What happens when one resident puts their foot down against aquatic litter ? Read this case study based on three years of correspondence between one person and state and local officials.

1. According to the United Nations litter is found in all
the world’s oceans, even in remote areas far from
the obvious sources of the problem. The slow
decomposition rate of modern polymers and the
increased amount of solid waste is leading to a
gradual increase in the amount of litter found in the
sea, on the seabed and along coastal shores. It is an
economic, environmental, human health and
aesthetic problem that poses a complex and multi-
dimensional challenge. (18)
Who hasn’t seen the images on social media of
volunteers on the beach with sacks full of garbage?
NGOs organize events that attract local politicians,
and financing from local businesses, at the end
everybody gathers around the mountains of garbage
to take a picture like hunters on a safari. The images
get passed around Facebook or Instagram, people
put a or a and forget about it.
“The greatest sources of marine litter are land-
based activities, including waste from dumping
sites near the coast or upstream along river-
banks…”
United Nations Environmental Program
Marine litter starts upstream : that’s
where it needs to end.
One person’s refusal to accept the systematic
pollution of our aquatic environment 600km
away from the nearest “beach”.

2. Mme. Michelet, a retired chemist with a certificate in
environmental management from the University of Geneva,
spent the morning of August 30, 2016 sifting through the
assortment of hygiene products that had washed up on her
property.
The Q-tips, tampon applicators, bio-mass holders, bits of
Styrofoam and other objects collected from the shore-line were
placed into two transparent bags, and accompanied by a brief
letter, were taken to city hall. The letter was to propose a
discussion point for the upcoming council meeting and the
contents of the bags were to animate that discussion. (5)
Her actions were noted and the town council drafted a formal
response on September 12, 2016. Signed by the president, the
letter expresses profound outrage at the subject of her letter and
her behavior at city hall. Evoking his responsibility to protect the
city employees from violently unjust behavior, the president of
the commune warns her against defamation and threatened her
with judicial action if she continues. (6)
The town council had this to say about the contents of the two
transparent bags:
1.It’s not our fault
2.It’s not our fault and you live in the next town
3.The whole lake is that way not just your property
Marie-Christine Michelet had built her home on a small, steep
plot of land on the shore of Lac Léman a few hundred meters from
the town of Port-Valais and just 1km from the mouth of the
Rhone river and multiple canals that drain the Rhone flood plain.
“Here is something to illustrate the
discussion for the next council
meeting …for example la Bouverette
(a small creek in town) is just
worse than when I was a child and
it was the sewer for the whole town.
To get the full dose you have to go
all the way to the end so see it.” (5)
“This way of doing things is
unworthy of a city that wants to
use the natural beauty of the region
to attract tourists” (5)
“Your behavior and your remarks are
simply unacceptable and could be the
subject of judicial action.” (6)
“All the lake is subject to the
accumulation of diverse material
transported by the surge of the lake.
This phenomenon is not limited to your
property, by the way located in the
next town, and your appreciation of
the situation is not well founded” (6)

3. “Your response is impregnated with
fatalism the likes of which I find
unsupportable. The authorities in a
city like ours on the lake shore with a
vast network of canals certainly has
the responsibility and the resources to
activate change and if necessary
adjust the way the maintenance of the
canals is done.” (7)
This was just the latest episode of an ongoing conversation
between one person and the local administration that had begun
three years prior. Concerned by the type and quantity of debris
that she noticed on the shoreline of her property, Mme. Michelet
had made her observations known to the Service for the
Protection of the Environment (SPE) and the city of Port-Valais in
July 2013. (1)
A year later, despite her detailed observations, photos and
proposed solutions the situation had not changed. She sent a
second letter, advising the SPE of the situation on July 5, 2014.
Once again providing a detailed, annotated description with
concrete examples, photos and possible solutions. (2)
The SPE informed Mme Michelet on July 9,
2014 that according to
article 5 of the law on the protection of water that decisions about
pollution or imminent pollution are the responsibility of the
commune in which the pollution occurs. Therefore, all future
correspondence on this matter would be forwarded to Port-
Valais. (3)
On that day in August, outraged herself by the tone and the
threats of the presidents’ response, Mme. Michelet knew that
she was confronting the legally responsible entity for the
pollution of her property. She therefore took the opportunity in
her reply on Sep 18, 2016 to re-iterate her observations. Inviting
the members of the community to come and “see” the debris and
where it gathers in the diverse nautical infrastructure of the
community. (7)
The description of the trash on the shoreline and in the water is
remarkable in the sense that neither Mme. Michelet, the canton
nor the city officials noticed that the objects listed in her diverse
observations in the preceding years matched the observations of
the “National Surface Water Quality Monitoring program”
(NAWA) released in July 2016. The most recent results from
NAWA listed hygiene products in 12% of the streams and rivers
under surveillance. (8)
Q-tips, Styrofoam and hygiene products accompanied by plastic
lids, plastic pieces and candy wrappers are among the most
common items found on the seashore in Europe. Thanks to
programs like the Marine Litter Watch people all over Europe
report the trash they find on the beach and where they find it. (9)
So, when the president of the commune said “…All the lake is
subject to the accumulation of diverse material…” he could have
said “…All of Europe is covered…” and not been far from the
truth.
A beach litter inventory was conducted by hammerdirt on
September 21, 2016 at the request of Mme. Michelet.
“…where we find the items that are
evidence of contamination by sewage
sludge like Q-tips, toilet bowl
fresheners, tampon applicators, single
dose medical containers and many
other items that could be thrown in
the toilet. All of that mixed up with
little pieces of Styrofoam…” (2)
“If you would have taken the time to
look at the contents of the bags I
brought (tampax, maxi-pads, little bits
of food wrappers, Q-tips, syringes,
single use eyedroppers and other
hygiene products with the usual
suspects like plastic caps etc; all those
unpleasant things in a semi-putrefied
state), you could only concur that
“Shit” is the only adequate term.” (7)
“We would like to inform you that, in
accordance with article 5 of the Law
cantonal on the protection of water
(LcEaux) from May 16, 2013, the
municipalities direct the interventions
and reparations in the case of pollution
or imminent danger of pollution on their
territories, including the Rhone and the
Lac Léman.” (3)

4. Table 1: Key figures Grand Clos
Length (meters) 28
# of pieces removed 1159
# of MLW categories 58
Density (pcs/m) 41.39
% plastic > 80%
Top ten items
Polystyrene pieces 25.19%
Plastic pieces 17.95%
Candy wrappers 6.3%
Cotton swabs 5.87%
Industrial Sheeting 5.61%
Plastic caps – drinks 4.40%
Shotgun cartridges 3.97%
Cigarette butts 3.54%
Construction waste 2.85%
Plastic rings from lids 2.16%
Everything else 22.17%
“Marine litter (marine debris) is any
persistent, manufactured or processed
solid material discarded or lost in marine
and coastal environment. This also
includes such items entering the marine
environment via river, sewage outlets
and storm water outlets or winds.” (10)
“Pollution: any detrimental physical,
chemical or biological change in the
nature of waters.”
Swiss Federal Act: Protection of Water (12)
Beach litter survey results for 21-09-2016 at the
location named “Grand Clos”.
• comparison with other locations on Lac Léman
Key terms and abbreviations:
• Beach-litter-survey: the removing, sorting and
counting of the debris found at the shoreline.
• Density: pieces per meter of shoreline or pcs/m
• MLW: Marine Litter Watch
• OSPAR: Oslo-Paris convention
For more details about beach-litter-surveys, why we do
them and what the information is for see the guidelines
from the EEA and OSPAR (11) (10)
Conflict of interest: hammerdirt received no
compensation for the beach-litter survey nor
the analysis. We do admire the courage of
Mme. Michelet.
Table one summarizes the key figures for Grand Clos, this
survey had the second highest density of the 79 previous
surveys on the Lake. The top ten items found on her
property are common throughout the lake and are all easily
transported by currents, rain or wind, see chart 1. (13)
The top ten items are equal to almost 80% of the
anthropogenic debris found on the shoreline, lake wide the
same ten items are responsible for 76% of the debris on the
shoreline. (13)
In relation to the rest of Europe, the items on the top ten list
from Grand Clos combine to equal 48% of all shoreline
debris, see chart 2. (9)
Chart 1: Percent composition of anthropogenic shoreline
debris, top ten items, Grand Clos 21.09.2016,

