Editor’s note: This commentary is by Buzz Hoerr, who is a former chair of the Vermont Citizens Advisory Committee on the future of Lake Champlain. He lives in Colchester.

Yet another public meeting takes place in St. Albans and there’s not much new to report, other than it’s clear those on the receiving end of excess phosphorus are suffering from yet another summer of algae blooms. There are loud and clear concerns over their toxicity and the public’s health as well as greatly diminished enjoyment of the lake, especially in St. Albans Bay where the meeting took place. “Beach Closed” signs have been up for weeks and were still posted this week.

What was missing was anything new to do about it. There were several comments expressing frustration about the lack of a clear plan and funding to improve the situation. But other than challenging local legislators and state agencies to find more money and enforce existing rules, no one had any new, innovative ideas to resolve the problems facing that part of the lake, which continue to plague local residents and by extension the lake’s image and what that means to the economy of the area and the state in general.

What we’ve been doing for almost 20 years has not given us the results envisioned by the Clean Water Act or that the public is rightfully demanding now. The state asked for and received authority to make improvements to the public’s waters on behalf of the EPA. A five-year flatline ANR budget and an unavoidably mixed enforcement performance by the Ag Agency on behalf of ANR demonstrate critical weaknesses in the state’s obligation to clean up the public’s waters.

Continuing a half hearted, underfunded and under regulated effort to ask everyone do everything because “all of us are part of the problem and all of us need to be part of the solution” has not given the public the improvements the EPA and Vermont state government are required to produce and will not in the future. There is little prioritization to guide funding and in the case of ag, the largest source of excess nutrients, all conservation programs are voluntary.

So how can things be different? The lake had three segments that were under the largest amount of stress primarily from ag related runoff: Mississquoi and St. Albans bays and the South Lake. Unfortunately we can now add Georgia Shore and Lake Carmi to that list. What if we could identify “point sources” where the majority of phosphorus (78 percent) is likely running off the land and could address that in a prioritized, orderly, cost effective way? What if there was a confluence of that identification process matching an “on the ground” consultative approach resolving it, benefitting not only the public but farms as well through less erosion of the soil that moves phosphorus into the waters? What if this method already exists, is called Critical Source Area (CSA) identification and is being used successfully to create current reductions in runoff on farms in the Mississquoi watershed?

If the answer to those questions is yes, the next obvious question by taxpayers is why aren’t we pushing ahead with this method to get the largest and fastest response for the least amount of money spent? This recent meeting was another reminder that if getting the nutrient needle to move down is the objective, the current sociopolitical effort asking everyone to do everything to be “fair” to everyone else is an a proven failure. What’s “fair” is to move that needle down on the public’s behalf. That is a management problem and a solution is at hand.

Here’s what is missing to make it work:

1. The additional data acquisition to map out the rest of the basin, which is continuing by an agreement recently reached.
2. Funding to implement the solutions, which has now arrived in the form of $45 million in conservation dollars over five years thanks to Sen. Leahy and his staff, who convinced U.S. Agricuture Secretary Vilsack we need more resources here.
3. Changing rules so the money can be prioritized to this initiative ahead of non CSA sources and made easier to access.
4. Boots on the ground to work with the farms to tailor a solution in the identified area, some less than an acre, that will result in saving soil and nutrients.

And a final missing part may be the real key to all of this. Dairy farmers need to take the leadership role as a “coalition of the willing” and embrace this solution that benefits the public in general and them in particular. While it takes effort and some cost on their part, the satisfaction of leading the process as a group rather than being dragged into it against their will would change the negative perception of their business for the better.

Politicians don’t like backing losers, and the current process is just that. If farmers embrace their role rather than avoid it, our representatives would advocate for the changes in rules and priorities and find enough resources knowing it’s a winner, and the dairy industry could remove the stain on their livelihood that continues to get worse.

How about it farmers, you in?