Spokane River needs your help

[Jerry White]

Hey Folks,
This is just a heads up to all of you east side anglers out there. The Spokane River is currently in need of our help. The Department of Ecology has, at long last, put out a draft of the clean-up plan (TMDL). This is wonderful news for wild rainbow trout and the community of Spokane. It means that we might have a river that actually meets Clean Water Act standards (someday). However, right now the river has been designated by american Rivers as America's 6th most endangered river. In addition, a number of intrests that have their pipes in the river are claiming that the river dissolved oxygen standards are too stringent. They are telling the state and the public that they might have to pull their pipes out of the river at great cost and they are agitating for DOE to loosen its recomended dissolved oxygen standards. It is imperative that anglers have their voices heard and that we stand up for DOE's clean-up plan and what is really a wonderful urban fishery for wild trout.
Here is what you can do right now:
Please write a letter or send an e-mail to the Department of Ecology by December 31, supporting the dissolved oxygen water quality clean-up plan (TMDL). Start by writing why you care about the Spokane River. (healthy trout populations, etc.)

The two most important things you can say:
(1) I (or my organization) supports the TMDL and

(2) do not delay the TMDL any longer.
Comments should be sent to Ken Merrill, Department of Ecology, 4601 N. Monroe, Spokane, WA, 99205 or to kmer461@ecy.wa.gov

If we as anglers can stand up now, we might have a healthy river for our kids to fish in.

In the long term, I would love to hear from any flyfishers who care about the Spokane River. There are a number of us that are trying to stay active and hit a number of fairly complex moving targets with regards to river conservation. Some of these involve flow levels with regards to relicensing AVISTA dams, water flows in the Spokane River as recommended by Spokane Co. and others. I know there are a bunch of fisher folks who love the river and her tenacious wild trout. Please shoot me and email. I will be away from my email for a number of days but will be able to answer just after the first of the year. I will also see to it that you end up on the Spokane River Coalition's email list and that you recieve regular updates on river issues. For more information on the threats to the Spokane Rive and what is being done to counter them, please visit www.waterplanet.ws/ucr. Thanks, and I hope that I hear from some of you soon!
RiverOtter

[Kalm]

My understanding of this situation is that the department of ecology is proposing to strengthen standards for dissolved oxygen, rather than polluters and municipalities proposing to weaken existing standards as has been suggested by some of those representing the environmental side of this argument. And when I went to the link suggested above (the sierra club's upper columbia river group), a rather subjective statement was asserted as fact:

"(5) Irrigating sidewalks, wasting water. The Spokane-Coeur d'Alene region uses more water per capita than just about anywhere in the United States.

Where does the water come from? The Spokane-Rathdrum Aquifer. Pump the Aquifer, rob the River. Municipalities complain about their inability to get new water rights, but not a single city in this region has an effective water conservation plan. Wasted water contributes to the dire condition of the Spokane River."

The above statement is somewhat erroneous in that all cities in the state are obligated by law to have a water conservation plan. One example would be all new homes must have low flow toilets and shower heads.

A further problem with this dispute is the cost. To meet DOE's desired levels of phosphorous (which depleats dissolved oxygen) present in effluent, the city of Spokane would have to spend an additional $600 million in upgrades to it's waste water treatment facility. That increase could triple or even quadruple utility rates for a region that has a large amount of low income residents.

I fish the Spokane River and consider myself strongly on the environmental side of most issues, but the financial ramifications of what to do with the river need to be discussed. I saw no mention of these on the Sierra Clubs website. Industrial pollutants, flow levels, up-stream usage, and re-licensing seem more of a slam dunk.

