Monthly Archive for January, 2009

2008 Impaired List Due Out Feb. 2

Published on January 30, 2009 in Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Hi Alan,
 
Actually, the new Draft 2008 List is not available yet.  It will be available on or before February 2, 2009.  The notice went out today in order to give 30-days notice on the workshops in mid-February, and it made sense to include all the other dates for this project at the same time.
 
When the 2008 Integrated Report is available, there will definitely be a summary list posted of the new listing and delisting recommendations.  
Sorry for getting your hopes up with a notice but no document.
 
Rebecca
 
Rebecca Fitzgerald, Environmental Scientist
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
5550 Skylane Boulevard, Suite A
Santa Rosa, California  95403
707-576-2650
Fax 523-0135
rfitzgerald@waterboards.ca.gov

To SWRCB:

I went to the website Link and found the 2006 impaired list there. I do not see a link to the 2008 report at the SWRCB website. When will the proposed changes be out?

Could a “List of Proposed Changes” be made available. It is hard to know what is new and what is old. 

Help!!!!!!

Alan

Tribe Seeks to Halt suction Dredging on Parts of the Klamath River

Published on January 29, 2009 in Gravel Mining Impacts and Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

Dylan Darling
January 14, 2009

National Gold's Suction Dredge, Klamath River

An American Indian tribe from the Klamath River has petitioned the state to ban a popular form of recreational gold mining on parts of the river and many of its tributaries.

The Karuk Tribe — along with conservation groups California Trout, Friends of the North Fork and the Sierra Fund — filed the petition late last month, asking the California Department of Fish and Game to limit suction dredging for the sake of salmon.

“We are not trying to end gold mining or suction dredging, but we are saying, ‘Let’s not mine in the places that are most important to the fish,’ ” said Craig Tucker, spokesman for the Happy Camp-based tribe.

In the 11-page petition, the tribe asks for a ban on suction dredging where the creeks and other rivers flow into the Klamath. In suction dredging, miners use gasoline- or diesel-powered pumps to suck submerged gravel from the waterway and run it through a sluice box in search of gold.

The state has until Jan. 25 to respond to the request, which also includes some creeks in the Sierra Nevada, said Jordan Traverso, deputy director of the DFG’s office of communication.

“We are reviewing the complex petition from the tribe, and we have not taken a position on this at this time,” Traverso said.

While the tribe says suction dredging creates harmful conditions for salmon and steelhead by clouding the water with mud and stirs up mercury, those who do the dredging say it actually improves the river for the fish.

Silt Created by Suction Dredging

“The worst thing they could do is ban dredging on the Klamath because of the dams on the river,” said Dan Stamps, a Redding man who has been suction dredging for 28 years.

The dams hold back flood waters that normally would have flushed the river periodically, shuffling its gravel, he said. Through suction dredging, he said miners break up packed gravel and create spawning habitat.

As for the muddy water, Stamps said a strong rainstorm creates much cloudier water than suction dredging.

“Mother Nature puts more mud into the rivers than all the miners in California all year long,” Stamps said.

While dredging does bring up mercury — a heavy liquid metal left on bedrock below gravel bars from 19th century gold mining — Stamps said recreational miners are doing a good thing because they then haul it out.

“They don’t throw that mercury back into the creek,” Stamps said.

Reporter Dylan Darling can be reached at 225-8266 or ddarling@redding.com.

Editorial: Time for New Rules on Suction Mining

Published on January 29, 2009 in Gravel Mining Impacts and Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

Published: Jan. 20, 2009

It’s not news that salmon populations have declined drastically. Last year, regulators voted to ban all salmon fishing along the Pacific coast of California and Oregon. Their actions wiped out the livelihoods of thousands of commercial fishermen, fish processors and charter boat operators.

The threat facing salmon is so dire that regulators are expected to continue the 2008 salmon fishing ban through 2009.

So it seems incredible that in the creeks and tributaries of the state’s major rivers where salmon lay their eggs, suction gold mine dredging continues under regulations that are now 15 years old. These rules are badly out of date and inadequate to protect dwindling number of fish.

Recreational miners use giant dredges to vacuum the creeks and river beds, sucking up tons of sand and rocks in search of tiny flecks of gold. In the process, state fish and game experts say, they destroy precious salmon spawning grounds and kill salmon eggs, young salmon, trout and sturgeon.

