Stream consciousness

On any given warm day in Jackson's city park, children and youths can be found splashing and stomping through Hubble Creek. Occasionally, fishermen may try their luck in the knee-deep water at one or both low-water bridges.

Last Thursday, Rebecca McAtee strolled along the southern bank of Hubble, watching her three children and niece hop from one dry rock to another. The children giggled as they explored, hopping ankle deep into the creek.

As picturesque as it is, there is nothing unique about Hubble Creek.

Missouri touts itself as a place where the rivers run, where loads of fun can be had on its rivers, streams and lakes. The water is inviting and millions enjoy the water every weekend from Current River to Clearwater Lake to the muddy Mississippi River. But is the water safe?

That question is at the root of a water quality issue that is rising like a flash flood along the bureaucratic walls of the federal, state and municipal governments.

In the next few months, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, as mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency, will make sweeping statewide changes to water quality rules.

The rules, intended to protect people who use the streams and rivers for recreation, could end up costing municipalities anywhere from $300 million to $1 billion statewide, according to the Missouri Public Utility Alliance, which represents more than 100 cities and towns.

The new rules could cost the city of Cape Girardeau millions, said Steve Cook, Cape Girardeau's environmental services coordinator. In Jackson, public works director Rodney Bollinger said he didn't know how much system upgrades might cost.

Scott City could be held to higher standards on two fronts, according to Rich Cochrane, a senior engineer with Waters & Associates who has done work for Scott City. Not only will the new rules require disinfecting, but they will also lower the discharge limits, or the number of particles allowed to enter the streams. He said those stricter limits will make typical lagoon systems like Scott City's obsolete. Such systems, he said, will likely require major upgrades, but he said he won't be able to tell what affect the rules might have until they are refined and polished by the department of natural resources.

In all three cases, cleaner river and stream water could result in higher utility rates.

Much remains uncertain. If cities can show that it won't be releasing bacteria in excess of standards allowed by the state, then perhaps they won't have to add chlorine units to their systems. But most likely, many municipalities will have to add major components to their wastewater treatment plants.

Path to treatment

When a toilet is flushed, the water and its bacteria-laden contents maneuver through a variety of pipes underneath the city.

Eventually, the sludge sloshes its way to a wastewater station where the water is filtered, filtered and filtered some more until it is virtually free of particles. The clear water is then distributed back into streams and rivers where children swim and fishermen fish.

The water that is released from many of those wastewater facilities, however, is not disinfected, meaning that germs are allowed to float freely downstream.

"You would think it would be disinfected," said McAtee as she smiled at her children Thursday in Hubble Creek. "But I understand they have to come up with the money somewhere."

Jackson city officials say the water at the park is safe because the wastewater treatment plant is well downstream. However, the state wishes for all residents to assume that a body of water is safe for swimming and fishing.

In 2003, an organization called the Missouri Coalition for the Environment filed a lawsuit against the EPA, saying the federal government agency was not pushing the state along fast enough on the execution of the federal Clean Water Act, passed first in 1977 and amended several times after.

As a result of the litigation, the EPA and the coalition came to a settlement. The state agreed to an ambitions schedule for meeting Clean Water Act standards regarding "swimmable and fishable waters."

This means that except in situations where municipalities can prove water is not used for recreational purposes and won't be in the future, treatment plants will have to add chlorine systems to their wastewater treatment plants. They'll also have to dechlorinate the water before it reaches the streams because chlorine kills some fish.

According to the state, more than 900 facilities will be required to determine whether they must disinfect their discharge. The proposed rules have sparked debate over what is considered swimmable water. The state boasts countless streams and creeks. Is a creek that is 3 inches deep in the summertime considered swimmable? What if children still play in it? What about the Mississippi River?

"The overall effect of the rule-making is the presumption that all waters of the state will be fishable and swimmable," said Kerry Cordray, a spokesman for the department of natural resources.

The burden of proof will be placed on the municipalities. The cities and towns across the state that discharge into creeks will have to show that the streams they're discharging into aren't being used for recreation from the plant to two miles downstream. The rules will go into effect in April 2006. From then on, municipalities will have three years to comply after their next inspection, which comes every five years. So it's possible that cities, depending on when they were last inspected, could have three to eight years to meet the requirements.

J.D. Lester, member services coordinator of the Missouri Public Utility Alliance, said he thinks the end cost could exceed $1 billion statewide. He said some of the bigger cities will be able to handle the new rules better than some of the smaller towns.

"It could be huge," he said. "It could really hurt some of the very small communities who are not financially prepared. It's going to raise the rates substantially in some places."

Exceptions to rules

Currently, the department of natural resources is working with municipalities on stream studies as a way of exempting towns from the rules. The Missouri Coalition for the Environment, the group that prodded the EPA with the lawsuit, is reminding people that they can sound off on this issue by telling the state how they use their streams for recreational purposes.

"They don't have to disinfect and get rid of fecal coliform and E. coli bacteria, which is what's being discharged in most streams in the state" said Dan Sherburne, the research director for the coalition. "One of our biggest concerns is the public comment period that ends July 14."

He said the state will accept exemption applications long past the deadline and is skeptical that individuals who use the streams are getting the same opportunity to voice their concerns that the municipalities are getting.

As for the health issue, county public health director Charlotte Craig says there has been no instance of waterborne E. coli cases in the last five years, or "as long as I can remember," she said. She said the fecal coliform has been found in water and is an indication that other bacteria exist. She said she has seen instances where private landowners deposit waste directly into streams, which is a violation of state law.

All local public health agencies actively and regularly conduct surveillance with local hospitals and medical providers and investigate waterborne illnesses to prevent outbreaks.

Between 2000 and June 10 (the state didn't begin entering statistics into a statewide database system until 2000), 194 reports of waterborne illnesses were reported in Cape Girardeau County. State officials have no way of determining how many of those cases were due to swimming in bacteria-infected water. However, if one site resulted in several cases, health investigators would be able to determine the water source. So far, no area in the county has had water that caused disease outbreaks.

Of the 194 waterborne bacteria cases, there were nine cases of E. coli reported, but not the type of E. coli that would come from water.

The town of Marble Hill, which discharges disinfected wastewater into Crooked Creek, had a new treatment plant installed in 2003 with a chlorine system. But Gary Shrum, assistant city administrator, said the plant will still be required to upgrade its treatment plant.

"They want us to put in metering devices that measure the flow automatically and can adjust the amount of chlorine," he said. "It's a bunch of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo if you ask me."

bmiller@semissourian.com

243-6635