From the Co-Chair

Watchdogs worth watching

2011-11-15T10:51:00.000-08:00

A new group formed this Fall, and they plan to spotlight wasteful (to the point of illegal) spending by the utlity bureaus. Interestingly, this group's research and commitment is largely an outgrowth of the movement to protect our water system from a wasteful and useless federal regulation called LT2. The very well read citizens who have for years combed through Water Bureau documents related to water safety and LT2, have in the process earned an honorary degree in local Water Bureau politics and budgeting practices. The best read citizens can shock you with what they've found.

It is a group worth watching: www.waterreform.blogspot.com

Notice - Development at SE 52nd and SE Stark

2011-11-15T09:58:00.000-08:00

In February of 2011, MTNA was notified by the new owners of the lot on the Northeast corner of SE 52nd and SE Stark that they plan to subdivide and build three new homes. MTNA hosted a meeting for the developer and the neighbors of the lot to discuss. Some surprises came out of this meeting, which took time to resolve. Fast forward to the present (Fall 2011) and the developer has cleaned up their lot lines and filed for a Land Use Review. Case File #LU 11-166252 LDP.

Neighbors to the lot submitted responses, largley worried for pedestrian safety and upset that so many large trees would be lost. The MTNA Land Use Chair submitted a response which you can read here. Given the structure of this confusing intersection, and the high level of school-aged pedestrian traffic it hosts, it is troubling to imagine 3 new driveways being added within 100' of this intersection.

PolitiFact more “politi” than “fact” today

2011-10-21T13:35:00.000-07:00

When (in January 2011) the President ordered the EPA to open its ears, and take public comments regarding its regulatory practices, Portland had an opportunity to shine a new spotlight on EPA’s LT2 regulation and the unnecessary expenditures it forces upon our city. Our City Hall submitted, via lazy online form, a handful of disjointed, poorly crafted paragraphs in which only 3 sentences even mentioned LT2. Compare that with New York City’s response to this opportunity – they submitted over 100 pages, on letterhead, with scientific data detailing the flaws of LT2 and its blunt application across all water systems – and you see in New York a city that defines action.

When (in July 2011) New York City’s meaningful, relentless efforts to extract LT2 reform (and save billions of dollars) manifested an official EPA agreement to review and reform LT2 madness, Portland had an opportunity to freeze all spending on every LT2 related project (Powell Butte tanks, Kelley Butte Tanks, Mt. Tabor disconnect). But they didn’t. Instead, our City Hall allows our Water Bureau to move forward with these projects under the claim that they were “in the long-range plan anyway”. We’ll apparently need them in 50 years; never mind we can’t afford to upkeep them for the next 50 years until we need them; never mind that we already have more storage than we can use even without these new tanks; and never mind that the “long-range plan” from which these source was written 20 years ago, based-on what have become obviously incorrect consumption projections, and that the very Consultant who wrote this “long-range plan” now hopes we’ll stick to it no-matter-what because he’ll make billions on the construction of said projects.

Those citizens that read everything related to this issue know that PolitiFact just plain doesn’t get it, that Portland’s City Hall has NOT contributed meaningfully to this fight since 2009, and that there are more than enough examples of this kind of inept inaction to make even the most polite Portlanders hot under the collar.

Join Senator Schumer. Pretty please.

2011-08-08T15:59:00.000-07:00

Early this summer, Mayor Blumberg of New York City blasted the EPA for failing to reform the reservoir mandate, known as LT2, even after an Executive Order directed EPA to evaluate the cost and burden of its regulations. The Wall Street Journal reported on this letter from Blumberg’s office to EPA in an article titled “City Lashes Out at EPA” (read it here).

On July 20, Senator Charles Schumer of New York ardently criticized the senselessness of LT2, its costs, and its public health value as he called on the EPA to urgently reform this piece of regulation. You can see the letter he sent the EPA, and the press release around that letter here. A quote from Senator Schumer, about the mandate to cover reservoirs:

New Yorkers have seen their water bills rise year after year after year, and the last thing they should be forced to do is pay more for a hugely expensive, questionable project when more cost-effective alternatives exist. While we must ensure that our city’s water supply remains pure, there is more than one way to skin this cat, and the EPA’s rigidity here would impose an unnecessary burden on New York City rate payers without improving public health in a significant way.

The coalition of businesses, public health leaders, environmental advocates, and neighborhood associations that joined together this year to press local officials for a logical approach to LT2 compliance, has now written a letter to Senator Wyden calling on our Congressional delegation to join Senator Schumer in his efforts to secure reform to this unnecessary mandate... when this letter is public, I'll link to it.

Actions
Concerned citizens are encouraged to contact their Congressional delegations this week; press them to follow suit supporting Schumer's efforts at LT2 reform. It could save us.

Senator Ron Wyden:
Portland phone: 503-326-7525
DC phone: 202-224-5244
DC Fax: 202-228-2717
Online form: http://wyden.senate.gov/contact/

Senator Jeff Merkley:
Portland Phone: 503-326-3386
Portland Fax: 503-326-2900
DC Phone: 202-224-3753
DC Fax: 202-228-3997
Online form: http://merkley.senate.gov/contact/

Representative Earl Blumenauer:
Portland Phone: 503-231-2300
Portland Fax: 503-230-5413
DC Phone: 202-225-4811
DC Fax: 202-225-8941
Online form: https://forms.house.gov/blumenauer/webforms/issue_subscribe.html

Convincing the Public

2011-06-16T19:51:00.000-07:00

We have a water bureau administrator that doesn’t feel the need to conserve public dollars as acutely as he should. Shaff’s response to drain the reservoir was an overreaction that he himself admitted was not scientifically inspired but rather based on something he called, “the yuck factor.” This characterization is unprofessional, irresponsible, and frankly, almost unbelievable coming from a bureau director charged with managing a resource whose management is supposed to be wholly based in science. The water bureau has seized an opportunity to play on unfounded fears that will help them gain public support for unnecessary and expensive reservoir burial projects.

Several public health professionals, including one from OSU have made clear statements that there really is no public health impact from 6-8 ounces of an unwanted fluid landing in 7.8 million gallons of water. From what I saw of the surveillance video (in news reports online) it looked like the water level was low, low enough that the urine would have landed on the wall, not anywhere near the water (and likely it evaporated). It is my belief that this was a non-story, and a non-public health issue made into one to suit the PR plan.

Treatment Variance application reveals a stale plant design, flawed testing, and more nonsensical behavior

2011-06-08T11:26:00.000-07:00

This morning I read just one section of the Treatment Variance Application Portland Water Bureau submitted to the state Drinking Water Program this week. LT2 is outlandishly expensive. Even the variance is going to cost us (testing at high volumes takes money). LT2 is also completely void of benefit to us, because we don’t have the problem LT2 is trying to fix. So, to summarize, LT2 is expensive and unnecessary for Portland’s pristine Bull Run Water. And yet, in section 6.5 of the variance application PWB just filed with the state, PWB makes the case for conducting useless LT2 tests even MORE frequently and at higher volumes than LT2 requires. Wha? If a useless test is no good, then doing even more of them is better? Well, it will funnel a little more money to PWB’s consulting buddies (a.k.a. their future employers) so somebody is getting something out of this, right?

In section 6.4.2, PWB lets slip that the UV plant design we are paying for right now (to wait on the shelf, just in case we don’t get our variance) will be stale, and possibly need “updating” (cha-ching). And the land use and environmental permits they are buying now, will likely also have to be redone (cha-ching). This is good planning? I don’t generally pack my potato salad the week before the picnic, because, that isn’t actually efficient preparation. If there is the possibility the UV plant design will be STALE by the time we need it, surely they built a clause into the contract that allows for a brief review for updating. Oh no, silly me, I keep forgetting. The principle is “funnel more money” not “conserve limited public resources.”

But most upsetting of all (it gets more upsetting) is the trigger to build the $100 million UV plant and the flawed testing protocol PWB put on that trigger. With so much at stake ($100 million dollars + future operating expenses) on the line for just two inconclusive test results, wouldn’t it seem prudent to be particularly careful when negotiating the test method. We wouldn’t want to choose a test method with well-known flaws, that the scientific community has identified as producing high false positives which overstate public health risks. Yet, rather than make the case for how much the science of Crypto testing has changed since EPA suggested testing Method 1622/23 as the standard for LT2 tests, PWB stated in the variance application they would employ flawed testing Method 1622/23. Almost unexplainable.

Bad day

2011-05-25T14:07:00.000-07:00

Commissioner Amanda Fritz was the only Commissioner willing to stand with businesses and citizens today, and she was the only Commissioner to vote against Portland Water Bureau’s rate hike request which includes funding for millions of dollars in unnecessary and premature LT2 project spending.

Commissioners Nick Fish, Dan Saltzman and Randy Leonard had nothing to add to clarify (justify?) their vote to move forward with these expenditures, even in the face of new legal evidence there are ways to avoid replacing our reservoirs. Mayor Adams only spoke enough to put a plug in for his “Mayor’s Budget”, by way of thanking the Water Bureau for acting on his request to trim the hike by 1%.

The business community, public health community, low-income housing advocates, labor and union advocates, environmental activists, and joe citizen all oppose this move. They oppose the rate hike, they oppose the LT2 expenditures. Yet, the majority of our Commissioners voted to approve a course that will give us double digit rate hikes for years to come. It’s a bad day for a "city that works".

It is now or never

2011-05-24T20:11:00.000-07:00

Indeed, it's D Day tomorrow. Make your voices heard. Council must refuse item #532 and item #537 on the Council agenda Wednesday, or it will be hardly worth turning back. Don't spend another dime, until you give the state Drinking Water Program a CHANCE to accept the variance applications for the reservoirs and the watershed treatment plant. Don't.

Hell does not have to freeze over

2011-05-20T09:37:00.000-07:00

Over 100 people turned out for Wednesday morning's water rate hearing, which ran over its allotted 30 minutes by almost 5 hours. Forty-five people signed up to speak on behalf of protecting our open reservoirs from senseless LT2 projects, including Siltronics, Portland Bottling Co., Yo Cream, Alsco Linen, and Physicians for Social Responsibility.

KBOO's Joe Meyer ran a 4 minute piece which holds several interesting quotes from Fritz, Saltzman, and Adams (they begin at minute 2:45). But if there is one thing I absolutely don't want you to miss it's the quote from Dave Wagner, formerly of EPA's Office of General Council, stating there is a legal path to both a variance and a timeline extension for the reservoirs (minute 1:52). It seems Hell does not have to freeze over, as Shaff has claimed.

Testimony brought out at least two new points worth passing along to all of your friends.

Most importantly, there is a NEW legal opinion now in our possession (many thanks to the Portland Water User's Coalition) from Dave Wagner of Reed Smith (a large firm specializing in regulatory issues, including EPA regulation). Wagner's expertise was brought in to review Portland's legal options for saving our reservoirs, because concerned citizens in the business community thought this moment in our city's history called for action more robust than what the city was willing to do on their own. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this really does seem like the kind of homework the city bureau should have done by now on our behalf.

Secondly, just in case you were still wondering if Portland Water Bureau had their heart in this fight to save our city from senseless LT2 expenditures... Just last month at the invitation of the EPA (and by Executive Order), PWB had the chance to comment on specific regulatory flaws found in LT2 and other EPA regulations, and from what I can tell PWB submitted just a few disjointed paragraphs in which only 3 sentences were dedicated to LT2. Compare that with NYC’s response to this invitation – they submitted a 23 page argument with 33 pages in supporting data about their Hillview Reservoir. That’s what committment looks like.

Wow.

2011-05-14T20:26:00.000-07:00

KBOO's Joe Meyer ran a piece on LT2 and the open reservoirs this week titled Open Reservoirs and Government. It contains a number of good interviews with Dr. Gary Oxman (county health), Dr. Thomas Ward (an infectious disease specialist), Kent Craford (business - Portland Water Users Coalition) and Floy Jones (Friends of the Reservoirs). You can even hear Joe Glicker's voice (ex-PWB employee turned cozy consultant; he has profited hardily off of LT2).

While I hope lots of people will listen to the whole thing, I have two highlights that actually leave me a little speechless.

Minute 36 - Dave Leland with the state Drinking Water Program indicates that his organization has jurisdiction over the LT2 issue now and that it is within their authority to grant a deadline extension, but PWB would have to ask first.

Minute 6.29 - Dr. Gary Oxman with Multnomah County Health, indicates he does not expect to see any reduction in disease incidence with the new reservoirs because they aren't seeing any disease incidence now (in other words, they can't get any cleaner than clean).

That doesn't really cut it

2011-05-11T11:01:00.000-07:00

The Mayor's 2011 budget, touted as reducing the Water Bureau rate increase, barely drops the increase at all. You see, although we've been saying the increase will grow your bill 85% over the next 5 years, it was actually going to grow your bill 86.3% ... we rounded down. Adam's "cuts" will allow your bill to climb 84.7%. Or, right about what you were afraid of and that's not a cut.

The Portland Water Users Coalition has had something to say about this not-cut, too.

Shaff is talking out both sides of his mouth...

2011-04-30T10:54:00.000-07:00

How do you keep your customers convinced they are getting the purest water in the world all the while convincing them they need to spend billions of dollars to improve it? By pretending your hands are tied. Let me put the finest point on this: PWB has not done everything it can and should do to legally avoid construction of mind-bogglingly expensive projects we don't need.

In March of 2009 I directly asked EPA for the deadline to cover reservoirs. EPA replied quiet clearly: the rule doesn't name a deadline, each city sets their own deadline. Our water bureau negotiated a fast-tracked compliance schedule and handed it to EPA in March 2009 with only 24 hours notice to City Council. PWB does not want to save us money, they want to grow the bureau on our backs.

