Pollution & Toxics posts from the Daily Score blog - Sightline Daily

WA Approves First Copper Brake Pad Ban

Lisa Stiffler — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 09:37:52

Washington is now the first US state to restrict the amount of copper in brake pads used in cars and trucks. On Monday the state Senate approved the final version of the legislation (SB 6557, with analysis here), which now goes to Gov. Chris Gregoire who is expected to sign it.

Copper is a problem because it flakes off brakes and winds up on roadways, where stormwater runoff washes it into streams and rivers. Salmon and other aquatic life are harmed by even very low concentrations of copper -- and the state estimates that between 70,000 and 320,000 pounds of copper are being washed into Puget Sound each year. On the high end, that's the equivalent weight of 57.6 million pennies.

(For lots more detail on the problems and sources of copper in stormwater check out these earlier blog posts: Tapping the Brakes on Copper Brake Pads, and Smart, Cheap Stormwater Fixes.)

The new rules will:

Ban beginning in 2014 the sale of brake pads containing more than trace amounts of lead, mercury, asbestos, cadmium, and chromium.
Ban beginning in 2021 the sale of brake pads containing more than 5 percent copper.
Ban beginning in 2025 the sale of brake pads containing more than 0.5 percent copper, provided a safe, acceptable substitute is found.

California initially was the leader in work to get copper out of brake pads, but efforts there stalled last year and don't appear to have resumed.

Penny photo courtesy of Flickr user Great Beyond.

Unfinished Business at Idaho National Labs

John Abbotts and Clark Williams-Derry — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:39:53

John Abbotts, former Sightline staffer and long-time observer of cleanup efforts in the Northwest, contributed a first draft of this blog post.

Last May, we posted a blog on cleanup progress and unfinished business at the Hanford site in south-central Washington. Hanford is part of the federal complex for atomic weapons and other military applications, and cleanup at such facilities is now taking place across the country. The Northwest is home to another major nuclear cleanup effort: Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in the eastern part of that state.

INL, covering 860 square miles, is larger than Hanford and -- astonishingly -- about two-thirds the entire area of Rhode Island. The laboratory, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, claims that it contained “the largest concentration of [nuclear] reactors in the world.” Over the years, INL built and operated 50 atomic reactors, including prototypes to train personnel for the U.S. Navy’s atomic-powered fleet. Only a few INL reactors remain in operation, but the site still stores spent nuclear fuel from Naval reactors.

Unsurprisingly, with so many reactors and so much waste in one place, INL is now saddled with a huge cleanup task. In 1989, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency placed the Idaho site on its Superfund national cleanup list. Cleanup of radioactive and chemical contamination has become a major activity at the Laboratory, and remediation is expected to take decades.

Former Sightline staffer John Abbotts recently published an account of the INL cleanup in Remediation Journal. A key part of the story starts in 1954, when the federal government began transferring radioactive transuranic waste containing plutonium and other elements of higher atomic number than uranium from the Rocky Flats, Colorado nuclear weapons plant to INL for burial. The photo below shows barrels of waste from a Rocky Flats fire being dumped at the INL in about 1969.

Unsurprisingly, once the risks of the substances being dumped in Idaho became better known, Idahoans started fighting to keep their state from being used as a radioactive dumping ground. In 1988, after the U.S. Department of Energy announced a delay in removing transuranic wastes from Idaho, Democratic Governor Cecil Andrus ordered the Idaho State Police to stop any rail cars bringing new wastes from Rocky Flats at the state border. The resulting suits and counter-suits were punctuated by a 1991 cleanup agreement between Energy with the U.S. EPA and Idaho State government as joint regulators. Finally, a 1995 settlement agreement named Energy and the U.S. Navy as the parties responsible for the cleanup, and the State of Idaho as regulator. The 1995 agreement set enforceable milestones and deadlines, including the removal by 2018 of all federal transuranic wastes from Idaho, and removal of all Naval spent reactor fuel by 2035.

But the Department of Energy later claimed that it was only required to remove above-ground transuranic wastes, leaving a considerable amount of buried wastes. In 2002, the state of Idaho -- led this time by a Republican governor -- sued again, and a federal district judge found that the 1995 Agreement specified removal of all transuranic wastes, not just the above-ground wastes. A U.S. Court of Appeals upheld this decision, and in 2008 the federal government reached an agreement with the state to settle the suit. Under the 2008 settlement, most transuranic wastes (exceptions are those with safety considerations, such as buried wastes that may ignite if excavated) are expected to be retrieved and shipped out of Idaho by 2028.

Then in July 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy opened a new controversy. The U.S. Congress gave Energy the responsibility for long-term storage and management of all elemental mercury generated in the U.S., and the Department designated seven candidate sites for mercury storage across the country, including Hanford and the Idaho National Laboratory. Mercury isn't radioactive, but it persists in the environment and builds up in living tissues. Within weeks, Republican Governor “Butch” Otter announced that he would not allow the federal government to “make Idaho its mercury dump.”

Throughout this account, one interesting trend stands out: even in the supposed “red” state of Idaho, Republican public officials have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with their Democratic counterparts to push the federal government to clean up contamination, and stop new waste from entering the state. It's just one of many examples of how ostensibly "green" issues can sometimes cross the red-blue divide.

Northwest Rain Garden DIY

Lisa Stiffler — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 16:26:40

Rain gardens. Rain barrels. French drains and swales. Green solutions to stormwater runoff sound fancy and complicated, but they're not. And I've got a list of rain garden how-to resources to prove it.

The basic principal for controlling stormwater in an earth-friendly way: keep the water where it falls and help it soak into the ground. Homeowners can do that by following any or all of these low-impact development strategies:

Channel your roof's downspout into a rain garden
Install pervious pavement for pathways and patios (LID expert Tom Holz recommends Turfstone from Mutual Materials)
Instead of paving a whole driveway, install two tracks of pavement or paving tiles just where you drive (this is sometimes called "California strips") and leave the rest of the driveway in gravel or vegetation
Install a vegetated or green roof
Connect your downspout to a rain barrel

There are even programs in Portland, Seattle, and elsewhere to help pay for these stormwater fixes, and there are a variety of free classes to show you how to do LID.

(If you still need convincing that stormwater is a serious environmental and economic problem, keep in mind that in a single storm in the Puget Sound region, 10 bathtubs worth of water pour off a single home's roof. For more on stormwater's harm check out our report Curbing Stormwater Pollution.)

Ready to take the next step?

Let's start with a little elaboration on these five strategies.

What is a rain garden? In it's simplest form, it's a shallow depression, like a little pond, that a roof downspout empties into. Most of the time, the pond is empty. When it rains, it fills with water that slowly soaks into the ground. That soaking process is helped by digging the pond an extra few inches or feet deep, then lining it with a few inches of sand, gravel, and soil that soak up water better than the average patch of dirt in your yard. The depression is usually planted with grasses and shrubs that can tolerate wet soil. (Also note the depression can be called a swale or bioswale, and a French drain is akin to a buried rain garden.)

