Water Quality Standards Hearing

7 – Portland Transcription

February 10^th, 2011

Beth Moore (moderator) - At this time, I would like to begin the hearing on the rule-making for revised human health water quality standards for toxic pollutants. The hearing will be recorded to maintain a permanent record. Today is February 10th, and we're in Portland, and the time is seven o'clock. I would like begin taking comments. If anyone has prepared a written statement or other documents, it would help to summarize them orally, and then introduce written material into the record. Written comments are given the same weight as oral comments. Comments will be taken in the order received. At this time, I'll read your name, and if you would please come up to the table and speak your name, and if you do have written material, present that written material into the record as well. Phil Hassinger(?)

Phil Hassinger - Thank you. My name is John P. and I go by Phil Hassinger, and I begged to be at the top of the list, because I'm heading to LaGrande as soon as I'm finished today. I should disclose my bias. I'm a farmer, been a farmer for all my life, and I work with the Farm Bureau Water Committee, and I'm presently on that committee, and I chaired it recently. And my comments are mostly in the area of procedure, as opposed to the other aspects of the proposed rule change. So with that, I'll read, and then digress a little bit as I do, some comments.

I've been farming along Catherine Creek in the Grande Ronde Valley for over thirty five years. The farm over which I have a stewardship has been recognized many times for the conserving activities which have gone on to enhance water quality: fish, wildlife, soil stabilization, and recreational opportunities. I personally have offered my time on various committees in support of these same themes. One such committee which I was invited to participate was the Senate Bill 1010 Committee, and this was, I said in my notes, almost a decade ago, actually was in 1993, so I'm getting older than I think. That committee was not a popular committee to be on, or to be want to be a part of, I should say, because the resulting documents that were generated by that committee, the Agricultural Water Quality Management Plan would have restricted components in them that would affect our peers.

As I felt water quality was important to the future of agriculture, I agreed to serve on that committee. And if any of you have followed that committee, it was rather arduous, and it was just noted, the pains taken since 2004 with what you're dealing with now. I can relate. After months of meetings, a document was put together with the help of the Oregon Department of Agriculture for our basin that addressed improving water quality. While it was touted as a voluntary program, in fact there was an enforcement component, which included fines for infractions. Not long after our plan was in place, a neighbor of mine on Catherine Creek had a complaint filed against him. Investigations were performed by ODA, lawyers were employed, testimony was taken, and fines were addressed. But most important in this was that the offending behavior was stopped and changed, the point being that the ODA was effective in administering this program.

After this example, it was gratifying to know that Senate Bill 502 and 503 were passed by the legislature in 1995, giving the ODA sole responsibility for developing and implementing any program - I'm quoting - "...or rules that directly regulate farming practices that are for the purpose of protecting quality," end of quote. The ORS Statute 568-dot 912-1 (568.912-1) referred to in the above paragraph would clearly be violated if the Department of Environmental Quality established implementation-ready TMDLs. In addition, the DEQ - the DEQ's need to, quote, "...determine specific amounts of surrogate measures needed to achieve TMDL goals," unquote, is one hundred and eighty degrees away from a cooperative method successfully used since 1010.

My sons and I are just now moving - my sons [chuckle] are just now moving into the management of Hassinger Farms. Hopefully, I'm moving out. They know the effort which was required for a basin plan via Senate Bill 1010. They have seen firsthand huge improvements in our water quality. They're familiar with the water jargon: water gaps, riparian exposures, buffer strips, TMDLs, 303-ds, etcetera. It would be beyond my imagining to undo the great and successful efforts that have recently put into place. It has been our good fortune, locally, to have the Grande Ronde model watershed facilitate and find funding for worthy water quality enhancement projects.

