Water Quality Standards Hearing

3 – Medford Transcription

February 2^nd, 2011

Zach Loboy: So for the record, if we can turn the recorder on, and -- for the public record. And at this time I'd like to begin the hearing on the rulemaking for revised human health water quality standards for toxic pollutants. The hearing will be recorded to maintain a permanent record. Today is February 2nd in Medford, Oregon. and the time is 7:20.

I'd like to 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. And I'll ask you to please come up to the table to speak. And we'll go in the order that these were received, as I said. So the first person in Dennis Baker.

[One of the testifiers approached a DEQ staff member prematurely to begin his testimony]

Shin Takeda - [muddled and hard to understand voice, not speaking clearly into the microphone.]

______ some comments. ______ reaction will be....

Andrea Matzke - These microphone are pretty sensitive, so....

Shin Takeda - _____ diesel engine, they thought it was a _______, and now they're to tier four interim. The cost of a diesel engine has increased three times, and now when tier four is completed, what comes out of the exhaust of the engine has to be cleaner than the air being taken in.

Jennifer Wigal- I'm sorry sir, but we -- if you would like to comment, we have a microphone set up, and if you could provide your piece of paper to Zack, he will call you up in order, okay? Thank you.

Shin Takeda - Oh, okay, no problem.

Zach Loboy- Okay, sorry.

Dennis Baker - Thank you very much. My name is Dennis Baker. I work for the City of Medford, Oregon. I am the water reclamation manager here within the city, where we technically don't have a reclamation program. We are a regional facility. We treat all the waste water north of Ashland, through Phoenix Town, the City of Medford, Central Point, White City, Eagle Point and other associated unincorporated Jackson County areas. I'd like to also say thanks very much for being here today. I appreciate your efforts, and in fact, you going out to meet with the people.

I don't think anybody in this room is opposed to improved water quality standards, or something that could help improve, you know, overall human health. However, the program as you've proposed it has a few flaws, primarily, I think, being pointed at the fact that it sounds as if, and it seems to be, in my review of your literature, that it's extremely regionalized. You've looked at some coastal areas, and you've looked extensively in the Columbia and Willamette areas, However, overall, statewide, there hasn't been a lot of work there. And as we all probably know, water is -- waterways, lakes, rivers, whatever, are different in different areas. I mean if you even look at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, sport fishing regulations posted for 2010, they have a small area and not very detailed, but it does delineate certain areas that they recommend that you don't eat the fish from, and they list some of the pollutants that are involved, be it PCBs, or other, you know, heritage pollutants, toxics, and pesticides, or mercury. I will say the Rogue was not mentioned in that study, by the way, or that information. So I think, really, in the sense of fairness, is I'm one of the regulated that will be inheriting whatever happens with this in the permitted process, that it doesn't, in a lot of ways, relate to where I'm really at. So that, I think, should be further considered.

Also, too, as far as the treatment technologies, as you talked about that, I mean virtually anything you want to do, you could do with technology; however, it's a matter of how much it's going to cost, and what are you going to generate, you know, as a side stream from that. No good deed goes unpunished. I mean if we had thirty, forty million dollars laying around, we could put in a really large reverse osmosis system, and we could make the ionized water in order to discharge to The Rogue. However, that of course, in and of itself, would cause an environmental problem. Also, to the side stream that would be generated, the concentrated brine, and of course, all the concentrated pollutants. You still have to deal with those, and you know, discharge those in some way, or take care of them. So there's really a very difficult way to approach that.

So in talking about variances, I did participate in the variance workshop that DEQ hosted last week in Portland. And it seemed pretty clear that at this stage of the game, DEQ wasn't really sure exactly how they wanted to work their variances, and the fact that although the rule for it has been on the books for a considerable amount of time, there's never been a variance in Oregon. Nobody here's ever written one. Part of the workshop was in fact a teleconference with two gentlemen, one who worked -- I believe was in Wisconsin with the counterpart of DEQ, and the other person was from the EPA region there, and they dealt specifically with pollutants in the Great Lakes area, where they had variances for things like PCBs, phthalates, mercury, whatever. Their experience had been that there'd never been a variance issued or granted that had ever run, that the pollutants exist at a certain level. A lot of these are say, like mercury, which is -- comes with the rain. It falls, it's there, you can't control it, you can't stop it no matter what you do. So those variances have gone on ad infinitum, because there's no way that they can meet those requirements. I think you would get into a similar circumstance here if you tried using variances along with the permitting process. As you said, permits last -- are usually designated for five years. Ours however, expired at the end of 2007, and we're still waiting around for the renewal on ours, so it's been a few years. So our last permit will have a life span of probably eight to ten years by the time it's all done, [chuckle] which is maybe a little more critical than I had to put out there.

