“Survive the Sound,” an online game that features cute little
fish swimming for their lives, is back for a second year with some
new additions, including free participation for students and
teachers in the classroom.
The basics of the game remain as I described them last year. You
pick out a wacky cartoon steelhead and then receive daily reports
as the fish makes its way through a perilous Puget Sound over a
12-day period. The journey starts May 7, and signups are now open.
See
Water Ways, April 29, 2017.
As in real life, many fish will not make it to the ocean because
of the effects of disease and pollution along with the constant
risk of predation. But a few lucky steelhead will survive, and the
winners will be recognized.
Individuals join the game with a $25 donation to Long Live the
Kings, which will use the money to further research, ecosystem
restoration and education. This year, anyone can start a team and
encourage others to participate, sharing the joy or heartbreak of
the salmon migration. Prizes
will be awarded to the winning teams.
This year, teachers can sign up their classrooms for free and
play the game while learning about the Puget Sound ecosystem.
Extensive educational materials have been developed to go along
with the game. Check out “Bring ‘Survive the
Sound’ to your Classroom!”
The game is based on the real-life travels of steelhead, which
have been tracked using implanted acoustic transmitters. Some fish
swim faster than others and some even reverse course. This year,
participants will be able to watch the progress of all of the fish
making the journey, according to Michael Schmidt of Long Live the
Kings.
Last year, more than 1,100 people joined the game, and
organizers hope for even greater participation this year.
If nothing else, you should check out the cartoon fish and the
clever things they have to say by clicking on the individual
steelhead in the “Survive the
Sound” fish list.
If you are thirsty and someone hands you a glass of water, you
might or might not ask where the water came from. If you trust the
person, you probably don’t worry much about the health risks of
drinking the water.
On the other hand, if you are told that the water comes from
highly treated sewage effluent, you might think twice about taking
a drink — even if you are assured that the water is cleaner than
tap water, bottled water or any other source.
It’s a matter of perception, which is why some people drink only
bottled water. They think it must be more pure than water from the
faucet. But studies have shown that much of the bottled water on
the market is just someone else’s tap water, and often the source
is unidentified.
A recent study by researchers at the University of California,
Riverside, conducted a taste test to see if people’s perceptions
about drinking treated wastewater has any connection to the actual
taste of water. Findings were reported in the journal
“Appetite.”
The 143 participants were provided three samples of water in a
blind taste test, meaning that there were no clues about the source
of water. One was a brand-named bottled water, which had been
purified through reverse osmosis; another was tap water from a
groundwater source; and a third was tap water that came from an
indirect reuse (IDR) source. IDR processing, which is used in at
least six California water systems, involves treating the water to
a high degree through reverse osmosis and putting it into the
ground, where it mixes with existing groundwater. From there, it is
pumped back out and treated as a normal groundwater source.
Many of the findings of the study were surprising to the
researchers. For example, the IDR water and bottled water were
preferred over the groundwater source by many of the tasters.
“We think that happened because IDR and bottled water go through
remarkably similar treatment processes, so they have low levels of
the types of tastes people tend to dislike,” said co-author Mary
Gauvain, professor of psychology at UC Riverside in a news release.
The groundwater source had the highest amount of sodium and
carbonate, while the IDR source had more calcium. Concentrations of
chloride and bicarbonate were similar for all three.
Another interesting finding: Women were twice as likely as men
to prefer the bottled water.
Individuals who described themselves as more nervous or anxious
than others had less preference for the IDR water, perhaps because
of the higher mineral content. Individuals who described themselves
as more open to new experiences showed a somewhat greater
preference for the IDR water.
In describing the tastes, individuals often said their preferred
choices had “no taste” or “no aftertaste,” which may be related to
the mineral content. The IDR process may remove some unpalatable
minerals during filtering, the authors said. Since IDR water goes
into the ground, it may pick up other minerals that improve the
taste.
The authors acknowledge that the preferences in the study may be
more related to mineral content of each source than to the process
that the water goes through before it gets into the drinking
glass.
The taste of water involves many factors, starting with the
makeup of a person’s own taste buds and saliva, as I described in a
story last year in the
Kitsap Sun:
“Experiments have shown that when a group of people with normal
taste buds is given pure distilled water to drink, most people do
not believe the water tastes normal,” I wrote. “Some even say it is
slightly bitter or sour, perhaps because it contains less salt than
saliva, or perhaps because it is totally lacking in minerals that
people come to expect.”
As for mixing highly treated sewage effluent into the water
supply, there are two hurdles to overcome. The first is convincing
people that the water really is safe, such as by providing a clear
assessment of the water content — including minute constituents
that can make it through the treatment process, such as some
pharmaceutical drugs.
Beyond an honest assessment of water quality, water managers
need to address the emotional response of people when it comes to
anything dealing with sewage. Revulsion is a deep-seated emotion
designed to help people avoid contamination and disease.
One way to make treated effluent more palatable is to
“naturalize” it by putting it into the environment, such as
infiltrating it into the ground — even if that process makes it
less pure before it goes through another step in purification.
Removing or adding minerals may improve the taste.
