Pure & Simple
Vermonters Need Clear Water

By Sarah Millham

 

A cascade of refreshment in Weathersfield, near 'the Bow' of the Connecticut River.
Photo: Margaret Michniewicz.

With 808 lakes and ponds and over 7,000 miles of rivers and streams, water is a big part of the Vermont experience. Ancient seas were home to the famous Charlotte Whale, and glacial ice carved our hills and valleys. Snow fuels the ski industry, and rain overwhelmed us in May and June. In many ways water defines Vermont. But to what extent do Vermonters define the quality of our waters?

With European settlement came the beginnings of water quality degradation. In the late 19th century, the town of Middlebury experienced a serious typhoid outbreak signaling that the waters of Otter Creek were no longer safe to drink. In the early 1970’s the majority of communities with municipal sewer facilities simply discharged raw sewage directly into the surface waters, leaving the Connecticut River to be described as a “landscaped sewer.” Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972 and the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974, many of Vermont’s lakes and waterways have been restored to provide safe swimming and fishing, as well as support healthy native species of fish and other aquatic animals.

But with 37 lakes and ponds, and 110 rivers and streams classified by the State of Vermont as “impaired,” the work is far from done. Vermont’s waters remain at significant risk from both distant and local pollutants.

Some of the problems that plague Vermont waters originate far away. Power generators, industrial plants, and incinerators located west and upwind spew pollution into the air, and some of it eventually comes to rest in Vermont. One example is acid rain, the well-documented problem of sulphur and nitrate deposits that threatens poorly buffered lakes in the Northeast Kingdom. P
Mercury contamination is another. Mercury is a neurotoxin that causes numerous neurological problems ranging from irritability to kidney failure. The so-called “Mad Hatters” of the 19th century, for example, were poisoned by their work using mercury in the felting of beaver pelts for the hat industry. Mercury is particularly harmful to children, and women of childbearing age. The neurological development of children under the age of six is highly sensitive, and children exposed to mercury during pregnancy can suffer from many neurological problems including profound mental retardation.

For the general public the main source of mercury poisoning is consumption of contaminated fish. Mercury finds its way into fish by in a series of steps. Once deposited on the ground, mercury interacts with bacteria to form methyl-mercury, a change that greatly increases toxicity. Methyl-mercury, found both in the water and bottom sediments of Vermont’s lakes and streams, is taken up by plankton and other small animals. These animals are, in turn, eaten by small fish, which are then eaten by larger fish, and by a process known as bioaccumulation the largest fish end up with levels of mercury contamination unsafe for human consumption. The state of Vermont has issued fish consumption advisories and women and children are urged not to eat any Walleye from Lake Champlain, or any lake trout over 25 inches. People are also urged to limit consumption of lake trout, small-mouthed bass, pickerel and American eel to no more than one serving per month.

Not all of Vermont’s mercury originates beyond state borders. The largest in-state source is electrical switches from cars manufactured before 2004. These switches are small packets used for operation of convenience lights. When cars are junked and crushed, these switches are crushed along with them, and the mercury they contain is leached into the environment. According to Anthony Iarrapino, staff attorney at the Vermont office of the Conservation Law Foundation, pollution from these switches could be averted if they are removed and properly disposed of before cars are junked. (Editor’s note: at the end of the most recent session, the Legislature passed a bill, H.876, requiring scrap dealers to remove and properly dispose of such switches prior to recycling the cars. See Eyes of Ceres, June 2006). Other local sources include: fluorescent lamps, thermometers and thermostats.

Local communities can have an impact on these consumer sources of mercury pollution by requiring proper disposal, and the State of Vermont has legislated a ban on the sale of some mercury-added consumer goods, but for the more than 99 percent of mercury inputs imported, via the atmosphere, from beyond the state’s borders, Vermont must rely on the Federal Government and the Clean Air Act in particular.

