“Work on Lake Champlain is fine,” a community member said, “but what are you doing for the economy?” This question came to me on Town Meeting Day after I shared some of my legislative work to clean up Lake Champlain and Vermont waterways. Protecting our lakes, rivers and streams has everything to do with our economy. As the late Mollie Beattie once said, “In the long term, the economy and the environment are the same thing. If it’s unenvironmental, it’s uneconomical. That is the rule of nature.” Mollie Beattie was a former Vermont Fish and Wildlife commissioner and the first woman ever to head the US Fish and Wildlife service.

Most of us in Shelburne are well aware of the impact Lake Champlain has on our quality of life. But how does this translate to economic benefit? And what is the overall economic benefit of Vermont’s lakes, ponds, rivers and streams? In the late 1990’s, the Lake Champlain Region Chamber of Commerce did a study on the financial impact of Lake Champlain on Chittenden and Grand Isle Counties. They were able to account for $338 million in revenue for Chittenden County and $14 million for Grand Isle County in lake-related sales, lodging, food and beverages. In addition, a 2002 Vermont Tourism and Markets study of the Vermont visitor, identified fishing and hunting, and water recreation as the top tourism revenue generators coming in well ahead of the ski industry.

There is increasing evidence that our lakes, ponds, rivers and streams are in trouble. Extensive development using impervious paving materials, has reduced the amount of land available to soak up rainwater. As a result, storm water, rich with pollutants and nutrients, rushes off these surfaces making its way into our rivers, streams and ultimately our lake. Our practice of stripping away riverbank vegetation for development, agricultural use and views has disastrous effects on the health of aquatic ecosystems, increasing erosion and reducing the capacity to filter sediment. Over the past 150 years, Vermont’s rivers and streams have been extensively modified, moving them away from their natural form and flow. Of the nearly 1400 miles of assessed rivers in 140 communities, 74% of these rivers have become deeper, swifter, and no longer have access to their historic floodplains.

The monetary, social and environmental cost to this is exceedingly large. Over the past 20 years, over $148 million has been spent to recover from avoidable flood damage. When poorly managed, agricultural runoff contributes an abundance of nutrients into our waterways during storm events. Despite efforts to help farmers meet the costs of improving these practices, recent lake testing tells us that we still have a very long way to go. And what does this erosion and run off bring us? Phosphorus! Phosphorus that feeds toxic algae blooms in Lake Champlain’s northern segments, earning the whole lake a spot in the New York Times best selling travel book, Don’t Go There: the travel detective’s essential guide to the must-miss places of the world (2009, p 17-18).

This year, I worked extensively on two bills that addressed the health of our surface waters including Lake Champlain. These two bills were ultimately rolled into one, H.763, which was signed into law on May 13th as Act 110. What can we expect from Act 110?

• We formalized the River Corridors program at the Agency of Natural Resources. Using existing funding and pass-through grants, the program will provide technical and financial assistance, fluvial erosion hazard mapping and helpful guidance to towns that want to establish river corridor or buffer bylaws.
• We increased flexibility for use of funds to farmers implementing alternative strategies for manure management, soil erosion reduction practices, and temporary fencing to keep livestock out of streams.
• We required the Vermont Agency of Transportation to develop standards for roads and bridges to decrease erosion and pollutants which could enter our ground and surface waters. Implementing these standards will not only protect water quality, higher standards will result in higher reimbursement from FEMA following a flooding disaster.
• We expanded requirements for those wanting to alter streams which could affect water quality. Is this enough? No, but hopefully we have taken another few steps in the right direction.

I think Mollie Beattie got it right. The economy and the environment are the same thing. “If it is unenvironmental, it is uneconomical.” For things you and your family can do to help our lake, check out the “The Lake Protection Series” series at http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/waterq/lakes/htm/lp_protection.htm.