Petition Filed to Force EPA Regulation of Ocean Acid Levels

Action exploits better water quality as a way to reduce CO2 emissions that acidify the seas

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

SAN FRANCISCO—The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) here has filed a petition with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that calls on the EPA to override lax water quality standards in 15 coastal states and territories. Requiring those states to meet or exceed minimum federal standards intended to limit the amount of acidification that can occur in coastal waters would in effect force the states to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As CO2 in the atmosphere accumulates, more is absorbed by the ocean, which feeds chemical reactions that are making seawater increasingly acidic.

The EPA has the authority to regulate standards for ocean acidification as part of its work under the Clean Water Act to preserve water quality. EPA has said that the pH of ocean water should not vary by more than 0.2 units from its natural state as a result of human influences. The pH scale runs from 0 (highly acidic) to 14 (highly basic); 7 is neutral. Many ocean waters hover around 8.2 or 8.1, although the value varies along U.S. coasts and can vary season to season in a given location. The scale is logarithmic, so a 0.1 decline corresponds to a 30 percent increase in acidity, according to the CBD. New evidence from around the world indicates that even small relative changes in pH can cripple the ability of marine organisms of many sizes to form the skeletons or shells needed for life.

States are responsible for water quality out to three miles (4.8 kilometers) from shore. The EPA is responsible for quality out to 200 miles (320 kilometers), the limit of national waters. Most states have standards for acidity, but many are outdated and do not reflect current science, says Miyoko Sakashita, oceans director at the CBD.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Some state rules allow a 0.5 or 1.0 deviation from "normal" values. Other states simply allow the pH to vary from 6.5 to 8.5 or even 6.0 to 9.0—levels that would wipe out most microscopic organisms and shellfish in the ocean, in the process destroying the food chain that fish and marine mammals depend on. Some states do not even have a way to systematically measure the pH levels in their waters. Part of the CBD's motivation in filing the petition is to "get to a point where we have better monitoring and good assessment," Sakashita says.

Indeed, she adds, the petition's intent is to prompt states and the EPA to create a robust monitoring system and to devise more rigorous standards in light of all the new science. "Ideally, EPA would create a nationwide plan," she says. In the meantime, she notes, "the action could help reduce CO2 emissions from some of our states that are the biggest emitters." The Clean Water Act requires states to identify all sources of emissions and determine how much they are contributing to the state's overall output.

States may object on the grounds that atmospheric CO2 comes from states and countries everywhere. But Sakashita notes that the same argument holds true for mercury emissions, and for pollution that causes acid rain—and that state and federal regulations have been successfully brought to bear on both those issues through the Clean Water Act.

The 15 states and U.S. territories targeted by the petition are: Maine, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii as well as Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands in the western Pacific. By law, the EPA must grant or deny the petition, which Sakashita expects to happen within a year. Her organization is also talking with individual states to see if they might act on their own. Washington State, for example, has already said it would review pH monitoring and standards as part of its regular environmental work.

Mark Fischetti was a senior editor at Scientific American for nearly 20 years and covered sustainability issues, including climate, environment, energy, and more. He assigned and edited feature articles and news by journalists and scientists and also wrote in those formats. He was founding managing editor of two spin-off magazines: Scientific American Mind and Scientific American Earth 3.0. His 2001 article “Drowning New Orleans” predicted the widespread disaster that a storm like Hurricane Katrina would impose on the city. Fischetti has written as a freelancer for the New York Times, Sports Illustrated, Smithsonian and many other outlets. He co-authored the book Weaving the Web with Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, which tells the real story of how the Web was created. He also co-authored The New Killer Diseases with microbiologist Elinor Levy. Fischetti has a physics degree and has twice served as Attaway Fellow in Civic Culture at Centenary College of Louisiana, which awarded him an honorary doctorate. In 2021 he received the American Geophysical Union’s Robert C. Cowen Award for Sustained Achievement in Science Journalism. He has appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press, CNN, the History Channel, NPR News and many radio stations.

More by Mark Fischetti

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe