Baker City Council Moving Forward with UV Treatment Plan

[Edited & Updated 8/28/13]

The Baker City Council is Moving Forward with a UV treatment Plan.

Despite objections from Roger Coles and Mike Downing, the Baker City Council, after hearing a presentation from Dave Leland, Interim Administrator, Center for Health Protection, of the Oregon Health Authority, decided to move forward with plans to install UV treatment of our water supply in order to deal with the Cryptosporidium problem.

Mr. Leland explained that UV treatment was acceptable as long as we implement improved measures to protect the watershed, especially from the number one threat: cows. "Sure, UV is still an option" as long as we meet the federal criteria, but that a more "robust" watershed control program would be needed. He noted that cattle are "implicated over and over again" in studies that have been conducted. He also said that cattle are around our watershed, but that is not the case in the other three Oregon cities that have been allowed to pursue options other than filtration. The easy access by cattle to our watershed is the difference, and he asked Council "How do we reduce the opportunities for cattle" to get into our watershed. If those opportunities can be significantly reduced, he noted "UV is still an option." He later stated that "Robust watershed protection will have to be in place with UV protection."

Councilor Mosier was tentatively in favor of UV but wanted more information with adequate time for study. Councilor Button was cautious, but more or less in favor of UV due to cost advantages. Mayor Langrell and Councilor Dorrah were clearly in favor for cost effectiveness reasons as long as wells could be found for backup to cover any problems that develop in the watershed. Councilor Johnson reminded all of the need for assurances and City Manager Mike Kee stated that if we manage the watershed correctly that we will be in compliance.

There was much more discussion, but in the end, the "consensus" was that  we should continue to pursue proven UV treatment due to the cost advantages, while also actively finding more wells to backup the ASR well and a rehabilitated second backup well at the golf course, in case of catastrophic fire or other problems in the watershed.

More to follow, but for now, we are good with the affordable UV option as long as we show that we can protect our relatively clean watershed from intrusion by cattle or other serious threats.

My letter to Council:

Councilor's:

I appreciate the caution of some because it is a big decision and the future is not known. I expect that with global climate change that we might expect a major fire in the watershed at some point in the future. However, if we utilize the ASR well, the "golf course well," and one or two more good producing wells, as Mike and others have proposed, we can live through such an event with safe, clean water. I believe the critical point to be understood from the information provided by Mr. Leland, and apparently understood by you, is that we need to take protection of the watershed seriously, and keep cows out, as envisioned by the original plan. As I believe Mike noted, it is a good time to revisit and create a new, effective, Watershed Management Plan.

With an effective enforceable plan, proceeding with UV and wells should provide safe, affordable drinking water well into the future for our small, sustainable town. 

I might add that my understanding is that the Forest Service was not notified of the most recent cattle trespass, so, if true, and I believe it is, there is plenty of room for improved communication--both to upper city management, Council, and the Forest Service.

Also, the new engineer was impressive as a knowledgeable communicator when given his small chance. 

Hope I'm not being overbearing and out of place--just an opinion from a citizen who has tried to be informed. 

Thank you all for your efforts to understand and find solutions.

Chris

On the issue of the city water specialist communicating with the Forest Service when cows get in the watershed, I was told that the Forest Service had not received a single call from the city about cattle trespass during the last three summers. They do receive some calls from the grazing permittee or Forest Service employees when cows have gotten in, but did not receive a call from the permittee or the city concerning the most recent trespass.

_____

Special Baker City public meeting on Cryptosporidium outbreak raises as many questions as it answers

[Editing essentially finished and added 1st video 11:45 AM, 8/9/13]

 I attended and filmed the special Baker City Public meeting on the Cryptosporidium outbreak tonight [8/8/13].  I came away with more questions than answers as to how Baker City is to proceed in dealing with the crypto problem.  I am going to make this short, certainly not an exhaustive account of what occurred, as downloading and processing the video takes quite a bit of time for an almost 3 hour meeting, and I need to review it. It will take additional time to produce any YouTube videos. So this will be a rather bare summary and outline, and just what I consider to be the most important points until I decide to go to sleep (which won't be long)--video and most analysis will come later. (This account is from notes taken and memory as I was trying to film the event, so I will correct any errors after I am able to review the video.)

Mayor Langrell opened and explained the nature of the meeting before turning it over to City manager Mike Kee who presented the agenda and provided a summary timeline that was similar to the information in his August 2, 2013 Weekly Update. He also provided the results of the Cryptosporidium tests that have occurred during the Crypto "crisis."
Here is the video of City Manager Kee's introduction. It is somewhat dim and grainy due to low light on Baker City High School auditorium stage but best video possible under the conditions and the audio is acceptable. Best watched on YouTube by clicking this link:
Crypto Meeting Intro, Baker City, OR 080713



Alicia Hills, from the Baker County Health Department, spoke about the 15 confirmed Crypto cases and the "About Cryptosporidiosis" flyer that has been made available to residents and visitors which lists recommendations and suggestions for staying safe during Baker City's Crypto crisis. You can find the flyer here.

