NJ Stance On Water Standards Attracts Criticism
By Peak Johnson
New Jersey’s continued issues with establishing safe drinking water standards for a range of toxic contaminants received heavy criticism from legislators last month.
NJ Spotlight reported that the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee held a bill to require the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to “adopt new standards for 16 substances, largely on the urging of a top agency executive.”
The result of the new standards disappointed environmentalists who have been lobbying for action on the contaminants for some time. “They had hoped to press the Legislature to force the DEP to act, especially in the wake of reports of lead in drinking water in schools and hospitals, chromium in more than 100 water systems, and other toxics in supplies in South Jersey.”
The ongoing disagreement between the two groups originated from a recommendation that had been developed by the state Drinking Water Quality Institute to implement “new drinking-water standards for radon, perchlorate, vinyl chloride, and other contaminants. The institute recommended the perchlorate standard in 2005, and the others in 2009.”
Under current law, the recommendations go to the DEP, but in this particular case the agency never acted upon them. John Gray, deputy chief of staff at the agency, “called the timeframe arbitrary, and one that would be almost impossible for the department’s scientists to adequately meet.”
“What this bill will do is erode the commissioner’s independent authority,’’ Gray said. “Having this bill will tie the commissioner’s hands to what his priorities are.’’
Most of the new standards were recommended in 2009 in the final year of the Corzine administration, which, too, never acted on them. After Gov. Chris Christie took office, there was a nearly four-year hiatus when the Drinking Water Quality Institute never met.
Similarly, three years after the state of Arkansas submitted regulations from its Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for review, the EPA approved some, but not all, of them.
Among the parts that were not approved were two items that had been rejected before by the agency, regarding mineral concentrations in Flat Creek and better ways to determine how clean the state’s water is.
According to Arkansas Online, Arkansas regulations previously “outlined standards for allowable minerals levels in water bodies that covered the state by ecoregions.”