Every once in a while we ask some of you to "sign-on" to comments about various proposed laws or regulation changes. These "sign-on" letters can be complex and nuanced things, but one of my fellow Waterkeepers provided what I think is an exceptional sign-on document for a rule change that the EPA is considering to alter the way the public is notified about bacteria levels at swimming beaches. Diana Muller, our South Riverkeeper, provided an excellent argument for her case, presented it clearly, and tackled the issue straight on. For those of you wondering what kinds of things Waterkeepers do... yes, we are out there in our boats, and in the courtrooms defending our waters, but a lot of effort goes in to the less glorious, but very important work of defending our waters from being sacrificed to special interest influences in governing bodies at all levels.
Politicians and regulators don't often go out looking for ways to weaken the legal protections of our waterways. There's usually someone asking for a loosening of regulation to make their business more profitable. In this case that business may even be the government itself as municipalities struggle to process growing streams of wastewater while keeping taxes and fees as low as they can. As America continues to move toward the water we will all have to pay the price for overdeveloping our coastlines. The question is, do you want to pay with a check, or by risking the health of your friends and family every time they go to the beach or hop on a boat?
Copied below is the core of this one issue as laid out by our South Riverkeeper. There are hundreds of rule change battles like this fought around the country every year by Waterkeepers to achieve the goal of making all our waters swimmable, fishable, and drinkable as promised in the Clean Water Act.
TELL EPA NO TO “PLAYING CRAPS” WITH SWIMMERS’ HEALTH AND WELFARE!!
Unbelievably,
EPA has proposed further weakening of already far too weak water quality
criteria (WQC) aimed at waterborne pathogens at swimming beaches. That’s correct—rather than fixing its
1986 bacterial criteria for water contact recreation waters, EPA wants to let
states make them even less protective.
Here
are the facts:
The existing 25 year old criteria are
based on the flawed belief that the public thinks that running at least a 1 in
28 chance of getting sick due to a day of beach swimming is acceptable.
n A family of 4 would have
a minimum of a 1 in 7 risk of someone contracting vomiting and or diarrhea
after a day of swimming in water with an average concentration equal to that
specified by the WQC
n And, this EPA estimate
does NOT include the additional risk of other common waterborne maladies, such
as earache and skin rash
n Of course, each person’s
risk of illness would increase with each additional day of swimming
Even
worse:
States following EPA’s current,
already-weak approach do not close, or often, even post, beaches unless a concentration of bacteria
3-times higher than that named in
the average-concentration (GM, for “geometric mean”) WQC has been found in a sample of beach water. (EPA refers to these higher
concentrations as SSMs, for “single sample maximums”.)
But that’s not all of what’s seriously wrong
with EPA’s existing bacterial WQC, which most states have adopted in one form
or another.
·
Despite
the fact that the epidemiological studies upon which EPA claims it’s 1986 WQC
were based involved people who went swimming on one—or at most, two—days, and
the estimated illness rates for marine waters were derived by plotting daily
average bacterial concentrations against illness rates among swimmers on a
given day, EPA expressed the WQC
as acceptable 30-day average (GM) concentrations, without adjusting the
concentrations downward to account for the much longer indicated duration of
exposure.
·
EPA
justifies such an absurdly long averaging period, in part, by saying the GM WQC
are based on the assumption of “steady state conditions” -- which is not borne
out by data from any real-world beach water monitoring. In fact, concentrations of indicator bacteria fluctuate widely over time
and space, often by orders of magnitude.
The consequence of allowing averaging of
levels of bacteria over an entire month is
at any given moment, people could be swimming in water with bacterial levels
that are hundreds, even thousands of times higher than the concentrations of
the GM criteria. (You can “do the math” on what this might
mean in terms of the risk of getting sick.)
“But”, you say, “That’s not a realistic scenario because the
beach will be closed, or at least posted, if indicator bacterial levels go
above 3-times that associated with a minimum of a 1 in 28 risk of illness.” WRONG!! Why? Because, few, if any beaches are
monitored hourly, or even daily. In fact, EPA recommends that
water at heavily-used coastal beaches be monitored once a week. The vast majority of surface waters
that are used for swimming don’t even get monitored once a month.
THAT’S WHERE THINGS CURRENTLY STAND. HERE’S WHAT EPA IS NOW PROPOSING…
Increasing
the allowed duration/averaging period for the GM WQC from 30 days to 90 days
· With no corresponding
decrease in the concentration
· Weakening beach
warning/closing policy
This will also de-list already impaired waters on the 303d
list, or with a TMDL. The
statistical manipulation of data will allow the waterways to still be
contaminated by bacteria even though they will become de-listed.