Category Archives: Drinking water

Gov. Inslee yields on cancer risk, pushes new water-quality plan

Gov. Jay Inslee has given in to critics who argued that the state’s updated water-quality standards should not increase the cancer-risk rate for people who eat a lot of fish.

But it appears that a new state proposal, to be made public by early next year, is not likely to satisfy tribal and environmental groups striving for the most stringent water-quality standards, such as those in effect in Oregon.

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed standards that could be imposed on Washington state, but the agency has committed to holding off if the state comes up with acceptable standards.

In a statement issued today, the governor said he has been pressed to develop a state rule and not let the EPA have the final say:

“My goal all along has been to update Washington’s clean water rule with one that assures the health of Washington’s people, fish and economy. The number one thing I hear over and over when talking with people is how critical it is that we maintain control over creation of this rule to ensure that we’re protecting human health while providing businesses and local governments sensible tools to comply with the stricter standards.”

Efforts to update the state’s water-quality standards have been the focus of a confusing debate for the past several years. The goal of protecting human health has sometimes been forgotten, as I tried to point out in a two-part series published in March in the Kitsap Sun.

Anticipating where this issue is headed, I’m watching three key issues:

1. The formula used to establish the water-quality criteria

Numerical concentrations are established in a mathematical formula applied to about 100 priority pollutants. The first debate was over the fish-consumption rate, or the daily amount of fish that a person might eat. It was generally agreed that the current rate of 6 grams (0.21 ounce) a day was ridiculously low and should be raised to 175 grams (6 ounces) a day.

To balance the effect of that 29-fold increase, Inslee proposed increasing the cancer risk rate from 1 in a million to 1 in 100,000 — a rate approved by the EPA in some states and allowed by EPA guidance. Inslee also included a “no-backsliding” provision, so that none of the current standards would be relaxed (except for arsenic). The EPA has made it clear that 1 in 100,000 was not acceptable, so Inslee consented to go back to the current rate of 1 in a million.

It is important to understand that the formula includes other factors that affect the allowable chemical concentrations. One is the “relative source contribution,” for non-cancer-causing chemicals. The RSC considers how much chemical exposure a person gets from water and fish consumption versus other exposure pathways, such as through the lungs and skin. EPA’s RSC is generally five times lower than the state’s proposal, which means the state would allow a chemical concentration five times higher than EPA. The state intends to stick to its previously proposed RSC, according to Ecology’s Kelly Susewind, a water policy adviser.

The state also uses a bioconcentration factor, which considers the uptake of a chemical from water, whereas EPA uses a bioaccumulation factor, which considers the uptake from all sources. The EPA method produces a more stringent standard.

The state and EPA now seem consistent on most other factors, including body weight, drinking water consumption and toxicity factors, but those two inconsistent factors will make EPA’s proposed standards more stringent than the state’s.

2. Implementation tools

The water quality standards are used as a starting point for issuing permits for discharges from point sources of pollution, such as industrial and sewage-treatment outfalls. Special consideration can be given when proven technology is not available to meet the approved standards.

When the standards cannot be met with reasonable approaches, the state may approve a variance to either reduce the requirements or allow a long time for compliance. A “compliance schedule” is another tool that allows a more limited time for a facility to meet the standards.

Another implementation tool that could be approved is the intake credit. This could be used when a facility draws water from a specific water body and returns its wastewater to the same location. The idea is that a discharger should not be required to make the wastewater cleaner than the waters it is going back into.

3. The problem chemicals: PCBs, mercury and arsenic

The state proposes keeping the current water-quality standards for polychlorinated biphenyls and mercury, which come from many sources other that discharges from pipes. Mercury, for example, can be released into the air by coal-fired power plants, travel across the ocean and become deposited into local waterways. PCBs, which are widespread through the food web, can come from unregulated stormwater and sediments deposited years ago.

Arsenic, on the other hand, can occur naturally in levels higher than what would be allowed under water-quality standards calculated in the normal way. The state proposes to set the water-quality standard for arsenic at the level allowed for drinking water.

For these problem chemicals, Inslee said dischargers cannot reasonably be held accountable for chemical levels beyond their control.

Cleaning up the rest

Going into this year’s legislative session, Inslee proposed a bill to go after the worst nonpoint pollution in concert with newly proposed cleanup standards. The legislation included a process and funding for conducting chemical investigations and developing chemical action plans, but it failed to pass the Legislature.

Since then, the EPA released its own rule with the proviso that it would consider another state proposal if one is submitted before EPA completes its review process.

Inslee said he is still concerned that the new clean water standards address only limited pollutants, and in many cases not even the right ones.

