Over the past decade, Vermont has poured more than $600 million into cleaning up its waterways—most of that aimed at reducing phosphorus runoff into Lake Champlain. But despite the staggering price tag, the results have been modest at best, and groups like the EPA and Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) are still sounding alarms.
By the state’s own accounting, only about 26% of the total phosphorus reduction target for Lake Champlain has been met, despite years of costly intervention and extensive public spending. So where exactly did all that money go—and why hasn’t it worked?
A Costly, Fragmented Cleanup
Vermont’s Clean Water Initiative Performance Reports, published annually by the Agency of Natural Resources, provide some insight. Between 2016 and 2024, the state spent more than $603 million across multiple sectors:
- 32% went toward municipal wastewater upgrades, including treatment plant improvements and combined sewer overflow mitigation.
- 28% was directed at agricultural best management practices (BMPs) such as manure injection, cover cropping, and field buffers—most of which must be repeated annually.
- 23% was spent on urban stormwater control projects like catch basins, retention ponds, and permeable pavement.
- The remainder was spread across forest restoration, wetland conservation, and administrative coordination.
In total, Vermont claims to have prevented about 120,000 pounds of phosphorus from reaching Lake Champlain so far—just over one-fifth of the 468,000-pound reduction goal it must hit by 2038.
Still Not Clean
Despite this financial and bureaucratic effort, the lake continues to suffer from chronic phosphorus pollution. Algae blooms remain a regular occurrence in Missisquoi Bay and other northern lake regions. Some beaches have had to close due to cyanobacteria risk. In 2024, the EPA issued a formal warning that Vermont was failing to adequately regulate agricultural pollution—particularly runoff from large dairy farms.
One key problem is that most BMPs are temporary. Cover crops need to be replanted every year. No-till practices must be maintained religiously. Nutrient management plans only work if farmers follow them, and there’s little enforcement. Meanwhile, phosphorus continues to accumulate in the soil—and every heavy rain washes more of it into the lake.
And that’s just the active runoff. The “legacy phosphorus” already stored in soil near rivers, fields, and roadside ditches continues to leak into surface waters, year after year.
So after spending more than half a billion dollars, Vermont still hasn’t addressed the most direct source of pollution: the soil itself.
What If Vermont Just… Moved the Dirt?
Here’s a radical idea that’s surprisingly practical: what if Vermont physically removed phosphorus-saturated soil from critical runoff zones and replaced it with cleaner material?
It’s not hypothetical. Soil remediation is a standard practice in contaminated industrial sites, and it’s used for nutrient management in other states. The numbers add up.
At roughly $100 per cubic yard (including excavation, trucking, disposal, and replacement), Vermont could have remediated 6 million cubic yards of soil for what it’s already spent. That’s enough to remove the top 6 inches of phosphorus-heavy soil from roughly 7,400 acres of the most sensitive farmland, road ditches, and floodplain zones.
How much phosphorus could that remove? Estimates suggest the top 6 inches of heavily fertilized ag land can hold 300 pounds of phosphorus per acre—sometimes much more. Applied to 7,400 acres, that’s 2.2 million pounds of phosphorus, or over 1,000 metric tons. For comparison, the state’s total 20-year reduction goal is just 212 metric tons per year. A one-time soil swap could achieve five years’ worth of reductions in a single shot.
What to Do with the Removed Soil?
Here’s where it gets interesting. Phosphorus isn’t a contaminant everywhere—it’s a valuable nutrient in fields that lack it. Many Vermont farms in upland areas or with marginal soils still purchase phosphorus fertilizer every year.
Why not swap the soil?
Take high-phosphorus soil from the floodplains and apply it to inland or upland farms with demonstrated phosphorus deficits. These farms would get a free boost in soil fertility—reducing their dependence on imported fertilizers—while the most sensitive regions around Lake Champlain would be stabilized with clean, low-P fill. It’s a win-win.
Such a program could be implemented through existing USDA and state conservation programs. Soil testing is already routine. UVM Extension and NRCS already assist with nutrient management planning. And transportation logistics, while not trivial, are manageable compared to what Vermont already spends on studies, staff, and grant overhead.
So Why Isn’t This Happening?
Because it’s not sexy. It doesn’t fit the current model of grants, workshops, and voluntary compliance. It involves trucks and dirt, not dashboards and policy briefings. And it would likely offend some sacred cows—both literal and metaphorical—within the state’s agricultural and environmental bureaucracies.
But it would work. And for $600 million, Vermonters deserve more than process. They deserve results—and a lake that isn’t choked by the same runoff we’ve been “mitigating” since the 1990s.
It’s time to stop throwing money into annual feel-good efforts and start treating the root cause. In this case, that means quite literally digging it up and moving it.
Dave Soulia | FYIVT
You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram
#fyivt #lakechamplain #vermontspending #cleansoilfix
Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!
Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!
Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!
Leave a Reply