View previous stories
	Come take a ride on America''s toxic water slide by Maryam Henein TruthOut, agencies USA   Come take a ride on America''s toxic water slide: First stop: Flint, Michigan, where two years later, people are still contending with lead-laced water, which was finally detected by the EPA in February 2015 with the help of resident Lee Anne Walters. Next stop: California, where hundreds of wells have been contaminated with 1,2,3-TCP, a Big Oil-manufactured chemical present in pesticides. Travel to the East to see the significant amounts of 1,4-dioxane, an industry solvent stabilizer that continue to pollute the waters belonging to North Carolina''s Cape Fear River Basin. In New York and Pennsylvania, residents are contending with outbreaks of waterborne Legionnaires'' disease (the bacteria grow easily in water distribution systems and often hide in the biofilm of aging pipes).   Meanwhile, in June 2016, kids in Hoosick Falls, New York, protested in the streets with placards around their necks that featured PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic acid, a man-made chemical used in Teflon) levels to denote how much has infiltrated their blood through tainted water.   Drop to Houston, Texas, where high levels of hexavalent chromium, the cancer-causing chemical made infamous by Erin Brockovich, are turning up in tap water while thousands of fracking poisons overrun imperiled communities and Indigenous reservations.   And, to add to the cesspit, just four days after Trump was sworn in, he sanctioned the $3.8 billion, 1,170-mile Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) that will create underground contamination.   Yes, indeed, the story of water in America is dirty and deep. The tale took a toxic turn in the 1930s, during the dawn of the chemical industry, when many horrifying toxins were first being introduced into our landscape. Quality reports on what flows out of American faucets today read like a description for liquid cancer.   And the water we do have isn''t enough. Since 2008, nearly every region of the US has experienced a water shortage.   And since 2015, at least 40 states have been anticipating local, regional or statewide water shortages within the next 10 years, even under non-drought conditions.   "Houston. We. Have. A. Problem," says environmental activist Erin Brockovich in reference to the nation''s water supply. Brockovich should know. She''s been at it for more than 25 years, ever since her investigation uncovered that Pacific Gas & Electric was poisoning the small town of Hinkley, California, by adding the cooling water biocide Chromium 6 Cr(VI) into the water supply for more than 30 years. The adverse health effects associated with Cr(VI) exposure include occupational asthma, eye irritation and damage, perforated eardrums, respiratory irritation, kidney damage, liver damage, pulmonary congestion and edema, upper abdominal pain, nose irritation and respiratory cancer.   "It''s not just one Flint. It''s hundreds of Flints," Brockovich, who became a household name in 2000 when Julia Roberts portrayed her in an Oscar-winning film, tells me in an interview. "We''ve already slipped and we''re on the cusp of Third World conditions when it comes to our water supply."   According to an Environmental Working Group''s analysis of federal data from nationwide drinking water tests, Chromium 6 alone, which remains unregulated to this day, contaminates the water supplies of more than 200 million Americans in all 50 states. That''s roughly two-thirds of the population.   Brockovich learns about water toxins via the thousands of emails she receives from around the country. Just consider her the Dear Abby of Dirty Water. For instance, in January 2015 Melissa Mays, a mother of three alerted Brockovich about Flint, long before mainstream media learned the news. A month later, Brockovich''s partner in crime, environmental investigator Bob Bowcock visited the community. He then wrote a report to the mayor outlining exactly what they needed to do to fix the problem.   These days, the correspondence never ceases. At the time of our interview, Brockovich was heading to Hannibal, Missouri, where people are grappling with high levels of lead and the dangerous byproduct chloramine. She has also begun an investigation in Waycross, Georgia, to understand why there''s a high incidence of cancer among the town''s children, and she''ll eventually visit Tyler, Texas, to probe its connection with the cancer-causing disinfectant haloacetic acids (HAA5).   It''s come to the point where Brockovich sees the country by chemical, not by state. Give her a poison, and she''ll tell you which state you can find it in. She can easily cite 40 states coping with water contamination from lead and hexavalent chromium, among other substances.   Distilling Toxins for Truth   Despite the facts, politicians have failed to recognize that clean water should be a national security priority. How close do the dots have to be before they can be connected?   "I think everyone is waking up," says Brockovich. "Whatever agency on the Hill they think is keeping tabs ... that''s not really what''s happening."   In other words, regardless of the administration, the EPA has protected industry-backed efforts at the expense of our health.   "There are well-meaning, intelligent scientists and engineers.. but it''s such a cluster mess. They don''t know where to go. They are held back," Brockovich says. "This is an agency that is overburdened, broke."   It doesn''t help that the country doesn''t abide by the "precautionary principle," which would require us to prohibit products or processes with questionable effects from entering into existence without further investigation for sake of protecting the people and planet.   According to a March 2005 publication from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the precautionary principle can be summed up in this way: "When human activities may lead to morally unacceptable harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain, actions shall be taken to avoid or diminish that harm."   Long before Trump, the Overton window -- the range of ideas that the public finds acceptable to consider within the sphere of public discourse -- shifted and we decided toxic chemicals were actually safe unless proven harmful. This normalization of pathology is ever-present in our current world.   With a climate denier as president and an EPA leadership that seems intent on dismantling the EPA, the Trump administration has arguably just made it more obvious and official that the almighty dollar rules. The administration is already rolling back Obama-era regulations on coal-burning power plants and climate change. The EPA, is now being run by Scott Pruitt, best known for suing the agency 14 times while he was attorney general of Oklahoma. Pruitt''s suits against the agency even included motions to block regulations on clean water. While he was attorney general, Pruitt''s official biography described him as a "leading advocate against the EPA''s activist agenda."   Despite findings by the Government Accountability Office that as many as 15 percent of localities lack the resources to address environmental challenges, the current administration''s budget proposal hopes to cut the EPA''s funding by 31 percent by focusing on killing climate change programs, arguably dismantling the agency''s ability to protect the health of people in the US.   "The fundamental issue is lack of funds, particularly in areas where population is declining as America''s demographics change," writes Deborah Seligsohn, who researches environmental governance at the University of California at San Diego.   On Tap: The United Corporation of America   The extent to which companies control government has never been more blatantly obvious. For decades, toxic-waste sites and irresponsible industries have managed to discharge hundreds of toxic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, disinfection byproducts, plastics and heavy metals into the water supply either without repercussion or with penalties that are too slight to change business practices.   Put simply, water today has become a repository for industrial waste, explains water quality specialist Dr. Roy M. Speiser of Clean Water Revival.   "People are being misled to believe that drinking water is safe because it meets government standards," Speiser told Truthout. "The notion that the EPA''s allowable concentration levels of toxic contaminants in your drinking water is ''safe'' is a myth. If a certain chemical or heavy metal, such as arsenic, is present in trace amounts, and you drink this water over an extended period, it accumulates in your body, which contributes to a chronic health disorder."   Unfortunately, it''s insidiously difficult to track cumulative effects on health unless there is acute exposure, and Western medicine often fails to acknowledge the idea that toxic chemicals accumulate in our blood, fatty tissues and other parts of our bodies, and that this overload of toxins in our bodies can affect our risk for certain diseases.   The corporations that create the pesticides, cosmetics, plastics and other products that expose us to these toxins know that they are unlikely to be prosecuted for their effects, since symptoms can take 10 or 20 years to pronounce themselves.   "The amount of chemicals in our air, water, waterways and soil is one of the most frustrating things about how EPA regulates chemicals in the environment," says Bowcock, whom Brockovich fondly calls "Bill, the Science Guy." "They don''t take into account all the various pathways you are exposed to -- drinking, cooking, swimming, showering, brushing teeth -- from just one medium: water."   According to a study in the National Center for Biotechnology Information, "non-genetic, environmental exposures are involved in causation, in some cases probably by interacting with genetically inherited predispositions. Strong evidence exists that industrial chemicals widely disseminated in the environment are important contributors to what we have called the global, silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity."   Regulations Speculations   The Safe Drinking Water Act, which was originally enacted into law in 1974, was supposed to focus on ensuring that public drinking water meets appropriate safety standards; in contrast, the 1972 Clean Water Act theoretically regulates pollution in our nation''s lakes, rivers and other bodies of water.   But when it comes to water health, the EPA has operated at a glacial pace.   The Environmental Working Group''s tests and a petition from environmental groups pushed the EPA to add chromium 6 to the chemicals local utilities must test, under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires the EPA to review each national primary drinking water regulation at least once every six years and revise them, if appropriate. The 1996 amendments, meanwhile, require the EPA to select up to 30 previously unregulated contaminants for testing every five years, according to the Environmental Working Group.   Yet, in two decades, the EPA has ordered testing for only 81 contaminants out of thousands, and moved forward on setting a regulation for a mere one: the rocket fuel ingredient perchlorate. The implementation of that regulation is two years behind schedule.   "For an agency to be unable to adopt a single standard (for water contaminants) in 20 years is inexcusable," Erik Olson, health and environment program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) told the Washington Post. "It''s a combination of a bad law and very bad implementation."   According to Brockovich, a lack of regulations isn''t the issue. "Any regulation without enforcement and oversight is moot.. We have a Clean Water Act implemented by none other than the Nixon administration that everyone wants to dodge and not follow, and that''s why we''re in the trouble we''re in. We have some really good laws on the books. Let''s just enforce them and we can begin to make headway," says Brockovich.. Visit the related web page
