quicksilver in silver creek: mercury contamination in fish

By Kathleen L. Turner

The Wood River Journal, Nov. 19, 2007

The problem of contamination from the increasing pool of atmospheric mercury, once more commonly known as quicksilver, has moved from global to local. Fish tissue taken from Silver Creek, located in the southern portion of Blaine County, has demonstrated levels of mercury contamination that create cause for concern by biologists and toxicologists.

Samples from 20 brown trout taken from Silver Creek at two locations in June of 2007 revealed methylmercury levels ranging from 0.17 to 1.91 micrograms per gram of tissue, or parts per million, according to analysis by the USGS mercury lab in Middleton, WI. The overall average number of .48 parts per million from the fish tested could result in the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare issuing a fish consumption advisory for the Blaine County waterway. Generally the rule was, the bigger and older the fish, the heavier the contamination, due to biomagnification up the food chain.

According to Dorene E. MacCoy, a Biologist with the United States Geological Survey Water Resources Division in Boise, 10 fish were caught below the Silver Creek Visitor Center of the preserve and 10 at the Fish and Game Silver Creek flow gage, with assistance of from biologists with the local chapter of The Nature Conservancy. The above numbers are raw data that will be reviewed by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, from which any advisories concerning consumption of fish will be created.

Jim Vannoy of the Idaho Department of Health said analysis and any resulting advisories are expected to be published by mid-December. Currently, Idaho fish consumption advisories are applicable on fish taken from Lake Coeur d’Alene, Brownlee Reservoir, CJ Strike Main Reservoir, Salmon Falls Creek Reservoir, East Mill Creek, Lake Lowell, American Falls, Jordan Creek, Priest Lake and Lake Pend Orielle.

To review the advisories and the population that should limit fish intake, as wellas what types of fish have been sampled that exhibit unsafe levels of mercury or other contaminants harmful to health, go to http://www.healthandwelfare.idaho.gov and click on Idaho’s fish consumption advisory map.

MacCoy said that the August, 2006 samples of rainbow trout taken from the Big Wood River near Stanton Crossing exhibited only .05 micrograms of mercury per gram of fish tissue, below the established risk rate. Idaho State Environmental toxicologist Kai Elgethun said that the national OEL, or observed effect level, and EPA standard is .1 microgram of mercury per kg of body weight per day, with advisories applied to levels found above .3 micrograms per kg of body weight per day. A good rule of thumb to determine individual safety is provided on the EPA website as well as the Idaho Health and Welfare fish advisory page listed above.

Elgethun confirmed that brown trout are more aggressive predators of other fish, and so, consequently, exhibit increased levels of contamination. Elgethun emphasized that there is no danger to fishermen wading in the water. Much of Silver Creek is designated a catch and release area as well, but, according to Silver Creek Preserve’s Manager, Dayna Gross, there are areas outside of the preserve where fish are caught for the purpose of nutrition rather than sport. Fishermen who intend to eat their catch are advised to limit consumption in accordance with established guidelines.

Vannoy noted that Silver Creek brown trout, by comparison, while they may fall in the unsafe category for consumption by certain groups, are smack in the middle of the pack as far as contamination levels detected in Idaho waterways statewide. Clyde Lay, a biologist with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality in Twin Falls, has been studying Salmon Falls Creek and other Idaho fish populations for contamination.

"It doesn’t really surprise me," Lay said, that Silver Creek browns are showing up with elevated levels of methylmercury, a result of a combination of slower moving water, bigger fish and positioning upwind of manmade or anthropogenic, as well as natural sources, of mercury contamination. Such contaminants come from cement plants, coal-fired power plants, mining activity, fires and rock and mineral degradation.

Lay noted that while some mercury in the environment is natural, Nevada mines, Oregon cement manufacturers and Utah coal plants all contribute to the mercury deposited in Idaho rivers, lakes and waterways. Wind, rain, snow and weather of all types can move the contamination around the globe, hopping from place to place as environment changes the contaminant from the elemental form of mercury to the organic, methylated form, and even to vapor.

Another major contributor, Lay said, is the P4 phosphate plant in Pocatello. The EPA toxic release inventory for the state of Idaho listed them as the number one contributor of mercury to the environment in 2006. To review possible sources go to the EPA Web site and locate the Toxic Release Inventory for the state of Idaho and surrounding states.

