5 Reasons Why You Should Think Twice Before Jumping Into Your Local River
Is that stream that runs through your backyard safe? What about the river that flows through your local park? Is it polluted? Americans should know that the waterways they swim, play or fish in don’t present a health hazard. But a shocking new report on the nation’s streams and rivers paints a bleak picture: The vast majority are not effectively studied for water quality.
The analysis was prepared by the Izaak Walton League of America (IWLA), a nonprofit conservation group based in Gaithersburg, Maryland, which conducted an extensive investigation into all 50 states’ stream monitoring practices and water pollution problems. They found some startling facts about the state of America’s waterways.
Though states are required to test the water quality of their streams and rivers under the Clean Water Act of 1972, IWLA says that “funds are limited and most waterways are not tested regularly or accurately." In fact, only 2 percent are effectively tested for water quality. Adding to the concern is the fact that half have failed to meet state water quality standards, which means they are too dirty for swimming or fishing. The harsh reality is that for too long, Americans have been in the dark about the health of their local waters, many of which may harbor undetected pollution.
“There is an alarming lack of timely information about water quality in this country,” said IWLA Executive Board Chair Jodi Arndt Labs. “Every morning, you can read about that day’s air quality in the local paper or on your smartphone. Yet information about the health of local streams is five to 10 years old. That’s a problem.”
The report states:
The information we do have reveals serious water pollution problems across the United States. And what we know about this problem is based on states testing just a fraction of the streams and rivers nationwide. The vast majority of streams are not regularly tested—or even tested at all. ...
When problems are discovered, states are also required to address them with clean-up and restoration efforts. How to monitor waterways and determine what’s “polluted” is left up to each state. States vary widely in virtually every aspect of water quality monitoring and assessment, including setting standards used to assess water quality; where, when, and which waters are tested; the types of tests performed; and how states provide information to the public.
Here are five frightening facts that might make you think twice before jumping into one of America’s rivers or streams:
1. Lack of Effective Water Quality Monitoring
According to IWLA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that nationwide, 31 percent of streams and rivers are monitored for water quality. However, IWLA’s own calculations reveal a very different reality: Just 2 percent of rivers and streams are effectively tested. In terms of the overall effectiveness of a state’s stream monitoring efforts, more than half of all states (26) received D or F grades. Adding to the concern is that “many states seriously mislead the public about the percentage of waters they actually test.”
2. Dirty Water
State reports given to the EPA reveal that 55 percent of the streams and rivers states tested were deemed unsafe for swimming, fishing and drinking. According to the report:
Water that runs off our yards, roads, and farm fields carries a laundry list of pollutants into streams and rivers across the country: bacteria and pathogens; nutrient-rich fertilizers and pesticides; oil, antifreeze, and other chemicals; and heavy metals and acid drainage. This runoff is flowing untreated into the streams and rivers that are the lifeblood of an interconnected system of waterways nationwide. Neither the Clean Water Act nor most state laws effectively address this problem—or address it all.
3. Weak Water Quality Standards
It’s bad enough that so many of the nation’s rivers and streams are dirty and barely tested for water quality. The report found that many states have weak water quality standards, too. That means waterways that have been rated clean and healthy may not actually be that clean and healthy. Also, the report points out that states “don’t monitor water quality often enough to make any accurate safety claims about streams and rivers.”
4. Lack of Local Information
To be effective, water quality monitoring should occur regularly at various sites along the length of a stream, according to recommendations established by the EPA. The problem is that many states do their testing only at the mouths of major rivers and streams, adding only a few other randomly located test sites across the state. This lack of truly local information, IWLA says, “makes it almost impossible to pinpoint sources of pollution problems.”
5. Out-of-Date Information
It’s not just that there’s a lack of information about water quality: Often the information that’s publicly available can be up to a decade old, further keeping Americans in the dark about the current health of their local waterways. “This isn’t a problem just at the state level but nationally as well,” IWLA said. The group points out that the EPA’s 2008-2009 National Rivers and Streams Assessment, which was released in March, “is not only out of date but is based on a very limited number of water quality tests conducted randomly across the country.”
IWLA says citizens can help fill the gaps in monitoring and can do so at a low cost because they're volunteers. "In communities nationwide, individuals and groups are collecting high-quality, reliable water quality data," the report notes. And while there are a few states that are effective in working with citizen volunteers, IWLA contends that a majority of states "get Ds and Fs for volunteer engagement because they do not work proactively with volunteers or effectively utilize the data volunteers collect."
“The solution to ensuring the public has accurate, timely and local information about stream health isn’t a mystery,” Scott Kovarovics, IWLA executive director, said. “Across the country today, League chapters and networks of citizen monitors are already doing great work. Volunteers could regularly monitor water quality in thousands more streams and provide timely results to their neighbors and state governments.”
How did your state score in terms of water quality and water quality testing? Read the full report and find out. Visit IWLA's Save Our Streams program to help any volunteer get started with water quality monitoring.
How does your state rank?
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Environmentalists and ornithologists found a friend in a federal court on Tuesday when a judge struck down a Trump administration attempt to allow polluters to kill birds without repercussions through rewriting the Migratory Treaty Bird Act (MBTA).
- Trump Admin Moves to Weaken Restrictions on Killing Migratory Birds ›
- Migratory Birds Lose Protection Against Industry in Latest Trump ... ›
By Elizabeth Claire Alberts
There are trillions of microplastics in the ocean — they bob on the surface, float through the water column, and accumulate in clusters on the seafloor. With plastic being so ubiquitous, it's inevitable that marine organisms, such as sharks, will ingest them.
