Salem Political Snark

Salem progressives: Depressing national news should fire us up for local changes

Nationally, it's been a depressing week for progressives like me.

Just when I thought things couldn't get worse with 5-4 Supreme Court decisions that ratified Trump's travel ban, gave a green light to gerrymandering, and trashed public employee unions, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement today. 

That gives Trump another crack at appointing a highly conservative justice who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, thereby allowing states to make abortion illegal. Which surely would happen in many red states. Also, a compliant Supreme Court could refuse to put any check on Trump's authoritarian desires, making the United States a constitutional democracy in name only.

There's not much that can be done on the national front regarding Trump's next Supreme Court nominee. 

Sure, Democrats already are trying to get Mitch McConnell to invoke his "Merrick Garland" rule that doesn't allow a vote on a Supreme Court nominee in an election year. But the chances of that happening range from none to none.

You can bet that McConnell will pull out all the Senate stops to get Trump's Supreme Court nominee approved before Senators elected this November take their seats in January 2019. 

So that leaves lobbying semi-moderate Senators like Murkowski, Collins, Flake, and Corker to not vote for a rabidly right-wing Trump nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade as the most feasible Democratic resistance tactic. However, Senate Republicans tend to talk about resisting Trump much more often than they actually vote against him.

Thus there's good reason for progressives to feel dismayed at how things are going at the national level right now.


With so much going wrong in Washington, D.C., this makes it more important than ever that things go right here in Salem, Oregon, and that progressives get fired up about making those changes.

I mean, of course, not right as in conservative, but right as in improving the quality of life for ordinary citizens -- as opposed to making the already cushy lifestyle of the Privileged Powers That Be even cushier. This is going to require the five progressives on the Salem City Council, a majority of the nine-member body, to exercise their influence with more vigor.

Now, I realize that local politics has a different tone than national politics.

Salem's elected officials are nominally non-partisan. The Mayor and city councilors do their best to get along with each other, even though they differ a lot politically. Gentle words are more prevalent at City Council meetings than impassioned calls-to-action.

Yet I was inspired by talk I heard on CNN and MSNBC this afternoon following Kennedy's announcement of his retirement from the Supreme Court. 

Both Republican and Democratic critics of Trump were saying that the time is past to play nice, to play by the rules, to expect that reasonableness is going to win out over authoritarianism. In other words, it's time to take the gloves off and start fighting with bare knuckles, just like Trump and his supporters have been doing since he was elected (with a clear minority of the popular vote, and by just 78,000 votes scattered over three swing states).

I realize that many people in Salem would consider that such tactics either aren't needed here at the local level, or are at odds with the "go along to get along" mentality that progressive elected officials in this town tend to embrace. Not always, but certainly to a greater degree than Salem conservatives engage in when they have the reins of power at City Hall.

I also understand the oft-heard argument that it takes time to change policies at the local level. Ordinances, rules, and regulations have to be followed until they are altered. Ditto for plans, such as the Comprehensive Plan that guides development in Salem. 

To which my progressive self replies, fueled by anger and depression at how quickly conservatives are worsening things at the national level, Salem can do better, and it needs to do so sooner rather than later. 

For example, and there are plenty more examples (affordable housing, homelessness, public transit, outreach to minorities, greenhouse gas reductions, etc. etc.)...

Salem shouldn't be OK with a giant big-box store, Costco, relocating to a residential neighborhood. 

Salem shouldn't be OK with a developer clear-cutting a 27-acre urban forest prior to asking for a subdivision to be approved that would have required a tree conservation plan if there were any trees left to plan for.

Salem shouldn't be OK with moving at glacial speed to get dedicated bike lanes built throughout the city when other towns have been able to do this in a few years, not decades. 

The more things are falling apart for progressive values at the national level, the more urgency there should be at the local level to stand up for the broad public good. Understand: I'm not calling for meanness or animosity to be directed at the 38% of Salem voters who cast a ballot for Trump in the 2016 election. 

I'm just saying that Salem is a liberal-leaninbg city, with a progressive majority on the City Council, so local policies at City Hall should be moving more rapidly in that direction than they have been.

Costco hopes to come to south Salem over neighborhood opposition

It's an all-too-familiar theme here in Salem: people feeling powerless about unwelcome development in their neighborhood that they feel is being pushed upon them by forces they can't control.

Before sharing photos of what's planned for the new shopping center where Costco will be the dominant presence, I wanted to show the most surprising aspect of the meeting. Empty chairs.

This reflects the failure of Costco Wholesale and PacTrust real estate representatives to have the guts to stand up in front of concerned neighbors and answer their questions about why it makes sense to plunk a gigantic big box store right next to a residential area where people already feel the traffic is getting unmanageable. 

Along with other people I talked to at the meeting, I figured it would start off with a presentation by Costco and PacTrust staff, then move into a Q & A session. But no, staff members simply stood by easels, passively waiting for people to talk to them.

From what I heard, and this is echoed in an excellent Statesman Journal story, "South Salem residents angered by lack of information from Costco, PacTrust officials," neighbors and other concerned citizens were expecting more than just a bunch of easels with images of the proposed development.

Here's how the story by reporter Natalie Pate starts out:

Though Costco Wholesale and PacTrust real estate officials did not officially confirm Costco is relocating to Kuebler Boulevard SE in South Salem, their statements and visual aids at a Tuesday night meeting indicated they're just waiting for city approval.

The session left local residents feeling deflated.

Costco and PacTrust officials stood by signs and mock-up designs of the proposed store at an open house event.

Area residents and members of the South Gateway Neighborhood Association were invited to ask any and all questions they had about the proposed move and dozens attended.

But residents said they left feeling unheard and their questions unanswered. 

"We got ignored; they didn't care," said long-time resident Nancy Wollslair. "They talk like it's a done deal."

Wollslair has lived in the neighborhood for 35 years. She is one of the hundreds of residents who oppose the potential Costco coming to Kuebler Boulevard SE.

It's easy to understand why neighbors are opposed to Costco relocating from the current Mission Street location.

A couple I spoke with had hoped that the shopping center would be a lot more akin to charming walkable Bridgeport Village than to a smaller version of the ghastly autocentric Keizer Station where it is virtually impossible to walk from shopping area to shopping area, given the vast parking lots.

I told them that, indeed, it's hard to imagine people in the neighborhood getting all excited about walking to Costco, then pushing a cart loaded with four gigantic boxes of paper towels back to their home. 

Regarding how the proposed Costco would look, I talked with one of their architects, noting that it must be pretty easy to design a Costco, since it is the epitome of a big box store. The image above is of the entrance, which doesn't look all that bad.


But the Boone Road street view is unattractive.

The architect did point out to me that there weren't any garish red signs on the side of the building that faces a residential area, and they're going to plant evergreens along with other vegetation to soften the very long concrete side of the building. But there's no really no way to make a big box store look like anything but what it is: a big box.

This image shows the lay of the Costco land.

The existing Salem Clinic and other building in the lower left hand corner strike me as having a large parking lot. However, you can see that Costco is going to have a gigantic parking area, which also will serve four much smaller retail buildings along Kuebler Boulevard. 

The Costco gas station, with 24 pumps, is in the upper right corner. Salem's first roundabout (we really should have more, given how well they work) is shown midway down 27th Avenue.

Regarding the ancillary retail buildings in the shopping center, my snap impression was They look exactly like every other building of that sort built in Salem during the past few years.

PacTrust has labeled each as "Coffee" or "Deli," apparently in a hope that neighbors opposed to the development can be bought off by a promise of a latte or sandwich to soothe the pain of the Costco right next door. (Forgive the shadow; I didn't want to ask the person to move just to have a shadowless photo.)

The scale of the proposed Costco is shown in this image that compares it with the current Costco on Mission Street. It is considerably larger, with more fueling stations. It's true that the proposed Costco would have four vehicle access points, but most people would reach the Costco via Keubler Boulevard, exiting either on Battle Creek Road or 27th Avenue.

So the concern of neighbors about traffic back-ups seems justified.

I listened to a neighbor ask the Costco architect about semi-truck deliveries, as she was worried about back-up beeping noise in the middle of the night. The architect said that deliveries are indeed made outside of the hours the store is open, but neighbors could ask City of Salem officials to require that more deliveries be made in the early morning, rather than late at night.

She didn't seem reassured.

Here's what happens next, according to a friend who spoke with the City planner who's working on the Costco application. The application hasn't been approved yet, but reportedly it would be a staff-level decision -- unless one or more City Council members ask that it get a hearing at a Council meeting.

Given the level of opposition to Costco, this seems likely, if not assured. I believe the planner has until July 6 to recommend approval or denial of the Costco application. Then there would be a two-week public comment period. A final decision would be made by August 1.

