It’s not like islanders haven’t been talking about the health

of Puget Sound for some time now.

We recall a public meeting some years back, when the subject of docks or some other shoreline controversy came up, and an islander commented: “If you want to know the real threat to Puget Sound, go look at the supermarket parking lot when it rains.”

It was an astute comment. The rainbow-hued petroleum slicks from badly sealed automobile crankcases only go one direction: downstream. So-called “non-point” pollution – oil, heavy metals and other junk that enters the environment from no specific source, yet adds up over time – takes its toll on the health of the Sound, as surely as habitat lost to shoreline construction.

Because impacts are incremental – a failed septic system here, a damaged spawning ground there – the cumulative challenge can seem too great, the problems almost too diffuse to address.

Are we seeing a sea change in awareness? An Elway poll released this week suggests widespread concern among Washingtonians for the state of our signature inland waterway, and reasonable willingness to pay for its restoration. The poll coincided with a sweeping initiative by Gov. Chris Gregoire to preserve and restore Puget Sound for the sake of the environment, recreation and industry alike.

The governor has proposed some $220 million in new programs to clean up and prevent toxic pollution; restore damaged shorelines; reduce pollutant-carrying stormwater runoff; clean up septic problems; protect essential habitat areas; and partner with citizens for better individual, non-regulatory stewardship. The proposals are backed by the Puget Sound Partnership, a coalition of elected officials, business leaders, tribal authorities and environmental interests, suggesting that they may have a transformative effect on public policy.

While Blakely Harbor has emerged as a local ground zero for the cause – the dispute over new docks there has even drawn the attention of state and federal officials – the challenges really extend island-wide.

The governor’s program identifies failed septic systems as a prime contributor to Puget Sound pollution, damaging shellfish beds; septic runoff is considered the main culprit in the environmental woes of Hood Canal. Bainbridge recently took a good step forward in putting four south-end neighborhoods – three of them shoreline – on sewer service. Should the city now consider extending sewer service to other shoreline neighborhoods? It’s an expensive proposition, but it’s a strategy worth considering.

Consider too, what we can do individually. Toxic chemicals in lawn fertilizer and “Weed-D-Funct” products are carried away by rainwater and contribute to non-point ills. If the Bainbridge community is serious about Puget Sound’s health, perhaps it’s time to phase out their use not just in the public sector, but by private households as well. Is a ban a viable option? It’s the magnitude of question we should be asking.

With some 48 miles of shoreline, Bainbridge Island has a big stake in Puget Sound’s future. The dock issue makes for good political drama, but it’s just one piece of the puzzle.

Just look at the nearest parking lot when it rains.