In 2000, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found mercury to be a threat to public health and the environment. As a hazardous pollutant the EPA deemed it “necessary and appropriate” to require every power plant to use mercury-reducing technology. However, under the current Bush Administration, the EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule in March 2005, with claims that it would cut mercury emissions by 70 percent starting in 2018, while giving polluters an extra 13 years before any mercury-specific controls are required. It also created a loophole for industries to avoid mercury reduction altogether by trading allowances with other plants. Senator Patrick Leahy has said that “the Bush Administration’s new rule will continue to allow mercury, a substance so toxic that it causes birth defects and IQ loss, to continue to poison children and pregnant women. This disastrous rule should not be allowed to stand as the law of the land.”

If mercury is a problem primarily created far away by a containable number of sources, phosphorus pollution is a problem with innumerable sources originating in our own backyard. Phosphorus pollution is a widespread problem in Vermont’s waterways; its biggest sources are agricultural run-off, storm water run-off, and effluent from wastewater treatment facilities. Most phosphorus comes from non-point sources, making the entire state a potential contributor.

Phosphorus helps plants grow. We apply it to our gardens and lawns, in the form of manufactured fertilizer. Farmers apply it to their fields in the form of manure. However, it is phosphorus’s nutrient quality that is also its greatest liability: algae love it, too. If present to excess in water, algae and other aquatic plants grow out of control, or “bloom,” cutting off oxygen supplies to fish and other organisms, often killing them. High concentrations of phosphorus can also contribute to blooms of blue-green algae, which are highly toxic bacteria capable of killing dogs and making people sick. Thick mats of algae also make it just plain unpleasant to use some water bodies.

The Clean Water Act, passed in 1972, requires that states establish water quality standards for all state waterways. Any waterways not meeting those standards are listed as impaired and require action for restoration. In the case of Lake Champlain, which does not meet phosphorus water quality standards for much of its 435 square miles, with particular problem areas in its northern reaches, an international committee was formed to try and abate phosphorus loading. The Lake Champlain Basin Program (LCBP) has been a vehicle for addressing phosphorus problems and solutions in the lake’s basin. Through the LCBP Vermont, New York, and Quebec have worked together to establish total phosphorus goals, create a healthy phosphorus budget, and investigate and implement a reduction strategy.

This is a daunting task, but progress has been made. Most wastewater treatment plants in the basin are now very effective at phosphorus removal, and considerable attention has been paid to manure management on large farms. Great strides have also been made in the area of public awareness. Public education is a large part of the mission of the LCBP, and they maintain a presence at the ECHO Center on Burlington’s waterfront, to help keep phosphorus issues in the public eye.

The problem, however, is not going away. Mike Winslow of the Lake Champlain Committee, an advocacy group first formed in 1963 to fight the introduction of large container ships to the lake, is not optimistic that the efforts currently underway can meet the joint goals of preservation and restoration. “I think we can preserve the lake, meaning I think with hard work, we can keep it from getting worse,” Winslow said, “but the goal of restoration of Lake Champlain is a bigger challenge.”

The sheer size of the watershed and the diversity of non-point sources of phosphorus pollution make absolute control of phosphorus inputs virtually impossible. The picture is further complicated by the rate of development affecting the lake. Currently the biggest source of phosphorus loading is still agricultural run-off, but acre for acre, storm water run-off (water which washes over roads, parking lots and your own lawn) is higher in phosphorus than agricultural run-off. As the agricultural landscape is urban- and suburbanized, nutrient-loading problems are likely to be further exacerbated. “It doesn’t seem likely that we can offset the effects of development through stormwater treatment,” Winslow said.

The effort to address the health of Vermont’s waters has drawn together a wide range of people with very diverse interests, but a common goal. Whatever people’s level of optimism for an absolute fix water quality issues, most people agree that the people of Vermont have very good intentions. Phosphorus loading is a problem for everyone, and in the words of Mary Watzin, a water resources researcher at the University of Vermont’s Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, “The battle against phosphorus will be won or lost based on individual decisions.”

In a former life Sarah Millham conducted research on acid rain, climate change, and tropical deforestation. Now she manages logistics for a busy family, volunteers at school and sporting events, and is really good at loading and unloading the dishwasher (no phosphorus containing detergents, of course).

Back to Top

print this page | go back