E. coli in Boulder Creek
My kids are grown so it’s been a while since I’ve waded or tubed in Boulder Creek, but I might hesitate to take my grandson there after learning that the creek is “impaired” — i.e., its E. coli levels are always higher than what the EPA considers safe. Evidently, there is signage now warning of the presence and risk of elevated levels of E. coli, but because levels vary in different stretches of water even on the same day, at any given moment it’s impossible to know what you’re getting into.
From what I’ve read, CU is accelerating its efforts to study and mitigate the sources of E. coli contamination measured at two outfalls which collect from various storm sewers throughout campus. CU has a big impact, but the Boulder Creek watershed is a large, complex system in an extensive urban area with many sources of pollution. I’d expect the university and city to continue working closely with the state Department of Public Health and Environment to monitor and improve the overall health of Boulder Creek, including strategizing about how to bring down E. coli levels. The science exists to analyze water samples in order to generate a “community fingerprint” and determine if bacteria is coming from human or animal feces. Since there are different kinds of E. coli bacteria, some more likely than others to cause illness in humans, the city should prioritize collecting as much data as possible about what kinds of contamination are happening where.
For now, with summer approaching, as Rick Marshall wrote in an opinion piece for the Camera, the city could and should provide more signs related to the general risk of elevated E. coli, and in particular make information a lot more visible when levels spike. This could go hand-in-hand with (in my opinion) being quicker to close the creek to recreation at times of high flow (let’s not have any drowning deaths this year!). There are guidelines for staying safe when recreating in Boulder Creek on the city’s website. And as a general rule, it would probably be responsible for someone like me to be careful about where I let my dog play, and possibly pee and poop, in the water.
Diane Schwemm, parksidediane@gmail.com
With water-based activity on the horizon, a CU Boulder spokesperson had it right when she told the Camera, “We have an ethical responsibility to be good stewards of resources where we live and operate.” While ignorance may be bliss for some, it can lead to sickness for others. Last summer, CU Boulder researchers detected harmful E. coli levels in the Boulder Creek. Moving from detection to attribution, the team found two primary culprits: stormcepters and raccoons (among other wildlife).
While we might be seduced by the appeal of blaming the non-human while concurrently performing acts of human victimhood here, secondary culprits include our trash and runoff from lawns, homes, parking lots, restaurants and pet waste. While we can blame the nonhumans among us (especially raccoons!), we humans are responsible for many of these offenses. We are all culpable; the non-point source polluters are among us, and they are us.
But how about those primary offenders. What is a stormcepter, you might be wondering? These artifacts are stormwater treatment devices used to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff before it enters waterways. We typically install them in streams, stormwater drainage systems, parking lots, industrial sites and along highways to handle runoff that can carry pollutants. In this case, elevated levels of E. coli were found between locations just upstream from Eben G. Fine Park to 17th Street so fugitive stormcepters are just upstream, among other locations.
What should we make of those raccoon miscreants, you may be thinking? While I do not like to single out these notso-cuddly North American natives, there is some warranted currency here with their transgressions. In our part of the city, they get our dog worked up at night. On campus, they creepily hang out at various trash bins. And apparently, they seem to be pooping a lot near or in the creek, alongside other wildlife and human wrongdoers.
High E. coli levels can most readily get kids, older adults and immunocompromised community members quite ill. If anyone gets polluted water in their eyes or mouth or any open wound, you run the risk of getting sick. My take? we should minimize contributions to elevated E. coli levels and heed warnings about swimming, kayaking and tubing, and recreating in Boulder Creek.
Max Boykoff, mboykoff@gmail.com
It appears that (a) there is indeed a problem with E. coli in the Creek, but fortunately, (b) various institutions — including the City of Boulder, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and CU Boulder — are conducting due diligence in researching the causes, effects and mitigation options.
Pinpointing the exact sources of the bacteria is challenging, and mitigating its quantities is equally difficult due to the already large reservoir of E. coli present. That said, the proactive stance our institutions have taken, dedicating years of work towards tackling this problem, gives me peace of mind. CU Boulder has embarked on several mitigation efforts to reduce E. coli levels, including the commission of an engineering consultant to conduct an in-depth study this summer aimed at identifying the precise sources of contamination. On the City’s end, Boulder’s mitigation strategies include a restaurant outreach program, water quality sampling, cleaning of the storm sewer system, installation of dog waste stations and homeowner outreach concerning lawn maintenance. Moreover, there seems to be a lack of significant data indicating that exposure to E. coli in impaired waters directly leads to illness.
Some residents have raised concerns that homeless individuals camping along the river could contribute to higher E. coli levels. Yet, I don’t think the available data supports this hypothesis. Despite an increase in the homeless population camping near the Creek, E. coli data trends in the water have remained relatively stable over the past five to ten years. This stability suggests other factors might be at play. Either way, the recent opening of the Day Shelter may offer an opportunity to observe any significant changes in E. coli levels, providing a clearer picture of whether there’s a direct correlation between the homeless population’s proximity to the Creek and the E. coli levels.
With summer on the horizon, the need to reduce E. coli contamination in Boulder Creek becomes increasingly urgent, given the creek’s role as a recreational spot. As a member of the Environmental Advisory Board, my concerns also extend to the health and sustainability of our local ecosystems. Therefore, my primary recommendation is the continuous gathering of data, including comprehensive tracking of bacteria levels. It’s important that we issue timely public alerts whenever these levels escalate to unsafe thresholds. Our institutions must also continue devising and testing mitigation strategies. These steps are crucial for safeguarding our community’s health and ensuring the lasting vitality of our natural habitats.
Hernán Villanueva, chvillanuevap@gmail.com