Water itself — the H2O molecules — are no different in sewage
than they are in bottled water or coffee. Water cycles through
people, plants, clouds, soil, the ocean, and on and on. It gets
used over and over again. The only real issue is the other
chemicals that may go along for the ride.
Alex Spiegel of National Public Radio did a nice job analyzing
the psychology behind the aversion people have to using treated
wastewater and why people are more accepting of indirect use. Read
or listen to
“Why Cleaned Wastewater Stays Dirty In Our Minds.”
So far in Washington State, nobody is talking about using highly
treated sewage effluent (“reclaimed water”) as a direct supply of
drinking water — or even as an indirect supply where injection
wells are close to extraction wells, as done in some areas of
California.
Nevertheless, people’s concerns about the quality of their water
may impair the acceptance of reclaimed water for irrigation,
groundwater recharge, stream restoration or even industrial uses.
Addressing both factual and emotional aspects of this issue should
help get us over those hurdles.
World Water Day, coming up this Thursday, is an annual worldwide
event designed to focus attention on the importance of water to all
living things.
Promoted by the United Nations, the 25-year-old World Water Day
has always raised concerns about the 2.1 billion people in the
world who don’t have easy access to clean water, creating a major
health crisis in some communities.
This year’s theme is “nature for water” — although the
discussion remains focused mainly on humans. Human actions have
contributed to increasing flooding, drought and water pollution —
and humans are able to use natural systems to help reduce the
problems.
So-called “nature-based solutions” include protecting and
improving water quality by restoring forests and wetlands,
reconnecting rivers to their floodplains and creating vegetated
buffers along lakes and streams, even in urban areas.
A
fact sheet (PDF 2 mb) put out by UNESCO (U.N. Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organization) lays out the arguments on
behalf of nature-based solutions. A larger 150-page report, titled
“Nature
Based Solutions for Water” (PDF 42.7 mb) can be downloaded from
the UNESCO website.
A series of posters and cards related to this year’s theme can
be downloaded from the World Water Day website.
For the creative, I’m intrigued by the idea that you can create
your own collage, using individual elements taken from the four
posters. See “collage
kit” on the same resources page.
Considering that this is the 25th World Water Day, I anticipated
more events and celebrations. The one event listed for Washington
state is a guided tour of Edmonds Marsh, one of the few urban
saltwater estuaries still remaining in the Puget Sound region.
Details of the walk are provided in a brief article in
Edmonds News.
The first video on this page is a promotional piece by
UNESCO.
Official poster of World Water
Day
Source: UNESCO
I found the second video, filmed in Istanbul, Turkey, to be
revealing about people’s attitudes about water. I imagine the
reaction might be the same in some U.S. cities — although the
specific location probably makes a lot of difference. The video,
produced in 2015, was created for Standart Pompa, a manufacturer of
water pumps.
The video shows a video screen next to a water faucet with a
dying tree depicted on the screen. When passersby turned off the
water faucet, the tree suddenly transformed into a healthy green
condition. Although the weather was cold during the filming, nearly
a third of the people going by took their hands out of their
pockets and turned off the water, which was actually recirculating
from the drain so that no water was wasted.
The third video is a cartoon designed to drive home a message
about the importance of water, beginning with the simple act of
brushing your teeth. It was produced by TVNXT KIDZ.
All the pieces are falling into place for an upgrade of
Kingston’s sewage-treatment plant to produce high-quality reclaimed
water for irrigation, stream restoration and groundwater
recharge.
Kingston Wastewater Treatment
Plant
Photo courtesy of Golder and Associates
By the end of this year, a study by Brown and Caldwell engineers
is expected to spell out the location and size of pipelines, ponds
and infiltration basins. The next step will be the final design
followed by construction.
When the project is complete, Kingston’s entire flow of
wastewater will be cleaned up to Class A drinking water standards.
During the summer, the water will be sold to the Suquamish Tribe
for irrigating White Horse Golf Course. During the winter, most of
the flow will drain into the ground through shallow underground
pipes. Some of the infiltrated water will make its way to nearby
Grover’s Creek, boosting streamflows and improving water quality in
the degraded salmon stream.
Another major benefit of the project will be the elimination of
42 million gallons of sewage effluent per year — including about
3,000 pounds of nitrogen — which gets dumped into Kingston’s
Appletree Cove. I wrote about the effects of nitrogen and what is
being done to save Olympia’s Budd Inlet in five stories published
this week in the Encyclopedia of Puget
Sound, as I described in
Water Ways on Thursday.
The Kingston project, estimated to cost $8 million, has been
under study for several years, and Kitsap County Commissioner Rob
Gelder said he’s pleased to see the effort coming together.
“The Kingston Recycled Water Project is pivotal, and I’m very
happy to be partnering with the Suquamish Tribe,” Rob said in an
email. “The best thing we can do for our environment and to enhance
water availability is to not discharge treated flows into Puget
Sound. We are uniquely positioned to benefit from strategic
investments of this nature in the coming years.”
The Kitsap Peninsula is essentially an island where the
residents get 80 percent of their drinking water from wells. North
Kitsap, including Kingston, could be the first area on the
peninsula to face a shortage of water and saltwater intrusion —
which is why new strategies like recycled wastewater are so
important.
