Water Quality at the Head of the Deschutes River

 A committee that is continuing the interminable discussion about whether to protect water quality at the head of the Deschutes River is meeting on July 15, 2011.  It took me three clicks through links to find the right place to find more information.  A look at the most recent meeting notes (May 2011) were not illuminating because of the non-information that made it into the notes.  No copies of the presentations provided... I guess the public is expected to listen to the recordings to get information.  Notes from the June meeting are non-existent.  Hard to say what to think about this other than this DEQ process is not what you could describe as transparent....meanwhile the reasonable person can only assume that the red blob on the map is only getting redder and bigger... and more and more public funds are swirling down the toilet...

The South Deschutes and North Klamath County Groundwater Protection Project Steering Committee will meet to discuss topics including:
• Strategic planning for communications and outreach
• Subcommittee Updates: Options, Domestic Well Sampling, Spray Field Well Data
 
 For more information, please see the news release: 
http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplay.asp?docID=3656

Free Webinar on Nitrate in Groundwater - Focus on Oregon's Southern Willamette Valley Groundwater Management Area

This is very short notice, but perhaps someone can take advantage out there?

There is a joint presentation on the issue of nitrate in groundwater – here is a fantastic opportunity to hear the latest information on the Southern Willamette Valley Groundwater Management Area - as well as views from Wisconsin’s Public Drinking Water Program and an update from USGS on their NAWQA project including national data on nitrate in groundwater.

Here is the EPA website information – and there is a link to register for this Webinar below.

+++++++++++++++++++++

EPA's Watershed Academy is pleased to sponsor its 57th free Webcast Seminar.

Webcast on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 10 AM PT

"Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution Series: Nitrate in Ground Water"
by Jill Jonas, Director, Bureau of Drinking Water and Groundwater, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
Audrey Eldridge, Coordinator for the Southern Willamette Valley Groundwater Management Area, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and
Neil M. Dubrovsky, PhD, Chief, Nutrients and Trace Elements National Synthesis Project, National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA), U.S. Geological Survey



Please use this link to register

http://water.epa.gov/learn/training/wacademy/webcasts_index.cfm

So much for the water they drink (Part 2)

I have a bit of a correction to make from my previous post. I misinterpreted some comments/events and ascribed the pushover vote to the wrong pushover. The second vote to repeal the local ordinance to protect groundwater will come from the Republican party, not the Democratic party, in Deschutes County. I apologize for the error. Either way, I smell blood in the water but I be afeared it is the local habitat for endangered fish species that is food for the sharks and not the so-called higher thinkers that make the decisions for that region of Oregon.

By the way, the word on whether the Democratic vote on this issue will be a pushover as well is still out. The vote will purportedly take place on this Wednesday, March 23rd.

Further, the juiciest bit of gossip is that the local representative from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality expressed dismay at the possibility of this ordinance being repealed. From what I have read on the issue so far, which I am sorry to report has taken much more of my life than I intended (there is a huge amount of info available online, is that the DEQ has taken a completely milk-toast stance on the issue. They have been so politically correct in their verbiage that you can't tell if they support protecting groundwater quality or not. They say the right things over all in terms of DEQ's program goals, but when it comes to the specifics of this matter in Central Oregon that affects one of the major rivers in the state, the tone and words are best described as bland, almost to the point of indifference. What did we the people hire these "professionals" to do?

Anyway, it appears from this vantage point that the endangered fish species (steelhead) in this basin don't have a voice. Where are the advocates that will fight to restore and prevent the further decline what was formerly a world class trout fishing stream? Where are the folks that would take action under the Endangered Species Act and use this nice little Citizen's guide to better understand their rights?

Here is state and local government using public resources to work to ensure there is one more reason not to come to Oregon.

Oregon non-point source pollution project funding

I got the following by virtue of being a subscriber to news releases from Oregon DEQ. This announcement comes out every year and I'm always interested in what the funding priorities are, not that they change much. Interesting to note that, projects in the Eastern Region of Oregon will focus on reducing nitrate loading from non-point sources of pollution that affect source water of public water systems, i.e. centralized water treatment systems. If you have your own well, you are out of luck in terms of the state helping your or your region out with non-point source pollution that affects your drinking water. I suppose the rationale is the typical "get the biggest bang for your buck" reason of helping the maximum number of persons possible (i.e. the concentrated populations using public water supplies, but it does seem to smack a bit of environmental inequity.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is requesting project proposals from government agencies, tribal nations and nonprofit organizations to address non-point sources of pollution affecting the state’s coastal, river, lake, drinking water and groundwater resources.

For more information, please see the news release:

http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplay.asp?docID=3483

Outside the Box - 2

As promised, here is the next chapter in the story of blindered thinking and greed to follow up on "Outside the Box - 1."

To sum, my previous post presented the City of Bend's position on proposals by citizens or developers, or in this case, public entities, trying to make their dollars work for the general good. The City is opposed to having individual systems within reach of their sewer system because then they don't get their new cash cow. In this particular case we have a public entity that found out how much the city would charge to connect to sewer and is opting to do an individual system because they are actually in a location that allows them to avoid the duplicative fees the city would charge if they were in the city limits/service area. End of story, right?

Nope, this is just where it starts to get interesting because the state representative of the Oregon DEQ's Onsite Program (this is the program that issues permits and oversees individual wastewater treatment systems) is putting the heat on the public entity to connect to sewer.

What's wrong with this picture? DEQ is a state agency facing potentially significant budget cuts, along with all the other state agencies in Oregon, that is telling another public entity to pay permit fees and service fees (forever) to the city of Bend. I wish my budget were so healthy that I have the luxury to send business away. But I must say that I have a healthier belief in my own capabilities than this DEQ person. If this person is working in a job in which they so little belief in that program's capability to (in DEQ's case) protect public health and the environment, then that person is taking the public's money for doing work they either don't have the expertise to do or that they believe is work is not worth doing. In the first case, this person should be reassigned to a position for which they are qualified (perhaps this is the Peter Principle at work?), in the second case, they should be fired for ethics violations for taking public money under false pretenses.

Outside the Box - 1

I've gotten a few heads' ups over the last few weeks that I've been turning around in my head (as opposed to getting things posted in cyberspace). One came from a professional venting a spleen about institutional stupidity, another from a resident venting along similar lines, and a third from a newspaper article that seemed remarkably well timed considering the first two events. Also coincidentally, each of these comes from Central Oregon, which makes me wonder what's in the wind. Or perhaps the folks that care about what I say are concentrated there. Dunno.

The first that I'll talk about comes from a citizen that had a conversation about a commercial development in Bend that often suffers from sewage overflows because the development was approved in an area that does not have the sewage line capacity to take what this commercial area doles out. This person asked why the city doesn't require that the commercial development treat its wastewater and reuse it on the landscaping that is required for all commercial developments. This approach has been taken in other places in the country and has the effect of reducing demand on an overloaded collection system and increasing capacity at the treatment plant to serve other areas that perhaps are more easily served.

Here is the City of Bend's response:

The City Engineer said that the City would allow alternate sewage treatment systems for these types of facilities, provided they met DEQ and EPA standards. However, the City would require a hookup to the City's system as a backup in the event of failure of the on-site system. The City does not want to be put into the position of having to take over these systems if they fail -- it would not be an efficient use of resources.

Any alternative system would have to meet standards. The water has to be treated to an appropriate level so that it meets the standards of wherever it will be discharged/applied. There will be solids that will have to be applied in a permitted location.

The City's existing treatment plant currently treats wastewater to a high level, and the solids and liquid are disposed of with minimal environmental impact. One concern the City has is whether any alternative system would meet the same standards as the City's treatment system. However, if the City is satisfied that the alternate system meets applicable standards, the City would cooperate in reviewing and approving the system.