Pervious pavement is just what it sounds like -- it has small holes like a sponge or Swiss cheese that allows water to pass through it to the ground beneath.

Building a driveway with tracks is a straightforward solution, and dramatically cuts down on the amount of pavement that repels water.

A green or vegetated roof is going to be the most costly, complicated of these strategies. It's a roof covered with soil and vegetation that trap and hold water (that's a ridiculously simplified explanation, and frankly I have less knowledge about this solution -- Sunset Magazine this month offers a simple green roof how to, but I'm skeptical that it's that easy.).

Rain barrels are getting pretty ubiquitous in the Northwest. The idea is to plug your downspout into a barrel or cistern, then use the water on plants during the summer (if you have a composite roof, those tiles are made from asphalt and the water isn't safe for using on edibles). The thing is, these barrels fill up FAST. Basically, one good November storm will fill the barrel, and then for the rest of winter the water just spills out of the barrel or runs back into the stormwater system. So if you really want to help the environment, let the barrel slowly drain into your yard after the storm when the ground is less saturated so that it can fill again with the next rain.

Rain Garden Guides

That's the quick and dirty rundown. Here are some great publications walk you through the specific hows and whys of rain gardens, rain barrels, and other strategies:

The Oregon Rain Garden Guide from Sea Grant Oregon. This illustrated guide helps you figure out exactly how and where to build a rain garden, including cutaway diagrams and photos that are nothing short of landscaping eye-candy -- look at those fuzzy sedges and meandering rock streams. Also check out Rob Emanuel's blog for more on stormwater and LID.
The Rain Garden handbook from Washington State University on Seattle Public Utilities' RainWise website also provides step-by-step rain garden instructions. It also tells you how to install rain barrels and other less labor-intensive means of dealing with runoff.
The Waterbucket website has stormwater info that's BC centric, but it's also more technical.
And this Oregon Metro website has still more Oregon-oriented info.

Free classes and workshops

If this still seems daunting, check out these free classes on installing a rain garden and rain barrels:

The East Multnomah Soil and Water Conservation District website lists upcoming classes in Portland, Beaverton, and other cities.
In the Puget Sound area, check out the Stewardship Partners website for classes happening right now.

Free rain gardens

And finally, let's talk about cost. Lately, new programs keep cropping up to help pay for rain gardens and the like.

Residents of Puyallup, Eatonville, and the Broadview neighborhood of Seattle have a shot at getting a free rain garden.
Seattle residents in the Ballard neighborhood could be eligible for a separate rain garden program.
Gresham residents can get $100 grants for installing a rain garden.
Portland residents who disconnect their downspout from the sewer system can get a discount on their utility bill.

I'm certain there are resources, classes, and incentives that I've missed in this roundup, so be sure to add a comment to this post to share any additional information!

Rain barrel photo courtesy of Flickr user rrelam.

Bisphenol A Ban Passed in WA

Lisa Stiffler — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 07:44:46

Washington lawmakers this week passed a ban on bisphenol A, or BPA, in baby bottles, sippy cups, food and beverage containers for children under 3, and sports bottles.

The state becomes the second in the US to ban BPA from sports bottles, according to the Washington Toxics Coalition. It's the fifth state to ban the ubiquitous chemical from baby bottles and food containers. BPA, a synthetic estrogen, can leach out of hard, clear plastics. It poses particular risk to the fetus, babies, and young children, targeting behavior, the brain, and the prostate gland.

An effort to ban BPA in kid's food products failed in Oregon's recent legislative session. Canada last year decided to ban BPA in baby bottles. The government is considering further ways to limit its use.

Gov. Chris Gregoire is expected to sign the legislation.

Parents who want to limit their kid's exposure to BPA should check out this tip sheet from Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units, a reputable organization of pediatricians and environmental health specialists.

Sippy cup photo courtesy of Flickr user sean dreilinger.

Washington Policy Center Doubles Down On Mistakes

Eric de Place — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 12:16:59

In a cringe-inducing response to my corrections to his memo on the state's hazardous substance tax, Washington Policy Center's Brendon Houskeeper defends his mistaken math.

It’s a little embarrassing. For Washington Policy Center, that is.

Look, we’re a think tank. You’re a think tank. Occasionally, fact checking falls down. It’s OK to make a mistake once in a while; just admit it and move on. Whatever you do, though, don’t double down. It just makes everyone uncomfortable, like one of those horrible scenes in "The Office" where Michael makes a bold, unsupportable announcement then spends the rest of the episode trying to save face.

Let’s review. WPC made two factual errors (that I corrected). WPC is still wrong about each.

Gas prices

In its original memo, WPC said that the proposed increase to the Hazardous Substances tax would raise prices at the pump "by 4 to 6 cents.”

As I pointed out, arithmetic disagrees. The wholesale price of gasoline (roughly $2.30) multiplied by the tax increase (1.3%) yields a price increase of 3 cents. (And that’s what both the oil industry and the state's Department of Revenue say, too.)

WPC "rebuts" by cherry picking: it cites wholesale gas price figures for 2008, when prices were at an all-time high. Which might be convincing, except that:

It’s 2010.
Wholesale gas prices are hovering just a little above $2/gallon. And, besides, even during the highest prices of 2008, the tax increase would have raised prices only by 4.7 cents.
In order to get to 6 cents, the upper end of the range WPC claimed originally, wholesale gasoline prices would have to hit $4.60 gallon -- that's wholesale, mind you -- or about 27 percent higher than they were even at the height of 2008 summer price spiking. (And if wholesale gas prices hit that level a 6 cent gas tax would be the least of motorists’ worries.)

Repeat: $2.30 x 1.3% = 3 cents.

Unfortunately, that’s the high point of the “rebuttal.” The rest makes even less sense.

Take this: for some reason, WPC claims that I believe the Revenue Department to be the "definitive authority" on how the Hazardous Substances Tax would affect gas prices. (Not so; math is the ultimate authority here.) The rebuttal then cites an email in which a DOR employee apparently says, "We estimate that every one percentage point increase of the hazardous substance tax rate will likely result in about a 2.5 to 3.5 cent increase in the retail price/gal."

Bad move: DOR has already revised the figures mentioned in that email. Yet even assuming that the DOR's estimates in the email were right – which they’re not -- when multiplied by the 1.3% tax increase this would yield an increase of between 3.3 and 4.6 cents.

So WPC is bolstering its case by referring to an email with inaccurate, preliminary figures that have since been revised -- and that still puts the gas price increase at a maximum of 4.6 cents, nowhere near the upper-end estimate of 6 cents per gallon they originally claimed.

Yet in another instance of cherry picking, WPC cites only that top end figure, writing "...the tax proposal would raise prices at the pump by as much as 4.6 cents/gal" and complains that "politics took over DOR's gas price projections."

Really? Politics? In order for a one percentage point increase to result in a 2.5 to 3.5 cent increase, the wholesale price of gasoline would have to be between $2.50 and $3.50, wildly higher than they actually are (or are projected to be). After this was pointed out to them, DOR revised their estimate down to 3 cents, the correct number. (We know this, because we corrected them.)

In the end, WPC provides no defense whatsoever for the original "4 to 6 cents" claim. Even by making outlandish assumptions -- the peak of 2008 gas prices or erroneous early DOR assumptions -- WPC can only get to around 4.7 cents. Nor can WPC provide any refutation for the basic arithmetic: the wholesale price of gasoline (roughly $2.30) multiplied by the tax increase (1.3%) yields a price increase of 3 cents.

Quantities of pollution

It's hard to even know where to begin untangling this one.

WPC claimed that, "the corrected [Department of Ecology] numbers show that only about 14 million pounds, or 6,500 tons, of pollutants per year enter the Sound via stormwater" and that "the claim that stormwater delivered 52 million pounds of pollutants to the Puget Sound was in error."

I pointed out that the corrected numbers actually show that between 14 million and 94 million pounds of toxic pollutants per year enter the Sound, and that 52 million would be a pretty comfortable mid-point estimate based on the most recent numbers. In other words, WPC had cherry picked the very low end of an estimated range.

WPC "rebuts" my claim by citing some irrelevant quotes from the Puget Sound Partnership circa 2008 and 2009, before the corrected numbers that we're arguing about were even available. WPC also tries to take cover by citing Washington Conservation Voters and the House Democratic Caucus, both of which have conservatively used the 14 million number.

Yet this isn't really an area that requires a lot of interpretive nuance and expertise. There is an objective and independent fact about what the corrected numbers show. WPC says it's 14 million. I say that the corrected numbers show between 14 and 94 million pounds of pollution. Only one of us can be right.

Hint, here's what Ecology's summary says:

Ecology currently estimates that Puget Sound receives between 14 and 94 million pounds of toxic pollutants annually...

I invite readers to check out the official corrected numbers for themselves. (Warning: at that link you'll have to convert from metric tons to pounds; there's an easier explanation here.)

I've spent some time trying to parse WPC's arguments about pollution volume, and I've finally concluded that their researcher is simply confused. (In fact, the author acknowledges using a Department of Ecology table erroneously in the original memo, an error which still hasn't been corrected as of this writing.) For instance the "rebuttal" says:

Oil and grease represent more than 90 percent of pollutants, so the revision of those numbers is a dramatic and wholesale change of the data. Sightline’s critique is tantamount to saying, “yeah, but what about the other nine percent?”

This is wrong. We are plainly arguing about the total volume of pollution, a very large share of which is oil and grease. As a matter of fact, the total volume of toxic pollution is currently estimated to run between 14 million and 94 million per year. There's no sense whatsoever in which I am focusing on "the other nine percent." I simply want WPC to acknowledge that the original memo cherry picked the low end of an estimated range.

Update 3/5/10: In a follow-up post, WPC tacitly admits that I'm right on both counts. (Then there's a bunch of hot air about how their original numbers might true in an imaginary world with different oil prices than in the actual world.) They also call for good science, rather than bad science. And I agree!

Whatever. It's probably time to put this little blog war to rest. And I may even say something nice about Washington Policy Center the next time we're in agreement -- like when they propose carbon taxes or investments in vanpools.

Industrial Strength Stormwater Fix

Lisa Stiffler — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:10:40

Editor's note 3/9: This profile is now available in PDF format here.

On Seattle’s 8th Avenue South in the Georgetown neighborhood, empty school buses and recycling trucks rumble by. Semis squeeze past each other. Cars are parked on the street’s gravel shoulder amid shoe-soaking pools of muddy rainwater.

Georgetown’s busted streets and heavy-duty manufacturing plants seem like the last place where earth-friendly, sustainable stormwater solutions would take root. But this is the story of blue-collar industry partnering with a green-thinking community group to benefit them both. The trouble is, it was an unnecessarily long and challenging route to get the project done.

The century-old Markey Manufacturing Co. is a neighborhood institution, cranking out marine winches used to tow barges and haul anchors out of the sea. But Seattle’s heavy rains were threatening to disrupt Markey’s operations by pocking the company’s driveway with gaping potholes, creating a perilous obstacle course for forklift drivers maneuvering their cargo.

“It was becoming a real safety issue,” said Bob LeCoque, Markey’s vice president. “We had a couple of loads drop off.”

The potholes are now gone, replaced with two paved driveways and three long, shallow ditches that catch the rain. The ditches, or swales, are lined with sand, soil, and plants that soak up the water.

When it rains, it puddles

Throughout most of Seattle, when the rain falls on roofs and streets, it’s shunted away by gutters and pipes. This area of Georgetown, however, is something of an anomaly; before the swales were built, there was no infrastructure to handle the stormwater and prevent flooding. When it rained, the water sat in puddles that took days or weeks to evaporate. Or it streamed over the industrial landscape into the nearby Duwamish River, carrying with it toxic pollutants and mud.

LeCoque wanted to pave Markey’s potholes, but city regulators opposed the plan unless something was done to address the potential increase in runoff that the paving could bring. LeCoque could lay hundreds of feet of pipe to connect with the existing King County stormwater system at the end of the street – at the cost of more than $1 million.

While Markey was trying to resolve its stormwater troubles, a community group comprised of nearby businesses, residents, local government employees, and others was working to improve the area through an effort called the Georgetown Riverview Restoration Project.The group teamed up with LeCoque to create a plan that was more environmentally friendly and cheaper than traditional stormwater infrastructure. They proposed what was essentially a large rain garden in the heart of one of Seattle’s grittiest industrial zones.

With help from Seattle’s Department of Transportation, Markey and the community group built three swales along the front of the Markey site, the largest stretching 60 feet long and 14 feet wide. The swales were dug about 2 feet deep, then refilled with 3 inches of soil and sand. The swales were ringed with wood chips and are still being planted with trees, grasses, and shrubs that can tolerate soaking wet soil in the winter and drought conditions in the summer.

“We’re trying to recreate what’s in the forest,” said Cari Simson, project manager with the Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition who helped lead the effort.“Obviously, we’re way removed from the forest.”

Innovative -- and slow going

The innovative project – which is being hailed as Seattle’s first “industrial strength” natural drainage – is getting plenty of kudos now. But being the first of its kind, the project was tough to get done.

“It was a huge struggle,” said Shauna Walgren, a planner with Seattle’s Department of Transportation. There were months of meetings and countless questions about how it would work and what sort of precedent would be set.

“When you’re trying to do something different,” Walgren said, “the city doesn’t have experience to draw from."

