Loading...
02/13/2002 - Packet Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area Wednesday, February 13, 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—Januar;, S, 2002 Motion from Board for minute approval. 3. Long Term Water Update—Ed Wegner(20 minutes) a. Joint Water Commission b. Regional Drinking Water Supply 4. Utility Manager Report—Dennis Koellermeier(1 S minutes) a. ASR b. Beaverton intertie c. Gaarde Street PRV 5. Lead and Copper Testing Update—Richard Sattler/Sally Mills (10 minutes) 6. Informational Items Items will be discussed briefly if time allows—otherwise printed info will be distributed. • ASR Project Monthly Report for December 2001 • Tigard goals: water, library, play areas, traffic, Oregonian article dated 1-10-02 • Payments to attend meetings possible, Oregonian article dated 1-11-02 • Integrated Water Resource Management,Water Supply Feasibility Study, Project Progress Report dated January 16, 2002 • Tigard Council set to decide future of city's water supply, 1-16-02 Tigard Times article • Tigard likes open option on water sources, Oregonian article dated 1-17-02 • Tigard backs participation in regional water supply agency, 1-24-02 Oregonian article 7. Public Comments Call for any comments from public. 8. Non Agenda Items Call for non-agenda items from Board. Next meeting date March 13, 2002, at Water Auditorium. 9. 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), (f)& (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues and to consiler-recor:ls that,are exempt by lal,,from public irspectior; All discussions within this session are confldential.- therefore nothing fi-om this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes Januaty 9, 2002 Members Present: Jan Drangsholt, Patrick Carroll, Joyce Patton, and Norm Penner Staff Present: Ed Wegner, Dennis Koellermeier, Craig Prosser and Kathy Kaatz Visitors: Phil Smith and Chris Uber 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions Staff called the role. Bill Scheiderich was out of town and excused. Craig Prosser, Finance Director, reported to the Intergovernmental Water Board that last night the Tigard City Council updated the investment policy used as a guide for handling excess funds. There was a change in the policy. Previously invested funds could only be invested for terms less than 18 months. The new term period will be 36 months. Since a portion of investments come from Water funds, the Council wanted the IWB to be aware and feel comfortable with the proposed policy change. He distributed copies of the proposed policy changes, asked them to review and let him know of any concerns. Commissioner Patton added that only a portion of the portfolio can be invested (no more than 20%). The change is an attempt to get the highest interest rates and best returns on the investment. 2. Approval of Minutes— November 14, 2001 Commissioner Jan Drangsholt motioned to accept the minutes of the November 14, 2001, meeting. Commissioner Joyce Patton seconded the motion. The vote to accept the minutes was unanimous. 3. Long Term Water Update— Ed Wegner Joint Water Commission — Integrated Water Resources Management Study— Summary: ■ Hired Montgomery Watson Harza to be the consultant to work with the Department of Reclamation. ■ Same figures to use for Regional Water Supply Plan and Bull Run. ■ 180-day peak season figure will be used. ■ Discussion on alternatives: Intergovernmental Water Board 1 January 9,2002 DRAFT COPY —� How to bring water to the Tualatin Basin, if Scoggins Dam is not raised? Criteria for the consultant and Bureau of Reclamation to evaluate, i.e., water quality, cost, efficient use of water. Scoping meetings required by federal law for continuation of the feasibility study. Several public meetings being held in Hillsboro over an 18 month period. Commissioner Carroll asked if much resistance was expected. Mr. Wegner indicated that the Audubon Society, Oregon Environmental Council, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Citizens for Safe Water and Sierra Club would ask what would be done to conserve water. Tigard has done a good job conserving water and that would be explained in the alternative study. Commissioner Patton said the federal government would want to see documentation on the conservation plan as part of the Feasibility Study for Hagg Lake. 4. Utility Manager Report— Dennis Koellermeier Water Main Break— Nearing the end of repairs from November's water main break. Cost to date is just over $75,000. ASR Update —As of this morning, water is being injected. The injection rate is not what was expected and currently is between 850-900 gpm. The hope was for 1000+ gpm. Other spots in the aquifer will be analyzed. Beaverton Intertie —All agreements have been signed. Contract will be awarded in early March and construction completed in late May. 5. Discussion of Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative— Ed Wegner/Joyce Patton Mr. Wegner distributed a handout and led an in-depth discussion on the Portland Plan for the Bull Run. He reviewed the schedule and encouraged all board members to attend the Tigard City Council work session on Tuesday, January 15tH at 6:30 p.m., where these draft recommendations would again be reviewed. At the January 22nd formal meeting, recommendations would be delivered in the form of a resolution or motion for Commissioner Patton to take to the meeting on January 24th with the other agencies wishing to proceed with the next phase in negotiations. The handout included seven conditions that were important to bring up in order to progress to the next phase. Condition #1 - The Scope of Work for the upcoming Implementation Phase shall include as a deliverable, the final cost each partner will be expected to pay. This shall include buy-in costs and future projected water costs for each member. Intergovernmental Water Board 2 January 9,2002 DRAFT COPY What is the bottom line? What will it cost? What does it mean as a customer? Portland needs to work on what is being offered. Things need to be defined. Commissioner Carroll questioned if the scope would look at what would be required to get water from the east side of Portland to the west side. Mr. Wegner and Commissioner Patton responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Patton stated that was why this condition uses the wording "final costs each partner will be expected to pay". This condition is critical. Every partner would be different in terms of their projected costs. Condition # 2 The new agency will not abandon the concept of regionalization. We understand the logic that has refocused the current effort to the Bull Run/Columbia Southshore wellfield. We also understand the financial benefits to the region of inter-tieing the principal sources. While it is clear that including the Willamette River as a potential regional source will not be accepted by the public, we believe that the Clackamas and Trask/Tualatin systems should be considered for inclusion at some future time. In order to move forward, are we willing to give up the Willamette River? It is not prudent for the Willamette River to kill the deal at this point. The cost factor is important. If not now, somewhere in the future we may be forced in the direction of the Willamette River. Tualatin Valley Water District is sitting on 50 mgd from the Willamette River with no environmental impact. Commissioner Drangsholt did not want regionalization shut out. Condition #3 Our current efforts to develop equitable wholesale contracts must be completed in a parallel process to this project. The wholesale contracts will be needed by the suburban partners to compare to the costs that will be identified in Condition #1. The wholesale contracts must be completed by August 1, 2002. Ed said that three answers are needed within the next year (by January 2003): • What will this Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative cost us? • How much will a wholesale contract cost us? • How much will the Joint Water Commission cost us? This would force Portland to finish working on the wholesale contract if they want participants to join them in the regional agency. Phil Smith is the engineering liaison on the wholesale negotiating committee. He said he has been surprised at the aggressiveness of Portland's staff, Dave Hasson and Anne Conway, who have been pushing to set up meetings. They are making a lot of progress quickly. The goal is that the rate consultant and City agree on a rate model. Intergovernmental Water Board 3 January 9,2002 DRAFT COPY A discussion about the Portland wholesale contract as an option took place. Mr. Koellermeier stated that the new agency document (IGA) would have to contain similar wording as a wholesale contract and would be necessary as a transition into the new regional agency. Condition #4 The Scope of Work for the next phase should list as a deliverable, a working draft of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) that will form the new agency. The IGA should be complete in that it will address governance, costs, operational rules, etc. (point is this work will answer all questions needed to make a decision, not lead to another study). The IGA should spell out everything, including a transition plan. Condition # 5 The new agency will provide for equity of supply and cost of sale amongst all members. Just because Tigard is the farthest south, that should make no difference. The rate model should use a specific formula with no additional costs for water for its members. The only additional costs would be to build a pipeline directly to Tigard as compared to Rockwood or Gresham. Water costs should be the same. Equity for all members (conservation, etc). Commissioner Patton said that the City of Portland could not benefit from all the wholesale contracts. Also, Portland cannot take their water from off the top and leave what was left to divide between the other members. There is equity to all. Condition # 6 The new agency will keep individual options open for local decisions. Tigard could go with the Joint Water Commission, the Willamette River, ASR, etc., as options without getting an approval from the new agency. Condition # 7 The new agency should not consider including distribution or other water delivery functions at this time. To include these issues now will only confuse the issues of equity, ownership costs, etc. Supply and transmission only. Portland wants the new agency to take over everything. This concept would mean all water bureau employees would be employed by the new agency. We want Tigard to continue to have local control of maintenance, reservoirs, distribution and collection of revenues. The program would cost each agency between $15,000 and $25,000, depending on how many agencies decide to participate (12-14 members staying in), for the Intergovernmental Water Board 4 January 9,2002 DRAFT COPY implementation plan. The IWB and staff would ask the Tigard City Council to authorize a figure not to exceed a certain amount. Some agencies would most likely drop off during the process. Other agencies are making conditional lists as well. How will their conditions line up with our conditions? Who might have a "deal killer"? This will be a difficult negotiation process. Many are intent on a Bull Run only system and do not want to consider the wellfields, the Trask or Clackamas Rivers. There is not a lot of logic in that viewpoint. It is an emotional issue and rationality does not apply. Commissioner Carroll stated this list of Conditions was a good list. He thought it would be good to see what other agencies come forward with on their lists. Comments on Condition #6 included: ➢ Chris Uber pointed out that #6 should definitely be kept. ➢ It is one of the most important conditions. ➢ It could be a deal killer. ➢ That flexibility is needed. ➢ Giving up that condition would be giving up our responsibility to the citizens. ➢ If we gave up regionalization, we would not be giving it up entirely at least on our local level. ➢ We would be able to do what we need to do in order not to be stuck. ➢ Regionalization may take care of itself down the line. It could become a forced issue. Comments on Condition #2 included: ➢ At some point environmental and political realities have to come together to provide a basic service like water. ➢ Maybe regionalization is the compromise. Perhaps it needs to be put on the back burner. ➢ Agency would need to eventually address environmental, political and cost issues. ➢ Keep regionalization in some form or that the language is not so specific that it excludes regionalization. Comments on Condition #7 included: ➢ It could be a deal killer- if distribution must be separate model. ➢ Sub-sets that want to include distribution are segregated from those who want to do supply and transmission only. ➢ The model would become more complex, but information could be gathered to track costs. ➢ Liability issues —Who is responsible? ➢ Distribution should be a separate entity. Comments on Condition #5 included: ➢ This condition will be on everyone's list. Intergovernmental Water Board 5 January 9,2002 DRAFT COPY Mr. Wegner said that at this point he was hearing that only#6 would be a real deal killer. Commissioner Carroll asked about the composition of the Board. If Portland has the majority of their members on the Board, would that be a deal killer? Comments on Condition #4 included: ➢ This could be a deal killer- if the 190 model agreement as /GA was not followed. Comments on Condition #3 included: ➢ What if Portland states they cannot do #3 by that date? ➢ If Portland wants the agency to go forward, they would have to have the information needed for the wholesale contract. Mr. Wegner stated that, at this point, Tigard has three options: 1. Wholesale contract agreement 2. Bull Run Authority 3. Continue with the JWC Mr. Wegner thought that one of these options would be dropped in a year and Tigard would move to pick up on the other two. We cannot have numbers 1 and 2 only as they are the same source. A combination of supply sources is needed. The cost impact was a major concern. It was discussed that between options #1 and #2, cost differences would be cheaper for option #2 because depreciation and rate of return would not be paid. With option #1 there would be continual increases. Summary of the upcoming meeting: January 15 - City Council work session (same type of discussion), 6:30 pm January 22 - City Council to give recommendations January 24 - Commissioner Patton to meet with other regional agencies 6. Informational Items • Bull Run Treatment article from City of Portland, Bureau of Water Works • Charter change about water more about trust, 11/15/01 article in Tigard Times • Hopes rise for vote on Willamette water plant, 11/19/01 Oregonian article • Burst water main floods Tigard streets, 11/20/01 article in Oregonian • Memo to Water Managers Group dated 11/21/01, Water Supply Feasibility Study Progress Report • Early-morning `river'surprises residents article in Tigard Times on 11/22/01 • Plan for single water agency is abandoned in 11/25/01 Oregonian article • Cooperation can keep Bull Run as water resource article in 11/27/01 Oregonian • Don't abandon talks on regional water plan, 11/29/01 article in Tigard Times • Regional Drinking Water Initiative article from City of Portland, Bureau of Water Works Intergovernmental Water Board 6 January 9,2002 DRAFT COPY • Water board reviews compensation, 12/19/01 Oregonian article • Silver lining looks like a full reservoir, 12/21/01 article in Oregonian • Tigard considers ideas for drinking water supply article in Oregonian on 12/21/01 Informational items were distributed for review by the Board Members. 