Last year, when King County Board of Health officials launched an effort to raise $3.5 million in new fees, they explained the justification. “Fecal coliform,” they wrote, “can originate from a variety of sources, including improperly treated wastewater by on-site sewage systems, agricultural runoff, wildlife, and infrequently from wastewater treatment facility overflows.”

Ironically, less than one year later, what the county said happened “infrequently” has occurred, with about 300 million gallons of wastewater and raw sewage pouring into Puget Sound. As the Seattle Times notes, “if more storms come, sewage will continue cascading into the Sound.”

It is true that leaking septic tanks can cause water quality issues. Quartermaster Harbor on Vashon Island is polluted in part due to failing septic tanks and has been for many years. The argument for the septic tank fees was that it would prevent leaks that put fecal coliform into rivers in King County.

So, how much do failing septic tanks currently contribute to water quality problems in King County? “We don’t know.”

Those are the words of representatives of King County Public Health when asked the impact of failing septic tanks on water quality in King County. Indeed, monitoring from the Department of Ecology (Ecology) show the impact is pretty small.

Ecology monitors six locations in King County along the Snoqualmie River, the Cedar River, and the Green River.  Each station is monitored for a range of water quality issues, including fecal coliform, temperature, phosphorus, and other potential pollutants.

Through 2015, the most recent year with final data, all six of the rivers receive a ranking of “good” for fecal coliform bacteria. Only one of those locations, the Green River near south Lake Washington, has received anything less than a “good” rating since 2012.

How many years will it take for leaking septic tanks to equal the pollution from the recent overflow from the wastewater treatment facility? It is impossible to know, but given the water quality readings at rivers in King County, but it will likely be many years before the combined impact would equal anything like what we’ve seen in just a couple weeks.

Imagine the uproar if this had been a corporation instead of government. The Washington Environmental Council, for example, has not called for any action to be taken regarding the failed treatment plant. That would not be the case if the pollution came from a business.

The contrast between the focus on an unknown risk from failing septic tanks – when monitoring shows rivers are all in the “good” range – and minimizing the risk from inadequate sewage treatment and the quiet from environmental groups who claim to care about water quality, says a great deal about how decisions are made.

Those who support more government intervention to protect the environment assume “experts” are making decisions based in science and expert judgment. In reality, other factors often weigh more heavily. It is easier to focus on unknown risks from other people than to address the risk of failure within government.

 The County knew there was a risk from overflows at wastewater treatment facilities, but minimized the risk, calling them “infrequent.” The risk from failing septic tanks, however, was highlighted, even though public health officials admit they had no data on the impact and none of King County’s waterways demonstrate any impact.

The key question now is what will King County learn from this incident? Will environmental activists demand equal accountability for politicians as they do for corporations? Will the public hold politicians accountable for their failure to protect water quality?

Ultimately, this is one more example of the gap between political environmental promises and environmental results.