Myth: The CAOs Scientifically Address Ecological Risk

One of the most difficult concepts for many people to grasp is the concept of environmental risk.  For an excellent quick read about environmental risk, peruse this speech given by Ruckelshaus in 1984 at Princeton. Risk is a calculation, and I mean that literally, not figuratively. Risk is an actual number.  Risk is a quantitative measure of the probability of something occurring. For example, you may have a one-in-a-million chance of getting cancer if you are exposed to a certain chemical. Or, there may be a de minimis ecological risk if the hazard index is less than 1.

If your eyes are already starting to glaze over, I suppose I have made my point. Risk is complicated stuff; it is mathematical, probabilistic, and very very scientific. If you don't have a number, you ain't talking risk. You may be talking about someone's perception of risk or fear of the unknown, but you're not talking risk unless you're talking numbers.

When the Council, County staff, and the consultants say that they have developed high, medium, or low-risk scenarios for wetlands and the CAOs, don't buy it. They didn't run the numbers.  In fact, they refused to run the numbers. They can't tell you what quantitative risk level is associated with their high, medium, or low scenarios. Without that, they can't tell you how much risk reduction you get per foot of buffer.

Are you following?  They don't know what risk is present in the environment in the first place because they didn't run the numbers. They can't tell you how much risk reduction the proposed buffers will buy because they didn't run the numbers. This isn't science. The buffer calculator that they have developed is akin to levers that are not connected to anything.  It's all guesswork.

The mantra that you will hear, especially from some members of the Council, is that our current buffers and wetland rules are not based on science, but our shiny new proposed rules are.  Rubbish. Despite spending a bundle on our new rules, they are not based on science either, and they are certainly not based on risk. They are based upon the policy opinions and assumptions of a select few, and in fact, many involved in the development of the new CAOs frequently advocate for eliminating nearly all "risk" no matter how small.

As Ruckelshaus points out in his speech, the ultimate goal of having a rational conversation about risk is to get people to understand the difference between living in a safe world and a risk-free world.  I don't think the proponents of the new CAO rules, including the Council and staff, understand that yet.

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.