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.
There's an open water meet in southern Missouri called Swimmin' in Moonshine (it's the Ozarks). The meet benefits the James River Basin Partnership and pulls together a lot of community activism. This is a great promotion of mutually beneficial interests. Interest in swimming and awareness of the issue are simultaneously raised.
What's the downside for coming out in support of clean water? Will the dirty water coalition publicly ridicule us?
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.
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.
publicly support/applaud efforts to make water safer for swimming
If this was a poll option it would be my vote.
I feel direct involvement, although in it's interests, is not part of it's mission and may be counterproductive for both.
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?)
Why not? Aside from advocating clean water acts, The Surfrider Foundation organizes community clean-ups wherever and whenever possible.
The more people to assist in ensuring clean water and beaches, the better!
www.surfrider.org/whatwedo2a.asp
This thread is quite interesting to me, since I coordinate a regional stormwater education consortium - we help to educate local communities on stormwater issues and solutions. Regardless of who (federal, state, local agencies or nonprofits) you want to improve our water quality, USMS needs clean water to swim! Polluted runoff is the #1 source of degraded water quality in most U.S. waterways. Once rain or melting snow hits the ground, it picks up pollutants (oil, fertilizers, pesticides, fecal matter, litter, etc.) as it travels- this is called stormwater runoff. Polluted runoff traveling to our streams, rivers, lakes and oceans is generally not treated/sanitized (like our drinking water). Efforts to reduce the negative effects of polluted runoff can begin with swimmers like us, e.g. learn about local issues in your waterways and educate others; participate in beach/river/lake clean-ups; sponsor local events that promote good water quality such as a stream restoration, marking "NO DUMPING LEADS TO WATERWAY" on storm drains, and/or raising funds for purchasing litter traps before trash and debris makes its way to the water. Whether or not through the Clean Water Act, USMS should take a stand for clean water!
This thread is quite interesting to me, since I coordinate a regional stormwater education consortium - we help to educate local communities on stormwater issues and solutions. Regardless of who (federal, state, local agencies or nonprofits) you want to improve our water quality, USMS needs clean water to swim! Polluted runoff is the #1 source of degraded water quality in most U.S. waterways. Once rain or melting snow hits the ground, it picks up pollutants (oil, fertilizers, pesticides, fecal matter, litter, etc.) as it travels- this is called stormwater runoff. Polluted runoff traveling to our streams, rivers, lakes and oceans is generally not treated/sanitized (like our drinking water). Efforts to reduce the negative effects of polluted runoff can begin with swimmers like us, e.g. learn about local issues in your waterways and educate others; participate in beach/river/lake clean-ups; sponsor local events that promote good water quality such as a stream restoration, marking "NO DUMPING LEADS TO WATERWAY" on storm drains, and/or raising funds for purchasing litter traps before trash and debris makes its way to the water. Whether or not through the Clean Water Act, USMS should take a stand for clean water!
I wondered how long it would take for you to jump on this one.
My understanding is that it takes two days for the test results to determine if the water is polluted. (And they test a pretty limited amount of dangerous stuff.)
This means that a serious lag period exists. We all know about not swimming for 72 hours after a rain. The spills you don't know about can really make you sick.
Should there be manditory water testing the day of the event, with the results posted 48 hours later?
Should an event be held 71 hours after a rain?
Should the event organizers be liable for running an event within that 72 hour period?
I have swam in many events where the water should have been closed to swimming. I have been ill soon after a few of those swims.
Some sort of standards is what I'm looking for, and I don't have a solution. I think that USMS could help.
My understanding is that it takes two days for the test results to determine if the water is polluted. (And they test a pretty limited amount of dangerous stuff.)
This means that a serious lag period exists. We all know about not swimming for 72 hours after a rain. The spills you don't know about can really make you sick.
Should there be manditory water testing the day of the event, with the results posted 48 hours later?
Should an event be held 71 hours after a rain?
Should the event organizers be liable for running an event within that 72 hour period?
I have swam in many events where the water should have been closed to swimming. I have been ill soon after a few of those swims.
Some sort of standards is what I'm looking for, and I don't have a solution. I think that USMS could help.
i say no, the organizers should not be liable. there are precautions swimmers could and should take if they think there is a possibility that they might be swimming in water that is compromised. water testing is beyond the expertise of event organizers. they can only rely on information received from govt or environmental orgs.
