By Jim Steele ?
The extreme algae and cyanobacteria blooms in Clear Lake are a sign of lake instability because of nutrient loading from a loss of 8,000 acres of filtering wetlands, additions of hard surface runoff, upland erosion, bad secondary roads and waste organics affecting the lake over decades.
With the level of knowledge that is available today about these common cause and effects to water bodies, have we really done that badly with our land stewardship? I guess it depends on when you look at it.
In past generations the standard for settling a new land was to clear the brush and trees and farm the land.
It was all about survival, and raising food ensured that. Wherever there was a chance to farm good bottom land such as a wetland, dewatering was the goal.
Transportation was enhanced when roads were paved and fertilizers increased crop yields.
For a new community, take some unused flatland and develop it with houses, roads, schools and job sites.
Natural resources were plentiful and it didn”t seem we would run out. We set aside forests and parks to ensure that.
But lakes, streams and coastlines changed nationally because of more than 90 percent wetland loss, channelized and straightened streams, and increased sedimentation.
Studies at major universities began to link these effects to algae blooms and endangered species.
The findings moved to classroom topics and major fields of environmental study began. One of the new fields in the U.S. was the study of Limnology or “lake science” at the University of Wisconsin in the 1920s. The cycling of nutrients and food webs were popular graduate studies that found their way to other universities. A new way of looking at waterways slowly but eventually reached mainstream academics.
Many newly-minted ecology graduates found their way into agencies to take jobs produced by environmental protection laws of the 1960s and ”70s.
Regulations to protect endangered species, water quality and habitats, and procedures for project review led to a clash of government permit agencies versus project proponents.
Sometimes the government itself would be out of compliance with its own environmental protection goals.
It was a difficult time for all sides, with ecology majors telling entrepreneurs and engineers that their project wouldn”t work because of a protected fish, butterfly, and so forth.
But over time, mitigations to impacts were developed that became “coin of the realm” for proposed projects.
Thanks to middle-ground consultants and environmental engineers, new approaches were developed.
The formula became: Don”t add to existing impacts, protect key wetlands, avoid erosion, preserve certain habitats and corridors and repair temporary damage.
Today, getting a permit has a defined system of environmental evaluation and process that is not nearly as chaotic as it was. Yes, depending on your point of view, it used to be worse.
Unfortunately new projects, even well done, can add to a rainbow landscape of problematic past land use such as here in Lake County.
The path to harmony with our lakes and streams, while still protecting the economy is to fix some of the past problems and restore the function of the natural landscape.
Restoring wetlands and even developing new wetlands that filter and slow down water runoff is one proven mitigation measure.
The annual cycle of late summer cyanobacteria blooms will continue until a holistic approach to restoration and mitigation is implemented and has time to work.
Otherwise hold your nose and close the window, particularly during those late summers following a two-year drought that happens from time to time.
Next time: Tule Lake restoration project. Will it work?
Jim Steele is a retired Cal Fish and Game scientist, registered professional forester, part-time consultant and full-time Lake County resident-volunteer.
