Randyzpdx, who are you and what basis would you have for thinking it does not include groundwater? Nowhere does it restrict the trust resource to just surface waters and it explicitly names aquifers in the trust res.
The initiative does not make any claims about what are the major sources of radon in our water system, but it does say to test for radon at least annually. Radon testing is actually very inexpensive and while it's not a significant problem given our water sources and current use of those water sources, there may be instances in the future where how we use those water sources may differ and full information is more important than a lack of information, given the existing exposure to radon we currently have (from basements). The current suggested / proposed but not adopted levels for radon in water we do not exceed, nor are we likely to exceed them, but the federal government requires all sorts of other tests that aren't a significant problem for us either. For the same reason the EPA requires publishing a water quality report with test results that are below action levels for other items, radon makes sense to publish, too. The initiative in general allows pretty wide discretion in the implementation of the trust, because it is designed for a charter, not as an implementing document. The experts are left to implement details. The EPA's eventual final rule on radon in water will likely require annual testing of all water sources, especially given the new exposure routes to radium that come from oil and gas fracking, which while not common here, are more and more common elsewhere. If this initiative followed that final rule, the line would likely not be included. We're just a little ahead of the EPA on transparency requirements. If high levels of radon are ever found for any reason, the trust in general does not specify how that would be mitigated. Instead, it focuses on overall community health and environmental quality using the best available independent science as the metric. That is where domain expertise is applied.
The state allows citizens to issue traffic citations. The sky isn't currently falling as a result of that invitation to use public process to ensure accountable and legal behavior. One would think our environment is more important than a mere traffic violation.
Graham can underestimate our organizing chops if he wants to, but in our core we have volunteer assets that have run and helped run campaigns of this scale before (statewide petitions in fact, which are three or four times larger). This IS getting on the ballot.
The conflict of interest provisions only apply to water issues, not other issues. Basically you won't even see a bad proposal offered if everybody has to recuse themselves. It prevents corruption. If they cannot do the job because they have too many conflicts of interest and cannot establish a quorum, they are free to resign or be recalled. This wouldn't apply to past donations (it couldn't reach backwards ex post facto), but people who are currently bought and paid for are instantly freed from the binds of the corrupting influence of dirty campaign cash and can operate without conflicted interests, since the fact that the provision exists changes where their future interests lie: with the people. You shouldn't thus see a rash of quorum issues. But you will see an immediate change in approach from the city regarding being loyal trustees of our natural watersheds and ecosystems.
Environmentalists got outspent three to one from essentially an unlimited swath of difficult to trace corporate cash and passthrough donations and they still get criticized for a relatively small amount of "out of state money" that "fueled the campaign". Good one Denis. The amount of volunteer effort on the CWP campaign was the real fuel and the vast amount of paid "fuel" was local. You should honestly issue a retraction for such misleading propaganda. The largest donor of CWP wasn't able to dwarf the campaign coffers unlike what happened with HKHP, but you act as if it did. Terribly misleading.
He drives a Mercedes Benz. What year? Lots of people driving the old ones for biodiesel compatibility.
All Comments »
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |