After 5 years, Gregoire's Puget Sound progress is uncertain
The governor launched an effort to restore the Sound to good health by 2020. But money, goals, and data remain elusive.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
The great crusade to restore Puget Sound is five years old. What crusade? People who've moved here since that start of the financial crisis may not recall that on May 7, 2007, Gov. Chris Gregoire stood on the shore of Puget Sound, signed the law that created the Puget Sound Partnership, and launched a campaign to restore the Sound by 2020.
The time laid out for the cleanup is more than one-third up. By now, some political insiders have grown to think badly of the Puget Sound Partnership, but most people don't think of it at all. The Sound currently inspires little or no visible leadership. It benefits from no dedicated source of money. Like many other worthy projects, Puget Sound restoration "has really suffered from this economic downturn," says the first chair of the Partnership's leadership council, Bill Ruckelshaus. What has happened to the crusade? And where do we go from here?
Neither the goals nor the timetable ever made much literal sense. Gregoire called for a Sound that was "swimmable, diggable, fishable" by the end of this decade. People swim, fish, and dig clams in it every summer now, of course. They have never stopped doing so. "Swimmable, diggable, fishable" makes a nice sound bite — and certainly a level below which one wouldn't want the health of the Sound to sink — but it would hardly constitute recovery.
And while 2020 is a nice round number, there was never a chance that whoever occupied the governor's mansion at the end of this decade would be able to announce "mission accomplished." Asked if the glass is even half full, Ruckelshaus says "I don't think it's going to be for 20 years."
And yet . . . if former President George W. Bush leaves any lasting legacy, one of the things he showed the nation and the world is that it's never too soon to announce "mission accomplished." The Sound will be clean enough when we say it's clean enough. The water will look good in any case. We can set the bar as high or low as we like.
To Gregoire's credit, she has set the bar pretty high. "We look out right now and [the Sound] looks absolutely gorgeous," she said when she signed that legislation five years ago, "and that, my friends, is what too many of our citizens see, is how gorgeous it looks from the surface." Beneath that glittering surface, "in some parts it is dying and in many places it's sick."
And now? That depends in part on your vantage point. Jay Manning, director of the Department of Ecology from 2005 to 2009 and Gregoire's chief of staff for two years after that, suggests that on the inside, state government is a lot more focused on Puget Sound than it was five years ago. "There has been a ramp-up in attention," says Manning, who now works for the Cascadia Law Group, although "whether that has had time to make any kind of difference I would frankly be skeptical." How it all looks from the outside he's not sure. "In my little world, it's still front and center," he says. But it was "never clear to me out there in the greater world that it ever got onto the radar screen."
In the insiders' world, he says, there was plenty of discussion about whether or not 2020 was realistic, but he personally figures that setting an aggressive goal was important. The job "will never be done," Manning says, much less done at the end of the decade. He suggests that "by 2020, the goal should be that we do no harm to the relatively healthy areas . . . and have made some progress in the really hammered ones."
The past few years have seen some dramatic changes — which owe little to state efforts or commitment: One Elwha River dam is down and the second is in the process of coming down. Dismantling of the Elwha dams is billed as the largest dam removal in American history. The lower dam had stood there since it was built on spec, illegally walling out anadromous fish, nearly a century ago. For the first time since 1914, salmon will have access to the unspoiled headwaters of the Elwha, which drains 20 percent of Olympic National Park.
Levees that had kept salt water from the Nisqually delta for even longer, since the late 19th century, have been demolished, letting salt water pour back into 762 acres. This may be the largest estuary restoration project in the Northwest. It, too, was accomplished with outside money, including federal salmon restoration funds, and contributions by Ducks Unlimited and the Nisqually tribe.
The Glacier gravel pit site on the shore of Maury Island has been acquired as a park, rather than developed into a big gravel mine. The legislature had refused to block the Glacier development, but the state did kick in money. King County used conservation futures tax dollars, too. But the state was hardly aggressive about preserving the site. Citizen activists, the courts, and Forterra, which brokered the sale, deserved most of the credit.
Manning points out that in some other ways, things are a lot better than they used to be. "There was just some terrible stuff" going on as recently as the 1980s, he recalls, when for example, one industrial site was leaching 50 to 60 pounds of arsenic a day into the Sound. He looks at the condo development rising beside Commencement Bay at the old Tacoma smelter site as an example of how far we've come. Other old industrial sites are being redeveloped all around the Sound, albeit with varying degrees of success. (Seattle's early-1970s development of a polluted old industrial site beside Lake Union into Gasworks Park may have started the process.)
