Hydronarratives: The Confluence of Water and Environmental Justice

Clearing the EPA's name and casting blame on appropriate parties

The Toxic Substances Control Act authorizes the EPA to ban or restrict the use of chemicals that pose serious health risks [CITATION]. Is it a good idea for one agency to be in charge of something of that magnitude? Critics say that EPA just doesn’t get enough done. Specifically, that they don’t make enough change regarding certain chemicals and whether they’ve got to go or not regarding the EPA’s water standards. Shockingly, of these chemicals that aren’t banned is asbestos, a long time well known dangerous chemical with adverse health effects and severe risks. EPA [CITATION]“failed to ban asbestos in 1991, some experts say the agency could have tried again.” As it turns out, the Toxic Substances Control Act was written by lawmakers with large corporations in their pocket. Therefore the law was tweaked to benefit those corporations before being implemented. Ever since the bill was passed in 1976, the EPA must enforce the least burdensome measures onto corporations regarding chemicals that the EPA is trying to ban. Since the bill’s passing, if any attempt was to be made at banning a profitable carcinogen (asbestos in this case), the companies had sufficient grounds for a lawsuit, followed by a subsequent dismissal of the ban. Senator at the time, Barbara Boxer said [CITATION PRIMARY SOURCE]“[Voices of the public health] views should not be drowned out by the very industry that is supposed to be regulated.” which is a powerful testament to the importance of proper checks and balances, and that no branch of the government should hold their own leash. The bill persisted until 2016 when congress reformed it and came up with a new compromise which we still have today. The compromise included only the high priority contaminants, a few at a time. But as this is all recent, change is still in the works and far from finished.

So is it fair to say it’s not the fault of the EPA?. EPA said “[CITATION] “fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or a socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.” Clearly their goal seems to coincide with their job – to make water drinkable and accessible to everyone. So why is it still an issue? Going back to Slow Violence, I’d argue that what isn’t being fixed likely isn’t being noticed. Not by the right people at least. Because contaminated water being noticed by victims of it is not going to be impactful until action is taken and brought forward to lawmakers or the government agencies themselves. And again, they have to compete with the constant stream of money that the chemical companies advocating for their place in the economy give to lawmakers to make sure bans aren’t placed on their moneymakers.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TCSA) was ratified in 1976, so what happened to inspire the much needed implementation of legislation? Deputy Administrator at the time, John R. Quarles believed and said in an EPA press release[CITATION]"[TSCA is] one of our most urgently needed environmental laws." Quarles did the research that was unknown at the time (long before the internet was commonplace) and identified vinyl chloride among other chemicals as carcinogens. In addition to a risk of cancer and other unknown, unforeseen health problems as a result of toxic chemicals, the chemicals then become present in the environment after passing through our pipes and ourselves. These chemicals are completely alien to the natural world until it was poisoned via people poisoning themselves. Fluorocarbons, bischloromethylether, polybrominated biphenyls,  and polychlorinated biphenyls, are chemicals now present in the environment that "point to the inadequacy of our present approach to controlling toxic substances.” Quarles said. What Quarles brought to the table was a much needed skepticism of what we allow. Vinyl chloride specifically was linked to a very rare liver cancer that killed fifteen Americans in the short time that it’s been around. While seemingly the rest of the government was gung-ho on developing new commercial compounds, an aspect of self preservation was completely forgotten. They get so carried away that “about 600 new chemical compounds are introduced in the United States annually for commercial use” says the very same EPA press release from 1975. The production and subsequent mass exposure of new and unknown chemicals back then was outpacing research on them. It takes too long to identify health risks, like the aforementioned liver cancer linked to vinyl chloride exposure. Additionally, financial influx is motivating the chemical use ambition. If I’ve learned anything in class, it’s that guarantees of money are a surefire way to get people to partake in activities at the expense of themselves and the planet. It happens despite the trespassers being in a position in which they are directly made responsible for the well being of the nation. Therefore, all Americans have personal attachment to the issue. What could be getting between people taking action is the amount of exposure the issue has. Even for those who can afford proper legal representation, it still appears like a futile battle against the government holding hands with corporations.
 

This page has paths:

Contents of this path: