Loading...
06/12/2002 - Packet Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order/Roll Call and Introductions Motion to call meeting to order, staff to take roll call. 2. Approval of Minutes—May 8, 2002 Motion from Board for minute approval. 3. Conservation Update—Sara Danz(I5 minutes) 4. Proposed Bull Run Drinking Water Agency—Joyce Patton (10 minutes) S. Assistant PW Director's Utility Report—Dennis Koellermeier(30 minutes) a. Beaverton Intertie b. Aquifer Storage and Recovery c. Joint Water Commission d. Regional Drinking Water Supply e. Clute Property Reappraisal 6. Recommendations to Portland for Water Treatment Plant Options—Dennis Koellermeier(10 minutes) 7. Proposed Meeting Schedule for Citizen Involvement in Long Term Water—Dennis Koellermeier 8. Proposed Water Rate Adjustment:Multi-Year Approach -Dennis Koellermeier(10 minutes) a. Existing methodology recommendations b. Rate Resolution draft 9. Informational Items Items will be discussed briefly if time allows-otherwise printed info will be distributed. 10. Public Comments Call for any comments from public. 11. Non Agenda Items Call for non-agenda items from Board. Next meeting date July 10, 2002, at Water Auditorium. 12. Adjournment—Approximate time 7.00 p.m. Motion for adjournment. Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1)(d), (e), (fi&(h)to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues and to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. All discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news redia are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes May 8, 2002 Members Present: Patrick Carroll, Joyce Patton, Beverly Froude, and Bill Scheiderich Staff Present: Ed Wegner, Dennis Koellermeier, Kathy Kaatz and Richard Sattler Visitors: Joe Glicker (Montgomery Watson Harza), Roel Lundquist, Steve Moncaster (Golder and Associates), Chris Uber, Doug Geller, Nesh Mucibabic, David Peters, Eileen Webb, and Paul Owen 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes—April 10, 2002 Commissioner Patrick Carroll motioned to accept the minutes of the April 10, 2002, meeting and Commissioner Joyce Patton seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to accept the minutes as presented. 3. Aquifer Storage and Recovery— Montgomery Watson Harza/Dennis Koellermeier Dennis Koellermeier conducted a brief introduction about Joe Glicker and Steve Moncaster. He then stated that the ASR project was at the end of the injection phase and the aquifer currently contained 97 mg of water. The turbidity issue still exists and has caused problems more than once. Our ASR pilot test program and experiences are being carefully watched by surrounding interested communities. Joe Glicker's presentation included the following points of information: • New well installed in the latter part of 2001 • New well is more productive with 800 gpm versus 300 gpm • Good injection capacity • Injection began in early January and was planned to continue for 110 days to acquire 129mg of water • The project currently is in the storage period and the withdrawal period will begin in June • Injection data is consistent with the conceptual model Intergovernmental Water Board 1 May 8,2002 DRAFT COPY • Water has not been seen in surface springs • Water leaking from the ASR could be up to 25%, but the preliminary data indicates it will only be 10% • A 2nd well at the same site is possible • Turbidity events have caused drawbacks and there have been three such events • There have been no reports from water customers of turbidity issues • Turbidity reduces the well's performance • The decision was made to terminate injection 20 days early • Water quality sample tests indicated sediment problem originated from surface water • Source of problem is still unknown, but could be an accumulation in reservoir • Identifying the source may not assure prevention in the future • Well rehabilitation was suggested in a phased approach that would include installation of an automatic shut-off valve and chemical treatment (Commissioner Scheiderich requested information on where the bacteria and algae were settling. Mr. Moncaster explained that a skin has formed on the walls of the aquifer.) • Feasibility study estimates show the intermediate phase time frame (1.5 mgd capacity) would save $100,000 on operating costs per year and the full scale phase (6.0 mgd capacity) would save $400,000 • Updated pricing assumptions — Portland to charge $.30 ccf for water; Portland is charging $.01 ccf for water going in and $.41 ccf withdrawal • Impact from turbidity events - $20,000 for investiclations • Well rehabilitation - $30,000 to $50,000 • Payback will be in less than 10 years • Rehabilitation of the well should be performed before recovery period • Pilot test will be completed in October 2002 • Next phase (Spring 2003) would be to install an automatic valve to prevent turbidity issues in future and drill a second well at the same site A discussion followed where various theories and scenarios were reviewed as to what might possibly have caused the turbidity events, but nothing could be pinpointed as the definite cause. A thorough explanation of the well rehabilitation phase was reviewed. • Quantify the performance as water is being pumped out • Compare performance against the baseline figures • Physical phase of well rehabilitation will include removal of the pump, installation of rods at the base of the well, analyze loose materials, and track performance • More testing before going to the chemical phase Intergovernmental Water Board 2 May 8,2002 DRAFT COPY Mr. Wegner said the rehab work could be incorporated in the cost total, not to exceed $60,000, which would have to go before the City Council and include a budget adjustment. A time factor is involved, as the well is needed for the summer supply. A lot of money and time could be spent to determine what caused the turbidity problem to happen, but that would not guarantee that the problem could be corrected or changed. The automatic valve to shut off and turn on the injection process appears to be the best solution to preventing future problems of that nature. The IWB recommended proceeding with Phase I of the rehabilitation of the well. 4. Long Term Water Update— Ed Wegner Information material was distributed to the board members for their review. Joint Water Commission — Source options are being finalized and those options include: • Two dam raises at two different heights • A pipeline from the Willamette River to transfer irrigation water • Conservation and re-use of water from Clean Water Services • The Sand Creek tunnel to the coast range that would pipe water to a watershed. Alternative analyses are being built around these scenarios. They are about a month behind in gathering data, however the fieldwork has already started and should be caught up soon. In June there will be public forums to keep the citizens informed. Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Supply—There are 13 agencies participating now because Clackamas River Water District voted not to participate for the time being. The elected officials group is called the Policy Steering Committee (PSC) and meets on the 4th Thursday of each month. Joyce Patton is the chairperson of that committee. Last month the PSC approved the criteria for evaluation of various scenarios. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is made up of the managers from the various agencies and meets weekly with the consultant and work groups to draft the technical memos. Copies of the draft, minutes, etc., were included in handouts to the IWB. There has been feedback from citizens and they have requested the TAC complete a full appraisal of assets. Also, they have requested investigation into a Public Utilities District (PUD) versus a 190 IGA. A PUD membership is based on geographic proportions and would place Portland in charge. Commissioner Intergovernmental Water Board 3 May 8,2002 DRAFT COPY Patton stated that the PSC would hear out all aspects. There will be an open house on July 24th at Tualatin Valley Water District. Commissioner Patton wanted it to be known that she did not volunteer to be the chair of the PSC and she accepted reluctantly. 5. Discuss Citizen Involvement Process for Long Term Water Some participating agencies have made decisions to hold open houses or create task forces to disburse information after the reports are received in August or September. Mr. Wegner requested the IWB discuss and advise as to how the Tigard Water System area should approach citizen involvement. It was suggested that solicitation take place for an appointment of interested volunteers. A task force would not require participants to have a high level of technological background, but focus more on the form of government or relationship that would be wanted with Portland over the next 50 years and whether they want it to go before a vote of the people. Commissioner Patton stated that the creation of this new regional entity was very significant and there was a lot to be said about the final product going for a vote. Commissioner Carroll feared that would be creating another Metro. Commissioner Patton stated that it would depend on the power given to the entity and that the governing structure does not have to be through elected officials. Portland shares voice along with all other members of the PSC. Mr. Wegner said the Citizen's Involvement Team (CIT) might be a good place to start advertising, followed with a bulk mailing and an open house with presentations on cable to be rebroadcast. Task forces are cumbersome and time consuming and there is a time frame that needs to be considered. A bulk mailing would provide information to all users. Mr. Wegner will present a schedule outline for public meetings at the next IWB meeting. 6. Assistant PW Director's Utility Report— Dennis Koellermeier Beaverton Intertie —The City Manager of the City of Tigard has sent a letter to accept the bid for the intertie project. The bid came in at $254,078 and includes a $20,000 contingency, which is well within the budget of$275,000. The contractor is a good one and the project should be completed .July 1. Clute Property Sale —The reappraisal of this property is underway. We should have that information by the next meeting. At the next IWB meeting we would like to discuss recommendations to the City of Portland on the water treatment plant options. Intergovernmental Water Board 4 May 8,2002 DRAFT COPY 7. Proposed Water Rate Adjustment: Multi-Year Approach - Dennis Koellermeier A schedule of the water rate adjustment was distributed for review. October 1St is the date that has been selected for the rate adjustment to go into effective and is set for a three-year period for adjustment. Tigard has been working from a rate model that was previously adopted and will be back on track with the model if the rate change in October is at 10% and then 6% for the two following years. There will be a representative from the Finance Department at the next IWB meeting to review revenue issues. The system development charge (SDC) was adjusted last year. Commissioner Scheiderich requested information on where the annexation of Bull Mountain area stood. Commissioner Patton said the City Council was in no hurry to push forward for annexation and they were interested in hearing feedback from the majority of residents in that area. There is no consensus of the Council to move in either direction. Commissioner Scheiderich wanted to know how much CH2M Hill would charge for their opinion on altering the methodology to index cost of construction, which seems to be what was being done elsewhere. Dennis Koellermeier said he would check on the request and present that information on the next agenda. Commissioner Patton was concerned about huge spikes in the water rates and was sensitive to the water rate increases, especially with the upcoming increase in the sewage rates as well. A draft of a rate resolution will be prepared to present at the next meeting. 8. Informational Items Informational items were distributed for review by the Board Members. 9. Public Comments - None 10.Non-Agenda Items 11.Adjournment Commissioner Patton motioned to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Intergovernmental Water Board 5 May 8,2002 DRAFT COPY Public Works Memo TO: Dennis K. "Public Works Makes it Happen" FROM: Rich S. RE: Bull Run Water Treatment Hearing DATE: 6/12/02 This meeting was the last of 3 public hearings on the Bull Run Treatment. Lisa w/MWH gave overview of why/when and different options for the Bull Run to meet EPA requirements (Cryptosporiidium-waterborne microorganism). Majority of the time was spent on location of facility, different methods of treatment (ozone disinfection, ultraviolet light disinfection, direct filtration and membrane filtration, costs associated with each option, the pro's/con's of each treatment method. She then turned the meeting over to Chris Thomas-Panel member. Chris went over the panel's involvement and current status of participation. No decision have been made, however most panel members have expressed a preference for filtration technology/methods. Chris then opened up along with 3 other panel members for public comment. ♦ One gentleman wants the panel to consider a type of ozonation, which is a different twist on the one currently being pursed. ♦ Husband/Wife from Tualatin had some additional question of the panel and was definitely an anti-Willamette River person. The deadline for the panels recommendation are 6/13/02. 2 attachments follow: Publication of the Bull Run Water Treatment-Community Decision type insert Citizen Panel Recommendations: Draft Report Community Decision for Me Adurc- Bull Run Water Treatment Community Decision for the Future - Citizen Panel Advises Public Values Guide Decision The Citizen Panel has adopted twelve values to guide their Water Treatment Decision BuilRun recommendations on future water treatment options: " A 23-member Citizen Panel has been named Bull Run water must be safe to drink- meeting or June2002 " to advise the Portland Water Bureau and exceeding all regulatory standards. Commissioner Sten on the Bull Run water x The treatment decision must be based on the best treatment decision. The Panel is scheduled to available scientific information. The Bull Run present its final report and recommendations ` in July, 2002. • The cost of treatment must be affordable and represent a N - good value for ratepayers. system ` Serena Cruz, Panel Chair, Multnomah Co. Commissioner Since its first drops of water • The drinking water supply must be reliable, with adequate Lloyd Anderson reached Portland in 1895, * Mort Anoushiravani, Portland Water Bureau safeguards from weather-driven and seasonal shortages, the Bull Run system has made Bill Blosser, CH2MHill and catastrophic events. clean water an important part Bud Clark, former Mayor of Portland • We value high quality water–consistent, well suited for of Portland's heritage. Our Greg DiLoreto, Tualatin Valley Water District everyday use, containing minimum added chemicals. citizens have counted on Jay Formick, Portland Utilities Review Board • The treatment process should be flexible and "tunable"to Dr. RoyKoch, Chair, Environmental Science Program, PSU getting their drinking water, 9 meet changing requirements and natural variability. inlentiful supply, fresh from treatment on se consistent Gary Larsen, Mt. Hood National Forest The ttt decisihould be with p *Dave Leland, Oregon Health Division Drinking Water mountain streams —every Program protection of the environment. play. *Rosemary Menard, Portland Water Bureau • We value water that is clear and pleasant to drink. Regna Merritt, Oregon Natural Resources Council • The treatment process should be consistent with the City's The Bull Run system now *Dr. Gary Oxman, Multnomah County Health Officer sustainability goals. serves nearly 800,000 Dave Rouse, City of Gresham Oregonians. Over the years, We value the unique nature of Bull Run as a water source. Gene Seibel � Wittthe system has continued to Charles Shi The decision process should consider other system wide grow to meet the region's Bull Run Weatment Dr. David Shute, Bull Run Heritage Foundation impacts and benefits: worker safety, operations and the needs. But much of the Bull •Erik Sten, Commissioner, City of Portland transmission system. Run system is original. It is Key Questions Chris Thomas Attorney • . Y The Bull Run watershed is valued as the source of our What treatment methods will assure regulatory time to reinvest. 9 Y Dr. Catherine Thomasson, Physicians for Social Responsibility drinking water, but also because it provides valuable compliance and also meet Portland's future needs? Jay Waldron, Schwabe, Williamson and Wyatt ecosystem processes. This system will serve us • Which benefits of treatment are most important to Harold Williams, CH2A&Associates well for another century as pursue? Cathryn Young, Wacker Siltronic longas we take care of it. • Where should new treatment facilities be located? *Ex Officio MembersWe need to replace and • How much will treatment cost, and what will be the For more information, or maintain aging pipes and impact on ratepayers? - to get Involved facilities; we need to apply • How should new treatment facilities be financed the latest knowledge and and implemented? To find out more about the Bull Run water treatment choices, practices to strengthen the contact: system; and we need to comply with state and Wellfields Rosemary Menard, federal drinking water Portland Water Bureau regulations to assure the 503-823-7792 9 r_0\0 highest water quality for our 503-823-7269 (fax) r City of Portland bullrunCwater.ci.portland.or.us customers. or visit the website: www.bullrunxi.portland.onus Within the decade Rijn Mt. Bureau of Water Works Bull R 1 120 SW Fifth Avenue Room 600 proposed federalrs Watershed �►; Hood Portland, Oregon 9720A-1926 We invite members of the public to participate in the Bull regulations will require r . Run water treatment decision. The Citizen Panel's monthly improvements to our Erik Sten, Commissioner p meetings are open to the public, with opportunity given for treatments Y stem. To comply Mort Anoushiravani, Administrator Y P public comment. with the law in 2011, Portland needs to make 4 some decisions this year. 1 Community Decision for the Future- Community Decision for the Future- Alternative Sites Bull Run Water Treatment Bull Run Water Treatment for Bull Run Water Treatment Plant Wh is Treatment Needed? 3 `' Possible Locations for - %mbi°R Y Facilities t F t Treamenaces A key reason for improved treatment is changing national regulations New Lusted Hill NORTH that will require all water utilities to provide a safeguard against Three sites are being considered to locate future Powell Blvd In water treatment facilities: Cryptosporidium – a water-borne parasite that is highly resistant to r �d chlorine disinfection. • A site in the Bull Run watershed: ©`IPowell Bull Run at Bull Run system's Headworks = Butte CD 111* While the risk of infection is low, the symptoms can become life • Lusted Hill (near existing treatment facilities) C/_�'famas HeaO rks threatening for immune-suppressed persons (chemotherapy, AIDS and • Powell Butte (near existing storage reservoirs) dialysis patients, organ transplant recipients, and others). Treatment Options „ " Citizen Panel Nears Recommendation Public Treatment protects drinking water by inactivating pathogens (using Hearings ultraviolet light or chemical oxidants), or through physical removal The Citizen Panel convened by Commis- Preferred Site You're Invited! (filtration). sioner Erik Sten and the Portland Water Panel members who support membrane Citizens are invited to Bureau to recommend a preferred treat- filtration prefer siting the treatment facility at participate in any of the Several treatment methods offer possible ways to achieve the regula- ment option and site is scheduled to Powell Butte–a site acquired by the Water three upcoming events for tory goal of inactivating 99% of Cryptosporidium: complete its work by July 2002. The Bureau in the 1920s to accommodate the Bull Run treatment Panel has been asked for recommenda- future facilities. Powell Butte best links to decision: Ozone disinfection: A high Membrane filtration: tions on three questions: other components of the regional water Portland – system. It is located within Portland's urban voltage current passes through Microporous fiber membranes Tuesday,June 4'h growth boundary, and offers opportunities highly pure oxygen as provide an absolute barrier to Added Benefits of • What treatment methodology should g y' PP 7:00 8:30pm, 9 Y P Y9 gas, P to use the treatment facility to contribute to forming unstable 03 molecules organisms/contaminants. Filtration Treatment Portland use to meet its water quality Portland Building, Room C public education on water resource man- which act as a potent disinfec- All treatment options meet the pro- goals? agement issues. A UV treatment facility 1 120 SW 51, Ave Each option has different water tion agent. Posed federal Public health require- Where should the treatment facility be would be located at the system headworks Gresham – quality results and benefits. ments. Filtration options offer these ,h P located? in the Bull Run watershed, which is closed Thursday,Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection: Estimated costs range widely for y,June 6 :30pm:00-8 Water flows past UV lamps, Bull Run treatment options, from added benefits: • How should the facility be financed to the public. 77:00-8 m_Ci ,Hall, inactivating the organisms. $55 million to over $200 million. • Increase available supply, without and implemented? Project Implementation City ma Pipeline and other costs for some sacrificing clarity. The Panel has not reached a conclusion on Oregon Trail Direct filtration: A common treatment and site options Now, after more than a year of delibera- Springwater Rooms, ,,,rater treatment method uses P Y • Improve reliability — minimizing a recommended approach for financing� tion; members of the Bull Run Citizen Panel � 1333'NW Eastman sand and carbon filters to add u to 100 million see box). weather-caused winter shutdowns. �,rd implementing treatment facilities. P $ ( • P Improve aesthetics, providing have stated their preferences regarding the Panel members have expressed interest in Parkway physically separate organisms consistent water color. treatment decision. However, the Panel alternative project delivery methods – such Tualatin Valley– andparticles from drinking has not reached a final decision as design-build and design-build-operate erase– 11 Fh water. • Allow expansion of Bull Run. regarding a recommended treat- as a way to save time and money. 