EPA allowing sewage externalities?

The article from the Washington Post (seen here) is about decisions that are in the works regarding partially treated sewage to be dumped during heavy rainfalls. This externality would affect the water resources in the immediate areas. The author goes on to say, “Some scientists, environmentalists and state and local officials object to blending because it could foster the spread of disease.” The other alternative is spending billions of dollars on plant upgrades. Benjamin H. Grumbles, assistant EPA administrator says that, “Blending is acceptable if the sewage is treated enough to meet Clean Water Act requirements at the end of the pipe.” The current policy in place allows plants to discharge partially treated waste if and when there is no other alternative. Nancy Stoner, who is in charge of the National Resources Defense Council’s clean water project, believes that the new policy will result in more deaths and people getting sick. Joan B. Rose, a microbiologist, also adds that, “the EPA’s proposal ignores scientific findings that link waste water to the spread of disease.” She also said that, “sewage is the source of a lot of major pathogens.” There are disagreements regarding this policy, which is why no decision has been made yet. There was however an agreement to build three underground water storage tunnels over the next 20 years. This would remove the sewage overflows that account for 3 billion gallons of raw waste that gets dumped into local rivers and creeks each year. This article addresses some of the costs and benefits to each side of the story regarding the externality of partially treated sewage entering water through heavy rainfall. The costs to add plant upgrades would be hundreds of billions of dollars. However, there is evidence to show that deaths will increase if the policy passes. In referring back to Professor Coppock’s lecture with the hog farm and the neighbors with the externality of terrible smells in their midst, the question remains whether it is legal for this to be allowed. In the hog farm example, the fact that there was a law regarding the right to farm trumped the externality of the smells. Property rights could also be addressed if there was a specific person or group who owned a nearby river. If a plant happens to own the river, then they would not have to pay to fix the problem. If someone else owned a nearby river, then the plant could be held accountable for the waste. If the new policy is passed, then that would change this because then the plants would never be accountable for negative externalities of discharged waste. I understand that there is often an optimal level of pollution when considering all of the factors that weigh into the issue. However, when there is evidence to show that this policy could lead to deaths, I thank that even the cost of billions of dollars would be better than passing this policy.