" Can I call you ndrwmrph1, or should I call you Mr. Cole?
I find it just amazing that you agree with the DEQ and their finding that the Helena Valley Lagoon poses no threat to groundwater. Im having difficulty following your logic, so would ask that you please explain it to me. I dont want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if Im wrong, but from what I gather you believe that properly installed septic systems pose a threat to groundwater, rising to the level of an emergency, but a malfunctioning community system that is serving hundreds of homes doesnt pose a threat? Also, if the DEQ truly believed that the leaking system didnt pose any threat, why would they take legal action against the owner/operator of the system? In my opinion, DEQ could have, but responsibly didnt, call the leaking lagoon an emergency. Instead of crying fire in a crowded movie theater, instead they looked at the facts, and determined that while the system needed to be repaired, it wasnt an emergency. Our county commissioners on the other hand, with absolutely NO evidence to support their claim that septic systems pose a threat to groundwater, pulled the fire alarm.
You cannot win the debate on water quality, so why dont you and your side turn over a new leaf and just be completely honest and say that you dont like growth? Our community needs to have a debate on the pros and cons of growth, and then we can have a civilized discussion on how best to plan and accommodate for that growth. Instead, the anti growth advocates continually make up water quality emergencies (interim zoning), water shortage emergencies (North Hills Groundwater Study), and use rhetoric and fear tactics to achieve their ends. Our commissioners could take the lead on this and take the high road, and perhaps Im wrong, but I dont believe that their egos will allow them, because to take the high road would require that they admit their mistakes. The commissioners actions have elevated what should have been a civil debate to the level of conflict. Their refusal to listen to reason has created a situation where lines have been drawn, court cases have been filed, and now as attested to by the recent article in the IR, water quality emergencies have been fabricated. The negative energy that emanates from this commission can almost be felt the minute that you walk into the city county building.
As proof, one must look no further than the county commission race. Ed Tinsley and his supporters dont want to have a civil debate instead they just want to personally attack Derek Brown, one of the finest, most honorable men I have ever had the privilege of knowing. While Derek and I dont always see eye to eye on growth issues, at least there is a level of respect there that allows the debate to be civil. We dont have that with the current commission. With them, it is my way or the highway, and if you dont like it, sue us. This attitude HAS to change, and electing Derek Brown will be a positive step in that direction. "

" ndrwmrph1-
Apology accepted re. the name calling.
Now about the lying. Obviously you should have done a little more of this fact checking you were bragging about before calling me a liar. Half truth? I dont think so. Your quote was correct, and you yourself just proved that my statement was true, that there have actually been areas where nitrate levels have decreased, even right here in our own county.
Let me give you a hypothetical. Many farmers often apply nitrogen as fertilizer, and with some grain crops put down 200-300 pounds per acre. A standard septic will typically put out 20-30 pounds of nitrates in a year. Lets consider 3 scenarios, all on a 100 acre parcel. Farmed, this parcel will get 200-300 pounds of nitrates per year, for a total of (Ill use the numbers that most benefit your position, unlike Ms. Moore using worst case) 20,000 pounds of nitrates. Now, lets say this parcel was subdivided into 1 acre parcels with individual standard septic systems. Again, using the number that benefits your position, net nitrate output over the 100 acres at full build out would be 3000 pounds. Lastly lets suppose that the commissioners solution were applied. With level II systems, a developer would be allowed to install at least 4 homes per acre. Level II systems remove approximately 50% more nitrates than a standard system, resulting in a net nitrate output over the 100 acres of 4500 pounds at full buildout.
So, fertilized we get 20,000 pounds, level II 4500 pounds, and standard systems 3000 pounds. Yep, you guys are right, we have an emergency, and need to IMMEDIATELY stop the installation of septic tanks. Well, that is if you want to stop growth.
On the other hand, if you and the commissioners were truly worried about public health and safety as we so often hear but rarely believe, you wouldnt be vilifying septic sytems.
That being said, you still havent answered my question. HOW MANY LICENSED ENGINEERS DO YOU HAVE ON THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WORKING GROUP? "

" wooleybugger, you did read them! Nice. You are right about name-calling - my apologies to Mr. Fasbender. However, I don't believe that Mr. Fasbender said that areas of the valley have had decreases in nitrates with time as you stated in your response. I believe he said:

Mr. Cole, did you know that since the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) implemented the non-degradation requirements for septics in the early 1990's, that there have actually been areas where nitrate levels have decreased, even while increasing the number of septic tanks.

