The state of Colorado, where water is scarce, has begun to allow certain homeowners to collect rainwater that falls onto their roofs. A new law, which goes into effect today, removes the legal stigma from people who collect water in rain barrels — provided they meet some strict criteria.

In Washington state, where water is more plentiful (at least in Western Washington), rainwater collection remains stuck in a legal quagmire.

Folks here are growing more aware of the problems that can be created by excess stormwater, which may cause erosion and can transport pollution into the nearest waterway. We are seeing a big push for “low impact development,” which focuses on getting rainwater to soak into the ground as quickly as possible.

But putting rainwater to actual use is another issue. If you intend to use the runoff for watering plants or really any purpose, you are supposed to obtain a water right from the Washington Department of Ecology. In practice, Ecology officials say they allow de minimis use of runoff, such as filling a rain barrel for your garden. But if your goal is to fill a large tank, you could run into problems.

At first, it seems rather ridiculous that a person could be prevented from using the water that falls on his or her property. But when you consider the legal implications, you are forced to confront the extremes. If lots of people were allowed to store all the rainwater they wanted, some streams might dry up in the summer.

For years, Washington legislators have tried to define how much water can be taken without the need for a water right, but the legislation has never gone anywhere. A bill in the 2009 Legislature would have directed Ecology to establish how many gallons can be collected and to describe areas where such collection would and would not be allowed.

A year ago, Department of Ecology officials decided they needed to develop some general rules in the absence of a state law. They offered this rationale:

An acceptable level of rainwater harvesting without requiring a water right has never been defined in law or rule. This lack of clarity has’ created a public perception that even tiny amounts of rainwater harvesting and use is subject to the water code and/or permit process.

Starting in 2003 and every year thereafter the legislature has attempted to c1arify this legal ambiguity. All such efforts have failed. Stormwater management is a major problem, particularly in urban settings. The legal ambiguity concerning rainwater harvesting is hindering efforts to utilize rainwater harvesting as a stormwater management tool. If Ecology does not move forward with the rule, the crippling uncertainty will remain.

The rule was never formally proposed and probably won’t go anywhere for the foreseeable future, according to Judy Beitel of Ecology’s Water Resources Program. Her program has undergone such severe staff cutbacks that special projects like this will be greatly diminished. For further discussion, see Ecology’s page on Rainwater Collection.

Colorado legislators understand that the collection of rainwater could potentially impair uses by people downstream who hold legal rights to the available water. The new law imposes some strict criteria, as outlined in a discussion paper (PDF 44 kb).

Specifically, one’s home must have a legal well or be entitled to have a well designated for domestic uses. Water must not be available from a city or water district. Rainwater can be collected only from the roof, and the use must be consistent with permitted uses of the private well. One must file an application with the state.

A second law will allow limited pilot projects involving large-scale rainwater collection for developments.

These measures seem like a good start to break through the legal quagmire, but Colorado’s law does not begin to address the stormwater problems in urban areas that we see in Western Washington.

New York Times reporter Kirk Johnson explores the implications with some Colorado residents who want to collect rainwater, but his story does not touch on the finer points of the new law.

For Washington state, reporter Jennifer Langston wrote a fairly comprehensive piece for the Seattle P-I about a year ago. In it, she pointed out that Seattle officials had taken steps to solve the water rights problem for many city residents by obtaining a permit for roof collection is areas where streamflow was not a concern.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

A mood of disappointment seemed to hang over delegates as the International Whaling Commission’s annual meeting came to an end in Portugal.

No real accomplishments were cited, and the debate between whaling and anti-whaling advocates will go on.

Perhaps the most positive comment I saw was by Patrick Ramage of the International Fund for Animal Welfare in a story by Association Press reporter Barry Hatton. Hatton made the point that the IWC was set up in 1949 to allocate the whale harvest and now discusses environment threats, such as pollution and climate change.

Said Ramage, “The tone and substance (of the talks) reflect a steady drift towards the IWC becoming a conservation forum and away from being a whalers’ club.”

