Baker County Blog: November 2011

Monday, November 28, 2011

Disagree With Our Government's Wars? Could You Be Subject to Arrest & Indefinite Detention?

[Edited 11/29/11- links changed & added; text added; update on Senate Vote added 11/30/11]

A friend brought this latest assault on American liberty, and what used to be our taken for granted constitutional protections, to my attention this morning (Monday, 11/28/11). We've been treated recently to the killing of American citizens in Yemen, without constitutionally guaranteed due process of charge and trial, by the Obama administration --a real shock for sure to those who thought that the violation of the rule of law would not come home to Americans in a major way. But like Mark Twain, aka Samuel Clemens said:

"But it was impossible to save the Great Republic. She was rotten to the heart. Lust of conquest had long ago done its work; trampling upon the helpless abroad had taught her, by a natural process, to endure with apathy the like at home; multitudes who had applauded the crushing of other people's liberties, lived to suffer for their mistake in their own persons. The government was irrevocably in the hands of the prodigiously rich and their hangers-on; the suffrage was become a mere machine, which they used as they chose. There was no principle but commercialism, no patriotism but of the pocket."

Glenn Greenwald mentioned today on Democracy Now! that:

If you look back at what the Congress did in the wake of 9/11 when it enacted the authorization to use military force, if you look at that authorization, it’s incredibly narrow, as it turns out. If you go and actually read it, it says the President is authorized to use military force against those who perpetrated the 9/11 attack and those countries who harbored those individuals. That’s it, that’s the only authorized use of military force. Well, here we are more than a decade later, and there was an article in The Washington Post from a week ago where U.S. officials anonymously are saying that, in essence, Al Qaeda, the group that perpetrated the 9/11 attack according to the government, is now dead. There’s only two leaders left they say in that entire region. It [is] already rendered "effectively inoperable". There is no more Al Qaeda left in Afghanistan or Pakistan according to the U.S. government. The group that perpetrated 9/11, according to it is no longer even existing. And yet, here we are engaged in extraordinarily broad military efforts, constantly escalating in numerous parts of the world. There’s six different countries in which the U.S. is actively using drones; in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and Yemen, against groups that didn’t even exist at the time that 9/11 was perpetrated. And constantly, what you find is we are killing all sorts of civilians.

Now we have S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill. Pertinent section HERE.

Congress, with its all-time low approval ratings, is arguably the most despised political institution America, and now the Senate is considering a bill that allows the military to arrest you and send you "to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime." See link to read the ACLU's objections and to lodge your protest to Senators. Senators John Mc Cain and Carl Levin are said to have produced this proposed legislation in secret. The House apparently passed similar legislation back in May.

UPDATE:
The Senate voted 61-to-37 on Tuesday, 11/29, to defeat Sen. Mark Udall's amendment to delete the indefinite detention provisions.

Here is the primary objectionable section (1031):

Section 1031
(b) COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Here is my synopsis of the interview of the ACLUs Christopher Anders by Scott Horton on AntiWar Radio:

The current version of the legislation would allow the indefinite detention of American citizens without charge or trial. "It doesn't require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't require any trial."

The 5th Amendment provides protection against the deprivation of life or liberty without due process of law. However, the detainee could begin to rot in jail while the courts decide that issue.

According to Anders, Habeas Corpus (Article 1, section 9) at a minimum provides a right to have a court decide whether the detention of an American citizen is lawful or not. Habeas Corpus does not provide a right to not be detained except as decided by the court--so you have a right to have a court decide whether your detainment is lawful as you sit in jail for perhaps years (as was the case with Jose Padilla).

The old 1878 Posse Comitatus act says basically that the military can't be used to enforce laws in the United States, but because it is a statute and not a Constitutional amendment, it can be changed by Congress, as by the bill before the Senate.

As in the Patriot Act, powers can lead to over reach or mistakes. After 9/11 there were some 1200 people who were held and never charged with a terrorism offense. Under the current pending legislation a citizen could be detained "for the rest of their lives without ever seeing a court room." The definition in Section 1031 "is so broad that it includes support for people involved in terrorism. So it doesn't mean that you've ever picked up a gun, it doesn't mean that you're fighting anybody anywhere, it can mean writing a check to someone who you think is a charity. . . ."

With this bill you can be detained on suspicion alone.

Listen as "Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel in the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, discusses his article [linked also above]: Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens in a ‘Battlefield’ They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window" on AntiWar Radio.

President Obama, who has no problem with killing American citizens abroad, including children, without due process, is reported to have "threatened" to veto it, but then he promises a lot of things.

Another article states:

If passed in its present form, the bill would give the President the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world.“ [Hey, aren't they already doing that in other lands?] The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself,” Anders warned. Anders also noted that presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) voiced his concerns about the detention provisions in the legislation in a Republican candidates' debate. Ironically, President Obama, who has frequently been criticized by libertarians of both the left and right for exceeding his powers as Commander-in-Chief, is opposed to the legislation and has threatened to veto it if it passes both houses of Congress. Both the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General of the United States have called the indefinite detention provisions of the bill harmful and counterproductive. But Senator Lindsey Graham has praised those same provisions for saying “for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and that people can be arrested without charge or trial, “American citizen or not.” Freshman Senator Kelly Ayotte, a New Hampshire Republican, declared that the provisions are necessary because “America is part of the battlefield.”

Congressman Ron Paul:

“I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights,” responded Rep. Paul. “You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state . . . So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms.”
Congressman Ron Paul

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) has offered an amendment to delete the indefinite detention provisions and “[set] up an orderly review of detention power,” Anders said. “It tries to take the politics out and put American values back in.” The provisions raise a great many political, sociological, and constitutional questions, including whether all of the “homeland,” formerly known as “the land of the free,” should be designated a battlefield and whether people arrested anywhere in the world, including here in the United States, should be considered “enemy combatants” even if they were captured nowhere near a scene of actual battle."

Police Pepper Spraying UC Davis (YouTube capture)

Profile of Pepper-Spraying Officer Pike: Ex-Marine
__

Stephen Stills, Dewey Martin, Bruce Palmer, Richie Furay & Neil Young (Young Neil in buckskin & long brown-back sideburns)
Buffalo Springfield - For What Its Worth (1967)

__

Is It For Freedom?

__

Iris Dement Wasteland Of The Free

Sunday, November 27, 2011

Old Paradigm--New Paradigm: Occupy Wall Street or Occupy the Land?

After a holiday of satiation, frenzied shoppers, and hopefully thanks, readers might be interested in the following article I ran across this morning while pursuing a link on the "America 2 Point 0" mailing list at Yahoo. For myself at least, it has always been too tempting and too easy to slip back under the spell of the cornucopian eternal consumption and growth delusions created and marketed by the dominant global business class. This despite having realized for at least two or three decades that a growing population size of a country or world coupled with consumer growth culture, is on an unsustainable resource ravaging road that leads to social and ecological collapse. When looking at social phenomena, like Occupy Wall Street, I've tended to pop right back into the old endless growth paradigm instead of viewing them through the lens of sustainability. This article by Jan Lundberg of Culture Change helps to bring the Occupy movement into proper perspective and focus when viewed through a sustainability lens.
_____

How The Occupy Movement May Be Off-Base, and How It Can Evolve ("Occupy the Land")

. . . .
What folks in "poor" countries have always understood is that their power and survival lie in possessing their own land. Land reform in many parts of our increasingly crowded world is a burning issue. Many people live and die for the struggle for their right to live on their ancestral lands. A movement in the U.S. for the masses to take back the land from the few is inevitable.

Better late than never; many decades have passed during which the importance for consumers of being close to the land was greatly diminished. Real wealth, the land, was given up for wages and cheap petroleum's technology explosion. Population growth has happened so fast that a new generation didn't know it was inheriting a world less and less free and no longer abundant in life-giving resources ("ecological services").

But as the sun sets on the system of vast, false monetary wealth and on the oppression it has wielded, nature may first wake us up rudely, before people in the U.S. can go about land reform. If so, after societal and possibly ecological collapse, there may be quite a bit of land available and to share after the population has diminished sufficiently in size. This was the case in Europe after the 14th century plagues took their toll. However, in no way should such drastic "solutions" be pursued.

"Occupying" the heart of cities today does mean something in today's world of artificial environments, material culture, and middle class values. But instead of occupying the cities, the movement should be about running away from cities. Instead of occupying Wall Street, run away from it: abandon it, abandon the system, abandon consuming, and embrace simple living on the land. This ought to be the prime goal, rather than a stampede today or tomorrow. . . . .

Read entire article HERE.

