On March 17, 2010, Portland's City Council gave the go ahead to the Portland Water Bureau to start the uber-expensive and unnecessary new water tank at Kelly Butte. The contract is going to Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH). MWH has secured most of the largest PWB contract awards over the last decade, MWH employees were involved in writing the LT2 Rule that Portland is now citing as the reason they must build this new tank at Kelly Butte, and reportedly, it was MWH that originally conceived of this idea to build a tank we don't need at Kelly Butte almost a decade ago. One might also note, MWH constructed the famously faulty buried tanks in Seattle which have contaminated that city's water supply.
There were two companies on the official “short list” to get the Kelly Butte contract; one was MWH and the other was a company called AECOM. AECOM is another mammoth global engineering firm. This year, Friends of the Reservoirs and I have found CH2MHill and MWH bidding on contracts, such as the Powell Butte contract, under other names. For instance, with the Powell Butte project we saw two bids come in: one from CH2MHill and one from Tetra Tech. The Tetra Tech bid turned out to be a consortium of multiple players, including MWH and Black & Veatch. AECOM has a history of working with CH2MHill on lucrative contracts. (Note the consortium called “Transcend” that was developed this time last year for a large rail project in the UK).
Also note on the Kelly Butte meeting sign in sheet, CH2MHill listed itself as a “SUB” or subcontractor for this project and AECOM listed itself as a “PRIME” or the prime contractor for this project. Which means AECOM was planning on submitting its bid under its own name, and CH2MHill is/was planning on working under some other company on this project.
As citizens become more alarmed at the influence particular firms have over large projects in Portland, we should expect to see those firms occasionally mask their participation in large contracts so as to lesson appearances of impropriety. Something to be aware of as more contracts move forward. The top name does not necessarily tell you who the real players are behind the contract. The only way to know which companies are truly benefiting from these large contract awards is to request to see every bid -- a costly prospect given the Portland Water Bureau's refusal to recognize fee waivers for community organizations and their insistence on charging for every form of access to these bids.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Cost without Cause
If you've read my PURB testimony from March 3, 2010, you've read this paper.
In 1973, citizens sued to protect the Bull Run watershed from logging. At the time, logging was being promoted by both the federal government and the Portland Water Bureau.*1 These citizens asserted that logging in the watershed was destructive to water quality. The judge on the case, Justice James M. Burns, rather pointedly identified one of the flaws in that 1973 debate surrounding our water system. He drew a distinction between statements of policy or purpose and statements of fact, noting that one should not be confused with the other. At that time, the federal government issued policy statements like, “logging will protect Bull Run from catastrophic fire,” but upon investigation the facts proved logging increased both the risk of and the damage caused by fire. The policy to log Bull Run as a means to control fire risk or damage in our watershed, was a policy based on an erroneous assumption about the relationship between logging and fire. Asserting that assumption unchecked, in a policy worded as a doctrine to protect, almost allowed a destructive practice to move forward under the guise of a policy meant to help.
Portland is again in a position where the federal government has asserted a statement of policy. And again, when Portlanders investigate the assumptions underlying these policy statements, the facts just don’t bear out.
Unsupported Policy #1: Covering your reservoirs will protect public health. Fact: EPA has documented multiple cases of death and illness caused by infectious Cryptosporidium outbreaks in drinking water systems. Every single case was either in a system with covered drinking water storage, or in a system where sewage, industrial, and farm runoff mixed with drinking water.* 2 The policy to “protect people from infectious Crypto” can be supported. The facts, however, don’t seem to support the use of lids as a meaningful treatment technique for microbes. Debris of all sizes enters all forms of water storage devices. If there is an inlet and an outlet for the water, there are entry points for non-water matter including microbes; covering a reservoir does not eliminate the need to manage contamination. Covers do not provide a silver bullet in the effort to protect public health.
New York City’s Department of Environmental Quality has spent significant resources collecting data on one of their large open reservoirs, known as Hillview. Their question was simple and quantifiable: Is water any more likely to contain Crypto or other protozoa once that water has been in the Hillview open reservoir than water that has not been in this open reservoir? The answer also seems to be simple: No. Time in the Hillview open reservoir does not increase the incidence of protozoa found in that water.* 3
Portland, too, has spent significant resources documenting the safety of the city’s open reservoirs. Between May 2008 and May 2009, the Portland Water Bureau paid to participate in a study conducted by the Water Research Foundation (WRF project #3021 *4); this was a large-volume collection study, analyzing finished drinking water gathered at the outlet of our open reservoirs (water sampled spent time in the open reservoirs). A preliminary report from this study has been published and the basic results found in Portland were communicated throughout the year-long test period. There was no infectious Crypto found in Portland’s drinking water.
Unsupported Policy #2: Constructed facilities are superior to engineered, protected watersheds when creating quality drinking water. Fact: There is no substitution for starting with the purest water possible. Portland’s drinking water system is uniquely engineered within a substantial framework of protection (possible because this system was established more than 100 years ago), and the result is some of the purest tap water in the country. The federal LT2 Rule favors construction over protection, without much data to support that favoritism.
EPA can produce surprisingly little evidence to verify chemical filtration plants perform the duties we expect them to perform. Drinking water exiting a chemical filtration plant is assumed to meet a particular set of standards; but that water is not tested to confirm that it meets those standards. When Portland tests its source water as part of the Variance process this coming year, it will be testing to see if Bull Run water meets the standards chemically filtered water is assumed to meet, with little evidence that chemically filtered water can actually meet these same standards. Furthermore, if ratepayers in Portland do buy an additional treatment plant, in theory so that Portland’s water can meet these standards, consumers have little in the way of a guarantee that they will actually get the results for which they are paying.
Recently, EPA scientists publicly revealed that EPA policies are often politically motivated rather than scientifically motivated. In testimony before a US Senate Committee this past summer (June 9, 2009) the Director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (USC) exposed an EPA producing compromised work-products between the years of 2002 and 2007 (these are the same years LT2 draft and then final rule was issued; * 5) , because of undue interference largely driven by industry lobbyists. Responders to a survey of EPA scientists revealed 22% had personally experienced the “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.” The percentage of scientists reporting interference was highest in the program offices with regulatory duties (68%) and at EPA headquarters (69%). One survey-responder explained that in cases where regulation is industry driven rather than scientifically driven, “the regulations contain a scientific rationale with little or no merit,” because, “the real reasons can’t be stated.” *6
One can begin to see evidence of possible industry influence on the LT2 Rule by reading the 2004 public comments from the Unfiltered Systems Working Group (comments made while LT2 was still in draft form * 7 ). This group calls-out a particular favoritism being afforded, at that time, to one specific industry by EPA with LT2’s mandate to use an exact treatment technique (UV).
