Ballard opinion piece still leaves waters murky

Frontiersman editorial board

In an opinion piece from the office of DEC commissioner Ernesta Ballard last week, Ballard wrote to apparently set the record straight about the department's decision to divert EPA funds away from a long-running water monitoring program. Concerns were raised by the EPA, environmental groups and by some of the people working in the monitoring program.

Several news outlets reported on the decision, and there were opinion pieces as well. Ballard's opinion piece appears to be in response to that reaction, though it does not specifically address the decision to divert the funds. The commissioner was not available for comment on Friday, but Frontiersman was able to talk to Jonne Slemons, DEC's non-point-source water pollution program manager. Slemons said the decision to divert the funds was only a temporary one, and that the money will be used for the more critical task of completing some internal development work in the department. Slemons said the department intends to develop a comprehensive identification system that will allow the department to access information about a large body of the state's waters and prioritize projects and programs accordingly.

When asked if EPA would have been willing to help with funding that administrative work, allowing the monitoring projects to continue, Slemons said the department hadn't asked EPA for such help. It may have been a worthwhile question to ask, since EPA has voiced deep disappointment in the decision to halt the monitoring program.

In Ballard's opinion piece, she wrote, "DEC fulfills the state's responsibilities under the national Clean Water Act … to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters." The department intends to use some of the diverted funds to address waters that are already polluted. That addresses the first goal, but says little about the department's commitment to maintain high water quality. It could easily be argued that it's more cost-effective to protect clean water than to restore polluted water. While the polluted water must be dealt with, we'll be better served by reducing the occurrence of other polluted water bodies in the future.

Slemons said the department will continue to monitor water where permitted activities are taking place, but that only addresses the point-source part of the equation. She also said that the department understands the importance of a comprehensive monitoring program, but that the internal work is a priority at this point. Some monitoring, she said, will continue to be conducted over the next year, but that it would be accomplished by contractors or by the DEC itself. She admitted that it will be more costly than the volunteer program that has been used in the past.

The question that remains that the decision to pause monitoring has been made is, did DEC consider all the options, and is it possible a better solution was left on the table? We can only hope the department truly intends to bring monitoring back in the near future, and that they haven't left the glass half empty.