Some Cryptic Aspects of the Crypto Outbreak, Part 2: The best laid schemes of mice and men often go awry

[Updated & edited, YouTube links added, 8/27/13]

Plans?  What plans?

At the August 13, 2013 Council meeting, Baker City Public Works Director Michelle Owen mentioned that "regaining public trust" was one of the thoughts guiding the city's plan to restore safe water service. You may recall that some of that public trust was lost back in November 2011, when the Baker City Council and city residents discovered that Cryptosporidium had first been found in the water supply over a year before, but somehow they were not informed of that fact. The plan to notify the Council of pathogens in our water didn't work out too well and the City has never completely explained what happened. Neither are we aware of any consequences for any city employees involved. Once lost, public trust can be hard to regain, but especially so when that trust is tested repeatedly.

                           Elk Creek Diversion

Last Friday's Baker City Herald article (Experts help determine cause of outbreak 8/23/13) seemed to provide some assurance that the city had a handle on things, with it's two large photos of government scientists and our water specialist in action to help solve the cause of our crypto crisis. Don't worry, everything is under control--look at all that expertise at work! They are doing everything they can to get to the bottom of how such a well managed and protected city watershed could be hit with one of the larger US Cryptosporidium outbreaks in recent years--years in which we focused on the remarkable technological improvements in Cryptosporidium detection while stalling on making decisions about which wonderful water treatment technology we would use to provide us with solutions. Years, I might add, when some didn't always follow, or follow up on the plans.

While we long to look on the bright side, there are reasons to question the rosy picture of effective action and competence presented by the Herald and city staff. Here are some questions they could ask for example:

Why did it take a citizen, me, to get two Councilors interested in going out to see if cattle had been getting into the watershed, if, as we found out later, cattle had been getting into the watershed for at least a few years? Why did City Manager Kee, after I had asked him in an August 11, 2013 email if he would like to go with me to look for cattle sign, tell me on the 13th that "We have walked the drainage a couple of times and have no immediate plans to go back out." Why, after I asked him "Has the city ever found cows in the watershed near Elk Creek?" did he tell me on August 15th that "I don’t know if cows have ever been seen in Elk Creek."? The state and Centers for Disease Control employees took cattle fecal samples on Thursday, August 22, even though the newer ones had apparently been there for a week or more on the 19th, and many others for weeks or years. When were state epidemiologists and Centers for Disease Control employees informed of cattle fecal material from this and previous years being present inside the watershed near the Elk Creek diversion and on upstream? Public Works Director Owen told Councilors at the August 13, 2013 meeting that the state had collected elk fecal samples at Elk Creek, but made no mention of cows or of them collecting fecal material from cattle.

      Relatively recent "cow pies"seen strewn along road near Elk Creek diversion on 8/19/13

Why weren't City Manager Kee, the Councilors, and the citizens of Baker City more aware of the fact  that Public Works Department personnel have known about cows getting into the watershed for over two years? Why didn't we know that the Department of Public works told the state Drinking Water Program on November 18, 2011, less than two weeks after we were told about the crypto in our water supply, that:

In order to better protect the Elk Creek Diversion Intake we will be constructing new fence next spring [Spring of 2012--over a year ago] along the boundaries of the city owned 40 acre parcel. The new fencing will prevent any livestock from entering into the city property. [Emphasis added]

Similarly, why weren't we all, including City Manager Mike Kee, informed early on that the Watershed Management report from March 4, 2013 stated:

Also the City has purchased materials to construct a barb wire fence around 40 acres of City owned land surrounding the Elk Creek Diversion. This fence will provide a barrier for cattle ranging in the close proximity. Currently there is a meandering range allotment fence that extends for miles. This fence protects the Elk Creek Watershed and is in good repair most of the time, but there have been incidents where cattle have found their way to the wrong side of the fence. The new fence will protect the diversion and approximately 1/4 mile ofthe Elk Creek riparian zone from stray cattle. [Emphasis added]

The promised fence was never built. So, given that safe drinking water is of fundamental importance to the healthy functioning and economic prosperity of a city, and given that Public Works knew that cows were regularly trespassing on the watershed around Elk Creek, why wasn't the plan to build that fence in the spring of 2012 followed?  I was told by a person at the state level that "the fencing project was not undertaken due to time/manpower limitations." Well, during that time, our resources in time and manpower were being spent on expanding the irrigation pond at the golf course and on Resort Street under-grounding of utilities. (See the Weekly Reports for the period in question.) Like Marshall McComb, a local resident told me recently: "Holy Cow!"

Sacred cows still near watershed and in wrong pasture a week or more after cows were discovered in watershed.

                 Baker City's well watered golf course

The March 27, 2012 Council meeting discussed a perceived need to change the work on the golf course connection from the $3500 back flow valve agreed upon a year earlier to a $50,000 expansion and sealing of the irrigation pond with associated delivery pipe and other infrastructure. At the meeting, Finance Director Jeanie Dexter reminds the Council that the golf course fund is in a deficit situation to the tune of $52,000 already (assuming $20,000 was going to be spent on a backflow device and $80,000 to be transferred from LAMP fund)), and that even with the $80,000 that the Council could make available to the golf course, there would only be $28,000 in additional funding left from the $80,000 to use for the project.

Why, at that March 27, 2012 Council meeting, after Councilor Roger Coles asked about the backup drinking water well at the golf course, was he told that it had been inoperable for a year? 

Why did much of the Council initially ignore that fact, waiting for the golf course operator to twice insist that he needed it for backup before even thinking about it?  

