Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Opinion & Editorial

by Dale A. Burk, Stevensville

Residents of the Bitterroot Valley got a good lesson in bureaucratic superficiality combined with benign sophistry recently when a team out of Helena representing the Montana Department of Environmental Quality presented to the public what it called a supplemental environmental assessment plan regarding a proposal to create a “land application site for septage and grease trap type waste” along U.S. Highway 93 just northwest of Stevensville and just a few hundred feet to the west upslope of the Bitterroot River.

In fact, the DEQ presentation seemed to me, a person who has spent the last four decades in Montana as an observer and editorial commentator on natural resource policy in this part of the world, to raise all sorts of red flags, even outright fear, for both the sloppiness of the DEQ work on this particular issue as well as its obvious insensitivity to what might really be at stake in issues of this kind. Neither they in person or their EA dealt with or responded to most of the concerns raised with anything other than what could best be called dismissive superficiality or at the worst elitist condescension, and if this is the way DEQ is doing business elsewhere in Montana, we indeed have much to fear.

At least three times in their dialogue at the meeting the DEQ staffers mentioned the need for “site specific” information when making a siting decision and yet when asked what site specific information they had used to come to their conclusion that consideration of this site should even continue let alone be approved, they invariably had no trustworthy site specific information and relied instead on “advice” they’d received from someone else (unnamed someone elses) from other parts of the state.

A major example of this, to me, was their response to a question I asked of the meetings moderator, Rick Thompson, supervisor of the DEQ Solid Waste Section, what scientific information they’d used to be able to ensure us that no harm could befall the Bitterroot River should any contaminants from the site reach the river. Thompson, incredulously, said they’d talked to a “Fish and Wildlife Service” biologist and he’d assured them everything was okay in that regard. Who is this biologist? Unnamed, but he was from southeastern Montana. Had this unnamed federal biologist reviewed the situation on site? Well, no. Wouldn’t it have been better to have local Fish, Wildlife and Parks fisheries scientists who have a hands-on knowledge of the Bitterroot River do such an assessment? He didn’t know. And what consideration had they given the excellent analysis on the proposal done by those who know a thing about the Bitterroot River and its fishery – Montana Trout Unlimited, among others? TU did do some “on site” inquiries and DEQ would be wise to listen to its findings before it exposes the river to the potential dangers of such a waste treatment site being placed where it poses a threat to the river should anything out of the ordinary occur at the site. To quote directly from a profound analysis done by Will McDowell of Missoula: “Although the mentioned surface water drainages are quite small and may not be perennial, their proximity to the disposal sites, and the short run to the Bitterroot River, call into question whether these two sites fully meet the State’s criteria for this type of disposal. The EA simply states that the setback limits are met. It seems that a discussion of these risks is merited.”

Other specific points of concern, and these are just a few, are:

• The Bitterroot River wasn’t even mentioned in the EA, even though it flows immediately to the east of the site, indeed a “short run” and would inevitably be the recipient of any potential pollutants from the waste site.

• The Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge, into whose waters pollution would run if something drastic should happen, wasn’t even mentioned in the EA. Some kind of oversight we got from DEQ on that, right? Even though the refuge is one of the valley’s crown jewels.

• There was no consideration in the EA of the nature of the terrain involved at the proposed site, which is a long downslope from west to east that ends a few hundred feet away at the edge of the Bitterroot River. A potential problem? Duh.

• There was no consideration in the EA of the history of winter snowmelt, particularly during occasionally massive spring runoff incidents, which also occur at times of heavy snows followed by warming periods when hundreds if not thousands of gallons of water flow at breakneck pace directly into the river. What would the impact be should this happen at a time when the wastes had just been applied to the site?

• No options were offered for alternate sites, almost a given in most environmental reviews when done professionally. And this leads to an even larger question, that of whether or not the siting process itself is either appropriate or in line with good environmental practices. There are, incidentally, potential alternatives. Again, just read the TU analysis or Will McDowell’s comments, not the misleading pap the DEQ is throwing at the public in this regard.

• The potential for the ongoing presence of offensive odors, let alone litter, at the site drifting to nearby homes also got short shrift. DEQ apparently did no analysis of prevailing air currents, or at least failed to mention them if they had, and seemed absolutely convinced that the magic 150-foot setback distance to the north of most of those homes would be adequate. More sophistry. Most of the residents I talked to who might have to put up with odors and litter if the DEQ plan is approved aren’t as convinced.

• When asked what could be done if the site is approved and then something bad occurs and pollution does get into the river, the DEQ environmental science specialist, Renai Hill, said the site could always be closed down. That attitude, to me, seems to contradict the fundamental reason for having an environmental review. What good would it serve to close a site down once its pollution poisons a waterway, particularly one of the significance of the Bitterroot River? Or the Lee Metcalf National Wildlife Refuge? Isn’t that like closing the barn door after the horse has gotten away? Isn’t the purpose of environmental reviews to eliminate problems, through foresight, rather than take chances when the potential for such occurrences are foretold? A “calculated risk” with the Bitterroot River is no option.

•Another bit of sophistry in the EA is found when DEQ suggests, in the face of the concerns about the potential for runoff from the site is that a “berm” be established at the eastern end of the site. Have these people ever seen the incredible amount of water involved with a snowmelt-rain runoff from this site, like most of us who’ve lived in the Bitterroot for a long time have? All a berm would do is shove the runoff further to the north or south and then it’d still find its way, within minutes, to the Bitterroot River. A berm at the east end of the site, in and of itself, would be no solution at all in terms of protecting the river or the landowners to the east of the site.

One last major point needs to be considered, one that came up at the end of the public meeting in Stevensville, and that is the issue of ultimate responsibility-accountability. Should it happen that this siting proposal is approved by DEQ and it goes forward, who would or could be held accountable for the harm it would bring to the landowners along its edge? Or to the Bitterroot River? Who, indeed? The disposal agent? The DEQ? The governor, who is ultimately responsible for decisions his administration makes? Or maybe that nameless federal biologist from southeastern Montana who has never been to the site and, I’d guess, doesn’t really care? The question is, does Mr. Thompson or the DEQ really care? The fact is that should such a disaster occur, holding someone responsible wouldn’t do a thing to correct the situation or restore the river that should never have been endangered in the first place. Having someone to blame might make us feel better, but wouldn’t it be better, simply put, to do a true, full-fledged and proper environmental impact statement before any decision is made and if it isn’t right to put such a disposal site this close to the river under the circumstances found there, don’t do it. No one disagrees with the fact that we need to identify and utilize proper waste disposal sites and methods, but it seems obvious that proper consideration hasn’t been given to the rightness or wrongness of locating such a site at this particular place.

The neighbors to this proposed disposal site deserve no less such consideration. And certainly the Bitterroot River deserves no less consideration and foresight. Let’s be responsible by demanding that such adequate oversight take place before it’s too late. I happen to agree with a statement made by the Ravalli County Fish and Wildlife Association in asking the DEQ and Governor Schweitzer to either deny the permit or delay a decision on the site for a minimum of 90 days to provide time for a thorough and proper assessment of what’s involved at the site. To wit, that statement reads: “The Bitterroot River is too valuable a resource environmentally, biologically, sociologically and economically for us to take such an unwarranted risk. Give us time to ensure that what is proposed here is right, and if we find it’s not right, then we shouldn’t put the waste disposal site where it could endanger the very vitality of the Bitterroot River.”

Can’t have it both ways

Dear Editor,

I was heading to Missoula the other day when north of the Stevi Wye there was a sign off in a field to the west which said something to the effect of "No Septic Dumping.” What I found odd about this is this was the exact same field that had a series of plywood signs up before the last election asking us to vote against any planning in Ravalli County, if I remember correctly. What strikes me as odd is that the people who were against any planning whatsoever were the people who are for property rights. My question would be, isn't it the right of the property owner to dump septic waste on his fields as long as it is within prescribed limits? So how does this property rights anti-planning thing work then? Property rights are fine as long as it suits me, but that doesn't include my neighbor when I don't agree with what they are doing. Is that how the right to use your property as you see fit works? Since you were against any planning in the county then, if I buy a place next to yours then I can set up a hog farm or gravel pit as long as I am within state guidelines for clean air and water and you have no say in it. Just as you should have no say in this septic dumping unless it affects your water, but does not interfere with my property rights. Is that the way it is supposed to work or am I missing something here? I didn't think that you can have it both ways where either property rights are sacred or there should be planning only when something affects you. Can you clear this up for me?

Mike Lulay
Hamilton

What on Earth?

Dear Editor,

Who might I need to be to get your attention?

Doesn't the plain circumstance laid out before us and so urgently imminent, beckon upon ALL of us to stand together if we ever hope to achieve success in our Good Causes?