5. Chart 2: Proportion of top ten items from Grand Clos in comparison to
the rest of Lac Léman and Marine Litter Watch.
Grand Clos
n= 1,159
MLW
n= 494,941
Lac Léman
n= 27,790
The top ten items found at Grand
Clos are persistent throughout
the environment. As the sample
size increases the proportion
attributed to the same ten items
decreases but is still significant
even at sample sizes close to
500k. (chart 2)
MLW data: (9)
Piecesoftrashpermeterofshore-line
Chart 3: Average density, average density of key
items, and max density per location, Lac Léman
2015-2016.
Grand Clos had the second highest density of the 80
surveys completed on Lac Léman between November
2015 and 2016. Chart three illustrates the average
density per location in descending order as well as the
densities of the top-ten items identified previously.
The proportion of the density attributed to the top ten
items remains stable even at low densities. The survey
results from Grand Clos were remarkable in terms of
quantity of debris removed per meter of shoreline.
Density is expressed in terms of
pieces of trash per meter of
shoreline or pcs/m. In the maritime
environment, it is preferred to
survey a minimum length of 100
meters. However, on the Lake there
are few locations that offer 100m of
exposed accessible shoreline.

6. The debris found at Grand Clos had a similar composition, but a
higher concentration of trash per meter of shoreline than most
locations on the lake. Medical items and objects related to waste
water treatment combined were 9.7% of the total or 4 objects
per meter. This result is elevated for the lake but not the highest,
see annex a for more details.
Mme. Michelet contacted the SPE on September 22, 2016, in her
letter she describes in detail the contents, and origin of many of
the objects that appear on her shoreline. Many of the previous
pollution episodes on her property were accompanied by the
discharge of large plaques of algae and/or plant cuttings from the
Stockalper canal. These observations were also reported to the
service dedicated to roads, water-ways and transport (SRTCE) for
the Valais. (16) (14)
After three years of observations, Mme. Michelet concluded that
the dumping of these objects into the lake was systematic and
the pollution of her property periodic. According to her the
maintenance of the canals (landscape maintenance) was
responsible for a certain amount of debris that is liberated when
heavy equipment is operated in the waterways. Citing the
presence of grass clippings and the like she also suggested that a
lot of this debris could be present in the environment and washed
into the canal with the debris from other maintenance activities.
(14) (16)
Consequently, both services deny responsibility for the “trash in
the water” citing article 5 of the law on the protection of water.
On September 30 and October 7, 2016 Mme. Michelet is directed
by both services to take up the subject with the local authorities.
(15) (17)
After three years Mme. Michelet found herself back at the
starting point.
Comments
The descriptions of the debris furnished by Mme. Michelet would
be appropriate for almost any beach on the lake or in Europe. The
amount of debris is concerning, the density is probably greater
than 90% of the locations on the lake and also greater than 90%
of the samples from France, Belgium, Denmark, Portugal and the
United Kingdom. (13)
The amount of trash that is in the water is incompatible with the
image that we have of ourselves as a country. The local and
cantonal authorities seem to ignore the strategic importance of
the Port-Valais in the health of the lake and the entire ecosystem
downstream.
The response from authorities is disconcerting, there is no
investigation of type, quantity or origin of the debris. There is no
expressed concern for Mme Michelet or the communities
downstream.
“…the visual indicators are still the
same, Q-tips, components of toilet
fresheners, tampon applicators, filters,
condoms, single use eye droppers and
similar, plastic caps, little tubes,
medical blister packaging…everything
that could be thrown in a toilette bowl,
all of that mixed up with bits of wood
and Styrofoam.” (14)
“The screen (not operational when the
there is a lot of water to avoid the
Stockalper from overflowing) is 2km
from the mouth of the canal and just
upstream from the water treatment
plant. On this distance, there is no
other filter before the lake. I have no
idea how often the water treatment
plant overflows or other parameters.”
(14)
“It seems that your comments would put
in doubt the good functioning of the
water treatment plant, this does not
correspond to the reality. This water
treatment plant respects hands down all
the requirements for discharge that are
imposed…” (15)
“For everything else We would like to
remind you that, in accordance with
article 5 of the Law cantonal on the
protection of water (LcEaux) from May
16, 2013, the municipalities direct the
interventions and reparations in the case
of pollution or imminent danger of
pollution on their territories, including the
Rhone and the Lac Léman.” (15)
“…and my impression, after diverse
research on the environment makes me
think that this situation is concerning
and the pollution is on a large scale.”
(14)

