|
12/30/02
Mary Letzkus
Office of Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
1650 Arch St.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Dear Ms. Letzkus:
Thank you for your thoughtfulness in sending
me a packet of information on the revised permit for discharges by the
Washington Aqueduct Plant into the Potomac River. I have now read the
material twice and still am unclear as to what EPA is proposing in the
revised permit. I even gave up watching the Redskins so I could read the
material a second time on Sunday afternoon before my wife dragged me off
to see Chicago. Since my mind was still attuned to football, I got to
thinking on the drive out to the movie house that maybe EPA is doing what
is known in football as a "trap block."
One one side you direct
a 85 percent reduction in sediments coming in to the Aqueduct plant (it
is still unclear in my mind what 85 percent means and how it is measured)
and then from the other side you set up such rigid standards for discharges
that it may be impossible for the Aqueduct to discharge anything. The
purpose of a trap block is to set up a clear lane for a running back,
and so EPA is using a trap block to achieve its goal from the beginning
of stopping all discharges from the Aqueduct plant.
Maybe from an environmental standpoint that seems a worthy goal, even
though your report concedes that the current discharges are not causing
any damage to fish and plant life in the Potomac. But I hope you do not
forget that the cost of achieving that goal will be paid for by the 1
million individual water users in the District of Columbia, Arlington
County and Falls Church in additional taxes on their water bills. What
a delicious political irony! Here we have an administration dedicated
to cutting taxes and meanwhile within its ranks is an agency proposing
a tax increase for the residents of greater Metropolitan Washington.
But enough for now. I shall write you at greater length once I have read
the material for a third time and hopefully understand it. And of course,
I would like to testify at the Jan. 21 meeting that you have thoughtfully
arranged so the public can be part of the decision-making process.
CRUDD (Committee for Responsible Urban Disposal at Dalecarlia) shall rise
again from the sediments! And now it will be joined by the local ANC (Advisory
Neighborhood Commission). On page 7 of the comments and responses, you
state that a PAP "Preferred Analysis Plan" group shall be formed
to study various technologies for reducing sediment and the impact of
sediments. You state on page 7 that you intend to include ANC's, among
others, in the PAP group. I therefore request that a representative of
ANC3D--the ANC whose jurisdiction borders upon the Aqueduct plant--be
made a member of the PAP group. If that ANC representative be a fisherman--as
I hope--then I am sure he will be interested in the proposed study--again
financed by the water consumers -- of analyzing DNA samples to determine
whether the shortnose sturgeon in the Potomac River is "genetically
identical to those found in the Chesapeake Bay and the Delaware River."
Of course, first you have to find a shortnose sturgeon in the Potomac.
I hope that the New Year shall bring us the clarity of thought that we
now have in our drinking water and that reason shall lead us to a solution
that does not impose an added burden upon the citizenry that already pays
dearly for the water they drink.
Sincerely yours
John W. Finney
ANC3D
C-Chair, Crudd
P.S. I think the "trap block" has been
made illegal since those days 60 years ago when I was a pulling guard.
|
