A bloom of cyanobacteria, or blue-green algae, on Lake Champlain's Missisquoi Bay in 2011

If the weather during the rest of the summer remains hot and calm, this year may well be remembered as one of the worst for blue-green algae bloom in recent memory on Lake Champlain. That is too bad, because it means days of ruined beach visits, vacations when kids can’t go in the water and declines in income for lakeside businesses. But it could also cause a shift in attitude about what lake phosphorus pollution means, and how serious we are about dealing with it. And that would be a good result from a bad situation.

One of the interesting things about blue-green algae, or cyanobacteria as they are more accurately known, is that, unlike an invasive species or pollution by hazardous materials, they are normal inhabitants of land and water – and are nearly ubiquitous in some places. They become a problem, and a major one, when we cause the ecosystem to be out of balance. Otherwise, we would rarely think about them.

How do blue-geen algae become a problem? Under certain conditions, cyanobacteria explode into massive blooms. During the early stages of such a bloom, they look like pollen in the water and are easy to ignore. But as their volume increases, the blue-green algae can become a thick, paint-like mass that stacks up into white, blue and green froths, choking waterways, blocking sunlight, and, when they decompose, reducing the amount of oxygen in the water to dangerously low levels. Those conditions cause massive die-offs of fish and shellfish – and stinking piles of rotting algae along the shoreline.

Beyond all these problems, in such large volumes the cyanobacteria at times produce toxins which can sicken people and kill pets. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, before people were familiar with the dangers of cyanobacteria blooms, dogs died from ingesting those toxins. In other parts of the country, people have become very sick as well, including U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ranking member James Inhofe, who became ill in 2011 after he went swimming back in his district in Oklahoma. Inhofe, well-known for his opposition to much anti-pollution legislation, joked that the news story about his experience should bear the headline “the environment strikes back.”

So far this year, few blooms on Lake Champlain have reached the dense stage of development where they test positive for cyanotoxins. But parts of the lake that do not often have such blooms are now seeing cyanobacteria. Last year’s flooding from tropical storm Irene dumped record loads of phosphorus into Lake Champlain tributaries, providing the nutrients needed for blue-green algae populations to explode. And this dry, hot, calm summer has provided the right conditions for that population explosion to happen.

If people from those lake areas that are experiencing unprecedented blue-green blooms get together with those from other places – like St. Albans Bay and Missisquoi Bay where such blooms are almost yearly occurrences – we may be able to chart a different path and keep such problems from spreading any further.

With better farm management techniques, improved urban runoff systems and up-to-date sewage plants, we can prevent the otherwise inevitable spread of cyanobacteria to more places on Lake Champlain. If we can make that happen, this summer might go down in the books as not just the worst blue-green summer, but the summer in which things began to change for the better.

Christopher Kilian, CLF VP and Vermont Director, talks at the signing of H.258 with Gov. Peter Shumlin beside him. CLF Staff Attorney Anthony Iarrapino and Lake Champlain Lakekeeper Louis Porter are in the background.

A bill giving citizens more information about, and more say over, environmental enforcement cases in Vermont was signed into law by Gov. Peter Shumlin yesterday, the successful conclusion of a several-year-long effort by Conservation Law Foundation.

Under current law in Vermont, when environmental pollution cases brought by the state are settled, citizens often don’t know about it, and even if they do they have little chance to bring evidence they may have to light – even when they have been directly affected by those violations.

In July, when the newly signed act goes into effect, that will change. Anyone with an interest in such cases will be able to file comments, and those who can demonstrate that an interest of theirs was harmed by the pollution will be able to request a hearing before a judge to present their evidence.

The new law applies to both Vermont environmental laws and national programs administered by the state, a lack which had put the state at odds with federal requirements.

Shumlin said the change in the law will make state government more transparent, a priority of his administration.  CLF Vermont Director Christopher Kilian agreed, adding that the new law is “a big step forward for Vermonters to participate in their government”

The bill was worked on by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources and was sponsored by Rep. Tony Klein and Rep. David Deen, the heads of the two environment committees in the Vermont House. In the Senate, it was championed by Sen. Ginny Lyons’ and her Natural Resources and Energy Committee.

During the two legislative sessions lawmakers worked on the measure several industry and business organizations which originally had concerns about the measure came to support its passage. Tom Torti, the president of the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, who joined the administration and CLF at the signing, said it is important to hold those who break environmental laws to account.

The Burlington Free Press story about the bill signing can be found here.

The Vermont Statehouse

A bill nearing completion will soon give the public much more say in environmental enforcement actions in Vermont.