The California Department of Fish and Game has the power to stop the damaging practice. It should do so immediately.

The Karuk Indian Tribe and a handful of conservation groups, including California Trout and the Sierra Fund, have petitioned DFG to issue emergency regulations to limit when and where dredging can be done on the Klamath River, its tributaries and five other streams in the Sierra including the north fork of the American River near Auburn.

In 2006, the Karuks sued Fish and Game to force the department to overhaul its suction dredging rules. Pushed by suction dredge miners, the courts ordered the department to complete a California Environmental Quality Act review before it acted. That review was supposed to take 18 months and be completed by July 2008.

The department has already missed its deadline by 6 months and the review hasn’t even begun. Meanwhile, harmful dredging continues.

As the petition seeking the emergency actions makes clear, the fish are in peril. A 2008 federal report documented a 73 percent decline in coho salmon returning to spawning grounds in California between 2004 and 2007. Another study concluded the coho “was in danger of extinction.”

Suction dredge gold miners claim that their activities improve the spawning grounds, especially on streams where dams have impeded the flow of water allowing silt to build up. They say global warming, not suction mining, has harmed the fishery. But fish experts both inside and outside the department disagree.

At a minimum it will take the department two more years of study before the CEQA review is completed and rules can be updated to protect fish. That is two more years of status quo dredging while endangered salmon populations continue to dwindle.

The Department of Fish and Game should act before that trend becomes irreversible.

Comment Letter on North Coast Basin Plan

Published on January 28, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Climate Change, Gravel Mining Impacts, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Please review – open to suggestions

COAST ACTION GROUP
P.O. BOX 215
POINT ARENA, CA 95468
January 21, 2009
  

Catherine Kuhlman:  Executive Officer
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
5550 Skylane Blvd.  Ste. A
Santa Rosa, CA 95403

Subject: Proposal to Amend the North Coast Basin Plan by Establishing  Exception Criteria to the Point Source Waste Discharge Prohibitions 

The proposed policy, including a Basin Plan Amendment, is designed to facilitate use of  recycled wastewater (and other “Low Threat” incidental discharges) while continuing to implement sufficient controls, including Stormwater runoff controls, to provide ongoing protection of beneficial uses of regional ground and surface waters. 
Many of the surface waters, rivers and streams, in the north coast region do not meet Water Quality Standards and are listed as Impaired – for various pollutants including: Sediment, Temperature, Nutrients, lack of DO, and Pathogens. 
Currently the rivers and streams of the north coast are suffering low flow conditions due to lack of rainfall. This situation amplifies Impaired Status from pollutants.  
We support use of recycled wastewater for irrigation use. Recycled wastewater, and other “low threat” discharges mentioned in this proposed policy can convey pollutants, including phamacuticles and other chemicals, to ground and surface waters. We (water quality advocates and the Regional Board) also recognize the need for ample protection of surface and ground water from potential threats occurring from improper or accidental  misuse of recycled water wastewater for irrigation and/or other “Low Threat” discharges from various point sources. 
The current policy language in this proposed amendment to the Basin Plan goes a long way in attempts to address significant issue in an effort to control pollution sources and further degradation of surface and ground water. However, there are areas where language improvements can be made to assure the controls necessary is a Basin Plan Amendment meets necessary managerial and legal standards when such policy so implemented assures protections under the Basin Plan Anti-degradation language and  also under California Water Code and the State Public Rescues Code (CEQA).

Anti-Degradation Language in the Basin Plan
Anti-Degradation Language speaks to the limitation and control of pollutant sources of surface waters that are noted to be impaired.  This proposed Basin Plan Amendment should be consistent with the Anti-Degradation Language in the Basin Plan. There should be language contained in the proposed Basin Plan Amendment that speaks to and demonstrates such consistency.  Such consistency analysis and language in mandated under CEQA,  as mitigation of potential impacts, complete and full project description of project, and for legal consistency analysis. 