Walgren helped coordinate between the multiple city departments involved and was key to getting approval for the plan, Simson said. The project, which started in 2007, was nearly derailed over concerns that the dirt to be excavated for the swales was contaminated with toxic chemicals. Fortunately, tests showed it wasn’t too polluted, and the swales were dug in October 2009.

Designing and excavating the swales close to $40,000, paid for by the Department of Transportation. The Georgetown Community Council working with the nonprofit Duwamish River Cleanup Coalition spent an additional $20,000 on soil for the swales, plants, designs, and other support. Markey Machinery paid roughly $35,000 to pave the driveways and add new sidewalks. Total bill? Under $100,000, a bargain compared to the price tag for a traditional stormwater system.

No more need for hip waders

Simson and others want to replicate the project in other industrial centers that also lack stormwater infrastructure, such as parts of Seattle’s South Park and SODO neighborhoods. As the Markey example shows, natural drainage can be a cheaper fix than building traditional pipes and stormwater holding tanks. Plus, it’s better for the environment because it re-greens areas with mostly native plants, and the swales and retention ponds actually clean the stormwater by allowing it to percolate into the ground.

But this kind of project won’t become more widespread unless the city makes it faster and easier to get approval for this sort of effort, said some of those involved. City departments – including Seattle’s Department of Transportation, Public Utilities, and Department of Planning and Development – need to work better together and make clear who is responsible for which decisions and permits, community members said. Even city officials said Seattle should create a standardized protocol for doing industrial projects like this one, and appoint someone to help a business navigate the process. Another way to encourage more industrial strength, low-impact development is through financial incentives -- grants, tax breaks, or a cut to utility bills -- for green stormwater solutions.

Before the swales and driveways were installed, Markey was a muddy mess in the winter and LeCoque was loath to host visitors. “The place looked like hell,” he said. That’s changed.

“I can walk from my car to my office without hip waders on,” LeCoque said. “We’re pretty proud of what we’ve done on the site here.”

Learn more about industrial stormwater fixes

The Duwamish River Clean-up Coalition and EOS Alliance are hosting a panel discussion and meeting about natural drainage projects in the Seattle area. It's free to attend, and here are the details:

WHEN: Wednesday, March 10, from 5:30 - 8:30 p.m.
WHERE: EOS Alliance Offices, 650 South Orcas St., Suite 220, Seattle
RSVP: Email bkantner@eosalliance.org, re: "Green Forum"

For more information, go to the Community Natural Drainage Forum website, or email Ben Kantner at EOS Alliance at bkantner@eosalliance.org or call 206-762-2553.

Photos of 8th Avenue South and the Markey Manufacturing Co. swales are used with permission from Laura Treadway.

Closing Coal's Tax Loophole (Part 2)

Jennifer Langston — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 12:38:31

Efforts to close a tax loophole for Washington's largest greenhouse gas polluter got a second life in the Legislature today. Bills to eliminate a sales tax exemption on coal burned at the Centralia power plant didn't go anywhere this session. But the Senate budget proposed today would effectively end the tax subsidy for the state's only coal-fired power plant, raising about $4 million in new revenue each year. (To find out why Washington stopped collecting sales tax on millions of tons of a polluting fuel that's mined a thousand miles away, see our earlier post on the topic.)

And Publicola reports this morning that this relatively small-potatoes tax subsidy also has the potential to complicate the overall budget picture, since Gov. Christine Gregoire threatened to veto legislation that would end the tax break.

Why would a governor who has come out swinging to close corporate tax loopholes care so much to preserve one? Gregoire and her staff have been negotiating with Centralia's owners - the Canadian TransAlta Corp. - to wean the plant off coal and replace that power with cleaner energy sources over the next 15 years. It seems clear that Gregoire doesn't want to aggravate TransAlta by taking aim at the state's sales tax exemption on coal. It also seems clear Senate leaders want every dollar they can find to plug the state's massive budget hole. It'll be interesting to see whose argument holds up longer.

Also of note: In Olympia this Saturday (Feb. 27), the Coal Free Washington campaign is delivering public comments on the governor's negotiations with TransAlta (which have been conducted largely behind closed doors so far) and holding a rally and panel on moving the state beyond coal. It starts at noon at the Capitol building.

Lump of coal photo courtesy of flickr user ittybittiesforyou via the Creative Commons license.

Protecting Polluters?

Eric de Place — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:08:31

The Seattle Times is opposing an increase to Washington's hazardous substance tax, for two reasons:

The tax applies to hazardous substances that are manufactured in Washington but sold out-of-state;
In the next couple of years, not all of the money will go to clean up pollution.

Let's take these one at a time.

First, the reason it's a good idea to tax hazardous substances manufactured in Washington is because they tend to harm Washington. Texas-based Tesoro Corporation, which operates a refinery near Anacortes, is a major opponent of a bill that would increase the tax, in large part because the company is one of the state's major polluters. They argue that paying a higher pollution tax in Washington would put them at a competitive disadvantage when they sell their products out of state.

But consider that just earlier this week Tesoro was slapped with a huge lawsuit by the Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. It turns out that Tesoro's Anacortes facility, as well as several others, was not even bothering to test for important types of air pollution such as benzene, sulfur, and other toxics. In other words, the federal Clean Air Act violations that Tesoro allegedly committed in Washington will harm Washington, regardless of where their customers live.

What's more, the competitive disadvantage argument should be taken with a grain of salt -- or perhaps an entire shaker's worth. All Washington refiners would be subject to exactly the same tax rate -- just as they are now -- keeping the playing field level for local producers. Moreover, the refined product that Tesoro sells out of state mostly goes into Oregon (and parts of Idaho) where there are no refineries. The only logical competition tends to come from refineries in California. And not only is it geographically impractical for California refiners to supply the major population centers that Washinton refiners currently supply, but the taxes and fees on petroleum products in California are arguably higher than they are in Washington.

Second, the bill stipulates that all of the hazardous substance tax -- including 100 percent of the proposed increase -- will go entirely to pollution clean-up by 2016. It's true that in the interim years, a portion of the revenue will be directed to the general fund, but I have a tough time seeing how this is a problem. If a modest tax -- 0.7 percent rising to 2 percent -- on toxic products pays for schools, public safety, state parks, and social services, I'm frankly not going to get too worked up about it. In any event, it seems that the Times objection really vanishes by 2016, and is attenuated even in the earlier years by the increasing share of the tax revenue dedicated for pollution clean-up.

No doubt, there are also some very substantial pollution clean-up needs in Washington, especially for stormwater runoff. (Sightline has recently written quite a bit about cost-effective stormwater clean-up.) In particular, there is a crying need for additional funding to address the deficit of stormwater infrastructure that many localities face. Yet in the near-term, the state faces draconian budget cuts that will fall hardest on those who are struggling most. Using a share of the hazardous substance money to shore up the general fund temporarily is probably an excellent idea. And as the economy recovers, and the state budget revives, Washington residents will benefit from a more significant fund to clean up the streams, lakes, and salt water that we prize.