In essence the City requires that the developer of such a system obtain the appropriate permits to operate a wastewater treatment system (perhaps under the same permit system that the city itself operates under) AND pay to hook up to the city system. Firstly, it appears that the city is assuming DEQ/EPA authority in specifying permits and permit requirements, which I would be curious if they in fact have that authority. That would take some more research on my part to figure out. Secondly, the city is requiring a hook up immediately, rather than waiting for a potential problem to manifest itself. This smacks of greed because they want the hook up fee now rather than later. Not surprising from a city that has exhibited similar greed in the past. Thirdly, there is a bald statement that a separate system would not be efficient if the city had to take over its operation. Why would the city ever have to take over operation of a private facility if the DEQ were doing its job? Why is this necessarily inefficient? I, for one, would be interested in seeing a cost-benefit analysis of operating a separate system versus blasting big holes for miles in bed rock to increase collection system capacity.

Stay tuned for part 2...

Steering effectively or defectively?

I received this the other day from the Oregon DEQ Online Subscriptions hotline and it spurred some questions in my mind. The press release talks about developing a steering committee for an issue that I've touched on in the past, the groundwater pollution problem in Central Oregon (DEQ calls it the S. Deschutes/N. Klamath Groundwater Protection Project).

In short, the DEQ appears to be embarking on a Groundwater Management Area type effort and has solicited applications for membership on a steering committee for the project. In this case, membership "qualifications" consist of needing to live in or somehow represent the region of discussion and the applicant's experience.

Now that word "experience" piqued my interest and so I looked at the form that people needed to fill out to apply. Did it ask about people's educational or professional backgrounds? Hobbies? No. It asked why people were interested, if they wanted to represent an organization or not, if they had the time to commit to the committee. Maybe the nebulous question of "Why do you think you would be a good steering committee member?" gets at experience but it's certainly not obvious that that is the point of the question. After all, I could be a good steering committee member because I read the materials and stay awake during meetings (in other words, I educate myself and I participate).

Perhaps the experience question was settled to DEQ's satisfaction during the interview part of the selection process. We'll never know. It appears that DEQ is not willing to be transparent enough to put even the interview questions online. (Which begs the question of whether each applicant was even asked the same questions.)

In any case, to get back to my original point of query, experience in water, groundwater, water quality or other such related fields does not appear to be a prerequisite for participation. That is not necessarily unusual. The question that niggles in the back of my head is whether the people on this committee will be open and willing to listen to the experts that would need to be brought in on a complex issue like this. That the people on this committee have not already made up their mind about what has to happen, or not, and how things have to happen, or not.

I assume there are at least a few of the diehard opponents to the previous groundwater protection efforts who have ended up on the committee. After all, these are the folks that have committed themselves to running the marathon in their fight against the guv'mint. There were only 22 applications so the odds are excellent that the committee is stacked opinion-wise against taking action. This does not bode well for a balanced process, especially if the reasonable folks participating get out-blown by the folks experienced at being blowhards in public settings.

So is DEQ prepared to facilitate these kinds of meetings? Do they have the know-how, the experience, the huevos to really facilitate and achieve a balanced discussion in the Oregon Way to come up with a solution that protects public health and the environment? History says not. History says that DEQ will sway to the tune of the squeakiest wheel regardless of science or public good. In fact, history says that DEQ will avoid the Oregon Way altogether.

Needless, to say, given the track record, I will not hold my breath. But it is worth watching because, ultimately folks, this affects the top of the Deschutes watershed.

DEQ summer 2010 Newsletter

No major news but some might find it interesting...

http://www.deq.state.or.us/pubs/newsletter/oregonenvironmentsummer2010.htm

Water-friendly Dishwasher Detergents Now on Oregon Grocery Shelves

Questions:  What about laundry detergents?  Interesting that this is a blanket rule that covers the whole state, even those areas that are not sensitive to increased phosphate levels (in other words, there are areas of the state that are more sensitive to increased nitrogen than increase phosphate).  And interesting that commercial and industrial products are not included.  Are we to believe that all those restaurants can continue to pollute? 

>>>>>>>>>

New low-phosphate dishwasher detergents are now on grocery store shelves across Oregon, to comply with a new law that goes into effect July 1.

            The new Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requirement mandates that all automatic dishwasher detergents for residential use have low-phosphate formulas.

“Implementing this law is part of DEQ’s ongoing efforts to improve the health of water in Oregon’s lakes, rivers and streams and protect people, pets and fish,” said DEQ Director Dick Pedersen.

           

Phosphorus that goes down the drain creates water pollution problems. When phosphorus gets into rivers and especially lakes, it acts as a fertilizer for algae and plants in the water. This can lead to oxygen depletion, suffocating fish and other aquatic life. In some cases, excess phosphorous can lead to blooms of blue-green algae that produce toxins and poisons that can cause serious illness or death in pets, livestock, wildlife and humans. 

            Sewage treatment plants can remove much of the phosphorus from our wastewater, but they cannot remove all of it before it reaches rivers, lakes and streams.  

The new law requires that dishwasher detergents contain no more than 0.5 percent phosphorus. Because soaps designed for washing dishes by hand are already phosphorus-free, the new requirement affects only soaps used in automatic dishwashers.

Some experts have estimated that dishwasher detergent accounts for 10 to 12 percent of the phosphorus in wastewater.

            In 1992, the Oregon Legislature adopted phosphorus limits for cleaning agents including soaps and laundry detergents. The new requirements adopted by the Oregon legislature in 2009 relate to automatic dishwasher detergents only and reduce the limit from 8.7 percent to 0.5 percent.   

      

“We were very pleased to have support from the national American Cleaning Institute on this important legislation. This is an excellent addition to Oregon’s already existing limit on phosphorous in laundry detergents,” said Senator Jackie Dingfelder (D-Portland), lead sponsor of the legislation and chair of Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee. “With fewer phosphates entering our waterways, Oregon will have healthier rivers, streams, and lakes for us all to enjoy.”

The legislature amended the bill to bring the implementation date in line with other states proposing similar bans.

            The other states joining Oregon in the move away from phosphate-laden detergents July 1, 2010 are Washington, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana,

New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin.

            The new law does not apply to commercial and industrial dishwasher products. 

           

            If you notice dishwasher detergent at a store that does not comply with the new law, call

Bernie Duffy of the DEQ Water Quality Program at 541-278-4601 or toll free in Oregon 800-452-4011 to report name of the store and the address.

For more information about the new dishwasher detergent law: www.deq.state.or.us/wq/pubs/factsheets/programinfo/PhosphateLimits09-ER-005.pdf

Oregon DEQ Subverts the Process and Wastes True Believers in Greywater

Sad news from Rainbow Todd Jarvis about the DEQ's graywater advisory committee:

http://rainbowwatercoalition.blogspot.com/2010/05/wasting-true-believers-in-greywater.html

with commentary from AquaDoc, Michael Campana

I am happy to report that Todd Jarvis appears to be safe and sound despite his recent experiences with DEQ - he didn't drink the Kool-Aid.

DEQ and Groundwater Management

Interesting to note the Environmental Quality Commission meeting agenda for this week includes an informational item about the Lower Umatilla Groundwater Management Area (staff report is available here).  The opening of the staff report states, "Oregon’s 1995 Groundwater Protection Act requires DEQ to declare a 

groundwater management area if groundwater contamination, resulting at least in part from nonpoint source activities, exceeds certain contamination levels." The staff report goes on to say that it is worth continuing to use voluntary methods to control contamination in the region even though groundwater nitrate levels have not declined and in fact show increasing trends. 

Perhaps I noticed this item because within the same week I received a notice that the DEQ is holding a public meeting about establishing a steering committee for what they are calling the S. Deschutes/N. Klamath Groundwater Protection Project.  On the map on the web site for this project it shows a statewide map of the incidence of detected nitrate-nitrogen levels in groundwater around the state and there several bright red spots of 10+mg/L around the state.  

What does a Groundwater Management Area get us as citizens of Oregon?  Voluntary action while groundwater contamination increases .... establishing yet another steering committee while groundwater contamination continues ... sometimes it is time to call a spade a spade and put that spade to work improving things.

Oregon Environment eNewsletter - Spring 2010

This is supposed to be available at Oregon DEQ's site but the link appears to be broken:

In This Issue

* DEQ Launches 'Oregon Carbon Calculator'

* DEQ Works to Improve Water Quality Standards

* Chemical-free Lawns Benefit Kids, Pets and Environment

DEQ Launches 'Oregon Carbon Calculator'

A new interactive tool on the DEQ website lets Oregon residents measure their carbon footprint and discover ways to improve it. The Oregon Carbon Calculator calculates all direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions from personal transportation, household energy use, and consumption of food, goods and services.

Find out how your household's carbon footprint compares to households of similar size and income. And learn how you can take action to reduce your carbon footprint from a number of specific ideas and strategies.

The Oregon Carbon Calculator is made possible through Oregon DEQ's support of the CoolClimate Network, a program of the University of California, Berkeley, and through financial support by the California Air Resources Board and the CoolCalifornia.org partnership. Oregon DEQ selected this calculator for its approach and depth in calculating human impacts to climate change.

DEQ Works to Improve Water Quality Standards

DEQ is responsible for establishing water quality standards and policies to protect aquatic and human life in Oregon. Staff are busy working on a number of important water quality improvement projects for Oregon, including the following:

Reducing persistent pollutants. DEQ has prepared a draft legislative report detailing sources of 118 persistent toxics in Oregon waterways and measures to help reduce them. Public information sessions will take place throughout the state in early April. DEQ will submit the final report to the Oregon Legislature on June 1. More information.

Upper Klamath, Lost River Subbasins. A plan to improve water quality in the Upper Klamath and Lost River subbasins is out for public comment. Due to questions about water availability in the Klamath basin, DEQ has extended the comment period through May 27. More information.

Turbidity standards. DEQ is updating the water quality standard addressing turbidity, a measure of water clarity. Once technical work is completed, DEQ will convene a work group and develop a revised rule on the standard – sometime in late 2011. More information.

Standards for new fish consumption rate. DEQ continues to work with communities and other interested groups to develop new standards regulating toxic emissions into waterways to protect human health based on a higher fish consumption rate. More information.

Willamette basin streamside habitat study. In early March, DEQ released a report estimating it could cost up to $1.2 billion to restore streamside vegetation throughout the Willamette basin. The loss in streamside vegetation -- due to pollution stemming from farming, forestry and urban activities – has resulted in increased polluted runoff into streams, leading to increased water temperature and diminished aquatic life. View the report.

Chemical-free Lawns Benefit Kids, Pets and Environment

It may surprise you to learn that the best weed control for a lawn is provided by healthy soil, not synthetic fertilizers and herbicides. Some lawn chemicals actually kill the soil microbes necessary for a healthy lawn.

Using a "weed and feed" product to fertilize a lawn also broadcasts toxic herbicides across the entire lawn. These herbicides can stay there for weeks. Rain or watering can wash the chemicals into storm drains that lead to rivers and streams where fish are at risk. Moreover, herbicides are toxic chemicals that can be unsafe for children and pets.

There are safe and healthy ways to care for your lawn without the use of toxic herbicides. Visit DEQ’s Healthy Lawns, Healthy Families website to learn about natural lawn care and how lawn-care habits affect water quality.

Calendar of Events

Visit our online calendar for more information on these and other events. 

April 5-7: Information meetings in Eugene, Medford, Bend and Portland on Draft Report on Reducing Persistent Pollutants in State Waters.

April 16: State Furlough Day. All DEQ offices and vehicle emissions inspection stations closed.

April 26-27: Public meetings in Salem and Eugene on Willamette Valley Field Burning Rule Revisions.  

April 28-29: Oregon Environmental Quality Commission meeting, Coos Bay. Details to come.

June 18: State Furlough Day. All DEQ offices and vehicle emissions inspection stations closed.  

