Commentary: The Lake Champlain Phosphorus Crisis (February, 2017)

by John McClaughryJohn McClaughry

The Vermont legislature is now well into the final chapter of a high-stakes saga that began in 2010. At its center is the phosphorus level in Lake Champlain, especially in St. Albans and Missisquoi Bays.

As a state document explains, “In excessive amounts, phosphorus and associated algal growth can impair recreational uses and aesthetic enjoyment, reduce the quality of drinking water, and alter the biological community. In some cases, algal blooms can produce toxins that harm animals and people.”

In January 2010 the Conservation Law Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency.  It claimed that “CLF’s aesthetic, environmental, recreational, and economic interests in enjoying and using Lake Champlain are injured due to the lack of progress toward attainment and maintenance of water quality standards in numerous segments of Lake Champlain resulting in part from the numerous and serious flaws in [EPA’s] review and approval of the Champlain TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) of phosphorus.”

CLF argued that Vermont’s program for reducing phosphorus concentration in the Lake, based on 1991 data, provided “insufficient reasonable assurances” that the phosphorus TMDL standards would be met in the various parts of the Lake.

A year later the Obama EPA agreed to rescind its 2002 approval of Vermont’s water quality improvement plan, leaving Vermont to face possible sanctions on its municipal wastewater plants. That led to a plan issued in January 2013 that the State hoped would satisfy EPA and CLF by reducing phosphorus loading in Lake Champlain by 34% over twenty years.

The 2015 legislature enacted a new Clean Water Act. It expanded state regulatory authority and directed the State Treasurer to come up with some way to pay the price tag: an astonishing $2.3 billion over 20 years. After tapping an expected billion dollars in existing federal and state programs, a $62 million annual gap remains.

The assumption is that taxpayers will have to foot much or most of this bill, rather than the private landowners and businesses that are releasing the phosphorus.

Vermont agriculture produces forty percent of the phosphorus load flowing into Lake Champlain. To meet the EPA requirements, the agricultural sector would need to shrink that flow by 205 metric tons a year.

Will $2.3 billion spent over twenty years achieve this reduction? The Department of Environmental Conservation is quick to point out that much of that huge amount of money will be spent on things other than reducing phosphorus pollution from agricultural lands. That’s true, but it also illustrates how public perception of a problem as a crisis can be used to propel the environmental conservation forward. Let’s review.

CLF sues EPA to get it to require higher TDML standards to reduce phosphorus pollution in Lake Champlain. The Obama EPA agrees. It puts out new, stronger requirements, including obligatory recognition of the menace of climate change (more rainfall will erode more sediments, etc.)

The Shumlin administration and its legislative allies enact sweeping new legislation to require more plans, mandates, inspections, rules, site visits, and technical assistance, all by government employees, and of course require penalties for noncompliance and a large tax increase. The state response now races far beyond the original problem – reducing phosphorus runoff into Lake Champlain. Now it includes the entire enviro wish list of ecosystem restoration, stormwater management, wastewater treatment, nutrient management, erosion stabilization, buffer zones, highway maintenance, and much more.

This is not to say that those concerns are wrong headed or of little importance. Farms and businesses do need to be helped and prodded to adopt techniques like “Required Agricultural Practices” to reduce the pollution they cause (which, incidentally, originated with aggressive government encouragement fifty years ago).

But a program for “reducing phosphorus pollution in the Lake” has become an all- inclusive environmental improvement program, with a new taxpayer funding source. (Treasurer Pearce favors a per parcel “fee” on land throughout the state, because we all must go “all in” to preserve the recreational and esthetic qualities of mainly St. Albans and Missisquoi bays.)

And throughout this twenty years of  spending and regulation, we will unthinkingly accept the principal cause of that 40% of phosphorus pollution in the Lake: a dairy farm business model that relies heavily on over-fertilized croplands and purchased feed, fed to thousand-cow freestall farms of 20,000 pound producing Holsteins, to produce a commodity product that chronically (to hear many farmers tell it) fails to bring in enough to cover their cost of production, justifying a perpetual procession of subsidies to keep the model afloat?

