[Above: “Golf ditch” flowing through the Bridges Golf course into Starkweather Creek. Bridges Golf Course was built over the Superfund-qualified Truax Landfill, owned by Dane County. The golf ditch drains from the PFAS-contaminated old Burke sewage plant]
****
When was the Dane County Lakes and Watershed Commission created? Why? What was its purpose?
In the 1980s, DNR testing showed that Lake Monona fish had the highest levels of mercury of any lake in the state. as well as significant amounts of PCBs in sediments. According to city engineers and DNR at the time, a lot of the mercury came from old city dumps and Starkweather Creek, which had been used as an industrial wastewater ditch since the early 1900s.
The mercury problem, along with other lake pollution problems, received a great deal of media and political attention in the 1980s. Politicians debated who should do something about these problems. Eventually, the Wisconsin State Legislature created the Dane County Lakes & Watershed Commission in 1989 to take the lead in addressing lake pollution (read the longer history below).
The commissioners’ duties, as outlined in statute, were as follows: “(1) The board of commissioners shall initiate and coordinate surveys and research projects for the purpose of gathering data relating to the surface waters and groundwaters of the county; (2) The board of commissioners shall maintain a liaison with agencies of the federal, state and local governments and other organizations that are involved in programs or projects designed to protect, rehabilitate and manage water resources; (3) The board of commissioners shall develop a public information and education program on issues related to the surface waters and groundwaters of the county.”
The “powers” granted to the commissioners included the following: “(1) The board of commissioners may develop and implement plans, projects or programs to do any or all of the following: (a) Improve the water quality and the scenic, economic and environmental value of the surface waters and the groundwaters of the county. (b) Protect or enhance the recreational use of the navigable waters of the county. (c) Coordinate and integrate, for efficient and effective cost management, any county programs or projects for the waters of the county that relate to any of the following: 1. Surface water and groundwater quality. 2. The recreational use of and public access to navigable waters. 3. Water safety and boating regulations.” And more…
The legislation also says: “The board of commissioners may promulgate any rules necessary to implement the duties and powers granted to the board of commissioners.”
In sum, the Lakes & Watershed Commission was given a broad range of duties and considerable powers to do something about toxic chemical pollution in county waterways. When the LWC was created, then County Executive Richard Phelps announced that he wanted a new Lakes and Watershed Commission to “develop a plan of attack on lake and river water management problems” thereby “preempting another attempt at state legislation on the issue.” He said he wanted the commission to take “an aggressive leadership role” in county water management and develop legislation to “consolidate water quality and lake management functions now under other units of government.”[xvi]
The Lakes & Watershed Commission still has the same duties and powers today. Or does it?
Starkweather and Lake Monona sediments and fish are still contaminated with PCBs and mercury. They didn’t magically disappear. Pesticides, PAHs, pharmaceuticals and PFAS are there as well, along with numerous other poisons. They leach from old city landfills, storm drains, and Starkweather Creek just as they did in the 1980s. But they are rarely tested–and if they are, testing is very sparse, even as the city and county regularly dredge creek and lake sediments and dump them in various places.
But apparently nobody cares anymore. Maybe toxic chemicals are no longer considered part of “water quality” (other than PFAS)? University scientists ignore them. Local media don’t write about them. The Lakes & Watershed Commission rarely (if ever) discusses any toxic chemicals in our waterways and fish (forget about developing plans or promulgating rules to address them). PFAS is occasionally considered by LWC–but only years after we brought it to their attention in 2018, and to date their recommendations on PFAS testing have been weak and meaningless (and as far as we can tell, did not make it into the county budget). Currently, the LWC seems to serve in more of an advisory role to the county board, mostly in making budget recommendations (that are often rejected by the county board).
What changed since 1989? Were the powers of the Lakes and Watershed Commission weakened? Do the duties the Commission now exclude addressing toxic chemicals? Were these duties and powers handed over to the state (DNR)? Or does county leadership not want toxic chemicals in our waterways to be addressed? Or…?
Below is a bit of the history leading up to the creation of the Lakes & Watershed Commission…
******
Mercury and PCBs found in Lake Monona fish
In the mid-1980s, while testing for PCBs, DNR found mercury (and PCBs) in Lake Monona walleyes. Fish mercury levels were higher than in any other lake in the state, and the agency issued advisories not to eat any Lake Monona walleyes over 22 inches.[1],[i] “Why Lake Monona carries higher levels than other lakes remains a mystery,” a DNR official said. An angler, however, opined that the lake’s mercury level “is the direct result of our careless handling of toxic material over the years…[m]any of our old dumps are laced with mercury and other chemicals which eventually migrate into Lake Monona.” He had eaten large numbers of Lake Monona walleyes over the years, but said “after this advisory, I’ll have to mend my ways or suffer the consequences.”
