Are Periodic Beach and Shellfish Bed Closures a Cost of Development?

In the past ten years, I have assessed beach and shellfish bed closures due to exceedances of indicator organism criteria in both fresh and salt water. In each case, the problem appears to be caused by factors/sources that are unlikely to be effectively controlled to eliminate the exceedances. In some cases, the proliferation of birds, such as Canada Geese and gulls, which have expanded their numbers due to their successful adaptation to our urban/suburban environment, is a key factor. In other cases, subsurface drainage to lower water tables in estuarine environments to allow new residential development leads to a first flush following rainfall that causes a short-term exceedance of bacterial indicator organisms. In still other situations, many older developed areas around fresh and salt waterbodies are served by storm drains that result in bacterial exceedances following storms. The nature of each of these sources, and perhaps the lack of public will to incur the substantial cost to reduce these exceedances, may mean that these problems are part of modern life.

A pragmatic strategy has emerged to allow us to “live in harmony” with these realities. State agencies are using local rain gauges to estimate when individual rainstorms are of sufficient magnitude to result in exceedances of indicator organism concentrations in surface water bodies. Once “exceedance rainfall” is observed, temporary closures are posted. After a few days, the state agency will sample the affected surface waters, and if indicator organism concentrations are below the water quality criterion (standard), then the area is re-opened for the designated uses.

Unfortunately, permanent solutions to this problem are likely to have highly uncertain effectiveness and may be quite costly. So, while we may not like the current approach, as it may suddenly disrupt plans for recreation, we may be unwilling to assume the cost of change. Ultimately, this may be another example where the goals of the Clean Water Act (to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters, and to achieve water quality levels that are fishable and swimmable) are unlikely to be attained.

The Role of Scientists in Decision Making

I have been working recently on a project to assess the “adequacy” of data to inform water quality management and decision making. Is this an appropriate task for a scientist? That is, should a scientist assess the adequacy of data/information to make water quality management decisions? Should a scientist recommend water quality standards? My answer to both questions is no, these are not appropriate tasks for scientists. What does my answer imply about the role of scientists in water quality management and decision making?

Scientists have an important responsibility in the interpretation of science to inform environmental management and policy development. For example, as a scientist, I know the strengths and weaknesses in scientific knowledge in my area of study, and thus I can readily identify gaps in that knowledge. Therefore I and my scientific colleagues should be consulted in an evaluation of general scientific research needs in our areas of expertise. That point seems obvious.

But, I am also a private citizen with personal beliefs, values, and preferences. How do I express those? Should those personal preferences affect my scientific input in support of management and policy? While it has been my experience that people often expect scientists to provide policy recommendations, I think that, upon reflection, most people would prefer a scientific assessment untainted by personal values. In effect, people would prefer a scientific expert to assess the impact of various courses of action, but not to recommend a course of action. In principle, assessment involves scientific expertise but not personal values or preferences. For example, assessments may be summarized by statements such as "if you do A, then my scientific analysis indicates that X is expected to happen" or "if you do B, then my scientific analysis indicates that Y is expected to happen," and so on.

If, however, I were to say "I recommend that you do C," then behind that recommendation, besides science, is my preference for the tradeoffs implicit in recommended action C. What are these tradeoffs? They involve all things affected by the decision, such as: Who pays? How much? What water quality conditions are achieved? As a scientist, I do not have the right to make decisions on those tradeoffs; that right is granted to elected or appointed public officials in most cases. I may have an opinion on the tradeoffs, but as a scientist/citizen, I express those opinions in others ways, such as in the voting booth.

Consider a specific example. At the local and regional level, many scientists volunteer their services on community environmental affairs boards. I have done this in the past in Durham, NC. If, as a member of the Durham Environmental Affairs Board (EAB), I am asked to assist the Durham County Commissioners with their decision concerning allowable land use to protect a water supply reservoir, how should my scientific assessment be expressed? Remember, as a member of the Durham EAB, I am serving as a technical expert. In my role as a technical expert, I am in a good position to use analysis and scientific assessment to make "if-then" statements. Examples of this are: "If Durham adopts land use strategy A, then based on my modeling and scientific analysis, X is predicted to happen to water quality" and "If Durham adopts strategy B, then Y is predicted to happen" and so on. The elected County Commissioners then take the scientific assessment from the EAB, along with technical assessments concerning other relevant attributes, and decide. Decisions by the County Commissioners should reflect community values, tradeoffs, and preferences. If they do not, then the voters have the opportunity to express their dissatisfaction with the Commissioners in the next election.

In summary, the community preferences and values are expressed in the decision by the Commissioners. Scientists provide technical assessments that may require interpretation and explanation. However, the scientific input should not be expressed as a management recommendation, and thus take decision making authority from those who have decision making responsibility.

What does this discussion mean, or imply, about standard setting (e.g., establishing nutrient standards)? Very simply, standard setting is decision making; it should be based on the same principles as outlined above. Thus, if scientists recommend specific water quality water quality standards, then they are making decisions, and in doing so they are expressing their values and preferences. Here, too, the proper role of the scientist is one of assessment, not recommendation and not decision making. For phosphorus water quality standards, scientific assessment might be expressed as "if the growing season total phosphorus standard is set at 0.040mg/l, then algal bloom conditions are predicted for 10 percent of the waterbodies in the state and recreational conditions are expected to be ...; if instead it is set at 0.030mg/l, then ..."  Similarly, an economic assessment might be provided to indicate the expected costs to achieve the standard. All important assessments like these are then provided to the appropriate decision maker(s) who must employ citizen values, preferences, and regulatory mandates to make the necessary tradeoffs and establish the standard.

With respect to my current project on the “adequacy” of water quality data to support decision making, stating that data are “adequate” for decision making is a value judgment that should not be made by scientists. In this situation, the scientist should assess the uncertainty in the data in terms that are understandable to stakeholders and decision makers. This allows decision makers to determine when data are adequate for their needs.

As scientists, we may truly believe that we know the best actions for water quality management. But, are all scientists going to be as enlightened as we are? Further, we may encounter decision makers who want us to recommend an action, and in effect make the decision for them. In those situations, will all scientists have the personal integrity that we have? We should resist these tempting opportunities, and instead work toward better-informed decision makers and citizens. In the long run, democracy and government accountability will benefit and good decisions will follow.