From what I've read, the Spokane has come along way since the height of pollution in the 60's and early 70's. I'm all for cleaning it up further and preserving the fishery, but the conservation groups involved need to step up to the plate on the financial issues and provide a real, honest debate

[jessejames]

I see this issue much as Kalm does there are things that can be done with flows, upstream usage and industrial issues. These would help and so would decreased phosphorus levels. But it appears that the standard suggested are so high that it would be nearly impossible to meet them even at very high costs. A anology that I have heard is it would bel like asking auto manufactures to raise MPG on cars by 100% but not to increase the cost of the car.
I live within a block of the Spokane river and am amazed at the transformation it has gone through since the Worlds Fair in 1974 to today. It is much cleaner the garbage on the banks is being dealt with. The scenic gorge project is going forward, the centennial trail is an asset to the city. Yes I believe more can be done and we should not stop pressuring agencies and industries to clean it up further. We need all parties to represent the facts clearly so we can help make informed decisions.
jesse clark

[creekx]

It is my understanding that a free-flowing Spokane River minus the WWTP, Post Falls dam, etc. would not meet the Clean Water Act standards.

This is a very complex issue. We are reaching crisis level with the number of people flushing toilets in the area. Throwing $600-million at the problem will not magically tranform the Spokane into a blue-ribbon trout fishery. That said, there must be some compromises regarding temperature, dissolved oxygen and minimum flows that can be reached for the betterment of the current water quality/fishery issues.

[Kalm]

I didn't mean to imply in my previous post that we as flyfishers or conservationists should do nothing either. So thank you RiverOtter for bringing up this topic. I'll show my support of the fishery by composing a letter to D.O.E. tonight. I'll show special emphasis on the balancing act between allowing boaters on Lake Couer d' alene to enjoy late summer cruises, and maintaining reasonable flow levels downstream in Spokane.

[Don Johnson]

Hello,
Man am I confused. TMDL, I thought, was an acronym for Total Maximum Daily Load (or Level) and was used to describe the maximum amount of pollutants a generator could deliver in effluent regardless of whether the effluent met NPDES criteria. What is the exact name of this cleanup plan, sans acronym, so I can investigate it further.

Thanks,
Don Johnson

[jessejames]

Don:
I was not able to go to the meeting on this issue but from my limited understanding the EPA has proposed a new TMDL for all the effluent that goes into the river and the "polluters" both private industrial and city/county are saying it is impossible to meet the criteria without lots of money. In the case of the sewage treatment plant it could mean 100's perhaps 1000's of dollars of increased taxes per household/business. The polluters want the TMDL lowered not eliminated, the compromise is how much. It will be better than it is now no matter what but it may not get to what the EPA wants.
jesse clark

[Jerry White]