The financial impact of this, be it the permitting side of it, be it the analytical side of it, however you slice it, it's going to be very expensive. I know that last year, my personal budget, I spent the better part of eighty thousand dollars in fees to DEQ, and obviously, you're still struggling to accomplish a lot of things that you wanted to, such as, you know, more extensive sampling around the state. I really -- once again, I thoroughly support you in trying to make the world a better, healthier, cleaner place. I've been in this field since 1974, and I'm here because I really like what I do, and I'm really excited about being involved in doing something that improves water quality. At this stage of the game, I don't know that you guys got the whole game together for this program. I, you know, would support you in this, but I really feel that it's way too regionalized, and has way too many holes in it, and pitfalls that could prove disastrous in some ways. So thank you very much for this time.

[00:07:40.12]

[00:07:41.18]

Zach Loboy - Thank you, Mr. Baker.

DB - Thank you.

Zach Loboy- Next is Glenn Archambault.

GA - Good job.

Zach Loboy - Yeah, pretty close. Please state your name.

GA - Sure. I need to do a little housekeeping here. You've got a watch on there? Five minutes?

Zach Loboy- I do.

GA - Okay, good. I think it would help keep things organized. My name is Glenn Archambault. I'm the vice president of the Jackson County Farm Bureau. I'm also a board member of the Pipeline Safety Trust. I also work with the US Department of Transportation on the Protecting Communities team that deals with land use, and the issue of interstate oil and gas pipelines. I have a very long background in air and water quality.

Have you ever gotten ready for a meeting, and something happened that day, and you said, "Oh my, my whole testament just went out the window"? Well, it did this morning, because I was sitting there at the computer very early this morning, watching scenes out of Egypt. And you're probably all thinking, "God, what in the world does that got to do with water quality in Oregon?" Well, it actually has a lot to do with it, and that's because all the folks there in the Middle East eat lamb and mutton, and I produce lamb and mutton. And in the last year, those markets have gone absolutely wild in price, and that's because we can't produce enough of them. And so this morning, I called the American Sheep Industry, and asked them for a comment. What do you think's going to happen here? They're stunned, they don't know what to say. So I said, "Well, I mean, are we going to actually run out of sheep, and mutton, and lamb, and wool?" And they said, "Yeah, that's exactly what's happening." I says, "Well, could you comment on the Oregon sheep industry. And they said "Yes. It was regulated out of business,” you know, and the American sheep industry is some pretty knowledgeable folks, they've been there for a long time. So we kind of went down the list of regulations, and things that have happened here. And my family's been associated with the sheep industry, and also many environmental issues for a very long time.

And so thinking back through that, through those regulatory periods, and now that we're going to add this new level of regulation, it occurred to me that we need to open up a better dialogue. You know, I agree with you folks. There's some definite issues out there. I think anyone would be a fool not to say that some of the substances you're talking about could definitely harm people. They could also harm the environment. But we also work in a global market, and that was really - I really honed into this morning. That global market will overrun Oregon every time it wants to. And that's exactly what's kind of happening. And so you know, I thought back to an issue that this state is going through right now, and this local county's going through. We're talking about small farms, agriculture, local foods, those kinds of issues. Most of the people in those industries, those small farms and sustainable operations, they have no skills, background, or the financial ability to take on this new level of regulation. So going back in Oregon regulation, we've had a history of accumulated regulation that's tended to get the opposite effect of what we've wanted. And right now in this valley and throughout Oregon, we're trying to maintain all those farms. And most of Oregon's farms are small farms. They're not mega-corporate farms in the Midwest.

