Tag: contaminate

15th ANNIVERSARY OF WATER CRISIS

  • Dr. Ian Gilson and nurse Mary Busalacchi treated several of the AIDS patients who died during the cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee. (Photo by Erin Toner)

Fifteen years ago, 400,000
people got sick and more than 100 died
from contaminated drinking water. It’s
still the biggest outbreak of waterborne
disease ever in the United States. It
happened because a parasite got into the
water supply in Milwaukee. Since then,
there have been major changes in water
systems across the nation. Erin Toner
reports:

Transcript

Fifteen years ago, 400,000
people got sick and more than 100 died
from contaminated drinking water. It’s
still the biggest outbreak of waterborne
disease ever in the United States. It
happened because a parasite got into the
water supply in Milwaukee. Since then,
there have been major changes in water
systems across the nation. Erin Toner
reports:

Dr. Ian Gilson has been treating AIDS patients for 25 years. He says in all that time,
nothing’s been as bad as 1993 when Milwaukee’s drinking water was contaminated with
a parasite called cryptosporidium.

“We began to get reports of some of our patients having diarrhea that didn’t stop and we
had patients with weird stuff like an ulcer that was not related to acid, severe gall bladder
disease without stones. Ultimately by the time it was called a waterborne epidemic we
knew we had a big problem on our hands.”

Healthy people who drank the water, or brushed their teeth with it, or ate food that was
washed in it, had severe vomiting and diarrhea. But people with weak immune systems,
like those HIV with AIDS, couldn’t fight the parasite. And there weren’t good AIDS
drugs back then, so the patients just deteriorated.

“I distinctly remember several patients saying if you can’t get me over this let’s just be
done with this. One guy who was suffering terribly, we couldn’t seem to get him enough
morphine. And I ordered what I thought was a fatal dose of morphine because I thought
that was the only thing that was going to help him. And it actually relieved his pain.”

When it was all over, cryptosporidium killed 103 people with HIV and AIDS. Even after
15 years, the source of the parasite is still a mystery.

“The cause is not known and may never be known. There does not seem to be any
obvious explanation.”

Carrie Lewis is superintendent of Milwaukee Water Works. She says at the time of the
outbreak, the city pumped in water through an intake pipe about a mile off shore in Lake
Michigan.

The prevailing theory is that sewage overflows contaminated water in the bay, and that
the water was pushed toward the intake pipe and entered the treatment plant.

Lewis doesn’t buy it.

She says if human sewage was the source, people would have had to be sick to excrete
the parasite, and there’s no evidence of that. Some also speculate that cow manure
contaminated area rivers, but Lewis says regular testing in the watershed rarely finds
traces of cryptosporidium.

Lewis says she has no clue what happened, and she’s OK with that. She says what’s
important is what’s changed since then. Lewis says water testing at the time of the
outbreak amounted to taking a couple of samples a day – and that was considered good.

“Today we have hundreds of instruments testing the water every single second for all
sorts of different parameters, so the 15 years that’s gone by it’s a lifetime.”

The cryptosporidium outbreak so damaged Milwaukee’s psyche that people were willing
to do just about anything to make the water safe again. The city spent $90 million to
extend the intake pipe farther out in Lake Michigan. The filters at purification plants were
updated. And now the water is treated with ozone, which kills cryptosporidium.

What happened in Milwaukee caused changes around the country.

New federal regulations required water systems to test for the parasite and safeguard
against it. A drug was licensed to treat the disease.

Michael Beach is associate director for healthy water at the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. He says today people should have a lot of confidence when they turn on
their tap.

“Those types of outbreaks have virtually disappeared from the tracking system.”

Many water experts say municipal drinking water in this country is now the safest in the
world. They say the legacy of the Milwaukee outbreak is that water utilities are no longer
just managing a system of pipes and water mains – they’re in the business of protecting
public health.

For The Environment Report, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

Landscaping to Slow Runoff

  • The bioswales are planted with species that are hardy and beautiful, like this snowberry. (Photo by Ann Dornfeld)

Some cities are looking at taking away parking
on residential streets and replacing it with shallow
ditches full of native plants that filter stormwater.
It’s a way to reduce the polluted runoff that flows
into lakes, rivers and the ocean. As Ann Dornfeld
reports, not everyone is thrilled with the idea:

Transcript

Some cities are looking at taking away parking
on residential streets and replacing it with shallow
ditches full of native plants that filter stormwater.
It’s a way to reduce the polluted runoff that flows
into lakes, rivers and the ocean. As Ann Dornfeld
reports, not everyone is thrilled with the idea:

We’re walking down a winding lane lined with maple trees, tall, dry grasses and
evergreens. Bright white snowberries dot the dark branches. It feels like a walk
in the country. But we’re actually admiring a big-city sewer system.

This little valley – a sort of shallow ditch – is called a “bioswale.” Its plants filter
out pollutants that run off the street. And special, thirsty soil helps the water
absorb into the earth. Sections of the street are narrowed to make room for the
bioswales, so some parking along the street is lost. But houses without
driveways get two parking spaces between the swales.