One function of the Grande Ronde model watershed is to make public the efforts of landowners. I would invite you to take a look at the tremendous number of projects completed since Senate Bill 1010. Consider in your viewing that it took a landowner time away from his farmer responsibility that is running a profitable business to accomplish these. On our farm, every foot of river - and we have Catherine Creek wiggling all the way through it, which adds (to? two?) miles as buffer strips - we have off stream watering sites, water gaps, gravel and horticultural cloth, rock barbs to prevent bank erosion, stream bank fencing, flood control structures, and many other things. The projects are a result being educated to the need, as well as funding assistance. No strong-arming, no threats. The results reside in the minds of the next generation. This is the proper way to improve water quality. At your June commission meeting, I plead for you to - and I said in my notes, reject, and I would say now, modify or include the Oregon Farm Bureau proposed rule changes in your document. Please consider the formal rule-making comments submitted by the Oregon Farm Bureau.

I could go and talk about the history of cooperation. And there was a period pre-fifteen years ago, perhaps, as a generic date, which it was really difficult to do any business as an agency person with stakeholders. At about this time, 1993, when the 1010 committees came together, there was a huge change. At the time I was the farm bureau president in our county, and we invited the Director of ODF and W to our meeting. That would have been unheard of ten years previous. This cooperative effort manifests itself in allowing ODA to administer practices that we do on our farms, and with regard to water quality. I would love, as a stakeholder, to just be able to interface with that trusted entity - not that DEQ isn't trusted, but we have had a good history with them. And if it's appropriate, I would be glad to take a question.

Beth - Not at this time. Thank you.

PH - Thank you.

Beth - Next is Mitch Pond. If you could state your name.

Mitch Pond - Okay. Good evening. Mitch Pond, Umatilla Tribe, Pendleton, Oregon. Here's a written statement. My name is Mitchell Pond, and I'm a member of the Confederated Tribes at the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and a member of the tribe's Fish and Wildlife Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to present our views to the revised standards. I wish to express my personal support, as well as the support for the tribes for the revised rules proposed by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. The revised rules would better protect the health and economic livelihood of our people by increasing the fish consumption rate that is recognized by the State of Oregon. The proposed hundred and seventy five grams per day fish consumption rate is based in part on the survey of the ceremony of (specific?) consumption habits of the Umatilla tribal members, along the with the other members of the Columbia River tribes.

This survey is an accurate measure of the fish consumption habits of tribal members. The survey reports that ninety seven percent of our people eat fish, and eighty eight percent of that fish originated in the Columbia River Basin. This is significant, because all these fish are affected by the quality of Oregon waters for all or part of their life cycle. The fish resource is not only a major food source for tribal members, it's also an integral part of our cultural, economic, and spiritual way of life. We need water quality standards that protect our first foods: the water, the salmon, the elk, the deer, the roots, and the berries, and the people that eat them, from harmful exposure to pollutants. Water gives us life. When it's polluted, when it's filled with chemicals and contaminants, it can make us sick. It can take away life. Some of our tribal members, now elders, could once dip a cup in our surface streams and rivers and take a drink. You can't do that anymore.

Oregon must find a way to protect this water resource that is so important to our people. We must restore the health of the water to protect our own health. I urge the DEQ to _____ up standards that will allow my family and all Oregonians to enjoy the benefits of living in the land whose waters are protected from toxic pollutants. That's my written statement. Just a comment, we do need to take better care of our land and our rivers. As tribes, we're stewards of the land. And the salmon and the fish species that - they're given to us by our Creator, and we have to take care of them, we have to protect them. And when we take better care of our land and our rivers, they'll take care of us. Thank you.

Beth - Thank you. Lauren Goldberg.

Lauren Goldberg - Thank you for the opportunity to testify again. My name's Lauren Goldberg. I'm the staff attorney with Columbia River Keeper. And Columbia River Keeper has been working on the rule-making process for over two years. We've been part of the point source pollution working group, as well as the non-point source group. And it's our belief that the rule package that the DEQ has proposed, it's a workable package, it's one that there's been an extensive amount of collaboration up to this point, and bringing it here. And it's critical that we move forward with it in a timely manner. There's been a lot of delay up until this point. Today, the public comment period was extended more, and while it's great to provide the opportunity to allow more public input on this, it's critical that the EQC acts on it this June.