We are also concerned with Calgon’s UV patent and its cost impact to unfiltered
systems, which, based on the proposed rule, will have to rely on the operation of UV to
meet the Cryptosporidium inactivation criterion. We believe it is inappropriate that the
proposed rule’s reliance on “UV only” causes the unfiltered systems to pay a substantial
patent fee annually to Calgon to meet the LT2 requirements.*7
Note that representatives from Calgon served on at least one of the Federal Advisory Committees funneling information into the LT2 Rule. *8 A number of participants on these federal committees, some of whom were Portland grown, *9 appear to have conflicting interests including connections to the various industries that stand to gain lucrative contracts as municipalities attempt to comply with the LT2 regulation.
One can see further evidence of possible industry influence on the LT2 Rule when considering the Rule’s open reservoir requirements, which heavily favor constructing new facilities without providing sound scientific reasoning. The open reservoir requirements found in LT2 are a perplexing insertion into a Rule which is otherwise dedicated to source water issues, not storage issues. EPA does not offer a single citation of a public health incident linked to open storage; EPA does, however, cite public health incidents in water systems employing closed storage devices. Yet, the LT2 Rule does not prescribe any new requirements for closed storage (the devices with incidents on record). EPA’s focus here seems less about protecting public health than it does about promoting the financial interests of industry lobbyists.
EPA’s application of this cookie-cutter regulation on a water system as unique as Portland’s, has always been a questionable approach to ensuring the public’s interests. As evidence mounts that EPA regulations are grounded less in science than in special interests, cities like Portland must carefully question the efficacy of compliance.
Unsupported Policy #3: Microbes are a threat to public health, while chemicals are not. Fact: The overarching goal in drinking water management is to produce water that supports the public’s good health. Portlanders should question the underlying assumption that the public’s health will subsequently improve with an even further reduction of microbe exposure (beyond the low-microbe levels already achieved by first-world, modern drinking water systems). Does completely eliminating all microbes from drinking water make people healthier?
There is data that suggests otherwise. A 2004 study by the Water Research Foundation (WRF) suggests a surprisingly complex relationship between microbe levels found in American tap water and the incidence of chronic diseases associated with microbes found in an American’s everyday environment. *10 Decreasing the microbes found in a drinking water supply clearly increases health, up to a certain point. Modern drinking water systems have mastered this point by separating sewage and drinking supplies (among many other conventions). Beyond a certain point, however, a further reduction of microbes seems to be linked to an increase in the number of people suffering from chronic, related diseases. The WRF study would seem to suggest that there may be a point at which the public is dependent on some small amount of microbe exposure in the drinking water to provide them immunity and increase resistance to those microbes encountered in the normal course of a person’s day. Which sounds familiar = small, occasional exposure builds immunity and increases resistance to chronic disease. Employing large chemical treatment plants as an additional barrier between taps and a well protected, clean water supply like Bull Run may unnecessarily deny the population a chance to incrementally build immunity to microbes, while dramatically increasing the chemicals to which the population is exposed. Modern drinking water is increasingly laced with a myriad of chemicals, many of which are employed to adjust the composition of said drinking water. There is remarkably little recognition among water industry officials and municipality managers of the long-term effects those chemicals have on humans, in various stages of life.
Endnotes:
1 Cooperation and Conflict in a Federal-Municipal Watershed, by Roy R. Wilson. Available online: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/jspui/bitstream/1957/9685/1/Wilson_Roy_R_1989.pdf
2 EPA whitepaper Finished Water Storage Facilities, prepared August 2002. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf
3 www.dos.state.ny.us/watershed/2009presentations/AlderisioWSTCHillview091409ppt.ppt
4 Project snapshot available online: http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/topicsandprojects/projectSnapshot.aspx?pn=3021
5 Also the same years during which the open reservoir requirements were inserted into the LT2 Rule.
6 Testimony by Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D., Senior Scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Director of the Scientific Integrity Program. Delivered June 2009, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Written testimony available online: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Grifo-EPW-Testimony-June-9-2009.pdf
7 A copy of the Unfiltered Systems Working Group comments, January 2004, can be found on the Friends of the Reservoirs website: http://friendsofreservoirs.org/LT2/LT2comments-USWG.pdf
8 http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WATER/2000/December/Day-29/w33306.htm
9 http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=22165 As a representative of MWH, Joe Glicker served on various federal advisory committees with influence on the LT2 Rule. In recent years, Joe Glicker has joined CH2MHill, another global engineering firm specializing in water system projects. CH2MHill has secured several of the most recent LT2 related contracts, including the design contract for the Powell Butte reservoir and a contract to perform at least part of the work associated with the Bull Run treatment plant ( see Notice of Intent to Award associated with solicitation WTR082 https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0FLHRhrA9yaMTMxZmY3ZjctNTA2YS00YzljLThmMTItYzQwYTRmZWVlNjA1&hl=en).
10 Water Research Foundation, Northwest Epidemiologic Enteric Disease Study, Project # 2637; project summary available online: http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/projectProfile.aspx?pn=2637
In 1973, citizens sued to protect the Bull Run watershed from logging. At the time, logging was being promoted by both the federal government and the Portland Water Bureau.*1 These citizens asserted that logging in the watershed was destructive to water quality. The judge on the case, Justice James M. Burns, rather pointedly identified one of the flaws in that 1973 debate surrounding our water system. He drew a distinction between statements of policy or purpose and statements of fact, noting that one should not be confused with the other. At that time, the federal government issued policy statements like, “logging will protect Bull Run from catastrophic fire,” but upon investigation the facts proved logging increased both the risk of and the damage caused by fire. The policy to log Bull Run as a means to control fire risk or damage in our watershed, was a policy based on an erroneous assumption about the relationship between logging and fire. Asserting that assumption unchecked, in a policy worded as a doctrine to protect, almost allowed a destructive practice to move forward under the guise of a policy meant to help.
Portland is again in a position where the federal government has asserted a statement of policy. And again, when Portlanders investigate the assumptions underlying these policy statements, the facts just don’t bear out.
