To the editor:

I just returned home from my volunteer job at city hall. There, my fellow volunteer and I tested and calibrated the equipment we will use in the field tomorrow.

Bright and early, rain or shine, we will hike deep into ravines, slog through boot-sucking mud, and lower a pole over a 25-foot drop to test and collect water samples at 16 carefully chosen sites throughout most of the Bainbridge Island watersheds. Along with interns, we have been doing this work every month for almost 10 years.

People frequently ask me, “So how is the water on Bainbridge Island?” Well, on a scale from 0 to 100 (100 being the best), our very best stream earned a 73, whereas others scored in the 50s and 60s. These ratings are based on such criteria as how well a stream can support life (salmon, for example), whether or not it is polluted with excess nutrients, and if it’s contaminated with bacteria from animal or human waste.

As Islanders, I think we can do better. I volunteer my time and muddy boots because without data collection, no conclusions can be drawn, no corrective action can be taken, and no recommendations for improvement can be made.

However, the draft budget for the next two years proposes to eliminate the position of water resources specialist, which is the very person assigned to oversee the quality of the water on our Island. To me, that decision is short-sighted and ill conceived.

We have until the end of the year to ask the city council to reconsider their position. I’ve written to the city council; I hope you will too.

SARAH PEARL

Bainbridge Island