Editorial: We Don't Give A Hoot! We Want To Pollute!

There is an interesting scenario developing in Missouri. And actually it is not as damning as our headline indicates. But good intentions or not, the results are the same. And the same scenario is probably developing on a national level.

One hundred streams in Missouri are being evaluated to determine if it is okay to pollute them. Some interests, including cities, want the streams exempt from new pollution rules that are being developed. One factor is whether people swim in a river or otherwise use it for recreation, which includes fishing and boating. Included among the rivers are the Mississippi, Missouri and Meramec.

One argument put forward is that for sewage treatment plants to disinfect effluent before dumping it into the streams will cost millions (some say tens of millions).

River users, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "hail urban streams as crucial link[s] to nature." Aren't they? In Missouri alone more than 50,000 people participate in the Stream Team program of the Conservation Federation. These people get right down into those streambeds and do research—down and dirty, so to speak. The question is, "At what risk?" We assume the federation monitors the programs carefully.

We don't have the latest edition, but the U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1133 Contaminants in the Mississippi River 1987–92, seems to indicate that at the top of the list for the Mississippi River and its tributaries are "dissolved contaminants and bacteria that originate from a variety of municipal, agricultural and industrial sources." Some of this pollution reaches the river through runoff. Some is intentionally discharged into the river.

"Fecal coliform bacteria derived from human and animal wastes survive only briefly in river water, but their average concentrations—remember that this is for the years specified above—exceed the maximum contaminant level established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of 2,000 per litter for recreational use in much of the Mississippi River because of incomplete wastewater treatment." (Boldface ours.)

Decades ago, marine rules were promulgated and passed into law, including environmental restrictions to force vessels to operate cleanly and not discharge pollution. A vessel can be taken out of operation for violation of these rules, and heavy fines can be imposed.

Generally speaking, the cost of treating effluent before discharging it into the river should not be a deciding factor in whether any business can continue to operate. The cost of treating effluent efficiently must be paid, just as long as the standards plants must meet are fair and necessary to protect health. Business that existed before pollution laws came into being should be given a fair time to clean up their act. If feasibility studies for new businesses indicate they cannot make a profit without polluting, then they should not be allowed to go into business. It is crucial to the nation.

The treatment some communities are talking about is the final step before effluent is discharged into the stream. Raw sewage from a community is first piped into treatment plants, where solids are removed. The water may then be piped into a primary settling tank, where minute solids settle out and also are removed. In a third step, the remaining water is sprinkled over rock beds covered with miniscule living organisms that feed on dissolved pollutants and excrete miniscule solids that settle to the bottom of the tanks to be removed. In the final stage, the water is usually treated (sometimes with chlorine) to make the effluent acceptable and not a threat to humans or wildlife.

It must be determined (not politically) that levels of contamination set by the EPA are accurate. Enforcing unnecessarily high standards is prohibitively expensive. This is the argument of many communities. But it is a cost they must bear if standards are accurate.

We see no reason to pollute streams of any size. It has been said that there is as much fresh water in the world today as there has ever been. But it is also true that it shifts about. Many aquifers are running dry. Rainwater, such as we have seen across the land in such great amounts lately, runs to the sea. Because of growing populations, the demand for fresh, unpolluted water for a variety of uses is outdistancing the supply.

Whatever the cost, as long as it is justifiably supported by accurate scientific standards, it should be assumed by the communities where there is a question about discharging effluent that is contaminated. Again, bias and politics should have no place in this determination. We must pay whatever it takes to keep from discharging untreated or poorly treated effluent into any stream.

The key factor is honesty in determining the degree of treatment necessary. The standards should be supported scientifically.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)