“The proposed rule only regulates 96 chemicals, yet there are hundreds of toxics that come from everyday products,” he said. “The toxics package we sent to the Legislature would have helped us take a hard run at those to make a much more meaningful difference in making our water safer and healthier.”

Tribal and environmental concerns

Tribal and environmental officials were skeptical of the governor’s latest approach.

“Tribes were pleased to hear today that Gov. Inslee now supports maintaining the current state cancer risk rate to protect us all from toxins in our state’s waters,” said Lorraine Loomis, chairwoman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.

Tribes remain concerned, however, that Inslee’s proposed standards will not be as protective as the EPA’s.

“We believe that the EPA’s proposed standards are based on the best available science and offer strong protection in a timely manner,” Loomis said. “We expect state standards to be measured against the bar that EPA has set.”

Chris Wilke, executive director of Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, said his concern is that Ecology’s approach won’t result in any meaningful efforts to clean up the state’s waterways.

“Ecology must not return to its earlier failed approach of giving the appearance of protection while riddling the rule with loopholes,” Wilke said in a preopared statement. “Governor Inslee must do everything possible to protect the most vulnerable from the devastating effects of neurotoxins such as mercury and other harmful chemicals.”

Kitsap precipitation nearly normal during
the past water year

Despite concerns about drought in much of Washington state, Kitsap County came through the water year (ending Sept. 30) with precipitation just about normal.

Precipitation at Hansville over the past water year.
Precipitation at Hansville over the past water year. (Click to enlarge) // Graphic: Kitsap PUD

As you can see from the graphs on this page, precipitation in 2015 (blue line) fairly well tracked the average (pink line). The previous water year (orange line) was more concerning, although both 2014 and 2015 water years ended in fairly decent shape.

Areas in North Kitsap ended the year somewhat above average. In Hansville, the annual total was 34.3 inches, compared to an average of 30.2 inches. In Central and South Kitsap, many areas were slightly below normal. In Holly, the annual rainfall was 69.4 inches, compared to an average of 76.6 inches.

Hansville precipitation over the past water year.
Precipitation at Bremerton National Airport over the past water year. (Click to enlarge) // Graphic: Kitsap PUD

The Kitsap Peninsula largely relies on groundwater for its water supplies, and we have gotten enough rains to keep the aquifers in fairly decent shape, according to Mark Morgan of Kitsap Public Utility District.

“Aquifers experienced their typical summer drawdown, driven more by demand than by drought, but (it was) nothing exceptional,” Mark said in a summary of the water year.

Concerns about drought in other parts of the state were largely based on a lack of snowpack coming out of last winter.

Precipitation at Bremerton National Airport over the past water year.
Precipitation at Holly over the past water year. (Click to enlarge) // Graphic: Kitsap PUD

Meanwhile, flows in many streams hit low-flow conditions a month earlier than normal this past summer, but some maintained their typical flow, Mark said. Adequate streamflows are critical for coho salmon, which spend a year in freshwater, as well as for year-round residents, such as trout.

The forecast for the winter is based on strong El Nino conditions (see map below), which means that sea surface temperatures off the coast of South America will be significantly higher than usual — up to 3.4 degrees F (2 degrees C). Above-normal temperatures are expected across the western U.S. as well as the northern tier states and Eastern Seaboard, with the greatest chance of above-normal temperatures in the Pacific Northwest.

Sea surface temperatures are above average across most of the Pacific Ocean. NOAA map
Sea surface temperatures today are above average across most of the Pacific Ocean. (Click to enlarge) // NOAA map

Below-average temperatures are expected in New Mexico and West Texas. For details, see the prediction maps at the bottom of this page or check out NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center.

While much of the country will benefit from greater rainfall, below normal precipitation is expected for the Northwest and areas in the Eastern Great Lakes, New York and northern New England.

Climatologists predict with 95 percent certainty that the El Nino will continue through the winter in the Northern Hemisphere before gradually weakening in the spring.

Temperatures are predicted to be warmer this winter across the northern states. NOAA graphic
Temperatures this fall are predicted to be above average across the northern states. // NOAA graphic
Precipitation is predicted to be less than normal in the Pacific Northwest. NOAA graphic
Precipitation is predicted to be less than normal in the Pacific Northwest. // NOAA graphic

Manchester sewer plant leads the pack with another perfect score

A record number of sewage-treatment plants in Washington state fully complied with state water-quality requirements in 2014, with 128 plants winning the coveted Outstanding Performance Award from the Department of Ecology.

The number of sewage-treatment plants recognized for meeting all water-quality requirements grew from 14 to 127 over the past 20 years.
The number of sewage-treatment plants recognized for meeting all water-quality requirements grew from 14 in 1995 to 128 last year.