While PWB was gearing up to party with their consulting buddies, NYC was diligently compiling data and building a case to argue for an extension on the deadlines. To anyone that has read the NYC documents, it is clear that they plan to leverage their research into an alternative to unnecessary projects. They haven't just won a delay, they've won.

PWB hasn't put forth the kind of effort you or I would put into finding a legal alternative. My uncle used to say, when it comes to breakfast the hen, she is involved, but the pig, the pig is committed. PWB's acting like a bunch of chickens at a time when what we need is something more akin to a boar.

A Rally for Your Water - Friday

2011-04-20T12:38:00.000-07:00

Rally for affordably pure water - Friday, April 22 at 12:00 noon in front of City Hall. Businesses and citizens alike call for Commissioners to "press pause" on Water Bureau spending for LT2 projects.

City Hall is at 1221 SW 4th Ave; between SW Jefferson and SW Madison on SW 4th

Portland Water Bureau still spending, now to disconnect Tabor

2011-04-17T09:22:00.000-07:00

If you haven’t kept up with the flurry of reporting about our drinking water, the fate of our reservoirs, or questionable Water Bureau spending… visit the “Press Room” page of www.foresttofaucetpdx.blogspot.com for a fairly comprehensive list of links to the latest reads across media outlets.

The Community Ask
A broad range of community and business leaders are supporting the letter written by Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility (dated March 10, 2011, read it here) which requests Commissioners immediately intervene to delay LT2 projects. The list of signed supporters grows daily, and at this point includes organizations like the Portland Business Alliance, Widmer, Sierra Club, Oregon Small Business Association, and the Oregon League of Conservation Voters. Watch this list grow by clicking here.

As of yet, Council hasn’t taken any action to slow LT2 spending or to follow New York City’s lead and ask for a delay in deadlines.

Disconnecting Tabor
Despite the recent groundswell of community and business support for a time-out on LT2 projects, Portland Water Bureau is still spending money. Just a few weeks ago Water Bureau selected a contractor to disconnect the Mt. Tabor reservoirs -- a project estimated to cost $500,000 that will likely go before City Council sometime in the next six weeks. You’ll note that this half-a-million dollar project to shut off the Tabor reservoirs comes shortly on the heels of another contract wrapping up millions of dollars in reservoir “upgrades.” If you’d like to see a description of this disconnect project, read the Request For Proposal here (especially page 2 “Part I, Section A, 2. Background”).

A Rally – this coming Friday
The word is several stakeholder groups are calling for a rally in front of City Hall this Friday over lunch. Show up and inspire Commissioners to get moving on the Community Ask. April 22, 12 noon, outside City Hall at 1221 SW 4th Ave.

Water Rate Hearing – May 18, 10:15 am
A tentative date has been set for Council to hear the Water Bureau’s request for rate increases that will drive up your bill 85% over the next 5 years. Attendance is essential if you want Council to insist on something more sensible. Council Chambers in city hall. Check on the agenda as it develops here.

Oregonian Recognizes the Safety of our Water, and the Peril of Debt

2011-03-13T22:04:00.000-07:00

In this Sunday's editorial piece, the Editorial Board at the Oregonian declared our drinking water safe and our financial health in peril. Their willingness to finally recognize the data that verifies Portland really does serve clean water from Bull Run through both open and closed reservoirs, is in part inspired by a letter written by Dr. Thomas Ward (an infectious disease specialist at OHSU) to Commissioner Leonard and others this week. Ward's letter is highly educational, and I can't recommend it enough: read the Ward Letter.

The editorial also refers to the Portland Waters Users Coalition's opinion that Portland is barrelling towards a precipice. (PWUC is a coalition of businesses which depend heavily on affordably clean water; you'll note that Widmer Brewing is a member). A letter drafted this week by the Physicians for Social Responsibility (and signed on to by many groups, including Widmer, PWUC, Sierra Club, and Food &Water Watch) adamantly urged our Commissioners to take immediate action to stop LT2 contracts and seek a delay in the compliance timeline.

In the last few weeks, reporter Scott Learn has produced two substantive articles on our water system and how EPA's LT2 seems an inappropriate mandate here. Read the first article here, and the second article here. This issue is finally getting the attention it deserves.

What can be done? Stop the LT2 insanity.

2011-03-11T15:43:00.000-08:00

Here is what Portland CAN do to save money on open reservoir projects they don’t need (read below how to stop the Bull Run treatment plant we don't need):

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.

4) 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.

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.

The Proposal

2010-11-30T21:38:00.000-08:00

November 2010

A request for voluntary and codified changes to the way Portland City offices treat records requests from Neighborhood Associations and other community-based groups.

We Request:
1) Commissioners voluntarily direct bureaus to allocate a portion of their 2010-11 budgets to providing free-of-charge access for document requests supported by Portland’s Neighborhood Associations or other community-based, non-profit organizations.

2) Commissioners voluntarily direct all City offices and bureaus to accept a default working principle of “digitize and post publicly” for work products moving forward. Direct offices to innovate fast and affordable information sharing methods that reduce paper consumption, with the goal of making it simple for the public to stay informed without formal information requests. Direct offices to accept and respond to regular citizen input (by phone, email, or online form) about the specific information the public deems valuable and would like to find shared online by default.

3) Craft and execute an adjustment to the City’s Public Access to Records policy (BCP-ADM-8.03) to codify no-charge access to information requests supported by Portland’s Neighborhood Associations or other community-based organizations.

Discussion of Financial Impact
The funds required to fulfill public records requests from community-based organizations and Neighborhood Associations should represent a relatively small portion of a bureau’s “public involvement” budget. As an example, consider the Portland Water Bureau public records requests for a one year period in comparison to its public involvement budget for a one year period. Recently, the Portland Water Bureau conducted a “snapshot” study of ALL public records requests (not just those from community groups, but all requests) at their bureau for fiscal year 2008-2009. Including requests for correspondence, email communication, publications, maps, billings, customer account water consumption data, and financial documents the bureau amassed $37,000 in that one year period (described as “staff time” and “resources”). This bureau’s public involvement budget was listed as $614,759 for the one year period of FY 2009-10. All requests to this bureau represent just 6% of their “public involvement” budget, and less than 1/16th of 1% of their total budget for the year (total PWB budget for FY 2009-10 was over $148 million).

Increasing digital access will reduce the impact of formal records requests, both by reducing the number filed and by reducing the time required to fill each request. Requiring bureaus to offer free access to certain citizen groups, minimally impacts bureau budgets and will likely inspire City offices to quickly innovate less resource consuming ways to publish public information.

Why this proposal benefits Portlanders
Information is essential for an involved and engaged public. Portlanders value civic engagement, and information fosters the vibrant civic life that characterizes our city. Engaged citizens provide invaluable support to city government initiatives. In 2009 alone, Solarize Portland, the SE Tool Library, and massive neighborhood clean-up events exemplified how engaged citizens can generate incredible support for government initiatives, amplifying the effectiveness of those initiatives at little or no-cost to government. An informed citizenry is a smart investment in a volunteer-labor force that returns tangible dividends.

But who decides what information interests the public? Publishing decisions are usually made by the bureaucracies generating the information. It’s important to remember that in delegating authority, the citizens of Portland do not give their public servants the right to decide what is and what isn’t good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created. Citizens fund the staff, the computer and the overhead that go into creating our public records. At the heart of this proposal is the belief that, when practicable, citizens should be given free-of-charge access to the final product of work they’ve already funded.

The supporters of this proposal believe the fee structure currently employed in City Policy is restricting the citizenry’s access to information. A 2007 study of government transparency in the 50 states gave Oregon an “F.” As stated in Binding City Policy 8.03, “the City of Portland prides itself in citizen access to City records, which is a fundamental component of democracy.” As such, we request that the City continues to evolve the policy in reaction to citizen input.

This year, Oregon’s Attorney General surveyed sunshine laws around the country, revealing a number of practices that seem to foster information access better than our local policies. For example, at least 11 states limit document request fees by excluding the cost of staff time, such that inspecting records is generally free (this is true in cities like Seattle and Austin). Contrast this with Portland’s policy, which allowed a neighborhood volunteer to be charged $57 for the time it took her to read a document while sitting in a bureau office. Many states that permit the inclusion of staff time do so only after a certain threshold -- in Austin, Texas, for example, a requestor does not pay for labor on requests requiring less than 50 copies. Several states set a flat hourly rate for all staff/labor charges, usually between $10 and $15 dollars. Contrast that with Portland’s staff time charges which are laboriously calculated for each City employee involved in a request, resulting in staff charges that run the gamut from $20 to almost $200 an hour (for upper level employees).

Meeting the Public Interest Test
According to the Oregon Attorney General’s Manual on Public Records, a “matter or action is commonly understood to be 'in the public interest' when it affects the community or society as a whole, in contrast to a concern or interest of a private individual or entity." In applying the public interest test, custodians are directed to decide if the information requested is a personal matter of interest solely to the party requesting it, or if the subject involves public business of interest to the broader community.

Community-based, non-profit organizations and Neighborhood Associations can effectively telegraph true citizen-interest from the community to the government. Community-based organizations are often formed around a very current issue of great community concern. Neighborhood Associations are uniquely integral to the proper functioning of this city. As active participants in land development processes, including long-range city planning and code enforcement, they keep the land’s use grounded in the will of the citizenry. Volunteers from NA’s and other community organizations carry community issues down to city hall and meet face to face with Commissioners and decision makers, keeping them current and informed with a wide variety of perspectives. Made-up of citizens themselves, these organizations can act as a first-level filter on defining “in the public interest” from the community’s perspective.

Providing access to the information communities deem valuable without the limiting burden of onerous fees is a reasonable investment of public funds. Community-based, non-profit organizations and Neighborhood Associations can provide a means by which information can flow from government to citizens, according to the values shared by both government and citizen (those shared values being free access to public information without over burdening either party with unreasonable associated costs). When a request is backed by a community organization or a Neighborhood Association, and the information is intended to be shared with the community (i.e. the members of that community-based organization), that information should be regarded as meeting the standard of “in the public interest”.

Summary
Clearly, opportunity exists for Portland to improve its public records policy. The supporters of this proposal seek to start with just one change, that declares the city’s commitment to transparency and an engaged citizenry by providing free-of-charge access to public records when the request represents a plurality of public will. We seek to clarify for City document-custodians that requests supported by Neighborhood Associations and other community-based organizations inherently meet the Public Interest Test, and therefore will be offered codified relief from public records access fees. We believe this specific policy change will simplify request fulfillment for City employees, it will help keep Portland’s government transparent, and it will inspire the City to innovate information access so as to reduce waste and the need for formal requests.

FAQs

Won’t it be expensive and time consuming for city employees to digitize their work?
Just about everything produced in today’s workplace is done so on a computer, so the data originates in a digital form. City employees can simply save or print to “PDF” any document the public requests.

Digitizing older work products is an entirely separate issue requiring more resources. However, we have to jump in at some point and make it the standard to print to PDF; the longer we wait the more catch-up we have to do. These issues, digitizing as you work vs. catching-up digital access for older documents should not be confused, as one is sometimes used as an excuse to avoid launching the other.

Doesn’t this amount to special treatment for one group?
The public interest test inherently grants government the opportunity to treat entities differently. The factors to be weighed in this test include not just an analysis of the material requested, but an analysis of the requestor. For instance, whether they have the ability to disseminate the information (news organizations are allowed to be treated differently under this analysis).

The law provides equal access for all and current policy meets the law. Dropping the fee for one party doesn’t in any way further restrict another party’s access. Every citizen in Portland has access to a Neighborhood Association from which he/she can seek support for a document request. This allowance will benefit the broader community, not just one special interest.

Endnotes.....
*1 - “Results and Criteria of BGA/NFOIC survey,” available at http://www.nfoic.org/uploads/results1.pdf
*2 - Attorney General’s Government Transparency Report, October 2010

An Idea...

2010-04-21T09:40:00.000-07:00

During my time as the Land Use Chair of the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association, I have requested access to a wide range of publicly owned information on behalf of my neighborhood. I am dismayed to report that despite the era’s technological advances, a citizen’s access to information appears to be growing more and more limited. I have a proposal regarding fee waivers and the lack of clarity posed by the phrase “in the public interest.” At the heart of my proposal is the belief that every community should have multiple portals through which information can be accessed free-of-charge, as fees prove to be a significant factor limiting the public’s access to said information.

Information fosters civic engagement. Engaged citizens provide invaluable support to city and state initiatives. In 2009 alone, Solarize Portland, the SE Tool Library, and massive neighborhood clean-up events exemplified how engaged citizens can generate incredible support for government initiatives, amplifying the effectiveness of those initiatives at little or no-cost to government. An informed citizenry is a smart investment in a volunteer-labor force that returns tangible dividends.

But who decides what information will engage or interest the public? More often than not, the decision about what to publish is left to the bureaucracies generating the information. A structured dialog between government and citizenry is impractical here, with any real frequency. However, community-based non-profit organizations can, effectively, telegraph true citizen-interest from the community to the government. Community-based non-profits are on the ground with the citizens, and they are, often times, formed around a very current public interest. Made-up of citizens themselves, these organizations can act as a first-level filter on defining “in the public interest” from the community’s perspective. When a request is backed by a community organization, and the information is intended to be shared with the community (i.e. the members of that community-based organization), arguably that information could be regarded as meeting the standard of “in the public interest”.

Providing communities access to the public information they deem valuable, without the limiting burden of onerous fees, is a reasonable investment of public funds. Community-based non-profit organizations could provide one portal through which information could flow from government to citizens, according to the values shared by both government and citizen (those shared values being free access to public information without over burdening either party with unreasonable associated costs). My specific proposal is that all information access requests generated from within a community-based non-profit be granted codified relief from associated fees, especially those fees levied for supervised reviews, reviews, research, and staff time.