Unsupported Policy #1: Covering your reservoirs will protect public health. Fact: EPA has documented multiple cases of death and illness caused by infectious Cryptosporidium outbreaks in drinking water systems. Every single case was either in a system with covered drinking water storage, or in a system where sewage, industrial, and farm runoff mixed with drinking water.* 2 The policy to “protect people from infectious Crypto” can be supported. The facts, however, don’t seem to support the use of lids as a meaningful treatment technique for microbes. Debris of all sizes enters all forms of water storage devices. If there is an inlet and an outlet for the water, there are entry points for non-water matter including microbes; covering a reservoir does not eliminate the need to manage contamination. Covers do not provide a silver bullet in the effort to protect public health.
New York City’s Department of Environmental Quality has spent significant resources collecting data on one of their large open reservoirs, known as Hillview. Their question was simple and quantifiable: Is water any more likely to contain Crypto or other protozoa once that water has been in the Hillview open reservoir than water that has not been in this open reservoir? The answer also seems to be simple: No. Time in the Hillview open reservoir does not increase the incidence of protozoa found in that water.* 3
Portland, too, has spent significant resources documenting the safety of the city’s open reservoirs. Between May 2008 and May 2009, the Portland Water Bureau paid to participate in a study conducted by the Water Research Foundation (WRF project #3021 *4); this was a large-volume collection study, analyzing finished drinking water gathered at the outlet of our open reservoirs (water sampled spent time in the open reservoirs). A preliminary report from this study has been published and the basic results found in Portland were communicated throughout the year-long test period. There was no infectious Crypto found in Portland’s drinking water.
Unsupported Policy #2: Constructed facilities are superior to engineered, protected watersheds when creating quality drinking water. Fact: There is no substitution for starting with the purest water possible. Portland’s drinking water system is uniquely engineered within a substantial framework of protection (possible because this system was established more than 100 years ago), and the result is some of the purest tap water in the country. The federal LT2 Rule favors construction over protection, without much data to support that favoritism.
EPA can produce surprisingly little evidence to verify chemical filtration plants perform the duties we expect them to perform. Drinking water exiting a chemical filtration plant is assumed to meet a particular set of standards; but that water is not tested to confirm that it meets those standards. When Portland tests its source water as part of the Variance process this coming year, it will be testing to see if Bull Run water meets the standards chemically filtered water is assumed to meet, with little evidence that chemically filtered water can actually meet these same standards. Furthermore, if ratepayers in Portland do buy an additional treatment plant, in theory so that Portland’s water can meet these standards, consumers have little in the way of a guarantee that they will actually get the results for which they are paying.
Recently, EPA scientists publicly revealed that EPA policies are often politically motivated rather than scientifically motivated. In testimony before a US Senate Committee this past summer (June 9, 2009) the Director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (USC) exposed an EPA producing compromised work-products between the years of 2002 and 2007 (these are the same years LT2 draft and then final rule was issued; * 5) , because of undue interference largely driven by industry lobbyists. Responders to a survey of EPA scientists revealed 22% had personally experienced the “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.” The percentage of scientists reporting interference was highest in the program offices with regulatory duties (68%) and at EPA headquarters (69%). One survey-responder explained that in cases where regulation is industry driven rather than scientifically driven, “the regulations contain a scientific rationale with little or no merit,” because, “the real reasons can’t be stated.” *6
One can begin to see evidence of possible industry influence on the LT2 Rule by reading the 2004 public comments from the Unfiltered Systems Working Group (comments made while LT2 was still in draft form * 7 ). This group calls-out a particular favoritism being afforded, at that time, to one specific industry by EPA with LT2’s mandate to use an exact treatment technique (UV).
We are also concerned with Calgon’s UV patent and its cost impact to unfiltered
systems, which, based on the proposed rule, will have to rely on the operation of UV to
meet the Cryptosporidium inactivation criterion. We believe it is inappropriate that the
proposed rule’s reliance on “UV only” causes the unfiltered systems to pay a substantial
patent fee annually to Calgon to meet the LT2 requirements.*7
Note that representatives from Calgon served on at least one of the Federal Advisory Committees funneling information into the LT2 Rule. *8 A number of participants on these federal committees, some of whom were Portland grown, *9 appear to have conflicting interests including connections to the various industries that stand to gain lucrative contracts as municipalities attempt to comply with the LT2 regulation.
One can see further evidence of possible industry influence on the LT2 Rule when considering the Rule’s open reservoir requirements, which heavily favor constructing new facilities without providing sound scientific reasoning. The open reservoir requirements found in LT2 are a perplexing insertion into a Rule which is otherwise dedicated to source water issues, not storage issues. EPA does not offer a single citation of a public health incident linked to open storage; EPA does, however, cite public health incidents in water systems employing closed storage devices. Yet, the LT2 Rule does not prescribe any new requirements for closed storage (the devices with incidents on record). EPA’s focus here seems less about protecting public health than it does about promoting the financial interests of industry lobbyists.
EPA’s application of this cookie-cutter regulation on a water system as unique as Portland’s, has always been a questionable approach to ensuring the public’s interests. As evidence mounts that EPA regulations are grounded less in science than in special interests, cities like Portland must carefully question the efficacy of compliance.
Unsupported Policy #3: Microbes are a threat to public health, while chemicals are not. Fact: The overarching goal in drinking water management is to produce water that supports the public’s good health. Portlanders should question the underlying assumption that the public’s health will subsequently improve with an even further reduction of microbe exposure (beyond the low-microbe levels already achieved by first-world, modern drinking water systems). Does completely eliminating all microbes from drinking water make people healthier?
There is data that suggests otherwise. A 2004 study by the Water Research Foundation (WRF) suggests a surprisingly complex relationship between microbe levels found in American tap water and the incidence of chronic diseases associated with microbes found in an American’s everyday environment. *10 Decreasing the microbes found in a drinking water supply clearly increases health, up to a certain point. Modern drinking water systems have mastered this point by separating sewage and drinking supplies (among many other conventions). Beyond a certain point, however, a further reduction of microbes seems to be linked to an increase in the number of people suffering from chronic, related diseases. The WRF study would seem to suggest that there may be a point at which the public is dependent on some small amount of microbe exposure in the drinking water to provide them immunity and increase resistance to those microbes encountered in the normal course of a person’s day. Which sounds familiar = small, occasional exposure builds immunity and increases resistance to chronic disease. Employing large chemical treatment plants as an additional barrier between taps and a well protected, clean water supply like Bull Run may unnecessarily deny the population a chance to incrementally build immunity to microbes, while dramatically increasing the chemicals to which the population is exposed. Modern drinking water is increasingly laced with a myriad of chemicals, many of which are employed to adjust the composition of said drinking water. There is remarkably little recognition among water industry officials and municipality managers of the long-term effects those chemicals have on humans, in various stages of life.