The latest feasibility study was launched last October under a
$563,000 contract with Brown and Caldwell. The work includes a
detailed study of soils and analysis of infiltration rates,
according to Barbara Zaroff of Kitsap Public Works who has been
coordinating the project. The location of the pipeline and ponds
for storing water near White Horse Golf Course also will be
determined.
Funding for the study includes a $150,000 grant from the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation with $150,000 from the Suquamish Tribe.
Kitsap County recently received a loan for up to $558,000 to
support the study.
I last wrote about the Kingston Recycled Water Project in
Water Ways three years ago, when I also discussed a similar
project in Silverdale, where recycled water will come from the
Central Kitsap Wastewater Treatment Plant.
In a way, some of Puget Sound’s most serious ecological problems
have been hiding in plain sight. I have been learning a lot lately
about plankton, an incredibly diverse collection of microscopic
organisms that drift through the water, forming the base of the
food web.
Sources of nitrogen in Puget
Sound (click to enlarge)
Graphic: Washington Department of
Ecology
To put it simply, the right kinds of plankton help to create a
healthy population of little fish that feed bigger fish that feed
birds and marine mammals, including the endangered Southern
Resident killer whales. On the other hand, the wrong kinds of
plankton can disrupt the food web, stunt the growth of larger
creatures and sometimes poison marine animals.
OK, that’s a bit of an oversimplification, but Puget Sound
researchers are just beginning to understand the profound
importance of a healthy planktonic community to support a large
part of the food web. That’s one of the main points that I try to
bring out in five stories published today in the Encyclopedia of Puget Sound. I
am grateful to the many researchers who have shared their knowledge
with me.
Average daily nitrogen coming
in from rivers and wastewater treatment plants (1 kg = 2.2
pounds)
Graphic: Washington Department of
Ecology
These stories tie together several major issues all related to
nutrients — mainly nitrogen — that feed the marine phytoplankton,
which use their chlorophyll to take energy from the sun as they
grow and multiply. In the spring and summer, too much nitrogen can
mean too much plankton growth. In turn, excess plankton can lead to
low-oxygen conditions, ocean acidification and other significant
problems.
The complex interplay of planktonic species with larger life
forms in Puget Sound is still somewhat of a mystery to researchers
trying to understand the food web. As part of the effort, the
Washington Department of Ecology is working on a computer model to
show how excess nitrogen can trigger low-oxygen conditions in the
most vulnerable parts of the Salish Sea, such as southern Hood
Canal and South Puget Sound.
Areas of Puget Sound listed as
“impaired” for dissolved oxygen (click to enlarge)
Graphic: Washington Department of
Ecology
Stormwater is often cited as the most serious problem facing
Puget Sound, and we generally think of bacteria and toxic chemicals
flowing into the waterway and causing all sorts of problems for the
ecosystem. But stormwater also brings in nitrogen derived from
fertilizers, animal wastes and atmospheric deposits from burning
fossil fuels. Stormwater flows also pick up natural sources of
nitrogen from plants and animals that end up in streams.
Sewage treatment plants are another major source of human
nitrogen. Except for a few exceptions, not much has been done to
reduce the release of nutrients from sewage-treatment plants, which
provide not only nitrogen but also micronutrients such as vitamins
and minerals. Some experts suspect that nutrients other than
nitrogen help to determine which types of plankton will dominate at
any given time.
I plan to follow and report on new scientific developments
coming out of studies focused on the base of the food web.
Meanwhile, I hope you will take time to read this package of related
stories:
Does Puget
Sound need a diet: An overview of the nutrient problem with its
biological, legal and practical implications.
Confusion is nothing new when it comes to figuring out whether
federal agencies have jurisdiction over certain wetlands and
intermittent streams under the Clean Water Act. And now the Trump
administration has guaranteed that confusion will reign a while
longer.
Meanwhile, lawsuits — also nothing new to the Clean Water Act —
continue to pile up at a rapid pace.
Some argue that the confusion begins with the 1972 Clean Water
Act itself, which requires the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
issue permits for any filling or dredging — which covers most
development — within the “navigable waters” of the country.
Congress defined “navigable waters” in a way that has generated
much confusion and many lawsuits through the years: “The term
‘navigable waters’ means the waters of the United States, including
the territorial seas,” the law states.
Even the U.S. Supreme Court couldn’t figure it out and ended up
adding to the confusion. In a 4-4-1 split ruling, half the justices
focused on “navigable waters” with a narrow definition to include
major waterways but avoid federal protection for many wetlands and
intermittent streams. The other half of the justices supported a
broader definition, which would protect downstream waters by also
protecting upstream sources of water.
Writer Steve Zwick of
Ecosystem Marketplace does a nice job explaining the legal and
historical context for the confusion in a four-part series of
articles. Zwick relies on, and gives credit to, the writings of
William W. Sapp and
William M. Lewis, Jr.
Under the previous administration of Barack Obama, the Army
Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency worked
together to draft a new rule to more clearly define federal
jurisdiction over streams and wetlands, as outlined by the broader
Supreme Court opinion. It became known as the “Clean Water Rule” or
“WOTUS” for Waters of the U.S.