Given that Public Works Director Owen then told Council that "the well issue can be worked out through the water fund . . . as opposed to the golf course fund . . . .," Why is that well still inoperable one year and five months later, in the middle of a crisis during which we are discussing trying to find additional clean water sources? (See August 13, 2013 video clip here)

       Water Level Gauge for Inoperable Backup Well at Golf Course

The 2012 Watershed Management Report states:

Diversions used for collection of surface water are monitored by City Personnel on a regular basis throughout the year (weather pennitting) as part of our operations. Several observations were made ofunauthorized entry in the Watershed using trail cameras. This information was then given to the USFS law enforcement officials.

Watershed security remains a high priority and the City may continue to monitor points of entry to identify unauthorized entry by using trail cameras.

Apparently they have the trail camera photos, what do they show?  

We often look to technology to save us while forgetting that the human element plays at least as large a part in how well our systems function as technology. Humans have to follow plans that have been developed to make our technologically enhanced systems function properly, and supervisors, as well as others in the regulatory framework, need to make sure those plans are being followed. In our case, if the plans were followed up on, we might not even be talking about the need for a technologically complex and expensive filtration system for the watershed. 

So here's the plan--it's an old one but has important sections that have not been taken seriously.

In trying to understand this recent, destructive and debilitating crypto problem within our watershed I asked the city for our Watershed Management Plan which is required by state law. I asked for it last week and after I received it I was told by the city that they then had posted it on the city website. I could not easily find it, but I'm sure it is there somewhere. In addition to having requirements, it has interesting historical documents within it, one of which is a 1904 Presidential proclamation establishing our "protected" watershed.

Among other things, the Watershed Management Plan states or requires the following (Emphasis Added):

*The goal of the Baker City Watershed Management Plan is to maintain or improve the present quantity and quality of the raw water of the Watershed, and to ensure the water quality is maintained at or above the level set by the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWIR) to avoid filtration.

*The City was notified by the Oregon Health Division by a letter dated July 26, 1991, that the City can meet all the criteria for exemption to filtration.

*Big game management will be directed toward maintaining proper herd levels of deer and elk which are compatible with water quality criteria. Animal population will be controlled to not degrade the water quality in the Watershed.

*Livestock: Livestock will not be allowed within the boundaries of the Watershed. Preventative measures will be used if needed to prevent animals from trespassing into the Watershed. 

*No grazing of livestock in the Watershed is permitted.

*If the turbidity is a wide spread or long lasting problem, the system will be switched from surface water to ground water by using one or both of the City's two deep wells which have a combined capacity of approximately 2,800 GPM, which exceeds the water demand in the spring of the year .. the time when the turbidity is most likely to occur. Even during periods of high demand, it is adequate with some rationing. [These two wells are the ASR well, (presently functioning), and the well in the golf course parking lot (hasn't functioned for years).]

*Annual Report   

B) Personnel Education/Experience:(1) Minimum education of key personnel in Watershed Management: 

 (a) Director of Public Works minimum qualifications: Graduation from a four year college or university with specialization in civil engineering and three years of progressive responsible professional experience in public works administration including supervisory capacity; or any combination of experience and education that demonstrates provision of the knowledge, skills, and abilities listed above.   

(b) Water Supervisor minimum qualifications: Five years experience in water maintenance and water and sewer construction work, with one year in a supervisory capacity; certified to Class Two as water treatment operator, water distribution operator, within two years of appointment as supervisor; or any combination of experience and educational training that demonstrates provision of the knowledge, skill, and abilities listed above. 

(c) Water Specialist minimum qualifications: Three years experience in the operation and maintenance of water treatment plant; supplemented by special coursework in water treatment operation; or any combination of education and experience which demonstrates provision of the knowledge, skill, and ability listed above; Water Treatment II Classification or successful certification within one year from date of appointment or within next State of Oregon certification testing cycle.

*An annual written report will be made and submitted to the State of Oregon Health Department with a copy to Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, headquarters, no later than January 15th of each year [Now October 10 per OAR 333-061-0040(1)(E)(B)(i).]. At minimum the report will include the following:

. . . . 

B) Key Individuals & Qualifications: A list of all key individuals responsible for theWatershed. The list will include their education, experience and training relating to theirability to operate the Watershed. 

*[August 1991] MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between WALLOWA-WHITMAN NATIONAL FOREST and CITY OF BAKER CITY, OREGON

 Zones of Influence: This includes lands adjacent to the Watershed which will affect or be affected by management of the Watershed. Zones of Influence mayor may not drain into the Watershed, but management of the resources and activities in these zones will be done in such a manner as to reflect the standards of management desired within the Watershed.  . . . .

Zones of Influence: A Zone of Influence exists outside the boundaries of the Watershed which could have a substantial impact on the water quality produced within the boundaries of the Watershed. 

The areas designated as Zones of Influence lying within the National Forest boundaries will be managed with Best Management Practices (BMP) and as prescribed in the Watershed Management Plan. No activities will be allowed in the Zones of Influence which will have an adverse impact on the water quality or quantity. Special attention will be given to the use of any herbicides, pesticides, or other chemicals to assure no contamination is allowed to occur which would affect the water quality within the boundary of the Watershed. Also, special attention will be given to any grazing permits given within the Zones of Influence to ensure that livestock will not stray into the Watershed.   . . . .

Nothing in this MOD shall be construed as obligatory of either party to expend funds, nor involve the United States or the City in any contracts or other obligation for future payment of monies in excess of appropriations authorized by law.

Here are some of the Baker City Watershed Management Reports that I have been able to obtain. Note that all appear to be late, most do not include the qualifications of the Director of Public Works and some do not include the qualifications the Water Supervisor, as required by the Baker City Water Management Plan. The 2012 and 2011 reports show that the Public works staff were aware of cattle getting into the watershed and of their unmet plans to build a fence to keep them out. My emails and interactions with the City Manager and Councilors indicate that that they too did not know that cattle were getting into the watershed around the times when testing and Cryptosporidium disease outbreaks showed that cryptosporidium was in the watershed. I do not know whether they knew or didn't know, I only know that they did not indicate to me that they knew. I also do not know whether cattle are the cause of our Cryptosporidium outbreak, and because of the way things were handled, we may never know exactly what the cause was. If the state had known ASAP that fresh cattle fecal material was found in the watershed, they might have been able to get better samples to genotype. Perhaps if the state had returned my call prior to their trip on August 22, they would have asked myself and Councilor Dorrah to show them where the freshest samples were located. Instead, they asked the Herald to tag along to provide PR.

