06/09/1999 - Packet BOOK COPY
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING
Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area
AGENDA
Wednesday, June 9, 1999
5:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call and Introductions
3. Approval of Minutes
April 28, 1999
4. Water Conservation Presentation - Kim Swan
5. Director's Report - Ed Wegner
6. Public Comments
7. Non Agenda Items
8. Adjournment
Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive
Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor
relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. All
discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from 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.
kathy\iwb\6-9.agn
1�ww
Intergovernmental Water Board
Meeting Minutes
April 28, 1999
Members Present: Bill Scheiderich, Beverly Froude, Jan Drangsholt, Patrick Carroll,
Paul Hunt
Staff Present: Bill Monahan, Ed Wegner, Mike Miller, Kathy Kaatz, Jennifer
Renninger
Visitors Present: Gretchen Buehner, Roel Lundquist, Emily Tsao, Trish Conrad
1. Call To Order
The regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board meeting was called to order at
5:35 p.m.
2. Roll Call and Introductions
Roll call was taken with all members present.
3. Approval of Minutes -April 28, 1999
Motion was made by Commissioner Hunt to approve the minutes of the February 24,
1999 meeting which was seconded by Commissioner Drangsholt. The motion passed
unanimously.
4. Long Term Water Supply-Ed Wegner
Mr. Wegner stated that all four entities represented at the IWB have heard the decision to
move forward with the Willamette River proposal as a long term water source at their
respective Council or Board meetings. The staff recommendation did state that we will
continue to work with the City of Portland on an interim basis as well as a long term
contract. Mr. Wegner discussed the interest with Portland today in participating on the
oversight committee to work on the contract. He also discussed the interest in completing
some short term improvements to allow for additional water into Tigard's system during
the next couple of years.
IWB Meeting Minutes 4-28-99 Nage 1
In the staff recommendation to the Tigard City Council, the long term scenario outline
included the following:
• Purchase of land jointly with Wilsonville, TVWD and City of Tigard which will be
discussed with Wilsonville next week and determine if they want it brought before .,
their council prior to their June 7 council meeting.
• Develop comprehensive education program-working with Rockey Bowler and staff
• Another Public Forum is planned toward the end of May to discuss "Why the
Willamette"
• Begin the engineering scope of services to begin the North/South transmission line
and right of way acquisition. This will include site development work and outlining
all the necessary permits necessary for the next few years.
The Board members questioned the status of the other interested entities on proceeding
with the Willamette river option? Mr. Wegner stated that we have proposed that if
Wilsonville would not proceed, Tigard would still have the option to purchase the land.
The City of Sherwood has indicated during the preliminary engineering reports that they
are not interested in purchasing the land, although they would be interested in purchasing
part of the plant.
A short discussion was held on the route of the transmission system. Mr. Wegner stated
that the initial primary route indicated in the plan(Boones Ferry Road)has been changed
due to the amount of development in that area and the congestion. Currently we are
looking at taking the route of Grahams Ferry which is a County road with less congestion
Commissioner Hunt questioned how much money would be spent establishing the route
and transmission with the potential of the initiative passing and no way to recover those
funds? Mr. Wegner stated that the initiative is only whether to allow a vote before going
to the Willamette. Mr. Wegner continued by stating that we would now begin to pull
together the costs but will not take action until after the initiative is decided.
Commissioner Scheiderich questioned to what extent are the initial contracts, whether
right of way acquisition, plant site acquisition, intake pipe construction, final engineering
for the plant, etc. can the costs be paid by revenue, SDC's and at what point will Tigard
be recommending a bond?
Mr. Wegner stated that the fund set up last year for capital contingency for the long term
water source has a balance of 3.5 million dollars. In the past week it was determined that
we will be well within those figures if the engineering, raw water monitoring for next
year and the purchase of the land are close to the initial estimates. These costs have been
IWB Meeting Minutes 4-28-99 Pae
estimated to be closer to 2 million dollars. When other entities become a partner a
portion of the costs for the raw water monitoring and the engineering services will be
split between the partners. If everyone would join in, Tigard will only pay 42% of the
costs.
Commissioner Scheiderich questioned to what extent the direction taken by Tigard and
the City of Durham depend on further action by the supply agency (WWSA)? Mr.
Wegner stated that the next meeting of the WWSA is the first part of June. At last nights
Council meeting, Commissioner Hunt was directed to go to the WWSA and announce
that Tigard has a proposal to construct which is the first notification required. This will
allow other entities 90 days to decide if they want to be partners. The WWSA managers
will be notified at the monthly meeting next Wednesday so they will have a thirty day
head start that will be announced at the WWSA meeting.
Commissioner Drangsholt questioned what if other cities decide to participate and then
Tigard is unable to continue? Mr. Wegner stated that it was his understanding that the
IWB could inform Tigard that they are going to participate. Mr. Wegner stated that once
again the only thing the ballot measure addresses is the right to vote on the Willamette, it
does not determine the source. Bill Monahan stated that we need to identify the use of
resources and at the same time keep on track with meeting timelines. He continued by
stating that Council may have a measure on the ballot at the same time. Mr. Wegner
stated that the pipeline is common to both plans with the alignment being slightly
different.
S. Discussion/Recommendation on long term water supply
Commissioner Scheiderich questioned whether all of the Board Members were prepared
to state their jurisdiction's position as to proceeding to authorize a capital improvement
program for long term water supply? Commissioner Hunt read the notification of
Council decision:
Last night the Tigard City Council took a major implementation step in the
process for securing the Willamette River as a water source for the system
managed by the City for each member of the IWB. The Council directed the
Tigard City Manager to prepare a "Proposal to Construct"a Willamette River
water supply system that is based upon the report and recommendation of
Murray, Smith and Associates, dated December 1998. The exact size and system
configuration of the project will be determined through the process of
coordinating with the Willamette Water Supply Agency through the presentation
of the "Proposal to Construct" to the agency for it's consideration.
Subject to receiving concurrence from the members of this Board, the Council
further committed the City to carry out all of the implementation tasks necessary
to carry out the Proposal, to include but not limited to property acquisition,
IWB Meeting Minutes 4-28-99 Page 3
contracting for design and construction services,financing, and execution of
future governance documents.
The City Council took this action in order to fulfill the obligations to the IWB
members that is assumed by contract to supply high quality water at low costs to
the members. In order for the City to proceed with this project it must have the
approval of the governing bodies of at least two of the Board jurisdictions for the
capital improvement program that will carry out the Willamette option. I am
seeking notification of that approval tonight if the members have received
authorization to act. I will also be coming to you in the future for approval to
enter long term water supply contracts.
Commission Carroll made a motion that the IWB approve the participation of all member
entities in a capital improvement program to construct a long term water supply in the
form of a treatment and purification plant to be located in or near Wilsonville, Oregon
and using the Willamette River as raw water source together with all necessary property
acquisition, professional design and construction services, preparation for a plan for
financing the improvements and preparation of future governances and agreements with
the understanding that the initial phase of the improvements program are to be paid from
revenues of the existing water supply system, managed by the City of Tigard and set
aside for the purpose of such capital improvements.
With some brief discussion by the Board, it was decided that each member would speak 10
individually and then make one Board recommendation. At this time Commissioner
Carroll withdrew the above motion.
Commissioner Drangsholt stated"I represent the City of King City and have been
authorized by my governing body to approve the capital improvement program for the
Willamette option as required by Paragraph 5D of the IWB IGA between King City and
the City of Tigard".
Commissioner Carroll then stated "I represent the City of Durham and have been
authorized by my governing body to approve the capital improvement program for the
Willamette option as required by Paragraph 5D of the IWB IGA between Durham and the
City of Tigard".
Commissioner Froude then stated "I represent the unincorporated area of Tigard Water
District and have been authorized by my governing body to approve the capital
improvement program for the Willamette option as required by Paragraph 5D of the IWB
IGA between the Tigard Water District and the City of Tigard".
Commission Scheiderich then questioned after hearing these presentations, was there a
motion for recommendation from the Board? At this point Commissioner Carroll asked
to resubmit the motion previously read and recorded. This motion was seconded by *400
Commission Drangsholt and was voted upon and passed unanimously.
IWB Meeting Minutes 4-28-99 Paec 4
6. Public comments
There were no public comments.
7. Non agenda items
Mr. Wegner stated that Jennifer Renninger has accepted a full time position with an
engineering consulting firm and will be leaving the City of Tigard in mid May. Jennifer
was very instrumental in working with the IWB and the Task Force in providing resource
materials during the past four months.
Mr. Wegner stated that we would need to meet May 12 which is back to the regular
meeting schedule of the IWB. At this meeting we will need to discuss budget, the Clute
property and will have a water conservation presentation.
Commissioner Hunt stated the he suggested to the Tigard City Council that we should be
considering an increase in water rates as soon as we can work out. He continued by
stating that no matter which direction we take for long term water, we will need
additional funds. Commission Hunt stated that exceeding the peaking factor last year of
over 1 million dollars which is normally the amount of revenue generated to put into the
capital improvement fund. We need to look now at building up this fund. This is a
function that the IWB will need to take the lead on and make a recommendation to City
Council. We will also need to have some public input on this matter.
Commissioner Scheiderich asked if Mr. Hunt was recommending a outside rate study to
be initiated? Commissioner Hunt continued by discussing the rate study that was
completed a few back years back by CH2M Hill which included a rate model system
which allows us to work on rate adjustments. Mr. Wegner stated that we could have
CH2M Hill look at updating the model within a thirty day period.
Commissioner Hunt requested that the Public Works staff bring back suggestion on how
to proceed with rate study. Commissioner Scheiderich stated that this could possibly be
done at the June meeting. Mr. Scheiderich continued by stating that this may include how
the results of the rate study would be presented to the Durham, King City and the Tigard
Water District.
Commissioner Hunt discussed the initiative and whether it should be challenged, when it
should be challenged and whether this Board should discuss this matter now?
Commissioner Scheiderich stated that he did not think that this challenge would be done
by the Board but may be done by an individual on the Board or an individual entity that
can show the court they have the standing to bring a suit. He continued by stating that in
his opinion since this Board is an advisory Board to the City Council it would not be
IWB Meeting Minutes 4-28-99 Pa -
capable of bringing a lawsuit in its own name let alone against the City of Tigard. He
continued by stating that he would recommend doing nothing until we see the results of
the signature validation. It was noted that the required number of signatures was 3,358
and the Citizens for Safe Water had submitted a little over 4,000 signatures for validation.
8. Adjournment
Motion was made by Commissioner Drangsholt to adjourn the regular meeting of the
IWB at 6:20 p.m. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Carroll.
IWB Meeting Minutes 4-28-99 Page�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Intergovernmental Water Board Members
FROM: Ed Wegner
RE: Water Information
DATE: May 21, 1999
Enclosed is various water related information for your review.
• Letter from EPA explaining briefly, the means by which the EPA sets primary
drinking water standards.
• AWWA "Waterweek"' We made the national AWWA's newsletter
• WWSA news release from May 3, Wilsonville City Council meeting.
• Portland Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and Contingency Plan. A
comprehensive strategy for meeting peak season water demand.
• Cascade Policy Institute— information on competitive bidding for water and sewer
services. A case study on Portland Water Abundance Plan and news release from
Indianapolis and Jersey City.
• Discussion paper on policy issues —Willamette Basin Reservoir Feasibility Study
• E-mail from Cathy Wheatley— Initiative Petition (Water)
KathyVwb\info memo 5-20-99
pECE0WE
APR 2 0 1999
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE CITY OF WILSONVILLE
REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle,Washington 98101
Reply To
Ath Of: OW-136 26 April 1999
Mr. Jeff Bauman
Wilsonville Public Utilities
8455 S.W. E ligsen Rd.
Wilsonville, OR 97070
Dear Mr. Bauman:
You have asked me to provide a brief explanation of the means by which the EPA setsprim_
drinking water standards. You have asked how chemicals are selected for regu on,w aerie process is
for establishing the maximum levels of the regulated contaminants allowed in public water supplies and
whether the standards are protective of human health. The following is a synopsis of this process that I
trust will answer these questions.
Contaminants are selected for regulation based on intensive technological evaluation which
includes many factors. These include, but are not limited to, the potential for causing adverse health
effects,occurrence in the environment,risk of human expose and special requirements of sensitive
subpopulations.The EPA has established a Contaminant Candidate List, (CCL),from which contaminants
will be selected for future regulation. The CCL includes biological contaminants,(bacteria,viruses and
protozoa)as well as chemicals. A wide variety of data sources are used in building the CCL,including
environmental monitoring by a number of agencies,academic and research data and occurrence data from
the unregulated contaminant monitoring which is required of public water supplies.
For each regulated contaminant,the EPA sets a maximum contaminant level goal, (MCLG),This
non-enforceable goal is defined as"the maximum level of a contaminant in drinking wafter at which no
known or anticipated adverse effect on the health or persons would occur,and which allows an adequate
margin of safety.' To determine this health-based goal,EPA conducts a risk assessment, examining data
for cancer and/or non-cancer causing health effects:The maximum contaminant level goal is determined
by examining studies in which the contaminant has been established as causative for adverse health
effects in humans or by extrapolation from experimental studies with laboratory animals.
For each contaminant,the EPA then sets a maximum contaminant level, (MCL)which is the
enforceable maximum level of the contaminant which is allowable in public drinking water supplies. The
MCL is set as close to the MCLG as is technologically feasible taking cost into consideration. For many
contaminants,the MCLG and the MCL are the same,since it is technologically and economically feasible
to maintain the levels of those contaminants at the health-based level. For those MCLs that exceed their
MCLGs risks of adverse health effects are calculated to assure that the MCL is acceptably protective of
human health.
2
In estimating risk,the EPA uses a statistical model which assumes a linear relationship between
dose and effect. This is an inherently conservative model. The models for risk estimation can also be
considered to yield conservative estimates in that they assume an individual to drink two liters of the
affected water every day for a seventy-year life span. Furthermore, the risks are adjusted upward through
the application of uncertainty factors that can span an order of magnitude and additional adjustments are
made to protect especially vulnerable populations, (e.g.,children). In general,the models used by the EPA
are considerably more conservative, (i.e., protective)than most other schemas that are commonly used for
risk estimation.
The EPA's confidence in the adequacy of these methods is implicit in the `mandatory health effect's
language' (40 CFR§ 141.32(e)) that is required by our regulations to be reported to consumers when a
public water supply exceeds the maximum contaminant level for a particular contaminant These
statements describe the range of health effects attributed to the particular contaminant,the types of studies
that have implicated the contaminant and the maximum contaminant level for the contaminant derived as
explained above. The statements conclude with the phrase, `..Drinking water which meets this standard is
associated with little to none of this risk and should be considered safe.'
The standards are subject to periodic review, generally every five years. This period can be
foreshortened if emergent information suggests earlier review and/or revision would be appropriate.
I hope that this material will be useful to you in understanding the methods by which the EPA
determines the primary drinking water standards and our confidence in the protections afforded by these
standards. Please call me,or invite your constituency to call me at(206) 553-1389 with questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
Gene Taylor, Ph.D.
Health Effects Specialist
Drinking Water Unit
tlay 07 1999 15:0623 Via Fax -> Ed Wegner page 001 (If 88Z
Visit our Web site at
www_awwa.orq�watorwook
for daily headline news.
Volume 8 No.19 American Water Works Association • Dedicated to Sate DrinkkV Water May 7, 1999
Judge claims discretion data lacking on water sector Y2K status
to consider options Lack of information on the Y2K readiness of US water and wasteWdter
for SWTR compliance utilities bas led federal investigators to press for expanded public
disclosure of status information,including suggesting legislation to
A federal district court judge for the an require facilities to tell their Y2K status by September.According to a new
October
of Massachusetts has slatedber 14 evidentiary hearing to con-
Govemment Accounting Office survey of EPA,state,trade association
Octo
sider whether filtration is the only and utility activities on the Y2K front,lack of EPA and state demands for
remedy for systems that fail to meet systems to report their status and weak responses to surveys by industry-
the Surface Water Treatment Rule's fil- associations makes it difficult to assess and manage the related public
tration-avoidance criteria. health risks.
Ruling on an EPA motion for sum- Released this week(www gao.govldaybook/990506.htm),the report
maty judgment to order the Massachu- notes that EPA lacks the power and does not have time to develop roles to
setts Water Resources Authority to require systems to report their Y2K status and"oaly a handful"of state
fitter its surface water supply, US Dis- regulators believe they are responsible for ensuringY2K readiness.GAO
trict Court Judge Richard G. Stearns listed only two states—Colorado and 11Tnnesota--as having taken a
this week found that MWRA has failed proactive stance on assessing system readiness and providing compliance
to meet the avoidance criteria and a guidance.GAO notes that a late-1998 water industry survey of 4,000
state-issued waiver is "of no effect." operators generated only 725 responses,about half of which indicated
But he rejected EPAs claim that filtra- they had completed assessments oftheir internal systems.AWWA,the
tion is therefore mandatory, asserting
that the SDWA judicial enforcement Association of MetropolitanWaterAgencies and the National Association
provision (42 USC, Section 300g-3(b)1 ofV4ter Companics will send a follow-up survey out this month,with
does not limit the court 'to mechanical results due back in July(call Jon DeBoer at 303-347-6187 for details).
enforcement of EPA compliance
orders." Tigard opts for Willamette River supply
He wrote: "Why Congress might
not have wanted to eliminate judicial The Tigard,Ore,city council on April 27 culminated months of study
discretion in ordering compliance and debate over haw best to meet long--term public water needs by
with the SDWA is not difficult t o unanimously voting to treat Willamette River water rather than buy water
imagine. Technology evolves more from Portland.With some council members claiming this was their most
rapidly than typically does legisla- important council decision for the city as well as the region,the panel
tion, and there is inherent danger in gave a big boost to constructing a$42.7 million filtration/ozonation plant
attempting to legislate today's sei- by 2002 that could wind up serving nearby cities of Sherwood,
ence as the foreordained solution for Wilsonville,and Tualatin as well as customers of the Tualatin Valley
tomorrow's problems." Water District.
The hearing will focus on whether Sherwood,Tigard,Tualatin and the TVWD are members of the
MWRA's watershed protection/ozona-
tion/ptpe rehabilitation plan `will better Willamette Water Supply Agency.The treatment plant would be built in
serve Congress's objective of pro- Wilsonville,which last year restricted building in the face of a water
viding'maximum feasible protection of shortage and is slated to decide in June whether to support the facility.
the public heafth' than will EPAs insis- WWSA expects the other three member agencies with an interest in the
tence on filtration.' plant to decide by this fall whether to join the effort and how to establish
ownership and funding structures.
This issue sponsored by MIOX Corporation
Move up to wafer by...
fox®THE LEADING TECHNOLOGY FOR WATER DISINFECTION EQUIPMENT
tel: (505) 343-0090 • email: info@miox.com • website: www.miox.com
CVR�oRwr�ar
flay B7 1999 15:87:16 Via Fax —> Ed Wegner page 882 Of 88Z
'1 li ► �1Y� tr� May 7, 1999
Hot topics concentrations,testing time cut to about four hours and
cost-savings from being able to measure the presence of
PUBLIC NOTICE RULE EPA is expected to dozens of microorganisms in a single best.UWS,
publish proposed revisions to SDWA public notice Lyonnaise and bioMerieux-expect the method to be
regulations for public comment next week.EPA has operational upon completion of the pilot test Call Olivia
already slated three public meetings to seek comment on Barberis at 404-253-3993 for details.
the rule and its companion handbook:May 26 in CRYPTO WORKSHOP.During a late-April
Madison,Wis.;June 3 in Washington,D.C.;June 8-9 in workshop sponsored by the EPA Office of Water's Office
Allentown,Pa.;and June 23-24 in Phoenix,Ariz.Call of Science and Technology,Cryptosporidium experts
Carl Reeverts at 202-260-7273 for details. discussed whether any species other than C.par wn are
SOURCE PROTEMON.EPA has announced it is of regulatory concern under the SDWA.EPA opted to
seeking proposals by June 7 from state,local and tribal make the Interim Enhanced Surface Khter Treatment
govemments and non for-profit community water systems Rule particular only to the Cryptospori&wn genus,
and technical-assistance organizations for$2 million set giving scientists more time to assess whether any of eight
aside to help fund source-protection projects in small, other known species or strains are infective to humans.
rural or economically disadvantaged communities.As Experts at the April 29-30 meeting reviewed a report that
described in the May 6 Federal Rcgiatcr,EPA will divvy C.felir has infected an immunocompromised person,
up $L625 million of the total among its ten regional which would be the first time a non-C.partum species
offices to allocate as they see fit and retain$375 million has been identified as a human pathogen.They also
for EPA headquarters to award to national,multistate or discussed how current technologies limit understanding
multi-region projects.Preference will be given to projects of its occurrence,the range of pathogenic species and
located within priority watersheds identified by states in route of disease transmission.Call Steve Schaub at 202-
their Unified Watershed Assessments developed under the 260-7591 for details.
Clean Water Action Plan.Eligible projects may support TOXICOLOGY.Mixtures of aldicarb,atrazine and
community source water assessment and protection nitrate in conoecttations commonly found in
activities as well as stormwater,nonpoint source or wet groundwater can significantly influence neurological,
weather activities that help integrate groundwater .mmune and endocrine systems,according to the findings
concerns into watershed assessment/restoration plans, of a team of researchers at the University of Wisconsin at
support wellhead protection programs or help Madison.Published in the January-March issue of
communities considering new source-protection plans or Tmzcology mrd Industrial Health, the report by Warren P.
ordinances.Contact regional offices or Evyonne Harris at Porter et at describes results of five years of assessing
EPA HQ at 202-260-1399 for details. health effects on mice exposed to drinking water
ANALYTICAL METHODS.Consumers of Atlanta containing the coniaminants at levels equivalent to their
city water learned today that the new contract operators current federal standards.In a UWM press release(at
of Atlanta's water utility will pilot test the first gene- www.ne%vs.wL-x—cduAhisweek/feseatcb/biQ/y99/Pesticide.
probe technology for detecting waterborne pathogens.in html),Porter says the'single most important finding of
a May 7 press conference in dow nlownAtlanta,officials the study is that common mixtures,not the standard one-
from New Jersey-based United VAter Services and its chemical-at-a-time experiments,can show biological
French parert company Lyonnaise des Eaux announced effects at current concentrations in groundwater.
that Atlanta will be the sole US site for a two-year pilot RISK MANAGEMENT.Water systems that handle
test of the GeneChip array method being developed 2,500 lb or more of chlorine,10,000 lb or more of
under a$9 million development effort by Lyonnaise and anhydrous ammonia or 20,000 lb or more of aqueous
bioMerieux,one of the world's top biological diagnostic ammonia have until June 21 to submit Risk Management
companies(US office in St.Louis,Mo.).The technology, Plans to EPA as required under RMP provisions of the
developed for medical uses,works by matching up to Clean Air Act For details,check the EPA's RMP Web
400,000 programmed genetic codes with the DNA site at www.epa.gov/swercepplacc-pre.html or call 800-
signature of microbial contaminants.Touted advantages 926-7337 to order an AWWA video(No.6515 1)and/or
include accurate identification of microbes even at low an AA'V&A Research Foundation report(No.90760).
WATEFIWEEK is published weekly by the American Water Works Association, 6666 W Quincy Ave., Denver 00 80235.
Copyright C 1999 by AWWA. Distribution limited to recipient facility. Editor: Mark Scharfenaker. Phone: 303-347-6263_ Fax:
303-794-7310. E-mail: rnscharfe0awwa_org. To subscribe call 303-347-6167. Internet site: http://www_awwa_org1waterweek
Expanded reporting of selected stories in AWWA MANS1REAK
WILLAMETTE WATER SUPPLY AGENCY
May 4, 1999 Page 1 of 3
For Immediate Release
EXPERTS DECLARE TAP RATER FROM WILLAMETTE SAFE TO DRINK
Tap water from a proposed water treatment plant on the Willamette River will be
safe to drink That was the unanimous conclusion of a panel of independent toxicology
and water treatment experts speaking to the Wilsonville City Council last night. Each of
the experts reported that tap water from the treatment plant will meet federal drinking
water standards,and that those standards provide a very wide niargm of safety.
Wilsonville officials assembled the panel in response to criticisms from some
citizens that it was relying only on the reports of consultants with an interest in the
proposed plant regarding the capability of the proposed treatment plant to make water
from the Willamette River safe to drink Last night's panel of independent experts
included professors from Oregon State University and Portland State University,a
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality researcher,as well as a Maryland-based
laboratory practices expert.
Over the last month,the experts conducted their own reviews of the water quality
�..r data assembled by the city's consultants,and individually reported their conclusions to
the Council at its regular meeting last night. Their reports were followed by one and one-
half hours of questioning by members of the public and the Council. Citizens opposed to
use of the Willamette as a drinking water source asked numerous probing questions of the
panel, on subjects ranging from deformed fish to dioxin to the reliability of water
treatment technology. All panel members stood by their conclusions that the data that
has been gathered about the Willamette River is reliable and is an adequate basis for
concluding that tap water from the proposed plant will be safe to drink.
Dr. Jeffrey Jenkins,an OSU toxicology professor,reported on the risk assessment
he conducted on the potential for exposure to-pesticides in the river. He found that
pesticide concentrations in water drawn from the river at Wilsonville were already so low
that they are well below any health-based standard lie was able to locate. Itis search
focused on the risks for infants who would drink the water,and included EPA health
advisories and World Health Organization standards, in addition to federal drinking water
Telephone: 503-642-1511 P.O. Box 745
Fax: 503-356-3112 Beaverton, Oregon 97075
l
WILLAMETTE WATER SUPPLY AGENCY
Page 2 of 3
standards. He noted that the water treatment process would further reduce these levels
after the water was taken from the river.
Dr. Eugene Foster,an aquatic toxicologist with DEQ,reported that Willamette
Rivet-water quality is already high and is improving. Water quality near Wilsonville
scores near 90 on the Oregon Water Quality Index 100-point scale. The department's
latest data also shows a drastic drop in the incidence of fish deformities A survey
conducted for the department in 1998 found the incidence of deformities near Wilsonville
was one-fifth of what had been detected in a sample 5 years earlier.
Dr. Foster noted that the question of whether the Willamette is an appropriate
water supply source is ince than academic for hire. He is a Tigard resident;the Tigard
City Council recently selected the Willamette as its long-term water supply source.
When asked if he would drink tap water from the proposed plant, Foster answered that,
although there is anecdotal evidence that makes people nervous about the river,all of the
available data supports the conclusion that the tap water from the plant will be safe to
drink.