The casual reader will most likely come to one faulty conclusion - non deg will save the world and we can increase septic density to new levels with no ill effect. The discriminating reader will become agitated. Those with significant time on their hands will write a dissertation about nitrates locally, never realizing that the one situation that fits Mr. Fasbender's claim is not even in this county.

I learned, in fact, of only one site that this statement could possibly apply to. A dairy farm was taken out of operation, the manure was removed, and a subdivision was built - or is being built. As a consequence, the nitrates went down. So, it seems reasonable to me to call this a half-truth.

So Mr. Fasbender, I ask again. Where is the data to support your sweeping claim? wooldybugger is indeed a good friend to you and a very diligent researcher, but it is your statement. Can you support it? "

" ndrwmrph1, I am glad you have read the reports. By doing so, you have done something most people in the county havent done and care less to do. You also know that by reading them, there isnt anything in them that signifies an emergency, which must make it hard for you to defend the county. But, if you still think so, I encourage you to share which part of which report makes you think there is an emergency. It would be nice to actually have a discussion with someone educated on the facts, so lets talk facts and include the sources of the facts. Also, why dont we stop the name calling as well, it doesnt solve anything. Lets start with me saying that nobody has claimed that septic systems improve the groundwater, this is turning words around and I thought you were going to cut through the lies. I believe Mike simply stated that areas in the valley have had decreases in nitrate levels with time. Also, I dont think anyone can argue that the DEQ has many more employees that are far more credentialed than anyone at the county government level, since credentials seem so important, which is good, they should. So lets just open this up to getting the true facts out there and we can all fact check each other, after all, that is the goal isnt it? Here are some to start with that everyone in this blog must already know:
- median nitrates in the 70s = 1.20 mg/L, median nitrates in 2002 = 1.46mg/L, a 22% increase over 30 years (Drake-Bauder Table 3, p.123 from 1,460 samples)
- median value of nitrates = 0.9 mg/L (1973 USGS Report, Page 1 Abstract). Nowhere did the report say 0.5 mg/L used by the county as part of Moores 800% claimed increase (0.5-4 mg/L).
- High chloride concentrations in groundwater, generally, can be attributed to human wastes Actual correlation of chlorides to nitrates R^2 = 0.11 or no correlation (P61). Regression analyses and scatter plots of nitrate concentration show no correlation with chloride concentration (P144). Thus the study couldn't link nitrates to humans by chlorides. Average Nitrate values from 98 wells around 1.32 mg/L (P47) (Vivian Drake Masters Thesis, 1991)
- The 9 wells Kathy Moore used to represent current median nitrates in the Helena valley of 4 mg/L came from Table 7, P. 117 of 2000 USGS report WRIR 00-4212. One of these wells were sort of in the valley, the rest were in Scratchgravel and North Hills, Two wells with high nitrates were actually in the city limits and 4 were within or next to horse corrals or cattle pasture. Talk about misrepresenting the valley groundwater data. Was this really an oversight??
- Report from Drake and Zimmer printed in Professional Surveyor Magazine (June 2001, Vol.21, No.6) shows 4 maps of Helena Valley shaded with nitrate densities actually decreasing between 1990 and 2000.
- EPA has total nitrogen reduction targets of 0.5% from septic systems and requires a 92% reduction from Helena wastewater treatment plant. (2006 Final TMDL Report, Appendix A, (PA-35)
- It is not a given that the municipal wastewater treatment is superior to that which can be provided by septic systems (2006 TMDL study P.B-23, Comment #31 by DEQ)
- The Helena wastewater treatment plant contributes 29% of phosphorus nutrients to L. Helena while septic systems contribute maybe 2%. (2006 TMDL study P.18)
- The septic systems are estimated (almost impossible to calculate) to contribute up to 29% of total nitrogen to L. Helena while the Helena wastewater treatment plant does contribute 11%, and the natural existing nitrogen combined with the irrigation ditch nitrates contribute around 34%. "

" ndrwmrph1-
Sorry to have gotten your blood pressure so elevated. It would seem that even after a day you still need to sit down and take some deep breaths.

First, I hope that you have legally defensible proof that I lied.

Second, I've got two questions that are still unanswered, so won't be answering any of yours.