7. Public Comments - None 8. Non-Agenda Items Next IWB meeting is scheduled for February 13, 2002. Commissioner Patton will report on the results of her meeting with the other regional agencies. A report on the ASR project was also requested for the February meeting. 9. Adjournment Commissioner Penner motioned to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Patton seconded the motion. The regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board adjourned at 7:10 p.m. Intergovernmental Water Board 7 January 9,2002 DRAFT COPY MONTGOMERY WATSON CITY OF TIGARD AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY PROJECT PHASE II MONTHLY REPORT DECEMBER 2001 SUMMARY OF DECEMBER WORK PROGRESS • Receipt of Limited License—Dec. 14 • Continue construction of pump house • Start-up system checks of piping and equipment • Water quality sampling • Continued weekly meetings • Change Order#1 signed by City for additional work SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED WORK ACTIVITIES IN JANUARY • Begin Pilot Test • Punch List items ISSUES AND PROBLEMS • City to review change order for booster pump • Delay in pilot test start due to equipment problems and holidays CITY OF TIGARD ASR PROJECT AUTHORIZED INVOICING SPREADSHEET DECEMBER Project Number 1530422 TASK MW PROJECT BUDGETED FEES THIS TOTAL FEES % OF BUDGETED % NUMBERS FEES MONTH TO DATE FEES TO DATE COMPLETE PHASE I - FEASIBILITY $90,000 $90,000 100% 100% PHASE 11 -ASR PILOT TEST PLAN 2.1 PERMITS AND WATER RIGHTS 022101 $35,900 $721 $36,351 101% 98% 2.2 SOURCE WATER NEGOTIATIONS 022802 $1,900 $0 $1,900 100% 100% 2.3.1 WELLHEAD MODIFICATIONS 021803 $42,600 $38,108 $42,600 100% 100% 2.3.2 NEW ASR WELL 021803 $248,000 $123,934 $127,806 52% 75% 2.4 ASR PILOT TEST 021804 $70,000 2.5 PILOT TEST REPORT 021805 $34,000 TOTAL-PHASE Il $432,400 $162,763 $208,657 48% 75% TOTAL- PHASE I &II 1 1 $522,4001 1 $298,657 % Complete reflects work already completed, but not yet billed. Tigard goals: water, library, areas, traffic ed on a long-term water source, it put a$13 million bond on the May nearly 500 single-family housing Mayor Jim Griffith notes has ruled out the possibility of us- ballot. The proposed 47,000- permits in the city limits and parts y ing the Clackamas River for now, square-foot building would be of unincorporated Washington progress and Updates he said. The city is deciding be- constructed off Southwest Hall County. But commercial building priorities for government in tween choosing a coalition that in- Boulevard near the current library. was down from $32.6 million in cludes Hillsboro, Beaverton and The city also has tackled the 2000 to$8.4 million in 2001. his State of the City address Forest Grove, or joining with port- ever-pressing issue of traffic with A key challenge will be the land and its Bull Run water system. recent approval of a traffic plan downward spiraling economy, By EMILY TSAo that looks at roads, sidewalks and which,probaby will reduce reve- TxE OREGONIAN In terms of recreation,the city is Public transportation needs in the nues for the city,he said. TIGARD — Getting closer to focusing much of its effort on future. But Griffith did wam resi Other challenges include study- finding a long-term water supply, youth, including offering more dents that traffic issues would con- ing the effects of the proposed Bull finding more ways for kids to play, after-school activities for students tinue unless they were willing to Mountain annexation,a 1,440-acre planning for a new library and!n- and creating the skateboard park pay for solutions. parcel.If the area were annexed to ishing a new traffic plan were some task force,which will design,locate City Manager Bill Monahan also the city, roads and parks would of the goals Tigard tackled last and find financing for a new park presented an executive summary need to be upgraded to city stan- year, Mayor Jim Griffith said in his Griffith also addressed the pro- of the city's achievements and dards. The city is trying to de- State of the City address Tuesday. gress the city has made with a new challenges for the future. temune how to pay for those Although the city has not decid- library. The City Council recently Monahan said the city issued needs. Payments to attend meetings possible o Three Tualatin Valley Water board members endorse a limit of$50 for an outside session By RICHARD COLBY THE OREGONIAN BEAVERTON—When should a Tualatin Valley Water District board member get $50 district In the work session, I'uchard expense money for attending an Burke, a member and the outside meeting? board's presiding officer,said he Not that often,says a majority generally favored Doane's sug- of the publicly elected but most- gestions but wouldn't mind re- ly uncompensated board. imbursing members for two Hashing over a proposed meetings a month of their compensation policy Wednes- choosing without any restric- day in a work session, three of tions. the district's five board members Melyan said she agreed with expressed support for limiting Burke's idea. ! expense payments to meetings Clark Balfour, the district's in which a board member is spe- lawyer,said he would redraft the cifically assigned to represent proposed policy for further dis- the district. cussion at the district's next That could include a member meeting, at 7:30 p.m. Wednes- presenting district policy ata day in the district's headquar- meeting but not a member pre- ters, 1850 S.W. 170th Ave.in Bea- senting personal views, a sug- verton. gested policy draft reads. At this week's meeting, the The policy's final wording is board also approved continuing scheduled for decision during the district's participation in the board's next two regular ses- forming a new Portland-area sions,Wednesday and Feb.19. water agency that would own Criteria for compensation, as and further develop Portland's recommended by Jim Doane, a massive Bull Run Reserve water- veteran board member, should shed. include wording that"the board Portland, which currently I member or district must not be supplies about 85 percent of the a member of the entity sponsor- Tualatin Valley district's water ing or hosting the meeting." under a long-term sales con- He also suggested that "the tract, has been looking for help sponsoring or hosting group or in building another dam, water I entity does not advocate for can- treatment plant and other facili- didates or measures." ties for its watershed. Doane's wording would bar The process of forming the reimbursement to another agency has moved to a second board member,Gordon Martin, phase, in which participating for attending meetings of Citi- water suppliers are studying le- zens for Safe Water,an advocacy gal,financial and engineering is- group he belongs to. sues. Martin,elected to the board in The phase,costing the suppli- March, started the compensa- ers 515;000 to S25,000 each for tion discussion in November by consulting fees and other study suggesting that he and other expenses, also will explore how members be compensated for the agency should be governed attending, among other events, and owned. "presentations by any organiza- tion which is related to water," to take more than a year, said or for making such presenta GregDiLoreto, the Tualatin Val- Citizens for Safe Water,which tions. ley istrict's general manager. has campaigned against the dis- trict ever using Willamette River water, last year supported the candidacy of Martin and Lisa Melyan, a fellow board member who generally has supported Martin's position on the com- pensation issue. Integrated Water Resources Management Water Supply Feasibility Study Project Progress Report-January 16, 2002 These are the project elements since the last report of Water Manager Group meeting of December 19, 2001. 1. Study Project Review -The Study Scoping meetings were conducted last week. They were lightly attended—20 people total for the four meetings. A few comments were received. A written review of the Scoping meetings will be provided by MWH. Only two of the regulatory staff attended the meetings, therefore we will be making an effort to set up a meeting with the key regulators, either as a group or individually, over the next several weeks. This regulatory input is the next key step to identifying the basis for the technical studies. Another major issue is the coordination of the Bureau of Reclamation consultation process with US Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFW). This consultation process pertains to the existing facilities and operations. The main issue is the elements that could impact the existing facilities and operations, such as fish passage and flow modifications. We are continuing the discussions with BOR staff. I attended the Tualatin River Watershed Council to collect comments on Supply options and evaluation criteria. We have only received a few comments from the Council. I will be attending the Clean Water Services Advisory Commission to gather their views and c-omments on January 30. The comment period is open until Jan 25 per the Federal Register;however,we will need to leave it open for other public forums that are scheduled after this date. Based on a comment that we were not having any public meetings in the Tualatin—Tigard—Sherwood area, we will be conducting an Open House meeting in cooperation with City of Tigard on February 6 at 6:30 p.m.—9:00 p.m. at the Tigard Water District Building. You are all welcome. 2. Project Budget—For the first 2 quarters of this project we have used 3.75 %of the budget as of 12/31/01. This equates to$27,507. The original budget estimated a 10% or$73,400 for the first two quarters, so we are getting started slightly behind schedule,however,we are making greater progress now, and still anticipate staying on schedule. As the project has proceeded and due to elements outside the control of the project, such as BOR coordination and regulatory issues,I would suggest that partners include a 10%contingency next fiscal years (FY02-03)budget estimates. A contingency element was not considered as part of the original project,but given the type of project and the need to assure we complete the Study. These funds will not be used unless approved by the Partners. In May or June, I will further refine the Project Budget and possible adjustments of the payment schedule as needed. The following is the allocation based on the original budget for FY 02-03 and a 10%total project contingency amount: Progress Report 1 Integrated Water Resources Management Water Supply Feasibility Study Partner Fiscal Year 02-03 10 %Contingency Water Quality USA $108,794 $21,759 M&I City of Tigard $68,903 $13,781 TVW D $68,903 $13,781 City of Hillsboro $33,364 $6,673 City of Beaverton $26,111 $5,222 City of Sherwood $13,055 $2,611 City of Tualatin $12,330 $2,466 City of Forest Grove $6,528 $1,306 City of Cornelius $14,506 $2,901 City of North Plains $7,253 $1,451 City of Banks $7,253 $1,451 Lake Oswego Corp $0 $0 Total M&I $258,206 $51,641 Sub Total $367,000 $73,400 3. Study Stakeholder Process—First, I let me introduce the new Public Involvement Coordinator,Jeanna Cernazanu. She started on Jan 7, and she immediately started helping with the Scoping meetings. It is great to have her helping out. The Feasibility Study Fact Sheet has been completed and was included with the Scoping meeting notice. If you need additional copies,please contact Jeanna or Tom. 4. Other Projects Coordination—The Hagg Lake Resources Management Plan Open House is tomorrow night, I will attend to assure project coordination. Progress Report 2 Tigard council set to decide future ofcity's water Council will vote Tuesday on proceeding expected to pay,including buy-in costs and future with regional water supply initiative projected costs. 