And so you know, I'm thinking back to something probably all of you will relate to, is watching the First Lady and the President this last year in their little garden near the White House. And that's been a big issue in this country. And very often, I kind of feel like that, because my sheep operation never gets over maybe five hundred head. And when I look at the old sheep industry, it was huge in this country and in the State of Oregon -- in fact, we're in one of the largest sheep producing counties in history, is right here in Jackson County. It doesn't produce any sheep anymore, but [chuckle] you gotta think about those accumulated regulations that were put on these industries, and put on these small farms that we're trying to restore and put back in place, and hold.

You also gotta remember all the folks -- and there's many of them sitting in this room -- that put a huge amount of effort into water quality in the past. This county and other areas of the state have had water quality programs, where we've gone out and changed, completely changed farms in the way water was put on those farms, and that costs a lot of money. And so the folks that have done that work are feeling a little bit tired. It's been a long process, and um, it's kind of like we've moved the goal post out a couple more yards each time. We get kind of towards the end of that process, then we're going to move the goal post again.

So something I'm going to say that I think's most important here is not about the technical discussion here. It's about how the obvious two opposing sides are going to get along in this discussion. If the DEQ is going to regulate with an iron fist, you're going to get the wrong response out of the industries you're going to regulate. Thank you.

[00:13:08.08]

Zach Loboy - Next up in Keith Nelson.

Keith Nelson - Hello, I'm Keith Nelson. I farm out in Illinois Valley in the Kirby area. I'm the president of the Josephine County Farm Bureau, and I'm on the -- I've been a director of the Soil and Water District for I don't know, thirty five years. I lost count. And a board member of the Watershed Council. And concerning the Farm Bureau, I - Josephine County endorses everything, whether it's submitted by Jennifer Shmikler, or from the Oregon State Farm Bureau. I don't want to read all that. And as a member of the Soil and Water District, I'm concerned that - I was on the (LAC?) committee, the senate bill 1010, for I don't know how many years we worked on that. We finally came up with our completed rules, and I'm concerned that - I don't want them to be forgotten and override - do away with them. A lot of work went into that.

And I heard her mention mercury. And out in the Illinois Valley, if you go and pan the old gold (tailings?) of years and years and years ago, you'd get mercury. So how does that compare with modern day pollution, and that's years and years ago, and way out of our control. What are you going to... how can you correct that mercury pollution in the river? My boy would go down and pan the tailings there on the -- by Eight Dollar Mountain. You'd get a little bit of gold, but you'd get some mercury in there. And that has nothing to do with farming. There's no industry out there except for a sawmill, and our farms. And that's about all I have to say.

Zach Loboy - Thank you. Next, Ronald... I can't read the last name there.

Ronald Bjork? - Bjork?

Zach Loboy - Bjork(?)

Ronald Bjork - I have two comments. I'll first read my own, then I'll read the official comment for the Jackson County Farm Bureau, because I am the President of the Jackson County Farm Bureau. I'm a rancher, and have been ranching in the Eagle Point area for over fifty years. I'm concerned about the proposed human toxic pollutant rules, and how the increased regulations will affect production agriculture in Oregon. which is the state's largest industry. Any and all regulations, and enforcement of farming practices come directly from ODA, and no other agency. Our state requires us to conduct agriculture activities in compliance with the EQC, and the law does not provide for direct enforcement by the DE -- by either the EQC, or the DEQ. Farming and ranching practices need to remain with the Department of Agriculture. All area plans and rules must economically -- must be economically reasonable, and implemented only the maximum of extent practical as prescribed by the Federal Clean Water Act. If DEQ moves forward, and I believe agriculture landowners could very likely be subject to unreasonable and economic inefficient rules that regulate farming and ranchers out of business. Any attempt by the DEQ to directly regulate farming practices through any mechanism, particularly implementation-ready TMDLs, would be in direct conflict with Oregon law. I believe the present rules work well, and ODA has been out, and inspected my ranch at my request to see if I was in compliance with the Department of Agriculture rules. And guess what? I passed. Just for your information. Senate bill 502 and 503 declares that the Oregon Department of Agriculture is the sole agency for agriculture, and has worked well, and will continue to work well, as far as I am concerned. In conclusion, I'd like to support the formal Oregon Farm Bureau comments. As President of the Jackson County Farm Bureau, which has approximately four thousand members, we also support the formal Oregon Farm Bureau comments. Thank you for your time, and I appreciate you coming.