For: Whales, Dolphins, the big cats, sublime creatures of all their kind, forests, HUNGER, oppression, degradation upon the lands and systems of EARTH, hopelessness suffered by too many, corporate control of too much life, World population, aggression, "free rights" assertions, division, World-wide food systems control and degradation, confined animal feed-lots pumping critters with noxious chemicals and running them into vile slaughter and moronically contrived belief systems hurled recklessly into and upon the people of EARTH....where are the calls for Vital Planning?

WHEN... I implore now, might we find the courage and resolve to stand up and say what needs to be said?

WHEN, I plead now, will we arise in UNITY, to change the archaic broken "story" so recklessly hurled and hawked into our World culture?

PLEASE, good people...my intentions are honorable...these facts, TRUE... PLEASE, might we just take a moment to consider what we must clearly do... for ALL people, for ALL life, for EARTH, for All future generations and... for True Sustainability?

For as INFINITE LOVE, is so plainly forsaken...

Is this really... so much to ask... your kindly comment of support, perhaps? A meaningful dialog in our communities and among us, maybe? The anger, shouting, denial, complacency and silence is astounding. Someone needs to make this "call"... someone needs to presently appear. I guess it's me. I come with benevolence, respect, reverence and... TRUE facts so plain to see... so wanting of our sincere, sublime and reverent engagement. I am nobody, but my heart aches for the dire circumstance and plight of ALL Life and EARTH that we have made.

With sincere respect... I, others, ALL LIFE and EARTH humbly await...

Lee Kierig, Architect
Hamilton

Take a second look at health care reform

Dear Editor,

Americans want health care reform. Republican and Democratic politicians say reform is needed. So why don’t we have it?

Because the only other thing we have in common is that reform must be exactly what we envision or we’re against it. Forget that, in a representative democracy, we must and should be willing to work toward consensus.

Forty percent of the public support the Health Care Bills that have passed the House and the Senate. The majority of the non-supporters still want reform. Some say the bills are too weak. Some say they’re too much.

These bills are the result of much compromise. At the behest of Republicans and conservative Democrats, many of the pieces sought by progressive Democrats are gone. Parts remain that are not desired by the Republican minority in the House and Senate. But there are good things that nearly everyone wants in these bills.  

Provisions for increasing competition between insurance companies are contained in these bills. So are provisions for ensuring that everyone has access cancer screening tests. So are provisions for trying different ways to reduce the appalling rate of hospital based infections that waste millions of tax payer dollars every year and cost many lives.

I challenge both Democrats and Republicans to take a fresh look at these bills. See if you don’t think they’re an improvement over what we have. For an interesting comparison go to:

http://www.piconetwork.org/admin/documents/files/Comparison-of-current-health-care-with-Senate-and-House-reform-bills.pdf

Remember, without reform, it is predicted that what we have will cost us or whoever pays for our care (our employers or the government) twice as much in five years. Can you afford that? Can your employer? Can our country? Time to stop listening to the ideologues on both sides and think for ourselves.

Pat Tucker
Hamilton

Health coverage needed

Dear Editor,

I just turned 30 years old and am concerned about the future of my health coverage. I feel that the system, as it is, will not be adequate when health problems arise in my future. I am currently a student and am enrolled in the University of Montana health insurance program, but it does not cover vision which I need. I, along with my fellow Americans, am concerned about the future availability of quality, affordable health coverage. I trust that our representatives will take the necessary steps to ensure future quality coverage for all Americans and people in need.

Andrew Cameron
Missoula

Government surveillance?

Dear Editor,

In many cities, surveillance cameras are being installed, and they are always told it is for their safety. Being here in Libby, I have not been too concerned about this loss of personal privacy and freedom, because I thought that people in small towns in Montana would not want to be under government surveillance, as I have always felt that rural Montanans still value their freedoms and love America, and what it stands for.  

But now here in Libby, the Mayor has proposed installing government surveillance cameras downtown. Libby is not that small of a town relative to many in Montana, but if it can happen here, I thought I had better warn other citizens of small towns in Montana that government surveillance cameras could be installed in their towns as well.

I have been in downtown Libby for over 25 years, and I never thought I'd have to be concerned about being under government surveillance when I walk out of my office.

So, if it can happen here, it can happen in your town as well. Our freedoms are being continually eroded, and cameras will just continue to get cheaper, so what will be the future trend of this slippery slope? I just thought people throughout Montana should be aware of this trend toward government surveillance even in small towns.

Yes, it can happen to you, too.

Wayne Hirst, President
Libby Downtown Association, Inc.