Some potential opponents applauded the certainty of the proposed
rule, even if they disagreed with some details. (See
Water Ways, March 25, 2014.) But others believed that the
states, not the federal government, should be in charge of
protecting streams and wetlands. It became a common theme to argue
that the new rule would regulate the tiniest ditches and farm ponds
— something the Obama administration denied.
One of the opponents of the 2015 rule was Scott Pruitt,
Oklahoma’s attorney general who ended up suing the Obama
administration on behalf of his state. In all, 31 states joined
various lawsuits against the rule, with separate lawsuits brought
by farmers and industry.
Scott Pruitt, EPA
administrator
Photo: EPA official portrait
“President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency currently
stands poised to strike the greatest blow to private property
rights the modern era has seen,” Pruitt declared in an opinion
piece co-authored by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, a Republican from
Kentucky. The piece was published in
The Hill.
Pruitt, of course, is the man that President Trump later named
to head the EPA, the same agency he was suing in multiple lawsuits.
Pruitt said early on that he would not allow Obama’s WOTUS rule to
go into effect.
Before it took effect, the WOTUS rule was tied up in the courts,
including an injunction issued by the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Cincinnati. Under the Clean Water Act, appeals courts
can take primary action under certain conditions, but the
U.S. Supreme Court agreed unanimously (PDF 923 kb) on Jan. 22
that the WOTUS rule is not one of these conditions.
And so the rule, originally scheduled to go into effect in
August 2015, was put back into a confusing status, ready to go into
effect in 37 states where it was not blocked by an injunction that
covers 13 states under an order of the U.S. District Court in North
Dakota.
“This is just all-out war. All-out litigation,” Vermont Law
School professor Pat Parenteau was quoted as saying in an article
by Ariel Wittenberg in E&E News. “This
is good news for lawyers, but it is not going to be settled at
all.”
Pruitt’s EPA then moved to finalize the Obama WOTUS rule on Jan.
31 but with an “applicability date” set for two years away. The
announced intent was to overhaul the rule by pulling back federal
jurisdiction over streams and wetlands.
“Today, EPA is taking action to reduce confusion and provide
certainty to America’s farmers and ranchers,” Pruitt said in a
news release. “The 2015 WOTUS rule developed by the Obama
administration will not be applicable for the next two years, while
we work through the process of providing long-term regulatory
certainty across all 50 states about what waters are subject to
federal regulation.”
In the interim, the EPA has announced that it will revert to
previous policies and guidelines drafted following the confusing
Supreme Court ruling.
You can guess what happened next. On Feb. 6, a total of 10
states, including Washington, plus Washington, D.C., filed a
lawsuit in New York, claiming that Pruitt’s delaying tactics were
illegal. The state officials, led by New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman, argued that the federal government ignored the
federal Administrative Procedures Act by adopting the revised rule
without a meaningful comment period and in disregard of the Clean
Water Act’s underlying intent of protecting the nation’s
waters.
“The agencies have now suspended the Clean Water Rule without
consideration of the extensive scientific record that supported it
or the environmental and public health consequences of doing so,”
the
lawsuit (PDF 1.9 mb) says.
On the same day, the implementation delay was challenged in a
separate lawsuit (2.6 mb) by two environmental groups, Natural
Resources Defense Council and National Wildlife Federation.
“The Agencies’ only proffered rationale for the suspension is
that it will promote regulatory clarity and certainty,” the lawsuit
says. “In light of the administration’s open antipathy for the
rule’s provisions, that rationale rings hollow. But it is also
belied by the record. There is no evidence that suspending the rule
will promote clarity or certainty, and ample evidence that
suspending the Rule will create confusion and uncertainty.”
In Ariel Wittenberg’s story in E&E, Georgetown
Law professor William Buzbee talks about how messy things have
become.
“If the administration had taken the time to put out proposals
that truly and fully engaged with the merits of the Clean Waters
Rule and tried to come up with a new read, then it would be
ordinary days in the courts,” he was quoted as saying. “But
anything they do now, given their proposals, is likely to be
legally vulnerable.”
Now the possibility exists that some courts could delay
implementation of the original WOTUS rule while others reject the
two-year delay. In any case, there is no end in sight to the legal
battles, and nobody can be certain about what kind of projects will
require federal permits.
Kitsap County’s streams are getting generally cleaner when it
comes to bacterial levels, according to an annual water-quality
report issued by the Kitsap Public Health District. But streams can
have good years and bad years — and 2017 was not so good.
Let’s compare the annual report for 2016 to the newly released
report for 2017, both found on the health
district’s website. Reporter Tad Sooter offered a nice overview
of the new report in a
Kitsap Sun story on Friday.
Graph: Kitsap Public
Health District
Before getting to the findings, it’s important to understand
that there are two bacterial water-quality standards that must be
met for a stream to get a clean bill of health. The first part
calls for an average of no more than 100 bacteria per 100
milliliters of water (or no more than 50 bacteria if the water body
has been designated “extraordinary”). The second part states that,
regardless of the average, no more than 10 percent of the samples
taken can exceed 200 bacteria per 100 milliliters of water (or 100
bacteria for “extraordinary” water).
It came as a surprise to me that in water year 2017 a total of
23 streams — or 35 percent of the 66 streams sampled — failed both
water-quality standards. That’s worse than in water year 2016, when
25 percent of the 64 streams on the list failed both standards. (A
water year goes from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30 of the next year.)
