Will Rutherford willmarford@q

Will [email protected] 27, 2011

2

Presentation Purpose:

1. Report to Membership

2. Accomplishments – 8 Formative Months

3. Highlight MCWC Analysis of Raw Water Testing Data

4. Potential Future Efforts

Formation Stimulus:

1. Lane County Ordinance Proposal; Oct 2010

a. No Accommodation of Citizenry

b. Minimal Public Notice

c. Weak Scientific Basis

d. Gross Encroachment on Property Rights

e. Manipulative Government Processes

2. Result: McKenzie ClearWater Coalition 3

4

McKenzie ClearWater Coalition

1.The “Missing Link” in the stewardship of the McKenzie River Drainage Basin

2. Many entities claim stewardship of the McKenzie a. EWEB, DEQ, Watershed Council, Guides, McKenzie Trust, DFW, NOAA, City of Eugene, Lane County ………

3.Residents and Landowners are now collectively identified as the McKenzie ClearWater Coalition

5

McKenzie ClearWater Coalition

1. Current Membership: 360+ Citizens & Businesses

a. 3 Segments (Milepost Communities) indexed by

Highway 126

2. Representative “Confluence Team” of 15-20 Actively

Involved Leaders From MP Communities

3. Virtual Organization

4. Organizational Components

a. Charter; Provisionally Approved

b. Process & Procedures Document

c. Website; http://clearwatercoalition.net

6

McKenzie ClearWater Coalition Charter

1. Mission

a. Preserve and Protect the Legacy of the

McKenzie Basin

b. Protect Physical Property Values

c. Respect Citizen Property Rights

7

McKenzie ClearWater Coalition Charter

1. Core Values

a. Preservation & Protection of Water Resources

b. Mgmt of Ecological Character of the Basin

c. Property Rights of Citizens

d. Better Informed Citizenry

e. Prudent Scientifically Based Practices

f. Respect for the Environmental, Cultural and

Economic Legacy of the McKenzie Basin

8

McKenzie ClearWater Coalition Charter

1. Goals

a. Non-Partisan Organization

b. Education and Communication

c. Champion the River Basin and its Vital

Community

d. Ombudsman for Member Concerns

e. Foster Citizen Cooperation to Achieve Goals

Established by Scientifically Based Proven

Practices

9

McKenzie ClearWater Coalition 8 Formative Months

Interacted/Participated With:

EWEB EWEB Board of Commissioners

Commissioner Faye Stewart State Representatives Barnhart, Hanna, Prozanski

McKenzie Chamber of Commerce Willamette Water 2100

Oregon HWY 126 Advisory Committee on Transportation

State Legislative Bill Monitoring

Lane County Storm Water Interviews River Reflections contributions

Other Stewardship Organizations Watershed Council, Trust, Guides, DEQ, ODF, NOAA

10

McKenzie ClearWater Coalition 8 Formative Months

Education Series:

Commissioner Faye Stewart Larry Six, McKenzie Watershed Council

Chris Bayham, Oregon DEQ Karl Morgenstern, EWEB

Roger Gray, EWEB Richard Eide, MCWC

Joe Moll, McKenzie Trust

11

Near-Term To-Do List

1.Ratification of Charter2.Election of Officers3.Website Expansion4.Membership Expansion5.Increased Interaction with EWEB, DEQ, Others6.Education Series Opportunities a. ODFW b. Legislative Activities c. DEQ Follow-up d. Forest Service e. Willamette Basin Studies f. Lane County Planning g. EWEB Round Tables

12

A Report of Study and Analysis Years 2001 - 2010

Raw Water Testing Data Hayden Bridge Intake Plant

July, 2011

13

MCWC Study & Analysis

Document Preface:1.“Report undertaken to ascertain facts, educate members, and ensure that views and input of residents are included in any future proposed changes to the reasonable use of private property”

2. “Primary goal will always be to protect the legacy of the McKenzie River as a source of high quality drinking water and a world class recreational treasure”

14

MCWC Study & Analysis

Motivation:

1.No Published Data to Support County Ordinance

2.Inability to get Time-Trended Data from EWEB

3.Desire to Understand Contaminant and Causal

Water Quality Trends

4.Desire to Develop a Scientific Approach to

Problem Mitigation

5.MCWC Technical Team Leader: Richard Eide

15

MCWC Study & Analysis

Data Collection & Analysis: 7 Months to Complete

1.All Data was Provided by EWEB

2.The Only Site Specific, Consistent, Trendable Data

was at the Raw Water Intake for the EWEB Hayden

Bridge Facility

3.MCWC did not find/Was not provided Trendable

Data that could be Evaluated above Hayden Bridge

16

MCWC Study & Analysis

1. Study Scope and Methodology

a. 133 Contaminant Data Tables Created

b. Approximately 18,000 Test Results over 10 Yrs

c. Data Reformatted for Excel Analysis

d. Created a Standard Data Sheet for Consistency

e. Used Annual Statistical Averages

f. Identified High and Low Annual Values

17

MCWC Study Findings

1. Findings:

a. 133 Contaminants

1) 12 Had Sufficient Data for Valid Trends

a) 2 Had Slight Upward Trends

1. Alkalinity

2. Odor

b) 10 Had Slight Downward Trends

c) E.coli & Coliform BOTH Had Slight

Downward Trends

18

McKenzie ClearWater Coalition Study Conclusions

1.Analyzed on an annual basis, the raw water quality at the Hayden Bridge facility has remained very stable to slightly improved over the past 10 years even as population and development have continued to expand.