Bernard Saley from the Madison Health Department noted that “until the situation was partially corrected, the huge smokestacks that dot Madison belched mercury and other chemicals into the air. Much of that pollution wound up on our streets and eventually into Lake Monona via the storm sewers.” He also echoed the angler’s theory—that “[o]ur many old dumps contain untold amounts of mercury, which also finds its way into the lake”—but named black bituminous-based street topping materials as “the largest ongoing source of mercury pollution.” Further, he added, mercury “randomly dumped by electro-plating companies and other mercury users” had ended up in Starkweather Creek. “Now, we’re finally being haunted by our careless handling of such materials in the past.”[ii]
A year later, an angling column reported that “mercury-laden silt in the bottom of Lake Monona” was responsible for the latest fish advisories. A DNR toxic substance specialist said, “one source of that mercury undoubtedly came from the raw and partially treated sewage that was dumped into the lake back then, and the drainage from the many dumps located adjacent to Starkweather and Wingra creeks.”[iii],[2]
Subsequent testing of Lake Monona walleyes resulted in even more stringent advisories—not to eat any over 18 inches (formerly it was 22 inches), and pregnant women were advised not to eat any at all. Mercury levels in the bottom sediments, the specialist explained, were from “decades earlier in the century” when Madison sewage and heavy metals from Starkweather Creek were dumped into the lake.” However, clearly not wanting to discourage fishing, he added that fishing on Lake Monona was excellent— “the best fishing…that people have seen in many years.” Also, though mercury damages the central nervous system, Saley explained, it “does not accumulate in humans like other chemicals so occasionally eating fish contaminated by mercury is unlikely to cause health problems.”[iv]
A couple years later DNR revealed that while mercury levels in Lake Monona sediments had decreased in recent years, they were still the highest among the 42 lakes tested in the state. PCBs were also “widespread” in the sediment, though they had not built up in fish over the existing advisory levels (this later changed). A DNR official again blamed past sewage and industrial discharges but added that “some mercury and PCBs probably are still getting into the lakes through storm sewer discharges and from the atmosphere.” The highest mercury levels of any of the Lake Monona tributaries were in Starkweather Creek, “which for years received sewage and wastewater from east-side Madison industries.”[v]
Lakes continued to deteriorate
By the mid-1980s, it was clear to regulators, environmentalists, and the public that stormwater continued to degrade surface waters and Clean Water Act goals were far from being met. Our waterways were not “fishable and swimmable” by 1983 (one of the legislation’s key goals). A series of amendments to the Act were slowly put into place to include stormwater discharges from industries, municipal storm sewer systems, and construction sites in the stormwater permitting programs.
Reflecting this growing awareness, a 1986 article in a Capital Times series by Dan Allegretti about lake pollution, titled “Storm Sewers Are Fountains of Pollution,” began: “Pollution that enters the Madison lakes through city storm sewers often carries the most obnoxious—and possibly dangerous—of the broad spectrum of substances in which people swim, boat and fish…[t]hese include industrial wastes laden with heavy metals and toxic chemicals…” Allegretti re-iterated the findings of the 1983 DCRCP Starkweather report—namely, that the city wasn’t enforcing its existing water pollution and construction site runoff ordinances, nor had it allocated adequate resources for water pollution control measures. Further, he wrote, that [t]there are at best only weak controls over what many industries can discharge into storm sewers.” [xiii]
While nonpoint agricultural sources played a significant role for Lake Mendota, Allegretti explained, “cities, particularly Madison, also contribute a large share—probably the lion’s share” of sediments reaching Lake Monona and downstream lakes, and “it is this urban pollution that is most readily addressed.” In addition to the huge amount of pollution discharged (often uncontrolled) from city construction sites, the piece mentioned chemicals, metals and bacteria from industrial cooling and heating systems that go into storm drains. Also, mercury from industries is beginning to show up in Lake Monona fish, Saley said, “[s]o there are chemicals in there that people should be concerned about.”
The last article in the Cap Times series, titled “Lakes future gloomy if no action taken,” said DNR listed Madison lakes among the state watersheds that are “seriously degraded or threatened and in desperate need of help.” DNR’s “resident expert on Madison’s lakes,” Dick Lathrop, was more hopeful, opining that “[a]ssuming things are relatively stable, that soil erosion and manure handling don’t get any worse, I don’t see any indication that the lakes will get worse.” However, Allegretti noted that “the problem is that the pollution rate seems to be increasing” because in recent decades, “cities surrounding the lakes…have grown in population with a commensurate increase in construction” and “agriculture has become more intense…” He added that a 1979 DCRCP report predicted that “the water quality of the county’s lakes and streams will continue to deteriorate unless special measures are taken in both urban and rural areas to decrease the amount of runoff and its accompanying load of sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants.”[xiv]
How to manage the lake problems given multiple jurisdictions?