The awards program has reached its 20th year, and the Manchester Wastewater Treatment Plant in South Kitsap remains ahead of the pack. It’s the only plant with a perfect score every year since the program began.

In the first year of Ecology’s awards program, only 14 plants across the state were recognized as doing everything right, but that number has grown nearly every year.

Last year, 128 winning treatment plants — more than a third of all the plants in the state — passed every environmental test, analyzed every required sample, turned in all reports and allowed no permit violations.

“The talents of our professional operators are critical to successful plant operations and protecting the health of Washington’s waters”, said Heather Bartlett, manager of Ecology’s Water Quality Program, in a news release. “It is an honor to recognize their contributions with these awards.”

Kitsap County officials are rightly proud of the perfect record. Five years ago, in an article in Treatment Plant Operator magazine, lead operator Don Johnson said the success of the Manchester plant could be credited to the dedicated wastewater staff and support from all levels of county government. Don, who retired last year, has been replaced by Ken Young.

The magazine article may tell you more than you want to know about the design and operation of the Manchester plant. The plant was a modern facility when Ecology’s awards program was launched 20 years ago, and it has been kept up to date through the years.

Johnson stressed that treatment-plant operators should always be prepared for new developments.

“My advice is for them to remain adaptable and up to date,” he said. “There are many changes in the industry, and it’s important to pursue energy efficiency and create reusable resources.”

Reaching the 20-year mark deserves some kind of celebration for the Manchester plant. I would suggest organized tours of the facility, public recognition for all the plant workers through the years and maybe a slice of cake. So far, I’m told, no specific plans have been made.

A list of all the treatment plants in the state showing a history of their perfect scores (PDF 464 kb) can be downloaded from Ecology’s website.

Port Townsend’s treatment plant has had a perfect score for 19 of the 20 years, missing only 1997. Meeting the perfect standard for 16 of the past 20 years are two plants owned by the city of Vancouver — Marine Park and Westside.

Kitsap County’s Kingston plant has received the award for nine straight years. The county’s Suquamish plant, which is regulated by the Environmental Protection agency because it is on tribal land, has met all permit requirement for 15 years straight. (EPA does not issue awards.)

Inslee backs off water-quality standards; his next move is unclear

With a key deadline approaching next week, Gov. Jay Inslee decided today that he will not move forward on new water-quality standards at this time.

The governor had hoped that the Legislature would approve his plan to track down and eliminate sources of nonpoint pollution, the kind that often gets into our waterways via stormwater. The Democratic-controlled House approved a revised proposal for chemical action plans (HB 1472), which Inslee said he could support. But, in the end, the Republican-controlled Senate failed to act on the bill.


“Without this legislation, we lack the necessary broad approach to protecting our water in a way that advances human, environmental and economic health,” Inslee said in a news release issued today. “The lack of legislative action is disappointing and forces us to reassess our approach.”

Environmental advocates and tribal officials have called for stronger water-quality standards. Such standards, if approved, could require industrial facilities and sewage-treatment plants to extensively upgrade their systems to remove more pollutants from their effluent.

Inslee and his supporters have argued that many of the pollutants of greatest concern don’t come from industrial and municipal discharges. Rather they come from “the small-but-steady release of chemicals in everyday products – brakes on vehicles, flame retardants in furniture, softeners in plastics, and metals in roofing materials,” according to the news release.

That’s why Inslee has pushed for the more comprehensive approach of dealing with the most troublesome chemicals, many of which are not even regulated under the federal Clean Water Act. (Inslee news release, July 9, 2014.)

Water-quality standards actually apply to streams and bodies of water. Comparing results from water samples with numerical standards tells us whether the waters are polluted or clean enough to protect public health. The numerical standards become a starting point for permitting any discharge through pipes, although stormwater pipes are generally not regulated.

I have followed this story now for quite some time. The latest related post two weeks ago in Water Ways covers the overall issue and includes links to previous stories.

It isn’t clear what the next move will be. The news release says the governor has “directed the state Department of Ecology to reconsider its draft clean water rules while he and the agency assess options on how best to assure protection for the health of Washington’s people, fish and economy.”

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is developing new standards for Washington state. If the state fails to act or fails to protect public health, as determined by the EPA, then the federal agency could impose its standards on the state. Proposed EPA standards, like state standards, must undergo a rigorous review, including public comments and probably public hearings.

Mark MacIntyre, EPA spokesman, issued a statement today in response to Inslee’s decision:

“We believe it’s important to have human health criteria in place that are protective for everybody in Washington, including high consumers of fish such as members of tribal communities. In terms of who writes the standards, EPA continues to prefer and support Washington’s development of revised water quality standards that we can approve. In the meantime, we are proceeding consistent with our commitment to work on a federal proposal for Washington, but will pause that work to review and act upon a state submittal, should we receive one.”

