Toxic chemicals plaguing Puget Sound’s fish and orcas, polluted rainwater streaming into the sea, overfishing, damaged shorelines—all of this was my bread-and-butter for news stories during my recently-ended decade at the Seattle P-I.
So I was really excited this week to tune into PBS to watch Frontline, a standout of investigative journalism, as it delved into what’s ailing Puget Sound and the Chesapeake Bay in a special called “Poisoned Waters.” All right! Nationally acclaimed, heavy hitting reporting brought to bear on our own Sound.
I eagerly watched the two hour show and was surprised to learn … nothing. But upon a little reflection, I realized that my reaction made sense. We know what the problems are with Puget Sound, as my colleague Robert McClure and I spelled out in P-I investigations titled “Our Troubled Sound” and “The Sound of Broken Promises.”
There’s the legacy of industrial pollution in the mud and water; we keep adding more toxic chemicals through storm-water runoff and sewage treatment that can’t remove all of today’s pharmaceuticals, beauty products and other contaminants; and construction in shoreline areas damages vital habitat.
What’s more, we know how to fix these problems. Gov. Chris Gregoire’s Puget Sound Partnership is working on a strategy for returning our estuary to health. But many of the concepts are pretty simple and well understood:
- Limit the sprawl that adds roads and parking lots and removes trees that help control runoff from heavy rains
- Do low-impact development that reduces storm water and helps it soak into the ground
- Strictly limit shoreline construction of docks, piers, and beaches “hardened” with boulders and other barriers
- Reduce the use of dangerous chemicals such as flame retardants and ingredients found in plastics and fragrances that mimic human hormone function
The question now is whether we have the political and community will to take these steps. As King County Executive Ron Sims asked in the Frontline show while surveying a protected swath of forest: “Why sacrifice clean water for growth?”
Seattle’s Elliott Bay photo courtesy of Flickr user Wonderlane under the Creative Commons license.
John F
Well the simple answer to the “Why sacrifice clean water for growth?” question is that growth pays bills and clean water doesn’t (or certainly doesn’t pay as much as growth). That is likely why Bill Ruckelshaus can work for the Puget Sound Partnership pro bono while he makes his money with firms that encourage growth and capital formation. As soon as clean water pays as much as venture capital he may make stop working for industry.
Carrie
We can all build rain gardens, it’s not difficult and it is a beautiful way to filter pollutants before they reach our waterways. Rain Gardens are one very effective way to help restore our beautiful Sound. Make a difference now. See PI article, http://www.seattlepi.com/nwgardens/253820_raingarden31.html Many other resources can be found on Google.
Joel Kawahara
Lisa, good to see you in print (on the ether?) again. Gosh I miss the PI! Why is pollution still running into Puget Sound? Because our laws still make it less expensive to externalize the costs of pollution. Not until the cost of polluting is greater than the damages caused by, plus the cost to clean up pollution will pollutants stop flooding into Puget Sound. The consequences of pollution on Puget Sound do not matter to polluters, or sadly, the public at large. Your reporting was fabulous and between your self and Robert you have collected the evidence needed to push legislation strongly protecting Puget Sound. But, as Rikki Ott points out, it is corporate America who controlls the political agenda and CA does not care one bit about pollution, in spite of all their pr saying they do. Never the less, we have to continue to try to raise consciousness, and I thank you for continuing to try to do that.
Joel Kawahara
Lisa, good to see you in print (on the ether?) again. Gosh I miss the PI! Why is pollution still running into Puget Sound? Because our laws still make it less expensive to externalize the costs of pollution. Not until the cost of polluting is greater than the damages caused by, plus the cost to clean up pollution will pollutants stop flooding into Puget Sound. The consequences of pollution on Puget Sound do not matter to polluters, or sadly, the public at large. Your reporting was fabulous and between your self and Robert you have collected the evidence needed to push legislation strongly protecting Puget Sound. But, as Rikki Ott points out, it is corporate America who controlls the political agenda and CA does not care one bit about pollution, in spite of all their pr saying they do. Never the less, we have to continue to try to raise consciousness, and I thank you for continuing to try to do that.
8string
I agree with you Lisa, that there was not a lot to ‘learn’ on the program, and I would have preferred a more focused approach to a one hour version with distinct breaks between the two topics (P.S & Chesapeake). The political will is really not there for solving this problem, as I have been involved in trying to work on CAO’s and SMPs. Everyone wants a solution but no one wants to pay a price for it! Everyone wants to Save the Sound, even the anti-CAO/SMP crowds, led by Dory Munson et al. The urban areas need to pay more than the rural areas if the rural areas are to be ‘saved’ from development.
Diane
Let me correct John F. Bill Ruckelshaus does not take any salary from any firms period!!! He is pro bono with the State of Washington as Chairman of the Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council and was pro bono with the Federal Government when he worked as Commissioner with US. Ocean Commission and the State of Washington as Chairman of the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. He was formerly on many boards and Chairman/CEO of a waste company in the early 90’s but has been and is now working pro bono to help the citizens of our state and country. You need to get your facts straight and to imply that he is taking funds from firms that encourage growth is incorrect and a very rude comment. Before you relay incorrect and hurtful comments, you better make sure you know what you are talking about.
Jenny
If the question was “Why sacrifice clean water for growth?” then the answer has to include the remuneration that comes from pursuing each. The websites may be wrong but the very pro-growth and anti carbon emission control American Council for Capital Formation lists Ruckelshaus as a Board Member.No one is denying that people have to make a living but the point seems to be that growth pays more than clean water. Certainly most that are now able to donate time or money for almost any conservation issue have some history (personal or family) that included a dependence on industry that now provides them the wherewithal to make their current contribution.
diane Hodgson
Ruckelshaus is no longer and has not been for many years, on the Board of the American Council for Capital Formation.
Jenny
This has gotten off the subject a bit and the question posed by Ron Sims “Why sacrifice clean water for growth”. The issue is not where people get their income. It is just that far more people get their income from growth than from trying to keep waters clean. If that could somehow get turned around Puget Sound would be in better shape. I do think it is important to have leadership that sees clean water and not growth as their main priority. Sorry to have misportrayed Mr. Ruckelshaus but someone needs to update the websites at the two links below.http://www.accf.org/directors.phphttp://www.madrona.com/venture-capital-team/team.asp