	States duty to tackle tax evasion and mobilise resources for human rights by International Bar Association   The principal assertion of a new report by the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) is that states have a legal obligation to mobilise all resources at their disposal, including those that could be collected through taxation, to satisfy minimum essential levels of human rights. It further asserts that, with capital flight depriving nations of vast amounts of tax revenue, states facilitating, or actively promoting, tax abuse at the domestic or cross-border level may be in violation of international human rights law.   The report, The Obligation to Mobilise Resources: Bridging Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, and Economic and Fiscal Policies, is published against the backdrop of increased awareness of the relationship between economic policies and human rights; greater scrutiny of inequality within, and between, countries; austerity measures implemented following the 2007–2008 global financial crisis; and insufficiently regulated financial flows.   In addition, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (the ‘Agenda’), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015 by the heads of state and governments of 193 countries at a special UN summit, provides renewed emphasis on the question of the mobilisation of resources. The Agenda is explicitly anchored in human rights norms and principles, and recognises in paragraphs 18–20 that a rights-based approach should underpin all poverty reduction efforts.   As part of the Agenda, all 193 UN states have committed to ‘strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection’ (Sustainable Development Goal 17.1)and ‘significantly reduce illicit financial flows’ (Sustainable Development Goal 16.4).   IBAHRI Co-Chair Helena Kennedy QC stated: ‘When tax havens are allowed to continue to operate in a manner that starves developing countries of billions worth of potential income, this points to an unwillingness, rather than inability, by the international community to fulfil the particular UN Sustainable Development Goals to reduce inequality within and among countries. To maximise available resources in a non-discriminatory manner for the protection of human rights should be a moral goal for all.’   She added: ‘As the poorest and most vulnerable people around the world have felt the impacts of a global financial crisis, austerity policies, corruption and tax evasion, our new report demonstrates clearly that many states may have been side-stepping their obligation to maximise the resources available to protect the rights of all people.’   Based on a detailed examination of UN treaty bodies and the views of the UN Special Procedures, the purpose of the report is to ascertain the current interpretation of the scope and content of the obligation of states to mobilise resources for the realisation of human rights.   To this end, the assessments of the Special Procedures – independent human rights experts who report to, and advise, the UN on human rights issues – are essential to the debate addressing resource diversion and foregone tax revenues in compliance with human rights.   Topics such as the legal basis and guiding principles around the obligation to mobilise resources, as well as the opportunities and challenges in relation to that obligation, are covered in the report, which includes a number of recommendations, such as:   When addressing issues of resource mobilisation, special procedures and treaty bodies should ensure greater coordination among themselves, as well as the consistency and complementarity of their analyses.   Human rights monitoring bodies should consistently apply the legal developments related to resource mobilisation when reviewing states’ reports or undertaking country missions.   Special procedures and treaty bodies should:   Regularly request information from states on how they have adopted specific policy decisions: whether or not they have weighed costs and benefits of all policy choices and if policy trade-offs were explicitly addressed.   Provide more concrete, practical and detailed guidance to states about all aspects of the obligation to mobilise resources, including drawing attention to the prerequisite of the rule of law.   Consolidate, strengthen and further develop legal standards and methodologies to assess whether or not states have utilised all alternatives at their disposal for resource mobilisation.   Define the role and responsibilities of multinational corporations and other business enterprises in resource mobilisation for the realisation of human rights.   Develop a legal framework with which to assess tax lawyers, accounting and consulting firms’ responsibility for creating the mechanisms that companies and wealthy individuals use to avoid paying taxes.   Further, it is suggested that, when implementing austerity measures, states should not use the financial crisis to justify actions that amount to violations of human rights obligations, such as curtailing access to healthcare, education and other essential services, particularly for the most vulnerable in society.   IBAHRI Co-Chair Hans Corell commented: ‘Broad in scope, the report demonstrates that states must garner and use resources in a non-discriminatory manner to ensure access to basic services for all, because the issue of resource mobilisation is at the core of the realisation of civil, political, social, cultural and economic human rights.   To ensure the adequate functioning of crucial state institutions, including the judiciary, the police and legal aid services, without which there can be no efficient access to justice nor protection of human rights, states must ensure that all available resources are properly mobilised as a matter of priority.’   He added: ‘The report is relevant to all countries, particularly those criticised by the UN for austerity programmes seen as violating human rights. The international community needs to act swiftly to reduce economic, social and geographical disparities and provide wealth redistribution to redress systemic discrimination and spur progress towards substantive equality.’   To launch the report, the IBAHRI invited a panel of high profile speakers to discuss the obligation to mobilise resources. The panel was made up of the following speakers: Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, Former UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights; IBAHRI report Rapporteur; Professor Olivier de Schutter, Member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Muthoni Wanyeki, Africa Regional Director, Open Society Foundation; Matti Kohonen, Principal Adviser (Private Sector), Christian Aid; Moderator: Muluka Miti-Drummond, Senior Programme Lawyer, IBAHRI. You can watch the recording of the event, below. Visit the related web page
	View more stories