry report (2010), the Mariout Lake in Egypt is considered a major source of pollution to the Mediterranean Sea via the Gulf of Mex (Egypt).7 The Mariout Lake is one of the main sources for the transfer of pollution from land-based sources into the Gulf of Mex. Maged George, the former Environment Affairs Minister, explained that “there are 7 industrial installations, that are throwing their waste into Mariout Lake, representing about 0.5% of the total industrial wastewater in the lake.” A primary sampling confirmed the “presence of dead fish in the lake”. Experts on the environment and fish biology attributed the fish kills in the lake to a “catastrophic problem” in the water indicating that the lake includes huge amounts of pollutants such as iron, zinc, lead, and phenolic compounds from petroleum sources.  This necessitated the development of the Mariout Lake project to reduce the effects of the lake’s pollution and increase fish production.

In 2010, the Environmental Affairs Ministry began the implementation of a project to integrate management of coastal zones in Alexandria by 2015. It is funded by 40 million Egyptian pounds ($5.7 million) from the Global Environment Facility in order to reduce the pollution of Mariout Lake. Through the implementation of this project, the Egyptian government hopes to address this part of the lake water that is being contaminated, restore order and re-establish the bio-environmental system.

Alexandria, one of the largest cities in Egypt, aims to reduce the pollution load on the Mediterranean resulting from the more polluted areas such as from the Gulf of Mex and the Mariout Lake.8 According to Almasry Alyoum newspaper, this is in addition to the protection and renewal of heritage coastlines and reformation systems of the lake by developing a national plan for the management of the coastal zones.8

References

1. Magdi M. El-Kammash, Harold Edwin Hurst, & Charles Gordon Smith. 2013. “Nile River.” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/415347/Nile-River
2. Sally Reteb. 2014, “Irrigation: Egypt is facing an annual deficit of water is estimated at 20 billion cubic meters. And be compensated re-used more than once.”  http://elwadynews.com/egypt-news/2014/02/17/20865
3. Research Institute of Soil, Water and Environment. Year Unknown. Article: “Water Pollution.”
4. The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. 2009. Report: “Water pollution time bomb threatening the life of the Egyptians.” http://ar.eohr.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/d8aad982d8b1d98ad8b1d985d98ad8a7.pdf
5. Explore Crete. Year Unknown. “Pollution in the Mediterranean Sea.” Abu Alaa Abdel Moneim. 2011. “The risk of contamination to the environment of the Mediterranean basin.” http://kenanaonline.com/users/MedSea/posts/215744
6. Mohammed Abul-Enein. 2010. “40 million pounds to reduce pollution «Marriott». The official report: a major source of lake pollution.” http://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/26885
7. Mary Rowlatt. 2013. “Alexandria.” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/14376/Alexandria