Sunday, Aug. 03, 2008

National Resources Defense Council: Group's findings are inaccurate

Recently, a nonprofit environmental activist group called the National Resources Defense Council released its annual assessment of our nation's beaches. The NRDC claims its purpose is to protect wildlife and wild places, and includes in its stated objectives a reduction in oil dependency, curbing global warming, saving wild lands and improving environmental standards in China. Though the report does shed light on ocean water quality, its meaningful observations are marginalized in a publicity frenzy prompted by the NRDC's alarmist tactics.

A thorough review of the NRDC beach report may lead critics to conclude this report is unreliable and decidedly unfavorable. We can rightly object to numerous inaccuracies, omissions and mischaracterizations therein. NRDC underreports the frequency of testing throughout our state; miscategorizes a number of South Carolina beaches; and, in some instances, miscalculates the number of testing stations within various sites. These mistakes are by no means trivial; they directly affect the accuracy of the NRDC's analysis. The S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control documented numerous inaccuracies, but to no avail. By knowingly publishing misinformation, this environmental watchdog only weakens its credibility, no matter how well-meaning its purpose may be.

Defenders of water quality can choose to refute the report's findings and cite this NRDC assessment: "Improved test results combined with fewer closings and advisories translated into a better beach season last year for swimmers and coastal communities." Specifically, we can note that our state had zero beach closings and achieved an 84 percent reduction in the number of advisories issued (2007 vs. 2006). Purists demanding zero-tolerance of ocean water pollution may even take comfort in this fact: Two-thirds of our beach advisories were precautionary in nature, mostly based upon the amount of rainfall, not poor test results or problematic conditions. Though we can identify these accomplishments as successes, the NRDC seemingly ignores the possibility that stormwater improvements and stringent testing might be helping.

Despite these glaring inadequacies, community leaders in the public and private sectors should not dismiss the report's findings, no matter how skewed they may appear. Though the message may be inaccurate and the messenger biased, the need for clean, safe beaches is essential to the success of our tourism industry and paramount to our quality of life along the Grand Strand. We cannot underestimate the importance of protecting our ocean and beaches. Rather, we should address potential problems without hesitation.

On a national level, there are several challenges which we should embrace and Congress should adopt. The most obvious, and simple, is the lack of any federal requirement that states must monitor their beaches and notify the public when ocean water quality standards are violated, though such requirements are often tied to federal funding requests. Despite passage of the BEACH Act, a wide variation of reporting and notification standards among states remain, making state-to-state comparisons meaningless and progress measurements questionable. Federal funding for testing and research is sparse and rarely tied to results that will yield measurable progress. Worse yet, underinvesting in our nation's infrastructure forces donor communities like the Grand Strand to rely upon intense lobbying efforts and legislative prowess to secure modest public investment in much-needed stormwater improvements.

In South Carolina, we voluntarily hold ourselves to a higher standard of performance in management of ocean water quality, for which our state and local officials are to be commended. Though we can clearly demonstrate measurable progress and tout better performance than other states, we can also acknowledge that much remains to be done. Increased investments in research and monitoring combined with ongoing infrastructure improvements and sensible community planning should be standards upon which we do not compromise. And whereas the NRDC has every right to report perceived failings of coastal communities to protect our coastal resources, this environmental activist group would do well to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. If the NRDC desires to be a partner in progress, accurate reporting, meaningful characterizations and collaborative advocacy would be welcome first steps.