Criteria Under Stormwater Plans/NPDES Permits
Under the current language, allowance, standards, and controls (including BMPs) enabling “Low Threat” discharges are to be used  justification criteria based on language contained in currently existing Stormwater Plans/NPDES Permits. Though there is currently language in place in these existing Stormwater Plan/NPDES permits, it has been established that such language and/or BMPs are not sufficient to protect surface and ground water.  The Regional Board has newly proposed Stormwater Plan/NPDES language for the City of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County.  Approval of the newly revised and updated Stormwater/NPDES permits should occur prior to allowing expansion of use of  recycled wastewater using any “Low Threat” discharge criteria. 
If newly revised Stormwater/NPDES are not yet approved, the specific recycling programs should be derived on an individually permitted basis – with adequate control language, and subject to CEQA, Water Code, and Basin Plan Standards  – with adequate BMPs attached.  This also applies to any individual “Low Threat” discharge plan that is independent (not covered under an adequate Stormwater/NPDES permit). 
These processes should be clarified with some revised or additional language in the Basin Plan Amendment process. 

Basin Plan and Water Code
Basin Plan(s), including amendment to same, are Water Quality Control Plans. Basin Plans, and amendments, are subject to Cal Water Code (Porter-Cologne Act, §13242 Implementing Program)
These Water Code requirements mandate inclusion of descriptions of actions to take place to maintain or recover Water Quality Standards, a timeline for implementation,  and monitoring to assure compliance with the stated program. This Water Code mandate suggests that enforceable language to protect surface and ground water, including applicable and sufficient BMPs, must be included in this proposed Basin Plan amendment. 

California Environmental Quality Act
The mandates of the California Environmental Quality Act apply to this proposed Basin Plan Amendment and/or any “Low Threat’ discharge permits promulgated by the Regional Board. 
The proposed Basin Plan amendment, and related language, satisfies the CEQA mandate for project description.
The proposed Basin Plan amendment, and related language, does not go far enough to clarify implementation policy (including BMPs) necessary to mitigate potential degradation of ground and surface waters from proposed policy changes. As stated above, new Stormwater Permits, with appropriate control language (including BMPs), should be in place for the City of Santa Rosa and the County of Sonoma. In cases  where the City and/or County Stormwater NPDES permits are not in place (with appropriate control language and BMPs), “Low Threat” discharge permits shall be individually considered and go through a permitting process (that would provide appropriate control language and BMPs) and be subject to CEQA as a project. 

Recommendations

It is recommended that proposed Basin Plan language be revised and clarified to address issues presented – above. 
In addition, please consider the language presented, below, for  revisions to  the currently proposed policy. 

In order to protect the environment in the summer low flowing streams (this amendment fails to differentiate between high winter flows and summer low flows) we recommend that the following additions be included in this Amendment:

·         Monitoring of wastewater water quality should occur near the site and time of application to assure that the quality matches that of the Treatment Plant effluent;
·         A maximum numerical amount be defined for “incidental runoff”;
·         Setbacks from creeks be required, with much greater setbacks in proximity to 303(d) listed creeks (600’ would be appropriate as with AB 885);
·         City of Santa Rosa proposed pollutant off-set trading not be considered until Stromwater NPDES and BMPs are in place;
·         That irrigation only be applied at agronomical rates;
·         That multiple violators of wastewater irrigation rules not be allowed to irrigate with wastewater for at least a year, if not cut off entirely;
·         That the program be revisited after the second year of implementation and annual reports written in detail to evaluate any problems;
·         That a public review process be included with that review;
·         Include a re-opener clause as new information about unregulated and other contaminants becomes available and new regulations are needed; 

 

Sincerely, 

For Coast Action Group

Alan Levine

Green Practices to Manage Stormwater Runoff

Published on January 28, 2009 in Waste Discharge. 0 Comments

FYI…
Brock

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Video Shows Green Practices to Manage Stormwater Runoff

Contact: Enesta Jones, (202) 564-4355/7873/jones.enesta@epa.gov

(Washington, D.C. – Jan. 15, 2009) The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Botanic Garden produced an on-line video , “Reduce
Runoff: Slow It Down, Spread It Out, Soak It In,” that highlights green
techniques such as rain gardens, green roofs and rain barrels to help
manage stormwater runoff.

The film showcases green techniques that are being used in urban areas
to reduce the effects of stormwater runoff on the quality of downstream
receiving waters. The goal is to mimic the natural way water moves
through an area before development by using design techniques that
infiltrate, evaporate, and reuse runoff close to its source.

The techniques are innovative stormwater management practices that
manage urban stormwater runoff at its source, and are very effective at
reducing the volume of stormwater runoff and capturing harmful
pollutants. Using vegetated areas that capture runoff also improves air
quality, mitigates the effects of urban heat islands and reduces a
community’s overall carbon footprint.

The video highlights green techniques on display in 2008 at the U.S.
Botanic Garden’s “One Planet – Ours!” Exhibit” and at the U.S. EPA in
Washington, D.C., including recently completed cisterns.

To watch the video: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/video.html

More information on stormwater management:
http://www.epa.gov/greeninfrastructure

Patty Scott
US EPA, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
Ariel Rios Building, 4501T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
scott.patricia@epa.gov
(202) 566-1292
240-314-7128 (Thursday flexiplace)
703-975-9839 (Cell)
Fax (202) 566-1326
URL:www.epa.gov/owow

Action for Abuse in Wetlands

Published on January 23, 2009 in Streams and Wetlands. 0 Comments

Re: The June 2008 trenching incident in the Atascadero Wetlands — 
RECOMMENDED ACTION (see below)

The property owner of the three parcels at 9170 Occidental Road has completed short-term winterization of areas disturbed by unpermitted trenching and excavation work conducted by him in June 2008. The short term winterization was completed under the supervision of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB), the Sonoma County Permit and Resource Management Department (SCPRMD), and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). As the result of numerous violations on the property, the agencies also required a biotic resource assessment and a long-term restoration plan. These documents were submitted to the agencies by the property owner. 

Having reviewed the documents submitted by the property owner, we have concerns regarding the accuracy and adequacy of both the biological assessment and the long-term restoration and management plan. Some of our concerns are detailed in comments prepared by FAW member Anna Ransome; a copy of her comments is attached to this email as an rtf file. 

ACTION NEEDED: We are asking people to send public comment to local, state and federal agencies and public officials. 
A sample comment letter, which you may copy and paste into your email, follows. 
Or, you may choose to review the above-mentioned materials and write your own critique. If you wish to read the NCRWQCB Cleanup & Abatement Order, go to: http://www.atascaderogreenvalleywatershed.net/AtascaderoWetlandTrencingJune2008/CAO_R1-2008-0096.pdf
If you wish to read the property owner’s Biological Resource Assessment (dated October 29, 2008) and Long-Term Restoration Plan (dated December 5, 2008), go to: http://www.atascaderogreenvalleywatershed.net/AtascaderoWetlandTrencingJune2008/BRA&LTP.pdf 
These links will take you to downloads of PDF files of the documents. (Thanks to the Atascadero / Green Valley Watershed Council for providing the web downloads.)

Sample comment letter:

Atascadero Creek and its associated wetlands south of Graton contribute significantly to the environmental health, quality of life and beauty of our community. Some of the wetlands form an open space vista along the Joe Rodota Trail where they are daily appreciated by the public. There is great community support to preserve and protect the creek and wetlands south of Graton. 

In June 2008, unpermitted work was performed at 9170 Occidental Road, Sebastopol, CA which caused damage to the creeks and wetlands. I am concerned about the short-term and long-term impacts of the June 2008 trenching work in Walker Creek, a tributary to Atascadero Creek, and the disturbance of the wetland areas. As such, I support careful evaluation of the accuracy and adequacy of the October 29, 2008 biological assessment in order that all potential impacts are identified and addressed. I also question if the short-term and long-term management plans are adequate to restore the creek and wetlands to their pre-excavation condition and whether the monitoring plan is adequate to identify long-term problems as a result of the damage that has taken place. I support a thorough review of the short term and long term management plans by regulatory agencies and outside experts, experienced in restoration of wetland environments.

I also support the enforcement of federal, state and county regulations which apply to this situation, including a full U.S. Army Corps of Engineers delineation of wetlands on all three parcels as required by North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) Cleanup & Abatement Order (CAO) R1-2008-0096. Without an ACOE delineation, it will be impossible to determine the full extent of wetlands on the property to allow for their long-term management. In addition, I support enforcement of CAO R1-2008-0096 1 through 6, as required by the NCRWQCB. 

I urge complete restoration of the property to its pre-excavation state. Development of a conservation and management plan to ensure the long term health and survival of the Atascadero wetlands is overdue. The Atascadero Wetlands are a valuable community resource which should be preserved and protected for future generations.