Historically in Vermont, agencies and violators of environmental laws have often negotiated resolutions behind closed doors without notice to affected members of the public. The results have often been weak penalties and ineffective remedial action by polluters, a problem which Conservation Law Foundation has long worked to correct.

Vermont’s exclusion of the public from environmental cases was not only bad policy, but contrary to the requirements of federal environmental law, as pointed out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Vermont Environmental Division Judge Thomas Durkin.

The issue is also part of CLF’s petition asking the EPA to revoke delegated authority for the state to administer the Clean Water Act unless shortcomings in the program are corrected.

Last year, CLF and Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources, which helped draft the bill co-sponsored by Rep. Tony Klein and Rep. David Deen, brought the issue before the Vermont Legislature. A long effort in the House, including many versions of the bill and testimony from a wide variety of interests in two committees, paid off in a 109-25 vote of support.

This year, the second of Vermont’s legislative biennium, the work was taken up in the Vermont Senate by Sen. Ginny Lyons’ Natural Resources and Energy Committee. Another round of rigorous review by legislators resulted in broad support for the bill, which won final support on a voice vote Thursday after Tuesday’s roll call of 27-2.

If the bill moves on to be signed by Gov. Peter Shumlin as anticipated, Vermont will not only come into compliance with federal requirements, but it will help make sure that environmental cases are fairly and thoroughly dealt with, including consideration of evidence, where deemed worthwhile by a judge, from those affected by pollution.

The measure goes beyond federal programs like the Clean Water Act – it offers the same opportunity for public participation in state environmental cases as well.

CLF was helped in its work on the issue by the Vermont Law School’s Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, by members of CLF’s Vermont Advisory Board and by fellow environmental organizations, in particular the Vermont Natural Resources Council. Furthermore, as the bill was worked on and considered, some companies and industry groups who originally opposed the measure came to support its passage, helping to secure support by wide margins in both houses of the Vermont Legislature.

Even when the worst of the current worldwide economic crisis ends, the U.S. economy will have fundamentally changed. What will that new economy look like? We may see slower economic growth, with more gradual ups and less precipitous declines. Perhaps fewer hours will be worked on average per year, but with higher productivity per hour. Whatever the changes, we will need to develop a new way of measuring how well our society is doing to supplement – or even replace – gross domestic product.

GDP and similar metrics fail in several ways when used as proxies for more general societal progress. First of all, GDP doesn’t tally many parameters that matter as much or more than production when trying to track the overall health of our society. For example, GDP does not count work without wages by stay-at-home parents. And many things that are tallied are not measured in terms of their true worth.

Damage from Tropical Storm Irene is an all-too-familiar example. Despite the heroic recovery efforts and assistance from the federal government, it is hard to consider the storm as a benefit. But given how spending is measured, GDP will count the recovery efforts as an economic boon to Vermont – in keeping with the tradition that breaking and replacing windows is measured as productivity.

It’s not a new problem. Robert Kennedy spoke to it in 1968 when he pointed out that GDP “counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.”

Kennedy concluded that GDP “measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile … and it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”

This doesn’t mean that GDP is useless or false. The mistake is to treat the ups-and-downs of one very limited measurement as a broader signal of how we and our neighbors are doing.

We need a more comprehensive and accurate way of evaluating our progress, especially here in Vermont, where quality of life and environmental health are so fundamental. Many of the factors nearly or completely left out of GDP calculations – including loss of farmland, short commutes, air quality and the health of the whitetail herd – are particularly important to Vermonters. With the help of state government, legislative economists and the state’s university, we could track the measures we consider most relevant.

Some important work in this area has already been undertaken by the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics at the University of Vermont. Ten years ago Gund researchers estimated measures of the Genuine Progress Indicator for Burlington, Chittenden County and Vermont as a whole from 1950 until 2000. All three levels of measurement in Vermont had significantly better GPI per capita since 1980 than the United States overall – and by the year 2000 per capita GPI in the Green Mountains was twice what it was nationally. The main factor was better performance on the environmental measures compared to the national average.

A Vermont GPI is much needed, because it has significant potential as an extremely useful indicator of whether residents are making progress towards the lives they want.

This article originally appeared in the Rutland Herald and Times Argus on January 1, 2012.

Starting tomorrow, those concerned about Lake Champlain and interested in helping outline how to deal with nutrient pollution threatening its future will have a chance to make their opinions heard.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with the help of Vermont’s Department of Environmental Conservation, is in the process of re-writing the Lake Champlain Phosphorous Total Maximum Daily Load. This effort must be successful if we are to reduce phosphorous pollution to our great lake and keep one of Vermont’s most important resources swimmable, fishable and drinkable.