So I just want to take a moment. Andrea provided some really great background on this rule-making, but to just add to that, that this is really the culmination of decades of research that have brought us to this day. About two years ago, the DEQ, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Umatilla Tribe jointly recommended to the Environmental Quality Commission to adopt a fish consumption rate that is accurate, that protects the vast majority of of Oregonians, particularly tribal members. And that came out of EPA's recognition, back in 1992, there was a national survey that was done, and it identified that there was some really significant fish contamination in the Columbia River, based on just how much fish people eat in this region. From that point, EPA funded the Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish Commission to do a more extensive study to look into this issue, and CRITFC provided an in-depth study that showed that there were the presence of at least ninety two contaminants in fish that were consumed by tribal members, ninety two contaminants.

So it was, again, from that early work, that additional work and research was done - extensive research has been done by USGS, the US Army Corps of Engineers, by the Department of Environmental Quality, and by - from 1989 to 1995, a group referred to as the Lower Columbia River Bi-State Water Quality Program, which today is known as the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. And through that process, there was substantial evidence that was generated, and I just want to share some of that evidence tonight that brings us to this important rule-making.

Dioxins, infurins(?), metals, PCBs, PAHs, and pesticides, (impure?) water sediments, fish and wildlife. Sediment contamination was highest near urban and industrial areas, with contamination in excess of levels of concern for DDE, PCBs, dioxins, furins(?) and PAHs. Beneficial uses, so how people use the waterways for fishing, shell fishing, wildlife, and water sports are impaired. Many of the toxic contaminants that we find in the Lower Columbia River, and that we're finding in the Willamette River and throughout other parts of the basin here in Oregon are contaminated. So we know that toxic contaminants are moving up the food chain, and they're accumulating in the bodies of animals, humans, and the fish that we eat.

We also know from these studies that people who eat fish from the Lower Columbia over a long period of time are exposed to health risks from arsenic, PCBs, dioxins, infurins, DDT, and its breakdown products. So I just provide this background information to say that this rule-making is not something that's theoretical; it's something that's been decades in the making, It's something that in the year 2011 is the state(?), It's, I think, embarrassing that we haven't come to this point sooner to adopt toxic standards that protect the vast majority of people, including many tribal members who eat fish, and who have for far longer than any of us have been in this state.

I should also add that, you know, these studies and the information that we have on fish contamination and fish consumption, it's not theoretical. In Oregon, we already live in a state with a number of fish advisories, where people are impacted on a daily basis in terms of whether they can go out and eat fish from rivers near their homes and where they work.

Now DEQ did a fiscal analysis on this rule-making, and there's been a lot of talk in recent weeks about how this rule-making will impact businesses, and farms, and foresters. And what's interesting about DEQ's fiscal analysis is that it's not showing that we're going to see an end to business, or that you know, that we're going to have huge job losses from this rule-making. What's fascinating, too, is that the fiscal analysis never looked at the economic benefits. It never quantified how much we will gain from having water bodies and fish that we can go out and - on a regular basis, eat, and be free of the fear of contamination. It also didn't quantify the economic windfall that has come to many companies and municipalities over the years from not having to comply with standards that protect the vast majority of people who eat fish. So there's a lot that while some might claim is non-paper, I would say that from where we sit at Columbia River Keeper, is also not on paper.

Just in closing I would point out, as somebody who spends a lot of time looking at pollution discharge permits, unfortunately, the way pollution discharge permits are issued, it's not a matter of whether you comply with water quality standards at the point when you discharge pollution into the water body; there's a lot of science, and math, and equations that goes into determining how much pollution you can discharge. And it's our - it's our belief, based on information DEQ has providing us that, as a result of this rule-making, while we will have reductions in pollution, there are still going to be permits can be issued, and in extreme instances, variances that will need to be applied for, and most likely obtained.

So just in closing, Columbia River Keeper strongly supports DEQ's proposed rule-making package. We hope that the agency continues its support of the package, and moves forward promptly to recommending adoption to the EQC this June. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify.

Beth - Stan van de Wetering.

Stan van de Wetering - Hi, I'm Stan Van de Wetering, I'm employed by the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. And I'm here tonight to show our support for the current proposed rules that DEQ has moved forward. I'm going to just make some - a few brief comments. The tribe's been involved with this process for more than a few years now. Our council has met with the EQC several times, and has provided concerns and support on specific issues in the past, so I think DEQ has a fair amount of input from us. We will be providing a letter of support with some specific concerns as well. So tonight we're mainly - I'm mainly here just to reiterate what we have in the past, touch on a few subjects, and make sure we're in - on the record.

We're not – the tribe's not new to concerns regarding water quality. We've been involved with water quality, specifically to DEQ and their regulatory capabilities for the last twenty years. In 2008, after this process had begun, the tribe passed a resolution supporting the fish consumption rate of two hundred and forty eight grams per day, and we actually were considering a higher rate at that point as well. Subsequent to that, our council met with the EQC to government meetings, and provided support for DEQ's decision to move forward with the one seventy five grams per day.

During the last couple of years, as we've kind of interacted with the agency - and we haven't been consistently at all of these meetings that have occurred, or these work groups - but during this period, we've kind of come to understand that a few of the hotter topics have involved how the industries will deal with these compounds and chemicals that are in the water that we're working with, that were part of our presentation earlier, as well as the municipalities, and their concerns, relative to the tools that were described tonight that will provided to them to work with those issues. We feel we're supportive of DEQ, and the quote, toolbox that they've put together for the municipalities and the industries at this point in time. And again, we'd like to see us all move forward.

Relative to the TMDLs, which we think is another hot topic and will continue to be, we have not been happy with TMDL progress, success, or evaluation these past several years. That's not to say we haven't supported the process; we just have been happy with how things have played out. We have concerns regarding the proposed implementation-ready TMDL process, but we're willing to move forward with what has been proposed at this time.

We feel strongly that the pathway to inter-agency conflict resolution must be clearer than currently stated, and this goes back to my question awhile ago. Without this clarity, the process will be much more likely to fail. Our past history of jurisdictional issues between DEQ, ODF, and ODA will not improve without additional clarity that ensures one agency or another must meet the standards through this process, and therefore protect the citizens of this state.

Lastly, I want to reiterate what a speaker or two prior has mentioned, that the EPA has a trust responsibility to the tribes. We have a long history of working with the EPA. The Siletz Tribe made a decision several years ago to enter the state's TMDL process for the mid-coast Region, rather than set standards for the tribe's areas of interest. So the tribes have an option to work with the feds to set their own standards for waters that they have properties on. We chose against that. We wanted to be a partner with our regional stakeholders, and a partner with the state. We feel strongly that all citizens of the state will benefit from this process moving forward, as the prior speaker just noted, via approval of DEQ's standards opposed to the alternative, which will be having EPA promulgate the standards. And we don't believe that will be as good of an end to the process. With that, I'll close, and just note that we will providing written testimony, not tonight.

Beth - Okay, thank you.

SvDW - Thank you.

Beth - Paul Lumley.

Paul Lumley - Good afternoon. My name is Paul Lumley. I'm the Executive Director for the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, and I'm also a citizen of the Yakima Nation. The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, or CRITFC, was formed in 1977 by four tribes who had the same general treaty rights language, to fish at all usual and accustomed fishing places. But when these treaties were signed in 1855, we did not expect that these fish would be contaminated. I'm sure that if the courts had to review what the tribes meant when they signed these treaties, they would look at the conditions of these salmon with great skepticism, knowing that we need to do something more to clean up these waters.

