Myth: We Have a Water Quality Problem

This will be the first of several posts to address some of the apparent myths used as justification for strict new County regulations. One of these apparent myths is the belief that we have a generalized water quality problem and the CAOs and SMP must address it now. However, as the article below from the Island Guardian suggests, we do not have such a problem.  Even if we did, the CAOs/SMP would not be the primary way of fixing that problem.  That is the purpose of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Another associated apparent myth to be addressed in subsequent posts relates to the water quality data already available for the County. The general public is largely unaware that the CWA requires the collection and reporting of data so that all waters in the U.S. can achieve the CWA goal of being fishable and swimmable. As a result, the State and Federal governments issue biennial water quality reports, including for the San Juans, that identify impaired waterways, if any.  In the event of impairment, the government prepares plans to bring impaired waters up to fishable/swimmable standards. These requirements already exist and will continue to exist regardless of the outcome on the CAOs or SMP.

Island Guardian 06/16/2010: "“Pristine” Waters Costs SJC A $300K Grant"

 

San Juan County has lost out on over a quarter million dollar grant from the Clean Water Fund because -yup, you guessed it- as the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has in the past stated, the waters in the county are “pristine.”

Ecology’s water quality specialists “evaluated and scored all project proposals,” and the County got beat out by other jurisdictions that had water pollution problems that needed to be addressed.

The County has applied for, and received, funding in the past from Ecology for use as low interest loans made to property owners to repair or replace septic systems that had the potential to pollute the waters, and in particular waters containing aquaculture projects.

The analysis by Ecology of the applications for funding was based on the awarding of points for various categories. For example up to a 150 points could be awarded if a “ project directly and measurably addresses a water quality problem.” The County was awarded exactly “0” points on that one, because there are no known water quality problems directly related to failing septic systems near or on the shoreline; if there were, the SJC Health Department would already have taken action.

Any historical problems with the downgrading of commercial shellfish growing areas due to pollution have been resolved by the County. There are, for example, no closed shellfish areas, and have not been any closures due to past aggressive actions by the Health Department for the last twenty plus yeas to inspect and enforce the repair or replacement of systems that had the potential to cause water pollution.

In a letter to the County, Kelly Susewind, the Water Quality Program Manager for Ecology, stated she appreciated the County’s “interest in and efforts toward water quality improvements and protection” and “hope you will considered future Ecology funding opportunities.”

All we need now is a problem to solve.

Our Independent Expert Doesn't Appear to be Either

Dr. Adamus was hired as the County's independent wetlands expert, and yet he apparently needs to ask the Department of Ecology about basic matters of wetland regulation.  From the email below, Dr. Adamus does not even seem to know that wetlands are subject to provisions of the Clean Water Act (anti-degradation policy).

This single email is representative of many more, obtained through Public Records Act requests, showing an open and direct line of communication between Dr. Adamus and the Department of Ecology regarding Dr. Adamus' work with San Juan County.  When Dr. Adamus came on board we also got, from the Department of Ecology, Erik Stockdale, Paul Anderson, and Tom Hruby as a "bonus".

Begging the question of whether it is even proper for the Department of Ecology to have a blog in the first place, Ecology's own Eco-Connect blog says, "We don’t have regulatory authority in local critical areas ordinance issues. We don’t make rulings or issue enforcement actions under local critical areas ordinances. Those tasks are on local government turf."

Then why are they involved, and why does our independent expert rely on them so heavily?

From: Paul Adamus [mailto:adamus7@comcast.net] 
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 1:35 PM
To: Stockdale, Erik (ECY); Hruby, Tom (ECY)
Subject: BAS-related questions

Erik and Tom,

My questions are as follows:

1. Wetlands and Antidegradation (section 401 CWA).  Must all wetlands in WA be protected from degradation?  How do you explain to the public it's OK for wetlands to be used passively as filters for pollution, yet antidegradation applies?  Can Antidegradation be applied to physical changes to a wetland as well, such as ditching or vegetation removal in the wetland buffer -- which can indirectly affect water temperature?  But then, there are no adopted water quality standards for wetlands, correct?  Have any been adopted in WA for seasonal (Type Ns) streams?

2. Wetlands and stormwater.  Are all wetlands off-limits for intentional routing of stormwater, or only Category I?  Any explicit limits on passive incidental stormwater, other than as described in #1?

3.  Do you know of any WA jurisdictions (other than King Co.) that explicitly allow wetland or stream buffer narrowing if LID practices are used?  How much narrowing, maximum?

4.  For jurisdictions that are considering land use intensity as a factor in tailoring buffer widths, are they all using the land use types or activity types in the WDOE documents to define the intensity levels, or are there some like Island County that use the percent of a parcel's vegetation proposed for removal (and its location) as the primary factor that defines intensity level and thus (partly) the buffer width?

5.  Do any jurisdictions allow an "adaptive management" approach wherein property owners may opt for smaller buffers if they agree to and pay for onsite monitoring of contamination and/or resource harm? I have problems with that approach site-specifically, for the many reasons I mentioned in the BAS.

Thanks,

Paul