One reason that water quality got worse in 2017 was that rainy
weather at times was more conducive to washing bacteria into the
streams, according to Shawn Ultican, a water-quality expert with
the health district.
“Bacterial levels were higher in general than we have seen them
in the past few years,” Shawn said of the 2017 data. “We had more
intense rainfall at times. We don’t think that suddenly more
pollution sources have become a problem.”
Similar patterns also were seen in 2009 and 2010, he said.
More streams were deemed clean in 2016 than 2017. In 2017, 21
streams — 32 percent — met both of the water-quality standards,
compared to 30 streams — 47 percent — the year before.
For discussion, I took a look at reports in 2008, when 38
percent met both standards, and 2013, when 29 percent met both
standards. So it really does vary from year to year. And whether a
stream is considered clean or polluted depends on recent rainfall
and other fleeting factors. Consequently, much depends on when a
water sample is taken, which is why health officials choose their
sampling dates randomly.
Because weather plays an important factor in the bacterial
counts, health officials tend to focus on long-term trends rather
than on the results of individual water samples. Trends result from
a statistical exercise using data collected each month over many
years. For most streams, sampling has been going on for 22
years.
If the bacterial counts stay relatively the same over many
years, the health of the stream is listed as “stationary.” If the
numbers show a statistical trend, a stream will be listed as
“worsening” or “improving.”
In 2017, five streams were listed as worsening: Coulter Creek in
South Kitsap; Lofall and Kinman creeks in North Kitsap; and Stavis
Creek and the Tahuya River, which drain into Hood Canal. You might
consider Stavis Creek and Tahuya River to be statistical anomalies,
because they are so clean that it takes only a few additional
bacteria to result in an unwelcome trend.
Stavis Creek met both part 1 and 2 of the water quality
standards in 2017, while the Tahuya River failed part 2 because of
a few high counts. In 2016, both streams met both water-quality
standards, so health officials aren’t worried about either stream
at this point.
In 2016, 21 streams were listed as improving, compared to 18
streams in 2017. Olalla, Wilson, Barker and Chico creeks are among
those that went from improving to stationary. Barker and Chico
creeks are pretty clean, meeting both parts of the water-quality
standards.
Tad’s story in the
Kitsap Sun includes an interactive map that provides the status
of each stream in Kitsap County monitored by the health
district.
Lofall Creek, which includes drainage from the community of
Lofall as well as upstream areas, has been giving health officials
fits for years. Bacterial counts are high and getting worse,
despite successful efforts to eliminate sources of pollution, such
as failing septic systems and pet wastes.
Special tests are planned to see whether pollution in the stream
is coming from pets, birds or ruminants, such as cows and deer,
according to Ian Rork, an environmental health specialist with the
health district who is assigned the cleanup of Lofall Creek and
nearby Kinman Creek.
Health officials have long suspected that raccoons may be a
source of the pollution, but they have no strong evidence. Raccoons
are known to deposit their wastes in communal areas. As new
development takes over uplands, these small animals may be pushed
into remaining vegetated areas along the streams.
Last year, Ian began a new effort to work closely with residents
of the community to see if they could take steps to discourage
raccoons and other wildlife from congregating near Lofall. Steps
people can take include making sure animals don’t have access to
garbage, keeping barbecue grills clean and avoiding the intentional
feeding of raccoons.
“The local residents have been so gracious and good to work
with,” Ian told me, adding that most people are committed to
solving the problem if only there were a clear answer.
For the 2017 report, Lofall Creek remains the most polluted
stream in the county, followed by Ostrich Bay Creek in Bremerton;
Olalla Creek and Burley Creek, both in South Kitsap; and Kinman
Creek and Vinland Creek, both in North Kitsap.
The cleanest streams are Dewatto Creek, followed by Anderson
Creek, Stavis Creek, Seabeck Creek, Salmonberry Creek, Big Beef
Creek and Wright Creek. All drain into Hood Canal, except Anderson
and Wright creeks, which drain into Sinclair Inlet, and South
Kitsap’s Salmonberry Creek.
Climate change is expected to bring more intensive rainstorms,
but how that will affect long-term trends in water quality is yet
to be seen.
If oil companies were secretly interested in drilling off the
Washington coast — which is doubtful — then I suspect that state
and tribal officials scared them off yesterday.
It’s one thing for an oil company to sign a lease with the
federal government. It’s quite another thing to go up against other
sovereign governments determined to use every means to make the
venture unprofitable.
Participants in press
conference, left to right: Attorney General Bob Ferguson; Gus
Gates, Surfrider Foundation; Gina James, Quinault Nation; Larry
Thevik, Dungeness Crab Fisherman’s Association; Gov. Jay Inslee;
Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz; Ocean Shores Mayor
Crystal Dingler; and Chad Bowechop, Makah Tribe. (Click to
enlarge)
Photo: Governor’s Office
In a press conference yesterday, Gov. Jay Inslee said the
Legislature could pass laws that establish new taxes or limit the
use of port facilities needed to service oil rigs.