See also Update from DC: Occupy, pepperspray, peak oil, sail power, Congress, and Culture Change for more articles.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Occupy: State Powers Crush the Flowers

In This Edition:
- Former Seattle Police Chief Norm Stamper on Lessons Not Learned
- Glenn Greenwald on the Pacifying Effects of Militarized Police Power (must read)
- A Compendium of Police Violence Against Occupy Protestors
- "You Can Crush the Flowers, But You Can’t Stop the Spring"
_____

Back on October 26, 2011, in a short lead-in to news about the police riot in Oakland, I mentioned the militarization of American police forces over the last 20, more realistically, 30, years. This month I've seen a few articles that address the issue much more effectively than I can, so I'm posting them here tonight.

Police Pepper Spraying UC Davis (YouTube capture)

The first one is by former Seattle police chief Norm Stamper, who was in charge during the WTO protests, aka, the Battle in Seattle almost 10 years ago this month.

Writes Stamper:

More than a decade later, the police response to the Occupy movement, most disturbingly visible in Oakland—where scenes resembled a war zone and where a marine [protester] remains in serious condition from a police projectile—brings into sharp relief the acute and chronic problems of American law enforcement. Seattle might have served as a cautionary tale, but instead, US police forces have become increasingly militarized, and it’s showing in cities everywhere: the NYPD “white shirt” coating innocent people with pepper spray, the arrests of two student journalists at Occupy Atlanta, the declaration of public property as off-limits and the arrests of protesters for “trespassing.”

The paramilitary bureaucracy and the culture it engenders—a black-and-white world in which police unions serve above all to protect the brotherhood—is worse today than it was in the 1990s. Such agencies inevitably view protesters as the enemy. And young people, poor people and people of color will forever experience the institution as an abusive, militaristic force—not just during demonstrations but every day, in neighborhoods across the country.

Link:
Paramilitary Policing From Seattle to Occupy Wall Street
Norm Stamper | November 9, 2011
_

A second article, by Glenn Greenwald, is a most thoughtful summary of the meaning and dangers of police force and state violence in America, as seen today and in the past. It is simply the best piece I remember reading on the subject over the years. (But then. . . there is the problem of my memory! ;-)) If you don't read anything else on this blog, please read the excerpts below.:

Police pepper spraying and arresting students at UC Davis
As Chief Stamper would now say--"Why?"

The roots of the UC-Davis pepper-spraying
BY GLENN GREENWALD

. . . .
Despite all the rights of free speech and assembly flamboyantly guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the reality is that punishing the exercise of those rights with police force and state violence has been the reflexive response in America for quite some time. . . . .

The intent and effect of such abuse is that it renders those guaranteed freedoms meaningless. If a population becomes bullied or intimidated out of exercising rights offered on paper, those rights effectively cease to exist. Every time the citizenry watches peaceful protesters getting pepper-sprayed — or hears that an Occupy protester suffered brain damage and almost died after being shot in the skull with a rubber bullet — many become increasingly fearful of participating in this citizen movement, and also become fearful in general of exercising their rights in a way that is bothersome or threatening to those in power. That’s a natural response, and it’s exactly what the climate of fear imposed by all abusive police state actions is intended to achieve: to coerce citizens to “decide” on their own to be passive and compliant — to refrain from exercising their rights — out of fear of what will happen if they don’t.

The genius of this approach is how insidious its effects are: because the rights continue to be offered on paper, the citizenry continues to believe it is free. . . . .

Although excessive police force has long been a reflexive response to American political protests, two developments in the post-9/11 world have exacerbated this. The first is that the U.S. Government — in the name of Terrorism — has aggressively para-militarized the nation’s domestic police forces by lavishing them with countless military-style weapons and other war-like technologies, training them in war-zone military tactics, and generally imposing a war mentality on them. Arming domestic police forces with para-military weaponry will ensure their systematic use even in the absence of a Terrorist attack on U.S. soil; they will simply find other, increasingly permissive uses for those weapons. Responding to peaceful protests and other expressions of growing citizenry unrest with brute force is a direct by-product of what we’ve allowed to be done to America’s domestic police forces in the name of the War on Terror (and, before that, in the name of the War on Drugs).

The second exacerbating development is more subtle but more important: the authoritarian mentality that has been nourished in the name of Terrorism. It’s a very small step to go from supporting the abuse of defenseless detainees (including one’s fellow citizens) to supporting the pepper-spraying and tasering of non-violent political protesters. It’s an even smaller step to go from supporting the power of the President to imprison or kill anyone he wants (including one’s fellow citizens and even their teenaged children) with no transparency, checks or due process to supporting the power of the police and the authorities who command them to punish with force anyone who commits the “crime” of non-compliance. At the root of all of those views is the classic authoritarian mindset: reflexive support for authority, contempt for those who challenge them, and a blind faith in their unilateral, unchecked decisions regarding who is Bad and deserves state-issued punishment. . . . .

Link to entire article on Salon
-

The third article is a collection of visuals, primarily YouTube videos, highlighting some of the more offensive actions towards Occupy protesters by various police departments across this country over the last month.

Too Much Violence and Pepper Spray at the OWS Protests: The Videos and Pictures
The Atlantic
By GARANCE FRANKE-RUTA, NOV 19 2011, 6:58 PM ET

UC Davis Protestors Pepper Sprayed

_

The fourth article is an essay in defense of Occupy Wall Street from Tom Dispatch, with the following prologue to Rebecca Solnit's article just below it:

. . . .
The police, up-armored in full riot gear, with the sort of surveillance paraphernalia, helicopters, and high-tech cameras that were a far more minimal aspect of domestic policing before 9/11, were clearly thinking counter-terrorism.

They were the representatives not just of New York’s billionaire mayor and the bankers and brokers who had previously made the area their own, but of the ever more militarized national security state that had blossomed like some errant set of weeds in the ruins of the World Trade Center towers. They were domestic grunts for a new order in Washington as well as New York that has, by now, lost the ability to imagine solving problems in a civil and civilian fashion.

They represent those who have ruled this country since 9/11 in the name of our safety and security, while they made themselves, and no one else, safe and secure. It is an order that has based itself on kidnapping, torture, secret prisons, illegal surveillance, assassination, permanent war, militarized solutions to every problem under the sun, its own set of failed occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closest of relations with a series of crony capitalist corporations intent on making money off anyone’s suffering as long as the going is good.

Behind the police, directly or indirectly, stands that bureaucratic monster of post-9/11 domestic "safety," the Department of Homeland Security. And behind both of them, without a doubt, that giant tangle of agencies -- 17 in all -- with an $80 billion-plus budget that go under the rubric of “intelligence” and dwarf the intelligence bureaucracy of the Cold War era, when the U.S. actually had an enemy worth speaking of. . . . .

'You Can Crush the Flowers, But You Can’t Stop the Spring'
Dream big. Occupy your hopes. Talk to strangers. Live in public. Don’t stop now.
by Rebecca Solnit

. . . .
Alexander Dubcek, the government official turned hero of the Prague Spring uprising of 1968, once said, “You can crush the flowers, but you can’t stop the spring.” . . . .

It’s as if the best of the spirit of the Obama presidential campaign of 2008 was back -- without the foolish belief that one man could do it all for civil society. In other words, this is a revolt, among other things, against the confinement of decision-making to a thoroughly corrupted and corporate-money-laced electoral sphere and against the pitfalls of leaders. And it represents the return in a new form of the best of the post-9/11 moment.

As for the worst after 9/11 -- you already know the worst. You’ve lived it. The worst was two treasury-draining wars that helped cave in the American dream, a loss of civil liberties, privacy, and governmental accountability. The worst was the rise of a national security state to almost unimaginable proportions, a rogue state that is our own government, and that doesn’t hesitate to violate with impunity the Geneva Convention, the Bill of Rights, and anything else it cares to trash in the name of American "safety" and "security." The worst was blind fealty to an administration that finished off making this into a country that serves the 1% at the expense, or even the survival, of significant parts of the 99%. More recently, it has returned as another kind of worst: police brutality (speaking of blind fealty to the 1%). . . . .

In the meantime, a domestic-violence-prone government is squandering a fortune on a little-mentioned extravagance in financially strapped American cities: police brutality, wrongful arrest, and lawsuits over civil-rights violations. New York City -- recall those pepper-sprayed captive young women, that legal observer with a police scooter parked on top of him, and all the rest -- you’re going to have a giant bill due in court, just as you did after the 2004 Republican convention fiasco: New York has spent almost a billion dollars paying for the collateral damage already done by its police force over the past dozen years.
The desperately impoverished city of Oakland paid out more than $2 million in recompense for the behavior of the Oakland Police at a nonviolent blockade at the Oakland Docks after the invasion of Iraq broke out in 2003, but seems to have learned nothing from it. Surely payouts in similar or larger quantities are due to be handed out again, money that could have gone to schools, community clinics, parks, libraries, to civilization instead of brutalization. . . . .