Sincerely, 
[Your Name Here], a Friend of Atascadero Wetlands 

Comments may be emailed to any or all of the following. You can copy and paste the addresses into your email address bar. 
Jeff Holtzman, Sonoma County Deputy District Attorney, Environmental & Consumer Affairs <jholtzma@sonoma-county.org>
Catherine Kuhlman, Executive Officer, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board <ckuhlman@waterboards.ca.gov>
Stephen Bargsten, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board <sbargsten@waterboards.ca.gov>
Kason Grady, North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board <kgrady@waterboards.ca.gov>
Dan Wilson, Environmental Scientist, California Department of Fish & Game, Bay Delta Region <dwilson@dfg.ca.gov>
Jane Hicks , Regulatory Division Chief, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers <jane.m.hicks@usace.army.mil>
Efren Carrillo, Sonoma County Fifth District Supervisor <ecarrillo@sonoma-county.org>
Pete Parkinson, Director, Sonoma County Permit & Resource Management Department <pparkins@sonoma-county.org>

If you are writing your own comments letter, please support these essential points: 
1. Recognition that Atascadero Creek and its associated wetlands provide important benefits for the public, water quality and quantity, and biological resources; 
2. A complete evaluation of the adequacy and accuracy of the biological assessment and long-term restoration and management plan submitted by the property owner; 
3. A full Army Corps of Engineers wetland delineation as required by NCRWQCB CAO R1-2008-0096; and 
4. Creation of a long-term conservation and management plan to preserve, protect and restore the Atascadero wetlands. 

As always, thank you for your continued support of these important wetlands and creeks.
— Anna Ransome, Jo Bentz, Julia Pollock, John Herrick, Kate Winter, and Margaret Brown, for Friends of Atascadero Wetlands 
The mission of the Friends of Atascadero Wetlands is to preserve, protect, enhance and restore the wetland and riparian areas of Atascadero Creek for present and future generations.

The Value of Water Forum

Published on January 22, 2009 in Climate Change, Water Conservation and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

To All,

   Thursday, January 29, 2009, 7:30 – 9:30 am     

Embassy Suites Hotel

101 McInnis Parkway

San Rafael, CA 94903

Restoring the vitality of the economy, protecting the health of the environment,and responding to California’s drought are perhaps the greatest challenges now facing the state (and our region). This two-hour forum on January 29 will focus on the water supply challenges facing MMWD and the long-term solutions the district is considering.    
   Speakers include MMWD Director David Behar, MMWD General Manager Paul Helliker, and Sonoma State University Economics Dept. Chair Robert Eyler, Ph.D. There will also be an opportunity for attendees to ask questions and provide feedback.     
   To register, go to https://www.acteva.com/go/mmwdevents <http://cts.vresp.com/c/?MarinConservationLea/8a23b70097/628785f3e3/186f113e0b>     
 We hope you will be able to attend this important event. Note that space is limited, so we urge you to register promptly.  Thank you. We look forward to seeing you on January 29.  

Urgent Letters Needed on Basin Plan Amendment

Published on January 20, 2009 in Agriculture Impacts, Groundwater, Lakes and Resevoirs, Logging Impacts, Pesticide pollution, Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands, Waste Discharge and Watershed Related. 0 Comments

Friends of Clean Water:

LETTERS ARE URGENTLY NEEDED!!!  ALSO, PLEASE SHARE THE FOLLOWING WITH PEOPLE ON YOUR EMAIL LISTS.

RRWPC has serious concerns about part of the Basin Plan Amendment being
proposed by the North Coast Regional Board.  Those concerns are listed in
the sample letter attached to this email.  We encourage you to write either
an individual or group letter to  Executive Officer Catherine Kuhlman that
raises the issues described in the letter.  You can copy the letter if you
want, but please put it on your own stationary and personalize it in the
first paragraph.  Also feel free to add your own comments. THE DEADLINE FOR
THE LETTER IS JANUARY 29TH, BUT PLEASE SEND AT LEAST THREE DAYS EARLIER IF
YOU SEND BY REGULAR MAIL.  YOU CAN EMAIL COMMENTS TO:
CKuhlman@waterboards.ca.gov

 

In response to RW’s featured article, Top Eleven Chemicals in Drinking Water”:

The two scientists mentioned had been hired by the City of Santa Rosa in 2007 to
give presentations downplaying the significance of pharmaceuticals, personal
care products, and other toxins, including endocrine disruptors in the
wastewater and water supply.  Following this article are  our (RRWPC)
comments on why we think the problem is serious and is being downplayed by
these prominent scientists.  One thing they don’t mention is how children
are impacted in their development by having these drugs, even in small
amounts, in our drinking water supply.  Please read our comments following
the article.