Other reports worth noting:

OrcaLab
Agence France Presse:
The Christian Science Monitor
BBC News
Reuters
Radio Australia

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

President Obama is being praised for his decision to pull together all the ocean-related challenges this nation faces and for plotting a unified course of action.

On Friday, the president issued a memorandum calling for a task force to develop a national ocean policy along with a “framework” for action and a set of objectives. See the Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, along with a news story by reporter Doug Palmer of Reuters.

I was tempted to state cynically that actions speak louder than words, so we should curb our enthusiasm about what can be done to save the oceans. But then I talked to Bill Ruckelshaus, who co-chairs the Joint Ocean Commission, a national group dedicated to this topic.

Ruckelshaus seems to be thrilled with this latest development, following years of failed promises from the Bush administration.

“This is quite a significant event, really,” Bill told me. “It moves the oceans up on the presidential agenda, which means they will get more attention from Congress and from agencies in the administration. Presidencies are all about setting agendas, and this means more attention will be paid to the recommendations we made.”

I’ll tell you a little more about what my conversation with Mr. Ruckelshaus, but first I’ll review the history.

Five years ago, similar praise was accorded to President Bush after the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy — a presidentially appointed body — released it’s comprehensive examination of the major problems facing the oceans. The report included a list of potential solutions.

Adm. James D. Watkins, a retired Navy officer who chaired the commission, expressed enthusiasm for the reception he felt the report was getting from the Bush administration.

“President Bush’s response to the Commission’s Report and his signing of Executive Order establishing a Secretarial-level Committee on Ocean Policy … sets into motion the important process of developing and implementing a new national ocean policy,” Watkins declared.

Despite the positive reaction, I don’t believe a whole lot came about. (Review the last three “report cards.”) A separate report written by the Pew Oceans Commission received even less attention.

After the two commissions dissolved, some members — including Ruckelshaus — moved into a new organization called the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a nongovernmental group that maintained pressure for action through annual “report cards” relating the progress, or lack thereof, on ocean issues.

In April of this year, the joint commission issued an urgent new report called “Changing Oceans, Changing World: Ocean Priorities for the Obama Administration and Congress” (PDF 280 kb). I outlined that report in a Water Ways entry on April 7.

And so now we come to today, five months into the new administration, which seems to be trying to do everything at once. Can there really be much energy left for a discussion about the oceans?

Bill Ruckelshaus is undaunted. “I think holding back and doing things one at a time just doesn’t work,” he said. “You have to act while the energy is there.”

Ruckelshaus, the first administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Nixon, now chairs the Leadership Council of the Puget Sound Partnership, where he is heading the effort to reverse the degradation of our inland waterways.

President Bush created the U.S. Commission on Oceans, which probably seemed like a good idea at the time. But pulling all the environmental agencies together and getting Congress to focus on budgets, regulations and international treaties just never came to pass.

Why is Obama’s action different?

(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Barnacles and other organisms that attach themselves to ships’ hulls are the focus of an enormous amount of attention, as experts try to find nontoxic methods of keeping hulls clean.

Historically, bottom paints have included compounds that deter organisms with their toxic effects. To be successful, such antifouling paints must slough off at a sufficient rate. That places these toxic compounds into the water, where they can build up in enclosed bays.

When and where such compounds actually reach toxic levels in the environment is a complex problem, involving the toxicity of the compound, the amount that gets released within an enclosed inlet and the level of mixing that occurs in the waters.

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton is struggling with the issue of copper, a primary component in antifouling paints now that tributyltin has been banned. TBT builds up in marine life and is quite toxic to clams and oysters.

The Navy recently reached an agreement with the Department of Ecology to reduce the amount of copper in its stormwater discharges. Most of the copper comes from releases during sandblasting and painting activities. The Navy has tightened up its processes. (See Kitsap Sun, May 29.)

The Navy is considering treating such stormwater before release, and negotiations are under way for a new federal discharge permit. I’ll be writing more about this issue in the coming weeks.

