You've heard the rhetoric, you're looking at the reservoirs, and now your wondering what happens to this park if we loose the good fight?
Some people have even started to panic, and they are pushing to jump into the discussion about what goes on top because they fear they'll get left out of it. I assert, this is a very bad decision. There are STILL viable options that the City absolutely will not bother to work on if they think they can get away with just moving forward with destruction. And diverting community energy to the what goes on top process will absolutely shut down any other forward motion.
Remember, we've been here before, we had the "what goes on top" public process in 2002. A design competition was held, beautiful drawings were made, cost estimates were higher than any available budget, and doesn't this sound like a loop? We don't need to pay for another set of planners and another set of plans.
I will post 2002 DESIGN IMAGES HERE when I find them. For now, you can reference a blog post on Jack's Blog from 2003.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Citizen Initiatives for Water - 2013
This summer I learned of three new efforts initiated by citizens, aimed at protecting the reservoirs and Bull Run: the TRUST, the INJUNCTION, and the PUD (Public Utility District). There is enough information about the PUD to warrant its own post. As I learn more about the Trust and the Injunction, or other initiatives, I'll post here.
the TRUST: was announced Oct 27; read WWeek article. The group has a facebook page. I note that Seth Woolley is associated with this new effort, which leaves me wondering if the Trust will have any real substance. From what I can gather, Seth Woolley is not a friend of the reservoirs. He either simply doesn't believe they deliver clean water (in which case, he doesn't believe in science and we don't want him anywhere near our water system) or he just doesn't believe budgets matter (in which case, we don't want him near our water system)... in either case, he isn't an enthusiastic supporter of the reservoirs we already own and he doesn't seem to see them as an important part of our system. That sounds very much like the City's point of view. He is a newcomer to the Bull Run/LT2/Open Reservoir issue (welcome all comers!), and as he's yet to inquire for facts from the most educated citizens in the ring, I wonder where he gets his questions answered.
The WW article linked above mentions only the one element of the Trust, which provides for simple conflict of interest bans. So does the PUD proposal (can you tell these provisions are long overdue?). Woolley is quoted saying the Trust will address transparency, accountability, and "public perception around water." That last little tid-bit, "public perception around water," sounds like a line from a guy who thinks citizens don't know how to think for themselves. That is a certain brand of politician I don't particularly care for; I'd watch out for this one.
I genuinely love the idea of setting our water supply in a Trust owned by the public, which I assume is what this Trust attempts to do (although, I still can't tell). I hope this turns out to be an effort worth watching.
the INJUNCTION: no news yet.
the TRUST: was announced Oct 27; read WWeek article. The group has a facebook page. I note that Seth Woolley is associated with this new effort, which leaves me wondering if the Trust will have any real substance. From what I can gather, Seth Woolley is not a friend of the reservoirs. He either simply doesn't believe they deliver clean water (in which case, he doesn't believe in science and we don't want him anywhere near our water system) or he just doesn't believe budgets matter (in which case, we don't want him near our water system)... in either case, he isn't an enthusiastic supporter of the reservoirs we already own and he doesn't seem to see them as an important part of our system. That sounds very much like the City's point of view. He is a newcomer to the Bull Run/LT2/Open Reservoir issue (welcome all comers!), and as he's yet to inquire for facts from the most educated citizens in the ring, I wonder where he gets his questions answered.
The WW article linked above mentions only the one element of the Trust, which provides for simple conflict of interest bans. So does the PUD proposal (can you tell these provisions are long overdue?). Woolley is quoted saying the Trust will address transparency, accountability, and "public perception around water." That last little tid-bit, "public perception around water," sounds like a line from a guy who thinks citizens don't know how to think for themselves. That is a certain brand of politician I don't particularly care for; I'd watch out for this one.
I genuinely love the idea of setting our water supply in a Trust owned by the public, which I assume is what this Trust attempts to do (although, I still can't tell). I hope this turns out to be an effort worth watching.
the INJUNCTION: no news yet.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Notice - Development at 1806 SE 50th Ave
I received notice recently of a lot subdivision proposed in our neighborhood. If you are interested in this issue, attend the public meeting or contact me.
Description
One large lot with one house that will be torn down. Five new lots will be created with frontage presumably facing SE Mill St., attached row houses most likely. View existing lots on www.portlandmaps.com (type in property address) or view proposal as submitted on pages 1-3 of PDF.
Public Meeting: Thursday, Feb 28, 2013, from 6:30 - 7:15 pm. Mt. Tabor Presbyterian Church at 55th and Belmont (5441 SE Belmont St.), in Room 05. Enter the church through the main doors off the courtyard on Belmont, head towards the western end of the building and go downstairs. Room 05 is in the west end of the building. Wear your good socks because Room 05 is a "no shoe" room.