* * *

Got Household Toxic Waste?  New clickable map shows collection events throughout state

Many of us have products at home containing hazardous substances. Examples include pesticides, herbicides, solvents, paints, motor oil and antifreeze. It’s important to dispose of these products properly to avoid contaminating our water supply or threatening the health of sanitation workers.

Never dispose of household toxic trash down the sink, on the ground, down a storm drain, or in your garbage can. Instead, take your unwanted products to a household hazardous waste collection site.

You can use our online clickable map to see when a household hazardous waste collection event will be in your area of the state.

Learn more about household hazardous waste and what you can do to minimize it in your home.

*********************

Sending this quarterly newsletter electronically rather than in hard copy format saves about 67,000 sheets of paper a year. This equals an estimated 17 million BTUs of energy and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 2.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (240 gallons of gasoline). Please don’t print this newsletter unless necessary.

Oregon DEQ Seeks Public Input on Draft Report On Reducing Persistent Pollutants in Oregon's Waters

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is seeking public input through Monday, April 19 on a draft report about reducing persistent pollutants in Oregon waters. After receiving public input and making final revisions, DEQ will submit the final report to the Oregon Legislature on June 1.
 
 For more information, please see the news release:
  http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplay.asp?docID=3233

DEQ's failure to regulate - 2

I saw the article over in the Bend Bulletin the other day about a meeting the DEQ* was to hold in Central Oregon on February 4th, 2010.  The headline read:  DEQ to form committee for exploring nitrate issue and solutions.  How classic.  Like so many other actions to improve our society, here is a water protection effort that seems destined to die in committee.  


What I thought was particularly interesting about the article was the timeline that the Bulletin provided for what has happened already in the region.  Nitrates in groundwater are found first in a concentrated area in 1982 and then elsewhere in 1994.  I had to look at that twice and make sure I had my reading glasses on because I was dumbfounded.  That's a total of 28, yes, twenty-eight, years.  The DEQ has documented increasing levels of groundwater contamination in a large (125 square mile area according to the article) area over nearly three decades and they are going to form a committee!?!?


This is an area where one in ten of the wells sampled by the US Geological Survey shows signs of contamination?  Pick your favorite comedian and just imagine what they could do with material like this.  


The sad ending to the article is the series of people saying that it's good to take time to do these things right, that there's no emergency.  No, there is no emergency.  It is obviously too late to save the groundwater, the time for preventing pollution is obviously passed.  I must refer to an earlier post where I talked about delusional people.  This is a region's drinking water supply and yet the environmental protection agency for the state of Oregon is allowing protection actions to be waylaid by rhetoric. 


Three decades is an awfully long time to consider what to do about a groundwater contamination problem.  And to initiate a committee at the end of the three decades to decide what to do next is a pitiful excuse for environmental protection from our state environmental protection agency.  


The thorn is in Oregon DEQ's side for failure to act in accordance with it's own rules.  Duh.


*note the big red blob almost in the middle of the state on the map on this site, this is the region they're talking about in this case.

DEQ's failure to regulate

I noticed a while back that Jackson County is seeking an exception to one of Oregon's statewide land use planning goals in order to extend sewer services to rural properties where there is a demonstrated public health hazard.  Nothing extraordinary in that.  After all, if the public will be harmed by the failure of existing sewage treatment facilities to perform and there is no other way to fix the problem, then by all means, expand society's indebtedness* and put in sewers.  My bigger concern is the reason why this sewer extension is needed at all.  When you read the staff report from Jackson County, there is much discussion of how severely limited the soils are for septic systems and that is why they are failing and that is why they cannot be upgraded.  Here is an excerpt from page 10 of the staff report: 

"Figures 1 through 7 in Exhibit A presented in the background section of this document demonstrate: 1) How most of the soils in the Rogue Valley (Bear Creek Sub-Basin Area) are severely limited with respect to septic treatment and have other soil limitations such as severe shrink-swell characteristics and high water tables; 2) How dense rural and urban land uses, reliant on septic systems for sewage treatment, currently exist in many of these areas..."