I don't know how an appeal of the decision would be handled -- whether by a hearings officer, the City Council, or the Land Use Board of Appeals.

As I noted at the start of this post, what's most bothersome to me about this Costco issue is how powerless neighbors feel in the face of big-money development interests. I realize this isn't new news here in Salem. For a long time developers have called the shots, and residents have had to put up with where those shots landed.

Last night I heard people talk about what could be done about this, both in regard to the current Costco proposal and long-term. Revisions to Salem Comprehensive Plan are in the works, to my understanding. Maybe these will put a halt, or at least slow down, giant shopping centers being built on the periphery of the city, to the detriment of the urban core.

A revision to the City Charter also was talked about, a subject I know next to nothing about.

I'll end by noting that someone told me that fairly recently another meeting about this development was held at the South Salem Seniors building. Reportedly about 175 concerned citizens attended, including several city councilors, Tom Andersen and Chris Hoy.

Nobody showed up from Costco or PacTrust.

This shows an unhealthy arrogance on the part of the would-be developers of the Kuebler Boulevard property. Apparently they feel that all they need to do is talk with City staff, then get their application rubber-stamped by compliant City of Salem officials. Communicating with people in the neighborhood who would have to live with a giant Costco... unnecessary.

Shameful? Yes. The way things typically are done here in Salem? Unfortunately, that's also a yes.

Lastly, anyone who wants to stay in touch with the Costco application should email the South Gateway Neighborhood Association person: [email protected] 

Clear-cut of 27 acre urban forest in south Salem makes neighbors angry

So how would you feel if you lived next to 27 acres of untouched forest land just outside the Salem city limits, and one day logging equipment rolls in to clear-cut all of the trees -- firs, white oaks, other species?

And when you asked someone in charge why this was being done, they reportedly said, "I'm logging it for timber."

Except, it turns out that this really isn't true, because a 46 acre, 212 lot subdivision is planned for the property that's north of Robins Lane SE and west of the I-5 freeway.

To cap it off, you later learn that the developer of that property submitted a Pre-Application with the City of Salem in April 2017, because the developer wants the land annexed by the city, plus, of course, approval of the 212 lot subdivison.

In the Pre-Application report prepared by the Community Development Department, there's a requirement that the developer prepare a tree conservation plan "to preserve all heritage trees, significant trees, trees and native vegetation within riparian corridors, and a minimum of 25 percent of the remaining trees on the property."

From what I've said so far, it's completely understandable why the people who live near the proposed subdivision are angered by the loss of the urban forest, which reportedly included quite a few large white oaks.

I learned about the clear-cutting and subdivision plans from Andrea Balcavage.

She lives near the proposed development and took on the task of reaching out to people like me who could publicize what's going on. We talked by phone a few days ago, then Andrea emailed me some photos and documents, which I'll share below.

Part of what irritates Andrea and her neighbors is that they live close to the I-5 freeway, and the trees that were cut down served as a sound barrier. In an email, she said:

Another big concern is that the freeway is LOUD, we can all hear it, even inside with windows closed. The trees provided sound and wind protection. Wind is crazy up here now. I'm sure there would have been a sound wall built when the neighborhood was built had the trees not been there.

Here's some before and after photos that Andrea shared.

                                                                                                                                                                                                    
Here's the Pre-Application Report from the City of Salem. 
Download 2017 Pre-App - Lot 083W1300201

Mark Ferris of Salem's Project Delivery Group is shown as the Applicant/Representative. This afternoon I left a message asking Ferris to call me back, as I have some questions for him. Basically, they are:

(1) Was a tree conservation plan prepared prior to the clear-cutting of the 27 acres, as the City of Salem seemingly required?
(2) Why were all of the trees on the 27 acres cut down, given the fact that they provided a freeway sound buffer, and it is well known that large trees add value to a lot, being something that most homebuyers want?

Andrea told me that Marion County doesn't protect any trees. This must explain why the clear-cutting was allowed, even though the property is bordered on three sides by land within the Salem city limits. Part of the clear-cutting permit is shown above.

One MBF is a thousand board feet, which is 83.33 cubic feet. So 450 MBF is 37,499 cubic feet, or 1,389 cubic yards of wood. Imagine 1,389 blocks of solid wood three feet high, three feet wide, and three feet deep. That's how much wood was in the trees clear-cut in the south Salem urban forest. 