The bioswales have thick layers of native grasses, shrubs and other plants. It’s
kind of a wild, natural look. Debbie Anderson lives on a nearby street. As she
walks by the bioswale she says to her it just looks messy.

“We think it looked nice when it was first built, but it hasn’t continued to
look good, I don’t think. We moved out here because there was no
sidewalks and the streets were wide open and we like that. Lots of parking,
we can have lots of company. This way you can have, what, two people
that can come? That’s it! No. I don’t want it.”

That’s a pretty familiar argument to Bob Spencer. He’s with the City of Seattle’s
Public Utilities office.

“The big thing is the lack of parking. People really get into using these
street right-of-way shoulders as their personal parking spots.”

But not everybody thinks parking spots are more important than doing something
to reduce water pollution. Spencer says the neighbors on this street actually
competed with other blocks to get these bioswales. It’s free landscaping – and
the city even worked with each homeowner to choose plants that would blend
with their existing garden.

Spencer says the city’s traditional method of dealing with stormwater has washed
contaminants into a nearby creek.

“Well, in the surrounding streets around here, we have what’s called ‘gutter
and ditch’ drainage. And what happens is the water runs off the property
and the impervious streets and rooftops. And it enters a ditch and then
goes pell-mell screaming down to our local salmon-bearing creek, Piper’s
Creek.”

It’s not just Seattle’s creeks that are flooded with runoff. Untreated rainwater
flows straight into lakes and the ocean, polluting them. Cities across the country
are looking for ways to deal with toxic runoff like that.

Spencer says Seattle is pioneering
large-scale natural drainage. In other words, the rain is allowed to drain like it
does in the wilderness. The plant roots slow the water so it can absorb into the
earth. That helps prevent flooding. Pollutants like heavy metals, pesticides
and fertilizers are trapped in the soil, and some of them are broken down in these bioswales.

“So we’ve got a little bit more like a forested system in that we have a duff
layer that acts as a sponge.”

Spencer says the city hasn’t tested the water quality of the runoff that eventually
enters the creek. But he says the runoff has been slowed to a trickle.

“It infiltrates and holds and keeps here 99% of that runoff. So that’s a
pretty large flush of water that’s not entering the creek with this system.”

Officials in Seattle’s city government like the green look of the bioswales. And
they help the city meet federal pollution guidelines. City Council President
Richard Conlin says over the course of three bioswale projects, the city has been
able to lower the cost to about the same as conventional stormwater treatment.

Seattle’s newest bioswale system will be at the foot of Capitol Hill. That’s where
seemingly half of the city’s young people live, in blocks full of apartments,
nightclubs and parking lots.

“It’s actually the densest urban neighborhood west of Minneapolis and
north of San Francisco. So it has a lot of impervious surface.”

Stormwater from Capitol Hill rushes off the hard surfaces and down to a lake. So
the city is taking advantage of new development at the bottom of the hill. It’s
planning to filter the runoff through bioswales before it pollutes the lake.

“And once we’ve done that, I think we’re pretty much ready to say this is
the standard from now on.”

Conlin says the city will likely install bioswales in all new developments, and on
streets where the most runoff enters waterways.

He says cities around the country are contacting Seattle to find out how to install
bioswales of their own.

For the Environment Report, I’m Ann Dornfeld.

Related Links

Leaky Tanks Forever

A government report indicates to clean up fewer than half of the leaky
underground storage tanks in the nation it would cost billions of
dollars. But the Bush administration budget only calls for millions.
Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A government report indicates to clean up fewer than half of the leaky
underground storage tanks in the nation it would cost billions of
dollars. But the Bush administration budget only calls for millions.
Lester Graham reports:


Leaking underground storage tanks of gasoline or other hazardous
liquids can contaminate drinking water and soil. There are 117,000
known leaks from underground storage tanks across the nation.


A Government Accountability Office report indicates to clean up just
half that number would cost 12 billion dollars. The Bush
administration has requested less than 73 million dollars in the budget
currently before Congress.


The chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee, John Dingell,
calls the Bush request disgraceful and inadequate. But in the last
budget, Congress only appropriated 70 million to clean up leaky
underground storage tanks.


States across the nation expect to discover more than 16,000 new leaks
in the next five years. That could mean the current government funding
of clean-ups will never catch up with the actual number of leaky
underground storage tanks.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Epa Proposing New Rules for Sewage Plants

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing new rules on how sewage treatment plants clean water after heavy storms. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:

Transcript

The US Environmental Protection Agency is proposing new rules on
how sewage treatment plants clean water after heavy storms. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:


When rainstorms overwhelm sewage treatment plants, cities sometimes
blend raw sewage with clean water that can contaminate local rivers and
lakes with bacteria. To stop this, the EPA’s proposing a compromise
with local governments. Cities may blend waste when there’s no
alternative, but they must improve their waste treatment systems.


Alexandra Dapolito Dunn represents an alliance of city treatment
facilities. She says local governments need this flexibility.


“There are going to be some communities around the country where, due
to the low income and the distressed nature of an urban population, they
may have a difficult time affording the most cutting edge technologies
available.”