Description
One large lot with one house that will be torn down. Five new lots will be created with frontage presumably facing SE Mill St., attached row houses most likely. View existing lots on www.portlandmaps.com (type in property address) or view proposal as submitted on pages 1-3 of PDF.
Public Meeting: Thursday, Feb 28, 2013, from 6:30 - 7:15 pm. Mt. Tabor Presbyterian Church at 55th and Belmont (5441 SE Belmont St.), in Room 05. Enter the church through the main doors off the courtyard on Belmont, head towards the western end of the building and go downstairs. Room 05 is in the west end of the building. Wear your good socks because Room 05 is a "no shoe" room.
Notice - Development at 5843 and 5901 SE Belmont
I received notice this week of a subdivision developing in our neighborhood boundaries. If you are interested in this development, attend the public meeting (TBA).
Description
Two large lots side by side, with one house existing on each lot, 2 existing houses total. Proposal is to take the back portion of these two lots and subdivide that land into 3 new lots with a private street between the 2 existing houses leading to those new lots. Three new lots will each have one new house, for 3 new houses total (plus garages). View existing lots on www.portlandmaps.com (type in property address) or proposal as submitted to me on pages 4-6 of PDF.
Public Meeting: Thursday, Feb 28, 2013, from 7:15 - 8:30 pm. Mt. Tabor Presbyterian Church at 55th and Belmont (5441 SE Belmont St.), in Room 05. Enter the church through the main doors off the courtyard on Belmont, head towards the western end of the building and go downstairs. Room 05 is in the west end of the building. Wear your good socks because Room 05 is a "no shoe" room.
Description
Two large lots side by side, with one house existing on each lot, 2 existing houses total. Proposal is to take the back portion of these two lots and subdivide that land into 3 new lots with a private street between the 2 existing houses leading to those new lots. Three new lots will each have one new house, for 3 new houses total (plus garages). View existing lots on www.portlandmaps.com (type in property address) or proposal as submitted to me on pages 4-6 of PDF.
Public Meeting: Thursday, Feb 28, 2013, from 7:15 - 8:30 pm. Mt. Tabor Presbyterian Church at 55th and Belmont (5441 SE Belmont St.), in Room 05. Enter the church through the main doors off the courtyard on Belmont, head towards the western end of the building and go downstairs. Room 05 is in the west end of the building. Wear your good socks because Room 05 is a "no shoe" room.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
A Tale of Two Cities' LT2 Victories
and Missed Opportunities
Portlander’s learned this week, from documents obtained directly from the City of Rochester, NY, that Rochester has won a reprieve from LT2 open reservoir requirements. This reprieve may very well prove to save their reservoirs and their ratepayers millions in needless spending. But that’s not all we can learn from Rochester. A look at Rochester’s path to this point highlights how Portland may have missed some meaningful opportunities to do more.
The city of Rochester has three open reservoirs – totaling 233 million gallons -- that fall under the LT2 requirement to “further treat or cover.” (Portland has five open reservoirs, totaling 170 million gallons.) The Rochester website nicely summarizes how that city evolved its approach to LT2 compliance for their three reservoirs, stating their goal as this: to “achieve technical compliance at an affordable cost.” (#1)
The original plan was to cover one reservoir with a floating plastic cover, just like citizens proposed here in August; this cover (plus associated work and a liner) would cost Rochester $11 million. Four members of Portland’s City Council rejected the August proposal for a floating-covers compliance plan (it was supported by Commissioner Fritz). Based on what Rochester is paying, the floating covers plan likely would have cost Portland an estimated $25 million, netting ratepayers over $100 million in savings.
Rochester planned a different approach for the other two reservoirs named Cobbs Hill and Highland. Cobbs Hill Reservoir holds 144 million gallons, Highland holds 26 million gallons, and both are imbedded in parks in urban settings similarly to our Mt. Tabor and Washington Park reservoirs. (For comparison, see Portland’s reservoir sizes in the endnotes.) Operating under the impression that the “further treat” option in the rule was impossible because it would be too expensive and it would require a large plant in a historic park, the city originally planned to “cover” or build new tanks to replace the 170 million gallons served by Cobbs Hill and Highland reservoirs. Their replacement reservoirs would cost them $29 million dollars. Our Water Bureau also seemed to operate under this too-big-too-expensive assumption and thus dismissed the UV option seemingly without any formal data collection. Instead they planned to replace Portland’s 132 million gallons of open reservoirs with 75 million gallons of new buried tanks. This plan is estimated by PWB to cost us $400 million. (Rochester appears to be getting new water storage for $1.45 a gallon, while Portland is paying $2.65 a gallon.)