As reflected in the questions I want to ask of Mark Ferris, it doesn't seem right that the developer of the proposed subdivision should get a free pass on having their property be annexed by the City of Salem if a tree conservation plan was required, but wasn't prepared.

Now, it may be that a tree conservation plan was prepared. If so, it's perplexing why, according to Andrea, many large trees, including white oaks, were cut down this year. Above is the tree section of the Pre-Application Report.

And here's another section of the report with a requirement that seems at odds with how the 27 acres was logged.


This is an image which gives a pretty good view of how many trees were on the subdivision property. Another view can be obtained by comparing the subdivision vicinity map below with the following Google Images screenshot. Robins Lane is the orange "pin" in the Google Images screenshot.

I could be wrong, but the maps I've shared sure seem to show that most of the trees on the 46 acre, 212-lot proposed subdivision already have been cut down. I look forward to learning from Mark Ferris if this is correct.

(I'm going to send him a link to this blog post with a request for comment, if he doesn't return my call before I publish it.)

If I'm right, and a tree conservation plan wasn't prepared prior to the clear-cutting, that would make a tree conservation plan pretty damn easy to prepare -- since there are few trees remaining on the property.

Andrea told me that on her .16 acre lot, which isn't much larger than the size of the lots in the proposed 212-lot subdivision, there are seven oak trees. So when her Robins Lane neighborhood came to be, the developer had the foresight and wisdom to save many significant large trees.

Yet now, in 2018, developers can get away with removing every large tree, then they plant small trees that will take dozens of years to grow to the size of the trees that were cut down. Something is wrong here.

It may be legal to clear-cut 27 acres of urban forest, but it sure isn't the right thing to do.

UPDATE: I just talked with a City of Salem planner who confirmed what I suspected. Even though the developer was told that a tree conservation plan was required in a Pre-Application Report, this only applies when the actual subdivision plans are submitted. So the developer was able to cut down all of the trees on the property, or almost all of them, prior to submitting a subdivision application.

Of course, now there won't be a need for a tree conservation plan, because there are no or very few trees on the property.

The planner said that the only way to stop this sort of thing would either be for the Marion County Commissioners to change their ordinance, or for the City of Salem and Marion County to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement that would stop the practice of clear-cutting on unincorporated land prior to a developer asking for the property to be added to the city limits. 

I asked if there was any way City officials could penalize the developer for running roughshod over the spirit of Salem's tree preservation regulations, and I got no answer. So it looks like the developer will be able to move ahead with a request for the property to become part of the City of Salem, even though the developer clear-cut the 27 acres in a fashion that was against City policies. 

Trump tears up documents that have to be pieced together. Wow.

The horror show that is Trump's presidency features daily episodes of astounding corruption, immorality, ignorance, and narcissism.

But a Politico story I came across this afternoon, "Meet the guys who tape Trump's papers back together," somehow filled me with more of a mixture of disgust and amazement than countless other Trumpian tales -- even including his astounding tweet storm against Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and his decision to remove the United States from a previously agreed-to  Group of Seven joint statement. 


Behold the antics of the fool who occupies the Oval Office:

Solomon Lartey spent the first five months of the Trump administration working in the Old Executive Office Building, standing over a desk with scraps of paper spread out in front of him.

Lartey, who earned an annual salary of $65,969 as a records management analyst, was a career government official with close to 30 years under his belt. But he had never seen anything like this in any previous administration he had worked for. He had never had to tape the president’s papers back together again.

Armed with rolls of clear Scotch tape, Lartey and his colleagues would sift through large piles of shredded paper and put them back together, he said, “like a jigsaw puzzle.” Sometimes the papers would just be split down the middle, but other times they would be torn into pieces so small they looked like confetti.

It was a painstaking process that was the result of a clash between legal requirements to preserve White House records and President Donald Trump’s odd and enduring habit of ripping up papers when he’s done with them — what some people described as his unofficial “filing system.”

Under the Presidential Records Act, the White House must preserve all memos, letters, emails and papers that the president touches, sending them to the National Archives for safekeeping as historical records.

But White House aides realized early on that they were unable to stop Trump from ripping up paper after he was done with it and throwing it in the trash or on the floor, according to people familiar with the practice. Instead, they chose to clean it up for him, in order to make sure that the president wasn’t violating the law.

l find this more disturbing than other things Trump has done because it is so astoundingly childish. Trump is the President, but he acts like a two-year-old. If he's told he can't do something, he has a hissy fit, screams NO! and does it anyway. 

The viral photo of him at the G-7 conference, surrounded by other world leaders, speaks volumes about his childish obstinacy.

Yesterday I dug an August 2017 issue of The New Yorker from a bathroom drawer that serves as my bathtub reading repository. The issue had gotten buried under a bunch of other magazines.

Looking through it, I came across a beautifully written piece by David Remnick that was the lead essay in the always-interesting The Talk of the Town section. (Everything in The New Yorker is beautifully written, I should add.)

Remnick got Trump absolutely right after he'd been in office for only about seven months. What Remnick said is even more obvious today, but I found it interesting that the danger Trump poses to our democracy was so clear ten months ago. Here's an excerpt.

When Trump was elected, there were those who considered his history and insisted that this was a kind of national emergency, and that to normalize this Presidency was a dangerous illusion.

At the same time, there were those who, in the spirit of patience and national comity, held that Trump was "our President" and that "he must be given a chance." Has he had enough of a chance yet?

After his press conference in the lobby of Trump Tower last Tuesday, when he ignored the scripted attempts to regulate his impulses and revealed his true allegiances, there can be no doubt about who he is.

This is the inescapable fact: on November 9, the United States elected a dishonest, inept, unbalanced, and immoral human being as its President and Commander-in-Chief.

Trump has daily proven unyielding to appeals of decency, unity, moderation, or fact. 

He is willing to imperil the civil peace and the social fabric of his country simply to satisfy his narcissism and to excite the worst inclinations of his core followers. 

...The most important resistance to Trump has to come from civil society, from institutions, and from individuals who, despite their differences, believe in constitutional norms and have a fundamental respect for the values of honesty, equality, and justice.

The imperative is to find ways to counteract and diminish his malignant influence not only in the overtly political realm but also in the social and cultural one.

To fail in that would allow the death rattle of an old racist order to take hold as a deafening revival.

City Manager's performance evaluation reflected in Salem water crisis problems

Steve Powers is the Salem City Manager. The City Manager is hired with the approval of the City Council, then he or she is in charge of all other City of Salem employees.

Someone sent me a copy of Powers' January 2017 Performance Evaluation, noting that some deficiencies noted in the evaluation seemingly were reflected in how Powers has been handling the toxic algae water crisis. 

Before discussing those deficiencies, some background info.


News of Powers being hired as Salem's City Manager broke in August 2015, as I wrote about in "Salem has a new City Manager -- Steve Powers." At that time he was the City Administrator of Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Since Salem has a strong City Manager/ weak Mayor and City Council form of government, Powers is taking on an important position. I'm hoping, and pretty confident, that he'll be better than our previous City Manager, Linda Norris, who left a lot to be desired.

I say "pretty confident" because a bit of Googling didn't turn up any obvious dirt on Powers.

It doesn't look like any citizen activist bloggers akin to me in Ann Arbor have been ranting about his poor performance as City Manager, like I've done with Linda Norris.

Indeed, it appears that over the past few years Powers has done a competent, though low-key, job as Salem's City Manager.

I've written very little about him, mostly because Powers tends to stay in the City Hall background, even though he has vastly more power than the Mayor and other members of the City Council when it comes to day-to-day operations of the City of Salem.

I did talk some about Powers in a June, 2017 post, "So, who's in charge at the City of Salem?"

In public, City Manager Powers comes across as quite diffident. Meaning, he doesn't speak passionately about policy issues or engage in "rah-rah" talk that could energize the citizenry. So even though Salem has a strong City Manager form of government, so far Powers hasn't lived up to his last name -- using his position as a firm lever of power to change Salem for the better.

So this gets us to the current water quality crisis. Powers and other City officials have come in for well-deserved criticism for not notifying the public right away when test results showed high levels of cyanotoxins in the Salem water system.

The only apology I've heard from Powers has been along the lines of, I'm sorry that people have lost confidence in Salem water. But lots of people also have lost confidence in the ability of City officials to manage the toxic algae problem. In part this is due to Powers' personal style.

As I noted in the above-mentioned post, Powers isn't an eloquent or passionate speaker. He searches for words, speaking so carefully it can sound like he is trying to hide something, whereas most likely this is simply the way he is used to talking in public.