Read the entire thing here.
__

Iris Dement Wasteland Of The Free

__

Woodie Guthrie's "The Unwelcome Guest" - by Billy Bragg and Wilco

______

Monday, November 14, 2011

Accountability for Baker City's Cryptosporidium Fiasco--is the elephant still in the room?

In This Edition:
- Review and Summary of Events
- Council responses to my question , i.e.: When were you first informed that Crypto was in the water?
- Crypto Time line, from Council reports and etc.
_____

[Note, 11/17/11. Either yesterday or today, the Baker City administrators switched their website over to a new look. In the process, the archive they had available on past meetings is currently down the memory hole and all my blog links to Baker City documents that have been linked to http://www.bakercity.com will no longer work. I am in the process of uploading some Baker City documentsI had linked or intended to link in these two most recent blogs on the Cryptosporidium problem to Scribd.com. - Chris]

Review and Summary of Events with regard to Cryptosporidium and required water treatment

For a few years now, the people of Baker City, as well as our many visitors and tourists, have been led to believe that we have safe, clean, nearly pristine drinking water. The city uses the idea of clean mountain water to market our fair city to tourists, other visitors, and potential employers. The City Manager's welcoming comments on the city web site currently state:

. . . . From our snowcapped mountains and fresh water lakes and streams, to hiking and biking trails and wide variety of shopping, museums, lodging and restaurants; you will immediately understand why we are now a hot commodity.

We pride ourselves in keeping with the tradition of extraordinary livability by equally providing outstanding public services. Our water, for example, comes from a mountain watershed and is of quality and quantity incomparable to any other city in the Western United States. . . . .

Water quality, public services, and a smoothly functioning, competent city government, are attributes that are of interest to potential visitors and investors, and that affect our economic development--development that has been a primary focus of both city and county government for decades. You'd think the city would take testing for Cryptosporidium, as well as compliance with secondary treatment requirements, very seriously, so as to avoid a potential public relations disaster and to live up to the city sales pitch.

These are just some of the reasons why people were puzzled that during Council comments at last week's (Nov. 8, 2011) Council meeting, only Councilor Calder spoke about "the elephant in the room," i.e., ". . . How is it we received reports [telling the city that we had Crypto in the water] that we didn't read?"

(Some of the background on Crypto, and City Manager Kee's bombshell from the special November 1st meeting that the city should have known that Crypto has been in our water since April or May of 2010, can be found in the last blog and also here:
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2011
Baker "Bugs:" Cryptosporidium and Elm Leaf Beetle"

View the exchange between Councilor Calder and City Manager Kee on YouTube:
City Manager Kee interrupts Councilor Calder, evades question, and minimizes importance of staff failure to read and report.
Here are a few comments:

Calder asked a question: How is it we received reports [telling the city that we had Crypto in the water] that we didn't read?"

Mike Kee doesn't really answer the question fully. He says:

"Well we began testing in April of 2010. Our water specialist, for lack of a better word, would take the samples above where it was treated, and send those samples in. Uh, at some point, he would receive results back from those tests, Here at city hall, we would receive a bill, we would write a purchase order for the bill, and we would send it away."

He doesn't answer the question, so I sent him a follow-up the next day:

"Will you please tell me whether the "water specialist" Jake Jones read the lab results that were sent to him from the laboratory?

Also, you said you received a bill for the test at City Hall. Did you ever receive test results forwarded from Jake Jones to you, Michelle, or another responsible party?

Did you folks ever receive verbal communication from Jake about the lab results?

Thanks for helping me understand this situation."

Perhaps another question should have been "Didn't public works staff call Jake Jones at least monthly to inquire about the results?"

Mike replied:

"As I said last night if you need to hold someone accountable for the delayed notification hold me accountable. Internally we have taken steps to make sure this does not happen again and those that should be in the loop are in the loop. We will continue moving forward with a treatment facility that will make Baker City drinking water safer."

To which I responded:

"The problem is that holding you accountable doesn't explain how and why it happened, and the public has a right to know that. They deserve an actual explanation. You have not answered a single one of my questions. Will you please do that and explain how and why it happened?"

Mike continued to cover for staff and again put the responsibility on himself:

"I appreciate your inquiry, but as I said I had not asked for the individual test results as they were completed. Had I done that I would have reported the results in the last water quality report."

Later, I asked the City Manager:

"Are you planning any type of disciplinary action for city staff and/or other employees due to their failure to comply with the state and federal drinking water rules as they relate to crypto?

"
Mike's reply:

"Yes, Chris as I said that issue has been addressed with staff."

I can only conclude from those responses that Mike Kee, at least at the time, didn't think the citizens of Baker City have a right to know how it came to be that the people with whom they've entrusted the safety of their water supply, have failed them. Why, after such a travesty of competence, isn't the City Manager providing the transparency required for citizens to understand the situation. Where's the real accountability to the people of Baker City? Aren't public officials and their staff accountable to the public they serve?

You can be ticketed for parking your car past the time limit, or having your grass longer than ten inches, but there seems to be no penalty for gross city staff incompetence and negligence that denies people timely notice about the potentially deadly pathogens in their water. You don't even get to know how it happened or who is actually responsible. What would a food production facility or similar business where public health risks were involved do if their employees were not reading or not reporting the lab reports for serious pathogens in the food or other products they sold?

It should also be noted that while Mike Kee has assumed responsibility, he was not City Manager when the first failure in reporting occurred. Steve Bogart was the interim City Manager during the initial months of testing up until September 23, 2010, and the first failures were the lack of notification by staff to Council and the state after Crypto was first detected in April of 2010, and the lack of notification to the people in the water Consumer Confidence Report of July 2010.

Hopefully, the Council will request the state or an independent body to investigate to determine how and why it happened, and to ensure that something similar can not happen again.
_

Also during the "exchange" (monologue almost) between Councilor Calder and City Manager Kee, Kee said:

"And, you know, had we all known in April of 2010, it wouldn't have made any difference. The, there is nothing different that we would have done. We still would've, uh, you know, we still would've been moving toward building the UV treatment center and, er, facility, and we wouldn't have been able to do it until 2015. . . ."

"Nothing different that we would have done?" I seriously doubt that. Council has for sometime been urging a "go slow" approach to compliance due to their being told that there was no Crypto in the water and due to their hope that the city might be able to get a variance (waiver or exemption) from having to install secondary treatment such as filtration or UV. A good example of the misinformation and the effects of staff's alleged failure to read or report lab results concerning the presence of Crypto in the drinking water can be seen in the events of the May 25th, 2010 Council Meeting, but other examples can be found in the timeline below up through October 25, 2011.

Despite the fact that Crypto had been found, which already disqualified us from a variance, waiver or exemption from the LT2 rule, the minutes from 5/25/10 state that "Ms. Owen explained [to the Council & public] that the City can hope for a waiver. However, if any cryptosporidium is discovered, then the City will have to comply." [For more on the requirements or a variance, see May 25, 2010 in the timeline below.]

At that meeting, "Council discussed a request to approve the second task order for the LT2 Treatment Project. Ms. Owen stated that the City is now ready to enter the phase of selecting the type of UV equipment." Some on the Council were still hoping for a waiver and none of them, so far as we know, knew that Crypto had already been detected. "With Mr. Bass and Mr. Pope in favor, and Mayor Dorrah, Ms. Bonebrake, Ms. Calder and Mr. Button opposed, the motion [to approve the task order to move forward with UV water treatment] FAILED." (See 5/25/10 meeting packet & minutes)" I seriously doubt that the Council would have voted against moving forward with UV treatment had the April lab report showing Crypto was present in the water been known to them. There are more examples in the timeline and video's linked below which lend credence to the idea that the Council's ignorance about the Crypto in the water supply led them to continue to resist secondary treatment and to hope for the impossible--a variance.

For another example, see theAugust 24, 2010 meeting in the timeline below. Councilor Calder (and others) obviously did not know Crypto had been detected and still thought we had an opportunity for a variance. Councilor Beverly Calder ask questions regarding the "moving target" and general problems faced by small towns. She asks--"Is it here?" "Is there a problem with us waiting to see what happens with Portland?" Burnett responded to one question in this regard with something like " …my view is that I think these alternative disinfection methods . . . .whether it is ozone or UV rather than filtration will be OK unless something happens and you do find crypto in your watershed. . . . "

As late as October 25th of this year, CouncilorRoger Coles was asking about a variance, Mayor Dorrah was taliking about a wait and see approach, and Councilor Calder was saying""we do provide safe drinking water."

In responding to Councilor Coles, Ms. Owen does not answer the question as to where Baker City stands with respect to a variance or exemption. She has known at least since early September of 2011, and should have known since May of 2010, that we have Crypto in the water, and that the current EPA LT2 rules do not allow us to be granted an exemption due to the concentration of Crypto found in our water.

Over a long period of time, the failure of Council to get accurate information about Crypto in our water from staff, distorted and diverted the discussion from actions that should have been taken to expedite secondary treatment in order to protect people who drink Baker City water.

