02/11/2004 - Packet Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting
Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area
AGENDA
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
5:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order Moll Call and Introductions
Motion to call meeting to order,staff to take roll call.
2. Approval of Minutes—December 10,2003
Motion from Board for minute approval.
3. Water Supply Options,Analysis Report-Financial Consulting Solutions Group
4. Appointment of Board Member At-Large Position
5. Water Conservation Program Analysis—Sara Danz(20 minutes)
6. PW Director's Report—Dennis Koellermeier(20 minutes)
7. Informational Items—Dennis Koellermeier
Items will be discussed briefly if time allows—otherwise printed info will be distributed.
8. Public Comments
Call for any comments from public.
9. Non Agenda Items
Call for non-agenda items from Board.
10. Next meeting date—Wednesday,March 10,2004, at 5:30 p.m.— Water Auditorium
11. Adjournment—Approximate Time 7:00 p.m.
Motion for adjournment.
A light dinner will be provided.
Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS
192.660(1)(d), (e), (0&(h)to discuss labor relations,real property transactions,current and pending litigation issues and
to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. All discussions within this session are confidential;
therefore nothing from this meeting maybe disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to
attend this session,but must not disclose any information discussed during this session.
Intergovernmental Water Board
Meeting Minutes/Notes
December 10, 2003
Members Present: Patrick Carroll, None Penner, Dick Winn
Members Absent: Brian Moore and Bill Scheiderich
Staff Present: Dennis Koellermeier, Richard Sattler, Tom Imdieke and.Sally
Mills
Visitors: Tom Ramish, Dave Winship (City of Beaverton), Paul Owen,
Joanne Criscione and son
1. Call to Order/Roll Call and Introductions
Commissioner Patrick Carroll called the meeting together at 5:35 p.m.
Roll was called and Commissioners Brian Moore and Bill Scheiderich were excused.
2. Approval of Minutes—November 12, 2003
Commissioner Norm Penner motioned to approve the minutes, Commissioner Dick Winn
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous to accept the minutes as presented.
3. Request for Credit from Leak for Joanne Criscione— Tom Imdieke
Ms. Criscione addressed the board. Tom Imdieke answered a question from the Board
regarding how much water was used and he further explained City procedures including the
number of notices sent, etc. Ms. Criscione said she did not receive a notice.
Commissioner Penner motioned to adjust the request for credit and split half of the remaining
balance to be extended as credit over time. Commissioner Carroll seconded the motion and
the board voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The board asked staff to review the city's
procedures and determine if additional notification procedures should be implemented.
4. Discussion on Fluoride Issue—Beaverton Intertie
Tom Ramish, Engineering Director of the City of Beaverton and Dave Winship addressed the
board and gave a PowerPoint presentation (copy coming). Discussion and presentation
included the following items of interest:
• use of sodium fluoride and material grade
• explained on-line monitoring
• estimated dosage at .06— 1 ppm (parts per million)
• 66% of United States population receives fluoridated water.
• Forest Grove also fluoridates
Intergovernmental Water Board 1 December 10,2003
DRAFT COPY
• built-in automatic shut down to prevent overdosing.
• naturally occurring fluoride
• Oregon Drinking Water Program Director and Health Division would like to see entire
state go to fluoridation
• CDC, US Dept of Health & Human Services are all proponents of fluoridated water
• effects of fluoride on ASR wells
• ASR permits allow fluoridated water to be injected/stored
• Beaverton's schedule currently starts the full injection process in late March 2004
• types of complaints
• Beaverton relieved in the decision process
• About 1/3 of concerned citizens were in service area
• 53% -46% vote in favor
• staff adjusted data collection and informed public
• IWB requested updates on fluoride information program and monitoring
5. Assistant PW Director's Report—Dennis Koellermeier
Richard Sattler.presented the Utility Report:.
• 4.5 mgd current daily demand
• intend to start loading ASR#1 next week
6. Informational Items
Informational packet items were distributed to the board members for review.
7. Public Comments- None
8. Non Agenda Items -None
9. Next meeting date— Wednesday, January 14, 2004, at 5:30 p.m.
Commissioner Penner will not be able to attend this meeting.
90.Adfournment
Commissioner Penner motioned to adjourn the meeting, Commissioner Winn seconded the
motion, and the meeting was closed at 7:11 p.m.
Intergovernmental Water Board 2 December 10,2003
DRAFT COPY
Y • •
9 Memorandum
To: Bernice Bagnall
FINANCIAL Tualatin Valley Water District
CONSULTING
SOLUTIONS From: Ed Cebron
GROUP, INC. Jeanette Hahn
FCS Group, Inc.
