This comment specifically applies to how water quality effects residents which interact with local waters whereas the local government may be perceived to encourage or discourage residents to put themselves at risk of illness due to waters impaired for swimming, boating, and fishing with specific types of construction near waterways. I would urge lawmakers to word the regulations so that no township or city government may directly or indirectly seem to encourage or have given implied consent to guarantee water safety to residents. Construction of such a nature as wading pools and steps that invite residents of all ages into the water may be seen as giving a guarantee of water safety which would be in direct contradiction of EPA ratings for safety and would make the township or city liable for any health cost incurred where residents to fall ill due to exposure to toxins. It would be prudent to have laws carefully worded that limit the nature of development in or around such waterways to not include features which could possibly be construed to invite residents expose themselves, especially the elderly, immune compromised or the very young, to waters that the EPA has rated as impaired for swimming, fishing, and boating. The wording should be that no city or township may develop in or near waters rated as impaired for swimming, boating and fishing any development that could be perceived as inviting residents into such waters. These rules should apply equally to both urban and rural areas since the health and well-being of residents is the priority, not the location in which they may reside. These regulations protect cities from projects that would ultimately end in lawsuits and wasted dollars on projects that cannot safely serve their purpose. It would protect residents from development near waters that put residents at risk of ingesting toxins. These regulations apply to waters not effected by temporary algae blooms but to runoff and e-coli bacteria present in the waters what are the result of large-scale pollution upstream. It would save millions in grant funding dollars and city or county taxpayer dollars that could go toward less complicated projects that do not interfere with EPA regulations and ratings such as new sidewalks or better public lighting in parks.