During the "elephant in the room" discussion at the Nov. 8 meeting, Mr. Kee also said:

We have no reason not to tell the paper that there's Cryptosporidium in the water. Uh, we just were delayed in finding out. We did find out, we delayed it even further, because I believe that we have a responsibility to find out what this means, so we can get good answers to the people, uh, you know, uh, spread the word to our citizens instead of just coming out the day we find out there's, that there's been a positive test and saying we've got Cryptosporidium and we don't know what that means, but we've got cryptosporidium. [garbled due to high volume] . . . we've got no idea. Well, during that delay, I learned more about Cryptosporidium in that month than I ever wanted to know.

Well, better late than never, I guess. Nice to know the city is finally trying to understand why they have been testing for Cryptosporidium so that they can explain the dangers and the options to Baker City citizens. Might want to speak with the experts at the Oregon Health Authority and County Health department more often and a lot sooner. Frankly though, it sounds like a pretty lame excuse for not telling the people they had Crypto for almost two months.
______

11/4/11 Council responses to my question , i.e.:
"When were you first informed by Public Works that they had received positive Cryptosporidium analysis results on Baker City water samples?"

Beverly Calder:

I was informed a week ago Thursday [October 27th it seems-Chris] by CM Kee that the report had been received and staff had called for more information.
I agreed that we needed a work session ASAP to openly discuss the results and CM Kee said he would ask the involved engineers to be available for the discussion. There is no greater urgency (as there is no immediate health danger) than the schedule we are currently on however, now that we have done our year of testing we have concrete results that will guide the continuing steps in the treatment development process.

Aletha Bonebrake:

I never heard from Public Works until last Tuesday night [Nov. 1, Special Meeting]. Mike called me either Friday or Monday and said they had found some and that we needed to let the public know right away. . . . .

Clair Button

I was informed at the end of the County Commission-Council meeting [October 18, 2011--Chris]. Mike was already planning a public session to give full information to the public.

Roger Coles

Would have written last night but had a Bronc & Bull riding meeting, having said that, I did not know there were three positive Crypto reports until the November 1st meeting.

No other Councilor bothered to respond, so I don't know when they were told. However, their lack of a response may leave some questioning whether they knew about the positive reports of Crypto in the water supply prior to the October 25th meeting.

At the October 25th meeting, neither Kee nor Owen said anything to the Council or the public that Crypto had been found, even though they had known about the results since early September or before. No Councilor told the public that Crypto was in the water either.
______

Crypto Time line, from Council reports and etc.

2000

Requirement for addressing Cryptosporidium identified in Water Facility Plan and then more recently with the updated EPA Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) in 2006.

Spring of 2009

"The City contracted with HDR Engineering, Inc. to clarify our compliance requirements, determine available options and recommend the best alternative."

12/8/09, Tim Collins is City Manager

"Bryan Black, P.E. of HDR, Inc. attended the December 8, 2009 Council meeting to discuss the options in further detail and staff requested and received approval for the recommended alternative of Ultra Violet light treatment." (Staff Report for 5/25/10 meeting.)

12/8/09 Packet:

"After group discussion and teleconferencing with Mr. Black the Committee recommended that the Council proceed with Ultraviolet (UV) light treatment to comply with the LT2 requirements."

Minutes:

"The Public Works Advisory Committee met to discuss the alternative treatment options in detail on Monday, December 1, 2009. The draft minutes of that meeting are attached to this report .
. . . .
The City of Baker City has one of only four unfiltered surface water systems in the State of Oregon. Portland with the Bull Run Watershed is also one of the four systems. Portland Water Bureau officials have filed a request for waiver with the EPA in an effort to avoid the costly expense of the system upgrades. The argument is that the water is of high quality and the likelihood of testing positive for Crypto is slim and therefore disinfecting water that doesn’t contain “the bug” is unnecessary. Baker City staff has conferred with the Portland Water Bureau staff and supports the request for consideration of a waiver. The possibility of a waiver being granted for Portland or Baker City is not likely; however, all efforts will be made to follow through with this option.

The Public Works Advisory Committee considered the fourth option of filtration in their discussions. However, after evaluating the high initial construction costs as well as the substantial increase in operations and maintenance costs, the Committee concurred that UV treatment was a better alternative. The concern over unpredictable, changing regulations as well as the possibility of new treatment technology also factored into the Committee’s recommendation for UV light treatment.
. . . .
After a brief discussion, Ms. Bonebrake made a MOTION to approve UV radiation as the method to comply with the LT2 treatment rule, authorize staff to enter into negotiations with HDR Engineering Firm for a task order to amend the existing contract, and delay execution of that task order until the Council gives further approval. The motion was seconded by Ms. Calder and with all in favor the motion was APPROVED."

April 6, 2010, Testing of Baker City water begins.

April 20, 2010, Sample taken that revealed 1 Crypto oocyst found in the 10 liter water sample, which was analyzed by Lab/Cor on April 27, 2010. Positive finding should have been reported to the state health authorities by June 10, 2010 but was not received by the state until September 2, 2011. Lab/Cor states that they sent the results to the city public works Water Plant Specialist Jake Jones within two weeks of the actual test.
Given 4 days for mail to arrive, the city should have received the results by about May 16th, 2010. Did anyone open the envelope or read the results?

May 25, 2010 Council Meeting

Portland has been seeking a variance, also known as a waiver or exemption, from the LT2 water treatment rule so that they do not have to have expensive additional treatment for their unfiltered water from the Bull Run watershed. We, like Portland, have an unfiltered water system. Some Councilors have hoped that our water is clean enough for us to get a variance or waiver too.

The rule states that:
"If an unfiltered PWS [Public Water System] could show a raw water Cryptosporidium level 3-Log lower than the Bin 1 cutoff for filtered PWSs (Ie., below 0.075 oocysts/1,OOO L), this could demonstrate that no treatment for Cryptosporidium is necessary." (LT2ESWTR, Variances and Exemptions, page 728)

This means that to get a variance on treatment, we would have to have results which conclude that the concentration of Crypto is below 0.075 oocysts/1,OOO Liters of water. So if we had only recovered 1 Crypto oocyst in all 24 monitoring events over two years (April 2010 to March, 2011), we would not be granted a variance. (1 oocyst / 240 L = 0.00417 oocyst / Liter, times 1000 = 4.17 oocysts / 1000L, = 55 times the amount of Crypto allowed for a variance.)

Despite the fact that Crypto had been found, which already disqualified us from a variance, waiver or exemption from the LT2 rule, the minutes from 5/25/10 state that "Ms. Owen explained [to the Council & public] that the City can hope for a waiver."

"Council discussed a request to approve the second task order for the LT2 Treatment Project. Ms. Owen stated that the City is now ready to enter the phase of selecting the type of UV equipment."

"The ultra violet treatment facility (UVTF) will include several steps to move towards completion and operation by October of 2013. The first part of the project involves selecting the equipment that will be used. This is part of the Task Order #2 before the Council for consideration. This current task order will be completed for a fee of $38,700 which is included in the budget.

"Ms. Owen explained that the City can hope for a waiver. However, if any cryptosporidium is discovered, then the City will have to comply.

With Mr. Bass and Mr. Pope in favor, and Mayor Dorrah, Ms. Bonebrake, Ms. Calder and Mr. Button opposed, the motion [to approve the task order to move forward with UV water treatment] FAILED."

(See 5/25/10 packet & minutes)

July 2010 No mention in the yearly Consumer Confidence Report of Crypto being found, as is required by the rules.

8/24/10 Council OKs Mike Kee who replaces City Manager Bogart after 9/23/10.

Bill Goss & Gary Burnett, State Department of Human Services, Public Health Division, Discussion Regarding Water Treatment

Minutes:

Ms. Owen introduced Bill Goss and Gary Burnett of Department of Human Services, Drinking Water Program.

See the following YouTube Videos from this meeting:

1) Baker City Crypto-OR Health Authority-Bill Goss1 Baker City Council 082410.mp4

Bill Goss, from the Oregon Health Authority Drinking Water Program, discusses EPA and Oregon drinking water rules with regard to Cryptosporidium. Among other things, Mr. Goss explains that should a variance for surface water treatment be involved, the city would have to continue testing, and if Cryptosporidium is found, additional treatment would have to be instituted. Even though the city had been sent lab results indicating Cryptosporidium had been found in April of the same year, they apparently had not read the lab results at the time of this meeting, 4 months later.

2) Baker City Crypto-OR Health Authority-Bill Goss2 Baker City Council 082410.mp4

Bill Goss, from the Oregon Health Authority Drinking Water Program, discusses drinking EPA and Oregon drinking water rules with regard to Cryptosporidium. Mr. Goss discusses issues associated with Baker City avoiding filtration of their surface water source.