Date: December 2, 2003
Re: DRAFT Findings—Supply Options Evaluation
The purpose of this memo is to describe the general approach and findings of the
supply options analysis conducted by FCS Group, Inc. for Tualatin Valley Water
District (TVWD) and the Qties of Tigard, Tualatin, and Beaverton. This analysis .
has been conducted at a summary level, providing comparative costs for each of
four supply scenarios, using currently available cost-projections and assuming
each of the participating agencies would select the same supply option.
(Analysis of how costs might change in each scenario if the individual agencies
selected different options has not been conducted in this scope-of work.)
The four supply options evaluated include the following:
• Scenario 1A: The Portland Water Bureau (PWB) is used as the primary
source of supply, and membrane filtration, at a cost of$202 million
(current dollars), is used as the treatment process.
■ Scenario 1 B: PWB is used as the primary source of supply, with UV
treatment as the chosen process, at a cost of$55 million (current dollars).
■ Scenario 2: The Joint Water Commission (JWC) is used as the primary
source of supply.
■ Scenario 3: The Willamette Treatment Plant (WTP) is expanded and
used as the primary source.
For additional detail supporting the findings addressed in this memo, lease refer
to the analytical worksheets provided via email on November 21, 2003.
Home Office
8201 164th Ave NE General Approach
Suite 300
Redmond,WA 98052 The comparative costs developed for this evaluation are generated from present
Voice:425.867.1802 p p
Fax 425.867.1937 value computations based on the annual capital and operating costs from 2003
through 2028 for each supply scenario. To develop annual costs, three basic
Inland Empire Office sets of data were required:
528 Lee Boulevard
Richland,WA 99352 1. Demand forecasts and source utilization: Each participating agency
Voice:509.943.2715 provided demand forecasts, both average day demand (ADD) and peak
Fax 509.943.2745 day demand (PDD); existing rights to be used in each of the source
www.fcsgroup.com options; and estimates of how each source would be utilized in the four
Page 1 of 11
FCS Group Memorandum
November 24,2003
supply scenarios. It should be emphasized that the results of this comparative cost
analysis are highly dependent on the manner in which an agency expects to purchase
water from each source. Throughout this process, we have reviewed with each agency
their respective demand forecasts and assumed utilization to ensure that they represent
a reasonable basis for evaluating costs. From this data, we have computed the future
capacity required by each agency from the primary'-source in each supply scenario.
2. Capital improvement and expansion programs: We have been provided with capital
cost projections for each supply scenario. For a reasonable comparison, we have
ensured that the schedules of project completion for each scenario result in additional
capacity available by the 2011/2012 fiscal year. Additionally, in the JWC and WTP
scenarios,we have assumed capital reimbursements, where necessary, as well as
capital replacements which each participating agency would be required to share.
(Neither addition is shown in PWB costs, since PWB rates are assumed to cover
reimbursement and future reinvestment.) A 3% annual inflation factor has been applied
to the capital costs provided to us, to reflect future dollars.
3. Rates and additional operating expenditure forecasts: For PWB and JWC, we have
been provided with rate forecasts, which are applied to the annual volumes assumed to
be purchased in each supply scenario. Additionally, we were provided future cost
additions for PWB,when treatment goes online. Based on the projections for PWB, we
have assumed comparable cost increases for JWC. WTP rates and additional O&M are
assumed to be 125% of JWC costs.
In our net present value computations for each annual cost stream, we have generated two
outcomes: 1) using a 5.00% discount factor, and 2) using a 7.00% discount factor. The 5.00%
discount factor relates to public agencies' cost of capital, while the 7.00°x6 factor reflects more of
a rate impact, taking into account growth in rate base. It should be noted that our computations
assume raw annual costs, and do not factor in any use of debt financing for the capital
programs.
The present value comparative analyses also do not consider salvage value at the end of the
analysis period. In each scenario, residual values of resources and facilities are likely to be
substantial. These results are also likely to be differential: in ownership scenarios 2 and 3, the
agencies would clearly retain the value of assets and resources at the end of the analysis
period; in scenarios 1 A and 1 B, it is unclear whether any or all of the value would accrue to the
agencies. Therefore, while these findings reasonably track and compare costs Incurred during
the analysis period, further refinement would be appropriate to apply the results as a decision-
making tool.
For comparison, we have expressed each present value result as an equivalent annual cost,
both in total dollars and as a cost per hundred cubic feet(CCF). This is achieved by amortizing
the net present value of.each supply scenario over 25 years, using rates equal to the discount
factor. It is these equivalent annual cost results which are used in visual comparisons of supply
scenarios.
Key Statistics
Source Utilization—The following tables, Exhibits 1 through 3, summarize the assumed use of
each source (PDD) in the four supply scenarios.
Page 2 of 11
w
FCS Group Memorandum
December 2,2003
EXHIBIT 1 -SCENARIOS 1A AND 1 B SOURCES OF SUPPLY(PDD)
Sources of Supply Assumed
Agency Willamette Treatment
Portland Water Bureau Joint Water Commission plant
TVWD All Remaining Needs Maximum 9 MGD None
Tigard All Remaining Needs Maximum 6 MGD through None
2011; None-after 2011
Tualatin All None ! --None
Beaverton All Remaining Needs Maximum 15 MGD j None
I
EXHIBIT 2-SCENARIO 2 SOURCES OF SUPPLY(PDD)
Sources of Supply Assumed
Agency Willamette Treatment
Portland Water Bureau Joint Water Commission ; Plant
Maximum 9 MGD through
TVWD All Remaining Needs 2011; Maximum 27 MGD None
after 2011
Remaining Needs through Maximum 6 MGD through
Tigard 2011; None after 2011 2011;All after 2011 None
Tualatin Maximum 10.8 MGD All Remaining Needs i None
Beaverton Remaining Needs through Maximum 15 MGD through i None
2011; None after 2011 2011;All after 2011
EXHIBIT 3-SCENARIO 3 SOURCES OF SUPPLY(PDD)
Sources of Supply Assumed
Agency
Portland Water Bureau Joint Water Commission Willamette Treatment
plant
Remaining Needs through All Remaining Needs after
TVWD 2011; None after 2011 Maximum 9 MGD 2011
i
Remaining Needs through Maximum 6 MGD through
Tigard 2011; None after 2011 2011; None after 2011 j All after 2011
Tualatin Maximum 10.8 MGD None All Remaining Needs after
2011
Remaining Needs through i All Remaining Needs after
Beaverton 2011; None after 2011 Maximum 15 MGD 2011
Page 3 of 11
FCS Group Memorandum
December 2,2003
The following graphs, Exhibits 4 through 6, illustrate the assumed use of each source (ADD) in
each of the supply scenarios. Unless specifically directed by the participating agency, we have
assumed that the ADD from each source would be proportional to the PDD described in the
preceding tables.
EXHIBIT 4—SCENARIOS 1A AND 1 B UTILIZATION BY SOURCE(ADD)
Tna►aNnValley WderDbW Tigard
4.0 yp °Mina!
40 °xsner � ao ■r+�e —�
■a1c npMe
S� aoo FZ! 0.0
no as
$ no 101�11
ao
uo1ao 2pao �p p 4 �e �(�. �p �y 1a
'Y 'C'_ '9 'N 'C 'Y �N' 41 'd 'ESR 4' 4�
Tualalln as
� xc °Mam.r
oMem+ °�
In ■ale 120 °per
1
®pNB
w xio
ao
8
to I
as r t
20
20
4P 4P -? ,p
41 4� 'ls, 'LSR 'C
EXHIBIT 5—SCENARIO 2 UTILIZATION BY SOURCE(ADD)
Taaladn ValleyWahr0hWd
40 to Gwoee.s
Vn
°arc I
sa � 'a
no ; ao
no ao
i
no
xio
as ip
4 'N 4o' 'C Y 'Y 40 4+ 'ate Y T' 4 4P 4 4 4 % T'
Tualatln BeaveAon
no
xia ° no OWN
$ ao
! l0
dg eo �
ao
ao
1 as
20 zo
i
{
4F
4P ,p 41, 4 �b Y�!
Y 4SR '�R Y- 'Y 'D� 9
Page 4 of 11
FCS Group Memorandum .
December 2,2003
EXHIBIT 6—SCENARIO 3 UTILIZATION BY SOURCE(ADD)
TURIB&Valley WOW Dkftt Ti„d
ao _ U owYma�
as ov�.r ec 8aac -------�
ao sant 13
GPM to
no eo
K0so
no $to
ao �'so
ao `so
so ,.p i
11111111 111
. 11111 11111
moi. ,6 �p ,6 I
1 1* ° le' � fid' ° ' o' � 1* S' e 'le° inti e e e e -C' fi '
Tuata6 Beaverton 13
an �_._._-_ iso •hvc – – — _ __ __....
wo owi.,re
iso a rwe
a avc
m ®vwa � t0D
so
en
4.0
so
sn
Future Capacity Needs—After evaluating each agency's demand forecasts and existing rights
in sources of supply, we calculated the amount of future capacity needed from one of the three
source options. TVWD requires 17.7 MGD from either-PWB or JWC. For the WTP scenario,
we have assumed that TVWD would purchase all of its capacity needed, net of its existing rights
in JWC, for a total of 63.7 MGD in WTP. In all scenarios, we have assumed that Tigard will
need 18.1 MGD; Tualatin will need 10.5, which is net of the 10.8 MGD rights it has in PWB; and
Beaverton will need 8 MGD, which is net of its existing rights in JWC. For this level of analysis,
the practical limits of capacity in each resource has not yet been considered; nor have "hybrid"
scenarios been evaluated beyond the resource mix documented above.