Washington Department of Ecology, which enforces the Clean Water Act for Washington state, was planning to approve the new standards by next Thursday. But under Inslee’s latest order that will not happen. If the rule is revised, it must undergo a new public review process.

More than 1,600 comments were received on the proposed standards, which are not likely to be approved in their current form. Most of the comments related to the higher cancer risk level chosen by Ecology and the governor. Cancer risk is one factor in calculating the water-quality standards, along with a fish-consumption rate, chemical-toxicity factor and others.

Vital sign indicators revised to reflect human values for Puget Sound

When it comes to restoring the Puget Sound ecosystem, human beings really do matter — in some ways that are obvious and in some ways that are fairly subtle.

The Puget Sound Leadership Council, which oversees the restoration of Puget Sound, acknowledged this fact yesterday when adopting a new set of ecosystem indicators to measure how Puget Sound influences the health and well-being of humans.

It’s often said that people have damaged the Puget Sound ecosystem through years of abuse. They say it will take years of restoration — by people — to return things to a healthy condition. But why do we care? Are we spending millions of dollars on restoration just to benefit fish and wildlife, or are we doing it for ourselves?

The answer, which comes from studies of economics and human behavior, appears to be that helping fish and wildlife — by putting the ecosystem back together — also benefits humans in a variety of ways.

When the Washington Legislature told the Puget Sound Partnership to go forth and lead the way toward restoring Puget Sound to health, our lawmakers understood that people would be the primary beneficiaries. The first two goals assigned to the partnership, as articulated by RCW 90.71.300:

  • A healthy human population supported by a healthy Puget Sound that is not threatened by changes in the ecosystem;
  • A quality of human life that is sustained by a functioning Puget Sound ecosystem;

The other three goals are related to native species, habitats and water supplies.

Sometimes goals related to human values conflict with goals to restore ecological functions. For example, one cannot build a house on undeveloped land without altering the ecosystem in some negative ways. Sometimes human values are aligned with ecological values, such when we reduce pollution to clean up streams and drinking water. In any case, these new ecosystem indicators will help people understand the tradeoffs and opportunities of various actions.

As I pointed out last month in Water Ways, the Hood Canal Coordinating Council has completed a plan and associated website that highlights connections between human well-being and natural resources in the Hood Canal region. Hood Canal became a pilot project for the indicators approved yesterday for all of Puget Sound. Some of the same folks — including social scientist Kelly Biedenweg of the Puget Sound Institute — were involved in creating nine new “vital signs” with indicators to track human-related changes in the Puget Sound ecosystem.

Unlike the original human health and human well-being indicators adopted in 2010, these new indicators have undergone an extensive review by scientists and other experts to ensure their validity and reliability. That is, these new indicators have real meaning in connecting human beings to the ecological functions of Puget Sound.

In yesterday’s meeting, Martha Kongsgaard, chairwoman of the Leadership Council, said the human dimension is often ignored in favor of empirical science.

“This is a hard thing to do,” she said about developing the new indicators. “This is sort of a brave new world, and I think it is true that we live in this world whether we call it out like this or not.”

Council member Stephanie Solien said she would like to see more discussions about human health and well-being issues — not because they are more important than species and habitats, but because they make connections to average people.

“People are self-interested,” she said. “They care about their health, their family’s health, the health of their communities. The more we can draw those connections to Puget Sound and healthy watersheds, I think we will be more successful in our work around ecosystems and saving species.”

Hear the full discussion on TVW in the video player on this page, and download the resolution and backup documents (PDF 2.9 mb) from the Puget Sound Partnership’s website.

Here are the four new vital signs and associated indicators related to human health:

1. OUTDOOR ACTIVITY: Measured by 1) Percent of swimming beaches meeting bacterial standards (one of the existing indicators), 2) Average hours people spend having fun outdoors, 3) Average hours people spend working outdoors.

2. AIR QUALITY: Indicators to be determined from existing data.

3. LOCAL FOODS: Availability of wild foods, such the ability to catch fish, collect shellfish, harvest plants and hunt for game.

4. DRINKING WATER: Indicators to be determined from information about water systems.

Here are the five new vital signs and associated indicators related to human well-being:

5. ECONOMIC VITALITY: Measured by 1) Value of natural resources produced by industry, including commercial fishing, shellfish harvesting, timber production, agriculture, mining and tourism; 2) Value produced by natural-resource industries compared to gross domestic product of all other industries in the region; 3) Number of jobs in natural-resource industries.

