Studies Say Wildlife Waste Is Major Water Polluter

Studies in Virginia and Maryland have determined that wildlife waste plays a more significant role in water pollution than originally thought. The strange proposition that nature is apparently polluting itself has created a serious conundrum for government officials charged with cleaning up the rivers. 

In the Washington area, violations of the bacteria standards have put more than two dozen streams on the federal "impaired waters" list. One recent study by a Virginia Tech team found that in the Potomac and the Anacostia Rivers, more than half of the bacteria in the streams came from wild creatures. EPA documents show that similar problems were found in other areas. In Maryland, wildlife were more of a problem than humans and livestock combined in the Magothy River. In Northern Virginia tributaries such as Accotink Creek, geese were responsible for 24 percent of bacteria as opposed to 20 percent attributable to people. In the Willis River in central Virginia, scientists have come up with a TMDL for many local streams. They determined that there needed to be an 83 percent reduction in the amount of waste that wildlife left directly in streams. 

Part of the problem lies with the unnaturally high populations of deer, geese and raccoons living in modern suburbs and depositing their waste there. It could be the ultimate irony of people's impact on nature that the entire system has changed so radically that wild animals now degrade their own environment. But officials say it would be nearly impossible, and wildly unpopular, to kill or relocate enough animals to make a dent in even that segment of the pollution. That leaves scientists and environmentalists struggling with a more fundamental question: How clean should we expect nature to be? Now, the EPA and state agencies are considering holding some streams to different standards, expecting that not every stream can be made safe for swimming. In such cases, the states would plan to reduce bacteria from human sources as much as possible and then reassess to see whether some level of bacteria from wildlife is natural.

Washington Post, September 29, 2006 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801994.html 

Ed. note: This article addresses fecal bacteria pollution only - it does not address the water quality issues stemming from phosphorus or nitrogen. Also, this editor takes issue with the consideration of resident Canada geese as "wildlife!"