2. Excluding the Willamette River as a poten- By BARBARA SHERMAN tial regional source but considering the inclusion Of the Times of the Clackamas and Trask/Tualatin River sys- tems. TIGARD—There's water, water everywhere, 3. Completing wholesale contracts by Aug. 1 but the city of Tigard doesn't own much of it. so partners can compare costs. Except for a small amount that it obtains 4.Providing a working draft of an intergovern- through its well system, the city currently pur- mental agreement to form the new agency that chases most of its water, mostly from Portland's addresses governance,costs,operational rules and Bull Run-Columbia South Shore well-field sys- other issues. tem,to serve Tigard, King City,Durham and por- 5.Assuring equity of supply and costs among tions of unincorporated Washington County. all members. The deadline is drawing near for the City 6. Keeping partners' individual options open Council to take a stand on whether or not to con- for local decisions. tinue participating in a regional drinking water 7. Excluding distribution and other water agency initiative. delivery functions at this time so as not to confuse The council is expected to make its decision such issues as equity and ownership costs. next Tuesday and offer guidance to Councilor According to Wegner, the violation of condi- Joyce Patton, the city's representative at agency tions 2,6 and 7 would be"deal-killers,"triggering meetings. The next meeting of the partnership is Tigard's withdrawal from the plan. set for Jan. 31. He added that each jurisdiction must pay With that in mind, Public Works Director Ed between $15,000 and $25,000 to continue the Wegner briefed the council Tuesday at its study study, depending on the number of participating session on the issue. He listed several conditions agencies. Currently, 12 jurisdictions are included that must be included if the city is to continue par- in the partnership. ticipation: He is preparing a motion for the council to 1. Providing the final cost each partner will be consider at next week's meeting. -° .0 qa� Tigard likes' open option on water sources The city will continue with efforts toward a regional supply and distribution system By EMILY TSAO THE OREGONIAN TIGARD — The City Council wants to continue plans to join 14 other local governments in creating one regional water agency,if conditions are met. In a Tuesday discussion, councilors said they would like to see future water supplies in- clude the Clackamas and Trask rivers. Talks to date have cen- tered on developing Portland's Bull Run and Columbia South- shore wellfields as a primary water source. Tigard also should maintain the right to buy any quantity of / water from anyone it chooses, said Ed Wegner, Tigard's public works director. "We have to be able to make decisions that are best for our district,"he said. r 1 Although all local govern- ments are ex- „ f /0 pected to share f fWe i V the cost of any potential con- have to be struction involy- able to ed with moving water through- make out the region, decisions Wegner said,Ti- that are gard should be careful not to best for end up subsi- our dizmg another �� city's individual district. water system. Depending ED WEGNER on the number TIGARD'S BLIC of agencies that PUDIRECTORRKS actually sign up, joining the • group could cost Tigard anywhere from $15,000 to $25,000. That is seed money that would be used to better define the ultimate cost of a regional water system. The City Council is expected to vote on a recommendation at its Tuesday meeting. Councilor Joyce Patton will represent Ti- gard later this month in a meet- ing with the other local govern- ments. Tigard's water system in- cludes those living in King City, Durham and parts of unincor- porated Washington County. The city also continues to ex- plore options other than joining a large regional consortium, such as a smaller water system in concert with Hillsboro, Bea- verton and Forest Grove. Tigard backs participation in regional water supply agency r TIGARD—The City Council on A Tuesday voted to continue its participation in a regional water ' supply agency. The regional agency wants to bring together as many as 14 ju- risdictions to find long-term drinking water solutions.The l group is expected to focus imme- diate efforts on Portland's Bull Run and Columbia South Shore well fields. '._igaid's participation will oc- cur only if it includes local control for participants as well as equity of supply and cost for members. The city also wants the agency to focus in the future on using the Clackamas and Trask rivers as a water source. The council limited the amount of city funding for partic- ipation to$25,000. Regionalizing the water supply The Portland City Council should take,the next steps toward creation of a Bull Run Authority for metro arca ortland's Bull Run water in- water wealth? Sten thinks the logistics spires an almost mystical rever- of regionalizing the Water supply make ence in its devotees, but you sense, minimizing the need for dupli- can't please everyone. On lair cite capital investment h} �igencies and 2, 1895, when this wonderful-tasting al- maximizing the incentives for water pine water first flowed through a pipe- conservation. You can certainly make line into Portland, Gov. Sylvester Pen- the argument that regional coordina- noyer took the first ceremoniai sip.And tion V,0LlId 'ut more equitab::, too, bit' offered this disappointing appraisal: the city's motives are practical, not al- "No body," he scoffed.The governor truistic. was apparently accustomed to the taste What Portland stands to gain are of the Willamette, which even then had co-investors in the repair and replace- more,shall we say,bite to it. meat of the costly infrastructure that As a water connoisseur,Pennoyer left will be needed to keep storing and something to be desired. Never letting transmitting the Bull Run supply,as the ` [ our lips touch the Willamette,and max- metro-area population grows, One ex- r iQ imizing our reliance on the fabled Bull tremely expensive item on that list for Run, are principles motivating Portland the future is a third reservoir. o and other agencies that today are pur Ott Wednesday, the Portland City suing the possibility of regional water Council will have the opportunity to collaboration. take the idea to the next level, by au- Portland City Commissioner Erik thorizing nitty-gritty research into how Sten broached the idea of collaboration a regional agency would be set up legal- last March, essentially offering metro- ly, how it would be governed, and how area water providers the chance to be- it would be financed fairly. Obviously, come water owners,rather than renters. one key question is how rat.,payers The idea was not to everyone's taste, would be affected. but 14 agencies— which supply about Once in operation, such an agency 75 percent of the total drinking water in would continue selling water to other the metro area—are at least consider- water providers, but it would also at- ing taking the plunge. tract more partners. It could be a step- Although many questions remain ping stone toward a full-blown regional about how the idea would work, Sten water authority, which could manage deserves credit for corning up with this and coordinate all of the water supplies futuristic proposal. lie seized the per- in the three-county area. feet moment, too. Portland sells water With any luck, Gov. Pennoyer's cri- to 26 utilities in this area, and the con- tique of Bull Run water—"no hod%" -- tracts between Portland and those will continue to be it cornpliment paid agencies will he up for renewal between to the regional water supply when vcater 2004 and 2007. drinkers all over the region click their Why would Portland want to share its glasses. -x TT ■ The Times January 31, 2002 ■ A5 City to proceed with Regional DrinkingWater Supply In ltiative City Council also takes steps to lishing a regional drinking water supply Metro, six cities and several water dis- or not the bond measure passes. Creek, a flood plain and adjacent wet- L start Wail Street local improve- and transmission agency. tricts, are participating in the project. "The street would provide access to lands, and acquiring property for the At its Jan. 12 meeting, the Tigard There are 38 agencies providing drink- property which the landowner currently road improvements. ment district City Council came up with a number of ing water in the tri-county region. owns and which has no access to either Construction is expected to cost criteria that must be met for the city's Patton is expected to report back to Hall Boulevard or Hunziker Street,"said $4.34 million, with land acquisition set By BARBARA SHERMAN continued participation in the project. the council at its Feb. 12 meeting. City Engineer Gus Duenas. at $1.77 million and interim financing j Of the Times These include providing the final In other business, the council also "This connection is projected to costs set at $.94 million for a total of TIGARD — Tigard will continue to cost each partner would be expected to discussed the formation of a Wail Street carry about 5,000 to 7,000 vehicles per $7.05 million. participate in the Regional Drinking pay, completing wholesale contracts by local improvement district. The project, day and relieve Hall Boulevard suffi- "This is a rare opportunity to provide Auu. 1 so the partners can compare which is designated as one of two key cient to allow that street to function ade- construction of a key road in the Ian," Water Supply hlitiative, with City b [ p' b y y p Councilor Joyce Patton representing the costs, and excluding the Willamette alternate routes in the city's new quately at three instead of five lanes. said City Engineer Gus Duenas. "The Transportation System Plan, would The proposed street would allow north LID costs can be covered by the value of city in negotiations for a joint funding River but considering the inclusion of i the Clackamas and Trask/Tualatin River extend Wall Street from Hunziker Street bound traffic from south Tigard to the property." agreement. g� � p p y" The City Council voted 5 0 at its Jan. systems. to Hall Boulevard. bypass Hall Boulevard and proceed The council directed Duenas to draft Other criteria include providing a The city has an option agreement directly to Hunziker Street." a resolution to implement the LID, with 19 meeting to continue in the process but limited Tigard's financial contribu- `Forking draft of an intergovernmental with Fred Fields, who owns property in Some of the issues connected with initial costs expected to be $325,000. tion to $25,000 at this point. agreement to form the new agency, the vicinity of the proposed LID as well the project include obtaining approval The council unanimously approved a City officials and staff from more assuring equity of supply and costs as the site on which a new library would from Portland & Western Railroad and zone-change annexation of the than one dozen jurisdictions in the among all members, and keeping part- be built if voters approve a bond meas- the Oregon Department of Thornwood subdivision, which consists region have been meeting since last ners' individual options open for local ure in May to fund the project. The Transportation to cross two main rail- of two parcels totaling 8.6 acres on the spring to discuss the concept of estab- decisions. agreement calls for the city to proceed road tracks, removing an existing spur south side of Bull Mountain Road oppo- Currentiy, 14 agencies, including with the formation of the LID whether track, obtaining permits to cross Fanno site Hazel Tree Terrace. Yf .i.a✓dJ n.i.,: x_.ti '.t:a. f..-^,:.... +u s.. ;:�v.:>Y+.-,. Idea of water ority for area resurfaces Eleven agencies again consider Workshop creating a Bull Run system that would help assure quality will focus and supply on treatment (: By SCOTT LEARN THE OREGONIAN By SCOTT LEARN THE OREGONIAN Eleven water agencies, including Port- land, Gresham and the Tualatin Valley Attention, city and suburban rate Water District, again are looking at form- payers: The price tag for Portland's ing a Bull Run water authority that would plan to upgrade treatment of its Bull exchange Portland's control of the region's Run supply ranges from$55 million to purest source for a suburban commitment a whopping $204 million. And Tues to the Bull Run System, day night is your best chance to weigh Portland Commissioner Erik Sten first in on the options before a decision proposed the idea in March 2001,saying it gets made. was the best way to ensure that the Bull workshoThe Bull Run treatment decision m. Run, not the Willamette River, is the re Tuesday run from 5:30 to 9 at gion's choice for meeting growing water Tuesday in the Oregon Room at I Gresham City Hall, 1333 N.W. East- demand. The expanded supply probably would come from building a third dam man Parkway. The event includes an open house from 5:30 to 7 p.m. with and reservoir at the Bull Run reserve near information about treatment options, d Mount Hoo . and a workshop from 7 to 9 p.m. for The region's wate: managers briefly ratepayers and others to put their con- shelved the idea while they considered cems on the table. �,. . forming a mega agency to jointly manage A 19-member citizens panel is eval- the region's three main sources: the Bull uating the options now and will take Run, the Clackamas River and the Trask- feedback from the workshop into ac Tualatin system. count before it makes its recommen- But the managers dropped the broader dations this summer,city officials say. idea late last year after activists raised con- The two Bull Run reservoirs are cerns that the regional agency would end among a handful of unfiltered drink- up tapping the Willamette to meet grow- I ing water supplies in the United l ing water needs.Activists support focusing States.A federal rule expected to take nA/ first on the Bull Run system. The new effect in 2010 will require the city to authority also would own Portland's Co- treat its water to eliminate cryptospo lumbia River wells. ridium, a parasite that killed more than 100 people and sickened 400,000 Council endorsement in Milwaukee,Wis.,411993. Portland's City Council endorsed mov- The city's chlorine treatment is not effective at killingthe organism,which ing forward with the idea last week Repre- testingshows at e low levels in the sentatives of 10 other agencies also have Bull tm supply. Low levels of expo agreed to move forward,Sten's office said. sure should not affect healthy people, They include: Beaverton, Clean Water Services, Gresham, Powell Valley, Rock- city officials say.But it could affect the wood, Sunrise, Tigard, Tualatin, Tualatin elderly and other vulnerable populations, and the federal government Valley and West Slope. Gresham, Rock- wood and Tualatin Valley are the city's water suppliers to eradicate it biggest suburban customers. long term. F: The lowest-cost option, at $55 mil- Clackamas River Water,Oak Lodge and lion, is using ultraviolet light to elimi- Metro are still considering whether to par nate the parasite. That project, ticipate in the study, expected to cost combined with operating costs,would about$25,000. Hillsboro is not participat- increase the typical residential bill by ing. $1.14 a month,the city estimates,from At this point,Sunrise is the only Clacka- $12.70 to$13.84. mas River agency to participate. The dis- The most expensive option,filtering i' trict, which serves .30,000 customers, is the water with membrane cartridges, interested in an ownership share in the would cost as much as $204 million. Bull Run.Sunrise will be the primary water That would boost the same bill by supplier for the 17,000 to 22,000 acres in about $3.46 a month, the city says. the Damascus area that might be added to Any treatment project also would in- the urban growth boundary late this year. crease wholesale rates to suburban Three ClackamasRiver agencies — I buyers, including Gresham, Powell Clackamas River Water, Oak Lodge and Valley, Rockwood., Tigard, Tualatin Sunrise—also are talking about forming a acrd the Tualatin Valley Water District. r Clackamas regional supply agency to par- allel the Bull Run authority. Clackamas ment to the Bull Run from the fast- agencies generally support a major con- t1eCti0n between the Ciati'f{an1i� iuld Bull' grrltnril suburbs would ?iN'e the authority Run supplies. the financial muscle to build a treatment plant and a third dam,providing water for Sten and managers of the other agen- growth and for fish,and spread the cost of cies are due to report back to their coon- repairs to the 106-year-old system. cils and boards by late summer with a For the city's suburban customers, a plan. Potential bones of contention in Bull Run authority could help ensure that clude imposing conservation require- o ulation growth doesn't drain water ments on suburbs with poor records of supplies. Theregion's current peak-day saving water,the political clout of Portlandcapacity, not including Portland's wells in a new authority and the arriotmt subur- along the Columbia River, is roughly 400 ban ratepayers would have to pay for an million gallons, about half from the Bull ownership share. Run. The authority's board would be elected or appointed by water providers. That structure means c.'--y dwellers, who ac- Reporter Steve Mayes of The Oregonian count for about three-fifths of the Water contributed to this report. Bureau's 840,000 customers, would lose you can reach Scott Learn at first dibs on Bull Run water. 503-221-8564 or by(,-mail at scot- But, Sten says, along-term commit- tlearn@trews.oregonian.com. REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM BOARD MEETING Minutes of December 5,2001 Consortium Board Chairman Les Larson called the Regional Water Providers Consortium Board Meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Metro Council Chambers/Annex. Elected representatives from fifteen Consortium member agencies were present at the meeting(which is a quorum), including Clackamas River Water, City of Gladstone, City of Hillsboro, Metro, Oak Lodge Water District, City of Portland,Powell Valley Road Water District, Rockwood Water PUD, City of Sandy, Sunrise Water Authority, City of Tigard, City of Tualatin, Tualatin Valley Water District, West Slope Water District, and the City of Wilsonville. Consortium member agencies not represented by elected"officials at this meeting included the City of Beaverton, City of Fairview, City of Forest Grove, City of Gresham, City of Lake Oswego, City of Milwaukie, Raleigh Water District, and South Fork Water Board. Introductions: Introductions were made. Those in attendance included Councilor Brian Moore and Dennis Koellermeier from the City of Tigard; Councilor Steve Chrisman and Mike McKillip from the City of Tualatin; Commissioner Paul E. Rogers and Dale Jutila from Clackamas River Water; Rob Foster from the City of Forest Grove; Councilor Bill Atherton from Metro; Commissioner A.P. DiBenedetto and Jerry Arnold from West Slope Water District; Commissioner Erik Sten and Dennis Kessler from the City of Portland; Commissioner John Huffman and Tom Pokorny from Powell Valley Road Water District; Commissioner Les Larson,Katherine Willis and Paul Savas from Oak Lodge Water District; Treasure Jim Duggan, Gordon Martin, and Greg DiLoreto from Tualatin Valley Water District; District Board President Herb Brown and Harvey Barnes from Rockwood Water PUD; Council President John Helser, Mayor Charlotte Lehan and Jeff Bauman from the City of Wilsonville; Councilor Carl Gardner from the City of Gladstone; Commissioner Mike Grimm and John Thomas from Sunrise Water Authority; Commissioner Will Crandell and Joe Thompson from the City of Hillsboro/Joint Water Commission;Dale Anderson from the City of Gresham; Councilor Don Allen from the City of Sandy; John Hill,Dale Newton and Dave Westcott from Canby Utilities; Tom Vanderplatt and Bill Gaffi from Clean Water Services; Karen Russell from Waterwatch of Oregon; Aubrey Russell from Oregon Trout; Regna Merritt from the Oregon Natural Resources Council; Drake Snodgrass from the Oregon Landscape Contractors Association; Cathryn Young from Wacker Siltronics; Frank Gearhart from C.I.I.B.R.I.; Sandra Ramaker, citizen; Tom Boon, citizen; Pat Brown, citizen; and Lorna Stickel, Rebecca Geisen and Patty Burk from the City of Portland/Consortium Staff. Approval of Minutes: A motion was made and seconded to approve the meeting minutes of September 5,2001. The Consortium Board unanimously approved the minutes as written. Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2001 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. Executive Committee Report: Board Chairman Les Larson gave a report of the Executive Committee(EC). Chair Larson said the EC met on November 14, 2001. He reported that Lorna Stickel discussed the Consortium Budget Concepts for fiscal year 2002-2003,which included the 2000-2001 budget carryover. Ms. Stickel gave a report of the Regional Water Supply Plan(RWSP)update. A letter was sent to all of the Consortium entities asking them to provide background materials for the RWSP update (e.g.Master Plans, Conservation&Management Plans, CIP lists and water supply studies). The Executive Committee discussed public involvement activities for the RWSP update and the draft agenda for the December Consortium Board Meeting. Status Report on the Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative: Commissioner Erik Sten gave an update on the Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative. Commissioner Sten commented that everyone has been working diligently as a group to explore the possibility of forming a regional water supply source. This effort began in earnest in the spring of 2001 when Commissioner Sten proposed to the Portland City Council that they consider making the Bull Run system a regional water supply source. Fourteen interested agencies participated in meetings over the summer. Staff from these agencies along with Ed Tenney from HDR Engineering researched approximately three dozen regional water agencies and a variety of financial models across the country. Commissioner Sten said the interested stakeholders developed a set of criteria by which proposals could be judged and put together a proposal that outlined a possible regional supply agency. Participating staff then presented their findings to their elected officials and members of the public. Commissioner Sten reported that as it stands now the general sense is the development of a true regional supply agency maybe too much to take on at this time. Commissioner Sten said the consensus now is to take a step back and focus on a Bull Run Authority as either a first step or an ending point. The focus of a Bull Run Authority will be on supply and transmission. There was no interest in merging distribution systems at this time. Over the next couple of months focus will be put on a Bull Run Authority that has ownership rights of the water supply. It will concentrate on supply and transmission and membership will still be open to any interested agencies. Commissioner Sten commented another public meeting would be held December 12, 2001 at Metro. He said they are close to forming a core group that is interested in proceeding with the process and could have a conceptual agreement by spring of 2002. The City of Portland will still continue to provide wholesale contracts to those entities that have chosen not to participate in this Initiative. District Board President Herb Brown commented before an entire Bull Run Authority is formed an initial step could be entities purchasing equity into Bull Run as it exists now. Commissioner Sten said that they are building as much interim structure as is needed by 2 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2001 extending wholesale contracts that are scheduled to expire soon,to allow time for the development of the process to happen. Commissioner A.P. DiBenedetto asked Commissioner Sten to give a status of the reserve funds the Bull Run has accumulated over the years. Commissioner Sten explained that the City of Portland does not have any capital reserve funds. All the Bureau's capital is funded through bond sales that are then paid back through rates and system development charges. Frank Gearhart gave public comment. Mr. Gearhart stated that C.I.I.B.R.I. and Citizens for Safe Water have been advocating that the long term wholesale water contracts be extended for a maximum of five years. Mr. Gearhart said this would give time to consider and make decisions that will affect the region for the next fifty to one hundred years. Mr. Gearhart expressed concern that the scheduled January 24, 2002 meeting of the Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative is going to be at the Tualatin Fire Department. He asked why the meeting was not scheduled to be at Metro,which is close to public transportation and easier for the public to access especially during the winter. Harvey Barnes commented that if the development of a Regional Initiative is going to proceed, there needs to be a break from a comfort zone of continuing to extend the contracts. Budget Concepts for FY 2002-2003: A Budget Concepts for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 memorandum was included in the meeting material packet and outlined by Chair Les Larson. Chair Larson noted there would be policy choices to be made on the work program and budget allocations. He reminded the Consortium Board members that there is a carryover of funds from the 2000-2001 budget that could be allocated to offset Consortium dues for fiscal year 2002-2003. One primary issue to be dealt with regarding the FY 02/03 budget is whether there is a desire to constrain the budget to hold it at the current year level. Chair Larson noted that further increases in the overall budget level may not be achievable or advisable regardless of the demonstration of need because of a number of reasons such as: the Regional Initiative discussions need to proceed to determine if its development affects the Consortium, economic and other factors have reduced revenues of many entities and the RWSP Update needs to be completed without concerns over increased dues. Chair Larson commented the question to be answered is what program emphasis needs to remain in the base budget at the same time that more funds are recommended by the Consortium Conservation Committee (CCC) and the Consortium Technical Subcommittee(CTSC) for the conservation program. The CTSC,the CTC and the EC considered these issues in their meetings and made the following draft program recommendations for fiscal year 2002-2003 to the Consortium Board: 3 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2001 1. The RWSP Update-This will be the second and last year of the RWSP Update. The assessment was split into two even halves, so the cost will be$246,988. The work program for this has already been established and will result in a final RWSP revision being ready for action by the various members in June 2003. 2. Conservation Program- The recommendation is to increase the budget to reflect having a full time FTE for program administration, and a small amount of travel/training for the staff. A reduction is recommended in monitoring and tracking. The budget includes a summer marketing campaign, youth education, community events, and trade ally programs. The conservation budget would be $282,000, an increase of$42,450 (this figure does not include the increase in the overhead charge). 