I fish. I fished - I grew up fishing on the Columbia River, and I eat a lot of fish. The amount of fish that we're talking about here, the one hundred and seventy five grams, is about what I eat, and I live here in Portland now. But out in the Pacific Northwest, and particularly along the Columbia, I know families that eat a lot more than this. They have salmon every day, sometimes several times in the day. So this is not a standard is something that will protect all Indians; it's just an average.

In 1996, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission completed a consumption survey, and that was the average, was about ten times more fish than the general public. And then in the year 2002, we completed the study with Environmental Protection Agency that detailed all the chemicals that Lauren Goldberg from Columbia River Keepers just detailed, and I want to thank you, Lauren, for your testimony. I really appreciate that.

So I want to let you know that I really applaud EPA's stance in trying to protect more tribal communities, and I also want to applaud Oregon for taking the stance to try and increase the level of consumption, so we can change these water quality standards, and make sure that we have more of our tribal people protected. With me, I have comments from our friends in the Portland area, who've sent letters. I have forty three letters I'd like to present to you in support of Oregon's water quality standards. And also, last week, when we were in Coos Bay, there was a meeting of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, and a resolution was passed at that tribal meeting, in support of Oregon's new water quality standards. And there were also almost a hundred letters signed by tribal leaders from throughout the Pacific Northwest.

Now my tribe is from Yakima - or my tribe is Yakima, in Washington State, and it's not located in the State of Oregon. But we have a treaty right that's in the State of Oregon, just like the Nez Perce Tribe, and then obviously, we have two other tribes, Umatilla and Warm Springs, that are located in Oregon. But there's a lot of tribes out there that eat our fish, a lot of tribal members, and we need to do what's right here in the State of Oregon, and hopefully other states will take notice, and do the same thing to try and protect water quality in other states. Thank you.

Beth - Thank you. Robert Kentta?

Robert Kentta - Good evening. My name is Robert Kentta. I'm a member of the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, and I'm elected member of the Siletz Tribal Council. For the last several years, I've been serving as the Natural Resources Committee Rep from the tribal council, and so I've been at least on the periphery of a lot of these discussions. And I want to thank the Umatilla Tribe for the leadership that they've provided on these issues up to this point. And I just have some very brief comments in support of the rules and standards that are being considered now. I also believe that it's not protective of everybody it should be, but is a giant step forward for Oregon and for the Northwest in the protection of our waters, and our fishes, and our traditional foods.

Many of our tribal people eat shellfish, fish, crayfish, lots of things that other people don't consider foods at a rate far above the average for the local population. The waters and the foods have had way too many toxins exposed to them, and some things that have happened to our waters that really never should have been allowed in the first place. But I think we're making some giant steps forward in controlling some of these outputs. And some of the persistent toxins that are no longer allowed are going to be with us for some time, but we'll be dealing with those, hopefully with time.

We will be, as Dan said, providing written testimony later on in the process, and I want to thank you for your time.

Beth - Thank you. Bob Baumgartner. Do you have anything?

Bob Baumgartner - No. Thank you, Beth. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Bob Baumgartner. I'm with Clean Water Services. We're a special service district that serves Washington County. We have over five hundred twenty five thousand members, We provide both an excellent level of waste water treatment, and an innovative, proactive storm water program for much of urban Washington County. Throughout the decades, we have had the fortunate opportunity to develop what has become a nationally recognized and very effective watershed program, addressing very complex, very detailed water quality programs.

We have achieved significant improvements in water quality through these programs through collaborative efforts, working with a wide variety of stakeholders in the basin that go well beyond just the urban area, include both point and non-point sources. And through very innovative collaborative efforts with Oregon's DEQ developing and implementing TMDLs (learning?) for them, reassigning TMDLs, and over time, incrementally improving water quality in the basin. We have done so both very effectively and wisely, and have served the public trust by spending the public's resources in an effective manner, and to achieve well-defined end goals.

