and resource losses that had occurred in some parts of the Sound. The deposition 
of some restricted chemicals-such as DDT and PCBs-has slowed in recent years 
(Dexter et al., 1985). At the same time, increased population and more intense 
land uses have tended to be accompanied by additional water pollution (PSWQA, 
1986). It is difficult to predict what effect a population increase of 30 percent by 
the year 2000 will have on the Sound. 
One of the major conclusions of the technical analyses was that there are still 
large gaps in our understanding of the Sound and how it is affected by 
contamination. Consequently, it is difficult to precisely determine the status of 
Puget Sound’s resources and predict future trends. Although the sources are 
known, the relative contributions from different sources are not well understood. 
And, once pollutants have entered the Sound, only limited knowledge exists as to 
their fates and effects. Many of the existing studies of biological effects show 
correlations rather than cause-and-effect relationships. Existing monitoring 
programs are limited in scope and not coordinated, thus making it difficult to 
obtain sufficient data for a good understanding of environmental conditions and 
pollutant loadings. 
In addition to analyzing the resource problems, PSWQA studied the effectiveness of 
current programs to control the known sources of contamination. Point sources of 
pollution are generally regulated at the state and federal levels, with the NPDES 
permit system being the primary control mechanism. Examination of this program 
revealed major weaknesses in all aspects of the point source control program, 
including major gaps in the control of toxicants and weak inspection, enforcement, 
and monitoring efforts. Programs at the state and local levels addressing nonpoint 
source pollution are fragmented, and many sources are uncontrolled. Although 
wetland preservation is an issue that has received much attention in recent years, 
many Puget Sound wetlands and other habitats are still threatened by development. 
Almost all government programs are underfunded, which in many cases means that 
current federal and state legislative mandates for resource protection are not being 
carried out. Although there are numerous laws, programs, and agencies addressing 
Puget Sound issues, the programs lack coordination and are not comprehensive. 
Many important issues are simply not being adequately addressed. Few overlaps in 
programs were found. 
Along with the technical analyses, the Author!^ conducted a public opinion survey 
to assess the knowledge and attitudes of Washington State residents about water 
quality issues. In general, there is high recognition of water quality problems and 
support for increased resource protection. Six out of ten people surveyed believe 
that Puget Sound has a water quality problem. However, many residents believe 
that industry is the major source of pollution; there is less recognition of problems 
caused by other sources such as farm practices or urban stormwater runoff. 
The results of the Authority’s technical analyses were published in a series of nine 
issue papers and a State of the Sound Report. Following public review and 
comment on the issue papers, the Authority prepared and issued the draft Puget 
Sound Water Quality Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 
Public hearings were held in all twelve Puget Sound counties on the combined 
draft plan and EIS, and several hundred written comments were received. Based 
151 
