Drinking Water Must Be Protected

The people who live and work above the Rathdrum-Spokane aquifer have seen nothing but good as a result of its designation as a sole drinking water source. The designation made the public more cautious and government more vigilant about activities that might endanger this irreplaceable resource.

So why is there such an uproar over a request that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency similarly designate the ground water that underlies most of southeastern Washington?

To find the answer, follow the rhetoric. The primary source is a corporation that has excelled at manipulating politicians and public opinion so it can make millions burying Seattle’s garbage out in the middle of Eastern Washington wheat country.

Waste Management Inc. has tried to panic farmers with visions of a regulatory monster, should the aquifer be so designated. This is more than exaggeration - it is shameless deception. Waste Management doesn’t care about farming, except when it’s trying to buy farmland to bury garbage in.

If the EPA grants a sole-source-aquifer designation, the only direct result would be that federally funded projects would be examined and, if necessary, modified to prevent significant damage to the aquifer. Secondarily, state rules say landfills can’t be permitted over a sole-source aquifer without proof they wouldn’t harm it. That’s the real reason for Waste Management’s alarm.

But isn’t it strange: The garbage giant long has claimed that its dump would be environmentally harmless.

Fine. Prove it.

Ground water is the only available source of drinking water for 90 percent of the 260,000 people in southeastern Washington. That includes farmers and quite a few small towns.

In view of that dependence, it would be entirely appropriate for the EPA or the state to look at large industrial projects that might place the aquifer in jeopardy. Industry can find ways to operate responsibly. And what threat does modern farming pose, with its biodegradable low-dose chemicals? None.

The issue, by law, is whether there is, in fact, a geologically connected aquifer. That should be for geologists to decide. While geological opinion is not unanimous on some points, it is plain that there is ground water on which a wide area depends, and furthermore, that in some places it shows signs of contamination.

Propaganda and political intimidation have no place in EPA’s decision-making. And if an underlying issue is suspicion of government oversight, the EPA would be wise to keep operating, as it has over other aquifers, in a manner that wins public appreciation.

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board