6. CULTURAL WELL-BEING: Percent of residents who feel they are able to maintain traditions associated with the natural environment.

7. GOOD GOVERNANCE: Percentage of people who feel they have 1) the opportunity to influence decisions about Puget Sound, 2) the rights and freedom to make decisions about managing natural resources, 3) trust in local and regional governments to make the right decisions about Puget Sound, 4) been well represented by government leaders, 5) access to information about natural-resource issues.

8. SENSE OF PLACE: Percentage of people who feel: 1) a positive connection to the region, 2) a sense of stewardship for the watershed, 3) a sense of pride about being from Puget Sound.

9. PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING INDEX: Percentage of people who experience: 1) inspiration from being in nature, 2) reduced stress, calm or relaxation from being in nature, 3) Overall life satisfaction based on criteria in national studies.

A new vital sign wheel will add indicators for human health and well-being. Graphic: Puget Sound Partnership
A new vital sign wheel will add nine indicators for human health and well-being. Two indicators were moved to another area.
Graphic: Puget Sound Partnership

Leadership Council member Jay Manning, former director of the Washington Department of Ecology, said he supports the indicators. His only concern is that some are beyond the control of the Puget Sound Partnership, and some may have nothing to do with people’s connection to Puget Sound.

Jay makes a good point, but the social scientists who developed the indicators stressed that there will be no targets or goals associated with human values. What will be interesting to watch is whether people feel better or worse about the restoration effort as time goes on, and how the leaders choose to respond to any changes in public opinion.

Much of the information that will fit into the new indicators will be the result of phone surveys yet to be conducted. Other information will be teased out of ongoing research studies. The partnership has received funding from the Environmental Protection Agency to hire a consultant to continue work on the human-related indicators until the numbers are finalized.

None of the new information about human health and well-being will be included in the State of Puget Sound report to be issued later this year, according to Kari Stiles, staff scientist for the partnership. But some information could go into the Vital Signs wheel within the next year.

Port Gamble sewage plant to protect shellfish, recharge groundwater

The historic town of Port Gamble is about to get a new-fangled sewage-treatment plant, one that will allow highly treated effluent to recharge the groundwater in North Kitsap.

Port Gamble

The old treatment plant discharges its effluent into Hood Canal, causing the closure of about 90 acres of shellfish beds. After the new plant is in operation, those shellfish beds are likely to be reopened, officials say.

The new facility will be built and operated by Kitsap Public Utility District, which owns and manages small water systems throughout the county. The Port Gamble plant will be the first wastewater operation to be managed by the KPUD, which views the project as a step toward reclaiming more of Kitsap County’s wastewater by putting it to beneficial use, said manager Bob Hunter.

The PUD already manages the Port Gamble water system, which will undergo a future renovation, he said. Dealing with the community’s sewage is the next logical step.

“Nobody can do reclaimed water without the sewage-treatment part of the equation,” Bob told me, “and it seems potentially more efficient to have one entity do it.”

In a related development, the district is expected to ask Kitsap County voters for authority to own the plant as well as operate it. Under its current authority, the district can own water utilities but not sewer utilities.

A $2-million state grant to eliminate the discharge of sewage into Hood Canal requires that a public entity own the sewer system. To comply with that requirement, Mason County PUD 1 will take over ownership until Kitsap PUD obtains the needed authority, Bob noted.

The KPUD commissioners are expected to decide on Tuesday whether to place a measure on November’s ballot. Hunter said he doesn’t expect opposition, but he hopes to address any concerns people may have. The commissioners meet at 9:30 a.m. in their Poulsbo office.

The new treatment plant will be a membrane bioreactor, a type of filtering system capable of producing effluent close to the quality of drinking water. The plant, which comes assembled, will treat up to 100,000 gallons of sewage per day. That’s enough capacity to serve the existing homes in Port Gamble. And if the town’s redevelopment is approved (Kitsap Sun, Jan. 24, 2013), as proposed by owner Pope Resources, the plant could serve up to 350 homes — provided the old sewer pipes are replaced to reduce the amount of stormwater that leaks in.

The plant will be located on 1.3 acres near Carver Drive, south of Highway 104. Effluent will be pumped to a new drainfield at the top of a nearby hill. Eventually, water from the plant could be used to irrigate forestland or else lawns and ballfields in the town.

Construction is expected to get underway soon, with the system operational by May of next year. The entire project, including the treatment plant, pumping system, pipes, drainfield and site work, is expected to cost $5 million with most of the cost paid by Pope Resources.

