Clean Water Requires Action, Not More Debate
It is time for Marco to implement the most effective, cost-efficient water quality solutions and then measure whether they are producing real improvements in our canals. Read Teri Sommerfeld's plan here.
MARCO NEWS
Marco Island was built around its water. Our canals are part of our environment, economy, property values and identity. Yet our waterways continue to suffer from excessive nutrient loading and other water-quality problems. The City has an approved Category 4e Pollutant Reduction Plan, and Advanced Wastewater Treatment has now been approved following a successful citizen petition initiative.
As a City Councilor, my goal would be straightforward: identify the most cost-effective solutions, ensure they are implemented instead of endlessly debated, and measure our commitment to clean water by the results we achieve in our waterways.
Move AWT Forward
Advanced Wastewater Treatment is now City policy, and it should be implemented diligently and without unnecessary delay.
Marco Island citizens gathered enough signatures to qualify the AWT ordinance for the initiative process. Once that threshold was reached, City Council had the choice of adopting the ordinance or sending it to referendum. Council ultimately adopted it.
If elected, I would insist upon a transparent implementation schedule for engineering, design, permitting, financing, construction and commissioning. Residents should be able to see whether the project is moving forward and why any milestone is delayed.
AWT is an important part of the solution, but it cannot be our entire water-quality strategy.
Stop Pollution Before It Reaches the Canals
One of the most obvious sources we can address is fertilizer.
Marco Island prohibits fertilizer application during the rainy season because nutrients applied to lawns can wash into storm drains and ultimately into our canals. Yet fertilizer may still be readily available for purchase during the very period when its use is prohibited.
I would encourage local retailers to voluntarily remove or relocate fertilizer products during the restricted season. Put them in the back room next to the Christmas lights if necessary. The point is simple: we should not make it easy to purchase and apply a product at the exact time our ordinance says it should not be used.
Education is important, but so is enforcement.
I would also consider using the City’s new code-enforcement boat as another set of eyes on the waterways, allowing staff to identify potential problems visible from the canals, including possible fertilizer violations, illicit discharges, unusual algae conditions or other water-quality concerns.
I would support exploring a voluntary resident water-quality watch program as well. Residents could submit time-stamped photographs and locations of suspected fertilizer violations or other observable pollution problems for review by Code Enforcement.
The goal would not be to encourage neighbors to police one another. It would be to give residents who care about our waterways a simple way to report potential violations so the City can investigate them properly.
Source control is almost always less expensive than cleaning pollution up after it reaches the canal.
Drainage Is Not the Same as Water-Quality Improvement
Marco Island has invested heavily in stormwater infrastructure, and some of those projects have been described as water-quality improvements.
We need to distinguish between moving water and cleaning water.
Getting rainwater off a street more quickly can be important for drainage and flood control, but simply conveying runoff more efficiently into a canal does not necessarily improve the quality of that canal.
A true water-quality project should remove, capture, reduce or prevent pollutants. Stormwater projects that incorporate filtration, nutrient capture, exfiltration, treatment or other pollutant-reduction measures can absolutely improve water quality.
Every project receiving water-quality funding should identify what pollutant or condition it is intended to improve and how success will be measured.
Measure Results
I would build upon the City’s existing monitoring and establish a public Canal Water Quality Scorecard.
Residents should be able to follow trends in nitrogen, phosphorus, dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll-a, turbidity, water clarity and other appropriate indicators throughout our canal system.
Where practical, we should estimate how much pollution a project is expected to remove and then determine whether the monitoring data show that it actually worked.
Water-quality policy should be based on measurable environmental results, not labels.
Put Local Expertise to Work
Marco Clean Water LLC has developed considerable expertise concerning Marco Island’s nutrient problems, potential sources and possible treatment strategies. I believe that knowledge should be incorporated into the City’s decision-making process alongside City engineers, consultants and other qualified scientific resources.
