What do you do when data shows the streams in your State are contaminated with E Coli?

[KeepTalking]

If you are Wyoming, you make collecting that data illegal, of course:

Forbidden Data

There is no way this law survives a challenge in the courts, but seriously, WTF Wyoming?

 

[thebeave]

If you are Wyoming, you make collecting that data illegal, of course:

Forbidden Data

There is no way this law survives a challenge in the courts, but seriously, WTF Wyoming?

I'm not really sure what the issue is. There are literally hundreds of strains of E. Coli, but very few strains (less than a handful IIRC) cause health problems for people. Your gut is chock-o-block full of E. Coli. I would venture to guess that the most pure mountain stream you could find (other than maybe direct snow melt above the tree line) has E. Coli in it. Its perfectly natural and expected to find E. Coli in a stream. E. Coli is not just from cow feces, but from most/all animals that live in or near streams. Furthermore, if the Wyoming water is being used as a municipal water source, then it is required by the EPA be disinfected to eliminate E. Coli, usually through chlorination. Are they saying there is E. Coli coming out in tap water? If you want to drink stream water, while say, camping, you should always filter it anyway.

 

[KeepTalking]

If you are Wyoming, you make collecting that data illegal, of course:

Forbidden Data

There is no way this law survives a challenge in the courts, but seriously, WTF Wyoming?

I'm not really sure what the issue is. There are literally hundreds of strains of E. Coli, but very few strains (less than a handful IIRC) cause health problems for people. Your gut is chock-o-block full of E. Coli. I would venture to guess that the most pure mountain stream you could find (other than maybe direct snow melt above the tree line) has E. Coli in it. Its perfectly natural and expected to find E. Coli in a stream. E. Coli is not just from cow feces, but from most/all animals that live in or near streams. Furthermore, if the Wyoming water is being used as a municipal water source, then it is required by the EPA be disinfected to eliminate E. Coli, usually through chlorination. Are they saying there is E. Coli coming out in tap water? If you want to drink stream water, while say, camping, you should always filter it anyway.

Here's a hint: the issue is not about E Coli, or drinking water.

It is about making the collection of data on any open land in the state, with the intent to submit that data to a federal or state agency, illegal.

 

[Trausti]

If you are Wyoming, you make collecting that data illegal, of course:

Forbidden Data

There is no way this law survives a challenge in the courts, but seriously, WTF Wyoming?

I'm not really sure what the issue is. There are literally hundreds of strains of E. Coli, but very few strains (less than a handful IIRC) cause health problems for people. Your gut is chock-o-block full of E. Coli. I would venture to guess that the most pure mountain stream you could find (other than maybe direct snow melt above the tree line) has E. Coli in it. Its perfectly natural and expected to find E. Coli in a stream. E. Coli is not just from cow feces, but from most/all animals that live in or near streams. Furthermore, if the Wyoming water is being used as a municipal water source, then it is required by the EPA be disinfected to eliminate E. Coli, usually through chlorination. Are they saying there is E. Coli coming out in tap water? If you want to drink stream water, while say, camping, you should always filter it anyway.

I don't think E. Coli is the issue. That one should be wary of directly drinking water from a stream, especially one in which mammals defecate, is not news. As you mentioned, it's the reason we treat water before we drink it. But the text of the law is as bad as Slate says; and I usually find Slate to be hive of lefty lunacy. What I gather is that some environmentalist pissed off some ranchers, the livid ranchers (who I assume would have some political power in a state like Wyoming) went to their state legislators, and those state legislators passed a law telling the environmentalist to go sit and spin. It's a bad law. It won't survive long.

 

[thebeave]

I'm not really sure what the issue is. There are literally hundreds of strains of E. Coli, but very few strains (less than a handful IIRC) cause health problems for people. Your gut is chock-o-block full of E. Coli. I would venture to guess that the most pure mountain stream you could find (other than maybe direct snow melt above the tree line) has E. Coli in it. Its perfectly natural and expected to find E. Coli in a stream. E. Coli is not just from cow feces, but from most/all animals that live in or near streams. Furthermore, if the Wyoming water is being used as a municipal water source, then it is required by the EPA be disinfected to eliminate E. Coli, usually through chlorination. Are they saying there is E. Coli coming out in tap water? If you want to drink stream water, while say, camping, you should always filter it anyway.

Here's a hint: the issue is not about E Coli, or drinking water.

It is about making the collection of data on any open land in the state, with the intent to submit that data to a federal or state agency, illegal.

OK, well that's a horse of a different color as they say. The headline of your OP suggests that the issue you are concerned with is the presence of E. Coli in the streams (i.e. someone is covering up a health hazard) , which as I said, is a common occurrence, and not necessarily alarming. Not the collection of data.

 

[KeepTalking]

Here's a hint: the issue is not about E Coli, or drinking water.

It is about making the collection of data on any open land in the state, with the intent to submit that data to a federal or state agency, illegal.