7:00-8y30pm, ment technology. Tualatin Valley Water Dist. Uncertainties m oo Conference feR Estimated Costs - Bull Run Treatment The Panel's preliminary conclusions are Analysis of treatment and site options Coaonf eSW 1Roo Ave « summarized below. reveals four areas of uncertainty: evolving Treatllment,Proc+� s Locafl,ont + aplplr►as Annttat+1 +Bt 1 treatment technologies, future ownership Participants will be asked to y P gnfBCpslrS Treatment Method and management of the Bull Runs stem P • ' t " « 9 system, share support or At this point, most Panel members have siting, and cost and affordability of pp tY concerns regarding the UV Disinfection Headworks $55 $5.2 expressed a preference for filtration treatment. The Panel is developing an proposed treatment options. Ozone Disinfection Headworks $66 $6.2 technology–specifically membrane implementation plan to address these Direct Filtration Lusted Hill $203 filtration. One Panel member favors UV uncertainties. Written comments may also Powell Butte $179 $6.5 treatment. be submitted at the hear- Membrane Filtration Lusted Hill $204 h' lags or prior to 3:00prn on Powell Butte $202 $8.0 While membrane treatment costs more Panel members agree the cost of treatment lune 13th to: 1.Cost of a 250 mgd capacity plant exclusive of additional reservoir storage,transmission than disinfection, it provides added must be affordable and represent a good The Bureau of Water Works benefits: increased system reliability, value for ratepayer dollars spent. The 1 120 SW 51, Room 600 expansions, required operations and maintenance Facilities or storage beyond that needed for Y tY� operational purposes at the treatment plant. Costs shown in 2001 dollars. expanded supply, operational simplicity, Panel's final report will include recommen- Portland, OR 97204. some protection from catastrophic events, dations for keeping treatment affordable. and flexibility to meet future regulations. 2 3 DRAFT 1 Citizen Panel Recommendations: Draft Report Background,Preliminary Findings and Status Report Bull Run Treatment Panel (May 2002) Introduction Portland City Commissioner Erik Sten and the Portland Water Bureau convened the Bull Run Treatment Panel in April 2001 to review Portland's options for responding to pending federal regulations regarding treatment of Bull Run water. The Panel has meant monthly since it was established to review the technologies, benefits and costs of various options for responding to the regulations. The panel has not concluded its decision-making. This document is a preliminary summary of the panel's findings to date and some of the key issues still being discussed. This information is being provided to encourage informed citizen involvement at upcoming community workshops on the treatment question. Background Next year the federal Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) will promulgate new regulations requiring that treatment of Bull Run water be modified to assure protection of public health from naturally occurring microbial contaminants, including the waterborne microorganism Cryptosporidium. The Bull Run Treatment Panel (BRTP) was established to advise the Portland Water Bureau and Commissioner Erik Sten on Portland's options for meeting these regulations. The Panel was asked to conduct its deliberations within a framework that included consideration of long-term water supply, demand and related issues in the region. The Panel has been asked for recommendations on three specific questions: • What treatment methodology should Portland use to meet its water quality goals? There are four basic methodologies for treating Bull Run water—ozone disinfection, ultraviolet light disinfection, direct filtration and membrane filtration. • Where should the treatment facility be located? Four potential sites were initially identified for a treatment facility—the Headworks facility at Bull Run, Powell Butte, Lusted Hill and Larson's Ranch. An analysis was conducted to identify other potential sites on the basis of size, accessibility, location, land use, geologic hazards, and other considerations. • How should the facility be financed and implemented? DRAFT 2 The Panel reviewed"traditional"delivery methods as well as alternative implementation approaches like design-build and design-build-operate. The Panel held its first meeting in April 2001 and met monthly(excepting August 2001) through June 2002. The Panel's membership was comprised of representatives from a broad range of interests and backgrounds, including public health, environmental conservation,wholesale customers of the Bull Run, the business community, and the public at large. All meetings of the Panel were held in centrally located, accessible meeting facilities. Meetings were open to the public and opportunity for public comment was provided at each meeting. A project team of consulting engineers, Water Bureau employees and others provided technical briefings and data to the Panel as needed to provide for informed decision-making. Ex officio panel members representing state and local public health agencies and the Water Bureau provided additional technical expertise. The Panel's work was conducted in three phases: • Orientation(background information; goals, values, criteria)April - October 2001; • Analysis/Evaluation (applying goals, values, criteria to options)November 2001- February 2002; and • Recommendation(draft recommendations and report)March -June 2002. During the course of its work, the Panel organized and participated in a series of public outreach activities designed to inform and involve citizens in the treatment decision. These activities included conducting stakeholder interviews and focus groups, reviewing results of recent public opinion surveys, holding community workshops, and developing public information materials and a project website (www.bullrun.portland.ci.or.us). Panel Assumptions and Values During the first stages of its deliberations the Panel identified and adopted a set of values to guide the treatment decision.The Panel also adopted a:set of assumptions about the process and the decision. The Panel's values were tested against—and found to be consistent with—public and stakeholder values through a series of focus groups, public meetings and interviews. The Panel also used the values to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the various treatment options. Following are the assumptions and values adopted by the Bull Run Treatment Panel. Assumptions • New federal regulations will be adopted requiring unfiltered water systems— including Portland's Bull Run system—to provide additional treatment. Portland will comply with the new regulations. DRAFT 3 • Separate discussions regarding possible regionalization of the Bull Run system and development of new water sources will be ongoing during the treatment decision process. The Treatment Panel must consider various future scenarios, and its recommendations may inform these other discussions. • The treatment decision process will consider several options for Bull Run's future customer base: serving Portland customers only; serving the current customer base— including Gresham and Tualatin Valley Water District as wholesale customers; or serving a larger regional area. • Consistent with City policy, Portland will continue to rely on Bull Run as its primary source of drinking water supply. The Portland wellfields' chief role will be for backup and emergencies. • The Bull Run watershed will continue to be protected, in compliance with existing federal law, regardless of future treatment. • Four alternative water treatment technologies have been proven to be effective in deactivating Cryptosporidium: Ultraviolet light disinfection, ozone, direct filtration and membrane filtration. • Bull Run is a regional water source, and the region will participate in the treatment decision process. • Evaluation of facility size and capacity will be based on a range of demand assumptions that include maximum use of current sources (including non-potable sources where feasible and appropriate)and water conservation. • Portland will exercise leadership and foresight in caring for its water supply and in planning for and ensuring the safety, quality and reliability of the Bull Run system. Values • Bull Run water must be safe to drink-meeting or exceeding all regulatory standards. • The treatment decision must be based on the best available scientific information, taking into account that scientific understanding of public health issues is evolving, and regulatory standards may change over time. • The cost of treatment must be affordable and represent a good value for ratepayer dollars spent. • The cost of treatment will be allocated fairly among Portland and other users of Bull Run water according to a cost-of-service model. • The drinking water supply must be reliable,with adequate safeguards from weather- driven and seasonal shortages and shortages due to catastrophic events (seismic, fires, other). • We value high quality water-water that is consistent in quality, well suited for everyday use and that contains minimum added chemicals. • The treatment process should be flexible and "tunable"to meet changing requirements and the variability in natural conditions. • The treatment decision should be consistent with protection of the environment. • We value water that is clear(i.e., no sediment, cloudiness or color), free of chemical odors and pleasant to drink. DRAFT 4 • The treatment process should be consistent with the City's sustainability goals, especially with respect to water and energy conservation. • We value the unique nature of Bull Run as a water source- protected and requiring minimal treatment. • The decision process should include consideration of worker safety, operational impacts, impacts to the transmission system and other system-wide impacts and benefits. • We value the Bull Run watershed not only because it is the source of our drinking water, but also because it supports valuable ecosystem processes, fish and wildlife habitat, old-growth forest and wildlands values. Panel Findings(Preliminary) The following findings represent a synthesis of information, facts and trends relevant to the treatment decision. They address a number of issues related to the treatment decision, including the quality of Bull Run as a drinking water source,the need for and benefits of treatment,the types of treatment, and cost and affordability issues. The Bull Run Source The Bull Run is a protected watershed and, as a result,the water that comes from Bull Run is very safe. Even without additional treatment,Bull Run water meets or exceeds all current federal and state drinking water standards. Portland water customers are justifiably proud of the superior"aesthetics" of their drinking water, and of the pristine character of the Bull Run watershed. Except during the fall and in periods of extreme low water or major storm events, the water that flows from Bull Run is clear. Public Health and the Need for Treatment • Cryptosporidium, the pathogen to be regulated by pending federal regulations, is a water-borne microorganism. Studies indicate that it is present in 65 —97%of all surface waters in the U.S. The primary sources of Cryptosporidium are human and animal waste. • In healthy people with normal immune systems, Cryptosporidium causes a mild-to- moderately severe diarrheal illness typically lasting one to two weeks. In healthy people,the illness is sometimes complicated by dehydration needing medical treatment, particularly in young children, pregnant women and the elderly. In individuals with significant immune system problems (e.g. HIV/AIDS, and cancer or transplant chemotherapy), infection with Cryptosporidium typically causes chronic diarrhea which is often debilitating, and can be life-threatening. • Results of regular monitoring indicate that Cryptosporidium organisms intermittently occur in Bull Run water at low levels. Because Cryptosporidium is highly resistant to chlorine, this organism is not currently inactivated by the water treatment currently used in the Bull Run system. DRAFT 5 • The low level of occurrence of Cryptosporidium in Bull Run water, the Panel's perspective is that the risk of disease from Cryptosporidium is relatively small for Bull Run users. The Panel believes that treatment to address Cryptosporidium will add an extra measure of safety to Portland's drinking water, especially for vulnerable population groups. • The Panel received information showing that scientific understanding of drinking water contaminants and their potential risk to public health is continuously.evolving. The Panel believes that drinking water regulations are likely to become more stringent and cover an ever-wider range of contaminants in the future. Pursuing a higher level of treatment at this point in time has the potential to put Portland and the region in a better position to address these future regulatory requirements. Types of Treatment. There are four treatment technologies that will either inactivate or remove Cryptosporidium as required under the pending regulations: ultraviolet light disinfection, ozone disinfection, direct filtration, and membrane filtration. A brief summary of each, along with its advantages and disadvantages, is provided below. • Ultraviolet Light-Under this technology,water flows past ultraviolet lamps. Biochemical inactivation occurs when photons of UV light damage replicating DNA in Cryptosporidium oocysts', preventing reproduction. UV has been shown to be highly effective against Cryptosporidium. It is inexpensive, and requires the use of no additional chemicals. Applications of UV technology to drinking water are relatively new and small compared to the application needed for Bull Run. Issues involved with the patenting of UV technology may increase operating costs over time. • Ozone - Ozone is a powerful oxidant that destroys the walls and cell contents of Cryptosporidium oocysts. In addition to effectively addressing Cryptosporidium, ozone controls colors,tastes and odors in source water and reduces by-product formation. Many large-scale applications exist. Ozone may increase the potential for bacterial re-growth in the distribution system. It is an energy-intensive technology. • Direct Filtration- In direct filtration technology, water passes through sand and carbon filters to physically separate organisms from drinking water. Coagulants are added to the water prior to filtration. ' The Cryptosporidium life-cycle includes the formation of hardy,microscopic oocysts that are infectious and have been found to be resistant to common chemical disinfectants. The Cryptosporidiosis disease is transmitted by the ingestion of oocysts excreted by infected humans and animals. DRAFT 6 Direct filtration is a time-tested technology used by many water utilities and installed at sizes comparable to that needed for Bull Run. Direct filtration plants require larger sites for installation, creating additional challenges for siting. Issues related to the health impacts, handling and disposal of coagulant materials are a concern. • Membrane Filtration - Membrane filtration uses micro-porous fiber membranes to provide an absolute physical barrier to organisms and other contaminants. Chemicals are not required to achieve effectiveness against Cryptosporidium. At the present time, there are no installations of membrane filtration treatment plants close to Portland's required size. Membrane filtration is the most expensive of the four alternatives. Other Benefits of Treatment The Panel's review of the four principal treatment technologies—ozone, ultraviolet light, direct filtration and membrane filtration—showed that all options except ultraviolet light provide public benefits above and beyond mere regulatory compliance. Among the many benefits afforded by treatment are improved reliability(filtration options only), additional source capacity(filtration options only) and better water"aesthetics" (color and taste— ozone and filtration). • Reliability-Over the last five years the Bull Run supply has been shut down three times due to high turbidities after winter storms (13 days in February of 1996, 8 days in December of 1998, and 18 days in November of 1999). Filtration options would improve system reliability by reducing the need to shut the system down when turbidities increase above water quality standards during severe storm events. • Expanded Source Water Availability—Portland's ability to expand the amount of water currently available from the Bull Run source is constrained by two factors. First,the onset of fall rains—at a time when the reservoirs are at their lowest, and surrounded by exposed,unvegetated shore and bank --elevates the risk of.significant turbidity events. To minimize this risk, the Water Bureau limits the amount of water it takes from available storage. Filtration would address this risk factor, enabling the Water Bureau to use more of the water stored in existing reservoirs. The second factor affecting source water availability is the current capacity of the reservoirs. The potential exists to increase Bull Run supply by modifying existing dams to allow raising reservoir levels and/or adding a new reservoir to the system. The construction-related impacts of either or these alternatives (erosion that raises turbidity levels and water quality impacts of inundating areas previously above water) could affect the City's ability to continuously meet filtration avoidance criteria in state and federal regulations. • Better Water Aesthetics- The "aesthetics"of water—its clarity,taste and odor—are of concern not only to consumers, but also to the water utilities that strive to produce DRAFT 7 high quality drinking water and must respond to consumer complaints. The aesthetics of Bull Run water are generally very good. Sometimes during the late summer and fall, decomposing leaves release tannins and lignins into the Bull Run reservoirs, giving the source water the color of weak tea. While this occurrence does not present a threat to public health, it often triggers a flood of complaints from customers. Ozone disinfection will remove color from raw source water. Direct and membrane filtration will remove color with the addition of coagulants. Cost • The cost of treatment is projected to range from approximately $55 million for UV disinfection at Headworks to approximately$200 million for a membrane filtration plant at Powell Butte. The table below summarizes the cost of alternative treatment technologies for a 250 mgd capacity plant at various locations. Capital Cost Annual O&M Treatment Process Location Plant Only Costs (millions)a millions IJV Disinfection Headworks $55 $5.2 Ozone Disinfection Headworks $66 $6.2 Direct Filtration Lusted Hill $203 Powell Butte $179 $6.5 Membrane Filtration Lusted Hill $204 Powell Butte $202 $8.0 Affordability • At its very first discussion of values to guide the treatment decision,the Panel agreed that the cost of treatment should be "affordable"and"represent a good value for ratepayer dollars spent". However, the Panel recognizes that"affordability" is a subjective concept—what is easily affordable to one family may be considered a luxury item by another. • The Panel's review of this issue included a presentation from a national expert on utility affordability. Data included in this presentation showed that the median cost of water as a percent of median household income in Oregon is 0.6% -the sixth lowest in the nation. The median cost as a percentage of median income in Portland, at 0.4%, is even lower. 