Just a few weeks later, inspired by the Capital Times lakes series, state assembly speaker Thomas Loftus (D-Stoughton) appointed Madison Mayor Joseph Sensenbrenner and state Rep David Clarenbach (D-Madison) to “study the problems of Madison’s lakes” including looking into pollution causes, recommending changes in state laws to address the problems, and finding ways to fund these efforts. “By this time next year, I hope there will be a proposal in place for the intelligent management of the lakes,” Loftus was quoted in The Capital Times. One bill that would be drafted immediately was to establish a “management system for urban lakes,” such as a lake district. One of the most challenging issues for managing the lakes under a lake district in the urbanized Yahara lakes context, he explained, is the “large population” and “multiple governmental jurisdictions that have responsibility for various aspects of the lakes.” His bill would enable urban lake districts to be formed.[xv]
The county, however, resisted state-level control over the lakes, instead advocating for local (county) control. In 1988, after Governor Tommy Thompson had vetoed a previous plan for a county lakes commission, County Executive Richard Phelps announced that he wanted a new Lakes and Watershed Commission to “develop a plan of attack on lake and river water management problems” thereby “preempting another attempt at state legislation on the issue.” He said he wanted the commission to take “an aggressive leadership role” in county water management and develop legislation to “consolidate water quality and lake management functions now under other units of government.”[xvi]
After some political haggling, the Dane County Lakes and Watershed Commission was established in 1989 by state statute (Chapter 33, Public Inland Waters). The statute’s “Findings and declaration of intent” begins: “The legislature finds environmental values, wildlife, public rights in navigable waters, and the public welfare are threatened by the deterioration of public lakes; that the protection and rehabilitation of the public inland lakes of this state are in the best interest of the citizens of this state; that the public health and welfare will be benefited thereby; that the current state effort to abate water pollution will not undo the eutrophic and other deteriorated conditions of many lakes; that current efforts to protect and rehabilitate the water quality of the navigable waters in Dane County, which receive intense urban, recreational and agricultural usage, are seriously handicapped by the fact that numerous governmental bodies have jurisdiction over the management of watersheds in Dane County…”
The commissioners’ duties as outlined in this statute were as follows: (1) The board of commissioners shall initiate and coordinate surveys and research projects for the purpose of gathering data relating to the surface waters and groundwaters of the county; (2) The board of commissioners shall maintain a liaison with agencies of the federal, state and local governments and other organizations that are involved in programs or projects designed to protect, rehabilitate and manage water resources; (3) The board of commissioners shall develop a public information and education program on issues related to the surface waters and groundwaters of the county.[xvii]
The “powers” granted to the commissioners included the following (and more): “(1) The board of commissioners may develop and implement plans, projects or programs to do any or all of the following: (a) Improve the water quality and the scenic, economic and environmental value of the surface waters and the groundwaters of the county. (b) Protect or enhance the recreational use of the navigable waters of the county. (c) Coordinate and integrate, for efficient and effective cost management, any county programs or projects for the waters of the county that relate to any of the following: 1. Surface water and groundwater quality. 2. The recreational use of and public access to navigable waters. 3. Water safety and boating regulations. 4. Algae and aquatic plant management. (Skipped the rest– not relevant to toxic chemicals and water quality).
The legislation also says: “The board of commissioners may promulgate any rules necessary to implement the duties and powers granted to the board of commissioners.”
This legislation has not been changed or amended since 1989, so the Lakes & Watershed Commission still has these duties and powers. But since then the LWC seems to serve in more of an advisory role to the county board, mostly in making budget recommendations (that are often rejected by the county board).
****
[1] The Environmental Decade advocated for more testing of Madison fish and more protective advisories for pregnant women.
[2] Oddly, these articles seem to imply that coal burning at that time did not emit mercury anymore, which is incorrect.
[3] The estimated project cost at this time was $640,000, with $140,000 from one DNR department, a priority watershed cost-sharing grant of $300,000 from another department, $150,000 from the city and $50,000 from private contributions.
[i] 1986.7.7 CT
[ii] 1987.4.10 CT
[iii] 1988.4.15 CT
[iv] 1988.7.24 CT
[v] 1990.7.1 CT
[vi] 1990.8.16 WSJ
[vii] 1990.7.1 CT
[viii] 1990.12.19 CT
[ix] 1990.12.20 WSJ
[x] 1990.8.8 WSJ
[xi] 1990.8.15 CT
[xii] 1990.8.16 WSJ
[xiii] 1986.9.3 CT
[xiv] 1986.9.8 CT
[xv] 1986.9.23 CT
[xvi] 1988.5.6 CT
[xvii] https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/33/V/41.
