To the editor: This is to respond to George Dusenberry’s (W.Milford MUA Board) letter to local newspapers on “inaccurate reports” that “unjustifiably tarnished the MUA’s reputation.” In his point #2 he indicates that the MUA must comply with all DEP permit requirements. That presumably counters West Milford residents’ allegations at the Valley Ridge planning board hearing that the MUA had not complied. But, the DEP web site on “Enforcement Actions” from Dec. 31, 2003 to Dec. 31, 2004 shows the following: Facility No. of Violations Penalty Received Awosting 11 $66,000 $13,200 Bald Eagle Village 2 $0 $0 Crescent Park 11 $6,000 $1,200 Highview Acres* 77 $43,000 $8,600 Olde Milford* 59 $18,000 $3,600 TOTAL 160 $133,000 $26,600 * DEP Report to NJ Environmental Crimes Bureau In point #3 he suggests that partisan politics were involved in attacking the MUA to circumvent Highlands Act exemptions (i.e., Valley Ridge development). In contrast, water samples were taken at the Olde Milford plant by Aaronson and Warden because its effluent into Belchers Creek fertilizes the weeds in Pinecliff and Greenwood Lakes, and we didn’t want the extra pollution that Valley Ridge would bring if connected to that plant. In point #6 Dusenberry indicates that Olde Milford phosphorus effluent is below 1.0 ppm, and our water sample value and photos of foam could be due to: air in the water below a water fall, waves breaking onto the shore, decomposed plant matter, or storm drain pollutants. However, our sample, with 4.02 ppm analyzed by Garden State Labs, was taken DIRECTLY from the Olde Milford Outflow pipe. There were no waterfalls, waves, storm drains or plant matter (generally from winter “die-off” in spring rains) in the area to cause the large amount of foam in our photos. Further, in contrast to his additional statement, we did present the results to the NJDEP and the WM Health Dept., and we did not meet with the media three hours before the Valley Ridge public hearing. In point #7 Dusenberry cites Dr. Bell’s Spring 1999 Belchers Creek Water Quality study as concluding that Fecal Coliform counts were higher downstream of Pinecliff Lake than the three sample points upstream of Pinecliff Lake, thus implying that Pinecliff Lake is the Belchers Creek polluter. However, Dr. Bell was hired on a successful $90,000 grant that I wrote, and the exact values at sampling points along Belchers Creek were as follows: Dockerty Hollow Rd (2), Bald Eagle Pond (2), Stowaway Rd. (4), Pinecliff Dam (2), Lewis Ave (86), and Prescott Rd. (18). Thus Dusenberry’s insinuations about Pinecliff’s pollution are false. Interestingly, Dusenberry did not cite Dr. Bell’s Fall 1999 sample values: Dockerty Hollow Rd. (100), Bald Eagle Pond (228), Stowaway Rd. (78), Pinecliff (48), Lewis Ave (268), and Prescott Rd. (72). Note that Pinecliff had the lowest value, and Bald Eagle had one of the highest. A health department sample of that pond’s outflow in 2004 was 4,100, likely caused by subsurface seepage from the leaching field located near the edge of the pond, from a supposedly in-ground discharging plant. Dusenberry further claims that Bell’s report does not identify any indicators of sewage plant effluent. But Bell never tested any water near any MUA plants, except for the Bald Eagle Village plant. In light of the above data from DEP’s web site, from our own water samples analyzed by a DEP-licensed lab, and from Dr. Bell’s 1999 study done in the context of my DEP-supported grant, I would conclude that the MUA’s allegations are problematic, and that the MUA does contribute in a serious way to Belchers Creek pollution. At the MUA public hearing on the Valley Ridge development, many West milford residents supported these scientific data with their own, perhaps unscientific tests, which one might term: “the nose knows.” Namely, some of the MUA sewage plants stink some of the time, and odors are a violation listed in DEP regulations. Doris Aaronson West Milford