RRWPC REPLY TO ARTICLE:

The scientists mentioned above had been hired by the City of Santa Rosa in
2007 to allay concerns about the issue of pharmaceuticals in the environment
and drinking water supply.  What is significant here is that they are even
finding these substances in the drinking water supply.  They emphasize that
the amounts are small but they leave out some important facts:

No one knows how these chemicals interact with one another nor how they may
bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic life that are then ingested by
humans for food.  They don’t mention combined impacts of these substances in
water AND food.  

There has also been a lot of evidence, at least on atrazine, that very small
doses turn frogs into hermaphrodites,

They don’t know what the safe levels of these substances are for children.
There is a lot of concern now about the growing rates of autism and
diabetes. 

It is suspected that this malady and many other diseases showing up in
younger people (for instance, diabetes) are environmentally caused. Also,
breast cancer in young women and testicular cancer in young men appears to
be increasing.  

There is a high rate of cancer in dogs that we don’t hear much about.

The list goes on.  We are very concerned about widespread distribution of
recycled water.  At the very least, there needs to be a lot of testing to
see how much of these toxins are in recycled water before they move forward
with a lot of expensive pipeline projects.  (Santa Rosa’s irrigation project
is estimated to cost $150 million.)

Also, there is a lot of emphasis now to install drought resistant
landscaping.  What is the point of going to a  lot of expense (and energy
costs) to install irrigation systems for recycled water, if most landscapes
aren’t even going to need it?  In terms of global warming, it would probably
be a lot more energy efficient to change landscapes rather than pump
wastewater all over the place.

Finally, there was a program recently on KRCB called “Liquid Assets” that
indicated a great need for infrastructure repair (water and wastewater) and
the vast amounts of water that is lost on old leaky plumbing.  It would be a
lot more sustainable and energy efficient, not to mention healthier to fix
the infrastructure we have, focus on conservation and source control, and
forget irrigation except in  very limited circumstances.  Huge recycling
goals by the State are going in the wrong direction.

WE URGE EVERYONE TO WRITE A LETTER EXPRESSING THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT EMERGING AND UNREGULATED TOXINS THAT MAY BE HAVING A DIRE EFFECT ON OUR HEALTH, OUR PETS, OUR AQUATIC LIFE AND WILD LIFE AND ULTIMATELY, OUR ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM.

Thank you.

Brenda Adelman

Top 11 Compounds in US Drinking Water

Published on January 20, 2009 in Groundwater. 0 Comments

Rowan Hooper, New Scientist – 1/12/09

A comprehensive survey of the drinking water for more than 28 million Americans has detected the widespread but low-level presence of pharmaceuticals and hormonally active chemicals.

Little was known about people’s exposure to such compounds from drinking water, so Shane Snyder and colleagues at the Southern Nevada Water Authority in Las Vegas screened tap water from 19 US water utilities for 51 different compounds. The surveys were carried out between 2006 and 2007.

The 11 most frequently detected compounds – all found at extremely low concentrations – were:

  1. Atenolol, a beta-blocker used to treat cardiovascular disease
  2. Atrazine, an organic herbicide banned in the European Union, but still used in the US, which has been implicated in the decline of fish stocks and in changes in animal behaviour
  3. Carbamazepine, a mood-stabilising drug used to treat bipolar disorder, amongst other things
  4. Estrone, an oestrogen hormone secreted by the ovaries and blamed for causing gender-bending changes in fish
  5. Gemfibrozil, an anti-cholesterol drug
  6. Meprobamate, a tranquiliser widely used in psychiatric treatment
  7. Naproxen, a painkiller and anti-inflammatory linked to increases in asthma incidence
  8. Phenytoin, an anticonvulsant that has been used to treat epilepsy
  9. Sulfamethoxazole, an antibiotic used against the Streptococcus bacteria, which is responsible for tonsillitis and other diseases
  10. TCEP, a reducing agent used in molecular biology
  11. Trimethoprim, another antibiotic

The concentrations of pharmaceuticals in drinking water were millions of times lower than in a medical dose, and Snyder emphasizes that they pose no public health threat. He cautions, though, that “if a person has a unique health condition, or is concerned about particular contaminants in public water systems, I strongly recommend they consult their physician”.