As you may know, the TMDL is an important technical document which acts as a phosphorous pollution budget so Vermonters can plan for reducing how much phosphorous we ask Lake Champlain to handle. We currently add much more phosphorous – well over twice as much in some years – than is safe for the lake ecosystem. The result, excess weed growth, potentially toxic blue-green algae blooms and low dissolved oxygen, makes the lake less usable. And those problems are likely to become more widespread, particularly with two floods of historic proportion this year.

Thanks to the work of Conservation Law Foundation, the EPA ruled earlier this year that the TMDL approved in 2002 was not adequate to truly protect and restore Lake Champlain. Now federal and state authorities have organized a set of public meetings to help in reworking the TMDL which will take place over the next week and will be focused on the northern portion of the Lake Champlain basin. A second set of meetings focused on the southern portion of the lake is scheduled for November 14th through November 18thand I will send you more details when they are finalized.

As you can see from the schedule below, the first set of meetings are roughly organized by sector of interest. Given that a draft of the new TMDL is still in the works, I expect the topics covered during these conversations will be quite broad and include questions of funding, how to structure the TMDL and possible barriers to implementing it. I encourage you to attend one of them if you are at all interested in learning more, and especially if you have concerns or thoughts about the way this issue has been addressed and how it will be addressed in the future.

I plan on going to most of these meetings and will be taking notes, so if you are interested in the subject but cannot attend one of the meetings I am happy to provide you with my unofficial minutes of those I have attended (lporter@clf.org).

You can file written comments if you are unable to attend and the state has asked that, if possible, you let them know if you are planning on going to one of the meetings so they can make sure the rooms are large enough. Both can be sent to Michaela Stickney, VTDEC Lake Champlain Basin Coordinator, michaela.stickney@state.vt.us.

The EPA’s disapproval decision finding that the 2002 TMDL is inadequate can be found here:

http://www.epa.gov/region1/eco/tmdl/pdfs/vt/LakeChamplainTMDLDisapprovalDecision.pdf

Vermont’s revised implementation plan for the TMDL can be found here:

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/cleanandclear/news/TMDL%20impl%20plan%20final%20-%20011510.pdf

The Lake Champlain Basin Program’s State of the Lake Report, which includes information on Phosphorous loads, can be found here:

http://www.lcbp.org/lcstate.htm

1.       Tuesday October 4, 10am – 12pm
Agricultural Sector
Winooski Natural Resources Conservation District (NRCD)

617 Comstock Rd, Suite 1
Berlin, VT

Phone: (802) 828-4493 Ext. 113
► (meet in the UVM Extension conference room in the complex)

 2.       Tuesday October 4, 3-5pm
Northern Municipality Sector
Northwest Regional Planning Commission (NRPC)

155 Lake Street
St. Albans, VT

(802) 524-5958
► (meet at NRPC offices)

3.       Wednesday October 5, 11:30am-1:30pm 
Business Sector
Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce & Greater Burlington Industrial Corporation

60 Main Street, #100
Burlington, VT
(802) 863-3489

► (meet at LCRCOC offices)
4.       Wednesday October 5, 5:30-7:30pm
Nonprofit/Mid-lake Watershed Group Sector
ECHO/Leahy Center

1 College St.
Burlington, VT

(802) 864-1848
► (meet in Alcove upstairs)

5.       Thursday October 6, 10am-12pm
Northern Lake Committee Sector
Lake Champlain Basin Program
54 West Shore Rd.

Grand Isle, VT

(802) 372-3213
► (meet at LCBP offices)

6.       Thursday October 6, 2-4pm
Stormwater/Urban Sector
Shelburne Town Offices

5420 Shelburne Road

Shelburne, VT

(802) 985-5110
► (meet at Shelburne Town Offices)

Camp Brook

The very severe damage in Vermont caused by Tropical Storm Irene led to an impressive and encouraging recovery effort both by state government and residents, many of whom volunteered to help their neighbors salvage and rebuild.

Unfortunately, however, the storm – the second flood of historic proportions in the state this year – also seems to have washed away much of what we have learned about the dangers of digging gravel from streams and rivers.

In recent weeks there have been dozens of excavators and bulldozers in rivers across the state digging gravel, channelizing streams and armoring banks with stone, not only at great ecological cost, but – particularly in the many cases in which a true emergency did not exist – greatly increasing the risk of future flood damage.

Meanwhile, the state, by not setting and enforcing clear limits on that work in the rivers, has done little – at least so far – to prevent the damage.

Knowledge gained by the scientific study of these river systems, also known as fluvial geomorphology, leaves little doubt that increasing the speed of water by turning streams that meander over rocky beds into straight chutes with little structure not only destroys vital habitat for fish and other creatures, it also increases the potential destructive power of floods. It was advances in this physics-based science which led to significant limitations on gravel removal from Vermont rivers during the last two decades.

