State Opposes Federal Protection For Aquifer Ecology Department Says Feds Should Do More Studies Before Declaring Network `Sole-Source’ System

Washington state is opposing federal protection of a vast aquifer system in Eastern Washington and North Idaho.

Proponents haven’t proved the Eastern Columbia Plateau aquifer system is vulnerable to contamination, said Mary Riveland, director of the Washington Department of Ecology.

That’s not true, say aquifer protection activists, who contend proof of the aquifer’s vulnerability comes directly from Ecology’s own files.

The controversy involves the ground water under a 14,000-square-mile chunk of Eastern Washington - and whether it should be declared the sole source of drinking water for 300,000 people.

The area includes the southwest segment of Spokane County, Adams, Franklin, Grant, Douglas, Lincoln and Whitman counties, and a sliver of North Idaho.

In a letter sent Thursday to Chuck Clarke, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regional director, Riveland said EPA should do more studies before making up its mind.

The public comment period for the proposal closed Friday.

The state based its opposition primarily on a technical evaluation of the aquifer proposal, Riveland said.

But her letter also cited a long list of “serious public policy concerns.”

The designation could mean more stringent standards for cleaning up toxic waste sites and building landfills, Riveland said.

The vast size of the aquifer system and opposition to the designation from rural elected officials and others in Eastern Washington also are problems, she said.

“We are concerned that designation will work against ongoing efforts to protect ground water in Eastern Washington,” she said.

Riveland said hostility to the EPA might carry over to Ecology, threatening the agency’s efforts to protect wells and implement ground water standards.

The Northwest Council of Governments & Associates in Ephrata, Wash., a coalition of county government and business officials formed to fight the aquifer proposal, praised Riveland’s letter.

“Director Riveland cites the concerns we expressed throughout the process,” said William Riley, executive director.

Proponents are angered by the state’s stance, which they charge is politically motivated.

“It’s unfounded and irresponsible. It totally flies in the face of her efforts to prevent ground water contamination,” said Cha Smith of the Washington Toxics Coalition in Seattle.

“In 1992, Ecology funded a Lincoln County effort to do research to designate the aquifer. Now, they have done a complete turnaround,” said Tom Lamar, executive director of the Palouse-Clearwater Institute of Moscow, Idaho.

Lamar’s 600-member group filed the sole source petition with EPA in January 1993.

Now, Ecology is bending to political pressure from anti-aquifer forces in Eastern Washington, including garbage giant Waste Management Inc., Lamar said.

The institute’s documentation of ground water contamination in the Eastern Columbia Plateau area came directly from Ecology’s Spokane office files, Lamar said.

The state’s position also caught flak from a group fighting Waste Management’s efforts to build a huge regional landfill near Washtucna.

“I’d agree (the aquifer) designation raises serious public policy concerns. But Ecology isn’t helping us solve these debates - such as should we dump our garbage where we grow our food?” said Brett Blankenship, a leader in the Organization to Protect Agricultural Lands (OPAL).

The state’s technical review is at odds with the U.S. Geological Survey, which has studied the vast aquifer system.

Survey scientists say ground water flowing from one part to another could spread contamination.

Ecology says more studies are needed to prove how much interflow there is between four major aquifers within the area.

If EPA designates the aquifer later this year, it will be the 11th in Washington state to gain protection.

The policy concerns expressed in Riveland’s letter haven’t been raised about the state’s 10 other aquifer systems, Lamar said.

“They’ve had no other problems at all. Now, Ecology is saying they’ll protect ground water everywhere in Washington except the Eastern Columbia Plateau,” he said.

There were more federal funds available to Ecology in 1977 when the Spokane ValleyRathdrum aquifer was designated, said Claude Sappington, director of Ecology’s regional office in Spokane.

“Now, we don’t have the resources to apply special protection to all of these aquifer systems. We’re in an era of declining budgets,” Sappington said.

That’s a red herring, said the EPA’s Clarke.

“This decision will only require a federal review of projects that might affect water quality,” he said.

“People are going to raise all kinds of issues, but this is a scientific decision. That is the law.”