Water study draws request for independent science review

Alex Coolman

NEWPORT BEACH -- A study to develop effective methods of testing the

waters of Upper Newport Bay has become a source of disagreement in recent

weeks, with some members of the committee that worked on the study

arguing that the scientific basis has received insufficient independent

review.

The Newport Bay Health Risk Assessment Study -- a collaboration

between the Irvine Ranch Water District, Orange County, Newport Beach,

other cities and the Irvine Co. -- is looking at ways of determining

whether bay water contamination poses a threat to humans.

Like a similar project by the city of Newport Beach, the study aims to

address one of the key problems in dealing with water-borne health

threats: the difficulty of determining whether human viruses, which are

the things that usually make people sick when they go in polluted water,

are present in the bay.

The study proposes to deal with this problem by hunting for a virus

called F+phage, which infects bacteria and is often found in sewer lines.

Searching for this virus, said Ken Thompson, director of water quality

for the Irvine Ranch Water District, should be a relatively effective and

inexpensive way of finding out whether viruses are present -- or whether

the water is clean.

“The key is to get good science and make sure we’re not building

treatment facilities where they’re not needed,” he said.

But Jack Skinner, a Newport Beach physician and water quality advocate

who serves as an ex officio member of the study’s health advisory

committee, said he has concerns about the scientific validity of using

F+phage as an indicator of human viruses.

“You can have a lot of phage and no viruses, and you can have no phage

and viruses coming down [from the watershed], so the problem is that

there isn’t an exact correlation between one and the other,” he said.

The question of F+phage’s utility as an virus indicator, both sides

agree, is a complex scientific issue. But Skinner also is concerned about

what he called a lack of independent review of the science used in the

study.

“Primary oversight of the project,” Skinner wrote in a recent letter

to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, “appears to be

performed by ... entities that I believe have a vested interest in the

outcome.”

Specifically, Skinner said, he feels that the “stakeholder” group of

cities and companies involved in the study should not be the same group

determining the legitimacy of the study methods.

Thompson disagreed with Skinner’s opinions about the science.

“They’ve done an incredible amount of literature review on it, and

they feel that they have a pretty sound backing,” he said.

He agreed, however, that independent review might be a necessary step

to avoid giving the impression that the cities and businesses involved

are simply cooking up data to support lax environmental regulations.

“That’s one of the concerns with the peer review,” Thompson said.

“We’ve chosen experts, but there’s always the question mark -- if you’ve

chosen the experts, are they really independent?”

Joanne Scneider, environmental program director for the Santa Ana

Regional Water Quality Control Board, said independent review of the

study might have another benefit, as well. It could forge some kind of

consensus among sides that are fairly polarized.

“Not everybody’s going to agree,” she said. “That’s almost impossible.

There is no one perfect indicator [for viruses].”

What course the testing eventually takes, Thompson stressed, is still

in the planning stages. And it could come to resemble something like the

“toolbox” approach Skinner advocates, in which a variety of testing

methods are combined to provide an accurate picture of contamination

levels.

“This project,” Thompson said, “is just one tool.”