Hey folks thanks for the input on this issue. Ive been out of town and away from the computer for a time so I'll do my best to catch up and respond to a few of the points that came up. First, I appreciate you taking time to write the DOE, Kalm... I think it will help to have some fly fishers on the record for clean water. I also want to be straight up on the fact that this issue is a very complex one and I apppreciate that you folks have stated that we need to avoid oversimplification. So while I am not an expert on the issue and really just more a concerned citizen, here is my attempt at addressing a couple of the issues that came up
#1. Folks with pipes in the river (point source polluters; Inland Paper and Pulp, Kaiser, Spokane Co. Liberty Lake Sewer district and a few other parties) are currently working on a UAA (Use Attainability Analysis) with is a process in that allows agencys to examine the clean water standards compare them with the "attainable uses" ie: dumping effluent in the river compared to what is in the river that might be affected by those attainable uses (trout). In the Spokane River's case, the polluters were trying to make a case that trout do not spawn in the lower Spokane River and therefore dumping more pollutants isnt going hurt anything. These parties are trying to make the case that the current Dissolved Oxygen standards are too strict and that dumping more pollution in the river is just fine. THIS IS A CONCRETE ATTEMPT TO EASE THE CURRENT STANDARD of 8 ml/liter of D.O. in the lower river. Well the problem is, that according to the WDFW, trout do spawn in the river and do need clean water. The point source polluters are desperate to have their UAA finished with looser D.O. standards and submit these to the Dept of Ecology before the DOE finishes their fairly tough new TMDL. SO if we are not careful we may have a river with less dissolved oxygen in it (less natural trout reporduction) than what the state now requires (forget the new TMDL).
#2. Water conservation. According to the County, Spokane uses water at a rate of over 320 gallons per person per year. This is pretty abysmal. Spokane Co. has come out and said that their studies indicate that much of this is due to irrigation of grass. The way the city charges for water encourages this kind of waste. The city council just passed water conservation measures... a step in the right direction, but the first step.
#3. Flow levels: Water levels in the Spokane river are a critical issue in this mess. Look at the flow levels for river on the USGS web site and you will see the grim trend since before 1900. Currently different parties are trying to work on compromises that will put more water ofver the post falls dam and give our river more water in the dry season when trout need it. However Hagadone has just stepped in with a proposal that will really starve the river in low flow months so we'll see where that one goes.
#4 Someone brought up conservation groups needing to be honest... I'll tell you where I am at... this issue just comes down to what you value. If you are on the payroll at a major corporation or the County and you are paid to save money for share holders or commisioners then you have one point of view and one agenda. I will tell you that as a member of Trout Unlimited and a flyfisherman, my bias is clearly in favor of a river that supports wild trout and a healthy aquatic environmnet. I support this because I think these kinds of things are simply in danger of not being here when my kids are having kids who want to fly fish. With global climate change projected to limit water in the river, with population growth pressing the river in thousands of different ways, it is clear our river is threatend and status quo solutions simply won't suffice if you want a healthy river (wild trout) in 2030. So far the groups and folks that are pro-clean water are folks with a great deal of integrity and are not attempting to bend the truth about the issues. They are simply working on issues that will affect what our collective future looks like for years to come. I recommend going to some meetings and watch this process and then tell me just who is trying to affect the most positive future for the community of Spokane.
#5. Cost. Jesse brought up the cost of cleaning up point source pollution several times. First I do not know where your figures are comming from and would love to get straight to the source. History is filled with examples of polluters screaming about the costs of cleaning up their act. You might remember that the ban on DDT was going to crush the entire economy of the USA. Didn't happen. I smell something very rotton in these figures that the County is hurling around so loudly. Seems like a clear tactical manuvre to me. I think that the citizens should require the County to have a neutral party do a cost analysis so that we can have a dialogue withhout relying on the economic studies of the point source polluters. What is the cost of not cleaning up the point source pollution in our river? There are numerous indications that our river is becoming a larger economic asset for its asthetic and healthy nature rather than as a culvert to move pollution to the Columbia River. Also, ask Spokane County why, if they are so worried about the rate payers, did they spend 1/2 a million public dollars on the UAA? Why are they spending my money on working on ways to loosen the Dissolved Oxygen standards in the river? Now there are some MAJOR honesty issues for you.
CreekX says that "Throwing $600-million at the problem will not magically tranform the Spokane into a blue-ribbon trout fishery". Perhaps you are correct, but that 600 million will set the County up for longterm solutions to dealing with sewage in an intellegent way long into the future. Alternative solutions to waste water management is only "new" to Spokane. Other cities around the nation have developed these methods to take them into the 21st century. What will we do when our County (and Kootenay County) reaches 3/4 of a million people? Will we still be using the river as a sewer? Why not change now and retain a viable fishery? Just because it might not be "Blue Ribbon", does not in my opinion, make it illigitimate or not worth retaining for future generations.
#6: The agency issuing the TMDL (Total MAximum Daily Load) is the Washington Department of Ecology. The EPA will sign off on the recommendations of the DOE. The EPA will not way in on this unless it feels that the DOE is caving in on the TMDL and not looking after the public interest on this issue (having saids that the current EPA may not be much in the way of backup against the powerful interests of point source polluters).
Last: Thanks for the disscussion and please let's continue! Looking out my front window tells me that the river is blown out and won't be much fun to fish right now so I'll try and answer soon. Later
Jerry White