Filtration could still be required if:

-- There is a waterborne disease outbreak due to lack of filtration,

-- If the quality of the source water declines for various reasons, such as a major fire in the watershed,

-- If coliform bacteria [from the feces of humans or cattle, for example] were found in the water system,

In any case, the goal is to provide safe drinking water.

3) Baker City Crypto-OR Health Authority-Gary Burnett1 Baker City Council 082410

Gary Burnett, from the Oregon Health Authority Drinking Water Program, discusses EPA and Oregon drinking water rules with regard to Cryptosporidium and some history with regard to the Safe Drinking Water Act and Baker City water management, including increasing requirements and uncertainty in choosing treatment options.

4) Q&A1 Baker City Crypto-Gail Duman1 Q&A Baker City Council 082410

Councilor Gail Duman ask questions regarding effectiveness and cost tradeoffs between UV vs Filtration.

5) Info Q&A Baker City Crypto-Councilor Sam Bass-What do we tell the people for safety-Baker City Council 082410

Councilor Bass asks how much Cryptosporidium do we have all over the United States and if we get a positive sample, what do we need to tell the people to make it safe for them?

6) Q&A Baker City Crypto-Councilor Aletha Bonebrake-What are different options for filtration-082410

Councilor Bonebrake asks about effectiveness options for different methods of filtration and how they would deal with viruses, like Hanta virus.

7) Q&A Baker City Crypto-Councilor Button- number of oocysts found versus compliance

Councilor Button asks about details in the chart provided Council concerning concentrations of cryptosporidium oocysts with reference to raw or treated water. Goss explains that Portland (or other systems) will have to meet stringent standards. "So if they find 1 cryptosporidium in that 10,000 liters of (Portland) water it's not going to meet that standard (for an exemption). He also explains that Crypto oocysts reproduce in vivo, i.e., in the body of mammals like humans or cows, and not in the water that carries them.

8) Q&A Baker City Crypto-Bev Calder Q&A Baker City Council 082410
Councilor Calder asks--"Is it here?". . . . "Is there a problem with us waiting to see what happens with Portland?"

Councilor Beverly Calder ask questions regarding the "moving target" and general problems faced by small towns. She asks--"Is it here?" "Is there a problem with us waiting to see what happens with Portland?" Burnett responded to one question in this regard with something like " …my view is that I think these alternative disinfection methods . . . .whether it is ozone or UV rather than filtration will be OK unless something happens and you do find crypto in your watershed. . . . "

At the time, even though the city had been sent lab results indicating Cryptosporidium had been found in April of the same year in Baker City water, the city staff apparently had not read the lab results, or at least not reported them to the state or Council, at the time of this meeting, 4 months later, so the state and Council did not know that, "yes, it is here." (It was not acknowledged until September of 2011, and not reported to the public until November 1, 2011.) That fact distorted and diverted the discussion from actions that should have been taken to protect people who drink Baker City water.

9) Baker City Crypto-Owen on 2yr Extension Process-Baker City Council 082410

Public Works Director Michelle Owen spoke about talks with the state concerning a 2 year extension on installing UV treatment.

October 5, 2010 (Mike Kee is new City Manager), Sample taken that revealed 1 oocyst found in the 10 liter water sample, which was analyzed by Lab/Cor on 10/12/2010. Positive finding should have been reported to the state health authorities by December 10, 2010 but was not received by the state until September 2, 2011.

January 18, 2011 Sample taken that revealed 2 oocysts were found in the 10 liter water sample, which was analyzed by BioVir lab on 1/24/2011. Positive finding should have been reported to the state health authorities by March 10, 2010 but was not received by the state until September 2, 2011.

July 2011 No mention of Crypto being found in the yearly Consumer Confidence Report, as is required by the rules.

September 2, 2011 State gets Crypto lab reports from someone working for the city, likely either Jake Jones or Michelle Owen.

October 25, 2011 Agenda--UV Filtration Task Order

10/25/11 Roger Coles asks whether the city has explored an exemption for secondary treatment like Portland?

Councilor Roger Coles asks "So, has the city explored--it's my understanding that there's an exemption going on in Bull Run in Portland, and they are trying to get an exemption for secondary treatment--has the city explored any of that?"

Owen: "Certainly we've been following the variance request for Portland's UV request, um, a, over the last couple of years, as it looks right now, the focus that New York and Portland have had, . . . has to do with the uncovered reservoirs--that isn't pertinent to Baker City--our reservoirs . . . are covered. . . . Portland is pursuing the variance on the UV treatment as well, they submitted a request to the state in June--they are to have an answer back by December, and at this point we don't have an answer-we don't know where the state is leaning as to whether or not they will grant that, . . . ."

[Basically, Ms. Owen does not answer the question as to where Baker City stands with respect to a variance or exemption. She has known at least since early September of 2011, and should have known since May of 2010, that we have Crypto in the water, and that the current EPA LT2 rules do not allow us to be granted an exemption due to the concentration of Crypto found in our water.]

10/25/11 Dorrah & Calder Still Seem to Think Drinking Water Safe.MP4

Cryptosporidium had been detected in the water three times since April of 2010. Mike Kee, Michelle Own, and at least one Councilor were aware that it was in the water and because the water is unsafe, it would require 3log UV treatment with 99.9% effectiveness (the best UV treatment available). Seemingly unaware of the crypto in the water, Mayor Dorrah considers waiting and Councilor Calder says "we do provide safe drinking water and that we're not doing anything to compromise that by going slowly."

October 25, 2011 Minutes

While reading the minutes below, please note that at least some councilors, including Councilors Coles, Bonebrake, and Calder, were apparently still unaware that Crypto had been found in the water supply.

"Ms. Owen reviewed the staff report, explaining that this was the third task order of this project. She reminded the group that the Council had selected UV treatment as the required second form of disinfection. Ms. Owen further noted that this task order would go one step further: to select the type of equipment to be used. . . . .

Mr. Coles commented that he had heard about requests for exemption in some areas and asked if the City had explored that option. Ms. Owen responded, stating that the City had been closely following the variance request in Portland for a couple years. She commented that Portland has had to do quite a bit of testing which has cost them around $3 million just to get to the point where they could request the variance. Ms. Owen noted that no decision had been made at this point.

Mr. Coles commented that he thought, with the deadline being stretched to 2016 and a new administration coming forth, perhaps requirements and technology would change by then. He noted that for that reason he felt he could not vote for it.

Ms. Owen explained that, at the Council's request, she submitted a request for an extension to move forward slowly. She added that ordering the equipment was not part of the third task order, only the selection of the equipment was included.

Ms. Bonebrake asked if the $109,745 was part of the original budget bid document. Ms. Owen responded that there was an estimated amount in the budget, but this was actually lower than the estimate for this task number. She noted that this number was the maximum that task order three would cost. In response to another question from Ms. Bonebrake, Ms. Owen indicated that there was money left from what was budgeted for the previous task orders.

Ms. Calder asked if there was an idea of what the City inner costs would be for this project. Ms. Owen estimated that number to be approximately $2,000.

Ms. Calder asked what the timeline was for the next task order. Ms. Owen indicated that the City was not moving fast on this project and it would probably take place in the spring when the budget would be discussed.

Mayor Dorrah commented that many communities across he country would be doing this, probably by 2014. He suggested waiting to see how those other areas were handling the situation.

Mr. Kee reminded the group that the City wanted to do everything possible to provide safe water.

Ms. Bonebrake made a MOTION to approve task order number three. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bass. Ms. Calder commented that the City should do what they can to keep a good working relationship with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), but noted that the City did provide safe water.

In a vote of the motion to approve task order number 3, with all in favor except Mayor Dorrah and Mr. Coles, who were opposed. the motion was APPROVED."

November 1, 2011 Special Council Meeting on Cryptosporidium

See Baker County Blog

CM Kee Reveals Crypto Had Been Found-B C Council Special Sess-110111.mp4

City Manager Mike Kee reveals that Cryptosporidium had been found in the Baker City water supply in April of 2010, October of 2010, and January of 2011. The Council and the public had previously been repeatedly assured that Crypto had not been found in our water supply.

Mike Kee introduces Susan Bland, Director of Baker County Health Department, Bill Goss, Regional Engineer of the Oregon Health Authority, and Dave Kyle, and engineer with HDR, the company helping Baker City with a design for a water treatment plant. Michelle Owen, Baker City Public Works Director is sitting between Mr. Kyle on the left, and Mr. Goss, on the right.

Mike Kee CryptoSummary-B C

". . . . We may've always had Cryptosporidium, the difference is now we know we did. Uh, and we don't know of anyone who has ever been ill in Baker City as a result of Cryptosporidium, and that hasn't changed. And so, the message we want to give to the public is if . . . [you are] at risk uh, talk to your health care provider and take appropriate risk [sic], but for the rest of us there is no real . . . worry of, of ill effects . . . to our health as a result of this Cryptosporidium. Uh, we'll continue to move forward. . . ."

