422L 



We have no reason to question honest reporting so let us examine what res- 

 ponsible public servants are saying to the public via the press. The citizenry 

 is led to believe "new procedures" of maintaining garbage dumps solve pollution 

 and fire problems. On what evidence is this based? If it is true the world 

 awaits the announcement of this new techinque. 



The article accompanying the picture then goes on to say East Lake Shore 

 residents "charge" that water from the dump empties into Lake Whatcom. Then 

 it continues they "claim" this adds to pollution problems. (Do health authori- 

 ties have objective evidence to show this is not true?) 



We forgive the paper for its lack of objectivity in portraying concerned 

 residents who withdraw water for domestic use directly from the lake in a some- 

 what belligerent light. Thousands of people drink raw water from the lake regul- 

 arly. Rather, we would think that responsible public health personnel would not 

 rest until adequate analyses have been made to determine many possible types of 

 contaminants which might be leached from the dump. We presume that public health 

 authorities in discharging their responsibilities properly, must do some detective 

 work on the side in the interest of preventing problems before they occur. Tax- 

 paying residents in the East Lake area should, we believe, be able to expect that 

 adequate thorough analysis is being made to determine extent of any hazards. 

 Citizens are driven to make "charges" and "claims" for obvious reasons. 



With what vigor, foresight and resources are responsible officials persu- 

 ing the problem? We note the article says that "crews cover the refuse at least 

 weekly". Costs for this are not mentioned, but caretaker costs alone are $1440/year. 



Compare now the $1440 caretaker costs on the watershed dump with the $1500 

 special assessment requested by the Regional Planning Commission for next year for 

 the "comprehensive" county-wide, water-sewer study. (See Exhibit 19) Is this 

 really evidence of the "comprehension" of the problem and representative of the 

 values placed on this resource? With what vision do our planners "plan"? What 

 stand do elected representatives take? 



Compare with what one of the nation's foremost authorities on water pollution 

 problems recently said. (Ref. 14) 



"...there are three elements involved: technical knowledge to which 

 research continually adds - money - and enforcement. We have enough of 

 all of these to check pollution and reverse the tide right now. Tech- 

 nical know-how is available for resolving most of the pollution problems 

 now. It will be forthcoming for those problems which still require answers. 

 In the matter of money, it is inconceivable that the richest country in the 

 world that has developed the most sophisticated methods of financing would 

 find this an insuperable problem. ..who can believe that we will not be able 

 to arrange the required financing for cleaning up our valuable waterways. 

 Where the technical knowledge and the money are both available but reluc- 

 tance and foot dragging persist in their application, we have the enforce- 

 ment authority to see that they are put to work to end pollution." 



