No headline

Water bottling plant hearing was highly concerning

I feel compelled to relay my impressions of what I heard at the public water-bottling plant permit hearing in September.

I listened to a LOT of testimony from experts on both sides. What I witnessed was what I would call “business as usual” from DNRC employees, each one of them pointing a finger at the other, defending shoddy, incomplete work, and throwing each other under the proverbial bus. NO ONE came close to accepting responsibility for all of the omissions on applications, the bungled well tests, the unaccounted 13 hours of missing information on what is supposed to be an HOURLY report performed during the well test.

I heard DNRC hydrologists confess they used mathematical equations that would skew the desired results to “green-light” the permit and make their jobs as easy as possible. However, the creator of that calculation, Dr. S. Neuman, submitted testimony that they should NEVER have used his solution, that this was not an appropriate use of it regarding this particular aquifer. I heard NO reference to DNRC employees OR water consultants hired by the water permit applicant to ever attempt to contact, discuss or ask for additional info from one another when, clearly, much was omitted from the application.

I heard the water consultants hired by Montana Artesian Water Company admit to using old UNLOGGED wells in the vicinity as their “observation” wells. I heard them testify that, in hindsight, they should have suggested that MAWC drill at least two new and properly logged observation wells in order to obtain “reliable” results. I continually heard of corners that were cut, shortcuts that were taken, a six-year-old DNRC internal “memo” that was used as gospel to keep the process moving forward in lieu of ACTUAL Montana law. I heard Mr. Levens, the co-author of this “memo,” admit that it was never intended to be used as anything more than a guideline and is indeed outdated and that the agency would be better served with something more current, reliable and legal.

With the magnitude of effects possible from the granting of this huge permit, it is incredulous to see just how cavalier this agency is with our precious resource ... clean water! This permit application should absolutely be denied! Not modified and certainly not granted. This process should begin again at SQUARE ONE, a new permit application, a new starting date, new testing and data gathering that would be considered thorough. The DNRC is not used to being scrutinized. Consider the fact that a concerned citizen must pay $25 to object to a permit process as well as retain legal representation while doing so. I have witnessed this agency’s weak, rubber-stamping “permitting process” up-close. Let it be known that they are being called out and must be held to a much higher standard, as should our county commissioners, who let this process unfold without a thorough public inquiry. The DNRC and county commissioners have set the bar extremely low, yet it STILL manages to be well beyond their reach. Flathead County residents deserve better! —Jean Rachubka, Kalispell

Trump’s lack of service in Vietnam needs to be remembered

Let me start by stating that I am a firm believer in the First Amendment. I believe that Donald Trump has a right to say what he wants (within certain limits). These rights also belong to any other citizen of the United States (again with limits).

That having been said, people of the U.S. and especially veterans should be irate about Donald Trump lecturing anyone concerning patriotism and respect for the flag.

Trump did not have the courage to stand up and serve his country. He instead used his wealth and privilege to take the coward’s dodge by getting some doctor to write a letter getting him out of the draft. (I am a Vietnam era veteran and saw this dodge time and again, as I am sure did many of my fellow vets).

Donald Trump wants to wrap himself in the flag and disparage Americans exercising their right of free speech. As a draft dodger, Trump has no moral standing to weigh in on matters of patriotism. Not to me, other vets, or parents, grandparents, wives, sisters, brothers, etc., who had a family member who volunteered or was drafted and may have been killed, wounded, captured or is still listed as missing in action.

I don’t always agree with what some people are saying or their methods of protest, but I went and served my country to defend those rights. Trump did not! —Jack Thomson, Lakeside

San Juan mayor should not be whining, but working

America has been giving Puerto Ricans hundreds of millions of dollars in food stamps and welfare payments every year for decades. In return, we have gotten nothing.

All of the pharmaceutical companies are in Puerto Rico in order to avoid having to pay taxes. As a result, they keep raising the price of our medications. Most people in Puerto Rico are poor and they have to live in dilapidated shacks that will blow down in a stiff breeze. It is too bad that the island is in what is known as “Hurricane Alley.”

lt made me almost convulsive to watch the mayor of San Juan on TV whine and snivel and beg Americans for more help. In some ways, that is probably her job. But the United States has been hit hard by hurricanes recently, too. And, it will take billions of dollars for years to rebuild. That mayor needs to build more shelters and upgrade the building standards in San Juan.

President Trump was trying to be honest when he said, “Puerto Rico wants everything done for it.” If we are in the end times, like some people are predicting, we are going to have many disasters. Who will come to our aid and help us? —Sinowa Cruz, Kalispell

Best defense can’t always be bear spray!

I would like to comment on the recent bear attack in the Hungry Horse area, particularly the FWP’s comments. That was close!

The effectiveness of bear spray has been well documented and I do not dispute that. But really, has its effectiveness been tested on a bear while it is chewing on someone? I would conclude, even if FWP is reluctant to admit it, that this man was very prepared for “this” bear encounter. Seriously, if the man had both his .44 and a can of bear spray, does FWP feel that he should have to decide, in a millisecond, before his son is dragged off into the brush, “let me try this first” and opt for the bear spray? C’mon guys, his son was in the bear’s mouth. —Tom O’Bleness, Libby