There is no reason for government, independent experts and knowledgeable citizens to operate in separate silos when they share the same goal.
Give the Waterways Advisory Committee a Clear Mission
I would refocus the Waterways Advisory Committee primarily on water-quality solutions.
Its mission should be to identify, investigate and screen technologies and strategies and make evidence-based recommendations to City Council.
That could include nanobubble and advanced aeration systems, improved canal circulation, biological filtration and mycofiltration, stormwater treatment and nutrient capture, sediment remediation, targeted dredging and other emerging technologies supported by credible science.
Promising technologies should be tested through controlled pilot projects whenever practical. Establish a baseline, measure the results and publish them.
If something works, expand it. If it doesn’t, move on.
I would also make grant identification and funding opportunities a major part of this effort. The Waterways Advisory Committee, working with City staff and outside experts, should continually identify state, federal and other grant programs that could help fund water-quality studies, pilot projects, monitoring, restoration and capital improvements.
We should aggressively pursue outside funding so Marco Island can test promising solutions and accelerate proven projects without placing the entire financial burden on local taxpayers.
Approach Dredging Scientifically
Canal sediment deserves serious attention. Existing studies suggest sediments may act as a substantial nutrient reservoir, recycling nitrogen and phosphorus back into the water.
But that does not automatically mean widespread dredging is the answer.
Before undertaking large-scale dredging, I would want sediment mapping and sampling to determine what is actually present, where the greatest problems exist, how much nutrient reduction removal would achieve, and what environmental or structural risks might result.
Dredging can increase turbidity and resuspend nutrients or contaminants. Removing sediment adjacent to aging seawalls may also change the conditions supporting those structures.
Those concerns do not mean dredging should be rejected. They mean it should be targeted and engineered based upon evidence.
Where testing demonstrates that sediment is a significant source of pollution and can be safely removed, I would support targeted dredging. Where the evidence does not support it, we should spend those resources elsewhere.
Follow Pollution From Source to Solution
My approach would follow a simple hierarchy:
Prevent pollution where possible. Treat it before it enters the canals. Remediate accumulated pollution where necessary. Measure the results at every stage.
That means moving AWT forward.
It means reducing fertilizer pollution and enforcing the rules already on the books.
It means improving stormwater treatment rather than simply stormwater conveyance.
It means evaluating nanobubbles, aeration, filtration, biological treatment, canal circulation and other technologies.
It means scientifically evaluating sediment before undertaking major dredging.
It means using the expertise of Marco Clean Water LLC and other qualified resources.
It means using Code Enforcement and engaged residents to identify problems earlier.
It means refocusing the Waterways Advisory Committee on evaluating solutions, developing pilot projects, identifying grant opportunities and recommending the best options to City Council.
And it means holding every water-quality expenditure to the same basic standard:
What measurable improvement will this produce in Marco Island’s waterways, and how will we know whether it worked?
If we spend a dollar to improve Marco Island’s water, citizens deserve to know what that dollar accomplished. Our canals are too important for anything less.
It Is Time for Action
Marco Island needs leaders who will move beyond years of discussion and take decisive, responsible action to improve our water quality. We know the problems, and we have identified potential solutions. Now we must determine which options are most effective and cost-efficient, put them into action and measure the results.
Our waterways are too important to allow endless debate to become an excuse for inaction. It is time to make measurable progress toward cleaner canals and hold ourselves accountable for achieving it. Protecting Marco Island’s water is not simply another policy issue. It is essential to our environment, our economy, our property values and the future of our community.
Thank you for caring for Marco,
Teri Sommerfeld
Candidate for Marco Island City Council
Learn more about Teri, her background, and her vision for a brighter future for all who call Marco Island home.
(C) 2026 Teri Sommerfeld
Political advertisement paid for and approved by Teri Sommerfeld, 2026 candidate for Marco Island City Council
Protecting Marco Island’s Quality of Life Through Clean Water,
Collaboration, and Community-Focused Leadership