His January 2017 performance evaluation says it was based on "18 written evaluations and 19 individual interviews with your direct reports, the Mayor, members of the City Council, and a small group of leaders from partner organizations."

Download StevePowersPerformanceEvaluation

Here's some excerpts from the Performance Evaluation that bear on how Powers has managed the current water crisis. I've boldfaced especially pertinent feedback to Powers, and added my own comments in red.

One area for development that you might consider is taking a more assertive stance in moving initiatives forward with a greater sense of urgency and attention to detail. You may have a tendency to under-communicate or at least communicate with less urgency or intensity that some around you might expect. Some noted that it is important to “close the loop” in communications and keep people updated on the status and progress of various issues and projects.

This seems right-on. Initially Powers and other City officials did indeed "under-communicate" with the public and failed to keep Salem residents updated on what was happening with water quality test results. 

A few respondents said they would appreciate a somewhat more assertive, higher profile posture with the [city] council on your part, specifically, speaking up sooner, keeping the council informed on issues, and offering possible decision choices and their consequences, positive and negative.

The City Council wasn't involved at all by City officials after a test showed a cyanotoxin in the tap water, with councilors learning of the Health Advisory alert only a few hours before it went out to the public.

While you have visited several neighborhood associations during your first year in Salem, it would be beneficial for you to be even more visible and engaged in the community.

The water crisis shows why this would have been desirable. I suspect relatively few people know who the City Manager is, or why his position is so important. So when the water crisis hit, there wasn't a reservoir of good will out there for him to draw on. With Mayor Bennett being on vacation overseas, Powers has become the face of City Hall, and that's a face most people in Salem aren't familiar with.

While many around you recognize your quiet approach, the tendency to listen first, and think before speaking, several said they would like to see you be a little more expansive in your communications, particularly in terms of offering more of your views on things sooner, sharing your vision, and articulating where you stand.

Salem doesn't have its own TV stations, and the Statesman Journal rarely reports on City Hall goings-on absent a big story like the current water crisis. So it's kind of tough for Powers to share his City Manager vision when there aren't many ways to communicate it other than the City of Salem Facebook page, Still, this is a valid criticism.

Bottom line: about a year and a half ago Powers got some constructive feedback on his management approach. I have no idea if he took that feedback from his Performance Evaluation to heart, or if anyone at the City of Salem helped him adjust his communication style, which was the key deficiency identified in the 2017 evaluation.

Regardless, it sure seems like Powers could benefit from some "coaching" as regards the way he communicates both with the public and other City staff. There's a lot to like about his tendency to be hands-off -- except when some hands needed to be guiding the management wheel of the City of Salem, as was the case with the water crisis. 

Salem's "10-days-until-you-get-sick" water advisory wasn't settled science

The folks at City Hall who made the indefensible decision to keep Salem residents in the dark for seven days after s sample was taken that showed high levels of a cyanotoxin in the water supply are trying to claim that a "10-day window" rule permitted this. 

In a Statesman Journal story, Public Works Director Peter Fernandez said:

City officials “hung our hat” on EPA guidelines that allow for a 10-day period to make treatment adjustments to fix the water. After 10 days, the buildup of toxins becomes more serious.

So let's take a look at how the 10-day EPA guideline was developed. It sure wasn't based on settled science, not even close. An EPA document, "2015 Drinking Water Health Advisories for Two Cyanobacterial Toxins." tells the tale.


First, the document says what Health Advisory (HA) values are, which implies what they aren't: objective facts that can be taken as solid science. Note the words "non-regulatory" and "informal."

HAs are non-regulatory values that serve as informal technical guidance to assist federal, state and local officials, and managers of public or community water systems to protect public health from contaminants.

l'm going to focus on the Health Advisory values for Cylindrospermopsin, the toxin that was first observed in the Salem water supply from a sample taken on Wednesday, May 23.

As shown below, the test result showed values almost ten times higher than the Health Advisory limit for vulnerable populations (children under six, pregnant women, others with compromised immune systems) and more than double the limit for the general adult population.

Now, those Health Advisory numbers look marvelously exact: 0.7 and 3.

So let's take a look at how they were derived. A supporting EPA document, "Drinking Water Health Advisory for the Cyanobacterial Toxin Cylindrospermopsin" explains that a single 2002 study on mice is the basis for the Health Advisory values.