Christian Daughton of the EPA’s National Exposure Research Laboratory says that neither this nor other recent water assessments give cause for health concern. “But several point to the potential for risk – especially for the fetus and those with severely compromised health.”

Daughton says the contamination surveys help people realize how they are intimately and inseparably connected with their environment. “The occurrence of pharmaceuticals in the environment also serves to make us acutely aware of the chemical sea that surrounds us,” he says.

Modern life While the US government regulates the levels of pathogens in US drinking water, there are no rules for pharmaceuticals and other compounds, apart from one: the herbicide atrazine. The atrazine levels measured by Snyder and colleagues were well within federal limits.

Snyder says water utilities could make drinking water purer. But the costs of “extreme purification” – far beyond what is needed for safety alone – are huge in terms of increased energy usage and carbon footprint. Ultra-pure water might not even be safe, adds Snyder.

The widespread occurrence of pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors reflects improved detection techniques, rather than greater pollution, says Snyder. Contamination is a fact of modern life, he adds.

“As we continue to populate and aggregate, our wastes will certainly accumulate where we live,” he says. “We as a species have decided to live a modern life, with pharmaceuticals, plastics, transportation – therefore we must accept that there will be a certain degree of contamination.”

New Evidence that River Pollution could be causing Male Fertility Problems

Published on January 20, 2009 in Salmonid/Wildlife Impacts, Streams and Wetlands and Waste Discharge. 0 Comments

Testosterone-blocking chemicals have been found in UK rivers for the first time in new research that strengthens the link between water pollution and rising male fertility problems.

Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent Jan 2009

Bar graph: Percentage of fish with male perm cells and femal-like avarian cavities

Anti-androgens, that are found in a number of medicines including cancer treatments and pesticides used in agriculture, were found in 30 rivers across England.

The group of chemicals can block the male hormone and therefore reduce male fertility.

Scientists found male fish are already being affected and warned that it could also be contributing to a reduction in human sperm counts, that have been falling in the last fifty years.

In the past the contraceptive pill has been blamed for “feminising” male fish but levels would have to be extremely high to affect humans.

However anti-androgens have been proven to affect humans in small measures and provide a much stronger link between river pollution and male fertility.

The three year study by Brunel University, the Universities of Exeter and Reading and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology looked at more than 1,000 fish in rivers across the UK.

Previous studies have already shown that the female sex hormone oestrogen is causing the feminisation of fish and in some cases can lead to male fish changing sex.

The chemical, found in the contraceptive pill and some industrial chemicals, enters rivers via sewage works.

The new study shows that anti-androgens are also causing male fertility problems in a “double whammy” for the fish.

Senior author Professor Charles Tyler of the University of Exeter said the study showed that a much wider range of chemicals than previously thought could be affecting male wildlife and human health.

“Our research shows that a much wider range of chemicals than we previously thought is leading to hormone disruption in fish.

This means that the pollutants causing these problems are likely to be coming from a wide variety of sources.

Our findings also strengthen the argument for the cocktail of chemicals in our water leading to hormone disruption in fish, and contributing to the rise in male reproductive problems.

There are likely to be many reasons behind the rise in male fertility problems in humans, but these findings could reveal one, previously unknown, factor.”

Prof Tyler said there was a lack of evidence to prove a small amount of oestrogen found in river water could affect human fertility, however studies on rats and mice have shown a small amount of anti-androgens can affect male fertility in mammals.

“There is good evidence for more problems in male reproductivty in human males in the last fifty or sixty years,” he said. “The anti-androgens are possibly a contributing factor.”

The study will now concentrate on where the anti-androgens are coming from and the affect on human health.

Lead author on the research paper Dr Susan Jobling at Brunel University’s Institute for the Environment, said the group would be working with regulators like the Environment Agency to consider whether levels of the pollutant need to be controlled in order to protect health.

She said: “We have identified a new group of chemicals in our study on fish, but do not know where they are coming from. A principal aim of our work is now to identify the source of these pollutants and work with regulators and relevant industry to test the effects of a mixture of these chemicals and the already known environmental estrogens and help protect environmental health.”

Click here to see the full abstract.