In 2009 the citizens of Rochester pushed back against the plan to spend millions of dollars on projects that provide their city no benefit. And remember, they were going to spend 1/10th of what the Portland Water Bureau wants to spend. The citizen outcry in Rochester (matched by a similar outcry in Portland) was met with positive action and the Rochester water guys went back to the drawing board to come up with more options. It turns out they examined 125 different compliance options in one study alone. The Portland Water Bureau has never laid out a suite of compliance options for the city to choose from. In fact, since 2009 they have steadfastly insisted there is only one option = spend and build. Rochester discovered that their first assumption about UV’s cost and size was wrong, and that they could fit mini-Ultraviolet reactors into the historic gatehouses at the reservoirs –-- these are 24” UV reactors set in line to treat the water as it leaves the reservoir, reaching a treatment capacity of as much as 100 million gallons in the case of the Cobbs Hill reservoir. (#2)
When local large businesses requested a look at PWB’s detailed analysis of the micro-treatment option, they were provided three non-technical paragraphs (#3). Inquiries for the specific study of the UV option are always met with vague facts that don’t seem to inform the discussion. For instance, PWB starts all responses with a quote that Rochester has fewer citizens. True, but they have larger open reservoirs with more water needing to be treated. They state that Portland’s chemical cocktail is different than Rochester’s, and that ours would necessitate a “larger” facility. They follow this statement with different assertions in different publications. In one, PWB claims a UV plant at the reservoirs would necessitate a building spanning 5 acres. Without access to the specific technical study that would draw this conclusion it is difficult to see how Rochester could build 24 inch treatment facilities while Portland would need a 5 acre plant. It seems as though PWB may be stubbornly standing by their first assumption, digging in their heels in favor of staying the course.
Rochester’s second plan scrapped the buried tanks in favor of building UV reactors and this cut the city’s LT2 compliance bill in half. They asked for and were granted a plan revision with the EPA in 2009, and another in 2010. In 2009 citizens and businesses in Portland had to fight the Water Bureau to accept a compliance plan that would save ratepayers $200 million dollars on the source water side of the Rule. Leonard and Water Bureau staff reluctantly conceded defeat in the face of vanishing Commissioner support, and the most expensive Bull Run treatment plant option (chemical filtration) was thrown out in favor of the cheaper Bull Run treatment plant option (UV filtration). Unlike in Rochester, no conciliation happened on the open reservoir side of the rule, despite the public outcry here in Portland. Portland’s Water Bureau has held fast that nothing else will bring compliance, that Portland must spend big and build big.
Still not satisfied that limited public resources were being properly respected by the LT2 Rule, Rochester’s Mayor stuck out his neck and wrote a letter to the EPA in September of 2011. He said, “this regulation imposes expenditures that are too onerous and benefits that are, at best, difficult to measure … the City needs to make major investments in its aging infrastructure by implementing already identified system upgrades with clearly quantifiable benefits…” Our mayor could have written those very words, but he did not write the EPA on behalf of Portland in 2011 or ever.
Rochester got a response from Nancy Stoner, EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, and they recognized that in her phrasing Stoner was clearly opening a door and guiding their argument. Stoner wrote “… there may be specific, articulable facts that warrant compliance schedule adjustments. Many public water systems face multiple challenges in managing, maintaining and operating those systems. Infrastructure construction projects can also present challenges. It is entirely appropriate for primacy agencies to consider these system specific facts when evaluating a request to adjust a compliance schedule. If a schedule adjustment is appropriate, the public water system should have in place robust interim measures to ensure public health protection…”
Rochester took her lead. Their argument focused on “articulable facts” like maintenance and operating challenges. They argued the Rule is overly burdensome financially. The Portland Water Bureau has always claimed that the EPA would not look at budgetary constraints when considering timeline or compliance options (they appear to be wrong). Rochester made a request for a compliance schedule delay to New York’s version of the Oregon Health Authority and in that request they spent a respectable amount of space talking about the “robust measures” they have in place that have historically ensured their city safe drinking water (i.e. security equipment, bird wires, etc). Our Water Bureau’s request for a delay to the Oregon Health Authority mentioned our “robust” measures mostly in the foot notes. The Portland Water Bureau’s proposal for a delay didn’t look like Rochester’s proposal and it didn’t win approval like Rochester’s did. In fact, OHA’s response to the Portland Water Bureau seemed to all but beg them for a more solid argument. Interestingly, the Portland Water Bureau met with officials from Rochester’s water bureau after Rochester won their reprieve. One must question why it is Portland’s request did not more closely mimic Rochester’s winning model when it most surely could have been at their disposal.
