Bay’s Health

Lyn Greene’s commentary in The Times (“Bay Health Controversy Surfaces Again, June 10) provided a cogent backdrop to the announcement last week of the Port District’s report on the bay (“Limit Eating of Fish From San Diego Bay, Study Cautions,” June 12). I suggest that (the problem) is not simply that there is difficulty among the scientists and problems of comparability of data, although I agree with her that those communication problems should be solved.

But there are profound differences in expectations among all participants about what an appropriate level of bay restoration should be. Of most interest to recreational users of the bay are the public health matters; that is, can one swim and fish in the bay without taking undue personal risk?

The present study attempted to answer some of those questions. That the bay was not totally free of pollution seems to create consternation, and the level of interpretation as it impacts public health matters will continue to be debated.

If one adopts the expectation that the bay’s ecosystem be restored to “natural” conditions that (some) environmentalists seem to want, then the only logical solution to these problems of the bay can be to dismantle the city of San Diego, sending everyone back to Kansas, Iowa and Hoboken. Doing that would preserve not only the bay, but would also restore the coastal terrestrial environment to its natural conditions of chaparral and coyotes.

It is rational to act to reduce further pollution into the bay from all sources. It is rational to protect the public health and the recreational interests of the community. The reality is that it is slightly delusional to insist on a pristine bay in “natural” conditions in the middle of a major urban area.

ELAINE R. BROOKS

La Jolla