Water Pollution: Who's Responsible And How To Stop Them?

Water pollution is a pressing issue, with companies being major contributors to the problem. Despite ethical, financial, and legal obligations, many businesses continue to pollute water sources and avoid taking responsibility for their actions. This has led to environmental degradation, disrupted food chains, and even health issues for nearby residents. While some companies are taking steps to address their impact on water systems, such as investing in anti-pollution technologies, others are falling short, with taxpayers often left to foot the bill for clean-up costs. This issue is particularly prevalent in the mining and chemical industries, where toxic substances are released into nearby waterways, causing long-term damage to the environment and communities that rely on these water sources.

Lack of regulation and enforcement

A lack of regulation and enforcement allows companies to get away with polluting water. Water-related risks could cost companies up to $425 billion, yet only 12% of companies responding to the CDP's questionnaire set pollution reduction targets. Large industrial companies are significant contributors to water pollution and have ethical, financial, and legal obligations to manage water responsibly. However, companies often fall short of these obligations, as seen in the case of DuPont, which pumped dangerous substances into the environment and went to great lengths to dodge responsibility.

In the US, an outdated and opaque regulatory system meant to ensure the restoration of water and land at mines often falls short, leaving regulators with insufficient funding to clean up the mess left by now-defunct companies. Taxpayers are left to shoulder the billions of dollars in treatment costs. For example, the state spends up to $2 million annually to contain water pollution at the Zortman-Landusky mine, in addition to the cleanup costs already incurred.

Additionally, companies take advantage of loopholes in legislation. For instance, in December 2017, the EPA reversed the Obama administration's attempts to mandate a separate source of mine cleanup funds. This allows companies to further shirk their responsibilities in addressing water pollution.

The private sector is withdrawing and polluting more water than ever, and bolder action is needed to protect water sources. Governments must step up and ensure that companies are held accountable for their environmental impact. This includes setting and enforcing stricter regulations and standards for water consumption, withdrawals, and pollution.

Furthermore, companies must also take voluntary action to reduce their negative impact on water. This can include reducing water withdrawals and consumption in their direct operations and throughout their value chain, as well as treating water discharged into the environment and designing products and services that minimize pollution. By advocating for sound environmental policies and regulations, companies can play a crucial role in protecting freshwater sources.

Companies not taking responsibility

Water pollution is a pressing issue, and companies are significant contributors to the problem. Large industrial companies, in particular, have ethical, financial, and legal obligations to manage water responsibly. However, many companies are failing to take responsibility for their actions and address the negative impact they have on water sources.

A notable example is the case of DuPont and its offspring, Chemours. Despite conducting internal tests that confirmed the toxicity of GenX, a chemical compound, DuPont dismissed the findings and continued to dump toxic waste into the water supply of North Carolina. The company even misrepresented its actions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, claiming that GenX was sent to an off-site incinerator, which was later proven false. As a result, DuPont and Chemours endangered the health, safety, and property of thousands of North Carolina citizens, with potentially unsafe levels of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) found in the groundwater near the Chemours factory.

Another example is the pollution caused by gold, copper, and other hardrock mines in the drought-prone West. Inadequate regulation and funding have led to waterways being contaminated by pollution seeping from these mines. In some cases, companies have underestimated the cost of reclamation, and taxpayers have been left to shoulder the bill for cleanup. For instance, the state of Montana spends up to $2 million annually to contain water pollution at the Zortman-Landusky mine, in addition to the already substantial cleanup costs.

Additionally, fast fashion brands are often criticized for their unsustainable business models, flooding the market with cheap, trendy clothing at an unsustainable rate and causing significant environmental and social harm. While some companies attempt to greenwash their image, their fundamental practices remain incompatible with true sustainability.

Furthermore, large corporations such as Coke, PepsiCo, and Nestle contribute to the plastic crisis by continuing to sell plastic drink containers and packaging that consumers have no choice but to throw away. These companies have the opportunity to be part of the solution but instead remain a part of the problem.

To address water pollution effectively, companies must step up and take voluntary action to support environmental policies and address water issues within their operations. They should reduce their water withdrawals and consumption and work towards eliminating pollution incidents and designing pollution out of their products and services.

Insufficient funding for clean-up

In the case of gold, copper, and other hardrock mines, regulators are often tasked with cleaning up the environmental mess left behind by now-defunct companies. However, the funds set aside for reclamation and cleanup are often insufficient to cover the actual costs, leaving taxpayers to shoulder the burden. For example, the Zortman-Landusky mine near the Fort Belknap reservation has incurred ongoing cleanup costs, with the state spending up to $2 million annually to contain water pollution at the site.

The lack of adequate funding for clean-up operations has resulted in prolonged contamination of waterways. This is further exacerbated by the challenge of accurately estimating the financial requirements for remediation. Additionally, the regulatory landscape varies across states, with some states moving away from self-assurances and others, like New Mexico, considering legislation to close loopholes that contribute to insufficient funding.

