Milwaukee: The Great Land

Milwaukee, Wisconsin has notoriously been known as one of the most segregated cities in the United States; however, it remains a community rich with racial and cultural diversity. Originally inhabited by Algonkian Indians before French settlers spread throughout the Midwest, Milwaukee was a port city, located approximately seventy miles north of Chicago and situated on the western banks of Lake Michigan. It quickly became industrialized as it was settled by immigrants from all sorts of backgrounds. Milwaukee still celebrates its diverse heritage by hosting festivals every weekend of the summer, commemorating the many national identities that influenced the development of this city.

The history of Milwaukee evolved not only from the heritage of its citizens of European ancestry, but also that of racial minorities. As of 2004, the United States Census Bureau listed Milwaukee to be inhabited by 26.1% Blacks or African-Americans, 10.7% Hispanics or Latinos, and 3.1% Asians, making Milwaukee’s racial make up 39.9% minorities and 62.5% white. (US Census) Throughout the cit, the minorities inhabit distinct areas. The racial and social class divisions between minorities and white neighborhoods are apparent to anyone who drives through the city. For the most part, people classified as a racial minority occupy the low income residential areas, which also usually yield the lowest property value. For students at Marquette University whose location separates poor African-American neighborhoods from poor Hispanic neighborhoods, the segregation is obvious.

In the year 1999, the average household size for an African-American family in Milwaukee was three people and the average income was $24,920. There were 72,794 African-Americans listed under the poverty level and the average property value for African-American owned homes was $56,800. On the other hand, with an average household size of two people, the average income for a white household was $42,504. Only 45,503 white Milwaukee residents were listed as under the poverty level. The average property value of white owner-occupants is $110,500. (US Census) According to the above numbers, an African-American resident would have to live off of approximately $8,306 per year while a white resident would have approximately $21,252 per year. The Civil Rights Act was instated in 1964. Why does there continue to be such racial disparity?

In his 1996 article The Heart of Racism, J.L.A. Garcia defines racism as “a vicious kind of racially based disregard for the welfare of certain people” (Garcia 6). He does not ask his readers to renounce the term “race,” as philosophers such as W.E.B. DuBois have done in the past. Instead, he asserts that even if race is not real, “what we call racism could still be real” (Garcia 7). Racism can affect both the individual and the institution. “Institutional racism begins when racism extends from the hearts of individual people to become institutionalized. What matters is that racist attitudes contaminate the operation of the institution; it is irrelevant what its original point may have been, what its designers meant it to do” (Garcia 10). Minorities nation-wide continue to feel the wrath of racism both by individuals and by institutions of all kinds.

john a. powell of the Institute on Race and Poverty at the University of Minnesota discusses a type of racism which makes possible racial intentions of the past to continue, whether directly or indirectly. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and afterwards, although illegally), neighborhoods were segregated by race. This process was commonly known as “redlining.” For instance, minorities would not be given the same opportunities as whites in terms of real estate and banking. This forced minorities to purchase property in only specific areas, reinforcing segregation. “Racially neutral policies fail to correct for past racism. For example, explicitly racist governmental home mortgage policies of the past contribute to current disparities, such as in the amount of wealth held by people of color and whites” (powell). The neighborhood in which a property is located is a determining factor in its property value. County property taxes are the sole contributor to local community schools. Thus, the more an area property is valued, the more funding the local schools get from their district. This vicious cycle, powell contends, effects many metropolitan areas to this day. He titles this phenomenon “spatial racism.” (powell)

Another recent term, “environmental racism” is sometimes used in regard to spatial racism. It is called “environmental racism.” This term encompasses a number of instances including, but not limited to, the unequal distribution of natural resources which promote good health or the unequal distribution of environmental hazards. Although toxic waste and landfills have to be placed somewhere, they are often placed in areas with the lowest property value. This is so for a number of reasons, including corporate costs. It is problematic for minorities, as they make up a large percent of low-income neighborhoods. It is uncertain whether minorities were forced to live in areas with higher levels of environmental and health risks or if the causes of these risks were located in minority neighborhoods after the fact because it appeared to be the most cost efficient at the time. Regardless, the placement of new environmental hazards, such as landfills or incinerators, and the removal of those ongoing, such as toxin exposures and abandoned gas stations, cannot be unequally distributed through minority neighborhoods without the question arising as to whether environmental racism is at work. Major metropolitan areas throughout the United States include portions of depressed areas, the majority populated by minorities. There seems to be some sort of correlation.