Michelle Owens, Director of the Public Works Department talked about the need for water use curtailment, while reminding everyone that this is a great community to live in. ;-)

Heidi Dalton talked about the decision to keep the Sam-O-Swim pool facility closed because the risks of keeping it open were too high. They will do the usual September maintenance during the current closure period.

Bill Goss from the Oregon Health Authority Drinking Water Program said that the outbreak was a naturally occurring event and that no one was to blame. He indicated that no one could predict when the no boil order would end as they will need tests results indicating that there are essentially zero Crypto oocysts in the water supply. He stated that an ongoing monitoring plan for Cryptosporidium will be instituted until a treatment facility is constructed that provides for 99.9% removal of Cryptosporidium oocysts, and that is must be in place by October of 2016. (The issue of why monitoring had not been continued after the initial round of testing ended in 2011 was brought up by citizens during the meeting.)

To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Goss did not mention at this time that the state will be reviewing out treatment options which could result in the state imposing a treatment plan different from the 99.9 % effective UV treatment plan they had already recommended.

Michelle Owen talked about solutions to the Crypto problem that the city was looking at.  These included:

• Long-term plan for UV treatment of Cryptosporidium.
• Mid-term solution of finding or drilling additional supplementary water from wells (Wells are generally not be affected by Cryptosporidium.
• Short-term solutions that include boiling, and borrowing a portable non-validated membrane filter unit.

Brian Black from the HDR  engineering firm talked about the accelerated schedule for the UV treatment facility. The schedule was to include:

• Complete design and sighn-up contractor in early spring or earlier
• Begin construction in the summer of 2014
• Complete construction in summer of 2015

The accelerated schedule would bring in a 99.9% effective UV facility a year before the current deadline.

Mayor Langrell moderated a Q and A session with the audience but first discussed issues presented by some questions that had been submitted in writing by the audience. The ones he mentioned primarily had to do with whether the city [and its citizens], had a responsibility to compensate businesses that have suffered losses due to the present crisis.

Some citizens related the problems they had encountered while suffering from Crypto, and asked why the city had delayed moving forward with UV treatment when we were told as early as 2009 that treatment was required. One of these, Linda Wall of Baker City, also had members of the large audience raise their hands if they had been dealing with the symptoms of Cryptosporidiosis. She estimated that about 1/4 to 1/3 of those present raised their hands.

Former Councilor and Judge Milo Pope laid the responsibility for delay on Former Mayor and current Councilor Dennis Dorrah (who did not attend the meeting), Councilor Roger Coles, and other Councilors who had delayed providing treatment.

There were many more interesting public comments that I will try to post as a YouTube video later.

The bottom line, in terms of how we will move forward came when Councilor Coles gave a spirited rebuttal to Milo Pope's comments and then Mayor Langrell validated Councilor Coles comments that he couldn't see going forward at the time because DEQ might suddenly change the requirements in  the future, even though Mayor Langrell had spoken about the accelerated schedule for UV earlier.  I commented that I thought using that sort of speculation was a scare tactic and that given EPA approval of UV and current state direction there was no basis for it.  Then, perhaps in response to questioning on that point by Councilor Mosier (have to check the video),  Bill Goss from the State Health Authority said that a change in requirements was a possibility because the state was going to review the present outbreak and could possibly change their recommendation to the much more expensive $17M to $20M water filtration requirement and plant that costs over $300,000/year to maintain.

I pointed out that we had spent the meeting talking about installing UV treatment, that is what the state has told us we need to install, and that filtration would cost significantly more than UV to install and maintain. I misspoke the figures as being in millions rather that thousands, but the point was that maintenance costs are still something like 25 times greater for filtration than for UV treatment, according to the 2009 figures provided to the city by HDR.

When I asked him after the meeting about this announcement, after 80% of the meeting had been about the accelerated schedule for constructing the UV treatment plant, he told me that his announcement had been timely as the outbreak had only been going of for a few weeks, and he was there to talk about other things (i.e., the boil water order). We discussed a few other issues related to the state's review, but it is late so those will be discussed later, as will numerous comments by a very engaged audience.