3. Base Budget-This part of the budget covers anything other than conservation and special assessments. Basic logistical support of the Consortium, general public involvement support and administration, is estimated at$83,500. Also recommended is $30,000 for work program implementation for the RWSP Update and $10,000 for interagency coordination. $10,000 is recommended for regional emergency preparedness, $36,500 is recommended for materials and services, and$45,330 for overhead charges. The CTSC, CTC and EC further recommended that the contingency for next year be increased to $15,000 to accommodate the possibilities for an increase in the emergency planning work task,based on the outcome of further work done this year including the possibility of grant funds and potential matching requirements. The overall Consortium budget would be$762,318, an increase of$41,207 based on this recommendation. With the potential dues reduction of $72,212 from last fiscal year this increase will still result in a reduction of dues being paid in FY 02-03 of approximately $31,005. Rockwood District Board President Herb Brown commented the proposed increased budget for Conservation to fund a full time FTE was warranted. Mr. Brown complimented the Consortium staff and committees on the work done on the new budget and said he would recommend its approval. Lorna Stickel advised that the approval of the FY 2002-2003 Budget would be done at the March 6, 2002 Consortium Board meeting. Ms. Stickel said a dues share table could be developed based on the proposed budget for FY 02-03 and sent to the Consortium entities so they could have the information while preparing their own budgets. Tualatin Basin Water Supply Study: Tom Vanderplatt from Clean Water Services gave a report on the Tualatin Water Supply Feasibility Study. Mr. Vanderplatt reported that about three years ago faced with water quality requirements, Clean Water Service in collaboration with several water agencies in the Tualatin Basin,began working on an Integrated Water Resources Management(IWRM)Plan. Three years was spent working on the Plan to develop policy objectives to deal with various water quality and quantity challenges. The IWRM strategy serves as a foundation for a collaborative, comprehensive approach to water resources management for the Tualatin River Watershed. One of the seven policy objectives is water supply and the need for 4 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2001 additional water supply for municipal and industrial, agricultural irrigation and river flow restoration. Mr. Vanderplatt said from this recognized need for additional water supply, the Tualatin Water Supply Feasibility Study is being developed to determine how much water supply is needed. The feasibility study is being funded through a partnership of Water Mangers from Tualatin Valley Water District,the City of Hillsboro, the City of Beaverton, the City of Forest Grove,the City of Tigard,the City of Sherwood, the City of Tualatin, the City of North Plains, the City of Cornelius,the City of Banks, Clean Water Services and the Bureau of Reclamation. A joint funding agreement was developed with the partners of the Study and a cost sharing agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation. The feasibility study began in October 2001 and will take two years to complete. It will cost approximately$850,000. The Bureau of Reclamation is contributing$100,000 and the partners are funding the remaining$750,000. Clean Water Services is the coordinating agency. Mr. Vanderplatt reported that after receiving all of the participating partners identification of water need, it was determined that an additional 50,000 acre-feet would be needed in the Tualatin Watershed. Thirty percent of the water need is related to Clean Water Services and the need for in-stream water quality water and seventy percent is identified for municipal and industrial need. Mr. Vanderplatt reviewed the current source alternatives as outlined in the IWRM strategy. They are raising Hagg Lake, conservation and reuse,the exchange of Willamette River water, and storage projects on tributaries. The raising of Hagg Lake has been evaluated on a feasibility technical level on a forty- foot and a twenty-foot raise. A forty-foot raise of Hagg lake would provide 50,000 acre- feet and a twenty-foot raise of the lake would provide 26,000 acre-feet. The exchange of Willamette River water is being explored. The concept of this alternative is that Willamette River water would be used to supply water to the Tualatin Irrigation district in place of the water they currently get from Hagg Lake. Mr. Vanderplatt stated the final product of the Tualatin Water Supply Feasibility Study would include a planning report and a draft environmental impact statement. Federal funding for the project will be explored. The Bureau of Reclamation has varying scales on the type of use for acquiring federal funding e.g. flood control receives 100% federal funding where as municipal/industrial use receives 0%. The final report of the feasibility study will recommend a preferred water use alternative. Mr. Vanderplatt said the Tualatin Water Supply Feasibility Study does include a public involvement plan. There have been three public meeting held with the residents of the Hagg Lake neighborhood. Montgomery Watson Harza has been hired to do the feasibility study work tasks and to develop the planning report. The first scoping 5 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2001 meetings will be held on January 8-9, 2002. These meetings will be held at Metro and the City of Hillsboro. Mr. Vanderplatt stated there is a realization that all water entities and sources are connected in some way and integration of the feasibility study with other source initiatives and plans is important. Clean Water Service has been involved in the Regional Water Supply Initiative discussions, maintained contact with the Consortium on the update to the Regional Water Supply Plan,has kept current on regulatory changes as they relate to the Endangered Species Act(ESA) and the Clean Water Act and they are cognizant of the changes in the regional and national economic conditions. Mr. Vanderplatt reported that the next phase of the feasibility study is to continue through with the environmental permitting element to develop the final environmental impact statement and the preliminary and then final design of the chosen alternative. The timeline for completion of this process is about eight to ten years at an estimated total cost of$120 to $150 million. Regional Water Supply Plan Update Invitational Panel: Lorna Stickel reported that the second half of the Consortium Board meeting was designed to involve the public in the Regional Water Supply Plan Update. Ms. Stickel reminded the Board members that at the September Board meeting the Board had approved the Public Involvement Plan, which included the use of public invitational panels. She directed the Consortium Board members to look in the meeting material packet for more information regarding different public involvement activities for the start of the Regional Water Supply Plan Update process. Ms. Stickel advised the invitational panel for the December Board meeting is comprised of representatives from three environmental groups and two water user groups and introduced the members. The panel members were Karen Russell from Waterwatch of Oregon; Aubery Russell from Oregon Trout; Regna Merritt from the Oregon Natural Resources Council; Drake Snodgrass from the Oregon Landscape Contractors Association; and Cathryn Young from Wacker Siltronics. Waterwatch of Oregon-Karen Russell from Waterwatch of Oregon began the panel discussion. Waterwatch is a non-profit river conservation group devoted to restoring and protecting natural flows in Oregon's rivers. Waterwatch of Oregon works in the courts, state and federal agencies, and the legislature to ensure enough water is left in Oregon rivers and streams to sustain the fish,wildlife, and people who depend on them. Ms. Russell has been with Waterwatch for ten years and is recognized as one of the foremost experts on water law and procedures. Ms. Russell said the focus of Waterwatch of Oregon is water quantity and how it is managed in the state. They specialize in water rights,permitting, extensions and transferring and legislation that relate to water rights. Waterwatch of Oregon was the architect of the Instream Water Rights act of 1987. This law allows the State to legally protect water in-stream for fish,wildlife,recreation and aquatic value. Ms. Russell stated Oregonians care about their water and salmon and what the Regional Water Providers Consortium does directly affects both. Ms. Russell said, as water becomes a scarcer commodity,people are going to become more aware of their affect on rivers as they use - 6 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of December 5,2001 it. Larger constituency for conservation will develop once they understand the impact on rivers. Much of the work Waterwatch does is with the State Water Resources Department(WRD). Their work affects how water use permitting happens now and into the future. Ms. Russell commented Waterwatch historically focused on irrigation because it constituted 80% of the water used in the State. Waterwatch has now begun to focus more on municipal water supply issues because those are potentially the next greatest threat to Oregon's rivers. Waterwatch sees many of the municipal water supply communities as their partners toward river protection and restoration. Issues that Waterwatch has been pushing to get the State and water supply communities to address statewide and would like to see addressed in the Regional Water Supply Plan Update are a reasonable and strict need analysis. Ms. Russell believes people will be looking at population forecasting, service areas and overlapping service areas. They will be asking why are we planning for peaks and shouldn't we be looking at other alternatives. They will be pushing for demand projections that include some assumption of efficiency improvements and tying need analysis to land use planning. Waterwatch of Oregon will be looking for The Regional Water Supply Plan Update to include aggressive water conservation planning which takes into account impact on the environment that includes mitigation and restoration requirements. Ms. Russell commented there is a need to look at source reliability assumptions and estimates that take into account minimum stream flow needs. Ms. Russell concluded that the municipal water community needs to have the vision to help protect and restore Oregon's rivers as they are striving to meet future water supply. Ore on Natural Resources Council- The Oregon Natural Resources Council's (ONRC) mission is to aggressively defend Oregon's wild land—its forests,rivers, coast and high desert. ONRC's professional, grassroots-driven field staff works directly with local citizens and citizen.groups to incorporate environmental concerns into statewide, regionwide and nationwide programs. With over 6,700 members, it is hoped that ONRC's"watchdog"role will protect our natural resources for this and future generations. Regna Merritt is the Executive Director of ONRC. She joined the field staff ten years ago and has worked with activists, city councils,water providers,water users and legislators to protect forest supplying drinking water to communities throughout Oregon. Ms. Merritt stated that ONRC was an early participant in the development of the Regional Water Supply Plan(RWSP) and thanked the members for their dedication to providing clean drinking water to residents of the region. She noted that the timing of a new water demand forecast was excellent. With the closure of Fujitsu and the downturn of the computer industry,Ms. Merritt believes this is a good time to be reviewing the water demand forecast,which will be critical to the RWSP Updates success. The unexpected nature of these occurrences should show that the RWSP Update should have flexibility in case there are other changes that can not be foreseen at this time. In terms of peak water demand, ONRC in the past and will continue to argue that you should not plan to provide water to everyone for every purpose for every day of the year. It is 7 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2001 reasonable and prudent to expect that residential customers will and can pitch in to voluntarily reduce their water demand on hot summer days. The Oregon Natural Resources Council works extensively with source water protection particularly on federal forestlands. ONRC has been involved for decades in the protection of forestlands and has led a grassroots leadership in a national campaign to protect roadless areas across the country. In January 2001, ONRC secured new protections for approximately 58 million acres of pristine roadless forest throughout the country. When the Bush administration took over, the administration immediately began to cut these protections. Many city council members have signed on support for those protections and now there is a preliminary injunction on the implementation of the roadless rule in place. ONRC is in court to try to restore those protections for inventory roadless areas in national forests including the Mt.Hood National Forest. The Bush administration recently announced the plans to revise the forest planning process and decided to delay for up to seven years the process that provides citizens and communities that opportunity to increase protection for their cleanest sources of drinking water. If this route is blocked,Ms. Merritt believes the Consortium should consider actively working with the congressional delegation to seek legislative protection for the cleanest water sources. Resolutions passed over the past several years by the City of Lake Oswego and the City of West Linn,recommended protections for roadless and ancient forests that have not been implemented. The only thing between these lands and deforestation is legal action by ONRC. Ms. Merritt reported that ONRC opposes further use of the Willamette River on public health grounds. Ms. Merritt said there is an incredible need for the Consortium to work collectively on aggressive conservation measures. In terms of public participation,Ms. Merritt commented there were painful mistakes recently made regarding public participation and decisions regarding the use of Clackamas