Dear Editor:
As I read all these articles on perchlorate, I become more and
more confused, is it dangerous or not?
Dear Editor:
As I read all these articles on perchlorate, I become more and more confused, is it dangerous or not? I imagine it is when in its pure state – like most everything on earth, too much of anything – air, water, food or chemicals, etc., is very adverse to human, animal or plant life. But this is not the situation we are trying to deal with.
Point 1: The contamination of perchlorate in this area has been going on for almost 50 years and I believe there is no way that our underground acquifer system from the point source to the Pacific Ocean has escaped being affected.
Point 2: I read of other areas in the country that have been contaminated to a much greater degree than we have. So far no problem to people except emotionally.
Point 3: Even the United Technologies area on Metcalf Road has had a much greater potential for contamination, due to the much greater volume of perchlorate chemicals used in the manufacture of rocket propellant.
Point 4: I have yet to read of anyone, anywhere being actually affected by contact, ingestion or whatever of or by this chemical. We have been drinking it in our water supply for almost 50 years. Surely if it was going to affect someone it would have done so by now, especially someone living close to or directly down stream of the point source.
Point 5: Question? If there has been no real physical problem surfacing with this contamination, why is the Santa Clara Valley Water District coming forth with a million dollar treatment plant? (Which I can guarantee will only be the tip of a large expensive iceberg.)
Point 6: If this is really a problem, why isn’t the company responsible for the contamination paying for this treatment plant because of their responsibility?
Point 7: Why do we periodically have to face such supposedly dire, highly emotional threats to our water supply and our health and well being from such as nitrates, MTBE and perchlorates, when the threat appears to be mostly emotional and no proof of human damage or that they are really a threat has developed? Seems to me that a more realistic approach should be taken to all these mighty problems before we try to wash them away with money.
Point 8: We can’t believe all we hear or read. I can remember when The Dispatch printed a quote from a past Santa Clara Valley Water District “spokesman,” in relation to the “perceived” nitrate problem in South County, that “With the advent of San Felipe water the nitrate problem would be taken care of by flushing it on into the ocean.” I’ve never heard of a dumber, more impossible statement in my life, but he said it and you people printed it, ’nuff said.
Point 9: Old Ma Nature has been taking good care of us, water wise, since anyone settled around here to know about it. Looks like maybe we ought to determine that we are hurting, before we interfere in the natural processes that exist. Also remember that the Water District has already wasted a lot of the taxpayers money on projects in our area with much less than adequate results. I think it is way past time that they look and think before they delve into every pimple that they seem to stumble over.
Point 10: It would be nice if we could get realistic, tested numbers on the safe levels of things like perchlorates, MTBE and nitrates. We have “safe” levels established for rat poison (warfarin) and many other chemicals which are used in medicines for people. Nitrates, then MTBE have been the emotional “bugaboos” in the past. Now perchlorates seem to be enjoying the most publicity.
Point 11: If, as is claimed by water authorities, the perchlorate plume has not yet reached Gilroy over these almost 50 years since it was introduced to the Llagas basin, then how can the water district charge the Gilroy area for San Felipe water if that water, contaminated or otherwise, has not yet reached us? This is something to think about, as even in the drought years before San Felipe’s water introduction, we have never been that short of water to need any additional in our part of the basin. Morgan Hill’s part is a completely different situation.
Our water supply for the Llagas and the Uvas basin originates in the Llagas and Uvas Creek watersheds in the Santa Cruz mountains. I believe something like 97 square miles in the Llagas and 157 square miles in the Uvas watersheds, plus we have the Uvas Reservoir which impounds 10,000 acre feet and the Chesbro Reservoir which impounds 8,900 acre feet of water that would normally flow out to the ocean to supplement our basin capacity. Rainfall in the areas above the reservoirs are around 60 inches per year. This is where we get our water from and it will be a good many years before we need San Felipe water, even with wall-to-wall houses. But we no longer have any say, so we pay our so called share of 20,000 acre feet of it anyway.
Surveys on Llagas Basin water flows in the past have determined that (at that time) some 12,000 acre feet of Llagas water flowed north under the Morgan Hill part of the basin, some 14,000 acre feet down the Pajaro to the ocean and 10-12,000 acre feet underground as far south as the city of Hollister. Being out of our then Gavilan Water District area there was no way we could collect from either Morgan Hill or San Benito County and this “subsidy” will continue as long as the Llagas and Uvas Creeks yield water.
True, a few wells on the outer edges of our past district areas in the basin were affected in the drought years, but basically, almost any well over 125 feet deep had no problem. My point; we have never yet needed San Felipe water. And if we are not getting it, why should we be charged for it? Anyone for a rebate?
Almost one half million bucks a year is our share for something we are not getting. And if we really are getting it, it is ending up mostly in the Pacific Ocean. The reason; the basin can only get so full, then high underground water surfaces in the Llagas Creek and Pajaro River and heads on down to the ocean. When the city of Gilroy Voters illegally voted for combining both districts, we lost the election by 54 votes. We should have won it by a couple of thousand votes.
Point 12: Despite my skepticism, I really think that four parts per billion is important. I feel that to be about the size of the grove of trees in the Uvas Creek channel that caused the past Gilroy flood in relation to the total size of the entire area of the Uvas Creek channel.
Fred Angelino, Gilroy
Submitted Thursday, May 8
