Water Quality in Communities of Color
By Alejandro Muniz
An often-overlooked aspect of our daily lives is the quality and source of our water. A hallmark of developed nations, water in Texas is for the most part non-toxic and healthy. The state of Texas has an entire code dedicated to water which includes things like quality, sourcing, refinement, rights, and much more. Despite this, some communities are susceptible to lower quality potable water than others throughout the state; this is potentially true for communities that are high in black and brown populations along with a lower median household income. Studies already show this is the case in different areas across the US such as North Carolina (Stillo, 2016) and California (Balazs 2011).
Two of the largest benchmarks for assessing water quality are the presence of copper and lead. When the city of Flint, Michigan experienced its water crisis in 2014, it made national headlines highlighting the importance and underestimation of clean water. These two elements are present in every city’s environmental report and are usually presented as a 90th percentile as the concentration is usually so small and requires multiple samples. As for policy, the Texas Legislature recently announced the allocation of $7.1 million to federal lead and copper water regulations throughout the state. While funding may be an issue in some places, enforcement and regulation may play a bigger role in others. Another large contaminant in potable water is the byproduct of disinfectant agents, most notably trihalomethanes (TTHM) and haloacetic acids (HAA5). Both of these compounds are considered carcinogens and are regulated by both state and federal agencies. Lastly, radioactive material can sometimes runoff from rock and soil deposits and are difficult to clean once contamination has occurred. These factors are not a comprehensive list of what may contaminate drinking water, but they are some of the most heavily regulated and addressed by policymakers. Clean water is for the most part a non-partisan issue and is an aspiration for nearly every lawmaker and their constituency. Regardless of what policymakers are proposing, or not proposing, does the data actually show a discrepancy between high minority communities and poorer water quality? And if so, what can lawmakers do to correct this gap?
An analysis of data provided by a city’s Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) cross-referenced with the US Census Bureaus’ demographic data shows that there is a small, nearly negligible disproportionate amount of contaminants in communities of color. This discrepancy is still present however and points to the necessity of further research to understand to what extent it exists. The sample size consisted of 16 cities in Texas with an emphasis placed on the percentage of black and brown populations, with a high of 99% and a low of 7%. An effort was also made to select cities in different geographic regions of the state as some areas are more susceptible to droughts, located near a large source of water, downstream from harmful production plants, and many more factors.
The largest discrepancy was found in the presence of lead (shown in table 1). This data shows lead presence begins at around 1.75 (90th percentile) in the highest non-minority communities and ends just under 4 in communities with a high minority population. The cities of Port Arthur and Socorro are likely responsible for this trendline, as both cities have a significantly higher lead presence than the other cities, minority or not. Socorro alone has a 90th percentile of 10, nearly meeting the action level of 15 required by law. It is also important to note that both of these cities have a minority makeup of over 70%, which raises questions as to why these minority heavy communities have such high lead contamination. The data for copper (Table 2) on the other hand actually shows a negative relationship between communities of color, the inverse of what the trendline for lead showed. The only city that comes close to the copper action level of 1.3 is the city of Burleson which has a 90th percentile of 0.6 — still under half the action level. This data shows that while communities of color may experience higher lead concentrations, it may be offset by having lower copper concentrations. More studies need to be done to paint a fuller picture of whether these trendlines are accurate throughout the rest of the state. The trendline for both disinfection contaminants (TTHM and HAA5) was largely negligible, with a slight negative relationship for TTHM and a slight positive relationship for HAA5 (table 3). There was however still a large difference in concentrations from city to city, however, the difference was not disproportionate with high minority communities. Lastly, the data for radioactive contaminants (Table 4) also shows a positive correlation in high minority communities, although this relationship is small with a range from 4.5 to 5.5 pCi/L. Data also starts to become less reliable as one measures less regulated contaminants such as radioactive material and organic toxicants, which is why some data is unavailable in these areas. This data compiled paints a picture of relatively equal water quality in various communities, with a small edge given to those with higher populations of non-Hispanic whites.
All of this data however needs to be contextualized within the framework of income. Table 5 shows the relationship between the analyzed cities and their respective income, highlighting an already known issue of high minority communities and low income. Here the difference is dramatic, with a nearly $35,000 difference in the median household income at the furthest ends of the range. This correlation raises questions as to whether income and economic prosperity as a whole are factors in the quality of water or simply a byproduct of whatever other forces cause low income and water quality generally.
Because these findings are centered around a small sample size, additional research is needed to give solutions to lawmakers as to how to reorganize water infrastructure and appropriately allocate funds. If the data presented remains true for the entire state, higher economic prosperity should slowly see the rise of better infrastructure and ideally equal water quality throughout the entire state.
Works Cited
Alice CCR. www.cityofalice.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/827.
“The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) from the American Public Health Association (APHA) Publications.” American Public Health Association (APHA) Publications, ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303482.
Azle CCR. www.cityofazle.org/DocumentCenter/View/6215/2018-Water-Quality-Report.
Boerne CCR. www.ci.boerne.tx.us/DocumentCenter/View/13271/2019-Annual-Drinking-Water-Quality-Report.
Bureau, US Census. Census.gov, www.census.gov/en.html.
Burleson CCR. www.burlesontx.com/DocumentCenter/View/18717/2018-Drinking-Water-Quality-Report.
El Paso CCR. www.epwater.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_6843404/File/Our%20Water/Water%20Quality/2019_dwr.pdf.
EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 12 Apr. 2021, cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.highlight/abstract/22.
Harlingen CCR. www.hwws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CCR_2019.pdf.
Lancaster CCR. www.lancaster-tx.com/DocumentCenter/View/12626/Water-Quality-Report-2019?bidId=.
Lumberton CCR. www.lumbertonmud.com/documents/CCR2017.pdf.
Missouri City CCR. www.missouricitytx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/11281/2018-CCR_Annual-Drinking-Water.
Odessa CCR. www.odessa-tx.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/565.
Pasadena CCR. www.pasadenatx.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/1160.
Port Arthur CCR. www.portarthurtx.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/48#:~:text=Port%20Arthur%20is%20among%20several,for%20Disease%20Control%20and%20Prevention.
Port Neches CCR. cms8.revize.com/revize/portnechestx//2018-CCR.pdf.
Rio Grande City CCR. www.cityofrgc.com/Final%20RGC%202019%20CCR%20Complete.pdf.
“A Snapshot of Environmental Bills Filed During Texas’ 2021 Legislative Session (87R).” JD Supra, www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-snapshot-of-environmental-bills-filed-1560005/.
“Social Disparities in Nitrate-Contaminated Drinking Water in California’s San Joaquin Valley.” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/ehp.1002878.
Uvalde CCR. cms8.revize.com/revize/uvaldetx/2019%20CCR%20-%20Consumer%20Confidence%20Report%20for%20Public%20Water%20System%20City%20of%20Uvalde.pdf.
Vidor/Orange County CCR. ocwc1.com/2015waterreport.pdf.
Wichita Falls CCR. www.wichitafallstx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34022/2020-Water-Report-2.