Polyproylene fibers found in one of the sampled sharks. Kristian Parton
Spiny dogfish. NOAA / Wikimedia Commons<p>"There appear to be two routes for these particles to end up in the sharks," Parton said. "The first through their food source [such as] crustaceans. Their prey may already contain these fibers, and consequently it's passed to the shark through bioaccumulation up the food chain. The second pathway is direct ingestion from the sediment. As these sharks feed, they'll often suck up sediment into their mouths, some of this is expelled straight away, although some is swallowed, therefore fibers and particles that may have sunk down into the seabed may be directly ingested from the surrounding sediment as these sharks feed."</p><p>Some sharks only contained a few plastic particles, but others contained dozens. The larger the shark, the more plastic was in it, the findings suggested. The highest number of microplastics was found in an individual bull huss, which had 154 polypropylene fibers inside its stomach and intestines.</p><p>"It's perhaps likely this individual shark had swallowed a larger piece of fishing rope/netting and this has broken down during digestive processes within the shark, and also broken down into smaller pieces during our analysis," Parton said.</p>
Lesser-spotted dogfish caught as bycatch. Kristian Parton<p>While this study only examined the stomach and digestive tracts of demersal sharks, Parton says it's possible that plastic would be present in other parts of the sharks' bodies, such as the liver and muscle tissue. However, more research would be needed to prove this.</p><p>At the moment, there is also limited understanding of how microplastic ingestion would impact a shark's health, although microplastics are known to negatively influence feeding behavior, development, reproduction and life span of zooplankton and crustaceans.</p><p>"If we can show that these fibers contain inorganic pollutants attached to them, then that could have real consequences for these shark species at a cellular level, impacting various internal body systems," Parton said.</p>
Parton in the lab. Kristian Parton<p>This new study demonstrates how pervasive and destructive plastic pollution can be in the marine environment, according to Will McCallum, head of oceans for Greenpeace U.K.</p><p>"Our addiction to plastics combined with the lack of mechanisms to protect our oceans is suffocating marine life," McCallum said in a statement. "Sharks sit on top of the marine food web and play a vital role in ocean ecosystems. Yet, they are completely exposed to pollutants and other human impactful activities. We need to stop producing so much plastic and create a network of ocean sanctuaries to give wildlife space to recover. The ocean is not our dump, marine life deserves better than plastic."</p>
- Pregnant Sperm Whale Found Dead With Nearly 50 Pounds of ... ›
- Green Turtles Are Mistaking Plastic for the Sea Grass They Normally ... ›
- Microplastics Pose Major Problems for Ocean Giants - EcoWatch ›
By Loveday Wright and Stuart Braun
After a Japanese-owned oil tanker struck a reef off Mauritius on July 25, a prolonged period of inaction is threatening to become an ecological disaster.
<div id="bb0a7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="e5aefc0fff61ab1aea2f4b03c5399864"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1291765757013983238" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">The #oilspill is devastating but I want to honour the community mobilisation at the Mahebourg waterfront today (to… https://t.co/UWFkZFdjdi</div> — Fabiola Monty (@Fabiola Monty)<a href="https://twitter.com/LFabiolaMonty/statuses/1291765757013983238">1596815930.0</a></blockquote></div><p>"Booms are made of nylon mesh filled with #sugarcane straws all hand-stitched by Mauritian volunteers, empty plastic bottles used as buoys," described Mauritian journalist Zeenat Hansrod in a tweet. </p>
How to Tackle Oil Spills<p>The method for tackling oil spills depends on several factors, including the type and amount of oil in question, location and weather conditions.</p><p>"Once the oil comes to shore, the more intensive the cleaning technique. You can risk causing further damage," said Nicky Cariglia, an independent consultant at Marittima, who specializes in marine pollution. </p><p>"If you wanted to remove all traces of oil, the techniques available become increasingly aggressive the less oil that remains. In mangroves, you would have the added risk of causing damage by trampling," Cariglia told DW. Highly sensitive mangrove ecosystems line the Mauritius east coast that is threatened by the current spill.</p><p>Because oil normally has a lower density than water, it floats on the surface of the ocean. This means that for clean-up action to be most effective, it should happen very quickly after a spill, before the oil disperses. </p>
- 15,000 Gallon Oil Spill Threatens River and Drinking Water in Native ... ›
- Disastrous Russian Oil Spill Reaches Pristine Arctic Lake - EcoWatch ›
- Mauritius' First Major Oil Spill Poses Environmental Crisis - EcoWatch ›
- Court Tosses Controversial Pipeline Permits, Rules Forest Service ... ›
- With Treetop Protest, 61-Year-Old Red Terry Leads Fight Against ... ›
- Mountain Valley Pipeline Construction Permit Revoked by Federal ... ›
When Europeans first arrived in North America, Atlantic puffins were common on islands in the Gulf of Maine. But hunters killed many of the birds for food or for feathers to adorn ladies' hats. By the 1800s, the population in Maine had plummeted.
- Experts Recommend Halving Global Fishing for Crucial Prey Species ›
- US Court Upholds Ruling on Vast Marine Monument Established by ... ›
A "major" natural gas explosion killed two people and seriously injured at least seven in Baltimore, Maryland Monday morning.
- Fatal Natural Gas Explosion Rocks Durham, NC - EcoWatch ›
- Gas Explosion Rips Through Maryland Office & Shopping Complex ... ›
Nearly 900 people across the U.S. and Canada have been sickened by salmonella linked to onions distributed by Thomson International, the The New York Times reported.
- Meat Producers Issue Massive Recalls after Salmonella, Listeria ... ›
- Salmonella Outbreaks Could Worsen with Decreased Poultry ... ›
- Major Salmonella Outbreak Exacerbated by Government Shutdown ... ›