Since OHA’s June 2012 denial of this city’s plea for a time-out in reservoir projects, Commissioner Fritz (in collaboration with State Rep. Alissa-Keny Guyer and stakeholder groups) has asked Commissioner Leonard to direct the Portland Water Bureau to file another proposal, with more substantial data included in it. Leonard has refused to file again, his most notable refusal was point blank and it happened when Commissioner Fritz publicly pressed him at a Council Work Session in July.
Endnotes:
#1 http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589937472
#2 a power point slide show from the City of Rochester entitled “Reservoir Study”. March 18, 2010.
#3 http://tinyurl.com/4szgfq9
Portland Open Reservoirs in millions of gallons:
Tabor 1 = 12 million
Tabor 5 = 49 million
Tabor 6 = 75 million
Washington Park 3 = 16.4
Washington Park 4 = 17.6
Total = 170 million gallons
Rochester's Open Reservoirs in millions of gallons:
Rush Reservoir = 63 million
Cobbs Hill Reservoir = 144 million
Highland Reservoir = 26 million
Total = 233 million gallons
Portlander’s learned this week, from documents obtained directly from the City of Rochester, NY, that Rochester has won a reprieve from LT2 open reservoir requirements. This reprieve may very well prove to save their reservoirs and their ratepayers millions in needless spending. But that’s not all we can learn from Rochester. A look at Rochester’s path to this point highlights how Portland may have missed some meaningful opportunities to do more.
The city of Rochester has three open reservoirs – totaling 233 million gallons -- that fall under the LT2 requirement to “further treat or cover.” (Portland has five open reservoirs, totaling 170 million gallons.) The Rochester website nicely summarizes how that city evolved its approach to LT2 compliance for their three reservoirs, stating their goal as this: to “achieve technical compliance at an affordable cost.” (#1)
The original plan was to cover one reservoir with a floating plastic cover, just like citizens proposed here in August; this cover (plus associated work and a liner) would cost Rochester $11 million. Four members of Portland’s City Council rejected the August proposal for a floating-covers compliance plan (it was supported by Commissioner Fritz). Based on what Rochester is paying, the floating covers plan likely would have cost Portland an estimated $25 million, netting ratepayers over $100 million in savings.
Rochester planned a different approach for the other two reservoirs named Cobbs Hill and Highland. Cobbs Hill Reservoir holds 144 million gallons, Highland holds 26 million gallons, and both are imbedded in parks in urban settings similarly to our Mt. Tabor and Washington Park reservoirs. (For comparison, see Portland’s reservoir sizes in the endnotes.) Operating under the impression that the “further treat” option in the rule was impossible because it would be too expensive and it would require a large plant in a historic park, the city originally planned to “cover” or build new tanks to replace the 170 million gallons served by Cobbs Hill and Highland reservoirs. Their replacement reservoirs would cost them $29 million dollars. Our Water Bureau also seemed to operate under this too-big-too-expensive assumption and thus dismissed the UV option seemingly without any formal data collection. Instead they planned to replace Portland’s 132 million gallons of open reservoirs with 75 million gallons of new buried tanks. This plan is estimated by PWB to cost us $400 million. (Rochester appears to be getting new water storage for $1.45 a gallon, while Portland is paying $2.65 a gallon.)
In 2009 the citizens of Rochester pushed back against the plan to spend millions of dollars on projects that provide their city no benefit. And remember, they were going to spend 1/10th of what the Portland Water Bureau wants to spend. The citizen outcry in Rochester (matched by a similar outcry in Portland) was met with positive action and the Rochester water guys went back to the drawing board to come up with more options. It turns out they examined 125 different compliance options in one study alone. The Portland Water Bureau has never laid out a suite of compliance options for the city to choose from. In fact, since 2009 they have steadfastly insisted there is only one option = spend and build. Rochester discovered that their first assumption about UV’s cost and size was wrong, and that they could fit mini-Ultraviolet reactors into the historic gatehouses at the reservoirs –-- these are 24” UV reactors set in line to treat the water as it leaves the reservoir, reaching a treatment capacity of as much as 100 million gallons in the case of the Cobbs Hill reservoir. (#2)
When local large businesses requested a look at PWB’s detailed analysis of the micro-treatment option, they were provided three non-technical paragraphs (#3). Inquiries for the specific study of the UV option are always met with vague facts that don’t seem to inform the discussion. For instance, PWB starts all responses with a quote that Rochester has fewer citizens. True, but they have larger open reservoirs with more water needing to be treated. They state that Portland’s chemical cocktail is different than Rochester’s, and that ours would necessitate a “larger” facility. They follow this statement with different assertions in different publications. In one, PWB claims a UV plant at the reservoirs would necessitate a building spanning 5 acres. Without access to the specific technical study that would draw this conclusion it is difficult to see how Rochester could build 24 inch treatment facilities while Portland would need a 5 acre plant. It seems as though PWB may be stubbornly standing by their first assumption, digging in their heels in favor of staying the course.