The KPUD has no plans to operate other sewer systems at this time, Hunter said, but the district hopes to be in a position to respond to community needs, as it as done with failing water systems. Small sewage-treatment plants could be feasible where a lot of septic systems are failing, he noted, but state law precludes the use of sewers in rural areas except during a health emergency. Even then, the systems must serve only existing needs, not future growth, he noted.

Without snowpack, Kitsap Peninsula is entirely dependent on the amount of rain that falls on the peninsula. With limited storage, future water supplies can be bolstered by recharging the groundwater with high-quality sewage effluent or by using effluent to replace drinking water used for irrigation and industrial processes.

The Central Kitsap Wastewater Treatment Plant, which produces an average 3.2 million gallons of water each day, is undergoing a major upgrade to produce water that can be used for a variety of uses in nearby Silverdale. In preparation, Silverdale Water District has been installing a new piping network to bring the reclaimed water into the community.

“We have been talking for a long time about getting water into the ground instead of dumping it into Puget Sound or Hood Canal,” said Bob Hunter. “With this project in Port Gamble, we can learn and be prepared when other situations come along.”

Amusing Monday: Dog sprays man and other fun with a garden hose

It isn’t the rare man-bites-dog story, but a humorous dog-sprays-man video has created a major buzz on the Internet since it was posted last week on YouTube and Facebook. Watch as the speedy dog chases his owner around the yard with a garden hose.

AFV Animals, a website affiliated with the television show America’s Funniest Home Videos, posted the video, and lots of people passed it on, adding their own headlines. Among them were: “Revenge-seeking dog drenches owner with hose” and “This dog demands that his owner stay hydrated in the summer heat.”

It turns out that the video was shown on “America’s Funniest Home Videos” back in 2007, when the announcer made this comment, “Max is a little bitter that he is not a Dalmatian with a swanky firehouse gig.”

I understand the notion of a dog getting revenge, after reviewing dozens of videos in which the dog’s owner sprays his pet with a jet of water. The dogs seem to love it, and it becomes a game between the human hose-bearer and the canine on the other end.

Check out these videos:

Kids get into the act in many videos. These are possibly my favorites:

The video that went viral last week is not the only one showing a dog using a hose to chase a man. In fact, one video, posted by FunnyFuse in 2010, seems to be less staged than the one that launched this blog post. You can hear the camera operator laughing and asking at the end, “Is this payback for all the time we sprayed her with a hose?”

What can a bear do with a garden hose? See “Water torture! Brown bear teases dog with hosepipe.”

And we must not mention dogs without offering at least one cat video. That’s exactly the number of videos I could find showing cats having fun playing in water. Chloe posted a video last year called “Funny Cat Playing With Water Hose” (video player below), along with the following comments on her YouTube Channel Clover Rose:

“I recently discovered that my cat likes to play with the water that comes out of my garden hose. He gets really wet after playing with the water. He hates getting wet, but he doesn’t seem to care if the hose wets him. I think he only likes to get wet on his terms.”

Inslee to decide whether to revise water-pollution standards for the state

Identifying and eliminating sources of water pollution — a process involving “chemical action plans” — is a common-sense idea that never faced much opposition among legislators.


But the Legislature’s failure to act on the idea this year cut the legs out from under Gov. Jay Inslee’s anti-pollution plan, which included updated water-quality standards along with authority to study and ban harmful chemicals when alternatives are available.

Although chemical action plans make a lot of sense, the idea of coupling such planning to water-quality standards never quite gelled. Inslee argued that water-quality standards alone would not solve the pollution problem, because the standards address only a limited number of chemicals.

Furthermore, while the water-quality standards define an acceptable level of pollution for a body of water, they are limited in their regulatory control. The standards generally limit discharges only from industrial processes and sewage-treatment plants. In today’s world, stormwater delivers most of the pollution. Legal limits for stormwater discharges are nonexistent, except in rare cases where a toxic-cleanup plan has been established.

Environmentalists and tribal leaders were disappointed with the governor’s proposed water-quality standards. They believed he should be calling for much more stringent standards. While most people liked the idea of an ongoing program of chemical action planning, the governor received limited support for his legislation, House Bill 1472, among environmental and tribal communities.


We can’t forget that Inslee had publicly stated that if the Legislature failed to act on his full pollution-cleanup program, he would revisit the water-quality standards — presumably to make them stronger. So the governor kind of boxed himself in, and that’s where we stand today.

Republican legislators acknowledged the value of chemical action plans. Their concerns seemed to center around a distrust of the Department of Ecology, reflecting the views of the chemical industry and others who could find themselves under greater regulatory control.

The House stripped out a provision in the bill that would allow Ecology to ban chemicals without legislative approval. And the key committee in the Senate — the Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee — went further by limiting Ecology’s ability to study safer chemicals when a ban is under consideration.