River water and she hoped these mistakes will not be repeated elsewhere because they will harm the credibility of the water providers and the Consortium as a whole. Public discussion should include the question of distribution. How far and wide will the water provided by the Consortium members be distributed and what cost are important factors in updating the RWSP. Oregon Trout- Oregon Trout was founded in 1983 by a small group of committed conservationist and has long worked to protect and restore native fish and the habitats upon which they depend. Oregon Trout has grown into one of the largest and most effective conservation organizations in the Pacific Northwest. Aubrey Russell is a water policy advocate for Oregon Trout and has been participating in the Water Resources Department's Community Water Advisory Work Group helping to draft rules for the extensions of municipal water rights. Mr.Russell reported that Oregon Trout is working in Salem to address adequate stream flow for fish. They are working to put together a package that ensure not only live stream flow but that storage and other sources are used in a integrated way that allows for municipal water communities to get the water they need and also maintain adequate 8 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2001 stream flows. Mr. Russell commented that Oregon Trout has some concerns for the remaining populations of Coho Salmon in the Sandy and Clackamas rivers. Mr. Russell said they are optimistic that the Consortium, in updating their Regional Water Supply Plan, will recognize the need to be able to draw water from different sources during peak demand to minimize the effect on fish and wildlife habitat. Oregon Trout endorses the belief that water providers should not feel they have to provide water for every perceived need during peak demand times. Oregon Trout encourages building aggressive conservation into the RWSP update and to make the demand forecast so that demand is met but that also includes uncompromising conservation efforts. Wacker Siltronic- Wacker Siltronic is one of the world's leading manufacturers of hyperpure silicon wafers for the semiconductor industry. With production operations in Germany, Japan,Malaysia, Singapore and Portland,Wacker Siltronic employees 7,300 people worldwide, 1,500 of those in Portland. The first fabrication facility on the 85-acre Portland site opened in 1980. A second facility in Portland started operations in 1995. Cathryn Young is Wacker's senior manager for engineering and environment in Portland. She has been involved in preparation and use of high purity water for technology application for 25 years. Ms. Young reported that Wacker is the City of Portland's largest retail customer with a peak water use a couple of years ago of 2 million gallons of water per day. Over the past three years, Wacker has been able to reduce their usage by approximately ten percent as they recognize the need to be a good corporate citizen. Ms. Young said what is important to Wacker Siltronic in regards to water supply is quantity. They can not make wafers without water. They do not have many discretionary uses of water. Wacker has long process development cycles so their conservation efforts through process design and retooling take a long time to incorporate. Another important factor is the reliability of supply. They can not only make wafers on a certain day or do voluntary conservation measures. Their facility has limited storage capability. Wacker Siltronic needs to use water even if the factory is idle. The water they use must be ultrapure water. They take the water that is provided by the City and purify it to remove all the impurities. The impurities in their water are measured in parts per trillion. If they had a system in which water is not flowing continuously, it will grow bacteria and in some cases,they may never get the piping system clean again so interruption in supply for more than six to ten hours would be devastating to them. The quality of the water is another important factor. Bull Run is a very good source of water for Wacker. It is a high quality source of water and they do not have to do as much treatment of Bull Run water as they do overseas or in the Southwest. Ms. Young said the better the quality of water the less water Wacker will use. Each step in the purification process Wastes water so if they have lower dissolved solids in the water, they will waste less water. Ms. Young stated the future water use of Wacker Siltronic could increase 25% if they are successful in their bid to Germany to build the next 300-millimeter factory in Portland. If they are not successful in their bid,their water usage could decrease by as much as 30% as older product is retired. Ms. Young said it is not likely 9 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2001 they would disappear like Fujitsu but old technology will not be in demand and they will consolidate that production somewhere else. Commissioner A.P. DiBenedetto asked the panel if a Regional Initiative is formed,what would their stand be on building a third reservoir in the Bull Run. The panel requested to allow Drake Snodgrass from the Oregon Landscape Contractors Association to give his presentation first to allow the panel time to think about their response. Oregon Landscape Contractors Association- The Oregon Landscape Contractors Association(OLCA) was formed in 1987 and is comprised of landscape contractors, landscape maintenance companies, landscape architects and designers, suppliers, nurseries, students and others. The mission of the Oregon Landscape Contractors Association is to serve the needs of its members and to promote the growth and well being of the landscape industry. Drake Snodgrass is the current president of the OLCA and a founding member. He is the President of the 7 Dees Nursery and Drakes 7 Dees Nursery Landscaping in the Portland area. Mr. Snodgrass commented that OLCA takes water very seriously and it is important to them. The 1992 drought was an awakening for OLCA. As a result, OLCA is writing a standard for the landscaping industry that is Oregon specific. It is a set of standards that outlines and details the accepted and best practices to develop landscaping for homes and businesses. Within those standards, conservation is a key factor. Mr. Snodgrass said he hopes to see from the landscape industry the generation of more water by the industry using less water. OLCA is setting up a committee comprised of a Board of Directors. The goal of the Board is work collaboratively with the water community to help develop conservation plans and to teach people how to save water with their landscaping. Mr. Snodgrass commented the landscaping industry uses a large amount of water especially in the summer during peak time. He said what has occurred to those in the industry that they can work really hard to save water and educate their clients on water savings but in the end if water were to be scarce,the landscape industry will get shut off as it did during the 1992 drought. Mr. Snodgrass asked if as an industry,they work hard to reduce the amount of water they use and generate water source through conservation, what will they get for their efforts for their clients. Some ideas might be, if a commercial property reduces its water usage significantly through conservation, that customer should be eligible for reduced water rates or should not have to curtail their outdoor water use during peak demand. This comes out of the realization that if there is a water shortage, the landscape industry will be the first not to get water. Mr. Snodgrass would like to work to change that reality. Lorna Stickel reminded the meeting participants that the Regional Water Supply Plan does identify water sources. These sources include Aquifer Storage and Recovery, expanded use of the Clackamas River, inter ties to use the sources we have as efficiently as possible and a last source that was not identified but could be the Willamette river,the Columbia river or a third dam in the Bull Run. Ms. Stickel said as the RWSP is updated, the sources already identified in the RWSP will be explored again, a new demand 10 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of December 5,2001 forecast will be looked at and new sources may be explored. Ms. Stickel asked the panel for thought on the sources already identified and those that may be identified in the future. Karen Russell of Waterwatch of Oregon commented they have been very concerned about proposals to increase the development of the Clackamas River and a third dam in Bull Run. Ms. Russell stated they would like to see what is being proposed in terms of water conservation and for alternative sources. She said she would like to be more fully informed before they would take a stand on a specific project like a third dam in Bull Run. Ms. Russell mentioned Waterwatch of Oregon would ask the question for any new supply what guarantee do the water conservation communities have that if they say a new source is an acceptable water supply to be developed given that you will not use an alternative unacceptable source,that in the future water agencies will not go back and want to develop the nonperferred source. Regna Merritt of the Oregon Natural Resource Council stated ONRC has not taken a position at this time on a third dam in Bull Run but if it were proposed tomorrow, ONRC would feel very strongly that there have been inadequate attempts to secure conservation to a level that it would make sense to go forward with a third dam. Commissioner A.P. DiBenedetto commented that the increase in the use of bottled water could be a source of conservation. Aubrey Russell from Oregon Trout noted he did not think that bottled water use would account for a large enough percentage of the water demand to have an effect. Mr. Russell reiterated that it is critical when talking about regional water supply planning that if a new source is developed to meet existing demands that some of those streams that are less capable of providing water while also providing for the fish habitat are set aside. Although Oregon Trout has not taken an official position, if a third dam could provide some benefit by taking pressure off the Tualatin or Clackamas rivers,they may support such a project. Cathryn Young of Wacker Siltronic stated that as an industry they would like to see the use of Bull Run optimized,however, she has not seen enough information to convince her that the third dam is necessary based on future demand. Other alternatives such as treatment, aquifer storage and recovery, conservation measures and raising the existing dam should be explored as well. The costs of each measure should be looked at carefully not only for the impact on industry but for all of the ratepayers in the region. Lorna Stickel noted that Mike Tehan from National Marines Fisheries Service(NMFS) met with the Consortium Technical Subcommittee to discuss Endangered Species Act (ESA) issues and how they affect the sources currently used. Ms. Stickel stated the Consortium would like to be proactive in regards to ESA issues as they move forward with revisions to the RWSP update. 11 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes of December 5, 2001 Frank Gearhart commented we have been blessed in Oregon with a lot of rainfall. If we continue water conservation measures, someone is going to suffer and be discriminated against. Mr. Gearhart suggested we need adequate impoundment when there is a lot of water runoff so we will have water to share with everybody. Mr. Gearhart said the Bull Run furnishes over 300 billion gallons of water a year and we only use about 18%. He stated we could impound extra water and still have enough water for fish. In addition,we would not be discriminating against certain industries and people that are hurt by conservation. Board Chair Les Larson thanked the panel for attending the Board meeting. Other Business: None. A motion was voiced to adjourn the Consortium Board Meeting. The motion was seconded. The Consortium Board meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. The next meeting of the Consortium Board is Wednesday,March 6, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Metro Council Chamber/Annex. Submitted by Patty Burk, Consortium Staff - 12 Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative General Meeting of Participants Meeting Notes of January 31,2002 City of Tualatin Police Dept. Conference Room 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. City of Tualatin Mayor Lou Ogden welcomed the attendees to this meeting of elected officials, water managers and interested citizens working on the Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative. The purpose of the meeting was to take citizen comment on the Progress Report- Regional Drinking Water Supply Initiative of December 12,2001 and to hear back from elected officials from the participating agencies as to their comments on the report and recommendations, and their board or council's interest in participating in further work on this issue. Mayor Ogden commented that the group "had come full circle', since the first meeting was in this same location last May. He indicated that interested governments were here to move ahead with this project and he hoped all would be involved. He indicated he had met with the Portland City Council on January 30,2002 in support of moving forward,and that the Portland City Council was fully supportive of the work that had been done. He jokingly said that Commissioner Sten had made "either a bold move-or laid a trap",but in seriousness Ogden said that regionalizing water supply was a"legitimate and logical movement" and that Tualatin would be involved. Portland Commissioner Erik Sten also welcomed the attendees noting that good progress had been made during the initial phase of this work. He felt there were two important notes regarding Phase 1. First that"by looking big we could look at a wide range of options" and second, that if there were to be a"Bull Run only agency for the region now-it would be a stepping stone for the future." He reiterated that the Portland City Council enthusiastically accepted the report and there was no hesitation with moving forward, as was evidenced by their 5-0 vote on the resolution to participate in Phase II. He said the region needed a structure that was in everyone's interest and one that determined the ownership and the customer base, and that now the real work begins. He thought that several governments are in a good position to proceed,but that at the end of this next period of study,a proposed ownership structure probably would not be good for all of the initial participants. He said some governments would form the ownership structure but that other agencies will still be able to purchase water through the new governance structure. Mr.Sten wanted to make.clear that Portland was looking for partners and was not interested in pushing any agency into joining in an ownership position if they did not feel it was in their best interests. Commissioner Sten said his hope is that by this summer the participants would be able to present an actual plan to the elected bodies and to the citizens. He indicated he had no set process in mind as to how options or a plan should be processed with citizens. He did say that in the Spring there would be appointment of a region wide citizen advisory panel that would be asked to listen to interested citizens,review the technical and policy work, and to advise the Portland City Council. He was asked whether or not water agencies could join at a later time. Erik's response was that agencies were moving forward and would be incurring costs to study the issues and develop a plan and they would want any agency coming in later to help pay their share of the study costs. 