Dr. Kenneth Williamson,an OSU civil engineering professor who specializes in
water treatment,stated"There are no flaws in this water treatment plant design." He
emphasized repeatedly that granular activated carbon(GAC)is extremely effective at
removing chemicals,metals and other contaminants. He also noted that the 6 foot deep
GAC filter proposed for this plant is deeper than what is generally used in water
treatment plants,providing a very large safety factor.
One questioner was puzzled by the panels' conclusion that water quality in the
Willamette River at Wilsonville is quite good. Dr. Dick- Pratt,a PSU environmental
toxicology professor,explained that the only significant pollution problem in the river
occurs downstream from Wilsonville with sewer overflows from Portland's combined
storm sewer system. The proposed treatment plant will withdraw water from the river at
a point before those overflows contaminate the river. The most significant health concern
in(lie river at Wilsonville is from bacteria, according to Pratt. The disinfection process in
the treatment plant will easily destroy those organisms,making the water safe;to drink-
Telephone:
rinkTelephone: 503-642-1511 P_O. Box 745
Fax: 503-356-3112 Beaverton, Oregon 97075
WILLAME-rTE WATER SUPPLY AGENCY
Page 3 of 3
Dean Hill,an expert in testing procedures,reported that the sampling and testing
procedures followed by the city's consultants were good. He concluded that the test
results showing no detection of chemicals and metals in the water were reliable.
The members of the panel were:
• Dr. Jeffrey Jenkins,Associate Professor of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology,
Oregon State University. His research focuses on pesticides and their impact on
human health and the environment.
• Dr. James"Dick"Pratt,Director of Environmental Sciences and Resources
Department, Portland State University. His work concentrates on aquatic toxicology
and ecosystem health.
• Dr. Kenneth Williamson, Professor of Environmental Engineering, Oregon State
University,and Director of the Oregon Water Resources Institute. His focus is on
environmental management and on treatment of hazardous and municipal wastes.
• Dr. Eugene Foster,Environmental Toxicologist,Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. His work involves evaluating the risks to aquatic life and
human health from exposure to toxic pollutants.
• Dean Hill, Senior Consultwit for Quality Associates Inc. His practice involves
consulting on compliance with EPA"Good Laboratory Practice"regulations. He is
the former Chief of the EPA Pesticides and Toxic Substances branch, with
responsibility for inspecting laboratories in 47 states for compliance with the Good
Laboratory Practices regulations.
For further information,contact:
Kevin Hanway, Executive Director
543-6,42-1511
Telephone: 503-642-1511 P.O. Box 745
Fax: 503-356-3112 Beaverton, Oregon 97075
i
M
QORTa Erik Sten, Commissioner
ti o o��p C1TY OF Michael F. Rosenberger, Administrator
z PORTLAND OREGON 1120 S.W. 5th Avenue
rtland, Oregon 97204
_ � PoInformation (503)823-7404
BUREAU OF WATER WORKS Fax(503)823-6133
TDD (503)823-6868
18b1
Memorandum
TO: Interested Citizens and Stakeholders
FROM: Michael F. Rosenberger, Administrator
DATE: April 28, 1999
SUBJECT: Draft 1999 Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and Contingency Plan
Attached for your review is the Revised Draft 1999 Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and
Contingency Plan (dated April 22, 1999).
The plan provides a comprehensive strategy for meeting peak season water demands during the
summer of 1999. The strategy reflects up-to-date projections of water demand and available
supply resources as we approach this year's summer season.
Portland's"Baseline"supply resources include water savings from conservation,Bull Run
supply(including streamflow, storage, and a portion of Bull Run Lake), routine seasonal
wholesale demand offloads,and supplemental groundwater from the Columbia South Shore
Wellfield. "Contingency"resource options include additional groundwater, existing system
interties and offloads,portions of Bull Run Lake, and curtailment of water use. Our most recent
projections indicate that the City's baseline water supply resources should be more than
sufficient to meet 1999 peak season demand.
The proposed summer supply plan is designed to meet multiple objectives including high level of
supply reliability and water quality, fish habitat enhancement, and cost management. Please
review this draft plan and direct questions or comments to Roberta Jortner(tel. 823-7473; e-mail
dortner@water.ci.portland.or.us). Please provide your comments by Tuesday, May 11, 1999 so
they can be considered as the draft is revised. The City Council will be considering the plan at
9:30 a.m. on May 26, 1999.
Thank you for your interest.
cc: Commissioner Erik Sten
Angela-Wilson - -- - - ---- ---- ------
Rosemary Menard
An Equal Opportunity Ennplo �- er
1999 Summer Water Supply Strategy- Hightlights
What is the Summer Supply Plan?
• The Water Bureau is developing its annual summer supply plan for 1999. This is the seventh
annual plan developed since the 1992 seasonal drought.The plan will go to the City Council
for endorsement in May.
• The summer supply plan reflects up-to-date information on water demand and supply. The
plan provides an overview of key supply and demand management options, including
"baseline"and"contingency"resources.
■ Baseline resources include the City's primary surface water system in the Bull Run
watershed,our supplemental groundwater supply system in the Columbia South Shore
Wellfield,as well as water savings from year-round and peak season conservation efforts.
■ Contingency resources include additional water from Bull Run Lake, use of interties with the
Clackamas River,additional groundwater and water use curtailment.
■ The summer supply plan also provides an overall framework and priorities for meeting peak
season demand and making operational decisions during the peak season. The plan and
operating strategies will be designed to balance and meet multiple objectives for
- water use efficiency
- supply reliability
- optimizing water quality in the system/water quality compatibility and stability
- environmental stewardship and regulatory compliance
- managing costs cost effectiveness.
On the Demand Side
■ Water for People -The Water Bureau is currently producing summer water demand forecasts
for our current retail and wholesale customers. The Bureau's are short-term and long-term
demand forecasting capabilities are strong and getting stronger as our models"mature"
allowing clearer identification of relationships and trends.Per capita demand is about 8%
lower than it would have been without conservation,based on pre-1992 trends.
Demand management is a key component of the Bureau's seasonal water supply strategy.It
includes a peak season media campaign urging customers to use water wisely. The peak
season campaign complement's the Bureau and Columbia-Willamette Conservation
Coalition's year-round conservation efforts. The Bureau is also participating in the
development of a regional strategy to track and measure water conservation effectiveness.
■ Water for Fish—This year's summer supply strategy provides water to assist in the recovery
of listed threatened fish species(Steelhead and Chinook)in the Sandy River Basin. The
Bureau is planning to release flows from existing Bull Run reservoirs during the spring and
summer. Springtime releases will help facilitate downstream migration of fish smolts in the
lower Bull Run-and Sandy Rivers.
■ The Bureau also intends to conduct several flow release tests during August and September.
These tests will shed light on how different flow levels can improve fish rearing habitat and
instream water temperatures. The Bureau will also be exploring other types of fish habitat
improvements such as adding spawning gravels to the lower Bull Run River and modifying
culverts to facilitate fish passage into upstream habitat. The results of these tests will help the
City in meeting Endangered Species Act requirements and honing the Bureau's summer
supply strategy for future years.
On the Supply Side
■ Bottom line: Between the City's primary surface water system in the Bull Run Watershed,
and our supplemental groundwater wellfield in the Columbia South Shore,there should be
plenty of water(baseline resource) to meet projected demands for people and fish, even if we
have a long hot summer.
■ Preliminary modeling efforts for 1999 predict it is likely that there will be a surplus of Bull
Run storage remaining when the reservoirs begin to refill in fall. However, in any given year,
there is a 10-15 percent chance that Bull Run supply will need to be supplemented with
groundwater(up to about 5 BG).In order to ensure a high level of supply reliability and
good, stable water quality,the Bureau plans to begin blending groundwater from the
Columbia South Shore Wellfield with Bull Run water on a routine basis.By pumping
groundwater at low levels(e.g., 10-20%blend)starting early in the season,the Bureau can
reduce potential water quality fluctuations that affect customers,manage peak day demands,
test out new disinfection improvements,and minimize the risk of water use curtailment.
Substantial groundwater is available to provide a higher level of augmentation if needed. The
Bureau will consider actual weather and supply conditions in determining if and when
supplemental supplies are needed.
■ The Bureau has developed several operating strategies that can accommodate the range of
potential weather and supply conditions.
r_ k--., AS CADS POLICY INSTITUTE (- o -�l
04i
C.o. .
APR 3 )999
April 29, 19999
To: Mayor Jim Nicoli
City of Tigard
Fr: Kurt T. Weber
Program Director
cc: Councilor Paul Hunt
Councilor Brian Moore /
Councilor Joyce Patton
Councilor Ken Scheckla
Re: Competitive bidding for water and sewer services
Enclosed is the"The Portland Water Abundance Plan: A Proposal to Use Managed Competition to
Conserve and Extend the Portland Metropolitan Region's Water Supplies." Many of the principles
and points in the report are applicable beyond the city named in the title.
In the bid to provide a suitable water supply at a low cost for your residents, I encourage you to
consider the experiences of Jersey City and Indianapolis; both have competitively contracted their
waster and sewer services. The results: lower costs and enhanced service. Numerous other cities
have experienced the same results.
For information about Indianapolis, call Mayor Stephen Goldsmith's office at (317) 327-3601.
Alternatively, refer to: www.indygov.org/mayor_frameset.htm. To learn more about Jersey City's
contracting out of water and sewer services, call Mayor Bret Schundler's office at(201) 547-5200,
or refer to: www.cityofjjerseycity.com.
Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. My email address is Kurt@CascadePolicy.org.
813 SW Alder • Suite 450 • Portland • Oregon 97205
(503) 242-0900 • fax 242-3822 • www.CascadePolicy.org • Info@CascadePolicy.org
EMU
tal Press
WESTERN ORE./WESTERN WASFI. EDITION AGIUCULTU M 1VVLEKLY
o.
•1 s1 ** FRIDAY.FEB.6,1996 Serving Farnis and Ranches in Oregon, Washington,Idalio,Calif6rni-
ocal gove, rnments can .compete
Let's play local government tion that ... more government private companies for the right to guidance,Goldsmith employed the
Jeopardy! The answer is: Indi- spending improves services is do the citizen's work. "Yellow Pages Test."
inapolis.Question:Where should the single most destructive idea Guest All told, unionized employees "Look at the city's Yellow
public officials and concerned cit- that hampers government policy Comment have won 37 of 86 contracts on bid, Pages,"he advises. "If the phone
zens look for solutions in the wake today." Public employees even won back book lists three companies that pro-
)f Measures 5, 47 and 507 Consider these select Indi- some contracts that private com- vide a certain service,the city prob-
Since 1992 Indianapolis has im- anapolis achievements: Kurt panies were fulfilling, Union ably should not be in that business,
)roved the quality of municipal ser- ■The cost of billing sewer users Weber members now suggest outsourc- at least not exclusively."
rices and reduced its cost by 25 dropped 33 percent. I ing when it will save moneyl They For example, this writer sug-
?ercent under the leadership of ■ Eight-men crews with two Indianapolis has achieved sim- know they must be cost-compet- gests looking under"landscaping."
twice-elected Mayor Stephen trucks used to repair potholes.To- ilar results in its jails,airport man- itive — or they risk losing their You'll likely find more than three,
Toldsmith. day, five-man crews and one agement,garbage collection,pub- contract to someone else when it companies.City,county and state
Mayor Goldsmith's recently truck do the same work.Savings: lic vehicle repairs and more.'Ib add expires. employees could compete with
published "11wenty-first Century 25 percent. compliment to accomplishment, Stephen Fantauzzo,executive them for the contract to maintain
"ity"(Regnery,1997)provides prin- ■Copying costs have been re- employee morale is up,and work- director for the American Feder- our parks.
:;pled insight into how other duced by 27 percent. related injuries,sick time,and ab- ation of State County and Mu- On March 1,Cascade Policy In-
:ities,counties,special districts and ■In 1993,towing and dispos- senteeism are down. nicipal Employees Council 62, is stitute kicks off its third Oregon
;tate governments might replicate ing of abandoned vehicles cost tax- "Most civil servants are hard- a believer. Fantauzzo notes,"We Better Government Competition,
its results. payers$174,000,In the next two working and talented....The prob- had for years been saying that if which seeks ideas on how to im-
Goldsmith proudly says,"We did years, Indianapolis earned lem is that they have been we weren't saddled with the bu. prove local government services,
iot just cut the rate of growth,we $500,000 for the same activities. trapped in a system that punish- reaucracy and the heavy layers of Pick up Goldsmith's "Twenty-
ictually spent less. ... Our budget ■ Management cost for two es initiative,ignores efficiency,and management,then we could pro- fust Century City"if you need idew�
n 1997 was 7 percent lower wastewater treatment plants, rewards big spenders,"Goldsmith vide services as efficiently as as to how we can do it.
than the budget when I took of- already nationally recognized writes. any private vendor." We can improve services, low=
ice. ...At the same time,we made models of efficiency and perfor- He has freed public employees Goldsmith didn't appoint blue- er taxes, and have a better qual-
.he largest infrastructure invest- mance, were slashed 44 per- and improved services through ribbon commissions or hire pricy ity of life. Look to Indianapolis.
hent in the city's history ... and cent.Savings:$65 million over five "market-testing," through com- consultants to achieve such cost-
:)ut 100 more police officers on city years.On average,water leaving petition.Except for public safety, saving and attitude-changing re- Kurt T Weber is the program di-
Streets ..." the plants is cleaner than EPA re- many city services are put out for sults. He simply introduced gov- rector at Cascade Policy Institute,
He ernphat.ically states,-rhe no- quirements. bid.Public employees compete with ernment to competition.Tb provide a Portland-based think tank.
Cascade Policy Institute Portland, Oregon (:, ) 242-0900 www.CascadePolicy.org
U1 i r Ur-
JERSEY CITY
w
CITY HALL
`YsRET SCHUNDLER JERSEY CITY, NJ 07302
MAYOR _ (201) 547-5200
rte'
��RAT E St
*Embargoed Until April 1, 1996*
"It's Official! "
Jersey City To Sign Contract With United Water
5 Year Pact Will Save City $38.5 Million
When: Monday,April 1st
10:00 - 11:00 am
Where: Jersey City Council Chambers
City Hall, 280 Grove Street
Jersey City, NJ 07302
(Exit 14B of NJ Turnpike)
Jersey City—On Monday, Mayor Bret Schundler and Donald Correll, Chairman and CEO of
United Water,will make their partnership official by signing a 5 year management contract
between the City of Jersey City and United Water which will create the largest public/private
water utility in New Jersey.
Mayor Bret Schundler says that the agreement will save the City$38.5 million over the term
of the contract while increasing investment in the utility's capital infrastructure:
"This contract represents the best of both worlds. Under this partnership,the City will be able
to benefit from United Water's management expertise while retaining ownership of the utility's
assets and the ability to set water rates."
(MORE)
Jersey City Signs 5-Year Pact with United Water, Page 2
The highlights of the private management contract between Jersey City and United Water are
as follows:
* $38.5 million in projected savings for Jersey City
* Jersey City will retain ownership of its reservoirs and treatment facilities
* The City will continue to have sole control over water rates
* No employee lay-offs
* Additional savings of$20 million to the JC Sewerage Authority
* Increased revenues from improved collections and increased bulk water sales
The$38.5 million in projected savings will be generated as follows: $2.5 million concession fee
paid by United Water to Jersey City, $17.5 million in operational savings, $18.5 million from
increased revenues to the utility through improved collections and an increase in bulk water
sales.
"This public-private partnership will lay the foundation to improve the strengths of the Jersey
City water system," said Correll. "During the five-year partnership,United Water will put
into operation advanced technologies to significantly improve service to our customers."
According to the contract, United Water will be responsible for all aspects of Jersey City's
water system,which provides its customers with approximately 55 million gallons of water per
day. Their duties will include:
* Management of the utility's 5,700 acre watershed
* Operation and maintenance of the distribution system
* Provide billing and collection services
* Provide customer and emergency services
The contract also includes several innovative incentive clauses which will allow United Water
to earn additional revenue if it increases the utility's collection rate and markets the utility's
excess water to other communities. While Jersey City's water utility has been marginally
profitable under public management, its revenues have been hampered by a 70% collection
rate.
Jersey City's water utility currently has agreements to.sell its excess water to Hoboken,
Lyndhurst, West Caldwell, and the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA).
However, its reservoirs have adequate safe yield capacity to increase its bulk water sales.
The contract between Jersey City and United Water was made possible by the New Jersey
Water Supply Public-Private Contracting Act (PL 1195, c. 101), which allows municipalities
to enter into contracts with private firms for the provision of water supply services.
(MORE)
Jersey City Signs 5-Year Pact with United Water, Page 3
Representatives of the NJ Board of Public Utilities, the NJ Department of Environmental
Protection, the NJ Department of Community Affairs, and the NJ Department of Personnel
have been invited to attend the contract signing ceremony.
THE PORTLAND WATER ABUNDANCE PLAN
A Proposal to Use Managed Competition to Conserve and Extend
the Portland Metropolitan Region's Water Supplies
Jerry Yudelson, P.E., M.B.A.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 1992 drought made it dear that regional growth had overtaken the capacity of the water
supply system to function reliably in drought years.In response,a new regional water supply plan was
adopted by the City of Portland,the METRO regional government and local water supply-agencies,but
there have been few other effective short-term solutions.Pressing tasks still remain from the 1992 drought,
including major investments in supply proposed by Portland water officials since that time.Because these
improvements come with high price tags,it is important to examine all options,using practical economic
thinking and lessons from the development of competitive energy markets over the past 20 years.
The basic premise of this report is that water should be procured and provided in a similar fashion
as other vitrl commodities such as natural gas, electricity and food. The public does not worry about
shortages of these commodities or carry the burden of investing in new supplies,nor should they with
water.This plan suggests that water users and ratepayers would be better served if the municipal monopolies
now providing water supply in the Portland area were required to submit to managed competition.
The deregulation of energy markets demonstrates that under conditions of economic uncertainty,
managed competition can provide long-term price stability,plus better environmental performance and
more abundant supplies than regulated monopolies. This alternative includes competition in regional
water supply, distribution, billing, treatment and maintenance, and water conservation programs. The
�rrr report analyzes the benefits of a more critical look at our regional water system,and proposes immediate
concrete actions.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
JerryYudelson,P.E.,is a registered professional environmental engineer in Oregon.He holds an M.B.A.-
from the Universtiy of Oregon,as well as B.S.from Caltech and M.S. from Harvard University in Civil
Engineering and Water Resources Planning respectively. He has studied and written on water resource
issues for nearly 30 years.Mr.Yudelson is currently marketing director for Glumac International,a West-
coast based consulting engineering firm.
Cascade Policy Institute.
813 SW Alder•Suite 300•Portland,Oregon•97205
(503)242-0900•fax 242-3822•www.CascadePolicy.org•Info@CascadePolicy.org
This proposal was named a winner in the 1998 Oregon Better Government Competition, organized by
Cascade Policy Institute.Opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
those of Cascade,its staff,or advisors,nor should the contents be construed as an attempt by Cascade
Policy Institute to influence any election or legislation.
998 Oregon Better Government Competition Cascade Policy Institute
INTRODUCTION a government function.Other equally essential services such
as energy supply and telecommunications have long been
The City of Portland enjoys the blessings of a wet Pacific conceded to the private sector as regulated monopolies and
Northwest climate and two mighty rivers flowing past and are now rapidly being opened to competition.Why shouldn't
through it, the Columbia and the Willamette. With these water supply also be opened to competition?
natural advantages water supply should not be a problem.
Moreover, since 1892, by decree of President Benjamin Public water supply planners and engineers have long
Harrison and subsequent legislative actions, the city has treated water as a commodity that exists outside of economics,
enjoyed exclusive and free access to the Bull Run River in spite of research over the past 30 years that indicates water
watershed, located about 35 miles east of Portland in the demand does depend on pricing. Studies show a price
Mount Hood National Forest.This watershed has provided elasticity of demand,or a percentage reduction in water use
an abundant supply of pure water for the growth of the city caused by a certain percentage increase in water price,that is
and the surrounding area;' Portland sells roughly 40%of its real and cross-cultural.Price manipulation can therefore be
water to other cities in the region.' used as a tool to manage water demand.
Why, then, should water supply be an issue for public The Portland area has seen a long-term trend toward
debate?Though partially a matter of public concern over the increased water use per capita,presumably as the population
impacts of El Nino events,and global climatic change,the gets older,larger,richer and more suburban.Though this has
most proximate reason is the 1992 drought.A traumatic time been countered by a recent trend toward reduced per capita
for many in Portland, 1992 rationing turned many residents use due to a variety of factors,regional population growth,
into neighborhood "water police"and exposed the lack of projected at 45% over the next 20 years,' will significantly
city mechanisms for addressing shortages.It was inconceivable stress water supplies.See Table 1.
to many long-time residents that a city in such a water-rich
region should run short of water!Although the drought ended Table 1.Regio'AAMetiopohtan Region(Foul=County)
in about five months and has not been followed by similar Population GrowthTHistoryand"Forecasts �� l
events in the past six years,the episode forced local officials Y
to explore new supply alternatives. 1990 1995 1997 2017
1,412,344 1,596,100 1,658,500 2,271,000
In late 1996, the city and regional water suppliers An examination of the current water situation indicates
completed a plan to provide adequate water supplies through the City of Portland,and its regional water supply partners,
the year 2050.' In their plan, Portland officials propose would be well served by a change in the institutional
investing$120 to$150 million or more to build another dam arrangements for water supply,distribution and delivery.We
and reservoir in the Bull Run watershed,in order to provide cannot readily create more water,but we can provide it at a
post-2017 water supply. Other cities in the region are lower cost by using principles of managed competition.
considering spending $80 million or more to use the
Willamette River,in the event they cannot obtain Bull Run LESSONS FROM THE 1992 DROUGHT
water from Portland.'
The spring and summer of 1992 brought drought
This Regional Water Supply Plan may turn out to be less conditions and record high temperatures to Portland.Lacking
realistic and more expensive than many now expect,because a good backup well system or a reserve water treatment plant
it is based on outmoded assumptions about water use,pricing, for Willamette or Columbia River water,the city was forced
and the impact of population and economic growth on to resort to that old standby of poor planning:rationing.From
-demand.Abundant and relatively cheap supply is extremely the 1991-92 fiscal year to the 1992-93 fiscal year,overall water
important to the region's economic growth,as witnessed by use dropped by 12%,' and during the drought months,by
the local siting of many water-intensive semiconductor plants 36%,' mostly through citizen cooperation and partially
in this decade.Further,the current moratorium on new water through the enforcement of water rationing rules.The system
connections in Wilsonville due to a projected shortage of survived:when the rains came again in October of that year,
supply, displays our profound dependence on an adequate the rationing was lifted.
supply.
The water rationing plans,however,were unpopular and
This said, it should be noted water is essentially an not very effective.In the middle of the drought,The Oregonian
economic good, no more important than electricity,gas or editorialized:
food for the region's population and economic growth;it is
unclear why water supply should automatically be considered
2
The Portland Water Abundance Plan JerryYudelson, P.E.,M.B.A.
Why in the world is Portland relying on water cops In a summer 1998 pamphlet mailed to water customers
and stringent rules to cut water use when it would the Portland Water Bureau claimed,"Last year the Water
be more effective to impose a surcharge on every Bureau served 93,000 more people than in 1991 and used less
'*MW water user who exceeds a certain level?The answer water. Water use per person has dropped 15% in recent
to that question...lies in an antiquated billing system years-IS In fact,overall water usage(including residential and
the City Council has been much too slow to commercial use)in the City of Portland has dropped from 159
modernize....Conservation pricing would encourage gallons per person per day prior to the 1992-93 fiscal year to
prudent use of an increasingly strained resource.... 137 gallons per person per day for the 1997-98 fiscal year,a
It also makes good sense to let the marketplace be the drop of 14%.Over the same period,small meter residential
water cop,instead of midnight patrollers....Portland customers in the City of Portland have reduced their average
and its regional customers of the Bull Run water per person use from 85 to 75 gallons a day, a reduction of
system should speed up the water-use and billing 12%.16 However,as Table 2 shows,system-wide per capita
changes that have been on tap too long already.' use, that is,residential and commercial use for the City of
[Italics added] Portland and surrounding region,has not decreased.
This historyshows the flexibilityofshort-term residential
As City Commissioner Mike Lindberg(then in charge of water demand,at least in the 1%to 15%order of magnitude,
the Portland Water Bureau)explained,"People wanted equity with few economic incentives other than a slight change in
but they didn't like the Big Brother approach that turned the rate structure.Demand reductions could also be linked
neighbor against neighbor. This hit us so fast,and frankly to current trends toward"reurbanization"and higher density
we'd never faced anything like it before,so I think mistakes housing. Multi-family building permits in the Tri-County
may have been made."10 region went from 25% of total permits in 1992 to 49% in
1997,17 which may have contributed to the declining water
For the 1994-95 fiscal year,three block rates for residential consumption.A planning process which emphasizes such
and commercial water users were adopted for the first time densification may continue to moderate future increases in
by the city council,with the highest block paying 50%more demand." Other causes of the reduced usage include an
than the lowest of the three blocks.Today,a resident pays a increased awareness of the finiteness of the earth's resources,
set amount for the first block of 1,200 cubic feet ofwater used a lifestyle trend toward resource conservation, and public
each month,a higher rate for the next 800 cubic feet and the mandates for more efficient water use equipment in new
highest rate for the third block or tier of water used,above buildings."
2,000 cubic feet per month." The theory is that the higher
prices for increased monthly use will cause residential users to How much more flexibility would there be in water
reduce their heavy seasonal water use, such as outdoor demand if the:city were to fully embrace economics as a
watering,to avoid higher charges. demand regulator?Without new supply sources,if Portland
were to have another drought as severe as that of 1992,the
This block structure has been maintained since 1994,with city would need to curb water use by more than 25% to
average residential rates climbing 12.4%over four years,from account for the increased demands of the regional economic
$0.845 per 100 cubic feet in 1994-95 to$0.95 in 1998-99.12 and population growth.