Lay said there is good news in that the EPA will soon be able to use information from the predictive REMSAD, or Regional Modeling System for Aerosols and Deposition, process that can offer predictive models that look at wind patterns and velocities to determine sources more accurately.

Lay said scientists and biologists are collecting fish tissue samples from 48 other water bodies around the state to see where efforts should be focused.

water: rights gone wrong:

Group of nine files complaints with SRBA

By KATHLEEN L. TURNER

Jan. 21, 2008, The Wood River Journal ~ Basin 37

Life depends on it. Livelihood does as well. When there is a perception that there may not be enough water to go around, things can get complicated.

Water rights on paper, determining who gets how much, are often in dispute, as objections filed at the Snake River Basin Adjudication office currently illustrate. One thing is certain, however. Everyone will defend what they believe is theirs.

Some say this drainage is 150 percent allocated. Others cite problems with records. Errors could be simple transcriptional or clerical mistakes, or data lost to fire in the 1990s. Tales of abuse and circumvention of the law in the often murky history of Blaine County water seem to point to a small portion of the population behaving badly. Such actions, along with suspiciously healthy and green areas of this dry, high desert county, absent the healthy water rights to maintain them, will be the focus of the Idaho Department of Water Resources as it compares satellite images of the area to the accompanying rights. If the pictures don’t match the words, the discrepancies will be addressed.

How did we get here?

Allen Merritt with the Idaho Department of Water Resources explained that, if all of the old decrees and prior dates of issued water rights were totaled up, it would be a rare time when all of that water could be delivered at once. With fluctuations in supply and demand, and the seasonal use that many rights actually see, there is usually enough. That’s not always the case.

Merritt said that the satellite images they have purchased of the Big Wood Valley are detailed to 10 meters per pixel, and, while not extremely fine-grained, provide sufficiently high resolution to determine whether something is growing on a land shape that does not have a water right associated with it. Merritt said that they are preparing about 60 letters, focusing on the large tracts first, to go out this spring, addressing concerns about the mismatch between what appears to be irrigated and the assigned water rights.

Water Master Kevin Lakey defends appropriation in the valley, quoting IDWR’s David Tuthill, acknowledging that senior priority rights take away the overappropriation argument. Lakey also attributed any monkeywrenching in the past regarding locks cut with bolt cutters, or restoration of shut off diversions, to poor communication. Lakey said that attempts to change rights in an area that had previously not been regulated and used to operating without administration, presented challenges. Attempts to change use in those areas may have been premature, Lakey added, precluding discussions that might have explained the process and educated the users.

As far as the state of water in the Wood River Valley, Lakey focused on one sentence he said no one wants to hear: We are in a drought cycle. Lakey added that conjunctive management, which is on the horizon but not likely to state commitment for three or four more years, would begin to manage groundwater.

Such action should be helpful as the valley faces increasing demands for development. Currently there is no provision for regulation of groundwater in the Wood River Basin. That means that senior water rights holders cannot call on junior wells when water supplies get tight, Lakey explained.

Group of nine objects to many

A group of nine south valley objectors has taken steps insure rights they think are being abused will catch the Snake River Basin Adjudication Court’s attention. Each one of that group has filed similar sets of complaints against a large contingent of water rights.

Approximately 263 objections, citing mixed reasons of quantity, priority date or purpose of use, claiming that the objected right should not exist, have been filed by each of the nine. The total number of objections stands at approximately 263 times nine, or 2,367. The reasons supporting the objections are stated as follows:

Under Idaho Code 42-1501, aesthetic, wildlife and recreation are not beneficial uses authorized by the Idaho legislature or Constitution to be held in the name of private entities. If such uses are allowed, the right cannot carry a priority date earlier than the first date that the legislature authorized that beneficial use to be held by a private party.

Jeffrey C. Fereday, an attorney with Givens Pursley in Boise, a firm specializing in environmental law, has published works on Idaho water law including the Idaho Water Law Handbook. Fereday quoted section 42-104 of the Idaho Constitution, drafted in 1899, stating, "The appropriation must be for some useful or beneficial purpose."

"We know that the Constitution doesn’t prevent use for these purposes," Fereday emphasized of aesthetic, wildlife and recreational uses. Fereday continued that, not only were specific uses not defined, but the suggested uses put forth by the Idaho Supreme Court, including agriculture, domestic, manufacturing, mining and hydropower, did not form an exclusive list.

