May 3, 2001

Once against, a "crisis has arisen"  The fecal coliform e-coli levels are too high!

How much is too high?  What actually are the numbers?  No one at the Wednesday presentation said exactly what they were.

If, since 1997, the Sequim Bay and Dungeness Bay have had an ongoing intermittent problem with fecal coliform e-coli, then the couny is remiss for not bringing this to the voters as per RCW 90.72.040, which calls for the option of legislation or voter creation.  That same portion of the chapter describes in detail how to abolish the same district.  Obviously, the legislature realized in 1992 the need to remove the newly crated district when it was no longer needed.

Following is a telephone conversion between Bob Forde, citizen with Don Melvin, biologist for the Washington State Department of Health.

Bob:  Don, just what are the actual FDA standards?

Don:  30 sample results over 3-4 year period using two methods:  lst: the geometric mean.  IE 6 newest samples replace the 6 oldest samples.  2nd: We then take the 90 percentile to determine actual levels.

Bob:  So they vary from time to time?

Don:  Yes.

Bob:  So just what is the FDA number you must hit.

Don:  14 ppm per 100 mililiters of water.

Bob:  Isn't that a very tight standard?

Don:  Yes, very, but that's what it is.

Bob:  How long does the bacteria live in salt water?

Don:  Depending on water temperature and light, from 24 to 72 hours.

Bob:  If I were way up in the mountains and were to drink water from a stream, what levels of fecal coliform e-coli might I find, or what would be acceptable?

Don:  I don't think you should drink from such a stream because you might get giardia.  It would be hard to say what other bacteria levels you might find.

Bob:  Well, give me some reasonable level.  Much of what I hear from Lynn Muench, Valerie Wilson and other officials from the county and tribe that it's human disturbance and people, rooftops, road surfaces, failed septic systems.  Mostly humans.  So what levels would be reasonable?

Don:  Let me tell you an experience I had.  Do you know where Lilliput is? (Yes.)  We found high levels of fecal coliform e-coli in the bay.  We checked water samples all the way up to a high alpine meadow that had water on it.  That area has no human development anywhere near it; yet the fecal coliform e coli counts were 200-300 ppm.

The proposed district area is the same boundary as the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT).  The actual size of the affected area need only be the salt water tide lands per RCW 90.72.030.

But the county wants a huge area to be called a "Clean Water District", not a "shellfish district" as 90.72 calls for.

The DRMT has a tremendous influence on the county decision-making process.  It's been called "pro active" by Mr. Tharinger.  I submit that Mr. Tharinger, being chair of the DRMT, and the DRMT has gone from an advisory committee to a shadow government, dictating policy to the Board.

I further request that Mr. Tharinger disqualify himself from voting on this proposed District because he is in conflict with dual roles as chair of the DRMT and County Commissioner.

Modify this proposed District to the two Bay areas, Dungeness and Sequim Bay, and put a sunset for this District of 36 months.  Re-visit this in 36 months.  You have said you have grant money now, but that will run out someday, and you will tax property owner as equired by 90.72.070.

Bob Forde