To date,however,monthly residential billing,a key component
of increasing the effectiveness of block rate pricing to reduce Table 2..-W'ater UseSince 1991-92 FiscalYear20�
water use, has not been adopted in Portland (this billing Total SystemConsumption(Billions ofGalldns/Yeitc)
option is available,but consumers rarely request it). Water Use Per
Total System Consumption Capita Per Day
Water Use Since 1992.There had been a long-term trend Year (billions of gallons/year) Population (gallons)
(through 1990) toward higher water use per capita in the 1991-92 36.5 720,000 139
population as a whole,caused by suburbanization and higher 1992-93 34.5 735,000 129
incomes." Recent reductions in use appear to challenge this 1993-94 36.5 754,000 133
trend,indicating that Portland residents have embraced the 1994-95 38.4 790,000 133
1996-97 41.8 813,000 141
1992 conservation message.
Average per capita consumption in Portland was down THE FORECASTED WATER SUPPLY SITUATION
12%, from 151 gallons per day in the pre-drought 1991-92
fiscal year,to 133 gallons per day in the post-drought 1993-94 The Portland water supply system,shown schematically in
fiscal year."Total system water use was at pre-drought levels, Figure 1,currently meets the needs of about 800,000 people in
in spite of a 5%increase in the served population(see Table 2). the region,roughly 60%of the Portland metro area population.
3
'. '98 Oregon Better Government Competition Cascade Policy Institutetoo.
}
J
o
r
' t ' W
iii
H
�W 4
w
Uj
cc
..
i"
Wcc
.
jio
Ce
r �.
C/)
►n a,
Uj
OL
0
Z
CL
a�
0
Y
CL
a
�noo t�lrtrorttY�t1
uxnoo Ndf6t saswrn
4
The Portland Water Abundance Plan
Jerry Yudelson, P.E.,M.B.A.
Overtime,the Bull Run River system can be expanded to meet He! to stretch existingsupplies,deferrin the
increased water demand by such means as a new dam,raising capital Pal costs of ex andin psu 1 . g
existing dams and storing water in underground aquifers g PP y
Now during the winter to meet peak summer demands.21
Make regulatory permits for expansion easier to
According to the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP), acquire.
adopted in 1997 by all of the area water supply agencies and Reduce supply-related operating costs for power
METRO, water demand in the region is expected to grow and chemicals.
steadily-through the year 2050 at a rate of between 0.7%and
2.1% annually.22 Peak season demand is expected to grow Extend the lives of wastewater treatment facilities
from 0.8% to 2.3% annually," the higher estimate being before they have to be expanded.
equivalent to a doubling time of 31 years.This forecast is based
on regional population and employment growth figures from The main focus of Portland's conservation efforts is on
METRO andon reductions in water demand due to"naturally peak-season (summer) demand, a time when water use
occurring conservation"through building codes,appliance increases(for outdoor landscape maintenance and irrigation)
standards,programmed and expected technological advances, and supplies are the lowest." However,there is also a strong
and"the competitive marketplace." economic argument for reducing overall water use, even
during the non-peak months,in order to decrease water and
On the supply side,the RWSP indicates"committed"water sewer treatment plant operating and maintenance costs and
supply resource additions will add about 20% to regional extend the lives of existing plants.None of these benefits have
water supplies over the next 2 to 10 years." This will provide thus far been factored into the evaluation of the cost-
temporary relief against the demands of increased population effectiveness of conservation programs.
and economic growth,but may not be enough to offset the
impact of a string of abnormally dry years. The RWSP There are many economical conservation alternatives;"
concludes that"given existing and committed resources,the the first focus should be on reducing residential water use,
region will not need major new supply increments until close attending to leak repairs,adhering to more efficient outdoor
to the year 2020."26 The main future options under watering methods,and utilizing low-flow toilets,showerheads,
consideration are a third dam in the Bull Run Watershed and/ and faucet aerators. System-wide conservation options
or a water treatment plant on the Willamette or Columbia include pressure reduction and leak detection/repair. The
Rivers.27 industrial sector should target water reuse, as should large
According to local officials, through an equal split
landscaping water users. Commercial water users have an
of even larger number of conservation measures available
"naturally occurring conservation" and new conservation through process changes and technology retrofits.
programs,11%(27 million gallons per day)could be shaved
from average peak season water demand by the year 2020.2E The Regional Water Supply Plan assumes, however,
The RWSP asserts, "This projected savings (from planning and conservation programs will remain the sole
conservation) provides substantially more`supply capacity' domain of public water supply agencies. A recent Oregon
than any other single resource option identified in the final Environmental Council survey of regional conservation
resources strategy."29 In other words,the RWSP relies more efforts shows them to be woefully underfunded;'S it is clear
on conservation than any other alternative as the most cost- public agencies have not yet invested sufficiently to make the
effective way to meet future water demand. RWSP's conservation projections come true.There is also a
concern at the Portland Water Bureau that conservation
Some of the recommended conservation program investments are not being taken seriouslyenough.76 Itistime
concepts include:JO for a more aggressive$g program of public incentives,
implementeConservation education(primarily in outdoor projections ar realivate operators, to make conservation
o
water use)and outdoor water audits.
• Incentives and regulations to install
water-efficient irrigation and landscapes.
Conservation pricing structures.
Arecent reviewofPordand'sconservation program suggests WATER DEMAND AND PRICING:
there are many benefits to such approaches.12 They: LESSONS FROM BASIC ECONOMICS
5
1995 Oregon Better Government Competition Cascade Policy Institute'
Economics should play a larger role in future water supply (except from wells,which are limited resources).Therefore,
decisions than it has in the past to obtain more efficient one would expect different pricing structures.
resource allocations,save the public money and reach better
long-term solutions.A fundamental tenet of economics is that As for the second question,this plan proposes to increase
the more something costs,the fewer units of it are likely to be the peak-season water costs (see Water and Sewer Rates in
demanded.This is the basic law of supply and demand taught Portland below) in order to induce further investments in
in every beginning economics class.From the standpoint of conservation,changes in landscaping and irrigation use and
water supply, this law means there is no such thing as an changes in industrial processes that consume considerable
absolute demand for water;rather,there is an economic level water. Initially, these increases would likely generate excess
of demand at various prices.Therefore,water demand can, income for the Portland Water Bureau.Those funds should
within wide ranges, be controlled through the simple be used to finance a public/private partnership in water
mechanism of raising prices to the largest or most inefficient conservation investments through a program of managed
users,and effectively communicating that increase. competition.In this way,water use will gradually decline on
a per capita basis,reducing long-term water service revenues
Increased costs will lead to changes in the behavior of so as to eliminate the excess funds.
consumers, such as reductions in consumption-related
activities and investments in water conserving technology. During a drought period,dramatically increasing rates to
Decreases in water use per capita will depend heavily upon promote short-term conservation will probably not increase
the relative cost of water,the available alternatives for changing water revenues substantially,because water use,and total water
consumption patterns and the perceived benefits, both sales,will decline considerably. If there are excess revenues
economic and social,of reducing usage. during a drought emergency,they can be rebated when the
crisis is over in the form of a one-time rate reduction.
European and North American water consumption
research point to the influence of price on water use.These
studies show an elasticity of demand for water, that is, the WATER AND SEWER RATES IN PORTLAND
percentage reduction in use caused by a certain percentage
increase in price, of -0.10 to -0.35." That means a 10% Water Rates in Portland.The Portland Water Bureau and
increase in water prices (in real terms) will decrease water the Portland City Council responded to the 1992 drought by
use by 1.0%to 3.5%.(A 100%price increase will reduce water instituting increasing block rate pricing for residential and
use by 10% to 35% per capita). Local studies verify these commercial water users,in which water use costs more per
findings;a 1992 analysis of the history of Portland area water unit consumed the more total units of water consumed.Table
demand found the long-term price influence to be a 34% 3 shows summer 1998 water and sewer rates in Portland.
decrease in per capita use for each 100% increase in water
prices.'" These rate changes are both positive moves and run counter
to the still widespread"cost of service"mentality that says it is
Two interesting questions remain in considering the cheaper to distribute water to a larger water user, per unit
impact of water rates on demand. First, why don't other (because fixed costs of local distribution are spread over more
utilities have increasing block rate pricing structures?Second, water sales);therefore,water should get cheaper the more of it
how would water be priced during drought or seasonal peak you use.In an era of increasing water scarcity and increasing
demand periods, and what would be done with the excess cost per unit of new investment,the cost of service notion is a
funds generated? relic that should be resolutely discarded.
An answer to the first question is fairly simple: other Though the rate changes are a step in the right direction,
utilities have individual mechanisms for addressing demand they do not go far enough in providing an effective economic
and present different situations.Electricity,for example,has incentive to conserve water.The Portland Water Bureau needs
traditionally been priced according to both power demand to take action to increase the differentia(.between rate classes
and energy use,i.e.,one pays a charge per kilowatt(power) for residences from the current 50% ($1.38 per 100 cubic
and for each kilowatt-hour used (energy). The charge per feet vs.$0.92)to 100%.In addition,the price signals need to
kilowatt directly relates to the capacity of the system to serve be sent more frequently,in the form of a monthly bill.Such a
peak demand,the increasing cost of adding new power sources move will allow homeowners and renters to compare monthly
and the high cost of buying additional power at peak times. use on a year-to-year basis, providing a financial incentive
In addition,electricity can easily be produced at the time of for reduced consumption. The current quarterly billing
demand and is nearly impossible to store,whereas water is standard is both a burden on homeowners in the form of a
easily stored but cannot be produced at the time of demand large lump-sumpayment and an ineffective price signal;by
the time consumers get billed for summer water use, for
6
The Portland Water Abundance Plan Jerry Yudelson,P.E.,M.B.A.
example,they cannot take immediate steps that will pay off in Block 1 Water Charge $3236
reducing their bills for another year. (up to 1,200 cu.h./month)
Sewer Rates in Portland.The current sewer rate charge in Block 2 Water Charge $ 8.60
the City of Portland is$3.01 monthlyper 100 cubic feet for
P (bewtween 1,201 ans 2,000 cu.ft./month)
residences and $3.12 for commercial and industrial users,
reflecting the costs primarily of sewer system and treatment • Sewer Service Charge $11.94
plant maintenance,debt service and presumably some of the
costs of the Combined Sewer Overflow program. • Sewer Volume Charge $77.63
However,sewer rates are based on winter consumption, (Based on winter average use of 900 cu.ft./month)
reflecting indoor water use,and thus the amount of water • Stormwater Management $21.93
that actually goes into the sewers.Therefore,to cut one's water
bill,it is far more expedient to reduce winter water use than In the above example,of the$8.60 charged in Block 2 for
summer peak use(by a factor of more than 2 to 1).Cutting "excess water use;less than$1.50,or less than 1%of the total
winter usage will in fact reduce overall per capita bill is due to the increasing rate structure.At a cost increase
consumption,but will do little to address the issue of cutting of less than 1% of the water bill,where is the incentive to
peak demand during summer drought periods,which is at conserve water? In addtion,the sewer volume charge is based
the core of Portland's water supply problem.While winter on winter water use,a distant memory by the summer and
surpluses could be stored for summer use,this would not go impossible to change in the short-run.
far enough to meet the region's demand.
Commercial Water Users. Commercial and industrial
The high sewer rates,at more than three times the lowest users are responsible for 44% of Portland's overall water
tier water rate, create a problem for using price signals to consumption."One may assume such entities have an even
control water use because they are fixed and do not depend higher price elasticity of demand than residential users
on summer usage.Even if the city raises the rate differential because of the following factors:
for the highest tier to 100% more than the lowest tier, the
effective increase in monthly bills for excessive water use, • Their bill is higher in absolute amounts(therefore,
combining both water and sewer charges,and neglecting the it will get more management attention).
$4.01 per month service charge for a moment,is only 24%
(from$3.93 to$4.85). • They have more technological options for water
conservation investment.
Therefore, the city should consider tying sewer rates to
the same increasing block rate structure as water rates.A major • They have greater access to financing for
increase in water use (for example,from below 1,200 cubic technology upgrades.
feet per month to more than 2,000 cubic feet per month,a
67%increase)would then lead to a 100%increase in water • There is a competitive advantage in cutting
bills.(At current 1998-99 rates,a 67%increase in water use operating costs.
would only increase total water and sewer bills by 11.7%,not
a strong incentive to cut water use).If price signals are received • They typically have trained operations and
on a timely basis, such a rate schedule would prompt maintenance personnel on hand.
residential water consumers to take strong action to cut
summer water use. Currently,commercial water users pay the same rates per
100 cubic feet of water as residential users.Their block rate
Storm Water Rates.Portland water users are also charged structures are also progressive,with the third tier paying 50%
a quarterly storm water rate of$23.46,assessed to cover storm more than the first tier.They pay a sewer rate of$3.12 per
sewer maintenance and debt service on revenue bonds." 100 cubic feet,about the same as residential users,with the
Effectiveness of the Block Rate Structure.Figure 2 shows sewer volume charge also based on winter water use.
a typical summer 1998 water bill for a 2,800 square foot home However,there is no incentive for water conservation built
occupied by two people,on a 15,000 square foot lot with a into the commercial structure except on a seasonal basis.
small garden and modest-sized lawn. This quarterly bill of Increasing block rates for commercial users are based on
S168.89 consists of: exceeding 40% of the average of the past 12 months'
• consumption. This is presumably to discourage excessive
Water Service Charge 516.49 summertime water use, but under these block rates,
7
1998 Oregon Better Government Competition Cascade Policy Institute
Eureau of Water Warks < F; - rAMOUtfT
BureAu of Envifonmernal Service-s
12►Q4198 534.2-17
1120 SW fifth Avenue,Room 601
Portland,Oregon 97204-1974
(503) Bn-7774
City of Portland
ABC C DOAPANY Al ET :SER1(1 Q-
r
rt't.Um On.xwtlan whir imur pa%Tnw i •- M:4%.cl. - i o+�rR.:�w to etovwu n+l'+xria•-�c..rs r w,tt�r uucnu.ii.hp..t.:r N.. •�.e..r . nr.r�tN::5a**.i r,,yq�i
7.
Tow TO 11maa
F
S!<llYlCir,
N,4TEA VBLLkE AYE:tA.GE: 32 CCf 1 �:
Ami
moo
SERY]CE CHARGE `� �SAVit?E CHARM
WTER n`M 114GS L USAGE (100#9 CLOIC FT} 't�
(IGO 0AIC FT (CCF) = 749 GALLC#S) �
FRI AMENT _CLF.
"4f.5 acne ss
VATeR K7LL;NE CmaGtS
:.
-LS Q'F 4?G
t3 DU To 1-100
0 CCF ii .fGa ` T SANITART SEWSt YCLUNE QJARGE
('ACMtL 40LUPE OF M CCF)
"> 5TZWWTER XMkk ENEYT
TOTAL MIER CKkRGES
T4TAL SEER Ctug4Es
a ? _
77 tn
a
pfiE Yt0lpS BALANCE CTHM CHAROFS i i lY N75 C1Tflfl�ftt CHA q g AJtkWNlr(�E
294.2f3 _
0.r. - —.—'PCL2@GR 342.17 v4� 17 i
>444tmc cion ,>:t the bo<w of
8
The Portland Water Abundance Plan Jerry Yudelson, P.E.,M.B.A.
Table 3. Portland Water and Sewer Rates: MontW cost will not be proportionate( y)4t p p rtionate to
r �.
($/100 cubieeetor 750 gallons) increases in water use, but much
less.Conversely,unless an increasing
Customer Class Residential Commercial and y block rate schedule is applied to
Multi-Family sewer rates,decreases in water use
Water.Fixed Charge $5.69 varies depending on size will not be rewarded
proportionately either; a decrease
back to the first block of water use
will not proportionately decrease
First Tier $0.92 .$0.92 water bills because of the high fixed-
(up to 1,200 cu.ft./mo.) (up to 40%above past rate sewer charge based on winter
12 months'average) water use.
Second Tier $1.10In summary, today's Portland
$1.10 water and sewer rates do not
(1201-2000 cu.ft./mo.) (1.4-2.0 times average) provide an effective economic
incentive to conserve water for
residential users and scarcely
Third Tier $1.38 $1.38 provide one for most commercial
(over 2000 cu.ft./mo.) (above 2.0 times users (except for the high sewer
average) charges,based on volume). The
Portland Water Bureau should
Sewer.Fixed Charge $4.01 $10.96 change the water and sewer rates to
reduce high summer use among
Volume Charge $3.01 $3.12 homeowners and to encourage year-
(based on winter round conservation on the part of
water usage) businesses. Though these rate
changes will likely reduce overall use
Stormwater Rate $7.82(fixed) variable per capita,however,there will still
be a need for investments in both
water conservation technology and
commercial water users can actually increase average monthly new supply in order to meet increasing regional water demands
use up to 40%per year and still pay the same cheap rate as due to population growth.
the most water-conserving homeowner!The only commercial
user that is penalized is the one whose water use fluctuates
widely,i.e.more than 40% above the average monthly use. LESSONS FROM 20 YEARS OF ENERGY
Though this rate does address summer water use,it does little INDUSTRY PRIVATIZATION
to cut the long-term growth in commercial and industrial
water demand and therefore little to cut future summer peak The 1973 energy crisis, which resulted from a sudden
use.Wouldn't it be more effective to switch the residential reduction in imported oil supplies and a rapid increase in oil
user to the commercial plan,to penalize summer water use, prices,was essentially solved in 1981 when President Reagan
and the commercial user to the residential plan to force a decontrolled oil and gas prices.By 1986,oil prices had sunk
reduction in overall use during the year? to nearly half their 1981 levels,supplies were more abundant,
and the threat of political blackmail from Middle Eastern oil
The city should also move to a more conservation- producers had evaporated.Today,the real price of oil(in the
oriented rate schedule for commercial users. For example, form of gasoline) is lower than at any time in the past 40
the rate structure could penalize businesses which do not years.
reduce their current consumption per employee or per unit
shipped, year after year. Alternatively, businesses could be Other than the decontrolling of prices,there were major
tasked with reducing water consumption to 75%of current institutional changes in energy production and distribution
levels,then given the same increasing block rates as residential that took place during that same period.The 1978 Public Utility
water users above that base level. Regulatory Policies Act(PURPA),which required electric utilities
to purchase power from independent power producers,
In addition, sewer rates should also be charged on an unexpectedly gave rise to a dramatic increase in renewable
increasing block rate schedule;otherwise,the increases in water energy power production (primarily wind and geothermal
9
998 Oregon Better Government Competition Cascade Policy Institute-
,)ower)and in energy-conserving cogeneration.The country's 3. The nation's energy crisis of 20 years ago was solved
bent toward expensive nuclear power in the early 1970s was through a combination of deregulation, new
entirely replaced by more economic investments in both institutional arrangements and offering attractive
conventional and alternative sources of energy.In the 1990s, incentives for private capital to invest in new
the development of trading markets in pollution credits has technologies for energy supply. Local experience
helped clean the air of sulfur dioxide and other power plant concurs. When the Portland region faced a solid
emissions.As we approach the next decade of the deregulation waste disposal crisis in the mid-1980s with the
of energy markets,nationwide competition in energy supply is closure of the St.Johns Landfill,an EPA Superfund
growing rapidly and fortuitously.At the same time,energy site, it turned to a private company, Waste
prices in the nation's largest energy markets,for example,New Management,to build a regional landfill with private
York and California,have stabilized in real terms and in some funds to serve the city's needs.Two other private
areas are lower than prices 10 and 20 years ago. companies also built regional landfills east of the
Cascades with their own funds.As a result,instead
What lessons does the deregulation of energy markets over of a waste disposal crisis,the Pacific Northwest now
the past 20 years have for water supply planning in the has 40 years of guaranteed solid waste disposal
Portland area? Several come to mind: capacity at regional landfills, at no cost to the
taxpayers,and with far fewer environmental impacts
1. Conservation investments are almost always cost- than the publicly operated landfills they replaced."
effective and much more readily available than
anyone believed.Even with low prices,many private Lesson:There are better uses for public investment
companies have continued to find ways to reduce money than spending hundreds of millions of
their energy use per employee and per unit of goods dollars on water supplies when private capital is
produced, while decreasing their air and water ready and willing to take on the task.We should think
emissions. Regulation has played a role,but good instead about selling our public water systems to
old-fashioned economics has led the way. private companies and creating an endowment with
the money to help meet some of the city's unmet
Lesson: We need to begin deploying major water needs, such as funding for police, fire, and water
conservation investments before we begin to make bureau pensions.
expensive,and perhaps unneeded, investments in
regional water supply. 4. Improvements in energy conservation technology
and management happened because there were
2. Private markets and private companies can respond economic incentives to do so.Renewable energy and
quicker to a crisis in supply than any combination conservation technologies were fundamentally non-
of government agencies and regulated monopolies. existent in 1975. Today, the United States and
We have cheap, reliable and abundant energy Western Europe, which faced similar crises, are
supplies today because government actions created exporting these technologies throughout the world.
incentives for private capital,ingenuity and initiative
to solve the problem. For example, wind power Lesson:The City of Portland and the regional water
development was stalled in the early 1980s, with supply agencies should get out of the water
hundreds of millions of federal dollars producing conservation business and instead create the
almost no usable electric power.When tax incentives incentives to allow conservation investments to be
were created for private companies,wind power made for economic reasons. Because commercial
generation grew in just five years,supplying nearly and industrial users represent large percentages of
5% of California's electricity by 1986. Today, water use in most cities of the region,and respond
electricity consumers all over California are most clearly to economic reasoning,they should be
requesting that their power come from"green" the first targets.
sources such as the wind.
5. A new kind of business,called an Energy Service
Lesson: Water supply planners should take good Company (ESCO) grew up in the wake of
notes and open up the region to a full-scale program deregulation to fund and install energy
of managed competition, including inviting such conservation investments,sharing the savings with
multi-billion-dollar enterprises as Enron and U.S. the equipment and facility owners.Energy Service
Filter to take part,along with large engineering and Companies are private sector responses to new
construction firms such as Bechtel and Fluor Daniel. economic opportunities;government didn't have to
create or regulate them.They made their own deals
10
The Portland Water Abundance Plan
Jerry Yudelson, P.E., M.B.A.
with private businesses who would benefit from Managed competition does not require existing public
reducing energy costs and were willing to share the employees to lose their jobs,current incomes or other benefits.
savings with private entities. In fact,it offers them the promise of greater freedom to do a
better job than they are allowed to do today, and greater
Lesson: We can anticipate that Water Service rewards for so doing.It may be the case,in such operational
Companies(WASCO's)will grow up in the wake of areas as running a monthly meter reading and billing system,
water supply and price deregulation.If the Portland that today's Portland Water Bureau employees would emerge
Water Bureau were to establish a price it would pay the winners in a managed competition program.These are
for water conservation investments,at less than the tasks that can easily be made more efficient by front-line
cost of new supply investments,it would be able to employees and middle managers who know intimately the
buy conservation the same way it would buy new inefficiencies in the current system.However,even if a private
supply.Businesses would receive financial incentives operator submits a lower bid for the same work,many of the
to invest in conservation,perhaps as rebates on their city's employees could be transferred to that company and
water bills,perhaps as low interest loans.It's safe to might still be represented by the same union.
predict that myriad businesses would find a way to
make such savings pay for commercial and industrial Idother areas,such as running conservation investment
water users(as well as homeowners)and to make a programs,it is likely that private businesses,community and
profit for themselves.This program would save the environmental groups would offer superior programs to
city's taxpayers and ratepayers tens of millions of government agency-run efforts. It may be that private
dollars and would again serve to make Portland a engineering/construction companies would be willing to
model for progressive civic action in this arena. provide new water supply and distribution investments and
to operate the current systems at a cost the public agencies
would have trouble meeting. However, the purpose of
THE PORTLAND WATER ABUNDANCE PLAN managed competition is to allow all entities to compete fairly
in public services,to the public's benefit.
The Portland Water Abundance Plan relies on three levels
of public awareness and change in current water supply Three Levels of Change. Specific measures proposed
planning, procurement, distribution and sale. It requires a under this program are grouped under the following three
fundamental willingness on the part of the public water supply levels, representing possibly increased difficulty in
*%W authorities to let go of the reins and give the promise of implementation(mostly for political reasons)and increased
managed competition an opportunity to take root in the payoff in supply and economic benefit. The levels and
Portland area. programs are summarized in Table 4.
Managed Competition. Managed competition has Level 1 - Improving on Business as Usual
successfully reduced the costs of sewage treatment plant 1. Implement proposals dating from the 1992 drought
operations,the sewage and stormwater collection system and to provide monthly billing of water and sewer
one of the city's dams in Indianapolis," and is now being charges. A conservation-oriented water pricing
introduced in Atlanta." In Indianapolis,according to Mayor structure will not work if the city cannot send timely
Stephen Goldsmith,the costs of sewer service were reduced signals to consumers and businesses to reduce water
by 20% ($23 million in the first two years) and effluent use.Monthly billing is eminently feasible,and the
violations fell by 50%,in a city that had been considered a city water bureau is just dragging its feet in
model for efficient wastewater treatment plant operations JS implementing this change.Though more expensive,
its benefits outweigh the cost,and the higher expense
Describing the Indianapolis experience,Mayor Goldsmith could make water officials more amenable to
comments: contracting out alternatives.
We consistently showed that free-market 2. Provide timely notice (required under current
competition could do something critical to solve the wholesale water distribution contracts),to regional
fiscal crisis facing state and local governments: it water customers over the next three years that future
could increase service while cutting costs, thereby contracts with the City of Portland for wholesale
changing the basic equation that describes water supplies(up for renewal beginning in 2004)
government failure everywhere today.Competition will require adoption of conservation-oriented rate
could stop the spiral of higher taxes paying for worse structures, monthly billing and aggressive
services.16 investments in water conservation.
11
1998 Oregon Better Government Competition Cascade Policy Institute
Create a Portland Water Conservation Investment employees.
