Lots of talk these days about stripping the budget of the EPA... some would even nix the agency altogether.
Since swimming in polluted water is certainly a safety issue, I think this is a topic that should transcend politics (but what do I know?)
Should USMS add a statement of support for a healthy aquatic world to the mission?
As one who spends a hell of a lot of time in bodies of water that were much more compromised two decades ago than they are today, its easy to guess where I stand. Much progress has been made toward restoring the health of our waterways, but there is a long way to go.
Parents
Former Member
I didn't vote in the poll because it is a mixed thing: I believe that USMS should publicly support/applaud efforts to make water safer for swimming, but I don't think they necessarily need to explicitly support the EPA or Clean Water Act to do so.
(I say this as someone who believes that EPA is grossly underfunded already given the scope of its responsibilities.)
But USMS supporting the CWA -- instead of "clean/healthy water" -- is too overtly political in my opinion. Clear water certainly seems within the purview of USMS given its recent push of OW swimming, especially since the elderly can be more susceptible to the effects of poor water quality.
chris, i can always count on you for a well measured response. i personally am not sure the EPA could be any more effective even were they given unlimited funding. There are just too many exemptions granted to big polluters. (oil and gas).
I belong to a swimming club that has a membership of +/- 800. The club was formed as a requirement (through negotiations with NYS) to gain swimming access to one of our beautiful lakes. I have proposed that we become a USMS club in the past, but really couldn't (and still can't) find any real points to justify what will amount to a larger annual fee than what is now required. I do think the environmental angle would carry some weight as many in the group are active members of Riverkeeper, Clearwater, Scenic Hudson, etc.
I didn't vote in the poll because it is a mixed thing: I believe that USMS should publicly support/applaud efforts to make water safer for swimming, but I don't think they necessarily need to explicitly support the EPA or Clean Water Act to do so.
(I say this as someone who believes that EPA is grossly underfunded already given the scope of its responsibilities.)
But USMS supporting the CWA -- instead of "clean/healthy water" -- is too overtly political in my opinion. Clear water certainly seems within the purview of USMS given its recent push of OW swimming, especially since the elderly can be more susceptible to the effects of poor water quality.
chris, i can always count on you for a well measured response. i personally am not sure the EPA could be any more effective even were they given unlimited funding. There are just too many exemptions granted to big polluters. (oil and gas).
I belong to a swimming club that has a membership of +/- 800. The club was formed as a requirement (through negotiations with NYS) to gain swimming access to one of our beautiful lakes. I have proposed that we become a USMS club in the past, but really couldn't (and still can't) find any real points to justify what will amount to a larger annual fee than what is now required. I do think the environmental angle would carry some weight as many in the group are active members of Riverkeeper, Clearwater, Scenic Hudson, etc.
