I wanted to offer a few thoughts about Mike Kaill’s letter, “Dead canaries and the Critical Areas Ordinance,” page 7, Jan. 20 Journal:

He and I are in agreement in our mutual suspicion that whatever problems exist in the county are related to places like the Spring Street outfall. Generally, I believe that environmental problems are mostly associated with urbanization, and for San Juan County, that means the Urban Growth Areas. That is a testable hypothesis.

Despite No. 1, his observations about deaths in the aquarium are not proper toxicological studies. There is a very well accepted way of quantifying the risks associated with chemicals and linking cause to effect. It is called an ecological risk assessment. I would strongly support a proper ecological risk assessment for the suspect problem areas.

He mentions “San Juan County’s uniquely thin soils,” which is a direct contradiction to the claims in the CAO on Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas (CARA), which said that we are permeable everywhere and an aquifer everywhere. If Dr. Kaill believes that we have thin impermeable soils, then I would like to see him support a major revision to the CARA (as I do).

Many of the other fears that he mentions, such as “silt from homes … will be surfactant loaded,” are testable too and the effects quantifiable via (without trying to be repetitive) an ecological risk assessment. He says he has seen contaminated places on the west side. That is a great place to start a scientific analysis.

On a related note, I have heard other citizens support enlarged buffers for other reasons. For instance, I have heard Mary Knackstedt raise the question, “How can you not come to the conclusion that if a community is on the same trajectory [to become urbanized like Seattle] that, given time and population increase, they won’t arrive at the same place?”

That is a very different concern from Dr. Kaill’s. Mike Kaill is saying that the problem is now. Mary Knackstedt is saying that the problem is the future.

We need to be aware of that distinction. The “problem” has temporal components: now and the future. We need to be aware, when people speak, whether they are expressing a concern about current problems or anticipated future problems. They have different solutions, and importantly, unlike Dr. Kaill’s claims, the future is not a testable hypothesis.

If the problem is the future, then there is absolutely no need to place greater restrictions on current homes and development. There would be no non-conforming uses. One could argue that if the problem is the future, the burden of increased environmental protection might have to fall entirely on new homes/development and to an increasing degree as problems arose.

If the problem is now, then we should address those problems, but it is important to clearly identify them (via an ecological risk assessment) so the right solution can be developed. For instance, fifty years ago eagle populations crashed here and around the country because of DDT, and it was important to identify DDT as the culprit and not some other chemical. The right solution depends on identifying the right problem.

That brings me to my last point. I have heard buffers proposed as a solution to everything from toxicology to population control. Mentioning the word “buffer” is like giving someone an ink blot test. The response says a lot about the psychology of the participant.

And that is why we need to establish a genuinely supportable nexus between problem and solution. We need to take alarming claims out of the realm of psychology and fear, and establish a framework to rationally answer the questions that are posed.

Ed Kilduff
Lopez Island

— Kilduff is a Lopez Island resident, a geologist for the CE2 Corporation, and a member of the San Juan County Solid Waste Advisory Committee.