1) Don’t throw good money after bad = KILL THE CONTRACTS. When David Shaff says, “Hell will freeze over,” before the reservoirs will be saved, he’s employing a tactic to maintain your apathy. My house catches on fire and I don’t just walk away and say, oh well, it’s burned now. No, I employ the fire department to stop the damage. Even if the Water Bureau has blown through $200 million on tanks we don’t need, that’s still $500 million (with interest) less than what this will cost us if we just sit back and take it. This bureau has mastered justifying cost over-runs, stop the bleeding wherever you can and the savings will grow exponentially.
2) Look at Rochester (NY) – The good folks in Rochester, New York, are in the same “cover or treat or disconnect” dilemma as Portland is with regard to open reservoirs. They originally dismissed the idea of adding a micro-treatment facility right at the open reservoirs, but have since discovered it is possible to retrofit their existing small, historic structures to house the equipment they need to “treat” the finished water once again. This will allow them to keep their reservoirs open at a FRACTION of the cost. Compare their $25 million compliance plan to the $400 million compliance plan cooked up by our local contractors. And you can see why cozy relationships between PWB staff and outside contractors are sinking our ship. If you want, read some of Rochester’s plan: http://tinyurl.com/4r35uuh
The Portland Water Bureau only gave the micro-treatment facility idea the smallest of glances, which never got any more technical than “preliminary thinking” (PWB’s own word choice) -- thinking that was crafted by the contractors that want the lucrative buried tank projects. When community members and large businesses recently requested a look see at PWB’s detailed analysis of the micro-treatment option, they were provided three non-technical paragraphs written several years ago (http://tinyurl.com/4szgfq9 ). That’s less analysis than I ran when I chose my hot water heater. (When a business coalition pushed for more details, they were informed they'd be charged for any information released -- none has been released yet).
Call David Shaff and Randy Leonard and insist they complete a thorough technical/cost analysis of a micro-treatment option. Of course, if you ask the well paid PWB engineers to do it, they’ll sit on their hands and whine that it can’t be done. Here’s the trick, tell them they can hire one of their consulting friends to do the work. They always love funneling money out that revolving door into the hands of their future employers.
3) Consider all compliance options. There are multiple ways to "comply" with a regulation set forth under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
- Seek a timeline extension, or "deferral." The science has evolved significantly since this rule was written and in all likelihood the LT2 Rule will be substantially revised when the rule comes up for review in 2015. The winners will be any water bureau that managed to hold on until the rewrite, and of course the big contractors that got their expensive projects in before they were clearly made unnecessary. Portland Water Bureau set an aggressive timeline, and that was a disservice to our people. New York City spent their time and money seeking more time and they won it... they don't have to build until 2028.
- Challenge EPA and seek a "variance." Regulation issued under the Safe Drinking Water Act must by rights allow for a municipality to argue that they've found an alternative means of meeting the standards set forth in the regulation. EPA asserts that they do not have to honor the "variance" rights of municipalities (set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act) because they have already determined that there is no other technology that works as well as a lid for protecting finished drinking water. But, EPA has no science to support that finding. And, all of the available science EPA can quote clearly shows covered water systems are subject to contamination. Every major public health outbreak due to microbial contamination on record with EPA has happened in a covered system (like in Gideon Missouri), or in a system with sewage, industrial, and cattle runoff (like in Milwaukee, Wisconsin -- which, incidentally, also had an expensive treatment plant). Lids are not the pinnacle technology, and they should not be treated as such. Portland should be allowed to make its own argument for how it effectively manages contamination and serves clean water from Bull Run through both closed and open reservoirs.
- Evaluate an in town UV system designed to process the smaller flow rates exiting our open reservoirs. This flow rate is smaller than that of Bull Run, so the plant should be smaller and cheaper. You'll notice, in Rochester they've discovered they can create adequate UV facilities in their small historic structures already next to their open reservoirs. Why can't Portland?
- Seek legislative relief in D.C. The landscape has changed considerably in D.C. in recent months. Republicans on both the House and the Senate side have introduced extremist LT2 relief bills that endanger public health (HR 6393 and S 3038; also see the Cordova Times article). Given the shifting balance of power, there may be an opportunity for moderate legislation to gain influence. Only our delegation can read those tea leaves, however, they aren't likely to do anything on Portland's behalf as long as City Council sends mixed signals regarding this community's current commitment. When I sat in on a meeting with community stakeholders and Senator Merkley in November, Merkley noted a lack of leadership from Portland’s City Council regarding the reservoirs. He wondered aloud why there seemed to be so little fight in this Council. Senator Merkley reminded us that his federal efforts need to be in support of a meaningful effort at the local level.
5) Hold David Shaff and Randy Leonard accountable. Don’t let unreliable labor keep the job.
Here is what Portland CAN do to save money on a treatment plant Bull Run doesn't need:
1) Contact every Oregon Health Authority Board member, which now holds jurisdication over the decision to either accept or deny our "variance" application regarding the plant at Bull Run. Be relentless. Make sure they understand the entire issue, and press them to side with public health and financial stability. One verdict can insure the public's health AND secure our pocket books (how often does that happen?).
2) Demand a whole council approach. A wide swath of citizens and businesses alike have called for LT2 issues to be handled by the entire City Council, and not just left to Randy Leonard. As educated citizens highlight the important facts about LT2 projects, Commissioners have repeatedly deferred to Commissioner Leonard in the face of their own confusion. This is not acceptable; demand that every Commissioner be accountable for each LT2 related step made within our water system.
3) Hold David Shaff and Randy Leonard accountable. Don’t let unreliable labor keep the job.
