Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Cleaning up the Poop-Polluted Seine for the Paris Olympics

News Feed
Friday, July 19, 2024

Rachel Feltman: One week from today the 2024 Olympics in Paris will begin with a parade—not in a stadium but on a river. Thousands of athletes from more than 200 territories will float on boats down the Seine. City officials and event organizers have placed a big bet on this beloved river: that the infamously polluted waters will be safe for Olympic swimmers to compete in.But their efforts have been met with—well, we’ll say skepticism, to say the least. Back in June, when the mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, was set to swim in the Seine to show her confidence in the cleanup efforts, a trending hashtag encouraged folks to poop in the river in—protest? Unclear. Hidalgo did successfully take a dip this past Wednesday and gave the experience rave reviews.[CLIP: Cheering and clapping]On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.Feltman: But that doesn’t mean the Olympic events will go quite as swimmingly. You know what they say about stepping into the same river twice: those things are always changing and always flowing. And the Seine’s bacterial levels are still fluctuating from day to day.For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Today I’m joined by associate news editor Allison Parshall, who investigated this high-profile cleanup attempt for us.So, Allison tell me: Are Olympians going to swim in the river or not?Allison Parshall: I would love to be able to tell you—I would peer into my crystal ball—but I think until there are bodies in the water, I’m not going to be able to say one way or the other [laughs]. And that’s mostly because they’ve basically done all that they can at this point from the perspective of, you know, cleaning up the river. The main problem right now is bacteria, and some of the things that could cause bacteria levels to be higher are kind of just at the whims of the weather: It’s if it’s too rainy, bacteria counts can be too high. If it’s not sunny enough, because sun can kill the bacteria—the bacteria counts can be too high.So throughout June, basically, the bacteria counts were much higher than, I think, anyone expected or wanted. And that’s because the—Western Europe, in general, had an unseasonably wet summer, at least in the beginning.So basically, after a very wet June, the organizers, who had been very proudly saying, “There is no backup plan. We’re all in on this end. There is no backup plan. There’s no plan B,” announced a backup plan.So the backup plan for the marathon swimming events, at least, which is one of the ones that would be in the Seine, is this nautical stadium outside of the city. It’s this very fancy facility inaugurated in 2019. It’s already hosting the Olympic and Paralympic canoe, kayak and rowing events, so there’s that.Feltman: Yeah, well, it’s good that they have that backup.From above, this facility definitely looks like that kind of freaky ocean arena from The Hunger Games, but ...Parshall: Hate it.Feltman: [Laughs] I’m, I’m sure it’s lovely, though. I’m sure it’s a lovely place to be and definitely better than a river full of poop, in any case.Parshall: It’s probably hard not to be better than a river full of poop.Feltman: [Laughs]Parshall: But basically this nautical stadium, it’s already hosting those boating events, but the triathlon wouldn’t be able to be relocated there—so that’s the other event that would be swimming in the Seine. So that they would just have to postpone that and hope the bacteria levels go down. Or if they don’t, it could just get downgraded from a triathlon to a duathlon, which I feel like is a different sport.Feltman: Yeah, I think if I had trained for years to specifically be in the triathlon in the Olympics, and swimming got cut, and that was, like, my main strength, I’d be pretty ticked off. It makes you wonder why Paris, like, took such a chance on the Seine in the first place.Parshall: This river is such an important part of their city’s history and culture, and they’ve been trying to clean it for a long time, and so it might be one of the only cities right now where we’re seeing them place such a big bet in the international spotlight on being able to clean this up, especially when it’s kind of at the whims of the weather.But they’re definitely not the only city facing this problem with its urban waterways. Industrialized cities across the world are reaching this kind of new phase of their river cleanup, at least for these rivers that were once so polluted by industry. And it’s possible that after, you know, decades, centuries of being very unsightly waste dumps, we might get to swim in a lot of urban waterways again.So I’ve got kind of, like, a personal touchstone with this. I grew up in Ohio. My Seine, as I like to say, was the Cuyahoga River ...Feltman: Oh, wow.Parshall: Have you heard of the Cuyahoga River?Feltman: I have in the context of it being, like, a river so gross that it inspired us to create the Environmental Protection Agency [laughs], which is ...Parshall: [Laughs] Yeah, when I was a kid ...Feltman: Such a legacy.Parshall: When I was a kid it was just, like, the place that we would go as a family on the weekends. We would walk and bike the towpath, and then there was this farmers’ market where we would get ice cream and corn on the cob; it was very Ohio. But I didn’t realize until I grew up that most of the people like you that knew of the Cuyahoga knew of it because they’d seen pictures of it on fire—like, the surface of the river burning, or at least ...Feltman: Yeah, yeah.Parshall: The industrial waste ...Feltman: It’s striking [laughs].Parshall: Yeah, yeah—that picture in particular. There’s this one particular photo, and it shows these firefighters spewing water onto the surface of the river to, you know, try to put out the fire, and it looks so preposterous because a river’s not supposed to be on fire.So when I picture these urban waterways that have just been so polluted but have since been relatively cleaned up, I picture this infamous image of the Cuyahoga on fire and then what I know it as today, which is kind of a muddy, lazy river but definitely not on fire.And I actually talked to a hydrologist about this—her name’s Anne Jefferson. She researches urban waterways at the University of Vermont, but she spent 10 years of her career at Kent State University, studying the nearby Cuyahoga.Anne Jefferson: The Cuyahoga River didn’t just catch fire once; it caught fire [a] dozen-plus times. It was oil. It was paint byproducts. It was all sorts of industrial byproducts. It—also sewage—the sewage is not the part that’s gonna catch fire, but it’s, you know, if you fell into the Cuyahoga, or if you fell into the Thames in London, the advice was that you take yourself to the hospital immediately.Parshall: I can’t say that I really want to swim in the Cuyahoga River, even these days—like, it generally looks pretty muddy—but it’s no longer a flaming health hazard, so there’s that. And its misfortunes really helped galvanize support for new regulation: that’s the Clean Water Act of ’72.Paris’s river may not have caught fire, but it kind of has a similar story, as do many other urban rivers. After the industrial revolution they just become this dumping ground that carries all of our waste, both of our bodies and of our factories, out and away from cities. And in Paris, this killed what was a really important part of the city’s culture at the time, which is bathing in the Seine.Feltman: That’s so wild. Like, I, I can know intellectually that before cities were super polluted, their rivers were nice places to be, but I still have trouble picturing people, like, you know, bathing in the Seine.Parshall: Yeah, I don’t know that this was all—the case with every industrialized city, but it was definitely the case with Paris. I mean, a lot of cities, you know, they kind of grew up around the industrial revolution. But with Paris there are several very famous paintings by Monet, Renoir, Seurat that depict these riverside scenes, and there’s these famous floating bathhouses that were filled with untreated water from the city—like, basically barges.And swimming in the river was largely banned in 1867. But that was just in the city, and then in the suburbs it was banned in 1923, but some people kept swimming in it. Like, Paris did hold the 1900 Olympics swimming events in the Seine. So this would be—if they do swim, it’ll be upholding this 124-year-old tradition. But by the 1960s the river was just well and truly disgusting, and it had been declared biologically dead.Feltman: I mean, first of all, continuing to swim in it—extremely French. Second of all, what does it, what does it actually mean for a river to be biologically dead?Parshall: Yeah, I asked Anne Jefferson that question because I also had never found a definition. She has never found a definition, so it might be kind of, like, an advocacy phrase.Feltman: A vibe.Parshall: People say it a lot—a vibe. It—basically it means, roughly, there’s no fish, or there’s no “desirable species,” quote, unquote ...Feltman: Fair enough.Parshall: But the bacteria, as undesirable as they may be—or some of them, at least—those were thriving, definitely, in the 1960s. And later—in ’85, I think, was the low point—it was measured—the Seine was measured to have 500,000 colony-forming units of E. coli per 100 milliliters of water. That’s, like, 500 times the current European standard for bathing.Yeah, we’re—I mean, I’m picturing sludge. I imagine it would not be sludge—like, it would still be water consistency—but I’m just picturing a lot of bacteria. But I have to say, the Cuyahoga, during a dry summer around the same time, I think in, like, ’82, the E. coli counts ranged up to 2 million. So not that it’s a competition, but I think we won—or lost.And I mean, it was only a few years later—so in 1988—that the mayor of Paris at the time, Jacques Chirac, he promised to swim in the Seine within three years’ time. Would you like to guess if he kept the promise?Feltman: [Laughs] I’m gonna guess he did not do that [laughs].Parshall: That is correct. He did not do that.Feltman: That just makes me think of the Mary-Kate and Ashley movie Passport to Paris. Do you remember the scene where they’re visiting their, I think, grandfather is, like, the French ambassador or something, and he’s trying to get the French to accept this, like, clean water proposal, and they’re like, “No! We don’t need your stinky, American, clean water.”Parshall: “No!”Feltman: Yeah. And then they surprise the, I guess, president or prime minister at a dinner party with a glass of tap water that’s untreated, and it’s like—it looks like chocolate milk. It’s, like, so disgusting. And I’m sure they took a lot of liberties with crafting the, the untreated Parisian water. But it was a real—I think I saw a TikTok recently that was like, “This full-on Erin Brockovich moment from Mary-Kate and Ashley.” Very formative for me [laughs].Parshall: I somehow missed this movie, but I think I absolutely would have loved it. And, like, I guess to be clear, the French government is not saying that the river needs to be clean enough to drink. That would be a whole other thing entirely.But the, the river is definitely in a better shape now than it was when, you know, Jacques Chirac promised to swim in it. Last summer, actually, the part where the Olympic races are supposed to start from, of the Seine, it was swimmable seven days out of 10, on average, so it’s not that bad. Like, like, people are making it sound like it’s literally, like, a flaming—you know, like the Cuyahoga or something. But in reality it, it’s more variable than that. And the fact that it’s possible at all for any, you know, somewhat safe swimming in rivers like the Seine right now is because of those regulations like the one from Mary-Kate and Ashley movie Passport to Paris or whatever. It’s because of those regulations that targeted the obvious and easy places where waste was being dumped into our water—so like the pipes just dumping industrial waste straight into the water. That’s what Jefferson called the “low-hanging fruit.”Jefferson: So once you’ve taken care of, like, the paint and the oil and stuff going into the river from the factories, what you’re left with is this harder problem that we call nonpoint source pollution. It’s the pollution that’s coming from a million different little places, right?In the air it’s the stuff coming out of the tailpipes of our cars. For water it’s stormwater runoff: it’s all the water coming off the rooftops and pavements, being carried by thousands of pipes, coming into every small stream, every river, you know, from every neighborhood.Parshall: So that stormwater that’s coming from all those pipes, it’s a problem because it’s carrying things like fertilizer, pesticides, bacteria—basically all sorts of stuff that you just don’t want in the water. And even worse, in many cities like Paris—also kind of, like, 60 percent of New York—when it enters stormwater drains, it gets funneled into the same pipes that carry the raw sewage to our wastewater plants, and when it rains too much, you get a bit of a backup.Jefferson: In order to keep this sewage-stormwater mix from backing up into people’s houses, you have what are called combined sewer overflows, so sort of like the safety pressure release valves on the system where now water is being diverted out of the sewage network and directly into streams, rivers and lakes. And this was one of those “it seemed like a good idea at the time” legacies that constrain what we do now.Parshall: And the reason it’s so constraining is because it’s so expensive to fix. Basically what you’d have to do is dig up all of those combined pipes and replace them with two sets: one for sewage, one for stormwater. And some cities like Minneapolis have tried to do that, but probably the more common option is to just find somewhere to store all of that mixed sewer-stormwater stuff until the treatment plant is ready to take care of it, so I reached out to Bruno Pigott, the acting assistant administrator for water at the EPA, and he mentioned some ways that cities are going about doing this.Bruno Pigott: In Indianapolis, for example, they put in a 28-mile tunnel [system] underground that captures all this combined sewage before it gets to a water body, stores it and then sends it to a wastewater treatment plant for cleanup.Parshall: So he actually told me a bit about this time that he got to visit the site of that project. He was working for the state of Indiana at the time, in, like, the 2010s. And this project is still under construction—and it cost $2 billion.Feltman: Wow.Pigott: I went down as they were building the tunnel and went into it—so the sewage that eventually will be in that tunnel was not, luckily, there when I was in it. But it looks very much like a tunnel that you would see in a subway. I mean, it’s that big. It’s tremendously large. You could drive a truck down this tunnel. It is, it’s so deep that it stores millions of gallons of sewage so that the treatment plants can actually treat it and send it out in a clean form back to the river.Parshall: So that’s not too different from Paris’ main solution ahead of the Olympic Games. They also just built this very big basin to hold all of that raw sewage-stormwater mix.Feltman: Oh, yeah ...Parshall: Yeah.Feltman: “The shove it all under the bed” method—tried and true [laughs].Parshall: [Laughs] Well, it’s more like “shove it under the bed, and then take a little bit out of it every day for the next few months until you can finally take care of it all” ...Feltman: Oh, great ...Parshall: So, yeah, yeah ...Feltman: That’s actually really nice.Parshall: So it’s not like—it’s not gonna sit in there forever. It’s actually kind of the logical solution because the whole problem in the first place is just the system does not have enough capacity to deal with all of this water. Their backup plan is dump it in rivers, which is not all that logical—it’s just, like Anne Jefferson said, seemed like a good idea at the time.This is probably just as logical of a solution, besides, you know, replacing all the pipes or scaling up the wastewater treatment’s capacity. But basically this basin, even though it sounds like it would be maybe the cheaper option, is still pretty expensive: they spent €90 million on it; that’s about $97 million. And that reservoir holds 50,000 cubic meters of liquid, so that is 20 Olympic-size swimming pools’ worth of raw sewage mélange that might otherwise get dumped into the river for the actual Olympic swimmers.Feltman: Incredible.Parshall: So that basin was completed in May, and bacteria levels in the water, which is the main concern for the swimming events, were still measuring too high throughout June, and that’s partially just because it’s been so unseasonably rainy, causing a lot more of those combined sewer overflows.For what it’s worth, the Olympics president said that he remains confident that the weather will be fine and the river will be fine come the end of July, so, you know, there’s that. But I did get to speak with someone who actually had the opportunity to swim in the Seine. Her name is Sibylle van der Walt. She’s the president of a clean water advocacy organization based in France.Sibylle van der Walt: It does mean a little bit of courage to, to, to swim in the Seine, firstly because the water is dark. It’s, it’s not transparent, and that is not a good sign.Feltman: How murky are we talking about here?Parshall: She told me that she couldn’t see much further down than about a foot [roughly 0.3 meters], so most of her body was totally obscured by the water.Feltman: Ugh, that’s—yeah, ew [laughs].Van der Walt: But it didn’t smell bad, that I can say, and I didn’t have a problem afterwards, so I was perhaps just lucky, and first you think, “Oh, what is—what am I doing here?” and so, but then you get used to it, and then it was actually very pleasant. It’s, it’s fun.Parshall: So Van der Walt got involved in the movement for swimmable urban rivers when she moved to France after living in Germany and Switzerland, and those are two countries where swimming in rivers is far more common.Van der Walt: I used to work at the University of Bern, where you have a river called Aare, and there even the president of the parliament goes for a swim during the lunch break, and it’s really, like, everyone walks around in a swimming costume and walks up the river, jumps in and comes back.Parshall: Apparently some people in Bern actually use the river to commute one way to work during the summers ...Feltman: What?Parshall: Like, they, like, pack up their belongings in floating, waterproof bags and just go for a dip, and I guess just coast home.Feltman: Oh, my gosh, I—so I assumed you meant, like, boating, but, no, we’re talking about people swimming ...Parshall: No, yeah—in the water.Feltman: Briefcase bobbing along behind them—incredible [laughs].Parshall: [Laughs] I literally did not believe this. I thought that it was one of those Internet stories, made up, and it doesn’t seem like this is something that people do really often, but I did email the Swiss Lifesaving Society—it’s a lifeguard association—to confirm because it sounded so far-fetched, and they warned me that the current in the river that goes through Bern is no joke, and they actually don’t recommend swimming in it right now, but some people appear to actually do this. And this kind of river-swimming culture seems like a total dream to me, that’s something totally unattainable in Paris and definitely in New York City, where we both live, and ...Feltman: Yeah.Parshall: Like, sure, these rivers are no longer full of stinky industrial waste, and cities are turning back toward them by building waterfront parks and business districts, but swimming in them? It feels harder ...Feltman: Yeah, yeah, a river doesn’t have to be on fire for me to not wanna swim in it. There’s, there’s a spectrum, really, from “on fire” to, to “swimmable,” and I don’t really feel like the Hudson is there yet.Parshall: Yeah, apparently they do the triathlon in—the New York City Triathlon—the swimming part is in the Hudson, so, you know, I’m not tempted to do that.Feltman: [Laughs] Yeah, I think I briefly, in, like, a moment of complete delusion a few years ago, I was like, “Maybe I’m gonna try to get into triathlons.” And I honestly don’t remember if the part about the triathlon being in the Hudson River was, like, a selling point to me, or if that was the moment when I was like, “Wait, I’ve suddenly remembered I absolutely don’t want to do a triathlon under any circumstances.”Parshall: I mean, I did go to the beach for the first time since moving to New York last weekend, and I was shocked at how pleasant it was. I think I forgot how much it’s enjoyable ...Feltman: Oh, yeah.Parshall: To swim in, like, natural waters.I mean, they’re installing a pool in the East River now in New York. They call it a, quote, “giant strainer” dropped into the river. So relatively soon you should be able to do that.Feltman: Yeah, I remember when the renderings for that first went around, and I, like, I would totally do it, but I kind of feel like tourists and, like, wannabe influencers are gonna make it terrible even if there isn’t tons of pathogenic bacteria in it. So, yeah, fingers crossed, but I, I have to say, I’m not optimistic.So, yeah, I’m getting the impression that, like, unless a city makes a big effort to make swimming safe, and that that’s been confirmed by outside testing, like, you probably don’t want to go do laps in an urban river. Would you say that’s true?Parshall: I don’t know if it totally needs a big effort in every city—some of them are just not as bad. Like, Sibylle Van der Walt told me about a couple cities in France where the quality is kind of fine already.But basically, if you’re looking at swimming in pretty much any urban waterway, you’re gonna wanna take precautions. And that includes checking the recent bacterial accounts for the water, if that information is available—a lot of cities do make it available. And just, when in doubt, do not swim after heavy rains, especially if the city has combined sewer and stormwater systems.Feltman: Sure, makes sense.Parshall: Yeah, also—whether or not the Olympians are actually able to swim in the Seine, at this point, you know, it’s a little bit of an act of God, but Paris’ mayor, Anne Hidalgo, and other Siene cleanup proponents, they really emphasize that this project will benefit Parisians beyond the Olympics, regardless of whether or not the Olympians are able to swim.So the government of Paris has said that there will be three public swimming sites that will be open for the summer of 2025. That’s next summer.Feltman: Yeah, no, that’s a really good point. And, you know, so much Olympics infrastructure, like, ends up not being useful to cities, you know, kind of infamously, after the fact, but it’s true that a clean, swimmable river is something that is gonna be really impactful.Parshall: Yeah, there’s a lot of kind of schadenfreude surrounding this whole situation, I think, just because the Olympics can be so fraught: There’s so much money involved. There’s livelihoods involved. There’s—France is in the midst of a difficult political time. It makes sense that people are so—have so—focused in on this as kind of a, a symbol of the success of the Olympics.But putting all of that aside, it, it seems like an uncomplicated good to me to be able to say, “Hey, this river is swimmable now,” or at least it’s a lot closer to swimmable, or even if it isn’t swimmable, there is, you know, 50 Olympic swimming pool worth of raw sewage that is, in the worst-case scenario …Feltman: No longer in the river.Parshall: Not being dumped into the river.I think, you know, if, if the Olympics has to be the excuse for them to spend €90 million on it—which, again, like, in comparison, Indianapolis spent $2 billion—so it, it can be, it can be a really fraught topic, but at the same time, hey, clean water—seems like a good thing.Feltman: [Laughs] It’s true. We all love our water to not be full of poop.So, listeners, what’s your take: Would you go swimming in the Seine? Let us know at ScienceQuickly@sciam.com. While you’re there, feel free to share any feedback you have for us or any suggestions you have for topics we should cover. And if you have a second, it would also be great if you could give us a quick rating and review wherever you are listening to this podcast right now.Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was reported and co-hosted by Allison Parshall. Madison Goldberg and Anaissa Ruiz Tejada edit our show, with fact-checking from Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.For Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Have a great weekend!

The Seine will be the stage for the Paris 2024 Olympics’ Opening Ceremony—and for its marathon swimming events. But this urban waterway is challenging to keep clean.

Rachel Feltman: One week from today the 2024 Olympics in Paris will begin with a parade—not in a stadium but on a river. Thousands of athletes from more than 200 territories will float on boats down the Seine. City officials and event organizers have placed a big bet on this beloved river: that the infamously polluted waters will be safe for Olympic swimmers to compete in.

But their efforts have been met with—well, we’ll say skepticism, to say the least. Back in June, when the mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, was set to swim in the Seine to show her confidence in the cleanup efforts, a trending hashtag encouraged folks to poop in the river in—protest? Unclear. Hidalgo did successfully take a dip this past Wednesday and gave the experience rave reviews.

[CLIP: Cheering and clapping]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Feltman: But that doesn’t mean the Olympic events will go quite as swimmingly. You know what they say about stepping into the same river twice: those things are always changing and always flowing. And the Seine’s bacterial levels are still fluctuating from day to day.

For Scientific American’s Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Today I’m joined by associate news editor Allison Parshall, who investigated this high-profile cleanup attempt for us.

So, Allison tell me: Are Olympians going to swim in the river or not?

Allison Parshall: I would love to be able to tell you—I would peer into my crystal ball—but I think until there are bodies in the water, I’m not going to be able to say one way or the other [laughs]. And that’s mostly because they’ve basically done all that they can at this point from the perspective of, you know, cleaning up the river. The main problem right now is bacteria, and some of the things that could cause bacteria levels to be higher are kind of just at the whims of the weather: It’s if it’s too rainy, bacteria counts can be too high. If it’s not sunny enough, because sun can kill the bacteria—the bacteria counts can be too high.

So throughout June, basically, the bacteria counts were much higher than, I think, anyone expected or wanted. And that’s because the—Western Europe, in general, had an unseasonably wet summer, at least in the beginning.

So basically, after a very wet June, the organizers, who had been very proudly saying, “There is no backup plan. We’re all in on this end. There is no backup plan. There’s no plan B,” announced a backup plan.

So the backup plan for the marathon swimming events, at least, which is one of the ones that would be in the Seine, is this nautical stadium outside of the city. It’s this very fancy facility inaugurated in 2019. It’s already hosting the Olympic and Paralympic canoe, kayak and rowing events, so there’s that.

Feltman: Yeah, well, it’s good that they have that backup.

From above, this facility definitely looks like that kind of freaky ocean arena from The Hunger Games, but ...

Parshall: Hate it.

Feltman: [Laughs] I’m, I’m sure it’s lovely, though. I’m sure it’s a lovely place to be and definitely better than a river full of poop, in any case.

Parshall: It’s probably hard not to be better than a river full of poop.

Feltman: [Laughs]

Parshall: But basically this nautical stadium, it’s already hosting those boating events, but the triathlon wouldn’t be able to be relocated there—so that’s the other event that would be swimming in the Seine. So that they would just have to postpone that and hope the bacteria levels go down. Or if they don’t, it could just get downgraded from a triathlon to a duathlon, which I feel like is a different sport.

Feltman: Yeah, I think if I had trained for years to specifically be in the triathlon in the Olympics, and swimming got cut, and that was, like, my main strength, I’d be pretty ticked off. It makes you wonder why Paris, like, took such a chance on the Seine in the first place.

Parshall: This river is such an important part of their city’s history and culture, and they’ve been trying to clean it for a long time, and so it might be one of the only cities right now where we’re seeing them place such a big bet in the international spotlight on being able to clean this up, especially when it’s kind of at the whims of the weather.

But they’re definitely not the only city facing this problem with its urban waterways. Industrialized cities across the world are reaching this kind of new phase of their river cleanup, at least for these rivers that were once so polluted by industry. And it’s possible that after, you know, decades, centuries of being very unsightly waste dumps, we might get to swim in a lot of urban waterways again.

So I’ve got kind of, like, a personal touchstone with this. I grew up in Ohio. My Seine, as I like to say, was the Cuyahoga River ...

Feltman: Oh, wow.

Parshall: Have you heard of the Cuyahoga River?

Feltman: I have in the context of it being, like, a river so gross that it inspired us to create the Environmental Protection Agency [laughs], which is ...

Parshall: [Laughs] Yeah, when I was a kid ...

Feltman: Such a legacy.

Parshall: When I was a kid it was just, like, the place that we would go as a family on the weekends. We would walk and bike the towpath, and then there was this farmers’ market where we would get ice cream and corn on the cob; it was very Ohio. But I didn’t realize until I grew up that most of the people like you that knew of the Cuyahoga knew of it because they’d seen pictures of it on fire—like, the surface of the river burning, or at least ...

Feltman: Yeah, yeah.

Parshall: The industrial waste ...

Feltman: It’s striking [laughs].

Parshall: Yeah, yeah—that picture in particular. There’s this one particular photo, and it shows these firefighters spewing water onto the surface of the river to, you know, try to put out the fire, and it looks so preposterous because a river’s not supposed to be on fire.

So when I picture these urban waterways that have just been so polluted but have since been relatively cleaned up, I picture this infamous image of the Cuyahoga on fire and then what I know it as today, which is kind of a muddy, lazy river but definitely not on fire.

And I actually talked to a hydrologist about this—her name’s Anne Jefferson. She researches urban waterways at the University of Vermont, but she spent 10 years of her career at Kent State University, studying the nearby Cuyahoga.

Anne Jefferson: The Cuyahoga River didn’t just catch fire once; it caught fire [a] dozen-plus times. It was oil. It was paint byproducts. It was all sorts of industrial byproducts. It—also sewage—the sewage is not the part that’s gonna catch fire, but it’s, you know, if you fell into the Cuyahoga, or if you fell into the Thames in London, the advice was that you take yourself to the hospital immediately.

Parshall: I can’t say that I really want to swim in the Cuyahoga River, even these days—like, it generally looks pretty muddy—but it’s no longer a flaming health hazard, so there’s that. And its misfortunes really helped galvanize support for new regulation: that’s the Clean Water Act of ’72.

Paris’s river may not have caught fire, but it kind of has a similar story, as do many other urban rivers. After the industrial revolution they just become this dumping ground that carries all of our waste, both of our bodies and of our factories, out and away from cities. And in Paris, this killed what was a really important part of the city’s culture at the time, which is bathing in the Seine.

Feltman: That’s so wild. Like, I, I can know intellectually that before cities were super polluted, their rivers were nice places to be, but I still have trouble picturing people, like, you know, bathing in the Seine.

Parshall: Yeah, I don’t know that this was all—the case with every industrialized city, but it was definitely the case with Paris. I mean, a lot of cities, you know, they kind of grew up around the industrial revolution. But with Paris there are several very famous paintings by Monet, Renoir, Seurat that depict these riverside scenes, and there’s these famous floating bathhouses that were filled with untreated water from the city—like, basically barges.

And swimming in the river was largely banned in 1867. But that was just in the city, and then in the suburbs it was banned in 1923, but some people kept swimming in it. Like, Paris did hold the 1900 Olympics swimming events in the Seine. So this would be—if they do swim, it’ll be upholding this 124-year-old tradition. But by the 1960s the river was just well and truly disgusting, and it had been declared biologically dead.

Feltman: I mean, first of all, continuing to swim in it—extremely French. Second of all, what does it, what does it actually mean for a river to be biologically dead?

Parshall: Yeah, I asked Anne Jefferson that question because I also had never found a definition. She has never found a definition, so it might be kind of, like, an advocacy phrase.

Feltman: A vibe.

Parshall: People say it a lot—a vibe. It—basically it means, roughly, there’s no fish, or there’s no “desirable species,” quote, unquote ...

Feltman: Fair enough.

Parshall: But the bacteria, as undesirable as they may be—or some of them, at least—those were thriving, definitely, in the 1960s. And later—in ’85, I think, was the low point—it was measured—the Seine was measured to have 500,000 colony-forming units of E. coli per 100 milliliters of water. That’s, like, 500 times the current European standard for bathing.

Yeah, we’re—I mean, I’m picturing sludge. I imagine it would not be sludge—like, it would still be water consistency—but I’m just picturing a lot of bacteria. But I have to say, the Cuyahoga, during a dry summer around the same time, I think in, like, ’82, the E. coli counts ranged up to 2 million. So not that it’s a competition, but I think we won—or lost.

And I mean, it was only a few years later—so in 1988—that the mayor of Paris at the time, Jacques Chirac, he promised to swim in the Seine within three years’ time. Would you like to guess if he kept the promise?

Feltman: [Laughs] I’m gonna guess he did not do that [laughs].

Parshall: That is correct. He did not do that.

Feltman: That just makes me think of the Mary-Kate and Ashley movie Passport to Paris. Do you remember the scene where they’re visiting their, I think, grandfather is, like, the French ambassador or something, and he’s trying to get the French to accept this, like, clean water proposal, and they’re like, “No! We don’t need your stinky, American, clean water.”

Parshall: “No!”

Feltman: Yeah. And then they surprise the, I guess, president or prime minister at a dinner party with a glass of tap water that’s untreated, and it’s like—it looks like chocolate milk. It’s, like, so disgusting. And I’m sure they took a lot of liberties with crafting the, the untreated Parisian water. But it was a real—I think I saw a TikTok recently that was like, “This full-on Erin Brockovich moment from Mary-Kate and Ashley.” Very formative for me [laughs].

Parshall: I somehow missed this movie, but I think I absolutely would have loved it. And, like, I guess to be clear, the French government is not saying that the river needs to be clean enough to drink. That would be a whole other thing entirely.

But the, the river is definitely in a better shape now than it was when, you know, Jacques Chirac promised to swim in it. Last summer, actually, the part where the Olympic races are supposed to start from, of the Seine, it was swimmable seven days out of 10, on average, so it’s not that bad. Like, like, people are making it sound like it’s literally, like, a flaming—you know, like the Cuyahoga or something. But in reality it, it’s more variable than that. And the fact that it’s possible at all for any, you know, somewhat safe swimming in rivers like the Seine right now is because of those regulations like the one from Mary-Kate and Ashley movie Passport to Paris or whatever. It’s because of those regulations that targeted the obvious and easy places where waste was being dumped into our water—so like the pipes just dumping industrial waste straight into the water. That’s what Jefferson called the “low-hanging fruit.”

Jefferson: So once you’ve taken care of, like, the paint and the oil and stuff going into the river from the factories, what you’re left with is this harder problem that we call nonpoint source pollution. It’s the pollution that’s coming from a million different little places, right?

In the air it’s the stuff coming out of the tailpipes of our cars. For water it’s stormwater runoff: it’s all the water coming off the rooftops and pavements, being carried by thousands of pipes, coming into every small stream, every river, you know, from every neighborhood.

Parshall: So that stormwater that’s coming from all those pipes, it’s a problem because it’s carrying things like fertilizer, pesticides, bacteria—basically all sorts of stuff that you just don’t want in the water. And even worse, in many cities like Paris—also kind of, like, 60 percent of New York—when it enters stormwater drains, it gets funneled into the same pipes that carry the raw sewage to our wastewater plants, and when it rains too much, you get a bit of a backup.

Jefferson: In order to keep this sewage-stormwater mix from backing up into people’s houses, you have what are called combined sewer overflows, so sort of like the safety pressure release valves on the system where now water is being diverted out of the sewage network and directly into streams, rivers and lakes. And this was one of those “it seemed like a good idea at the time” legacies that constrain what we do now.

Parshall: And the reason it’s so constraining is because it’s so expensive to fix. Basically what you’d have to do is dig up all of those combined pipes and replace them with two sets: one for sewage, one for stormwater. And some cities like Minneapolis have tried to do that, but probably the more common option is to just find somewhere to store all of that mixed sewer-stormwater stuff until the treatment plant is ready to take care of it, so I reached out to Bruno Pigott, the acting assistant administrator for water at the EPA, and he mentioned some ways that cities are going about doing this.

Bruno Pigott: In Indianapolis, for example, they put in a 28-mile tunnel [system] underground that captures all this combined sewage before it gets to a water body, stores it and then sends it to a wastewater treatment plant for cleanup.

Parshall: So he actually told me a bit about this time that he got to visit the site of that project. He was working for the state of Indiana at the time, in, like, the 2010s. And this project is still under construction—and it cost $2 billion.

Feltman: Wow.

Pigott: I went down as they were building the tunnel and went into it—so the sewage that eventually will be in that tunnel was not, luckily, there when I was in it. But it looks very much like a tunnel that you would see in a subway. I mean, it’s that big. It’s tremendously large. You could drive a truck down this tunnel. It is, it’s so deep that it stores millions of gallons of sewage so that the treatment plants can actually treat it and send it out in a clean form back to the river.

Parshall: So that’s not too different from Paris’ main solution ahead of the Olympic Games. They also just built this very big basin to hold all of that raw sewage-stormwater mix.

Feltman: Oh, yeah ...

Parshall: Yeah.

Feltman: “The shove it all under the bed” method—tried and true [laughs].

Parshall: [Laughs] Well, it’s more like “shove it under the bed, and then take a little bit out of it every day for the next few months until you can finally take care of it all” ...

Feltman: Oh, great ...

Parshall: So, yeah, yeah ...

Feltman: That’s actually really nice.

Parshall: So it’s not like—it’s not gonna sit in there forever. It’s actually kind of the logical solution because the whole problem in the first place is just the system does not have enough capacity to deal with all of this water. Their backup plan is dump it in rivers, which is not all that logical—it’s just, like Anne Jefferson said, seemed like a good idea at the time.

This is probably just as logical of a solution, besides, you know, replacing all the pipes or scaling up the wastewater treatment’s capacity. But basically this basin, even though it sounds like it would be maybe the cheaper option, is still pretty expensive: they spent €90 million on it; that’s about $97 million. And that reservoir holds 50,000 cubic meters of liquid, so that is 20 Olympic-size swimming pools’ worth of raw sewage mélange that might otherwise get dumped into the river for the actual Olympic swimmers.

Feltman: Incredible.

Parshall: So that basin was completed in May, and bacteria levels in the water, which is the main concern for the swimming events, were still measuring too high throughout June, and that’s partially just because it’s been so unseasonably rainy, causing a lot more of those combined sewer overflows.

For what it’s worth, the Olympics president said that he remains confident that the weather will be fine and the river will be fine come the end of July, so, you know, there’s that. But I did get to speak with someone who actually had the opportunity to swim in the Seine. Her name is Sibylle van der Walt. She’s the president of a clean water advocacy organization based in France.

Sibylle van der Walt: It does mean a little bit of courage to, to, to swim in the Seine, firstly because the water is dark. It’s, it’s not transparent, and that is not a good sign.

Feltman: How murky are we talking about here?

Parshall: She told me that she couldn’t see much further down than about a foot [roughly 0.3 meters], so most of her body was totally obscured by the water.

Feltman: Ugh, that’s—yeah, ew [laughs].

Van der Walt: But it didn’t smell bad, that I can say, and I didn’t have a problem afterwards, so I was perhaps just lucky, and first you think, “Oh, what is—what am I doing here?” and so, but then you get used to it, and then it was actually very pleasant. It’s, it’s fun.

Parshall: So Van der Walt got involved in the movement for swimmable urban rivers when she moved to France after living in Germany and Switzerland, and those are two countries where swimming in rivers is far more common.

Van der Walt: I used to work at the University of Bern, where you have a river called Aare, and there even the president of the parliament goes for a swim during the lunch break, and it’s really, like, everyone walks around in a swimming costume and walks up the river, jumps in and comes back.

Parshall: Apparently some people in Bern actually use the river to commute one way to work during the summers ...

Feltman: What?

Parshall: Like, they, like, pack up their belongings in floating, waterproof bags and just go for a dip, and I guess just coast home.

Feltman: Oh, my gosh, I—so I assumed you meant, like, boating, but, no, we’re talking about people swimming ...

Parshall: No, yeah—in the water.

Feltman: Briefcase bobbing along behind them—incredible [laughs].

Parshall: [Laughs] I literally did not believe this. I thought that it was one of those Internet stories, made up, and it doesn’t seem like this is something that people do really often, but I did email the Swiss Lifesaving Society—it’s a lifeguard association—to confirm because it sounded so far-fetched, and they warned me that the current in the river that goes through Bern is no joke, and they actually don’t recommend swimming in it right now, but some people appear to actually do this. And this kind of river-swimming culture seems like a total dream to me, that’s something totally unattainable in Paris and definitely in New York City, where we both live, and ...

Feltman: Yeah.

Parshall: Like, sure, these rivers are no longer full of stinky industrial waste, and cities are turning back toward them by building waterfront parks and business districts, but swimming in them? It feels harder ...

Feltman: Yeah, yeah, a river doesn’t have to be on fire for me to not wanna swim in it. There’s, there’s a spectrum, really, from “on fire” to, to “swimmable,” and I don’t really feel like the Hudson is there yet.

Parshall: Yeah, apparently they do the triathlon in—the New York City Triathlon—the swimming part is in the Hudson, so, you know, I’m not tempted to do that.

Feltman: [Laughs] Yeah, I think I briefly, in, like, a moment of complete delusion a few years ago, I was like, “Maybe I’m gonna try to get into triathlons.” And I honestly don’t remember if the part about the triathlon being in the Hudson River was, like, a selling point to me, or if that was the moment when I was like, “Wait, I’ve suddenly remembered I absolutely don’t want to do a triathlon under any circumstances.”

Parshall: I mean, I did go to the beach for the first time since moving to New York last weekend, and I was shocked at how pleasant it was. I think I forgot how much it’s enjoyable ...

Feltman: Oh, yeah.

Parshall: To swim in, like, natural waters.

I mean, they’re installing a pool in the East River now in New York. They call it a, quote, “giant strainer” dropped into the river. So relatively soon you should be able to do that.

Feltman: Yeah, I remember when the renderings for that first went around, and I, like, I would totally do it, but I kind of feel like tourists and, like, wannabe influencers are gonna make it terrible even if there isn’t tons of pathogenic bacteria in it. So, yeah, fingers crossed, but I, I have to say, I’m not optimistic.

So, yeah, I’m getting the impression that, like, unless a city makes a big effort to make swimming safe, and that that’s been confirmed by outside testing, like, you probably don’t want to go do laps in an urban river. Would you say that’s true?

Parshall: I don’t know if it totally needs a big effort in every city—some of them are just not as bad. Like, Sibylle Van der Walt told me about a couple cities in France where the quality is kind of fine already.

But basically, if you’re looking at swimming in pretty much any urban waterway, you’re gonna wanna take precautions. And that includes checking the recent bacterial accounts for the water, if that information is available—a lot of cities do make it available. And just, when in doubt, do not swim after heavy rains, especially if the city has combined sewer and stormwater systems.

Feltman: Sure, makes sense.

Parshall: Yeah, also—whether or not the Olympians are actually able to swim in the Seine, at this point, you know, it’s a little bit of an act of God, but Paris’ mayor, Anne Hidalgo, and other Siene cleanup proponents, they really emphasize that this project will benefit Parisians beyond the Olympics, regardless of whether or not the Olympians are able to swim.

So the government of Paris has said that there will be three public swimming sites that will be open for the summer of 2025. That’s next summer.

Feltman: Yeah, no, that’s a really good point. And, you know, so much Olympics infrastructure, like, ends up not being useful to cities, you know, kind of infamously, after the fact, but it’s true that a clean, swimmable river is something that is gonna be really impactful.

Parshall: Yeah, there’s a lot of kind of schadenfreude surrounding this whole situation, I think, just because the Olympics can be so fraught: There’s so much money involved. There’s livelihoods involved. There’s—France is in the midst of a difficult political time. It makes sense that people are so—have so—focused in on this as kind of a, a symbol of the success of the Olympics.

But putting all of that aside, it, it seems like an uncomplicated good to me to be able to say, “Hey, this river is swimmable now,” or at least it’s a lot closer to swimmable, or even if it isn’t swimmable, there is, you know, 50 Olympic swimming pool worth of raw sewage that is, in the worst-case scenario …

Feltman: No longer in the river.

Parshall: Not being dumped into the river.

I think, you know, if, if the Olympics has to be the excuse for them to spend €90 million on it—which, again, like, in comparison, Indianapolis spent $2 billion—so it, it can be, it can be a really fraught topic, but at the same time, hey, clean water—seems like a good thing.

Feltman: [Laughs] It’s true. We all love our water to not be full of poop.

So, listeners, what’s your take: Would you go swimming in the Seine? Let us know at ScienceQuickly@sciam.com. While you’re there, feel free to share any feedback you have for us or any suggestions you have for topics we should cover. And if you have a second, it would also be great if you could give us a quick rating and review wherever you are listening to this podcast right now.

Science Quickly is produced by me, Rachel Feltman, along with Fonda Mwangi, Kelso Harper, Madison Goldberg and Jeff DelViscio. This episode was reported and co-hosted by Allison Parshall. Madison Goldberg and Anaissa Ruiz Tejada edit our show, with fact-checking from Shayna Posses and Aaron Shattuck. Our theme music was composed by Dominic Smith. Subscribe to Scientific American for more up-to-date and in-depth science news.

For Science Quickly, I’m Rachel Feltman. Have a great weekend!