Fund,using surplus revenues from a conservation-
oriented increase in water rates, to begin a city- Level 2 - Managed Competition (Limited Scale)
sponsored but privately run program of aggressive 1. Create a managed competition program for meter
investments in water conservation technology in reading,billing and collecting water use charges,on
single-family residences,businesses and multi-family a monthly basis.The city has had six years to create
housing. (A recent report on conservation rate an effective monthly billing program and has not
structures showed that Portland had made progress done so.This is an activity that private businesses
in setting up rate structures and programs to can probably do better than public agencies.Open
promote conservation,but still had a way to go,and the competition to private utilities in the region as
that most other water agencies in the region lagged well as the city's water bureau. This will create
.far behind."Therefore,relying on the effectiveness experience with managed competition that can be
of public agency-run conservation programs seems extended in the Level 3 program. In a similar
like a bad bet.) competition,the CityofAtlanta,Georgia,has chosen
an outside operations and maintenance contractor,
The Portland Water Conservation Fund would be with a guaranteed savings of$26 to $28 million,
put under private-sector or institutional-sector depending on the length of the contract."
management to see which companies or institutions
(such as community organizations,environmental 2. Work closely with regional Bull Run water wholesale
groups,or"water trusts")can use technology and customers to negotiate changes in current water
management incentives to create the highest amount supply contracts that will mandate conservation-
of water conservation from a fixed level of oriented water rate structures. The prospect of
investment.To address legitimate concerns of water locking in a long-term supply source could prevent
agencies as to whether conservation investments will suburban cities from using lower water rates for large
pay off,all such investments would be required to industrial users as an incentive to attract water-
be: a) real, b) surplus, c) permanent and d) intensive industries such as electronics
measurable. manufacturing.To continue receiving high-quality
and abundant Bull Run water from Portland,water
Fund investments would come from more wholesalers would agree to aggressively fund
conservation-oriented rate structures that yield conservation investments, to adopt the same
revenues above and beyond current needs for increasing block-rate structures as Portland and to
maintenance, debt service and general fund take other measures to promote water conservation
contributions. Assuming a first-year increase in and the efficient use of water.
revenues of 10%, an initial funding level of$5.5
million per year is well within reach(this amount is 3. Create a program of managed competition for
about 10% of projected water sales in fiscal year water conservation investments using money from
1998-99).Such funding would increase current city the Portland Water Conservation Investment Fund.
water conservation investments of about$1 million Entertain proposals from outside contractors to
per year,five-fold!" deliver specific amounts of conservation,selecting
those that provide the"biggest bang for the buck,"
4. Expand the economic incentives in the city's in terms of real, permanent, verifiable water use
increasing block rate water pricing program by reductions. Outside service providers could focus
raising the current 50%rate differential between the on either the residential or commercial sector and
lowest and highest rate blocks to 100%over a period would work primarily on installing water-conserving
of three years,and by applying the block rate pricing technology upgrades.
to 'sewer volume charges. These changes will
promote effective conservation during future Level 3 - Full-Scale Managed Competition
droughts by reducing both overall water use 1. Phase out city efforts to develop new water supplies
increases and peak summertime use. At the same as a government monopoly.Entertain private-sector
time,the city needs to ensure that the poor will not and city water bureau proposals to provide a mix of
face increases in their water bills by continuing its investments in conservation and new supplies to
current program of subsidizing bills for lower- meet water needs scheduled through the year 2020.
income ratepayers.Fcr commercial users,the target If the city decides to invest in another reservoir in
must be to reduce water use year after year,or pay the Bull Run watershed, then let private sector
higher rates,adjusted by either gross sales or total engineering and construction firms bid on the
12
The Portland Water Abundance Plan Jerry Yudelson, P.E., M.B.A.
complete project, including build, operate and guaranteed under contract by the privatecompanyso
transfer programs, in which a private company
would build the system,operate for a fixed number Under managed competition,the water bureau could
of years(usually 15 to 25 years)at agreed upon rates, reduce its costs enough to self-fund a major water
then transfer ownership to the city at a price set in conservation program without raising overall
advance. revenues. In other words,the rate structure could
still be made more aggressively pro-conservation
2. Open up the entire Portland Water Bureau without raising the total revenues of the water
operation to managed competition and remove it bureau. Therefore, the most water conserving
from management by city commissioners,breaking residential and commercial customers could actually
out the functions of water supply, billing and see their water bills drop, even as conservation
maintenance.This bureau can be completely self- investments were being aggressively funded.
supporting and can contribute a negotiated amount
each year to the city's general fund. Whether 3. Keep title to Bull Run Watershed water,but sell the
managed by current water bureau managers or current water distribution and treatment system to
pri-vate companies, the water bureau needs to be a private operator to create a permanent
removed from political control by elected officials. endowment for the city's unmet needs, such as
Powers to invoke rationing,in case of failure on the underfunded police and fire pensions, as well as
part of private managers during extreme droughts, underfunded water bureau pension plan liabilities
can be retained by the city council. ($142 million as of December 31,1995)."As of June
30, 1996,the book(accounting) value of the city's
As an example of this public/private partnership water system was$200 million.'' At a paltry yield of
approach, the City of Evansville,Indiana, recently 6%,selling the system at that valuation would yield
contracted out both water and sewer line $12 million per year in perpetuity for the city's
maintenance,water meter billing,operation of the pensions.Atmore realistic yields,the investment could
water filtration plant and water distribution yield up to$20 million for the pensions.If sold to a
management to a private company,while retaining private company,the city's water system might well
control of customer service,billing,capital project sell at a substantial premium above book value
planning and engineering and the monitoring of all because of the benefit to the acquirer's stock value.
contracts. Substantial savings in public costs were The City of Birmingham, Alabama is currently
Table 4.The Portland Water Abundance Plan
Program Elements Level 1 Level 2 Leve13
Water Conservation Monthly billing; Managed
Incentives Increase block-rate competition for Portland
differentials water conservation funds
Regional Water Require conservation Renegotiate current Managed Competition
Supply Arrangements in contract renewals contracts to promote for regional water
conservation rates supply;Sell the
current water
treatment and
distribution system
Funding Conservation Create Portland Water
Investments Conservation
Investment Fund
Portland Water Bureau Managed competition Managed competition
Management for meter reading, for all water bureau
billing,and collecting operations
13
1998 Oregon Better Government Competition Cascade Policy Institute
considering a similar proposal to sell the water system proposed by regional water officials,the operational savings
to private investors,to pay for improvements to the of 20% or more potentially available through managed
city's schools." competition should make the Portland Water Abundance Plan
the most appealing solution.
Just as the City of Portland has tried to create a
national model for urban livability over the past 20
years by energizing and incentivizing the private CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
sector to rebuild downtown Portland, now is the
time for the city to emulate the efforts of Long-term population and economic growth appears to
Indianapolis and other cities to become a model be a reality in Portland's future,with population predicted to
for efficient provision of major urban services grow 45%over the next 20 years.The city and the region are
through effective implementation of managed ill-prepared to cope with another severe drought on the order
competition.The Portland Water Bureau is a good of 1992s occurrence and certainly not with more than one
place to start. drought-year at a time.This is true even as an emerging ethic `
of water conservation appears to have taken a slight hold in
the region.There is a need for a better way to manage the
BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION region's water supply and demand in the future.
The most obvious barriers to implementation are At a time when investments in the hundreds of millions
institutional and political. The water bureaucracies will of dollars for new water supplies are being discussed, the
certainly argue they run a tight ship and,except for the 1992 public should ask hard questions:
drought, they deserve credit for keeping water supplies
adequate for supplying the region's economic growth.There • Are there better ways to address the water supply
is certainly a measure of truth to this claim.In addition,one situation,using marketplace mechanisms?
may anticipate the potential objection of the unions
representing the Portland Water Bureau,although in a sound • Why shouldn't the water bureaucracies compete
managed competition program,the water bureau employees for the right to continue to enjoy a protected
could prevail. As Indianapolis showed, even the best run monopoly?
public water agency can reduce its costs when forced to
compete. Wouldn't we save money by having managed
competition in water supply?
In the City of Portland, with its antiquated system of
political management of city agencies, it will take political • Why haven't they come up with more imaginative
courage to make the water bureau the first test case for programs for engaging the enormous
managed competition.The issue will be for the city council entrepreneurial energy of the private sector in
to divest itself of authority over a revenue-producing agency water conservation and new supply?
and to tacitly admit that its management has not been the
best. Such a divestiture may take public action to change Why,in light of the slow and to date inadequate
aspects of the city's charter or action in the Oregon Legislature response to the 1992 drought,shouldn't the water
to allow the City of Portland to contract these functions to a agencies yield to private enterprise in the
private company. These legal requirements have not been management of the water system?
investigated as part of this study.
The most sensible alternative is to provide a staged
Changes in water rates to promote conservation will be program to introduce managed competition for all of the key
politically palatable if they are coupled with both a low- water supply tasks: supply development and distribution,
income rebate rate program (some of which is already in system maintenance, meter reading and billing, and
place)and an aggressively run Water Conservaiion Investment conservation investments.
Fund that will.help businesses, industries, rental property
owners and homeowners make cost-effective conservation Beyond managed competition,the cityshould investigate
investments to reduce their water costs. selling the water supply treatment and distribution system
altogether to a private operator for a one-time capital gain
The managed competition option should be seriously that could be applied to critical capital requirements,such as
considered before making any further regional decisions on underfunded police, fire and water bureau pensions. The
water supply or conservation funding. In light of the high capital gain could be turned into a permanent endowment �qw
costs associated with the supply investments currently to provide protection against future tax increases as these
14
The Portland Water Abundance Plan
JerryYudelson, P.E., M.B.A.
pension liabilities come due.The city will also be spared the 13 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,Water System
need to go to the bond markets for water system and supply Demand Study,Portland,February 1992.
upgrades, preserving bonding capacity for other more
essential purposes. 14 Combined Annual Reports(1993-1994;1994-1995),op.cit.
This Portland Water Abundance Plan proposes to introduce 15 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,Stretch our
marketplace mechanisms into a century-old public bureaucracy Summer Supply:It Benefits Everyone,consumer
as a feasible and cost-effective way to provide for adequate pamphlet,Portland,1998.
future water supplies to support the region's forecasted
economic and population growth. 16 Ann Conway,Finance Section,Portland Water Bureau,
personal communication.
ENDNOTES 17 Urban Growth ReportAddendum,Draft,op.cit.,p.15.
1 R Gregory Nokes,"Little Sandy's future is fluid:Logs or 18 Urban Growth Report,Final Report,op.cit.
water?"The Oregonian,March 10,1997,p.BI.
19 Regional Water Supply Plan:Final Report,op.cit.
2 R Gregory Nokes,"Old idea for Bull Run might provide
water solution."The Oregonian,February 21,1998, 20 City of Portland City of Portland Bureau of Water Works
p.BI. of Water Works,data sheet through 6/30/95,July 19,
1995;City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,1996-
3 Water Providers of the Portland Metropolitan Area, 1997Annual Report,Portland,1997,p.6;Stretch our
Regional Water Supply Plan:Final Report,Portland, Summer Supply:It Benefits Everyone,op.cit.
October 1996.
4"Old idea for Bull Run might provide water solution: 21 Ten Year Financial Plan,op.cit,p.23.'
op.cit. 22 Erik Sten,"Expanding the Portland Water System,"
presentation to the Regional Water Providers
5 METRO,Urban Growth Report,Final Draft,Portland, Consortium,Portland Water Bureau,Portland,
r.r December 18,1997, 1.
P• September 9,1998.
6 Ibid,p.71;METRO,Urban Growth Report Addendum, 23 Regional Water Supply Plan:Final Report,op.cit.,p.56
Draft,Portland,August 26,1998,p.7.
24lbid,p.61
7 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,Ten Year
Financial Plan,Portland,July 1997,p.34. 25 Ibid,p.44.
8 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,Combined 26 Ibid,p.68.
Annual Reports(1992-1993;1993-1994),Portland,1994,
p.12. 27 Ibid,p.242.
9"Pay for water use:Higher prices for water abuses would 28 R.Gregory Nokes,"A framework for growth:Metro's
be better than midnight water police patrols.' The regional plan aims to guide growth and livability."The
Oregonian,July 31,1992,p.B2. Oregonian,December 11,1997,p.A21.
10 Dana Haynes,"Future of water supply considered"The 29 Regional Water Supply Plan:Final Report,op.cit.,p.265.
Oregonian,November 24, 1992,'p.B2.
30 Ibid,p.264.
11 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,Water Rates/
Sewer Rates(1998-99),Portland,July 1998.Note that 31 Ibid,p.264.
100 cubic feet of water equals about 750 gallons.
32 Roberta Jortner and Cynthia Dietz,"Regional Water
12 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,Combined Conservation Presentation,"presentation to the
Annual Reports(1993-1994;1994-1995),Portland,1995; Regional Water Providers Consortium,Portland,
Water Rates/Sewer Rates(1998-1999),o cit.
P• September 9, 1998.
15
1998 Oregon Better Government Competition Cascade Policy Institute
lortner and Dietz,op.cit. 53 Engineering News Report,op.cit.
34 Rocky Mountain Institute,Water Efficiency:A Resource
for Utility Managers,Community Planners,and Other
Decisionmakers,Snowmass,Colorado,1991.
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
35 Oregon Environmental Council,Water Conservation:Is
the Price Right?,Portland,1998,pp.15-17. Neal,Kathy,et al.,RestructuringAmerica's Water Industry.
Comparing Investor-Owned and Government-Owned
36 Jortner and Dietz,op.cit. Water Systems,Reason Foundation,No.200,Los
' Angeles,January 1996.
37 Lars G.Hansen,"Water and Energy Price Impacts on
Residential Water Demand in Copenhagen,"Land White River Environmental Partnership,City of
Economics,February 1996,v.72,n.1,pp.66ff.;Terry L. Indianapolis Contract Operations of theAWT Facilities
Anderson and Pamela Snyder,Water Markets:Priming and Collection System:4th Year Summary ofActivities,
the Invisible Pump,Cato Institute,Washington,D.C. United Water Services,Harrington Park,New Jersey,
1998.
38 Water System Demand Study,op.cit.
39 Eric Sten,"Our challenge is to make storm-water rates
fairer."The Oregonian,East Zone edition,March 12,
1998,p.2.
401996-1997Annual Report,op.cit.
41 Water Rates/Sewer Rates(1998-1999),op.cit.
42 United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Municipal Landfill Regulations Mean Safer Disposal of logo
Solid Waste,EPA/530-SW-91-066,Washington,D.C.,
September 1991.
43 Stephen Goldsmith,The Twenty-First Century City,
Regnery Press,New York,1997,pp.33-36,199-211.
44"Cities Mull Utility Outsourcing,"EngineeringNews-
Record,September 7,1998,p.16.
45 Goldsmith,op.cit.,pp.207-208.
46 Ibid,p.29.
47 Oregon Environmental Council,op.cit.
48 Jortner and Dietz,op.cit.
49 Engineering News Record,op.cit.
50 Jack J.Danks,Public/Private Partnerships:Breaking New
Ground,Public Works,September 1998,pp.45-50.
51 1996-1997Annual Report,op.cit.
52[bid.
16
Discussion Paper on Policy Issues
Willamette Basin Reservoir Feasibility Study
Overview
The Willamette reservoirs are a system of thirteen projects operated together to provide many
benefits to the region and the Nation. Of the thirteen Willamette projects, two are re-regulation
projects and do not provide conservation storage. The purpose of the feasibility study is to
investigate to what extent existing conservation storage in the Willamette reservoirs can meet
current and future water needs in the Willamette Valley. Water providers purchasing storage to
help meet their needs will also benefit the Nation by returning revenues to the U.S. Treasury.
Of the 1.6 million acre-feet of conservation storage available during the summer months, about
60,000 acre-feet is currently under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation for irrigation. About
250,000 to 350,000 acre-feet is used each conservation season to maintain minimum reservoir
releases and summer flows on the mainstem at Albany and Salem. Water retained in the
reservoirs supports an estimated 3 million annual visitor days in the summer for a variety of
recreational uses, which benefits the economy in many nearby communities.
Since the 1940s and 1950s, when most of the projects were constructed, conditions in the
Willamette Valley have changed dramatically. As the population continues to grow, demand for
water supplies to serve communities and industry will increase, and interest in nearby
recreational opportunities will grow. Agricultural production also is increasing and depends
upon access to adequate water supplies. Additional storage needs for water quality purposes was
discussed early in the study, as well as the dedication of conservation pool elevations at
important recreational reservoirs. In March 1999, steelhead and chinook salmon were listed as
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA). Although undetermined at this
time, additional flow and operational changes may be needed for recovery of these fish species.
This discussion paper reviews Corps planning and policy guidance, including previous
discussion papers addressing similar topics, pertaining to potential policy issues associated with
the Willamette Basin Review feasibility study. These issues include:
• Originally Authorized Project Purposes
• Future Water Needs and Sponsorship Requirements
• Cost-sharing Requirements for Water Supply
• Multiple Benefits from Releasing Stored Water
When Congress authorizes construction of a Corps reservoir, it specifies the purposes for which
the reservoir may be used, based on the needs in the region at that time, and the federal interest
in supporting those needs. After a reservoir is constructed, the Corps has the authority to
recommend changes in the operation of a reservoir to address current needs or reflect new
definitions of the federal interest. The Corps uses the allocation of reservoir space to each
purpose as a measure of the overall federal interest in constructing a reservoir, and as the basis of
cost-sharing among the authorized purposes.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4113/1999
t
Originally Authorized Project Purposes
For reasons that are not totally clear, there is confusion as to the originally authorized purposes
of the Willamette projects as authorized by House Document (HD) 531 enacted into law by the
flood Control Act of May 17, 1950.1 This may be because "authorized purposes" have not been
clearly distinguished from "operating purposes" and authorized purposes have to be as broad as
operating purposes, and may in fact be broader.' For the Willamette projects, municipal and
industrial water supply (water supply) has rarely been acknowledged in Corps documents
subsequent to HD 531 as an originally authorized purpose.
For example, the document,Authorized and Operating Purposes of Corps of Engineers
Reservoirs lists the authorized purposes of the eleven Willamette projects with conservation
storage as navigation, flood control, irrigation, fish/wildlife, water quality, recreation, and
hydroelectric power(at Cougar, Detroit, Big Cliff, Dexter, Foster,Green Peter, Hills Creek,
Lookout Point). Water supply is not listed among the authorized purposes. The document also
lists the operating purposes for each project, which are identical to the authorized purposes with
the exception of navigation; a footnote explains that, "the upper river above Willamette Falls
Locks is no longer utilized by commercial navigation."
A key issue addressed in this discussion paper concerns the long-standing debate as to whether
water supply was an originally authorized purpose of the Willamette projects. Two alternative
approaches could be taken in the feasibility study, depending upon the resolution of this issue by
the Corps. This discussion paper attempts to highlight the differences between the two
approaches when discussing applicable policy issues. `
Approach 1 -- Originally Authorized Pumoses Water supply is among the originally
authorized purposes of the Willamette reservoir projects. The feasibility study is not proposing
to add or delete project purposes to those originally authorized by Congress. Flood control was
the major use and focus at the time of authorization of the reservoir system, and dedicating the
conservation storage to the various authorized purposes was not. The feasibility study is
reviewing all benefit categories and may propose operational changes as well as an initial
allocation of the existing conservation storage among the original authorized purposes to meet
the future water needs in the Willamette Valley.
Approach 2 -- Reallocation. Water supply is not accepted as an originally authorized
purpose of the Willamette reservoir projects. The feasibility study is proposing to add this
purpose by reallocating the existing conservation storage using Corps guidance and authority
provided by the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Corps guidance defines reallocation as
'the reassignment of use of existing reservoir storage space to a higher and better use.
1 John Breiling, CENWP-OC,dated 16 Sep 1997,subject: Willamette Basin Authorities—H. Doc 531/FCA May
17, 1950.
z John Breiling, CENWP-OC, Draft Memorandum for Record dated 31 Jul 1997,subject: Willamette River
Authorities.
3 Authorized and Operating Purposes of Corps of Engineers Reservoirs. Second Printing, November 1994.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Washington, D.C.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13//999
2
The Corps recently completed a Water Supply Handbook(December 1998) that discusses the
reallocation process, or the permanent transfer of storage from another authorized use to water
suPP1Y• The feasibility study is reviewing the benefit categories of the other purposes authorized,
based on projected future water needs in the Willamette Valley,to determine if the existing
conservation storage should be reallocated to include water supply.
Authorizing Documents for the Willamette Reservoir System
There are several Congressional acts and associated House and Senate documents that contain
the authorizing language and rationale for the Corps Willamette projects (table 1). The Flood
Control Act of 1938 (PL 75-761) approved plans described in HD 544 and resulted in the
construction of seven projects. The Flood Control Act of 1950(PL 81-516) authorized plans
contained in HD 531 and resulted in the construction of five more projects. Finally, the Flood
Control Act of 1960(PL 86-645) authorized plans contained in Senate Document 104 to
construct the Foster project in the basin.
House Document 531 (81st Congress, 2d Session, March 20, 1950) with its eight volumes
presented long-range flood protection plans for the entire Columbia River Basin after the
disastrous flood of 1948. It is considered to be the "umbrella"document for the current
operation of the Willamette system, and presented an overall water resources development
plan that included those projects constructed as part of previous legislation.
Table 1. Congressional Authorizations of Willamette Basin Projects .
Willamette Project Flood Control Act Authorization Report
Hills Creek 1950 House Document 531
Lookout Point/Dexter 1938 House Document 544
Fall Creek 1950 House Document 531
Cottage Grove 1938 House Document 544
Dorena 1938 House Document 544
Cougar 1950 House Document 531
Blue River 1950 House Document 531
Fern Ride 1938 House Document 544
Green Peter 1950 House Document 531
Foster 1960 Senate Document 104
Detroit/Big Cliff 1938 House Document 544
Volume V of HD 531 is entirely devoted to the Willamette River Basin and provides several
references to the beneficial effects of providing water for a variety of purposes. A key paragraph
in HD 531 occurs on page 183 l:
"The primary accomplishment of the proposed projects would be the provision of flood
control and major drainage. Secondary accomplishments would be the generation of
hydroelectric power; improvement of main stem Willamette for navigation; increase of
water supplies for irrigation and domestic use; increase of low flows which would result in
abatement of pollution and improved fish conditions for fish life: and improved
recreational conditions at reservoirs and downstream. "
3
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999
This theme is repeated throughout the document, for example, in the Report of the Division
Engineer contained in Volume I of HD 531 (page 246, paragraph 527,Accomplishments): `
"The primary accomplishments of the proposed plan of improvement will be the control of
floods and solution of major drainage problems. After the flood season, stored water will
be released in a manner best suited to provide increased depths for navigation,for
generation of hydroelectric power, and for the several conservation uses - namely,
irrigation;potable water supply; and reduction of stream pollution in the interests of
public health,fish conservation, and public recreation. A brief discussion of the
accomplishments and benefits creditable to the various phases of the project is contained
in the paragraphs following."
Paragraph 533: "Ample storage in individual reservoirs will be made available at
relatively low cost for domestic use, and a reasonable charge could be made for stored
water used by municipalities for domestic purposes. An annual benefit of$307,800 could
be expected in the future."
Paragraph 534: "Willamette River and the lower reaches of the tributaries are becoming
increasingly polluted as a result of the discharge of raw domestic sewage and industrial
waste into surface drainage.systems throughout the basin. Stream flow regulation by the
proposed system of storage reservoirs will increase low-water flows and provide sufficient
dilution to reduce appreciably the cost of necessary sewage treatment. Resulting annual
benefits would amount to $701,800. "
Also in the Report of the Division Engineer(Volume I, main report, page 244, Willamette Basin
Project Section, paragraph 514, Project Description):
"In view of the comprehensive nature of the plan of improvement, the interdependence of
the various elements, and the coordinated operation required to secure maximum over-all
benefits, the plan of improvement is considered as one project. The project is designed to
accomplish the greatest control and use of the water resources of the sub-basin consistent
with economic considerations and social conditions."
Volume V of HD 531 also specifically discusses the Willamette River Basin (Chapter N,
Accomplishments, on page 1831, paragraph 555):
"The primary accomplishment of the proposed projects would be the provision of flood
control and major drainage. Secondary accomplishments would be the generation of
hydroelectric power; improvement of main stem Willamette for navigation; increase of
water supplies for irrigation and domestic use; increase of low flows which would result in
abatement of pollution and improved fish conditions for fish life; and improved
recreational conditions at reservoirs and downstream."
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13//999
4
Aiso on page 1831, paragraph 558:
"Because of the well-defined limits of the flood season, effective use of the storage space in
the proposed flood-control reservoirs to provide multiple-purpose benefits after the flood
season has passed is possible. Surplus spring run-off would be stored for subsequent
release during the low-water season in the combined interests of navigation, irrigation,
domestic water supply, power production,pollution abatement,fish life, and increased
recreational use of Willamette River and the principal tributaries."
In Volume V, Section II, Problems and Solutions, recreation, pollution abatement, and domestic
water supply are discussed separately:
Recreation, pages 1730-1731,paragraphs 169-176: "The proposed reservoirs would
provide opportunity for recreational activities such as sightseeing,fishing, boating,
swimming, duck hunting, picnicking, and camping. At certain reservoirs, sites for
organized camps and cabins would be available. Downstream from the dams, the
recreational potentialities would be enhanced by pollution abatement, lower flood stages,
and increased low-water flows. The maximum development of these potentialities would
require close collaboration by all interested Federal, State, and local governmental
agencies, organized groups, and individuals."
Pollution Abatement, pages 1731-1732, paragraphs 177-180: "The proposed system of
storage reservoirs would modify the present stream flow regimen in such a way as to delay
the need for secondary treatment of sewage. Present low-water flows would be increased
to minimums of 5,000 and 6,500 second feet, at Albany and Salem, respectively. The
increased flows would provide sufficient dilution so that, on the basis of forecasted
developments, secondary treatment would not become necessary until after 1970. Without
such increases in low-water flow, complete treatment would be required prior to that time
to attain the minimum standards required for fish life."
Domestic Water Supply, pages 1735-1736, paragraphs 192-198: "The total quantity of
water required for domestic use would be small in comparison with the total storage
capacity of reservoirs proposed for flood-control and other multiple-purposes uses. Ample
storage in individual reservoirs, therefore, would be available at relatively low cost for
domestic use when current facilities can no longer meet the demand. Communities could
obtain water from the reservoirs or streams by gravity diversions or by pumping.
Reduction of flood danger would permit the advantageous location of new pumping and
treatment plants."
5
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999
The initial and ultimate benefit estimates for the Willamette River plan as provided in HD 531
(page 248, paragraph 538, table IV-55) are shown in table 2.
Table 2. Initial and Ultimate Benefit Estimates, Willamette Basin
Initial Ultimate
Feature Annual Benefits Annual Benefits
Flood control $11,881,400 $11,881,400
Drainage $6,354,300 $15,844,400
Navigation $813,500 $813,500
Power $4,922,800 $4,922,800
Irrigation $1,655,000 $1,655,000
Recreation $361,400 $361,400
Pollution abatement $701,800 $701,800
Domestic water supply $307,800 $307,800
Total $27,008,000 $36,498,100
Recommendation. (minor edits to make text a recommendation). From the language
and quantified benefit estimates presented in the authorizing documents for the Willamette
projects, it appears clear and well documented that Congress originally authorized the projects
for all the following purposes: flood control, drainage, navigation, power, irrigation, water
supply, flow augmentation for pollution abatement and improved fishery conditions, and
recreation at the reservoirs and downstream. The authorizing documents include water supply as
an authorized purpose and, in fact, pre-date the Water Supply Act of 1958. This would lead to
utilizing Approach 1 for the feasibility study. In addition, an inherent priority for the originally
authorized purposes appears specified in the authorizing documents in that flood control and
drainage were considered primary, and all other authorized purposes considered as secondary,
and more importantly, equal in their application during the conservation season.