The governor ultimately shifted his support away from the bill that emerged from the committee, as I described in a story I wrote in April for InvestigateWest. The bill never made it to the floor of the Senate, and it ultimately died, along with funding for a wider range of chemical action plans.

“Not only did we not get additional policy help, but we also didn’t get funding to implement the chemical action plans that were already done,” noted Rob Duff, the governor’s environmental policy adviser.

In all, about $3.8 million for toxic cleanup efforts was cancelled along with the legislation.

Plans have been developed to reduce toxic releases of five classes of persistent, bioaccumulative toxics, or PBTs, including polychlorinated biphenyls and mercury. But carrying through on cleanup ideas spelled out in those plans has been slow without targeted funding, and many toxic chemicals of concern, such as pharmaceuticals, are not considered PBTs.

“We aren’t going to throw up our hands,” Rob told me. “Under the PBT rule, we can do PBTs. We will continue to push toward source reduction, although we did not get additional authority from the Legislature.”

Educational programs and voluntary efforts by industry remain in play, pending a further try at legislation next session. Meanwhile, the governor will review the proposed water quality standards, according to Duff.

Rule note

“We will put everything on the table and see what is the best path forward,” he said. “We will have the governor briefed and the necessary discussions over the next two weeks.”

The governor’s proposed water-quality standards have gone through public hearings and must be approved by Aug. 3, or else the process must start over.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is developing its own water-quality rule, which could impose stronger standards upon the state. Water-quality standards, which are a concentration of chemicals in the water, are based on a formula that accounts for how each chemical is assimilated through the food web and into the human body.

One factor involves how much contaminated fish a person is likely to eat. For years, states across the country have used the same fish-consumption rate of 6.5 grams a day, which is less than a quarter of an ounce. This number was long recognized as grossly underestimating the amount of fish that people eat, especially for Northwest residents and even more so for Native Americans who generally consume large quantities of fish.

If adopted, the new water-quality standards would raise the daily fish-consumption rate to 175 grams, or about 6 ounces. If all other factors stayed the same, the new fish consumption rate would raise the safety factor by 27 times. But, as the update moved along, several other factors were amended as well.

Inslee’s proposal was to raise the allowable risk of getting cancer after a lifetime of eating 175 grams of fish each day. The proposal was to increase the risk factor from one case of cancer in a million people to one case among 100,000 people. Inslee included a “no-backsliding” provision, so that the allowable concentration of chemicals would not be increased, no matter what the formula came up with.

Environmental advocates and tribal leaders cried foul over the cancer risk, and Dennis McLerran, regional administrator for the EPA, said he did not want the cancer risk to be increased for any state under his authority.

I covered these issues in a two-part series for the Kitsap Sun:

The EPA expects to have its proposed standards for Washington state ready this fall, possibly November. EPA officials will review the state’s proposal when it is final, but that won’t stop the agency from completing its work, according to a written statement from the EPA regional office.

“We continue to work closely with Governor Inslee’s office and the Washington Department of Ecology to see water quality standards adopted and implemented that protect all residents of the state, as well as tribal members, who regularly and often consume fish as part of a healthy diet,” according to the statement.

Industry officials and sewage-treatment-plant operators have argued that the technology does not exist to meet some of the water-quality standards that would result from a cancer-risk rate of one in a million if the other factors stayed the same. PCBs is one example of a pollutant difficult to control. Besides, they argue, stormwater — not their facilities — is the primary source of PCBs in most cases. That’s why eliminating the original sources of PCBs is so important.

McLerran, who seems to support the more stringent standards, has mentioned that facilities can apply for variances, relaxed compliance schedules or other “implementation tools,” to get around strict numerical standards impossible to meet with today’s technology.

Environmental groups are calling on the governor to tighten up the proposed water-quality standards, rather than let them go into effect, given the Legislature’s failure to approve his overall plan.

“Gov. Inslee must do everything in his power to protect the most vulnerable — babies and children — from the devastating health effects of potent neurotoxins like mercury and carcinogens like PCBs,” stated Chris Wilke, executive director for Puget Soundkeeper.

“Ecology’s draft rule provides only the appearance of new protection while manipulating the math, leaving the actual water quality standards largely unchanged,” he said. “This is simply unacceptable. Without the veil of a new source control package from the Legislature, the Governor’s plan clearly has no clothes.”

Others maintain that the governor has been on the right track all along, and they warn that the state could face lawsuits if it imposes standards that are too strict.

