Based on the threat of potential fines from EPA, locals were left with some difficulties.  First, they needed to know what was causing the high levels of copper in the bay.  Then, a plan of action would be needed to determine how to conform to EPA's limit.  Lastly, and the real remaining question is, what damage has copper caused and will the action plan reverse or mediate the damage?

On July 24^th a panel of experts discussed the copper dilemma in San Diego Bay.  Representatives from the US Navy, California regulators, industry and scientists discussed and debated the issues.  Some in the panel claimed there was a copper pollution problem that needed to be regulated.  Others presented the case that perhaps the problem is not a copper pollution issue, but a problem with the way EPA tests for copper.  The results in the San Diego Bay have not been determined yet, but the situation bears watching.  The copper biocide debate in San Diego Bay could well affect future regulatory actions throughout the world.

The US Navy has performed a number a copper studies as Peter Seligman of the US Navy SPAWAR Systems Center explained.  Although San Diego Bay is a major US Navy facility, Seligman was quick to point the finger away from the Navy and towards marinas.  He said the Navy's studies have determined that the leading source of copper input is antifouling coatings.  According to him, 70% of the copper in San Diego Bay is from antifouling coatings and the high loading is because of the large number of yachts in the harbor.

Other scientists concurred with the Navy's assessments.  Most of the copper inputs from "civilian" boats seem to occur as the yachts sit idle in marinas.  Studies performed by the Navy say that while the boats are sitting, the copper leaches out passively from the antifouling paint on the hulls, elevating copper levels above EPA designated limits.

Ignacio Rivera-Duarte from SSC-San Diego did not agree, however, with EPA's assertion that the level of copper was truly a problem.  He insisted that "free copper ion is the toxic species in water," not total copper levels as determined by the EPA.  Furthermore, Duarte says the free copper ion is made unavailable almost immediately after it has leached off the paint.  Copper toxicity as measured by free copper ions is only a problem in the winter months during storm events, according to Duarte.

If copper toxicity is not really a problem in San Diego Bay, it did not sound as if anyone was working to change the EPA's mind.  As Leigh Taylor Johnson of the Univ. of California Sea Grant put it "we are not Testers, we are Demonstrators."  The EPA has told California regulators that San Diego Bay is above its' limit in copper and the regulators will follow EPA's instructions.

Lesley Dobalian of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board said that San Diego Harbor must reduce the input of copper into its waters by 71%.  The California government has formulated an action plan that encourages pleasure boat owners to stop using copper-based antifouling paint.  Whether or not the government will legislate a ban on copper in San Diego Bay remains to be seen.

Is copper toxicity a legitimate pollution problem or is it just a problem with EPA testing?  It may be up to Industry groups to promote challenges to the existing testing regime.  In the meantime, small boat owners have been told that they should either choose an antifouling paint without copper as a biocide, or refrain from using anything.