Opinions divided on future of commission's role regulating Ohio River water quality

Mark Wilson | Evansville

EVANSVILLE, Ind. — Monday is the deadline for people to comment on a proposal that would eliminate some pollution control standards for the Ohio River.

The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO), an interstate commission overseeing the health of the Ohio River, is considering eliminating its pollution control standards.

The move would leave regulation of what goes into the Ohio up to the states whose watersheds drain into the river and to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the federal Clean Water Act.

Opponents of the idea say it would eliminate some added protections not currently required by states and weaken its role in holding states and polluters accountable in some cases.

ORSANCO has set minimum standards for 122 pollutants, not all of which its various member states have set criteria of their own.

Although river quality has improved greatly, the river remains threatened by raw sewage discharges from combined sewer overflows during wet weather, urban and agricultural runoff and toxic chemicals and pollutants from companies with water pollution permits.

Indiana and Kentucky both have consumption advisories for the numbers of fish that can be safely eaten from the Ohio River due to pollutants such as PCBs and mercury. About two-thirds of the river, including Indiana and Kentucky, are not safe for swimming and recreational uses, according to ORSANCO.

Since 1972, the Clean Water Act has made it illegal for industrial, municipal or other sources to discharge pollutants into the nation's navigable waters without obtaining a permit. However, the EPA largely leaves it up to states to issue and enforce these permits.

Before the Clean Water Act or the EPA came about, the eight states with watersheds draining into the Ohio created ORSANCO, with commission members appointed by each state and the federal government.

Six of those states border the river along its 981-mile course, including Indiana and Kentucky.

Two Evansville residents serving the commission have differing opinions about the proposal.

Attorney Joe Harrison Jr. is one of three commissioners representing Indiana, appointed the commission in 2014. He believes the organization's standards are an extra layer of bureaucracy.

"It's my feeling the EPA and states seem to adequately handle the administration of the federal Clean Water Act," he said. "I tend to feel that the ORSANCO pollution standards are redundant. It is somewhat confusing to have a third set of standards out there."

Harrison said he believes it would be a better use of ORSANCO resources to continue its water quality monitoring and research, perhaps adding more monitors. He said he has not made up his mind on how he'll vote.

"I feel the river is a lot cleaner than it used to be. It is much safer," he said.

Ron Riecken is owner of Inland Marina near Evansville. He has served on ORSANCO's public information advisory committee for 20 years but said he will resign if commissioners approve the change.

"We've been in the marina business since 1963. In that time the improvement in the river has been just night and day. I attribute a lot of that to ORSANCO," Riecken said. "In the 1950s and 1960s, the Ohio was really bad. I remember after floods there would be toilet paper hanging in the trees."

Riecken believes doing away with ORSANCO's standards would be a setback for river quality and by extension the people and businesses who enjoy and rely on the river.

"It would be like if we didn't have speed limits on the highway," he said. "Everybody would be driving 100 mph."

Kim Herendeen, co-owner of East Side Marine in Evansville, worried it would ultimately hurt business if it leads to people using the river less.

"What is so sad, Evansville has this wonderful asset going through our town, and Henderson (Ky.), and beyond, and they want to let it get polluted? We need regulations," she said.

John Kupke, a retired environmental engineer in Indianapolis, also is an ORSANCO commissioner. He said the response to the proposal has been overwhelmingly negative, and he has taken some of the criticism personally.

"There is certainly a negative perception. I think the intent of this was not to weaken the standards or regulations. The last thing we would want to do is worsen the quality in the Ohio River, but I could understand how people misinterpret this," he said. "We, as a commission, did not undertake this because of any industry or lobbying group."

Kupke said he is still undecided.

Some of ORSANCO's advising committees, including representatives from utilities, chemical companies and other industries, have endorsed the proposal, according to public records available on ORSANCO's website. Several other advising committees, including one representing river users, rejected the idea of ditching the pollution control standards.

Indiana Department of Environmental Management Commissioner Bruno Piggott is the state's third ORSANCO commissioner. He declined to comment.

A statement from an IDEM spokesman said: "Commissioner Pigott has supported an open and transparent process and looks forward to reviewing all public comments."

In June, a majority of the commission voted to advance the idea of dropping its pollution control standards as part of the commission's regular review process. Commissioners listened to public comments in a meeting July 26.

Written comments will be accepted through midnight Monday. The commission will vote on the proposal at its Oct. 4 meeting in Lansing, West Virginia.

How to comment

The public can comment on ORSANCO's proposal through Aug. 20. Emailed comments can be sent to PCS@orsanco.org.

Written comments may also be mailed to: ORSANCO, 5735 Kellogg Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio, 45230. Be sure to label comments Attn: PCS Comments.

More: Regulators should reject Vectren plan to pay for natural gas plant, OUCC says

More: What we eat and drink plays a role in diabetes. What about what we breathe?

More: Lower crop yields one of many climate change effects for Indiana farmers