Fereday further illustrated that hundreds of organizations with expanded use operations have been granted water rights for purposes of supporting resorts, reservoirs and other uses not specifically suggested by the Constitution or the legislature, suggesting that limiting uses of water rights to those listed would be an extremely narrow interpretation of the law.

Fereday stated that the legislature has recognized the importance of maintaining in stream or in situ rights requiring water levels to remain at points high enough to support fish and wildlife, and that resorts across Idaho have been awarded water rights for operations critical to maintaining amenities required to serve the tourist trade.

So, what is the objective of the group making the complaints? Pepin Corso-Harris, representing the Concerned Water Users group, one of the nine parties filing the objections, said that the group has decided not to talk with the press. "We feel that things are not written as we say them," Corso-Harris stated, noting, however, that the rights were not singled out by ownership, but by the nature of the rights themselves, describing the process as "a matter of parameters" rather than personalities.

Concerned Water Users is an assumed business name filed June 25, 2007 for a group registered with the Secretary of State as Blaine County Ranchers, Inc. That organization filed documents with the state, listing Gerald Bashaw as President, Pete Van Der Meulen as Vice President and Bill Molyneux as Sec./Treasurer in 2006, and has embraced many other prominent, south valley names since its incorporation in 1991.

Attorney for the nine parties filing the complaints, Albert P. Barker, of Barker, Rosholt & Simpson, LLP, Boise, stated he could not comment about the objectives of his clients, speaking by phone Monday afternoon.

"It’s awfully strange for someone to speculate about why someone is doing something," Barker commented, asking why such information is considered newsworthy.

Many individuals contacted by the Journal, while not feeling they knew enough to make a comment on why the rights associated with their property had been objected to, were very interested in learning the intents and purposes behind the group’s complaints. Many claimants either declined to comment on the record or deferred to their attorneys.

Reactions to objections

Hailey attorney Fritz Haemmerle, representing some of the parties involved in the cases, said he felt that the objections were mainly to uses the group of nine believed were not allowed by the state, such as aesthetic or recreational use, or ponds, as well as excessive diversion.

Haemmerle added that this adjudication process has been ongoing for 17 years, and the group has done nothing to complain about the uses during that period, with IDWR issuing permits and transfers the entire time.

Sinclair attorney Scott L. Campbell of Moffatt Thomas, Boise, said it was his perception that objections had been filed against every aesthetic, recreational and wildlife use in the valley, perhaps because of an arcane rule. Campbell acknowledged he had filed responses to the entire group of objections, whether the cases involved Sinclair, with its corporate ties to Sun Valley Resort, or not, to avoid having a legal determination made in another subcase prior to presenting information in cases involving the resort.

"The magnitude is not that exceptional," Campbell said of the number of objections filed, citing Nez Perce objections to 1,200 rights in another location. "The reality is, this is going to be a long, protracted litigation case because of the importance of water rights to both sides," Campbell concluded, adding that he expected only those who were able afford competent counsel would have the possibility of success.

Jeff Nevins, who owns a horse ranch on Broadford Road was not surprised by the adjudication process, having prepared for it by hiring a hydrologist, but was surprised by the objection filed against his water right. Nevins said he understood why the nine took that route, as the state does not offer a lot of options, emphasizing that he felt they really believed they did the right thing, but was surprised that the group did not call him and talk the situation through before filing the complaint.

"I’m upset about the objection but they really didn’t have a lot of options," Nevins said of the objectors. "We find ourselves defending water use from prior owners to our right," Nevins noted, which is expensive and foolish, he said, for someone who understands the rules and follows them as he does.

Nevins said his property is currently up for sale, and that progress with a possible buyer was stalled when the buyer’s attorney found the objection to associated water rights.

Sawtooth Board of Realtors Government Affairs Director Bob Crosby was cautious with his comment, unsure of what the legal tangle will deliver. "I don’t know if it would bring things to a standstill, but, needless to say, it’s a delay at the least and a cloud on the title," Crosby said of the complaints, noting that a lot hinges on the approach of the objectors.