Endnotes:
1 Cooperation and Conflict in a Federal-Municipal Watershed, by Roy R. Wilson. Available online: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/jspui/bitstream/1957/9685/1/Wilson_Roy_R_1989.pdf
2 EPA whitepaper Finished Water Storage Facilities, prepared August 2002. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf
3 www.dos.state.ny.us/watershed/2009presentations/AlderisioWSTCHillview091409ppt.ppt
4 Project snapshot available online: http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/topicsandprojects/projectSnapshot.aspx?pn=3021
5 Also the same years during which the open reservoir requirements were inserted into the LT2 Rule.
6 Testimony by Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D., Senior Scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Director of the Scientific Integrity Program. Delivered June 2009, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Written testimony available online: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Grifo-EPW-Testimony-June-9-2009.pdf
7 A copy of the Unfiltered Systems Working Group comments, January 2004, can be found on the Friends of the Reservoirs website: http://friendsofreservoirs.org/LT2/LT2comments-USWG.pdf
8 http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WATER/2000/December/Day-29/w33306.htm
9 http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=22165 As a representative of MWH, Joe Glicker served on various federal advisory committees with influence on the LT2 Rule. In recent years, Joe Glicker has joined CH2MHill, another global engineering firm specializing in water system projects. CH2MHill has secured several of the most recent LT2 related contracts, including the design contract for the Powell Butte reservoir and a contract to perform at least part of the work associated with the Bull Run treatment plant ( see Notice of Intent to Award associated with solicitation WTR082 https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0FLHRhrA9yaMTMxZmY3ZjctNTA2YS00YzljLThmMTItYzQwYTRmZWVlNjA1&hl=en).
10 Water Research Foundation, Northwest Epidemiologic Enteric Disease Study, Project # 2637; project summary available online: http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/projectProfile.aspx?pn=2637
Friday, March 5, 2010
Church of Water
This week, citizens turned out to speak before the Portland Utility Review Board about the PURB Water Subcommittee's recommendation to "expeditiously" close the open reservoirs. Speakers unanimously opposed this PURB recommendation, and they did so with passion as they cited a trove of research.
Most notable was the testimony given by Dr. Gary Oxman of the Multnomah County Public Health Department, declaring there isn't any sound science linking open reservoirs to any public health risk/problem. In other words, there is no public health justification for discontinuing use of our reservoirs. There is no public health justification for spending $400 million to build new tanks.
People have been doing some not-so-light reading. Citizens touched on everything from relevant test data to questionable consultant influence to derivative backed bonds. I don't think I heard an actual, "amen," but I might have heard a, "sing-it-sister," or two. The mood in the room was more like an old-time Southern church than a board meeting. The message from citizens, for like the umpteenth time, was clear: Portlanders don't want what EPA's LT2 is selling.
A local filmmaker (Brad Yazzolino) captured the meeting on video, and it is available online (be patient, it takes a while to download). At least for now, the city has posted an audio file of the hearing. Reportedly, the city will eventually make the transcript available online along with all of the "for the record" written comments that were submitted before the meeting. I submitted a 34 page packet on behalf of the MTNA land use committee. I'd be glad to share it (it is one PDF of 4mg) but I don't know how to post a PDF on this blog. For now, I'll excerpt my letter and post it here.
Most notable was the testimony given by Dr. Gary Oxman of the Multnomah County Public Health Department, declaring there isn't any sound science linking open reservoirs to any public health risk/problem. In other words, there is no public health justification for discontinuing use of our reservoirs. There is no public health justification for spending $400 million to build new tanks.
People have been doing some not-so-light reading. Citizens touched on everything from relevant test data to questionable consultant influence to derivative backed bonds. I don't think I heard an actual, "amen," but I might have heard a, "sing-it-sister," or two. The mood in the room was more like an old-time Southern church than a board meeting. The message from citizens, for like the umpteenth time, was clear: Portlanders don't want what EPA's LT2 is selling.
A local filmmaker (Brad Yazzolino) captured the meeting on video, and it is available online (be patient, it takes a while to download). At least for now, the city has posted an audio file of the hearing. Reportedly, the city will eventually make the transcript available online along with all of the "for the record" written comments that were submitted before the meeting. I submitted a 34 page packet on behalf of the MTNA land use committee. I'd be glad to share it (it is one PDF of 4mg) but I don't know how to post a PDF on this blog. For now, I'll excerpt my letter and post it here.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Comments For the Record, PURB meeting - March 3, 2010
Public Comment on Water Open Reservoirs, PURB Meeting
5:30-8:30 pm; Room C, Portland Building
Dear PURB members,
The Mt Tabor Neighborhood Association (MTNA) opposes disconnecting Portland’s open reservoirs. The community has noted numerous flaws in the LT2 Rule and in the process by which the LT2 Rule came into being. We consider all LT2 related construction projects to be a waste of ratepayer monies, as they will not measurably increase the public’s health. We hope you will take the time to read a sampling of MTNA position statements (offered as attachments to this letter) as well as some of the items on the suggested reading list we are submitting today.
In 1973, citizens sued to protect the Bull Run watershed from logging. At the time, logging was being promoted by both the federal government and the Portland Water Bureau.*[1] These citizens asserted that logging in the watershed was destructive to water quality. The judge on the case, Justice James M. Burns, rather pointedly identified one of the flaws in that 1973 debate surrounding our water system. He drew a distinction between statements of policy or purpose and statements of fact, noting that one should not be confused with the other. At that time, the federal government issued policy statements like, “logging will protect Bull Run from catastrophic fire,” but upon investigation the facts proved logging increased both the risk of and the damage caused by fire. The policy to log Bull Run as a means to control fire risk or damage in our watershed, was a policy based on an erroneous assumption about the relationship between logging and fire. Asserting that assumption unchecked, in a policy worded as a doctrine to protect, almost allowed a destructive practice to move forward under the guise of a policy meant to help.