Baker City 2012 Watershed Management Report

Baker City 2011 Watershed Management Report

Baker City 2007 Watershed Management Report

Baker City 2006 Watershed Management Report

I'll add more reports if I can get them, but the last Public Works Director who may have met the requirements for pubic works director laid down in the Watershed Management Plan was probably Dick Fleming, who was asked to resign by City Manager Jerry Gilham in April of 2004. He was after all a professional engineer.

So, the best laid schemes of mice and men will often go awry,
And I know for sure, that there is too, more than meets the eye.
People may pose and politics will play,
But it's often education that saves the day.

"the best laid schemes of mice and men will often go awry" is from To a Mouse, a poem by Robert Burns, 1786, the rest from yours truly.

Perhaps if the city would have published their plans and Annual Watershed Reports on the website earlier and explained them at City Council meetings, some of us would have had a clearer picture of the dangers we faced, and would have asked some relevant questions when they could have made a difference.

I might add that Council priorities play a big part in how things turn out.  We needed attention to basic infrastructure for fundamental priorities, like watershed management, water quality and water treatment for all citizens, but we got Council attention and scarce resources spent on the needs of relatively few golfers and the owners of property around the golf course, as well as to the needs of businesses on Resort Street, and their fans inside and outside of local government, who wanted underground utilities there. They also approved paying off $25,000 of a $61,000, 2002 airport facilities project debt while using $36,256 on "loan" from the equipment and vehicle fund to refinance the rest. The golf course has generally received significant subsidies from the city since the ill-advised creation of the "back nine" about a decade ago, and both the golf course and the under-grounding of utilities on Resort Street have soaked up funding, as well as city worker time and equipment, when we should have been expending those resources on protecting against known threats in the watershed.

Baker City's well watered, and not very well used, golf course as seen in reflection from clubhouse window

Beyond what I've posted previously, above are some of the documents, circumstances, and facts, surrounding the history leading up to our crypto crisis, and it currently is the best I can do. You can use these findings as you will. I have already forgotten some important points, but will add them and the two relevant YouTube Council videos as I can (done).

There is a Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday night at 7 PM (8/27/13), and two state representatives will be there to discuss our options. 

Forgot to add that the state epidemiologist, Emelio De Bess, confirmed late Friday, when I was finally able to talk with him,  that the species of Cryptosporidium found in the human fecal samples was Cryptosporidium parvum, and they were all of the same genotype. They will compare that species and genotype to the species and genotype found in the other fecal samples they have collected so far from water and animals. Hopefully, the cattle fecal samples he collected will be from the younger animals and be in good enough condition for molecular analysis. He wasn't sure if the sample they have from the 913 crypto collected in the water sample from Elk Creek earlier will be in good enough condition to genotype for comparison to the human fecal samples already genotyped because the staining of the slide may have made that impossible. He is hopeful, and did not say what happened to the rest of the sample, if there was any left.
____

Some Cryptic Aspects of the Crypto Outbreak, Part 1

[Edited and updated  8/23/13]
This blog may contain more information about Cryptosporidium than some people want.  If so, skip down to the YouTube videos at the end.  One from Wally Sykes in Wallowa County about a Wolverine, and the other about the activities of the Sheriff in Malheur County.  As usual, if they don't play, click on the title above the video, and it will take you directly to the YouTube video. The previous blog on this subject has also been updated.
__

One of the interesting problems associated with the 1993 Milwaukee, WI, Cryptosporidum outbreak, which affected some 400,000 people directly, was that the actual cause was never determined. Those that studied the epidemic could not come to a definitive conclusion as to whether it was caused by dairy cattle or a sewage issue.

Most of us would like to know the primary cause of disease outbreaks that create such damaging effects to people's health and financial well being, so that we can prevent them from happening in the future. This is certainly here in Baker City, where we face large expenditures necessitated by the state and federal drinking water rules, and where economic losses due to sickness and curtailment of business activity have been large. When the cause remains obscure, correcting such a problem efficiently becomes extremely difficult. If we knew for certain that the problem was caused by mountain goats, elk, cows, (and yes, I've heard "sabotage" offered up) or some other specific agent or event, we could zero in on effective solutions that might save us millions of dollars that would otherwise be directed at prevention associated with unknown causes and for unknown reasons.

As of now, given the available information, the cause of our Crypto outbreak remains a mystery.

I have tried this week to get information from the County Health Department and the Oregon Health Authority about what kinds of tests have been performed on what types of samples in order to help people understand more about the actual cause of our waterborne Cryptosporidium outbreak. Information is hard to come by, at least for me, although it appears that mountain goats are no longer a suspect. Yesterday morning, Alicia Hills from our County Public Health Department, was able to reveal that the tests on mountain goat scat were negative for Cryptosporidium. That, coupled with few crypto oocysts in Goodrich Reservoir, tends to count them out as a significant contributor to any crypto load in the watershed.

Here is the crux of my problem as a citizen blogger trying to get current relevant information: On July 16, 2013, I asked the Oregon Health authority (OHA) for information about a different potential health problem. As of today, they have not answered my questions.

Yesterday I left a message to an OHA person concerning our crypto outbreak, and what kinds of tests have been performed on what types of samples, because the intermediate contact allowed me to leave them a message. I had asked them the same questions on Tuesday. I have not received a return call. I was not able to talk to a person even remotely connected to the Crypto outbreak study until today, and he promised to try to find answers to the questions I asked from some unknown person who is supposed to have some idea about what is going on. Additionally, the state drinking authority contact that used to respond to my questions has gone silent [Seems to be back today! 8/23/13]. Apparently, I'm not a preferred provider of information to the public. If history is a guide. . . .