"We’re operating in a void. This came up quickly. There was not a lot of explanation," Crosby commented about the complaints, many of which were filed close to the November deadline. Responses to the complaints were then requested to meet a Jan. 14 deadline.

Realtor Todd Conklin admitted there is fear in the real estate industry and that the objections as a whole are a substantive issue in the process of selling real estate. While an objection placed on a property doesn’t legally prevent a sale, it does give the buyer pause. In an industry that is already hurting, such complaints on specific parcels of land could further impact sales.

Blaine County School District Business Manager Mike Chatterton said that he was aware of the objection being filed against the district. He said he thought the extent of the objection concerned rights associated with property purchased from Elliott Caplow in 1991 for the Wood River Middle School.Blaine County Recreation District was also cited with a complaint by the nine.

General Manager at the Valley Club Barry Bevers acknowledged the blanket of objections covered his territory, supporting a country club and golf course surrounded by gracious homes on large lots. Bevers simple comment was "We have legal water rights and we intend to use them."

What comes next?

In the adjudication process, claims are made and reviewed, and objections, if any, are filed, SRBA Staff Attorney Eric Wildman explained. Time is then given for claimant response to the objections and a Director’s Report is written. In the absence of objections, the right is granted.

If objections are filed, an initial hearing is scheduled with both claimant and objector in the presence of IDWR agents, attorneys and officials, to negotiate an agreement, according to Wildman. Claimants are often grouped into like cases for initial hearings in an effort to serve judicial economy. If agreement cannot be reached the case is then scheduled for court.

Wildman explained that the adjudication process was born from the 1987 Swan Falls Agreement between Idaho Power and the State of Idaho over Idaho Power’s rights at the Swan Falls Complex, and has been in process since that time, with Blaine County and Basin 37 being among the last portions of the state to be completed.

SRBA Chief Administrator Diana Delaney said she doesn’t expect any of the initial hearings for Basin 37 to be scheduled before summer with the heavy workload currently logged into the office. Hearings are open to the public and attempts will be made to hold them at locations close to or within the basin under consideration to make attendance easier for claimants.

The SRBA docket, including a list of complaints and responses, can be accessed at http://www.srba.state.id.us/DOCKET.HTM. Additional information about the adjudication process is available at the Idaho Department of Water Resources Web site at www.idwr.idaho.gov.

Filed with the Snake River Basin Adjudication office in Twin Falls, the following parties will be participants in discussions hoping to resolve complaints made by the objectors on the rights held by the claimants listed.

Name of Person Objecting: Tom O’Gara John F. Stevenson Bill Molyneux Pete Van Der Meulen Grace Eakin Rocky Sherbine Gerald Bashaw Pepin Corso-Harris for Concerned Water Users, Bellevue, ID Big Wood Canal Company, Shoshone, ID

Complaints Filed Against Claimants:

Deer Creek Ranch, Red Devil Mountain, The Meadows, LLC, Elizabeth K. Gray, Sun Valley Ranch, LLC, Idaho Foundation for Parks and Lands, Bill & Betty Grant, Estate of Frances Friestad, Gary Hoffman, Southern Star Acres, Rinker, Co., Sheri Eagle Stevens, David M. Sellgren, Jack Flammer, Jr., Lauri Crandall Cooper, Darlene M. Bramon, Jeanette McIlhinney, Dana L. Dowers, Thunder Meadows, Sinclair Oil, Redstone Partners, South County Estates, The Valley Club, Elise Lufkin, John D. Pierce, Gregory Ranch, LLC, Thomas L. Matson, Samuel Williams, Hyndeman Peak Homeowners, Robert L. Mitchell, Deleys Brandman, Jacqueline Samway, Aspen Lakes Canal Co., John Brown, Inc., Linda Lachewicz, Jeff Nevins, Roberta Corby Dibble, Gary Farrington, Suzanne Jean Locke, Mitchell Gutches, Lynn Campion, Richard Miller, River Grove Farm, Michael E. Willard, Silver Creek Farms, Elizabeth M. Smith, Ralph & Kandi Girton, Peter M. Thomas, Eagle Creek Irrigation Co., Lake Creek Meadows Homeowners, Sun Valley Land & Minerals, Inc., Charles Matthiesen Eastfield at Bellevue, Chaney Creek Ranch, Blaine County Recreation District, Quigley Green Owner, LLC, Michael Engl, River’s Edge Assoc., Warren S. Tenney, Evergreen Ventures, LLC, Idaho Baptist Convention, Spring Canyon Ranch, LLC, ECD, Inc., River Rock Ranch, LLC, Roy R. Woods, Carl Curtis, Roger D. Turner,, Flying Heart Ranch II William B. Collins, Gimlet Property Owners, Red Cliffs Homeowners Association, Dan Fairman, M.D., John McCaw, Peter M. Thomas Trust, Warren G. Sorenson, Griffin Ranch Homeowners Association, Newfoundland Partners, Pauline Fix, William Power, Jim Kurkurin, Mariana S. Paen Trust, Barker Living Trust, Alvin Shoemaker, Indian Creek Ranch Homeowners Association, Kenneth Buttran, Rupert House, Lynn-Bontrager LLC, Ranney Draper, Frank Nachtman, Wood River Properties, The Gulch Trust, Robert C. Logan, Dan Allred, Prairie Sun Ranch Owners, Marathon Partners LLC, C. Rod Thornton, Blaine County School District, Greg Sturtevant, John Miley, Evelyn Phillips, Kathleen Rosekrans, Carol Knight, Old Cutters, Inc., C.G Elkhorn Golf, LLC, Andrews Pitt, Greg Bloomfield, Ame D. Vaughan Pitt, Charlie Foley, Mel Okeon, William B. Gordon, George Barber, Adare Trust, Timberview Terrace Homeowners Association