Rochester’s second plan scrapped the buried tanks in favor of building UV reactors and this cut the city’s LT2 compliance bill in half. They asked for and were granted a plan revision with the EPA in 2009, and another in 2010. In 2009 citizens and businesses in Portland had to fight the Water Bureau to accept a compliance plan that would save ratepayers $200 million dollars on the source water side of the Rule. Leonard and Water Bureau staff reluctantly conceded defeat in the face of vanishing Commissioner support, and the most expensive Bull Run treatment plant option (chemical filtration) was thrown out in favor of the cheaper Bull Run treatment plant option (UV filtration). Unlike in Rochester, no conciliation happened on the open reservoir side of the rule, despite the public outcry here in Portland. Portland’s Water Bureau has held fast that nothing else will bring compliance, that Portland must spend big and build big.
Still not satisfied that limited public resources were being properly respected by the LT2 Rule, Rochester’s Mayor stuck out his neck and wrote a letter to the EPA in September of 2011. He said, “this regulation imposes expenditures that are too onerous and benefits that are, at best, difficult to measure … the City needs to make major investments in its aging infrastructure by implementing already identified system upgrades with clearly quantifiable benefits…” Our mayor could have written those very words, but he did not write the EPA on behalf of Portland in 2011 or ever.
Rochester got a response from Nancy Stoner, EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, and they recognized that in her phrasing Stoner was clearly opening a door and guiding their argument. Stoner wrote “… there may be specific, articulable facts that warrant compliance schedule adjustments. Many public water systems face multiple challenges in managing, maintaining and operating those systems. Infrastructure construction projects can also present challenges. It is entirely appropriate for primacy agencies to consider these system specific facts when evaluating a request to adjust a compliance schedule. If a schedule adjustment is appropriate, the public water system should have in place robust interim measures to ensure public health protection…”
Rochester took her lead. Their argument focused on “articulable facts” like maintenance and operating challenges. They argued the Rule is overly burdensome financially. The Portland Water Bureau has always claimed that the EPA would not look at budgetary constraints when considering timeline or compliance options (they appear to be wrong). Rochester made a request for a compliance schedule delay to New York’s version of the Oregon Health Authority and in that request they spent a respectable amount of space talking about the “robust measures” they have in place that have historically ensured their city safe drinking water (i.e. security equipment, bird wires, etc). Our Water Bureau’s request for a delay to the Oregon Health Authority mentioned our “robust” measures mostly in the foot notes. The Portland Water Bureau’s proposal for a delay didn’t look like Rochester’s proposal and it didn’t win approval like Rochester’s did. In fact, OHA’s response to the Portland Water Bureau seemed to all but beg them for a more solid argument. Interestingly, the Portland Water Bureau met with officials from Rochester’s water bureau after Rochester won their reprieve. One must question why it is Portland’s request did not more closely mimic Rochester’s winning model when it most surely could have been at their disposal.
Since OHA’s June 2012 denial of this city’s plea for a time-out in reservoir projects, Commissioner Fritz (in collaboration with State Rep. Alissa-Keny Guyer and stakeholder groups) has asked Commissioner Leonard to direct the Portland Water Bureau to file another proposal, with more substantial data included in it. Leonard has refused to file again, his most notable refusal was point blank and it happened when Commissioner Fritz publicly pressed him at a Council Work Session in July.
Endnotes:
#1 http://www.cityofrochester.gov/article.aspx?id=8589937472
#2 a power point slide show from the City of Rochester entitled “Reservoir Study”. March 18, 2010.
#3 http://tinyurl.com/4szgfq9
Portland Open Reservoirs in millions of gallons:
Tabor 1 = 12 million
Tabor 5 = 49 million
Tabor 6 = 75 million
Washington Park 3 = 16.4
Washington Park 4 = 17.6
Total = 170 million gallons
Rochester's Open Reservoirs in millions of gallons:
Rush Reservoir = 63 million
Cobbs Hill Reservoir = 144 million
Highland Reservoir = 26 million
Total = 233 million gallons
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)