Wilson, E. K. (2018, June 19). California Wildfires Caused Unexpected Benzene Contamination of Drinking Water. CEN RSS, American Chemical Society. Retrieved September 1, 2018 from https://cen.acs.org/environment/water/California-wildfires-caused-unexpected-benzene/96/i26
Northern California has experienced much damage because of the wild fires. Asides from destroying houses/structures and killing a number of people, water systems are at risk of contamination. Benzene levels escalated post the Santa Rosa fires, threatening the city to have to change all the water infrastructure. Luckily, the levels decreased and the city plans to invest $3.4 million, instead of $43 million, to ensuring their water system. The true problem being faced now is determining what plastic should be used as a replacement.
This particular article doesn’t talk about the use of recycled water specifically. It does however tie every topic outlined above. As a consequence of a lack of rainfall, California stepped into a drought. Dry conditions made parts of California more prone to wildfires. Wildfires activated benzene levels so that water running through plastic pipes became contaminated. And we come back to the importance of drinking water and how we will even keep water running through said plastic pipes: treated recycled water.
It is really important to conserve the water we have and make sure we are not wasting any of it. Sadly while we have to deal with rationing out the right amount to us, we fail to ration it to the forests and grasslands. The wild fires, although natural and good for refreshing the ecosystem, cannot be controlled by us. How do you think water should be rationed between us and the forests?
Thank you for your question. I think it’s a bit complex: we can’t tell people to stop using water for us to suppress the fires because we’re going to die. What we could do is encourage people to use less, about half as much as what we’re already used to, so that then the other half can be saved to fill the groundwater basin, which can then be used, if needed, to put out fires. Like you pointed out, fires can be good for refreshing the ecosystem. After the fires we’re undergoing end, maybe we can start taking care of that newly refreshed area by watering it, allowing trees to grow (which benefit our air quality) and keeping the soil wet instead of flammable.
Here is another example of the controversy surrounding California’s wildfires. Although an immediate impact of the fires is water contamination, they are necessary to California’s ecosystems by providing and renewing countless ecosystem services – including ones that indirectly provide us with clean water. Do you think that we need to accept the consequences and allow wildfires to burn, or should we continue suppressing them and possibly create future problems?
This is a great question. I believe that we created a cycle were our greed hurt the environment, now fires are burning down people’s homes. Should we suppress the fires? I think we should do our best to help the people in our communities, as one last selfish action. The areas without homes that burned, there’s not much to do there but wait and hope they grows back. This time however, people need to understand that we have to respect that area, and that starts by being methodical on how we use our water supply.
Your article brings up a very important ethical concern when it comes to both human and environmental health. It is essential that we build our cities and the structures within them in a way that reflects the ecosystem around us. California, being prone to droughts and thus, fires, should have pipes and other essential infrastructures built out of materials which are compatible with the environment or any potential dangers associated with that environment.
Do you believe that there is a better, safer way in which we can build our water systems, in order to prevent future contamination such as this?
We’ve heard that Ancient Rome had one of the most complex water systems: their aqueducts made from clay and stone blocks worked. We have so many homes and places with people that need water that building a system out of clay might be difficult and not as efficient as the plastic pipes. I don’t have an exact answer for your question but what I can say is that it is time for scientist and environmentalists to join forces.
It’s crazy to see the chain reaction that happens from environmental problems like the drought. Fires happened as a result of the drought, and now water is contaminated. Do you know what materials people are thinking of replacing the plastic pipes with?
I do not know if the city is even thinking of replacing the plastic pipes because it would be a great cost, but it might be something they should consider doing to prevent a greater problem in the future.
When wildfires happen, people often neglect the less obvious issues that come with them such as water contamination. Is there a way we could we have prevented water contamination in this situation? If so, how?
Apart from the fires and the reaction that was caused, water contamination could have been prevented if we had pipes of a different material. I can’t exactly point out a different material that we could have used.
This is crazy to think about because these are things we really never hear about on the news. When you think about the fires in California, often you hear only how the fire is spreading, and the damage it has done. Something like this, the contamination of water, can really cause problems in the future, as problems like this are more long term. Do you think this contamination will cause major issue for people’s lives where the water contamination has occurred?
Thank you for your comment. To answer your question: No. I think the article mentions that in the end, the city only had to do some repairs on the pipes instead of replacing them and that the benzene levels lowered after some time. No major issue arose but people should keep in mind what did occur to prevent anything worse to happen.