Clean Water Services is committed to effective toxic pollution control. And we want to recommend that DEQ do focus on effective pollution control. We have already implemented several programs beyond our waste water program and our storm water program to achieve controlled toxics in the basin. We have a very proactive pollution prevention program, we do a lot of outreach. Somebody earlier talked about chemical take backs. We have programs for that. We have developed and implemented a source control - a local source control program that helps us address industrial storm water to our system, as well as industrial storm water and commercial storm water within our urban area. We support our local watershed council, and develop implementation programs with them to address non-point source pollution in the basin, and ecological recovery, and we have also supported ecological business certifications in our basins to provide a proactive way to encourage companies to do the right thing, and or at least what we believe the right thing is.

You'll hear, or you'll see comments from the Association of Clean Water Agencies, in which we are a member. We will support - or we do support those comments. But what I would like to do is just to spend a minute today, and focus on what we believe is one of the critical issues that we still need to address in this rule-making process. I wanted to focus on what we believe - although we've participated, and our members have participated for a long time on the development of this rule package, we feel it fails to provide clear and effective implementation guidance, and implementation programs. Our concern with that is that could force us into a situation where we spend a substantial amount of our money on programs that are not effective at reducing toxics within the basin. I would probably be a little more direct than that, actually, and say we fear that that will force us to spend money in what will not be effective programs. And I think it's obvious that we want to be able to serve our public trust, the same public that Oregon's DEQ represents, and make sure that the money and resources we expend are done so wisely.

As noted previously, we have a long history of working collaboratively with DEQ and others in our basin to have effective programs, and other stakeholders in the basin. We implement broadly based pollution control programs, and they've been demonstrably effective. We'd like to continue that. We recommend that DEQ and the Environmental Quality Commission provide clear and effective guidance associated with this permit, or with this rule-making as much as possible to integrate within the rule-making itself. To the extent it's not integrated within the rule, to make sure that that guidance is well developed as part of what we are reviewing, as we are reviewing this rule package, and not to proceed with the rule-making until we are clear on what that guidance contains.

This guidance, in our mind, should include more for point sources more than just the variance procedure. It should provide us direction on how we can utilize programs such as that that Mr. Foster talked about in the TMDL program, so that we can utilize those to look at the basins more broadly, implement a watershed approach, and not focus solely on what a waste water treatment plant can provide.

We will be providing comments, providing some specific ideas on how we think the DEQ can implement this, and achieve this goal, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank you, Beth.

Beth - Thank you. Don Gentry.

Don Gentry - Thank you for the opportunity to speak in behalf of the Klamath Tribes. My name is Don Gentry. I'm Vice Chairman of the Klamath Tribes, who are the Yahooskin(ie?), which people call Klamath, Modoc(nie?), the Modoc people, and Yahooskin Snake Indians, the Numu, is what we call ourselves. And I - the Klamath Tribes have been concerned about this issue, and have been participating in the process, and spoke at many of the forums, and provided written comments throughout the process. And I appreciate, again, this opportunity to speak on behalf of Oregon's proposed rules. And we think it's really important for us as people, because we depend so much, even today, upon our resident fisheries.

We have some real problems in our Klamath Basin area. We're near Crater Lake, where the headwaters of the Klamath River - I live on the Sprague River, which is a river is listed - 303-d listed, and - but it was an area that was productive. We once had salmon. It's unfortunate that when the first dam went in on the Klamath in 1917, it blocked salmon from coming into our area. But we rely really heavily, up until they were listed on the Endangered Species List, our C'waam, which is the Lost River sucker, our Cockatoo, which is endangered - that's the Short Nose sucker, and the Yen(?), which is the Large Scale sucker. And we're fortunate that we still have a resident trout fisheries, Mayhoss(?). That's our Red Band trout, and we're fortunate that we can often catch those fish, ten pounds and greater, and we often do.

