With more tests, more water pollution surfaces

By J. Patrick Coolican
Seattle Times staff reporter

	To learn more about the water-quality assessment, go to the following Web site, where you can look at an interactive map of Washington's waterways and view the study: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/ wq/303d/2002/2002-index.html
	E-mail this article Print this article Search archive Related stories Canada draws the line over obligations for river cleanup

That's the conclusion of a massive statewide inventory of Washington's waterways, which found 2,682 hot spots, up from 2,362 when the state published its last federally mandated study in 1998.

The findings don't necessarily mean the rivers, streams, lakes or Puget Sound are toxic stews. While some waters may be too warm or have acidity too high to support native species, the fresh and salt waterways may still be safe for swimming, fishing or drinking.

Environmentalists, though, aren't satisfied and point to the increase as a sign of ecological retreat.

"When are we actually going to clean up the water? These studies don't actually get implemented," said Kathy Fletcher, executive director of People for Puget Sound. "Water quality isn't a numbers game. It's actually, how are we doing? I don't see anything that brings us to clean water."

Department of Ecology (DOE) officials yesterday noted that they took 10 times more samples this time than in 1998 and so can't make any clear determination about the direction of the state's water quality.

And, as evidence of the success of their anti-pollution program, they say 19 percent of the polluted waterways on the 1998 list are now clean.

The testing was more thorough this time, with more categories to denote levels of pollution, said Dick Wallace, the study's director.

Parts of Portage Bay and the Samish River in Skagit County are two of hundreds of waterways added since 1998.

The Skykomish and Snohomish rivers, among many others, are no longer impaired, according to DOE.

The point of the draft assessment, which is supposed to happen every four years, is to identify polluted waters and then direct resources — financial and scientific — to clean them so they can support habitat and be used for fishing, swimming and drinking.

Once a final list is prepared, it will be sent to the Environmental Protection Agency this summer for review and approval.

Washington state faces a special burden. In 1998, as part of a settlement between the EPA and environmental groups, the state entered into an agreement to complete 1,566 water-cleanup plans on about 700 water bodies over 15 years.

After five years, 293 cleanup plans are completed, and officials say they are working to finish the rest.

Environmental activists say it's just the beginning, however.

"The lesson is to not step back from the environmental protections but actually be more diligent in our use of the Clean Water Act," said Rick Abbett, executive director of Trout Unlimited, which seeks to protect stream habitat for trout and salmon.

Karen Allston, executive director of the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, said she's not surprised by the study's findings, citing depleted stream and river flows as a cause of contamination. The more water in a river or stream, she said, the more it will flush itself clean.

The solution, she said, is to regulate flow levels more stringently, which could mean nasty fights over water rights with farmers, developers and industry.

One of the biggest contributors to water pollution is runoff, Fletcher said, lamenting the government is not equipped to do much about it.

Rep. Kelli Linville, D-Bellingham, chairwoman of the state House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, agrees.

While the study is needed, DOE is ultimately powerless to regulate runoff, she said.

A spokeswoman for DOE conceded the point: "If we're applying too much fertilizer or dumping oil after changing it, those are things we all need to change. (DOE) can try to raise awareness, but ultimately it's a matter of individual responsibility," Leslie Thorpe said.

The lead plaintiff in the 1998 cleanup lawsuit also doubted DOE's efficacy.

"The resources required to really measure water quality are probably beyond them," said Nina Bell, executive director of Northwest Environmental Advocates in Portland.

Fletcher praised the assessment effort, with a caveat. "They need to step back and say, 'What does all this mean?' To me, what it adds up to is that somehow we have a lot of polluted water bodies, and I'm not seeing the progress I'd like to see."

J. Patrick Coolican: 206-464-3315 or jcoolican@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company