The WTF moment in this is that no where in the country and certainly not in Oregon, could anyone have allowed a septic system on these types of soils for at least the last 20 years, if not longer.  These approvals are a clear violation of Oregon rule and provide an extraordinary example of how government can fall down on the job at taxpayer expense.  What motivates a government agency to violate its own rules?  I don't know the specific answer in this specific case but I'm sure we can speculate a little bit in the interest of once again highlighting motivations for action or inaction.

1. Button pushers on the outside:  Pressure that comes from outside of a regulatory agency is a potent motivator for public officials to approve something that ought not be approved in light of what the rules (which are just codified political winds) say.  This might be a motivation coming from elected types wanting to increase revenues to tax coffers or property rights activists threatening lawsuits or the nice older couple that just want to retire to the home they've been dreaming of all their lives.  
2. Rubber stampers on the inside:  Pressure that comes from within the regulatory agency is also a potent motivator and can be a lot more damaging and insidious.  This is pressure that comes from employees who want to look good to those folks higher in the food chain by avoiding controversy or property rights activists that are on staff and that tend to exert their own political will on their job or employees that don't have the huevos to stand up for what's right or worse, that don't care (For example, "One little house isn't going to make a difference."  A hundred houses and twenty years later, what have you got?)

So, in short, having septic systems located in soils that are severely limited for septic systems represents years and years of shoddy decision making that are now going to cost society (in this case residents of Jackson County) a huge amount of money.  WTF?   No wonder public employees have such a bad reputation.  The thorn is definitely in Oregon DEQ's side on this issue and this is not the only case of such short sighted decision making in Oregon.

*  My concern here is that we cannot, as a society, keep up with maintenance and scheduled upgrades to existing facilities, so why continue to add to society's financial burdens to install even more infrastructure that we can't afford to maintain (see the American Society of Civil Engineers Infrastructure Report Card at:  http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/).

Is water quality protection only worthwhile where humans are involved?

This link from the Oregonian highlights a conundrum that I have often pondered.  (EPA may fund mine cleanup)  While this particular situation appears to be getting a fix, there are so many others that are not being fixed because there is not that grand conjunction between an environmental crime and impacts on humans.   At what point is it stupid to say that, just because humans aren't immediately affected, we shouldn't fix a problem?  Hmmmm, I have to admit, on retrospect, that my own question smacks of one of those legendary stupid questions in light of all the problems that do have an effect on humans that don't get fixed.

For example, check out the red dots on the map on this site:  http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/onsite/nitrate.htm.  While this particular web page focuses on the headwaters of the Deschutes River, the map is a statewide view of groundwater contamination in the state by one contaminant, nitrate, for which there is a federally established drinking water standard of 10 mg/L nitrate as N.  All the little red dots show where groundwater resources exceed that standard.  I know of the voluntary groundwater management programs that Oregon DEQ has undertaken in the southern Willamette, Umatilla and Malheur regions  (see the map at:  http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/groundwater/gwmas.htm) and am somewhat skeptical of real progress in those areas, but at least there is DEQ attention.  After all this is our state agency that is concerned about environmental protection.  But what about all the other clusters of red dots in Oregon?  Many of these dots are are located in areas of much higher population densities than where GWMAs have been designated and, by extension of the line of reasoning with which I began this post, there would be a greater conjunction between environmental contamination and impacts on humans.

But of course, more humans means more politics and we have witnessed the politicizing of DEQ over many, many years.  To be fair, I will point out that the story with which I began this post related to the EPA's Superfund program to deal with hazardous waste and the red dot map relates to nitrates and not toxic substances.  However, it is interesting to note that EPA gives priority where there is the contamination/human impact conjunction, whereas in a very broad brush look, it appears, merely based on active groundwater management programs, that DEQ's first priority is vague to say the least.  And while I do not say that DEQ acting on groundwater issues in less densely populated regions is a measure of their backbone in protecting the environment in general, I would have to poke a thorn firmly in the side of the DEQ for not taking action on these other areas of the state, particularly in those areas where the problem has been studied for decades.