2 Cost of a 250 mgd capacity plant exclusive of additional reservoir storage,transmission expansions, required operations and maintenance facilities or storage beyond that needed for operational purposes at the treatment plant.Costs shown in 2001 dollars. DRAFT 8 • Another measure of affordability comes from the Surface Water Drinking Act Amendments of 1996, which uses an "estimated affordability threshold"to assess the financial impacts of new regulations on small drinking water systems. The "estimated affordability threshold", defined as the upper limit for the costs of water bills(including the costs of treatment, distribution and operation) is set at 2.5%of median household income. • Information received by the Panel showed that the incremental increase in monthly residential water bills as a result of treatment(costs associated with plant only) would range from a little over $1.00 per month for ultraviolet light treatment to about $3.50 per month for membrane filtration. Input from two focus groups and several public meetings indicated that ratepayers would be willing to absorb this level of increase in monthly water costs. • The Panel also received information regarding the impact of a membrane treatment facility on both small (11 cce) and large (20,000 ccf) businesses. The information showed that the average monthly bill would increase from $19.38 to$21.73 for a small business (using 11 ccf of water per month)and from $32,640 per month to $36,917 for very large, water-intensive businesses (using 20,000 ccf per month). • The Panel felt it was important to understand the cost and rate impacts of treatment in relation to other long-term capital improvements planned by the Portland Water Bureau. Analysis of projected rate impacts showed that the average monthly residential water bill would increase from $14.60 currently to between $20.50 and $23.50 over the next 20 years to pay for membrane filtration, small supply increases, reduction of vulnerabilities in the water system, and on-going maintenance. Timetable for Regulatory Compliance The Water Bureau estimates that it is likely to take from five to eight years to plan, design and construct a treatment facility of the size needed to meet the long-term needs of Portland and other municipalities that rely on the Bull Run. The anticipated deadline for meeting the new Cryptosporidium regulations is 2011. Public Input Regarding Treatment Over the course of its work,the BRTP solicited input from the general public as well as groups and individuals with a particular interest in drinking water and the question of treatment. This input was gathered through stakeholder interviews,two randomly- selected focus groups, and several public workshops in which participants were asked about issues related to the treatment question, including their values about Bull Run, their opinions about the four treatment methodologies and their concerns about cost and affordability. In each setting, the Panel received a consistent message from this diverse 3 A"ccf'is one hundred cubic feet,which is considered one"unit"of water. A unit of water is also equal to 748 gallons. DRAFT 9 range of citizens, interest groups and elected officials. This message can be summarized as follows: • The Panel's values regarding treatment are representative of the values of the community as a whole. • There is support for taking a long-term view when addressing problems related to such basic services as drinking water. • People felt generally inclined to support filtration treatment options over disinfection options because of the multiple public benefits of filtration. • In general, people are willing to pay for filtration treatment because they feel the additional benefits or value received from filtration are worth the additional cost. • There is recognition that increased costs will fall more heavily on some than others, and support finding ways to mitigate that impact. Uncertainties The Panel's review and analysis of treatment and site options revealed four key areas of uncertainty—uncertainties about treatment technologies, uncertainties about ownership and management of the Bull Run system, siting uncertainties and questions about the cost and affordability of treatment. Uncertainties about Technology Following is a summary of the uncertainties regarding the treatment technologies: • Scale—Two of the four technologies, UV and membrane filtration, have not yet been applied at the scale required to meet Portland's needs. • Evolving Technology—Membrane technology has been around for a number of years, and the effectiveness of membranes in removing Cryptosporidium and other contaminants is well proven. The application of membrane technology to large-scale drinking water treatment is expanding rapidly. Membrane technology vendors are working aggressively to develop new membrane materials and new approaches (e.g. immersion vs. pressurized systems)to better meet the needs of large systems. As applications expand and evolve, some approaches will do better than others. As a consequence,the membrane vendor market will be unsettled in the near term. • Changing Regulatory Requirements—Some of the contaminants being regulated today were unknown, or not known to have deleterious health effects, twenty years ago. Should research lead to the discovery of new contaminants, or uncover links between certain chemicals or organisms and risks to public health, a whole new generation of regulations may evolve. It is not possible to know whether existing treatment technologies will effectively address potential future problems. DRAFT 10 • Environmental Impacts—Uncertainties related to the environmental impacts of the treatment technologies include disposal of sludge from. direct filtration, and possible hazards related to mercury in ultraviolet lights. • Public Health Impacts—Some panel members were concerned about the potential for contaminants in membrane materials to leach or migrate into treated water. System Ownership and Management Uncertainties Discussions regarding regionalization of the Bull Run system were ongoing during panel deliberations and unresolved when the Panel reached the decision-making phase of its work. The simultaneous timing of the discussions presented a significant challenge to the Panel, for although a majority of the Panel felt the recommendations regarding treatment could be made independent of the regionalization question, some members felt the recommendations should be postponed until regionalization issues were resolved. Siting Uncertainties The Panel has identified a preferred site and a"back-up" site for a new treatment facility based on a detailed analysis of available sites and impacts using geographic information systems technology to screen slope, geologic hazards, and other indicators of environmental suitability. The Panel also received advice regarding the land use and zoning issues related to siting of a treatment facility. The Panel recognizes, however,that siting of public facilities is an inherently difficult process. While confident that the two sites under consideration are not"fatally flawed" from an environmental, permitting, or land-use perspective, detailed, site-specific planning and public involvement will be needed before proceeding with construction on any site selected. Cost and Affordability Questions While in general the cost of treatment appears affordable for most ratepayers, the Panel recognizes that for some segments of the population, rising utility costs impose a burden regardless of their size. Moreover,treatment is not the only water-related capital project on the horizon for Portland.The rate impacts of treatment should be considered in the context of other planned improvements to the Bull Run system. Panel Treatment and Site Preferences The Panel has not reached a final decision regarding a recommended treatment technology. At this point in time, most panel members have expressed a preference for filtration technologies and, more specifically, membrane filtration. One panel member has stated a preference for ultraviolet light disinfection. The remaining panel members are undecided. 3 DRAFT 11 Panelists preferring membrane filtration have given the following reason for their preference: • Filtration technologies better take into account long-term public health and regulatory trends and uncertainties. • Filtration provides important additional benefits in terms of increased system reliability, expanded supply, operational flexibility and protection from catastrophic events. • In addition, membrane filtration: - Provides greater flexibility to deal with future threats to water safety and "regulatory creep". - Is simpler to operate than direct filtration, with less chance for operator errors in chemical dosing, etc. - Has the ability to remove smaller-sized contaminants without the use of coagulating agents. - Generates less solid waste than direct filtration. - Uses a lesser amount of chemicals and fewer types of chemicals than direct filtration. - Generates by-products (primarily sediments from the Bull Run watershed) that pose fewer risks to workers and the environment than the by-products of direct filtration. - Requires a physical plant that has a smaller"footprint"than that required by direct filtration, which will result in less environmental impact and provide greater flexibility to increase capacity or add treatment to deal with future regulations. The panelist preferring ultraviolet light disinfection has cited the following as reasons for supporting this treatment technology. • Ultraviolet light technology: - Brings Bull Run into compliance with federal regulations. - Is the lowest cost option. - Is being implemented in applications comparable in size to Portland's needs. - Can be implemented more quickly than filtration options. - Has the.lowest operating costs and lowest energy requirements of the four options. - Requires no chemicals to store, introduce into the water or extract from the water. - Requires no sludge storage or removal. - Has no filters or membranes to clean, maintain or dispose of. DRAFT 12 Preferred Site Panel members in support of membrane filtration prefer that the treatment facility be sited at Powell Butte. The Powell Butte site offers great flexibility in the context of the system as a whole. It is located within Portland's urban growth boundary, a key consideration for land use advocates. Powell Butte's urban location has the additional benefit of providing greater opportunities to use the treatment facility to contribute to public awareness of water resource management issues and to develop public education and community recreation facilities. An ultraviolet light treatment facility would be located at the headworks of the system in the Bull Run watershed. Alternative Delivery Mechanisms The Panel has also received information regarding alternatives to traditional methods of delivering water treatment facilities. Some of these alternative delivery mechanisms are design-build, design-build operate, and build-own-operate and transfer. In general, alternative project delivery is a risk management tool—these approaches allow the transfer of some of the risk associated with project delivery from the owner to the project contractor. Each approach has different advantages and disadvantages compared to traditional approaches. The Panel has not reached a conclusion regarding a recommended approach to delivering a treatment facility. Issues needing further consideration include regulatory compliance, quality of work,the ease and safety of operations and maintenance,and labor related issues. Next Steps The Panel is scheduled to meet two more times (May 30 and June 13)to continue reviewing options and recommendations. The Panel expects to submit a final report and recommendations to the Portland City Council in July. r, .......... <�: rtitiJ•�1. Moscato Ofner & Henningsen, Inc. kcal Estate Appraisers and Con.uliant� Principal>_ I„n�� 1. M—ciao. \1A11 May 10, 2002 L. rcncr 1 Omer, MAI Sctt A. Ilcnninascn. MAI Mr. Dennis Colemeir Department of Public Works City of Tigard 17125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard,Oregon 97223 Dear Mr. Colemeir: Pursuant to your request,we have performed a complete appraisal in a summary report format of the City's Parcel 1 of the Clute Property located at 13230 S.W. 154`t' Avenue in Tigard, Oregon. In accomplishing this assignment,we have completed an inspection of the subject property,together with observing both economic and land use trends in the subject's general area. In addition, comparable market data was investigated, analyzed and applied as appropriate. It is important to note that this is a complete appraisal in a summary report format which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements as set forth under Standards Rule 2-2(b)of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. As such, it presents only summary discussions of the data, reasoning and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinionofvalue. Supporting documentation concerning the data,reasoning and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file. The depth of the discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client and for the intended uses as stated in this report. The appraiser is not responsible for unauthorized use of this report. In this appraisal,the property has been valued as though it would be sold on an all-cash or equivalent new mortgage financing basis and has been prepared to comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice(as promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation). Based on our investigation and analysis of the available information,the market value of the subject property in fee simple, as described herein and as of May 6, 2002, is considered to be: TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS 28$ 5,000 Mr. Dennis Colemeir May 10,2002 Page Two Tile valuation stated herein is subject to the important conditions and assumptions which follow on the subsequent and attached pages including, but not limited to,the extraordinary assumption that there are no toxic or hazardous waste materials or conditions which exist within any building improvements, site improvements or the land itself and it must be noted that the appraisers are not experts in this field; thus, if any questions or concerns exist, it is recommended that appropriate experts be consulted. In this case,a Phase I Environmental Assessment Report was provided for our review(see Site Description section). Respectfully submitted, MOSCATO, OFNER& HENNINGSEN, INC. Lawrence E. Of r, MAI Principal Oregon State Certification No. C000016 Tigard Water Service Area Proposed Water Rates, Fees, and Other Water Related Charges �3 Dennis Koellermeiezr. Assistant PubIicVVorI',,\,s Tom .ice , Budget and Financial Operations Manager Tigard Water Service Area Water Rate Increase Question : • Shall the City Council amend the current water rates, water meter installation charges, and other water related serve chi to reflect increases in costs associated with providing these services? Tigard _�. ater Service Area Water Rate Increase In 1999, the City commissioned a water rate study • Completed in April 2000 • Rate model projects a multi-year rate increase • IWB adopts multi-year approach Tigard Water Service Area Water Rate Increase In May 2000, Council approved a 3% increase in rates, fees, and charges for water and water related services 4 Effective July 1, 2000 On Feb 27, 2001, Council approved a 15% rate increase • Effective May 1, 2001 t A 2002 Rate Review Major assumptions of 2000 rate model reviewed • Purchase of water from outside entities • 40 million dollar CIP • ASR development costs ♦ Customer growth continues • City "behind" on scheduled rate increases New issues/program changes . School District bond issue 6 Accelerates CIP program ♦ Revenue bond sale anticipated r-RT 2002 Rate Multi-year strategy • Resolution will set rates for next 3 years 2002 - 10% increase 2003 - 6% increase 2004 - 6% increase Effective date moves to October 1, 2002 • Minimizes impacts on summer usage • Allows information campaign to take on conservation message Non-Booster Average Bi-Monthly Residential Water Bills (based on 22 CCF of usage) for March 2002 City of Wilsonville $92.80 Clackamas River Water South $69.66 City of Beaverton $52.1 City of Oregon City $49.76 ' i 1 City of Sherwood $A6.98 i l Cit of Lake Oswego 4 .20 I Y 9 i f City of Tualatin $44. 0 TVWD $43.32 Clackamas River Water (North) $43.0 Cityof Tigard Proposed Rates $42.02 City of Portland $41 .48 City of Tigard Current RatesWIFE 138.32 Cityof Hillsboro -- $37.97 $0.00 $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 $90.00 $100.00 Non-Booster Average Bi-Monthly Residential Water Bill With New Rates VS Model Projections $60.00 $48.97 $50.00 $as:ro 4 .18 $44.48 Sai_I8 . $42.04` ❑ NWdel Projections $40.00 m Tigard's Water Rate Plan 2.17 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 e a $0.00 - 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 1 ' . oft 91 Tonight We Are Requesting Council to Approve the Followin9 Rates Fixed Chdl"g2S (per billing period): Existing 10101102 10101103 10/01104 Customer Charge: $4.00 $4.40 $4.66 $4.94 Booster Charge: $3.54 $3.89 $4. 12 $4.37 Volume Charcles -(wr CCF):. Existin 10/01102 10/01103 10/01/04 Residential : $1 .56 $1 .71 $1 .81 $1 .92 Multi-family: $1 .54 $1 .69 $2.04 $2. 16 Commercial : $1 .81 $1 .99 $2. 11 $2.24 Industrial : $1.50 $1 .65 $1 .75 $1 .86 Irrigation : $1 .93 $2. 12 $2.25 $2.39 Recommended fee increases have been reviewed and approved by the IWB 3 If approved by Council, the new fees and charges will become effective October 1, 2002 • QDMWH MONTGOMERY WATSON HARZA To: Dennis Koellermeier Date: June 11, 2002 From: Joe Glicker Reference: Subject: ASR Pilot Test Update for IWB This memo is a brief status update for the IWB meeting this week concerning the progress of the ASR Pilot Test project. At the last IWB meeting, information was presented concerning the impacts of turbidity events during the injection phase on well performance. There had been three turbidity events during the pilot test when water with high suspended solids entered the well. Two of these events had occurred in April 2002 within a short time of each other. To put these turbidity events in perspective, we now know that the three turbidity events (each less than one day in duration) introduced as much suspended solids into the well as about 100 days of regular recharge. The data that we had in April 2002 indicated that the injection performance of the well had decreased by more than 25% during the pilot test — a significant level that warranted evaluation. A plan for well rehabilitation was presented. The first step of that well rehabilitation plan was to conduct a well step-test (already scheduled as part of the original pilot test program) to more precisely determine the impact of the turbidity events on well performance. The results of the step-test were positive — the impact on well withdrawal capacity was only on the order of 10%, and not the greater than 25% decrease that the injection data was projecting. This 10% capacity impact is within the tolerance normally expected at this stage of the pilot test program. As a result, no further well rehabilitation activity is recommended at this time. Well performance will again be re-evaluated at the end of the storage phase and during the withdrawal phase, and well rehabilitation recommended if warranted based upon the information available at that time. Also since the last IWB meeting, water quality samples have been collected to assure that the water meets all drinking water standards prior to introduction into the distribution system. Results of the water quality testing are not yet available, although at this time no problems are anticipated. We are continuing the evaluate the pilot test data in order to identify potential causes of the turbidity events. Understanding the potential causes of these events will provide information necessary to implement modifications to the ASR well system to prevent the occurrence of similar incidents in the future Data from ongoing water level monitoring continues to be consistent with the conceptual model fo the aquifer system and expected aquifer responses. Over the next couple of weeks, final preparation for the withdrawal phase of pilot testing will be conducted. We will provide another update prior to the next IWB meeting. 1 Please let me know of any questions. 2 • ti Groundwater Solutions Inc. 3758 SE Milwaukie Ave. Portland, Oregon 97202 ph.503.239.8799 fx:503.239.8940 e:groundwatersolutions.com M DRAFT To: Ed Wegner,P.E.—City ofTigudPublic Wotks Director Dermis Koellermeier,P.E.—City ofTigard,Utility Division Manager C C: 'Chris Uber,P.E.—Murray Smith &Associates From: Jeff Barry,RG. . Larry Eaton,R- Date: 05242002 Re: Review ofthe QVs ASRPrcject At your request, Groundwater Solutions, Inc. (GSI) has reviewed available data collected by the City's ASR consultant team, led by Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH)with Golder Associates (Golder) as a subconsultant, for the City's aquifer storage and recovery(ASR) project. Our intent is to provide constructive comments to the City and consultant team in order to help the ASR program to be a success. Our scope of work included the following: ➢ Review the well redevelopment plan for the City's new ASR well(COT-1R) and recommend modifications, if any. ➢ Review available data related to the performance of the ASR well and evaluate the well performance relative to the reported turbidity events. ➢ Review ASR well design and pilot testing procedures and provide comments and/or suggestions on how to make improvements. Summary of Findings Following are our observations and conclusions based on our review of the information provided to us (see attached list of documents we have reviewed). A more detailed discussion is presented in the remainder of this technical memorandum. ➢ On the basis of the recent step-rate pumping test, the well performance has decreased by less than 10 percent. In our opinion, this is not unreasonable or unexpected; thus, we do not believe that redevelopment is warranted at this time. In general, redevelopment of the ASR well should be completed: 1)prior to the pumping water May 24, 2002 level reaching the top of the bowl assembly to avoid cavitation, 2)prior to the injection water level reaching the top of the casing, or 3)when the well's overall efficiency decreases by more than 50 percent. In the case of COT-IR,redevelopment should be done if the pumping level in the well is within 20 feet of the pump intake during pumping(e.g., 400 feet bgs) or is within 20 feet of ground surface during injection. Clogging of ASR wells should be expected; more frequent system monitoring and periodic backflushing should be used to minimize loss in well performance and delay the time when redevelopment becomes necessary. ➢ The redevelopment program proposed by MVH/(folder consisting of separate phases of airlifting followed by a step-rate pumping test and then by super chlorination and jetting with packers is, in our opinion, not the best.technical approach and is very expensive. When the well does require redevelopment, we recommend setting packers beginning near the static water level and then airlifting within the packered interval to remove larger rocks and sediment. The interval would then be simultaneously jetted and pumped to promote maximum agitation and flow velocity into the well (rather than jetting alone that could push material out into the formation). This sequence is repeated progressively down the well. Jetting alone is not recommended:ffn addition,there is no evidence that super chlorination within each interval is necessary; standard well disinfection methods can be used when the redevelopment is completed. The intermediate step-rate pumping test is also not necessary in our opinion. ➢ The City should be aware that there is always the potential for pumps and tools to become lodged within an uncased borehole, particularly during redevelopment. The contract documents should specify responsibility :for this and/or insurance requirements. ➢ The rate of water level rise in the ASR well is similar to what we have observed in other ASR wells completed in basalt aquifers. Although turbid water was injected at the beginning of the period, it does not seem to have severely affected the well's performance. The available data do not indicate that the well was significantly affected by any of the turbidity events. We have reviewed the electronic water level data and available injection rate data and do not see evidence for turbidity events 2 through 4 and the resultant well clogging described in MWHJGolder reports. ➢ As a precautionary measure, a turbidity meter should be installed in the source line upgradient of the well and it should be connected to the City's telemetry system so that