On that score, and to show that I'm not bashing the Times, I should mention that columnist Lance Dickie has a thoughtful column that also ran yesterday. Definitely worth a read.

US Balking on BPA Ban

Lisa Stiffler — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:29:13

It looks like the states are going to have to lead the way yet again when it comes to safeguarding the public from potentially dangerous chemicals.

Back in December, EPA Chief Lisa Jackson was talking tough when it came to toxics. "Chemical safety is an issue of utmost importance, especially for children, and this will remain a top priority for me and our agency going forward," she stated in a release.

So how do you explain her agency's decision to postpone for at least two years an action plan on bisphenol A -- a chemical that's particularly threatening to infants and children and linked to obesity, cancer, diabetes, and behavior problems? The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which has tirelessly investigated chemical regulations, reports this week on a meeting between the chemical industry and EPA officials where industry made its case against cracking down on BPA. Shortly afterward, the EPA selected four chemicals for increased scrutiny. BPA, a synthetic estrogen used in hard plastics including bottles and can linings, didn't make the cut. Jackson wouldn't answer questions from the Journal Sentinel as to whether the meeting influenced the decision not to include BPA, but watchdogs are suspicious it played a role, given that the research showing that BPA is hazardous continues growing.

That leaves it to the states to get BPA out of consumer items in order to protect human health and the environment -- just as they did for flame retardants a couple of years ago.

Oregon state senators could vote today on legislation to ban BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups. The bill used to include baby food containers, but that's been dropped, rendering the bill close to meaningless given the fact that many manufacturers have voluntarily removed BPA from these items.

The Washington House and Senate each have approved BPA bans. On Wednesday, they're holding hearings that will get them closer to reconciling the differences between their bills. The Senate approved a ban on bottles, sippy cups, and baby food containers while the House went further to include sports bottles.

The US House and Senate slowly are taking steps as well. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has proposed a ban on BPA in food and drink containers and Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is working on similar legislation. But don't hold your breath waiting for federal action. The legislation from Feinstein -- called the Ban Poisonous Additives Act of 2009 -- was introduced nearly a year ago and is yet to be scheduled for a committee hearing.

In the meantime, Canada already banned BPA baby bottles. In the US, Connecticut, Minnesota, Chicago, and Suffolk County, N.Y. have approved restrictions on BPA in food and drink containers for babies and toddlers. BPA bills are pending in Wisconsin, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington, D.C., according to the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators.

UPDATE: February 16, 2010, 4:30 p.m.

Quick additional bit of information. The California Environmental Protection Agency last week announced that it was requesting information on the health effects of BPA. The request states that:

BPA appears to meet the criteria for listing as known to the State to cause reproductive toxicity under Proposition 65, based on findings of the National Toxicology Program’s Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction.

The deadline to submit information is April 13, 2010.

Sippy cup photo thanks to Flickr user Jenny Lee Silver.

Tapping the Brakes on Copper Brake Pads

Lisa Stiffler — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:38:31

There are approximately 5.8 million cars, trucks and buses registered in Washington and driving its roads and highways. Each time one of those drivers hits the brakes, a bit of dust grinds off the brake pad. In most cases, that dust carries copper and other metals that over time get washed by stormwater into local streams, lakes, and the sea.

Lawmakers in Washington and California are considering bans on copper-containing brake pads, but they're moving at a pace matching I-5 traffic at rush hour. Yet cutting this source of copper seems like such a smart, straightforward policy decision. Here's why:

The evidence of environmental harm is clear. Copper, even at really low levels, is dangerous to fish and other aquatic life. In salmon, it deadens their noses, eliminating a key sense used for finding food and mates and avoiding predators.
Brake pads are a prime source of copper found in waterways. A study in San Francisco found that brake pads were second only to pesticides as a source of copper getting into local waterways. Approximately 70,000 pounds of copper wash into Puget Sound each year along with stormwater, according to state figures.
Non-copper alternatives exist. Researchers say they're safe and already in use (see "How safe are brake pads that don't contain copper?" in this FAQ sheet from California's Brake Pad Alliance).
It'll save money. It's cheaper and easier to prevent copper from getting into the environment in the first place than it is to clean it up later. Copper dissolves in water and is tough to get back out, plus most of the stormwater runs into bodies of water and aquifers without any treatment.

Considering that millions of dollars are being spent every year in Washington alone to clean up and control polluted stormwater, why aren't the lawmakers hustling to get this legislation through?

All the way back in 1995, California figured out that copper had to go. Last year lawmakers there proposed rules to reduce copper in brake pads, but dropped the effort in light of the state's economic woes and challenges associated with the department that would oversee the rules. Leaders promised to return to it this year. So far, it appears that they haven't picked up the issue again.

Washington lawmakers right now are considering legislation (House Bill 3018 and Senate Bill 6557) to get the copper out. The Senate bill, which was approved by an environmental committee and had a hearing on Monday in another committee, would:

By Jan. 1, 2014, limit asbestos, cadmium, chromium, lead, and mercury to trace amounts in brake pads.
By Dec. 1, 2015, have the Department of Ecology review the risks of alternative brake pad material.
By Jan. 1, 2021, limit copper to 5 percent or less.
By Jan. 1, 2025, limit copper to 0.5 percent or less, provided a safe alternative is found.

The Washington measure has support from the Department of Ecology and the Puget Sound Partnership, the agency overseeing the restoration of Puget Sound.

Why is this taking so long? Obviously, brake safety is a huge concern, and goodness knows that Toyota's brake issues -- while not related to brake-pad manufacture -- might give a few lawmakers pause. The folks at the Brake Pad Partnership explain the scope of this sort of legislation:

Brakes containing copper are currently widely used on new vehicles. Eliminating any intentional use of copper in these brakes while meeting the auto companies’ strong performance standards will be revolutionary for the brake industry...Given the amount of work involved...brake manufacturers will begin product development efforts to reach the 0.5 percent copper standard immediately.

Eleven years still seems like a long time to wait for a reduction in copper levels in brake pads. But given the scope of the change, and the fact that Washington is now out in front on this matter -- ahead of California and thus leading the nation -- the legislation is sounding better and better.

Brake pedal photo thanks to Flickr user Kaptain Kobold.

Fair Funding for Stormwater Cleanup

Lisa Stiffler — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:09:20

It's a huge challenge to clean up the nasty water that gushes through gutters and into Washington's rivers and bays. But cleaning it is essential to reaching the region's goals for saving Puget Sound.