For most government agencies, the funds required to fill public records requests from community-based organizations will represent a relatively small portion of their existing “public involvement” budgets. As an example, consider the Portland Water Bureau public-records requests for a one year period in comparison to its “public involvement” budget for a one year period. Recently, the Portland Water Bureau conducted a “snapshot” study of ALL public records request activity at their bureau for fiscal year 2008-2009 (including requests for correspondence, email communication, publications, maps, billings, customer account water consumption data, and financial documents); the bureau amassed $37,000 (described as “staff time” and “resources”) in that one year period. This bureau’s public involvement budget was listed as $614,759 for the one year period of fiscal year 2009-2010. All of this bureau’s requests represent just 6% of their public involvement budget. As information is key to getting the public involved and engaged, I believe it is a reasonable request to allocate some portion of funds to subsidize public access via community-based organizations.

In Portland, Neighborhood Associations are uniquely integral to the city’s proper functioning, yet they are completely un-funded and they operate solely on volunteer labor and donations. Neighborhood Associations are active participants in land development processes in our city, including long-range city planning and current code enforcement. Neighborhood Associations keep the land’s “use” grounded in the needs and desires of the citizenry. Neighborhood Association volunteers carry community issues down to city hall, meeting face to face with Commissioners and decision makers, providing valuable ground-tested knowledge about life in this city. Often our efforts help keep decision makers current and informed with a wide variety of perspectives. Additionally, all of the volunteer-based initiatives I cited earlier are direct outgrowths of Neighborhood Associations. I am a volunteer with my neighborhood’s Association, which represents roughly 10,000 people. Our board and our meetings are open to the public. We field requests for support and information on any number of issues that make their way to our meetings. Portland’s Neighborhood Associations serve as communication tools between the citizens and their government, arguably acting as a filter for defining what meets the standard of “in the public interest”. I propose that Neighborhood Associations be granted codified relief from public information access fees, especially those fees levied for supervised reviews, reviews, research, and staff time.

My Solarizing Experience

2010-04-01T17:15:00.000-07:00

My family installed a 4.2 kW solar PV system on the roof of our 1912 craftsman style, SE Portland bungalow in October 2009. We did so through the first Solarize Portland project, which brings neighbors together for a bulk-purchase of panels and labor. As if we weren’t already excited every time the sun comes out… now we have CLEAN POWER to celebrate.

The Nitty Gritty

4.2 kW grid-tied array of 20 Sanyo 210W PV Modules (2 strings of 10 modules); mounted with a 32 degree pitch, 180 degree orientation (south)
Sunny Boy 4000US inverter located in our basement laundry room. Note: the inverter makes a high pitched humming sound when it is on, so if you are sensitive to these frequencies (most women are) be sure to locate it away from living space.
Total cost of this system, purchased through the Solarize Portland group-buying project: $28,560 (I estimate this system would have cost us $37,800 without the Solarize Portland group discount.) Energy Trust Incentive payment: $9,450. This payment came from ETO to the contractor before I even got the bill, so the check I wrote to the contractor was $19,610. That is still a heck of a lot of money. But, after all of the tax credits are taken this system will have only cost us $6,700. That’s a little better.
We estimate the system will have paid for itself at around the 10 year mark (2019). In the meantime, we’ve factored it all out and our solar panels are generating power for us at a cost of 6 cents/kWhr (prepaid). Given that rates are already above 10 cents/kWhr with PGE and rising, we feel we’ve locked in a nice power production rate. As PGE rates continue to rise, our payback time frame will shorten.
Our contractor was Imagine Energy, and I can’t say enough good things about them.

Earliest Measurements
In February of 2009, our PGE bill reflects we consumed an average of 23kW hours of grid-power per day. In February of 2010 (after our panels were installed), our PGE bill reflects we consumed an average of 5kW hours of grid-power per day. It was indeed a sunny February this year, and we were thrilled to have a solar power plant on our roof to make use of all that unusual weather.

Unintended consequences
The female head of household (that’s me) is quite pleased to report that having a power plant on the roof has increased the entire household’s awareness about power consumption. All my failed strategies to get people to turn off the lights were, evidently, missing one component that measurable, in-house production provides. When you can see your production, it becomes a game to make your consumption match (or even fall below) that production number. Now we’re all thinking about ways we can lower our consumption, which means we’re REALLY thinking about (and even measuring) our consumption in ways we hadn’t before. Like, item by item. Activity by activity (note, this could become crazy making). And the fact that even the resident 5 year old is in on the race is thrilling to me.

How we came to our solar panel decision
The female head of house (me again) helped start the first Solarize Portland project with Tim O’Neal of SE Uplift and Lizzie Rubado of the Energy Trust of Oregon. “Find out if solar panels make sense for our home” had been an item on my to-do list for like 7 years. When the opportunity presented itself to start this program, I hesitated at all the work it would mean… finally sorting out all my questions about solar. But within a few minutes of having met with Tim and Lizzie, I learned there was a wealth of solar information in Portland that just needed to be pulled together in one spot for homeowners like myself. So, that’s what we did. And, we made some of the key big decisions that ALWAYS trip me up in any home related project = like, who to hire. Once the project sorted out all of the details that normally SLOW me down so much I stall out, it was clear solar PV was practical and within reach.

Which left one big decision we had to make for ourselves = how big of a system do we buy? In the end, I have to give the credit to the male head of household (credit? blame?) for the size system we purchased. He made a number of arguments in favor of the 4kW system (I was initially more comfortable with the cost of the 3kW system). I liked the “give the boot to Enron” argument a lot = you’re going to spend this money on electricity anyway, why not divert the money from a company the likes of Enron and channel it into your own system. I also liked the “reduce volatility argument” he made one morning over breakfast. Obviously, the energy market is volatile and prices are generally only expected to tick upwards, but at what rate no one knows really. With a 4kW panel investment we’d be locking in a 30 year electricity production cost of $.06 per kWh from our solar panels… that is already lower than the price we pay per kWh to PGE. So, I’m sort of pre-paying for $6700 worth of energy and getting a discount for doing so… I think. But here is the volatility argument only I could love (and I REALLY love it). We’ve owned a few stocks and I’ve disliked 95% of them. The very arrival of a stock statement represents volatility, for my moods, as the principal of what we’ve invested evaporates. But I can divest myself of “stock” investments (reducing volatility in my moods as statement time arrives) AND channel that money into my own little power company right on my roof. It’ll even pay dividends. Fewer stock headaches + dividends + boot Enron = we bought a 4kW system for our house.

The Kelly Butte tank teaches us a lesson about big consultants

2010-03-28T10:16:00.000-07:00

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.

Cost without Cause

2010-03-22T12:30:00.000-07:00

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

Church of Water

2010-03-05T11:17:00.000-08:00

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.

Comments For the Record, PURB meeting - March 3, 2010

2010-03-04T14:51:00.000-08:00

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. 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)*[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 2009
Communications 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 rep
Letter - 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 email
Letter - 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

PURB reprimands spending, then calls for more spending

2010-02-23T19:37:00.000-08:00

On Feb 18, the PURB Water Subcommittee issued some budget recommendations to the Portland Water Bureau, and I'm having a mixed reaction to them.

On the one hand, the subcommittee recognizes rates are out of control, and that spending is inappropriate (sometimes inappropriately allocated, as in the case of transportation projects paid for with water bills). But this PURB subcommittee is recommending PWB spends $200,000 to have an outside consultant look at their spending. I sort of thought that’s what PURB was supposed to do, for free. Some of the language used to introduce this recommendation reminds me that the newest subcommittee member, Mr. Crean, once served on a taskforce to “investigate” privatization options for a water utility in Maryland. http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5300/sc5339/000113/004000/004342/unrestricted/20071180e.pdf

Then there is the other hand, and the very poignant “conclusion” in this newest recommendation:

The current system for setting water & sewer budgets and rates has the systemic problem that it lacks effective checks and balances. This situation is made even worse by Portland’s commission form of government where each commissioner directly oversees a portfolio of city bureaus. The upside is that commissioners have more freedom to innovate. The downside is that there is minimal oversight of bureau operations by the other commissioners.

In our opinion this is a severe shortcoming when considering the utility bureaus because the commissioners have unlimited authority to raise rates to match spending for those bureaus. After noting that the PURB has unsuccessfully tried to deal with this issue in the past, we are now convinced that the current system cannot ensure that water services are provided to consumers at just and reasonable rates. We believe all of our concerns also apply to how the council handles BES. However, because we are the water subcommittee of PURB we have much deeper awareness of the situation with PWB.

For these reasons we are recommending taking steps to move toward a new process, with substantial checks and balances, for establishing budgets and setting rates for PWB and BES.

Bull Run land-swap not a good deal for citizens

2010-02-10T09:42:00.000-08:00

We often hear the City Council assure us that logging and development could never happen in the Bull Run watershed because the land is Federally managed and therefore Federally protected. Today, the Portland Water Bureau brings to City Council a land-swap proposal involving land in our watershed. This swap will remove some of our watershed lands out from underneath significant Federal protections.

Oregon Wild, formerly known as the Oregon Environmental Resources Council, has been involved in the development of this proposal and they have flagged a serious flaw with it; you can read their article alerting citizens to this flaw here: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1780/blastContent.jsp?email_blast_KEY=1168789

Stakeholders like Oregon Wild have worked with the City to write a new “protection code” for City land, so that the Bull Run watershed land that is about to move from Federal hands to PWB will be similarly safeguarded as if it were still Federally managed. According to Oregon Wild, this new code goes a long way to offering solid protection but falls short in one key area: it is weak on public involvement when management makes major decisions (like, say, choosing to log).

In an email to one concerned community member who contacted City Council this week regarding this land-swap, David Shaff of PWB assured there would be plenty of time to weigh in on this discussion in the future. Don’t worry your pretty little head, what we are deciding today is of little consequence, you can speak later (clearly, my own editorializing of what I read in Shaff’s letter). Portlanders know better; weighty agendas are furthered with incremental decisions like this one. There is no reason to move forward with any land-swap discussion if we can’t first all agree on how to protect that land once it is removed from Federal hands. PWB has historically been hostile to public involvement, and as long as that culture persists within PWB, citizens must be cautious and not let go of any leverage.

Bull Run has a long and sordid history. The parties involved and their agendas are nothing short of complicated. At times, both the Federal government and the Portland Water Bureau have promoted logging and commercial development within our watershed; at every turn, involved citizens have been the protectorates of our watershed and our drinking water. I once read a great PHD thesis exploring 100 years of competing influences in Bull Run, which presented differing definitions of “natural resources”. The paper is “Cooperation and Conflict in a Federal-Municipal Watershed,” by Roy R. Wilson (I found pages 84-124 quite educational and enjoyed reading about the 1973-76 legal case regarding logging in Bull Run).

Be suspicious. We have arrived in a new era in which Wall-Street discusses water as “the new oil”, while it leverages water-system investments as awkward as the ones it made in real estate. If competing influences in our watershed have been complicated before, they will be mind-boggling from here on out. Citizens will need to actively police decisions made in Bull Run. These new City Land protection codes don’t offer the public the kind of oversight access they will need in this new paradigm. If Oregon Wild says this proposal is flawed, you don’t want it to move forward.

UPDATE 2-21-10: Unfortunately, Portland's City Council approved this agenda item regarding the land-swap proposed in the Bull Run watershed. Only Commissioner Amanda Fritz stood with the myriad of citizen-groups requesting more substantive public participation policies; Commissioner Fritz voted to halt the land-swap discussion until the flaws in the city-land protection codes are addressed.

Commissioner Nick Fish was disappointing on this vote, contending his yes vote was just the beginning of a conversation; he fails to recognize the leverage sacrificed by allowing the discussion to move forward while so much of the community is already dissatisfied. Nevermind the fact that they aren't listening to citizen input right now, they promise to listen more, later on in the conversation.

This vote allows the Portland Water Bureau to formally open the next phase of the land-swap process. If left unchanged, these new city-land protection codes (now the only safeguards on the land to be held by PWB) seem to eliminate all environmental impact review processes, previously provided for under Federal regulations and open to public input. PWB can now move on any development on their new land holdings without a review. You can view the City Council discussion on this topic, items 220 and 221: http://www.portlandonline.com/index.cfm?c=49508&a=286230

Letter To City Council - Facts Don't Support Policy

2010-02-04T20:25:00.000-08:00

Via email 2-1-2010

Dear Commissioners -

The Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association respectfully urges Portland’s City Council and the Portland Water Bureau to press on in the fight to keep Portland’s open reservoirs, so as to avoid wasting millions (if not billions) of dollars for unnecessary new facilities. We find the January 17, 2010, letter from Friends of the Reservoirs raises a number of substantive points, and it advises a course of action we support.

In the 1973 case to protect Bull Run from logging, Judge Burns rather pointedly put his finger on one of the flaws in that debate. He drew a distinction between statements of policy or purpose, and statements of fact. 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. Portland is again in a position where the Federal government has asserted a statement of policy: “covering your reservoirs will protect public health.” And once again, when Portlanders investigate, the facts just don’t bear out. 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. The policy to “protect people from infectious Crypto” can be supported. The facts, however, don’t seem to support the use of “coverings” as a meaningful treatment technique for microbes.

We once again respectfully urge City Council to resist giving in to LT2 projects that waste ratepayer monies.

Stephanie Stewart
On behalf of the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association

Mayor's office recognizes Solarize Portland

2010-02-03T11:34:00.000-08:00

Last week a representative from the Mayor's office (Megan Ponder) said some very nice things about the Solarize Portland project as she presented Tim and me with Certificates of Appreciation. I came home and proudly posted my certificate on the frig, which is where these sorts of things live in my house. The resident 4-year old was noticeably delighted by the notion that Moms can get certificates too.