it can signal the booster pump and an automated valve to shut down injection in the event of a turbidity event. ➢ The injection flow rate should be monitored continuously so that changes in specific capacity(flow divided by drawup) can be monitored more frequently. Monitoring specific capacity trends in the well is a simple and effective means to measure the well's performance. The use of periodic step-rate pumping tests is also effective for PA103-tigard1001\Reports\Response_memorevl.doc 2 May 24, 2002 measuring well performance but it is time consuming, expensive, and requires that there be a location to discharge a large volume of water. Short-term pumping tests should be performed at the end of the injection period (in cases where well performance is a particular concern) or at the beginning of the recovery period. ➢ The injection rate should be at least 25% less than the pumping rate. The ASR work plan called for an injection rate of 1,000 gpm and a pumping rate of 675 gpm. On the basis of our experience in this aquifer system, this high rate of injection will make it more difficult to remove sediment introduced into the well during injection and more difficult to recover lost well performance due to clogging. According to Ed Butts (Stettler Supply), the flow from the booster pump can be reduced to as low as approximately 500 gpm while still maintaining a full pump column. The duration of the injection period can be extended to achieve the desired storage volume. If breaking suction in the pump column is a problem(introducing air) then retrofitting the well with a downhole control valve should be considered. ➢ The well should be back flushed on a more regular basis, on the order of every 1,to 2 weeks (rather than every 4 weeks). More frequent back flushing would have mitigated the effects of clogging. Specific capacity data trends should be used to evaluate when backflushing is necessary. ➢ Potential seep areas should be evaluated and mapped, especially if the City plans to expand its ASR program. ➢ Well interference caused by overlapping cones of depression during pumping or mounding during injection must be evaluated when considering where to locate new ASR wells. ➢ Consideration should be given to locating future ASR wells at locations other than existing well sites in order to preserve pumping capacity(and water rights) at existing well sites. Well Redevelopment Plan Background The MWH/Golder team proposed a two phased well redevelopment plan for the City's ASR well (COT-1R)that includes the following elements: 1. Physical Rehabilitation--including airlifting of target zones followed by a step drawdown test to measure improvements: A test pump would be installed in the well to complete the step drawdown test. 2. Chemical Rehabilitation—consisting of super chlorination of specific zones using packers,jetting the zones with non-chlorinated water to reduce the residual chlorine to less than 4 mg/l, followed by a second step drawdown test to measure well improvements. PA103-Tigard\001\Reports%Response_memorev1.doc 3 May 24, 2002 Step'2 outlined above would not be completed unless the initial physical rehabilitation was not successful in recapturing lost specific capacity. On the basis of a recent step-rate test, we understand that the MWH/Golder team have recommended that the City delay this work because the loss in the well's specific capacity is on the order of 8-10 percent,not the originally estimated 30 to 40 percent (assuming a pumping rate of around 600-800 gallons per minute (gpm)). We concur with the MWH/Golder team recommendation with regard to delaying well redevelopment. In fact,we feel that the loss in specific capacity is not unexpected and is consistent with what we have observed in other ASR wells completed in basalt. Comments and Recommendations The phased redevelopment program proposed by MWH/Golder consisting of Phase 1 airlifting with a step-rate pumping test followed by Phase 2 super chlorination and jetting with packers is, in our opinion, not the best technical approach and is exceedingly expensive. The planned program requires multiple steps of installing and removing equipment from the well,which adds cost. The airlifting phase is a good approach; however, it may not be sufficient by itself and should be done in concert with other methods. The intermediate step- rate test requires removal of the airlifting equipment and then installation and removal of a " temporary pump. In our opinion, the intermediate step-test is expensive, has limited value, and should be reserved for the end of the redevelopment. If Phase 1 results are unsatisfactory, Phase 2 of the plan calls for installation of a packer assembly, super chlorination, and then jetting. It is unclear on what basis the Phase 2 program would be recommended. We do not believe that jetting alone is a good approach because the clogging material can be pushed farther into the fractures or pore space. Finally, we believe that the cause of the clogging is related to particulates and is not biological. The origin of the particulates is likely the result of years of accumulation within the distribution system or tank. Since biofouling does not appear to'be the main concern, we are uncertain as to why super chlorination of the well is being proposed. This step most likely will not help to regain lost specific capacity and is expensive due to the additional care in chemical handling,that is required. If chlorine is used, it should consist of sodium hypochlorite because we have seen that calciuril hypochlorite can result in precipitation of calcium carbonate,which could further clog the well. Because redevelopment of ASR wells should be a,part of a routine ASR maintenance program(every 3 to 5 years, depending on the quality of the source water and material present in the distribution system), we would like to provide the following comments and suggestions for redevelopment: ➢ After the pump is pulled, the borehole should be video logged to help determine the cause of clogging and to help determine which zones may require more intensive redevelopment compared to others. f ➢ The pump should be inspected to determine if there is damage to the bowls or if there are rocks stuck in the pump or intake screen. We understand that the injection P:1103-Tigard1001\Reports\Response_memorevl.doc 4 May 24, 2002 pressure at the booster pump at COT-1R is higher than expected and that rocks were discharged during at least one of the recent pumping events. Set a dual packer assembly to conduct zonal development that focuses and concentrates the'redevelopment energy. Set the pack assembly beginning near the static water level, and then airlift within the packered interval to remove larger rocks and sediment. The interval within the packers should then be simultaneously jetted (with a jetting tool) and pumped(with a submersible pump) to promote maximum agitation and flow velocity into the well (rather than pushing material out into the formation). This sequence is repeated progressively down the well. Jetting alone is not recommended because if tends to force sediment deeper into the fractures. The intermediate step-rate pumping test is also not necessary in our opinion and adds cost to the project. ➢ If possible, focus the redevelopment on the zones that produce the most water. These zones should correspond to the zones logged during drilling or identified using a spinner flow log. Spinner logs conducted just after a well is drilled help determine which zones produce the most amount of water and thus can be very helpful in targeting zonal redevelopment efforts. ➢ Conduct a second video survey to assess changes due to redevelopment and to identify loose rocks that could become dislodged and lock the pump in the borehole. ➢ The entire well should be disinfected at the,end of the redevelopment procedure. In our opinion, super chlorination of specific zones is unnecessary unless there is clear evidence of biofouling. The super chlorination procedure is expensive due to the care required to handle the material. ➢ After the well pump is reinstalled, conduct a step-rate pumping test and compare the results to the previous test results to assess the effectiveness of the redevelopment. Loss in Specific Capacity and Turbidity Events We have reviewed several documents and electronic water level data provided by the MWWGolder team with regard to the loss in specific capacity in the City's ASR well and the relationship between those losses and the turbidity events. Figure 1 (see attached) is a plot of head buildup over time in the City's ASR well;we have labeled each,of the reported turbidity event by numbers— 1 through 4 and will discuss them in order. We have also replotted the data to magnify the data at each reported turbidity event(plots are attached). In general we believe the water level rise and loss in specific capacity seen in the data is typical of what we have observed at other ASR wells completed in basalts and is not necessarily related to the reported turbidity events. With that said, we do not believe that the loss in specific capacity warrants aggressive redevelopment at this time,but rather it shows that: 1) as expected, ASR wells lose specific capacity over time and they tend to clog during PA103-Tigard\001\Reports\Response_memorev1.doc 5 May 24, 2002 injection, 2) consistent back flushing should be used to help reduce the loss in specific capacity over a given injection event(1 year), and 3)redevelopment of the well will be required at some point in time and should be part of the ASR maintenance program. Our specific comments regarding each reported turbidity event are provided below: Event No. I—1/31/02 A definite rise in the water level was observed at this time; along with a corresponding discoloration of the bypass filter. The sudden rise in the water level may be related to a turbidity event;however, itis interesting to note that after,the abrupt water level rise, the trend in the head buildup followed the same trend as before the event. Normally, if a turbidity event has caused significant clogging of the well, the slope of the water level rise will increase and stay that way until the well is back flushed. Because the head buildup trend remained approximately the same after the turbidity event, we conclude that the turbidity event did not have a substantial impact on the well's performance. It is possible that the abrupt rise in water level was caused by a nearby well shutting off and slight recovery of aquifer water levels. We recommend that City pumping records be reviewed to determine if a City well was shut off on this"date and time. Event No. 2 We do not believe there was a significant turbidity event at this time and are uncertain as to why one was reported. No abrupt change in the water level is noted. According to MWH/Golder memoranda, the bypass filter did exhibit discoloration;but a change in the slope of the head buildup curve was not seen. Iron bacteria were detected in samples; however, we are uncertain why MWH/Golder believe that the well has been biofouled. Iron bacteria are commonly found in distribution systems and wells. Event No. 3 A small rise in the water level is noted at this time and the slope of the line after the rise has also increased slightly.No documentation was reported about this event in the memorandums,except that the well experienced a 3.4-foot water level rise. Again, we are uncertain if this rise in the water level is due to a change in the rate of injection or whether it is attributed to a minor turbidity event. , Event No. 4 A very abrupt rise in the water level is shown in the graph on April 8th at the end of the data set. On the basis of the electronic water level data provided to us, there is only one data point representing this event and it appears to be anomalous. We are uncertain if the abrupt change is caused by a turbidity event or whether it is due to some;other system perturbation such as: 1) a change in system pressure, 2) a change,in the injection rate, or 3)possibly a transducer PA103-Tigard\001\Reports\Response_memorevl.doc 6 May 24, 2002 failure? The term"Manual Dip"is annotated on the data plot; we are unsure what this means. ASR Design and Operation Background The MWH/Golder team has prepared numerous documents related to Tigard's ASR program including work plans,management plans and technical memorandums related to the turbidity events. We have reviewed these documents and would like to provide the following observations and comments relating to ASR design,monitoring, operation, and future ASR development. ASR Well Design We understand that the City of Tigard's ASR well was completed as a design/build project. We have not had the opportunity to review pre-design documents and/or final design documents (other than the simple diagrams) for the City's,new well. With that said, we feel the following issues should have been (and may have been)reviewed prior to final construction: ➢ The flow meter should record continuous flow readings and be synchronized to the data logger used for water level monitoring so that specific capacity measurements and trends can be easily plotted. ➢ Based on the pilot study work plan, the system was designed to inject at a rate of 1000 gpm and recovery at a rate of 675 gpm. We understand that the actual injection and pumping rates are closer to 800 gpm. We believe that it is best to inject at a rate that is at least 25% less than the pumping rate so that greater inward velocities can be generated to dislodge particulates introduced during injection. Fonexample, if the maximum pumping rate to the system is 800 gpm, then the injection rate should be less than 640 gpm. Higher rates of flow can typically be achieved when pumping to waste; however, it is prudent to maintain the 25 percent differential between pumping and injection rates when pumping to the system. ➢ Considering the depth to the static water table (over 250 feet below ground surface) a down-hole flow control valve should be evaluated. Air,entrainment is possible considering the time it takes to fill the pump column,which can cause air to become entrained in the injection water. This entrained air can be injected into the formation and can cause a reduction in aquifer permeability. A down hole control valve eliminates air entrainment. Moreover, a downhole control valve gives the City greater flexibility to control injection rates (see previous bullet). ➢ Although expensive,we have found that a variable frequency drive (VFD) also provides operational flexibility in an ASR system. For example, multiple sequential back flushing episodes are limited by how many times a pump can be turned on and off in a given time span, whereas a VFD can be used to rapidly increase and decrease PA103-Tigard\001\Reports\Response_memorevl.doc 7 May 24, 2002 the flow rate, which works very well to dislodge particulate matter that may have been introduced during recharge. ➢ We concur with the MWH/Golder team regarding the need for a turbidity meter in the source line that is far enough up stream to allow time for the well to shut down*during a turbidity event. The upfront costs to install this safety system will more than pay for its self in the long run. ➢ The City's ASR well is cased to 300 feet and is open borehole to 606-feet. The pump is set in the open portion of the borehole and so it is vulnerable to being lodged in the borehole if large rock fragments fall from above. Furthermore, the pump can be damaged by rock and debris entering the pump intake. This has been a problem in the past in Salem and could be a concern in Tigard due to the presence of shattered and highly fractured rock. The diameter of COT-1R is too small to retrofit with a liner. Consideration should be given to installing a liner and screen assembly in future ASR wells to avoid these problems. ASR Data Collection and ASR Testing Flow Data and Specific Capacity Monitoring One bf the critical monitoring functions during ASR injection is to measure the performance of the well, which can easily be done by reviewing specific capacity data plots and their trends. Water level rise in the injection well is important to measure,but without corresponding injection rate data, it is hard to determine if the rate of rise and/or the change in rise is due to well performance, a change in aquifer characteristics as the recharge mound expands, or is simply related to a change in the injection rate. These data are also critical to evaluating the impact of turbidity events, should they occur. Injection Flow Rate Adjustments We recommend that the output from the booster pump be reduced so that the injection flow ,rate is between 500 and 600 gpm. The rate should be adjusted so that the pump column fills within 15 to 30 seconds and maintains positive pressure at all times. Well Performance Evaluation . The work plan does not outline how the well performance;will be evaluated during pilot testing and what role Cit operations staff have in monitoring and responding to unexpected changes. The August 20' memorandum prepared by MWH states that in order to manage well performance risks, the well will be stepped rate tested. Although step tests are a good way to measure the performance of a well, we feel that measuring specific capacity continuously with an electronic flow meter synchronized to the water level elevations is a much easier and less costly way to track well performance. Procedures for conducting the routine monitoring, compiling the data, evaluating the data, identifying problems, communicating with team members, and responding to unexpected changes should be discussed and documented in advance. PA103-Tigard\001\Reports\Response_memorev1.doc 8 May 24, 2002 Back flushing ASR wells clog during injection, even when water quality is excellent and no turbidity events occur. As a matter of standard practice, we have found that back flushing the well every 1 to 2 weeks at a minimum is effective in managing well performance and head buildup in the well (water level rise or loss in specific capacity). Tracking specific capacity data helps to determine the required frequency of the back flushing episodes and also helps in identifying unusual changes potentially caused by turbidity events. The following operational procedures are suggested for each back flushing episode: ➢ Shut injection down. ➢ Pump to waste for about 20 minutes or until the water clears up. Stop the pump. ➢ Pump to waste for 5 minutes and then shut the well off for 5 minutes; repeat 3 to 5 times (allowable on-off frequency depends on pump manufacture's recommendations). ➢ Monitor discharge water for turbidity. ➢ Flush injection lines to ensure all sediment/debris have been purged from the source line nearest to the well. ➢ Slowly close the pump to waste valve and begin recharging the well. We believe that it is likely that changes in pressure and reversals in flow direction have mobilized sediment present in the distribution system. We recommend that the distribution system be flushed to the extent possible at hydrants located in the vicinity of the ASR well. The results of the hydraulic modeling performed by MSA could also be used to identify zones that are most affected by changes in pressure and flow rates. Water Quality Monitoring Given the heightened concerns about the ASR well performance, clogging, and nature of the material identified in the ASR well (e.g. algae, diatoms, iron bacteria, sediment), it would be prudent to collect samples during the storage period(mid to late)to confirm and demonstrate that there are no taste or odor concerns associated with the stored water. This is recommended not because we believe there is a likely problem,but because it would diminish concerns and would avoid more surprises. During the storage and recovery period, we recommend that water quality data be collected periodically and evaluated to determine if reactions have occurred between native and source water that could have accounted for some loss in specific capacity. We understand from the geochemical compatibility work performed by MWH/Golder that reactions are not anticipated. Regardless, we feel it is important to plot geochemical data collected during ASR activities to determine if reactions are occurring that were not anticipated. For example, if the data suggest that calcium carbonate or iron hydroxide has precipitated in the aquifer PM 03-Tigard\001\Reports\Response_memorevl.doc 9 May 24, 2002 pore spaces and fractures, then acid treatment could help to restore a portion of the specific capacity. Recharge water containing chloramines (as the disinfectant) could promote bacterial growth in the well because the nitrogen compound can be a food source to microorganisms. The potential for this to occur should be evaluated. Seep Evaluation and Monitoring We are uncertain if the MWH/Golder team is completing this activity even though it was discussed in the upfront portion of the project work plan. Regardless, we believe it is important to map potential seep areas that could form as water levels rise due to injection activities. This is particularly important when multiple ASR wells are brought on line and the target storage volume becomes large (i.e., several hundred MG). Proactive assessment of potential seep areas helps to minimize surprises and helps to focus where seep monitoring should be done. Possible techniques that can be used to identify and monitor seep areas include the following: ➢ Project unsaturated interflow zones laterally until they intersect the topography. Field check these areas during injection. ➢ Review OWRD well records to identify old wells and boreholes within the zone of influence that have not been decommissioned. Determine if wells near the ASR injection mound could become flowing wells and monitor them during ASR injection. ➢ Using simple analytical tools,project where the new water table could intercept the ground surface (mound and.potentiometric surface) and field check these areas during the injection period. Seeps will most likely form along preferential pathways in these areas. ➢ Install shallow piezometers in areas of high concern. ASR Expansion We understand that.if the technical issues regarding clogging at COT-1R are resolved and if the results of the ongoing pilot testing are favorable, the City intends to expand the ASR program to additional ASR sites. Consideration is being given to locating a second ASR well near the COT-1R site and to retrofitting other existing City pumping wells. A number of factors should be considered in either case including the following: ➢ ;The size and transmissivity of the basalt aquifer. Fault boundaries and low transmissive zones can limit the amount of water that can be stored. This information can be obtained from monitoring aquifer response during injection and pumping. We assume that this analysis will be done after a full season of injection and recovery is completed. PA103-Tigard\001\Reports\Response_memorev1.doc 10 r May 24, 2002 ➢ Potential for seeps to form as more water is stored and water levels increase (as described previously). ➢ Well interference caused by overlapping cones of depression during pumping or mounding during injection and the extent to which this affects water levels (are they above ground surface?), injection rates, and pumping rates. ➢ Consider locating future ASR wells at locations other than existing well sites in order to preserve pumping capacity(e.g., avoid clogging problems that reduce yield) and to exercise water rights at existing well sites. ➢ Locate ASR wells near existing City-owned facilities and major supply lines (e.g., JWC), or where existing infrastructure is favorable (e.g., conveyance to and from site, power, City owned land, adequate wastewater handling capacity, land use compatibility). ➢ Develop a plan for the day-to-day monitoring and operation of the system that clearly describes expectations and responsibilities of City staff and the consultant including procedures, communications, and protocols to be followed in order to avoid similar operational problems in the future. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this review. We hope that our comments are constructive and that we have provided value to the City as it moves forward with its ASR program. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues with you and the MWH/Golder team. PM03-Tigard\001\Reports\Response_memorevl.doc 11 City of Tigard Document List Year 2001 1. City of Tigard Design Drawings,February 10,2001,Stettler Company. 2. City of Tigard,Draft Phase I—ASR Feasibility Study,May 2001,Montgomery Watson Harza and Golder Associates. 3. City of Tigard,ASR Pilot Test—Phase II,Project Management Plan,August 2001, Montgomery Watson Harza and Golder Associates.. 4. City of Tigard,Aquifer Storage and Recovery(ASR)Pilot Test Plan,September 11, 2001,Golder Associates. 5. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Limited License Application to OWRD,October 3, 2001,Montgomery Watson Harza. Year 2002 6. Technical Memorandum,City of Tigard Phase 2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Study—Well Construction and Testing,March 22,2002, Golder Associates and Montgomery Watson Harza. 7. Technical Memorandum,City of Tigard,Phase 2 Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Study,Interim Pilot Testing Memorandum,April 2,2002,Golder Associates. 8. Technical Memorandum,Water Quality Incident,April 3,2002,Montgomery Watson Harza. 9. Technical Memorandum,ASR Pilot Testing,April 18, 2002,Montgomery Watson Harza. 10. Technical Memorandum,ASR Pilot Testing,April 25,2002,Montgomery Watson Harza. 11. Excerpts from City of Tigard ASR Project Scope of Work,Phase 2-Pilot Testing, May 6,2002,Montgomery Watson Harza and Golder Associates. 12. Technical Memorandum,Stratigraphic Log of Tigard COT-1,May 7,2002, Montgomery Watson Harza. 13. Power Point Presentation: Project Status ASR Pilot Testing,May 7,2002, Montgomery Watson Harza and Golder Associates. 14. Technical Memorandum,Tigard ASR Pilot Test COT—IR Step Test Results,May 14,2002,Golder Associates. 15. Technical Notes—COT—IR As-built, and Head buildup Plots, No Date, Golder Associates. 16. Excel files containing water level data for the City of Tigard ASR well (COT__1R) and Canterbury Lane monitoring well (COT_l M -- former City of Tigard#1 Well). Water level and flow data for the recent stepped rate pumping test completed on the COT—1R well. PAI 03-Tigard\00 I\Reports\Tigard_Document_List.doc Tigard Well COT-1 R Depth to Water Date 12/15/2001 1/4/2002 1/24/2002 2/13/2002 3/5/2002 3/25/2002 4/14/2002 5/4/2002 5/24/2002 0 50 --- -- -- Inset 3 Inset 4 Inset 1 100 Inset 2 V R d r 3 150 -- -- -- E • a 200 —- --- m • 3 • �� N 250 ♦ - - r c. • • D ♦ • 300 • - --- -- --- • • 350 - - -- - - --- • - -- • -�- 400 Tigard Well COT_1 R Depth to Water Inset 1 Date 1/31/2002 2/1/2002 2/2/2002 2/3/2002 2/4/2002 2/5/2002 2/6/2002 2/7/2002 2/8/2002 100 105 - ------ --- -- -- -- —- 110 M1 115 - -- - ---- - d � 120 - ---- - o fi V 125 d R 3 130 --- --_ 0 y t r+ 0 135 - -- - ---- - -- 140 -- -- _ -_ -_ 145 - -- 150 Tigard Well COT_1 R Depth to Water Inset 2 Date 2/13/2002 2/14/2002 2/15/2002 2/16/2002 2/17/2002 2/18/2002 2/19/2002 2/20/2002 100 - 110 - E 00110 t 120 — - - --- - - - ----- d 3 E 0 L w C 130 -- m .r R 3 0 w a 140 - 150 40 150 - --- -- 160 Tigard Well COT_1 R Depth to Water Inset 3 Date 3/17/2002 3/18/2002 3/19/2002 3/20/2002 3/2112002 3/22/2002 3/23/2002 3/24/2002 3/25/2002 70 90 - -- -- -- - - -- ----- ----------------- 110 - - r 130 G u i 3 -�- - --- m 3 E 0 150 - - --- --- - w v 170 - -- O CL 190 -- — m O 210 --— - — -- -- --- -- 230 MNMNNNNI► ---- -- 250 r Tigard Well COT_1 R Depth to Water Inset 4 Date 4/4/2002 4/5/2002 4/6/2002 4/7/2002 4/8/2002 4/9/2002 4/10/2002 4/11/2002 4/12/2002 4/13/2002 4/14/2002 50 60 - - -- ---- - 1A 80 - --- -- - ---- r d 3 90 - E 0 1 — V R 3 110 - - -- 0 z C 120 -- - --- _.-- ---- 130 - -- - -- 140 _- 150 -r`k - 21 ` z f 1 s n , t ,g, i ,k 2001 Water Quality Update Required by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), this update provides information regarding the past year's drinking water quality and how this quality compares to the standards set by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To ensure that the water being delivered is of the highest quality, the City of Tigard tests the water on a routine basis and compares the results to the standards set by the EPA. During the past year, the City of Tigard continued to meet and/or surpass all Federal and State standards. The City of Tigard is committed to the protection and conservation of our natural resources. • • 0 0 - - - ' TIGARD WATER SERVICE AREA 1 • BEAVERTON • 1 / • 1 • 1 • i • O © CITY OF 1 1 • 1 • TIGARD UNINCORPORATED WASHINGTON CO. • • • 1 1 1 • p I i / • • / • I • 1 1 • • • • • KING Legend CITY Tigard Water Service DURHAM • 1 • 1 Area Tualatin Valley Water TUALATIN District(TVWD) • 1 1 • • Service Area • Reservoirs • / • • • • • warts rReoeervoa�the site _ c orn m p Wells 2w, a_.... zaaa 40oo rre+t M w i i P� srxe j Ever Wonder Where Tigard's Water Comes From? The City of Tigard Mt.Hood National Forest. The Bull Run Watershed covers draws water from both about 102 square miles with an annual rainfall of 80 to 170 surface and groundwater inches. Two large reservoirs catch and store water for year- sources. Currently,the round use. In addition,the City of Portland has 24 producing City of Tigard maintains groundwater wells to help meet the increase in water demand water rights on four deep during the summer and fall months,as well as provide a groundwater wells. These backup source during emergencies. wells are the only City Additional water is purchased from the City of Beaverton. owned water source. Two The City of Beaverton is a member of the joint Water Commis- of the wells are used in the sion(JWC)which manages a surface water source from the summer and have a Tualatin/Trask River Watershed. Other members of the JWC combined production of include Hillsboro,Forest Grove and the Tualatin Valley Water 1.1 million gallons per day. District. The Tualatin/Trask River Watershed is located in the To meet consumers' coast range. During winter and spring,when ample stream growing demand for flow is available,the JWC pumps water from the nearby water,Tigard purchases Tualatin River to their treatment plant located south of Forest surface water from the Grove. Cities of Portland and Beaverton as well as the Tualatin Valley The treatment plant filters and treats the water to meet Federal drinking water Water District. Overall,the City of standards. During the summer when water demand is high and the Tualatin River is Tigard purchases 90%of its water from low,water stored in Henry Hagg Lake and Barney Reservoir is released into the wholesale water agencies. Tualatin River upstream for eventual withdrawal and treatment.This process helps maintain minimum stream flows in the Tualatin River,which is critical to sustain a The majority of water purchased healthy river ecosystem. and used in Tigard comes from the City of Portland. The Portland Water Bureau The City of Tigard also purchases water from Tualatin Valley Water District manages the Bull Run Watershed,which (TVWD). TVWD purchases water from both the City of Portland and joint Water is a surface water source located in the Commission. Tigard Water Customers Water Quality Monitoring Conserve! To ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the Environmental Protection Agency Many thanks to the Tigard water (EPA)prescribes regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water customers who are conserving water! provided by public water systems. The EPA also establishes testing methods and Last summer Tigard citizens reduced the monitoring requirements for water utilities. The Agency sets maximum levels for "summer peak" by ten percent! During water contaminants and requires utilities to give public the summer, people typically tend to use notice whenever a violation occurs.The EPA,in conjunc- two to three times more water while tion with the Oregon Department of Human Services - rainfall amounts decrease. Known as Drinking Water Program (ODHS), oversees the drink- "summer peaking,"this increased use is a ing water agency programs in the State of Oregon. concern because the City of Tigard is Currently, there are more than 120 water quality forced to draw water from the reservoirs standards for potential contaminants in drinking water so fast that it threatens the steady supply supplies in Oregon. needed for emergencies and fire protec- The EPA and ODHS require water providers to tion. routinely monitor water supplies and report test results Last summer's success was due in annually. In addition to the 150 contaminants that the part to residents participating in the City wholesale water providers test for, the City of Tigard of Tigard's Even/Odd Watering Plan. collects and submits for analysis,routine water samples The Plan calls for residents with ad- representative of the water distribution system. dresses ending in an odd number to only Based on the population served and distribution system size,the City of Tigard water lawns and gardens on odd days of collects over 50 water samples representing the water system. These samples are the month. Residents with addresses tested for Coliform bacteria(an indicator of contamination)and chlorine residuals ending in an even number were asked to (level of disinfectant). The monitoring and reporting of these results,as well as the only water the lawn and garden on even data from the wholesale water providers, are reported to the ODHS. days. In order to help curb the summer peak this summer, the City of Tigard is encouraging everyone to participate in Cross Connection Control Program the Even/Odd Watering Plan. This is a voluntary plan,but this simple change in The Cross Connection Control Program protects the public water system from watering habits can make a huge differ- contamination and pollution due to cross connection and backflow. ence in the daily water demand. A A cross connection is the point at which a non-potable substance can possibly reduction in the daily water demand come in contact with the potable water supply.Backflow,caused by backsiphonage benefits all Tigard citizens. Lower and/or backpressure,is the unwanted reversed flow of non-potable water back into demand not only reduces water costs but a water system through a cross connection. helps h hic maintain reservoir levels ware needed maintain deal with fires and ehic - Chapter 333 of the Oregon Administrative Rules governing public water systems and the Tigard Municipal Code require backflow prevention assemblies to cies. be installed at existing or potential sources of contamination.Such sources of Tigard has great educational pro- contamination include auxiliary water supplies,photo developing equipment, grams for swimming pools,solar heat systems,lawn irrigation systems,carbonated beverage schools and dispensers,fire sprinkler systems and hose connections. All backflow prevention civic organiza- assemblies are required to be tested on an annual basis to ensure proper operation. tions. This includes a The City of Tigard asks residents to contact the Cross Connection Program variety of Coordinator to schedule a cross connection control survey anytime modifications presentations are made to the plumbing,a new plumbing fixture is installed,water-using equip- presentations is used or if the water has an unusual color,taste or smell. that illustrate water conservation,the water cycle, and Backflow prevention measures are a precautionary action that helps keep the other water related topics. To learn water safe to drink. For more information about cross-connections,contact the more about these programs,visit our Cross Connection Program Coordinator at 503-639-4171 or check out the City's web site at www.ci.tigard.or.usor web site at www.ci.tigard.or.us. contact the Water Conservation Program Coordinator at 503-639-4171. Health Issues Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking water than the general population. Specifically,immuno- Water Quality compromised persons such as cancer patients undergoing chemo- therapy,persons who have undergone organ transplants,persons with HIV/AIDS or other immune system disorders, some elderly and infants,can be particularly at risk from infections. These - persons should seek advice about drinking water from their health Location Contaminant Amount Detected Max care providers. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide guidelines on the appropriate means to lessen the risk of infection by or 1'a n d 3.2 NTU Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants. For more B e a„e r t a n 0.03 NTLI information call the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426- T,ea g ow. p had 4 cysts 4791 or visit the EPA's web site at www.e a. ov/ G i a r d i a 1 sample of 88 lifers of water Disinfe. Cryptosporidium Cryptosporidium is Barium 0.012 ppm a microorganism (protozoan)naturally Fluoride 0.12 ppm present in surface water supplies throughout the Nitrate nitrogren 1.2 ppm world.Surface water Total Nitrate supplies are particularly Nitrogen plus 0.60 ppm Nitrite Nitrogen vulnerable if they receive runoff or pollution from human or animal wastes. Since wildlife inhabit the Gross Alpha 1.712 pCi/1 Bull Run Watershed,the Portland Water Bureau regularly moni- tors for Cryptosporidium and has done so for more than ten years. Gross Beta 12.2 pCi/I 50 p Occasionally,low levels of Cryptosporidium are found to be s present. This year the EPA expects to propose new national standards to further reduce the risks of illness from Total Average of all rtes: 26.6 ppm Trihalomethanes Cryptosporidium. Symptoms of infection include nausea,abdomi- (TTHM) Atone site:34.0 ppm nal cramps and diarrhea. Most healthy individuals are able to VIOLATION: The City of Tigard failed to ca overcome the disease within a few weeks.However,immuno- compromised people have more difficulty and are at greater risk of developing severe,life threatening illnesses.Immuno-compro- M. aunt Detected mised individuals are encouraged to consult their doctor regarding 1 sample of 120 liters of water Cryptosporidium appropriate precautions to avoid infection.Cryptosporidium must had 1 Oocyst be ingested for it to cause disease, and may be spread through Radon 345 pCi/I(Data from 1999) means other than drinking water. Sodium 12 ppm Radon Haloacedic Acids 45 ppb (HAAS) Radon is a naturally occurring,radioactive gas that cannot be Total Chlorine seen,tasted,or smelled. A known carcinogen,radon is found ' Residual 1.84 ppm throughout the United States. Breathing air containing radon can lead to lung cancer. Drinking water containing radon may cause an increased risk of stomach cancer. For more information about radon,call the EPA's Radon Hotline at 1-800-767-7236. For more information Call t h e 1 -800-426-4791 or visit the EPA Definitions Maximum Contaminant Level Goal(MCLG):The level of �n a l y s i s Results contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety. Maximum Contaminant Level(MCL):The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLS are set as ilmum Contaminant MCLG Compliance Typical close to the MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment Level(MCL) Sources) technology. ogical Contaminants Action Level(AL):The concentration of a contaminant,which, if exceeded, triggers treatment, or other requirements that a 5.0 NTU Not Applicable Soil runoff 0.5 NTU 0.3 NTU water system must follow. ,,ent technique required' Treatment Technique(TT):A required process intended to .tion to inactivate 99.9%of 0 cysts '.YES Animal wastes cysts reduce the level of a contaminant in drinking water. Nephelometric Turbidity Units(NTUs):Turbidity is a measure of how clear water looks. A high level of NTUs can Erosion of natural t _ deposits interfere with disinfection and provide a medium for microbial E P a tt t j Erosion of natural growth. deposits in groundwater Parts per million (ppm); parts per billion(ppb):These :s units describe the levels of detected contaminants. One part P Erosion of natural per million is equal to one minute in two ears. One art per t t, deposits;animal t' q y p p a f I 7 wastes;farms;septic �r t systems billion is equal to one minute in 2,000 years. Picocurriesper liter(pCi/1):A standard measurement of .. ' 0 4 beta particles in water. 15 pCi/I 0 pCi/I Erosion of natural deposits in n groundwater Potential Contaminants :i/I(EPA's level of concern) 0 pCi/I aquifers Sources of drinking water(both tap and bottled)include rivers,lakes,streams,ponds,reservoirs,springs,and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land and/or through the Byproaacts of ground,it dissolves naturally occurring minerals,in some cases, 100 ppm Not Applicable: chlorinating drinking water radioactive materials and other substances resulting from the lett TTHM samples during the 3rd quarter of 2001. presence of animals or human activity. Contaminants that might be expected in untreated water include microbial contaminants, 4ATED CONTAMINANTS such as viruses and bacteria;inorganic contaminants such as salts 3cal Savrc and metals;pesticides and herbicides;organic chemicals from industrial or petroleum use;and radioactive contaminants. Animal wastes Erosion of natural deposits Does this look familiar? Added to water during treatment&erosion of natural deposits A number of residents have called to report small white/ Byproducts of chlorinating drinking water grey/green particles plugging their faucet aerators and strainers. These plastic Chlorine and ammonia used to disinfect water particles come from the dip tube located within the water heater. In most cases, the dip tube is corroding and is beginning to fall apart,dropping particles into the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at water heater tanks which are then flushed into the household plumbing. The most susceptible 's web site at www.epa.,goy/ow. water heaters were installed between 1993 and 1997. For more information,call 503-639-4171. Planning for the Future Lead and Copper Everyday, consumers turn on the tap to find a plentiful supply of clean water flowing. However,supplying a community with safe drinking water is a complex The City of Tigard continues twork with the Portland Water Bureau on business. The City of Tigard is constantly working to improve the quality and monitoring tap water for lead and quantity of water by identifying capacity� buildingPro projects,ilementin capital copper. Since lead and copper can enter improvement projects,updating security procedures,maintaining preventative the system through corrosion within the programs,supporting conservation programs,and conducting water quality distribution system or in household monitoring programs. plumbing systems, water samples are Safe drinking water is a vital concern to us all. collected from various sites representing ——— ——————————— water sources, the distribution system, and homes with lead solder in the plumbing. Infrastucture Improvements In an effort to reduce water loss(water which is purchased by us, but lost Elevated lead levels were NOT detected in Tigard's water sources, nor due to service line leaks, mainline leaks or unauthorized use)crews are were elevated levels found within the continuously replacing 2-inch galvanized service lines to commercial and multi- distribution system. However, in Novem- tenant customers. Galvanized piping ber 2001, 10% of the samples ex- ceeded the EPA's lead action level of 15 was used on 2-inch service lines up to parts per billion, thus requiring water 1987. Since 1987,Tigard has used utilities to provide consumers with the copper piping for all service lines. following information: Back in 2000, the City of Tigard Infants and children who drink water implemented a fire hydrant replacement containing lead in excess of the action program which identified 162 fire level could experience delays in their hydrants that needed to be replaced. The criteria for determining if a hydrant physical or mental development. Children needed to be replaced included age and style of hydrant as well as proximity to could show slight deficits in attention span schools, apartments and commercial properties. The goal was to replace 20 fire and learning abilities. Adults, who drink hydrants during 2001 and 40 fire hydrants every year after with a completion this water over many years, could deadline of 2005. develop kidney problems or high blood -------------- pressure. Capacity-Building Infants and children are typically In order to improve water capacity within the distribution system, the City of more vulnerable to lead in drinking water Tigard recently installed an inter-tie(water line connection) than the general population. with the City of Tualatin,which also purchases water from the City of Portland. This connection allows the City of Lead and Copper Sampling at Residential Water Tops Tigard to purchase up to three million gallons per day during the winter and fall months and up to one million 90th maximum #of sites Source of Percentile Contaminant Action Level exceeding gallons per da during summer months. contominant g P 3' g Values Level Goal action level. The City of Tigard also installed a new connection with the City of Beaverton for a total of three connections. Action level is 1.3 pots per This new connection provides an additional 4.5 million exceeded if more than million ° No samples Corrosion of 0.81 parts 10%of the homes gallons of water per day during winter and fall months and per million (Treatment tested have copper exceeded the plumbing Technique levels greater than 1.3 action level systems up to 1.5 million gallons per day during summer months. Required) parts per million Although these additional connections may not appear to improve water demand needs during summer months, Action level is 15%of samples they do play a critical role in supplying additional water collected in exceeded if more than Corrosion of duringwinter months when Bull Run is shut down due to o November'01 20 parts per Zero parts per 10/o of the homes plumbing exceeded the colored water or turbidity events. The installation of new billion billion tested have lead levels axion level of systems greater th on 15 parts connections ensures y adequate and clean water for daily 15 parts per q per billion billion consumption and emergency situations. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Project Securing Ownership In Aquifer Storage Recovery involves injecting and storing surface water into a A Future Water Source local aquifer during periods of low demand and withdrawing the water during Since the City of Tigard does not periods of high demand. own a water source capable of I During the fall of 2001,the City of Tigard began exploring the possibility of supplying enough water to meet utilizing ASR. The project began with the drilling of a new 600 foot well and current demand,Tigard continues to construction of a new well pump house at the Canterbury Reservoir Site. To pursue a secure,long-term source of better understand the local geology for future ASR projects, soil samples were water from the Bull Run System and taken of the well every 10 feet during the drilling process. the Tualatin/Trask System. The City The City conducted a pilot test of the ASR project to help determine the of Tigard is a participating member of amount of water that could be stored in the aquifer and to evaluate the quality of a group of local water providers the water recovered. Three cycles make up the pilot test-injection, storage and pursuing the formation of a regional agency to take over the operation recovery. and management of the Bull Run In early 2002,the City of Tigard purchased a total of 97 million gallons of system.Membership in this new water from the City of Portland to inject into the aquifer. The injection period agency would ensure long-term ended in late April after which the water was then stored for 60 days. At the end source security. A decision on of the 60-day cycle the ASR water was recovered and pumped into the distribution forming the agency should be system for consumption. The City of Tigard expects a withdrawal rate of approxi- finalized in 2003. mately 1 million gallons per day from the ASR well. The City of Tigard continues to During the pilot testing period, a Flavor Profile Analysis(FPA)was performed work on becoming a member of the to evaluate the aesthetic characteristics of the recovered ASR water. FPA is a joint Water Commission which would unique method for the evaluation of taste and smells in drinking water. This secure ownership of water rights in analytical method uses trained panelists to systematically describe types and the Tualatin/Trask Watershed. The intensities of odors and tastes in the water. Taste,smell and clarity of drinking City of Tigard is also working with a water are important factors to consumers,and will be included in the final evalua- group of water providers exploring tion of using ASR as a water source. additional water sources in the If the pilot testing proves to be successful,the City plans to proceed with the Tualatin River Basin. If new sources development and implementation of a full-scale ASR program. The City of Tigard are developed,Tigard will be a partial expects ASR to be a highly beneficial tool to offset consumers'fluctuating demand, owner,thus securing ownership of a which ranges from 4.8 million gallons per day in the winter and up to 13.5 million future source. gallons per day during the summer. Securing ownership of a water During summer months, daily water usage can be 2 ° times higher than source will provide the quantities of normal winter daily usage. The quantity of ASR water could provide up to 15%of high quality water needed as well as a the daily summer demand and 10%of the yearly water needs in Tigard. back-up supply in the event of a catastrophic loss of a source. f G Surface Water Source Bull Ru -Tr 4 ualatin) fro during (Injection durir g winter) summer) Storage ASR/Production Well Aquifer l SI surfaceSra a Zsur i, Security Update Frequently Asked Questions: Security of the water supply is Is fluoride added to the water?The City of Tigard and its wholesale water very important to the City of Tigard. agencies(i.e.Portland,Beaverton,Tualatin Valley Water District)do NOT add fluoride All reservoirs are fenced and gated. to the water, however trace amounts of fluoride are naturally present in raw water The reservoir hatches are locked and sources. many of the sites are monitored through a telemetry system which Is the water hard or soft? The water is soft with a typical range of 1/3 to 1/2 controls and monitors the water grains of hardness per gallon. system. Personnel inspect each site What can be done about chlorine odors? The odor is just chlorine doing its daily. To better address security job of disinfecting the water. The simplest way to get rid of the odor is to pour a issues concerning distribution piping, pitcher of water and let it sit in the refrigerator. Overnight, the chlorine will dissipate reservoirs,fire hydrants,and cus- and the odor will be gone. tomer service lines,the City of Tigard is currently conducting a vulnerability Why does the taste and odor of the water sometime dimer? Water assessment. naturally varies in taste and odor at different times of the year as well as during weather changes. Taste and odor problems can also be caused by age of the pipe- lines,plumbing fixtures or changes in water quality. Changes are closely monitored to PUBLIC MEETING ensure that they do not affect the safety of the water. ANNOUNCEMENT Why is the water sometimes discolored? Discolored water is a common occurrence with surface water systems such as Bull Run. Since it is non-filtered, it is The City at Tigard invites interested typical to have discolored water in the summer when the City of Portland draws from citizens to attend the Iing held on the lower levels in the reservoirs and during the fall when leaves dropping in the water tal Water Board meeting held on the may cause a change in color. second Wednesday of each month. The meeting is at 5:30 pm and is held Is bottled water safer than tap water? The safety of bottled water depends at the Tigard Water Building on its source and the treatment it has undergone. The Food and Drug Administration Auditorium,located at 8777 SW (FDA)regulates bottled water because it is considered a food product while the Burnham Street in Tigard, Oregon. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)regulates tap water. The FDA has tightened regulations and bottled water generally must meet the EPA's Purity and Safety Do you have any questions or Requirements for Public Drinking Water. Using bottled water is a personal prefer- concerns regarding this report? Call ence. If you choose to use bottled water we suggest that you thoroughly research the City of Tigard's Water Quality the product that you are selecting to assure that it offers the level of protection that Program Coordinator at you are seeking. 503-639-4171. Este informe contiene informacion Looking for a laboratory? muy importante sobre su agua paraTo _ the water tested _ , 3-639-4171 beber. Traduzcalo o hable con alguien que to entienda bier. or a list o local certified laboratories. City of Tigard PRSRT STD 13125 SW Hall Blvd. U.S.POSTAGE PAID Tigard, OR 97223 PORTLAND,OR PERMIT NO. 2528 **************ECRWSS POSTAL CUSTOMER Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Informational Items Supplement June 12, 2002 1. Regional Water Providers Consortium Board Meeting, Minutes of 3/6/02. 2. `A `yes' vote on Tualatin water issue can't hurt", article in Tigard Times dated 5/9/02. 3. Integrated Water Resources Management Water Supply Feasibility Study, Project Progress Report— May 15, 2002. 4. DRAFT 2002 Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and Contingency Plan - memo dated May 15, 2002, from Mark Knudson and Yone Akagi. 5. Oregonian article dated 5/16/02, 'Wilsonville judges water quality" 6. "Costly Bull Run plan backed'; Oregonian article dated 5-29-02. REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM BOARD MEETING Minutes of March 6,2002 Consortium Board Chairman Les Larson called the Regional Water Providers Consortium Board Meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. The meeting was held in the Metro Council Chambers/Annex. Elected representatives from ten Consortium member agencies were present at the meeting (which is not a quorum), including City of Beaverton, Clackamas River Water, Metro, Oak Lodge Water District, Powell Valley Road Water District,Rockwood Water PUD, City of Sandy, Sunrise Water Authority, City of Tigard, and Tualatin Valley Water District. Consortium member agencies not represented by elected officials at this meeting included the City of Fairview, City of Forest Grove, City of Gladstone, City of Gresham, City of Hillsboro, City of Lake Oswego, City of Milwaukie, City of Portland, Raleigh Water District, South Fork Water Board, City of Tualatin, West Slope Water District and City of Wilsonville. Introductions: Introductions were made. Those in attendance included Councilor Joyce Patton and Ed Wegner from the City of Tigard; Mike McKillip from the City of Tualatin; Commissioner Bruce Fontaine and Dale Jutila from Clackamas River Water; Councilor Susan McLain from Metro; Jerry Arnold from West Slope Water District; Dennis Kessler from the City of Portland; Commissioner John Huffman and Tom Pokorny from Powell Valley Road Water District; Commissioner Les Larson and Paul Savas from Oak Lodge Water District; Vice President Jim Duggan and Lee Weislogel from Tualatin Valley Water District; District Board President Sandra Ramaker and Harvey Barnes from Rockwood Water PUD; Jeff Bauman from the City of Wilsonville; Commissioner Mike Grimm and John Thomas from Sunrise Water Authority; Dale Anderson from the City of Gresham; Councilor Don Allen from the City of Sandy; Dan Bradley from South Fork Water Board; Councilor Forrest Soth from the City of Beaverton; Tacy Steele from the City of Hillsboro; Carol Cushman from the League of Women Voters; Annette Mattson from Portland General Electric;Jeff Reardon,Public Citizen; Ralph Feely for the Bull Run Heritage Foundation; Steve Raynes from the Sandy River Watershed Council;Michael Carlson from the Clackamas River Watershed Council and Lorna Stickel, Rebecca Geisen and Patty Burk from the City of Portland/Consortium Staff. Consortium Board Chairman Les Larson noted that at this time a quorum had not yet been formed. Chair Larson said the Board meeting agenda would be rearranged so that those items that required a quorum vote, i.e. the FY 2002-03 Work Plan and Budget and approval of the December 5, 2001 meeting minute,would be moved further down the agenda when a quorum may be achieved. Public Comment: There was no public comment given. Consortium Board Chairman Les Larson advised the public members in attendance could speak to an agenda item during the discussion of that item. Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2002 Executive Committee Report: Consortium Board Vice-Chairman Jon Huffman gave a report of the Executive Committee(EC). Vice-Chair Huffman noted that the EC met on February 13, 2002. Vice-Chair Huffinan commented that the Executive Committee's focus is to review and comment on items to be presented at the Consortium Board meetings,therefore,many of the items discussed at the EC meeting were available in the Board meeting material packets. The EC discussed the March Consortium Board agenda and Lorna Stickel gave a report of the Regional Water Supply Plan(RWSP)Update. Mr. Huffman said Ms. Stickel would be giving the Board members a status report on the RWSP Update at this evening's Board meeting. Vice- Chair Huffman advised that the FY 2002-03 Budget/Workplan was presented and reviewed by the Executive Committee and the Consortium Board would be voting on it if a quorum were obtained. Conservation Committee Report: Rebecca Geisen reported that the Consortium Conservation Committee(CCC) sponsored a booth at a Yard, Garden and Patio show on February 22, 23, and 24, 2002. Eleven agencies volunteered staffing for the event. Over 2000 seed packets and 700 magnets were distributed. Participants were interested in getting information about their lawn, how to add compost to their soil and other water conservation strategies. Ms. Geisen reported that Dodge, Schmitgall, inc. (DSI), the summer marketing campaign firm, presented creative concepts at the March Consortium Conservation Committee meeting. The campaign focuses on lawn watering and reinforcing the message that an inch of water over the course of a week is enough to maintain a healthy lawn. She noted DSI wanted to have a television and radio spot that focused on a message and that would also direct people to the Consortium website for more conservation information. Ms. Geisen said the youth education committee has been working with Joe Spooner, the cartoonist that does Mr. Portland, on a cartoon water map for school age children. She explained there would be eight activities on the back of the map. The map is scheduled to be completed at the end of March. Ms. Geisen noted that each agency would receive approximately 300 maps to distribute to teachers and schools. Ms. Geisen said she would bring a copy of the'map to the next Board meeting. The CCC is sponsoring$150 grants to thirty contractors who qualify as part of the Certified Landscape Irrigation Auditor training class and certification program. The program is designed to encourage landscape contractors to provide professional services and information about water wise landscaping and water efficiencies. Ms. Geisen noted that the Clean Water Festival would be held the weekend of March 22"d. She said for the past nine years the Coalition and the Consortium have had an active role in the festival. The Consortium sponsors a teacher resource room and stage performance. The Clean Water Festival will be held at Portland Community College's Rock Creek Campus. Ms. Geisen reported that the Consortium Conservation Committee is partnering with the non profit agency Naturscaping for Clean Rivers which is funded by the Multnomah County Soil and 2 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2002 Water Conservation District, the Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) and the Department of Environmental Quality(DEQ)to do conservation workshops. She noted Naturscaping organizes and conducts the workshops and the CCC pays $750 as a sponsor of the workshop. There are workshops planned this spring in Oregon City on May 11, in Wilsonville on May 18, and in Fairview on June 8, 2002. Councilor Forrest Soth noted that it appears the conservation efforts have been focused on the area of soil conservation and irrigation techniques and asked if the CCC is considering indoor conservation education. Ms. Geisen said traditionally the Consortium's conservation efforts have been on outdoor water use. She explained in the Regional Water Supply Plan Update, they will be evaluating and developing indoor conservation and Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI)programs. Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative Update: Ed Wegner gave a status report on the Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative. Mr. Wegner reported that in December 2001 the Bull Run Drinking Water Initiative Plan—Phase I was distributed to the participating member agencies and interested citizens. During the months of December and January, the participating agencies were given the opportunity to review the plan and decide whether they were interested in participating further in the development of a Proposed Bull Run Drinking Water Agency. Mr. Wegner said that on January 31, 2002 the fourteen agencies that had been participating in this regional effort decided they would continue to move forward with the establishing and defining the criteria to develop a regional drinking water agency for the Bull Run system. Mr. Wegner reported that the second phase would build upon the research that was started in phase one. The participating stakeholders will continue to establish criteria, incorporate public input and recommendations and develop an implementation plan. The phase two implementation plan will include how the proposed agency would be organized and operated so that cities and water districts will be able to make the decision as to the future of this potential agency. Mr. Wegner stated this plan should be available in August or September 2002. Mr. Wegner noted that a Request for Proposal (RFP)was developed and the submission deadline is March 7, 2002. Sunrise Water Authority will be the managing agency of the contract. The RFP is seeking a consulting firm that will work with the participating agencies to examine legal, financial and engineering issues that are associated with the development of a regional water agency. The proposal seeks alternative approaches to policy direction, decision-making authority, asset ownership,water rights, and legal authorities. It also asks for specific recommendations for governance structure and administrative mechanisms as to how to operate. A detailed implementation plan will be.developed with a timetable for this to be put forth. It will also include a model agreement with proposed rates and charges and a public involvement process. Mr. Wegner advised that the first Phase Two Citizen Involvement Workshop would be Thursday,March 7, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in Gresham City Hall. Mr. Wegner stated this would be an 3 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2002 opportunity to begin hearing about the values,principles, and issues that the general public has in regard to the creation of such an agency. Jeff Bauman commented that Councilor Helser from Wilsonville suffered a heart attack last week and is currently in an intensive care unit. Service Line Maintenance Program Update: Commissioner Bruce Fontaine from Clackamas River Water(CRW) gave a status report on their Service Line Maintenance Program. Commissioner Fontaine said the Service Line Maintenance Program would provide relief to water customers should their water service line fail between the water meter and the customer's house. He advised that CRW has completed their research and is planning to move forward with this program in their service area. Commissioner Fontaine noted not much has been accomplished, however, in regard to a regional approach to a line maintenance program. Commissioner Fontaine hoped to develop renewed interest in a regional line maintenance program. He said of the Consortium agencies that have expressed interest in the project, Tualatin Valley Water District(TVWD) Rockwood PUD and the City of Gresham,that they have had basic discussions with TVWD but they have not yet gone forward with it. Commissioner Fontaine said he would like to encourage partnering with other agencies. He asked the Consortium Board members to encourage their staff to give a higher priority to this project. Dale Jutila commented the complete report on the Service Line Maintenance Program was provided in the meeting materials packet. Regional Water Supply Plan Update: Lorna Stickel reviewed the handouts titled"Consortium Regional Water Supply Plan-Update Project 2001-2003" and "'Progress on RWSP Update March 2002"that were distributed at the Board meeting. Ms. Stickel noted the graph illustrates the components of the RWSP Update, which include: • Actions and projects by Participants since 1996 when the RWSP was adopted. • Updated Water Demand Forecast. • Revised Conservation Programs/Targets. • Source Options Analysis and Review. • Policy Objectives as reviewed and revised for the RWSP Update. Ms. Stickel advised that all these components would then be integrated into the Integration Water Supply Planning Model for the Portland Region called Confluence. The intent is to take the information from the components and create different scenarios to be fed into the model. The model will then produce a number of interesting outputs including cost, how well water demand is met, which water sources are included and conservation programs. Ms. Stickel commented each Consortium entity that is willing to sign a software licensing agreement,will receive a copy of the modeling software. She said from this modeling process along with the policy objectives and public involvement process, the Preliminary RWSP Revisions will be created. The preliminary RWSP revisions are scheduled to be completed in January 2003. Ms. Stickel noted that there would then be a period of months for the individual entities to review the revisions and for public workshops and hearing to take place. This review process will lead to recommendations from participating agencies for changes. A final RWSP Update would then be 4 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2002 available for the Consortium entities in June 2003. Ms. Stickel commented that the actual RWSP Update would be completed at that time but that the individual Consortium entities would then need to move it through their own adoption processes. The "Progress on RWSP Update-March 2000"handout outlined work completed