By Rukia Henry
The intersection of science and policy-making is one of critical importance. In this dynamic, scientists can help to provide experimental evidence to support improved policies. Although politics might seem like an autonomous entity, scientists help shed light on the why, when it comes to the need for improved policies, especially those directly impacting the human population. For example, scientists have helped to provide statistical and experimental insight into the dangers of lead poisoning and the necessity of improved water delivery infrastructure. To explore this intersection between science and politics more, on November 13th, the Eagleton Institute of Politics held a workshop that delved into discussions about the politics of water and lead, with important dialogues focused on the role of the government in quality and delivery disparities, system vulnerabilities, and social determinants of health.
The Rutgers Eagleton Institute of Politics and Science is a program based in the Rutgers- New Brunswick campus which is dedicated to engaging students and scientists in policy development and the role of scientists in government policy. For this workshop, opening remarks were done by John Weingart, Associate Director of the Eagleton Institute of Politics, who iterated that now, more than ever, the intersection of science and politics is crucial and in need of great attention. As a politician who worked in the environmental sector during one point of his career, he noted the important role of scientists, such as hydrologists and others, in shaping policy for environmental protection.
The workshop was moderated by Dr. Anna Dulencin, Senior Program Coordinator of the Science and Politics Initiative, who emphasized that the program is one where science, technology, and American politics intersect to shape policy making as a collective. Dr. Dulencin noted that although the headlines about lead contamination no longer dominate our headlines, it is still a prevailing issue affecting many American communities, particularly communities of color. The workshop was planned with the intention of providing valuable information and encouraging discourse on the origins of our water, who determines what cocktails enter our water, and how local politics contribute to our drinking water and security, with a special note on how the public can make an impact.
Source: Smithsonian Magazine showing corrosion in pipes leading to lead-tainted water
The first part of the workshop was led by Duke University professor of environmental politics, Dr. Megan Mulin. Dr Mulin’s discourse was aimed at providing a big picture of drinking water governance in the United States and how that contributes to disparities and risk exposure. She began by noting that in big cities, where lead contamination is a huge issue, the mayors of these cities often come under fire for being responsible. Dr Mulin also noted that the regulatory and management system responsible for monitoring lead exposure is very weak in the United States. To further demonstrate the frailties in monitoring lead exposure, she displayed a map of the United States that depicted how widespread lead exposure is, where almost 18 million Americans served by community water systems were found with reports of over 8,000 lead and copper violations in 2015. It is important to note that at the time, these findings did not include Flint, Michigan, one of the most broadcasted cases, where violations were detected but had not been reported. So complicating matters, we do not know how widespread this issue is due to failure in reporting. Throughout the remainder of her presentation, Dr Mulin discussed several aspects of water management in our communities, including: water sources, water delivery, and accountability for issues in service.
So where does drinking water come from? Dr. Mulin highlighted that about 87% of Americans receive their drinking water from community-based systems, and approximately 13% receive water from private drinking wells. Community water-based system performance is usually measured by service coverage, service reliability, resilience to external threats, water affordability to individual households, and system financial health. However, water system management over the years have all voiced one common concern: replacing and fixing water delivery infrastructure.
Who is responsible for the delivery of water? Dr. Mulin further noted that local governments are responsible for delivering water and that it is largely funded by residential and sewer rates, usually the fixed utility customer charge. Therefore, although water can be considered a basic human right, failure to pay your water bill will ultimately lead to its supply being shut off.
Who do we hold accountable for our water delivery systems? Accountability in publicly owned systems ultimately lies in who the general public votes for and the chain of officials they further select to manage the system. Voters elect officials such as the mayors of cities, and these elected officials then elect a system manager. Ultimately, a community can hold those they elected accountable to fix and correct broken water systems. However, Dr. Mulin noted that there is often accountability loss in these systems due to low priority placed on our drinking water. Thus, elected officials can misperceive the importance of water. Another factor that Dr Mulin highlighted which can impede accountability, is elected officials fearing potential job loss for suggesting rate increases. Most cases of lead contamination come from poor and failing infrastructure, and an increase in water rates could fund lead pipe replacements in critical states. The issue of income segregation in communities makes this a challenging issue however, due to some communities not being able to afford increased water rates.
Finally, Dr. Mulin, noted that drinking water is a rationalized policy that is framed as non-political or purely technology and hence, it fails to protect communities or public interest.
However, even in the 13% of privately supplied water sites, a site-specific study in North Carolina showed that children in these communities have higher lead blood levels than others whose water supply is community based. Dr. Mulin also highlighted that although the lead poisoning in Flint, Michigan raised the most awareness around this issue in community-based water systems, the private water supply is more at risk. According to the study Dr. Mulin highlighted, this is likely due to corrosion of household plumbing and families rarely flushing their water to prevent corrosion.
The politics of lead and water is one of great concern, and in part II of the Eagleton workshop, we will explore this issue more as we delve into the presentation by Dr. Elyse Pivnick, Senior Director of Environmental Health at Isles.
This article was edited by Junior Editor Gina Sanchez and Senior Editor Brianna Alexander.