Regarding humans, it is known that the cyanotoxin has nasty health effects, but it isn't known what level of the toxin produces those effects. (I've boldfaced that sentence.)

The main source of information on the toxicity of cylindrospermopsin in humans is from qualitative reports of a hepatoenteritis-like illness attributed to acute or short-term consumption of drinking water containing C. raciborskii. Symptoms reported include fever, headache, vomiting, bloody diarrhea, hepatomegaly, and kidney damage with loss of water, electrolytes and protein. No reliable data are available on the exposure levels of cylindrospermopsin that induced these effects.

Thus the Health Advisory values for a 10-day window, during which supposedly no ill effects from drinking water containing cylindrospermopsin will occur, which City officials "hung their hat on" (meaning, depended on), comes from a single study of mice, not people.

 

The first EPA document I mentioned describes what adjustments to the mice results were made so as to apply them to humans.

A 10-fold "uncertainty factor" was applied because mice are different from people. Another 10-fold uncertainty factor was applied because humans differ from other humans in how they react to toxins. And a 3-fold uncertainty factor was applied because of database deficiencies.

Combined, that resulted in a total uncertainty factor of 300 (10 times 10 times 3).

Remember: the values of .7 and 3 that resulted by applying that uncertainty factor derived from a single mouse study to humans is just a guideline. The EPA stressed that it is simply informal technical guidance for people such as City of Salem officials needing to decide whether to issue a public alert after high cylindrospermopsin levels were found in a water supply.

Obviously those values are neither solid science, nor settled science.

The uncertainty factors clearly are guesstimates. Are mice really exactly 10 times different from people? Are people really exactly 10 times different from other people? And most worrisome, is what is not known about cylindrospermopsin really three times greater than what is now known?

What if "database deficiencies" actually are much greater? Then the Health Advisory levels should have been much lower. But since no one knows what isn't known about cylindrospermopsin's toxic effects on humans, there's no way to be sure.

Bottom line: Officials with the City of Salem engaged in bureaucratic malpractice when they failed to alert the public about high levels of cyanotoxins in the drinking water when this was first known on May 26. Staff from the Oregon Health Authority didn't express an opinion on whether a health alert should have been issued, because this was up to City officials.

To name names, it was City Manager Steve Powers and Public Works Director Peter Fernandez who bore the responsibility to alert the public that high levels of toxins were found in the Salem water supply.

They failed in that responsibility. Alice Harman put it nicely on Facebook. There is NO 10-days-to-tell-us-about-it rule.

 

 

Lastly, the effect of cyanotoxins in the water supply on animals surely was significant, as most pets are considerably smaller than most people. Here's what someone concerned about their dog said in a letter to the editor in the Statesman Journal.

Just a short note to add to the outrage felt by Salem water customers with regard to the late notice (of contamination). 

While by no means anywhere near as important as the possible or potential vulnerability of Salem residents on chemotherapy and those with compromised immune systems, we, too, feel disgruntled by the very late notice. 

Our dog was diagnosed with bone cancer, has had her shoulder and leg amputated, and since February has had six chemotherapy treatments. 

Obviously, her immune system is compromised.  In fact, she cannot receive needed vaccines at this time. She began having diarrhea on Sunday or Monday of this week, (but) since receiving the notice and (our starting to use) bottled water - zero incidents! 

(Is there) further damage - who knows? 

B. Weyand
Salem

 

Five strange things about Friday's special City Council meeting about water problem

I'm a fan of strangeness. But there's pleasing kinds of strange and disturbing kinds of strange.

Watching yesterday's special City Council meeting about Salem's toxic algae water crisis via a Facebook feed gave me the latter sorts of feelings...disturbing.

Here's five things that struck me as strange:

(1) That the meeting needed to happen at all. The City Council just had a meeting on Tuesday. But City of Salem officials botched their response to dangerous levels of toxic algae cyanotoxins in the water supply so badly, a special meeting on Friday was necessary. 

This wasn't exactly the biggest emergency Salem might face.

It pales in comparison to, say, the next Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake, a massive blizzard exacerbated by global climate change, or a zombie apocalypse (least likely, hopefully). So if City staff can't handle something fairly small, it doesn't make me confident they can handle something big.

(2) The City Council was kept in the dark by City officials. City councilors expressed a lot of entirely justified righteous indignation at the fact that City Manager Steve Powers and Public Works Director Peter Fernandez didn't contact them after elevated levels of cyanotoxins were detected on Friday, May 25 (from a sample taken on May 23).