The award was a surprise, so I had a little trouble catching up with what was happening and I missed taking notes on some of the statistics Ms. Ponder cited about the project. But she was nice enough to share her comments in writing, so I can share some of them with you now:

The City of Portland would like to recognize the efforts of Stephanie Stewart from the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association and Tim O’Neal the Sustainability Coordinator for SE Uplift for their joint efforts to bring the volume purchase model for solar photovoltaics to Portland. Their efforts have created an unmatched demand for solar that no other private or public entity has yet been able to create.
...
The program had 300 people sign up, and we expect about 150 of those households to go solar. Southeast has approximately 60 systems already installed through the Solarize program and over 50 of those were in 2009. Solarize SE held approximately 50% of the market share of all Portland area installs and the program didn’t even kick off until June. Other co-benefits to the program include re-roofing work, energy efficiency upgrades and enhanced community spirit....

Appling for a BDS permit online

2010-02-03T09:50:00.001-08:00

Have you tried purchasing a building permit online from Portland's Bureau of Development Services? Not every permit is eligible for this type of transaction, but as I understand it, any permit available as an "over-the-counter" building permit can be purchased and managed online (I think the over-the-counter designation goes to permits that don't require a plan review of some sort). Here is a link to the Permits Online page: http://www.portlandonline.com/bds/index.cfm?c=42781

I tried this out yesterday with a small project on my house, and it worked pretty nicely for us. On Tuesday morning (between feeding my 4 year old and starting a load of laundry) I pulled an over-the-counter plumbing permit for a rain drain. It cost $100, and it was immediately issued. Eight hours later the ground was trenched and the piping was in place, so I went back online to request an inspection (while sauteing the onions for the dinner dish). At 7:30 am on Wednesday morning the inspector left me a message saying he'd arrive between 9:30 and 11:30 am. He arrived at 9:26 am, took about 6 minutes, and we were approved to finish. While the $100 seems like a high tax on this job, the process was relatively painless and efficient.

Not Your PURB Anymore

2010-01-29T22:30:00.000-08:00

After being criticized for a recommendation that seems to ignore years of substantive public input (representing countless hours contributed by thousands of citizens), PURB*1 has decided to give the public 2 hours. In March, forty Portlanders can have 3 minutes each to say their peace regarding a recommendation formed without citizen input,*2 that urges massively expensive changes to the city’s drinking water system. First, Portlanders will listen to a panel of presenters which, remarkably, doesn’t include a single citizen-based stakeholder group.*3 Then, if the panel doesn’t drone on too long, citizens can have a few sentences, and that’s it. Seemingly, PURB will consider their job done and the pesky public finally dispensed with on this controversial topic. (UPDATE: the March PURB public hearing on the reservoirs is now set for Wednesday, March 3rd from 5:30 - 8:00 pm in Room C on the second floor of the Portland Building; across the street from City Hall.)

The current PURB water subcommittee recommendations, for Portland’s reservoirs and for Bull Run, are a complete reversal of the last PURB’s recommendations regarding the community’s water system (issued August 2004), and they seek aggressive changes to that water system. Not only is the PURB now advocating for reservoir closure, but members employ language indicating PURB may aggressively support a new treatment plant at Bull Run. When I asked PURB members what new data they have seen, that the last PURB had not seen, that would in turn cause them to reverse major water system recommendations, one PURB member (Marks) replied that the PURB has new people that simply take a different position on the same data. New people, but no new data. (One might note here that all of the newest PURB members seem to have been appointed through the office of the Commissioner in charge of the Water Bureau.)

Another PURB member (Johnson) confirmed that the 2009 PURB, “did not do any comparisons to prior PURB positions.” New people, no new data, and a conscious effort to ignore the historical knowledge offered by a previous PURB whose members were both 1) well versed on local water topics and 2) actually present when most of the “public process” surrounding the reservoirs took place in this community (Scott Fernandez and Frank Ray as examples).

The current PURB water subcommittee recommendation on open reservoirs presents two supporting documents, both written by the Bureau for which this PURB is supposed to be providing independent oversight. PURB is presenting to Portlanders the case Portland Water Bureau presented, with seemingly very little examination of the range of alternatives. When Mayor Adams asked PURB subcommittee members (Jan 12 Council Work Session) if they’d consulted the well-educated stakeholder groups (like Friends of the Reservoirs) before making their subcommittee recommendations, Dave Johnson asserted that while he’d attempted to contact those stakeholders, he hadn’t succeeded. This PURB water subcommittee did not interview Friends of the Reservoirs representatives – by far some of the most water-system versed people in the city -- before issuing their recommendation. And, when Friends of the Reservoirs (FoR) attempted to share its organization’s research with PURB members during recent PURB meetings, FoR representative F. Jones was reportedly rebuffed with comments that suggested her presence was a nuisance (one PURB member wondered aloud why Jones was there to badger them, another pressed that they’d heard it all before).

The prior PURB recommendations about Portland’s water system issued in August 2004 were an outgrowth of a period of intense public discussion, and they were influenced by the exhaustive work of other groups like the Reservoir Independent Review Panel. In fact, one of the previous PURB members, Frank Ray, sat on both the PURB and the Independent Review Panel, which means he provided the PURB first hand participation in an intense public process that took place 3 hours every week for 3 months. The previous PURB also had Scott Fernandez, a microbiologist with water quality expertise and an unusually sophisticated understanding of Portland’s water system. Fernandez no longer serves on the PURB, after officials inexplicably denied his reappointment in 2008. None of the previous PURB members that were active in the public part of the discussion surrounding our water system are associated with the 2009 PURB.

If the 2009 PURB is devoid of participants active in the era of public process for these issues, and if the 2009 PURB rebuffs historical knowledge available through community groups long-active in this decade long discussion, then isn’t the 2009 PURB a bit like a judge and jury that arrives after the trial is finished… they’ve missed the airing of the arguments, the points and counter points to both sides of the case, they’ve arrived in time for one side’s closing, and that’s it. This begs the question: can the current PURB offer advice the citizens will find legitimate?

End notes:
*1 – PURB = Portland Utility Review Board

*2 – PURB members Wickham and Johnson reported that, “they interviewed several citizens, stakeholders, and Portland’s federal delegation to gather information on the LT2 issue.” Wickham and Johnson have not publicly disclosed interviewee names, or the dates interviews were conducted. At the June 2009 PURB meeting they were pressed to do so. The June 2009 meeting minutes report that Wickham “said they cannot list individuals because several asked that they not be identified.” I have also directly asked for this disclosure, and not received it. June 2009 PURB meeting minutes available online: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=30349&a=270626

*3 -
PURB Public Hearing on Open Reservoirs
Proposal for meeting format
January 20, 2010

Public Hearing Proposal
The public hearing must comply with Oregon public meeting law requirements and will be recorded.

Propose a two and one-half hour Public Hearing to be scheduled in the evening between March 2nd and March 15th regarding the LT2 open reservoir rule and Portland’s in-town open reservoirs. The opportunity for public testimony was requested of the PURB through the Portland Water Bureau subcommittee on January 12th by Mayor Adams and Commissioner Fitch.

The Hearing Officer should be a professional contracted by the City of Portland to conduct the hearing and provide a summation of the testimony and findings of fact.

A 30 minute overview will be provided prior to receipt of public testimony. The overview should be presented by:

David Shaff, Water Bureau (invited)
Gary Oxman, Health Officer Multnomah County Health Department (invited)
David Leland, Oregon State Drinking Water Program (invited)
Senator Merkley Office, (invited)

Testimony will be taken by those who sign in for this purpose in the order of sign in. Testimony will be limited to three minutes per person. The duration of the public testimony will be limited to two hours. Written testimony may be submitted in lieu of verbal testimony. Anyone testifying must also provide a written copy of their testimony. A summary, prepared by the Hearing Officer will be published on the PURB website consistently with the public hearing requirements of the State of Oregon.

Clearwire problems in Florida; residents here and there work together

2010-01-21T19:35:00.000-08:00

We’re not the only City discovering problems with Clearwire’s wireless-internet equipment. Residents of Tampa, Florida, are organizing to protect their own neighborhoods. I recently received an update from Tampa residents, Marlin Anderson and Carrie Grimail.

In Tampa, F&L Towers LLC wants permission to exceed local height codes by 88% -- they’re seeking an adjustment on the height code, taking it from 80 ft max to 150 ft max. From Anderson and Grimail:
The proposed tower is 150 feet tall ... and just a little over 80 feet from the Sunset Park condominiums. A typical lot is 50 feet in our area, so imagine this tower being less than two houses away from your property line. … At 150 feet it will be almost as tall as a 15 story building….
F & L Towers also plans to ask Tampa’s City Council to adjust the distance required from a tower to a residence. Anderson and Grimail write:

The minimum distance from the tower to the boundaries of a residence is the height of the tower. With a height of 150 feet, the tower would need to be located at least 150 feet from the boundaries of Sunset Park condominiums. The distance is only 83 feet, and a waiver is being requested to reduce the required distance from 150 feet to 83 feet. ... It’s to be battleship gray to "blend in" with the surroundings. But it won't blend in. Remember, the tallest nearby building on Henderson Blvd is just 3 stories ...

This is where Clearwire enters the story; F&L Towers revealed at a community meeting last week that the first lessee on this new tower will be Clearwire. Anderson and Grimail raise a number of interesting points we should all keep in mind:

Clearwire is a new 4th generation wireless service, and their competitors will be Verizon and AT&T. From recent newspaper articles, it appears that all of the towers that Verizon and AT&T will need to roll out their 4th generation wireless service were installed in Tampa during 2009. However, Clearwire has a much weaker signal than Verizon and AT&T, and consequently would like to install towers every 1500 hundred feet all over our city.
...
Clearwire has succeeded in some other cities in getting permits to install pole extensions onto pre-existing light poles and other utility poles. With these permits, they can install new poles without a land use review, because they are using the poles as if they were a utility. The pole extensions in Portland are 60 feet high, and
Clearwire has already installed 50 or 60 poles or towers in Portland , and they
want to install even more. These poles are being installed in residential neighborhoods, on residential streets, right in front of people’s homes. (Note from S. Stewart, one such extra tall pole is proposed in the Beaumont-Wilshire Neighborhood in Portland, visit http://www.respectpdx.org/ to learn more about it.)
...
Once granted, these permits give Clearwire the rights and access of a utility. However, unlike our power and telephone lines, they are not providing universal service, but instead only to some members of the community who sign up for Clearwire’s service. And unlike cable companies who only have to run wires, the proliferation of pole extensions will have a major negative impact on the aesthetics of our neighborhoods and our city.If they were to receive this permission in Tampa, this would result in a grid of poles throughout our residential neighborhoods. If we allow this to go forward, you will soon find noisy "boxes" on tall poles outside your homes and all over your neighborhood. … Furthermore, it is not known if Clearwire will be able compete with Verizon and AT&T, and could go out of business, leaving us stuck with tall poles in our neighborhoods all over town.
…
To sum up, we shouldn’t be allowing a company to profit at the expense of our neighborhoods by harming our aesthetics and reducing our property values. We shouldn’t allow this proposed cell tower at Henderson and Manhattan , and, if necessary, we need to oppose efforts to install poles or pole extensions in residential neighborhoods in the City of Tampa.

Clearwire wants TALL towers

2010-01-21T19:26:00.000-08:00

Residents of the Beaumont/Wilshire Neighborhood found out recently that Clearwire wants to install new, very tall poles near homes. Because of our own long ordeal with a noisy Clearwire device, we've warned the folks in Beaumont/Wilshire to look through Clearwire’s application for any equipment that might have moving parts (especially a cooling fan). Neighbors are concerned about health issues associated with the electromagnetic waves emitted by wireless technologies. To learn more about the case in the Beaumont/Wilshire neighborhood, visit http://www.respectpdx.org/

On January 13, Beaumont/Wilshire neighbors held a public meeting with Clearwire and city reps. It sounds like it got heated. Their next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 28th from 7-8 pm in the Beaumont Middle School library - the neighborhood will decide what position to take at this meeting. George Polas, one of the Mt. Tabor residents that has had to live with a noisy Clearwire device since it was installed in October 2008, attended the first Beaumont/Wilshire meeting on the 13th. Here is an excerpt from his report afterwards:

There were about 80 people there [at the Beaumont-Wilshire meeting], and they were very vocal. Reporters from some local newspapers attended, and I was interviewed by one of them. I also testified about the 14 month ordeal I experienced with Clearwire and their noisy equipment. I think I opened up some eyes to this problem that others are going to experience in various neighborhoods. The Clearwire rep. was mentioning a small noise problem on 50th and Burnside and some other false sayings regarding what they are doing in Portland. When I spoke, things were considerably cleared up regarding what is true or false with this unwanted company. He didn't realize I was in attendance. He had no counter arguments to what I presented.

Letter to Ombudsman regarding incident at PWB Jan 11

2010-01-15T09:35:00.000-08:00

From: S.Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 1:31 PM
To: 'Mills, Michael (Ombudsman)'Subject: bad experience with document request

Dear Mr. Mills, City of Portland Ombudsman –

I had a distressing interaction this week while accessing public records at the Portland Water Bureau. You may have read about this incident in the Daily Journal of Commerce’s blog or on Jack’s Blog.

You can read my full accounting on my blog. I hope you will read the entire entry on my blog, as it was a complicated experience that unfolded over the course of 2 months and culminated with a surprising confrontation in a PWB conference room. The net is PWB had a staff person “supervise” me while I read two bid proposals and the corresponding evaluation sheets (clearly not records posing any security issues) and then charged me for that supervision. Which, in essence means they charged me for the time it took me to read the public records (2 hours = $55). I fully understand that PWB was within their rights to charge me for the staff time associated with supervision, but I take issue with their application of supervision.