How many licensed engineers are on the DSWG? Can you find a licensed engineer who will put his/her license on the line and state unequivocally that we have a water quality emergency in the Helena Valley?

Would it surprise you to learn that the head of the DEQ, whose praises you have also been singing, stated we don't have an emergency?

I would urge you to use extreme caution before ever accusing me of lying again. Unlike most, I don't hide behind an alias for my posts. While I understand the need for some to remain anonymous, I don't have that need. If you think your alias will protect you and allow you to make slanderous remarks and call people liars, I would suggest you do a little more of this fact finding you were bragging about and give an attorney a call today.

Remember, deep breaths. "

" Yes wooleybugger, he got under my skin. I'm tired of lies, particulary Factender's. This person has spent hours complaining about lack of proof on the county's side, then he turns around and "claims" he has his own proof. Where is it??? I saw the county reports, I even read them. I spoke with DEQ and the county. Then all of a sudden, Factender presents new, startling rumors that putting in more septic systems actually improves water quality! Where is the proof? And why, oh why didn't you share it with us all sooner? You can singlehandedly save water everywhere from Montana to Minnesota to Mexico. As for the lagoons, wooleybugger, I don't care what the aerial photographs tell you, DEQ sampled and said that there was no threat to wells. And according to you all, DEQ is the last word in water quality protection. Mr. Factender said it himself, so why should I settle for his blog when the professionals that he speaks so highly of have a set of sample results and written document that says there is no problem? You guys are making stuff up. By the way, if any of you have any scientific credentials, now would be a good time to share them with us. If not, then perhaps you should actually read the information available, call the DEQ and at least fact-check me. I fact-checked you. "

" Mike "Factender" has a good ring to it and appears to be true. Anyways, Mike you really got under this one's skin. It appears that just because the DEQ didn't report nitrate levels decreasing over time, you aren't capable of finding this sort of information for yourself. I love the attitude of some of these people; that if you don't hear it from government, its not true. This ndrwmrph1 person implies that people all over are installing septic systems illegally and incorrectly. Isn't the county supposed to inspect each system before it gets covered up? So if this were the case, the county should be to blame for any system put in wrong. Regarding the lagoon situation, one only has to look at the aerial photographs to see that lagoon cells that should be holding sewage aren't or weren't, look even at google earth. True, the sewage might be leaking into an area of the valley with so much groundwater flow so close to the surface, that it isn't affecting the water quality to the point to where it is a threat to nearby wells. If this person thinks the county has an ace up their sleeve as far as a hidden report they are basing their emergency off of, why don't they tell us what it is? Why didn't the county tell us what specific information constituted them to create the panic of an emergency within people such as ndrwmrph1. I think it is because they don't have it; if they did, they would have told the reporter this information when they were cornered on the issue. Also, this person seems to be implying that the DSWG is going to draft up these zoning regulations, then just get a professional to re-draft it based on what they tell them to do to give it credibility. I have a hard time believing a real professional would do this, although that isn't to say that one doesn't exist. Lastly, I agree that Tinsley is trying accommodate growth, if it occurs in town only. Otherwise he wouldn't have tried so hard to disperse growth in the valley through 5 acre minimum lot size zoning, and the new proposed subdivision regulations wouldn't have road upgrade costs so high (even for minor subdivisions), that they virtually make development occuring outside of the city infeasible. This is the smart-growth philosophy that Plan Helena and Tinsley perscribe to and it shouldn't apply to Montana but maybe in California where space is limited. Finally, I ask people, what are Tinsley's qualifications to handle growth and solving environmental issues, does he have any first-hand experience with actually solving either? None that I know of. "

" Wow, Mr/Ms ndrwmrph1, are you ever angry. Maybe there's a little more information that might help you with your blog below. I can't speak to your "first of all", but I do have some information about your third paragraph, which references a septic maintenance district.

I don't know where you got your information from, but saying that the county commission supported the concept of a septic maintenance district for several years is simply misinformation. Ed Tinsley didn't even consider the idea of the possibility of a maintenance district until he started to get in hot water over the lawsuit the County lost to Mike Fasbender and John Herrin. I don't know whether Mike Murray supported one or not because he says he agrees with everyone who asks him to support their issue (pro or con) - so he always makes someone mad when it comes to a vote. I do know that Commissioner Varone DID support the concept, in fact - when she was on the Water Quality Protection District Board, she even talked about doing it and wanted to implement it during her term. It got nowhere. Why did it get nowhere? Because Tinsley didn't want to implement the practical solution because it would derail his train to stop growth.

Your response regarding the lagoon is a bit skewed too. You are certainly a very informed person in this area - and the rest of the story is that, when a lagoon begins leaching into other locations, it DOES become a County issue. It was Ms. Moore's responsibility to work with the state to "fix" the problem. That didn't happen. Ms. Moore was too busy putting together false data for Tinsley so she could keep her job. She was a recent widow, supporting children, when she was threatened, not only with being fired - but elimination of her entire department.... that is, unless she manufactured an emergency. It's pretty hard to do any real water quality work when a bully like Tinsley is breathing down your back.

Also, the county did NOT make a mistake in numbers. Again, Kathy was forced to manufacture an erroneous document. The ensuing lawsuit proved it. But did Tinsley direct her, after the lawsuit, to simply say to the public - oops; these are the real facts and figures? No he did not - and neither did Murray or Hunthausen.
Why? Because the truth did not match the emergency.... because there WAS NO emergency when the correct data was provided. A mistake? No. A calculation to stop growth? Yup.

The DSWG is only a blueprint? So I guess the most recent contract let to a vender will take their information and put together a professional recommendation. Time will tell. I look forward to seeing the final proposal.

I truly disagree with your statement that Tinsley is planning for growth. You need to add one word to that statement. The accurate statement is that Tinsley is planning to stop growth. He's been working on stopping growth from the day he was elected.

I don't know how well you know him, but it might be important to conduct an experiment with him. Find something he is dead set for or dead set against. Whether you agree with him or not, take the other side and be just as dead set as he is. Watch what happens. As long as you are on his side and let him lead the parade, he's a big teddybear. Otherwise, he's a bully.

On the other hand, Derek Brown couldn't be more different. He's a true believer of people; he trusts people; he wants them to have their own opinion; he wants to keep our county beautiful, clean, and livable; and he'll work with all of us to make sure it happens. He won't lie to get what he wants and he won't push himself on anyone.

Hope this helps. "

" Mr. Factender writes, " The continued misleading, half-truth, and often completely false statements from Ed Tinsley and his campaign supporters attacking Derek Brown are EXTREMELY disappointing. But it is Mr. Factbender whose discussion is misleading.

First of all, you say that, since the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) implemented the non-degradation requirements for septics in the early 1990's, that there have actually been areas where nitrate levels have decreased, even while increasing the number of septic tanks. Where does that come from? MDEQ doesnt track nitrate sample results, they dont report nitrate sample results and I believe you made this up.

Secondly, the county commission has supported the concept of a septic maintenance district for several years. What they lacked was funding to implement it. Maybe in your strange little world you can blame the county for not doing something, but in the real world people install septic systems every day illegally and poorly. Not surprisingly, a large number of people do this because they dont know any better. And even properly maintained systems fail. And your beloved MDEQ doesnt have the time or resources to do anything about, so they rely on counties.

Thirdly, you are clearly ignorant of a recent MDEQ investigation of the Helena Valley lagoon that has, been leaking for 20 year and the finding was there are no indications from this and past ground water sampling that leakage from lagoons poses a threat to nearby drinking water. (DEQ letter addressed to lagoon operator dated September 5, 2008. Call DEQ Enforcement for more information.) Seeing as how you such an expert on whose responsibility it is to fix lagoons, Id also like to point out that MDEQ permits lagoons and therefore has authority over them. County commissioners dont. So are you suggesting that the commissioners be given this authority??

Fourthly, the county made a mistake in numbers, but you blatantly ignore the remaining evidence that supports the commission decision to implement zoning, information that you are fully aware of and ignore because it doesnt support your develop at ANY cost mantra. There are many people who dont believe that taxpayers should be subsidizing developers profits and I am first on that list. Talk about socialism.

Fifthly, the DSWG drafted regulations for zoning and presented them to the commission as a blueprint. The final regulation will be drafted by professionals. (By the way, exactly what are YOUR creditals???)

