|
||
| Volume XVIII, Number 6 | Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2002 | |
Page One News at a Glance West Nile Virus now in Montana River protection group sues DNRC West Nile Virus now in Montana By Michael Howell As of August 22, West Nile Virus has been confirmed in horses in Montana, although to date no human cases have been reported in the state, according to Assistant State Veterinarian Dr. Tom Linfield. Since that time, up until Tuesday September 3, over a period of 13 days a total of 15 horses have tested positive for the disease. Six of these horses have died, four have survived and the fate of the other five is unknown, according to information provided on the internet by the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS). West Nile Virus disease is a mosquito-borne infection that can cause mild flu-like illness or severe encephalitis. Mosquitoes acquire the virus from infected birds and pass it on through mosquito bites to other birds, animals and people. Although DPHHS web site information and a recent press release states that the virus is not spread from person to person, this is now being qualified following the infection of four recipients of organ transplants from the same donor. Although the exact cause of these four organ recipients' illnesses and the means that they may have become infected still remains uncertain, as a precautionary measure, remaining blood products from the blood donors of the blood transfusions that were given to the organ transplant donor are being recalled. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), most persons exposed to the West Nile Virus do not develop symptoms. Approximately one in five exposed persons will develop a mild flu-like illness and less than one percent will develop severe neurological disease. Persons who do develop symptoms mostly will have symptom onsets 3 to 14 days after exposure to the virus. West Nile encephalitis is caused by West Nile Virus, a flavivirus previously only found in Africa, Eastern Europe, and West Asia. West Nile Virus has recently been detected in the bordering states of South Dakota, Wyoming and North Dakota. The virus has been steadily moving westward since its introduction into the United States in New York in 1999. Since the beginning of the year, 638 human cases of West Nile Virus have been reported to the CDC in 27 states and the District of Columbia. Thirty-one of those people have died. Over 5,000 birds have been verified to have died from the disease in 39 states. 998 veterinary cases have been confirmed in 27 states, including Montana. People over 50 years of age have the highest risk of developing a severe illness. People with compromised immune systems are also at increased risk. However, anyone can get the virus. People with mild infections may experience fever, headache, body aches, skin rash and swollen lymph glands. People with more severe infections may experience high fever, headache, neck stiffness, stupor, disorientation, coma, tremors, occasional convulsions and paralysis. There is no specific treatment for West Nile Virus infection, or a vaccine for humans, although a vaccine is available for horses. Clinical signs of encephalitis in horses include loss of appetite and depression in addition to any combination of weakness or paralysis of hind limbs, muzzle twitching, impaired vision, incoordination, head pressing, aimless wandering, convulsions, inability to swallow, circling, hyperexcitability, or coma. Dr. Linfield said that the vaccine must be administered before a horse is exposed to the virus. The manufacturer recommends two doses, three to six weeks apart the first year and a single booster in subsequent years. "Although we are nearing the end of the mosquito season in Montana, we continue to encourage horse owners to consult with their veterinarians regarding vaccinating their horses for WNV," Dr. Linfield said. He said that as of now the producers of the vaccine were keeping up with demand in Montana. The state's epidemiologist, Todd Demarou, is heading up the Montana West Nile Virus Surveillance Project, which is monitoring the progress of the disease in the state and posting statistics and other information on the internet. It can be readily accessed at http://www.dphhs.state.mt.us, and then pressing the "hot topics" button. Dr. Linfield said that more reports of infections in horses could be expected for up to two weeks following the first mosquito killing frost, due to the incubation period of the disease. He said that infections in Montana to date seem to be following the river drainages, suggesting that there may be some connection such as the movement of birds along the waterways. Dr. Linfield also mentioned that there are other forms of encephalitis infection transmitted by mosquitoes that have been around for a long time. "This isn't the first kid on the block as far as mosquito-transmitted encephalitis viruses go," said Dr. Linfield. He said although there havenšt been any cases in recent years, Western Equine Encephalitis has occasionally occurred across the state over the last 20 years. He said that according to CDC information, St. Louis Encephalitis is much more common in the United States with about 3,000 cases reported annually. Ravalli County Public Health officials cautioned that there is no reason to panic and that many common sense mitigation measures can be taken to reduce the mosquito populations locally and to reduce the chance of exposure by wearing appropriate clothing. Even a small bucket that has stagnant water in it for seven days can become home to up to 1,000 mosquitoes. Some easy tips to eliminate standing water are:
|
|
River protection group sues DNRC By Michael Howell The Bitterroot River Protection Association, Inc. (BRPA), a non-profit group dedicated to protecting the health of the Bitterroot River and its tributaries and the right of public access to them, filed a lawsuit in District Court in Helena last week against the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). The citizen's group is asking the court to review and reverse the recent decision by Water Resources Division Administrator Jack Stults to issue four new surface water right appropriations to Ken and Judith Siebel, of Stevensville. The Siebels turned in several applications for water rights out of Mitchell Slough, a 10-mile long waterway that parallels the main stem of the Bitterroot River from Corvallis to Stevensville, on the day before the Bitterroot River Basin Closure Bill took effect in March of 1999. The Bill closed the basin to any further surface water appropriations. The Siebels want to use the water for development of ponds for fish, wildlife, waterfowl and recreational purposes. Mitchell Slough has been the focus of a controversy for years as new landowners have tried to restrict fishing access to the slough. It is also the focus of a review by the Bitterroot Conservation District to determine if the District should issue 310 permits for work done in the slough. The permits are required for doing work on the bed or banks of perennially flowing streams. BRPA sued the Conservation District to try and stop their process of redetermining the slough's status. The Montana Supreme Court ruled in favor of the District and the process is ongoing. Ken Siebel submitted an affidavit in that process arguing that Mitchell Slough is a ditch and that 310 permits should not be required for working in the slough. The DNRC did not allow public access to any pending water right applications for over a year after the basin was closed. The Siebels withdrew two of their applications soon after the pending permits were made public. They withdrew another as a result of stipulated agreements reached with objectors, including Montana Department of Fish Wildlife & Parks. That left four remaining modified applications. These applications were still challenged by BRPA and went to an administrative hearing at DNRC. A DNRC hearings officer denied the applications in his preliminary ruling, siding with BRPA in finding that the Siebels had not proven the amount of water required for their project nor that their use was a "beneficial use" as defined by Montana water law. At the end of July, Stults reversed the hearings officer's ruling, arguing that although the Siebels might not have proven "exactly" how much water they needed, they had provided "reasonable" proof. Stults also found that the use of the water by the Siebels for the stated purpose was a beneficial use as defined by law. BRPA accuses the Siebels of entering their original applications on the day before the Basin Closure in bad faith, as they never intended to pursue the requests as submitted. BRPA claims that new applications on entirely new forms were submitted in March and June of 2000, after the Basin Closure, and are in violation of that legislation. The citizen's group claims that DNRC issued a notice of deficiency on these new applications demanding more proof from the applicants. The applicants were given 30 days to reply or their applications would be terminated. BRPA claims that no further information was submitted by the applicants and the applications should have been terminated according to the statutes governing the process at the end of 90 days. Instead they proceeded to a public scoping meeting and an environmental assessment was conducted. BRPA also claims that the Siebels deliberately concealed the fact that their application for the southeast pond was made after the project was complete and operating and diverting water. The group also claims that agents for the Siebels admitted at the administrative hearing that the application was intentionally misleading in order to deceive the Department of the ongoing illegal appropriation of water and that the agents also admitted that the Siebels had begun construction on their ponds and diversion works without a permit in violation of the law. The citizen's group claims that the Hearings Officer acted outside his authority by not referring these claims of procedural violations to the head of the Department for a legal determination prior to the hearing. Besides charging that the original applications were entered in bad faith and that the subsequent applications were in violation of the Basin Closure and the statutes governing notice of deficiency, BRPA also argues that the applications should be denied on the basis of the criteria requiring proof of the amount of water required for any specific use. BRPA claims that the Siebels failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence that the quantity of water proposed to be used is "the minimum amount necessary for the proposed beneficial use." The group argues that because the Siebels don't control the fish and wildlife which belong to the public and thus can't ascertain the number of fish and wildlife that will inhabit the system that, subsequently, they can't prove how much water they need. BRPA also claims that a water appropriation for fish and wildlife for the benefit of a private individual does not benefit the public as the law requires. "DNRC may have the authority to issue permits for diverting the public's water," said BRPA spokesperson Greg Pape, "but do they have the right to divert our fish and wildlife along with it? Diverting water for the purpose of establishing a private fishery and hunting ground with the public's fish and wildlife is not a benefit to the public. It is diminishing the public's resources for the benefit of a private individual. If DNRC gets away with this the public will certainly not benefit as a huge portion of our resources will effectively be privatized." |