It is reported that Washington residents don’t get the necessary updates regarding the quality of their water which is needed to protect health
Recently, after all previous governors’ foot dragged, Gov. Jay Inslee unveiled plans which could ensure that the outdated water quality standards in the state are revised. While the existing water provides assurance of 70 percent safety, it doesn’t have what it takes to go the next 30%.
At best, the plan by the governor would provide a way of cutting down the amount of contamination in water and reducing the risk of people getting sick due to waterborne ailments.
The standards that measure water quality are based on how much shellfish and fish we eat. If we eat more, the water should be clean. The plan which is introduced by Inslee endeavors to increase our fish consumption by about ten fold.
Support for these massive figures is concession by Tribes. Most members of the Tribe, together with Asian Americans eat amount of fish that is far much higher than the stipulated standards. Available statistics show that their daily consumption is between 236 to 800 grams. These numbers also represent suppressed rates. If there were more shellfish to be harvested, more of them would be eaten.
“ While giving with one hand, Inslee gives away a lot more with another hand, therefore increasing the risk of contracting cancer by ten times,” says Tim, a policy analyst.
Fish consumption and cancer rates should be able to protect the people who need it: women, children, Indians and anyone who is interested in eating shellfish and local fish. “When the people who have high level of vulnerability are protected, so is everyone else,” said Tim.
But to reduce the cancer risk rate, Inslee is making a proposal that would see massive reduction in toxins. This is an effort that will absolutely require legislative approval as well as funding.
“While the idea of reduced toxins is a good one, it doesn’t substitute an updated standards for water quality,” Says Adrian Mark, a resident. He says there is need to have a water quality rule which carries the weight of law.
“Nobody would know with certainty what legislature might decide, but there may be more opposition as well as delay to the proposal tabled by Inslee. Those who support either side will more likely engage in a lot of lobbying during sessions just to block any meaningful change,” added Adrian.
Anderson Howard, a policy analyst is of the opinion that the state must ensure the safety of the water which its people take. It is also the duty of the state to make sure fish are safe to eat. It is not prudent to put hard worn treaty rights on the hands of a governor.