Michigan should make polluters pay
When Americans think of environmental laws, they tend to think of standards that control the pollution released by businesses, industries, sewage plants, and incinerators. This puts the stewardship duty and cost on those who generate the pollution, and provides an economic incentive to reduce waste.
To an extent, taxpayers are subsidizing the private sector instead of requiring it to eliminate or sharply reduce the pollution that ends up in drinking water.
There’s a major exception, however, that relates directly to public health: The federal Safe Drinking Water Act regulates the members of the public being polluted, rather than holding the polluters themselves accountable. This is a backwards policy. Here’s how it works: To make sure the public is not exposed to unsafe levels of contaminants, the act requires operators of public drinking water treatment plants to meet standards for limits on chemical and conventional pollutants that others have generated. To an extent, taxpayers are subsidizing the private sector instead of requiring it to eliminate or sharply reduce the pollution that ends up in drinking water.
Upstream Concerns in Ann Arbor
A recent Bridge Magazine article told this tale through the example of Ann Arbor. The Southeast Michigan city, like many others, is constantly scrambling to address both imminent and long-term contaminants released upstream of its drinking water intake in the Huron River.
Brian Steglitz, Ann Arbor Area Public Services Administrator, is quoted as expressing the view that state and federal environmental agencies should identify pollution sources that affect public drinking water supplies and work to eliminate them, rather than imposing new duties on the drinking water suppliers. Steglitz admits federal action is unlikely: “Waiting for the EPA is just not going to be the solution any longer, because they’re just too slow,” he said.
The problem affects water supplies across Michigan. PFAS chemicals have been detected in public drinking water supplies, as has nitrate, according to the state’s 2021 drinking water violations report.
Another approach would be to assess the costs of treating drinking water on those who created it.
Farm Runoff in Des Moines, Iowa
Another approach would be to assess the costs of treating drinking water on those who created it. Des Moines, Iowa, tried that. The city is forced to pay for treatment of its drinking water sources to remove nitrate pollution that largely comes from upstream agriculture. Nitrate is linked with colorectal cancer, thyroid disease, and neural tube defects as well as methemoglobinemia in young children. Running a special nitrate cleaning facility can cost the public $10,000 a day.
In 2015, Des Moines Water Works sued upstream counties to reduce manure and fertilizer runoff into the city’s drinking water supply. But a court tossed the lawsuit, saying the question was more appropriate for the Iowa legislature.
With water priorities high on the current legislative agenda, now is the time for our public drinking water suppliers to put the costs back on the upstream polluters—where it belongs.
Prevention Is Best
“The whole thing would be a lot cheaper,” Bonnifer Ballard, executive director of the Michigan Section of the American Water Works Association, “if we just protected our source of water to begin with.”
Michigan is not Iowa. With water priorities high on the current legislative agenda, now is the time for our public drinking water suppliers to put the costs back on the upstream polluters—where it belongs. “The whole thing would be a lot cheaper,” Bonnifer Ballard, executive director of the Michigan Section of the American Water Works Association, “if we just protected our source of water to begin with.”
