The Morning Call article “Fish caught in area not safe for consumption,” published on January 31, reported on a draft report that is created every two years by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The report is required by the 1972 Clean Water Act and lists impaired waters requiring programs for remedial action and the overall conditions of Pennsylvania’s aquatic resources.
While the reporting in the article is by-and-large accurate, what is seriously misleading is the lack of emphasis on the word “draft” and the lack of explanation that, while these biannual reports include a large amount of information collected from the various waterways and lakes in the Commonwealth, that information often requires a significant amount of time to analyze, sometimes as long as years. They are reports of data, not reports of what caused the data to be what it is.
For example, saying that there has been an increase in the number of impaired streams from 30% to 33% in two years gives us no understanding of why or how that change occurred. So drawing conclusions from the essentially raw data provided in a draft report like this is premature and quite probably inaccurate. What this draft report provides is foundational data that must then be analyzed to determine the causes and sources of the data and what the proper remedies should be.
To then put an alarming headline on the article that claims that “fish caught in [the] area [are] not safe for consumption” fails to provide the context that any wild fish caught in urban streams are likely to have a high level of mercury contamination and that it’s been known for decades that children and pregnant women should not eat fish caught under those circumstances. Likewise, if the source of the mercury is acid rain, that is hardly a new finding. Acid rain was one of the first problems identified and tackled by the Clean Air Act when it was created in 1972, and while there have been enormous strides in diminishing it, it has not been completely eliminated. Therefore telling people that they shouldn’t eat fish caught in the Bushkill watershed because they contain mercury that might be caused by acid rain is not exactly new news.
What, then, is the value of a report like the “Draft 2022 Pennsylvania Integrated Water Quality Report?” It provides a biannual status report on the condition of the Commonwealth’s water quality. It indicates where changes have been occurring over the two-year period and, probably most importantly, points scientists and environmentalists towards those areas most urgently in need of in-depth analysis and remediation. Since the PA legislature is not known for providing sufficient funding to DEP to do the work necessary, reports like this help them prioritize the work that needs to be done.
For the general public, it can serve as a wake-up call to the fact that, with over 85,000 miles of rivers and streams in the Commonwealth, it’s unlikely that the DEP can be expected to keep up with all that data collection, let alone all the analysis necessary to look at every stream, river, lake and tributary. And the article points out that there are often many years between assessments of various waterways. It also reminds us that good water quality is not a given. It’s an area that we need to be continually focused on to ensure both public and environmental health.
By all means read the Call article, but not for the scare-mongering. Instead, read it for the excellent suggestions of how you can get involved that are offered by the various local water conservation experts quoted in the article. Take a look at the Draft 2022 Water Quality Report itself. It’s interesting, well put together, and interactive. You’ll probably learn a lot about our waterways and about how your tax dollars are working to keep them safe. And there’s information on how to submit comments during the public comment period that closes on March 1.
Then check out the Collaboration and Advocacy sections of this newsletter. There are all kinds of ways for you to get involved on both a local and state level.
What you don’t need to do is panic.
Excellent, balanced and informative. I wish more of the news we receive could take this approach.
Very well done and written! Thank you. Our watersheds and streams, for the most part, are better now than they were decades ago, which is the real untold story. We need to keep working on the sins of the past and pushing hard for continued protection and restoration in the face of ongoing high development pressure in our region. If we do things RIGHT, we can "have our cake and eat it, too." Please discuss with your friends and tell your local, county, and state governments that you care and that you want resource protection to be paramount as part of regulations and development projects.