My Klamath name is (sounds like "Ditchy Gunk"). I was given that name at our Return of the C'waam ceremony. That's our ceremony that our elders re-instituted, that we once practiced for centuries. Don't even know how many thousands of years that we practiced this ceremony, where we prayed and asked Creator to return the fish to us, our endangered C'waam. And the reason I share that is - and that means - that name was given to me by an elder name of Clarice (Lotches?), who's no longer with us. But I actually remembered when we had salmon in our area. And - but that name means "lives good," and - or "having done good things," and since that time, it's been my goal to do that. And I'm honored that my people have sent me here. And I think they've sent me here because I come from a fishing family. My dad, Gene(?) Gentry, he was born in that area. He taught me how to fish, taught me how to fish for our people. And he had a name amongst the recreation fishermen in that area. They called him the Brown Pelican, because he would catch fish a lot. And he taught me how to catch fish and take it to our people, and to our elders.

And even though we're compromised in our area with our fisheries - we no longer have salmon - we still trade deer and elk with our downriver friends and our family in Warm Springs. We've got - we're married into family all over the Pacific Northwest here, and we're blessed that we have so many close friends. So I eat a lot of salmon myself, I eat a lot of the trout. We can no longer catch our C'waam and Cockatoo. I've eaten that. I used to take it to the elders. And the reason why I bring that up is we've talked quite a bit about the importance of the increased water quality standards. But the TMDLs are really critical in our area. It's unfortunate that there is opportunity for - and I wanted to mention I live on the Sprague River, and we live on a family property, nine hundred and sixty acres. We currently graze cattle there, we have horses. I come from a timber family. My dad felled trees. My aunt and uncle have a small mill, which they don't operate anymore. But I'm saying these things because we're all those things. We're farmers, we're ranchers, we're fishermen. And I believe what Oregon is doing is something that's needed for all of us in this state, and all of us in the region.

I wanted to focus on the TMDLs if I can. It's unfortunate that a lot of our neighbors don't really participate in some of the voluntary programs that are out there. We have problems with sediment loading coming into the Sprague River and the Klamath Lake. That's part of the reason why we have the endangered fish that we do, endangered C'waam. And you know, we need to do something. We know the problems that we have in our basin. And we have nutrients that come into the system from streams that are unraveling because of improper grazing management, and it's caused actual fish kills of our C'waam on our lake. I've actually collected those fish when I worked in our natural resource department, and collected those fish along with Fish and Wildlife people, so I've seen what has happened in our basin. And I believe it's time that we move forward with this proposed rules, and increased water quality standards that are more protective of our people, because we depend on those fish. We're people of the lakes. Yahooskin(ie?) means "people of the lake," or "people of the lake and marshes," and that's who we are. And even in this compromised situation we're in in the Klamath Basin, we're working hard to restore our fisheries and our salmon. And I believe implementation of the TMDLs in that process is going to be important to us in our area. So I just wanted to speak on behalf of that, and thank you for the opportunity. I would be glad to answer any questions afterwards. I know you can't do it here,

Beth - There you go.

DG - Thank you,

Beth - Thank you. John Platt.

John Platt - My name is John Platt, and I'm here speaking as a citizen of Oregon, I live in the Helvetia area of Washington County. And I have worked with tribes for many, many years, have - I'm also a farmer, I farm about thirteen acres of vineyards on hillside land in the Helvetia area. We've placed drain tile there to keep - to prevent erosion, as well as grass strips, and minimized use of dangerous chemicals to be good stewards of the land. I'm even a member of the Farm Bureau. And though I mention I'm here to speak as a citizen, the - just as Hugo Black in a Supreme Court case affecting the Pelton Dam said, "Great nations like great men keep their word," Article 2, section 6 of the US Constitution says that treaties are the supreme law of the land, the laws of any state notwithstanding. The treaties were assigned by the United States agreed to by the tribes, the Yakima, the Nez Perce, the Warm Springs, the Umatilla, and many other tribes in the Pacific Northwest, such as the Klamaths, those treaties were a bargain, a bargain in the sense that they were negotiated for the purpose by the United States of obtaining land for settlement. And in the case of the tribes, those tribes reserved rights to take fish exclusively within the reservations, as well as the right to take fish at all of their usual and accustomed fishing places. They expected, and the United States agreed to secure those rights. And those rights are meaningless if the fish are not fit to eat.