Legislation was just proposed in Olympia that takes an important step towards solving our stormwater woes. House Bill 3181 and Senate Bill 6851, called the "Clean Water Act of 2010," would boost a tax that's already added to petroleum, pesticides, and other chemicals that are fouling waterways from the Spokane River to Lake Chelan to the Duwamish River.

The tax hike is expected to raise about $225 million more a year. It would increase the current 0.7 percent tax for toxic chemicals to 2 percent. That might add a few pennies to a gallon of gas (see a great analysis of the tax in this post by Eric de Place), as well as a slight bump to pesticides and other dangerous chemicals that are covered by the state's Model Toxics Control Act.

The money collected would be used by cities, counties, and the state Department of Transportation to pay for projects that reduce and clean stormwater, and for other environmental projects. It also makes low-impact development -- the smartest, cheapest, and best way to deal with stormwater -- a priority for a portion of the funds raised.

Raising this tax is a well-reasoned strategy for addressing the state's sizable stormwater problems. Here's why.

Data show that stormwater is the number one way that the majority of pollutants are getting into Puget Sound (and probably most other waterways). When the rain falls, it washes into ditches that flow into streams that empty into larger bodies of water. Along the way, the runoff picks up oil and grease that drips onto roads and driveways, pesticides sprayed on plants and roofs, dog poop and farm-animal waste, and countless other hazardous agents that are part of our daily lives.

Approximately 14 million pounds of pollution wash into Puget Sound alone each year -- and 58 percent of that is petroleum pollution (note these are low-ball estimates of the total pollution volumes). Likewise, the tax collected from petroleum products would be the biggest source of funding should the bills pass.

This legislation is an improvement over a failed stormwater bill from last year. That measure targeted petroleum products alone, and while that's the biggest pollution source for Puget Sound by volume, this new approach will capture additional pollutants that are highly toxic to fish and other wildlife, such as pesticides, mercury, and other heavy metals.

One shortcoming of the measure is that for the first five years, a portion of the tax will be used to plug holes in the state's general fund, which pays for education, Medicaid, corrections, and other public programs. In the first year, 69 percent of the tax increase goes to the general fund. The slice going to general fund shrinks over time and by mid 2015, the entire increase in the tax will be used for stormwater and water-quality programs.

Storm drain and rainbow sheen photo used thanks to Flickr user Runs With Scissors.

Correcting the Oil Industry's Errors

Eric de Place — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:05:13

Flat out wrong. That's the only way to describe the oil industry's claims about a proposed increase to Washington's hazardous substance tax. Consider this ill-informed article at Washington State Wire:

[subhead] As Much as Six Cents a Gallon

The money has to come from somewhere, though – your local gas station, for instance. Opponents say the plan could raise gas prices as much as six cents a gallon, if oil companies can find a way to pass the full amount on to consumers. Because of the competitive nature of the oil business, refiners may have to eat some of the cost.

This is wrong -- obviously wrong -- on at least two counts. 1) It's bad math. 2) It's self-contradictory.

First, let's do the math. The current tax is 0.7 percent on the wholesale price of toxic substances, including gasoline and other refined petroleum products. A new bill would raise the tax to 2.0 percent.

Calculating the maximum impact on consumer gasoline prices is simple arithmetic. Assuming that the wholesale price of gasoline is $2.30 (roughly consistent with recent and current prices, as well as the near-term futures market) the calculation is simple: $2.30 x 0.7% = 1.6 cents. In other words, the current tax adds 1.6 cents to the price, at most.

Now let's calculate the proposed higher tax rate: $2.30 x 2.0% = 4.6 cents. In other words, the proposed higher tax rate could raise the tax amount to 4.6 cents.

The last step is so easy that even an oil lobbyist can do it: 4.6 cents - 1.6 cents = 3 cents. So, in reality, the proposal might increase prices by just 3 cents. Not 6 cents. 3 cents. The oil industry has wildly overstated the effect of the new tax. (It's an over-statement of 100 percent for math-inclined folks). The only way the oil industry claims could be accurate is if wholesale gasoline prices were about double what they actually are.

But it gets worse: the arguments from the oil industry are actually contradictory. Remember that they admit "refiners may have to eat some of the cost." In other words, even according to the oil guys, consumers won't pay the full cost of the tax anyway, because the refiners will pick up a portion of it. So the real impact on consumers is less than 3 cents.

The extent of "price pass-through" is a somewhat debateable subject. It's often assumed that gas taxes get fully passed on to consumers, but that may not be true. (And it's instructive that the oil industry apparently believes it's not true.) In fact, a 2004 article in the Journal of Economic Education makes a strong empirical case that gasoline excise taxes are not fully reflected in consumer prices -- meaning that producers and consumers share the cost of new taxes (and share the benefits of reduced taxes).

Still, one might wonder whether its fair for the oil industry and refiners to pay a higher tax rate on the import of hazardous substances into Washington. I'll leave that values question alone except to note one final thing. The tax increase helps pay for water cleanup. And while it's levied on all hazardous substances that harm water quality, not just on oil, petroleum products are, by volume, easily the largest pollutant in the runoff that fouls Puget Sound.

Safer Sippy Cups Coming to NW?

Lisa Stiffler — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:52:19

Northwest lawmakers finally appear swayed by the mounting evidence showing that bisphenol A, or BPA, is a threat to human health and that its use should be curtailed. BPA is a key ingredient in hard, clear, glasslike plastics, such as baby bottles.

Oregon lawmakers today began considering a ban on BPA in products used by children under the age of three, including baby bottles and sippy cups and the lining of baby-food containers.

Washington lawmakers are pursuing a similar BPA ban. The Senate last week approved a bill barring BPA in kid's food items alone, while a measure approved by the House also included a ban on BPA in sports bottles. Now all the two chambers have to do is reconcile their differences. (Governor Gregoire is expected to sign the bill.)

Canada last year decided to ban BPA. The government is considering further ways to limit its use.

Oregon and Washington both have pursued limits on BPA in the past. So what's changed in 2010? In January, the US Food and Drug Administration reversed its stance that BPA was safe to people at current levels of exposure. It now has adopted an opinion in line with the National Toxicology Program (a division of the National Institutes of Health).

The National Toxicology Program way back in September 2008 ruled that there was reason to be concerned about BPA harming human health -- namely people's behavior, brain, and prostate gland -- and particularly when it came to exposure to fetuses, babies, and children. Other research links early exposure to the chemical with obesity and reproductive problems later in life.

One has to wonder how the FDA with a straight face could have ever ruled that BPA was safe for kids -- the danged chemical has been used as synthetic estrogen since the 1930s. (Check out this great Scientific American story on how Patricia Hunt, a scientist at Washington State University, accidentally identified one of the ways that BPA messes with hormones.)

And while there's particular concern over BPA's effect on babies and children, it's believed to do not-nice things to grownups too. The chemical is linked to heart disease and Type II diabetes. It could be making chemotherapy drugs used to treat breast cancer less effective. The list goes on.

