1 / 53

Will Rutherford willmarford@q

Will Rutherford willmarford@q.com. September 20, 2011. Presentation Purpose: Introduce McKenzie ClearWater Coalition (MCWC) Accomplishments – 8 Formative Months Acknowledge EWEB Efforts Highlight MCWC Analysis of Raw Water Testing Data Suggestions/Recommendations for EWEB

tamas
Download Presentation

Will Rutherford willmarford@q

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Will Rutherford willmarford@q.com September 20, 2011

  2. Presentation Purpose: • Introduce McKenzie ClearWater Coalition (MCWC) • Accomplishments – 8 Formative Months • Acknowledge EWEB Efforts • Highlight MCWC Analysis of Raw Water Testing Data • Suggestions/Recommendations for EWEB • Potential Future Efforts

  3. Formation Stimulus: • 1. Lane County Ordinance Proposal; Oct 2010 • a. No Accommodation of Citizenry • b. Minimal Public Notice • c. Weak Scientific Basis • d. Gross Encroachment on Property Rights • e. Manipulative Government Processes • 2. Result: McKenzie ClearWater Coalition

  4. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition • The “Missing Link” in the stewardship of the McKenzie River Drainage Basin • 2. Many entities claim stewardship of the McKenzie • a. EWEB, DEQ, Watershed Council, Guides, • McKenzie Trust, DFW, NOAA, City of Eugene, • Lane County ……… • Residents and Landowners are now collectively • identified as the McKenzie ClearWater Coalition

  5. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition • 1. Current Membership: 360+ Citizens & Businesses • a. 3 Segments (Milepost Communities) indexed by • Highway 126 • 2. Representative “Confluence Team” of 15-20 Actively Involved Leaders From MP Communities • 3. Virtual Organization • 4. Organizational Components • a. Charter; Provisionally Approved • b. Process & Procedures Document • c. Website; http://clearwatercoalition.net

  6. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition Charter • 1. Mission • a. Preserve and Protect the Legacy of the • McKenzie Basin • b. Protect Physical Property Values • c. Respect Citizen Property Rights

  7. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition Charter • 1. Core Values • a. Preservation & Protection of Water Resources • b. Mgmt of Ecological Character of the Basin • c. Property Rights of Citizens • d. Better Informed Citizenry • e. Prudent Scientifically Based Practices • f. Respect for the Environmental, Cultural and • Economic Legacy of the McKenzie Basin

  8. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition Charter • 1. Goals • a. Non-Partisan Organization • b. Education and Communication • c. Champion the River Basin and its Vital • Community • d. Ombudsman for Member Concerns • e. Foster Citizen Cooperation to Achieve Goals • Established by Scientifically Based Proven • Practices

  9. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition • 8 Formative Months • Interacted/Participated With:

  10. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition • 8 Formative Months • Education Series:

  11. Near-Term To-Do List • Ratification of Charter • Election of Officers • Website Expansion • Membership Expansion • Increased Interaction with EWEB • Education Series Opportunities • a. ODFW • b. Legislative Activities • c. DEQ Follow-up • d. Forest Service • e. Willamette Basin Studies • f. Lane County Planning • g. EWEB Round Tables

  12. EWEB Stewardship Initiatives • 1. Roger Gray “Rather Educate than Litigate” • 2. Development Solutions; Karl Morgenstern • a. Assistance for Septic Systems • b. Assistance with Blue River Septic Cluster • c. Voluntary Incentives; Healthy Riparian Areas • d. Sustainable Landscapes Program (OSU) • e. Mitigation Fees for Sensitive Areas • f. Ordinance Focus: Hazmat, Septic Systems, • and Floodplain/Floodway

  13. A Report of Study and Analysis Years 2001 - 2010 Raw Water Testing Data Hayden Bridge Intake Plant July, 2011

  14. MCWC Study & Analysis • Document Preface: • “Report undertaken to ascertain facts, educate members, and ensure that views and input of residents are included in any future proposed changes to the reasonable use of private property” • 2. “Primary goal will always be to protect the legacy of the McKenzie River as a source of high quality drinking water and a world class recreational treasure”

  15. MCWC Study & Analysis • Motivation: • No Published Data to Support County Ordinance • Inability to get Time-Trended Data from EWEB • Desire to Understand Contaminant and Causal Water Quality Trends • Desire to Develop a Scientific Approach to Problem Mitigation • MCWC Technical Team Leader: Richard Eide

  16. MCWC Study & Analysis • Data Collection & Analysis: 7 Months to Complete • All Data was Provided by EWEB • The Only Site Specific, Consistent, Trendable Data was at the Raw Water Intake for the EWEB Hayden Bridge Facility • MCWC did not find/Was not provided Trendable Data that could be Evaluated above Hayden Bridge

  17. MCWC Study & Analysis • A Sampling of EWEB Source Documents • EWEB Drinking Water Source Protection Plan (Aug 2000/Feb 2005) • Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment and Evaluation Results (Apr 2006) • The McKenzie River Septic Assistance Project Final Report (Nov 2009) • The EWEB Drinking Water Protection Plan Technical Report (Aug 2009) • The McKenzie River Watershed Baseline Monitoring Report, 2000-2009 (Nov 2010) • Many Others