Behind the scenes, the Navy is spending an enormous amount of money to develop new materials and processes to prevent growth on the hulls of ships. The reasons are obvious. Fouling of ships hulls can reduce vessel speed by up to 10 percent, requiring a 40 percent increase in fuel consumption to counter the extra drag. That’s amounts to roughly $1 billion a year the Navy has to spend, according to the Navy’s own figures. (See story on the Web page of the Office of Naval Research.)

It’s hard to tell whether there are any absolute breakthroughs, but some interesting findings are coming out of studies into why barnacles attach to some marine animals, such as gray whales, but not to sharks. Anthony Brennan at the University of Florida is looking at the unique surface pattern found on sharkskin and trying to mimic that for a ship’s hull. The best explanation of the concept can be seen in a video produced by the Office of Naval Research (bottom of page).

That report also mentions work by Shaoyi Jiang at the University of Washington, who is working on anti-fouling coatings that incorporate mixed-charge compounds, which alternate between positive and negative charges and seem to keep organisms from binding.

For recreational boaters, the University of California Sea Grant Extension Program has been studying alternatives in San Diego Harbor and Newport Bay with the idea that the ideas could be applied elsewhere. One study looked at silicone- and epoxy-based coatings.

For more details, check out “Demonstrating a Solution to Copper Boat Bottom Paint Pollution!” (PDF 28 kb).

When you think about it, the need for a low-cost product that will keep hulls clean is obvious, but I’m frankly amazed at how many ideas are floating around, as can be demonstrated by plugging the words “antifouling” and “hull” into a search engine.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

UPDATE, June 5, 2009:
A Victoria Times-Colonist editorial raises several key questions about the sewer plans and says the government should not rush into the project.

———————

The Bainbridge Island sewage spill, estimated at 140,000 gallons, was blamed on a break in a 32-year-old pipe buried in the beach and subject to saltwater corrosion.

Before final repairs, a temporary band slowed the flow of sewage
Kitsap Sun photo by Tristan Baurick

While Bainbridge Island cleaned up its sewage today, the city of Victoria — which has been dumping raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca for decades — took steps to clean up its mess as well. Regional officials took action on a plan to build a series of four sewage-treatment plants at a cost of $1.2 billion. Progress, yes, but work is still years away. More about that in a moment.

Damage to the environment in and around Bainbridge Island’s Eagle Harbor is expected to be temporary, according to Larry Altose, spokesman for the Washington Department of Ecology, who was quoted in a Kitsap Sun story by Tristan Baurick.

“As awful as a sewer release sounds, the impact of this size of spill is short-term,” Altose said, noting that sunlight and other organisms will quickly kill or eat most of the sewage contaminants within days.

Ecology could fine the city up to $10,000 a day for the spill. The city’s response and track record with maintenance can be considered.

“We can fine, but that’s not the point,” Altose said. “The point is to have lessons learned and have the proper steps for prevention.”

One lesson that everyone has been learning over the past few years is that sewer lines buried in the beach are trouble. We all know why they were installed there in the first place — because it is cheaper to build in the beach than to clear a route through trees and across ravines in the uplands.

Sewer lines in the beach are a problem that many cities must face, and they should be inspecting buried pipes on a regular schedule. We’ll see what Ecology’s investigation turns up with respect to Bainbridge Island’s maintenance.

Meanwhile, Bremerton and Poulsbo also face issues with worn-out pipes, and we don’t yet know what the solution will be. Bremerton, if you recall, has proposed a boardwalk that can support a vacuum truck to maintain the pipe after it is replaced in the beach (Water Ways, Sept. 22, 2008). That design is under scrutiny by the Army Corps of Engineers and other state and federal agencies.

