Our View

Even as the Southeast endures a devastating drought and reports mount of overwhelmed treatment systems for drinking water and wastewater, efforts are under way that could dilute the laws intended to protect our most precious natural resource.

One such attempt is scheduled for consideration by the Tennessee General Assembly and, while the bill seems merely procedural, if passed it could lead to increased pollution of Tennessee's streams and rivers.

HB 4185/SB 4119, sponsored by Rep. Joe McCord, R-Maryville, and Sen. Steve Southerland, R-Morristown, proposes to add a definition of "limited-resource waters" to the state Water Quality Control Act that would exclude those waters from protection. "Limited resource waters," as the authors define them, are "ephemeral bodies of water that flow primarily in response to rainfall, for which groundwater is not a significant source, and that do not support a significant indigenous population of native fish or aquatic life."

So, for example, a tiny branch, or even a stretch of creek that is dry except when it rains could be paved over, filled in, or simply removed at the behest of a property owner.

Currently, the bill is supported by state road- and home-building organizations and opposed by a number of environmental groups. The state Department of Environment and Conservation also says the measure would be a mistake, and has called for all sides to work together on a better solution.

It is hoped that that will happen, because HB 4185 is alarming on several levels. Its supporters say that current water protections are confusing, too restrictive or both. In fact, the Water Quality Control Act comprehends that even dry rivulets in Tennessee are part of the aquatic ecosystem. A sudden rain can send trash, silt or whatever has been placed in a dry bed flowing into active waterways.

The state act is set up to let the government assess the risk involved before manmade changes adversely affect drinking water, water levels or fish and other wildlife.

Size is not an issue. A study published earlier this month in the journal Nature found that even the smallest streams play a critical role in removing nitrogen pollution from fertilizers, animal waste and fossil fuel before it reaches reservoirs and the ocean.

"That stream in your back yard isn't itself playing a dominant role, but when you add up all the small streams in any network they are very important," Patrick Mulholland, an Oak Ridge and University of Tennessee researcher who was lead author of the study, told The Associated Press.

Another problem is that, by removing these waters from state governance, definition of waterways would then fall under the federal Clean Water Act, which already is being challenged in a number of lawsuits around the country.

It also is disconcerting that the bill's backers would make this proposal now, when the region is undergoing its worst drought in decades. Water conservation should be the focus, not water elimination.

Certainly, it is natural that developers would want to remove what they consider an obstacle to their business progress. But developers and road- and home-builders also drink from the local water supply, take their children boating or fishing on the river, and eat vegetables in soil irrigated with clean, plentiful water.

They should consider what a little expediency on the construction site ultimately could cost in quality of life.