Among the signs that summer is coming are articles about problems at Vancouver Lake. So, with one article in the past week about a dangerous algae bloom at the lake and another about elevated levels of E. coli bacteria, we can be certain that the weather is warming.
There is uncertainty, however, about the future of the lake. Local leaders must decide whether the lake is worth trying to save as a public amenity or whether a popular recreation spot should be allowed to leak into history. If Vancouver Lake is to remain an accessible outlet for swimming, rowing, boating and fishing, local leaders must combine forces to fix long-standing issues with the 2,300-acre body of water.
That, as history shows, can be difficult. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has jurisdiction over wildlife around the lake; the Department of Natural Resources controls the lake bed; the Department of Ecology has authority over the water; Clark County manages a park adjacent to the lake; and the nearby Port of Vancouver administers some of the lake’s resources.
As The Columbian wrote editorially in 2019: “As a result, Vancouver Lake is a bit of an orphan, making it difficult to muster an appropriate response when the area faces an ecological crisis. Now, it is necessary for the city of Vancouver, Clark County and the Port of Vancouver to combine resources and oversight in order to ensure that the lake continues to serve residents for generations to come.”
A citizens’ group, Friends of Vancouver Lake, formed in recent years and has done admirable work. Members have taken the lead in addressing a milfoil infestation that threatens the lake, and they have challenged officials to effectively care for an area that has attracted residents for centuries.
But piecemeal leadership makes it too easy for governmental bodies to ignore persistent issues at Vancouver Lake. It makes it too easy for leaders to pretend that the lake is somebody else’s problem, when it really belongs to all of us.
From 2004 through 2014, the Vancouver Lake Watershed Partnership oversaw management of the lake; then the partnership fell apart, apparently from a lack of interest. A still-existing website for it notes that the “next” meeting is scheduled for Jan. 27, 2015. It also explains: “Vancouver Lake is valued as a regional community treasure and environmental resource. It supports healthy, diverse native plant and animal communities and offers a wide variety of recreational uses.”
Last week, Clark County Public Health officials identified a blue-green algae bloom at the lake. “Blue-green algae can pose a significant health risk if the cyanobacteria or toxins are ingested, inhaled or come into contact with skin. Inhaled bacteria or toxins can cause wheezing, coughing, chest tightness and shortness of breath. Skin contact can lead to rash, itching, blisters and eye irritation,” The Columbian reported.
The following day, health officials issued a swim beach warning due to elevated levels of E. coli.
The incidents reflect persistent health concerns at Vancouver Lake. And they bring up questions about whether the lake is worth saving as a public amenity. If community members and political leaders believe that it is, a revived partnership is necessary to streamline stewardship.
Providing a multitude of recreation opportunities and drawing thousands of visitors each summer, Vancouver Lake is indeed worth saving. But that will require coordinated efforts from the city, county, state and Port of Vancouver.