Zach Loboy - Thank you. Next, Don Rowlett?

Don Rowlett- My name is Don Rowlett. I'm a rancher in the Green Springs of Ashland. My experience in agriculture includes farming and ranching thirty-three hundred acres of crop land and four thousand acres of grazing land in Butte Valley, and fourteen hundred acres up here on the Green Springs for grazing, and other uses there. I and the Jackson County stockmen oppose the proposed regulations by DEQ to directly regulate and enforce water quality standards and violations of Oregon's agriculture lands. I think that the biggest fear that I know that most ranchers or ag people have is to hear the words DEQ. That's fearful, because it means more regulation. And I'm sure that what I've heard from the presentations tonight, that trying to reach some standard that sounds as if it hasn't even had all the facts put into it, I don't know how you make new rules when you don't have all the facts. Those numbers seem unreasonable, and I would like someone to assure us that they have the input that you've heard here tonight that pulls those numbers together, because like we always say, we're ruled by Portland and Eugene for the rest of the state. and we're tired of it. And I think that DEQ is an organization, while it has great meaning, and has protection powers, it can be overdone.

In '93, as Ron said, they passed the SB-1010, which at that time enacted the Agriculture Water Quality Management Act. In 1995 the legislature passed SB-502 and 503, declaring the Oregon Department of Agriculture to the be sole agency responsible for developing and implementing any program or rules that directly regulate farming practices that are for the purpose of protecting water quality. We don't need another layer of government bureaucracy on top of the Department of Ag, who is already responsible for water quality. Any regulation and enforcement of farming practices should come directly from the Oregon Department of Ag, and no other agency. I oppose DEQ establishment of implementation-ready TMDLs. Any attempt by the DEQ to directly regulate farming practices through any mechanism, particularly implementation-ready TMDLs, would be in direct conflict with Oregon law. I, too, support the formal comments of the Oregon Farm Bureau. I believe that if DEQ is allowed to enforce the water quality rules, rather than let us work it out with the ag department, that some of us would rather go out of business then spending years of litigation, which happens in a lot of DEQ issues. Thank you.

[00:23:26.10]

Zach Loboy - Thank you. Next, Charles Boyer.

Charles Boyer - Thank you. My name's Charles Boyer, a farmer, livestockman, Eagle Point. I've also served two terms on the soil - State Soil and Water Conservation Commission. I am the President of the Oregon Association Conservation Districts. I am also on the board of the Jackson Soil and Water and Conservation District, and I spent twenty five years working on environmental issues across the United States, western United States, everything from coal to water, to timber, to grazing, you name it. As long as it's been out there, I probably have dabbled in it at one form or another. Oil and gas, fish. Although I'm probably not an expert in any of them, other than grazing, and the issues dealing therewith.

I'm concerned about where we're at in this process, and how we got there. I understand, and I certainly have no hard feelings for those people who supposedly consume two hundred fish, two hundred and seventy six days a year in Oregon, whether they be from Native American populations, or the Asian community in the Willamette Valley. The one thing that's never become clear in this whole thing, though, is what part of the coast that you did - or how much of the coastal community, and where it was at, that you inventoried to come up with your numbers as to the consumption and impact of this, and that would be important to know, because if it's north, real close to the Columbia, probably at the Columbia influence.

A couple of things: in the slides presentation that was on the rule-making, it identified the rule-making group, and then there was the non-NPDS working group. And I noticed that the non people were not included into the rule-making group. Therefore the industry people set the rules, and by the way, you did have a bunch of environmental groups, and others in there, but the people that would be in this room were not a part of the process of setting the rules, the rules working group. Therefore, I think it's - you're biased against those people who have non-point source pollution issues. And by federal law, there is some limitations about what you can do. I realize state laws differ, and you guys have a little different flexibility than federal laws, and far as non-point source pollution. But I think you really need to have both of those in that process, and I have no idea why you chose not to do that.