Given the late announcement of a state review, which Mr. Goss said will take about two months (or possibly 6 month to a year), I am at a loss to understand how the earlier presentations about an accelerated schedule for the installation of a UV water treatment facility were allowed to be presented, how they can move forward or be accomplished, and I am beginning to understand why local governments do not trust regulatory bodies like the DEQ or the Oregon Health Authority.  How can Councilors or staff, left in limbo, commit resources to any solution, when the regulatory agencies reserve the right to waste the time and resources communities have committed by changing their mind--especially when such regulatory changes can bring financial ruin to many low income citizens and potentially even the to cities they live in?

One searches for answers as to why the the feds and the state would impose such confusion and uncertainty on the cities and towns they have been given authority over when there are adequately safe, rational, and affordable solutions to the problems being faced. I also wonder if it isn't becoming clear that many government workers, from the federal to the local level, including as well some of our other financially comfortable citizens, have not simply become completely insensitive to the world and needs of low income people. I heard the folks tonight (now last night) who told their stories of not having health insurance and not being able to afford to go to the doctor, and some of those who could go to the doctor, couldn't afford the medications they needed to treat the cryptosporidiosis they suffered from. With the new push to force selection of unaffordable water treatment options, it is not clear whether some state, county, and city officials care if low income people can afford the quest for guaranteed safety at any cost that some of the comfortable apparently seek, and which ultimately places burdens [I. e., increases in water/sewer rates] on the poor that they cannot bear. Perhaps the regulators, developers, realtors, newspaper peddlers, merchants, and the wealthy, see an opportunity in ridding themselves of poor people by making their towns into places where the poor can't afford to live any more. A kinder, gentler, saner solution would be for them to buy a membrane filtration unit for their home and save the rest of us the expense of providing them with an incredibly small extra margin of safety.

:-) Don't Saddle Me,

I'm Safe With UV!

Buy Your Own Damn Filter! ;-)

Sorry about that, I'm in the sleepless zone.

More videos in a future blog when I figure out how to free disk space.

Random Thoughts on the Baker City Crypto Outbreak

[Edited 8/3/13]

                           Goodrich Reservoir, Baker City Watershed

They say that hindsight would have been perfect foresight, or something like that, and my first chemistry teacher would always reprimand his students when they made a mistake by saying "In the future" la de da de da, hoping we would learn from our mistakes. I guess it doesn't always turn out that way in the real world.

As of today there were less than 10 confirmed cases of disease caused by Cryptosporidium (crypto) in Baker City, according to published reports. Most people I speak with know of at least a few people who have symptoms consistent with cryptosporidiosis who have not gone to the doctor for various reasons.  The main reasons, in my view, that they haven't sought treatment, is because the symptoms did not overwhelm them, and that going to the doctor can be expensive, especially for those with little or no health insurance. These anecdotal reports seem to indicate that the number of cases in Baker City is far higher than the number of reported cases, quite possibly in the hundreds. Hopefully, the state epidemiologists will at least conduct minimal studies with large enough sample sizes to extrapolate/estimate the number of people actually infected.

Yesterday I asked the State Health Authority to tell me whether the city was required to do additional testing after the initial 2-year round of testing, which showed positive for crypto, ended in 2012.  My reading of the requirements, as well as theirs, indicated that no more testing was required by the LT2 Rule until 6 years had passed.  Today, the city has confirmed that they have not been testing the water for crypto since the first round of testing ended and that they were not required to do so. (That was the question I asked them yesterday.)

Most folks I have spoken with indicate to me that continued testing would have been the sensible thing to do, given that we had positive tests for crypto in the watershed. That was my view too, but it didn't happen. The current events in Baker City seem to indicate a weakness in the EPA's monitoring requirements for crypto, and a lack of prudence by city officials in charge of protecting our water supply. Another suggested that given the previous positive tests, that in addition to monitoring in the absence of any effective treatment, no water from Goodrich should have been used in the municipal water supply before testing for pathogens, including crypto.  In hindsight, I certainly agree, even if Goodrich or Mountain Goats don't turn out to be the sources of the problem.

Another individual wondered why the city was spending the money to have an employee drive the test samples to Seattle and then pay for a motel while waiting for the results which they would then take back to Baker City. Why can't the city send them overnight via US Mail, UPS or Fed Ex? To the best of my knowledge, they haven't had to drive them up before.

I have previously complained to city officials and others about our city priorities which seem to continuously discount our needs for basic infrastructure in favor of so-called "economic development." The sentiment I'm hearing from those I speak with is that the city leaders thinks it is more important to win city beauty contests and spend money on putting Resort St. utilities underground, throwing money at the golf course and airport, and etc. (not to mention increased expenditures for aggressive policing and employee salaries and benefits), than it is to spend our tax dollars on water testing, and basic infrastructure, like water treatment, sewage treatment, water delivery systems, sewers, streets, and etc.  (If you look down Resort Street today, after the utilities have been put underground, it still looks like a bit of a wide alley.  If you first look at the price tag for putting the utilities underground, well, then it looks like a million bucks!)