“We could set up our own safety standards, for instance, that
frankly the industry may not be able to meet,” Inslee said. “So,
yes, we have multiple ways. Counties and cities would also have
jurisdiction.
“What I’m saying is that when you have a policy from a president
that is uniformly reviled in the state of Washington both by
Republicans and Democrats, there are so many ways that we have to
stop this — and we’re going to use all of them.”
The entire press conference is shown in the first video
below.
In a
two-page letter to Secretary of Interior Ryan Zinke, Inslee
wrote, “I urge you in no uncertain terms to respect our local
voices, our state’s laws, and our hard-working families by removing
Washington’s coasts from any subsequent plan your department may
propose to expand oil and gas leasing in this country.”
As Inslee prepared to take another question at the press
conference, Public Lands Commissioner Hillary Franz, who oversees
the state’s forests and aquatic lands, quickly wedged up to the
microphone. She pointed out that Washington state has the authority
to lease — or not — much of the deep-water areas in Puget Sound and
along the coast, including areas used by local ports. The state
would have a say over almost any infrastructure the industry might
need to develop along the shore, she said.
In addition, the state has ownership over vast shellfish
resources, Franz noted, and so state officials would have a clear
interest to protect against any damage that might result.
Attorney General Bob Ferguson said if the leasing plan goes
through, it would be challenged in court on many grounds. Just one
example of a legal violation, he said, is the off-handed way that
the Trump administration exempted the state of Florida from the
leasing plan.
“It was completely arbitrary,” Ferguson said at the press
conference. “It’s a classic example of how this administration
rolls something out; they haven’t thought it through; and they take
an action that we think will help make our case against it.”
Ferguson laid out his legal, moral and practical arguments
against offshore drilling in a long
five-page letter, which included this comment: “The proposal to
open the Pacific Region Outer Continental Shelf to oil and gas
leasing is unlawful, unsafe and harmful to the economy and natural
beauty of Washington’s coastline. As Attorney General, my job is to
enforce the law and protect the people, natural resources and
environment of my state, and I will use every tool at my disposal
to do so.”
Chad Bowechop, policy adviser and member of the Makah Tribe,
explained that tribes have legal rights under the treaties to
protect the environment in their native lands. He noted that the
press conference was being held in the very room where legislation
was signed to dispatch a rescue tug at Neah Bay. The bill was the
result of oil spills that had damaged the natural and cultural
resources of the area.
“We’re very proud of our working relationship with the state of
Washington Department of Ecology Spills Program and with the United
States Coast Guard,” he said. “Our basis of objection to this issue
is based on our cultural and spiritual values. Our spiritual values
hold the environment and the ocean resources in spiritual
reverence.”
Drilling, he continued, would be in conflict with the tribe’s
cultural and spiritual values. As a legal trustee of the ocean’s
natural resources, the tribe “will pledge to work closely with the
other resource trustees,” meaning the state and federal governments
to prevent offshore oil drilling.
Early today, Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell appeared on the
Senate floor to protest the oil-drilling proposal. She talked about
the natural resource jobs that would be threatened by drilling
activities. Check out the second video.
Now that Alaska Gov. Bill Walker has asked the Trump
administration to dial back the offshore drilling proposal in his
state, all the West Coast governors stand in opposition to the
drilling plan. In a
press release, Walker said he supports offshore drilling, but
he wants Zinke to focus on the Chukchi and Beaufort seas along with
Cook Inlet.
“I support removal of potential sales in all other Alaska waters
for the 2019 to 2024 program,” he said, “and I will encourage the
Interior Department to include the longstanding exclusions for the
Kaktovik Whaling Area, Barrow Whaling Area, and the 25-mile coastal
buffer in upcoming official state comments on the program.”
Alaska’s congressional delegation, all Republicans, previously
made the same request in a
letter to Zinke. The members are Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan
Sullivan and Rep. Don Young.
Except for three U.S. representatives, Washington’s and Oregon’s
entire congressional delegations — four senators and 12
representatives — signed a
joint letter to Zinke asking that both states be excluded from
further leasing plans.
“The states of Washington and Oregon have made clear through
local, state, and federal action, as well as extensive public
comment, that oil and gas lease sales off the Pacific Coast are not
in the best interest of our economies or environment,” the letter
says. “The Department of the Interior’s proposal to consider
drilling off the states we represent, absent stakeholder support
and directly contradicting economic and environmental factors of
the region, is a waste of time, government resources, and taxpayer
dollars.”
The only Washington-Oregon lawmakers not signing the letter are
Reps. Dan Newhouse and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, both Republicans
representing nearly all of Eastern Washington, and Rep. Greg
Walden, a Republican representing Eastern Oregon.
Once again, the National Marine Fisheries Service has determined
in official findings that three common pesticides — chlorpyrifos,
diazinon and malathion — raise the risk of extinction for
threatened and endangered salmon.
A crop duster sprays pesticide
on a field near an irrigation ditch.
Photo: NOAA/USFWS
By extension, for the first time, the agency also concluded that
those same pesticides threaten Puget Sound’s endangered orca
population by putting their prey — chinook and other salmon — at
risk.
This politically and legally charged issue — which has been
around for more than 15 years — has gone beyond a debate over
potential harm from pesticides. It also raises uncomfortable
questions about whether our society will follow science as we try
to solve environmental problems.