Future Water Needs and Sponsorship Requirements
The sponsorship requirements associated with the increased use of existing conservation storage
to meet current and anticipated future water needs in the Willamette Valley are discussed below
with respect to irrigation, fish, water quality, recreation, and water supply. The major benefit to
the Nation would be the reimbursement of the federal investment, and operation and
maintenance costs, for the acquisition of conservation storage in the Willamette reservoirs.
'Irrigation
(moved sentences around;added prices)
The Bureau of Reclamation administers the water service contracts for irrigators using
conservation storage from the Willamette projects. Currently, about 60,000 acre-feet of storage
is used for this authorized purpose. The 2020 and 2050 irrigation demand estimates developed
for the feasibility study include an additional 95,500 and 550,500 acre-feet of storage,
respectively. The cost per acre-foot of this storage is based on the original cost of the projects
with no escalation of original costs to current price levels or interest, plus an administrative fee.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4//3//999
6
As of April 1999, the Bureau charges a base price of$8 per acre-foot of water plus and
administrative/processing fee of$100. The sponsorship and cost-sharing requirements for
agricultural crop irrigation are clearly established and will not be changed under either
approach taken for the feasibility study.
Fish
In March 1999, steelhead and Chinook salmon were listed for the upper Willamette Basin as
threatened species under the ESA. Federal and State fishery agencies and the Portland District
are in the process of coordinating specific actions relating to increasing releases from the
Willamette reservoirs and possibly operational changes with respect to recovery of these species.
For either approach taken for the feasibility study, the Federal Government would be responsible
for the costs resulting from Section 7 consultation. Congressional approval would be
necessary if the storage reallocated for ESA-listed fish species has a severe effect on other
authorized purposes or involves major operational changes.
Water Quality
About 250,000 to 350,000 acre-feet of storage is currently used to meet the minimum flows at
Albany and Salem as originally authorized in House Documents 544 and 531. Both documents
recognized that these flows would also benefit stream conditions by diluting wastes and
increasing dissolved oxygen for fish life. Although a navigation channel is no longer maintained
upstream of Portland, the originally established minimum flows are maintained for pollution
abatement and fishery purposes. In recent years, the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality has issued discharge permits based on slightly reduced minimum flows of 4,500 ft3/sec
at Albany and 6,000 ft3/sec at Salem.
Because water quality is an originally authorized purpose met by current minimum flows,
Approach 1 would be utilized for the feasibility study. The use of storage for water quality
purposes above what is currently provided to meet authorized minimum flows at Albany and
Salem requires a sponsor to cost-share (purchase) the additional conservation storage from the
Corps. For example, storage from the reservoirs could be purchased for water quality
purposes by industriaUprivate providers. Using additional storage solely for water quality
purposes was discussed early in the study process;at this time, no demand estimates for the
feasibility study are likely to be developed by the sponsor.
Recreation
Recreation demand at the Willamette projects is currently strong. Current operation of many of
the projects incorporates this originally authorized purpose; therefore, Approach 1 would be
utilized for the feasibility study Recreation use of the reservoirs is a by-product of
conservation storage. Although the reservoirs are held as high as possible to provide
recreation opportunities, instream flows take a higher priority. Population growth in the basin
will increase recreation demand and many communities have come to rely on the tourism
generated by the projects. Dedicating conservation storage at reservoirs important for recreation
requires a sponsor to cost-share (purchase) the storage necessary to do so.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4//3/1999
7
Dedicating pool elevations solely for recreation was discussed early in the study process; at
this time, no demand estimates for the feasibility study are likely to be developed by the
sponsor.
Water Supply
Population growth will increase future demands for municipal and industrial water supply in the
Willamette Valley. The 2020 and 2050 water supply demand estimates developed for the
feasibility study are about 103,000 and 208,000 acre-feet of storage, respectively. Unexercised
water rights and existing facilities improvements will be used to meet near-term increased water
supply demands. The use of conservation storage for water supply requires a sponsor to cost-
share(purchase) the storage from the Corps.
Municipal water providers in the Willamette Valley have yet to contract with the Corps for
storage. Their belief is that the price, when using the updated cost of storage method
(reallocation)and including facilities costs for diverting, treating, and distributing the water,
would be significantly higher titan the costs for developing other sources. In addition, the
Corps methodology for pricing storage creates a strong sense of inequity when compared to
the price of storage charged by the Bureau of Reclamation for irrigation.
(Took out cost data in this section and added text). There are many planning efforts underway
in the Willamette Basin concerning future water supply needs and potential sources of water.
For example, water providers in the Tualatin, Calapooia, Molalla-Pudding, and Coast Range
subbasins are investigating the use of natural flow (if available), raising existing dams to
provide more storage, and constructing small storage projects to satisfy long-term water needs.
Also, the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP), prepared by the water providers of the Portland
metropolitan area(October 1996) provides a comprehensive, integrated framework of resource
strategies, and implementing actions to meet water supply needs to the year 2050. The possible
options discussed in the RWSP to meet the region's future needs include water savings from
both naturally occurring and outdoor conservation;aquifer storage and recovery; expanded
use of the Clackamas River; constructing a third reservoir at Bull Run;diverting water from
the Willamette River;and diverting water from the Columbia River.
Cost-sharing Requirements for Water Supply
There are several issues related to cost-sharing requirements for water supply. These include:
0 System vs. project pricing of storage due to the system-wide operation of the projects.
0 Immediate vs. future use because future water supply demands are being considered in
the feasibility study.
• Derivation of storage costs based on the two alternative approaches.
s
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999
System vs. Project Pricing of Conservation Storage
There are many references in HD 544 and 531 that describe the operation of the Willamette
projects as a system to balance the range of authorized project purposes and to maximize system
benefits. For example, Volume I of HD 531 (page 244, paragraph 514) states:
"In view of the comprehensive nature of the plan of improvement, the interdependence
of the various elements, and the coordinated operation required to secure maximum
over-all benefits, the plan of improvement is considered as one project. The project is
designed to accomplish the greatest control and use of the water resources of the sub-
basin consistent with economic considerations and social conditions."
As recognized in the authorizing documents, it is the annual weather patterns in the Pacific
Northwest and the runoff characteristics of the basin that allow the system to be operated to
balance the range of authorized purposes as provided for in HD 531. The well-defined limits of
the flood season and planned use of storage space after the flood season allows for the
impoundment of spring runoff. During the summer and early fall months, stored water is either
retained in the conservation pool for recreation, or is released downstream to meet other
authorized purposes. Water is released according to each project's drawdown priority. For
example, the Fern Ridge and Detroit reservoirs are used last, if at all, for augmenting mainstem
flows because of their high recreation demand. Starting after Labor Day, water is released from
the reservoirs to bring them back down to their minimum flood control pool elevations in order
to provide storage for the winter flood season.
The Willamette projects are currently operated as a system, which provides the Corps the most
flexibility when formulating the annual Willamette Basin release plan. Even though the water
may be withdrawn directly downstream of a specific project, it is necessary to coordinate
releases elsewhere in the system to meet minimum flow requirements at Albany and Salem.
Also, a system-wide pricing concept was forwarded to HQUSACE in conjunction with
purchasing surplus water storage from the Willamette reservoir system. The ASA(CW)
approved the system-wide pricing for surplus water agreements on January 10, 1997.
Recommendation. The feasibility study should continue to stress the need for a system-
wide operating scheme and utilize a system-wide pricing concept for sponsors willing to
purchase conservation storage. By calculating user costs based on the total conservation storage
(about 1.6 million acre-feet), operational flexibility of the system is maintained and an equitable
price that can be easily administered is established for sponsors.
Immediate vs. Future Use
The authorizing documents for the Willamette system of projects provided for future water
supply from the Willamette reservoirs, for example Volume I of HD 531 (paragraph 533):
9
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999
"Ample storage in individual reservoirs will be made available at relatively low cost for
domestic use, and a reasonable charge could be made for stored water used by
municipalities for domestic purposes. An annual benefit of$307,800 could be exPected in
the future. "
And Volume V, Domestic Water Supply, pages 1735-1736, paragraphs 192-198:
"The total quantity of water required for domestic use would be small in comparison with
the total storage capacity of reservoirs proposed for flood-control and other multiple-
purposes uses. Ample storage in individual reservoirs, therefore, would be available at
relatively low cost for domestic use when current facilities can no longer meet the demand.
Communities could obtain water from the reservoirs or streams by gravity diversions or by
pumping. Reduction of flood danger would permit the advantageous location of new
pumping and treatment plants."
However, Corps policy provides a limit on future use storage as found in ER 1105-2-100, 4-
30(a)(4), 31 Oct 1997:
The Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended,_ says not more than 30 percent of total
construction costs can be allotted to water supply for future use. In addition, Corp policy
is to obtain full payment of allocated capital costs from water supply sponsors prior to or
during construction, or failing this to negotiate a repayment agreement, payments to begin
immediately after construction completion. Thus,formulation of water supply storage
without a current sponsor willing to participate is an exception requiring prior approval.
Forward requests for exception to HQUSACE CECW-P.
Future water supply demands are being considered in the feasibility study, and are estimated to
be up to 208,000 acre-feet of storage by the year 2050.
Recommendation. It appears clear that the authorizing documents provided for future
water supply storage in the Willamette reservoirs. Also, the future demand estimated for the
feasibility study would be well below the 30 percent total construction cost limitation of the
Water Supply Act of 1958. A request for exception to Corps policy limiting future use storage
should be forwarded for approval.
Derivation of Conservation Storage Costs
Approach 1: Originally Authorized Purposes: The price of water supply storage for
originally authorized purposes would be based on the original cost of the storage, instead of the
methods required by ER 1105-2-100 (highest of benefits or revenues foregone, the replacement
cost, or the updated cost of storage). This approach would apply to all originally authorized
purposes (except irrigation) of the Willamette reservoir system in deriving a cost of storage for
sponsors seeking the use of Corps storage to meet current and future water needs.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4//.3/1999
to
Using original project costs, the cost of storage to be purchased is 5189 per acre-foot (cost
rounded to nearest dollar). An. additional cost of$6.23 per acre-foot is added to include
FY 1998 operation, maintenane, repair, replacement and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) costs.
Therefore, a water user would be charged$195 per acre-foot of storage purchased from the
Willamette reservoir system under Approach 1.
Approach 2: Reallocation: Corps guidance for reservoir reallocations and associated
cost-sharing requirements is found in ER 1105-2-100, dated 28 December 1990 (Section VII of
Chapter 4 specifically discusses water supply and was revised on 31 October 1997). As
specified in this regulation, the cost of reallocated (permanent) storage in a Corps reservoir to
add water supply is the highest of benefits or revenues foregone, the replacement cost, or the
updated cost of storage. Added to this annual cost for storage is an estimated annual cost for
OMRR&R.
The updated cost of storage method provides the highest cost for permanent storage in the
Willamette projects. However, this is because inflating the project costs using the ENR index
and CWCCIS factors over a+40 year period distorts the costs so significantly that they become
meaningless. Applying this method does not appear appropriate for the Willamette reservoir
system, and the replacement cost or some other method should be investigated (benefits or
revenues foregone would not apply). Nevertheless, the derivation of storage costs based on the
updated cost of the eleven storage projects is described below.
For the updated cost of storage method, the capital costs at the time of construction are
calculated and costs allocated to specific purposes are subtracted. These resulting costs (joint
use) are then escalated to current price levels. This amount is then multiplied by the ratio of
requested storage to total usable storage (in acre-feet).
(Total Construction Cost-S ecific Costs) x Storage Requested
p Total Usable Storage[acre-feet]
Added to this updated cost of storage is an appropriate share of the joint-use OMRR&R costs for
the fiscal year prior to the year of the agreement. Repayment of all these costs, including interest
at the current federal rate, is made using a thirty-year amortization period.
Using the updated cost of storage method, the cost of storage to be purchased is $1,508 per acre-
foot(February 1999 price level, cost rounded to nearest dollar). An additional cost of$6.23 per
acre-foot is added to include FY 1998 OMRR&R costs. Therefore, a water user would be
charged$1514 per acre-foot of storage reallocated from the Willamette reservoir system.
Recommendation. Approach I provides reasonable cost of storage that, when added to
the facilities costs for diverting, treating, and distributing the water, would likely make the use
of storage in the Willamette reservoirs attractive to many water providers as a future water
supply source. Using the updated cost of storage method(Approach 2), the cost of storage
combined with facilities costs becomes significantly higher and may preclude the use of
Willamette storage by water providers in the basin.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999 i
Multiple Benefits from Releasing Stored Water
This concept was included in the Project Study Plan at the request of the sponsor, and resulted
from discussions with water providers and their concerns over the high cost of purchasing
storage from the Willamette reservoir system. Release of stored water for water supply in the
lower end of the basin could have multiple benefits as it travels downstream which may make it
possible to share the cost of the storage. For example, if benefits from this water could also be
derived for ESA-listed fish species, then it could be argued that environmental restoration cost-
sharing (35% sponsor/65% federal) could be applied to the cost of storage for water providers
near the end of the system. While the concept of multiple benefits is an interesting one, fish
benefits would need to be quantified, which is a complex and likely impossible task. On the
other hand,use of this concept for the feasibility study also could open up the issue so that
anyone; anywhere in the system would demand preferential cost-sharing for storage.
Recommendation. It is recommended that this complex and possibly inequitable
concept not be pursued for the feasibility study.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999
12
U.S. ARMY CORPS of ENGINEERS
Willamette River Basin Reservoirs
S
BIG CLIFF
1
} DETROIT
�rrrGREEN PETER
C.- FOSTER
F N IDGE BLUE RIVER
COUGAR
FALL CREEK
� .
c,.. LOOKOUT POINT
DEXTER;,
DORENA"
COTTAGE OVE
} `1
HILLS CR
E
'`err'
OPERATIONAL DATA FOR THE WILLAMETTE STORAGE PROJECTS
Minimum Maximum Total Authorized Typical Draw-
Flood Control Conservation Conservation Minimum Release Release Power down
Project Pool Pool Storage Feb-Jun/Jul-Nov Jun/Jul-Aug Project Priority
Feet NGVD Feet NGVD Acre-Feet cfs cfs
Hills Creek 1,448.0 1,541.0 194,600 100/100 1000/300-400 yes 4th
Lookout Point 825.0 926.0 324,200 1200/1000 2500/2500 yes 1st
Fall Creek 728.0 830.0 108,200 30/30 250/200-400 no 5th
Cottage Grove 750.0 790.0 28,700 75/50 75/50 no 5th
Dorena 770.0 832.0 65,000 190/100 250/100 no 5th
Cougar 1,532.0 1,690.0 143,900 300/200 700/400-900 yes 2nd
Blue River 1,180.0 1,350.0 78,800 50/30 200/50-500 no 3rd
Fern Ridge 353.0 373.5 93,900 50/30 50/75 no last
Green Peter 922.0 1,010.0 249,900 300/300 750/650-700 yes 5th
Foster 613.0 637.0 24,800 600/400 1250/650-750 yes last
Detroit 1,450.0 1,563.5 281,6001___ 1000/750 1700/900 yes last
Notes on Reservoir Pool Elevations
Fern Ridge, Detroit, & Reservoirs kept high as possible for recreation thru Labor Day, then pool lowered for flood control.
Hills Creek
Lookout Point Pool down to el. 880 by Labor Day, for release of 2,500 in Sep-Oct (fishing &spawning).
Fail Creek For ODFW: Pool down to el. 825 by Aug 15; el. 815 by Aug 30; and el. 694 by Oct 30 to Nov 30.
Cottage Grove & Dorena Small reservoirs. Held as close to full as possible for recreational use.
Cougar& Blue River No special considerations for pool elevations.
Green Peter Pool held high except to help Foster meet minimum releases.
Foster Fish passage: Pool down to el. 614 to May 20; refill to el. 637 from Green Peter& hold to Oct 15.
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN PROJECT-TOTAL USABLE STORAGE
COST/ACRE-FOOT ADJUSTED TO CURRENT PRICE LEVELS Feb 99
Updated to 1999
Total Total Total
Storage Exempt Usable ENR Index ENR Index Initial '
Project Full Pool Storage• Storage Corot. Mid-point Const.mid- factor to Const.Cost Indexed Costs- 1990••
(Acre-feet) (Acre-feet) (Acre-feet) Period of Corot. point 1967 (Joint-Use) Total Acre-foot
Blue River 89,520 3,970 85,550 4/63-2/69 3/66 1019 1.054 $28,729,730 $150,960,037 51,765
Cottage Grove 32,930 3,140 29,790 8/40- 12/49 4/45 308 3.487 2,276,000 $39,634,411 1,330
Cougar 219,270 64,050 155,220 6/56- 11/63 2/60 824 1.303 49,393,000 $320,668,344 2,066
Detroit 472,600 154,400 318,200 1/47- 10/53 5/50 510 2.106 41,405,200 435,731,300 1,369
Dorena 77,600 7,090 70,510 6/41 - 10/52 2/47 413 2.6 13,373,000 173,606,929 2,462
Fall Creek 125,000 10,000 115,000 4/62- 12/65 1/64 936 1.147 20,099,700 114,960,584 1,()00
Fern Ridge 111,434 8,300 103,134 4/40- 12/41 2/41 258 4.163 2,296,000 47,847,836 464
Foster 60,700 31,100 29,600 6/61 -6/67 6/64 936 1.147 18,669,000 107,048,233 3,616
Green Peter 430,000 160,000 270,000 6/61 -6/67 6/64 936 1.147 46,012,000 262,938,795 974
Hills Creek 356,000 156,000 200,000 5/56-6/63 11/59 797 1.348 39,185,900 264,232,136 1,321
Lookout Point 477,70) 118,800 358,900 4/47-7/54 1/50 510 2.106 65,793,500 700,056,676 1,951
Total 2,452,754 716,850 1,735,904 $327,233,030 $2,617,685,282
Ave cost pct acre-foot-Usable Storage $189 $1,508
' Dead or inaclivc storage+storage for hydropower head.
'•CWCCIS Index applied 1967- 1999
Note: Estimated 100-Yr sediment volume assumed to impact only dead or inactive storage space,
except at Fern Ridge Lake. (1,300 AF)
FY 1999 Water Supply Interest Rate Applicable to Reallocated Storage and Surplus Water Contracts: 5.375%.
rom: Breiiing INWP, John J
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 1997 08:08
To: Mahan NWP, Tyrae L; Obradovich NWP, Patricia M; Rea NWP, Matt T; Posovich
NWP, Michael S; Moriuchi NWP, Davis G; Brown NWP, David O; Craner NWP,
Douglas C; Berger NWP, Edmund H; Breiling NWP, John J; Slusar NWP, Robert T
COL; Brice NWP, Kevin J LTC
Subject: Willamette Basin Authorities - H.Doc 531/ FCA May 17, 1950
To All:
1. This message is primarily for PM's and Planning with copies to others who
may be interested in subject.
2. For reasons that are not totally clear, there are a lot of Corps documents
including USACE documents that do not fully reflect all of the authorized
purposes of the Willamette Valley Project as authorized by House Document 531
enacted into law by the Flood Control Act (FCA) of May 17, 1950. In addition
there appears to be some confusion over the role of bank protection works and
levees as a critical components of the Willamette River Basin flood control
plan.
3 . P. 236-254 of vol. 1 of H.Doc. 531 present the main features and
authorizations of the Willamette Valley Project as authorized. Copies of
these pages are being provided to Tyrae Mahan (as acting chief of Planning in
Pat O'Bradovich's absence) and to Matt Rea, Karen Bahus's successor as study
manager on the Willamette Basin reauthorization study.
4 . Two questions are answered by these pages. The first is the list of
authorized purposes for Willamette Valley Project as originally provided by
Congress (this list has been supplemented by subsequent legislation, but it *400
is the list of original purposes that seems to have been miscopied and
misunderstood) . This list of purposes is taken from several sources:
a. problems to be fixed list, pages 236-241: navigation, flood control and
drainage, power, irrigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, pollution
control, domestic water supply, and watershed treatment (to be done by
others) .
b. Accomplishments (p. 246-248) :
Paragraph 527 provides:
"The primary accomplishments of the proposed plan of improvement will be the
control of floods and solution of major drainage problems. After the flood
season, stored water will be released in a manner best suited to provide
increased depths for navigation, for generation of hydroelectric power, and
for the several conservation uses -- namely, irrigation; potable water
supply, and reduction of stream pollution in the interests of public health,
fish conservation, and public recreation. "
Paragraph 537 provides:
"In order to obtain the benefits listed above, the various units of the plan
will be operated in a coordinated manner in the combined interest of flood
control, navigation, irrigation, power, drainage, fish and wildlife,
recreation, domestic water supply, and stream pollution abatement. "
c. Dollar benefits are assigned most of these purposes. For example,
domestic water supply is assigned an annual benefit of $307, 800 at paragraph
333 : "Ample s�_orage in individual reservoirs will be made available at
relatively low cost for domestic use, and a reasonable charge could be made
for stored water used by municipalities for domestic purposes. An annual
benefit of $307, 800 could be expected in the future. "
5. The second question is the ability to operate and maintain various flood
control features. At paragraph 493, p. 238, the flood control plan is
summarized as follows:
"The most logical solution to the closely related flood control and drainage
problems appears to be construction of additional reservoirs, to store
floodwaters, supplemented by levee and channel improvements; and provision of
major drainage outlets and interior field drainage.
The plan of improvement at p. 242 includes:
" (i) Construction of a partial system of supplemental levees, in lieu of
additional flood-control storage . . . " (paragraph 510]
(j) Construction of overflow channel closures at certain locations .
(o) Tributary channel improvements in 17 sub-basins to include major
drainage features for the realization of flood control and major drainage
benefits.
(p) Tributary channel improvements in two sub-basins primarily for the
realization of flood-control benefits.
(q) Rehabilitation of existing interior drainage systems and installation of
additional interior drainage facilities by local interest . . . .
(r) Construction of bank protection works at 171 locations and execution of a
channel clearing and snagging program on the main stream and lower reaches of
eight major tributaries. "
In addition paragraph 511 at p. 243 also recommended:
"Further study is proposed of supplemental levees on Willamette River below
the mouth of the Long Tom River and of additional draiange projects
throughout the basin. "
At pages 244-245, paragraphs 516 through 520 describe an extensive system of
levees and bank protection works:
"516. The proposed supplemental levees will be located discontinuously along
Willamette River from Springfield to the confluence of Long Tom River, along
McKenzie River from Hendricks Bridge to the confluence with Willamette River,
and on Middle Fork Willamette River from Dexter to the mouth. Total length
of levee would be 87.4 miles. Levees will be designed to confine, in
respective reaches, a flood comparable to that of 1861, modified by
regulation afforded by existing and proposed reservoirs.
517 . Bankful capacities for reservoir regulation are values determined by
predominant bank heights for the particular stream. At certain low points in
the banks, overflow will result from flow at adopted bankful discharges. Some
of the low points are inlets to sloughs and secondary channels. The project
"" includes closure of these inlets with low levees at locations where such
works appear justified. These structures will be designed to withstand
overtopping without serious damage, and the lower ends of the sloughs and
channels will be left open to eliminate prolonged ponding.
518. Complete drainage of lands in Willamette River Basin will involve flood
protection by reservoirs and supplemental levees; rectification and deepening
of tributary stream channels for flood control and drainage; rehabilitation
of existing interior drainage and installation of new interior drainage
works. Improvements of this nature involving some 422 miles of channel
improvement, are proposed on 17 tributaries to provide flood control and
drainage for 387, 000 acres of agricultural lands. Two additional proposed
projects involving 14.8 miles of channel improvement will provide flood
control benefits. Included in the 17 projects for flood control and drainage
are modifications to the authorized Pudding River and Amazon Creek projects
for flood control to allow realization of drainage benefits.
519. Bank protection works will be provided at critical areas on the main
stream and major tributaries to stabilize eroding banks and to prevent
continuing damage. The protective works will consist of revetments, training
dikes, and fascines. Such works are proposed at 77 individual locations on
Willamette River and at 94 locations on major tributaries. The above figures
are based on the present number and extent of erosion areas. Due to changing
channel conditions, the actual erosion areas may be in different locations
and of different extent at the time of construction of proposed protective
works.
520. Channel improvement is proposed on Willamette River and major
tributaries in order to increase channel capacities, reduce bank erosion, and
help prevent formation of undesirable cut-offs. Tree and brush growths,
encroaching gravel bars, and snags will be removed; and certain channel
rectification work, especially in upper river reaches above Corvallis, will
be accomplished. Improvements as described above are propsoed on 300 miles
of river channel. "
6. The local cooperation requirements are given at Table IV-56 on page 248:
Supplemental levees: lands, easements, and rights of way;
Bank protection: lands, easements, and rights of way;
maintain works on tributaries not influenced by reservoir regulation;
Channel clearing and snagging: maintain works on uncontrolled tributaries;
Overflow channel closures: lands, easements, and rights of way;
Tributary channel improvements for flood control and drainage:
lands, easements, and rights of way;
relocations of bridges and utilities;
maintain improved channels on uncontrolled tributaries;
bear full cost of interior drainage and 25% of cost of major drainage.
7 . At p. 242, Paragraph 509 stated:
"No written commitments by local interests as to their willingness to comply
with requirements have been received. Indications, however, are that State
and other Federal agencies intend to cooperat fully. The laws of the State
of Oregon provide for the formation of water-control districts, for flood
control, drainage, and irrigation.
These organizations have the .necessary legal authority for entering into
contractual relations with individual property owners and with the Federal
government and to guarantee the local cooperation required. "
This paragraph gives every expectation that the locatl interests would form
various units of local government to provide the necessary local cooperation
required.
8. It should be noted that many of the headwaters of the various tributaries
have in the intervening years been adopted into the federal wild and scenic
rivers program by federal legislation. This subsequent legislation has had
the effect of modifying the Willamette Valley Project by withdrawing
portions of waters in basin from flood control and drainage works, thereby
increasing the amount of flood control and drainage works required downstream
of the wild and scenic portions of the various rivers. (Senator Hatfield
sponsored legislation classifying over 100 segments of Oregon waters as wild
and scenic rivers - more than any other state including Alaska.)
