Mary:
        I didn't mean to sound condescending.  If I did, I apologize.

        About EPA - was that a joke, or do you really avoid EPA?

        Pesticide use - good point - we never know fully who is using what, 
        although out pesticide staff tries to find out.  And it's a losing 
        battle trying to keep up with all the new pesticides and herbicides 
        on the market.  I agree, the Feds ought to fund the mandates they 
        pass along, such as the extensive drinking water testing 
        requirements.  Our comments on the revolving fund program proposed 
        in the SDWA legislation included our view that Uncle Sam should 
        provide money for testing, rather than money for building new 
        systems.  (Especially considering the history of construction 
        grants and loans under the CWA, which went predominantly to large 
        cities rather than to the small communities that need the most 
        help.)

        Connection between surface and ground water systems - certainly a 
        concern.  The Floridan Aquifer is recharged largely in Georgia, so 
        we worry about that all the time.  Have you been involved in the 
        UDI (Under Direct Influence) program?  If so, what are your 
        thoughts on it?

        Yes, a poisoned water supply IS more expensive to deal with than 
        testing.  Unfortunately, testing doesn't tell you anything until 
        it's too late - the aquifer is already contaminated.  A better 
        approach is PREVENTION, such as wellhead protection, which is what 
        I was referring to in regard to revising the Clean Water Act.  
        Wellhead protection requirements are a political hot potato, 
        because it's land use management, and developers and industry hate 
        land use rules.  We just got rolled here recently at the State 
        level on that issue.  Stronger ground water protection measures in 
        the federal Clean Water Act would help our effort.  (But it would 
        have to be flexible for States that don't need it, and would 
        require funding.  Hence the stone wall we've encountered.)

        Ecofeminism could help (is helping?) a lot on the 
        pesticide/herbicide problem: avoid their use to begin with, by 
        using non-chemical methods of pest and weed control.  Is anyone on 
        the list following the Delaney Clause controversy?
                                                                Al

Reply via email to