As for Victoria, city officials maintained for years that they should be allowed to discharge raw sewage into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, because the swift waters dilute the pollution. Three years ago, the Minister of Environment for British Columbia said that was no longer acceptable and that treatment systems would be required for the municipalities of Colwood, Esquimalt, Langford, Oak Bay, Saanich, Victoria and View Royal, all under the Capital Regional District.
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I would like to confess something here: I am more afraid of the oceans growing more acidic than any of the other consequences of climate change — including drought, floods, reduced snow pack, sea level rise, arctic ice disappearing…

I’m not sure why ocean acidification scares me, but it probably has to do with the fact that I am not very grounded in the science. I need to learn more about the chemistry of the oceans and what concentrations of acidic compounds cause severe problems.

I remember learning, during my school days in chemistry lab, how strong acids can dissolve almost anything but glass. I still can hear the hissing sound and and see vapors rising during acid-base reactions. On an emotional level, I don’t want to be swimming around in acid, and I don’t want our friends, the sea creatures, to be doing so, either.

If you want to produce a scary movie, forget about violent encounters with giant squid and surprise attacks by a great white shark. Here’s how I would write the movie trailer:

Scene: The dark surface of the wayward sea.
Cue the ominous music, then the announcer: “Sea life cannot survive without water, yet something strange is lurking beneath the waves. Do you dare touch the water, knowing that the water itself can bring death? What can anyone do against this growing menace we call ACID?”

Water should be neutral, a pH of 7.0. OK, I know this doesn’t happen in real life, but I don’t want the oceans’ acid levels to stray too far off that mark.

Seriously, notable scientists are telling us that ocean acidification may be starting to affect the entire food web, because of its effects on certain plankton and all sorts of shelled critters. If what they say is true, ocean acidification really is quite scary.

A couple of weeks ago, I reported that the Center for Biological Diversity is suing the federal government to protect the oceans under the Clean Water Act. (See Water Ways, May 15.) Washington was chosen as the test case, because upwelling of ocean water makes the West Coast especially vulnerable to acidification. We’ll see how this lawsuit works out in court, since the data remain a bit sketchy.

Yesterday, at least 70 “Academy of Sciences” groups from throughout the world warned that ocean acidification is not getting enough attention and should get more of a focus in international discussions — including a December meeting in Copenhagen. (Check out the InterAcademy Panel’s announcement about ocean acidification.)

Chen Zhu, minister of health in the People’s Republic of China, and Howard Alper, chairman and president of Science, Technology and Innovation Council, Canada, are serving as co-chairs of the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues. They said in a statement:

“There has been much talk among the science community over the past few years about ocean acidification and its potentially catastrophic consequences, but it has failed to receive the political attention it demands. Its absence from discussions to-date is of immense concern, and we call for its immediate inclusion as a vital part of the climate change agenda.”

At the same time, a new study by Sarah Cooley and Scott Doney of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution reported that ocean acidification and its effects on marine organisms will have direct and indirect effects on the U.S. economy and its $3.8 billion in annual commercial harvests. The report was published in the journal “Environmental Research Letters” (PDF 381 kb).

Publications covering this story include:
The Guardian, The New York Times — Greenwire, and The Sydney (Australia) Morning Herald.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Five years after oil spilled at the Point Wells terminal north of Seattle and drifted across Puget Sound, the issue is finally being put to bed.

If you recall, the incident raised awareness among Puget Sound residents about how much damage can be caused by even a relatively small amount oil (less than 5,000 gallons). The Legislature held hearings on the incident and a blue-ribbon panel conducted an investigation. See “Lessons Learned Report” (PDF 92 kb).

Cleanup from Point Wells spill, Dec. 30, 2003
photo by CDR Thomas Callahan, NOAA

One outcome was to require vessels to deploy oil-containment booms during oil transfers under most conditions — something the Navy and some oil companies said they had been doing routinely.

Now, we hear that state, federal and tribal officials have agreed on a plan to spend some $338,000 that Foss Maritime Company has agreed to pay as its damage assessment. See story in today’s Kitsap Sun.

