Is the beach safe? You figure it out

Watch out if you’re planning to cool off with a swim at a local beach this summer.

Government public health officials have decided to stop testing the water for harmful bacteria at Laurel Creek, Shade’s Mills and other beaches in parks owned by the Grand River Conservation Authority.

While the decision has a certain amount of logic behind it, there are two big problems.

First, individual park users will now be expected to figure out for themselves if the water is safe. That’s a can of worms.

Second, the decision was announced recently as a fait accompli to regional councillors who sit on the board of the conservation authority. Those same politicians also oversee public health, in their capacity as regional councillors.

The plan should have come to them much earlier, to be discussed and decided with the safety of the public in mind.

But instead, “public health sent around a memo saying this was happening,” said Jane Mitchell, regional councillor and the past chair of the conservation authority.

“The board members were quite disturbed,” she said.

“It was quite a surprise … I’m not thrilled.”

Because that discussion didn’t happen, conservation authority officials are scrambling to decide what protection, if any, beach users can expect this summer.

For decades, the water has been tested weekly for fecal coliform bacteria. If levels are high, warnings are posted.

High bacteria levels mean increased risk of stomach bugs and infections on the skin, eye, nose and throat.

But Aldo Franco, manager of health protection and investigation at Region of Waterloo Public Health, says testing the water doesn’t really help people.

That’s because it takes several days for test results to come back. Water conditions could have changed in the meantime.

For example, fecal coliform counts could be low on the day the sample is taken. The next day, there could be a big storm that washes animal excrement into the water, with wind stirring up bacteria at the bottom of the lake.

Overall bacteria levels would increase, but it wouldn’t be reflected in the test results.

This could give a false sense of security, he said.

Franco said it’s more helpful to tell people what to watch for, and then let them decide whether it’s safe to swim. For example, signs could advise them not to swim if the water is murky or if there has been rain or wind recently.

“We wouldn’t be considering this (ending the testing) if we felt it was increasing the risk,” he said.

Understood, but think of all the problems that arise.

What if you pay your money to go into the park and then decide that the water isn’t suitable for swimming? Do you get your money back?

What if you were out of town and don’t know if it rained yesterday?

What if you have a reasonable expectation that, because you have to pay to enter the park, someone knowledgeable is making sure it’s safe?

What if it’s important to test for bacteria anyway, so that the authorities have an overall sense of whether the water is getting better or worse? For example, a hot, dry summer will increase bacteria levels even if it hasn’t been raining. Don’t we still want to measure?

If we do want to keep testing water quality, should the conservation authority take over that role? If so, who’s going to pay?

These questions should have been discussed back in the winter. Now, with this 11th-hour announcement from public health officials, there isn’t time to make thoughtful decisions before summer begins.