While some companies are taking steps to address their environmental impact, such as investing in new anti-pollution technologies, the overall progress is slow. The private sector's withdrawal and pollution of water sources continue to pose a significant challenge. Large industrial companies have ethical, financial, and legal obligations to manage water resources responsibly. However, without sufficient funding allocated for cleanup efforts, the task of restoring and protecting water sources becomes increasingly difficult.

Furthermore, the impact of water pollution extends beyond the environmental sphere, affecting public health and well-being. The lack of access to clean water and the prevalence of water scarcity highlight the urgency of addressing water pollution. As water-related risks continue to pose threats to companies and communities, the allocation of adequate funding for cleanup operations becomes crucial in mitigating these risks and ensuring the availability of this precious resource.

Companies influencing policy

Companies have a significant impact on water pollution, and their influence on policy can be a critical factor in addressing this issue. While some businesses are taking steps to reduce their environmental footprint, many others are falling short, with a lack of awareness or action on water-related risks. This is evident in the small number of companies setting pollution reduction targets and the even smaller number taking concrete steps to achieve them.

One way companies influence policy is through their financial power and lobbying efforts. Large corporations have the resources to contribute significantly to political campaigns and influence policymakers, which can result in favourable regulations or a lack of enforcement of existing rules. For example, companies may lobby against stricter environmental standards or for tax breaks and subsidies that can indirectly encourage pollution. They may also use their economic influence to shape policies by threatening to relocate to areas with more favourable regulations, potentially resulting in a "race to the bottom" where jurisdictions compete by offering weaker environmental protections.

Industry groups and trade associations also play a role in shaping water-related policies. These organisations often have close ties to government agencies and can influence legislation and regulatory decisions. They may provide funding for political campaigns or contribute to policy development, promoting self-regulation or voluntary initiatives instead of more stringent mandatory standards. In some cases, companies may also influence the enforcement of policies by contributing to regulatory capture, where the agencies tasked with oversight become dependent on or closely aligned with the industries they are supposed to regulate.

Additionally, companies can shape public perception and influence policy outcomes by funding research and disseminating information (or misinformation) about water pollution and potential solutions. They may sponsor studies or partner with researchers to produce favourable findings, which can then be used to shape public opinion and influence policymakers. This can lead to a delay in addressing water pollution issues or the implementation of ineffective policies. Furthermore, companies can also influence policies by shaping the public narrative around water pollution, such as by emphasising individual responsibility over corporate accountability or promoting technological solutions without addressing systemic issues.

Finally, companies can influence policies by engaging in strategic litigation or using legal tactics to delay or avoid accountability. They may challenge regulations or permits in court, exploiting legal loopholes or arguing that the rules are too burdensome or unclear. In some cases, companies may also use legal strategies to shift blame or avoid taking responsibility for their actions, such as by disputing the scientific evidence or claiming that the pollution is not their fault.

Companies not prioritising environmental concerns

While some companies are stepping up to address water pollution, many are still falling short when it comes to prioritising environmental concerns. This is evident in the case of water pollution, where companies have contributed significantly to the degradation of water sources. In the US, for example, the private sector is withdrawing and polluting more water than ever, with large industrial companies being major contributors to the problem. These companies often fall short of their ethical, financial, and legal obligations to manage water resources responsibly.

One notable example of companies not prioritising environmental concerns is the case of DuPont and its offspring, Chemours. The chemical company has gone to great lengths to dodge responsibility for pumping dangerous substances into the environment. Despite investing in new anti-pollution technologies, Chemours was fined $300,000 by the state of North Carolina for exceeding limits on the emission of harmful chemicals. This incident highlights the need for stricter regulations and enforcement to hold companies accountable for their environmental impact.

Another issue is the lack of transparency and greenwashing in some companies' sustainability initiatives. For instance, Nestlé's sustainability initiative to improve cocoa farming had little measurable impact, raising concerns about transparency. Similarly, fashion giant Shein faced investigations for greenwashing over its "evoluShein" collection, with allegations of misleading sustainability claims. This highlights the importance of companies being transparent about their sustainability efforts and ensuring that their initiatives have concrete results.

Additionally, some companies face challenges in balancing their business models with environmental sustainability. For example, Ikea, the European furniture retailer, is the largest consumer of wood in the world, accounting for 1% of global wood consumption. While the company is working towards sourcing wood sustainably, it is a difficult transition, and Ikea still produces furniture with a short life expectancy. This demonstrates the complexities of incorporating environmental considerations into business practices without compromising profitability.

Furthermore, regulatory systems meant to ensure the restoration of water and land affected by industries such as mining often fall short due to outdated and opaque practices. In some cases, companies have underestimated or lobbied for lower estimates of the financial resources required for reclamation, leaving taxpayers to shoulder the burden of cleanup costs. This highlights the need for stronger regulatory frameworks and adequate funding to hold companies accountable for their environmental impacts.

Frequently asked questions