So while Northwest lawmakers debate a ban on bisphenol A, what can a concerned person do to reduce exposure? It's tough. BPA is ubiquitous. It's used to make polycarbonate -- the hard clear plastic. It turns up in eye glasses, compact discs, the lining of food containers, dental sealants, toys, and countless other items. And those recycling symbols on the bottom of some plastic items won't necessarily help guide you to a safe alternative. BPA falls into the "other" category, which is denoted by the number 7 recycling symbol -- the same symbol that covers biodegradable, plant-based plastics.

But more help is potentially on the horizon. Lisa Jackson, chief of the EPA, announced in September that she'd try to crack down on toxic chemicals found in everyday products. But while the FDA now acknowledges that BPA is a problem, the agency claims it's unable to regulate it for some technical reasons.

If you want to track the legislation in Oregon and Washington and get in touch with lawmakers, information on the bills can be found below. Note that Oregon senators had a hearing on the bill today and are expected to vote in committee some time next week.

Oregon Senate Bill 1032
Washington House Bill 1180 and Senate Bill 6248

Sippy cup photo thanks to Flickr user seandreilinger.

Fish for Thought

Anna Fahey — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:19:42

Editor's Note: Anna wrote this post (and several others) before leaving on maternity leave. She gave birth to a healthy baby girl in December.

To eat fish, or not? If you’re pregnant, nursing, or even thinking about becoming pregnant, it’s a Catch-22. Seafood is the best possible source of the long-chain omega-3 fatty acid DHA, which is critical for a baby's brain and eye development, both in utero and in the “fourth trimester,” while the baby is nursing and the brain is still developing. But there’s a catch: seafood contains contaminants that can be harmful to babies—particularly methylmercury, which can harm the developing nervous system, causing subtle deficits in language, memory, motor skills, perception, and behavior.

So for a pregnant woman, the decision whether to eat fish is now freighted with consequences. Eat fish, and you're putting your baby's brain at risk of from toxic contaminants. Skip fish, and you're denying your baby's brain of crucial nourishment.

Pregnant and nursing women never asked to make this choice.

Mercury is everywhere, even in the air we breathe. It comes from a variety of sources, but the largest in the US are coal-fired power plants, which exhale elemental mercury in the fumes of coal smoke. The mercury drifts around on air currents, and eventually settles into water bodies, where bacteria convert it into a far more troublesome form called methylmercury. Methylmercury binds to protein, and accumulates in every-higher concentrations at every step of the food chain. It’s poison. It hurts babies’ brains. All fish contain some methylmercury, and some fish species contain enough that doctors recommend that expectant mothers avoid eating them completely.

And that's a shame, since there's s no better source of DHAs than fish. DHAs build brain connectors while a baby’s body is developing in the womb.

So, there, in a nutshell, is the dilemma. As a community, we’ve allowed one of the most healthful foods for pregnant mothers to become contaminated with a compound that can harm developing babies' nervous systems. We've given polluters free rein; but left the tough choices to women, and the hardships to the children they bring into the world.

What's the right choice for an expecting mother? Well, as a fisherman’s daughter, a former Puget Sound gillnetter myself, and proud resident of “Salmon Nation,” I believe in the power of fish—particularly salmon—as a super food. And the more I read, the more I believe it’s also super brain food. My favorite book about nutrition during pregnancy and early childhood, Nina Planck’s Real Food for Mother and Baby, goes so far as to say that your baby’s brain is “made of fish.”

But that decision -- "Yes, I'll eat fish" -- prompts one question more: How much fish is safe?

Well, it depends on the type of fish. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially advise women who “may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and young children” to limit consumption certain fish and shellfish to 12 ounces a week, and to avoid shark, swordfish, king mackerel, and Tilefish completely. (Drat -- I’ve always loved swordfish!) EPA says that, and I quote: “By following these recommendations for selecting and eating fish or shellfish, women and young children will receive the benefits of eating fish and shellfish and be confident that they have reduced their exposure to the harmful effects of mercury.” In addiiton, each state has its own advisories about fish consumption as well.

Generally speaking, the fish to avoid are large predators. Peak predators act as concentrators for bioaccumulative toxics: their bodies absorb the methylmercury from their prey, which, in turn, have absorbed methylmercury from living things lower on the food chain. And the bigger the predator fish, the more fish it eats. Larger fish also tend to live longer than smaller fish, so there's simply more time for mercury to build up in their bodies.

But just as some fish contain high levels of mercury, others contain less. Five of the most commonly eaten fish that are considered “low in mercury” are shrimp, canned light tuna, salmon, pollock, and catfish. Albacore ("white") tuna, another commonly eaten fish, has more mercury than canned light tuna. So when choosing your two meals of fish and shellfish per week, the EPA/FDA recommendations suggest you limit yourself to up to 6 ounces (one average meal) of albacore tuna per week.

But how confident can you be, really, that fish are actually a healthy, safe food for you and your kids?

Studies are mixed. Planck points to a few that indicate more fish is better. In 2005, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health announced that the government mercury warnings could cause pregnant women to eat too little fish to nourish her baby’s brain. In 2007, Joseph Hibbeln, an expert on omega-3 fats at the National Institutes of Health, published a study of more than eleven thousand pregnant women near Bristol, England. The women consumed varying degrees of seafood each week: none at all, around the recommended portions, or more than 12 ounces (at least 3 servings a week.) Researchers later assessed the women’s children, aged six months to eight years, for various measures of mental and social development. Even after accounting for about two dozen confounding factors—social disadvantage, perinatal health, diet, etc.—the children of women eating less than two servings of fish per week had lower verbal, fine motor, and social skills than the children of the fish-eating mothers. The lower the seafood intake, the higher the chances of poor development. Some health researchers have even begun to wonder whether fish oils might even protect against toxic methylmercury.

Biologist Sandra Steingraber in her book Having Faith, An Ecologist’s Journey to Motherhood, on the other hand, cites a bunch of studies that strike fear in any mother-to-be. A study in the Faroe Islands, for example, carried out by Danish researcher Philippe Grandjean, looked at 1,022 babies born in 1986-87 to women who ate fish and high-mercury content whale meat while pregnant. When they were seven years old, the children were evaluated on their cognitive and motor skills. The results were sobering. Deficiencies were found in memory, learning and attention that were proportional to the level of mercury that had been recorded in their umbilical cord blood and maternal hair. “These children were not actually sick. They were just slower in solving riddles and other puzzles.” In the 1970s, a group of mothers in Iraq unknowingly ate flour milled from mercury-dressed wheat. At high concentration levels of mercury, their children developed progressive retardation and paralysis.

In 2000, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that concluded that each year in the United States, as many as 60,000 children are born at risk for neurodevelopmental problems owing to prenatal exposure to mercury—these are kids that the report described as “struggling to keep up in school and who might require remedial classes or special education.”

