Los Angeles Water Sustainability Problem - Research Paper

Introduction

Los Angeles has been reported to have water sustainability problems as evidenced through dismal grades in various categories of water supply and use. First, the latest environmental report card shows that there is a problem of water supply and consumption in the United States- with a grade of C+ (Federico, Youngdahl, Subramanian, Rauser, & Gold, 2019). This grade is attributed to the fact that up to sixty percent of water used in Los Angeles is from outside the county. Water used in this county is obtained from many miles away from Los Angeles County.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Water supply and consumption problem are more pronounced in the city of Los Angeles as 90 percent of its water is derived from outside the city. There are many disadvantages associated with importation far away from Los Angeles (Miura, 2019). For example, when Los Angeles imports water from far-flung areas, it increases the likelihood of water shortages in those regions. It has also been reported that water import into Los Angeles uses much energy and leaves where water is imported from highly susceptible to disasters such as earthquakes (Miura, 2019). It is also essential to emphasize that water consumption problem in Los Angeles is manifested by a 31% increase in water reuse in the county over ten years (2006-2016).

Los Angeles water sustainability problem is also manifested through the quality of drinking water- which has been graded as B+. It has been reported that even though every Los Angeles county resident has been supplied with clean drinking water, there is contamination of water by heavy metals such as lead as water flows via old pipes in residents' buildings.

Miura (2019) further noted that Los Angeles water problems are further exacerbated by aging infrastructure. Poston and Stevens (2015) noted that 20% of the Los Angeles city water infrastructure was installed before 1931 and all of them will be rendered unfit for use in about fifteen years. The old delipidated water infrastructure is linked to 50% of Los Angeles waster leakages, and their replacement will cost the city about $1 billion (Poston & Stevens, 2015). Currently, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is planning to replace 435 miles of old and rusty water infrastructure within the next ten years. The estimated cost of this project is $1.35 billion. Because of the high cost of the project, the biggest question is how the Department of Water and Power will get the funds and how the costs associated with inconvenience to commuters will be catered. Additionally, even though the Department of Water and Power plan to replace the infrastructure, there is less likely that the repair works will catch up with the county's rapidly deteriorating infrastructure (Poston & Stevens, 2015).

It has been estimated that if the Department of Water and Power is to accomplish its goal of replacing water pipes by 2025, there is a need for a two-fold increase in the number of pipe miles replaced per year and three-fold increase in its annual budget. It is less likely that Los Angeles will attain this goal because the high cost of the infrastructure must be funded by the consumers such as indirectly through increased water rates- which may prove challenging to effect because of it requires political will and support from political leaders. Poston and Stevens (2015) reported that as leaders and water officials discuss rate increases, water infrastructure worsens as manifested through leaks leading to spillage of water in the city streets despite the worsening water shortages; especially during droughts. Los Angeles water sustainability problems are also attributable to old engineering techniques which have been associated with an increased likelihood of pipe failures. Current water infrastructure is primarily comprised of cast iron pipes which are vulnerable to rusting from inside out, leading to leakages.

Another water sustainability issue that is currently facing Los Angeles is groundwater solution- which has recently received grade C- (minus) based on a recent environmental report card (Miura, 2019). It has been noted that even though the county has substantial groundwater resources, such water sources are threatened by pollution. Similarly, even though coastal aquifers could be alternative water sources, there is an increasing threat linked to seawater intrusion. Lin and Krishnakumar (2015) reported that contamination of wells is a rising problem in Los Angeles County. Even though there are less-polluted wells that are currently being used, they have been found to have contaminated water that requires expensive purification process for it to become safe for domestic use. Moreover, contamination of aquifers has been linked to dirty runoff and industrial flows. Even though the purification of contaminated underground water is costly, it is less expensive than reliance on increasingly costly imported water (Lin & Krishnakumar, 2015).

Industrial pollution is a significant issue that affected groundwater in Los Angeles. A recent study has shown that 40% of Los Angeles County groundwater wells that are currently used by most households have high contamination levels that make them unsuitable for drinking (Huttinger, Miro, & Marlier, 2019). Groundwater pollution has been linked to hazardous chemicals and industrial solvents that require millions of dollars to treat. It has also been reported that over 120 wells in Los Angeles County have harmful concentrations of volatile organic compounds that cause cancer- particularly perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene.