It’s not clear how much money cities will save under the proposed
guidelines. Upgrades can cost millions of dollars, and right now,
treatment centers compete for limited federal assistance.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Study Challenges Efficiency of Ethanol

  • A new study takes into account the resources used to grow the corn that is used to make ethanol. (Photo by Ian Dun)

Despite its political popularity, a study suggests ethanol from corn is not as environmentally friendly as its supporters claim. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Despite its political popularity, a study suggests ethanol from corn is not as environmentally

friendly as its supporters claim. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


A new study published in the journal “Critical Reviews in Plant Science” shows producing ethanol

from corn uses more energy than the fuel provides.


Researchers at the University of California-Berkeley looked at the amount of energy used to plant,

fertilize, harvest and process corn into ethanol. Some studies have shown a net energy gain, but

this research takes into account the water and nutrients used to grow corn as well as the pollution

caused by fertilizers and pesticides.


The researchers say that makes this study a more accurate assessment of energy consumed to produce

ethanol. Supporters of ethanol say it’s the most environmentally-friendly replacement for MTBE,

that’s a gasoline additive used to reduce ozone pollution.


MTBE is being phased out because of concerns that it can contaminated groundwater sources.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Terrorist Threats to Our Water Supply

Since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, things we used to take for granted as being safe are now being questioned. Resources essential to life can be used as vehicles for terrorists’ attacks. Even drinking water is among those things now considered vulnerable. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, things we used to take for granted as
being safe are now being questioned. Resources essential to life can be
used as vehicles for terrorists’ attacks. Even drinking water is among
those things now considered vulnerable. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


In Afghanistan, as U.S. intelligence agencies began sifting through the
material left behind by cells of the Al Qaeda network, the United States
government became more concerned. It looked as though the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon were just the beginning of targets in
America.


When President Bush gave his State of the Union address at the
beginning of this year, he told the public about some of the disturbing
evidence the members of Al Qaeda were holding.


“And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the
destruction they design. We have found diagrams of American nuclear
power plants and public water facilities.”


While the President revealed that water systems were a possible target,
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was
assuring groups that the nation’s water supplies were safe. Christie
Todd Whitman told a group of environmental journalists that with
everybody on heightened alert, it was unlikely a terrorist would be able
to contaminate a water source with chemicals or biological agents.


“It would be extremely difficult for someone to perform
this kind of act, taking a truckload – and that’s what it would be, a
tanker truckload – up to a reservoir and dumping it in, given the
heightened security we have today.”


But an expert on the risk of attacks on water supplies says it wouldn’t
have to take a tanker truck… or anything close to that given the nasty
nature of some of the contaminants available to terrorists.


Jim Snyder was a member of a presidential commission assigned to
look at infrastructure and its vulnerability to terrorist attacks.


“If you put a backpack or a couple of backpacks of that
material in a ten-million gallon reservoir, which would be a medium
sized above ground tank, you would kill half the people who drank one
cup.”


And Snyder says it wouldn’t even take that much to cause
wide-spread panic… to raise the so-called ‘fear factor.’


“You don’t have to put enough stuff in the water to kill people.
You have to put enough stuff in the water so that people can’t
drink or use the water. If somebody says they put something in your
water, you’re not going to drink the water.”


Still, the government tries to assure the public there’s not much to fear.
Again, EPA Administrator Whitman…


“The vast majority of contaminants about which we’re worried, we know
how to treat. We know what steps to take. And those where we’re not sure
of what we need to do, we’re working with the CDC to develop a protocol to
respond.”


But the tests conducted daily at a water purification plant don’t look
for the kinds of contaminants that a terrorist would likely use. Jim
Snyder says the first clue that anything was wrong with the water would
likely be sick or dying people.


While the EPA continues to reassure the public, the agency knows of
the shortcomings of security at the thousands of water systems across
the nation. But treating contaminated water would not be the
government’s first choice. It would rather try to prevent an attack.
That’s why it’s offering the water systems grants to figure out the best
way to make their systems less likely to be targeted by terrorists. Again,
Jim Snyder…


“So, right now, you’ve got water systems all over the country
performing or getting ready to perform fairly sophisticated
vulnerability analyses which lead to recommendations on which
components need to be secured and how they should be secured and
what kind of risk reduction one could expect from adding levels of
security.”


Some things are easy, such as locking access gates, and patrolling
lakes and reservoirs. Others are more expensive and challenging. They
might include changes in how the water plants operate, using less
volatile chemicals in the purification process. Jim Snyder says
probably it will take years to beef up security… but even then a
determined terrorist could still strike.


Another terrorism prevention expert, Peter Beering with the City of
Indianapolis, says people should not be too alarmed about the
possibility that their water source could be poisoned. He says of all the
things to attack, water is probably low on the list.


“The good news is that these are comparatively uninteresting targets to
an aggressor. And, as we learned, unfortunately, in New York
and in Washington, that certainly there are much higher profile targets
that are of much greater interest to people who are upset with the
United States.”


But, Beering notes that water systems across the nation still should
take prudent measures to protect the public’s water supplies… just in
case.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.