Steingraber points out that “Big Fish”—fisheries industry lobbies equivalent to “Big Oil”—have stood side-by-side with utility companies to fight tighter standards for mercury. If this kind of pressure wins out, it means that levels of the metal could keep rising to the point where the choice would be all too clear: forego brain-nurturing fish altogether. (As I mentioned recently, the US has taken some baby steps towards curbing mercury pollution.)

In my own deliberations, I’ve erred on the side of fish. Seafood is simply the best way to get the DHA my baby needs. Salmon is among the safer seafood choices and it’s a personal favorite. A 3.5-ounce portion of wild sockeye salmon contains more than 1,200 milligrams of omega-3 fats—and it’s a yummy delivery system. I’ve eaten it a couple times a week during my pregnancy and now that I’m in the heavy-duty brain-development stage (third trimester), I’m trying to eat even more. And even though every bite (while delicious) reminds me of the serious consequences I’m toying with, I will continue to do so when I start breastfeeding.

That’s the gamble I’m taking with my own baby. I’ll also continue to work toward climate and energy policy that frees us from the shackles of dirty energy—because the pollution from coal plants not only threatens the climate, but byproducts like mercury are also hurting all our kids.

What’s your fish story? Did you eat fish during pregnancy? And how did you sort out all the conflicting information? What can moms do to insist on better standards for mercury pollution?

Images courtesy: JG in SF and Manuel W, Flickr.com.

Get Your Mind Out of the Gutter

Lisa Stiffler — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:18:31

For years, environmentalists have touted "low-impact development" -- letting soil and vegetation soak up heavy rains, rather than channeling storm runoff into gutters and sewers -- as the best solution for stormwater. But as it turns out, LID has picked up a whole host of new fans: smart economists, developers, builders, and government regulators are now singing LID's praises as well.

The fundamental principle of low-impact development is that it's better -- both for people's pocketbooks and for streams -- to prevent storm runoff than it is to treat it. That means building green roofs and rain gardens, installing rain barrels and cisterns, and using porous concrete and pavers. The conventional alternative is building an elaborate and expensive system of concrete storm sewers that funnel stormwater, as well as the trash and toxics it picks up, into streams, lakes, and bays.

And recent studies from around North America show that the principle has promise: real-world evidence shows that LID is, in fact, a cheaper way to handle stormwater, and it does so without the flooding risk or the damage to marine life, that the conventional approach to stormwater often carries with it.

Take, for example, this 2005 study by researchers from the University of Southern California and the University of California, Los Angeles. They point to a previous study, which had estimated that it would cost a whopping $284 billion, and require building 65 drinking-water treatment plants, to clean the filthy torrents streaming off of LA's highways and rooftops. But the researchers concluded that LID, coupled with related strategies, could deal with stormwater in the sprawling metropolis at a cost of $3 billion to $7 billion -- treating stormwater at pennies on the dollar, compared with the conventional approach.

Seattle Public Utilities has done some number crunching of its own. The utility found that using LID, or what they call "natural drainage systems," to retrofit streets in need of stormwater treatment that the city spent $325,000 per block, compared to $425,000 if they had built traditional storm-drain-and-pipes infrastructure.

A good chunk of that savings likely came from the fact that the LID street has only one sidewalk (this is in a neighborhood that previously had no sidewalks) rather than two. But the comparison doesn't count the many other benefits of LID, including improved property values (thanks to the improved aesthetics of the natural systems) plus the near elimination of runoff. That means no flooding and less dependence on combined-sewer overflows that can dump raw sewage along with stormwater into the sea and rivers (this talk outlines these additional benefits).

If you're looking for good examples of smart LID projects, this EPA document is a stormwater solutions throw down. It concludes that, in 11 of the 12 projects studied, LID is the economic winner over conventional strategies. The savings ranged from 15 to 80 percent. Let's take a look:

SEA Street Seattle: If you're an LID fan, you already know about SEA Street, or 2nd Avenue Street Edge Alternative. This 2001 literally groundbreaking project was a rebuild of a residential street in which the road was narrowed, some sidewalks removed, and wide ditches called swales built along the pavement to catch runoff. The amount of impervious surfaces were reduced by 18 percent, and the redesign captures nearly all of the runoff according to studies tracking its performance. Plus, it's really pretty with native plants and trees lining the street. It's been replicated in neighborhoods around the city.

PROJECT COSTS

For a conventional retrofit: $868,803
LID retrofit: $651,548
Difference: $217,255 in savings

Parking lot retrofits, Bellingham: The city opted for rain gardens instead of underground vaults to capture and treat runoff from parking lots at city hall and Bloedel Donovan Park. Three of the city hall's 60 parking spaces were converted into the rain garden. At the park, a 550 square-foot area was converted.

Rain gardens typically look like traditional landscaping, but can include planted depressions that are lined with layers of gravel and porous soil. Sometimes the depression can contain a drain that leads into traditional stormwater infrastructure to accommodate unusually heavy rains.

PROJECT COSTS

For vaults: $80,400
For rain gardens: $18,400
Difference: $62,400 in savings

Crown Street, Vancouver, BC: This 2005 retrofit of a Vancouver street was based on the SEA Street model. The project is expected to reduce runoff by 90 percent. The city opted for the LID design because the street reportedly drains into the last two salmon-bearing streams in Vancouver.

PROJECT COSTS

For a conventional retrofit: $364,000

LID retrofit: $707,000 (this includes $311,000 in consulting fees that would not be required for additional projects, making the cost $396,000)
Difference: $32,000, discounting consulting fees; however, according to the EPA report, the city estimates that the LID approach would be less expensive than a traditional stormwater system in areas of new development

Downspout disconnection program, Portland: Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are a scourge of urban sewer-stormwater systems. In these systems, stormwater and sewage are mixed and treated in sewage facilities. In heavy storms, the treatment plants are overwhelmed by the extra runoff, and the combined waste gets dumped untreated into rivers and bays. And they're really expensive to fix by separating the systems or increasing capacity.

So Portland is opting for a program that pays homeowners $53 for each downspout it disconnects from the stormwater system. Instead, the water flows into rain barrels or the home's yard. More than 50,000 downspouts have been disconnected, channeling more than 1.2 billion gallons of water out of the CSO system.

PROJECT COSTS (based on numbers provided for the EPA's December 2007 study by which time there had been 44,000 downspouts disconnected)

For added capacity to CSO: $250 million
For disconnection program: $8.5 million

If you want some more examples, the Puget Sound Action Team (now the Partnership for Puget Sound) published "Natural Approaches to Stormwater Management" a few years back. It's a great document providing dozens of case studies showing LID in action from around BC and Washington.

I could go on, but you get the idea. LID is smart for the pocketbook, and the only answer for the built environment.

Green roof photo from Rob Harrison under the Creative Commons license.