The immediate finding of “jeopardy” — meaning that the three
pesticides pose a risk of extinction — comes in a
biological opinion (PDF 415.6 mb) that is more than 3,700 pages
long and covers not just salmon but, for the first time, dozens of
other marine species on the Endangered Species List.
The report follows a scientific methodology for assessing the
effects of pesticides that arises from suggestions by the National
Academy of Sciences. The NAS report (PDF 14.2 mb)
attempted to reconcile differing methods of assessing risk that had
been used by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and NMFS.
EPA’s original assessment raised no concerns about the effect of
these pesticides on the survival of salmon populations. The
original lawsuit by environmental groups forced the EPA to
“consult” with NMFS, as required by the Endangered Species Act. The
result was the first jeopardy finding in 2008. For background, see
Water Ways,
Aug. 11, 2008, in which I reported that the long wait for
regulatory action on pesticides may be about over. Little did I
know.
The biological opinion, or BiOp for short, examines both the
direct harms to species exposed to pesticides — such as effects on
behavior, reproduction and immune function — as well as indirect
effects — such as whether the pesticides wipe out insects needed
for the fish to eat.
The new BiOp is considered a pilot study for future pesticide
assessments.
“Notably,” states the document, “this Opinion represents the
first consultation using newly developed approaches and the first
to assess all listed species throughout the U.S., its territories,
and protectorates. Future Opinions regarding pesticides may utilize
different analyses and approaches as the interagency consultation
effort proceeds.”
The next step is for the EPA to restrict the use of the
pesticides to reduce the risks for salmon and other species. Among
suggested measures, the BiOp says those who use pesticides must
limit the total amount of chemicals applied in high-risk areas,
such as streams. No-spray buffers or similar alternatives are
suggested.
Interim no-spray buffers, established by the courts, will remain
in effect until the EPA takes action. The interim buffers were put
on, taken off, and are back on as a result of the lengthy court
battle between the agencies and environmental groups. Pesticide
manufacturers have weighed in, arguing about the need for
pesticides without undue restrictions.
The Trump administration asked the court for a two-year delay in
the release of the BiOp, but NMFS ultimately met the deadline when
the judge failed to rule on the request in time to make a
difference.
I discussed some of the ongoing intrigue and a bit of history in
a
Water Ways post last August, after EPA Administrator Scott
Pruitt reversed course on an impending ban on chlorpyrifos. The
proposed ban, approved during the Obama administration, came in
response to studies that showed how the chemical could adversely
affect children’s brains.
Although it took legal action to get to this point, agency and
independent scientists have worked together to study the problem
and come up with solutions. The question now is whether
policymakers and politicians will take reasonable steps to reduce
the risks based upon these findings, which are complex, evolving
and rarely definitive for all time.
As I was going back through the blog posts I’ve written about
pesticides, I recalled that President George W. Bush wanted to
limit scientific consultations in an effort to streamline the
regulatory process — much as President Trump’s people are doing
today. Check out
Water Ways from March 4, 2009, which shows a video of President
Obama reversing the Bush policy and speaking out for increased
input from scientists.
When it comes to human health and the environment, it is good to
remember that without the work of scientists, many species
throughout the world would have been wiped out long ago. Human
cancer, disease and brain impairment would be far worse today
without regulations based on scientific findings. Science can tell
us about the risk of pesticides and other threats to salmon and
orcas. But knowledge is not enough. People must take reasonable
actions to protect themselves and the environment. And so the story
goes on.
Last week, Earthjustice, which represents environmental groups
in the legal battle, released the biological opinion, which had
been sent by NOAA as part of the legal case. The group posted links
to the document and related information in a
news release. As far as I know, nobody in the Trump
administration has spoken about the findings.
News was breaking yesterday as I completed this blog on offshore
oil drilling. I doubt that anyone was surprised by the reaction of
outrage that followed Secretary Ryan Zinke’s apparently offhanded
and arbitrary decision to exempt Florida from an otherwise
all-coast leasing plan.
All U.S. senators from New England states, Democrats and
Republicans, signed onto legislation to exempt their states from
the drilling plan, while U.S. Rep. David Cicilline, D-RI, says he
has unanimous bipartisan support for a similar bill in the House.
Now, if they move to include the rest of the East Coast and the
West Coast in the bill, they might have enough votes to pass it.
(See
statement from Rep. David Cicilline.)
Meanwhile, Washington’s Sen. Maria Cantwell, the ranking member
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, set the stage
yesterday for the inevitable lawsuits that will follow if Zinke
maintains his present course of action. Cantwell said in a
statement that Zinke may have violated the Outer Continental
Shelf Lands Act. Others have said that he may have violated the
Administrative Procedures Act as well (Washington
Examiner).
—–
The Trump administration’s announcement of an open season on
offshore oil drilling all around the edges of the United States has
put some congressional Republicans on the hot seat during a tough
election year.
Opposition to the proposed oil leases along the East Coast is
reflected in the negative comments from Republican governors Larry
Hogan of Maine, Charlie Baker of Massachusetts, Chris Sununu of New
Hampshire, Henry McMaster of South Carolina and Rick Scott of
Florida. None want to see drilling anywhere off their
shorelines.
