In 1968, the equivalent of $19.5 million in 1997 money was spent to divert sewage from Lake Sammamish. This reduced phosphorus concentrations in the lake from 30-35 µg/liter (micro-grams per liter or parts per billion) in 1968 to 15-20 µg/liter 10 years later. Since 1978, this trend has been reversing due to increasing amounts of non-point source phosphorus runoff seeping into Lake Sammamish. This brought the level of concentration back up to 22 µg/liter in 1996 (King Co. DNR, 1998b)

The Water Quality Management Plan was enacted in 1989 to control non-point sources of phosphorus, but due to rapid rates of development, it has not been substantially effective (North American Lake Management Society, 1997). As a response to this, former King County Executive Gary Locke started the Lake Sammamish Initiative in August 1995 as an inter-jurisdictional effort to control the water quality degradation of Lake Sammamish. It set short-term actions to reduce the amount of phosphorus flowing into the lake by five percent and appointed a citizen task force, Partners for a Clean Lake Sammamish, to develop a long-term strategy for controlling the degradation of Lake Sammamish (King County DNR, 1998a). The results of this task force will be my focus.

The eight-member citizen task force, Partners for a Clean Lake Sammamish, was given the two long-term goals of defining water quality, and creating a management and financial strategy for protecting the lake. They are working with the staff of the jurisdictions of Bellevue, Issaquah, Redmond, and King County. They have also hired Entranco Engineers to develop a model of future phosphorus loading to evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies (N. Amer Lake Mgmt. Society, 1997).

As the task force was appointed by Gary Locke, its creation was an executive decision, but the decision of action has been placed into the hands of the residents surrounding Lake Sammamish. Starting in November 1995, there have been several meetings in which up to 100 citizens have shown up. Although the decision is ultimately placed in the hands of 8 committee members, these members have based their decision on the suggestions of citizens and the staff of the four aforementioned jurisdictions (King County DNR, 1998a).

On July 10, 1996—after nine months of input—the task force sent its recommendation to King County. Surcharges would be handed to people living in the lake’s basin based on the amount of phosphorus coming from their property and on their proximity to the lake. The committee decided not to finalize plans to improve water quality—with maintenance costs of up to $14 million per year. The report includes recommendations for forest retention, municipal responsibilities, an oversight committee and support for legislation that bans pesticides and detergents not currently banned. After a track record of water quality is established a regional-treatment facility could be part of the plan (Goodman, 1996c).

In general terms, Partners for a Clean Lake Sammamish has been widely supported, but in the specific actions taken to clean the lake, there has been wide dispute. The committee chair, Nan Campbell even admitted that "there was not total agreement" in the recommendations that were made to King County (Goodman, 1996c). Many of the lakefront property owners were angry that they were slated to pay the most for the clean-up efforts. They believe that the other homeowners should help to pay for a problem that is seen both upstream and downstream. The reason that lakefront property owners are paying more is that their proximity to the lake makes it much easier for phosphorus from their property to get into the lake, and 40% of phosphorus comes from single-family homes (Goodman, 1996a).

Another issue that has been raised is alternatives to the efforts of the committee. Many people feel that the best alternative is for King County to buy back undeveloped forestland. Supporters of this plan say that forest retention on a much larger scale would control erosion that will contribute to further degradation of the Lake Sammamish watershed, and cost less than $14 million. Joanna Buehler, president of the Save Lake Sammamish citizens’ group disagrees with the priorities laid out by Partners for a Clean Lake Sammamish. She feels that their figures were preliminary and unsupported, and was disappointed that they did not include other reasonable alternatives to managing the lake (Goodman 1996b).

The intended effects of the Lake Sammamish Initiative were to reduce phosphorus levels in Lake Sammamish. In fall 1997, there was a plethora of toxic algae blooms in the lake. Since algae depends on phosphorus to grow, a high amount of algae in the lake means that a high amount of phosphorus is concentrated there. Although no trace of toxins was found in the lake in fall 1998, the blooms were still there (King Co. DNR, 1998c). This is an obvious sign that the intended effects of the committee’s actions have not occurred yet, though it has only been two years since the committee finalized its recommendations; we may be just getting ahead of ourselves.

I feel that the Lake Sammamish Initiative and Partners for a Clean Lake Sammamish was a good plan, but it did not meet the requirements to actually do much to improve the water quality of Lake Sammamish. The plan initially was decent, but was restructured because, as Stacy Goodman (1996a) puts it, "everybody wants a cleaner Lake Sammamish, as long as somebody else pays the bill." The plan initially called for improving water quality, but when people moaned about paying $14 million a year, the committee gave in. Now that two years have passed, people are beginning to see that the water quality is not improving. They will probably blame the government for not doing a good job, and there will be less support for any efforts in the future. Had the committee made the people pay the $14 million per year to improve water quality, this might not have occurred. This is a "tragedy of the commons" because no one wants to take responsibility for Lake Sammamish, but everyone wants to use it.

Goodman, S. (1996b, May 22). One-time, Long-term Alternative Has Support. http://www.blueworld.com/iol/isspress/back_issues/5.22.96/forestland.html

Goodman, S. (1996c, July 3). Lake Sammamish Panel Readies Report On Funding. http://www.blueworld.com/iol/isspress/back_issues/7.3.96/ lakesammamishpanelreadi.htm

King County Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources. (1998a, May 29). Lake Sammamish Initiative, King County. http://splash.metrokc.gov/wlr/basins/lsi.htm

King County Department of Natural Resources, Water and Land Resources. (1998b, July 30). How was the lake protected in the past?. http://splash.metrokc.gov/wlr/basins/protect.htm

North American Lake Management Society. (1997, January). LakeSammamish Initiative. Waterlines. http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/5957/dec97lsi.html.