The city though, has in some cases been responsive (I'm grateful), but trying to get information on the current costs of UV treatment vs filtration remains frustrating, even though people are forming opinions on the choice we should make without adequate information about the current costs to be borne in the long term. Once people commit to an opinion, positions tend to harden, and some will try to defend their opinion regardless of new information. That is why Herald editorials and Herald opinion polls in the middle of a crisis, before adequate information is provided, do not serve the public well. It can though be an effective strategy for advancing a position without regard to the financial welfare of the community.

For review, here are the figures for treatment options from November 22, 2009 (Capital is essentially the cost of the plant, "$M" stands for MILLIONS of dollars, O and M stands for yearly Operation and Maintenance [multiply by $1,000 so 332 means $332,000 yearly O and M costs]):

Table 2. Cost Opinion for LT2ESWTR Compliance Options

Compliance Option          Capital ($M)        O and M ($1,000/yr)            Present Worth ($M)

UV                                         2.3                       13                                           2.5

Ozone                                   4.8                         89                                          5.8

Chlorine Dioxide                    12.7                       74                                          13.6

Membrane Filtration              17.7                       332                                         21.5

Notes:

1. Capital Cost includes Engineering and Services During Construction

2. Oxone and Chlorine Dioxide costs from Formation and Control of DBPs in Drinking

Water, AWWA 1999. Chlorine Dioxide costs include 12-MG contact tank.

3. UV Costs from UV Disinfection Costs for Inactivating Cryptosporidium, JAWWA June

2001

4. Costs updated to June 2009 dollars using ENR 20-city average construction cost index

Assumptions:

Average Annual Flow = 4 mgd

Plant Capacity = 12 mgd

Discount (interest) rate = 6%

Amortization Period = 20 yrs

Engineering and Services During Construction = 25%

Contingency on Capital Costs = 30%

The information available from 2009, as well as the information provided below, would indicate that committing to filtration at this point is ill advised.

Getting back to the cryptic aspects of the crypto outbreak: what kinds of tests have been performed on what types of fecal material and water samples, so that we can understand more about the actual cause of our waterborne Cryptosporidium outbreak? Alicia Hills said that the only test result she had was the negative test for Cryptosporidium in mountain goat scat, and that she did not know what all the samples taken consisted of. She did not know whether the cattle fecal material found near the Elk Creek water supply intake had been tested. After all, no one was aware, or at least admitting, that cattle had been in the watershed until after I asked first Mike Kee, and then Clair Button, to go with me to investigate on August 12--a request that resulted in our August 19th trip to Elk Creek. Given the washed out condition of some of the more recent cattle fecal material found on that date, it is conceivable that some of it was present prior to the August 1 rain event. No one I've talked to thus far has been able to answer the question of whether they have tested the more recent fecal material from cattle in the watershed, and those who should know have not returned my calls.

Without that information, it all remains a mystery.

So I get to poke around the edges in the dark because the state is not responsive. I hate to resort to public records requests, but may have to.

Two Cow Pies up on trail to the east of the water supply diversion at Elk Creek.  They look older than a week, but less than two months old. If modern science can radiocarbon date a dinosaur bone that is millions of years old, one might expect that they can date a cow pie of recent origin?  Maybe it isn't sensitive enough for that.

One can though, do research on the published scientific findings from studies published on the internet. Reading through the findings may be challenging for some, but I encourage everyone to do so. It is not entertainment unless you have a fondness for facts, but it can be enlightening. Here are some of those findings (Direct quotations are in italics with underlining added, all misunderstandings obviously my own):

1)  From Genotyping Cryptosporidium from water to source track fecal contaminationin agricultural watersheds from a Thesis by Norma Jean Ruecker, UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, JANUARY, 2013. (I rely on this first because it is recent and incorporates information from many previous studies.)

• Species originating from wildlife represented a low risk to human health. 
• Molecular tools exist for effective molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium oocysts in water so as to identify host sources and individual species or genotypes (paraphrased). It is ... important that the molecular tools used for characterizing human isolates are capable of detecting all known species/genotypes of Cryptosporidium. In other words, the ability exists to make decisions about the probable cause of a crypto outbreak, and to differentiate between pathogenic and non pathogenic species and genotypes of Cryptosporidium in your water supply and in fecal samples tested.
• Ultimately, these approaches can be used to characterize sources of fecal pollution in the environment and aid in the development of mitigation strategies focused on reducing the burden of Cryptosporidium in drinking water sources in an effort to protect public health.
• A thorough review of the published surveys of Cryptosporidium in cattle reported prevalence ranges from 0 to 100% with typically higher rates in younger animals compared to older ones.
• With C. parvum being the only cattle-associated species which has been demonstrated to be a significant zoonotic risk to humans [a human pathogen--cause of disease in humans], the knowledge of age dependent prevalence challenges the current understanding of the risk that cattle associated Cryptosporidium spp. pose to public health.
• As C. parvum has been detected in all the major livestock species, it poses the greatest risk for zoonotic transmission to humans. Pre-weaned calves are considered the major animal host for C. parvum and the most likely source of zoonotic cryptosporidiosis. [Although Cryptosporidium parvum does exist in weaned calves. Chris]
• recently as many as 25 species and close to 50 genotypes [of Cryptosporidium] have been described. This information provides a solid framework for assessing public health risks and also allows tracking of the host sources associated with Cryptosporidium contamination in the
  environment.
• The species of high risk to human health were present in only 1.2% of the samples analyzed. This knowledge challenges the LT2ESWTR regulation in the US by providing evidence that the regulation may be overprotective, leading, in some cases, to unnecessary capital expenditures for water utilities. Of the 25 species and ~50 genotypes of Cryptosporidium described, only 2 species, C. hominis and C. parvum, account for 95% of human clinical infections. Only a few other Cryptosporidium species and genotypes account for all other clinical infections in humans. This study demonstrates that although 45% of all the water samples analyzed had Cryptosporidium oocysts detected, only 17% of the samples had species or genotypes detected which have been associated with human infections. Species of Cryptosporidium that are considered to be of high risk to humans: C. hominis and C. parvum. Two others are medium risk and three are low risk. The rest are considered no risk.
• sustained viability [of crypto oocysts] is dependent upon the environmental conditions they are exposed to (i.e., solar UV inactivation, dessication, fermentation). [I would add freezing--see later citation]
• It is a conclusion of this thesis that until improved and more accurate models can be developed, Cryptosporidium monitoring including genotyping is the only reliable way to assess parasite loading in surface water. 
• Hazard identification is considered the central element, or foundational basis, of the risk assessment framework from which the other components are derived. . . . .Simply put, not all Cryptosporidium parasites observed in water are infectious to humans. Even when considering those that are hazardous to humans, a relative level of risk exists (i.e., high, medium, low).
• detection and subsequent molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium oocysts in water can be used to infer potential host sources of fecal pollution impacting water quality within a watershed, an extremely important part of the risk mitigation element of the risk assessment framework. Identifying the sources of pollution contributing to the Cryptosporidium burden allows for the development of watershed protection strategies designed to reduce or mitigate these environmental burdens.
  