Portland is again in a position where the federal government has asserted a statement of policy. And again, when Portlanders investigate the assumptions underlying these policy statements, the facts just don’t bear out.
Unsupported Policy #1: Covering your reservoirs will protect public health. Fact: EPA has documented multiple cases of death and illness caused by infectious Cryptosporidium outbreaks in drinking water systems. Every single case was either in a system with covered drinking water storage, or in a system where sewage, industrial, and farm runoff mixed with drinking water.*[2] The policy to “protect people from infectious Crypto” can be supported. The facts, however, don’t seem to support the use of lids as a meaningful treatment technique for microbes. Debris of all sizes enters all forms of water storage devices. If there is an inlet and an outlet for the water, there are entry points for non-water matter including microbes; covering a reservoir does not eliminate the need to manage contamination. Covers do not provide a silver bullet in the effort to protect public health.
New York City’s Department of Environmental Quality has spent significant resources collecting data on one of their large open reservoirs, known as Hillview. Their question was simple and quantifiable: Is water any more likely to contain Crypto or other protozoa once that water has been in the Hillview open reservoir than water that has not been in this open reservoir? The answer also seems to be simple: No. Time in the Hillview open reservoir does not increase the incidence of protozoa found in that water.*[3]
Portland, too, has spent significant resources documenting the safety of the city’s open reservoirs. Between May 2008 and May 2009, the Portland Water Bureau paid to participate in a study conducted by the Water Research Foundation (WRF project #3021*[4]); this was a large-volume collection study, analyzing finished drinking water gathered at the outlet of our open reservoirs (water sampled spent time in the open reservoirs). A preliminary report from this study has been published and the basic results found in Portland were communicated throughout the year-long test period. There was no infectious Crypto found in Portland’s drinking water.
Unsupported Policy #2: Constructed facilities are superior to engineered, protected watersheds when creating quality drinking water. Fact: There is no substitution for starting with the purest water possible. Portland’s drinking water system is uniquely engineered within a substantial framework of protection (possible because this system was established more than 100 years ago), and the result is some of the purest tap water in the country. The federal LT2 Rule favors construction over protection, without much data to support that favoritism.
EPA can produce surprisingly little evidence to verify chemical filtration plants perform the duties we expect them to perform. Drinking water exiting a chemical filtration plant is assumed to meet a particular set of standards; but that water is not tested to confirm that it meets those standards. When Portland tests its source water as part of the Variance process this coming year, it will be testing to see if Bull Run water meets the standards chemically filtered water is assumed to meet, with little evidence that chemically filtered water can actually meet these same standards. Furthermore, if ratepayers in Portland do buy an additional treatment plant, in theory so that Portland’s water can meet these standards, consumers have little in the way of a guarantee that they will actually get the results for which they are paying.
Recently, EPA scientists publicly revealed that EPA policies are often politically motivated rather than scientifically motivated. In testimony before a US Senate Committee this past summer (June 9, 2009) the Director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (USC) exposed an EPA producing compromised work-products between the years of 2002 and 2007*[5], because of undue interference largely driven by industry lobbyists. These are the same years EPA inexplicably and quietly omitted the mitigation option for open reservoirs from the LT2 Rule, despite the lack of scientific evidence for such action. Responders to a survey of EPA scientists revealed 22% had personally experienced the “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.” The percentage of scientists reporting interference was highest in the program offices with regulatory duties (68%) and at EPA headquarters (69%). One survey-responder explained that in cases where regulation is industry driven rather than scientifically driven, “the regulations contain a scientific rationale with little or no merit,” because, “the real reasons can’t be stated.” *[6]
One can see other evidence of industry influence on the LT2 Rule by reading the 2004 public comments from the Unfiltered Systems Working Group (comments made while LT2 was still in draft form*[7] ). This group calls-out a particular favoritism being afforded, at that time, to one specific industry by EPA with LT2’s mandate to use an exact treatment technique (UV).
One can see further evidence of possible industry influence on the LT2 Rule when considering the Rule’s open reservoir requirements, which heavily favor constructing new facilities without providing sound scientific reasoning. The open reservoir requirements found in LT2 are a perplexing insertion into a Rule which is otherwise dedicated to source water issues, not storage issues. EPA does not offer a single citation of a public health incident linked to open storage; EPA does, however, cite public health incidents in water systems employing closed storage devices. Yet, the LT2 Rule does not prescribe any new requirements for closed storage (the devices with incidents on record). EPA’s focus here seems less about protecting public health than it does about promoting the financial interests of industry lobbyists.
EPA’s application of this cookie-cutter regulation on a water system as unique as Portland’s, has always been a questionable approach to ensuring the public’s interests. As evidence mounts that EPA regulations are grounded less in science than in special interests, cities like Portland must carefully question the efficacy of compliance.
Unsupported Policy #3: Microbes are a threat to public health, while chemicals are not. Fact: The overarching goal in drinking water management is to produce water that supports the public’s good health. Portlanders should question the underlying assumption that the public’s health will subsequently improve with an even further reduction of microbe exposure (beyond the low-microbe levels already achieved by first-world, modern drinking water systems). Does completely eliminating all microbes from drinking water make people healthier?
There is data that suggests otherwise. A 2004 study by the Water Research Foundation (WRF)*[10] suggests a surprisingly complex relationship between microbe levels found in American tap water and the incidence of chronic diseases associated with microbes found in an American’s everyday environment. Decreasing the microbes found in a drinking water supply clearly increases health, up to a certain point. Modern drinking water systems have mastered this point by separating sewage and drinking supplies (among many other conventions). Beyond a certain point, however, a further reduction of microbes seems to be linked to an increase in the number of people suffering from chronic, related diseases. The WRF study would seem to suggest that there may be a point at which the public is dependent on some small amount of microbe exposure in the drinking water to provide them immunity and increase resistance to those microbes encountered in the normal course of a person’s day. Which sounds familiar = small, occasional exposure builds immunity and increases resistance to chronic disease. Employing large chemical treatment plants as an additional barrier between taps and a well protected, clean water supply like Bull Run may unnecessarily deny the population a chance to incrementally build immunity to microbes, while dramatically increasing the chemicals to which the population is exposed. Modern drinking water is increasingly laced with a myriad of chemicals, many of which are employed to adjust the composition of said drinking water. There is remarkably little recognition among water industry officials and municipality managers of the long-term effects those chemicals have on humans, in various stages of life.