Nov 7, 2011 Michelle Owen to me

I was out of the office on Friday and just now getting through emails…
I first had confirmation of the crypto hits in September-not sure of the exact day, but around the 10th or so. I then told my boss. I do not know the exact dates-sorry.

It will be reported to all local water consumers in the annual water quality, consumer confidence report next spring as required.
Michelle

11/8/11 Council Meeting

YouTube video posted above near top.

Council/Staff Comments

Calder

"I'm sorry, I'm going to talk about the elephant in the room. Michelle, I guess I'd like you to make a statement about the Cryptosporidium. As one of the members of Council who is damn mad that the federal government was going to force us to spend millions of dollars for something we didn't have to deal with, I for one, as well as many people who have contacted me, really kind of assumed that you were going to look at everything that came your way, because those tests . . . . [Calder was interrupted by City Manager Mike Kee very loudly at this point.]

Kee-

"Councilor Calder, I, go ahead and address me and I'll help you out with this."

Calder

"OK--How is it we received reports that we didn't read?"

Kee

Well we began testing in April of 2010. Our water specialist, for lack of a better word, would take the samples above where it was treated, and send those samples in. Uh, at some point, he would receive results back from those tests, Here at city hall, we would receive a bill, we would write a purchase order for the bill, and we would send it away.

Now, if we had this all to do over again would we have changed the way we did it, absolutely. We would, we would, I would do a much better job. Uh, but you know, we missed it, I missed it, and in the long run it doesn't make any difference. We, we, there's still bugs in the water and there would have been whether we knew it or not. We are going to treat the water, and we are going to try to keep people as safe as we can. And that's what I'm here for, and I think that if there is an elephant in the room, uh, what we're trying to do is, or the bottom line is, to keep people safe. And, you know, had we all known in April of 2010, it wouldn't have made any difference. The, there is nothing different that we would have done. We still would've, uh, you know, we still would've been moving toward building the UV treatment center and, er, we wouldn't have been able to do it until 2015, and as we sit here today, we know that there are days that there is Cryptosporidium in the water and there's not a lot we can do about it."

Calder

"I, I realize that--it's, it's just the transparency and the timeliness, and keeping Council informed on something that was as sensitive an issue as this. [interrupted by Kee saying "I agree, I agree", so Calder's words unintelligible.] . . . was our failing, it's not that we can hurry up the process, we're the middle of the process."

Kee

"And I just want to assure the Council, and I don't think I need to because, uh, you know, we, we've had discussions with the Council, there's nothing sinister about this--we have no reason not to tell people in Baker City that there's Cryptosporidium in the water--absolutely no reason at all. We have no reason not to tell the paper that there's Cryptosporidium in the water. Uh, we just were delayed in finding out. We did find out, we delayed it even further, because I believe that we have a responsibility to find out what this means, so we can get good answers to the people, uh, you know, uh, spread the word to our citizens instead of just coming out the day we find out there's, that there's been a positive test and saying we've got Cryptosporidium and we don't know what that means, but we've got cryptosporidium. [garbled due to high volume] . . . we've got no idea. Well, during that delay, I learned more about Cryptosporidium in that month than I ever wanted to know. And I have a pretty good idea of it that will make people sick here in Baker City, I have a really good idea of how to treat that, and, I have, you know, I am fairly positive that it's been there when I was growing up here in the 1970's. So I do understand, and I acknowledge, that uh, you know, that I should have done a better job keeping an eye on uh, you know, the testing and what was going on with that. I didn't, I apologize about that, but the fact is we've gotta move on and take care of this, and keep people as safe as we can."

Calder

"Thank you for taking responsibility."

Kee

"Sure."

October 25, 2011 Agenda--UV Filtration Task Order
October 25, 2011 Minutes

Ms. Owen reviewed the staff report, explaining that this was
the third task order of this project. She reminded the group that
the Council had selected UV treatment as the required second
form of disinfection. Ms. Owen further noted that this task order
would go one step further: to select the type of equipment to be
used.

Mr. Coles asked what exactly would the City get for
$100,000 that this task order would cost. Ms Owen explained that
it would pay for the assistance in determining the criteria
developed to select the equipment. She continued, stating that it
would help coordinate with the various state agencies to make
sure it would meet the required standards. Ms. Owen clarified that
this was a common process with wastewater, but relatively new to
water systems. She added that part of what was covered is
assistance with the bidding process as well as the financial part
such as looking at how the rates are utilized.
. . . .

Mr. Coles commented that he had heard about requests for
exemption in some areas and asked if the City had explored that
option. Ms. Owen responded, stating that the City had been
closely following the variance request in Portland for a couple
years. She commented that Portland has had to do quite a bit of
testing which has cost them around $3 million just to get to the point where they could request the variance. Ms. Owen noted that
no decision had been made at this point.

Mr. Coles commented that he thought, with the deadline
being stretched to 2016 and a new administration coming forth,
perhaps requirements and technology would change by then. He
noted that for that reason he felt he could not vote for it.

Ms. Owen explained that, at the Council's request, she
submitted a request for an extension to move forward slowly. She
added that ordering the equipment was not part of the third task
order, only the selection of the equipment was included.

Ms. Bonebrake asked if the $109,745 was part of the
original budget bid document. Ms. Owen responded that there
was an estimated amount in the budget, but this was actually lower
than the estimate for this task number. She noted that this number
was the maximum that task order three would cost.
In response to another question from Ms. Bonebrake, Ms.
Owen indicated that there was money left from what was budgeted
for the previous task orders.
Ms. Calder asked if there was an idea of what the City inner
costs would be for this project. Ms. Owen estimated that number
to be approximately $2,000.
Ms. Calder asked what the timeline was for the next task
order. Ms. Owen indicated that the City was not moving fast on
this project and it would probably take place in the spring when the
budget would be discussed.
Mayor Dorrah commented that many communities across
the country would be doing this, probably by 2014. He suggested
waiting to see how those other areas were handling the situation.
Mr. Kee reminded the group that the City wanted to do
everything possible to provide safe water.
Ms. Bonebrake made a MOTION to approve task order
number three. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bass.
Ms. Calder commented that the City should do what they
can to keep a good working relationship with the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ), but noted that the City did provide
safe water.

In a vote of the motion to approve task order number 3, with
all in favor except Mayor Dorrah and Mr. Coles, who were
opposed. the motion was APPROVED.

11/01/11 Special Council Meeting on Cryptosporidium

CM Kee Reveals Crypto Had Been Found-B C Council Special Sess-110111.mp4

City Manager Mike Kee reveals that Cryptosporidium had been found in the Baker City water supply in April of 2010, October of 2010, and January of 2011. The Council and the public had previously been repeatedly assured that Crypto had not been found in our water supply.
Mike Kee introduces Susan Bland, Director of Baker County Health Department, Bill Goss, Regional Engineer of the Oregon Health Authority, and Dave Kyle, and engineer with HDR, the company helping Baker City with a design for a water treatment plant. Michelle Owen, Baker City Public Works Director is sitting between Mr. Kyle on the left, and Mr. Goss, on the right.

Council responses

Beverly Calder:
I was informed a week ago Thursday [October 27th it seems] by CM Kee that the report had been received and staff had called for more information.
I agreed that we needed a work session ASAP to openly discuss the results and CM Kee said he would ask the involved
engineers to be available for the discussion.
There is no greater urgency (as there is no immediate health danger) than the schedule we are currently on however, now
that we have done our year of testing we have concrete results that will guide the continuing steps in the treatment
development process.

ALETHA BONEBRAKE alethaboneb@msn.com to me
show details Nov 5 (4 days ago)

Hi Chris,

I never heard from Public Works until last Tuesday night [Nov. 1, Special Meeting]. Mike called me either Friday or Monday and said they had found some and that we needed to let the public know right away. He seemed astonished and concerned and I truly don't know whether he had just read the reports or Michelle told him. I thought the Tuesday special meeting was the appropriate response. . . . .

Clair Button cfbutton@gmail.com to me
show details Nov 4 (4 days ago)
I was informed at the end of the County Commission-Council meeting [October 18, 2011]. Mike was already planning a public session to give full information to the public.

Clair

Clair said nothing at the October25th meeting. Neither did Kee orOwen.

No other Councilor bothered to respond, so I don't know when they were told.

---11/8/11 Council Meeting

Council/Staff Comments

Calder

"I'm sorry, I'm going to talk about the elephant in the room. Michelle, I guess I'd like you to make a statement about the Cryptosporidium. As one of the members of Council who is damn mad that the federal government was going to force us to spend millions of dollars for something we didn't have to deal with, I for one, as well as many people who have contacted me, really kind of assumed that you were going to look at everything that came your way, because those tests . . . . [Calder was interrupted by City Manager Mike Kee very loudly at this point.]