• data presented in this thesis suggests that wildlife appear to represent little risk to public health in the development of cryptosporidiosis in humans. In this context, management of wildlife may not be necessary or worthwhile in terms of risk mitigation for some drinking water systems.
• the Water Research Foundation (financially supported by water utility subscribers) initiated a request for proposals entitled: “Selecting and Standardizing the Most Appropriate Cryptosporidium Genotyping Tool for Regulatory Compliance Monitoring”, in 2009, with the intent of developing a validated Cryptosporidium genotyping tool suitable for inclusion into the regulatory water quality monitoring frameworks of the USEPA (LT2ESWTR)
• Regulators of the water industry are likely to remain risk adverse and therefore moving forward, municipal water utilities will continue to challenge regulation through the use of applied science. This will be driven by the need for municipalities to balance fiscal responsibility with public health safety.

2) Giardia Cyst and Cryptosporidium Oocyst Survival in Water, Soil, and Cattle Feces

• Cryptosporidium oocysts were more environmentally resistant. At −4 and 4°C, the oocysts could survive in water and soil for 12 wk but degradation was accelerated at 25°C. Cryptosporidium oocysts also were degraded more rapidly in feces and in soil containing natural microorganisms. [Crypto oocysts survive for over three months in water at 24.8 and 39.2 degrees fahrenheit, as might be expected in frozen and unfrozen water, and under a blanket of snow. Most microorganisms are not going to be very active at 24.8 degrees and so will not be degrading crypto oocysts.]

3) Effects of Low Temperatures on Viability of Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts

• All mice that received oocysts frozen at -10 [degrees] C   [14 degrees fahrenheit] for 8, 24, and 168 h and those that received oocysts stored at 5 [degrees] C for 168 h had developmental-stage parasites. These findings  demonstrate for the first time that oocysts of C. parvum in water can retain viability and infectivity after freezing and that oocysts survive longer at higher freezing temperatures. [This implies that oocysts may survive at 14 degrees F for some time]
  
  
• In nature, survival of oocysts might be extended beyond the times observed in the present study when water containing minerals or organic material is frozen or when oocysts are frozen at temperatures above -10 [degrees]C  [14 degrees fahrenheit]. Such conditions might be found in areas where, after ground temperatures fall to just below freezing, a layer of snow insulates that surface from much colder air temperatures, enabling oocysts to survive perhaps for weeks or months.

4) Selection and Application of Microbial Source Tracking Tools For Water-Quality Investigations

Cryptosporidium oocysts: 

• Can remain viable for greater than 6 months at 20 degrees Celsius in water (Fayer and others, 2000. 
• In three environmental freshwaters, 0.1% survival over 10 weeks at 25 degrees and higher rates of survival at 4 degrees (Simmons and Sobsey, 2002). 
• Survival and infectivity in freshwater detected after more than 12 weeks (Olson and others 1999).

5) Surface Water Quality--Overland and Near-Surface Transport of Cryptosporidium parvum from Vegetated and Nonvegetated Surfaces

• Livestock, both open range and those in concentrated animal facilities, have been associated with high concentrations of C. parvum. . . . . Infected animals can pass as many as 10 billion oocysts per gram of feces, and a small number of infected animals can produce enough oocysts to potentially contaminate a large water source. [This goes a long way toward explaining how a small amount of infected fecal material from an infected calf in a water supply could contaminate the water around, say, a water supply intake in a small creek.]

6) Cryptosporidiosis of Livestock

• C. parvum, C. andersoni, C. canis, C. felis, C. hominis, and C. suis, have been reported in human infections. [The vast majority by C. parvum and C. hominis]
. . . in order to accurately assess the risk that livestock might pose to humans, molecular-based prevalence studies are necessary. Such studies could help to identify potential source of these organisms causing human infection, and lead to improved control strategies. Greater understanding of the species and genotypes present in animals and the patterns of transmission can improve our ability to control these infections will hopefully result in significant benefits to society in terms of both animal and human health.

7)  Concentrations of Pathogens and Indicators in Animal Feces in the Sydney Watershed

• Pathogen and fecal indicator concentrations were generally higher in domestic animal feces than in wildlife feces. Future studies to quantify potential pathogen risks in drinking-water watersheds should thus focus on quantifying pathogen loads from domestic animals and livestock rather than wildlife.