9 . To the all important question of whether major repairs can be made to the
various parts of the federal Willamette Valley Project when it is determined
either that the repairs exceed the obligations of local sponsors for ordinary
maintenance or that no local sponsor is required (e.g. the dams and
reservoirs) , the answer is an obvious yes. The Comptroller General has long
held that:
"The spending agency has reasonable discretion in determining how to carry
out the objects of the appropriation. This concept, known as the
'necessary expense doctrine, ' has been around almost as long as the statute
itself. An early statement of the rule is contained in 6 Comp. Gen. 619, 621
(1927) :
'It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that where an
appropriation is made for a particular object, by implication it confers
authority to incur expenses which are necessary or proper or incident to the
proper execution of the object, unless there is another appropriation which
makes more specific provision for such expenditures, or unless they are
prohibited by law, or unless it is manifestly evident from various precedent
appropriation acts that Congress has specifically legislated for certain
expenses of the Government creating the implication that such expenditures
should not be incurred except by its express authority. '
(p. 4-15, Vol. 1, Principles of Federal Appropriation Law)
The same reference at pages 4-15 to 4-16 states that the Comptroller General
has never tried to define all of the applications of the rule because of the
impossibility of such a general definition. At 4-19, the Comptroller General
also states:
",However, specific statutory authority is not essential. " If a particular
spending activity "is directly connected with and is in furtherance of the
purposes for which a particular appropriation has been made, and an
appropriate administrative determination is made to that effect, the
appropriation is available for the expenditure. " (Citations omitted. ]
There is also a very extensive annotation of Supreme Court caselaw on federal
property authorities and rights at 49 LEd2d 1239, following the Kleppe v. New
Mexico case found at 49 LEd 2nd 34 (426 US 529, 96 S Ct 2285 (1976) ) .
�""" Under these holdings, the proper conservation, repair and maintenance of
is normally authorized as an obvious requirement of the
original authorization to acquire the property in the first place. No
property is properly protected without some effort and expenditure.
Consequently, the Flood Control Act of 1950 authorization for the Willamette
Valley Project / Willamette River sub-basin plan in House Document 531 is
also a general authorization to maintain and repair the works so authorized,
consistent with the local cooperation requirements of the House Document 531.
Exactly how repair and maintenance is performed is subject to managerial
discretion based upon available authorities and appropriations. Besides the
original authorization, there are occasionally other available authorities
within the civil works program. The Comptroller General has stated that once
an election is made as to how to proceed in the face of two available
appropriations, one is stuck with one's election, unless Congress has
specifically provided authority to augment appropriations (which again
Congress has so done with regard to certain Portland District operating
costs, specifically authorizing BPA to augment Corps civil works
appropriations in some cases for hydropower maintenance and for fish
activities. )
Hopefully, enough citations have been provided to assist PM and Planning in
dealing with questions from USACE and division. If further information is
required, please advise the undersigned at 808-4522. Thank you.
John
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Intergovernmental Water Board Members
FROM: Ed Wegner
RE: Water Information from Wilsonville
DATE: May 19, 1999
I attended the Wilsonville City Council meeting last evening to hear public testimony on
water options. Mayor Nicoli and Mark Mahon from our Water Advisory Task Force
made statements as did members of H2OK, Citizens for Safe Water and the Willamette
Water Supply Agency. I heard of no new information however, I did receive two pieces
of literature you might be interested in reviewing.
➢ Wilsonville cost information. In this information, however the Portland figure
does include Tigard as a possible partner to go with the Portland scenario.
➢ Review of Montgomery Watson Willamette River Monitoring Data.
Quality Associates, Inc., is a consulting firm that conducted an independent
evaluation of Willamette River monitoring data. Both a one page executive
summary and complete report are attached.
If you have any questions regarding this information, give me a call.
Thanks!
Encl.
Kathy\wi11amette\cc iwb memo 5-19
QUALITY ASSOCIATES, INC.
Review of Montgomery Watson Willamette River Monitoring Data
Executive Summary:
QUALITY ASSOCIATES, INC. (QAI), a consulting firm located in Columbia,
Maryland, conducted an independent evaluation of Willamette River monitoring data that
have been developed by Montgomery Watson, Americas, Inc., Portland, Oregon, and
Montgomery Watson Laboratories, Pasadena, California, from July, 1998 through
February, 1999. This assessment was at the request of the City of Wilsonville, Oregon,
which is considering using the Willamette River as a potential source (after treatment) of
drinking water. The developed data were based on a work plan which called for periodic
sampling and analyses of a wide variety of organic and heavy metal contaminants and
microorganisms of concern, as well as routine water quality parameters.
The analytical findings were reviewed by QAI primarily from the standpoints of meeting
the work plan goals and overall quality, including achievement of stated detection limits
and conformance with quality control standards. Sampling data and related information
were also reviewed.
In summary, even though there were some shortcomings, as described herein, QAI deems
that the work plan goals were largely met and that the reported data are of overall
acceptable quality, including achievement of the stated detection limits. One target
contaminant was previously overlooked by Montgomery Watson Laboratories, and
several more compounds for which analytical methodology only recently became
available, will be analyzed for as part of the next sampling event to be conducted this
Spring.
I
Introduction:
At the request of the City of Wilsonville, Oregon, QUALITY ASSOCIATES, INC.
(QAI) conducted a independent review of Willamette River raw water monitoring data
developed by Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc., Portland, Oregon and Montgomery
Watson Laboratories, Pasadena, California (hereafter both entities are referred to as
"Montgomery Watson") over the period July 1998 through February 1999 for the cities
of Wilsonville and Tigard, Oregon. The basis for the review was two documents
prepared by Montgomery Watson entitled Scope of Work for the city of Tigard
Willamette River Raw Water Monitoring Plan (hereafter referred to as the work plan) and
an interim report of findings entitled City of Tigard, Quarterly Report, March 1999
(hereafter referred to as the quarterly report). The former document spelled out the
overall scope of work to be performed by Montgomery Watson for the Willamette
monitoring project, including the proposed sampling schedule and the rationale for the
target analytical parameters. The quarterly report summarized the findings through
February 24, 1999, as well as providing a number of explanatory notes regarding
sampling and reported findings.
The QAI review was based on review of photocopies of original sampling and analytical
data generated by Montgomery Watson and its analytical subcontractors. Due to time
constraints and the large volume of available data, only a portion could be examined by
QAI in any detail. Focus was given to review of all sampling information and analytical
data for organic compounds (including the dioxin,TCDD and pesticides) and heavy
metals, as these were deemed most critical from the standpoint of potentially harmful
contaminants in the river. Organic compounds and heavy metals were sampled and
analyzed for on three occasions on roughly a quarterly basis and, as part of the overall
review, an attempt was also made to evaluate representative sampling and analysis data
for all three events.
The classes of organic compounds reviewed by QAI included nitrogen and phosphorus
pesticides, chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides, chlorinated acid herbicides, carbamate
insecticides, base-neutral acid extractable compounds, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and the ethylene dibromide group, as well as the individual herbicides
glyphosate, endothall, linuron, diuron, paraquat and diquat. The heavy metal analyses,
including mercury were also evaluated. Reported TCDD (a dioxin) findings were also
reviewed. All available sampling data were reviewed.
The Montgomery Watson and other associated analytical data were evaluated by QAI
with respect to: (1) Conformance with standard methodology (including meeting the
target parameter list and holding times); (2) achievement of stated detection limits; (3)
meeting quality control (QC) parameters and associated acceptance criteria; and (4) the
overall level of documentation. Sampling data were evaluated primarily from the
standpoints of completeness and preservation.
It should be noted that, although included by Montgomery Watson as part of the quarterly
report, some the routine water quality parameter findings, such as alkalinity, ammonia,
2
hardness, total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and several other
indicators, were determined directly for the City of Tigard, Oregon by AmTest Oregon
L.L.C., located in Tigard. Underlying raw data and other records were not provided to
QAI for these determinations - only the analytical reports - thus a full assessment of
reliability could not be performed by QAI. It appeared from the reported findings,
however, that there may have been analytical problems with the determination of
dissolved organic carbon for samples collected during August and September.
Montgomery Watson subcontracted out the analyses of several organic compounds,
including TCDD (a dioxin) to Quanterra Laboratories, Sacramento, California and the
herbicides linuron, diuron and oryzalin to North Coast Laboratories, Arcata, California.
Raw data were provided to QAI for all but the oryzalin determinations and the reported
results were determined to be supportable. Radionuclide analyses were also
subcontracted to another Quanterra analytical facility in Richland, Washington, however,
these data were not further reviewed by QAI beyond verifying the findings given in the
quarterly report were consistent with the individual Quanterra reports.
In summary, in spite of some noted deficiencies, primarily the need for an enhanced level
of underlying documentation, the organic compound and heavy metal results, as reported
by Montgomery Watson in the quarterly report was deemed acceptable by QAI for their
stated purpose. Several targeted organic compounds and one heavy metal that were not
analyzed for during the first three quarters of monitoring will be determined during the
next sampling event.
Specific Findings:
Sampling
Documentation of Willamette River sampling events was provided by Montgomery
Watson primarily through notebook entries, Chain of Custody records and sample
container order forms. Sample receipt at the laboratory was documented for each
shipment by Montgomery Watson Laboratories (Pasadena, California) through a standard
Acknowledgement of Samples Received form. This form, a copy of which was returned to
the Portland based Montgomery Watson sampling staff, also listed (for verification
purposes) the various analyses to be performed for the particular sampling event. The
sample container order forms provided documentation that the appropriate preservative
had been added. The only noted deficiency was that it could not always be verified
through available records if the samples were shipped to the laboratory on ice, as
required, and whether the samples were still in chilled condition when received.
Review of these aforementioned records for the period August 12 through January 26,
1999 revealed that the work plan goals for weekly, monthly and quarterly sampling and
associated parameters were largely met, even though the collection events did not occur
precisely at weekly, monthly and quarterly intervals. Sampling during the target
quarterly low and high water periods was met. According to Montgomery Watson
3
F
records, several planned weekly sampling events in late December, 1998 were missed
due to storm damage at the intake point and one weekly sampling was missed due to a
faulty sampling pump. These problems should be considered normal for such a large and
lengthy project and appear to have only affected the weekly sampling for routine water
quality parameters and resulted in short delays in the December determination of the
parasites giardia and cryptosporidium.
Of significance is the fact that, according to the available records, the target quarterly
sampling for pesticides and other organic compounds, heavy metals, radio-nuclides and
viruses were met and reflect occurrences of both low and high water flows for the
Willamette.
In summary, although some weekly target sampling dates for routine water quality
parameters were not met due to storm damage and equipment failure, the work plan goals
of the more critical monthly and quarterly sampling events were met. Necessary
preservatives were recorded as having been added to the sampling containers, and
although not every custody sheet reflects the presence of ice, this record keeping lapse
appears to have been due to oversight by Montgomery Watson.
Holding Times
The term "Holding Time" refers to the periods of time between sample collection and
initial extraction and the time between the extraction and final determination. Only the
holding times for organic chemical (including pesticides and dioxin) were evaluated as
part of the QAI data review. Montgomery Watson acknowledged in their quarterly report
that holding times had elapsed on two occasions (for the August 12, 1998 and November
2, 1998 sampling dates) for determination of nitrogen - phosphorus (NP) pesticides.
Review of the Montgomery Watson data revealed that on both occasions the subject
Willamette River water samples were extracted and analyzed within the required time
frames, however, the holding times for other water samples from non-related locations
were not met, thus the entire original sample set appears to have been rejected.
The August and November, 1998 samples for the determination of nitrogen —phosphorus
pesticides were collected again by Montgomery Watson in September and December of
1998;respectively. Analyses of these additional samples, as well as the originally
collected samples for both months, resulted in no detectable nitrogen-phosphorus
pesticides. No other holding time problems were apparent from the data reviewed.
Scope of Analysis
The overall scope of analyses for this project is presented in the work plan and the
specific compounds (or groups of compounds), elements and/or organisms targeted for
analysis are also spelled out in the quarterly report. The quarterly report also cites in the
General Notes section that EPA approved (or other acceptable) methodology is currently
4
not available for a number of the target compounds or elements. Communication with
Montgomery Watson staff indicated that methodology and laboratory capability are now
available for the metal vanadium, the pesticides terbufos and pronamide, and the
commercial chemical nitrobenzene. These will be analyzed for in the next quarterly
sampling. Adequate EPA or other Montgomery Watson analytical methodologies
currently do not exist for three other target organic compounds (all herbicides), i.e.
bromoxynil, propanil and MCPA or specific microbial contaminants on the EPA
Candidate Contaminant List.
Analytical Methodology
Review of the available raw data and records revealed that Montgomery Watson (and its
contract laboratories) used the appropriate methodology to analyze for the various target
parameters identified in the work plan and as cited in the quarterly report. To the degree
possible, particularly for organic compounds and heavy metals, standard U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or EPA recommended analytical methodologies
were cited as having been used by the laboratories. Some modifications were
documented in the data, such as changes in sample and extract volumes, additional (or
changes in) surrogate (quality control)compounds and changes in reference standard
dilutions. These changes were deemed by QAI to not have had a significant impact on
the performance of the method or the quality of the reported findings.
Detection Limits
Since most of the analytical results for organic compounds (including pesticides and
dioxin) and heavy metals were reported as "Not Detected" or"ND" at the method
detection limit (MDL) or considerably below the EPA Maximum Concentration Limit
(MCL), the accuracy of these reported ND findings are deemed significant. For all
organic compound and heavy metals analyses reviewed, the detection limits were
determined to have been accurately reported, based on the factors of initial sample size,
final extract volume, lowest reference standard concentration and fortified sample
recoveries.
A positive values for the herbicide simazine during the August 12, 1998 sampling date
and a positive result for the organic solvent, dichloromethane, for the November 2, 1998
sampling event are discussed in the Montgomery Watson quarterly report and the
circumstances and explanation were deemed to be plausible.
5
r.
Quality Control
Quality control (QC) related analyses are normally conducted in conjunction with each
set of determinations to verify the reliability of the analyst and the utilized
instrumentation, as well as verifying that there are no other significant negative factors
entering into the use of the prescribed analytical method. These determinations include
analysis of method and reagent blanks to verify absence of potentially interfering
substances from reagents, solvents and/or laboratory ware, and verification of acceptable
accuracy through determination of recoveries derived from analysis of representative
samples fortified with compounds of interest. Recoveries of specified representative
compounds fortified into the actual samples (called "surrogates") of interest also yield an
indication of method and analyst performance. A reference standard response
verification for extended analytical runs is required of most EPA methods, and a specially
prepared laboratory evaluation sample is required to be periodically analyzed for some
EPA methods to allow determination of instrument performance.
Review of a representative portion of the Montgomery Watson data for the organic
compound and heavy metal results cited in the quarterly report indicated that both the
level of quality control (QC) and the QC results themselves were adequate. The level of
QC determinations with some minor exceptions, were consistent with method
requirements and sound laboratory practice. Upon review, one negative QC result for
TCDD (a dioxin) mentioned in the General Notes section of the quarterly report was
found to be in error, probably due to a report writing error; there appeared to be no low
recovery of TCDD, as stated.
On a few occasions QC results were observed to be slightly outside the stated
acceptability criteria (e.g. organic phosphorus pesticides for January 27, 1999 sampling)
with no laboratory comment or repeat analysis and, on at least one occasion (e.g.
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides for November 2, 1998 sampling), the laboratory
evaluation sample was analyzed, but the results were not calculated or otherwise
reported. Visual inspection of the chromatographic data indicated no particular problem
in this case, however.
Analytical Documentation
The level of documentation, i.e. the recorded raw data necessary to reconstruct what was
actually performed in the laboratory, by whom and when, is necessary to allow full
reconstruction of procedures used and to verify the findings and conclusions given in the
analytical report. Although data were reasonably complete for some Montgomery
Watson analyses, such as for chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, acid herbicides and
nitrogen-phosphorus pesticides, such information was lacking for the determination of
carbamate pesticides, the herbicide glyphosate and the ethylene dibromide group. Other
determinations are supported by some level of documentation between these two
extremes. In some cases, only the internal standard solution is not identified and in other
instances the fortification solutions and/or levels are not specified. In each case where
;*mo, documentation was lacking it was assumed that the cited analytical method was followed.
6
R
In summary, there is definite room for improvement in the level of documentation and its
attribution being provided by Montgomery Watson to support their analytical findings.
QAI will provide advice to the Montgomery Watson Laboratory with respect to
enhancing their overall level of documentation, particularly for analyses conducted in
support of the next Willamette River sampling event.
Report prepared May 13, 1999 by:
Dean F. Hill, Senior Consultant
QUALITY ASSOCIATES, INC.
9017 Red Branch Road, Suite 102
Columbia, MD '21045
TX: 410-884-9100
7
ai
•.54?; �tet;aa:'7.i�
Discussion Items
Supply Options
Financial Plan Assumptions
h Financial Plan Summaries
Rate Impacts
SDC Comparison
Supply Options
Joint Willamette Water Treatment Plant
i Tigard, NWD, Tualatin, and Sherwood
m Tigard only
o Willamette Water Treatment Plant -- Wilsonville
Only
IN Portland/Bull Run
Tigard, Sherwood and Tualatin
Wilsonville Only
i
10-Year Financial Plan --
Assumptions
Capital costs increase at 5%/yr
� O&M costs increase at about 4.5%/yr (growth and
inflation)
k Average annual customer growth 2.5%
Revenue bonds are rate/SDC backed.
i Maintain minimum balances
5% 0&M contingency
1 5% 0&M reserve
SDC at calculated rates
k Consumption at 98/99 levels
J )
10-Year Financial Plan --
Base Water System Costs
M ' Ca pita I
Y $ 1 . 7 million supply
i $2 . 9 million reservoirs & storage
m $8 . 9 million transmission & distribution
III 0&M
1 $ 1 . 4 million (99/00) ; $2 . 3 million (08/09)
10-Year Financial Plan --
Willamette Treatment Options
Joint Treatment Plant with Tigard, TVWD,
Tualatin and Sherwood
b 10mgd Plant -- $21.9 million
k Net increase in 0&M costs $571,000 (03/04)
Joint Treatment Plant with Tigard only
r 10 mgd plant -- $23.7 million
k Net increase in 0&M costs $639,000 (03/04)
W Wilsonville Only Treatment Plant
Y Initial 5mgd plant plus 5mgd expansion -- $31.4 million
Y Transmission lines -- $2. 1 million
Net increase in O&M costs $769,000 (03/04)
* Capital costs in 1998 dollars
1
10-Year Financial Plan --
Portland/Bull - Run Options
With Tigard, Tualatin., and Sherwood
i Supply lines -- $48.3 million
i Net increase in O&M costs $1 . 2 million (03/04)
Wilsonville Only
i Supply lines -- $76.0 million
I Net increase in 0&M costs $ 1 .2 million (03/04)
*Capital costs in 1998 dollars
l 1
10-V' Projectedear Rate
Increases
Fiscal Years
Option 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04
W/WTTTS 22% 20% 20% 20%
W/WT 22% 24% 24% 20%
W/WO 22% 17% 17% 17%
P/WTTS 22% 22% 21% 21% 21%
P/WO 22% 23% 23% 23% 23%
2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
W/WTTTS
W/WT
W[WO 13% 13% 13%
P%WTTS 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
P/WO 15% 15% 15% 15% 12%
10=Year Financial Plan
BimMonthly
Coom
$170 - --
$150 - -- --- - - ---
._ --�-- W/W TTS
---- -
� $130
-�— W/WT
$110 _�—
___, W/WO
$90 _
>+ $70 J-~ ` - -- P/WTTS
:E =- — PMO
$50
Co $30
CO d- LO cD Il-- 00 O
O O O O O O O O O O O
CO O O It LO CD Il— CO
O 07 O O
O O O O O
O O
O 07 O O O O O O O O O
SDC Comparison ($/EDU )
Option Current Revised*
WIWTTTS $2, 681 $2, 753
WAVT $2, 681 $2,765
WAVO $2, 681 $3 , 825
P/-NVTTS $2,681 $4, 575
PIWO $2, 681 $5 , 717
*Figures are for FY2000/01 . Subsequent years adjusted by ENR.
1 1 1
Sa le
Residential
Winte i
me Water
Bills
Willamette Annualized
River Portland Billing
Difference
Year With Partners [7Go It Alone
Capital Only $31 .3 million $90.8 million
Capital + Interest $56.8 million $200.6 million
2000 $38 $38
2005 $64 $97 $200
2009 $64 $166 $,611
2015 $56 $142
2020 $137 53
$ � ` 503
2025 $43 $77t
2030 $40 $71
203541 $ .,
$ 55
2040 $42 $63
Commercial
Water dells
by Broad Consungtion Groups
p
Willamette River Portland
Withpartners) Go it alone
2000 L 2005 2009 2000 20051 2009
Rate per CCF 2.135 3.548 3.548 2.135 5.403 9.205
CCF Approx.
Range % of total
Small Volume Users (1-18) 40% $38 $64 $64 $38 $97 $166
Video rental stores
Banks
Storage
Small Office
Medium Volume Users (25-75) 25% $107 $177 $177 $107 $270 $460
Auto repair
Dental
Copy and print centers
Light manufacturing
Larger Volume Users 20%
Restaurants (110-140) $267 $444 $444 $267 $675 $1,151
Motels (300-575) $982 $1 ,632 $1,632 $982 $2,485 $4,234
Largest Volume Users (500 +) 8%
CITY OF TIGARD
CITY OF TIGARD OREGON
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT
WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
Delivered to WWSA and membership at meeting of June 1, 1999
WWSA membership response to WWSA due no later than August 30, 1999
The City of Tigard delivers this Proposal to Construct(Proposal) the Willamette River Water
Supply System (Project) to the WWSA and its membership for their consideration pursuant to
Section 5.1 of the 1997 WWSA intergovernmental agreement. The Proposal includes this
transmittal document, the governance structure, Attachment 1 to this document, and the
December 1998 Preliminary Engineers Report for the Project (PER), which the WWSA and
members have previously received.
This Proposal is the culmination of four (4) years of action by the City, in coordination with its
WWSA partners and the City of Wilsonville, to evaluate the availability of the Willamette River
as a long term source of high quality drinking water at a competitive cost. Implementation of the
Proposal will assure Project participants an ownership interest in a water supply system that will
provide high quality water in a manner that is consistent with the Regional Water Supply Plan at
the most competitive cost available. The Proposal will carry out the goal of WWSA to make
efficient use of the water rights held by WWSA for the collective benefit of the participants in
the Project.
Tigard proposes to build the Project as described in the PER, with the governance structure
outlined in Attachment 1. In summary the Proposal is to build:
1. A river intake and raw water pump station system, located approximately at river mile 39,
sized to allow the intake for the ultimate system capacity requirement of 120 mg d;
2. A 3 stage water treatment facility with an initial system capacity of 35 mgd, with the
ultimate system capacity requirement of 120 mgds, and purchase land for the facility;
3. A high service pump station;
4. System administrative facilities co-located with the treatment facility,
5. A transmission line from the treatment facility north to provide connection to the Tigard,
Tualatin and Sherwood systems, sized to accommodate future needs of the TVWD.
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT - Page 1
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772
I
Cost estimates for the Project are contained in the PER. The governance structure for the Project
will be consistent with the structure outlined in Attachment 1. The Project participants will own
the Project, and management of the Project will be governed by a Project board. Non-
participating WWSA members, and WWSA will retain the later buy in option provided by the
WWSA agreement. WWSA will transfer/assign sufficient water rights to the Project to allow it
to function at planned capacity. Tigard will be the lead agency, responsible for the permitting,
design, construction, administrative management, operation and maintenance of the Project. In
the Project agreement WWSA will transfer responsibility to the Project for the operational
functions reserved to WWSA in the WWSA agreement.
Section 5.1 requires WWSA members to notify WWSA of their acceptance or rejection of this
Proposal to Construct no late than August 30, 1999. Acceptance of the Proposal will be
acceptance of the Project and the governance structure. A failure of a member to respond by that
date will constitute a rejection of the Proposal by that member.
The City of Tigard has undertaken its leadership role in this process with enthusiasm, and the
results being presented in this Proposal provide a sound foundation from which Project
participants will meet the water supply needs of their constituents for the foreseeable future. The
City is ready to assist any member with its evaluation of this Proposal, and to provide any
additional information or clarification that it can. After receiving and evaluating responses to
this Proposal to Construct the City looks forward to working with WWSA and its membership in
meeting the water supply needs of the region.
Jmc\acm\90024\waterconstruct.pr 1(5/27/99)
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT - Page 2
CITY OF TIGARD
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT
WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
ATTACHMENT 1
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
A Project Agreement will be entered into by the original WWSA participants in the
Project and WWSA. It is currently contemplated that once the WWSA and its members
concur with the structure that Wilsonville will be invited to join as an original Project
participant. WWSA and members initially rejecting the Project shall retain the option to
acquire an interest described in Section 5.5 of the WWSA agreement.
The Project will be owned by the participants, with the exact nature of that ownership
interest to be fashioned in consultation with bond counsel. WWSA will transfer to the
Project participants the WWSA interests in the Project contemplated by Sections 4.1, 5.2,
6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 of the WWSA agreement relating to ownership, sale of wholesale
water and charges for use of transmission lines. WWSA will also transfer/assign to the
Project sufficient water rights for the Project to function at its ultimate planned system
capacity of 120 mgd. See PER Table 2-4.
A Project Board will be created as a ORS 190.080 entity. The Board will consist of one
representative of each participant (either an elected representative or employee of each
participant). WWSA will not have an ownership interest in the Project so it will not have
a member on the Board. Amendment to the Project Agreement must receive the approval
of the governing body of each participant and WWSA. The Board will provide
management oversight of the Project through administration of the terms of the Project
Agreement. The Board will have the authority to approve additional Project participants,
wholesale water sales, rates, wholesale SDC's, transmission line usage policy and fees,
central financing decisions, enforcement of the terms of the Project Agreement, and the
timing of expansion. Actions of the Board will be by dual majority vote based on the
recommendation in Appendix H of the PER.
The Project will be the Project described with cost allocations as defined, by the
December, 1998 Preliminary Engineers Report for the Willamette River Water Supply
System.
Tigard will be designated the lead agency for the Project and Project manager. Tigard
will be responsible for management, design, permitting, construction, operation and
maintenance of the Project on behalf of the entity. Tigard will be given the authority to
carry out these responsibilities in the manner it chooses, subject to the oversight of the
Project Board. A technical committee will be formed to provide advice to the Project
manager.
Page 1
I r t.•
The local funding option will be the choice for initial construction. A mechanism will be
included to minimize the risk to all parties to the extent possible from default by another
party. The agreement will contain a central funding option, to not be exercised until
initial Project construction debt is retired, or retirement is guaranteed through a
refinancing mechanism.
The proposals from Section 5 of the preliminary engindering report for capital cost
allocation principles, O+M principles, capacity rights, rate authority, provision for
latecomers, provisions for system expansion and "must lease", sale of wholesale water,
wholesale SDC's, and depreciation/replacement funding will be included as proposed.
The agreement will also include normal formality provisions, including dissolution,
withdrawal and amendment provisions.
jmc\acm\90024\waterconstruct.at 1(5/27/99)
Page
C�r�i�•
rnoa
wi Isonvi I le =-lab2 W
O
W a 0
HWS
�s Z 40 rn
� € _j4 o
m a
En a
o m
j V
Your Community --- Your Newspaper
VOL.14 NO.21 Wednesday,May 26, 1999 TWO SECTIONS-50 CENTS
Waterdebate intensifies as citizens have tsay
Willamette foes aren't Willamette River water and Portland water. Force, the Safest Drinking Water Coalition The City Coun-
,.,/ //,,, ,,/ It wasn't the last chance for citizen input. (H2OK) and the Willamette Water Supplycil is expected
reassured by Studies Individuals will have a chance to give their Agency. to decide
views at a public hearing scheduled for Portland proponents included Wilsonville between the
e
that support river use June 7. Citizens for Safe Water,Tigard Citizens for Willamette
A council decision will be made either Safe Water and the Oregon Environmental1 River and
By CURT KIPP that evening or June 21 — the latter if the Council. s Portland water
Of The Spokesman council decides more public input is neces- The Wilsonville Chamber of Commerce following a
sary. was neutral. Board member Vicki Yates said public hearing
next month.
The scientists have had their say on the Group opinions were fairly evenly split the chamber has not picked an option to en- The river water
city's water dilemma. between the Willamette and Portland, dorse.A decision is expected after a private g would be
Now the citizens are having theirs. owing to the balanced list of groups invited forum for chamber members is held May i drawn from a
Invited citizen groups testified before the to speak. 25.
. t .. point west of
Wilsonville City Council on May 17 regard- Willamette backers included the city of r the old Boones
ing the upcoming choice between Tigard, the Tigard Water Advisory Task See DEBATE on Page 11 Ferry ramp.
Photo by Tom Morlan
i
Debate
Continued from Page 1 Much of the information presented safe drinking water from sources Portland water as blended-water
has been heard before at previous more polluted than the Willamette, (most from Bull Run, but some
Portland absent council meetings. Manard noted. from city wells)is misleading.
Notably, Portland Water Buread Still, the hearing did provide an However, the fact that Portland's Portland has used its wells just 40
officials were not in attendance at opportunity for head-to-head clash- water comes from a protected wa- days in the past four years,she said.
the meeting — even though their es on a number of important issues. tershed is unique and .has great Scott concluded that Wilsonville
counterparts from the WWSA were: ❑ "Safest water In region?" value,Manard added. will be getting Bull Run water most
According to Wilsonville city Willamette supporters said the riv- River opponents said that raw of the time —not Columbia River
spokesman Dave Kanner,bureau of- er's finished water would be safer water quality is important because well field water.
ficials were asked to make a presen- than Portland's, but opponents treatment cannot possibly'remove However, Safest Drinking Water
tation at the hearing but declined strongly disagreed. every hazardous particle. Coalition member Kay Hill said
the invitation.He said Portland offi- Tigard Mayor Jim Nicoli quoted Scott cited Dr. Ken Williamson, Wilsonville would get 26 percent
cials took the position that the facts a Portland official as saying that an engineer at Oregon State Univer- well water, according to Portland's
of their proposal are already on the Willamette water would be the sity, who told the council May 3 proposal.All of the water,including
table. safest in the region under the pro that raw water quality is important. the well water, would be unfiltered,
Contacted by the Spokesman, posed treatment. (Williamson did conclude that treat- she said.
Portland water commissioner Erik "Everyone has agreed, including ed Willamette water would be safe, Tigard's task force was very un-
the city of Portland,that if we go to however.) comfortable with the Columbia well
`The Willamette the Willamette River ... we will Bull Run is pristine, whereas the field water, according to member
have the best water of any city in Willamette River-is highly polluted, Mark Mahon.
(advocacy group) the metro area,"Nicoli said. Scott-said. Meanwhile, Council President
But some river opponents, in- , "Some of those things in the raw John Heiser raised questions of his
is doing a whole eluding Dolores Scott, were skepti- water will get through the filtration own about Portland water.
cal that a Portland official really system,"she added. Heiser contended that Bull Run
PR campaign. That_ said the Willamette was better, The filter system proposed for water,by Portland's own admission,
"If that's the case, then Portland the Willamette would eliminate 100 has several contaminants.The water
ought to make you should close up and use the Willa- percent of pollutants initially, Scott has giardia, trihalomethanes, heavy
think. mette River," Scott said with dis- said,but its performance would de- metals, arsenic, and elevated lead
belief. cline over time. and copper,he said.
Erik Sten Both Councilor John Heiser and River supporters said, that while "I want that on the record,"
river supporter Jack Rayborn said Heiser said.
Portland water commissioner they remember the comment in Portland officials were not there
question. The citizens of to respond, so the Spokesman con-
"I was at that meeting in Janu- tacted Manard to answer the ques-
Sten said he did not know if an in- ary," Raybotn said. "The Portland Wilsonville must tions raised by Heiser's statements.
vitation was received. He said the people said the treated mater will be According to Mangd, lead and
water bureau is available to attend more pure than Portland's system:' not allow them- -copper are found in Portland tap
any meetings if requested, but add- Gary Betts,a Wilsonville resident water, but they do not come from
ed that the bureau is trying to avoid speaking on behalf.of Tigard Citi- selves to be led the water source or the city's trans-
political discussions and debates. zens for Safe Water, then attacked down the nth mission system. Rather, they leach
e o
"We have tried to stay out of the Portland statement by saying the p f into water from home plumbing—
meetings where people are debating person who made it was not quali- deceit reached h usually from brass faucets.
on what Tigard or Wilsonville. fied to make such a pronouncement. p y Brass is an alloy,and some brass
should do,"Sten said."We're trying No one indicated which Portland opponents - '(the(the contains higher proportions of lead.
to just be factual. I'm not in the official made the statement they High dissolved oxygen can cause
mode of trying to sell it— I'm in were all arguing over. However the river).' the metal to leach out. Portland
the mode of saying it's an available official who made the comment in treats its water to reduce this leach-
option to you. question is Rosemary Manard,Port- ing,she said.
"The Willamette is doinga land's director of water quality en- Janet Olmsted
q Y Portland treats its wateF with
whole PR campaign, That ought to gineering. Safest Drinking Water Coalition chlorine to reduce giardia. Triha-
make you think.I'm not saying the Given the apparent disagreement lomethanes are treatment byprod-
information is inaccurate.But you'd or confusion over Manard's January ucts suspected to cause cancer.The
never see us doing anything like statements, the Spokesman contact- treatment won't remove every con- chlorine treatment does result in tri-
that." ed her Monday for clarification on taminant, it will remove enough of halomethanes as a byproduct, but
Sten added that Wilsonville offi- the matter. them to be safe. the benefits of disinfecting the wa-
cials have been very gracious and Manard said it was never her in- Safest Drinking Water Coalition ter outweigh the risks from treat-
professional in keeping him up to tent to say that either source — (H2OK)member Janet Olmsted cit- ment byproducts,Manard said.
date during every step of the water Portland or the Willamette — ed the panel of scientists who testi- The most dangerous trihalome-
source selection process. would better. fled May 3 that treated Willamette thanes would not be present in very
At least one speaker at the May Rather,her intent was to commu- water would be safe. These were large amounts because Portland's
17 hearing noted that the Willa- nicate that both sources are safe well-qualified, well-trained experts, system is low in bromide,she said,
mette option has an agency actively based on drinking water standards, she said. Portland may have trace,natural-
pushing it, and the Portland option though neither is absolutely risk- Willamette River water quality ly occurring amounts of arsenic and
does not. free. will improve if the river is selected heavy metals in its system, but not
"We don't have an entity that's "The real message I tried to bring because of"increased stewardship,"„ at unsafe levels,Manard said.
been hired to advocate for the Port- to that meeting is, there is no such Olmsted added. She had strong `. ❑ Cast. Although most people
land system;' Marshall-Gillmore thing•as risk-free tap water," Man- words,foe_Willamette»opponents,,:r.believe;the issue of water quality is
said. "7414's m>ich 3o the.detriment , and said;;,"i tis is an issue where it's saying fbay Have preyed on people's paramount, both sides had argu-
of making an informed decision:' hot apples and apples.This is not a fears. ,ments to,make' about how water
Gillmore is a member of the anti- matter of better and worse. I don't "The citizens of Wilsonville must rates should impact the decision.
river group Wilsonville Citizens for think anyone in the city (of Port- not allow themselves to be led down Wilsonville officials recently re-
Safe Water. land)wants to say the Willamette is the path of deceit preached by op- Teased rate estimates showing that
Though Portland water officials better or the Bull Run is better." ponents of this issue,"she said. Portland water would be more ex-
were absent, the groups that did Cities such as New Orleans and ❑ Portland water makeup.
speak covered familiar ground. Cincinnati use treatment to produce Scott argued that referring to the See DEBATE on Page 14
Page 14—Wilsonville Spokesman,Wednesday,May 26, 1999
Debate .
Continued from Page 11 based on numbers that have not been According to Mahon, a provision the city can sell more than surplus "This seems to have more to do
negotiated,"he said. in Portland's city charter states that water, he said.
pensive than Willamette water, ex- In the Spokesman interview, Sten the city can sell only "surplus Mahon's objections to Portland than with with the desire
to build and control
cept in a few select instances. The said Portland is willingto negotiate water," and Portland was not willingwater didn't stopwith the cit char- g P policy," ant
rate estimates were generated by a with cities about water terms if the to discuss changing it. ter. He also said Portland is not will- wopos said. "The treatment plant
paid consultant. cities are serious about wantingPort- proposed by Tigard ." unnecessary
ing to negotiate a water deal until the and a waste of money."
Nicoli told Wilsonville councilors land water. cities involved commit to it.
that Tigard opted for Willamette However, Tigard officials made it Lewotsky said many cities spend
water because recent experience has cleaz to him that they wanted to go With conservation, That situation would give Tigard more on water capital improvements
shown that Portland water can be to the Willamette. and Wilsonville little choice but to than on conservation. Tigard has
we don't need to accept Portland's terms, Mahon be
very expensive. Sten noted that Portland already lieves. even spent more on public relations
Tigard currently buys Portland spent a lot of time and money on its "Who's in the driver's seat? The promoting the Willamette plant than
water as well as Lake Oswego water. initial report released in December. address raising the on conservation, she said.
According to Nicoli, Tigard is pay- He said he didn't see the point in seller is,"he said.
P two dams. We have The task force preferred the Wil-
ing Portland $1.23 per 100 cubic spending more money to lamette because it would give Tigard Wilsonville for its "intelligent" con-
feet y generate
feet for water wholesale this year— numbers or information that Tigard not adequately ad- more control of how, where and servation plan while still saving that
almost double the old rate of 67 officials would use as ammunition when money is spent, Mahon said. more conservation is needed.
cents per CCF. Tigard's customers, against the Portland option. dressed that in this But Heiser said conservation isn't
River opponents did not dispute
in turn,pay $1.32 per CCF on aver- ❑ Certainty of supply. Willa- , the answer in Wilsonville.
age for that water. region.' that a Willamette plant would give
g mette supporters said a treatment g local governments more control. "We've done every bit of conser-
The increase came because Port- plant on the river is the only sure However, the OEC's Karen Lswot- vation we can do now," he said. "It's
land penalized Tigard for using too way to guarantee water is available Karen Lewotsksky said the issues of control and
ownot going .to handle our water
much water, said Ed Wegner, Tig- for local residents. y ownership a the new water supply needs"
ard's public works director. The "It is the only way to have ab- Oregon Environmental Council owtrivial to local residents. What Lewotsky also believes Portland
penalty was part of Tigard's contract solute control over the quality and
arewith Portland. they really care about is water quali- will not need to raise its two Bull
quantity of our water,"Olmsted said. ty, she said. Run dams to meet water demands,
Portland proponents maintained Portland supporters countered that It's hard to say how "surplus Tigard's desire to build a water even though Portland anticipates
that future contracts with Portland the city of Portland is more willing water" is defined, Mahon added. treatment plant on the Willamette doing just that at some point in the
are negotiable and need not include to negotiate on price and certainty That made the Tigard task force ner- River was driven by politics, not future.
such harsh penalties. than river supporters are willing to vous, he said.
water shortages,Lewotsky said. "With conservation, we don'[
Meanwhile, Gillmore said Wil- admit. Jim Hansen, a member of Tigard In fact, Lewotsky asserted that need to address raising the two
sonville's estimates of the cost of River proponents fired back that Citizens for Clean Water, disputed Tigard's water shortage can be dealt dams," she said. "We have not ade-
going to Portland are too high. Portland's willingness to negotiate is Mahon's claims. A memo from the with through conservation rather quately addressed that in this re-
"The data that is shown tonight is hampered by its own city charter. Portland city attorney maintains that than construction.
gion:"
Tap Willamette;
allow the debate
The Tigard City Council Tuesday night should approve a plan to util-
ize treated Willamette River water as the city's primary source of drink-
ing water.
The decision will make many concerned citizens very unhappy.And
it will set the stage for Citizens for Safe Water,who oppose the use of
Willamette water,to require a vote next fall on the matter by Tigard
revistered voters.
But the council's decision to proceed with treated Willamette water is
the right one.A full public discussion,an educational campaign covering
all viewpoints and scientific information,and an eventual citizen vote
should not be feared.Let's have a full, fair debate by Willamette sup-
porters and opponents.
That's the way it should be.
The debate's outcome not only will help decide Tigard's water supply
for the future,but also could determine water supply for Durham, King
City,unincorporated Tigard,Tualatin,Wilsonville,Sherwood and pos-
sibly areas of Beaverton served by the Tualatin Valley Water District.
That is,if citizens' votes are motivated by fact,need and cost.
But along the way,personal conviction,emotion and perception might
complicate a public review of the issue.This was evidenced by tes-
timony that a citizen offered last week before the Tigard City Council.
At least one person said,"The thought of drinking that is dreadful."
We can sympathize.For years we have been told that the Willamette
is a dreary,dirty waterway and the alternative,Bull Run water,is among
the nation's purest water sources.
In both,there is some truth.And some fiction.
The city of Tigard has done a good job in spearheading the controver-
sial review of where to get water for this region's future.
But even then,some folks are miles apart on the issue.And we admit
that even after significant future debate and public education by both
sides,some people will determine their vote on their perception of drink-
ing water taken from a river that some consider polluted.
To date,the city of Tigard wisely has sought to base its decision on
key issues—not perception,or misperception.
Water quality is the key issue.City officials say their studies indicate
that treated Willamette River water will be of the highest quality and safe
for human consumption.Opponents dispute the studies.
Tigard also has addressed the need for a reliable water system for the
region.As the Portland area grows in the next 20 years by more than
500,000 people and our economy expands,a balanced water supply is
critical.That supply needs to diversify beyond the region's recent system
that heavily relies on Portland's Bull Run system.
Bull Run is,and will remain,a high-quality,reliable water source. But
expansion of Bull Run to meet future growth will be subject to environ-
mental limitations,and its operation could be imperiled by natural dis-
asters,including flooding,landslides or seismic disturbances around
Mount Hood.Adding other sources of water means we have a backup
supply.
The water debate also should focus on cost. Which systems are the
most cost-effective and provide taxpayers a predictable expense and
return?
We have been impressed by Tigard's tenacity on this.Councilors and
staff have led the way and taken the heat for jurisdictions throughout
eastern Washington-County. And this from a city that typically neither
takes risks nor leads public policy debate.
But of late—as long-term water relations have broken off with Lake
Oswego—this is a city that feels it has no assurance of where it will get
water and how much that water will cost.
As a result,quiet Tigard has been the leader in helping shape a public
decision on future water sources for the region.
That decision should be advanced Tuesday night by a council decision
to affirm use of treated Willamette River water. And it's a decision that
should not he endangered if'citizens say they want a right to vote on the
muter.
q/4/99
ltglt A. publi;her
e
', _ PAiRN�(F,BtICK1EL ' `�'r�AttllRA M ROVyE
�, �d.a• ��;� �� idem`�. � ' -�Ed�kor ��� ��•.<;
g '2 k z• w^ 835 � r',
Drinking the Willamette
Tigard officials are leading the suburbs to the river to drink,
while customers are balking—and both have good reasons
rinking from the Willamette would impound enough water to serve
River isn't our first choice, the area for 200 years.
but if Tigard's residents From the suburbs' standpoint, tak-
want to take a sip, that ing water from the Willamette would
ought to be just fine with Portlanders. mean they would control their own
But the idea is unsettling enough source and not be dependent on rate,
that city leaders had better make sure conservation and other demands
that Tigard residents do want to take made by Portland.
that sip, and give them the chance to Most of the concerns have been
vote on their water source. about cost and the quality of water
Tuesday evening, the Tigard City they'll.be drinking. Staying with Bull
Council is scheduled to choose be- Run would be a bit cheaper in the
tween drinking-water sources, after short run, but more expensive later,
months of study and controversy.Offi- as Portland adds to its system.
cials looking to the river say it will After weeks of questioning and por-
meet federal drinking-water standards ing over reports, a citizens task force
after treatment. Opponents argue voted 22-3 for the Willamette. -
otherwise, challenging both the analy- One of the most difficult concerns to
ses and federal standards for address was raised by a six-year study
drinking-water safety. by the state Department of Environ-
It's much more than a local deci- mental Quality. It found deformed
sion.If Tigard chooses to tap the Wil- squawfish in the Newberg pool, a 35-
lamette, Sherwood, Tualatin, King mile stretch of the river from New-
City, Durham and Wilsonville are se- berg to Oregon City.The study did not
riously considering joining in. Port- conclude what caused the deformities,
land also has a stake in the decision, and theadiscovery is a rallying point
because the broader the Bull Run sys-, for those opposed to the river.
tem's user base, the more ratepayers Corvallis and Adair Village tap the
who help cover its costs. Willamette for their drinking water
We're inclined to go along with Ti- without documented health.problems.
Bard officials in this case. Kevin Hanway, executive. director of
For one thing,both the 1992 drought the Willamette Water Supply.,Agency,
and the slides of 1995 and 1997 that comprising seven water suppliers in
plugged the flow of some water from the area, avowed, "We haven't found
Bull Run for a time are strong argu- anythnig in the.river that we cannot
ments for providing another major get out of the water. We .have done
source of water for the region. more testing than anyone else has
From Portland's particular perspec- done.We feel confident it is safe."
tive, not providing water to the grow- Tigard officials.have given citizens
ing southwest suburbs would.extend plenty of information and opportunity
the calendar for raising the two exist- to express their views. Many remain
ing dams or building a third one at skeptical, however, and are asking to
Bull Run. Raising the dams would vote—and they should.
meet all regional water needs for the As planners may discover, you can
next 50 years,says Portland City Com- lead Tigard to water, but you can't
missioner Erik Sten. A third dam make it drink.
Thursday, April 29, 1999
I '
I � 9
•
A
��i/.!i,'/i/� �%�► S✓_ - ,fit"� �.
� `� •,- __� � iii�/
�; to
Newgroup
supports 119 q
use of the
Willamette
River opponents could
start gathering petition
signatures this week
By CURT KIPP cant for people to know that accept-
Of The Spokesman ing the `us versus them' image por-
trayed by others is really seeing only
Just as one citizen group is gearing up half of the picture."
for a petition drive to require a vote on Raybom said the group will try to
any use of the Willamette River for city debunk some of the objections raised
water, another group has formed — this by WCSW and a similar group in
one in support of tapping the river. Tigard. "Inflammatory comments
The Safest Drinking Water Coalition and scare tactics may get attention,
-has members in Tigard and Wilsonville, but they don't give you any real in-
both of which are cities that mav decide formation,"he said.
to use the river. Co-chair Jack Raybom Like the petition backers, Raybom
represents Wilsonville, while co-chair views the petition as a public refer-
Bob Rohlf,a former Tigard city councilor, endum on the Willamette River. He
represents Tigard. urged voters to examine all the evi-
"The primary goal is to secure the dence before signing the petition.
safest, most practical, most economical "I'm recommending tVey do not
drinking water,"spokeswoman Trish Con- sign the petition until they read the
rad said. "We think the evidence shows published data,"Raybom said. "I be-
that the water plant on the Willamette is lieve that people who hav> had the
the way to do that. opportunity to review the informa-
"Most people want the same things we
want, and I think WCSW (Wilsonville tion will realize that astate-of-the-art
Citizens for Safe Water)would want the treatment plant will produce the best
same thing. We just disagree on what the water."
safest source is:'
SDWC organizers say they represent a
silent majority that favors the Willamette
River.
"There is more than one side to this
issue," Rohlf said. "We think it is impor-
L4 zL q
Paid AiN
TIGARD U TIZ NS;:RI 0-DRE
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE TIGARE
OREGON CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE 1-BILL OF RIGHTS Section 1.Natural rights inherent in people
and allfree governments are founded on their authority,mid instituted for their peace,safety,and happiness;and
Mr.Mayor and Councilors: Governing bodies are elected to carry out the will of the people.
History shows that on occasion when governing bodies attempt to do something that is against
the will of the vast majority of the people, things such as Boston Tea Parties, and revolutions
occur. On April 27,you will be making a decision on our future water source which may
affect over 100,000 people. You will be voting on whether to continue using primarily Bull
Run water,or changing to Willamette River water as the Tigard Water District's water source
for the next 50 years. This decision will affect not only those in Tigard,but also residents in
King City,Durham,Wilsonville, Sherwood, and ultimately those in Tualatin and the Tualatin
Valley Water District.This is a momentous decision to be made by you five individuals.
The Citizens for Safe Water members have been gathering petition signatures and talking to
residents in the Tigard Water District for almost a year, and over 90%of them do not want to
drink Willamette river water.When we are out gathering signatures the one question we get
asked the most is "What is driving this city toward the Willamette, when the Bull Run(one of
the six purest water sources in the country)is available?"There is only a small minority group
of individuals which is pursuing the filter plant. What gives you the right to force the citizens
to use the Willamette river when over 90%of them are against it?You as Council members
are supposed to represent the will of the people. But instead,you have allowed the City to
promote theWillamette River option, and negate the Bull Run option. Some of you have
actively campaigned for the Willamette. Over a year ago the city pledged$162,000 of taxpay-
er dollars and hired a public relations firm to promote the river.The city then employed a bla-
tant strategy of promotion,deception, lies,a rush to accomplish their mission, an aggressive
spending of taxpayer dollars to fight the citizens who are opposed to their plan, and they have
conducted an"end run"strategy to make it look like they had citizen input,without actually
getting it.
Some of these tactics are 1.The Nov. `97 focus group study of 12 Tigard residents wtio
were put into a room for 2 hours, lectured on the merits of the filter plant, and paid$50 each.
This is the only survey done before you;mayor Nicoli, announced in Jan. `98 that the City was
building the filter plant.2.The CTT meetings last year which were used to"sell"the
Willamette,but the citizens were not allowed to express an opinion. 3.The Sept. "98 tele-
phone survey where residents were asked to weight the importance of 8 "criteria"of a water
source, and later at the Oct.20 council meeting, you completely changed the order of the cri-
teria, moving ownership from last to the number 4 position,deleted some criteria and added
others, to make it more favor the Willamette. The city even put out a false press release to the
media, saying that as a result of this survey the citizens were"equally divided"on their prefer-
ence of Bull Run or Willamette river water,even though there was no question in the survey
that asked for a preference, and the Willamette and Bull Run options were not even mentioned.
4.The"Citizen Task Force"in which 30"independent unbiased residents" were selected by
you and a few members of city staff to"study"the water issue for 6 weeks and then give a rec-
ommendation to the council. Over half those selected were present or former councilors, may-
ors, and members of the Tigard Water Board or Intergovernmental Water Board-hardly an
independent selection. At the Feb. 9 council meeting you, mayor Nicoli, admitted that you
personally knew half of the members. If there are citizens who are not affiliated with a City or
a water district who are in favor of the Willamette, we have not found them. To this day you
refuse to poll the people as to their preference,because you know the citizens would over-
whelmingly prefer Bull Run. A recent survey of Wilsonville residents showed that 78%pre-
ferred Bull Run. If the filter plant is built, the city of Portland will not accept Willamette
water even as an emergency drinking water source. Some of you have said that there is only a
"small minority" of citizens who are opposed to the Willamette.
rtisoment
O CITY COUNCIL from THE PEOPLE
Pie- We declare that all Hien,when they form a social compact are equal in right:that all power is inherent in the people,
vul they have at all times a right to alter,reform,or abolish the govenunent in such manner as they may think proper.
If you truly believe this, why are you afraid of allowing a vote of the people?
As you know, the group formed to build the filter plant is called the Willamette Water Supply
Agency(WWSA). Councilor Hunt,you are the chairman of this agency. During the last year,
you have been campaigning for and selling the Willaette River option. Mr. Hunt,you have
an EXTREME conflict of interest in this issue. You must certainly abstain from voting on
Apr. 27. If you do not, there will certainly be ethical issues in your actions, and perhaps legal
ramifications. Mr.Hunt,you and the City have been stressing the importance of"ownership"
of a water source. A few months ago, some members of the Canby Utility Board spoke for an
hour at the WWSA meeting,relating the bad experiences the City of Canby had after the
acquisition of PGE by Enron. After the takeover,Enron would not honor the existing contracts
the city had with PGE. They expressed their concerns that if the filter plant is built, that Enron
could end up owning it. And yet, beginning next month, after the Apr. 27 vote of this council,
the WWSA is going to begin coordinating and funding a workshop on"privatization of public
water utilities". The workshop will be conducted by consultants, and will discuss how private
companies(such as PGE or Enron)might approach public water utilities to discuss privatiza-
tion and partnership possibilities. Does this mean that the cities will approve and build the
filter plant, and then sell part or all of it to a company such as Enron?
Municipalities only go to polluted sources such as the Willamette when there is no other
source available. And a filter plant is a BLACK HOLE for expense. The operating cost is
six times that of gravity fed Bull Run water.Every time the EPA changes the water standards,
the plant must be modified.The proposed lowering of the Arsenic limits alone could double
the cost of the filter plant, which would invalidate all current cost projections. If this plant is
built, property values will undoubtedly decrease.
There is no rush to make a decision. There is plenty of water for another 15 years.
Wilsonville could solve their immediate shortage by doing what Sherwood just did and build a
line (estimated at$3 million)from Tualatin to supply Bull Run Water. 1
The City of Portland Water Bureau planning staff has been working on a plan to bring Bull
Run water from the Powell Butte reservoir to the SW cities of Wilsonville,Tualatin, Sherwood
and Tigard by way of a Southwest route commonly known as the"Clackamas Intertie."From
Powell Butte the Intertie generally follows the 1-205 corridor ending at I-5. The Intertie could
connect with the Clackamas water facility which has the capability for an additional 60 million
gallon per day production expansion.The significance of the Intertie is the construction of a
critical supply line that will complete a supply loop for the Bull Run system. The supply loop
greatly enhances the reliability and security of the entire region's water supply. This
Intertie would be less expensive for both Tigard and Wilsonville,than expanding the
Washington County Supply Line. We request you to stop, take a serious look at the
Clackamas Intertie option, and look at a realistic independently produced cost comparison of
the Willamette and Portland options. The residents of Tigard will be paying for this water
and forced to bath in it and drink it. They should certainly have a say in whether they
continue to drink Bull Run water,or are required to change to the Willamette River. This
Council has been elected to carry out the will of the citizens of Tigard. You should certainly
allow the citizens a vote on this extremely important issue. Citizens for Safe Water has already
collected enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot in September to require a vote
of the people before the Willamette can be used as a drinking water source. We strongly
request you to hold off on your further expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the construction of
the filter plant until after this election. To do otherwise would certainly be ethically (and pos-
sibly legally) irresponsible.
Citizens for Safe Water 590-2818 Email drj@hevanet.com
;ould appear on Sept. 21 ballo ,�
4�
I
3 �
3
SUSAN DOHERTY COLLEEN TATOM DARCY FRISBY i F Y'
Where should Tigard get its drinking water — from
the Willamette River or Portland's Bull Run reservoir?
SUSAN DOHERTY(45,Tigard):"I'm not really wild COLLEEN TATOM (18,Tigard):"I think they should
about drinking Willamette River water.I'd like to see go with the Bull Run.Why?All I know is that the
more evidence that it's safe to drink. I haven't gone Willamette is disgusting. I'll boat in it, but I won't
to any public forums because I have a really busy swim in it,and they want us to drink it?It's full of
life. I'd be worried to have my kids drink it. I know garbage.The water we drink now is fine,and
what the city wants—to go to the Willamette. I everybody knows the Willamette is one of the most
think that citizens need to have more input in this polluted sources in the country."
decision. I signed the Citizens for Safe Water petition
because I want the right to vote about this. I don't DARCY FRISBY(27,Tigard):"Obviously, I wouldn't
know what I'd vote yet. I need to do more research." want to drink Willamette River water.I stopped
water skiing in it in 1993. It just smells disgusting."
DON LEWIS(75,Tigard): "This has really been quite DONNA BONFOEY(30,Tigard):"I'd rather not drink
an issue lately.I feel like the city has already decided Willamette River water when the fish in it are found
what they want to do—and that's to go the Wil- with deformed scales. If they go with the Willamette,
lamette.Maybe it would be a good source,if they I'll be buying bottled water from now on. I don't
can clean it up,but the indications now are that it is want my kids drinking that water,and I don't want to
not safe." drink it either—maybe I'd develop scales."
Willamette River can be made safe to drink, expert says
Engineer cites studies According to Obermeyer,the current tests were missed or had to be thrown out. something Bull Run does not:organic conta- .
support the same conclusion as previous tests Obermeyer acknowledged the disqualified minants. ater issue
dating back to 1991 on the river— namely, that the water has samples, but said that some — not all — `"These are not present in Bull Run, and
trace contaminants but meets safe drinking were retaken, you would not expect them to be,"he said.
water standards even without treatment. Some chemicals have been tested for on a parcel speaks
By LLAT KIPP CoUircil,Community
The prior tests she cited included a water weekly basis, some on a monthly basis and Dredging and dioxin? �.tri¢
Of The Spokesman treatment pilot study commissioned by the some on a quarterly basis. However, Obermeyer pointed out, both xberts will give
Tualatin Valley Water District in 1994, a Obermeyer listed the problems encoun- Bull Run and the Willamette River have {eating used to eval-
Water quality studies conducted since TVWD water monitoring program from tered so far: equivalent amounts of dioxin,an extremely etttj Rarer as a water
1991 prove the Willamette River would be a 1994 to 1996,and sampling by the U.S.Ge- O An Aug. 21, 1998, test for pesticides toxic chemical produced by paper bleaching "tts are scheduled to
good municipal water source, according to ographical Survey from 1991 to 1995. was disqualified because the sample was held processes. tie Foster,Department
Lisa Obermeyer. Both current and previous tests occasional- too long for the test to be valid.The sample Although the Bull Run Watershed is a pro- n{al Quality: Dr. James
Obermeyer, a supervising engineer with ly found trace amounts of hazardous chemi- was retaken Sept.23 tected one, dioxin enters the system via at- State`University; Dr.
the environmental firm Montgomery Watson, cals in the main stem of the river. ❑ A Nov.2 test for pesticides was held mospheric deposition,Obermeyer said. n, t Otegon State Univer-
presented an overview of recent river testing A test conducted in August 1998 detected too long.An attempt to resample failed due Scott expressed concern about dredging Williamson, Oregon
to Wilsonville councilors April 19.It was the an herbicide,simazine,by one water testing to pump flooding. on the Willamette, which he said could stir dY` Questions will be
council and the public.
same presentation Tigard's Water Advisory method. However, two other test- up dioxin in the sediments at the 7
Task Force heard before recommending the ing methods did not detect the her- bottom of the river. He asserted
Willamette River over city of Portland water. bicide. r that some traces of dioxin in the processesproposed for the pant would re-
(The Tigard City Council was scheduled to Dichloromethane was detected We tried to focus on (any chemicals) Willamette will pass through treat- P P
ick a water source April 27, after Press ' ment and wind u in the finished move 25 to 30 percent of the TOC,Glicker
P P P during November's testing. It had that could possibly be in the river. P said.
time.) not been reviousl detected. water.He did not say whether this
previously In addition, the ozonation process alters
Armed with an overhead projector and mi- Simazine had not been detected Lisa Obermeyer would also happen with Bull Run organic matter in the water so that it cannot
crophone, Obermeyer explained the testing in the past,but a similar herbicide, ry 9 Montgomery Watson engineer water,which initially would be un- bend with chlorine in the transmission sys-
techniques and protocols used to monitor the atrazine,was found in 1994. 9 filtered. tem to form disinfectant by-products,Glicker
Willamette River's water quality for the city Dichloromethane is an industrial Helser also asked whether said
of Tigard since July 1998. contaminant. Simazine and dredging of the river would ever be
Montgomery Watson has looked for 250 atrazine are suspected endocrine disrupters used to lower water temperatures for the sake Testing process"rigorous"
In addition to discussing test results,Ober-
chemicals in the current testing.The compa- — chemicals that interfere with human C3Four out of 35 weekly samples sched- of endangered fish.
ny arrived at the list of 250 chemicals by growth and development. uled so far were missed due to pump failure, Glicker replied that riparian im- rror talked about the process used for gath-
e
"combining as many lists of concern as we However, contaminant amounts were in largely as a result of flooding problems. provements, such as the planting of shade Bring samples and testing them.
could think of,"Obermeyer said. the parts per billion range, well below the Obermeyer took questions from the coup- trees on tributaries,are much more likelEach sample i l packed on ice and sent to
y to an independent laboratory by Federal Ex-
"We tried to think of everything we could maximums allowed under treated water Stan- cil and audience after her presentation. Joe be used to improve fish habitat. re-
possibly think of,"Obermeyer said."We tried dards, Obermeyer said. Treatment will fur- Glicker,vice president of Montgomery Wat- P press,she said.The independent lab is not
to focus on anything that could possibly be in cher remove the chemicals,she added. son,assisted her. "I don't think dredging would do much for paled r Montgomery Watson.Once the sam-
the river." Whether the existing standards are enough In response to a question from Councilor temperature,"he said. pies arrive,each is assigned an identification
Chemicals tested included all of those reg- to ensure the safety of finished water is, of John Helser,Glicker said the Willamette has Willamette opponent Gary Betts asked number, rather than being identified on the
ulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act,all course,contested by opponents of the Willa- produced results similar to other water several questions about the removal of total basis of where it came from.The laboratory
of those on the Environmental Protection mette. sources his company has tested in the North- organic carbon. uses EPA-approved testing methods and un-
Agency's candidate contarninant list, all of Obermeyer's presentation came one week west. According to Glicker, 99 percent of the dergoes blind performance evaluations.Qual-
the chemicals ever detected by the USGS after Dr. Charles Scott, a Wilsonville resi- "In many ways, the Willamette River is TOC in the river is simply decayed organic ity control is"rigorous,"Obermeyer said.
anywhere in the Willamette River basin,and dent, criticized gaps in Montgomery Wat- typical of water supplies in the Northwest," matter that occurs naturally, with the rest Montgomery Watson's testing will contin-
chemicals from a list of endocrine-disrupting son's current sampling of the river. Glicker said. consisting of synthetic organics.The ozona- ue through July,when a final report will be
chemicals. Scott was critical of several samplings that He added that the Willamette basin has tion and granular-activated carbon treatment presented.
Page 2 - Wilsonvillc Spokesman,Wednesday,May 19, 1999
residentsWiIsonvi Iie face
p
expensive water o tions
Budget panel The estimates do give Portland The rate increase will take effect
proponents a gliaruner of hope. July 1 if approved by the City Cow)-
OKs 22 percent Water rates using the Willamette cil. No council rnenibeis have ob-
River wauld be slightly more ex- jected to it so far_
water rate hike pensive than Portland for two to An earlier set of rate estimates,
three fiscal years under cejta,r: :;cc- presented May I I to the Budgct
By CURT KIPP — _ narios. Committee, showed an even greater
------ Rates with Portland would be difference between the two water
Of The Spokesman more expensive thereafter- however. choices.
Although the figures are just esti- That estimate shows that tnc aver
Wilsonville officials presented mates,city officials said the numbers age customer will save$527 per year
their latest estimates of future water in 2005 if Wilsonville goes to the
rates to the City Council on May 17, Willamette River for its water The
making two things perfectly clear. difference would increase to $569
Water customers are sure to be '1 f this community per year in 2010, but then decline to
soaked. whether the city chooses $484 in 2020 and $196 in 2025
Willamette water of blended Port- wants to go to "These are for comparative pur-
land water. And it will happen 7 poses only," city Finance Director
whether with Wilsonville ti s as partners
Portlan It will Gary Wallis said. "There still needs
alone or with other cities as partners. , to be further study."
Right now, the average water cus- have t0 g0 It alone. The rate gap between the Portland
tomer is paying $30.29 bimonthly and Willamette options has widened
for 18 cubic feet of water. In five
years, that will probably double - Jeff Bauman since previous estimates because of
or more. one change: Tigard has choken the
According to current estimates,
Public Works Director Willamette River.
"The numbers we gave you before
the average bimonthly bill for 18
units of water will range from were going to Portland with pan-
units$59. f water in ill ran005. ners," Public Works Direct4 Jeff
demonstrate the price difference be- Bauman told the committee. "If this
The lower figure is for a Wilson- tween the two water options being community wants to go tc Portland,
ville treatment plant built with part- considered.
The latter is for a Wilsonville it will have to go it alone"
ners.
Whetber Portland or the Willa- However, Lee questioned that as-
connection to the Portland water sys- mate s chosen,city officials want to sumpiion. A citizen vote could still
tem without any partners. se customers into the expected Other permutations — such as eaPe overturn Tigard's decision, he noted.
Portland with partners or the Willa• water rate increases—starting now. "They haven't gone that way."lee
A 22 percent increase was in- said. "It's not absolute yet.
somewhere in the middle,
rwithout partners rate-wise..would lie eluded in the 1999-2100 city budget, Still, the river will be les, expen-
me
The same trends wouid continue Which was approved by the Budget sive no matter what, according to
through the final year of this latest Committee on May I I City Manager Arlene Loble.
batch of estimates. Committee member John Lee Jr. "If we went to the Willamette
In 2008-2009. the average water objected to raising rates now to pay River all by ourselves. it would be
bill is expected to range from$63.86 for rmprovernents that will come substantially cheaper than if we went
(if Wilsonville goes to the. later. He moved to eliminate the 22 to Portland with partners," Loble
Willamette with partners)to$165.69 percent increase for this year. said. "Under any scenario. the
of Wilsonville gets its water from Howc,ci, Lee's motion died with- Willamette River will be less expen
Portland without any partners). out a second. sive."
A, y
Boones
Messenger
� 'theA message from The Most Polluted River In the U.S.?
the Mayor at'e Just one of the claims we`ve heard throughout the Willamette basin have signifl
about the WIIlametle River during the cantly altered nah htn (e.g..stream
course of public debate over whether ehannelization:filling of wetlands:damage G
As the City Council has grappled with the
extremely weighty issue of long-term water it's appropriate to even consider the river as a spawning habitat, etc.). So its fair to say th
supply,we have waded through an lncrediblc drinking water source. if you're a lash,the Willamette may be amore
amount of information:come of It supplied by Weave also heard some very scary rhetoric the most Impacted watersheds In the nation.
the city staff.some by outedde consultants, thrown around regarding cancer.endocrine But in terms of water quality,according
some by the City of Portlarid and some by disruptem.dioxin and agricultural pesticides. the Environmental Protection Agency,the
Wilsonville citizens. Wore been busting our buns researching Middle Willamette(the stretch from Salem tc
As we absorb all I trete input,we must what s ficttiioon�ees take a goodto[Ind out t*a fact hard lookand
Oregon City)Is In relatively EPA gave the middle Willamettte a score of od shape. Th(
decide not only what is relevant.we must
separate fact from belief or opinion. at what we've heard and what we've found out. on its index of watershed indicators,which
one of the two water supply options still rates every watershed in the U.B.for its
g
trst,it's important to understand what overall health on a 1.6 scale.with i being
under consideration Is a treatment plant on kind of testing has actually been done
the Willamette River(the other 13 a connectionFon the W111amctte River and how the . !better water quality'and ti being"mon
to the City of Portland for a blend of Bull Run treatment process works. serious water quality eaThe Clack:
and Columbia River well f cid water)and over P mss River(which servess Lake
ke O Oswego,West
in
course of more than a year of public tests dating back to 1894.the engineer- Linn and many other
Ing tlrm of Montgom- cities in Clackamas
debate on that option,many things have been cry Watson tested for 7f you're a,fish, the Willamette may County)was also ecor
said that we have come to learn arc simply any chemical that had be along the most impacted water- at 3 and the Tualatin
not true. ever been detected at
we have consistently refrained from anlevel anywhere in st d'' th the nation. But in terms of River,which supplies
publicly correcting those inlestatemento for the Willamette River water quality, according to.the Envi- drinking water porn°r
fear that we would be accused of having a basin by the U.S. ronmental Protection Agency. the of Washington County
was scored 4.,
bio for the willamette River option. However. Geologicalu S as Middle WIIlamette (the stretch from k
in this issue of the BooFerry Messenger, i r addition.the
ns
Weil asr>'fuiRveany chemical Salem to Oregon City) is in iy report of the Governor
In the rather lengthy article at right,we willthem was to Willamette River Basb
address some of the myths and misstatements believe might bye there, g ood She'" Task Force states that
head-ori. This is riot to suggest that we on the even if it hadn't been -Most experts agree that the Willamette lbw
Council have made up our minds-we detected by USGS.as well as.of course,all is probably to better health today than it ha
haven't. But when the time comes for us to EPA regulated contaminants and all EPA been for a century." The r port then goes o'
make a decision.we intend to make that candidate contaminants. This is by far the to
decision on the bests of facts. most thorough testing of any water source taekledd. the problems t still need to be
I hope you will,too. anywhere in the U.S. Finally wcwe come across a list of"The
* a * Almost all of these contaminants are not
On the prison front,one local citizen most polluted Avera or watcrb°dies in the
describedOn the
the current state of affairs as"the present at detec�o levels in the wtilarwt'te U.S.:published by the Envitotimental Worl
end game"!n the r t to revert a prison on River near wasonville Those that are detected Ing Group,a;Washington.DC,lobbying,
P p are present at levels that are below safe research and public infonmation otgantzatic
the Dammaaeh State Ho::pttal. drinking water maximums and all can be The Willamette appears on that list at#W.
Unfortunately.both the House and Senate removed by the proposed treatment process. dead last. (This list measures only total dir
seem to be hell-bent on a bill(5caate Bill 3) The treatment process is whaYs called a
that would unite Dammasch and re-site the multi-banier ovine/t;AC system- Sediments continued on nw F
WVMCW's prison and intake center In Umatilla. arc removed from the raw water,ozone gas
Tide is despite the Govcrnoes promise of a kills bacteria and microbial pathogens.and a v oG
veto and the fact that thy:votes are riot there granular activated carbon dltcr removes 290 O
to override a veto in either chamber of the remaining contaminants. The system is o2 1" d 0
Legislature. designed to meet or exceed all existing and
The result of a veto and the failure to anticipated EPA safe dririldng water etanCM
-
override would be that Dammasch woulddards. It will produce the safest,highest ]
remain legally sited and funded. None of our qualits,drinking water in the region,a fact
ocnators or representatives appears to have a that water quality experts with the City of
plan for what happens next when things play Portland do not dispute. .A more detailed
out this way. My very legitimate kar is that description of the"stern is contained else- G
when the veto Override vote fails,the Governor where in this Issue of the Messenger.
will simply cut his lomcu and order construe- okay,now lets talc a look at some of ail
tion to begin at Dammasch. The Legislature, claims we keep hearing. w p'
meanwhile,will be unable or unwilling to
muster the political will to engage In further 1. THE MOST POLLUTED
wrangling on this issue and will simply let the
prison go to Dammasch. Remember: This is RIVER IN THE V.S. v w
not that big a1Ii issue once you get outside the Or the fourth most polluted or the fifth c
Wilsonville area. The•Fist majority of Orego- most polluted or the tenth moat polluted.
plans don't much care whether the prison is
Whatever. We have been unable to[end any
butt at Dammasch or not and it's not likely documentation to substantiate these claims.
that the Legislature will want to expend much it is certainly true that physical changes .
continued on hack pate V -,
��AtSQr concluded that there arc no endocrine magnitude above background!s not well-
disruptors present in the Willamette. supported by the existing human epidemto-
continueQfrom front They reached this conclusion by exposing logic database.' (EPA Science Advisory)Board,
toxic discharges into the water,but not other human endocrine receptors to Willamette i3to3d13 Assessment Review,May 15-16. 1995.)
factors that contribute to water quality prob- River water taken from the point where the Finally.we came across this tidbit: In
lems. It also doesn't account for dilution that intake for a treatment plant would be located 1992-95,the U.S.Geological Survey con-
occurs in rtvcm with larger volumes of water.) and then looking for evidence of endocrine ducted a comprehensive study of dioxdn levels
Of course.there are more than 50 rivers In disruptors binding to the receptors.In other In Northwestern Oregon. This report looked
the U.S.and we're not trying to suggest that words.rather than looking for specific chant- for 27 varieties of dioxdns and furans. One of
the WiIlamctte is free of pollution. But If caw,Drs.Byrd acrd Zacharewskl looked for the test sites was in the Willamette River near
anyone reading this knows of a way to sub- evidence that anything might be present that Newberg,and another test site was Fir Creek
stantiate the claims that the Willamette is the would act as an endocrine disruptor. Nothing in the Bull Run watershed. The tests showed
most polluted river in America.we'd like to was found. And this is an extremely emely sensitive the total dtoxdn levels at both sites are below
hear from you. Please call Dave Kramer. test,capable of detecting reactions at concen- background levels and the most toxic dioxin
public affairs director,at 570-1605. [ration of Ices than 20 partes per trillion. (2.3.7.8-TCDDi was below the USGS detection
Drs.Byrd and Zacharewski thus con- limit. But the level of total dioxins was higher
Z. CANCER eluded that'disruption of estrogenic systems in Fir Creek in the Bull Run watershed than it
is not of concern for humans consuming was in the Willamette River, (USGS,
It has been said or inferred that drinking water from the Willamette River." and Emrang In Bed Sediment and Elsh Tissue
treated Willamette River water will Increase of the Willamette, asin, 199$.)
your cancer risk. Not so.say the health 4. Mom
—Ta,ts' Dlwdn is x stuff. Or at least the word S• D£TECTioN LIMITS
According to Michael Flumann,deputy scary
epidemiologist.Oregon Health Division,there generates a lot of fear. Dioxin is the name We keep hearing that Montgomery Watson
are no given to a family of chemicals whose basic used tests that weren't sensitive enough or
~Benton County (where studies that structure consists of two molecular rings of that the U.S.Otological Survey consistently
People drink Willamette have shown carbon atoms connected by two oxygen atoms. found contaminants that Montgomery Watson
any link Some dio)dne are created when chlorine xnixces didn't because the USGS used more sensitive
River water) has one of between with organic substances,as in the bleaching tests.
the very lowest calicer xnuniclpal process formerly used by pulp and paper Montgomery Watson labs did in fact use a
[tines In Oregon,whereas drinking mills. One of the scariest chlorinated dioxins different testing method with higher deteeuon
Multnomah County water and is called 2.3.7,8 tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin limits than
(where a mq/ortty of rest- cancer (or TCDD)which is a waste product of mat.eri- the USGS lab "There were 36 chemt-
incidenee. als used in production of two pesticides and methods. cats detected at least
dents drink BullRun wa- what's in the production of hexachlorophene,an That explains once. None Of the 36
ter) has One Of the very more,says antibacterial agent. TCDD is also produced in why on chemicals were detected
highest cancer rates in Humann, the incomplete combustion of numerous occasion
the
itis state."
the cancer materials. It decomposes rapidly in sunlight USGS de- �T theWillamette Rette River."
terr! Of
risk pre- but tendo to be persistent for up to ben years [stied chemf-
sented by water that meet,EPA safe drinking in soil layers not cals at trace
water standards is'Immeasurably small-" (According to USGS] exposed to levels that were below the Montgomery
If there is in fact a causal relationship the level of total dt- sunlight_ Watson lab's detection limit_ Like the Oregon
between water supply anti cancer,and if the oxins was!Qr in According to Health Division,the City of Portland,and
consumption of Willamette Rivcr water is Fir Creek in the Bull the Oregon state-of-the-art commercial labs.Montgomery
presumed to Increase cancer risks, then one Health Division. Watson used EPA-approved drinking water
would expect cancer mtctx to be higher in Run watershed than all of us arc monitoring methods. These am designed to
Benton County(where people drink Wil- it was in the Wit- exposed to dioxin test for compliance with EPA drinking water
lamettc River water)than in Multnomah lamette River." at very low levels standards. The monitoring done by USGS
County(where the majority of the population ("background involved academic research methodologies
drinks Bull Run water). In fact the opposite is levels")every day. But 96%of that exposure which are not approved by EPA for drinking
the case. Benton County has one of the very Is from food.2%is from air and lis than one- water monitoring standards.
lowest cancer rates in.Orrgon.while tenth of 1%is from water. But what did the USGS actually find?
Multnomah County bas one of the very high- $teff has been unable to substantiate the The USGS looked for 86 chemicals in matt
est cancer rates in the state. (Oregon Health claim that there is no threshold for any of 95 separate tests of the Willamette Mvcr
Division,Qancyr in Oregon. 1996.) The amount of dioxin. Here is what the EPA and Its tributaries. There were 36 chemicals
greatest risk factors for cancer ncer are tobacco actually has to say about dioxin:"while dioxin detected at least once. None of the 36 chemi-
use,alcohol use,genetics and workplace has been shown to be toxic to certain lab cele were detected in the mainstem of the
exposure to carcinogens--not tap water. animals,evidence is tacking that it has seri- Willamette River. (U.S. Geological Survey,
ous long-term effects on humans.The public's pletrib uution of Dt solved Peslicides and Oth�i
3. JENDOCRINE VISRUPTO►RS perception has been largely based upon Water Quality-ColiotlLuVAI in Smnri Stream_-
information reported on toxic effects found in and their ReliWon to Land Use in the Wil-
Endocxlne disruptor+are a family of lab animals.People tend to relate these effects lamette River Basin, 1997.)
chemlcale that either alone or in combination to humans and begin to fear them.Once fear In a separate study,the USGS tested the
mimic human estrogen and are suspected of has been created,it is bard to dispel.-(EPA, mainstem of the Willamette River near
having negative -- rr.,3dronmental E ucattonal_Series-Volume Newberg for 224 chemetals ire the river water
health and devel- ^'there are no endo- Iii lid and HazardousWas tc. 1992) and bed sediments. Only 17 chemicals were
opmental effects. trine disruptors In 1994,the EPA appointed a Seientifle detected,all of them at levels hdga f safe
This has been a present in the Wil- Advisory Board composed of 42 scientists, drinking water standards.The ozone/GAC
major source of lamette land (t] is academics,government researchers and process at the proposed Willamette water
concern for water Indus representatives.to review the EPA's treatment plant would remove all 17 of these
suppliers. not of concern for
PP Dioxin Exposure and Health Effects Docu- chemicals—plus all of the other chemicals
However.a humans consum- menty This Board found that while human that were not even detected.
new study con- Ing water-from the effects from dioxin(and like compound)
ducted by Dr. Willamette River." exposure occur at levels closer to background The diagram on the next
Daniel Byrd of — than previously estimated,-The conclusion page(courtesy of the
Consultants in Toxicology.Risk Assessment that dioxin and related compounds are likely
and Product Safety,and Dr.Tim Zaeharewskl to present a cancer hazard to humans at Willalnette Water Supply
of the National Food Safety and Toxicology exposure levels within one of two ordcra of Agency)shows the steps it+
Center at Michigan Statc University,has treating river water.