MTNA Position Letters
The Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association has written many letters on LT2 issues; we are including a sampling from the last 12 months (all attached for your convenience):
Communications with Oregon’s Congressional Delegations
Letter- Urgent request for assistance with a Waiver – March 2009Communications with City Councilors
Comments before Council on March 25, 2009 opposing resolution – March 2009, MTNA rep
Letter - Seek deadline extension with the EPA – May 2009, via email
Letter - Opposing chemical filtration – July 2009, via email
Comments before Council on July 29, 2009, opposing resolution 1071 filtration – July 2009, MTNA repLetter - Highlighting flaws with the source water variance tests – August 2009, via email
Letter - File the Reservoir Variance; negotiate protocols for SW Variance – Sept 23, 2009, via emailLetter - Position on Reservoirs – Feb 2010, via email
Reading Suggestions
MTNA members know this is a complicated issue. We are sure you have had a number of great resources put before you since joining the PURB, but we’d like to ensure a few items have made your reading list.
· LT2 and Portland’s Open Reservoirs, June 28, 2009. Letter to the community, by Friends of the Reservoirs. Available about halfway down the homepage on http://friendsofreservoirs.org/ .
· Finished Water Storage Facilities, August 15, 2002. The EPA’s Whitepaper on storage facilities – it highlights the considerable problems caused by storing water in closed tanks (which seemingly would highlight considerable benefits to storing water in open tanks). Reportedly, this Whitepaper was available at the time of the community Reservoir Panel in 2004, but the Water Bureau did not provide it to the panel. Despite not having access to this data, the Reservoir Panel still recommended to keep our water storage open. Whitepaper available: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf
· One member of the Reservoir Independent Review Panel (2004) wrote a first person accounting of what it was like. Dave Mazza’s account is attached, but can also be found at: http://www.theportlandalliance.org/2004/june/reservoir.htm
· Unfiltered Systems Working Group Public Comments on LT2 Rule, Jan 2004. A copy is available online at the FOR website: http://friendsofreservoirs.org/LT2/LT2comments-USWG.pdf
· Mayor Potter/City of Portland Whitepaper on LT2, June 2005. A copy is available on the Friends of the Reservoirs website: http://www.friendsofreservoirs.org/LT2/LongTerm2-WhitePaperFinal.pdf
· For a primer on the complicated history of Bull Run, this Ph.D. thesis specifically addresses 100 years of competing influences in the watershed. Cooperation and Conflict in a Federal-Municipal Watershed, by Roy R. Wilson. Available online: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/jspui/bitstream/1957/9685/1/Wilson_Roy_R_1989.pdf
· The Boiling Point, by Allan Classen. An article in the Jan 2010 issue of the NW Examiner; exposes a PWB culture of hostility towards citizen oversight, including that oversight offered by the PURB. This article is attached, but can also be found at: http://www.nwexaminer.com/issues/
· A blog post about a Jan 2010 incident an MTNA rep had while trying to access public records at PWB. This article is attached, but can also be found at: http://mtna-landuse.blogspot.com/2010/01/water-bureau-doesnt-want-to-give-me.html
· Forget it, Jake, it’s just P-town by Phil Stanford. An article in the Portland Tribune, originally written 2003, updated 2009. This article is attached, but can also be found at: http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=22165
Sincerely,
Stephanie Stewart
Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Land Use Chair
Endnotes:[1] Cooperation and Conflict in a Federal-Municipal Watershed, by Roy R. Wilson. Available online: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/jspui/bitstream/1957/9685/1/Wilson_Roy_R_1989.pdf
[2] EPA whitepaper Finished Water Storage Facilities, prepared August 2002. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf
[3] www.dos.state.ny.us/watershed/2009presentations/AlderisioWSTCHillview091409ppt.ppt
[4] Project snapshot available online: http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/topicsandprojects/projectSnapshot.aspx?pn=3021
[5] These are the same years LT2 draft and then final rule was issued; also the same years during which the open reservoir requirements were inserted into the LT2 Rule.[6] Testimony by Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D., Senior Scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Director of the Scientific Integrity Program. Delivered June 2009, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Written testimony available online: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Grifo-EPW-Testimony-June-9-2009.pdf
[7] A copy of the Unfiltered Systems Working Group comments, January 2004, can be found on the Friends of the Reservoirs website: http://friendsofreservoirs.org/LT2/LT2comments-USWG.pdf
[8] http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WATER/2000/December/Day-29/w33306.htm
[9] http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=22165 As a representative of MWH, Joe Glicker served on various federal advisory committees with influence on the LT2 Rule. In recent years, Joe Glicker has joined CH2MHill, another global engineering firm specializing in water system projects. CH2MHill has secured several of the most recent LT2 related contracts, including the design contract for the Powell Butte reservoir and a contract to perform at least part of the work associated with the Bull Run treatment plant ( see Notice of Intent to Award associated with solicitation WTR082 http://cityofportland.ebidsystems.com/public/solicitationDetail.asp?Solicitation=WTR082).[10] Water Research Foundation, Northwest Epidemiologic Enteric Disease Study, Project # 2637; project summary available online: http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/projectProfile.aspx?pn=2637
5:30-8:30 pm; Room C, Portland Building
Dear PURB members,
The Mt Tabor Neighborhood Association (MTNA) opposes disconnecting Portland’s open reservoirs. The community has noted numerous flaws in the LT2 Rule and in the process by which the LT2 Rule came into being. We consider all LT2 related construction projects to be a waste of ratepayer monies, as they will not measurably increase the public’s health. We hope you will take the time to read a sampling of MTNA position statements (offered as attachments to this letter) as well as some of the items on the suggested reading list we are submitting today.
In 1973, citizens sued to protect the Bull Run watershed from logging. At the time, logging was being promoted by both the federal government and the Portland Water Bureau.*[1] These citizens asserted that logging in the watershed was destructive to water quality. The judge on the case, Justice James M. Burns, rather pointedly identified one of the flaws in that 1973 debate surrounding our water system. He drew a distinction between statements of policy or purpose and statements of fact, noting that one should not be confused with the other. At that time, the federal government issued policy statements like, “logging will protect Bull Run from catastrophic fire,” but upon investigation the facts proved logging increased both the risk of and the damage caused by fire. The policy to log Bull Run as a means to control fire risk or damage in our watershed, was a policy based on an erroneous assumption about the relationship between logging and fire. Asserting that assumption unchecked, in a policy worded as a doctrine to protect, almost allowed a destructive practice to move forward under the guise of a policy meant to help.
