Lake (california) residents not sure poison's gone (from Lake )

[Guest guest]

Will someone explain to me why the state Fish and Game Department

(California) poured poison into the seven-mile-long lake to kill the

northern pike, a non-native predatory game fish that authorities said

threatened California's salmon and trout fisheries. This is just about as

stupid as the Florida Department of Agriculture using aerial spraying of

malathion to kill the medfly. Can these public agencies really be so out of

touch with the concept of environmental protection and safety? Have they

never heard of using the least toxic method available?

http://www.mercurycenter.com/premium/local/docs/lake22.htm

Published Monday, March 22, 1999, in the San Mercury News

Lake residents not sure poison's gone

They refuse to drink from it

BY JOHN HOWARD

Associated Press

LAKE DAVIS -- Mountain folk who depend on this alpine lake fought for 18

months to purge the poison that killed its fish and tainted its purity.

But now that California says the water is fit to drink, people don't want

any part of it.

``This is the most tested body of water in California, but people just don't

believe the government when it says the water is safe,'' said Bill Powers,

mayor of nearby Portola, which used the lake as its principal water supply.

``There is a poison here, but it's in people's brains, in their minds. They

believe they can't trust the government -- and that's a terrible thing.''

The state Fish and Game Department poured poison into the seven-mile-long

lake to kill the toothy, lean-jawed northern pike, a non-native predatory

game fish that authorities said threatened California's salmon and trout

fisheries. The pike apparently was placed in the lake years before by

fishermen.

The 16,000 gallons of liquid and 60,000 pounds of powder poison killed the

pike -- and everything else in the lake nearly 300 miles northeast of San

. The October 1997 poisoning enraged local residents who feared the

lake, the core of the area's tourist industry, was irreparably damaged.

Portola had hoped to hook back up to the lake this spring.

But last week, despite months of assurances from the state health department

that Lake water is safe to drink, the Portola City Council decided to

refrain from using the lake as a municipal water supply for at least a year.

Instead, the town of 2,400 residents will rely on two emergency wells and

nearby Willow Springs.

Fishing, boating and swimming -- fine. But not drinking.

``The consensus of people was that they just didn't want to drink that

water, and most of the people say they won't eat the fish that come out of

the lake,'' said City Manager Jim .

``Would you drink it?'' he added.

Dave Spath would. He's the chief of the state health department's drinking

water section, he has tested the lake repeatedly, and he says the water's

fine.

``There is no problem with its use,'' he said. ``The lake is clear.''

But residents fear that some contamination may remain in the water, or that

chemicals may have settled into the lake's muddy bottom, tainting the fish

that scrounge there for food.

They note that the state's original assurances that the chemicals would

dissipate within two weeks were inaccurate. Traces of the chemicals were

found months later.

Locals have never been happy with the plan. In April 1997, about 250 Portola

residents -- armed with water jugs plastered with skulls and crossbones --

held a noisy rally protesting the plan.

Using the lake water again was envisioned as the final chapter in the

controversial poisoning.

Earlier, a Plumas County judge ordered dozens of criminal allegations

dropped against Fish and Game Department officials.

The charges, filed by the Plumas County district attorney, said the

officials failed to properly handle the poisoning and allowed chemicals to

leak into a nearby creek. But a judge later removed him from the case for

being biased against the state.

The special prosecutor who was appointed to succeed him said the case was

``fatally flawed'' and asked for dismissal; the judge agreed.

The action allowed a $9 million settlement to go forward in which the state

agreed to defray the financial impact of the poisoning on the rural area's

tourism-based economy.

Local officials said the poisoning cut the local economy by 35 percent to 40

percent.

Figures released by the state Board of Equalization showed the economic

effect may have been far less, roughly a 6 percent reduction in taxable

sales, but local officials said that doesn't include lost revenues from

vacant motel rooms and empty rental cabins.