Um, no place in this process that I've seen, as I mentioned during our question and answer period. Was there a solution, or how you were going to deal with the pollution levels of both toxins and non-toxins that are in the water that exceeds your TMDLs? How are you going to deal with that, you know? Are you going to deal with it after we have all gone out of business? Not only we, but the people in industries, the point-source polluters who can't comply. Is that where we're headed with this regulation? Just, it's an honest question, and I think you really need to answer that question, as to how you're going to deal with it.

And now I'm going to suggest, as part of the record, that you review the Smith River study that was done with DE - oh, DNA studies on various species that are polluting that river, and how it's exceeded, and continues to exceed, the TMDLs set by DEQ. And the only people that are being affected by those DEQ rules and enforcement are the people who live there, who run livestock, and the forestry industry. The fact that the primary polluters in there are avian, and deer, and elk, cougar, coyotes, and certain marine mammals that are coming up into the lower reaches of that, and possibly some of the - during high water events, or certain event, the sewer treatment facilities in Coos Bay. You can't go out and kill all those. You can't go out and control all those. Believe it or not, folks, deer have been poopin' in the stream for eons, and they're going to continue to do that, and we just have to find a way to deal with it.

So it's important that in whatever process you do, that you do in fact find a way to deal when we - you just exceed TMDLs, and they're wrong. Temperature's another one. You can't reach it, you can't reach it. The studies that you conducted I think were biased, and the fact you didn't consider the entire population of Oregon when you set standards. And I think it's important that you at least identify - not that you're going to change your standards, but at least you identify, honestly and openly, what you're really talking about when you set that standard. We're talking about an impact on one half of one percent, thirty-five percent, it doesn't matter what it is, of the population of Oregon does ags. And therefore, we have established that there's a need for that rule, whatever that rule should be, and we're going to set that standard at this level. You haven't done that.

The other thing I don't think you've done, is I honestly don't think you've looked at Oregon. I don't think you've looked at much outside the Willamette River, and the Columbia River. And you're certainly not going any place outside of those areas, with the exception of Bend, and Ontario, which is on the Snake River, to hold any public meetings. And I, I - you know, I just - I've traveled all over this state, talking to people, ranchers and farmers, and sportsmen's groups, and land managers - federal and state managers all over this state, and every one of them has the same concerns about water quality, and they're - and the importance of it. And they spend a lot of time, money, and energy trying to do the best that we can do. But you guys, for some reason, have chosen, in this process, not to even talk to 'em. And I have a problem with that. As a citizen of Oregon, I have a problem with that. I think you need to go do that.

I'll wrap it up with I agree with the comments of Mr. Baker and Mr. Archambault a hundred percent. You keep regulating - you keep regulating us, and there's a reason that the average age of a farmer in the United States today, and in Oregon, is over fifty-five years old, because nobody with any damn brains, or somebody who doesn't have a hell of a lot of money, would go into this industry today with the increasing regulation, and the ability to make it work that's coming down today, in today's world. And I spent twenty-five years working for a regulatory agency. I know about regulations. I've studied 'em, I've enforced 'em, and I've tried to work with 'em, and I understand your problem. But the thing of it is, you have the hammer. And as the other gentleman says, how you use the hammer makes the difference. So I would ask you to be very careful when you do this, be very honest, and don't start with preconceived ideas, paradigms thrown out the window, and start with an open mind. And peer-reviewed material coming from any scientific community is not always what it appears to be, because they pick the peers. Be careful about that. They choose who reviews the material. Been there, done that. And I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

[00:32:58.20]

Zach Loboy - Next is Robert Miller.

Robert Miller - Yes. My name's Robert Miller. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed rule-making packages. I think this is a very important issue for Oregon agriculture, and Oregon cattlemen in particular. I presently serve as the Private Lands Chairman for the Oregon Cattleman’s Association, which represents cattlemen all over the State of Oregon. I've been actively involved in Oregon agriculture production for over a half a century. I'm one of those old guys Charlie just talked about. And I thank God I am that old, because I couldn't survive if I was a young man in this - the way things are going.