These chemicals pose significant health problems to pregnant women and their children as manifested through birth-related and cognitive defects. Additionally, prolonged exposure to these carcinogenic compounds has been found to impairment of the immune system, liver problems, and cancer. Contamination of groundwater within Los Angeles County is further aggravated by inconsistencies in the monitoring of the contaminants (Huttinger et al., 2019). This is a significant problem for groundwater because pollutants do not stick to one place. Instead, the recharge of aquifers through stormwater inflows causes movement of pollutants in aquifers, thus making them challenging to predict.

Apart from groundwater contamination, the quality of surface water has also been reported to be wanting (Miura, 2019). This is because most of the Los Angeles County water bodies are contaminated, making them unsafe for domestic use such as drinking and recreation as well as for aquatic life.

Potential Solutions to Los Angeles County Water Sustainability Problems

One of the solutions to Los Angeles water sustainability issues is an overhaul of water infrastructure. The need for replacement of the County's water pipes is attributed to the fact that they were put in place several decades ago; hence, they have become old. It is also worth noting that these pipes were laid using old engineering techniques. Because of old age, most of the pipes have started to leak, leading to loss of water and millions of dollars in waste. The need to urgently fix the water infrastructure is supported by recent data showing that water main leaks and breaks take place at least three times per day in Los Angeles City alone (Los Angeles Times, 2014). Additionally, approximately fifteen leaks per 100 miles have been recorded. The need to replace the pipes is also attributable to the fact water leakages have other adverse effects on the County's infrastructure other than loss of water and revenue. For instance, water leaks have been reported to damage asphalt or pavement.

To appreciate the need for an urgent replacement of Los Angeles County water pipes, there is a need to know the extent of damage to the pipes. It has been reported that 40% of Los Angeles water pipes need to be urgently replaced as they are not suitable for use (LA Times, 2014). Specifically, it has been established that out of the Los Angeles city's 275,000 pipes, more than 118,000 are likely to fail or break thus leading to water leaks and damage to other infrastructure such as roads and pathways (LA Times, 2014). The need to fix the water pipes is also linked to the fact that Los Angeles experiences droughts more often- thus putting pressure on the County's water shortage problems. The new information regarding the County's delipidated water infrastructure comes at a time when there is a need for water conservation attributed to drought. Consequently, the replacement of water infrastructure should be hastened.

The second solution to the Los Angeles County water sustainability issue is water rates increases. The water rate increase will enable the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to obtain funds needed to replace the infrastructure. It is worth noting that incremental rate increases will make water cheap in the long run. This is because the extra money collected will be used to fund projects that will enable the County to stop the importation of water from neighboring counties. Additionally, it is crucial to state that Los Angeles County cannot continue to rely on water imported from Colorado River because it is projected that over the next ten years there is a high likelihood of long-term droughts in the Southwest. Consequently, any increase in water rates will go towards ensuring that the County achieves water sustainability in the future.

Another solution to Los Angeles County water sustainability issues is an investment in more treatment plants. The County should invest in the treatment of groundwater rather than importing water from River Colorado at a very high cost. There is a need to understand history related to groundwater contamination and why it can be a solution to the Los Angeles County water problem. Decades ago, industrialization led to the contamination of the County's groundwater as industrial pollutants and effluents percolated and reached the aquifers. Consequently, the County's water officials declared water from contaminated wells should no longer be used- prompting the current water shortage and associated high cost. As a result, Los Angeles County started importing water from Colorado River and Northern California. However, this has not helped to solve the County's water crisis as water has become scarcer and more expensive- hence the need to establish plants to treat the groundwater.

Economic and Social Benefits as Well as Pros/Cons

There are many social and economic benefits attributed to the implementation of the above solutions to water problems in Los Angeles County. One of the social benefits attributed to the availability of adequate supply of treated water following the implementation of the above solutions is decreased the prevalence of diseases attributable to contamination of water such as congenital disabilities and cancers. Economic benefits that will be seen in the short-term is the decreased cost of living. There is a high likelihood that the cost of living will come down as water rates will drop because there will be no need of importing water from Colorado River and Northern California. Instead, the County will use its water sources- especially groundwater- to meet consumer water demands. Consequently, it can be said that the pros associated with new water infrastructure and the establishment of water treatment plants include a decreased prevalence of contaminated water-related diseases and improved standards of living.

Even though the implementation of the above solutions will be beneficial in the long-term, the short-term consequences will be disadvantageous to the consumers. For instance, one of the cons is increased water rates. There is a high likelihood of increasing the water rates to fund the water infrastructure, e.g., pipes and water treatment plants. Apart from incr...