This incident raises multiple questions, that need addressing to insure fair access to public records.

1) Are there objective perimeters established for the insistence of “supervised” reviews? In my case, I do not understand why PWB would pull a staff member off normal duties to watch me read the particular documents I was reading. They posed no security risk, and there was no danger that I could irreparably damage them. The application of “supervision” seems vulnerable to abuse, and could potentially be employed to undermine the public records access policy from which it is sourced. If a citizen can no longer read a public record without being charged by the minute for the time it takes her to sit and read it, then citizen access is in danger.

2) Are there guidelines for City staff to follow, outlining how Bureau staff should notify citizens when the records they seek will require a “supervised review”, and thus incur an hourly fee for reading time? In my case, I contend there was no notice that I was entering a “supervised” review. The bulk of the communication preceding my reading made no reference to any staff time other than that required to retrieve the records. The one email that indicated other staff time, mentioned only that a staff member would be assigned to “assist” my review, not “supervise” my review.

3) Is there a specified, predictable process by which custodians make decisions regarding fee waivers “in the public interest”? My constituents have long understood that non-profit organizations (particularly those offering the citizenry broad access to information), news organizations, and neighborhood associations (also typically offering information to the broader community) normally qualify for access fee waivers, with their “public interest” service being their ability to further disseminate information to a large number of citizens. However, my organization’s fee-waiver requests were all denied in the last 12 months. Additionally, the organization (Friends of the Reservoirs) that originated the records request associated with Monday’s incident has had most (if not all) of their fee waiver requests denied in 2009 and 2010. The sporadic blessing and denial of fee-waiver requests also appears vulnerable to abuse, potentially providing greater access to those organizations favored by Bureau managers and the Commissioners overseeing them, while potentially limiting access to those organizations that have fallen out of favor with management and elected officials.

I am not challenging the fact that Bureaus have a right to charge fees, that they have a right to supervise reviews, or that they have a right to deny fee-waiver requests. I mean to raise questions regarding the potential for abusing each of these measures, and how that abuse might harm citizen access to records.

Stephanie Stewart
MTNA Land Use Co-chair

Portland Water Bureau doesn’t wear gloves?

2010-01-14T20:17:00.000-08:00

Why wouldn’t Water Bureau staff wear gloves when they sample our water system? When taking a sample of just about anything, isn’t the goal to get just the sample, and nothing from the sampler? The following excerpt from a letter from former PURB member and microbiologist, Scott Fernandez, leaves me wondering what PWB’s definition of “professional” is.

…Last March Randy Leonard and Dave Shaff were notified of improper water samples taken on March 5, 2009 ~9AM at 59th and Lincoln. The person taking the sample was bare handed, working without gloves during the water extraction process. This violates standard water sample methodology protocol. During media coverage of the reservoir 3 E. coli event, the Oregonian pictured a Portland Water Bureau employee taking drinking water samples, once again without gloves.

Because of bacteriological contamination risk, data obtained using methods not conforming to strict aseptic technique protocol and guidelines are not reliable and therefore not usable in drawing any conclusions or assigning cause. Gloves are an important part of aseptic technique in drinking water sample methodology.(1, 2)
My graduate work was based on designing, implementing, and executing a drinking water safety program in rural eastern Washington. Microorganisms were analyzed, as was chemical water contamination from fertilizers to determine risk for methemoglobinemia, nitrites, and nitrates. I also had to deal with closed reservoirs (cisterns), located on high points of the property to provide gravity fed water as
needed.
Randy Leonard and Dave Shaff have made it policy to arbitrarily contradict the scientific comments I make. Shaff tells me, and others, I have no credibility or expertise in drinking water microbiology and chemistry. His response to not having gloves was only “ Water Bureau employees are professional”. …
Scott Fernandez - M.Sc. Biology / Microbiology
1. EPA Total Coliform Handbook- 2006
2. Colorado Department Public Health – 2008 (2008 closed reservoir bacteria death)

The “P” in PURB is not for “public”

2010-01-13T19:07:00.000-08:00

In August 2004, the PURB published two issue papers: “ Additional Treatment of Bull Run Drinking Water” and “Burial of Water Storage Reservoirs in Mt. Tabor Park and Washington Park”. (Available online in the PURB 2004 Annual Report: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=41337&a=106206 .) The PURB reviewed the work of other committees organized around these issues, including that of the 2004 Reservoir Independent Review Panel (IRP) and the Unfiltered Systems Working Group (USWG doc referenced in PURB paper is available on the Friends of the Reservoirs website: http://friendsofreservoirs.org/LT2/LT2comments-USWG.pdf ). The PURB papers came after a period of extensive public discussion about Portland’s drinking water. One PURB member at the time, Frank Ray, actually served on the Independent Review Panel and was thus active in the public meetings (3 hours per week, for 3 months) held to discuss all concerns related to our open reservoirs. Both of the August ’04 PURB position papers were unanimously supported by all eight PURB members.

This week, a 2 person subcommittee of the PURB made another recommendation regarding Portland’s reservoirs that is a complete reversal of the previous PURB recommendation issued August 2004. This subcommittee has yet to get the support of the full PURB regarding their new recommendation. These two people offered no citation list of the reviewed data, papers or interviews on which they based their reversal. I have directly asked both subcommittee members for a citation list, specifically highlighting (but not limited to) any new data that led them to reverse the PURB’s previous recommendation. As of today, my committee has serious questions regarding the efficacy of the PURB Water Subcommittee’s recommendation regarding our water system. As to my inquiry about the citation list, which I believe should be available to the public – only one of the PURB members responded, and he suggested we meet in person. That doesn’t sound open to the public to me.

PURB = Portland Utility Review Board

Drowning in Water Bureau Debt?

2010-01-11T23:17:00.000-08:00

Four years of over-estimated consumption & deficit spending

are not what PURB would expect from leadership focused on running a lean, tight ship.
– 2009 PURB statement regarding Portland Water Bureau’s finances

The Portland Water Bureau is drowning in debt and they’re poised to take residents and businesses down with them. In the middle of the country’s worst recession, and as most companies are digging deep to cut costs, the Portland Water Bureau (PWB) has levied a 17.9% rate increase on water volume charges, a 19.6% increase to the “base rate”, a 6.9% increase to sewer rates and a 6.7% increase to storm-water disposal charges.*1 And they plan similar rate hikes every year for as far into the future as we can see. PWB won’t share rate increase projections further than five years out, but current spending projections could create major rate increases for a decade, and even longer if they keep adding projects like the Special Armed Law Enforcement Unit to their wish list. This means combined water/sewer bills will double in four years. What is now a $180 bill for an average family of three will be a $350 bill in 2013. It could be over $600 in eight years, and almost $900 in 12 years. But, rate hikes alone won’t be enough to keep PWB afloat. The Portland Water Bureau just took out a loan for $75 million (bond approved Dec 9, 2009, final Council vote January 2010 *2). This inconceivably large loan will just get them through the year. *2A

Reportedly, in 2009, 40% of PWB’s budget was consumed with debt and interest payments.*3 PWB is spending significantly more than what it makes. This month alone, PWB plans to ask for new spending on a special Law Enforcement Unit (Chief Sizer estimates PWB would need to quadruple its security budget to cover this*4); and they’ll begin the Request for Proposal (RFP) process for a new emergency alert system they’d like to acquire*4A (this system may cost, “an arm and a leg,” according to PWB Administrator David Shaff and will in some ways duplicate the traditional Emergency Broadcast System municipalities already have in place). During budget season this past Spring, the mayor asked every office for a budget with 5% cuts. What about cuts at the Water Bureau? The Portland Utility Review Board (PURB) rather sternly noted this year that the Portland Water Bureau seems unaware a “cut” should be an actual reduction in current spending and not just a trimming of the wish list. According to a community stakeholder group, five years ago the Water Bureau had 535 employees; the Bureau has ballooned to approximately 650 employees today (+ 21%).*4B

Reviewing PWB budgets and related documents is a bit like falling down the rabbit hole into Wonderland. Budgets are broken down into different units with every new document, making these figures onerous to track and compare from one proposal to the next. Income projections are based on demand levels that are not substantiated, perpetually fostering budget shortfalls, deficit spending and debt.*5 Recurring, critical expenditures are seemingly, routinely funded with borrowed money and accounted for as if they were one-time capital expenses. Spending on new, large projects climbs while PWB neglects 50% of the maintenance projects required annually to keep pace with the deterioration of infrastructure.*6 New capital projects are favored by the argument that these projects will act as “locally funded stimulus”; despite the fact that there aren’t local funds for such stimuli so they’d have to be borrowed, thus increasing rates and debt-load on a population that can’t take an increase in either.*7

The most publicly discussed projects this past year were those mandated by LT2. *7A Although the mayor, the city commissioners, PWB and their constituents agree that LT2 mandates will not increase the quality or security of the water system and that the first action priority should be to press for legislative or regulatory relief from the unfunded EPA mandate, the initial design of a treatment system has begun. PWB has set aside $24 million to spend on the design of a UV plant before relief efforts have a chance to succeed. They’ve also “fast-tracked” two projects relating to LT2 compliance: the buried tanks at Powell and Kelly Buttes, asserting these tanks will build capacity to meet demand 50 years from now and help Portland attract large industries. One might question the logic in taking on the maintenance of a storage tank 50 years before we need it, when PWB lags in maintenance of the existing system. Portland’s water rates are already high. Large water users have been fleeing the Portland area for a decade because they can’t afford our water (Steinfeld’s Pickles, Blitz-Weinhard and Alcatel are examples).*7B

Recent estimates place the cost of an LT2-mandated UV plant at $100 million ($200 million with debt service) and the cost to disconnect the open reservoirs and build buried tanks at $400 million ($800 million with debt service). Note that no projection considers the operation costs of a UV plant (estimates place electricity alone at $16 million a year); the construction costs of a “pre-treatment” plant (i.e. ozonation) that might accompany the UV plant; or the costs of converting the open reservoir sites to something more attractive than giant concrete holes. Undertaking projects that double water bills in four years will hurt business, not attract it. When a big employer that uses 40 million gallons a year sees its annual water expenditures grow from $100,000 to $200,000 in just four years, Portland’s ability to support growth of new business is in jeopardy. *8A

Reportedly, PWB has more storage capacity than it needs even during periods of peak consumption. As drinking water is a perishable product, there doesn’t seem to be any benefit to stock piling it in large, new tanks. Neither of the Powell or Kelly Butte tanks should be on an accelerated implementation schedule with PWB finances the way they are. These tank projects would seem to imply the citizenry and Council have agreed to 1) abandon LT2 relief strategies, and 2) move much of Portland’s water storage further away from the population center. Securing a Waiver or Variance is clearly the most cost-effective approach to LT2 and leaving our highly functional system intact is the community supported strategy. It seems at best inconsistent and at worst irresponsible to spend $24 million to design a UV plant and $34 million on site-prep for tanks when the community expects PWB is working to avoid building these items.

Where is the Portland Utility Review Board (PURB) in all of this? The PURB is supposed to be a citizen and business ratepayer advocacy group providing checks and balances for the PWB budget process. In truth, PURB recommendations have no binding power at all. While PURB members have repeatedly hammered PWB staff for their illogical business practices -- like imposing large rate increases in a terrible economy, *9 or planning spending which increases a crippling debt, *10 or habitually projecting income based on obviously inaccurate estimations of demand *11 -- those criticisms seem to be confined to written correspondence alone. They don’t appear in a form that would serve to sound an alarm for the rate-paying public. Reappointment was denied to one PURB member in good standing after he publicly questioned PWB modus operandi. *12 The most recent PURB appointees all appear to have been recommended by the commissioner in charge of the Water Bureau, putting into question PURB’s ability to be a public oversight group. In fact, at the October 20, 2009 Council work session, a PURB member declared that his group was not a ratepayer advocacy group but rather a research arm of the Council. *13

PWB is currently more than $350 million in debt and they project their debt will double over the next 2 years.*14 A local reporter recently wrote about the count-down clock that sits on PWB administrator David Shaff’s desk . It ticks away the days until the EPA’s deadline for LT2 projects. Perhaps PWB administrators would better serve this city by setting aside this countdown of a manufactured emergency to focus their attention on the real crisis before us. It's a fiscal one.

End Notes:

*1 – Figures derived from calculations on an actual PWB customer’s bill. All calculations confirmed with a phone call to the PWB customer service line. An excel spreadsheet with 12 years worth of projections of bills for the typical 3 person and 5 person household, available here. Projections made with rate increases similar to the one issued July 09.

*2 – Non-emergency ordinance, Council Agenda Item #1675 from Dec 2, 2009.

*2A – In January 2009, PWB managers predicted they will need to issue/sell bonds each of the next 4 years in the following increments: FY 2010-11 $91,030,000; FY 2011-12 $147,500,000; FY 2012-13 $135,575,000; FY 2013-14 $133,425,000. This year, PWB will sink almost $24 million dollars into debt service. Forecasts for the next 5 years worth of debt service payments are as follows: FY 2010-11 = $28,985,504; FY 2011-12 = $34,498,586; FY 2012-13 = $46,031,999; FY 2013-14 = $56,634,228; FY 2014-15 = $67,071,228. Note: figure for FY 2014-15 places debt service payments about equal to PWB’s 09/10 operating budget. Figures taken from Questions for FY 2010-11 Budget Process, available online: http://www.portlandonline.com/water/index.cfm?c=51645&a=276497

The Office of Management and Finance hosts an Annual Disclosure statement regarding PWB finances. The 2008-09 Annual Disclosure (Feb 15, 2009) is here: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.cfm?&c=28112&a=12891

*3 – PURB 2009-10 Rate Testimony; available online: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=41337&a=213273

*4 – In a letter dated Oct 19, 2009, from Chief Sizer to Dan Saltzman, Sizer writes, “The Water Bureau currently employs 23 Security Specialists and one Security Supervisor at an annual cost of $979,650 FY 08-09 (salary only). Research on a comparably sized Oregon law enforcement agency (approximately 25 sworn officers) shows an annual budget of $4 million.”

