Introduction
Ohio is one of the most dissatisfied communities in the United States of America among others. The lack of satisfaction is due to the physical, social, and financial needs the community experiences. The place is characterized by poverty and multiple disasters such as disease epidemics, droughts, and lack of clean water. The reason this community is faced with various risks and hazards is because there lack preparedness and mechanisms in place to mitigate the problems. The primary risk facing the people of Ohio is the lack of clean water for consumption. The people in this area have to take water that is infected with (Fernandez, 2002) industrial chemicals, algae, herbicides, pesticides, medicines, fertilizers, and animal and human waste.
2. Response Plan for Clean Water Crisis in Ohio
The council of this state has tried to handle the problem, and it ended spending millions of dollars to nullify the threats and these costs have to reflect on the water bills for the residents. For the people of Ohio who avoid the exaggerated water bills, they end up drinking contaminated water by industries and farmers and have multiple health issues (Moore, Parker & Weaver, 2008). There is a need to come up with a lasting solution to the water problem. The planning committee will involve;
area residents
chemical industries
water federations
The federal government.
The reasons for involving the listed parties is because they must work as a group to solve the water issue, since if one of them fails there is a likelihood of the problem persisting.
2.1. Plan Components
The components of the plan include;
a review of the current water pollution
setting up mechanisms to control further pollution
implementation process
A way to monitor how clean the water will remain clean.
With the elements listed and followed, the water will stay clean and any party found to be violating the plan will be punished respectively. When analyzing the current situation, all parties will be involved, but when setting up mechanisms for further pollution control, legal officers will be included together with the stakeholders. The issue of implementation will be handled by the manufacturing companies, council, and water federations. Finally, the water regulators, people, and board will be left to monitor for any future pollution and report to the federal government. The whole process needs having a legal officer so that any party found violating the regulations will be held accountable by the law.
2.2. Emergency Management
The plan will be set to prevent any occurrence of water pollution, but this may still occur due to unavoidable circumstances such as algae or unintentional chemical spills. It is necessary for the stakeholders to have a preparedness, response, and recovery plan ("Disaster Planning and Response", 2008). The community should be notified that in case there is water pollution, they should avoid consuming it and report to the council immediately. The community should have clean water storage tanks to cater for emergencies and prevent the challenge of people lacking water for consumption. One of the major issues is on sensitizing people to avoid dirty water and use clean water that comes at a cost yet the rate of poverty is high in Ohio.
2.3. Mechanisms to Manage the Risks
The federal government will have to chip in and ensure there are resources so that people can sustain their livelihood to address the poverty problem. When people have jobs and resources, they will have enough income for sustenance and will not mind paying an extra cost for clean water.
2.4. Short-term and Long-term Recovery Goals
The short-term recovery goals for the community are to provide people with water-treatment chemicals and sensitize them on the need for clean water. In the long-term, treatment of water will be done in plants and companies will be restricted from dumping chemicals in water masses, and algae will be controlled chemically. Once the plan is fully implemented, Ohio community will enjoy clean water and health risks will be minimal.
References
Disaster Planning and Response. (2008). Annals Of Emergency Medicine, 52(5), 581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2008.07.040
Fernandez, L. (2002). Solving water pollution problems along the US–Mexico border. Envir. Dev. Econ., 7(04). http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1355770x02000438
Moore, R., Parker, J., & Weaver, M. (2008). Agricultural Sustainability, Water Pollution, and Governmental Regulations: Lessons from the Sugar Creek Farmers in Ohio. Culture & Agriculture, 30(1-2), 3-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-486x.2008.00003.x