My OCA capacity and my business life, I'm deeply concerned in the viability of Oregon’s economic base, and it's maintenance of life quality provided by sound management of Oregon's resources, particularly water, which is the lifeblood of agricultural production. Regulations and practices adopted in Oregon during 1993 under 1010 - SB-1010, and _____ 95 under SB-502 and 3, are protecting Oregon's water quality, and enabling production agriculture to maintain critical support of Oregon's economy. Clean federal -- Federal Clean Water Act requirements are being met. Present Oregon law declares that Oregon Department of Agriculture, ODA, to be the sole agency responsible for developing or implementing any program or rules that directly regulate farming practices that are for the purpose of protecting water quality. The proposed DEQ rules, in my estimation, conflict with that existing law.

Oregon agriculture provides a stable and dependable economic base to support the Oregon lifestyle and living standard so many residents and visitors from all walks of life have come to cherish and depend on for this state. We're noted for that. Oregon agriculture is tied to Oregon land. and will always be here to utilize renewable resources for citizen's benefits even if economic factors reduce or remove other sources of income such as the tourism or manufacturing industry, which is being severely curtailed through the present economic situation.

I think Oregon agricultural producers are locked here. We've got to be here, and we've got to fight and make a stand, and we've got to support the rest of the state. The rest of 'em can leave pretty easily, or a lot of 'em can, and leave us with even a bigger bill to pay. Throughout history, agriculture production that provides basic food, fiber, housing and spendable income has been the mainstay of surviving societies. And if you don't believe it, just study your history a little bit. It's there, in black and white. So I feel that correctly set standards will enable Oregon to survive. But if they get too hard on everybody, we're going to lose it like everything else, so this is - you mentioned about a hundred thousand dollar study that you couldn't afford to make. On the other hand, in 2009, there was - for example, there was one billion, five hundred thirty thousand, three hundred and forty three [$1,532,343, 000 written on the document] dollars worth of Oregon farm sales were generated by cattle, nursery and dairy production. That's the top three agriculture products. Cattle are the best - are the biggest one in the state, and they generate in the state six hundred and twenty eight million dollars of income. These proposed regulations could severely limit the amount that this - these industries could contribute to the state of Oregon. All these commodities are extremely water-dependent, and other Oregon agricultural products also require water to generate income, and support the entire structure of state government. Oregon agricultural producers desire high quality, and maintain viable standards with sincere actions. This has been proven in many parts of the state for local planning and regional watersheds under the 1010 process is ongoing and successful. It's critical that any water quality regulation affecting farming practices remain under the direction and enforcement of ODA administration, and practical outcome-based methods to reduce water pollution from agriculture non-point sources. I meant to mention that point that as primarily a beef producer, we're talking about non-point sources of pollution; we're not talking about your point sources. So this is for the - Oregon cattlemen, in particular, are very concerned about this issue.

All area plans and rules must be economically reasonable, and implemented only to the maximum extent practical as prescribed by the Federal Clean Water Act. If you get too far, just like Charlie said, and this other gentleman said, you're going to run everybody out of business. If DEQ continues to move forward the proposed rule-making language, I believe agricultural landowners and managers could very likely be subject to unreasonably - unreasonable - and economically disastrous rules that will regulate farms and ranchers out of business in Oregon.

So I staunchly oppose DEQ's established of the implementation-ready TMDLs. DEQ believes it's necessary for the agency select surrogate measures and conditions, and to determine specific amount of surrogate measures needed to achieve TMDL goals to achieve their desired water quality standards. This infringes, again, on Oregon Revised Statues 568.912 parentheses 1.

[568.912(1) on written document] that provides ODA with sole authority to regulate farming practices, and adopt rules that shall constitute the only enforceable aspects of a water quality management plan. So again, underlined, any attempt by DEQ to directly regulate farming practices through any mechanism, particularly implementation-ready TMDLs would be a direct conflict with Oregon law.

I also support the formal comments and suggested rule language by the Oregon Farm Bureau and the OCA that will be submitted. And I do also agree with everybody that spoke so far tonight, because they said a lot of other points that make good common sense.