Lastly: On Cryptosporidium detection limits:

8)  Effects of Time and Watershed Characteristics on the Concentration of Cryptosporidium Oocysts in River Water

• . . .  the detection limit of the analytical method, about 0.1 oocysts per liter; . . . .  

_____

Wallowa Wolverine

__

Corrupt Cops Caught by Their Own Cruiser Camera!!!

AP Article on Incident:

Flight recorders found in deadly UPS plane crash

Sheriff says FBI to probe activist traffic stop

Published: August 14, 2013

By JEFF BARNARD — Associated Press

GRANTS PASS, Ore. —

. . . .

"We are sending all information and recordings that we have (to the FBI) and they will look at it," Sheriff

Brian E. Wolfe told The Associated Press in an email.

"I want to make sure nothing was done wrong," he said.

. . . .

Wolfe acknowledged that two deputies, acting on orders from a supervisor, pulled over Steve Hindi, . . . .

Wolfe said there was no traffic violation or evidence of any other crime.

Deputy Brian Belnap and Deputy Brian Beck were on duty and following orders from their supervisor, Lt. Rob Hunsucker, Wolfe said. There was no probable cause a crime or traffic violation had been committed.

No one has been disciplined or placed on leave, he said.

. . . .

Why is the Baker City Herald Promoting Water Filtration & Then Taking a Poll During A Crisis?

When I was in high school, I noted that the vast majority of my classmates in the social studies class had trouble passing pop quizzes and also the periodic tests that were announced many days in advance. It was clear to me that the primary reason for most of the average or failing scores was that, for whatever reason, they had not paid much attention in class and had not done their homework. In a "democracy," we have to hope that those who offer opinions and go to the voting booth have done theirs.  Unfortunately, this is often not the case, as the habits of high school often follow us into adult life, so people continue to issue opinions on subjects they know little about.

I have a degree in microbiology, albeit an old one, so I can't help but comment when such things as Cryptosporidium and water treatment arise.

On August 2, 2013, the Baker City Herald "Editorial Board" issued an editorial opinion, What's next with city's water, that recommended the city choose filtration over UV treatment, stating

"But in the wake of a week in which so many people were afflicted with stomach cramps, diarrhea and other unpleasant symptoms, in which restaurants and other businesses suffered during a busy weekend, we believe that extra cost is worth it." 

OK Herald, lets see the cost/benefit analysis.  When McDonalds shut down for three days, I was told that Taco Time did a boom business. A neighbor I spoke with came down with Crypto, but he favors UV treatment.

The reasons given for the Herald's opinion were:

But UV is not as effective as a filtration plant in removing viruses, UV has no effect on chemicals, and a UV system would not protect the water from dirt and ash that could foul streams were a wildfire to burn in the city’s watershed.

 They also tell us:

The extra capabilities of a filtration plant come at a cost of perhaps $15 million, compared with an estimated $2.5 million for a UV system.

There was no other discussion of costs, nor any reference for the source of their figures, or why their objections were relevant.

Then, after this very incomplete accounting, they put out a poll, What's Baker City's best water treatment option, as if everyone is informed, because, well, the Herald has informed us!

As I write, the vote stands, after 33 hours, as 59.8% in favor of filtration as the best option and 31.4% in favor of UV treatment. Only 102 people have voted, which I'm sure the Herald would agree, is not a number large enough to represent the 10,000 plus residents of Baker City. Perhaps all they had to go on was the Herald's recommendation. Why do they do these unscientific polls during a period of crisis right after they have issued an uninformative opinion that misleads the public? Kind of like asking Americans what they think of the passing something like the Patriot Act right after 911. These polls are almost completely worthless as gauges of actual, well thought out, public opinion, but I guess it gives people something to do and gives the Herald more web page hits while gathering support for their ill-advised notions.

And how is one to take the question?  Does "best" mean the option that will do the job of treating Crypto while being one that we can afford, or does "best" mean the option that will possibly result in purer water than UV will provide (even though we will play hell paying for it)?

That is a problem, especially if the opinion they give to their few thousand readers is in error or incomplete.  So let's "unpack" their information and reasons for recommending filtration.

There are three relevant questions:

What do we really need given the current and foreseeable conditions?

What can we afford given the the city's and the city resident's financial situation?

What is politically acceptable given the answers to the first two questions?

Do we want or need a water treatment system that can deal with every conceivable threat to human health, even when they don't currently exist in the watershed, and if we do, can a community struggling to finance other pressing infrastructure needs such as sewage treatment, streets, and aging water and sewer lines afford it? Do we need a Cadillac when a small hybrid car or Geo Metro will provide a solution to our problems?  The Herald doesn't really address the question of whether we can afford it.

The Herald tells us that:

"UV is not as effective as a filtration plant in removing viruses"

OK, so what? The Herald admits the city has a "long history of providing pure water." That water comes from a somewhat protected city watershed where human viruses are not a problem. Our watershed is not a source, such as the Colorado River, that has water passed through many communities and pastures where human viruses might be introduced to become a problem. Current conditions do not indicate that human viruses are, or will be a problem. They do indicate that Cryptosporidium is a problem, so we need a system like UV to treat it.

[Update 8/7/13: Turns out that while UV treatment for viruses may not be as effective as a pricey membrane filtration plant, the National Drinking Water Clearing House says "UV light effectively destroys bacteria and viruses" at the proper doses. See: Tech Brief--Ultraviolet Disinfection
For a more complete understanding, see: Section 13 Ultraviolet Light (p.258) in the EPA's LONG TERM 2 ENHANCED SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE TOOLBOX GUIDANCE MANUAL]

The Herald tells us that:

"UV has no effect on chemicals"

OK, so what? Our last water quality report (2010-2012), and many before it, provides testing results that show chemicals, including nitrates, nitrites, trihalomethanes and halocacetic acids are far below the acceptable level--barely detectable.