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

A rare glimpse inside the mountain tunnel that carries water to Southern California

In the 1930s, workers bored a 13-mile tunnel beneath Mt. San Jacinto. Here's a look inside the engineering feat that carries Colorado River water to Southern California.

Thousands of feet below the snowy summit of Mt. San Jacinto, a formidable feat of engineering and grit makes life as we know it in Southern California possible. The 13-mile-long San Jacinto Tunnel was bored through the mountain in the 1930s by a crew of about 1,200 men who worked day and night for six years, blasting rock and digging with machinery. Completed in 1939, the tunnel was a cornerstone in the construction of the 242-mile Colorado River Aqueduct. It enabled the delivery of as much as 1 billion gallons of water per day.The tunnel is usually off-limits when it is filled and coursing with a massive stream of Colorado River water. But recently, while it was shut down for annual maintenance, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California opened the west end of the passage to give The Times and others a rare look inside. “It’s an engineering marvel,” said John Bednarski, an assistant general manager of MWD. “It’s pretty awe-inspiring.” The 16-foot-diameter San Jacinto Tunnel runs 13 miles through the mountain. While shut down for maintenance, the tunnel has a constant stream of water entering from the mountain. A group visits the west end of the San Jacinto Tunnel, where the mouth of the water tunnel enters a chamber. He wore a hard hat as he led a group to the gaping, horseshoe-shaped mouth of the tunnel. The passage’s concrete arch faded in the distance to pitch black.The tunnel wasn’t entirely empty. The sound of rushing water echoed from the walls as an ankle-deep stream flowed from the portal and cascaded into a churning pool beneath metal gates. Many in the tour group wore rubber boots as they stood on moist concrete in a chamber faintly lit by filtered sunlight, peering into the dark tunnel. This constant flow comes as groundwater seeps and gushes from springs that run through the heart of the mountain. In places deep in the tunnel, water shoots so forcefully from the floor or the wall that workers have affectionately named these soaking obstacles “the fire hose” and “the car wash.”Standing by the flowing stream, Bednarski called it “leakage water from the mountain itself.”Mt. San Jacinto rises 10,834 feet above sea level, making it the second-highest peak in Southern California after 11,503-foot Mt. San Gorgonio.As the tunnel passes beneath San Jacinto’s flank, as much as 2,500 feet of solid rock lies overhead, pierced only by two vertical ventilation shafts. Snow covers Mt. San Jacinto, as seen from Whitewater, in March. At the base of the mountain, the 13-mile San Jacinto Tunnel starts its journey. The tunnel transports Colorado River water to Southern California’s cities. During maintenance, workers roll through on a tractor equipped with a frame bearing metal bristles that scrape the tunnel walls, cleaning off algae and any growth of invasive mussels. Workers also inspect the tunnel by passing through on an open trailer, scanning for any cracks that require repairs.“It’s like a Disneyland ride,” said Bryan Raymond, an MWD conveyance team manager. “You’re sitting on this trailer, and there’s a bunch of other people on it too, and you’re just cruising through looking at the walls.” Aside from the spraying and trickling water, employee Michael Volpone said he has also heard faint creaking.“If you sit still and listen, you can kind of hear the earth move,” he said. “It’s a little eerie.”Standing at the mouth of the tunnel, the constant babble of cascading water dominates the senses. The air is moist but not musty. Put a hand to the clear flowing water, and it feels warm enough for a swim. On the concrete walls are stained lines that extend into the darkness, marking where the water often reaches when the aqueduct is running full. Many who have worked on the aqueduct say they are impressed by the system’s design and how engineers and workers built such a monumental system with the basic tools and technology available during the Great Depression.Pipelines and tunnelsThe search for a route to bring Colorado River water across the desert to Los Angeles began with the signing of a 1922 agreement that divided water among seven states. After the passage of a $2-million bond measure by Los Angeles voters in 1925, hundreds of surveyors fanned out across the largely roadless Mojave and Sonoran deserts to take measurements and study potential routes.The surveyors traveled mostly on horseback and on foot as they mapped the rugged terrain, enduring grueling days in desert camps where the heat sometimes topped 120 degrees.Planners studied and debated more than 100 potential paths before settling on one in 1931. The route began near Parker, Ariz., and took a curving path through desert valleys, around obstacles and, where there was no better option, through mountains.In one official report, a manager wrote that “to bore straight through the mountains is very expensive and to pump over them is likewise costly.” He said the planners carefully weighed these factors as they decided on a solution that would deliver water at the lowest cost. VIDEO | 02:45 A visit to the giant tunnel that brings Colorado River water to Southern California Share via Those in charge of the Metropolitan Water District, which had been created in 1928 to lead the effort, were focused on delivering water to 13 participating cities, including Los Angeles, Burbank and Anaheim. William Mulholland, Los Angeles’ chief water engineer, had led an early scouting party to map possible routes from the Colorado River to Southern California’s cities in 1923, a decade after he celebrated the completion of the 233-mile aqueduct from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles with the triumphant words, “There it is. Take it.”The aqueduct’s design matched the audaciousness of the giant dams the federal government was starting to build along the Colorado — Hoover Dam (originally called Boulder Dam) and Parker Dam, which formed the reservoir where the aqueduct would begin its journey.Five pumping plants would be built to lift water more than 1,600 feet along the route across the desert. Between those points, water would run by gravity through open canals, buried pipelines and 29 separate tunnels stretching 92 miles — the longest of which was a series of nine tunnels running 33.7 miles through hills bordering the Coachella Valley.To make it possible, voters in the district’s 13 cities overwhelmingly approved a $220-million bond in 1931, the equivalent of a $4.5-billion investment today, which enabled the hiring of 35,000 workers. Crews set up camps, excavated canals and began to blast open shafts through the desert’s rocky spines to make way for water.In 1933, workers started tearing into the San Jacinto Mountains at several locations, from the east and the west, as well as excavating shafts from above. Black-and-white photographs and films showed miners in hard hats and soiled uniforms as they stood smoking cigarettes, climbing into open rail cars and running machinery that scooped and loaded piles of rocks.Crews on another hulking piece of equipment, called a jumbo, used compressed-air drills to bore dozens of holes, which were packed with blasting power and detonated to pierce the rock. (Courtesy of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California) The work progressed slowly, growing complicated when the miners struck underground streams, which sent water gushing in.According to a 1991 history of the MWD titled “A Water Odyssey,” one flood in 1934 disabled two of three pumps that had been brought in to clear the tunnel. In another sudden flood, an engineer recalled that “the water came in with a big, mad rush and filled the shaft to the top. Miners scrambled up the 800-foot ladder to the surface, and the last man out made it with water swirling around his waist.”Death and delaysAccording to the MWD’s records, 13 workers died during the tunnel’s construction, including men who were struck by falling rocks, run over by equipment or electrocuted with a wire on one of the mining trolleys that rolled on railroad tracks. The Metropolitan Water District had originally hired Wenzel & Henoch Construction Co. to build the tunnel. But after less than two years, only about two miles of the tunnel had been excavated, and the contractor was fired by MWD general manager Frank Elwin “F.E.” Weymouth, who assigned the district’s engineers and workers to complete the project.Construction was delayed again in 1937 when workers went on strike for six weeks. But in 1939, the last wall of rock tumbled down, uniting the east and west tunnels, and the tunnel was finished. John Bednarski, assistant general manager of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, stands in a water tunnel near the end point of the larger San Jacinto Tunnel, which carries Colorado River water. The total cost was $23.5 million. But there also were other costs. As the construction work drained water, many nearby springs used by the Native Soboba people stopped flowing. The drying of springs and creeks left the tribe’s members without water and starved their farms, which led to decades of litigation by the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians and eventually a legal settlement in 2008 that resolved the tribe’s water rights claims.The ‘magic touch’ of waterBy the time the tunnel was completed, the Metropolitan Water District had released a 20-minute film that was shown in movie theaters and schools celebrating its conquest of the Colorado River and the desert. It called Mt. San Jacinto the “tallest and most forbidding barrier.”In a rich baritone, the narrator declared Southern California “a new empire made possible by the magic touch of water.” “Water required to support this growth and wealth could not be obtained from the local rainfall in this land of sunshine,” the narrator said as the camera showed newly built homes and streets filled with cars and buses. “The people therefore realized that a new and dependable water supply must be provided, and this new water supply has been found on the lofty western slopes of the Rocky Mountains, a wonderland of beauty, clad by nature in a white mantle of snow.”Water began to flow through the aqueduct in 1939 as the pumping plants were tested. At the Julian Hinds Pumping Plant, near the aqueduct’s halfway point, water was lifted 441 feet, surging through three pipelines up a desert mountain. March 2012 image of the 10-foot-diameter delivery lines carrying water 441 feet uphill from the Julian Hinds Pumping Plant. (Los Angeles Times) From there, the water flowed by gravity, moving at 3-6 mph as it traveled through pipelines, siphons and tunnels. It entered the San Jacinto Tunnel in Cabazon, passed under the mountain and emerged near the city of San Jacinto, then continued in pipelines to Lake Mathews reservoir in Riverside County. In 1941, Colorado River water started flowing to Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Compton and other cities. Within six years, another pipeline was built to transport water from the aqueduct south to San Diego.The influx of water fueled Southern California’s rapid growth during and after World War II.Over decades, the dams and increased diversions also took an environmental toll, drying up much of the once-vast wetlands in Mexico’s Colorado River Delta. John Bednarski, assistant general manager of the Metropolitan Water District, walks in a water tunnel near the end point of the larger San Jacinto Tunnel. An impressive designToday, 19 million people depend on water delivered by the MWD, which also imports supplies from Northern California through the aqueducts and pipelines of the State Water Project.In recent decades, the agency has continued boring tunnels where needed to move water. A $1.2-billion, 44-mile-long conveyance system called the Inland Feeder, completed in 2009, involved boring eight miles of tunnels through the San Bernardino Mountains and another 7.9-mile tunnel under the Badlands in Riverside County.The system enabled the district to increase its capacity and store more water during wet years in Diamond Valley Lake, Southern California’s largest reservoir, which can hold about 260 billion gallons of water. “Sometimes tunneling is actually the most effective way to get from point A to point B,” said Deven Upadhyay, the MWD’s general manager.Speaking hypothetically, Upadhyay said, if engineers had another shot at designing and building the aqueduct now using modern technology, it’s hard to say if they would end up choosing the same route through Mt. San Jacinto or a different route around it. But the focus on minimizing cost might yield a similar route, he said.“Even to this day, it’s a pretty impressive design,” Upadhyay said.When people drive past on the I-10 in Cabazon, few realize that a key piece of infrastructure lies hidden where the desert meets the base of the mountain. At the tunnel’s exit point near San Jacinto, the only visible signs of the infrastructure are several concrete structures resembling bunkers. When the aqueduct is running, those who enter the facility will hear the rumble of rushing water. The tunnel’s west end was opened to a group of visitors in March, when the district’s managers held an event to name the tunnel in honor of Randy Record, who served on the MWD board for two decades and was chair from 2014 to 2018. Speaking to an audience, Upadhyay reflected on the struggles the region now faces as the Colorado River is sapped by drought and global warming, and he drew a parallel to the challenges the tunnel’s builders overcame in the 1930s. “They found a path,” Upadhyay said. “This incredible engineering feat. And it required strength, courage and really an innovative spirit.” “When we now think about the challenges that we face today, dealing with wild swings in climate and the potential reductions that we might face, sharing dwindling supplies on our river systems with the growing Southwest, it’s going to require the same thing — strength, courage and a spirit of innovation,” he said. A steep steel staircase gives access to a water tunnel near the end point of the larger San Jacinto Tunnel, which carries Colorado River water to Southern California.

Officials to Test Water From Ohio Village Near Cold War-Era Weapons Plant After Newspaper Probe

Authorities in Ohio plan to test the water supply across a small village near a former weapons plant after a newspaper investigation published Friday found high levels of radioactivity in samples taken at a school, athletic field, library and other sites

LUCKEY, Ohio (AP) — Authorities in Ohio plan to test the groundwater supply across a village near a former weapons plant after a newspaper investigation published Friday found high levels of radioactivity in samples taken at a school, athletic field, library and other sites.However, The Blade in Toledo said its tests showed radioactivity levels 10 times higher than normal in water from a drinking fountain at Eastwood Middle School, 45 times higher than normal at the Luckey Library and 1,731 times higher than normal at a water pump near athletic fields.“We’ve got to get to the bottom of this,” said Lt. Col. Robert Burnham, commander of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Buffalo District, which oversees the cleanup.Nineteen of the 39 samples collected by the newspaper from well water across Luckey — at homes, businesses, and public places — showed radioactivity at least 10 times greater than what the federal government calls normal for the area, the newspaper said. The Blade hired an accredited private lab to conduct the testing.The radioactivity detected was primarily bismuth-214, which decays from the radioactive gas radon-222. Experts agree that high levels of bismuth-214 suggest high levels of radon are also present.Radon exposure is the leading cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers.The testing also found low levels of radioactive cobalt-60, a man-made isotope, in two wells. Experts called that finding extremely rare.Taehyun Roh, a Texas A&M University scientist who specializes in environmental exposures, said regulators should also conduct air and soil testing to assess the extent of the contamination and identify the source."Since this area likely has high radon levels, testing for radon in both air and water is advisable,” he wrote in an email. “A safe drinking water advisory should be issued, recommending the use of bottled water until further assessments and mitigation measures are in place.”The Corps of Engineers has long maintained that residential drinking water was not being contaminated by the removal work. Burnham and others said they still believe that to be true, citing thousands of their own soil samples.The state Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Health will lead the testing. In an email, Ohio EPA spokesperson Katie Boyer told the newspaper the contaminant levels in the public drinking water are still “within acceptable drinking water standards.” She said any concerns raised by the state testing would be addressed.The 44-acre industrial site — 22 miles (35 kilometers) south of Toledo — was long crucial to America’s nuclear weapons program. In the 1940s, farmland was replaced by a sprawling defense plant that produced magnesium metal for the Manhattan Project. In the 1950s, the plant became the government’s sole source of beryllium metal for nuclear bombs, Cold War missiles and Space Race products, including a heat shield for Project Mercury.“Things that happened generations ago are still affecting us,” said Karina Hahn-Claydon, a 50-year-old teacher whose family lives less than a mile from the site. “And that’s because the government didn’t take care of it.”Private drinking wells, unlike municipal systems, are not regulated, and responsibility for testing is left to owners. The Blade’s testing took place from April 2024 through January.Radioactivity has been linked to an increased risk of various cancers, including blood and thyroid cancers.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Feb. 2025

UK spending watchdog censures water firms and regulators over sewage failings

NAO finds regulatory gaps have enabled overspending on infrastructure building while not improving sewage worksWater companies have been getting away with failures to improve sewage works and overspending because of regulatory problems, a damning report by the government’s spending watchdog has found.Firms have overspent on infrastructure building, the National Audit Office (NAO) found, with some of these costs being added to consumers’ bills. The Guardian this week reported Ofwat and the independent water commission are investigating water firms for spending up to 10 times as much on their sewage works and piping as comparable countries. Continue reading...

Water companies have been getting away with failures to improve sewage works and overspending because of regulatory problems, a damning report by the government’s spending watchdog has found.Firms have overspent on infrastructure building, the National Audit Office (NAO) found, with some of these costs being added to consumers’ bills. The Guardian this week reported Ofwat and the independent water commission are investigating water firms for spending up to 10 times as much on their sewage works and piping as comparable countries.Bills in England and Wales are rising by £123 on average this year, and will go up further over the next five years, so that companies can fix ageing sewage infrastructure and stop spills of human waste from contaminating rivers and seas. Several water firms have complained to the Competition and Markets Authority because they want the regulator to allow them to increase bills even further.Only 1% of water companies’ actions to improve environmental performance, such as improving sewer overflows, have been inspected by the Environment Agency, the authors of the NAO report said. They also found there was no regulator responsible for proactively inspecting wastewater assets to prevent further environmental harm.The report, which audited the three water regulators, Ofwat, the Environment Agency, and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, as well as the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, also found the regulators did not have a good understanding of the condition of infrastructure assets such as leaking sewers and ageing sewage treatment facilities as they do not have a set of metrics to assess their condition.Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said: “Given the unprecedented situation facing the sector, Defra and the regulators need to act urgently to address industry performance and resilience to ensure the sector can meet government targets and achieve value for money over the long term for bill payers.”Despite the huge costs of infrastructure, the water companies have moved slowly meaning that at the current rate, it would take 700 years to replace the entire existing water network, the report found. Regulatory gaps and a lack of urgency about replacing old and malfunctioning infrastructure has caused a “rising tide of risk” in the sector, which is contributing to increasing bills for customers, the report warned.It also criticised the lack of a national plan for water supply and recommended that Defra must understand the costs and deliverability of its plans, alongside the impact they would have on customers’ bills.Several of the issues raised by the NAO, including concerns about weak infrastructure, have come to the fore in the debate over the future of Thames Water, the country’s largest water company with 16 million customers. Thames, which is under significant financial pressure with almost £20bn in debt, needs to secure fresh investment within months. Questions over the state of Thames’s infrastructure and regulatory punishment it could face for its failures have dogged the process of winning fresh funds. Meanwhile, Ofwat has also rejected its requests to raise bills by as much as 59%, instead allowing a 35% increase over the next five years.The government set up the independent water commission (IWC) last year to investigate how the water industry operated and whether regulation was fit for purpose.Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Tory chair of the Commons public accounts committee, said: “Today’s NAO report lays bare the scale of the challenges facing the water sector – not least the real prospect of water shortfall without urgent action.“The consequences of government’s failure to regulate this sector properly are now landing squarely on bill payers who are being left to pick up the tab. After years of under-investment, pollution incidents and water supply issues, it is no surprise that consumer trust is at an all-time low. Having not built any reservoirs in the last 30 years, we now need 10.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Business TodayGet set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morningPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“Consumers rightly expect a water sector that is robust, resilient and fit for the future. Defra and the regulators must focus on rebuilding public confidence and ensure the sector can attract the long-term investment it desperately needs.”An Environment Agency spokesperson said: “We recognise the significant challenges facing the water industry. That is why we will be working with Defra and other water regulators to implement the report’s recommendations and update our frameworks to reflect its findings.”An Ofwat spokesperson added: “We agree with the NAO’s recommendations for Ofwat and we continue to progress our work in these areas, and to contribute to the IWC wider review of the regulatory framework. We also look forward to the IWC’s recommendations and to working with government and other regulators to better deliver for customers and the environment.”A Defra spokesperson said: “The government has taken urgent action to fix the water industry – but change will not happen overnight. We have put water companies under tough special measures through our landmark Water Act.”Water UK, which represents the water companies, has been contacted for comment.

Water firms admit sewage monitoring damaging public trust

The industry says powers to self-monitor water quality should be handed back to the regulator.

Water companies should no longer be allowed to monitor their own levels of sewage pollution, the industry body has told the BBC exclusively.Instead they are proposing a new, third-party monitoring system to build consumer trust.The recommendation is part of a submission made to the UK government's independent review into the water sector.Campaigners have long complained the companies' self-reporting has prevented the true scale of pollution in UK water being revealed.A third-party system could add more pressure to the regulators, which have also been criticised for not holding the companies to account. A report from the National Audit Office is expected to say on Friday that the Environment Agency does not currently have enough capacity to take on any new monitoring.David Henderson, CEO of industry body Water UK, told the BBC: "We absolutely accept that self-monitoring is not helping to instil trust and so we would like to see an end to it, and in place of it a more robust, third-party system." As part of their permitting arrangements water companies are expected to regularly sample water quality to identify potential pollution, and submit this data to the Environment Agency in an arrangement known as "operator self monitoring". But there have been incidents of misreporting by water companies in England and Wales uncovered by the regulators, who said some cases had been deliberate.Southern Water was previously issued fines totalling £213m by the industry regulator (Ofwat) and the environmental regulator (the Environment Agency) for manipulating sewage data.In that case, there was unreported pollution into numerous conservation sites which caused "major environmental harm" to wildlife.The company later admitted its actions "fell short".Henderson added that the industry never asked to self-monitor, but that it was introduced in 2009 by the then Labour government to "reduce the administrative burden" on the Environment Agency (EA). In 2023, the BBC reported that EA staff were concerned that, due to funding cuts, the Agency was increasingly relying on water companies to self-report rather than carrying out its own checks on pollution from sewage. The current environment minister, Steve Reed, has promised to review the system, calling it the equivalent of companies "mark[ing] their own homework".But the National Audit Office (NAO), which reviews government spending, questioned the ability of the EA to take on any new monitoring. "Regulators need to address the fact that they currently have limited oversight over whether water companies are carrying out their work as expected. It is hard to see how they will achieve this without increased overall capacity," said Anita Shah, NAO Director of Regulation.It is expected to publish a full review of the regulation of the water sector on Friday. A Defra spokesperson told the BBC: "We are committed to taking decisive action to fix the water industry. The Water Commission's recommendations will mark the next major step [to] restore public trust in the sector."The government launched an independent water commission in October to review the sector and the way it is regulated. The public consultation closed on Wednesday with the findings expected in July. Water UK submitted a 200-page document of recommendations, including this call to end self-monitoring.The industry body also requested that water meters be universal across England and Wales to make bills fairer. At present about 60% of the population have a meter."The meter is just to ensure that people are paying for what they use as opposed to a flat rate of system where you can use virtually no water and pay the same as someone filling up a pool three times in a summer," said Henderson."This doesn't properly reflect the value of water and encourage people to conserve it in the way that we need," he added.

Cambodia Canal's Impact on Mekong Questioned After China Signs Deal

By Francesco Guarascio(Reuters) -Cambodia should share a feasibility study on the impact of a planned China-backed canal that would divert water...

(Reuters) -Cambodia should share a feasibility study on the impact of a planned China-backed canal that would divert water from the rice-growing floodplains of Vietnam's Mekong Delta, said the body overseeing the transnational river.After months of uncertainty, Phnom Penh last week signed a deal with China to develop the Funan Techo Canal when President Xi Jinping visited Cambodia as part of a tour of Southeast Asia.It was Beijing's first explicit public commitment to the project, giving state-controlled construction giant China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) a 49% stake through a subsidiary, but also linking Chinese support to the "sustainability" of the project.The Secretariat of the intergovernmental Mekong River Commission (MRC) that coordinates the sustainable development of Southeast Asia's longest river said it had so far received from Cambodia only "basic information" on the project."We hope that further details, including the feasibility study report and other relevant reports, will be provided," the Commission said in a statement to Reuters this week.That would be needed "to ensure that any potential implications for the broader Mekong Basin are fully considered," it added.The canal has already created concern among environmentalists who say it could further harm the delicate ecology of the Mekong Delta, which is Vietnam's major rice growing region and is already facing problems of drought and salination as result of infrastructure projects upstream. Vietnam is also a leading exporter of rice.On Friday, the Cambodian government said the canal would have minimal environmental impact and "aligns with the 1995 Mekong Agreement" which governs cooperation among riverine countries in Southeast Asia.The Mekong River, fed by a series of tributaries, flows some 4,900 kilometres (3,045 miles) from its source in the Tibetan plateau through China, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam to the sea."Whether the Funan Techo Canal violates the 1995 Mekong Agreement depends on several factors, including its connection to the Mekong mainstream," the Commission said, offering additional guidance to Phnom Penh and other member states "to ensure compliance".Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam are members of the MRC while China and Myanmar are dialogue partners.The Cambodian government did not respond to questions about whether it intended to share the requested documents.Vietnam's foreign ministry did not reply to a request for comment after the deal with China was signed, but the country has repeatedly asked Cambodia to share more information about the canal to assess its impact.Xi made no reference to the canal in his public statements in Phnom Penh but a joint communique issued at the end of his visit said China supported Cambodia in building the canal "in accordance with the principles of feasibility and sustainability".The deal signed by CCCC on Friday was for a 151.6 km (94.2 miles) canal costing $1.16 billion.However, the Cambodian government says on the canal's official website that the waterway would stretch 180 km and cost $1.7 billion at completion in 2028.The higher cost reflects a short section to be built by Cambodian firms as well as bridges and water conservation resources, the government told Reuters without clarifying who would pay for the bridges and water conservation.Cambodia's deputy prime minister said in May 2024 that China would cover the entire cost of the project, which was put at $1.7 billion.The canal is designed to link the Mekong Basin to the Gulf of Thailand in Cambodia's southern Kep province. Much of the Mekong's nutrient-rich sediment no longer reaches rice farms in the Delta because of multiple hydroelectric dams built by China upriver, a Reuters analysis showed in 2022.The project agreed with China is also different from the original plan as it is focusing on boosting irrigation rather than solely pursuing navigation purposes, said Brian Eyler, an expert on the Mekong region at U.S.-based think tank Stimson Center.The water diverted from the Mekong Delta "will be much more than previously described," said Eyler.(Reporting by Francesco Guarascio; additional reporting by Khanh Vu in Hanoi; Editing by Kate Mayberry)Copyright 2025 Thomson Reuters.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.