7. “The communities upstream have a
responsibility to the communities and
ecosystems downstream. That is why
Switzerland, the water tower of Europe,
does everything it can to reduce the
amount of pollution transported by the
Rhine” (15)
This behavior by local authorities contrasts with the position
of the Swiss Federal government. The ““National Surface
Water Quality Monitoring program”, released in July 2016,
clearly evokes our responsibility to those downstream of us
to reduce the amount of pollution transported by the Rhine
river. (8)
Although the Rhone and Lac Leman are not identified
specifically we can assume the same responsibilities can be
assigned to the Rhone river basin and the communities
upstream.
Conclusion:
Mme. Michelets concerns are well founded, her
observations are similar to observations around the world
in waterfront communities. When compared to results
from other surveys from the lake and around Europe her
property has a greater density than 90% of all the samples.
If the president of Port-Valais is correct when he says “…the
whole lake is concerned…” then Mme. Michelet is getting
more than her faire share (link to study).
Port-Valais has the authority and the responsibility to limit
the garbage that flows through its territory. By allowing the
trash from the cities upstream to flow unimpeded through
its territory the Port-Valais is complicit in the pollution of the
entire Lake. (3) (15) (17)
Opportunities: The solutions start by periodic monitoring
of the debris as it enters Port-Valais at different times of the
year and informing the public of the results. By coordinating
data collection with professionals in hydrology, civil
engineering or waste water management the data can then
be used to model cost effective solutions to filter or remove
these objects from the canals before they reach the lake.
As prevention programs reach the limits of efficiency it is
time to seriously consider engineering solutions. There is
room and need for innovation in the field of removing solid
waste from municipal sources, specifically in retro-fitting
existing systems. With a rich history of finding intelligent
and reliable solutions to very complex problems,
Switzerland is the ideal candidate for this type of research.
Given the global nature of the problem, the geographic
location of Switzerland and the current emphasis on
reducing marine debris there may be an interest with
European partners to stimulate product development and
research on low cost engineering solutions.
This is a hammerdirt publication
For more information: info@hammerdirt.ch
Image 1 : The shoreline in question on the day
of the beach-liiter survey, 21 Sep 2016

8. ANNEX A
Table 2: % composition of
shoreline debris, Grand
Clos, Lac Léman, MLW.
GrandClos
LacLéman
MLW
Polystyrene pieces 25.1% 20.9% 5.6%
Plastic pieces 17.9% 12.3% 8.4%
Candy and Chips bags 6.3% 6.1% 4.3%
Cotton swabs 5.8% 4.5% 4.6%
Industrial sheeting 5.6% 4.3% 0.1%
Plastic caps drinks 4.4% 2.1% 5.6%
Shotgun cartridges 3.9% 1.5% 0.9%
Cigarette butts 3.5% 20.6% 17.9%
Constuction waste 2.8% 1.7% 0.1%
Plastic rings from caps 2.1% 1.3% 0.3%
Everything else 22.1% 24.2% 52.1%
Table 3: # of samples,
max density and
average density of Lac
Léman surveys 2015-
2016
#ofsamples
Maxdensity
Avgdensity
Baye de Clarens 13 8.5 3.3
Maladaire 2 12.2 11.9
Bain des Dames 1 34.9 34.94
Oyonne 1 22.4 22.4
Le Port LTDP 1 33.5 33.5
MRD 15 14.5 5.5
MRG 11 8.3 4.6
Pierrier Sud 1 39.5 39.56
Boiron 1 3.2 3.26
Vidy 1 6.8 6.87
Grand Clos 1 41.3 41.39
Thonnon 1 4.0 4.04
Pierrier 3 26.8 17.62
Arabie 3 50.0 26.28
Veveyse 13 5.4 3.40
Villa Barton 9 23.1 9.76
Jardin Botaque 3 15.3 8.64
Chart 4: Density of medical, hygiene and water
treatment plant waste. Top ten survey results Lac
Léman 2015-2016, pieces/meter of shoreline. *
*The following items are included in chart 4:
1. Cotton swabs
2. Sanitary napkins/tampons and backing strips
3. Toilet fresheners
4. Medical containers and tubes
5. Biomass holders from sewage treatment plants
6. Other medical items – condoms, bandages
7. Cosmetics
8. Diapers
9. Syringes and needles
Pieces per meter of shoreline
For the complete analysis of all the
surveys on Lac Léman see the
publication “ln(beach-litter-density)”.
(13)
0 2 4 6 8
Pierrier sud
Le Port
Bain des Dames
Grand Clos
Arabie
Le Pierrier
Le Pierrier
Le Pierrier
Villa Barton
Vidy

