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
A tornado tore through a city north of Birmingham, Alabama, Monday night, killing one person and injuring at least 30.
- Tornadoes and Climate Change: What Does the Science Say ... ›
- Tornadoes Hit Unusually Wide Swaths of U.S., Alarming Climate ... ›
- 23 Dead as Tornado Pummels Lee County, AL in Further Sign ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By David Konisky
On his first day in office President Joe Biden started signing executive orders to reverse Trump administration policies. One sweeping directive calls for stronger action to protect public health and the environment and hold polluters accountable, including those who "disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities."
Michael S. Regan, President Biden's nominee to lead the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, grew up near a coal-burning power plant in North Carolina and has pledged to "enact an environmental justice framework that empowers people in all communities." NCDEQ
- Report Urges Biden to Reverse Trump's Environmental Rollbacks ›
- US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ›
- Biden's EPA Pick Michael Regan Urged to Address Environmental ... ›
- Biden Faces Pressure to Tackle 'Unfunded' Toxic Waste Sites ... ›
By Katherine Kornei
Clear-cutting a forest is relatively easy—just pick a tree and start chopping. But there are benefits to more sophisticated forest management. One technique—which involves repeatedly harvesting smaller trees every 30 or so years but leaving an upper story of larger trees for longer periods (60, 90, or 120 years)—ensures a steady supply of both firewood and construction timber.
A Pattern in the Rings<p>The <a href="https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/coppice-standards-0" target="_blank">coppice-with-standards</a> management practice produces a two-story forest, said <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bernhard_Muigg" target="_blank">Bernhard Muigg</a>, a dendrochronologist at the University of Freiburg in Germany. "You have an upper story of single trees that are allowed to grow for several understory generations."</p><p>That arrangement imprints a characteristic tree ring pattern in a forest's upper story trees (the "standards"): thick rings indicative of heavy growth, which show up at regular intervals as the surrounding smaller trees are cut down. "The trees are growing faster," said Muigg. "You can really see it with your naked eye."</p><p>Muigg and his collaborators characterized that <a href="https://ltrr.arizona.edu/about/treerings" target="_blank">dendrochronological pattern</a> in 161 oak trees growing in central Germany, one of the few remaining sites in Europe with actively managed coppice-with-standards forests. They found up to nine cycles of heavy growth in the trees, the oldest of which was planted in 1761. The researchers then turned to a historical data set — more than 2,000 oak <a href="https://eos.org/articles/podcast-discovering-europes-history-through-its-timbers" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">timbers from buildings and archaeological sites</a> in Germany and France dating from between 300 and 2015 — to look for a similar pattern.</p>
A Gap of 500 Years<p>The team found wood with the characteristic coppice-with-standards tree ring pattern dating to as early as the 6th century. That was a surprise, Muigg and his colleagues concluded, because the first mention of this forest management practice in historical documents occurred only roughly 500 years later, in the 13th century.</p><p>It's probable that forest management practices were not well documented prior to the High Middle Ages (1000–1250), the researchers suggested. "Forests are mainly mentioned in the context of royal hunting interests or donations," said Muigg. Dendrochronological studies are particularly important because they can reveal information not captured by a sparse historical record, he added.</p><p>These results were <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78933-8" target="_blank">published in December in <em>Scientific Reports</em></a>.</p><p>"It's nice to see the longevity and the history of coppice-with-standards," said <a href="https://www.teagasc.ie/contact/staff-directory/s/ian-short/" target="_blank">Ian Short</a>, a forestry researcher at Teagasc, the Agriculture and Food Development Authority in Ireland, not involved in the research. This technique is valuable because it promotes conservation and habitat biodiversity, Short said. "In the next 10 or 20 years, I think we'll see more coppice-with-standards coming back into production."</p><p>In the future, Muigg and his collaborators hope to analyze a larger sample of historic timbers to trace how the coppice-with-standards practice spread throughout Europe. It will be interesting to understand where this technique originated and how it propagated, said Muigg, and there are plenty of old pieces of wood waiting to be analyzed. "There [are] tons of dendrochronological data."</p><p><em><a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Katherine Kornei</a> is a freelance science journalist covering Earth and space science. Her bylines frequently appear in Eos, Science, and The New York Times. Katherine holds a Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of California, Los Angeles.</em></p><p><em>This story originally appeared in <a href="https://eos.org/articles/tree-rings-reveal-how-ancient-forests-were-managed" target="_blank">Eos</a></em> <em>and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.</em></p>
Earth's ice is melting 57 percent faster than in the 1990s and the world has lost more than 28 trillion tons of ice since 1994, research published Monday in The Cryosphere shows.
By Jewel Fraser
Noreen Nunez lives in a middle-class neighborhood that rises up a hillside in Trinidad's Tunapuna-Piarco region.