OK, well that's a horse of a different color as they say. The headline of your OP suggests that the issue you are concerned with is the presence of E. Coli in the streams (i.e. someone is covering up a health hazard) , which as I said, is a common occurrence, and not necessarily alarming. Not the collection of data.

Ah, I see how that could have been confusing. My apologies.

I didn't think the entire question and answer would fit in the thread title, so I split it up, and put the answer in the post. The answer is what I wanted to focus discussion on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's a hint: the issue is not about E Coli, or drinking water.

It is about making the collection of data on any open land in the state, with the intent to submit that data to a federal or state agency, illegal.

OK, well that's a horse of a different color as they say. The headline of your OP suggests that the issue you are concerned with is the presence of E. Coli in the streams (i.e. someone is covering up a health hazard) , which as I said, is a common occurrence, and not necessarily alarming. Not the collection of data.

The article implies that the levels are above regulatory limits, and the source is likely from herds of cows from ranches. Therefore:

1) E Coli levels are above acceptable levels due to contamination of ranchers
2) You can't just allow E Coli into the watershed because others will eventually use chlorine
3) The government can't be allowed to make it a crime to pass along analytical data

 

[thebeave]

OK, well that's a horse of a different color as they say. The headline of your OP suggests that the issue you are concerned with is the presence of E. Coli in the streams (i.e. someone is covering up a health hazard) , which as I said, is a common occurrence, and not necessarily alarming. Not the collection of data.

The article implies that the levels are above regulatory limits, and the source is likely from herds of cows from ranches. Therefore:

1) E Coli levels are above acceptable levels due to contamination of ranchers
2) You can't just allow E Coli into the watershed because others will eventually use chlorine
3) The government can't be allowed to make it a crime to pass along analytical data

Agreed to the last two, but not the first as I don't think anyone knows for sure that the high E. Coli levels are due to contamination of the ranchers. That needs to be established (if its even possible) before we start hanging ranchers trying to make a living.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The article implies that the levels are above regulatory limits, and the source is likely from herds of cows from ranches. Therefore:

1) E Coli levels are above acceptable levels due to contamination of ranchers
2) You can't just allow E Coli into the watershed because others will eventually use chlorine
3) The government can't be allowed to make it a crime to pass along analytical data

Agreed to the last two, but not the first as I don't think anyone knows for sure that the high E. Coli levels are due to contamination of the ranchers. That needs to be established (if its even possible) before we start hanging ranchers trying to make a living.

no hanging, just use a predator drone.

 

[TV and credit cards]

There should be some severe monetary penalty for states who pass such egregious bullshit into law and the DoJ has to waste it's time undoing it. They could even name the penalty after Wyoming, Manure Laws perhaps.

 

[Deepak]

This seems pretty shitty

 

[Bronzeage]

The article implies that the levels are above regulatory limits, and the source is likely from herds of cows from ranches. Therefore:

1) E Coli levels are above acceptable levels due to contamination of ranchers
2) You can't just allow E Coli into the watershed because others will eventually use chlorine
3) The government can't be allowed to make it a crime to pass along analytical data

Agreed to the last two, but not the first as I don't think anyone knows for sure that the high E. Coli levels are due to contamination of the ranchers. That needs to be established (if its even possible) before we start hanging ranchers trying to make a living.

Suppose a factory is releasing dioxin into the water supply. Would they get the same consideration as ranchers, since they too are trying to make a living?

 

[thebeave]

Agreed to the last two, but not the first as I don't think anyone knows for sure that the high E. Coli levels are due to contamination of the ranchers. That needs to be established (if its even possible) before we start hanging ranchers trying to make a living.

Suppose a factory is releasing dioxin into the water supply. Would they get the same consideration as ranchers, since they too are trying to make a living?

You misunderstood what I said. If the ranchers' cows are proven to be the cause of the excess e coli, then they are on the hook to fix the problem. If analysis shows that...I don't know...field mice, deer, etc are causing the excess e coli, then blaming the ranchers' is misguided and unnecessarily harmful. I've seen too many times where the wrong entity is blamed for an environmental problem, because people are quick to jump to conclusions or have an agenda.

 

[Deepak]

Suppose a factory is releasing dioxin into the water supply. Would they get the same consideration as ranchers, since they too are trying to make a living?

You misunderstood what I said. If the ranchers' cows are proven to be the cause of the excess e coli, then they are on the hook to fix the problem. If analysis shows that...I don't know...field mice, deer, etc are causing the excess e coli, then blaming the ranchers' is misguided and unnecessarily harmful. I've seen too many times where the wrong entity is blamed for an environmental problem, because people are quick to jump to conclusions or have an agenda.

The dangerous form of e coli originates in ruminants so mice couldn't be the cause. Elk or deer are possibilities, though deer populations in WY have been pretty low in recent years http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/08/14/news/01top_08-14-11.txt#.VVUxP_lVhBc

 

[Bronzeage]

Suppose a factory is releasing dioxin into the water supply. Would they get the same consideration as ranchers, since they too are trying to make a living?

