Pollution Laws Without Punch

Sharon Stern and Erin Aiello’s article on environmental laws (Orange County Voices, Oct. 22) fails to address the realities of implementation.

Neither AB 411, nor the unmentioned SB 709 of July 1999, will alter dramatically the behavior of recreational users. These two are not “strong environmental laws,” as typified by these researchers.

In the case of AB 411, the emphasis is on testing and “right to know” (presence of pollution) concepts that leave the monitoring aspects in the hands of the local health department.

These health departments determine which restriction is appropriate; the common response is to place a few signs on the beach, wait 48 to 72 hours, then take the signs down.

One can see the comparison to tobacco laws and warning labels. It’s obvious that water lovers can become vectors for disease, ergo the posting of signs without physically prohibiting usage of polluted streams and beaches changes nothing.

We force cyclists to wear protective helmets to save them from themselves, but our health officials, entrusted with the care of millions, offer no opposition. What precludes the county from an ordinance banning immersion in known contaminant/communicable disease laden waters?

As for SB 709, ominously titled the Clean Water Enforcement and Pollution Prevention Act, here is another law without teeth. Dischargers of pollution may change or withdraw their pollution prevention plans if they find them to be “economically impractical”--in other words, the Senate left these known contributors a way out by claiming it’s too expensive.

The driving engines of change will not come from the public’s perception. Deterrence through complete enforcement of the original federal and state water-quality acts, coupled with significant fines, will take these violators out of the capricious hands of wishy-washy health officials.

ROGER VON BUTOW

Laguna Beach