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.

West Side Boil Alert Update

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

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

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