We must work to find solutions

To The Eagle:

Our community was stellar last night at the DOE hearing. Though most people would rather have a tooth pulled without pain killer than speak publicly, everyone had valid, well thought out statements and questions. I’d like to thank all those who came from Pacific County to lend their support. This, more than anything else is a reflection of how very much people care about our ecosystem and recognize how fragile it is.

Many spoke to the issue of our five threatened species in the Grays River and the inevitable migration of waste into our tidal river, our estuaries and to the Columbia. More than a few addressed the issue of endocrine disruptors in waste from personal care items and pharmaceuticals and their devastating effects on fish. Nitrogen overloading creating aquatic dead zones and as this waste would be treated with lime, it was pointed out that lime application was no longer allowed on our fields due to the dangers to fish populations. The issue of contamination to our west end well was raised. Etiologic vectors explained how pathogens, bacteria and viruses moved from insects, fish, birds, animals to humans. Heavy metals were a serious concern.

Perhaps the most interesting question of the evening was who would be responsible for paying for contamination of our waters, fish and land. The answer is, get a lawyer because it’s every man for himself. Mr. Hugh Kaufman, head of the EPA solid waste program in Washington, D.C. says that Sludge-Gate is "the biggest scam in this country...and (biosolids) are toxic.” Further, “that the EPA dealt with their disposal problem by creating a land dispersal program.” The problem is that ground and ground water contamination can take a long time to occur but is impossible to remediate or fix so the land contaminated remains toxic for hundreds of years.

Canada, Australia, and a few European countries question the lack of science in the current EPA laws due to the contamination levels found in feed and food products.

Though a vast improvement from the old two holer, perhaps the most important question is whether washing effluent away down our toilets is a bad use of our rapidly becoming scarce clean water resources. No one wants to deal with the waste we create but current technology only leads to contamination of more lands and waters.

We must find the answer, whether through composting toilets (of which I know nothing except they are ugly) or financing a facility capable of transforming waste to methane to energy. I haven’t done my homework yet so I can’t speak to safety or efficacy. I do know that if we don’t want to discover our own waste in feed, food and fish or backyard fertilizer for gardens, we must find an answer and soon.

The hearing is over but I don’t believe we have won a victory because the waste will be placed somewhere else if not here.

DOE has a great presentation and if many of us had not done research we wouldn’t have discovered how outdated the science is that supports their “beneficial waste program.” Evergreen deals daily with the waste we make and Claude and his wife and family are a part of our community. We have a responsibility to safeguard our water, fish, land and to protect our children and grandchildren so I guess the responsibility for our future is ours, we all must be a part of the work to find the solutions.

Cindy Lahti

Grays River