Kee-

"Councilor Calder, I, go ahead and address me and I'll help you out with this."

Calder

"OK--How is it we received reports that we didn't read?"

Kee

Well we began testing in April of 2010. Our water specialist, for lack of a better word, would take the samples above where it was treated, and send those samples in. Uh, at some point, he would receive results back from those tests, Here at city hall, we would receive a bill, we would write a purchase order for the bill, and we would send it away.

Now, if we had this all to do over again would we have changed the way we did it, absolutely. We would, we would, I would do a much better job. Uh, but you know, we missed it, I missed it, and in the long run it doesn't make any difference. We, we, there's still bugs in the water and there would have been whether we knew it or not. We are going to treat the water, and we are going to try to keep people as safe as we can. And that's what I'm here for, and I think that if there is an elephant in the room, uh, what we're trying to do is, or the bottom line is, to keep people safe. And, you know, had we all known in April of 2010, it wouldn't have made any difference. The, there is nothing different that we would have done. We still would've, uh, you know, we still would've been moving toward building the UV treatment center and, er, we wouldn't have been able to do it until 2015, and as we sit here today, we know that there are days that there is Cryptosporidium in the water and there's not a lot we can do about it."

Calder

"I, I realize that--it's, it's just the transparency and the timeliness, and keeping Council informed on something that was as sensitive an issue as this. [interrupted by Kee saying "I agree, I agree", so Calder's words unintelligible.] . . . was our failing, it's not that we can hurry up the process, we're the middle of the process."

Kee

"And I just want to assure the Council, and I don't think I need to because, uh, you know, we, we've had discussions with the Council, there's nothing sinister about this--we have no reason not to tell people in Baker City that there's Cryptosporidium in the water--absolutely no reason at all. We have no reason not to tell the paper that there's Cryptosporidium in the water. Uh, we just were delayed in finding out. We did find out, we delayed it even further, because I believe that we have a responsibility to find out what this means, so we can get good answers to the people, uh, you know, uh, spread the word to our citizens instead of just coming out the day we find out there's, that there's been a positive test and saying we've got Cryptosporidium and we don't know what that means, but we've got cryptosporidium. [garbled due to high volume] . . . we've got no idea. Well, during that delay, I learned more about Cryptosporidium in that month than I ever wanted to know. And I have a pretty good idea of it that will make people sick here in Baker City, I have a really good idea of how to treat that, and, I have, you know, I am fairly positive that it's been there when I was growing up here in the 1970's. So I do understand, and I acknowledge, that uh, you know, that I should have done a better job keeping an eye on uh, you know, the testing and what was going on with that. I didn't, I apologize about that, but the fact is we've gotta move on and take care of this, and keep people as safe as we can."

Calder

"Thank you for taking responsibility."

Kee

"Sure."

Friday, November 4, 2011

Baker "Bugs:" Cryptosporidium and Elm Leaf Beetle

In this Edition:

- Bad Information on Crypto?--Don't Blame the Herald--Look to the Source

- Cyclical Outbreak of Elm Leaf Beetle in Baker City
[Edited 11/6/11, 6/25/12 (corrected ID of my elm trees--Siberian--not American.)]
[11/17/11--See also the next blog:
Accountability for Baker City's Cryptosporidium Fiasco--is the elephant still in the room?]
_____

Bad Information on Crypto?--Don't Blame the Herald--Look to the Source

When I first heard that testing results had been provided to the city revealing that Cryptosporidium (Crypto) had been identified in the city water supply as early as April of 2010, I was as shocked as anyone, given the repeated denials by the city staff of its existence. I was puzzled as to why all 24 lab reports, a years worth, were all date stamped September 2, 2011 by the state, some 17 months after testing had begun and over 5 months after it had ended. At Tuesday's Council Meeting, all the City Manager had to say about the discovery was: "In September the staff of Baker City became aware that as a result of the tests that we had been conducting for Cryptosporidium we had had some positive test results." No discussion of why it had not been reported to Council or the public prior to late October and early November, even though the first of three positive detections came in about 18 months earlier. Now we are informed by the Herald that public works director Michelle Owen said "she looked at some, but not all, of the lab reports." Ho Hum--after all--it is just a potentially deadly pathogen in the water supply of a city of roughly 10,000 people. Good to know we've got public works looking out for us. Yikes!

Having been reluctantly convinced by the Herald's recent editorial, "Baker City's dilemma" (Oct. 27, 2011) that treatment was the best way to proceed, so as to avoid costly legal battles, fines, and etc., even though we all thought Crypto hadn't been yet detected, one of my responses to the disclosure was that it might make some question the Herald's credibility. Such accusations, if offered, would be misdirected though, because the Herald was depending upon the city to provide accurate information, which the Herald dutifully reported. One would hope that we can trust at least our local government to be doing the job they are well paid to do, and if you can't trust them to give you accurate information, who can you trust?

Perhaps that view is a little naive, but one can hardly blame the Herald for reporting in good faith the information that was given to them by the city, and there was no indication from any other governmental source that things might be amiss. (There are systemic reasons for that which I hope to address in a later post on this subject.) The Herald and the Council, like anyone else, will be more skeptical once burnt, but on issues of trust related to the very basic and important issue of public health, as opposed to street maintenance and contract issues, I am unaware of any reason why they wouldn't take the Public Works Department seriously. Who could imagine the Public Works Department not taking care to read all the lab results and to immediately report matters of such import to the Council and the public?

That's why I was surprised by yesterday's politic and gracious editorial, "The story behind the crypto mistake," wherein the Herald Editorial Board says "We messed up. . . . . We were wrong."

On many occasions, as a blogger, I have to rely on information from government sources, when I can pry it out of them. The information is often not easily questioned due to technical issues, time, legal hassles, and budgetary constraints, among other reasons. That's why the public and media in general look for both trust and competency in their public officials, while retaining a healthy skepticism. But Crypto in the water supply? What responsible and competent public official wouldn't be on top of that?

Upon watching the special Council work session called for last Tuesday, and looking at the test results provided (at last) in the Council Packet, many questions arose within the public and myself as to the process used for reporting important data on our water quality. While I did initially spend some time researching the subject, the prediction of the winter storm now upon us compelled me to tend to important fall chores, such as putting the garden to bed and keeping the property maintenance police off my back, so it was not until yesterday I was able to speak with the regional state drinking water department and testing labs, etc. To make a very long and complicated story much shorter, and using today's Herald editorial as a base for correcting misunderstandings (without adding too many of my own I hope) here is a summary of what I was able to find out.

The Herald editorial stated that "

. . . cryptosporidium, [is] a parasite that can cause diarrhea and vomiting."

While they had previously reported that 50 people died in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin outbreak of the 1990's, they might have more accurately stated that cryptosporidium is a parasite that can cause diarrhea, vomiting, and death. According to Wikipedia, "At least 104[2] deaths have been attributed to this outbreak, mostly among the elderly and immunocompromised people, such as AIDS patients."

Another report, from the School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, states that:

The organism is highly infectious.
The median infective dose (from human trials!) is only 132 oocysts, and 20% of human subjects could be infected with as few as 30 oocysts!

While it is true that people exposed to Cryptosporidium when healthy may often form a degree of immunity to it, it still poses the risks mentioned above to many other folks, especially the previously unexposed, sick, elderly, or immunocompromised. There is also the possibility that locally, there are sometimes more than 0 to 2 oocysts in every ten liters of water. One lab professional I spoke with yesterday said that given the very small 10 liter sample size, compared to the much, much larger volume of water passing through the system, combined with other variables such as seasonal stream conditions, proficiency and technique of the sampler, etc, one could expect high variability in the actual numbers at any given time and that the standard deviation of results "could be all over the place." I take that to mean that it could be expected that sometimes there are far more oocysts in a given volume of our drinking water than is indicated by the lab results which reflect only 24 samples over a one year period.

The Herald also states that "Nor does the presence of crypto affect the city’s ongoing planning for installing an ultraviolet light system, at an estimated cost of $2.5 million, that inactivates the parasite."

Our surface water source is an unfiltered source of water. According to information provided by the state and EPA (Treatment Rule: A Quick Reference Guide For Schedule 4 Systems), there is a difference in in the UV system needed depending upon whether Crypto has been detected or not. If no Crypto had been detected, we would still need a 2-log (99% crypto inactivation) system, which is less expensive (marginally perhaps) than a 3-log system (99.9% inactivation) which is required when Crypto has been detected. A minor detail.

Perhaps the most important (and most politic) clue to the Crypto mystery is this part of the editorial:

She [Michelle Owen] told us that there was no sign of crypto.

Then we learned this week about the three positive tests.

The explanation for the discrepancy, Owen told us on Thursday, is that while the tests were being done, she looked at some, but not all, of the lab reports.