Bruce Hope, a retired toxicologist, wrote a guest editorial for the Seattle Times that included these statements:

“Taking an achievable approach like the one in the Department of Ecology’s draft rule would reduce the risk that municipal wastewater treatment plants or industrial facilities are subject to standards that couldn’t be met…

“Developing the right approach to water-quality protection for Washington will thus require various interests continuing to work together to find common ground.

“Washington’s rules for protecting our waters need to be established by the people elected by Washington voters. The EPA’s Region 10 office should simply not be threatening to circumvent or supersede the standard-setting authority granted to the state under the Clean Water Act.”

Amusing Monday: Evolution of the ‘water babies’ — a repeat

I was away from my computer all weekend until this evening, getting a very nice break in the San Juan Islands. I hope to tell you more about that later. In the meantime, I’d like to share an “Amusing Monday” entry from May of last year. If you follow all the various links in the blog post, you will see more videos of babies — human, animal and unreal — than you could ever ask for.

Can we ever really get enough videos of “water babies”?

It’s a silly question, as if we could ever satiate our Internet appetite for video clips of cats, dogs and teenage monologues.

But you have to admit there is something magical about babies swimming around under water like jellyfish, their arms and legs moving in a rhythmical fashion. Nobody taught them to do this.

Before I tell you how “water babies” evolved into Spider Man, I’d like to remind you of the human connection between mothers and babies. The first video shows how moms have somehow calmed their fears and learned to release their infants into a watery void. As for the babies, it seems their adjustment is minimal. (Oh, yes, there’s a dad in there, too.)

The second video covers the same subject from a different perspective. We learn about the “diving refliex” that gives human babies special powers to make a fully equipped diver look incredibly clumsy.

So this blog entry is the third time I’ve talked about swimming babies since 2010, when I recalled the Evian water babies and their synchronized swimming and other impossible feats, all produced on a green screen to sell a bottle of water. See “Amusing Monday” for Aug. 8, 2010. I also listed several videos of “dancing babies.”

In 2012, I stayed on the point of real-life swimming babies, including not only humans but also sea lions, beavers, hippos, otters, kangaroos, turtles and elephants. See “Amusing Monday” for Jan. 20, 2012.

Emma Bazilian of Ad Week magazine recalls how Evian began using babies to sell bottled water in 1998, when the first “water babies” commercial appeared. (“At least there was actual water involved,” she notes.)

Emma goes on the say: “Evian has a long history of incorporating creepy CGI babies in its ads, and an equally long history of viewers gobbling it up like it’s some variety of highly addictive crack cocaine.”

So we find ourselves watching “Roller Babies” commercials and then last year’s “Baby & Me,” which transports people back to their earliest days of life by staring at their reflection in a window. More interesting, I think, was when Evian took us behind the scenes for “The Making of Baby & Me.”

So what should come next in this evolution from swimming babies to time travel? The answer arrived last month, when the Amazing Spider Man began seeing his childhood image in front of a window. You can check out what happened in the third video player on this page.

“And that’s it,” as Emma Bazilian says. “No explanation of what this has to do with Evian, apart from the brand’s ‘Live Young’ tagline at the end. We don’t even get to see Spider-Baby’s cute little face.”

Maybe we’ll never know what baby Spidy looks like, but if you put “baby swimming” into a Google search and hit the “video” tab, you’ll get a chance to view 66 million videos of what I presume are mostly babies and water.

Amusing Monday: Comedians share their thoughts about water

Actors and comedians are talking about water in a new video campaign to raise awareness about the value of clean water and the importance of keeping pollution out of waterways.

Waterkeeper Alliance brought together celebrities to share their feelings and memories about water uses. They include Neil Patrick Harris, Susan Sarandon, Bobby Moynihan, Taran Killam, Ray Romano and Brad Garrett.

Locally, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance is affiliated with the national Waterkeeper Alliance. Puget Soundkeeper Chris Wilke, based in Seattle, is featured in an earlier video that explains the goals of Waterkeeper Alliance and the actions of the various affiliates across the United States and throughout the world.

The new campaign, called “Keep it Clean” is directed by Rachael Harris and produced by Kids at Play.

“We want to get people thinking about what water pollution means to them — to their drinking water, their surf break, their favorite fishing spot,” Harris said in a prepared statement. “But it’s a dirty and heavy topic! So we brought together some of the most brilliant and passionate voices in entertainment to put their own spin on it, to get a little silly, to make people think about why this issue is important, and what they can do to help.”

The videos presented here were announced as the “first round” of the campaign, which I presume means that more will be coming later. The three videos shown in players are compilations of comments on three themes:

  • What’s your favorite use of water? (top video)
  • Heartfelt memories (middle)
  • What does Waterkeeper Alliance do? (bottom)

The other videos show either celebrities speaking alone or with a partner: