Brave New World - The Ripple Effect: The Fate of Freshwater in the Twenty-First Century - page 51

products. Most of these contaminants are unregulated, and little is known about how
toxic they might be to human and environmental health.
In 1999-2000, scientists at the US Geological Survey (USGS)—the Department of
Interior's scientific bureau—began the first large-scale examination of emerging con-
taminants in 139 streams across the country. They discovered a broad range of residen-
tial, industrial, and agricultural chemicals, including human and veterinary drugs, nat-
ural and synthetic hormones, detergents, plasticizers, insecticides, and fire retardants.
One or more of these chemicals were found in 80 percent of streams sampled; half the
streams contained seven or more chemicals; about one-third of streams contained ten
or more chemicals.
The study of these new compounds is a scientific frontier, one that is raising complex
new questions about water quality: How does antibacterial soap impact the algae fish
feed on? What effect do Prozac, heroin, and perchlorate have on insects, crabs, and
bass? What is the cumulative effect of a “cocktail” of such pollutants on humans?
For now, the answer to such questions remains elusive.
As the nation grows increasingly concerned about health care, hydrologists, medical
researchers, and government officials are wary of this Brave New World of contamin-
ants and are wrestling with ways to regulate them. There are no easy answers, but one
thing has become clear: the CWA and SDWA are not suited to the job.
“Trying to solve these [modern pollution] problems with the 1972 Clean Water Act
is like trying to use a 1972 auto repair manual to repair a 2008 electric hybrid,” Paul
Freedman , vice president of the Water Environment Federation, a nonprofit technical
and educational group, warned Congress. “It just doesn't work.”
For a vivid example of what Freedman means, consider that over sixty thousand dif-
ferent types of chemicals are used in America every year, yet the EPA has assessed the
toxicity of only a few of them. By 2000, the EPA's list of regulated chemicals had steadily
climbed to ninety-one, but then the list suddenly stopped growing. Since then, roughly
seven hundred new chemicals have been introduced to the marketplace every year, but
the agency has not added a single new substance to its restricted list.
In 2003, environmentalists pressured the EPA to update its list, but the agency—led
at the time by Christine Todd Whitman —refused, saying this “would not provide a
meaningful opportunity for health-risk reduction.” Environmentalists charged that this
was disingenuous and that the EPA had been cowed by the Bush administration, which
had, critics alleged, capped the list of restricted substances to ingratiate itself with the
powerful pharmaceutical and chemical industries. The White House ignored the criti-
cism. After clashing with President Bush over other pollution issues, most notably air
quality, Whitman resigned from the EPA in June 2003.