Read more from The Greater Good Edition.

Maanas Sharma is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of JIPP. He is also the captain and research lead of the policy debate team at the School of Science and Engineering in Dallas and a nationally competitive mathematician. At his core, Maanas is passionate about transdisciplinary policy and bringing historical and social-scientific understandings to quantitative policy solutions. 

Health standards, or the lack thereof, in the United States’s prison system incite constant scrutiny from both legislators and community stakeholders. Even in places where standards do exist, they lack adequate enforcement mechanisms, leading to a cycle of neglect and squalor. 

This can be seen particularly in the context of water quality. Driven by cost-effectiveness, contracts go to the lowest bidder. Thus, prisons are built at the lowest cost possible and not maintained, leading to plumbing damage and a lack of repair exacerbate the issue. Additionally, there have been flaws in the quality of the water being received, not just systemic maintenance. A 2020 Columbia University study found that the, “average arsenic concentrations in drinking water in Southwestern United States correctional facilities were twice as high as average arsenic concentrations in other drinking water systems in the Southwest. More than a quarter of correctional facilities in the Southwest reported average arsenic levels exceeding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 10 μg/L maximum contaminant level.” 

The Greater Good Initiative proposes the following set of measures to be enacted by all states through their own individual legislatures, particularly those with an existing record of low water quality and inmate health. Since significant problems in water quality occur in prisons run by state governments, this issue requires state-level response. Additionally, clear instructions and guidelines from the state will ensure that local county prisons ensure quality water as well. Currently, local county prison water quality enforcement is left to county inspectors, causing disparities between various prisons in terms of their water quality. The Greater Good Initiative believes in using guidelines to effectively build on past legislation, such as the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act. This act is a federal law focused on drinking water from both ground and underground sources. This existing standard, in combination with our proposed guidelines, is essential for creating sustainable change, mediating any budgetary concerns, and achieving better prison sanitation overall. 

Namely, to achieve water quality reform for inmates, GGI proposes a four-pronged solution for states:

• First, reaffirm the importance of clean water access for all people, including those in prison. The state’s reaffirmation will signal to the community that this issue is of priority and is supported by the state’s governmental resources. 

• Second, establish an independent regulatory and advisory board for each state to ensure compliance to standards. This board, established outside of the current Department of Corrections, will be a more reliable source of information for stakeholders and will ensure that any water-quality reports reflect accurate and up-to-date information.

• Third, reassess compliance schedules in regards to state-mandated water standards. According to the EPA, prison systems below standards are currently given a wide range of schedules for improvement, which has led to delayed change, or, far too often, no meaningful difference. To correct this, the established independent regulatory boards will issue a timetable for progress to be made alongside its report on water quality at a particular prison. This system will ensure that all parties are in agreement for what needs to be done and when it needs to be done.

• Fourth, to address disparities between various prisons in terms of their water quality, an annual report reflecting the performance of the regulatory board should be published to better monitor performance and improve enforcement. This report will help to quantify the progress and usefulness of this body. 

Methods to help prisons pursue clean water efforts would be needed for those jurisdictions that struggle with funding. Increased funding for purchasing bottled water would also be needed in order to provide alternatives to prisons unable to provide clean tap water. The need for such funding may be a barrier to this policy. However, the effects of inaction are great. The current standards for water quality in prisons are harmful and unsustainable. As a result, inmates suffer from gastrointestinal problems, breathing issues, and rashes. Without these guidelines that specifically target the prison population, water quality and sanitation will continue to decline and impact more people. In addition, lower water quality and overall poor sanitation efforts have been linked with environmental degradation, affecting water tables, local rivers, and the water supplies of communities. Without action, prisoners and the outside community of citizens will suffer. Without action, prisoners will continue to suffer from contaminated water. Thus, waterborne illnesses will spread, along with an increased risk of cancer and other health problems. In turn, this will also put a strain on taxpayer money and the state budget, as the government will have to pay for treating people for these complex diseases. For the health of our prisoners, it is imperative that water quality be addressed. Whether incarcerated or not, every human deserves access to clean and safe water.

References available in full pdf.