. . . .
Owen said she believed, when she told us that none of the city’s water samples tested positive for crypto, that she was speaking truthfully.

She said she learned that wasn’t the case late this summer, when the city compiled the 24 lab reports to send to the Oregon Health Division’s Drinking Water Program.

Owen said she realized then that three reports — ones she hadn’t read before — indicated small amounts of crypto were present.

Hmmmmm.... Like I said, the Herald is very gracious. . . .

Michelle Owen, Public Works Director

Before I had a chance to see the Herald yesterday, I spoke with the Oregon Health Authority's drinking water program and both laboratories involved in the Crypto analyses.

BioVir laboratory (2011 results) said they were sub-contracted by the original Lab/Cor, Inc. laboratory contractor (2010 results), and sent the results to them fairly quickly. Lab/Cor said they sent the results to the city public works Water Plant Specialist Jake Jones within two weeks of the actual test.

So we are expected to believe that no one at public works took the time to read every one of these important reports about the presence or absence of a potential deadly pathogen in our water supply? Again, it's good to know we've got public works looking out for us!

Bill Goss, from the Oregon Health Authority regional office in Pendleton, said that while in some cases the results are sent to the state office in Portland, the lab results for Baker City are sent directly to the public works department. Apparently the regional representative was not previously completely aware of the Federal requirement for city water systems (city public works) to "report [to the state] results from the source water monitoring no later than 10 days after the end of the first month following the month when the sample is collected," but he claims to be out of the loop anyway because the results were supposed to have been sent by public works to the Portland office, not Pendleton, within the specified time frame.

A state representative said the reports, which were supposed to be sent regularly to the state office in Portland, were often not tracked or scrutinized there until the end of the yearly reporting period, at which time they were reviewed to determine the appropriate level of water treatment needed. Given that the state office did not report regularly to the regional representative, the regional representative would not know of the positive findings for Crypto, had they actually been sent to Portland. Additionally, the regional representative stated he was informed verbally by Michelle Owen at the late 2010 Council meeting (8/24/10) that Crypto had not been detected in our water.

Here's the rule:
333-061-0040 Reporting and Record Keeping
(1) Reporting requirements:
(m) Reporting source water monitoring results for Cryptosporidium and E. coli collected in accordance with OAR 333-061-0036(5)(e). Water systems must report results from the source water monitoring no later than 10 days after the end of the first month following the month when the sample is collected as prescribed by this subsection.

Well, the reports, dating back to April, 2010, were not received by the state until September 2, 2011 (you count the months). Several violations here.

And then there is the question of this year's required Consumer Confidence Report, provided by the city for the public, which did not report the presence of Crypto to the Baker City public, even though it had been reported to the city as being present in April and October of 2010, as well as in January or this year. Another clear violation. Consumer Confidence?

Here's the rule:
333-061-0043 Consumer Confidence Reports
(3) Detected Contaminants:
(m) Information on Cryptosporidium, radon, and other contaminants:
(A) If the system has performed any monitoring for Cryptosporidium,
which indicates that Cryptosporidium may be present in the source water or the finished water, the report must include:
(i) A summary of the results of the monitoring, and
(ii) An explanation of the significance of the results.

The Herald editorial stated that:

Nor is the city required to report the presence of crypto — unlike with other contaminants, such as E. Coli, the state doesn’t have a protocol for when cities must notify either the state or the public about possible crypto contamination, Goss said.

Given the information provided above from multiple sources, that statement is not entirely accurate

Both the state representative and the EPA have clarified that the city [public works department] was required to report a finding of Crypto in the water supply in their annual Consumer Confidence Report that must be sent out by July first of every year.

While there appears to be enough blame to go around in this case, from the information available, one should look to government, not the local paper, for the real culprits. If anything, the Herald set a good example by accepting some responsibility, however slight it may be in reality, for passing on bad information. It is truly a shame that the public works department didn't do the same, along with issuing an apology to the people and the Council, as soon as they realized their careless handling of the lab reports.
__

Centers For Disease Control--Cryptosporidium Life Cycle

For more information on Cryptosporidium, see also:

Selected Zoonotic Agents of Gastroenteritis

Cattle:
The domestic animal of most importance as a reservoir of Cryptosporidium parvum is clearly cattle.

-

Epidemiologic Aspects of Human Cryptosporidiosis and the Role of Waterborne Transmission
(Use search facility to get to page where you can download article.)
_____

Cyclical Outbreak of Elm Leaf Beetle in Baker City

This past summer, I was a bit chagrinned to see numerous little tan-brown beetles with dark racing stripes milling about the house, both inside and out, and hiding towards fall under the bark of some of my firewood. My first thought was that they might be some sort of wood boring beetle whose larval stage had been eating away at my house. They had been around in previous years, but never in the numbers seen this summer.

I was relieved to find out upon investigation, that, rather than attacking my house, these beetles were chewing up the leaves on my old Siberian Elms (Ulmus pumila), planted by previous owners of the property, and that I was experiencing an outbreak of the Elm Leaf Beetle (Xanthogaleruca luteola).

Elm Leaf Beetle clinging to screen door.

The adults seen under the bark of my firewood had gone there seeking a shelter for winter hibernation, although that ultimately could prove to have been a "bad choice." They also seek winter quarters in houses. Those that remain in the spring will fly or crawl up into the elms again to lay eggs on the lower surface of leaves, and when the larvae hatch in about a week, they will begin feeding on this lower leaf surface. The effects can be seen in the next photo.

Effects of Elm Leaf Beetle larvae feeding on the underside of elm leaves.

After feeding, the larvae then migrate down to the larger crack and crevices in the bark of the tree where they develop into the adult beetles which emerge in summer. Adult beetles feed on the leaves as well, leaving spots or holes seen on the upper surfaces.

Effects of Elm Leaf Beetle adults feeding on the upper surface of elm leaves.

Having grown up in an area with few of the large elms found in Baker City, I had not experienced these little delinquents until moving here. The literature assures me that while they weaken the tree, they do not normally kill it. Treatment is problematic, but Wikipedia suggests the following:

In North America, there are few natural enemies, but in Europe, the ova of the beetle are often heavily predated by the chalcidoid wasp Oomyzus gallerucae [2]. Insecticide sprays are of little use since by the time the infestation is apparent, the application will be too late to be effective. However, tree trunks banded with insecticides can limit repetition the following year by killing the larvae as they descend before hibernation.

My view? Don't bother.

Other Links:

U of M Extension Elm Leaf Beetle

LEAST TOXIC AND ORGANIC PESTICIDES FOR GARDENERS

Biological Insecticides
Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)
Source: naturally occurring bacterium produced en masse in the lab Mode of action: bacterial stomach poison that must be ingested by insect to be toxic, initial poisoning causes cessation of eating, insect dies in a few days Uses: Bt kurstaki used against plant-eating caterpillars, Bt israelensis used against mosquitoes and fungus gnats, Bt san diego used against elm leaf beetle and Colorado potato beetle Toxicity: mammalian toxicity varies from low to very low toxicity depending on product Products: Caterpillar Killer, Dipel, Gnatrol, Bactimos, Potato Shield
Miscellaneous Garlic
Notes: biodegrades quickly in sunlight, spray late in day or on a cloudy day, need full plant coverage, Bt kurstaki works best when caterpillars are still small

Baker County Blog

Baker County Blog Search

A Baker County Wildflower

FAIR USE STATEMENT

My Flickr Photos

My Wildflower Photos

Blog Archive

The Fascist Defines Fascism

Voltaire on Freedom

Darwin on Effect of Early Brainwashing

It was impossible to save the Great Republic

E.O. Wilson on population growth and sustainability

Jefferson on Corporations

How despicable and ignoble war is

Do not despair due to hostility or exclusion

Anger Looks to the Good of Justice

Some Interesting Links

Ben Franklin on Free Speech

"Making people love their servitude"

The weak do what they must. . .

Sustainability and Population Growth

The Primary Political Question: "Who benefits? Who pays?"

Thomas Paine on the Defense of Custom

Taking A Position Because It Is Right

Galbraith on Respectability

They love the liars and hate the truth, Mencken

a lie so subtle

Repression works only to strengthen and knit the repressed,

Need to write an Oregon Public Records request?

FORGIVENESS

American “Democracy” and Responsibility

OUR UNDISPUTED OVERLORDS

The Politics of Anti-Semitism

Get "The Politics of Anti-Semitism here:

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom"

Is It For Freedom?

Geiser Grand Hotel on Historic Main Street

The Other Side of the Tracks

Human Insensitivity, Arrogance, Ignorance, Greed and Folly

Chris

About Me

Remember What We Are Not And What We Can Be

Mysteries

Endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep

Not One More Death, Not One More Dollar

Peace On Main Street

Need money For Schools?

Winnie Moves to New Meadows, Idaho