You misunderstood what I said. If the ranchers' cows are proven to be the cause of the excess e coli, then they are on the hook to fix the problem. If analysis shows that...I don't know...field mice, deer, etc are causing the excess e coli, then blaming the ranchers' is misguided and unnecessarily harmful. I've seen too many times where the wrong entity is blamed for an environmental problem, because people are quick to jump to conclusions or have an agenda.

This has been a recognized problem in my state for quite sometime. It's part of the balance between the uses of public resources. Dairy farmers want to let effluent run off their pastures an into streams. Swimmers and sports fishermen want to access the water without undue health hazards. Who has the greater right?

It is the cows. If a housing development were dumping the exact amount into the streams, they would be shut down immediately. There's really no need to wonder whether it's mice or deer. It's just a matter of deciding who wins and who loses.

 

[thebeave]

You misunderstood what I said. If the ranchers' cows are proven to be the cause of the excess e coli, then they are on the hook to fix the problem. If analysis shows that...I don't know...field mice, deer, etc are causing the excess e coli, then blaming the ranchers' is misguided and unnecessarily harmful. I've seen too many times where the wrong entity is blamed for an environmental problem, because people are quick to jump to conclusions or have an agenda.

The dangerous form of e coli originates in ruminants so mice couldn't be the cause. Elk or deer are possibilities, though deer populations in WY have been pretty low in recent years http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/08/14/news/01top_08-14-11.txt#.VVUxP_lVhBc

Has it been established that the excessive e coli found in Wyoming streams is the dangerous strain of e coli? I don't think the Slate article said one way or the other.

 

[thebeave]

You misunderstood what I said. If the ranchers' cows are proven to be the cause of the excess e coli, then they are on the hook to fix the problem. If analysis shows that...I don't know...field mice, deer, etc are causing the excess e coli, then blaming the ranchers' is misguided and unnecessarily harmful. I've seen too many times where the wrong entity is blamed for an environmental problem, because people are quick to jump to conclusions or have an agenda.

This has been a recognized problem in my state for quite sometime. It's part of the balance between the uses of public resources. Dairy farmers want to let effluent run off their pastures an into streams. Swimmers and sports fishermen want to access the water without undue health hazards. Who has the greater right?

It is the cows. If a housing development were dumping the exact amount into the streams, they would be shut down immediately. There's really no need to wonder whether it's mice or deer. It's just a matter of deciding who wins and who loses.

There has to be a balance between development and wilderness. People simultaneously want to live in nice houses, but don't want our forests cut down or mines digging up the ground for metals, cement, etc. Everyone has to give and take.

If you have evidence its primarily the cows dumping the e coli, then please post it. Otherwise, you're just speculating.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Has it been established that the excessive e coli found in Wyoming streams is the dangerous strain of e coli?

Well, whoever suggested that the legislature pass such laws seems to think it is or will be established. It's not like chicken ranchers or wildlife conservationists would be asking for such legislation.

 

[Bronzeage]

This has been a recognized problem in my state for quite sometime. It's part of the balance between the uses of public resources. Dairy farmers want to let effluent run off their pastures an into streams. Swimmers and sports fishermen want to access the water without undue health hazards. Who has the greater right?

It is the cows. If a housing development were dumping the exact amount into the streams, they would be shut down immediately. There's really no need to wonder whether it's mice or deer. It's just a matter of deciding who wins and who loses.

There has to be a balance between development and wilderness. People simultaneously want to live in nice houses, but don't want our forests cut down or mines digging up the ground for metals, cement, etc. Everyone has to give and take.

If you have evidence its primarily the cows dumping the e coli, then please post it. Otherwise, you're just speculating.

Sure, it's just speculation. I've never been to Wyoming, so cows and water there may be different than Louisiana. Chemistry and the laws of hydrology may not work the same way. There may be some unknown western fungi which hosts e.coli and has yet to be identified by science. Who knows, since it's all speculation.

While we're speculating, what do you think the chances are I've heard all these arguments before? If you had to speculate about the cause of high concentrations of e.coli in the water of Louisiana rivers and streams, would you speculate it was cows, or some other source?

 

[thebeave]

There has to be a balance between development and wilderness. People simultaneously want to live in nice houses, but don't want our forests cut down or mines digging up the ground for metals, cement, etc. Everyone has to give and take.

If you have evidence its primarily the cows dumping the e coli, then please post it. Otherwise, you're just speculating.

Sure, it's just speculation. I've never been to Wyoming, so cows and water there may be different than Louisiana. Chemistry and the laws of hydrology may not work the same way. There may be some unknown western fungi which hosts e.coli and has yet to be identified by science. Who knows, since it's all speculation.

While we're speculating, what do you think the chances are I've heard all these arguments before? If you had to speculate about the cause of high concentrations of e.coli in the water of Louisiana rivers and streams, would you speculate it was cows, or some other source?

OK, I give up. Uncle. The e-coli is, for sure, from cows. Now excuse me, I have a pizza in the oven.