Isn’t there some more sensible way to preserve Vermont’s independent dairy farms, without channeling all that phosphorus into watercourses? Like, for instance, cutting back on heavy feed and fertilizer in favor of more regenerative grass-based dairying? Or extracting phosphorus from the manure stream (as described in the Treasurer’s report), selling it as struvite, and making dewatered manure logs into boiler fuel? Just thinking out loud.

– John McClaughry is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute (www.ethanallen.org)

 

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Jackie Folsom February 14, 2017 at 3:35 pm

So am I to believe that the Ethan Allen Institute supports regenerative agriculture and the bill that’s been introduced in the Legislature?

Reply

Peter Bruce Wilder February 15, 2017 at 12:21 am

John, it’s just about that simple. Somebody said a couple of years back, “it’s the cow *(&#$” in response to a Seven Days article. The reality is complex and certainly gov’t has a deep hand in it… the idea that farmers need to have 500 animals to compete…and this with the volatility of milk pricing. Sure, there’s the entire deep economy around agribusiness, but one has to consider the profits at the very top as part of the “pull” that made the situation what it is. (https://www.google.com/finance?cid=14059960&ei=E56jWMHDKNqbe4nNlvAP) I mean, some are making real money. The irony for me as a long time resident and tax payer is the simplicity of solution vs how much $ has been spent in the last 40 years STUDYING the problem. Sure, consultants have jobs too, but really? Four decades? It seems to me that if there was a return to solid manure spreading, a 150 foot thick riparian barrier between all croplands and rivers and streams, and you’d have it. If we’d given the farmers along the Mississquoi, Lamoille and Winooski each a share of what Vermont as a state has spent on consultants in the past 25 years alone, it’d more than make up for those riparian barriers and the loss of productive land. It still amazes me that balanced solutions seem so hard to find, but I know why… just follow the money.

Reply

George Brehm January 12, 2018 at 12:52 pm

So Nitrogen does not have anything to do with the Algae problem? I know the smell of the manure in Vermont is the smell of money. The manure is sprayed on the fields as more of a way to dispose of the waste than for fertilizer. However, manure is not “fixed” Nitrogen the same way Chemical Fertilizer is. Unfixed nitrogen can only be fixed by Lightning or Bacteria. So the question is how much Fixed nitrogen bonds to storm water runoff that discharges to the lake. Fixed Nitrogen is ready and available for plants like Algae to uptake. Once fixed nitrogen bonds with Water it is virtually impossible to separate without spending alot of money. Also do the waste water treatment plants do denitrification of the water before its discharged? I doubt phosphorus is the only problem. Also look up http://www.soilfoodweb.com If the right beneficial microorganisms were added to the process it could help compost the manure into healthy soil. But the problem may not even be the manure it might be the Chemical Fertilizer. AKA Nitrogen made from the Petroleum Industry look up Haber Bosch History of Chemical Fertilizer. Fixed Nitrogen I believe is the problem with Lakes like Champlain and The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

Nuclear phase out threatens greenhouse gas goals

April 20, 2018 by John McClaughry The news site Axios recently published an article about a report from the think tank Third Way. It looked at the effect of...

Vermont’s “Taking Game” and Universal Background Checks

April 19, 2018 by John Klar At times, government rightly employs the power of eminent domain to “take” property – for railroads, roadways, prisons, power plants, etc. But...

A Fair Way to Tax Internet Sales

April 18, 2018 by Rob Roper The Supreme Court is hearing arguments about if and how we should tax sales made over the internet. As of now, retailers...

Bernie Sanders: Too Big And Failed

April 16, 2018  by Chris Campion A couple of weeks back, Communism’s own Bernie Sanders took time out of his failed presidential bid to sit down with Jake...

State Education Policy Is Hurting Students

April 13, 2018 by Rob Roper The latest test scores for Vermont students are here, and they continue an unsettling trend of decline for our student outcomes. The...

Video