1 Ed Tenny,facilitating the meeting,mentioned that the group had come a long way and that they should pat themselves on the back for the good hard work that had been done. He then moved to take public comment on the Progress Report. The first to speak was Charles Scott Ph.D.from Citizens For Safe Water-Wilsonville. He commended Commissioner Sten"for not including the Willamette River in the future selection of the regionalization water source." He referred to the Wilsonville Willamette River Treatment Plant and the requirements of the Oregon Health Division to collect and review water quality data for the required Water Master Plan and that this work must be done prior to construction for a new treatment plant. He said "Water suppliers are responsible for taking all reasonable precautions to assure that the water delivered to its citizens meets State and EPA regulations and is free of public health hazards." (The complete text of his comments is attached to the original of these meeting notes and kept on file at the Portland Water Bureau.) Tom Long was the next to speak and he read a statement from the Bull Run Alliance. In summary, their statement said"Much work remains to be done before a comprehensive regional plan can be in place..." and"Of the greatest importance is how this entity will be organized." The Alliance' concern is that an inter-governmental agreement would be the basis for the structure of a new agency. The Alliance also asked that"The Alliance and the public at large should be recognized as equal participants in the planning process..." and that"There be one representative for each Bull Run Alliance organization and for the public-at-large... and they should have full planning and voting privileges." The Alliance also asked that there be monthly reports updating the progress being made and that"each representative participant be given full access to the supporting staff." His statement went on to say"We strongly support the project to regionalize the Bull Run Drinking Water Supply System' and asked for a "response in writing no later than 30 days from the date of this request". (The complete text of his comments was distributed at the meeting and is attached to the original of these meeting notes and kept on file at the Portland Water Bureau.) The next to speak was Frank Gearheart, also of the Bull Run Alliance. He read a statement from the Alliance which in summary said"Our intention is that we put you the elected officials and the water managers on notice of our intent to be intimately involved in the evolution of the regional planning for water management." He said the Alliance was "...prepared to move forward in the best interest of the citizens of this region,if you choose to not take us into the phase 2 process (at the table) and seriously consider our proposals." They asked that"By February 15thwe want a definitive answer as to whether you will open your tables to equal citizen representation. If we do not hear from you by then,we will initiate our own program which will in the end make all your efforts needless." (The complete text of his comments was distributed at the meeting and is attached to the original of these meeting notes and kept on file at the Portland Water Bureau.) The next speaker was John Wish. He acknowledged the Portland City Council and thanked them for the language in their resolution that indicated Willamette River water would be prohibited from being provided to residents of the City of Portland. He thanked Mark Knudson of the Portland Water Bureau for his work in Phase I. He said he "...supported the concept of the Bull Run Watershed as the regions primary source of drinking water with the well fields as an emergency back up." He said he had concerns with the Progress Report of December 12thsaying"The seventeen criteria give too much latitude to the new organization." He went on to say that"Citizens must be assured that the Bull Run Watershed will remain the primary source and no Willamette or Tualatin River water will be used" and that"citizen involvement needs to be a necessary condition for any new water entity." He also thought 2 there "should be more study of a People's Utility District and a Water Authority,or perhaps even a new form of governance." He commented that he was not convinced there are economies of scale in forming a new agency and that a board of elected officials should have a narrow focus of looking for efficiencies. Fairness and equity were key he added. (The complete text of his comments was distributed at the meeting and is attached to the original of these meeting notes and kept on file at the Portland Water Bureau.) Phil Dreyer,Chairman of Not In My Pipes spoke next and said that"contrary to what Frank said,you did pay attention in your report and took out the Willamette River" and thanked the group for the report. Tom Boon offered a written statement. In summary he said there should be "two related,yet distinct goals." The first was that"...any one who has an interest in forming a Bull Run Water Authority should revere the importance of the source,the watershed itself, and insure any Water Authority action will regard and then maintain the watershed as an inviolate metropolitan resource. Second, any decision regarding a Bull Run Water Authority should only be made if the individual citizen, or household in the metropolitan area,will benefit from a regional water delivery system." He went on to say"The next phase must focus on facilitating a dialogue where opinions are not just assimilated,but instead jointly developed,considered, researched, and then advanced or rejected." He said the "next phase must show the community why the Bull Run Water Authority will benefit the metropolitan area." He felt there needed to be "continued communication and cooperation' and that"community pride in the Bull Run should guide the participants as they go forth, much as Governor Pennoyer did a century ago...". (The complete text of his comments is attached to the original of these meeting notes and kept on file at the Portland Water Bureau.) Gordon Martin of the Tualatin Valley Water District Board indicated he was speaking as a private citizen. He said public participation was important and he asked for citizens to work with the project's consultants to determine what the citizen participation process would be. Scott Forrester spoke for the Friends of the Clackamas River. He said that he had turned in the national policy of the Sierra Club and it wasp t printed in the report and that he hadn't gotten a response. He said the Friends of the Clackamas River"wanted a seat at the table,not just three minutes." He commented that they were opposed to the Clackamas River Water/City of Gresham/Rockwood PUD inter-governmental agreement to bring Clackamas River water to northern Multnomah County. He said they would ask Clackamas River Water to quit the regional initiative and that Friends of the Clackamas River had economists,chemists and an intelligent citizen base that could participate. Kathy Newcomb spoke next to the issue of citizen participation. She said they felt"once burned twice shy" in reference to 1999 and being given"bad information regarding the Willamette River and citizens then had to go out and pass initiatives." She said citizens needed water quality information, especially on the impact on fish. She said this was"not just an issue of pipes and concrete and that we had only had the engineering perspective and instead we needed a water quality perspective." She felt citizens needed to understand the limitations of the Safe Drinking Water Act in protecting human health. She thanked Commissioner Sten and the Portland City Council for giving citizens the chance to participate in Phase I. She also commented that"If there are 800,000 consumers of Bull Run water at a cost of$150 million for a filtraton treatment plant,you could pay off the treatment plant costs in five years." 3 With the conclusion of public input Ed Tenny indicated that informally the group knew there were enough interested governments to proceed into a second phase but that the next agenda item was to hear more formally from the participants of Phase I and to know who wanted to participate in the next phase. He said that the City of Hillsboro was a full participant in Phase I but with their water connections to the Joint Water Commission it just didn t make sense for them to participate at this level in the next phase and they had indicated they would not be a participant in Phase II. He also indicated that Metro was involved in Phase I and a letter had been received from Presiding Officer Carl Hosticka. The letter indicated Metro would like to participate in Phase II but they were not sure they could pay the full amount to participate and he would be conferring with the full Council. Ed also reported that even though Clean Water Services could not be in attendance they were enthusiastically proceeding with participation in Phase II. Commissioner Sten led off by saying the Portland City Council had formally and unanimously approved a resolution on January 30, 2002 to continue participation in this project. The resolution directed him, as the Commissioner-In-Charge to continue in a leadership role,to provide support to the process,and to report back in August,2002. He said if everything can be done financially and legally and in a cost-neutral manner then the City is interested in joining a new agency. He said there were two futures for Portland; one was to sell less water and the other was to share ownership of the Bull Run and Columbia South Shore Well Field. He felt that if there are more customers then there is more "buying power',but that it was important to be a"financial wash". He felt strongly that the region needed supply line inter-ties;if there was a problem with the Bull Run,the well field could not meet the needs for the long term. He also said there needed to be additional environmental protections. Regarding public involvement, Commissioner Sten said there needed to be a full process. He said it was his preference to let the technical specialists do their work first"so we have something to air-to bring to the public". He said there would be all kinds of questions raised and if we had some of the work done first,many of those questions could be answered. He said it was important for Portland to "open the books and the rate models and we need to dig in and be able to bring a variety of information to the process." Dick Matthews of the West Slope Water District indicated their district wants to be a part of Phase II and their Board had passed a resolution to that effect on January 8,2002. Richard Burke of the Tualatin Valley Water District indicated their Board voted 5-0 to participate in Phase II. He said several concerns were expressed in their discussions and they "teetered" in their consideration. They believe the scope should be limited to the Bull Run only. They felt this process provided fantastic opportunities as well as big dangers. Citizen involvement was a concern,but they were looking forward to moving ahead. Joyce Patton,representing the City of Tigard as well as the cities of Durham and King City and some unincorporated areas,said they voted unanimously to participate in Phase II. She said they had some conditions but that only one of them"is a deal killer". Their concerns were: • The scope of work for Phase II need to produce a final cost to participate in the new agency,including the buy-in costs and projections of future costs. • Don't abandon the concept of full regionalization that would include other water sources. They acknowledged that the Willamette River was not to be considered but that it was important to consider the Clackamas River and Tualatin/Trask Rivers as part of the future. 