Environmental justice implications of arsenic contamination in California’s San Joaquin Valley: a cross-sectional, cluster-design examining exposure and compliance in community drinking water systems

Abstract

BackgroundFew studies of environmental justice examine inequities in drinking water contamination. Those studies that have done so usually analyze either disparities in exposure/harm or inequitable implementation of environmental policies. The US EPA’s 2001 Revised Arsenic Rule, which tightened the drinking water standard for arsenic from 50 μg/L to 10 μg/L, offers an opportunity to analyze both aspects of environmental justice.MethodsWe hypothesized that Community Water Systems (CWSs) serving a higher proportion of minority residents or residents of lower socioeconomic status (SES) have higher drinking water arsenic levels and higher odds of non-compliance with the revised standard. Using water quality sampling data for arsenic and maximum contaminant level (MCL) violation data for 464 CWSs actively operating from 2005–2007 in California’s San Joaquin Valley we ran bivariate tests and linear regression models.ResultsHigher home ownership rate was associated with lower arsenic levels (ß-coefficient= −0.27 μg As/L, 95% (CI), -0.5, -0.05). This relationship was stronger in smaller systems (ß-coefficient= −0.43, CI, -0.84, -0.03). CWSs with higher rates of homeownership had lower odds of receiving an MCL violation (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.16, 0.67); those serving higher percentages of minorities had higher odds (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.2, 5.4) of an MCL violation.ConclusionsWe found that higher arsenic levels and higher odds of receiving an MCL violation were most common in CWSs serving predominantly socio-economically disadvantaged communities. Our findings suggest that communities with greater proportions of low SES residents not only face disproportionate arsenic exposures, but unequal MCL compliance challenges.

The Drinking Water Disparities Framework: On the Origins and Persistence of Inequities in Exposure

“…5 Our own earlier research, conducted between 2005 and 2011, established that race/ethnicity and socioeconomic class were correlated with exposure to nitrate and arsenic contamination and noncompliance with federal standards in community water systems. 6,7 But why do social disparities in access to safe water exist and persist in a country where most of the population has access to piped, potable water? A rich understanding of how disparities in access to safe drinking water are produced and maintained is essential for understanding environmental justice concerns and developing effective public health interventions.…”

Lay perceptions of health and environmental inequalities and their associations to mental health

“…For instance, a recent study conducted in England 16 showed an unequal distribution of industrial sites, with these installations disproportionately located in deprived areas and near deprived populations. In a similar vein, other evidence showed that industrial and hazardous areas in the United States are disproportionately occupied by Blacks and Hispanics 17 , and that low socio-economic populations are more exposed to water contamination 18 . Besides the health risks associated, the exposure to toxic environments increases economic and psychosocial risks (residential stigma 19 and environmental concerns 20 ).…”

Water marginalization at the urban fringe: environmental justice and urban political ecology across the North–South divide

“…For instance, in one of the first papers on social disparities related to water contamination, Calderon et al (1993) investigate how race and class affect exposure to water contamination. Similarly, Balazs et al (2012Balazs et al ( , 2011 show that low-income Latino communities in the San Joaquin Valley face not only disproportionate exposure to contaminants such as arsenic and nitrates, but also unequal regulatory compliance challenges.…”

“…Poor urban water access has largely been bracketed as a Third World problem in the social sciences. Where it has been studied at all in the Global North, it has primarily been assessed as an outcome of engineering or regulatory failure, with a small, but growing number of studies deploying an EJ framework (e.g., Balazs, Morello-Frosch, Hubbard, & Ray, 2012;Debbané & Keil, 2004;Heaney et al, 2011).…”