On my mind

It would appear that there is a battle brewing over just how clean the CNMI’s waters should or need to be. At issue are amendments to CNMI’s water quality standards being proposed by the CNMI’s Division of Environmental Quality. The proposed amendments were published in the Commonwealth Register in April, but were re-opened for comment even after the 30-day comment period had expired, due to what some complained was insufficient public notice. There will be a second public hearing on the proposed amendments next week, in the conference room on the 1st floor of the Morgen Building, in San Jose, at 6pm on Thursday, July 22.

The amendments have been drawn up in compliance with the federal Clean Water Act, and affect all Commonwealth waters, including ground water and the water in the lagoon. In general, the amendments upgrade established standards and make the controls protecting water quality more stringent.

One of the more critical aspects of the proposed amendments is a new level of protection for existing uses of the CNMI’s waters. Incorporating the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s required “anti-degradation” policy, the proposed amendments establish exacting requirements for activities that would lower water quality below that necessary to maintain and protect existing uses. The regulations propose that no action be allowed in waters where the existing water quality level falls just below or just above the applicable water quality criteria for designated uses, and rigorous requirements for actions that would further lower water quality where it is already better than necessary for the protection of existing uses.

The proposed regulations also enlarge the area around Managaha required to meet the highest standard of water use.

In the proposed regulation, four categories of water are established: marine waters, fresh surface waters, wetlands, and ground water. Marine waters are classed either as AA or as A; surface waters as either Class 1 or Class 2, with approved activities described for each category. For example, approved uses in class AA marine waters are “propagation of fish and other marine life, conservation of coral reefs and wilderness areas, oceanographic research, and aesthetic enjoyment and compatible recreation” where the swallowing of water might occur. In other words, no use can be made of those waters that would make it unhealthy if inadvertently swallowed.

Commercial and other interests, however, appear to be claiming that such things as coral reef conservation are not within the purview of the DEQ, and should not be of concern in deciding what water uses can be allowed in any given area. Protests are also being raised against the higher criteria being proposed for determining water quality.

The proposed water quality regulations are crucial to improving the condition of the Saipan lagoon, which lost its qualification as “pristine” some time ago. Without the protective measures they provide, the lagoon will only continue to deteriorate. But without public support, the amendments to the regulations may fail. It is important, therefore, that those who support improved water qualities in our marine waters, as well as surface and ground waters and wetlands, attend the hearing and let their voices be heard.

Last week I wrote about the need for the Marianas Visitors Authority, as the most logical agency, to assume responsibility for caring about the quality—I used the word integrity—of tourist sites in the CNMI. Two articles in the very next issue of the Variety, on July 12, highlighted that need. One reported complaints by a dive-tour operator about the litter—mostly aluminum cans—on the floor of ocean dive sites, and how detrimental that is to both the environment and the tourism industry. Yet no one is charged with the responsibility of keeping that litter off the bottom. The other article reported the stance of MVA board chair David M. Sablan, that taking care of visiting dive groups’ needs was not MVA’s responsibility; its job was to promote the CNMI in overseas markets. Clearly, there is a void in the management of tourist sites in the CNMI.

Two things I neglected to mention in that regard in last week’s column: The CNMI Museum of History and Culture could, and should, be a major drawing card for tourists. Yet it is not. Apparently this is so because without MVA cooperation and “endorsement,” the Museum does not receive sufficient coverage in MVA tourist publications. Another tourist attraction that does not receive sufficient coverage in MVA tourist publications is the botanical garden on the back road.

Of course, with MVA’s primary goal viewed as only bringing tourists to CNMI’s shores, and not as taking care of tourists and enhancing their experience, once they get here, MVA can be said to be “innocent” of any failure of responsibility. Which is all the more reason to change and enlarge the duties and responsibilities of the CNMI’s only tourism bureau.

* * *

I also neglected to mention that the Division of Fish and Wildlife, within the Department of Natural Resources—and indeed, the entire department—are also charged with, and do a fair job of protecting the CNMI’s natural resources. But here, too, the perspective is different. Its focus is internal and local—which is not to criticize the agency—but it does mean that once again, the interests of tourists, insofar as protection, preservation and utilization of natural resources for the benefit of tourists is concerned, are given short shrift.

Another afterthought in regard to that column: in addition to charging tourists for entry into preserves, etc., there is no reason why tourist and resident alike should not be charged for the use of public restrooms. In many other countries, the responsibility for keeping public toilets clean, in operating order, and supplied with toilet paper and towels is turned over to private interests/local residents, who use the money they collect for use of the restrooms to monitor them, keep them clean and operational, and pay their salaries. There is no reason the CNMI could not do the same.

* * *

The deadline for public input on which of four options to pursue in closing the Puerto Rico dump is this weekend, though Director of the Solid Waste Program Steve Hiney said he could accommodate comments received by noon on Monday. The options were presented at a public hearing at the Susupe Multi-Purpose Center June 18—regrettably, few members of the public attended.

The four options vary considerably in estimated cost, ranging from $8.2 million to $80 million. Fortunately the options are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, the least expensive option would cure the dump’s basic problems—covering the dump to prevent rainwater from seeping through the dump into the lagoon, preventing erosion into the lagoon, stabilizing the steep side slopes, and venting the gases generated by the dump—but give only minimum access to the general public.

For an additional $2 million, the dump could be converted into a public park.

Using the area along the dump site’s lagoon borders as either an expanded port facility or as a cruise ship facility would be far more expensive, since the existing underwater structures would have to be removed, the existing sanitary outfall relocated, and significant pier construction would be required. However, use as either an expanded port or a cruise ship/floating hotel facility would not prevent interim use of the dump area as a public park. The enhancements could still be added as the CNMI economy improved.

The question is how much money should be spent at this point beyond the initial $8.2 required to undertake the initially required steps to properly close the dump. The tens of millions of additional dollars to fund the more expensive options seem far beyond reach at the moment. It would be nice, though, if the next “upgrade”—that is, to open it to public use as a park—could be funded. It would cost an additional $10,000 per year in maintenance and upkeep than the simple closing of the lagoon, but perhaps a public/private or volunteer partnership could be devised to help meet that additional cost.

If you have strong feelings on the matter, call Steve Hiney at 322-2745, or e-mail him at dpwsolidwaste@gtepacifica.net by noon on Monday.

* * *

Seems like no one knows for sure just how many islands there are in Indonesia. My encyclopedia says “more than 3,000.” Indonesia’s National Director for Small Islands estimates there are 17,000; a navy survey put the number at 17,508. But the U.N. definition of what constitutes an island is narrower, and Indonesia is now trying to recount them according to the U.N. definition. U.N. has set a 2005 deadline for the task; Indonesia is asking for a waiver of that deadline for perhaps another decade. What they know for sure is that there are 4,000 named islands, and that about half of them are inhabited.

* * *

And last but not least, a big Thank-you to one of the information operators at MTC. I called 411 asking for the number of a federal agency after a call to the number in the phone book elicited only a recording telling me I should check to see if I’d dialed correctly. The operator gave me the same number that was in the book, and I told him that it was not correct. After checking it out to confirm my statement, he promised to check into it and provide me with the correct number, if I’d give him my phone number, which I did. Less than an hour later, he called back to give me the correct number. Never before have I gotten such a service from the phone company!

(The writer is a librarian by profession, and a long-term resident of the CNMI. To contact her, send e-mail to ruth.tighe@saipan.com.)