The water quality report also states that:

There were "approximately 29 synthetic organic chemicals tested for and not detected."

There were "approximately 21 volatile organic chemicals tested for and not detected."

"The 2012 hardness value for untreated water was 75 PPM [parts per million = mg/L]" [barely out of the 0 to 60 PPM soft water category] I.E., our water is almost soft, not very mineralized by "calcium and magnesium, and by a variety of other metals."  That's a good thing when you use UV treatment.

Levels for iron, manganese and flouride were all well within acceptable levels.

For more see: Interpreting Water Test Reports

Would levels of chemicals rise in case of a catastrophic fire? Yes, periodically, in which case we could switch to the well water we are using during the Crypto crisis, which would be safer when UV treatment is installed.

They say:

"a UV system would not protect the water from dirt and ash that could foul streams were a wildfire to burn in the city’s watershed."

True, but both sand and ceramic filtration units can be overwhelmed by the same, and a complicated, yet supposedly effective, activated carbon and membrane filtration system could cost anywhere from $18M to $25M or more, 6 to 8+ times as much as a $3M UV system. [Update 8/7/13: (AND) membrane filtration "requires prefiltrations for surface water—may include removal of turbidity, iron, and/or manganese. Hardness and dissolved solids may also affect performance." So membrane filtration prefiltration would also be affected by dirt and ash from a wildfire. ] [Update 8/16/13: the city of Pendleton uses a flocculation tank] According to a 2009 engineering report I posted yesterday (See also Table 2 of the report), membrane filtration would cost something like 25 times as much to maintain as would a UV system! We would also be able to use the paid for well system for catastrophic fire emergencies (as in a drought--thank former Public Works director Fleming I believe), and we are following the recommended guideline for fuels reduction in the watershed which helps to prevent catastrophic fire. Over time, as budget allows, we could also create settling tanks or basins to let any sediments settle out prior to treatment.

The Herald tells us:
"The extra capabilities of a filtration plant come at a cost of perhaps $15 million, compared with an estimated $2.5 million for a UV system."

The Herald has been very consistent in reporting that a filtration plant will cost us $15 million.  I would like to know where that figure comes from. The same 2009 engineering report I posted yesterday put the cost at 17.7 million dollars and that was four years ago. Those kinds of costs tend to go up--like everything else.

Is spending 18 to 25 million dollars for a Cadillac membrane filtration system, instead of a get-the-job-done $2 to 3.1M UV system going to be politically acceptable to the citizens of Baker City?  Not if they are allowed to vote on it in an actual election--but now people are in crisis mode and we we'll not likely get a vote.
__

As a quibbling former microbiologist, there is another thing I'd like to mention. The Herald published an article today in which they reported statements from the senior state epidemiologist, Dr. Bill Keene.

The Herald says that Dr. Keene said “I’m pretty sure mountain goats have never been tested (for crypto).” I doubt that he said that, as the most easily found academic report (See Table 2), which I found on Google right after the Crypto outbreak had been reported (and sent to Councilor Coles last night), says that both mountain goats and humans are a minor host for one species of Cryptosporidium, that is, Cryptosporidium muris.  Doesn't mean that the state will ultimately find that our furry friends are the "scapegoat" but it does seem to infer that they are a possibility, as I indicated days ago.

Oddly, the Herald chose to quote a passage from the same article that said "According to a 2004 article in Clinical Microbiology Reviews, crypto species "originating from wildlife... are mostly not human pathogens" instead of pointing out Table 2 which clearly states that both humans and mountain goats are a minor host for Cryptosporidium muris.

Additionally Dr. Keene confirmed my statement in the August 2nd blog that "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" when Dr. Keene told the Herald that "the total cases 'could easily be in the hundreds.'”

Thanks.
____

See also:

Comment on Cryptosporidium Outbreak in Baker City With Crypto timeline from Monday, November 14, 2011

Random Thoughts on the Baker City Crypto Outbreak

Updated Crypto Update: Comments and Questions

More later. . . .
 




  

Updated Crypto Update: Comments and Questions 8/4/13 7:17 PM

This update includes engineering reports and cost estimates from 2009 and 2012 for UV treatment and an article on the new, on cue, national security "threats."

                           Goodrich Reservoir, Baker City Watershed
The City of Baker City released another drinking water warning yesterday which confirms that Cryptosporidium is in the water supply. They state that "Water samples taken on July 31 were positive for Cryptosporidium in water from the watershed supply and treated water (distribution system)." 

How much Crypto is in the water supply? Are the concentrations they found significantly high, or rather low? What were the sources and what are the locations where positive samples were taken?  Why are they not releasing the information about the locations and concentrations? Where is the transparency that people so cherish but see so little of?

When governments don't release available information to the public, when there is no good reason not to release it, it makes people think they are trying to hide something.  Why would they want to cover-up that information?  People are still wondering why the city didn't tell us the details of how positive Crypto results were kept from the public and the Council for over a year in 2010 and 2011. No one has been held accountable publicly other than Mike Kee taking it upon himself, which only hides the actual details and the identity of those actually responsible.

I sent an email to City Manager Mike Kee and Public Works Director Michelle Owen this Morning asking for the locations and concentrations for the positive samples. I have not yet received a response.