Portland is again in a position where the federal government has asserted a statement of policy. And again, when Portlanders investigate the assumptions underlying these policy statements, the facts just don’t bear out.
Unsupported Policy #1: Covering your reservoirs will protect public health. Fact: EPA has documented multiple cases of death and illness caused by infectious Cryptosporidium outbreaks in drinking water systems. Every single case was either in a system with covered drinking water storage, or in a system where sewage, industrial, and farm runoff mixed with drinking water.*[2] The policy to “protect people from infectious Crypto” can be supported. The facts, however, don’t seem to support the use of lids as a meaningful treatment technique for microbes. Debris of all sizes enters all forms of water storage devices. If there is an inlet and an outlet for the water, there are entry points for non-water matter including microbes; covering a reservoir does not eliminate the need to manage contamination. Covers do not provide a silver bullet in the effort to protect public health.
New York City’s Department of Environmental Quality has spent significant resources collecting data on one of their large open reservoirs, known as Hillview. Their question was simple and quantifiable: Is water any more likely to contain Crypto or other protozoa once that water has been in the Hillview open reservoir than water that has not been in this open reservoir? The answer also seems to be simple: No. Time in the Hillview open reservoir does not increase the incidence of protozoa found in that water.*[3]
Portland, too, has spent significant resources documenting the safety of the city’s open reservoirs. Between May 2008 and May 2009, the Portland Water Bureau paid to participate in a study conducted by the Water Research Foundation (WRF project #3021*[4]); this was a large-volume collection study, analyzing finished drinking water gathered at the outlet of our open reservoirs (water sampled spent time in the open reservoirs). A preliminary report from this study has been published and the basic results found in Portland were communicated throughout the year-long test period. There was no infectious Crypto found in Portland’s drinking water.
Unsupported Policy #2: Constructed facilities are superior to engineered, protected watersheds when creating quality drinking water. Fact: There is no substitution for starting with the purest water possible. Portland’s drinking water system is uniquely engineered within a substantial framework of protection (possible because this system was established more than 100 years ago), and the result is some of the purest tap water in the country. The federal LT2 Rule favors construction over protection, without much data to support that favoritism.
EPA can produce surprisingly little evidence to verify chemical filtration plants perform the duties we expect them to perform. Drinking water exiting a chemical filtration plant is assumed to meet a particular set of standards; but that water is not tested to confirm that it meets those standards. When Portland tests its source water as part of the Variance process this coming year, it will be testing to see if Bull Run water meets the standards chemically filtered water is assumed to meet, with little evidence that chemically filtered water can actually meet these same standards. Furthermore, if ratepayers in Portland do buy an additional treatment plant, in theory so that Portland’s water can meet these standards, consumers have little in the way of a guarantee that they will actually get the results for which they are paying.
Recently, EPA scientists publicly revealed that EPA policies are often politically motivated rather than scientifically motivated. In testimony before a US Senate Committee this past summer (June 9, 2009) the Director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (USC) exposed an EPA producing compromised work-products between the years of 2002 and 2007*[5], because of undue interference largely driven by industry lobbyists. These are the same years EPA inexplicably and quietly omitted the mitigation option for open reservoirs from the LT2 Rule, despite the lack of scientific evidence for such action. Responders to a survey of EPA scientists revealed 22% had personally experienced the “selective or incomplete use of data to justify a specific regulatory outcome.” The percentage of scientists reporting interference was highest in the program offices with regulatory duties (68%) and at EPA headquarters (69%). One survey-responder explained that in cases where regulation is industry driven rather than scientifically driven, “the regulations contain a scientific rationale with little or no merit,” because, “the real reasons can’t be stated.” *[6]
One can see other evidence of industry influence on the LT2 Rule by reading the 2004 public comments from the Unfiltered Systems Working Group (comments made while LT2 was still in draft form*[7] ). This group calls-out a particular favoritism being afforded, at that time, to one specific industry by EPA with LT2’s mandate to use an exact treatment technique (UV).
We are also concerned with Calgon’s UV patent and its cost impact to unfiltered systems, which, based on the proposed rule, will have to rely on the operation of UV to meet the Cryptosporidium inactivation criterion. We believe it is inappropriate that the proposed rule’s reliance on “UV only” causes the unfiltered systems to pay a substantial patent fee annually to Calgon to meet the LT2 requirements.*7Note that representatives from Calgon served on at least one of the Federal Advisory Committees funneling information into the LT2 Rule. *[8] A number of participants on these federal committees, some of whom were Portland grown,*[9] appear to have conflicting interests including connections to the various industries that stand to gain lucrative contracts as municipalities attempt to comply with the LT2 regulation.
One can see further evidence of possible industry influence on the LT2 Rule when considering the Rule’s open reservoir requirements, which heavily favor constructing new facilities without providing sound scientific reasoning. The open reservoir requirements found in LT2 are a perplexing insertion into a Rule which is otherwise dedicated to source water issues, not storage issues. EPA does not offer a single citation of a public health incident linked to open storage; EPA does, however, cite public health incidents in water systems employing closed storage devices. Yet, the LT2 Rule does not prescribe any new requirements for closed storage (the devices with incidents on record). EPA’s focus here seems less about protecting public health than it does about promoting the financial interests of industry lobbyists.
EPA’s application of this cookie-cutter regulation on a water system as unique as Portland’s, has always been a questionable approach to ensuring the public’s interests. As evidence mounts that EPA regulations are grounded less in science than in special interests, cities like Portland must carefully question the efficacy of compliance.
Unsupported Policy #3: Microbes are a threat to public health, while chemicals are not. Fact: The overarching goal in drinking water management is to produce water that supports the public’s good health. Portlanders should question the underlying assumption that the public’s health will subsequently improve with an even further reduction of microbe exposure (beyond the low-microbe levels already achieved by first-world, modern drinking water systems). Does completely eliminating all microbes from drinking water make people healthier?
