Yesterday I talked about the need for a comprehensive
notification and education system as one of the keys to fixing our local water
problems. Today I will start to provide what I think the priorities need to be
in each of the key water issues people identified in my survey. Lets start with what people thought was the #1 problem in our local waters - bacterial pollution or fecal matters.
The bacterial pollution in some of our key waterways, such
as much of the Nooksack drainage, has been increasing again in the last few
years. The rise in pollution will most likely cause another closure of the
Portage Bay shellfish beds which cost the Lummis somewhere near $850,000/year.
But this is more than just an economic cost but also a human health issue for
anyone that may come in contact with the Nooksack River and the streams that
flow into it. While we monitor mostly for the fecal coliform bacteria, its
presence indicates the presence of many other bacteria also such as E Coli.
This bacterial pollution comes from many different sources
including livestock manure, septic systems, and pet and animal waste. To those
who have been paying attention it is clear that the recent increases in this
pollution are due primarily to manure from dairies, cattle operations, and the
hundreds of small hobby farms in our rural areas not being managed correctly.
While there is no doubt that septic systems and pet and animal waste also
contribute to this pollution, and need to be addressed, the dramatically high
numbers of bacteria in some recent monitoring cannot be accounted for by
septic, pet, and other animal waste.
So what needs to be done? Manure needs to be kept out of our
waterways. The County and other agencies have ramped up water quality
monitoring efforts and this needs to continue. By taking water samples at many
places and regularly over the course of the year water problems can be identified
earlier. Then additional water samples can be taken at different places along a
creek to help pinpoint where the actual pollution is coming from. This is the
first part of any successful Pollution Identification and Correction (PIC)
Program. Once the problem area has been identified than the “correction” part
of the program can take place to alleviate the pollution from whatever source
it may be coming from. The monitoring results are also valuable in
communicating to the public what is going on, and enlisting their help in
correcting problems if it turns out they live in an area with higher levels of
pollution.
In addition to correcting known pollution sources we need to
do a better job of preventing the pollution in the first place. Many large livestock
operators, such as most of the dairies in the county, are required to have
custom farm plans that spell out how to properly manage manure so it does not
pollute our waterways. Most of these operators are doing a good job, but even a
few large operations not following their manure management protocols can have a
huge impact on water quality. The state Department of Agriculture oversees
dairies in this county, and unfortunately they report that under their rules
they have no authority to enforce those required farm plans. In other words
dairies are required to have a farm plan, but they are not required to follow
that plan by the state regulator. The Department of Agriculture can only
enforce the rules against a dairy if they can prove the dairy has discharged
manure to our waterways, which is difficult to do after the fact. The County
should lobby the Department of Agriculture, Department of Ecology and the
Governor’s Office for a change in the rules so these farm plans that are meant
to prevent pollution are enforceable, and fines for operators found not to be
following a farm plan after a discharge into our surface waters should be
tripled.
For the smaller operators and hobby farms the County already
has a good Critical Areas Ordinance to protect our waters from this form of
pollution. These farms are required to either maintain standard protective
buffers along streams (50 – 150 feet) so the manure cannot get into our waters,
or participate in the Conservation Program on Agricultural Land (CPAL) which
requires operators to have and follow
a farm plan. These farm plans provide for manure management techniques that can
be used to reduce the width of the buffers. While the CPAL part of the Critical
Areas Ordinance could greatly reduce pollution of our local waters, the County
has ceased all enforcement of these provisions, and currently has no staff for
this activity. Due in part to the County’s lack of enforcement the state
Department of Health and the Department of Ecology have brought in personnel to
try to correct this void in protection of our local waters. The fix for this
portion of the problem is clear. The County needs to ramp back up their CPAL
program and get on with the task of ensuring that people in the county that
have livestock are either obeying the standard setbacks or obtain a farm plan
that would give them the flexibility to reduce the setback widths in return for
good manure management practices. The County should ASAP hire two staff members
to ramp up this process while at the same time contract with the Whatcom
Conservation District to provide free outreach of livestock requirements and
technical assistance to property owners to develop their farm plans. For the
small hobby farms education and outreach needs to happen first including clear
timelines for when enforcement could begin. The dairies and larger cattle
operations are well aware of the rules and the time for enforcement is now, and
the County should use its authority under the Critical Areas Ordinance to
assist the state agencies gain access and enforce our required farm plans and
buffers.
While I do not believe septic systems are currently as major
a source of bacteria into our local waters as livestock, fecal bacteria from
humans has been found nearly everywhere it has been tested for, and failing
septic systems or systems that have not been pumped as needed have been shown
to be the source of this pollution. The County’s rules for septic system maintenance
require an inspection at least every three years, but again after pushback from
the public those rules have largely been ignored except in areas defined as
“marine recovery areas.” Currently the only area defined as a marine recovery
area is the watershed that drains into Drayton Harbor near Blaine. That area is
getting focused attention to make sure residents are following the inspection
and maintenance rules. With the rise on fecal pollution in the Nooksack I
believe the entire Nooksack Basin should be declared a marine recovery area,
and the Whatcom County Health Department should then start following the
monitoring results from an expanded PIC program to focus where to ensure people
with septic systems are following the rules. Currently the County allows
residents to self-inspect their septic systems, and the data collected since
this was implemented indicates that some people abuse this self-inspection
system. If after ramping up the education and requirements for inspections in
the Nooksack Basin the levels of fecal pollution from septic systems is still
too high we may need to go back to requiring professional inspections of these
systems on some sort of regular basis.
Poop from other animals such as dogs and cats and wildlife
also add to the bacterial counts in our local waters. While there is little we
can do about wildlife, we can significantly reduce the amount of pet waste that
ends up in our waters. I know my Shepherd Lab mix produces a good deal of poo
each day, and it is my task to manage that crap so it doesn’t end up down the
hill in Ten Mile Creek. Pet waste management is just another of those
obligations for the privilege of living along the creek. As I talked about
yesterday we need to increase our educational program so it becomes standard
knowledge, and the only socially acceptable norm, to scoop the poop.
Well I think that is enough about poop for one day. All the
above would probably cost the County in the range of $500,000- $600,000 per year
to begin with.
After a good dinner, that was kind of a crappy blog post to read, Carl! Two things stand out for me:
ReplyDelete1) the CPAL program will not thrive under current leadership of PDS. There is no will to enforce the ordinance. It was challenging enough to find someone willing to assume those responsibilities when I was director. There has to be leadership behind the initiative to support the staff when the landowner starts whining about the county employees doing their job. I don't know if Jack is willing to do that or not, but it is an essential step. Otherwise, you're throwing money down a hole with little chance of success.
2) Are you suggesting more education on septic systems rather than professional inspections? I thought your survey showed the public tended to shy away from more "education" but supported more enforcement. We need to get professional inspections going to fix our problems. There simply is not any incentive to a homeowner to report a problem. Provide low-interest loans to low-income homeowners to fix their septic systems. Add $250,000 for a revolving loan fund.
Thanks, Carl. I like clean water, too. 10 years ago, when I sat on the County's Sewerage Appeals Board (now disbanded) I was appalled at how little power this Board had over development applications. We "couldn't" say "no"! Best was to impose additional requirements on the applicant, saying: "You can build if you also do....."!
ReplyDelete