Lonely Golfer on Our Golf  Course

Take the golf course for one example. With regard to all the subsidies that have historically gone to the golf course after the addition of the back nine holes, some Councilors reflect the conventional elite wisdom with statements like this:

Dennis Dorrah:

For my part the golf course is much like the swimming pool. It improves the quality of life of many of our citizens and I see it as a tool for drawing business to our community.

Clair Button, whose house backs up to the golf course:

Each house built because of the golf course contributes between 2000 - 6000 dollars in property taxes annually. Multiply that times the number of houses that have been built because of the growth the golf course has generated. The housing creation is ongoing. We want that growth to increase the tax base.  They pay to pave their own streets and provide sidewalks. Those people have the money to invest in business. They create jobs. They pay a large share of our water and sewer system upgrades. They spend money at local businesses, all of which keep our local economy moving.  The economic recycling of money is a well documented phenomenon. The entire community does benefit.

Miracle workers according to Clair. The two Councilors are not alone among city leaders, they just let their opinions be known. The truth is that the claims are not backed up by valid statistics or cost-benefit studies, and the city just spent over $150,000 to replace the sub-standard water tanks in the Scenic Vista development, overlooking the golf course, that were accepted by then City Manager Tim Collins on July 31, 2003.  Mr. Collins, an avid golfer, purchased property in the subdivision a few years later. The golf course has also made evident two classes of citizens--those who can drive their unlicensed vehicles (golf carts) all over town without harassment (golfers), and those who have to license their vehicles to drive them on our streets because they will be cited if they don't (the rest of us). They also take many hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of potential drinking water for free to irrigate a little used facility that won't pay for itself.

Additionally, the state and federal government have given us millions to spend on rebuilding selected streets in recent years, when what we needed was money to move swiftly on water and sewage treatment.

But the important point is this:  Who is going to want to come to live in Baker City so as to enjoy the subsidized golf course and a few tidy new streets when our drinking water is contaminated with crypto because we spent our extra dollars on elite activities like the golf course, airport, and underground utilities for business people on Resort Street, instead of on necessities like water testing and treatment?

There are also questions about how rapidly information is getting out to neighboring towns and cities who have citizens who visit Baker City. An interesting situation was related to me by a friend this afternoon.  She had two elderly women visit last Monday from La Grande.  One was around 75 and the other was 105 years old (a very remarkable woman who was raised in the Baker City area). They drank lots of water. The younger of the two ended up in Grande Ronde Hospital a few days later with gastrointestinal pain, stomach upset, and diarrhea. She's on intravenous antibiotics. When my friend told the mother and the nurse about the crypto outbreak in Baker City, neither had even heard about it.

Now just in case you think I never have positive things to say to the city, the letter below is just one example of a positive response to their efforts. It is easy to stand back and be the critic when you are not involved in a situation, especially when it comes sort of natural and they don't want to hear what you have to say anyway. While I do think the EPA, the state, and the city need to reevaluate the LT2 rule with regard to the monitoring that should be required when crypto has already been discovered in a watershed prior to initiation of effective treatment, and that no one can be proud of previous crypto monitoring issues or the PR problems on Wednesday morning, I do think that Mike Kee and his staff have done a good job of thinking the current situation through, while marshaling state and other resources, in their response to the current problem. ('Course some may think their lax oversight may have had a hand in causing it.)

July 31, 2013 

Mike,

Just looked at the Herald and found the "City asks residents to reduce water use" article. Earlier today I mentioned to Jeanie that I thought the Goats might be contributors. The only reason I mentioned it was because I hiked from Marble Pass to Elkhorn (Goodrich) Peak a week ago. Goats are spread out along the rim from Marble Pass to Goodrich Res. and beyond. I only saw a polygamous "family" of five near the pass, but the sign, from tracks, to shedding hair, to scat pellets was everywhere, especially along the rim above Goodrich. I recalled the photos of the goats at the reservoir from earlier this year in a newsletter (???) and in any event, during this dry year, one suspects that the bowl around Goodrich and perhaps the waterline itself, is seeing a lot of goat scat deposits due to water seeking behavior.  Might be worth checking a few scat samples near the reservoir.

I am really, well, almost proud, and certainly grateful, that you and your staff have approached this outbreak in a logical manner, even if it doesn't turn out to be the goats. Everything that I read you are doing is delightfully sensible. The fact that you are looking at relevant factors and following the evidence is very encouraging.

Good luck in tracking it all down and trying to keep the water safe.

Chris
http://www.flickr.com/photos/christopherchristie/sets/
http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?query_src=photos_photographers&where-photographer=Christopher+Christie&orderby=taxon
http://bakercountyblog.blogspot.com/

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