2.Consistent with “Point In Time” EWEB results reported in From Source To Tap”, 2010 Consumer Confidence Report

3.With available data, there is no way to identify cause/effect relationships that contributed to the improvement trends

4.The use of EWEB data to support Lane County Ordinance proposals was at best, misleading

19

HOW GOOD IS OUR WATER?

20

12 Trendable Contaminants a. Alkalinity (Not EPA Regulated)

b. Odor (EPA Regulated)

c. Calcium (Not EPA Regulated)

d. Chloride (EPA Regulated)

e. Hardness (EPA Regulated)

e. Iron (EPA Regulated)

f. Silica (Not EPA Regulated)

g. Sodium (Not EPA Regulated)

h. Total Dissolved Solids (EPA Regulated)

i. Total Solids (EPA Regulated)

j. E.coli

k. Coliform

21

22

23

24

End of Presentation

25

ADDITIONAL CHARTS & DETAILS

26

27

28

29

30

31

McKenzie ClearWater Coalition Thoughts/Suggestions/Recommendations

1.Use EWEB IT to review water quality data storage; consider database technology instead of EXCEL

2.Develop and Maintain standardized testing, data processes and trending analyses for upstream testing sites

3.Reformat test data available on the EWEB website so it can be understood and used by the public

4.Use the EWEB website to publicly display the results of raw water testing and trending

5.Use validated trended raw water data and sound science to support any future proposals

32

McKenzie ClearWater Coalition Thoughts/Suggestions/Recommendations

(Continued)

6. Segment the river, analyze long-term trends, and identify specific problems to be investigated and managed

7. Do not entertain proposals that impact property ownership rights unless there is clear supporting scientific evidence

8. Support County efforts to enforce existing ordinances

9. Do not exclude the MCWC or general public from participation in processes that impact property rights, values, or ways of life

33

McKenzie ClearWater Coalition Path Forward

1.Build on Lessons Learned, Common Knowledge, and Science

2.MCWC will request Hayden Bridge Testing Data annually from EWEB; it will be added to existing data for continued trend analysis

3.MCWC will be examining data reporting and use closely

4.Seize opportunities to increase understandings; Round Tables, Study Groups, Presentations, Field Visits …………

34

McKenzie ClearWater CoalitionIn Closing

1.Appreciate cooperation and attitude of EWEB as we prepared our analyses

2.Differences of opinion become the basis for information exchange and education

3.We will continue to follow EWEB actions closely; we will not always agree, but we will interact in a positive and constructive manner

4.MCWC Position: Isolation of causes is critical so corrective actions can be: a) Monitored b) Managed c) Celebrated

35

McKenzie ClearWater CoalitionIn Closing

Contact Us:

EMAIL [email protected]

WEBSITEhttp://clearwatercoalition.net/

• What contaminants does EWEB test for in raw water and how often? (6 groups)

• Microbials – 2 (once a day)• E.Coli and total coliform (indicator test)• Inorganic and Secondary Parameters

– 35• 17 inorganic substances, 18 secondary

tests and or used to test for water quality (once a month)

• Synthetic Organic Compounds - 36 Regulated

• 12 herbicides, 9 insecticides, 10 Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 2 fungicides, 2 pesticides, and 1 petroleum product (once a month)

• Synthetic Organic Compounds - 17 Unregulated

• 4 insecticides, 6 pesticides, 6 herbicides, and 1 petroleum product (once a month)

• Volatile Organic Compounds - 21 Regulated

• Solvents, dyes, chemical compounds used in the manufacture of many house items (once a month)

• Volatile Organic Compounds – 22 Unregulated

• Solvents, pesticides, fumigants, insecticides, to make other chemicals, disinfection byproducts, fire retardant, gasoline additive, and to manufacture a wide range of household products (one a month)

• Many contaminants are used for many purposes. Some are no longer in use and some are banned in the United States

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

MCWC Study & Analysis

A Sampling of EWEB Source Documents1.EWEB Drinking Water Source Protection Plan (Aug 2000/Feb 2005)

2.Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment and Evaluation Results (Apr

2006)

3.The McKenzie River Septic Assistance Project Final Report (Nov 2009)

4.The EWEB Drinking Water Protection Plan Technical Report (Aug 2009)

5.The McKenzie River Watershed Baseline Monitoring Report, 2000-2009

(Nov 2010)

6.Many Others

50

MCWC Study Findings

1. Findings (continued):

a. 121 Contaminants were non-detectable at EWEB

test levels or not subject to testing

b. All statistically analyzed results are well below

EPA standard thresholds

c. No significant change in annual contaminant

levels trended over the last 10 years at Hayden

Bridge Intake!

51

MCWC Study & Analysis

Study Challenges:

1. Hayden Bridge Intake (HBI) Data Configuration

makes Trend Analysis Difficult and Cumbersome

2. Major Effort by the MCWC Technical Team

a. Extracting and Reformatting EWEB data so it

could be Analyzed with Consistancy

b. Extensive Manual Conversion Work Required

52

MCWC Study Coordination

1. Delivered Study to EWEB July 12; Follow-up Meeting on August 2

2. EWEB replied with written comments August 2; MCWC has responded

a. There are some differences of opinion

3. Next Steps will be direct dialogs to increase mutual understandings