The notion of great nations - men, like great nations keep their word, great nations like great men keep their word, that idea is really an environmental justice idea. And if the United States, and the State of Oregon - and the State of Oregon is bound by - not only by the United States Constitution, but even going back to the Northwest Ordinance - if the United States and Oregon can't keep that promise, than I have to ask, why is that we're sending troops over to the Middle East to seek freedom for people there when we're not keeping our promises to the people of the Northwest, who made land available for settlement in return for promises by the United States to secure certain rights.

I'm reminded of a story that I heard sometime back about Chief Tommy Thompson, who was the chief at Celilo at the time that Celilo Falls was inundated by the Dalles Dam. And he was at about the - I think at the age of a hundred, he was asked the secret of his longevity. He died at a hundred and five, I understand. And his answer was "Eat lots of salmon, and don't drive automobiles." It's probably good advice for - not only for tribal people, but also for non-Indians. And it's very important that we do keep our word under the Constitution of the United States. Thanks.

Beth - Thank you. Michael Karnosh.

Michael Karnosh - Good evening. My name's Michael Karnosh, and I work for the Confederated Tribes of Grande Ronde as the Ceded Lands Program Manager. And I'll try to keep my comments brief. But on behalf of the tribe, I'd like to express support for the DEQ water quality standards that are being proposed, and express the need for these raised water quality standards.

The Grande Ronde reservation is in the Willamette River basin, and should not be confused with the Grande Ronde River that's on the east side of the state. The reservation is drained by the South Yamhill River, which flows into the Willamette, and these waters include some of the most contaminated waters of the state. Fish that are on the reservation, which include salmon, steelhead, and lamprey have to travel through these contaminated waters twice in their lifetime: once, as they hatch and rear in downstream waters, which include the Lower Willamette River, which includes a Supefund Site; and then once again as adults, when they return upstream to spawn. On top of that, the tribe's ceded lands include the Willamette River and all its tributaries, which again, are some of the most contaminated waters of the state.

Tribal culture, in a lot of ways, revolves around these fish. And as others have said tonight, many of the traditional tribal foods are fish, and they have been for thousands and thousands of years, and they continue to be to this day. In many of the waters where tribal members fish, there are fish consumption advisories. This means that tribal members cannot eat their traditional foods and maintain their traditional ways of life without taking on significant risks to their own health. This is unacceptable to the tribe, and that is why there is a need for better water quality standards.

I'll close by expressing, on behalf of the tribe, thanks and support for DEQ in developing these water quality standards over the past several years. The tribe has been a part of the process, and we feel that it's been a very open process, taking in a wide spectrum of points of view and stakeholders, and once again, the tribe appreciates and supports that. Thank you.

Beth - Thank you. I have one more card, unless somebody's given me some others that I'm not sure of. Victor Stevens.

Victor Stevens - Hi, yes, good evening. I have a slightly different perspective, I'm a recreational -

Beth - Will you please give your name?

VS - Hmmm?

Beth - Give you name.

VS - Oh my name, oh, Victor Stevens. I live in Portland. I'm a recreational user of the river. I have sailed extensively on the Willamette and Columbia Rivers. I camp out on the islands in the river, and on the shores of the river every summer; I have for thirty years. I also like to fish, and I like to eat the fish out of the river. And we can certainly do a better job of improving water quality on the river. That river is one of our most - that whole drainage is one of our greatest regional assets. And I think we would all agree, we have not done a very good job of protecting it. And I think these regulations will go a long ways to improving that. I don't think it's enough, but it's definitely a big move in the right direction. And so that river is part of our regional life support system. It's a big part of our regional life support system, and we should take care of it.

Beth - Thank you.... Thank you, this hearing is adjourned. The time is 7:50. Thank you all for coming.