"Radical change" needed for storm water disposal program

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Federal environmental regulators must make "radical change" to the U.S. storm water program to clean up the nation's water and reverse degradation, a new report says.

The report by the National Research Council highlights the problem of combined sewage systems that attempt to dispose of both rainwater and waste. In most cities, those systems are reaching capacity, causing increasing amounts of rainwater to flow across urban landscapes—picking up pollutants from garbage to toxic chemicals—and into streams, lakes and rivers. That runoff pollutes watersheds and causes erosion

The council recommends that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates storm water discharged by cities, shift its focus from chemical pollutants in storm water to the runoff problem. The EPA commissioned the report.

"All storm water and other wastewater discharge permits should be based on watershed boundaries instead of political boundaries," the council says in a press release.

The report notes storm water-control measures including land conservation, reducing roads, parking lots and other hard surface covers (which channel storm water into waterways), and building holding and treatment systems for storm water. As we noted earlier this week, Milwaukee is one city that's done this already: if there's too much water to be discharged safely, its deep-water tunnel holds onto the excess fluid until sanitation plants can clean it.

"Storm water pollution is harmful and complex and this comprehensive report offers new information and wide-ranging policy recommendations," Benjamin Grumbles, EPA's assistant administrator for water, said in a statement. "Sound science, pollution prevention, and watershed protection will ensure continued clean water progress."

(Updated at 2:20 p.m. with EPA comment.)


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.


(Image by iStockphoto/Edward Shaw)

 

 

 

 

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