Two weeks ago we were on site with toxic algae thanks to Riverkeeper Rick Eichstaedt and the Center for Justice's interview of Scott Chaney, the Suncrest-area resident who discovered and blew the whistle about dangerous algae blooms on Long Lake, also called Lake Spokane - and not just sort of dangerous, but concentrations of microcystin more than 3,000 times the threshold of concern.

Thanks to the viral spreading of this story, the exposure of the local media, and the persistant dedication of local activists, organizations, and the Spokane Riverkeeper, Scott's story is being heard and attention is being paid to this critical problem. 

The Center for Justice recently wrote an update about Scott's story in which we learned of other people experiencing health issued related to the algae blooms, and which we also learned about Avista stepping up to address the problem. Elvin “Speed” Fitzhugh, the relicensing project coordinator for Avista Corp, recently paid Scott a personal visit saying he was moved by the frustration Scott had expressed to reporters and he wanted to move quickly to assure him that Avista was concerned about the algae problem and committed to working on it. “We’re not the solution to every problem,” Fitzhugh said, “but we can be part of the solution to many of them.”

“I really have to applaud Avista for taking the initiative on this,” said Spokane Riverkeeper Rick Eichstaedt. “Given the funding limitation of the Department of Ecology’s sampling program and the lack of action by the County Health Departments, what Avista has stepped forward to do is really commendable. But it’s also clear that this is a problem all of us need to pay more attention to so we can prevent exposure to ourselves or our pets when these algae bloom form and turn toxic.”

In an email received from the local Sierra Club chapter today, they called the algae bloom a "wake-up call about the pressing need to clean up the Spokane River," and reminded folks that last month, Ecology issued the latest version of the Spokane River Dissolved Oxygen cleanup plan and, "sadly, Draft No. 4 still contains fatal flaws."

So it is time to once again weigh in and inform Ecology that the Sept. 2009 draft of the Dissolved Oxygen TMDL is just not good enough.  Here is what you can do:

(1) Attend a public meeting on Tuesday, October 20 - 6 p.m. at the  Spokane Community College - Lair Student Center, Sasquatch Room

(2) Submit a comment to: David Moore, Washington Department of Ecology e-mail: dmoo461@ecy.wa.gov - mail: 4601 N. Monroe Street, Spokane, WA 99205-1295.  Click here for a background on submitting comments.

And here's a reminder from the Sierra Club: The Sierra Club is your advocate.  Please contact us at 509.209-2899 or e-mail John Osborn, chair of the Upper Columbia River Group, if you would like to discuss the Spokane River DO cleanup plan or other matters pertaining to the River.  Sierra Club has been on the front lines of Spokane River cleanup for many years and we will stick with until it’s done right!

Continue reading after the jump for talking points from the Sierra Club:

Background and talking points:

The cleanup plan -- referred to as a “total maximum daily load” (TMDL) – will guide how pollution dischargers improved oxygen concentrations in the Spokane River.  To avoid risking hundreds of millions of dollars spent on inadequate wastewater technology, the TMDL must comply with federal laws.  To be clear, the polluters include the City of Spokane and Liberty Lake wastewater treatement plants, Kaiser, Inland Empire Paper, and Spokane County’s proposed new plant.

The latest draft TMDL has changed.  Dischargers dumping to the Spokane River must meet hard pollution targets.  The plan calls for water conservation and reducing “non-point” pollution – all good.   But in other respects, the 2009 plan is even worse than previous drafts. 

1)  False Pollution Credits. 

a)    Tributary streams are being asked to give too much. 

The draft plan claims credit for cleaning up the Little Spokane River and Hangman Creek.  But the Little Spokane River is aquifer-fed during summer months, and phosphorus is at natural background levels.  The plan calls for 36% clean-up – an impossible target.  Hangman Creek cleanup is equally unrealistic.  These tributary pollution targets are not realistic – but on paper the draft plan claims tributary credits to relax pollution limits for the sewage and industrial dischargers.

b)    Assigning cleanup to Avista should not get the polluters off the hook.  

The draft plan also relaxes pollution quotas for the sewage and industrial plants by shifting major cleanup responsibility to Avista.   But Avista has been saddled with a huge cleanup quota that cannot be met.  Let’s be clear, Sierra Club has long called for Avista responsibility to improve dissolved oxygen.  But this plan gives the dischargers a green light to make major investments in substandard technology based on unrealistic assignments to Avista.   It’s a shell game and it won’t clean up the river.

c)    Reasonable Assurance It Ain’t.

The Spokane River cleanup plan must demonstrate “reasonable assurance” that water quality standards can be met.  Because of the false tributary and Avista credits described above, that reasonable assurance is missing.

Tell Ecology there is no reasonable assurance and that they are giving the polluters a break that will not work for the cleaning up the Spokane River!

2) Septic Deception: The County Continues to Hold the Aquifer Hostage

Removing septic tanks from the Aquifer is good, but will not reduce phosphorus loading to the Spokane River.  The draft plan would allow Spokane County to stick another pipe into the River and discharge from its new sewage plant based on the incorrect assumption that septic removal equates to phoshorus reduction in the River..  As Sierra Club has always said – Spokane County is holding the Spokane Aquifer hostage to the Spokane River.  Tell them to let our aquifer go!

3)  No “TMDL” in the TMDL.  

Despite the name “total maximum daily load,” Draft No. 4 does not actually identify the total amount of pollution that can be discharged into the river.

Incredible!  Even the most basic requirement of the cleanup planning process has not been met.  The draft plan contains no identification of how much pollution is coming across the state line from Idaho, no identification of the total loading from the tributaries, and no identification of the total amount that the Spokane River and Lake Spokane can handle.  Contrast this draft with the 2004 TMDL (which Sierra Club approved of) which provided a month-by-month allocation of acceptable pollution loads.

4)  Delay – Delay – Delay.  

The Spokane River has waited 11 years for a legally sufficient phosphorus clean-up plan. This draft, the fourth, allows dischargers another 10 years (or more) to comply with the plan.  This strategy of delay is harming the Spokane River and the fish and wildlife that depend on the river.

5)    What About PCBs? 

The clean-up plans for phosphorus and PCBs must connect.  When dischargers install expensive technology to remedy phosphorus, that technology must also cleanup PCBs.  The public will pay dearly if these two plans do not coordinate.

6)    Water Quality Monitoring is Essential! 

Lake Spokane resident Scott Chaney watched a toxic algae bloom into a monster.  He called the Departments of Ecology and Health – but no agency would claim responsibility for monitoring whether water quality problems might harm the public.  Scott had to pay to ship samples to Seattle.  Only after the lab reported high toxicity did Ecology issue a public health warning. 

Demand that Ecology require itself and the dischargers to closely monitor how pollutants in the river risk public and environmental health. 

Send your comment to:

David Moore, Washington Department of Ecology:   e-mail at dmoo461@ecy.wa.gov.

---

---