DISTRICT FACTS IN RESPONSE TO ISSAQUAH STATEMENTS In the last few weeks, we have received hundreds of emails from our customers and neighbors in support of our efforts to protect our water quality! The response has been both overwhelming and encouraging. It tells us we aren't alone in this fight to protect the aquifer as an untainted source for your clean drinking water. The fact that so many people took the time to voice their concerns to Issaquah, Sammamish and the Department of Ecology tells us you agree that the risk of injecting polluted stormwater into an aquifer without first going through an active treatment process is just too high, and that the measures Issaquah proposes are too uncertain. Many people have contacted the cities of Issaquah and the Washington Department of Ecology and have received responses from these two agencies. Below are our factual clarifications to these statements. Issaquah Statement: “Whether you live in Issaquah or Sammamish, we all receive water from the same sources.” District Fact: While District and Issaquah wells are located in the Lower Issaquah Valley Aquifer, the wells are not hydrologically connected, are miles apart, and draw from different parts of the aquifer. Issaquah’s wells 4 and 5 routinely show the presence of manganese and arsenic that requires them to blend water from other wells. The District’s wells 7, 8, and 9 have no manganese or arsenic. Even the pH levels are quite different. Given the location of Issaquah’s Lower Reid Infiltration Gallery (LRIG) injection site, it is the District’s wells that are uniquely at risk. Issaquah Statement: “Issaquah would never harm its own water source. Nor would Washington State Department of Ecology, the independent agency charged with protecting all water in the state, allow that to happen.” District Fact: The District has obtained public records from the City of Issaquah which indicate the City’s ultimate goal is to have Ecology declare the stormwater injection well to be ”rule authorized” so it can inject even greater volumes of polluted stormwater. “Rule authorized” means Ecology would no longer regulate or police Issaquah’s stormwater injection methods or monitoring. Issaquah would then be left to self-regulate its injection with no oversight, potentially putting the aquifer at further risk. Issaquah Statement: “Issaquah [intends] to slowly soak pre-treated stormwater into the ground. This stormwater falls as rain and doesn’t include any industrial waste.” District Fact: Issaquah has applied for a “State Waste Discharge Permit to Discharge Industrial Wastewater to Groundwater” (June 25, 2012 application) and the permit is administered by Ecology's Industrial Unit Supervisor. Issaquah’s urban runoff is being permitted and regulated as industrial waste. Ecology staff has advised the District this would be the first such permit issued by their staff. Urban stormwater runoff starts as rain, but it washes off rooftops, lawns and pavement, capturing a toxic stew of contaminants and bacteria harmful to human health. In addition, 2 cubic feet per second (cfs) is injection under pressure, forcing the water into the soil, not slowly soaking it into the soil. If the injection well becomes Rule Authorized, Issaquah’s plan is to increase that injection rate up to as much as 6 or 9 cfs as evidenced by their own White Paper on our website, www.letstalkaboutourwater.org. Issaquah Statement: “This practice, called infiltration, is identified by the state as an effective stormwater treatment method to help protect the environment. It’s far from new – communities throughout the country and state, including Redmond, Spokane and Portland, all utilize it.” District Fact: In prior public material issued by Issaquah, but later retracted, the City had falsely stated that stormwater injection is required by the federal government but did not cite the specific source or regulation. Stormwater infiltration is not a federal requirement. While infiltration has been initiated in other areas or regions, the District is not aware of it being permitted within 600 feet of a public drinking water well. Additionally, it has not occurred in areas where a City would potentially contaminate another agency’s public drinking water supply. Issaquah Statement: “In partnership with Ecology, we have been monitoring and testing this site for years, and will continue to do so. In the end, please be assured that Ecology makes the ultimate decisions on our region’s water based on data, facts and safety.” District Fact: The partnership between Issaquah and Ecology is evident, including Ecology’s predisposed position to allow Issaquah to inject stormwater from the Issaquah Highlands at the LRIG. Ecology’s partnership and approach to the District has been the opposite. In February 2011, the District requested a meeting with Ecology staff to express its concerns. It took Ecology three months to respond with a promise of a future meeting. The District was finally given an audience with Ecology in August 2012, eighteen months after the District’s original request for a meeting. By then Ecology had already determined it would proceed with allowing Issaquah to resume stormwater injection. Issaquah Statement: “The state encourages cities to provide utility services for everyone within its boundaries. That’s why we are conducting a utility study that involves portions of the district, which has caused concern among district officials. No decision will be made without a public process.” District Fact: The State Growth Management Act states “Generally, cities are the preferred provider of urban services.” In the case of utilities, this may apply to cities taking over small, isolated rural utility districts or water associations. There is no statutory mandate that cities provide urban services. In fact, the District is almost twice the size of Issaquah and manages complex urban water and sewer service for two cities and portions of King County, serving over 54,000 people. The City’s own public documents confirm the takeover of portions of the District is directly related to Issaquah’s desire to take possession of the wells so as to silence the District’s opposition to Issaquah’s LRIG stormwater discharge. Issaquah Statement: “It’s disappointing that the district is attempting to use fear for political reasons. District officials are spending up to $50,000 of their customers’ money to fund this misinformation campaign.” District Fact: The District has a fiduciary responsibility to keep its customers informed of critical issues affecting their assets and services. The District has authorized $50,000 of public relations funding to help us communicate a complex issue and help you to be part of the discussion. In contrast, Issaquah budgeted $300,000 of their taxpayers' money in 2012 for its efforts to take over the District's wells and half of the groundwater for the Sammamish Plateau. This 2012 funding was obscured in the City budget. An additional $250,000 was budgeted in 2013 for the continued hostile takeover plans. This was obscured even more than the initial funding. If you are a District customer, your budget is presented transparently and your rates are not applied to a unilateral takeover attempt of another agency’s assets. Ecology Statement: “The settling pond, the bioswales and the injection well itself are sufficient "pre-treatment" of the water.” District Fact: Another difference of opinion relates to what is considered pre-treatment. The type of pre-treatment Issaquah proposes above is not known to effectively clean dissolved chemicals and fecal bacteria, which are such small particles that they mostly slip right through pervious soil. Our view of pre-treatment is an active treatment facility that removes harmful contaminants before the water is injected. In addition, there are discrepancies between the District’s and Issaquah’s measurements and assumptions regarding the depth of the filtering soil that will capture the fecal bacteria and dissolved pollutants. The District's scientists maintain that the layer of filtering soil, known as the vadose zone, is smaller than Issaquah claims. In the winter months, the vadose zone has been measured to be as little as 11 feet versus the 25 feet required by state standards, which is the depth that Issaquah claims. It is also too pervious to adequately filter dissolved pollutants and bacteria. The vadose zone is seriously diminished in the rainy months when the aquifer's water level rises as it recharges on its own. Aquifers do not need supplemental water recharge in the winter, when rainfall naturally recharges the aquifers, yet this is when most of the injection would occur. And as much as Issaquah and Ecology maintain that the LRIG is necessary to recharge the groundwater, it goes against common sense to inject contaminated water into a pristine aquifer to accomplish this goal when fecal coliform from injected stormwater has reached the aquifer before. Issaquah Statement: “What is the District's motivation? Self preservation.” District Fact: The District's overriding "preservation" is and has been to preserve the pristine aquifer as a primary source of water for much of our 54,000 customers. That's our job, as it has been for over 60 years. We have been challenging Issaquah over the injection site's proximity to our wells for almost a decade. Those wells and the aquifer are a regional resource and should not be put at risk. Please visit our website, www.letstalkaboutourwater.org for regular updates on this developing story.