Voters on Spokane's West Plains will see a ballot measure to enact an aquifer protection area.

If approved, it would impose an annual fee of $15 per household for water and an additional $15 fee for households on septic system.

Funds would go to planning, continued testing and maintenance, facility operations, and public education.

Hank Bynaker, a former Airway Heights City Council member, is here to talk more about this proposal.

Hank.

Thanks for being here.

The fee would pay for aquifer monitoring, education and infrastructure improvements.

Can you kind of get more specific on where you see these, this funding going?

Well, the important aspect, I think first of all about the funding is it's dedicated funding it.

You don't contribute to this, right, with the with the fee each year and have that money being spent somewhere else.

It's dedicated to this West Plains aquifer protection area.

And that dedicated funding gives us the ability, the resources, right, because everything you do takes money.

And so it gives us, a fund to draw from, to do things like monitoring, for example, contamination of our aquifers isn't limited to PFAS, which I think most people are aware of now.

And many are impacted by it.

But, you know, where is the water moving because the fast and or any other contaminants are going to move with it, and it could be coming to a neighborhood near you.

So, so we want to put measures in place.

And the funding from this will give us the ability to to do the monitoring and, and to do a lot of things that we would otherwise have to depend on grant funds to do.

And so, learning the hydrogeology, where is the water moving, how quickly is it moving?

Things like where are the recharge places, you know that our our water, we only get rainwater that discharges or I should say recharge is our aquifer.

There's no big glacier that melts and replenishes the water.

So the water that we have in the one off, and Grand Run aquifers, which serve our area, it's really critically important to protect that from any future harm.

As you said, a lot of people are aware of the fast situation on the West Point.

You talked about that this would help monitor that situation, but will it help homeowners who are dealing with the toxic water?

Well, there's there's some 4000 sole source wells in the West Plains area, you know, and, it's unfortunate, but EPA really doesn't regulate well, water.

They're sort of on their own.

They they actually fell into a big crevasse because, you know, they look around, nobody's around to help them.

Right.

And so we're trying to put things in place much like this, this, aquifer protection area, which can, through monitoring and understanding the geology and testing, you know, testing your well water.

I would recommend anybody that hasn't had their well water tested that might be in either of those plumes, Fairchild Air Force bases or the Spokane International Airport.

Have your water tested to determine you know, is my well contaminated and if so, at what level?

You know, and and these funds these this dedicated funding will provide the resources we need to do exactly that.

Well, in the counties voter guide, local attorney Bob Montgomery provided the argument against the measure.

We did invite him on multiple occasions to be here with us today.

We did not get a response.

So I do want to share part of his published argument.

He says, quote, the proponents of this plan have no goal in sight to clean up our water.

Instead, they wish to bill us for a study to grasp at straws for a couple of decades, searching for excuses to shift responsibility away from the airports and their pollution.

Hank, you say that this argument misses the goal of, of the aquifer protection area.

Completely.

Explain.

It really does.

Because, honestly, when I read the argument and by the way, myself and two other individuals wrote the statement for okay, what I read his statement against I, I had to reread the measure.

Right.

Page 44.

I had to reread the measure and and when I read through this is this has nothing to do with our measure.

His response, his argument.

Yes.

The statement against he's talking about this whole force, you know, as he relates to this ecological disaster.

And he's saying that the money that we would collect from the public would would replace the money that Fairchild and, and the airport should be paying for.

It has nothing to do with that.

We're not replacing anything.

Are you in support of getting the money that's deserved?

Yes, yes.

These people.

And it just breaks my heart.

These people have been so affected their whole lives have been turned upside down because of this PFAS, contamination.

And it was through no fault of their own.

Right.

They they're victims of this.

But as much as we're concerned about the force, and I'm on other committees dedicated to this PFAS effort, this measure is completely separate and apart from what he's talking about.

And so that's why I was kind of taken aback when I, when I read this, and I noticed there was no rebuttal to our, you know, to our statement.

So, so anyway, yeah, that that completely missed the target altogether.

There might be a homeowner out there that says my wells already contaminated.

So why why should I care?

Like why should I pay money?

I'm already dealing with this.

What could be very expensive situation.

Kind of address that a little bit for those people out there who are saying, doesn't help me now kind of thing.

I have attended an awful lot of meetings, you know, various kinds, and I've listened to these people that are directly affected and my heart goes out to them, really does.

Because imagine if you're if you if you're unaware that your well is contaminated and you're feeding your grandchild, you know, your baby, your grand baby formula made from that well water.

And I've heard these people say, gosh, I'm I was poisoning my grandchild without any knowledge of that.

How do you live with that, you know, and what are the repercussions from that downstream?

I don't know, but but all I can tell the voters, and I can't stress this enough.

I know we're taxed to death.

I feel no differently.

But please understand, we have a golden opportunity right now to put something in place that could stand for today, tomorrow, future generations, to protect what we have.

And yes, it is contaminated, but let's not further contaminate it because there's a lot of development going on.

There's just a lot of moving parts to this.

And this measure, I think, is a really important first step that all of us in the West Plains can, can make to protect what we have.

Yeah.

All right, Hank, that's a great way to wrap it up.

Thanks for joining us and explaining this very important ballot measure to our view.

I appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you very much, Dana