Just days after Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced his plan
to issue leases for oil and gas exploration and development nearly
everywhere, he decided to let Florida off the hook — to the relief
of Gov. Scott, who is said to be a close friend of the Trump
administration.
Zinke’s exemption for Florida was announced in a tweet
posted on Twitter, in which he called Scott “a straightforward
leader that can be trusted.”
“President Trump has directed me to rebuild our offshore oil and
gas program in a manner that supports our national energy policy
and also takes into consideration the local and state voice,” Zinke
tweeted. “I support the governor’s position that Florida is unique
and its coasts are heavily reliant on tourism as an economic
driver. As a result of discussion with Governor Scott’s (sic) and
his leadership, I am removing Florida from consideration of any new
oil and gas platforms.”
It appears that Zinke is admitting that oil and gas development
can harm the local tourism industry. Needless to say, the other
Republican governors also would like a piece of that “support” from
Zinke, as reported in a story by Dan Merica of
CNN News.
Meanwhile, on the West Coast, Democratic governors and many
members of Congress also oppose the drilling plan — with the
exception of Alaska, where Gov. Bill Walker supports expanded
drilling anywhere he can get it — even into the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. I discussed the ANWR drilling proposal in
Water Ways on Nov. 16, before approval of the Republican tax
bill.
Democrats in Washington state’s congressional delegation are
unified in their opposition to offshore drilling, and most of them
support legislation that would take the entire matter off the table
for good. They are joined in their opposition by Rep. Dave
Reichert, a Republican from the Eighth District.
“This moves America in the wrong direction and has the potential
to have a negative lasting effect on our oceans as well as the
shorelines of states on these coasts,” Reichert said in a
statement. “Our country is at the forefront of developing
efficient and cost effective alternative energy technologies and we
should continue to support innovation in this area.”
Congressional districts in
Western Washington.
Graphic: govtrack
Jaime Herrera Beutler, a Republican who represents the Third
District — including coastal areas in Southwest Washington — was a
little more low-key.
“I don’t support offshore oil and gas exploration in states that
don’t want it, and Washington’s citizens have never indicated any
desire to have oil and gas activity off their coast,” she said in a
Facebook
post. “I’m not aware of any active plan to drill off Washington
or Oregon, but I will act to protect our citizens and our coast if
any such effort does arise.”
Other comments on the plan:
Letter
in opposition (PDF 974 kb) from 109 U.S. representatives,
including Washington’s Suzan DelBene, 1st District; Derek Kilmer,
6th District; Pramila Jayapal, 7th District; Dave Reichert, 8th
District; Adam Smith, 9th District; and Denny Heck, 10th
District.
Rep. Derek Kilmer, Sixth District: “For decades, Democrats and
Republicans have agreed that opening our waters up to drilling
would be shortsighted and wrong. Doing so could threaten our
fisheries, shellfish growers, tourism, and jobs in other key
sectors of our economy.”
Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell: “This draft proposal is
an ill-advised effort to circumvent public and scientific input,
and we object to sacrificing public trust, community safety, and
economic security for the interests of the oil industry.”
With substantial opposition from all sides, the looming question
is whether Congress will allow the leasing program to move forward
before expiration of the existing five-year
plan for offshore drilling (PDF 34 mb), which ends in 2022 and
focuses mostly on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
While the California Coast remains a key target for oil
companies, it is unlikely that we will ever see oil rigs off the
Washington Coast, no matter what happens with the leasing program.
Oil and gas resources simply aren’t known to be there, according to
all published data.
During the 1960s, 10 exploratory wells were drilled with no
significant finds off the coast of Washington and Oregon, according
to a 1977 report by the U.S.
Geological Survey (PDF 10.2 mb). Some 14 other wells were
drilled without result offshore near Vancouver Island in Canada.
Many more onshore wells have been drilled without major success
throughout the region.
In 2008, I explored the idea of offshore drilling in Washington
state when the George W. Bush administration attempted to lift the
offshore-drilling moratorium.
“We would probably be last, or next to last,” state geologist
Ray Lasmanis told me in a story for the
Kitsap Sun. “The geology is too broken up, and it does not have
the kind of sedimentary basins they have off the coast of
California.”
Officials told me at the time that even if oil companies were
given free rein, they would not line up to drill off our coast.
“It is important to note that, at least here on the West Coast,
that it will take more than lifting the congressional moratorium,”
said Tupper Hull, spokesman for the Western States Petroleum
Association. “In addition to state and local constraints, a number
of marine sanctuaries would restrict development.”
Gov. Jay Inslee, who was a U.S. representative at the time, said
offshore drilling was a diversion, because much better alternatives
exist on land. Because of climate change, Inslee was pushing
Congress to encourage renewable energy sources, as he continues to
do today as governor.
“Drilling offshore,” he told me, “is doomed to failure. I’m not
opposed to drilling. We accept massive drilling on federal land.
But the danger is we’ll get wrapped around the minutia of the
drilling issue … and we’re still going to be addicted to oil.”
The latest proposal by the Department of Interior is subject to
public hearings, including one scheduled in Tacoma on Feb. 5. Check
out the full schedule
of 23 hearings.