An industry rumor places cost at $20-40 million dollars in unidentified funding:
http://www.watertechonline.com/news.asp?N_ID=72775

*4A – RFP: http://cityofportland.ebidsystems.com/public/solicitationdetail.asp?Solicitation=111377

*4B – employment figures from Water Bureau website

*5 – Retail water demand for 2003-2013, actual vs forecast. Released at budget meeting Dec 9 2009; available online at: http://www.portlandonline.com/water/index.cfm?c=51645&a=276501

*6 – PURB Comments on 2009-10 Financial Plans; available online: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=34619&a=247323

*7 – PURB Comments on 2009-10 Financial Plans; available online at: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=34619&a=247323

*7A – LT2 is a Federal mandate to build certain water system facilities that Portland’s water system does not need. LT2 emphasizes construction over protection; the Portland system is engineered within a substantial framework of protection, and LT2 forces Portland to abandon its highly successful and sustainable approach to water purification in favor of a highly consumptive build/treat/pump model. These projects won’t provide Portlanders any additional public health benefits, and return very little for their hard earned dollars.

*7B – Former Director of the Portland Water Users Coalition testifies before Portland City Council about large water users being driven from Portland; July 29, 2009. Minute 175, video available here: http://www.portlandonline.com/index.cfm?c=51112&a=258048

*8A – July 15, 2009 letter to Dan Saltzman from Sebastian Pastore, Kurt Widmer, and Rob Widmer of Widmer Brothers Brewing Co., Craft Brewers Alliance.

*9 –
“…We believe that this budget proposal is excessive and inappropriate given the current economic situation where many businesses are cutting expenses and families are stretching reduced incomes to make ends meet. We believe with appropriate cost cutting the bureau could reduce its requested rate increase.” Quote from: PURB 2009-10 Rate Testimony; available online at: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=34619&a=247322

“…The current budget proposal represents an increase in spending (from 6% to 13% depending on how you calculate) with a projected retail rate increase of 17.9%. This is excessive and inappropriate in this current economic environment. … The operational budget for next year should be significantly less than the budget for the current year. Nearly every business served by the water bureau is being forced to reduce spending; the bureau needs to do the same and the current budget proposal still requests spending increases rather than decreases.” Quotes from: PURB Comments on 2009-2010 Budgets; available online at:
http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=34619&a=247324

“…While large rate increases are probably inevitable (without Federal stimulus support) for the LT2 work over the 5 year timeframe of the financial plan, the rate increase for FY 2009-10 needs to be in single digits.”
“… Proposing an 18% rate hike (after including OMF’s mandated budget cuts), seems out of sync with the economic recession that has hit the country.”
“… It is PURB’s understanding that the bureau’s 18% rate request occurred before the OMF request for 5% cuts, but in January the bureau’s budget included the OMF changes but still required an 18% rate hike.” Quote from: PURB Comments on 2009-2010 Financial Plans; available online at: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=34619&a=247323

“…While the phrases “ratepayer revolt” and “sticker shock” never were said by members the discussion centered around the unsustainability of yearly rate increases that greatly surpass inflation….Average rate increases should be in line with current inflation and cost of living increases… In our opinion it is inappropriate for the bureaus to continue internal business as usual and to increase their rates to cover their spending.” Quote from PURB Annual Report 2007-2008; available online at: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=41337&a=213273

*10 –
“… The water bureau is spending more than the revenue it generates (it is spending down cash reserves). The water bureau is taking on new debt faster than it is retiring old debts (debt service is growing). These conditions have nothing to do with LT2 or any other extraordinary program/expenditure. These 3 characteristics remain for the FY2010 proposed budget. This seems like a bad situation.” Quotes from January 2009 correspondence from a PURB member to WB staff regarding PWB budgets (obtained via Oregon Public Records Request)

“…The Bureau needs to look at making deeper and more genuine cuts to their spending proposals…”
“… PURB believes it has been a mistake to allow the bureau to operate with levels of spending that can not be supported by the customer revenue stream.” Quotes from: PURB Comments on 2009-10 Financial Plans; available online at: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=34619&a=247323

*11 –
“… The current bureau retail demand forecast of 28M ccf is overly optimistic. For each of the past 5 years the water bureau has over estimated retail demand, resulting in deficit spending and crisis cuts to departments. It is imperative that the bureau become more conservative with its demand forecasts. … PURB will oppose any financial plan/budget proposal based on higher consumption assumptions because it will over estimate revenue and result in more deficit spending.”
“…The water bureau’s financial health is closely tied to accurate predictions of water consumption because of the mismatch between the rate structure and the water bureau’s cost structure.”
“…During the past 5 years the bureau has over estimated water consumption by an average of 6% each year. Leaving the bureau with insufficient revenue (~ $4M short on average) to meet spending plans in each of those years.”
Quotes from: PURB Comments on 2009-10 Financial Plans; available online at:
http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=34619&a=247323

“…The bureau should be more conservative in its financial planning assumptions. Over estimating future revenue could result in unexpected rate increases.” Quote from PURB 2009-10 Rate Testimony; available online at: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=34619&a=225807

“… Given the tough economic times & your minimal cash reserves, I think it is high time to become more conservative in your consumption forecasts. Much better that your forecast be 93% of actual demand than 108%.” Quote from January 2009 correspondence from a PURB member to WB staff regarding PWB budgets (obtained via Oregon Public Records Request)

*12 – Scott Fernandez, biologist specializing in ground water assessment and surveillance.
“In May 2008 Scott Fernandez was denied re-appointment to PURB. This was the first time that a PURB member with excellent attendance was denied re-appointment.” Quote from PURB Annual Report 2007-08; available online: http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.CFM?c=41337&a=213273

An article on the front page of the NW Examiner (Jan 2010) discussing PWB’s historically confrontational behavior towards citizen activists and how PWB has targeted Fernandez and others: http://www.nwexaminer.com/issues/01January2010.pdf

“MP3 Audio File: Hear Scott Fernandez talking about Portland's contaminated well field water on the KBOO show Monday on the Environment on 5/5/2008. Thank you to the show's host, Scott Forrester. Scott Fernandez is now a former member of the Portland Utility Review Board. (PURB) He was removed from that position after many years, by Commissioner Randy Leonard, shortly after this show. http://kboo.fm/node/7151 or Click here to listen to the 29 minute show. (27MB audio file)” Quote from the website of a community stakeholder group: http://friendsofreservoirs.org/

*13 – Informative video of this work session between PURB and City Council available online: http://www.portlandonline.com/index.cfm?c=49508&a=268816

*14 – “Total Outstanding Debt at Year End” is projected to double in 2 years. Outstanding debt grows as follows, if PWB does not add additional projects: FY 2010 = $353,845,000; FY 2011 = $511,086, 000; FY 2012 $741,017,000; FY 2013 $869,063,000; FY 2014 $939,490,000. Figures taken from FY 2009-10 Five Year Preliminary Financial Plan, January 2009; available online: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B0FLHRhrA9yaYjJlZDA4ZjItYzkyOC00YjM0LWE4NmQtZDllODU0OWMzMWE3&sort=name&layout=list&num=50

Water Bureau doesn't want to give me access

2010-01-11T22:05:00.000-08:00

I had a bizarre experience with the Water Bureau today. I’m still a little shocked by it all, not even sure where to begin.

The net is PWB just handed me a bill for $57.72 for 8 little copies. Copies I won’t get until I pay this bill, never mind the 2 hours I spent downtown today sitting in a PWB conference room reading through binders to find those 8 pages. But therein lies the rub = 2 hours. They had someone sit and watch me read the documents that whole time. I was “supervised”. Supervised while reading two bid proposals and some score sheets. All of what I had in front of me was public information, and none of it would appear to pose a security issue… so why was I supervised? I don’t know.

I’ve noticed it isn’t easy to get public information from the Water Bureau. No matter what Randy Leonard claims (on April 11, 2009 , Leonard stood in front of 175 people at Glenco Elementary and said that all anyone has to do is pick up the phone to get documents from PWB; two weeks later PWB instituted a formal request policy with fees). But this really takes the cake. The whole experience was, bizarre. Here is how it went:

I was invited, by F. Jones of the Friends of the Reservoirs to accompany her on a visit to PWB to read some documents. Jones invited me because she thought it would be a good chance for me to see the PWB document library, as I may need to pull documents on behalf of MTNA someday. Jones had requested electronic copies of the documents in question (I’ve got something to say about this, later) and she was denied that request. She inquired about physical copies, and was told she’d be charged for staff time to pull and copy the documents ($171) and charged 25 cents each for the actual copies (# of pages undisclosed to her, but now that I’ve seen the material I can guess that the roughly 500 pages would have cost her upwards of $125). Jones made a plea for a fee waiver, a request based on the fact that her non-profit organization makes documents available to thousands of citizens. Request denied. So, Jones asked if she could just be given a chance to sit and read the documents down at PWB. They granted that request, a date was set, and I was invited.
We were not put in the document library, we were put in a conference room with 3 small binders and a handful of loose papers, all related to the contract that was recently awarded for the design of the new tank at Powell Butte (Powell Butte II). Kristen Small escorted us into the room and then sat down. When Small left for a few minutes at one point, Jones and I wondered aloud why we were being watched, woefully unaware that PWB was charging us for Small’s time to “supervise” us. On previous occasions, citizens like Jones were allowed in the library, on their own, for whatever time they were willing to dedicate to being there.
Within the first few minutes, Jones noticed she wasn’t given any of the names of the people on the panel that reviewed the bids for this contract. Jones had specifically requested the names of the people involved in the review panel/contract award process, so we asked Small if she could help Jones get that piece of information. Small was told by Mike Stuhr (head engineer) and Annette Dubishinsky that PWB was not authorized to disclose panel member identities, by city code. Jones corrected staff -- city code prohibits the disclosure of reviewer identities only until the point when the contract is awarded. The contract for Powell Butte II has already been signed. (Brownie points to Jones for being able to quote city code.) Shortly thereafter, Mike Stuhr appeared with the names. The seven panel members were as follows: 1) Jerry More, PWB; 2) Michael Angerinos, PWB, 3) Crystal Yezman, PWB, 4) Stan VandeBergh, PWB, 5) George Lozovoy, Parks Bureau, 6) Tamra Dickson, citizen, 7) Teresa Elliot, PWB. Notice that PWB does not seem to be following the City Auditor's report on consultant contracts, which advises against loading bid review panels with Bureau staff. (Update: I've posted the PTE Contract sheet that lists names and the money awarded with the contract.)
I learned that the panel members saw 2 bids: one from CH2MHill for $5,586,884; the other from Tetra Tech for $8,683,882. That's a $3million difference, and the panel favored CH2MHill. But, before the contract was signed and presumably after the panel's review, CH2MHill raised their bid to $8,455,246.
We read and read and read. When we finished, we asked for 8 pages to be copied, and we were told they’d be mailed. Our pages were only marked with these little sticky notes and I could imagine all sorts of mishaps that could occur between the conference room and the envelope that arrived at my door… what if a sticky fell off and they sent me one less page than what I’d hoped for, would I have to go all the way back downtown to find that page? “Can we just take the 8 copies now, I’ve got cash to cover the copy fee?” I pleaded. Small said she wasn’t “authorized” to give us copies, but she would see what she could do. TWENTY minutes later, we asked the front desk to check on Kristen. She reported that, “Kristen is furiously making those copies for you.” A total of 40 minutes later, Jimmy Brown approaches us with no copies. Instead he had a bill for $57.72 and a copy of the city policy on which he highlighted the passage that allows PWB to charge us for the “supervised” review.
I asked Jimmy Brown if he would send me a written bill, itemizing the $2 worth of copies and the $55 worth of supervision. I didn’t think anyone would believe this story without proof. PWB is restricting access to public information to “supervised” visits only, at a rate of $27.86/hr. That’s right, if you want to see any of the documents I saw, you can’t have them electronically (even though the RFP specifically stated that all bids were to be supplied in multiples of 12 hard copies PLUS an electronic copy), and you’ll have to pay to even so much as breathe on them.
If a citizen can't read a public record without being charged for the time it takes her to read the public record, citizen oversight is dead.

Update Jan 12
When I asked Jimmy Brown yesterday why we weren’t told at the start of the session that we’d be charged for the “supervision”, he replied something to the effect that the City policy was public information, and it wasn’t his fault if I hadn’t read it. I guess that’s true. I had read the policy, I just didn’t understand that the language could be leveraged to limit transparency.

I’ve now looked over the emails that led up to this misunderstanding. I think Mr. Brown could have been more clear. Here is a chronological summary of the emails exchanged:

October 30, 2009
Jones made her request for:
“An electronic copy of all documents associated with the Ch2mHILL Powell Butte II reservoir design contract related to the selection committee and their ranking of the corporate proposals.”

November 5, 2009
Her request was acknowledged, and she was told it would cost $177, and that she would need to pay 50% up front.

Floy countered that she was looking for electronic copies, not paper copies. That the documents related to the panel selection committee should be in the 40 page range, not the 400 page range PWB was charging her for. She lobbied for a fee waiver based on FoR’s community information sharing mission, and she offered to make a site visit to read the documents.
November 6, 2009Brown responded to several people regarding Jones’ request, but failed to include Jones on that response. Brown detailed out the charges included in the PWB bill sent the day before. It reflects that Brown was also planning to copy and send the bids (roughly 300 pages), which Jones didn’t request. Brown asserted that the only way to get an electronic copy of the bids (which Jones didn’t ask to have) would be to pay PWB to scan them in (even though the RFP stated bids were to be supplied electronically).

Brown also wrote this: We would be willing to provide you the opportunity to come in and review the document(s) you've requested. Please note, per Public Records Policy there will be a charge for staff time associated with gathering the material. If there are pages that you would like to receive there will be a charge for a) scanning into a .pdf, and sending those documents electronically -- $.25/per page scanned; b) if copies of documents are made to give to you the charge is $.25/per copied page.
Note that Brown indicates there will be a charge for gathering the material for Jones to look at, but he does not say she will pay for the time it takes her to read it.

November 8, 2009
Jones presses again for a fee waiver. She also asks for an appointment to view the documents at PWB. Brown doesn’t respond for almost a month.

January 4, 2010
Brown responds with this:
Your request for a fee waiver has been denied.
…
The Bureau would like to afford you the opportunity to review the hard copy documents at its office, 1120 SW 5th, 6th Floor. In your review you may request that certain pages be duplicated. Bureau staff will make copies as requested, assessing a $.25 per page fee. Payment for copies must be received by staff prior to release.
The Bureau will make the hard copy documents available on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 1:30 PM. Please acknowledge via email that you are available on that date and time.

This would have been a good place for Brown to mention the fee for “supervision”. Note he only mentions the copy fee.

January 5, 2010
Floy counters with a new time, so that I can join = Monday, Jan 11 at the same time.

Brown responds with this:
Thank you for the confirmation. I will let folks know that you are available to review documents on January 11 at 1:30, not January 12 at 1:30. A PWB staff person will be assigned to assist you in the review process. Please meet at the 5th Floor, Portland Building and ask to speak with Kristen Small. We will provide a room for you to review the documents.

This is the first time anything is said that might indicate we were going to be babysat. But honestly, I didn’t understand that from Brown’s text.
January 11, 2010We show up. No one says anything about fees associated with Kristen Small’s “assistance”.

Here is the bill I was sent:The amount is: $57.72
A. sub-total: staff time (document retrieval/supervision) - $55.72
(2 hours X $27.86/hr.)

B. sub-total: copies of marked documents - $2.00
(8 copies X $.25/copy)

The Noise of Clearwire's Wireless-Internet

2010-01-10T16:27:00.000-08:00

Clearwire promises to blanket our city in wireless internet connectivity. They appear to be blanketing our city in noise.

In October of 2008, Clearwire installed a wireless internet device about the size of a refrigerator on a telephone pole on a quiet residential street in the Mt. Tabor neighborhood. (The telephone pole's address is 44 SE 50th Ave.) The residents on this street no longer live in quiet. The Clearwire device has a noisy cooling fan, that cycles on and off 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It clicks on and off, day and night. While it is on it produces noise audible within the homes nearby. In hot weather, it turns on more often and stays on longer -- which means neighbors have to live with this noise in their bedrooms all summer, or they have to close their windows and live without Portland's wonderfully cool night air.

Not long after this device was first installed, KATU did a short story about it, which you can see here: http://www.katu.com/news/35688754.html?video=YHI&t=a

The amount of noise this device makes has fluctuated throughout the past year as neighbors, MTNA, and Paul Van Orden with the city's noise office have harangued Clearwire officials for improvements. Every request was met with a slow response from Clearwire, and on at least one occasion their efforts made the noise get louder and stay that way for months. The first technical readings of the noise produced by this box revealed this device was violating noise codes. When the city's noise officer investigated the technical specs of the device (as supplied by the manufacturer) we discovered it was designed to make more noise than Portland's noise codes would allow.

After more than a year of communication between Clearwire, the City, the neighbors and MTNA, Clearwire finally produced a fix in early January 2010 that makes this one box meet Portland noise codes. I have not seen Clearwire offer to bring the other 50+ boxes located around this city into compliance, and I have not seen them offer to make this "fix" a part of every new box that gets installed.

But, the problem is not gone. I am sad to report that the neighbors closest to this device can still hear the noise it makes, and all of its cycles, inside their homes. It is quieter than it was, but not quiet enough to return the neighborhood to what it was before this box was installed. I draw two conclusions at this point:

1) The noise codes as written are not adequate for items being installed in residential Right-Of-Ways (ROWs). A device on a telephone pole is in a unique position to project noise in all directions and effect many neighbors. The allowed decibel level should be reduced to something that is effectively inaudible to residents sleeping with their windows open in nearby homes.

2) Seemingly, Clearwire is sourcing cheap, noisy fans for their wireless internet products. Portlanders should insist on better, quieter fans, or this city will be blanketed in noise. This box just might appear on a pole outside your bedroom.

Solarize Portland

2010-01-10T16:11:00.001-08:00

In May of 2009, Tim O'Neal from Southeast Uplift and Stephanie Stewart from MTNA (that's me) launched Solarize Portland. With incredible support from the folks at The Energy Trust of Oregon (thanks Lizzie Rubado!), the project really took off. In a big way. Like nothing we could have expected. Whew.

If you are interested in solar panels for your home, look at the Solarize Portland projects. I built Solarize Portland its own website, so I'll let you go there to learn more about it: http://www.solarizeportland.org/

A sample of the press coverage given to Solarize Portland:

KGW:
http://www.kgw.com/news/local/61177467.html
Tribune:
http://portlandtribune.com/sustainable/story.php?story_id=125477784816925200
Oregon Live:
http://www.oregonlive.com/hg/index.ssf/2009/09/community_effort_brings_solar.html
The Examiner:
http://www.examiner.com/x-5231-Portland-Green-Living-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Get-help-in-going-solar

Behavior Unbefitting a City Bureau

2010-01-07T22:24:00.000-08:00

An article on the front page of the latest NW Examiner (January 2010) -- discussing the Portland Water Bureau’s historically confrontational behavior towards citizen activists and how PWB has targeted Scott Fernandez and others: http://www.nwexaminer.com/issues/01January2010.pdf

Watch City Council meetings

2010-01-01T10:50:00.000-08:00

While I think it is a good idea to show your face at any City Council hearing covering a topic important to you (audience numbers indicate public interest, public interest can elevate Commissioner attention spans), don't forget you can watch video of older sessions, right from your computer.

http://www.portlandonline.com/index.cfm?c=28258

From a member of the Reservoir Independent Review Panel

2010-01-01T10:05:00.000-08:00

I hear a number of complaints from the community about the “public process” that goes into various City bureau decisions. Dave Mazza, a member of the 2004 Reservoir Independent Review Panel, wrote a rather candid first person account of the IRP process you can read here: http://www.theportlandalliance.org/2004/june/reservoir.htm . I found it worth the read.

West Side Boil Alert Update

2010-01-01T09:57:00.000-08:00

By now I hope you’ve heard the E. coli found in water samples from Reservoir 3 over the Thanksgiving holiday was non-infectious; meaning it was harmless to human beings, and just one of the many types of innocuous bacteria we encounter in our normal environment every day. (Water Bureau press release available here: http://www.portlandonline.com/water/index.CFM?&c=39678&nocache=1&a=277230 )

In reading data at the State’s Drinking Water Program website (http://170.104.63.9/inventory.php?pwsno=00657 ), one can see that E.coli detects happen in all parts of our water system, not just in the open reservoirs. In fact, Conduit #4 (a buried pipeline) has had repeated E.coli detects this year -- boil alerts are not issued with these E.coli detects because, reportedly, regulation does not require them to be issued (case report for Conduit #4: http://170.104.63.9/contactsingle.php?pwsno=00657&ISN=55483 ).

I find any suggestion that the City should spend $400 million (cost to bury reservoirs, $800 million with debt service) an inappropriate reaction to a harmless bacteria. Covering your drinking water does not prevent debris from getting into it; as long as there is an inlet and an outlet there is an entry point for contaminants. Water managers contend with environmental contaminants, whether they are running open or closed systems.

Read this EPA white paper to learn more about debris in water storage facilities: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf . Interestingly, all of the cases cited in this document where illness and death occur as a result of contamination were from incidents in covered storage facilities. The authors speculate that debris should be an even bigger problem in open reservoirs, but I cannot find an EPA citation supporting that speculation.

Randy Leonard's campaign contributors from 2008

2009-10-28T20:56:00.000-07:00

In some ways, being the commissioner in charge of the Bureau of Development Services makes Randy Leonard the commissioner in charge of development in Portland. Interestingly, a search of records filed with Oregon's Secretary of State seems to indicate that almost 70% of Leonard's campaign contributors (2008) were in the business of development, of one kind or another.

I performed a search here: http://tiny.cc/y4IRS (it was a super long URL, this is the "tiny" conversion). These are the contributors, below. I've tried to organize them.

Builders/ developers: (38 entities, $33,147)
1. http://atlasinv.com/ - $1000
2. http://www.deeringmanagementgroup.com/ - $1,000
3. Arthur DeMuro – Venerable properties http://www.venerableproperties.com/ - $500
4. http://www.prairieviewhomes.net/ - $250
5. Oregonians for Affordable Housing = PAC committee of Oregon Home Builders Association: http://www.homebuildersportland.org/documents/OFAHContributionForm.pdf - $1,000
6. Tom Skaar – Pacific Western Homes - $200
7. Kane Road Investments – Roger and Joyce Neu - $500
8. Springwater Development LLC – Jeff Jurgenson $250 : http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=60334&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE - supposedly a developer: http://www.manta.com/company/mm8j3dq
9. P.M.P. LLC : $500 http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=93669&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE Peter Perrin, developer : http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/314365.shtml
10. Bay City LLC – (Parking mogle Gregory Goodman) http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=98700&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE = Gregory Goodman + Mark Goodman (Gregory is owner of City Center Parking/Upark/PMC) - $500
11. Don Morissette – Home Builder $ 250 : http://www.dmrealty.com/ ; complaint from home owner = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgpSMieBMhs
12. Ronald H. Beltz – VP of Common Wealth Partners. – Board Member of Portland Business Alliance; CWP is a developer: http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Beltz_Ron_5521854.aspx - $1000
13. Bill Naito Company http://www.billnaito.com/ - $1,000
14. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades - $650
15. Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors PAC - $250
16. Fish Construction NW, Inc.( http://www.fishconstructionnw.com/) - $500
17. Sun Crest Construction ( http://www.suncrest-const.com/aboutus.htm )- $300
18. Schumacher Custom Homes Inc. ( http://www.schumachercustomhomes.com/index.htm )- $1000
19. Metropolitan Land Group – (http://www.metlandgroup.com/) - $500
20. First American Title Insurance of Oregon - $250
21. Albert Solheim – Developer/ AWS Real Estate - $1000
22. Fountain Village Development – John Beardsley Building Development - $1000
23. Ted K. Gilbert (commercial real estate broker) - $1000
24. Shortstop LLC (Henry Merritt Paulson) - $500
25. Robert A. Sacks – Real estate developer - $2,500
26. Mark C. Edlen – Real Estate developer - $2,500
27. Bradley J. Malsin – Real Estate developer – BEAM Development - $1,250
28. Elizabeth Malsin (relative of Bradley Malsin, address given is of BEAM Development) - $1250
29. NW Cedar Management - $1000
30. Barry Schlesinger – owner BPM Development LLC (commercial real estate and parking) - $2,000
31. Wayne Rembold – owner Rembold Companies, real estate development) - $1,500
32. Martin T. Kehoe – “individual”. Contribution by President MK Development (real estate) - $2,500
33. Daniel Petrusich – “individual” contribution by President of Melvin Mark Development Co. - $500
34. Harsch Investment Corp. (http://www.harsch.com/) – real estate development - $1000
35. Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. - $1000
36. The Zidell Companies ( http://www.zidell.com/) (Macadam tram connections? = http://www.zidell.com/images/inside/press/Zidell%20release.%207.8.pdf) - $500
37. Shorenstein Realty Services - $500
38. Pacific Northwest Regional Council of Carpenters - $247

Consultants: (4 entities, $1750)
1. http://www.westernadvocates.com/ - $250
2. NW Grassroots and Communications (http://www.nwgrassroots.com/index.php) – lobbying, PR firm - $500
3. Dave Barrows and Associates (lobbyists) - $500
4. Dan P. Lavey (individual contribution, Partner at Gallatin Group = lobbyists) - $500

Hotels: (3 entities, $3,000)
1. Portland Hotel LLC – Westin - $1000
2. Aspen Imperial LLC – Hotel Lucia - $1000
3. Hotel DeLuxe - $1000

PACs / Unions (8 entities, $15,050)
1. Portland Metro Firefighters - $2000
2. Natural Gas Political Action Committee – (contact name: Gary Bauer) $250
3. Qwest Oregon Employees’ Political Action Committee - $500
4. Laborers Local 483 (“public sector union”) - $5,000
5. Local 48 Electricians PAC - $5,000
6. Teachers Voice in Politics - $1500
7. Joint Council of Teamsters No. 37 Political Fund - $300
8. Alliance PAC – “to Support Candidates and Measures That Advocate for Private Industry and Business Principles” https://secure.sos.state.or.us/eim/sooDetail.do?sooRsn=13402 - $500

Business (6 entities, $5,000)
1. Thant Co - The New Copper Penny Bar - $500
2. Aegean Corp: http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=10950&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE - Mike Fennel (VP Blazers) Larry Miller (Team President) $1000
3. Trail blazers - $1000
4. Ron Tonkin Chevrolet - $1,500
5. Benjamin Stutz – Owner Kelly’s Olympian and Motopizza - $500
6. Comcast Cable - $500

Classification Unknown (2 entity, $1000)
1. Joseph Angel – Pacific Star President $1000 http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=533827&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE - unclassified business
2. Singer Family LLC - $2500 – unclassified business

OTHER (1 entity, $500)
1. Sandra K McDonough – individual contribution, Portland Business Alliance CEO - $500

Letter from MTNA Board to Commissioner Leonard - privatization and the future of Mt. Tabor's reservoirs

2009-09-03T15:53:00.000-07:00

September 3, 2009
Via email

Dear Commissioner Leonard-

The Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association applauds the statements you made in Council Chambers on July 29th (during discussions surrounding Resolution #1071- LT2 Treatment plans) in which you asserted your plans to bring before voters an amendment to the City Charter. This Amendment as described by you would protect our water system and prevent future privatization, regionalization, any dissolution of our publicly held water rights in Bull Run, and the blending of river waters with our pristine Bull Run drinking water. We’d like to offer our strongest support to you and your staff as you pursue this effort; please do not hesitate to call on us should you find we can be of assistance in any way.

The Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association also noted another set of statements made by both Commissioner Fritz and yourself at that same hearing. You asserted that the decision to drop the pursuit of legislative relief from our LT2 compliance strategy applied narrowly and only to the source water treatment requirements of the LT2 Rule, and not to the open storage requirements of that Rule. As such, we assume the Water Bureau strategy for Open Reservoirs will remain three-pronged and include legislative, administrative and build-planning efforts. In this matter, we’d like to know what is underway or in the works for each of the strategic prongs (legislative relief, administrative/regulatory reform, and build planning). Our next regular community meeting is on September 16; as our entire neighborhood is eager for information, we hope to hear from you in time for us to present an update at that meeting.

Warm regards,

Stephanie Stewart
On behalf of the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Board

Letter to City Council - Why the Variance tests are designed for failure

2009-08-24T12:29:00.000-07:00

August 24, 2009
Via email

Dear Commissioners –

I am writing to share with you the latest information obtained by the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Land Use Committee regarding the year-long, high volume, finished drinking-water study Portland completed in May. This information, and the study’s report of findings yet to be published, should bolster our efforts seeking relief from LT2 and its unnecessary build requirements. It should also serve to caution us as the Water Bureau moves forward with any Variance testing options offered by the EPA.

This multi-year study, which Portland joined a year ago, is being managed by the Water Research Foundation (see the project abstract online at: http://www.waterresearchfoundation.org/research/topicsandprojects/projectSnapshot.aspx?pn=3021 ). It was designed to examine the finished drinking water for the presence of infectious Cryptosporidium.

As we understand it, participants in this current WRF study were to be immediately notified if at any time during the data collection process infectious Crypto was found in a water sample. The City of Portland was never notified of any such presence, so we should be able to extrapolate that no infectious Crypto was found in our finished drinking water samples. While we won’t have the final report on this study for some months, we do have a preliminary final report from November 2008. After repeated document requests from a member of our neighborhood we finally have access to this report (just last week) which the Water Bureau has seemingly had since November 2008 (report is attached as PDF). I would like to highlight for you three items from this report:

1) The report discusses the fact that there are many types of Crypto in the natural environment, but that not all genotypes are infectious to humans. We know infectious Crypto genotypes to be from human and domesticated animal sources - not the wild animals present in the Bull Run Watershed.
The genus Cryptosporidium contains at least 16 recognized
species that infect a variety of vertebrates… However, most cases of human
cryptosporidiosis are attributed to C. Parvum and C. Hominis.

There are
currently two species of Cryptosporidium that cause the majority of human
infections, C. parvum and C. hominis. However, the source of contamination of
environmental waters is often livestock or feral animals that can shed species
of oocysts that are not infectious to humans and so represent minimal public
health risk.
2) The report affirms that appropriate testing protocols must gather more information than just the presence/absence of Crypto oocysts when analyzing water and assessing public health risks. Appropriate testing must confirm the genotype, whether the oocyst is even active (alive), as well as the overall condition (or health) of the oocyst. Counting oocysts without adjusting for these other factors will not produce accurate public health data.
The condition of the oocysts is also very important in determining the risk of infection. Oocysts are exposed to many conditions in the environment that can reduce their infectivity… The length of time post-shedding from the carriage animal, water temperature, and the amount of ultraviolet (UV) exposure from sunlight can reduce oocyst infectivity… In addition, surface
waters are exposed to natural UV irradiation in sunlight which may damage oocyst
DNA thereby inhibiting DNA replication and reducing infectivity.

3) But perhaps most interestingly, this report specifically calls attention to the chief criticism of EPA’s LT2-Variance testing protocols – these test methods set forward by the EPA (and agreed to by the Water Bureau) wrongly ignore an analysis of the many factors (genotyping, condition, etc.) that appropriately define the public health risk of detected Crypto oocysts.
However, since many oocysts in surface waters belong to
species other than C. hominis and C. parvum, the public health benefits of the
risk assessment framework underlying the LT2 ESWTR, based solely on
FITC-positive oocysts with no specification or genotyping may be questioned.

The current methods of Cryptosporidium detection in untreated surface
water (Method 1622 and 1623; US EPA, 2005) use an antibody based detection
method to identify oocysts. This method only provides presence/absence detection
of oocysts…The detection of non-infectious oocysts or oocysts belonging to a
species that is not infectious for humans could cause unwarranted concern for a
contaminant that may not be a significant public health risk.

We should proceed with caution into any Variance testing options offered by the EPA that do not allow us to genotype or assess the condition of an oocyst if detected in a test sample – at present, all testing options offered by EPA to date DO NOT allow for genotyping or conditional analysis. The Water Bureau is poised to begin the Variance tests in just two weeks, using the very EPA method -- Method 1623 -- criticized in the WRF study (quote above). Crypto is common in the environment, but infectious Crypto is limited and infectious Crypto is what all of our public health agencies should care about. Any test that does not allow us to genotype or assess the condition of an oocyst is a test designed to produce failure through false positives.

Regards,
S. Stewart
Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Land Use Co-Chair

Letter to Commissioners - Why we oppose a Filtration plant

2009-07-26T15:57:00.000-07:00

July 26, 2009
Sent via email

Dear Commissioners-

The Mt. Tabor Land Use Committee strongly urges a postponement on this week’s LT2 Resolution vote.

The Mt. Tabor Land Use Committee strongly objects to the latest LT2 Resolution (#1071 – Leonard’s Treatment Technology Resolution) and its declaration that it will no longer pursue legislative relief.

Legislation is always difficult, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible. Legislation is also unpredictable. Years ago we were told legislative relief was impossible because the Republicans were in power, and that this is an environmental issue and Republicans don’t care about environmental issues. Now we’re being told legislative relief is impossible because the Democrats are in power, and that this is a Consumer protection issue and that the Democrats fear Republicans will exploit our legislation on behalf of polluters. Clearly, every argument is about the framing. The outcome can’t be seen so clearly this early in the process. If we carefully get in front of the framing on this we have as much chance at success as anything else ever does. The stellar results Portland received in the year-long, high-volume study we just completed will further bolster the case (American Water Works Research Foundation, completed May 2009, results = 0 harmful Crypto anywhere in our water system). Our Bull Run system has science on its side, and we should not back away from doing what is right.

The people of Portland own Bull Run water and we want Water Bureau given the clear directive to pursue legislative relief. On April 11 (which was Easter and Passover weekend) 175 citizens turned out to passionately communicate to the City Council and our Federal Legislative Delegations that the people of Portland want to protect our pure, Bull Run water from LT2 build projects. The Resolution before you this week is a betrayal of the citizenry, and it marginalizes every effort we’ve made to communicate our wishes to you. ...

The Mt. Tabor Land Use Committee respectfully requests longer, more responsible budget projections regarding the Filtration plant. We cannot find where the Water Bureau has provided the City Council or the citizenry a budget that clearly draws for us the entire picture, marking the date their Filtration plant will be completely paid for, while spelling out exactly what each year’s rate increases will look like from here to there. We cannot settle for 5 years worth of projections when it appears this project won’t be paid for in 5 years. At this point the citizens have no idea what the payoff date is on this plant, or what we will be asked to bear. We respectfully assert that pursuing this information is an integral part of your fiduciary responsibilities. A Filtration plant threatens to break the backs of ratepayers while offering them permanently degraded water. We cannot close our eyes, and hope for the best. As a Councilor, you are in a tight spot today choosing between satisfying your obligation to meet Federal Rules and satisfying your obligation to protect the citizens that hired you - that is a lousy set of options. But you must press on and get more creative until you find a good option for the People of Portland.

The Bull Run Treatment Panel Report seems outmoded. Water Bureau is at least in part basing its Filtration recommendation on the work done by this panel which met more than seven years ago in a very different political climate. That Panel worked from a number of assumptions that have proven themselves inaccurate, including an assumption that demand in Portland would steadily rise over time. In addition, this Panel’s discussions occurred under Bureau Administration that was actively pursuing regionalization of our water system and our water rights through the creation of the Bull Run Regionalized Drinking Water Agency - a concept the people of Portland have since flatly refused. A two-year delay from the EPA would allow Water Bureau the time to convene a panel working from a base of updated assumptions, so that the people of Portland get a modern decision based on their modern needs and desires.

The Mt. Tabor Land Use Committee respectfully cautions against Filtration’s unintended consequences = a “blend center” and the possible loss of citizen ownership in our water resources. Some of the things that were said at the June 23 Council work session set off speculation that a Filtration plant paves the way to the demand-blend-center concept found in older Water Bureau planning documents – as discussed in these documents, a blend-center would allow water from the Willamette and Columbia Rivers to be mixed and blended with our Bull Run water. This proves to be a big negative in the eyes of those of us who love our drinking water (including the Brewers of Portland). On this point, a Filtration plant seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy - we don’t need a Filtration plant today but once we build it, we will. If a Filtration plant will allow the Water Bureau to source lower quality water, a Filtration plant will most certainly serve us up lower quality water than what we drink today.

At the June 23rd meeting, Greg DiLoreto from Tualatin Valley Water District reportedly alluded to the TVWD becoming an owner in Bull Run water -- this seems to be an escalation of TVWD’s current relationship with Bull Run water rights and it harkens back to a time when the City was considering forming the Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency. The “Regional Storage and Transmission Report” (a WB planning doc from 2000) reflects research and an outline of a process by which a particular Intergovernmental Agreement (without citizen input) would seemingly allow Portland to divide and transfer ownership in our Bull Run water to other government agencies. Given that dividing ownership also divides debt, there is much speculation that this particular Intergovernmental Agreement option is being resurrected as an option to help fund the massive expenditures posed by Filtration (yet another reason we urge you to seek clear, long -term cash flow data regarding a Filtration project). Once other agencies/water districts/wholesale customers own a share in the water system, how much control do we have over what they do with it? If we are dependent on other municipalities paying for a share of this burden, what happens if/when one of them falters? Have we seen any case history about public agencies regionalizing and the incidences of subsequent privatization? Dividing ownership out from underneath the citizens of Portland seems like a slippery slope to divesting the people of public ownership of our most valuable resource and it is quite possibly one of the steps that can lead to privatization. In several letters to citizens this week, Leonard asserts privatization of our water system won’t happen on his watch, but he won’t be around forever.

We the People of Portland are the lucky ones. We don’t drink pharmaceuticals like Prozac or ibuprofen. We don’t drink Teflon. We don’t drink hairspray, or toilet bowl cleaners, or any of the surprising myriad of chemicals which are found in trace amounts in EPA approved “clean” tap water all across America because we don’t drink recycled sewage. We also don’t drink fertilizers, or insecticides, or the crypto that comes from tea brewed with cow poop, because we don’t drink unprotected water run-off from urban and farm areas. Once we mix Willamette or Columbia River water with our drinking water, we too will drink the fertilizers my neighbor dumps on his lawn, and the pharmaceuticals he dumps in his body, and a whole host of other “trace” chemicals the 21st century adds to surface and sewer water but doesn’t filter out before drinking it, again. There they will be, mixed and blended with our pristine, organic-quality Bull Run water, thereby permanently adulterating its purity with Teflon and acetaminophen. The Water Bureau wants to raise our rates AND reduce the quality of product delivered to our taps.

Some people are concerned that a Filtration plant is necessary to securely meet water demands in our area… the assumption many folks are making is that Water Bureau MUST have a good reason for wanting Filtration, and maybe it has something to do with supply/demand. The data seems to assert that a new Filtration plant is NOT essential to meeting demand. Interestingly, demand in Portland actually has historically decreased every year, despite our population increases.

The Water Bureau has asserted the demand/supply argument regarding periods of high turbidity, like in the fall when the rains are particularly hard and fast. In the last 10 years, I can find 8 turbidity incidents that have compelled us to switch away from our Bull Run water. At those moments, we move to our well fields, developed as a secondary water supply suitable for cases of over demand, or emergency shutdowns. Last year we switched off Bull Run for a total of 8 days in November because of turbidity. And our well field did its job. The Water Bureau has recently asserted that we need the Filtration plant in case of a catastrophic fire in the Bull Run Watershed. After all, if the forest is leveled, the water there would be overwhelmed with debris. The Water Bureau suggests that a Filtration plant would allow us to keep pumping Bull Run water even in case of a fire. But the data from other municipalities around the country seems to contradict this assertion. Take the Denver watershed that suffered a catastrophic fire a few years ago. They have a Filtration plant, and still they had to shut down their water supply because the amount of debris overwhelmed the Filtration system. Unlike Denver, we have a totally separate backup system already in place. In the case of catastrophe, we will have a catastrophe and it isn’t likely that a Filtration plant will buy us any extra water.

Please do not accept this Resolution; it cannot be the best option.

Sincerely,
S. Stewart
Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association Land Use Chair