So where is all the bad water quality coming from and what are we doing about it? The favorite answer is run-off. Environmentalists have no hesitation in blaming mainly farms, suburban construction sites and city streets as the point sources of water pollution in water. Contaminants include manure, mine waste, pesticides and used motor oil. Substances such as fertilizers and animal waste containing nitrogens, phosphorus and other nutrients that are emptied at the estuaries deprive water ways of the oxygen needed for aquatic life. This poses a threat to water animals, while other substances are harmful to human heath.
Farmers and big industries are the first to suffer. They are forced with new, expensive technologies to treat and store manure in attempts to keep it out of water ways, along with other methods of water treatment.. These innovations due to the Clean Water Act of 1972 have forced small farms, who cannot afford the technologies, out of business. This act was enforced to make water “fishable and swimmable” , although some view it as unfair. Personally, if a company cannot keep up to code with safety and regulations, especially dealing with the important topic of bad water quality, I believe it is completely necessary and fair. Colorado, in particular, continues to lose water from its recent dry-periods/droughts imposing water-restrictions, etc., therefore keeping the minute usable water safe should be of highest priority. However, farms and industries are not the only culprits; they are merely the biggest point sources. Point sources are the polluters who are easily traceable since they usually discharge pollutants directly into the water. On the other hand, the non-point sources are not found or able to be monitored and reduced.
Regardless of the source, pollutants are reaching water ways. The Clean Water Act of 1972 may have reduced water pollution by 20%, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), but it’s not enough. Other acts have the same goals, as decreasing bad water quality slowly and subtly are among the outcomes, yet none have had substantial effects. However, there are acts and strict regulations as to where Recreational and Reclamation reservoirs can be created. There are those who argue against adding more recreational reservoirs, but what they might not realize is the harmlessness and innocence they have. Most recreational water ways are adjacently created with Reclamation reservoirs, known as Recreation Benefits. These reservoirs involve hydroelectricity sources, flood control, navigation, water supply, etc. The argument is that the benefits and costs are negligently defined. The fact that the reservoir is recreational lies within the development planning, though. These reservoirs increase in number, when planned correctly. It is the water ways that are created solely for recreations that are ignorant and redundant since population and recreation demand increase while water resources become scarcer.
It is not illegal to build a recreational reservoir either way, especially due to numerous acts from the last 5 decades. “Five major Federal laws govern the existence of most large Federally constructed reservoirs in Colorado.” Mainly, these acts serve to enhance recreation, fish and wildlife, define and manage cost-sharing, restrict and lower projects via authorizations including ‘letters of intent’, and give the agencies general authority for recreational development at their particular reservoir’s site. These acts along with several bi-laws have restricted and reduced recreational reservoirs. The guidelines/ bi-laws account for the gruesome process to develop a recreational reservoir. Nonetheless, this long process undeniably decreases unsafe reservoirs. Before a project can be carried out, engineers and scientists conduct a series of tests, sampling and surveys to reach the recreational potential. Basically, they describe the existing reservoirs (or reservoirs in the works) for potentiality. These analyses incorporate the present ownership, physical descriptions, management, accessibility, usage and contiguous facilities of existing reservoirs as well as number of existing reservoirs nearby, location, and fish, chemical and invertebrate sampling. Furthermore, and most important in the process, is the testing for pathogens in existing and potential recreational water ways. Former President Clinton established this Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Heath Act in October of 2000. Even though the costs reach $30 million a year in Federal grants to monitor these reservoirs and beaches, I believe the recreational value to be worth the costs. Either way, we have water recreation now, and this act stands as a regulator to ensure the safety of the water ways used today. Therefore, water recreation is as safe as it can be, at least where the water chemicals are concerned. Drowning, crashes and other accidents are another issue.
Arguably, people see this type of outdoor recreation as causing more bad water quality and adding Federal costs, yet Americans thirst for this expanding popular outdoor activity and as an avid participator, I applaud the measures taken to reduce all forms of water water pollution. There are definitely more steps we could be taking to continue to reduce bad water quality, but ridding of boating would not be plausible since boat emissions are low, and since there is a safer boat that should be more accessible. The legal swimming and boating areas will be safe to enter and add no significant form of water pollution to reservoirs. This includes reclamation reservoirs for water supply and therefore, recreation does not interfere with drinkable water. Clean Water Acts are being amended and created, as are new acts to purify our water. So, we don’t have to think about what could be in our water, we just expect it to be uncontaminated and always accessible, but we should thank all those who aid in ensuring this. Finally, we can water ski without guilt, especially if the boat in front of us has a 4-stroke diesel-fueled engine.
|