But in general, Manning doesn't claim to know how we're we doing. Arguably, no one really knows. No one is monitoring enough to know whether or not what we're doing actually works. "If we haven't been monitoring," Ruckelshaus says, "we're just guessing." He says "you can point to individual projects . . but overall, we just don't have a comprehensive monitoring system." This is not a new situation. Monitoring is never sexy. Even in good times, "it's the hardest money to get out of the Legislature."
Of course, not all problems can be solved by shutting down an old industrial plant or tearing down a dam. Some people have started to acknowledge the complexity of what's going on in Puget Sound: That dead zone in Hood Canal? Turns out leaky septic systems aren't primarily to blame; as some scientists have known all along, the main culprit is a slug of cold, dense, oxygen-poor water from the deep ocean that tends to sit on the bottom. Not that septic effluent (or lawn fertilizer or pet waste) does the oxygen content of Hood Canal any good. But the ocean water contributes perhaps two-thirds of the problem.
We have also recognized that the failure of oyster spawn is related to acification caused by the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There's no easy fix for that one, either — although gubernatorial candidate Jay Inslee argues that the local impact of acidification helps make a case for local development of carbon-free energy technologies and products.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Jun 6, 7:55 a.m. Inappropriate
Thanks, Dan. I appreciate the depth of the article.
Posted Wed, Jun 6, 8:28 a.m. Inappropriate
The Puget Sound Partnership is a corrupt slush fund for Democratic Party agendas and associates. It should be ended.
When Chinook salmon were listed as an endangered species, a flood of federal money (and local taxing options!) inundated the region. Governments and non-profits swarmed like scavengers at a kill. In 2007, it became painfully obvious that our salmon restoration efforts were, instead, a money grab that had spawned a whole growth industry of disconnected, self-serving, fiefdoms. In 2007, the Washington State legislature formed the Puget Sound Partnership to coordinate - and bring efficiency and accountability to - our recovery efforts. Not only has the partnership failed to do that, it has become another hungry mouth at the trough, conspiring with the other fiefdoms - always - for MORE MONEY, MORE MONEY. And what of this money? For one thing, no one knows how much has been spent; there is no accounting. Yes, Daniel may throw a number out, but it doesn't take into account the millions spent "off the books"; state and local transportation dollars spent on fish-passage projects, for example.
And "science"? Puh-leeeze! Money is spent according to political influence. One need look no further than Maury Island to see that. And no further than David Dicks to see the agency's political favor.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2012764293_guest31myers.html
Posted Wed, Jun 6, 9:09 a.m. Inappropriate
Thanks Blue Light for a well thought out response.
SeeBee
Posted Wed, Jun 6, 9:45 a.m. Inappropriate
Good job Dan in calling out the meakness of our environmental response (big eyes/little stomach). But you missed the elephant in the room which is stormwater. It is the thorniest issue for government to tackle and it will not get tackled without genuine leadership. Yet stormwater is the biggest contributor to the degradations of our watersheds and Pugeet Sound. Rest assured, there will be hand wringing for years to come!
Ken Pritchard
Posted Wed, Jun 6, 10:12 a.m. Inappropriate
And, oh by the way, researchers at Oregon State University have determined the NUMBER ONE THREAT to PNW salmon and their habitats is increased immigration into the region, the vast majority of which comes from outside the U.S. and Canada (their findings, not my assertion). Seems one cannot have their cake and eat it, too. Yet, the Puget Sound Partnership - good Democratic Party soldiers that they are - deign not speak against The Party's immigration policy (for fear of upsetting a voting block!). The fact is the Democratic Party's immigration plank is incompatible with the Democratic Party's, professed, environmental plank. Will the Puget Sound Partnership speak this truth? Don't hold your breath.
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_21_3/tsc-21-3-hurlbert-salmon.shtml
Posted Wed, Jun 6, 11:03 a.m. Inappropriate
The failures of environmental cleanups and other electioneering slogan initiatives can be traced to one of the big shell games of patronage. The D. Pelz Demo crew has hidden from the public a most critical finding of the cleanup process; attorneys don't do no shoveling and they don't do stuff that might be icky. They make money as long as nothing is actually done.
Duh !
I've been holding my breath for over 40 years - sure, call me blue, now you can see why.