Rock River

However, the recent flooding (and statements by Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin) has given new life to an outdated and inaccurate idea that removing gravel from the rivers is what prevented flooding in the past. This notion ignores the fact that restricting rivers into a man-made channel, cutting off the access to flood plains and jarring mature streams back into instability the risk of flood damage is significantly increased, particularly for neighbors downstream.

More on this subject can be found in a Burlington Free Press column here and in a Vermont Public Radio news story here.

Hurricane Irene did not do as much damage as had been feared in New York City, but it brought much more human and environmental trauma two hundred miles or so to the north in Vermont.

The state is dealing with a second – and more damaging – round of historic flooding only a few months after Lake Champlain reached record levels in the spring. Three people were killed in the state due to the storm’s effects, and at least one more is missing.

Vermont’s roads, bridges and other infrastructure were battered as well. Several of the state’s covered bridges were damaged or washed away despite having stood for a century or more. At one point it seemed likely that water would have to be released from the Marshfield reservoir in order to save it, even at the risk of adding to flooding downstream. Although hundreds of households downstream from the dam were evacuated, the release of water did not prove necessary as floods crested.

“The scope of this disaster is unprecedented in modern Vermont history,” Vermont Transportation Secretary Brian Searles said.

On its own, the flooding of the last few days would have been a dire warning about how ill prepared the infrastructure in the state – and the region – is for sudden and violent rainfall, the kind we can expect to come along with climate change. But the devastation of tropical storm Irene was the second time this year that Vermonters have seen their wastewater treatment, stream banks, roads and bridges tested to the limits.

But despite these and other clear indications that our public infrastructure is not ready for weather that is likely to be wetter and more extreme we don’t seem to be able to cut spending on building and improving that infrastructure fast enough to satisfy national leaders.

And set aside for a moment the kind of innovative approaches we need so badly now such as green development techniques to handle polluted runoff from parking lots and roofs, better sewer projects with the capacity and technology to deal with higher water volumes and modern water management on farms. Our public spending on infrastructure projects of a more traditional kind has declined since the 1960s until now we invest half as much (as a function of GDP) as the Europeans, according to The Economist.

That historical decline in infrastructure spending has left those public projects we own in common at the weakest they have been in more than a generation, just when their strength will be needed to protect our homes, businesses and our lives. And that has happened just when we should instead be gaining the jobs and economic benefits of building the kind of modern projects needed to prevent personal, financial and environmental destruction from an increasingly violent climate we have brought on ourselves.

Over the last several months the documentary Bloom: The Plight of Lake Champlain has been shown to capacity audiences around Vermont, from the State House to the Echo Lake Aquarium and Science Center.

Now the movie, which powerfully brings home the effect of too much phosphorous pollution on Lake Champlain, will be part of the Green Mountain Film Festival in Vermont.

Bloom, which features CLF Vermont Director Chris Kilian, will be shown at Montpelier’s Pavilion Auditorium at 6:15 p.m. Thursday, March 24^th and will be followed by a panel discussion which will include CLF Lake Champlain Lakekeeper Louis Porter.

The documentary combines narration, interviews and footage to convey both the severity and significance of the problem of uncontrolled algae and weed growth in Lake Champlain, and the need to quickly find effective solutions.

Bloom: The Plight of Lake Champlain
Thursday, March 24, 6:15 p.m.
Pavilion Auditorium
Montpelier, Vt.

In a boost for clean air and clean water, the mismanaged and ill-conceived Circ highway planned for Vermont’s Chittenden County faces a potentially fatal blow.  The head of EPA in New England described the project as environmentally devastating.

“Even if the mitigation were fully implemented, the proposed project would cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the U.S. in violation” of federal law and should not be permitted, according to the EPA.

The EPA concluded the highway “will have a substantial and unacceptable impact on aquatic resources of national importance,” in that December letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a more forceful follow-up to the original letter and assessment EPA sent on November 15.  EPA makes a strong argument against issuing the environmental permits needed for the largest single destruction of wetlands in Vermont’s history.

EPA’s objections are bolstered by the support of a diverse coalition of organizations in Vermont, including CLF.  If the Corps issues permits despite these objections the EPA could block those permits with a veto.

CLF continues to support cleaner, lower cost and more effective solutions in place of a new highway that damages or eliminates hundreds of acres of wetlands, increases sprawl development, contributes to global climate change, wastes limited public funds and fails to meet modern transportation needs.   At a cost of tens of millions of dollars, the Circ only saves four minutes of travel time and offers less relief from traffic congestion in the areas most troubled traffic spots compared to cleaner and lower cost solutions that modernize existing roadways.