What's in the water?

Earlier this week the Environmental Protection Agency released seriously disconcerting news about water quality in our rivers and streams.  During 2008 and 2009 the agency drew nearly 2,000 samples from all sizes of streams, from the Mississippi River to little rivulets.  Barely a fifth (21%) of these streams could be considered to be in good biological health, meaning that they provided healthy habitats for plants and animals.  Slightly more than a fifth (23%) were judged to be in "fair condition."  But most significantly more than half (55%) were judged to be in "poor condition"; plants and animals struggle to survive in these streams.

What's causing the pollution?  The EPA report stressed two sources.  The first, and probably most important, is nutrient pollution in the form of phosphorus and nitrogen originating in agricultural fertilizers and animal waste products, and to some extent from urban waste waters.  The second is residential and commercial development; runoff from cleared lands carries pollutants into the streams.  

© U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

When I can, I also try to follow this issue in France.  (Someday maybe the political situation in Italy will get sorted out and I'll have time to catch up on environmental policies there, too.)  In France a report issued in 2010 indicated that, even if the sampling methodologies were different, the water quality problems are similar.  In this case Onema (l'Office national de l'eau et des milieux aquatiques) included lakes and marshes, as well as rivers and streams.  The agency reported that 45% of the surface water systems were in good or very good condition, whereas 55% were in average, mediocre, or bad condition.

Interestingly, France is subject to an E.U. water quality agreement and could potentially face sanctions if it doesn't meet agreed-upon standards within the next two years.