Jsa
Posted Wed, Jun 6, 11:33 a.m. Inappropriate
As I understand it, the leading source of pollution in Puget Sound is cars and highways. Unfortunately, we seem to be doing everything we can to exacerbate the problem: pouring billions of dollars into highways, drastically slashing transit service, and refusing to consider alternatives. Gregoire's "leadership" has been catastrophic in this regard. She vetoed taxing authority for Snohomish County to sustain their transit system, forcing the total elimination of Sunday bus service. When Mayor McGinn suggested that maybe we should be thinking in broader terms than cars and highways, Gregoire called him a "disgrace." And she was outraged by the suggestion that maybe future light rail should be taken into account for the new 520 bridge.
Of course, it's not just Gregoire. WSDOT, the legislature, and the local media all seem to worship the automobile with Jonestown-style zealotry, and any proposed alternative is a form of heresy ("the war on cars!"). For a region that prides itself on how "green" we are, it's pretty disappointing that we're one of the most backwards places on the planet when it comes to ecologically responsible transportation policy.
Posted Wed, Jun 6, 1:15 p.m. Inappropriate
Dan, A nice tour of the horizon.
Several comments. Spending money on endless PR and Planning activities
is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The Partnership needs to change its focus.
There have been a number of smaller projects, and land purchases, but most have flown under the radar and have not been as well publicized as the "Nisqually" project. Forterra has done some, Tribal governments, the Nature Conservancy, County governments have done others. The point being that when critical habitat is OWNED by the people through their government, we can quit arguing about land use regulations and get on with the business of habitat restoration.
Water quality efforts by DOE are showing improvements: many small and medium sized cities have invested in better treatment and SECONDARY treatment. Look at Everett, Stanwood, Anacortes, Tulalip Tribes Quilceda Creek, the Warm Beach Camp and Senior Communtiy.
The City of Seattle and King County Metro are the two 800 pound gorillas in the room, but the direction of change is forward, although S_L_O_W.
I'm optimistic. Some days for good reasons. Some days for no damn good reason at all.
Ross Kane
Warm Beach
Snohomish County Council ( 1990-1993)
Former Board Member, Cascade Land Conservancy
Posted Wed, Jun 6, 5:18 p.m. Inappropriate
Even suffering years of ridicule by the environmental community....
No study, no attorneys, no government .....
John Beal - 1950 to 2006 R.I.P.
Hamm Creek ..... he was brushed off and the subject of party jokes by the smug community, until he caught a break in the media, then suddenly the envi-community turned on a dime and loved him.
Hypocrites ! Would you do your environmental work if you got zero money for it ? Make me laugh and say you would ....
Jsa
Posted Wed, Jun 6, 10:41 p.m. Inappropriate
Another good one, Dan. You wrote:
"Will the Sound become an issue in the campaign? Aside from some harmless platitudes, will it even be mentioned? So far, the signs aren't good. And why should they be? Virtually everyone cares about the Sound — who doesn't? — but actually doing something about it would require taxes, regulation, the expenditure of political capital. Do you hear the masses clamoring for anything like that? Right."
Replace "the Sound" with "pollution caused public health problems", "climate change", "looming energy shortage", "over population" (as pointed out in other comments), or any of a number of other huge problems, and the paragraph still reads true. Ruckelshaus and Manning speak of "cultural shift", but I see very little happening in that department. “If one looks with a cold eye at the mess man has made of history, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that he has been afflicted by some built-in mental disorder which drives him towards self-destruction.” Arthur Koestler
It is getting more and more difficult to be an optimist.
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 10:35 a.m. Inappropriate
Example: This Daniel Jack Chasan article itself is not listed in Crosscut's "Recent Stories"; I only saw it because of the photo teaser that floats by at the top. (It is also buried in the "Most Commented" list.)
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 11:30 a.m. Inappropriate
Whereas every fizz and jolt (two per day) gets triple coverage, make that four when one or the other makes the "Most Commented" list. Enough already.
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 11:56 a.m. Inappropriate
So sad, how truth, this from a commenter on neoliberal Walter Russell Mead's blog:
" Green policy seems either to be
1) a new religion with mindless adherents or
2) a get-rich-quick scheme for connected insiders"
How do we get serious?
Posted Thu, Jun 7, 7:26 p.m. Inappropriate
5 years? being Director of Department of Ecology doesn't count?
Posted Fri, Jun 8, 10 a.m. Inappropriate
I don't really trust all these dam removal projects.
