SUMMER TOWNS AND SUMMER DOLLARS

Jaws and Bacteria at the Lake of the Ozarks

Michael Round

July 16, 2009

Who can forget this scene from this unforgettable movie:

Meadows:

Listen we had a shark attack at South Beach this morning mayor!

Vaughn:

I ...

Scout Leader:

K Albert! C'mon you goof keep your arms up! [Continues to yell at kids]

Brody:

Charlie take me out to those kids will ya?

Vaughn:

Martin? Martin, you gonna shut down the beaches on your own authority?

Brody:

Well, what other authority do I need?

Meadows:

Well technically you need a civic ordinance or a resolution by a board of selectives -

Vaughn:

That's just going by the book. We're really a little anxious that you're, uh, you're rushing into something serious here. It's your first summer you know.

Brody:

What does that mean?

Vaughn:

I'm only trying to say that Amity is a summer town. We need summer dollars. If the people can't swim here they'll be glad to swim at the beaches of Cape Cod, Hampton, Long Island.

Brody:

That doesn't mean we have to serve them up a smorgasbord.

Meadows:

But we never had that kind of trouble in these waters.

Brody:

But what else could have done that to that girl?

Vaughn:

Boat propeller?

Medical Examiner:

Well, I think, uh, possibly, uh, yes a boating accident. A boat -

Brody:

That's not what you told me over the phone.

Medical Examiner:

I was wrong. We'll have to amend our reports.

Brody:

And you'll stand by that?

Medical Examiner:

I'll stand by it.

Vaughn:

Martin. A summer girl goes swimming. Swims out a little far. She tires. A fishing boat comes along...

Meadows:

It's happened before.

Vaughn:

I don't think you appreciate the gut reaction people have to these things.

Brody:

Harry, I appreciate it. I'm just reacting to what I was told!

Vaughn:

Martin, i-it's all psychological. You yell `barracuda!', everybody says `huh, what?'. You yell `shark!' and we've got a panic on our hands on the fourth of July. --- Okay you, you can take us back now.

What a dilemma!  If they keep the beaches open, they compromise the safety of the tourists.  If they close the beaches, they compromise the vibrancy of the merchants.

But in order to have a good town, they need both safety and vibrant merchants.

What to do?

We know what they did.  They kept quiet, blamed the first death on a boat propeller.  Reality, being what it is, does not go away because it's ignored.  Another death followed.

Just a movie?

In today's Kansas City Star is an article on the Lake of the Ozarks.

During the swim season, the Lake of the Ozarks' water is monitored frequently, due to the threat of e-coli contaminating the water.  The origin of the threat apparently comes from sewers and septic tanks overflowing after heavy rains.

There were abnormal e-coli water readings.

Very abnormal readings.

Blue Pin = Less than 100 cells/100 mL (well below limit)

Yellow Pin = 100 - 125 cells/100 mL (near limit)

Red Pin = 126 cells/100mL or greater (exceeding limit) for at least one observation

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which normally posts the test results immediately, did not post these abnormal readings.

The paper quotes DNR officials:  "They withheld the report because they were concerned about the impact it would have on tourism and the public."

Do we never learn?

The story eventually gets out anyways.  Tourism, while not being affected immediately (as no one knew about), may be affected in the long term.  Who can know.  For the sake of winning the battle, the war may have been lost.

Reality, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

But is that the end of the story?  What should the DNR have done?  Post the results, of course, because there's a risk.  Apparently, the logic of the story suggests there was an objective risk here:  if it rains, the water is dangerous.  We're even told why the water is dangerous: septic tanks and sewers.

But let's go one step further.  Samples taken May 26 showed the extremely high readings.  Was there a lot of rain during that time?  Weather data shows a thunderstorm May 25th, dropping 1.97" of rain.  Is this ample rain to cause the problem?  Mere coincidence?

Let's look at the chronology of monthly rain in the area:

May, 2009 was a high month - but not as high as May of 2008.  In fact, June of this year was much higher than May.  Were there abnormal readings in June?  The article tells us water samples actually returned to normal in June!

Monitoring the situation helps us avoid unnecessary risk.  It does not help solve the problem.  Additionally, the above graph shows there's a gap in our logic also preventing us from solving the problem.