  18. MCWC Study & Analysis • Study Challenges: • 1. Hayden Bridge Intake (HBI) Data Configuration makes Trend Analysis Difficult and Cumbersome • 2. Major Effort by the MCWC Technical Team • a. Extracting and Reformatting EWEB data so it • could be Analyzed with Consistancy • b. Extensive Manual Conversion Work Required

  19. MCWC Study & Analysis • 1. Study Scope and Methodology • a. 133 Contaminant Data Tables Created • b. Approximately 18,000 Test Results over 10 Yrs • c. Data Reformatted for Excel Analysis • d. Created a Standard Data Sheet for Consistency • e. Used Annual Statistical Averages • f. Identified High and Low Annual Values

  20. MCWC Study Findings • 1. Findings: • a. 133 Contaminants • 1) 12 Had Sufficient Data for Valid Trends • a) 2 Had Slight Upward Trends • 1. Alkalinity • 2. Odor • b) 10 Had Slight Downward Trends • c) E.coli & Coliform BOTH Had Slight • Downward Trends

  21. MCWC Study Findings • 1. Findings (continued): • a. 121 Contaminants were non-detectable at EWEB • test levels or not subject to testing • b. All statistically analyzed results are well below • EPA standard thresholds • c. No significant change in annual contaminant • levels trended over the last 10 years at Hayden • Bridge Intake!

  22. MCWC Study Coordination • 1. Delivered Study to EWEB July 12; Follow-up Meeting on August 2 • 2. EWEB replied with written comments August 2; MCWC has responded • a. There are some differences of opinion • 3. Next Steps will be direct dialogs to increase mutual understandings

  23. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition • Study Conclusions • Analyzed on an annual basis, the raw water quality at the Hayden Bridge facility has remained very stable to slightly improved over the past 10 years even as population and development have continued to expand. • Consistent with “Point In Time” EWEB results reported in From Source To Tap”, 2010 Consumer Confidence Report • With available data, there is no way to identify cause/effect relationships that contributed to the improvement trends • The use of EWEB data to support Lane County Ordinance proposals was at best, misleading

  24. HOW GOOD IS OUR WATER?

  25. 12 Trendable Contaminants • a. Alkalinity (Not EPA Regulated) • b. Odor (EPA Regulated) • c. Calcium (Not EPA Regulated) • d. Chloride (EPA Regulated) • e. Hardness (EPA Regulated) • e. Iron (EPA Regulated) • f. Silica (Not EPA Regulated) • g. Sodium (Not EPA Regulated) • h. Total Dissolved Solids (EPA Regulated) • i. Total Solids (EPA Regulated) • j. E.coli • k. Coliform

  26. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition • Thoughts/Suggestions/Recommendations • Use EWEB IT to review water quality data storage; consider database technology instead of EXCEL • Develop and Maintain standardized testing, data processes and trending analyses for upstream testing sites • Reformat test data available on the EWEB website so it can be understood and used by the public • Use the EWEB website to publicly display the results of raw water testing and trending • Use validated trended raw water data and sound science to support any future proposals

  27. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition Thoughts/Suggestions/Recommendations (Continued) 6. Segment the river, analyze long-term trends, and identify specific problems to be investigated and managed 7. Do not entertain proposals that impact property ownership rights unless there is clear supporting scientific evidence 8. Support County efforts to enforce existing ordinances 9. Do not exclude the MCWC or general public from participation in processes that impact property rights, values, or ways of life

  28. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition • Path Forward • Build on Lessons Learned, Common Knowledge, and Science • MCWC will request Hayden Bridge Testing Data annually from EWEB; it will be added to existing data for continued trend analysis • MCWC will be examining data reporting and use closely • Seize opportunities to increase understandings; Round Tables, Study Groups, Presentations, Field Visits …………

  29. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition • In Closing • Appreciate cooperation and attitude of EWEB as we prepared our analyses • Differences of opinion become the basis for information exchange and education • We will continue to follow EWEB actions closely; we will not always agree, but we will interact in a positive and constructive manner • MCWC Position: Isolation of causes is critical so corrective actions can be: • a) Monitored • b) Managed • c) Celebrated

  30. McKenzie ClearWater Coalition In Closing Contact Us: EMAIL clearwatercoalition@gmail.com WEBSITE http://clearwatercoalition.net/

  31. End of Presentation

  32. ADDITIONAL CHARTS & DETAILS

  33. What contaminants does EWEB test for in raw water and how often? (6 groups) • Microbials – 2 (once a day) • E.Coli and total coliform (indicator test) • Inorganic and Secondary Parameters – 35 • 17 inorganic substances, 18 secondary tests and or used to test for water quality (once a month)

  34. Synthetic Organic Compounds - 36 Regulated • 12 herbicides, 9 insecticides, 10 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 2 fungicides, 2 pesticides, and 1 petroleum product (once a month) • Synthetic Organic Compounds - 17 Unregulated • 4 insecticides, 6 pesticides, 6 herbicides, and 1 petroleum product (once a month) • Volatile Organic Compounds - 21 Regulated • Solvents, dyes, chemical compounds used in the manufacture of many house items (once a month)

  35. Volatile Organic Compounds – 22 Unregulated • Solvents, pesticides, fumigants, insecticides, to make other chemicals, disinfection byproducts, fire retardant, gasoline additive, and to manufacture a wide range of household products (one a month) • Many contaminants are used for many purposes. Some are no longer in use and some are banned in the United States

More Related