Details are outlined in a “Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment (PDF 680 kb).” Generally, the plan calls for work on five projects:

• Remove creosote logs and marine debris from Doe-Kag-Wats marsh, which was damaged by the oil spill,
• Restore a 3.5-acre pocket estuary at the Indianola Waterfront Preserve by removing earthen fill and planting vegetation,
• Seed clams and oysters in intertidal areas near Indianola and other locations in Port Madison,
• Purchase about 1.5 acres of tidelands to add to existing state tidelands, increasing recreational uses,
• And redesign parking and picnic areas and restore natural features to the berm area of Doe-Kag-Wats estuary, which is used by the public and the Suquamish Tribe.

Comments on the plan are being taken until June 26. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Web site.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Geoduck harvesting remains controversial. Some people are convinced that it creates long-lasting damage to the seabed and to the creatures that dwell on the bottom. Others are equally convinced that damage is minimal and does not last very long.

I have never determined for myself if one side or the other is absolutely right, or if it depends largely on bottom conditions at a specific site. As a reporter, I continue to listen to both sides and try to give them each fair treatment.

One thing is for sure, however: The money that goes into state coffers from the sale of geoducks is quite remarkable. In a story published in today’s Kitsap Sun, I quote state officials who say the market has remained strong, despite the downturn in the economy.

In a single area north of Blake Island in Kitsap County, the state will receive $1.4 million for geoducks harvested this year alone. Similar amounts can be expected from that area for the next few years.

I will entertain comments and links to documents from anyone who wants to discuss the damage issue. I must give some weight, however, to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which has approved a Geoduck Habitat Conservation Plan and incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act. (See the NMFS Web site on geoducks.)

The reports, which are based largely on research by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, give the geoduck fishery a “low-effect” rating when it comes to threatened and endangered species.

“A low effect HCP is one that NOAA’s Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determine to have minor or negligible effects on federally listed, proposed, or candidate species and their habitats covered under the HCP,” according to the NMFS Web site.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

I tackled Washington Department of Ecology’s budget in a story published today in the Kitsap Sun.

My original plan was to lead the story with the water resources program and its 25 percent cutback in staffers who process water-rights applications. The cutbacks will put the state further behind in managing our limited water resources.

Because Ecology has taken a precautionary approach, the result will be less water available to serve growing communities and businesses. That becomes especially frustrating for developers and water utilities, but a lack of overall management is not so good for the environment either.

And we still kind of ignore that fact that people are allowed to drill wells for their single-family homes without much regard for the overall amount of water available. That issue will come home to roost one of these days, because these are the wells most likely to affect streams and wetlands. Conflicting demands will inevitably rise to the surface one day.

Anyway, my original plan was to lead this story talking about water resources, but I chose to focus first on litter. Litter is easier for people to understand, and I thought more people could get into the story from that angle. I know my blood boils when I think of all the trash along the highways. I also discovered some interesting details for my story.

Statewide, Ecology’s Youth Corps will be cut by half. That means less litter will be picked up. As some folks pointed out in comments on the story, we still have work crews from the jails, but that effort also takes money for supervision, transportation and disposal — and not all inmates are eligible to work. The state will still support the inmate crews, though I need to check whether the county will continue the program at the same level. (I’ll try to report that here and in a comment on the story.)

Overall, Ecology will be able to make it through the downtown in the economy without major problems. As with many organizations, the biggest problem will be losing experienced, knowledgeable employees and hiring back rookies when money becomes available.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post 

Don’t be alarmed, but the waters in southern Hood Canal are beginning to look like autumn leaves.

A multicolored plankton bloom has been seen at Twanoh State Park and other areas.
Photo courtesy of Hood Canal Salmon Enhancement Group

The color results from the growth of a species of plankton called Noctiluca, which multiplies rapidly in the presence of nutrients and sunlight. Conditions were ideal over the weekend for the water to turn colors — reported as red, orange or yellow. (The photo contains green hues, doesn’t it?)

The plankton aren’t harmful, experts say, and it is too early to say whether the plankton growth we are seeing will contribute to a decline in oxygen levels this fall. These colors are temporary and disappear as the waters get stirred up.

Hood Canal Dissolved Oxygen Program offers more information on its Web site.

Here is a brief story I prepared for Wednesday’s Kitsap Sun:
(more…)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post