In an attempt to end environmental racism, in February of 1994, President Clinton signed an Executive Order, stipulating the promotion of equal distribution by federal agencies. “Each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations…” (Clinton). Even so, unequal distribution of resources and hazards continues throughout the country.

The purpose of this contributive report is to examine symptoms and causes of environmental injustice in the Milwaukee area. We will do so by comparing the distribution of environmental resources and hazards in relation to neighborhood demographics. We will touch upon E. coli levels in public beaches, community exposure to toxins, lead poisoning, asbestos outbreaks in public schools, toxin levels in fish, areas affected by noise pollution, and abandoned gas stations. We will also examine a case study from West Allis, Wisconsin, discuss the implications of a development plan in an attempt to end urban sprawl, and compare the county parks in relation to their location, followed by an appendix dealing with an ethical analysis of our findings. In doing so, we will establish whether or not we believe there is a case for saying that environmental racism exists in Milwaukee.

E coli and Milwaukee County Beaches:

A Case Study in Environmental Injustice

By Thomas Jensen

Background:

For decades now, Milwaukee County has been monitoring beach water quality for Escherichia coli also known as E coli. E coli monitoring is an effective tool in determining the risk for gastrointestinal disease in water recreational users in freshwater systems. EPA studies have determined that a level of 235 cfu/100ml of water (cfu: colony forming units), results in about eight cases of gastrointestinal illness per 1000 water recreational users.[1] The EPA’s recent funding through its program, Environmental Monitoring for Public Access for Community Tracking (EMPACT), has allowed the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to enhance these studies with full participation between state and local environmental and health agencies, which began in 2003.[2] Using this information, agencies will be able to warn beach goers through sign posting and website posting on the current health of the county beaches as well as beach closings. Agencies will also be able to work together in the event of enteric disease outbreaks to determine likely sources and act properly to ensure safety at beaches.

In 2005, the DNR reported disturbing news about Milwaukee County Beach Health in its Annual Report Beach Season 2005.[3] A graph indicates Milwaukee County Beaches continue to lead the way in number of beach closures across the state:

Although down compared to 2004, Milwaukee County beach closures were greater in 2005 than 2003 as indicated in this graph:[4]

Hence, it is important for the County to assess likely sources of the E coli and ways to prevent its entry and contamination of County beaches. Recent studies have been done, which attempt to identify these sources.

E coli Sources:

It is thought that there were four potential sources for E coli contamination of local beaches: water fowl, algae, sewage overflow, and rain runoff directly into the lake. Each source will now be examined.

Water Fowl:

It is thought that water fowl such as sea gulls contribute to levels of beach water E coli through fecal matter. It is known that sea gull fecal matter alone contains 368,000,00 cfu/1 gram. It is possible that beaches that contain large numbers of zebra mussels attract large numbers of water fowl that feed upon them.

Yet in a phone interview, Toni Glymph, Wisconsin Beach Program Manager, mentioned that EPA studies have found that a relatively small amount of water fowl bird E coli levels is pathologic to humans (few of 0 type 157 H type 7 strain). It only represents a low risk to beach goers. Also, water fowl are not as big an issue in Milwaukee County as compared to Door County. In summary, sea gulls and other water fowl contribute to levels of E coli, but they are not a major source or concern pathogenically speaking.

Algae:

The algae, Cladophora, has been indicated as a possible cause of high levels of E coli at beaches. A study done by Erika Jensen of the Great Lakes Water Institute and UW Milwaukee, found that E coli was found to be in high levels in Cladophora mats along Milwaukee County beaches.[5] This was only true though for decaying mats of the algae. Fresh algae contained little or no E coli when tested.

It was later determined that these decaying mats offered an ideal environment for E coli to grow and replicate while protecting E coli from harsh elements that would typically lead to death of the bacterium after a couple days. The algae essentially allows for E coli to survive and develop, but is not the source of E coli.

