Editorial: Washington clean water standards would work

While Washington lawmakers and Gov. Jay Inslee have been preparing for a grueling legislative calendar, the Department of Ecology has been engaged with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a potentially expensive faceoff over clean water standards.

It does not look good for the state.

In a Dec. 18 letter to DOE Director Maia Bellon, EPA Regional Director Dennis McLerran indicates that the outlines of a plan Inslee announced in July might not meet federal requirements. And to hold DOE to a deadline the state has more or less ignored for almost two years, the EPA will undertake its own rule-making, which could be completed in as few as nine months.

As he has in earlier letters, McLerran also questioned one of the most controversial changes in Inslee’s plan, one that would accept a higher risk of cancer while reducing levels of 70 percent of the 96 chemicals subject to the Clean Water Act. None of the levels would be increased, and they would apply to more sources of pollution.

DOE says the revised standards better reflect new information on what levels of contamination pose a threat to human health. The net effect, the department says, would be a decrease in cancer rates.

Determining the risk starts with fish: How much is consumed each day?

Washington had relied on a standard that considered 6.5 grams a day – about one can of tuna per month – the baseline. The revised level is 175 grams per day, about the size of a small fillet.

The state’s tribes, for whom fish are a ceremonial as well as nutritional focal point, argue that the revision does not go far enough. The EPA is listening.

The EPA is also enamored with the standards adopted in Oregon and would prefer one that applies throughout the region. That would include Idaho, which is already involved in litigation with the EPA over its water quality regulations.

Washington businesses led by Boeing Co. and including the Inland Empire Paper Co., a Spokesman-Review affiliate, have complained that the potential regulations contain unreachable standards based on unmeasurable levels of pollution. Municipalities such as Bellingham say residential utility bills would balloon.

Some question whether PCBs in the water itself have any effect on anadromous fish that eat little, if anything, once they reach Washington waters.

In its proposal, DOE says added costs would be far outweighed by reductions in the incidence and treatment of cancers.

Inslee is expected to present his compliance plan to the Legislature next month.

We said in July that Inslee’s outline for action correctly balanced risk against costs. If the plan he takes to the Legislature is true to that outline, lawmakers would do well to consent.

If the state has been slow, maybe it’s because the science is not as settled as EPA would like.

Everybody wants cleaner water. Washington may get it sooner with its own standards.