The Proposal

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...

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

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

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

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