wasted: some nuclear experts view reprocessing as beneficial

By Kathleen L. Turner

The Twin Falls, Idaho Times-News, Mon. Jan. 2, 2006

HAILEY--Technology has given the world solutions to some very challenging problems over the past few decades. There is still debate, however, over how to dispose of nuclear fuel from reactors producing what some experts refer to as "clean" power around the globe.

Some see spent fuel reprocessing as a way to reduce space required for high level nuclear waste storage after use in generating power in a nuclear reactor. Others feel there is no volume advantage, only a transfer from one type of waste to another. Old technology reprocessed the spent fuel in ways that jeopardized security. Fear of proliferation extinguished the early era of reprocessing.

New technology employing new collection media and offering more security control has returned reprocessing to the forefront of nuclear power discussions. As national demand for electricity increases, and new power sources are sought, nuclear power and how to dispose of the resulting fissionable products remains a concern.

The proposed fuel repository at Yucca Mountain, NV, recently took a hit when U.S. Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign introduced a bill calling for dry cask storage of nuclear waste that would remain on site wherever it was generated. Yucca Mountain was once a candidate for collection and storage of nuclear waste produced throughout the country. Issues surrounding water contamination and rail transport have put the Yucca Mountain plan on hold.

To understand the reprocessing debate, a review of Chemistry 101 is useful. If that's too much of a stretch, read on for the Cliff's Notes version, condensed here from the Nuclear Energy Institute at www.nei.org.

Nuclear reactors use uranium, like U-235 and U-238 as fuel. The uranium is packaged in pinky-finger sized pellets that are stacked inside long rods. The rods are inserted into cylindrical bores or holes in the reactor. The energy stored in the uranium atoms is relased as they are split apart inside the rods. The heat from that split is turned into energy via turbines.

Some forms of uranium are readily "fissionable" or split but others don't give up as easily. The radioactive particles created from atom splitting are eventually unable to efficiently sustain the reaction, thus becoming nuclear waste. The rods containing that spent fuel must then be removed from the reactor and replaced with new rods filled with new fuel. The quandry remains about what to do with the old rods containing the spent fuel. Enter reprocessing.

Reprocessing basically separates uranium and plutonium from the other unusable waste products. Older reprocessing methods involving water were expensive, ineffective, and difficult to clean up. New technologies, like pyroprocessing, employ other mediums such as molten salt or molten alloys of metals as opposed to water. These methods are claimed by some experts as more effective, but also more expensive, than reprocessing with water. For a clear and simple view of reprocessing, go to www.en.wikipedia.org or for a more thorough explanation go to http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/nfc.htm.

According to the World Nuclear Association, 90,000 tons of used fuel has been reprocessed from plutonium and uranium since the process was first developed. Daily, waste continues to accumulate, and disposal remains a question. The debate continues as Yucca Mountain awaits its fate.