9. Bibliography
1. Mange, Pierre. Letter from SPE Valais to Port-Valis. Sion, Valais, Switzerland : Service de la protection de
l'environnement, 14 August 2013. Respone of the Canton to the letter from Mme Michelet.
2. Michelet, Marie-Christine. Mme Michelet second letter to SPE. Bouveret : s.n., 5 July 2014. Update and
observations of Mme Michelet to the SPE.
3. Mange, Pierre. Second reply from SPE to Mme Michelet. Sion : Service de la protection de l'environnement, 9 July
2014. Canton tell Mme Michelet that the problem needs to be handled at the local level.
4. Klein, Audrey. Letter to Mme Michelt from Audrey Klein. Changins : Commission internationale pour la protection
des eaux du Leman, 26 Augusr 2014. Mme Klein tells Mme Michelet thanks and go talk to surfrider.
5. Michelet, Marie-Christine. Merde vert des canaux - letter to conseil communal. Bouveret : s.n., 30 August 2016.
Letter that accompnied two bags of trash to city hall.
6. Zoppelletto, Pierre. Entretien des Canaux - response from CC to Mme Michelet. Port-Valais : Conseil Communale,
12 September 2016. The city threatens Mme Michelet with legal action if she repeat her actions.
7. Michelet, Marie-Christine. Reply to president Zoppelletto. 18 September 2016. Mme Michelet reminds the
president of the responsibilities fo the commune and give some examples.
8. Office fédéral de l'environnement. État des cours d'eau suisses - 1620:92S. 2016.
9. European Environment Agency. Marine Litter Watch Data Viewer. Marine Litter Watch. [En ligne] [Citation : 30
December 2016.] http://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/marine-litterwatch/data-and-results/marine-
litterwatch-data-viewer-1.
10. Technical subgroup on marine litter. Guidance on Monitoring of Marine Litter in European Seas. Joint research
center, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Ispra : European Commision, 2013.
11. OSPAR Commission. Guideline for monitoring marine litter on the beaches in the OSPAR maritime area. 2010.
12. Assemblée fédérale de la Confédération suisse. Loi fédérale sur la protection des eaux. Bern : s.n., 2016.
13. Erismann, Roger et Erismann, Shannon. Ln(beach-litter-density). La Tour-de-Peilz : s.n., 2016. Analysis of MCBP
beach litter results from LAc Léman and comparison with OSPAR and MLW.
14. Michelet, Marie-Christine. Letter to SPE - Observations after beach litter surveys. Bouveret : s.n., 22 September
2016. Mme Mcihelet send an another description of the trash to the Valais - and links trash to Sockalper.
15. Mange, Pierre. Pollution from the Stockalper - response to Mme Michelet observations after beach litter survey.
Sion : Service de la protection de l'environnement, 7 October 2016. Informs Mme Michelte that the water treatment
plants meet the requirements and all other matters need to be taken to the commune. .
16. Michelet, Marie-Christine. Letter to SRTCE reporting observations of the solid waste in the canals. Bouveret :
s.n., 22 September 2016. Mme Michelet gives detailed observations to the service responsible for water-ways, roads
and transport.
17. Giles, Genoud. SRTCE response to Mme Michelet. Martigny : s.n., 30 September 2016. SRTC tells Mme Michelet
that the rivers bring all kinds of things to the lake, but they are not resposible for trash in the water. The
responsiblity belongs to the commune..
18. United Nations. United Nations Environment Program. Marine Litter. [En ligne] [Citation : 4 January 2016.]
http://www.unep.org/esm/Waterecosystems/WaterQuality/TheMarineLitter/tabid/131555/Default.aspx.