4 • Continue efforts to produce a wholesale contract with the City of Portland. It is important to keep on a parallel track. August 1, 2002 is a good date to focus on for both processes. • The scope of work for Phase II needs, as a deliverable,a working draft of an ownership agreement. • The new agency needs to provide for equity of supply. • The process and structure of the new agency need to keep individual agency options open for local decisions,which would include being able to obtain other sources of water. Note: This condition was stated as being the "deal killer" if it was not met. • Don't consider including distribution systems now. (She said that, as an attorney, she knew this would"be a huge bear to deal with", and it needs a whole separate angle and a"firewall".) Commissioner Sten indicated it was Portland's expectation that they would be studying how to bring distribution systems into the agency,but that it was being approached so that each participant could make that decision. Joyce said the "firewall" was the issue. Erik said that if Portland didn't move distribution into the new agency now that Portland would have to participate in two agencies and that probably wouldn't make economic sense to Portland;but he did agree with the concept of a "firewall". Jack Horner of the City of Gresham said that Gresham had formally voted to participate in Phase 1I and they were supportive of the work that had been done and the process that was being used. He said they were also interested in a "firewall" if distribution,or other water services,were to be considered for the new agency. Bob Frentress of the Sunrise Water Authority stated the Authority wholeheartedly agreed with the work that had been done to date and will participate in Phase II. Bruce Fontaine of Clackamas River Water indicated they had been an active participant in Phase I and that their Board had not yet made a decision regarding participating in Phase II,but that the issue would be on their February Board agenda. He indicated there were some reservations by some Board members but they hoped to address them at the February meeting. He also indicated they would be discussing a"sub-regional arrangement that would include Oak Lodge,Sunrise Water Authority and North Clackamas". He said they needed emergency inter-connections and after September 11, 2001 it became even more important. He said CRW was committed to stewardship of the Clackamas Basin and the region. He noted that"the devil is in the details and whether CRW is in or not, it must move forward". He also indicated that public involvement was important. Sandra Ramaker spoke for Rockwood Water PUD. She said their Board voted to participate in Phase 1I;they had some concerns but they"wanted to be at the table." Tony Weller of the City of Tualatin indicated that 20 years ago Tualatin made a commitment to the Bull Run and they've made a commitment to Commissioner Sten to be a part of this process and they were proud to be associated with such an effort and would be a participant in Phase II. 5 Tom Pokorny of the Powell Valley Road Water District sent apologies from Board Chairman Huffman who could not be there because of illness. He said the Board was happy to say they'll "be proud to continue participation in this process." Dave Winship of the City of Beaverton also sent apologies from Councilor Forrest Soth who could not be there because of illness. He indicated that Beaverton had formally agreed to continue their participation. Paul Savis of the Oak Lodge Water District(they were not a participant in Phase I) spoke and echoed some of the concerns that had previously been stated. He said that Oak Lodge was "looking to join this" and said there needed to be more elected official participation in the next phase. In conclusion,Ed Tenny said that even if this project went no further,that in looking around the United States,no one else had come together voluntarily to consider a regional agency, and that they should be proud of their efforts. He jokingly said this was "an ornery and visionary bunch". He asked the elected officials to stand and they were applauded. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. 6 Integrated Water Resources Management Water Supply Feasibility Study Project Progress Report-January 16, 2002 These are the project elements since the last report of Water Manager Group meeting of December 19, 2001. 1. Study Project Review -The Study Scoping meetings were conducted last week. They were lightly attended—20 people total for the four meetings. A few comments were received. A written review of the Scoping meetings will be provided by MWH. Only two of the regulatory staff attended the meetings,therefore we will be making an effort to set up a meeting with the key regulators, either as a group or individually, over the next several weeks. This regulatory input is the next key step to identifying the basis for the technical studies. Another major issue is the coordination of the Bureau of Reclamation consultation process with US Fish and Wildlife and National Marine Fisheries Service(NMFW). This consultation process pertains to the existing facilities and operations. The main issue is the elements that could impact the existing facilities and operations, such as fish passage and flow modifications. We are continuing the discussions with BOR staff. I attended the Tualatin River Watershed Council to collect comments on Supply options and evaluation criteria. We have only received a few comments from the Council. I will be attending the Clean Water Services Advisory Commission to gather their views and comments on January 30. The comment period is open until Jan 25 per the Federal Register;however, we will need to leave it open for other public forums that are scheduled after this date. Based on a comment that we were not having any public meetings in the Tualatin—Tigard—Sherwood area,we will be conducting an Open House meeting in cooperation with City of Tigard on February 6 at 6:30 p.m.—9:00 p.m. at the Tigard Water District Building. You are all welcome. 2. Project Budget—For the first 2 quarters of this project we have used 3.75 %of the budget as of 12/31/01. This equates to$27,507. The original budget estimated a 10% or$73,400 for the first two quarters, so we are getting started slightly behind schedule,however,we are making greater progress now, and still anticipate staying on schedule. As the project has proceeded and due to elements outside the control of the project, such as BOR coordination and regulatory issues, I would suggest that partners include a 10%contingency next fiscal years (FY02-03)budget estimates. A contingency element was not considered as part of the original project,but given the type of project and the need to assure we complete the Study. These funds will not be used unless approved by the Partners. In May or June, I will further refine the Project Budget and possible adjustments of the payment schedule as needed. The following is the allocation based on the original budget for FY 02-03 and a 10%total project contingency amount: Progress Report 1 Integrated Water Resources Management Water Supply Feasibility Study Partner Fiscal Year 02-03 10%Contingency Water Quality USA $108,794 $21,759 M&I City of Tigard $68,903 $13,781 TVWD $68,903 $13,781 City of Hillsboro $33,364 $6,673 City of Beaverton $26,111 $5,222 City of Sherwood $13,055 $2,611 City of Tualatin $12,330 $2,466 City of Forest Grove $6,528 $1,306 City of Cornelius $14,506 $2,901 City of North Plains $7,253 $1,451 City of Banks $7,253 $1,451 Lake Oswego Corp $0 $0 Total M&I $258,206 $51,641 Sub Total $367,000 $73,400 3. Study Stakeholder Process—First, I let me introduce the new Public Involvement Coordinator,Jeanna Cernazanu. She started on Jan 7, and she immediately started helping with the Scoping meetings. It is great to have her helping out. The Feasibility Study Fact Sheet has been completed and was included with the Scoping meeting notice. If you need additional copies,please contact Jeanna or Tom. 4. Other Projects Coordination—The Hagg Lake Resources Management Plan Open House is tomorrow night, I will attend to assure project coordination. Progress Report 2 Tualatin Basin Water Supply Feasibility Study FACT SHEET Finding Water for the Future Managing water resources for the future Our community's water needs will double in the next 50 years, calling for an additional 16.3 billion gallons (50,000 acre feet) of stored water each year. People who live and work in the Tualatin River watershed in Washington County are fortunate that water providers are planning ahead to ensure there will be sufficient water for families, factories, farms, forests and fish. How we meet these changing water needs will play a critical role in the health of our environment, economy and the quality of life throughout our region. Water supply feasibility study In 1999, water managers in Washington County completed the Integrated Water Resources Management strategy, a framework for water users and resource managers to meet shared objectives even though their needs and issues vary widely.They agreed the top priority was water supply.The near-drought conditions of 2001 underscored this need, and the managers embarked on the Water Supply Feasibility Study (WSFS), a two-year technical evaluation of options to meet water demands through the year 2050. The projected cost of the study is$850,000. Do we really need more water? Our region has plenty of water most of the year, but in the summertime river flows are low, farms need irriga- tion, and residential water use more than doubles. Rain cannot refill the reservoirs as fast as we use water.We could simply use less water, but that still would not meet the projected demands. In fact, conservation efforts in the past decade have cut per capita consumption of water by nearly 10 percent and significantly eased peak demands. Consider.these assumptions:. • By 2012, residential and industrial users will run short without new water sources;the average family of 4. five uses 325,850 gallons(one acre foot) per year. • Spring Chinook salmon and steelhead are listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species s -Act; restoring fish fiabitat will require?nore`water. { • The federal Clean WaterAct.defipes the TLIalatin River and its tributaries as"water. ual', limited . because late summer and early fall flows are diminished by competing uses ofwater resources; more v►rater supplji Is't�eeded#o restore stream l flows:` • Nearly 27,000 acres of irrigated farmland are projected to have enough water unless crop types change. What Water Supply alternatives are being considered? People want water that is clean, constant, cool, and cheap.An initial list of alternatives to be consid- ered include: Expansion of Hagg Lake by raising Scoggins Dam 20 or 40 feet • Transfer of Willamette River water for irrigation • Increasing storage along tributaries • Consomation • Reuse of cleaned wastewater for irrigation The Intent of the study is to determine the feasibility of these and other potential sources that might arlse in the publid revieWWprooess (over, please) How are„alternatives being evaluated? The initial criteria consider technical, environmental and social impacts in the context of public values.The study will look at safety, reliability, cost, efficiency, flexibility, and impacts on the environment.The public review process will help refine the criteria. K Is WSFS being coordinated with other studies? Absolutely. There are a number of studies and initiatives underway related to or impacting the search for more water supply in the Tualatin Watershed, including the Regional Water Supply Initiative and Plan Update,the Hagg Lake Resources Management Plan (Bureau of Reclamation), and Wapato Lake Planning Project(U.S. Fish and Wildlife). These studies have different timelines, funding sources and lead agencies and will have their own public meetings, information and involvement processes.,The WSFS partners are coordinating their efforts with each of these studies, sharing resources and information, and eliminating redundancies when possible. How the public can help plan for the future In preliminary studies, scientists and engineers identified potential water sources to be evaluated.At least four feasible alternatives will be presented to the general public for review.Their comments will become part of the body of knowledge used in selecting preferred alternative(s). Because the preferred alternative might involve federal action, the study will complete the investigation and analysis necessary to develop a Planning Report and Environmental Impact Statement (PR/EIS). In this case,a draft PROS would be prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and presented to the public for comment in the future. More than 20 public presentations have been made to explain the Integrated Water Resources Management strategy and WSFS.A broad range of stakeholder groups are formally represented by the Tualatin River Watershed Council and the Clean Water Services Advisory Commission which have been involved from the beginning Water Supply Feasibility Study Partners Clean Water Services is leading the study in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Other partners include the Cities of Banks, Forest Grove, Cornelius, North Plains, Hillsboro, Beaverton, Tigard, Tualatin, Sherwood and the Tualatin Valley Water District.The Bureau of Reclamation is involved because one altema- tive is raising the dam at Hagg Lake, a federal facility that is owned and operated by the.Bureau To learn more .. To learn more about the Water Supply Feasibility Study, please contact Tom VanderFYaat, Clean Water Services Project Manager at(503)64"758-or,,vanderplaaft@deanwaterservices.org qV Dave Nelson, Bureau of Reclamation at(503) 872-2795 or dr ielsonQ� Usbr gov SIS' Jeanna Cemazanu, Clean Water Services Public Affairs at(503)846ro619,or cemazanuj@deanwaterservices.org } h t .yq.yy �F9 L l�f�c4✓� �