Hydronarratives: The Confluence of Water and Environmental Justice

Regulations, demographics, and power dynamics

Would one law being passed make the difference between clean and toxic water? Not quite. A journal about the safety of water in Arizona amid rising arsenic readings said, [CITATION]] “Though the law provides for civil and criminal penalties [for EPA or similar agencies], rarely do states move to formal sanctions. Instead, a series of warning letters, visits, or telephone calls is used to remind drinking water suppliers of regulatory obligations.” Therefore, our hands do seem tied when it comes to solutions. Because the solution is already written – just ignored. The change we all want is legally written, however not demanded. It doesn’t appear to be a top priority. It makes it seem to the laymen that the problem’s been buttoned up. The law recognizes the standards that the water must be kept to, therefore the fault seems to be on the enforcement agency. Should fines be issued out left and right whenever the water treatment center facilities have an accident? Or if the water has slightly too many contaminants? Perhaps. For an influx of fines and penalties to occur among real substantial change, the slow violence must be officially recognized further and brought to light first. In [CITATION]Rob Nixon’s eponymous book about what he calls slow violence, he describes that if ecological violence occurs to an underprivileged group of people without legal or financial means to represent themselves, then the problem is essentially invisible. Hazardous water has been accepted as an unfortunate reality of living in low income communities that it’s often forgotten the measures that can be taken to mitigate it. But why are low income communities an epicenter for drinking water disasters? And does the demographic lessen the urgency to solve the crisis?
Unfortunately, there’s a reason, and additionally, a pattern that will be hard to break. The susceptibility of a drinking water disaster for low income communities comes from their proximity to the treatment centers. Usually the water treatment centers reside in places that are both densely populated, and on a cheap plot of real estate (usually found in lower income communities). These components are selected because together they would make the job far more efficient (assuming large scale accidents were out of the question).  Despite placing water treatment plants around the country to keep people safe, the selection process for the treatment center real estate turned out to disproportionately affect the impoverished. Not only that, but it was mass replicated and this tactic was done nationwide, causing water contamination disasters for low income communities across the country. It's hard to point fingers based on this evidence, because it really is just an unfortunate coincidence regarding real estate for the public water system itself.
The fifth amendment promises one with a defense attorney – not a prosecuting attorney to defend someone’s call for justice. Access to attorneys is one thing, and access to a good one is another. Something far more expensive as well. According to the [CITATION] National Center for Access to Justice, there’s .6 civil attorneys for every ten thousand people living in poverty in the United States. Even assuming that the impoverished were the sole focus of civil lawyers, there would not be enough to go around. Additionally, the impoverished are not the sole focus of civil lawyers, despite what the name “civil lawyer” may make one assume. They aren’t even the primary demographic. Like most goods and services, the better ones usually come with a significant price tag that’s impossible to pay for many Americans. This outlook breeds a systemic learned helplessness in Americans experiencing trouble that gets ignored by the people meant to help them. After enough time, fighting for yourself and community is no longer part of the norm, which is a disaster. If enough problems go unsolved for too long, the people suffering develop an understanding that they can’t do anything to help their disposition. Over time these problems continue to grow and compound until somebody defies it. Interestingly, I see this mirroring the EPA’s situation. If they attempt to ban carcinogens, it often fails at the hand of the corporation backed Toxic Substance Control Act from 1976.

This page has paths:

Contents of this path: