With the recent development of Trump’s decision to remove protection for water against pollutants, it is important to discuss the implications that such a decision will have on people’s health. At the annual convention of the American Farm Bureau Federation in January 2020, Trump stated, “I terminated one of the most ridiculous regulations of all: the last administration’s disastrous Waters of the United States rule…That was a rule that basically took your property away from you” (Hannon). At a farmer’s convention, this argument would gain support, as farmers are unable to allow fertilizer runoff to flow into waterways under the Clean Water Act, which hurts their business. There are some other industries that also benefit from Trump’s decision, such as the fossil fuel industry, as they are able to dump pollutants into waterways if the Clean Water Act does not have strict regulations (Hannon).
Although these sectors benefit from Trump’s new policy, is it really worth the detrimental effects the change will have on the environment and health? Definitely not, and here’s why.
Based on Trump’s decision, the Environmental Protection Agency revealed that they would no longer be able to protect many of the bodies of water in the United States that were initially protected under the Clean Water Act, which was called the “nation’s most successful antipollution law” in a New York Times article (Wood et. al). Wood, Mara and Hall very directly state their opinion in the article, saying, “This is flat wrong on every level. We do know the consequences.” All three authors of this article have experience in work related to the protection of fish and wildlife, so they have first-hand knowledge on this subject.
With Trump’s new policy, “more than six million miles of streams — half the total in the United States” and “more than 42 million acres of wetlands — again, about half the country’s total” will no longer have protection under the Clean Water Act, making it easier to pollute these bodies of water (Wood et al.).With such large numbers of waterways losing protection, people’s health will be negatively impacted.
According to a study in The Lancet, 1.8 million deaths were linked to water pollution in 2015, and pollution-related diseases have caused three times more deaths than “AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined” (Denchak; Sifferlin). Although various types of pollution have resulted in this statistic, water pollution has definitely had an effect to some extent. Researchers even say that the data is probably an underestimate, as it is hard to incorporate the entire population into the studies. With such high rates of death already in place back in 2015, one can only imagine the terrible consequences of Trump’s new decision.
Various diseases, including “cholera, giardia, and typhoid,” as well as other health issues, such as cancer, hormone disruption and altered brain function, can result from water pollution (Denchak). These problems will be accelerated by the decision to make the Clean Water Act more lenient. An activity as simple as swimming can even be dangerous in some cases, as it exposes the skin to the water, resulting in “skin rashes, pinkeye, respiratory infections, and hepatitis” (Denchak). Clearly, water pollution has a direct impact on people’s health.
An article written in 2018 stated that the struggles related to having safe drinking water will only keep getting worse as the demand for it increases, and already at that time, “unsafe water kill[ed] more people each year than war and all other forms of violence combined,” which is also shown in the chart above (Denchak). With Trump’s new decision, the challenges will worsen and the problems will be expedited, as the change will lead to water becoming contaminated faster and more easily.
Often times, the impacts of environmental destruction is most heavily seen within low income populations, as they tend to have the most exposure to the toxic pollutants (Sifferlin). With a lack of access to the resources, they are also the least able to fight against the challenges they face due to water pollution, making it unfairly hard for them to live a healthy life. Trump’s policy will lead to more expenses, as places in the United States will have to start paying “to treat their drinking water” (Wood et al.). This will affect the poor population to an even larger extent, as they will not be able to afford the care they need to obtain safe water.
With the harmful impacts of water pollution, I do not support Trump’s decision about the Clean Water Act. By allowing contaminants to enter waterways more easily, he is only worsening the water pollution in this world, which is already not in a good state. The change should be reversed, and bodies of water should be protected as much as possible against pollutants. In fact, if anything, more should be done to combat water pollution than just implementing the original Clean Water Act. For example, the idea of “Mr. Trash Wheel” discussed in The New Yorker (and pictured below) is advantageous in improving water conditions, as it collects and removes harmful debris from the water (Kormann). If this concept or similar ones were implemented more, water pollution levels could be decreased, and negative health impacts would be reduced. Something needs to be done as soon as possible to improve the situation surrounding water pollution and the harm it causes.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/opinion/clean-water-act-trump.html?auth=login-google
https://time.com/4989641/water-air-pollution-deaths/
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/water-pollution-everything-you-need-know
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-promise-of-mr-trash-wheel
Hi Prerna,
Trump’s decision to remove the clean water act is definitely detrimental towards our the earth’s environment and the lives of many. As you said there are many different types of negative impacts that come with the removal of the clean water act and the pollution that comes after it such as diseases and death. In my response I will be discussing in detail one the diseases that you mentioned known as Cholera
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Cholera “is an acute infection of the intestine, which begins suddenly with painless watery diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting.” In the 1800’s this disease was fairly common due to our polluted water. But as many parts of our world became more advanced, developing acceptable treatment for sewage and drinking water, Cholera became something rare to be found in developed countries. Vibrio cholerae is usually seen in food or water that has been contaminated as well as brackish rivers and coastal water.(Safewater)
This disease is something that is very difficult to diagnose as many are not usually affected by the symptoms of Cholera yet they can still carry and transfer the virus. And of those who do become ill, most only have a mild or moderate case of the symptoms (Safe Water).
Unfortunately, with the clean water act being removed, this disease along with many others have to chance to increase in size, maybe even leading to an outbreak. This is why it is important to continue acts such as the clean water act, because with legislation it becomes much easier for health problems to be avoided.
Not only can acts of legislation be used to prevent health problems, but it can solve other problems causing climate change. Problems such as global warming, the decline in the bee population, and an increase in diseases can all be minimized if we just work together to save our planet.
https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases-risks/diseases/cholera/en/
https://www.safewater.org/fact-sheets-1/2017/1/23/cholera
Hi Prerna,
I enjoyed your article and completely agree with your stance on the impact that the removal of the Clean Water Act has on us. For years we have known that combating water pollution is one of U.S. biggest environmental problems in the U.S. The reason the Act had been in place since 1972 is because even then the United States knew how important it was to protect the degradation of streams, lakes, and wetlands. I have found an article that further explains how much of a negative effect the New Clean Water Act will have on us.
On January 23, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency released the Navigable Waters Protection Rule which “blatantly ignores established science” and also risks degrading the the U.S. waters to the point that ecosystems might be permanently harmed.
One change brought about by this rule is that the definition of the rivers it protected. Originally the Clean Water Act enforced that rivers with an ordinary high water mark a river that is protected by the act. This mark was determined by evidence of regular flow from field observations, including debris lines, water staining, and other visual indicators. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule added a new clause that rivers need a waterway exhibit perennial or intermittent flow to protect. This is a problem because instead of the visual test that was used to determine if a river was protected or not, there has to be more complex assessments of databases and models describing precipitation and resultant streamflow over rolling 30-year windows. Not only will this decrease the amount of rivers covered but it will also greatly increase the amount of time it takes to permit a river.
There are many changes like this throughout the new Act that negatively impact our environment safety. I agree that change needs to be done soon to reverse the mess that the Trump Administration has created.
https://eos.org/opinions/new-clean-water-act-rule-leaves-u-s-waters-vulnerab