to date on the components of RWSP Update including: • Actions and Projects since 1996: Most master plans and other studies conducted by regional water participants have been collected. Consortium Staff and the Consortium Technical Subcommittee(CTSC)have looked at issues associated with the Endangered Species Act(ESA) and are participating with other regional participants to evaluate supply issues (e.g. Tualatin Basin Water Supply Study). • Water Demand Forecast: A new water provider-mapping project is underway in coordination with Metro. Water production and consumption data have been obtained from the majority of the participants and is being entered into a database in preparation for the creation of water demand models for each participant. • Conservation Program Update: Two request for proposals have been issued for professional services to conduct work on the conservation programs update. Two requests were prepared because no bids were submitted in response to the first proposal. Budget revisions for this project have been recommended to increase the share of the RWSP/Consortium overall budget for this part of the update. • Source Options Analysis: The firm of Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. has been selected to complete this work. A kick off meeting was held with the CTSC to assess the region's source options. • Integration Model: The firm of Gary Fiske &Associates has been selected for this project and a contract is being prepared. The Confluence model developed by Gary Fiske and Pete Schwartz will be used for this project. The genesis of this model came from the original RWSP modeling in 1994-95. Work will begin in late March. • Public Involvement: Information about the RWSP Update is on the Consortium web page, two stakeholder panels have been scheduled before the Consortium Board and professional services have been obtained for a series of newsletters which will be distributed over the next year and a half. Ms. Stickel commented that the RWSP Update is mostly on schedule. The Conservation Element is a bit behind schedule due to not getting a bidder response from the first request for proposal. Ms. Stickel noted it is important for all of the RWSP Update components to produce results in a timely fashion so that they can be integrated in to the model. Commissioner Bruce Fontaine asked how many hits the Consortium website has received. Rebecca Geisen commented that management of the website is in transition between AntHill Marketing,the former marketing firm for the Consortium and Dodge Schmitgall, inc. (DSI) the current marketing firm. Ms. Gesien said she would work with DSI and share the information with the Board when available. Councilor Susan McLain reported that Metro is facing two deadlines August 1 and December 31, 2002 regarding the Urban Growth Boundary(UGB)review. Councilor McLain suggested if she 5 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2002 had a timeline on when Consortium Staff needed population data from Metro she could work with Metro staff to help facilitate getting the data in a timely manner. Councilor McLain asked how far the Hagg Lake raise is schedule behind that of the RWSP Update. Ms. Stickel advised that she has been attending the Tualatin Basin Supply Study monthly meetings. She noted that they have hired a consultant and begun developing options. Ms. Stickel reported that they are working on a number of issues associated with the options they are looking at. Clean Water Services is the managing entity for the Tualatin Basin Supply Study. She noted most of the west side water providers are participating in the study. Ms. Stickel explained that it appears the Bureau of Reclamation has delayed the project some. The Bureau of Reclamation is the operator of the project,which puts the project into a federal realm and adds a new dimension of requirements. One of the requirements needed for the project is a biological effect opinion. Montgomery Watson, the consulting firm for the project, indicated there was a real need for the biological work to be done so that it can be used as a key building block for doing an evaluation of the effects of the raise of Hagg Lake. Councilor McLain stated that her concern was that the Regional Water Supply Plan Update is not outdated before it is finished. She commented if we want the work being done within the Tualatin Basin Supply Study to be part of the overall integrated RWSP Update process, the Consortium has to make that happen. She noted that of all the components in the RWSP Update, this could be the most problematic. Councilor McLain commented that when the original RWSP was adopted by all the participating Consortium entities, that gave the Plan validity, a form of stability and she felt allowed the Consortium to still be in existence today. She expressed concern if the Consortium presented the RWSP Update without that same joint effort and all of the entities endorsing the same language for the Update; she doesn't know if Metro could use the RWSP Update for their charter responsibilities. Councilor McLain stated she would like to have further discussion about whether the Update will be a Plan that all of the Consortium entities are going to endorse as supportively as with the original RWSP. Adoption of the Budeet/Workplan for FY 2002-03: Lorna Stickel commented that the Board members received the Budget/Workplan for FY 02-03 by mail prior to the Board meeting so there was not a need to review it in detail. Ms. Stickel said because the Board did not meet quorum requirements, action could not be taken on the budget:. Proxy voting or obtaining votes from those not in attendance at a later date is not permitted. Ms. Stickel suggested three options: 1. Provisionally adopt the Budget/Workplan for FY 02-03 with those Board members that are in attendance but then actually adopt the budget at the June Consortium Board meeting. Ms. Stickel noted that she had not:heard from any entities that had concerns with the budget. She said if the budget was provisionally adopted at this time then the dues could be incorporated in each entities own budget. 2. Schedule another Board meeting in April in hopes of at that time meeting quorum requirements. 3. Arrange a conference telephone call. 6 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2002 Vice President Jim Duggan commented he would support either provisionally adopting the budget at this meeting or the arranging of a conference telephone call. He advised that the Tualatin Valley Water District Board in the past has taken action via a conference call set up. Vice President Duggan said his Board is very comfortable with the Budget and feels, with everyone's busy schedule, trying to have another Board meeting in April could be problematic. Chair Les Larson asked if there were any members present who had concerns about the budget. No concerns were voiced by any of the Board members present. Councilor Joyce Patton commented she was unsure whether a provisional adoption of the budget/workplan is legally valid. She stated she is not aware of any legal force a provisionally adopted budget would have that would make any of the individual Consortium entity Boards feel more comfortable about the a provisionally adopted budget then as it stands right now. Councilor Patton felt the conference telephone call would be the best option. She said the City of Tigard Council has taken action via conference call as well. Councilor Forrest Soth reported that the City of Beaverton has also done conference calling and supported that option. Rockwood PUD Board President Sandra Ramaker stated she is not in favor of the conference calling option. She expressed concern that trying to get so many people involved in a conference call at the same time and everyone being able to hear one another may be difficult. John Thomas commented that if the concern with postponing the adoption of the budget until the June Board meeting is that the individual entities would have problems with their budgets, he did not think that was an issue. Mr. Thomas stated if an entity supports the FY02-03 Consortium budget, their dues share should appear in their budget whether action is taken now or in June. Mr. Thomas stated he felt the adoption of the budget could wait until the June Board meeting and if that time quorum requirements were not met, a conference call could be arranged. Lorna suggested if the Board members wanted to do the conference call meeting option, it should be done as soon as possible. Ms. Stickel said arrangements could be made so that those Board members who are available could meet in person and those who are not could call in via a conference call. She noted that there would need to be public notice given and public comment opportunity must be made available. Ms. Stickel stated she would prefer taking action on the budget by trying to do a conference call now as opposed to waiting until the June Board meeting. She noted the timeline would be very tight if the Board waited until June. Ms. Stickel commented that large contracts with consultants are out and depending on the adoption of the budget which could make things awkward if the Consortium waited until June. Commissioner Bruce Fontaine commented he was not comfortable waiting until the June Board meeting to adopt the budget. Commissioner Fontaine stated it is better business to take action on the adoption of the budget sooner rather than later. Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2002 Lorna Stickel asked if a Special Consortium Board meeting to adopt the budget could piggyback on to a Regional Initiative meeting. Ms. Stickel stated more than half of the Consortium entities are also involved in the Initiative. Ed Wegner reported that the participating staff is planning to propose to the Regional Initiative Board that they begin meeting monthly on the fourth Thursday of the month. Mr. Wegner noted,however,not all of the Regional Initiative Board members may be the same as the Consortium Board members. Ms. Stickel said she would research meeting alternatives and dates. She said since the Consortium functions under the Oregon Public Meetings Law, a telephone conference call is a viable option. Regional Water Supply Plan Update Invitational Panel: Lorna Stickel reported that six panel members were invited to attend the second Regional Water Supply Plan Update Invitational Panel but unfortunately three members cancelled at the last minute. Ms. Stickel said representatives from the Oregon Environmental Council, Citizens for Safe Water and the Tualatin River Watershed Council would not be present for the; stakeholder panel presentations and she would attempt to meet with them at another time or invite them to another Board meeting. The panel members were invited to come before the Consortium Board to present their ideas, issues, concerns, or recommendations regarding the Regional Water Supply Plan Update. The three panel members present were Ralph Feely from the Bull Run Heritage Foundation, Steve Rayne from the Sandy River Watershed Council and Michael Carlson from the Clackamas River Watershed Council. Bull Run Heritage Foundation: Ralph Feely from the Bull Run Heritage Foundation began the panel discussion. Mr. Feely is the acting President of the Bull Run Heritage Foundation. He is a retired Army Corps of Engineers staff engineering geologist and former Chief of the Exploration Unit. While with the Corps,he worked on the Bonneville Darn Second Powerhouse and Navigational Locks, conducted foundation analysis of the Johi Day Dam, Applegate Dam, coastal jetties, Spirit Lake Debris Dams investigation and South Fork Toutle River Dam subsurface investigation. Currently,Mr. Feely is a consulting geologist with specialties in coastal geology, design and construction of water wells, groundwater hydrology,build site and landslide evaluations. Mr. Feely reported that the Bull Run Heritage Foundation was founded in 1996 in response to the logging in the Bull Run and the threat of using the Willamette River as a source of water supply. He stated that the Bull Run Heritage Foundation is art advocacy group that supports clean water from the best possible source and water in sufficient supply that satisfies both domestic and industrial needs. Mr. Feely commented that as :for the future,the Bull Run Heritage Foundation is concerned about having safe water, a large quantity of affordable water and taking care of the water system. Mr. Feely noted that the Bull Run Heritage Foundation strongly supports the efforts of Portland Commissioner Erik Sten to regionalize the Bull Run system. Mr. Feely commented the region has enough water, the problem is lack of water storage. He stated that the Columbia Southshore Wellfields should not be incorporated in long range water planning and used as a regular source of water. Mr. Feely emphasized the Bull Run Heritage Foundation supports building a third dam in the Bull Run and a filtration plant. The 8 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2002 Foundation opposes the use of the Willamette River as a water source and wants the Columbia Southshore Wellfields to be returned to a back up water supply source to be used during emergencies only. Sandy River Watershed Council: Steve Rayne has been a member of the Sandy River Basin Watershed Council since 1998, and Chairman since 2000. Mr. Raynes has a B.S. in Geology from the University of Wisconsin. After working in groundwater monitoring, he went on to get a law degree at Lewis and Clark College, Northwestern School of Law in Portland. Mr. Raynes has been an attorney in a private solo practice since 1991. He owns a small farm with a quarter mile frontage on the Sandy River downstream from Marmot Dam. He is an avid cross country skier,backpacker, and canoeist. Mr. Raynes reported that the Sandy River Basin is an important water source for the region. It includes the Bull Run and Alder Creek, which is the water supply source for the City of Sandy. The Sandy River Watershed Council is comprised of members from Portland and Sandy. Mr. Raynes commented that pure, unpolluted water is one of the Northwest's greatest and most valuable resources and also one of the most taken for granted. He noted that because water providers do such a good job at providing water, it makes it easy for people not to think about where that water comes from or the hidden cost associated with water production and distribution. Mr. Raynes commented the hidden costs to the environment and the environmental impact of water production and distribution are rarely recognized. He noted those environmental impacts need to be included along with the more traditional costs such as dams and pipes and their value recognized. Mr. Raynes explained this could be done by conservation and education, incentive pricing, water set aside for instream flows, conservative estimates of water demand and mitigation in other places in the basin. Mr. Raynes commented education of customers and water conservation is the key to recognizing water as a valuable resource. Commissioner Bruce Fontaine asked if the Sandy River Watershed Council supports the Regional Bull Run Initiative. Mr. Raynes said they have not yet taken an official position on the Regional Bull Run Drinking Water Supply Initiative. Clackamas River Watershed Council: Michael Carlson is the current Watershed Coordinator for the Clackamas River Basin Council. Mr. Carlson has done natural resource planning,program development,project management and education in Oregon for twenty years. Since 1992, he has worked on Portland Metro area watershed issues for public,private, and non-profit organizations. Mr. Carlson specializes in developing collaborative community partnerships for watershed enhancement. Mr. Carlson explained the Clackamas River Watershed begins in Oregon City, follows highway 224, up through the Mount Hood National Forest then on to the Warm Springs Reservation, to Timothy Lake, down to Brighton-Bush in Detroit area,back up across the Molalla River and back down to Oregon City. It encompasses 900 square miles. The Clackamas River Basin Council's mission is to foster community partnerships and actions for a healthier Clackamas River Watershed. Mr. Carlson commented that the Council is made up of a diverse group of stakeholders including water providers,native american tribes, fish and wildlife groups, federal 9 4 Consortium Board Meeting • Minutes of March 6, 2002 government, special districts, agriculture, the environmental community, and neighborhood associations. Mr. Carlson reported that on October 24, 2001, the Clackamas River Basin Council sponsored a River Talk Forum, in which interested stakeholders could come; and discuss issues and concerns related to the Basin. The primary issues discussed at this forum were what is the role of the Clackamas River in meeting regional water supply needs and does the demand on the Clackamas River exceed supply. The forum explored other issues such as water rights, new sources, conservation, municipal peak demands that coincide with fish water needs, role of dams, identifying in-stream flow priorities,promotion of public education about water use and conservation, and the future Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion. Mr. Carlson commented the Clackamas River Basin Council would encourage the Consortium, in the RWSP Update, to consider conservation, source protection and education. Mr. Carlson noted that the Council is currently working on a source water assessment of all of the tributaries in the lower basin, and conducting assessments at the sub watershed level. A basin wide assessment and summary of all the watershed assessments that have been done in the past is scheduled to begin in the fall of 2002. Mr. Carlson explained this assessment work is leading to the development of a prioritized action plan. The council is working with private landowners as part of an area enhancement program. They have worked with sixty landowners and planted 35,000 trees in the past two years. Mr. Carlson said he looked forward to opening a regional dialog about water supply issue and look forward to working with water providers. Consortium Board Chairman Les Larson thanked the panel for attending the Board meeting. State and Resional Updates: None Other Business: Lorna Stickel noted the Consortium Technical Committee(CTC) and Subcommittee (CTSC)have had discussions about having breakout sessions to talk about conservation issues at the June Consortium Board meeting. Ms. Stickel suggested it would help facilitate the discussions if the Consortium Board members had the opportunity to talk to their Boards and Councils about conservation issues prior to the June Consortium Board meeting. Forrest Soth suggested if possible he would like to have information regarding what conservation programs have been accomplished,what still needs to be accomplished and at what cost. Approval of Minutes: The meeting minutes for December 5, 2001 were not approved because the Consortium Board did not meet quorum requirements. The meeting minutes will be presented again for approval in June. A motion was voiced to adjourn the Consortium Board Meeting. The motion was seconded. The Consortium Board meeting was adjourned at 9:07 p.m. The next meeting of the Consortium Board is Wednesday, June 5, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Metro Council Chamber/Annex. Submitted by Patty Burk, Consortium Staff 10 A'yeg'vote on Tualatin water issue can't hurt here are a number of things wrong with the fact that Tualatin residents are voting this month on a ballot measure requiring a vote before the community is asked to drink Willamette River water. First,and perhaps most obviously,you wouldn't think a city would have to hold a vote of the people before making such a decision.But,in the view of the opponents'of the Willamette River scheme,there's been a huge,swirling whirlpool of an effort to suck Tualatin and other neighboring com- munities into Wilsonville's plan to build a treatment plant near them even though the idea drew loud boos from Sherwood,Tigard and Tualatin practically from the time it was first proposed. Now,of course,the plant is built,and even though Tualatin voters ruled by a large margin in May 2000 that the city should not spend $5 million to hook up to the Wilsonville plant—not to mention that Sherwood and Tigard have also approved similar charter amend- ments—there is worry among many that Tualatin residents might still wind up drinking Willamette River water. And who can argue with them,really? In all fairness to the Tualatin contingent of Citizens for Safe Water,the group behind this bid to amend the city charter,it does seem that this whole issue has a tendency to come back to life every so often. We are on record as not sharing the overwhelming revulsion an_d fear about Willamette River water that Citizens for Safe Water do; and we don't have believe for a second that the elected officials whd answer to the public have any such intentions. s But we're also not big fans of making citizens do things they don't want to do.Because of that,we offer a qualified recommenda- tion in favor of Ballot Measure 34-49.It shouldn't be necessary(and, might not be),but it can't hurt. I I t Integrated Water Resources Management Water Supply Feasibility Study Project Progress Report- May 15, 2002 These are the project elements completed since the last report of Water Manager Group meeting of April 17, 2002. 