Great coverage

Dear Editor,

Just a brief bit to thank you for the excellent coverage of the human rights business in The Star  of Jan 20. It was balanced and factual in my view. The Bitterroot Star is really an excellent paper. Thanks again.

Roger Williams
Hamilton

Star applauded for following through

Dear Editor,

I am most impressed that you took the time to actually investigate the allegations of neglect and callousness at the Bitterroot animal shelter.

You did not take anyone person’s word for the so called deplorable conditions at the Bitterroot Humane Association, or completely ignore your mailbox and letters of complaint either.

I would like to have the fact noted that although your visit was unannounced you did visit the shelter after the shelter had been notified of the County Commissioners' letter of complaint. Your visit also was on a Thursday the day after they are closed each week for cleaning. I would certainly expect for those two reasons alone, the facility would have been clean and clear of sickness.

I applaud the Bitterroot Star, and Judi Press for doing something. One letter to the County Commissioners did make a difference for those animals and started the needed public awareness and vigilance of the BRHA.

J. Cameron
Hamilton

Meetings both civil and respectful

Dear Editor,

I was at both meetings with the commissioners regarding Ben Hillicoss and the planning board Minority Report. There seems to be two very different versions of those meetings.

The commission board was civil and very respectful. The citizens attending both meetings were also civil and respectful. Were emotions high? Some of the speakers certainly had emotion in their speech, both words and tenor. No one threatened anyone at any time period. No one denied anyone the right to speak their mind. Ben Hillicoss had the floor to speak as he felt so led. The citizens shared their concerns. While some of the commissioners seemed to be exasperated after a while when citizens continued to refer to Ben's Minority Report, they were reminded that many citizens no longer trust some of the commission to do what is right. This lack of trust is due to the manner in which three commissioners handled the zoning and streamside setback proposals. Due to the total lack of respect they showed towards those not supporting the proposed regulations, a significant majority of citizens used their right to vote to show how little faith and trust they have in local government. Many of those citizens came to protect what was voted upon in 2008. That is NOT uncivil or threatening. That is citizen input and totally appropriate when leadership breaks down and allows a document to surface that is so illegal in its scope of denying constitutional rights. Hate never entered the meetings. Threats never entered the meeting. People did use words like socialism, extremist, not qualified for the job, etc. Those words are in direct response to the wording in this planning board document that projected their unlawful extremism. Had failure at several levels within county government not been present the concerned tone of the citizens would never have been expressed.

Three levels bound by state law passed the buck with this report. First the Planning Board passed by six votes to approve the Minority Report and pass it up to the Planning Department level. The fact that the Planning Board has six members who agreed with the report is terrifying. They are bound by law yet ignored that small fact to approve the document. In turn the Planning Department handed the document off to the Commissioners, advising them it was an inappropriate document. Again, why was it passed on, if it is an illegal document? Finally the Commissioners said they did NOT read it but instead passed the document off to the assistant county attorney. We taxpayers have now paid at three levels to have an illegal document given the light of day. Why did no one have the courage to say this is a piece of junk and needs to be filed in the round file? Why was it released to the newspaper? Ben knowingly wrote and submitted to the Planning Board a report not stating findings and recommendations within the guidelines of his position but instead he submitted his personal agenda which is totally outside the parameters allowed. The Planning Board had to know that should the Minority Report be made public, those who supported it or moved it forward would be rightly accused of violating the people’s trust. How any in planning and the Commissioners are surprised by the public outcry once the article was distributed is beyond understanding.

This was the lack of civility, ladies and gentlemen. This was the threat. This report was a challenge to property rights advocates and it came from a lack of leadership and big ego. It is not a conservative right wing conspiracy behind the thousands of everyday citizens of Ravalli County who are looking closely at government at all levels. It is not a small group of extremists who are bringing out this awareness that all is not well in the way our county is being run. We citizens of Ravalli County are not alone in our concerns. The citizens of the United States of America are waking up and taking notice. We are also giving notice. The vote is a powerful spokesperson for every citizen and just as it was in the local 2008 elections, the vote is what will tell us all how we want the future of Ravalli County to be directed. Civility sounds nice but only if it is equal to all sides of an issue. Civility as it is expounded upon in Ravalli County is often a tool to quiet dissent. "We The People" have the right and obligation to make our voice heard and one civil way to do that is by getting out and voting.

Suzy Foss
Hamilton

©2009 Bitterroot Star
This site was Done By Dooney