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.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Treatment Variance application reveals a stale plant design, flawed testing, and more nonsensical behavior
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Bad day
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".
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".
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
It is now or never
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.
Friday, May 20, 2011
Hell does not have to freeze over
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)