Boil Alert Fails to Serve Community

My own assessment of this week's boil alert is that it was pro forma, and that if this had been a real public health issue we'd all be screwed because Portland Water Bureau's process sucks (it is too slow, and lacking the information people really need).

A risk assessment from this week:

By the time the boil water order was given Friday morning, we'd already been drinking the questionable water for 3 days.  County health department officials have yet to report any discernible uptick in disease reporting (diarrhea) for the Water Bureau service area, so, how questionable was the water?  I think we can assume one of the following: 1) the bacteria were all dead, present but DEAD, and therefore harmless -- our tests don’t distinguish live-and-harmful from dead-and-harmless, and since PWB does not wear gloves (they use chemical hand-sanitizer instead) when they collect samples, dead-but-still-present bacteria can be transferred from hands to sample, 2) the E.coli was a friendly variety regularly found in our gut, 3) the bacteria count was really low and within a range most immune systems could handle, 4) the contamination wasn't widespread, or 5) the tests were misleading, possibly even wrong (after all, the immediate follow-up tests ALL reversed the results).  

Willamette Week tried to put the risk in perspective when the West-side-only boil water order went out one weekend in 2012:  “Probable number of live coliform bacteria that triggered the boil water notice: 1; number of that same bacteria U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations allow in a 4-ounce stick of butter: 1,100.”  (click here for that article) 

Here is how this week unfolded:

On Tuesday, May 20, a water sample at the outlet of a Tabor reservoir tested positive for a problem indicator known as Total Coliform, which was then identified specifically as E.coli.  A follow-up sample was taken as soon as that E.coli result came in, to verify the result and rule out error.  That follow-up sample came back clean.  On Wednesday, May 21, a water sample at a site down by the waterfront came back positive for Total Coliform, which was then identified as E.coli.  Again, a follow-up sample was taken as soon as that E.coli result came in, and that follow-up sample came back clean.  On Thursday, May 22, a water sample at the outlet of a Tabor reservoir tested positive for Total Coliform, identified as E.coli.  That result prompted a follow-up test on Friday, and while the City was waiting on the results to that test the Oregon Health Authority ordered Portland Water Bureau to issue a city-wide boil water notice.  Two of the three sites had already retested as clean.  The community had already been drinking the water for 3 days.  In my opinion, this boil order was largely pro forma.  

Yes, given the rarity of three days of E.coli positives, this case warranted special caution and OHA took it.  The pattern seemed to suggest that the last test would come back clean (and it did), and that the "event" might not really even be one of contamination, but possibly a flaw in testing protocols.  (Should we really count dead bacteria the same way we count live bacteria?  Shouldn’t quantity factor in this trigger system at some point?  Are these protocols really protecting public health by raising the alarm at the right time?)  The people at OHA didn't feel comfortable waiting another 24 hours (on top of the 72 already on the clock) to make that call and I sympathize with their decision.  Although, I don’t see what good it did as it was three-days late for the people who really needed it (the immunocompromised) and the risk was overstated for the rest of us.

A government process that fails the community:

A boil water order sounds like an emergency, doesn’t it?  It might surprise you to learn that a boil-water order in Portland can come after the risk has passed, when the water is already clean again (as it did in this case).  It might surprise you to learn that a boil water order can be given in Portland after even a single, dead, harmless bacteria is found in a water sample -- recalls on other products only happen when a threatening number of live bacteria are found in the product. 

A boil water order only protects public health if it is timely AND if it is actually necessary.  Late orders leave people vulnerable to real-time outbreaks.  Overstated risks cause panic, and panic causes decisions that are themselves public health risks.

Businesses, residents and schools full of kids flew into a panic on Friday, investing energy and resources into coping with the order because they thought they were in the midst of an emergency.  I was in our local elementary school on Friday when the kids started panicking because that morning they’d brushed their teeth, washed some fruit, or simply had a big glass of water.  It was a sea of little faces staring at certain but as-yet-unquantifiable doom.  When I explained they’d all been drinking the questionable water for 3 days and yet they were all still fine and could go about their normal day without worrying about what would happen, they were normal, safe kids again.  This extra bit of information helped frame the real risk of the situation and empowered them to make good decisions, including: focusing on their schoolwork instead of every little bubble their gut was making.

Our public officials did not clearly communicate enough facts so that individuals could make solid risk assessments on Friday.  Information leads to accurate risk assessment, the kind that individuals need to be empowered to make for themselves.  Water Bureau said, “boil your water.”  They didn’t make it clear that you’d been drinking the water for 3 days already.  Or disclose virility of the E.coli (alive vs dead, dangerous vs friendly species, quantity present).  Or attempt in any way to help us assess the risk they rather vaguely announced.  Because I already know a little about this boil-alert process, I was able to make some risk assessments for my friends and family.  For instance, in this particular case, since we’d all come through Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday unscathed, my family kept using the water for teeth brushing, hand washing, dishwashing as we normally would and we substituted in some bottled water for Friday just to reduce our potential bacterial load.  This seemed reasonable, given the circumstances of this case.  Yet, I see people online so uninformed about the real risks facing them this week, that they are now trying to figure out how to clean their hot water tanks.

As a community, we should ask the following:

1) If this kind of detect is a real public health threat, what can PWB do to shorten the time between samples and results — there is now an 18 hour gap (or more if it is a holiday) between samples and final results of the tests?  If something dangerous shows up on Tuesday, let’s don’t wait until Friday to hear about it.

2) If this kind of detect is NOT actually a public health threat, as would appear to be the case given that there was no discernible uptick in illness, what can PWB do to better communicate the pro forma nature of this alert, so businesses and citizens aren't investing resources in a non-emergency?  Can we institute a tiered risk alert system?  Can we design a tiered boil-notice, one that can go out immediately so the immunocompromised have information on say, Tuesday (for this case)?  Can the new system come with tiered packages of actions to be taken by the community?

That doesn't really cut it

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.

The Kelly Butte tank teaches us a lesson about big consultants

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.

Letter to Ombudsman regarding incident at PWB Jan 11

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?

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)

Drowning in Water Bureau Debt?

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

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)

Behavior Unbefitting a City Bureau

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

From a member of the Reservoir Independent Review Panel

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.

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

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

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

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