Cladophora is a naturally occurring in Lake Michigan and during the 60’s and 70’s saw large blooms due to high levels of phosphorous from fertilizers and other sources contaminating lake water. Restrictions had lead to decreases, but it has recently risen unexpectedly.

Sewage Overflow:

Sewage overflow during intense storms has lead to a great fear among residents about the relationship of sewage contamination and local beach E coli levels. Human pathogenic E coli is found in greater abundance in human sewage. Overflow occurs when the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer District releases sewage into rivers and streams. According to Mike Richie of MMSD this is due to the structure of the current sewer system, which contains a common sewer/rain runoff system that is treated at Jones Island Waste Water Treatment Plant. During heavy storms, runoff from Milwaukee and Shorewood arrive in the Deep Tunnel (major tunnel), but only represents a small percentage from separate sewers that will have rain runoff arrive later on in the Deep Tunnel. Since it is known that water from Milwaukee and Shorewood is less pathogenic than the other sewer sources, the MMSD will allow sewage overflow of this water if the Deep Tunnel reaches greater than fifty percent capacity. This prevents overflow from more pathogenic sources.

Yet in an interview another member of MMSD, Chuck Bernie, stated that sewage overflow is not the predominant cause of high E coli levels at the beach. Essentially, sewage overflow goes out deep into the harbor, but is not found to wash up on shore. In fact, as one goes farther out, according to Mr. Bernie, ten meters from shore, all water samples will pass EPA standards.

Rain Runoff:

The other source thought to be contaminating local beaches is rain runoff during storms that directly flows into the Lake. It is thought that areas that have poor vegetation between streets by the beach and the beach itself are more likely to have water flow into the lake itself, carrying contagions from the street along with other pollutants and trash.

According to Chuck Bernie, this is thought to be the major source of E coli at the beaches according to research done by the Great Lakes WATER Institute at Bradford Beach. From this research, projects will be developed that will help divert or trap the flow of water to prevent it from entering Lake Michigan. These projects will be discussed later in this paper.

Milwaukee County Beaches:

In order to look at the possibility of environmental injustice in the case of E coli levels at local beaches, it is necessary to look at E coli readings for various beaches, the demographics of beach goers, and efforts being done to lower levels of E coli. First, we look at a thirty-day period during the beach season. The following data is for monitoring of local beaches during May 23^rd to June 21^st, 2005.

South Shore Rocky		South Shore	McKinley	Watercraft	Bradford N	Bradford S
Day	E coli (cfu's/100ml)
1	20	54	29	12	11	12
2	10	46	387	23	11	15
3	2	21	16	5	4	2
4	6	30	3	10	61	73
5 (.13)	15	21	9	50	19	60
6	120	68	119	15	29	39
7	127	117	82	291	40	29
8	186	79	54	517	410	517
9	14	86	30	461	64	157
10	12	110	27	120	40	365
11	71	67	1203	34	186	488
12	24	108	193	90	2419	980
13	27	1120	687	186	687	548
14 (.28)	2420	727	416	1046	2419	1733
15	156	410	71	17	23	23
16 (.93)	548	579	5	6	28	19
17	71	687	69	13	72	56
18	108	113	2	1	18	12
19	83	214	214	10	326	209
20	79	225	2420	23	88	77
21	388	1300	365	52	74	83
22	194	2420	81	5	74	30
23	140	140	201	816	39	73
24	64	93	147	7	12	26
25	190	727	36	119	39	10
26	69	488	17	7	66	48
27	123	89	411	17	158	178
28	49	55	39	7	156	291
29	248	187	179	7		2419
30	16	31	102	4	99	20

Other beaches such as Bay View and Grant were not included since data was taken infrequently and there were few beach closures due to levels of 235cfu/100ml or more. Bold numbers represent infractions and the red represent days in which there was more than .10 inch of rain (amount of rain in parenthesis). All six beaches had infractions on the day it rained .28 inches. This appears to support the claim that a major source of E coli, but that does not explain the reasons for other infractions nor the fact that there were only two infractions when it rained .93 inches. One issue also at work is the fact that, as Ms. Glymph stated, monitors can have faulty readings on warm days in stagnant water leading to high, but inaccurate readings. Days where multiple infractions might suggest more accurate readings, but again, the fac