So in summary, Oregon has laws, regulations and procedures in place and working to protect water resources vital to its environment and economic welfare. Present tactics under ODA administration meet federal and common sense standards. Proposed DEQ regulations conflict with Oregon law and could well reduce living standards. What we have is working, and like the youth said for ears, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And the only thing I'd like to add to that is the fact that I really think we need to start looking at our basic industries, and what regulation does to 'em. Charlie talked about it, and some other people. But this state is going to survive. We don't to be - we don't need to break our natural resources, or our environment, but we've got to have rules and regulations that allow people, private business to function and devel - produce money to run it. I don't know how many people originally in this room actually are income generators versus income users. When you stop and think about most of the people that make these rules, or bring them up, have never been out on the dirt, making the first dollar that has to roll over five, or six, or seven times in Oregon economy before you can hire you people in the DEQ, for example. And if those dollars aren't rolled over and made, then there's - those have to be made first, in order to pay for all the other goods and services, and welfare, and everything else that the state needs. And we've got to have a viable private enterprise business, and agriculture is the base for Oregon's natural resource, and is a base for Oregon's strength, and ability to live and prosper on its own. Thank you.

Zach Loboy - Thank you.

RM - Here's my sc --

Zach Loboy - Thank you, Mr. Miller. Well next is Shin Taketa. Shin? Shin Taketa?

Shin Taketa - My name is Shin Taketa, (real?) crop farmer here in Oregon, and previously in California. I want you to really consider carefully any impact of action taken, what the reaction will be. Example would be, like EPA. The present administration EPA director has like (diesel engine?), they started with tier zero. Now they are tier 4 interim. Now the cost of the - producing that same diesel engine costs three times more than originally at tier zero. Now when tier 4 is at the end point, the exhaust coming out of a diesel engine has to be cleaner than the air being consumed by the engine. Now how is that going to be done? See, that's one of the things.

Another thing would be like California wanted a resources board to protect the smelt in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley. They reduced the availability of water, approximately twenty four percent. Now they are considering reducing the amount of water available to farmers in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley to only two to four percent. All the rest will go for the smelt, communities, recreational purposes and things like that. Look what would happen impact-wise to agriculture, but not only agriculture, but to the consumer. California's the bread basket of the world, and you cut off all this volume of products, produce, whatever agriculture product's coming out, and it doesn't just affect the regional area; it affects world consumption, too, because so much of it is being exported.

Another thing is reference is continually being made to DDT. Research on this have taken samples of soil from Smithsonian, analyzed it, and found that DDT-type compound was in that soil before DDT was being manufactured. So they further did research, and found that rubber products, like tires, used in vehicles, equipment, or aircraft, the compound being ground off, and gets on the soil or in the air, is a DDT compound. So you're still going to have DDT-type reaction, like was being mentioned earlier.

Now there's a research scientist that took a heaping tablespoon of DDT, and consumed it for three weeks to see what result it would have on his health. He said it didn't affect his health. During - after World War II, all the delousing done was being used - DDT was being used. Now when I was in combat in Korea, a number of GI s came down with malaria. In Korea, malaria. See, now malaria's running wild in various parts of the world because DDT is no longer is available. So you have to really consider carefully what you do. And I would suggest, any research to check what University of California-Davis on what research they are doing in agriculture, related subject matters of your concern.

So these are some of the things that come to my mind, what serious impact - oh another thing, too, is I would suggest that research be done on educating the consumer to reduce the consumption of medication, because it comes out in the urine and feces, and it goes into the water is being used. Now if that consumption reduced, or substitution being made for the medication, the patients will be healthier than the medications they're taking now, and it would reduce the problem of toxic (effluent?) into the water, and mixing with whatever's being used. So these are some of the things that come to my mind, and I expect to be coming up here, talking, but it - I was going to ask you during the question period, but I was - I'm here now. [chuckle] Anyway, thank you very much.

Zach Loboy - That was our last person providing testimony. So I'd just like to take this opportunity to thank everyone. We really do appreciate you guys coming out and providing us with your comments. Jennifer, and Andrea, and Koto will be available, since we're wrapping up here - will be available afterwords to talk with you if you've got some additional questions. So now the hearing is adjourned. Thank you very much.