Coastal water quality: the hard facts, please

Releasing water quality data results to the public would benefit environment
Mark Wong Vee-Meng, Today Online 7 Aug 08;

I REFER to “Swim at your own risk” (July 31) and Mr John Lucas’ response “What about the water quality”(Aug 1).

I share many of Mr Lucas’ concerns about the reporting of recreational water quality in Singapore.

While I agree with some of the points he raised, there are several statements that reflect a lack of appreciation of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines for analysing recreational waters.

First, his contention that the presence of garbage, flotsam and jetsam at beaches like the East Coast Park gives lie to the National Environment Agency’s (NEA) claim that the East Coast Park had a clean bill of health is false.

While chapter 9 of the WHO guidelines states that such trash may serve as “possible proxy indicators for the likelihood of gastrointestinal effects associated with swimming” (with emphasis on the possible), the actual criteria used by the NEA, WHO and other regulatory bodies — the enumeration of certain faecal indicator bacteria has definitively been shown to be a good indication of the levels of faecal pollution at recreational beaches.

Since the NEA measured the level of enterococci (a faecal indicator bacteria) at the East Coast Park and found it to fall within the “good” range of the WHO guidelines, I do not think it is unreasonable for them to announce that the East Coast Park is safe to swim in, despite the presence of trash.

Secondly, although none of the reports published included the physical and chemical results for these beaches, since such parameters are included in the WHO water quality standards, I think it is safe to assume that such parameters have been tested and are within normal levels.

Nevertheless, Mr Lucas’ point is well taken. There can be no confidence in announcements from government bodies regarding the safety of recreational areas if the data behind such assurances is not made available.

The NEA should take a page out of the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s playbook and publish the results of recreational water quality tests online, as they already do for air quality.

Third, Mr Lucas’ suggestion that water at the beaches be sampled twice daily is not viable for several reasons.

The costs would be prohibitive, and more importantly, it would not add any value to the data being generated. The standard method for the enumeration of faecal indicator bacteria like enterococci requires a minimum of 18 to 24 hours of incubation before readings can be taken. This means that a sample taken today can only be read the following day.

Given such long sample-to-result times, it does not make sense to sample twice daily as the results would not affect the decision to post advisories today.

Like most regulatory bodies, the NEA relies on the historical trend in the faecal indicator bacteria data to give a more holistic picture as to whether a beach or stretch of coastline is frequently or infrequently affected by faecal pollution.

Lastly, most Singaporeans are just starting to wake up to issues like global climate change, environmental stewardship and recreational water quality. Government bodies are also starting to realise that the public is increasingly less satisfied with blanket assurance statements about public health and safety.

There will be a period of mismatch between what the public expects to know and what government bodies feel the public needs to know.

Much of the reticence of government bodies to release public information stems from a long-established mandate of not wanting to “alarm the public unduly”.

While it is certainly laudable and responsible, I believe Singaporeans are mature enough to handle some bad news without panicking.

The level of interest in the issue of recreational water quality indicates that Singaporeans are more interested in knowing the hard facts about the kinds and types of tests carried out in our waters than we are in wanting to hear an “all clear” signal from the authorities.

I reiterate my suggestion that the NEA start publishing the actual results of recreational water quality analyses done at our local beaches, together with the health risk category.

This will increase public confidence, raise awareness of the need to protect our recreational water and foster a greater sense of environmental stewardship — probably the most lacking facet of the Singapore psyche.

The writer holds a PhD inenvironmental microbiology