There is data that suggests otherwise. A 2004 study by the Water Research Foundation (WRF)*[10] suggests a surprisingly complex relationship between microbe levels found in American tap water and the incidence of chronic diseases associated with microbes found in an American’s everyday environment. Decreasing the microbes found in a drinking water supply clearly increases health, up to a certain point. Modern drinking water systems have mastered this point by separating sewage and drinking supplies (among many other conventions). Beyond a certain point, however, a further reduction of microbes seems to be linked to an increase in the number of people suffering from chronic, related diseases. The WRF study would seem to suggest that there may be a point at which the public is dependent on some small amount of microbe exposure in the drinking water to provide them immunity and increase resistance to those microbes encountered in the normal course of a person’s day. Which sounds familiar = small, occasional exposure builds immunity and increases resistance to chronic disease. Employing large chemical treatment plants as an additional barrier between taps and a well protected, clean water supply like Bull Run may unnecessarily deny the population a chance to incrementally build immunity to microbes, while dramatically increasing the chemicals to which the population is exposed. Modern drinking water is increasingly laced with a myriad of chemicals, many of which are employed to adjust the composition of said drinking water. There is remarkably little recognition among water industry officials and municipality managers of the long-term effects those chemicals have on humans, in various stages of life.
MTNA Position Letters
The Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association has written many letters on LT2 issues; we are including a sampling from the last 12 months (all attached for your convenience):
Communications with Oregon’s Congressional Delegations
Letter- Urgent request for assistance with a Waiver – March 2009Communications with City Councilors
Comments before Council on March 25, 2009 opposing resolution – March 2009, MTNA rep
Letter - Seek deadline extension with the EPA – May 2009, via email
Letter - Opposing chemical filtration – July 2009, via email
Comments before Council on July 29, 2009, opposing resolution 1071 filtration – July 2009, MTNA repLetter - Highlighting flaws with the source water variance tests – August 2009, via email
Letter - File the Reservoir Variance; negotiate protocols for SW Variance – Sept 23, 2009, via emailLetter - Position on Reservoirs – Feb 2010, via email
Reading Suggestions
MTNA members know this is a complicated issue. We are sure you have had a number of great resources put before you since joining the PURB, but we’d like to ensure a few items have made your reading list.
· LT2 and Portland’s Open Reservoirs, June 28, 2009. Letter to the community, by Friends of the Reservoirs. Available about halfway down the homepage on http://friendsofreservoirs.org/ .
· Finished Water Storage Facilities, August 15, 2002. The EPA’s Whitepaper on storage facilities – it highlights the considerable problems caused by storing water in closed tanks (which seemingly would highlight considerable benefits to storing water in open tanks). Reportedly, this Whitepaper was available at the time of the community Reservoir Panel in 2004, but the Water Bureau did not provide it to the panel. Despite not having access to this data, the Reservoir Panel still recommended to keep our water storage open. Whitepaper available: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf
· One member of the Reservoir Independent Review Panel (2004) wrote a first person accounting of what it was like. Dave Mazza’s account is attached, but can also be found at: http://www.theportlandalliance.org/2004/june/reservoir.htm
· Unfiltered Systems Working Group Public Comments on LT2 Rule, Jan 2004. A copy is available online at the FOR website: http://friendsofreservoirs.org/LT2/LT2comments-USWG.pdf
· Mayor Potter/City of Portland Whitepaper on LT2, June 2005. A copy is available on the Friends of the Reservoirs website: http://www.friendsofreservoirs.org/LT2/LongTerm2-WhitePaperFinal.pdf
· For a primer on the complicated history of Bull Run, this Ph.D. thesis specifically addresses 100 years of competing influences in the watershed. Cooperation and Conflict in a Federal-Municipal Watershed, by Roy R. Wilson. Available online: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/jspui/bitstream/1957/9685/1/Wilson_Roy_R_1989.pdf
· The Boiling Point, by Allan Classen. An article in the Jan 2010 issue of the NW Examiner; exposes a PWB culture of hostility towards citizen oversight, including that oversight offered by the PURB. This article is attached, but can also be found at: http://www.nwexaminer.com/issues/
· A blog post about a Jan 2010 incident an MTNA rep had while trying to access public records at PWB. This article is attached, but can also be found at: http://mtna-landuse.blogspot.com/2010/01/water-bureau-doesnt-want-to-give-me.html
· Forget it, Jake, it’s just P-town by Phil Stanford. An article in the Portland Tribune, originally written 2003, updated 2009. This article is attached, but can also be found at: http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=22165
Sincerely,
Stephanie Stewart
Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Land Use Chair
Endnotes:[1] Cooperation and Conflict in a Federal-Municipal Watershed, by Roy R. Wilson. Available online: http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/jspui/bitstream/1957/9685/1/Wilson_Roy_R_1989.pdf
[2] EPA whitepaper Finished Water Storage Facilities, prepared August 2002. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf
[3] www.dos.state.ny.us/watershed/2009presentations/AlderisioWSTCHillview091409ppt.ppt
[4] Project snapshot available online: http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/topicsandprojects/projectSnapshot.aspx?pn=3021
[5] These are the same years LT2 draft and then final rule was issued; also the same years during which the open reservoir requirements were inserted into the LT2 Rule.[6] Testimony by Francesca T. Grifo, Ph.D., Senior Scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, Director of the Scientific Integrity Program. Delivered June 2009, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Written testimony available online: http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scientific_integrity/Grifo-EPW-Testimony-June-9-2009.pdf
[7] A copy of the Unfiltered Systems Working Group comments, January 2004, can be found on the Friends of the Reservoirs website: http://friendsofreservoirs.org/LT2/LT2comments-USWG.pdf
[8] http://www.epa.gov/EPA-WATER/2000/December/Day-29/w33306.htm
[9] http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=22165 As a representative of MWH, Joe Glicker served on various federal advisory committees with influence on the LT2 Rule. In recent years, Joe Glicker has joined CH2MHill, another global engineering firm specializing in water system projects. CH2MHill has secured several of the most recent LT2 related contracts, including the design contract for the Powell Butte reservoir and a contract to perform at least part of the work associated with the Bull Run treatment plant ( see Notice of Intent to Award associated with solicitation WTR082 http://cityofportland.ebidsystems.com/public/solicitationDetail.asp?Solicitation=WTR082).[10] Water Research Foundation, Northwest Epidemiologic Enteric Disease Study, Project # 2637; project summary available online: http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/TopicsAndProjects/projectProfile.aspx?pn=2637
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)