While ostensibly it's to "restore the environment" at the same time it removes cheap hydropower resources.
Given the corrupt nature of the Gregoire administration and it's dealings with coal, one has to question motive.
Posted Tue, Jun 12, 11:08 a.m. Inappropriate
Thanks Dan for a much needed piece on the Puget Sound Partnership. One thing the state government does particularly badly is periodically review projects and undertake a "lessons learned" exercise. I believe your piece is very good - as far as it goes.
I think there are a couple of indispensably important points which are essential to consider in a thorough review of the Partnership and it's efforts to clean up the Sound:
1) The very creation of the PSP was flawed, and revealing from the beginning. It was enabled with no legal authority and clear statements about the non-relinquishment of authority by the myriad of jurisdictions who already have great impact over its degradation...and any potential cleaning. The agency was created as a pure case of sausage/legislation - a way for the Governor and Legislature to convey their "concern" about the Sound while also achieving compromises to assuage any opponents (i.e. builders, developers, local governments who rely on the builders and developers, etc)and thereby garner a "bipartisan" bill.
2) From that flawed, yet predictable start came the inevitable dithering, procrastinating and faux consensus making. The first director, obviously put there for political reasons (secure Dad's funding from Congress) and not his qualifications nor managment abilities, ran a well intended yet dysfunctional ship. Soon the fanfare present when the agency was created became the malaise and distancing so often the case when politicians create something designed to look like they are doing something without actually doing anything.
3)The result has been the (not so) plausible deniability by the very same Governor and the Legislature now claiming that the agency is not doing enough...or fast enough. While that is true - they were hamstrung and emasculated from the very beginning. The new director, Gerry O'Keefe is exhibiting no leadership, exhibiting no creativity and displaying complete risk-aversion. In short, exactly the bureaucrat you want in charge, when you want nothing done.
4) Knowing a perfectly good moving pick when they see one, local governments, natural resource state agencies (and DOT) and the federal agencies are only too happy participating in the decision avoidance game that continues. They allow the very deleterious stormwater discharge we know is a large contributing factor to the degradation of the Sound. They sanction, ney even promote the very development in the floodplains we know to run exactly counter to our efforts to prevent further erosion. They often, at best, avoid the tough decisions needed to right the ship. At worst they cower while the growth machine storms on and their political patrons not only fail to have their back but in fact are conspirators in the very destruction they espouse caring so much about on the campaign trail.
A few comments on the...comments:
Jay Manning did some very good things as DOE Director. He did also, however, preside over the agency during this very "look the other way" period where a Mary Riveland-type "the regulated community is our customer" mentality seemed to persist.
Is is simply a case of insufficient money? As someone who believes very much in the role and power of government to effectuate positive change, I'm afraid that the money argument can be simple and easy distraction to continue to avoid the very land use decision making discussion which is in fact the crux of the issue.
The conspiracy-theory anti-Democrats who post here are, well...pretty funny. It's a shame they know little of what they spew. They are sometimes right- for the wrong reasons. It's a shame indeed that they so despise certain people and political ideologies that the opportunity to have constructive thought and analysis is impossible within the silly villain scenario they are stuck in.
I worked for the legislature and governor on water policy issues for 10 years. I also represented an Indian Tribe at the PSP for a year watching closely their proceedings.
Posted Tue, Jun 12, 1:09 p.m. Inappropriate
The Puget Sound Partnership is a corrupt slush fund for Democratic Party agendas and associates. It should be ended.
Posted Wed, Jun 13, 12:28 p.m. Inappropriate
You do realize the irony of your post immediately below Russ Lehman's, don't you? If this is your attempt at sarcasm, it's pretty lame.
Posted Thu, Jun 14, 5:05 a.m. Inappropriate
loup2x
you're either part of the problem or part of the solution,,, the problem is there is no solution and the problem is it costs too much to keep this charade going.
Private sector could have made positive changes without the overhead and ongoing fingerpointing, oh and create jobs, enhance our recreational assets and not have to hear the whining that these losers need more money every year for new ideas.
The government just needs to admit they failed Puget Sound, and come to terms that they themselves are the ones needing to be educated.
Posted Thu, Jun 14, 9:40 a.m. Inappropriate
If you think they are getting rid of these dams to "restore the Puget Sound" or help a salmon get better dates, dream on. All it does is remove potential cheap, citizen owned hydropower and allow the coal-biased Democrats to increase our addiction.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.