[Update 1:52PM:  Since I posted this I see that Mike Kee has selectively released the information I asked for earlier (10 AM) today to their favored commercial media information massage outlet, the Herald, but neither Kee nor Michelle Owen has given this citizen blogger the courtesy of a response. They prefer to give it first to a corporation. (The Herald is owned by a corporation, Western Communications, Inc.) The city did not even post the information on our own city website before releasing it to the Herald (and still hasn't). Par for the course. The Herald seems to be updating as I write now.  Bottom line: it was found in Goodrich but they didn't test other possible watershed sources, which they say they are now doing]

__

In a comment on the Herald website, someone who calls himself "Jeff" references a YouTube video that I put up about two years ago.  SEE:

Dorrah & Calder Still Think Drinking Water Safe102511.mp4 

It is worth noting that in the video, Mike Kee reminds the Council, some of whom have been urging a go slow approach, that: 

"...we want to do everything we can to keep this water safe, that we are providing for our public, so anything we can do to move forward with this process, I think we should. Can we go slow and avoid spending money? Yes we can, but we need to keep moving forward."

I take that as a bit of push-back from the City Manager on the go-slow approach [even though they didn't follow through with additional testing]. It is also worth noting that in 2009, the price for the UV treatment was estimated to be only $2.5 million, and that compliance was required by October 2013 (Since delayed until 2016). Membrane filtration, in 2009, was estimated to cost about $17.7 M and cost over 25 times as much as UV to operate. By 2012, the estimated cost for UV treatment was $1.84M to $3.14M. While a go-fast approach (i.e., install some approved effective treatment ASAP--before the deadline) is almost unheard of for public safety compliance, it could have saved us from the illnesses, economic hit, and repuational loss, that we are now experiencing.

See Table 2 (about p. 5 or 6 depending on whose counting):
Click link below to read on Scribd.

2009 Disinfection Options to Comply with LT2ESWTR

  2009disinfectionoptionstocomplywithlt2eswtr-november09draft

See also page 6, Project Budget Schedule, UV Kick‐Off Meeting & Technology Workshop, Baker City, OR, January 12, 2012 (on Scribd):

  UV Kick‐Off Meeting & Technology Workshop, Baker City, OR, January 12, 2012

 __

Also on the Herald, one "Loran Joseph" states that:

The exposure was estimated to have occurred as late as July 26th. With a minimum 2 days before symptoms occur, plus lab test return time, the city couldn't have been informed of this more than a day before this article was released. The city is being very diligent. 

I agree that the city has been diligent since the time they were told of the infected citizens by the County Health Department. The testing issue is different though.

The city has said that they started using water from Goodrich Reservoir on the 15th. If that is a source of the Crypto [turns out it was confirmed as a source on 8/4/13], then exposure for citizens drinking water out of the tap could, and likely did, begin within one or two days, i.e., by the 17th, and certainly no later than the 18th. The city has not told us whether Goodrich Reservoir is a source of the Crypto, although I was told by Mike Kee on the 31st that they were going to collect goat droppings for testing. If Goodrich was confirmed as a source [it has been confirmed 8/4/13], then they could have confirmed the presence of Crypto, before using the water, by testing it a week prior to opening. (That is one reason the city needs to tell us where the source or sources of contamination were.)

Given the earlier detection of Crypto, instead of relying on the wishful thinking of Councilors about our "safe" water supply, and despite the lack of a requirement, the city should have been testing the water on a regular basis after the first round of testing ended. I believe the episode points to regulatory failure by the state and federal governments, and a lack of prudence by city officials and the Council.

Competence, foresight and prudence is what the Council gets elected for and what city staff gets paid for. If we continue to elect Councils whose primary concern is Main Street area businesses and the needs of the well off, and if the city is hiring employees according to the "Baker Buddy System" instead of on appropriate education and merit, and if they are going to continue to insist on remaining unaccountable, then we citizens will suffer continuing crises, elite theft, and inefficient government.

__

If you are really interested in the early history of the Crypto issue please read this previous blog:

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.
_________

The new, on cue, national security "threats."

Crying Wolf, Wolf, Wolf

By Moon Of Alabama

August 03, 2013 "Information Clearing House -  After weeks  under heavy pressure for limitless spying on people everywhere the U.S. intelligence services conveniently detect a "threat" of some undefined future attacks. The "detection", we are of course told, was only possible because of limitless spying on people everywhere:

The United States intercepted electronic communications this week among senior operatives of Al Qaeda, in which the terrorists discussed attacks against American interests in the Middle East and North Africa, American officials said Friday.

The intercepts and a subsequent analysis of them by American intelligence agencies prompted the United States to issue an unusual global travel alert to American citizens on Friday, warning of the potential for terrorist attacks by operatives of Al Qaeda and their associates beginning Sunday through the end of August.

Just a month ago we were told that the "terrorists" are changing their communication because of the NSA snooping leaks:

The Al-Qaeda and other terrorist are reportedly changing their communication methods in light of the revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden about US led NSA 'surveillance programme'.
...
US officials said that virtually every terrorist organization including Al-Qaeda is changing the way they communicate to hide from the US surveillance after the revelations about the leaks were reported in the media.
...
Private analysis firm IntelCenter's Ben Venzke said that the leaks by Snowden serve as a wake-up call to extremists and other hostile actors to analyse how they are working and improve their security.

Is it not a bit weird that just a month after that "wake-up call" and the "changed communications" talks between "senior operatives of Al Qaeda" are now easily detectable by the same intelligence services that warned of those changes?

And what is it about these "terrorists" that the "threat" from them ends after August 31?

Even some "analysts and Congressional officials" the NYT mentions in one short paragraph find this somewhat suspicious:

Some analysts and Congressional officials suggested Friday that emphasizing a terrorist threat now was a good way to divert attention from the uproar over the N.S.A.’s data-collection programs, ...

Ahh - you don't say ...

But the sentence continues:

... and that if it showed the intercepts had uncovered a possible plot, even better.

So it would be even better if now, as a warning has been given, something would happen to some U.S. embassy in the Middle East. That then would justify the warning and of course also justify the intelligence services NSA's limitless spying on people everywhere that made the warning possible.

Hmm - how much does it cost, let's say in Yemen, to have some guys on a motorcycle fire a few shots at an embassy guard?

This article was originally posted at Moon Of Alabama