Finally, any intelligent person can see that the pattern of water pollution that has occurred across the country as a result of growth (such as in Minnesota) will happen here. The difference between Mr. Tinsley and Mr. Brown is that Mr. Tinsley is planning to accommodate growth and Mr. Brown is pretending that growth has no negative impact. Mr. Cole should stay here. You should move, maybe to Mexico where water isnt as big of deal. "

" Dave - I was disappointed to read that you support Ed Tinsley. You probably don't know that Derek Brown was an environmentalist long before it was popular. It's also unfortunate that you didn't take the time to visit with Derek before you blindly decided to support such a radical, uninformed, professional politician.

Derek has ALWAYS supported zoning - he just doesn't support lying to the public to force it through. He also doesn't support Tinsley's in your face bullying that is now costing HIS constituents thousands and thousands of dollars that are unnecessary.

I don't know if you watched the forum or not but Ed had to read his answers to the pre-provided questions. He was unable to answer even the most simple question unless it was a plant from the audience. Then he even had to READ the answer.

I will never support a political hack; I will never support a bully; I will never support a fear monger; and I will never support a person who has had six years to know what's going on in the county he was elected to represent. It's a shame that you have chosen to done so in spite of what Tinsley has done.

Derek Brown is an authentic, intelligent, honest, ethical and sympathetic individual. He not only READS the documents, he understands them. Manipulating data is something he wouldn't think of doing.

Shame on you. "

" The continued misleading, half-truth, and often completely false statements from Ed Tinsley and his campaign supporters attacking Derek Brown are EXTREMELY disappointing.

The insinuation that Mr. Brown doesn't believe our water quality should be protected is extremely irresponsible and a blatant lie.

Unlike Mr. Cole, I do not want to put words in Derek's mouth, but I do believe that Derek has argued that the Development Standards Working Group doesn't have the professional qualifications to make educated decisions regarding septic requirements in zoning. So, please tell me Mr. Cole, how many licensed engineers do you have on the DSWG? Do we want these highly technical regulations to be written by persons such as yourself who have absolutely no professional qualifications regarding septic regulations? Mr. Cole, did you know that since the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) implemented the non-degradation requirements for septics in the early 1990's, that there have actually been areas where nitrate levels have decreased, even while increasing the number of septic tanks. The MDEQ is staffed with highly trained professionals in the field of septic treatment. I agree with Derek, I would much rather have trained professionals making the decisions than some ad-hoc special interest group with a no-growth agenda.

As to you giving credit to Mr. Tinsley regarding the septic maintenance district, again a misleading statement. When this whole DSWG fiasco started, myself and a number of others, (including the professionals who wrote the EPA TMDL study) recommended that we fix failing septic systems in the valley. But, the fact is, fixing the failing systems won't stop growth. So, that wasn't a priority, and instead minimum lot sizes for septic placement was (clearly a ploy to stop growth). It wasn't until almost 3 years after the fact that the septic maintenance district idea was finally accepted by Mr. Tinsley and the commission. More of an afterthought. There is a lagoon in the Helena Valley that has been leaking for almost 20 years that Mr. Tinsley and the commission have known about for a majority of that time. What have they done to fix it? Again, if protecting public health and safety is truly a goal and not just a catch phrase, why not locate and fix the failing systems? Is it because the ultimate goal here is to stop growth, or at least force it into the city? That would certainly appear to be the answer.

Personally, I would much rather have someone with the professional engineering training, such as Derek Brown has, sitting on our county commission making these decisions. Obviously L&C County government is seriously lacking in this area, especially in light of last weeks headline in the IR regarding the fabricated nitrate numbers. I'm sure there are a whole lot of people in our valley who also wish that Derek Brown had been at the helm instead of Ed Tinsley. Perhaps then the taxpaying citizens of our county would not be faced with a multi-million dollar liability as we are now because of people such as yourself and Ed Tinsley trying to make decisions and write regulations that you are not qualified to make.

I would highly suggest that in the future you and Mr. Tinsley realize your limitations and defer the heavy lifting to the experts.

PS - if you like the way they do it in Minnesota so much, I would be happy to help you load your U-Haul so you can go live there. "

" Bottom line with all this zoning talk (at least for me) is why did the commission need an "emergency" to implement it? And now, especially in light of the fact that those numbers are "inaccurate", what happens next? I am so curious to know why the commission came up with interim zoning FIRST and then the "emergency". In reality, this is not about zoning at all, but truly about a massive abuse of public trust. Let's have an real investigation. Let's get to the bottom of this. Something smells really stinky here and we need to clean it out. "