Instead, the councilors learned about a health advisory alert on Tuesday afternoon, May 29, shortly before the alert went out to the general public. City staff met on Friday, May 25, then continued to consult Oregon Health Authority staff, EPA staff, and maybe others through the weekend and up until last Tuesday.

But no City staff thought it would be a good idea to consult the elected officials, Mayor and eight city councilors, who represent the people of Salem. This is a big deal. It shows that the City Manager and Public Works Director believed they're the ones in charge, and there was no need to communicate with elected officials about the toxic algae crisis. 

I think it's time for some heads to roll at City Hall (just figuratively, so please don't send me plans for guillotines if you agree),

(3) City officials were fine with not notifying the public about high cyanotoxin levels. Public Works Director Fernandez and other City of Salem staff seemed actually proud that they notified the public on May 29 that a water sample taken on May 23, plus subsequent samples, showed toxin levels warranting a health advisory for vulnerable populations, because even though people were exposed to the cyanotoxins for a week, this was less than a "10-day window" when no ill effects supposedly will occur.

Here's a screenshot of the elevated testing results:

Well, there's some problems with this cavalier attitude.

Seven days is 70% of the way to the end of the 10-day window. People have widely varying responses to toxins. There is much that isn't known about the nasty stuff in toxic algae. Oregon Health Authority staff acknowledged that there aren't hard and fast rules about when to issue a health advisory, and this was left up to City of Salem officials to decide when, or whether, an advisory should be issued. 

So City Manager Powers and Public Works Director Fernandez gambled with the health of children under six, kidney dialysis patients, pregnant women, people with compromised immune systems, and other vulnerable populations by allowing these people to drink tap water for seven days after a sample was taken that showed a dangerous level of a cyanotoxin. 

By contrast, I watched KGW news last night, which had a story about toxic algae in the Wilsonville water system. Wilsonville notified the public after a single positive test result, and shared the numeric result, which was shown by KGW.

(I recall the result was .34, and the health advisory standard is .3)

This shows that cities committed to openness and transparency are capable of communicating with the public about toxic algae test results in a timely manner.

Unfortunately, Salem isn't one of those cities. Public Works Director Fernandez and City Manager Powers need to be held accountable for putting vulnerable populations and pets at risk.

(4) Pets didn't get the love from City officials that they deserved. Speaking of pets, the water advisory that finally was issued on the afternoon of May 29 said that pets shouldn't drink tap water. But for a week, Salem pets were ingesting water with cyanotoxins. 

Many pets are much smaller than children under six, which are considered part of the vulnerable population that was the target of the health advisory. Some Googling showed that a typical Yorkie dog weighs between 3-7 pounds, a cat between 8-10 pounds. Pets are at high risk from drinking cyanotoxins in their water bowls. 

My wife volunteers at the Willamette Humane Society. They use well water, fortunately, and have made that water available to pet owners. It's unconscionable that City officials allowed pets and other animals in Salem (think bird baths) to ingest water for a week that contained cyanotoxins. 

(5) Numeric test results weren't shared with the public or City Council. Lastly, yesterday (Friday) was the first time citizens or city councilors were able to see the water quality test results that resulted in the health advisory being belatedly issued. 

That's ridiculous. 

As noted above, Wilsonville released test results after a single test showed an elevated level of toxic algae in the city's water supply. But even after the City of Salem issued a health advisory, no numeric test results were released to the public. Several days ago I asked the City's communications manager, Kenny Larson, for these results, but never got a response.

The public deserved to know what the level of cyanotoxins were that led to the health advisory. It turns out that on several days the level was high enough for a general "adult" health advisory, but apparently one wasn't issued because levels dropped in later water samples.

Doctors are required to tell patients about test results. If they don't they could be held legally liable.

It was totally unacceptable for Salem's City Manager and Public Works Director to withhold the numeric water quality test results from citizens for an entire week. This reflects a general lack of transparency and openness at City Hall, something I'm well aware of from the many public records requests I've had to make.

Today's Statesman Journal has a story about the Wilsonville toxic algae test result. It says:

"We're being abundantly cautious here, and providing information that allows our community members to make an informed decision," said Wilsonville city manager Bryan Cosgrove.

Salem needs to borrow Cosgrove so he can teach Salem's city officials about how to communicate with the public. They did a horrible job this time around.