Maryland's waters still a toxic dumping ground?
Factories and power plants discharged more than 2 million pounds of toxic chemicals into Maryland waterways, according to a new report by Environment Maryland. And three-fourths of that wound up in Baltimore's Curtis Bay, ranking it among the top 50 waterways nationally for toxic discharges.
Drawing on toxic chemical releases reported by industries for 2007, the most recent year available, the environmental group argues that government has not done enough to minimize the health and environmental threats posed by allowing such discharges into the nation's waters.
In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the group notes, the Susquehanna River ranked in the top 20 nationally for receiving toxic discharges, with industries reporting more than 2.6 million pounds released into the water body that supplies half the bay's fresh water. And at the other end of the bay, Virginia's James River received the 6th largest amount of toxic chemicals linked with developmental problems in children.
Toxic discharges are far higher in other parts of the country, the group's report reveals, with the Ohio, New and Mississippi rivers on the receiving end of the most pollution. And the amounts industry reports discharging have been greatly reduced overall, since they first began reporting such releases two decades ago.
But there's still plenty that could be done in Maryland and the rest of the bay region to reduce exposure to harmful chemicals, argues Environment Maryland's Tommy Landers. He urged state and federal leaders not to skip over toxic pollution as they draw up plans for ramping up the bay restoration effort. To see the full report, go here.
Comments
EPA never implemented the Clean Water Act, because it used an essential water pollution test incorrect and ignored all the nitrogenous (urine and protein) waste in sewage. This waste, like fecal waste, exerts an oxygen demand, but also is a fertilizer for algae and causes eutrophication, resulting in dead zones in open waters.
Although bad enough, even worse may prove the fact that by providing 80% of construction cost, many cities built sewage treatment plant with additional capacity so they could offer local industries to treat their industrial wastewater, which now hardly or untreated contaminate either open waters by the plant’s effluent or agricultural land by the disposal of the sludge. (www.petermaier.net)
As long as EPA refuses to correct this essential test, nobody should be surprised if our open waters only will deteriorate further and will impact our drinking water with chemical compounds that are bad for us and passes through all the treatment of water and wastewater, as their concentration are so low that they are difficult to test for.
Posted by: Peter Maier | October 22, 2009 4:23 PM
For far too long, the city of Baltimore's planning department, the Maryland Department of the Environment and the U.S. EPA have regarded Curtis Bay and the tidal Patapsco River as little more than an industrial sewer. These agencies insist on approving any and every new request to dump more toxics into these already heavily polluted waterways, while failing to monitor and penalize existing industries that violate Clean Water standards. Like it or not, Curtis Bay and the Patapsco River are part of the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem -- and saving the Bay will also require saving the Patapsco. A tough, new approach towards permitting, regulation and enforcement is needed to make this happen. Where there is will, there is a way!
Posted by: Rebecca Kolberg | October 23, 2009 9:19 AM