1. Feasibility Study Project Review ■ The work has been focusing on the sources options review, identification of impact areas,including the road relocation and field studies. Jeanna and.I are in the process updating the Hagg Lake neighbors and asking for permission to access properties to conduct the field studies. I was able to use low cost resources to determine the potential road relocation impact areas for the Hagg Lake perimeter road. Further review of the road relocation areas will be needed to determine the impacts, final alignment and costs. ■ On April 22,we met with BOR staff to discuss the coordination of the BOR tasks with MWH work elements. Due to other federal budget priorities,the BOR reduced budgeted for the Study in next fiscal year to $25,000. This amount is not adequate to complete the tasks that they agreed to complete as part of the Study. Given the reduced BOR funding and the impact to the Study, I contacted Tim Rutten of ReedSmith to determine if it was possible to obtain additional BOR funding for next year. Reed Smith provides governmental affairs assistance for Washington County and has been success in obtaining federal monies for their projects. This contract is limited to $25,000 and only for the next 9 months. The request is for$500,000 for 2003-2004 fiscal year. The estimate for the BOR tasks is estimated at approximately$310,000. The tasks include the dam engineering, economics,cultural resources and flood control. ■ The hydrologic modeling has been started with the collection of the streamflows and other related information. The work has continued to look at the Sain Creek Tunnel element as related to the hydrologic impacts. I contacted Oregon Department of Forestry and obtained fish survey and other information from adjacent forestlands near the Hagg Lake. ■ For the stakeholder process—the next steps are meetings to present the source options with Watershed Council, Clean Water Advisory Commission,Hagg Lake neighbors, and partners elected officials. There has been a discussion as to how best to interact with the general public on the source options. It has been suggested to provide project materials to all the partners and use existing events and forums to build awareness and gather comments. Progress Report 1 rage 1 of L May 15, 2002 TO: Interested Stakeholder FROM: Mark Knudson and Yone Akagi SUBJECT: DRAFT 2002 Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and Contingency Plan Attached is the Draft 2002 summer supply plan, otherwise known as the Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and Contingency Plan. This draft plan is being sent to you and to a list of about 200 other stakeholders for review. We welcome your questions and comments on the draft plan. Please return your questions and comments to Yone Akagi (2010 N Interstate Avenue, Portland OR 97227 or yakagi@water.ci.portland.or.us <mailto:yakagi@water.ci.portland.or.us>)by Friday, May 24th. We anticipate revising the plan based on your input and then briefing City Council on the plan in June. Highlights of the Draft 2002 Plan include the following: * The Bull Run reservoirs are full and are expected to stay full through the spring. * We expect to have adequate baseline supplies to meet water demand, even in a warm dry summer. * Baseline water supplies include water conservation, Bull Run(stored water and streamflow), offloads to wholesale customers, and groundwater. * Water conservation will be a key component of effective water supply management. The Water Bureau will be implementing a variety of wise water use programs, many of which are in collaboration with the Regional Water Providers Consortium. * Re-examination of drawdown limits has reduced the Bull Run reservoir storage estimate from 10.2 BG to 9.9 BG. * A new well has been added to baseline, Group A. This well was constructed in the Sand and Gravel Aquifer and is now available. * The TVWD wells (2.5 MGD) have been moved from Tier 1 to Tier 2. * Flow releases for fish will continue in 2002. Federal law requires protection of steelhead and chinook. The amount released from storage for fish will vary depending on the weather. Key factors in decision making include steelhead spawning in the spring, water temperatures during the summer, and chinook spawning in the fall. Thank you for your interest in the City of Portland's Seasonal Water Supply file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW}00035.HTM 5/17/02 Lake Oswep, West Lion, Wilsonville � ori LAKE OSWEGO a' The i ili{t 1 it4al keL ICI;} n i` i p�, �� Ut yJ� r Johnna Tokarz (ktm People, Page 5 EST LINK Rosemont, Ridge student's I;i lkL zhei.Dein,, Kows Tor Kids • Education, Page b ILSO VILLE #, #' pro {ased natural gasielina ij l eae TI"le ( C�gOnl ll uvron lg way,says a crwc • Opinion, Page 8 THURSDAY ♦MAY 16, 2002 METRO SOUTHWEST BUREAU: 503-294-5984 OR 503-968-7048 VOTE 200 dges water quality Five ea 61v ve;r W*Isonvi e ju to lea in "My customers used to ask for bottled water," Although most agree the water u softer,j Sims said."This new water is great.It's like compar- ing night and day." i business owners and residents have mixed But Randi Gitts said the new water tastes"dead," opinions about the Willamette and she won't drink it without dropping a slice of Clackamas lemon into the glass. By RICK BELLA "I've had tons of customers say, `Wilsonville THE OREGONfAN „ _.. water? No thanks. I'll take a Coke, said Gitts, a WI COunty ISONVILLE--Go ahead and say whatever you server at Wankers Comer Saloon and Cafe. "I don't want about the city's new drinking water because think much of it at all." i everyone else does. At the Coca-Cola bottling plant on Southwest Bar- Walt Sims said the highly treated water drawn ber Street,the city's largest water customer at about from the Willamette River is"wonderful,"asgood as 100,000 gallons a day, the quality-control staff ad- , :The incumbent seems to have the highly touted Bull Run water that supplies Portlusted the company's pretreatment processes when land and his home in Gresham.He said he no longer the water supply switched over. erzeNr wo�AHN/rHE OREGONIAN the. Democratic advantage, GOP "We have to make sure that whatever water we •• g has to scrub mineral buildup from the stainless steel Walt Sims says Wilsonville's new'water from the hopefuls rejectpolitical sinks in his Uncle Wally's BBQ Restaurant and Cat- use meets our standards of uniformity," said Bob Willamette River is better-tasting than the water the city perlEYtce(is Crucial ering Service. Please see WATER, Page 9 previously drew from its wells. By STEVE MAYES THE OREGONIAN One crafty veteran.A challenger ready --for Round 2. Three hopefuls, enthusias tic but short on experience. � ���x�t, •- .,�. Classroom All five are seeking a four-year term as Clackamas County commissioner. is 'The incumbent, Larry Sowa, is run- -: 4 placement ning for his second term in the$68,588- • science, art a-year position.He faces two challengers in the Democratic primary: Mike Schaufler and Patricia Torsen. =` Two Republicans, Paul Kraxberger and Ed Mathews,will face off in the GOP t■0&CII . r 1. C66 W_c 13 Z)Ll vl l .Cil 1C. VV U UL 11 i6 In L%wi a only✓ - v ,z�.,,�,;,3,p►�ri :yam! +:•+a t ti�� ,,;•q * { :p ,�•o � l z>< yy,;"�5.•s�i�A,- { :: ., •IHafaual Colas { t'2' . 1'. _`. •;,. 1 (. _-p. T t�{YIYiYtIrE flQd r6tI1 tied�from'pag� r wrements;wlus�areaz-tougher :�' "r _ Ctnaiionneau,and they've noticed "Demographically, our, clientele Fewfar watet(� that rt so a lot better.", seems to b a lot of unified water feceia?;iegtulrements, a aps uP uy P Phillips;. aCoca-Colaneo .eo. `ute a%Qticaltycauseslhe Tlie :water-softness issue,' has - f' _ 'ari y,,and we didn't see the big mP Despite an undercurrent o dis spokesman, It's unportant�to:us rfikers ti3 be back-flushgo been a big;deal•to Sud L;ee;:'who ' satisfaction musing through many sP* expected that the prodiicE('�Gherev�er you i t ^ ,;�x "0th te$t§ are,:d i the Coffee'Break shop on 'Opinions of WilsonviIle's water;few Olson said he rson favors J,dt_, - ,.. .. er,;.�,. . , Wil' P: Pe �y it,>s going w taste the same inotfthtyt quarteii .and,annually, Maui Streets.fdr"'Ebur years. Al, people apparently have taken the the new.water, but readily admits But Phi7ups ;declined to say. �to remain better than the state though she filteis the water. that plunge for Home filtering systems, that it's a matter of personal`pref- �$ whether the nett/water.>s better or Health Divisnoi , regulations," he` feeds into her coffee-makers and erence and that longtime oppo- worse for Coke's;purposes�r` said. ' _ , sod epfto �dssspe rs,•the old'water Cleaners still selling nents of drinking from the Willam- And at the Xerox,plant, which has l a- ' ve tesidue, There is. little'-doubt that .the: Russ Dubbels,owner of Shebus- ette may never be wonover. uses about 30,000 gaIIons of water water pressure . better around "Lookt the calcium buildup on la'&Tloyd's hardware and grocery, "We probably have the cleanest a d:ty;pff ciaLs said it's tori early to town. The<city's eigh't':wells for- my inacldnes; she:said pointing said he has fielded only a couple of water in the state now,"Olson tell'wliat effect'the'new:tilater wiIl merly'produced,barely enough " to a white-cnisf on''her-espresso inquiries for home systems.Mean- But whether you like the water have on the company's processes.' water—definitely:too little during maker. "Usually, after."wash- while, he said, his sales of water- may bea.perception_issue. And "We're still.not sure yet," said the heavy-use summer'months... ung,:I would get white spots on 'softening salts have fallen off,while when people. make choices, per- BMI �� anything'made of glass: Now I sales'of cleaning agents have re- . ception is their reality. Erin Isselmann, spokeswoman at At the same time,the water was , , Wilsonville's Xerox campus, the of or quality, UN dont see that, and-there's less p po q ty,;sometimes somanned steady: chlorine smell." city's largest employer with more laced with from and.manganese "We're still'selling pumice sticks AtItO;MA�I"SItYCE 1921'' than 1,500 people on the payroll. that it had to receive extra treat- Kim Chong, who has run Rose to clean.the toilets,"Dubbels said .Our people still are trying to mea- ment before it could Ne distributed Qeaners.on Main;Street.for. four "I don't know if people have made cregools 1,Volume Ism Dealer sure the changes. for household rise years; said the waren probably is up their minds yet".:;, In other words, the new water "I went through a couple steam softer and easier ori his laundry At lamb's Thriftway,store direc- has drawn asplit verdict Or maybe irons that got all caked up,' said p . . ® HILLIER O for Jun Olson said he expected a a�«� , the jury still is out . Kiln Burns; who.has lived in Wil "But i just spent$995 for a water' big surge*,in in bottled-water sales. AS > sonvflle since 1983. "I've been us- filter, it mi&t same for . „ . But in any case,water quality,is - - - . . � , � But it never came . .` 1�.EALTORS` ung a spray bottle,foi years now." me at work,"he said."But at home, a big question around town "We've been`following the sales we drink o bottled water.I have APR figures,and there doesn't seem to We'r Wilsonville struck ars'mde 'n- � Although Bums was disgusted. mY .. We'reHere to Hopi Pe two lads who dont.want to drink Cali foraMEEMarkefAna is 48 mos dent course April 29,becomm the with the old water, she isn't com- " y switching h� g fortable with drinking the ,new tap water,soT have no choice. be connection with switc y : On ALI..NeW 2001 first city in the Portland area to tap g over the city's water, Olson said. 5503-288. Is water. She said she is thinking of At The Place to Be salon,where & 2002. 11ZUS the much-maligned Willamette for In p80 of factory rebate its water.Ci officials aze having bottled water delivered for good shampooing.is the shop's her, her husband,`their three cats stock in trade,the softer water has banking,on a;new:$0.,million ,, RS:.,. .; and their dog: _. meant more bubbles: f YEA, , treatment plant than-forces`"the z • ;, FAMOUS Water;through seven processes be ;Burns +concede however; that The shampoo does suds UP MILES. fore delivering.it to kitchen taps the Willamette water is much soft,- better," stylist Cbreen Kraemer wn► Y' 1 The result;they say;>s some.of the said. "A lot of my clients are from ,.{r� } �,(r 1 hil�y Processed,;;rigorovstY most � . { . Y <' OIL (MANGE tested water an . ere:;; _ : .�� s x ` •,'� .. n.. _. ,Q1Cl 9Xha ar�ea�f«md�nY�Q, • Ndw 4 NEW. ."We haven't heard Misch about =r YOUR TEE' HMAKE UP-90% OF YOUR.SIMILE`= VM 0okiaw 0 � "• Yt t :�,�o AG. ,AODE °,410W,StBFW x4 the water since we switc�hdovi `, Y U 906 15R NEED TO HIDE �T" �' ,"�'"°`ret3100�° ,,. said Jeff Bauman,the cit�+'s public' O c�cirtdy Richter ar 5os 7�os-23s�' works directors"But what little OR FEELS F CONSCIOUS ABOUT IT «503 288§303' we're hearing:has*q very pose Initially, some.P 04 �coin Y ': ph-tined about the dilor ik Added in the last process, a'fedeial`te �r _ � , •' t `; t" quire to kill brteria,:that I - 1 1 PER Capital HIP$234,950 . ` ;. AT M01, might be in the water-lures: The ,;� a" i` Haw In 2000'4 .2 5 ice;nreplo�e: ffi„,� � ' sRP city put in an extra-heavy load of ,, ,, = N l� ® l r►rx,e a i mI t«�ar im,z�r�o- U Jz 3ry x.: :i?' 1. Ql0 rage,����range{ Pie VT 'cam► R.fic.&Trde 5 «trade plus 1st p i I ezrerylfring`apse to town OR.pc.&Tine& hpe.Qrteg pros fee,5300. chlorine to kill`any residual bade- `I.t-� . w dei.$595 acq tee tmahn9$2187 due at ria from the".old”water. MlGieft or Bob kou incept Total leaser $20,423 noel$300,, 503-288,9303'or503 970-5092 _ l 2398.SW Schdils Ferry I refundable sec dep.Aesidual$8957.$0 terirr City testi continues -' I X503 5901582 Garden Home contemporary fee.12K mpes/yr,0n approve0 credit $�,900 z. •. =j y6�r i> :This 4 bcain 3 tip tiath' Since_the ty ORDINARY DENTURE ; SUSAN STOVALL'S OOSMETICS- 1 '�' t , BSL &6J '' n;.the ci has been UALA W. needt c .bUr y. .wm reap ft continuing a battery Of tests t0 HIGH$TANDAR6 PRODUCE GREAT RE3ULT51 CALL FOR COMPLIMENTARY EVALUATION 4 i'f SW Fe0y, :I regrcis o[soca kzbor:9ew11fU fenced over 19 Bb0t1@5 )l.coo fl lot in txr►re c loose in locanw. y make sure the Willamette water THEA�01?/fu1BLi/�LtE�?MA71V�rOOkOIN/IRIrDENMJWS I 1`503)692 005 1' cdt Combsaf503-288-9303 or exceeds federal - x a'��'<a «503-e10-27a2. ;j meet l ST 11 N I' I V .V 1� Ross C Townlioms� SWISS DENTU E itBNTER ';' .9151'a 8tiYINliON iD water standards. Red fo;199,504 " s:, _ 9r aeino 4' aiif:nr ae�v a MAX m�, . REM IN do-sidw 81MILCM I 1Willomefte Drrve`.' i Some of the.tests are'continu- > * 16'130 S `' It���•j1/@ I 15031-62627 I ores from n'2,t oo° tt;3 ndRn 2 5 bth " Clackamas;bR X7015 ous and hooked to co iters, 7„at ';SO �l-6 � X11����tt .. .. Baumansa ..k .. y.. ._. 7if.• �c. iGi4yt t SN _ �V I M_p g $. I Mod”,tam nd'p�w LIZ s M.ug� - BrochweAvahable.^o P. � armw.. I ;_ a �ouldde malr>f 8� '503-M-8801-, . t ,.- " � .. I ..Not yard widenolher Nd cosh; :I roar.PItIS =&w eal rk waken toot-. SibJerflopf�rsak Sudsy. tq app r For exam le, a said, sf clouds- . . Cc"Ob« So3-28e-9 xll,00z creep 0 LkA 4Vve131ep.ploc•fW* P so6s7SOO 1 ,800.446 '1369 �i�. ir�$ i,soos -ness ever exceeds the city's re- Co 11 sti. Bu .,.Run Ian backed Y P A anel r ers a$202 million technology that has never The 19-member Bull Run p p been tried on so large a scale, BULL RUN TREATMENT panel, due to recommend a membrane filtration project, the sparking worries about a sce- ,,.` ,;;, solution to Portland's City nano akin to the bureau's A citizens panel is deciding among different optionsfor Council in July after more most expensive option,for the persistent computer billing treating water iii Portlariti s Brill luta reservoirs.The costs,to Portland-area water supply s tem troubles..The billing be borne bycity and suburbaii""I tomers`va wider man a year of work, has set y P ," '. f% N ,y up three public meetings for ystem was unproven when Treatment method Plan};c+�slt pnnu June.The council is expected By SCOTT LEARN the city purchased it in 1997. THE OREGONIAN operating cost to make a quick decision so But a majority of the:Bull Ultraviolet d0nfection S55 m Ilion` $52 million planning and permitting can A citizens panel reviewing future treat- Run Treatment Panel is lean- Ozone disinfecliort $6fa milllar�T : S�Zmillion begin.Water Bureau officials ment of Portland's vaunted Bull Run ing toward putting a mem- 'birect filtration $179i'>l illioi ;"' $6 5 ri'iillion want to build a plant by 2011. water supply is leaning toward the op- brane treatment plant the Membiane filfration $202 million ;`; $8 rtiillion The membranes would tion with the heftiest price tag. Powell Butte nature preserve, sairce.Poruartd Water Bureau. Membrane filtration carries a $202 according to city officials'and capture federally regulated million construction cost.A cityconsul pathogens such as cryptos- an interim report issued last oridium, which chlorine tart says the.plant would boost Port- P land's`already rising residential water week filtered drinking water supplies in the doesn't kill. They would also capture bills by$5.13 to $13.20 a quarter, a 12 Supporters say membrane filtration United States.A federal rule expected to mud, ending shutdowns of the Bull Run percent to '30 percent increase. Port- has the best potential to remove. both take effect in 2010 will require the city to after torrential winter storms. land's wholesale changes to the suburbs '`mud and microbes;making the.Bull Run treat its water to,eliminate cryptosporidi And they would snare construction itsupplies also would rise. supply more reliable. um,a parasite;that killed more than 100 mud and debris if the city builds a third Rutrtiiiig '.,through membranes The two:-Bull; Run reservolrs,..near people and'sickened 400,000 in Milwau- dam upstream on the Bull Run River. with microscopic holes is a developing Mount)`-foodareamonga-handfd6funL" keein'1993: Please see BULL RUN,Page B4 Bull Run: Chlorine ineffective on parasite Continued from Page Bl sewage from overflowing into the BULL RUN„MEETINGS Willamette River and Columbia That's important to Water Bu- Slough. reau Commissioner Erik Sten, The Bull Run Treatment Panei i has set up three meetings in "In the best of all worlds, we who favors a third dam to provide June to get the public's opinion' would just haul off and build a fil- more water for threatened wild on"how Bull Run water should" tration plant," Formick said. "But fish and to help supply the grow- be treated.All meetings run the bureau is facing incredible fis- ir_g suburbs.Adding more subur 'from,' p,'n.to II:.O p.m. cal pressure right now and rates ban customers to the 800,000 peo ♦Portland•Tuesday,June 4; are under incredible pressure j ple the city supplies would help atThe Portland Building Room 4, from other projects coming down spread the costs of unavoidable 1;:i120 S W Fifth Ave: the pike." building projects,Sten says. �;. The water and sewer bureaus Serena Cruz, panel chairwom sham.Thursday,June 5, atWesiiam City Hafi;Oregon:" have both proposed about 8 per an,Sten's political ally and a Mult- Trail/Sp'rmgwater ronms 1333 cent rate increases for July 1.The nomah Courity commissioner l astman Parkway Water Bureau's total includes a i who is running for an open City �'rualaitln Vm1ey:, Ilesday bump to accelerate a$65 million Council seat in September,said a =,1tlrell at the Tualatin Valley. project to cover the four open ; long timeline for construction Nater District office,, , S.W Fater• storage reservoirs inside should give the city time to avoid 1,V ollAve: Portland. taking an undue risk with a cut ting edge'technology. A group of ?•. Other cities,other options experts who advised the panel Seattle, Tacoma and San Fran- recommended not buying mem- doesn't introduce other chemicals cisco, all with systems similar to brane filtration unless large plants into the water system," Diloreto Portland's, are moving toward were already functioning by the said. "If something happens at ultraviolet or ozone disinfection, time of the final purchase and the Bull Run now,whether it's a storm not filtration, said Rosemary Me- ;I vendor could guarantee perform- or a fire or earthquake,we have no nand, the Water Bureau's director 1 ance for at least 10 years. way to filter contaminants out." of water resources management. The city s chlorine treatment is So far,only one panel member, But their supplies are less likely j not effective at killing cryptospori- Jay Formick, who represents the to become muddy,she said,mak- j ditun,�t4fth testing shows at very Portland Utilities Review Board, ing filtration less important. The low levels in the Bull Run supply. favors the least expensive option Bull Run system has shut down Suburban water departments of ultraviolet light disinfection. three times in the past five years i supplied by the city are also lean- That method, with a cost of$55 because of mud rushing into the ing toward full filtration, city offi- million, would kill cryptosporidi- reservoirs from winter storms. cials said. Beyond increasing reli- um but not filter out mud or pre- Portland has a backup well field �. ability, it would prevent cloudy vent discoloration. supply along the Columbia River water and remove discoloration It would increase typical quar- that can cover winter demand if from fall leaves, which prompts terly residential bills"for water by the Bull Run system goes down. frequent customer complaints. $1.65 on average over the 45-year But the well fields, threatened off Fewer chemicals required Project life,or 4 percent compared and on with solvent pollution,are to the current $43.80 bill. For not popular with customers. Membrane filtration requires membrane filtration, the bill in- Several citizen panel members fewer chemicals than the tradi- creases $5.13 or 12 percent over question the wisdom ofickin a tional direct filtration method of the project life. treatment method before the city running water through beds of Assuming the city borrowed all and suburbs decide how Bull Run anthracite coal and sand. And it the money at once, first-year in- will be governed. Sten has pro- could work against unknown creases for membrane treatment posed forming a Bull Run Author- pathogens and microbes likely to would total about $13.20 a quar- ity that would give suburban cus- be regulated in the future, said ter, a whopping 30 percent jump, tomers an ownership share in Bull Greg DiLoreto, a panel member according to consultant Joe Glick- Run and general manager of the Tuala- er. City officials said they would If the deal falls through, that tin Valley Water District. likely phase in the project to re- Suburban customers include duce rate increases. could mean there t enough suburban customers to justify Tualatin Valley, Gresham, Powell Portland's water rates are in the building a third dam, erasing the Valley, Rockwood, Tigard and middle of the pack, according to benefit of having a filtration plant Tualatin. The board of Tualatin national comparisons. capture construction mud. Valley,the city's biggest suburban But high sewer costs have customer,vn;)nimorisly endorsed pushed the city's tonal sewer and membrane filtration last month. water rate to second .highest You can reach Scott Learn at "It is an absolute barrier to any among 50 big U.S. cities, in large 503-221-8564 or by e-mail at scot- type of contaminant, and it part because of projects to stop tlearn@news.oregonian.com.