Capital Projects—The following tables, Exhibits 7 through 10, summarize the total costs, in
future dollars, that each agency would be required to contribute for their future capacity needs.
For Scenarios 1A, 1 B, and 3, we have allocated project shares to each agency based on their
capacity needs. For Scenario 2, we have used estimated project shares as provided by JWC.
In addition to the costs attributed to the primary source of supply in each scenario, we have
assumed that agencies with existing rights in other sources would still be required to contribute
to certain capital projects related to their current needs. For example, in Scenarios 1A, 1 B, and
3, TVWD must still contribute to specific projects and replacements related to their existing
rights in JWC. Furthermore, in Scenarios 2 and 3, we have assumed that TVWD would share in
PWB UV treatment projects for its existing 51 MGD rights. Tualatin and Beaverton have similar
contributions related to their existing rights in PWB and JWC, respectively.
Finally, a distinction between the PWB scenarios (1A and 1 B) and alternate source scenarios (2
and 3) is noted and addressed in the capital project assumptions. The PWB rate methodology
includes depreciation expense, which provides a vehicle for either a) re-investment in fixed
assets; or b) a gradual erosion of rate base and corresponding rates. The forecast of PWB
Page 5 of 11
FCS Group Memorandum
December 2,2003
rates has not incorporated any anticipated reductions in the basis for rates. Thus, an implicit
provision for replacements has been incorporated. The alternate sources do not incorporate
such a provision. To compensate for this distinction, scenarios 2 and 3 each include periodic
non-specific replacement"projects"to account for the need to reinvest in equipment and
structures. A provision of$10 million each 10 years has been included. The adequacy of this
provision or consistency with anticipated facility replacement needs or schedule has not been
investigated.
EXHIBIT 7—SCENARIO 1A ALLOCATED CAPITAL COSTS(FUTURE DOLLARS)
Scenario 1A Capital Costs 2003.2028
Portland Water Bureau A Total TVWD Tigard Tualatin Beaverton Others
Bull Run Treatment(Membrane) $ 241,906,356 $ 66,475,867 $ 17,517,191 $ 20,610,422 $ 7,741,003 $ 129,561,873
Powell Butte Terminal Res #2 66,939,887 18,395,081 4,847,325 5,703,278 2,142,076 35,852126
Bull Run Dev.:Raise Dams... 20,847,303 5,728,839 1,509,618 1,776,190 667,114 11,165,542
Conduit5 26,712,139 7,340,496 1,934,309 2,275,874 854,788 14,306,672
Washington Co.Suppy#2 160,713,224 113,905,455 22,531,751 11,011,919 13,264,099 -
Subtotal:PWA Capital Outlay 517,118,909 211,845,737 48;340,194 41,377,664 24,669,081 190,886,213
Contributions to Other Agendes 12,319,677 8,366,133 - 3,953,544 Na
otal Capital Outlay $ 529,438,586 $220,211,870 $ 48,340,194 $ 41,377,684 $ 28,6 625 $ 190,886;213
EXHIBIT 8—SCENARIO 1 B ALLOCATED CAPITAL COSTS(FUTURE DOLLARS)
Scenario 18 Capital Costs-2003-2028
PortlaM Water Bureau B Total TM Tigard Tualatin Beaverton Others
Bull Run Treatment(l1V) $ 65,865,592 $ 18,099,865 $ 4,769,532 $ 5,611,748 $ 2,107,699 $ 35,276,748
Powell Butte Terminal Res#2 66,939,887 18,395,081 4,847,325 5,703,278 2,142,076 35,852,126
Bull Run Dev.:Raise Dams... 20,847;303 5,728,839 11509,618 1,776,190 667,114 11,165,542
Condult5 26,712,139 7,340,496 1,934,309 2,275,874 854,788 14,306,672
Washington Co.Suppy#2 160,713,224 113,905,455 22,531,751 11,011,919 13,264,089
Subtotal:PwSB Capital Oww 341,078,145 163,469,735 35,592,535 26,379,011 19,035,716 96,601,087
Contributions to Other Agendes 12,319,677 8,366,133 - - 3,953,544 wa
Total Capital Outlay $3M,3W,4221 $ 171,835,868 $ 35,592,535 $ 26,379,011 $. 22,989,321 $ 96,601,087
Page 6 of 11
FCS Group Memorandum
December 2,2003
EXHIBIT 9—SCENARIO 2 ALLOCATED CAPITAL COSTS(FUTURE DOLLARS)
Scenario 2 Ceaital Costs 2003-2028
Joint Water Commission Total TVWD Tigard Tualatin Beaverton Others
Scoggin Dam $ 145,782,590 $ 32,130,483 $ 32,130,483 $ 4,898,295 $ 12,172,846 $ 64,450,483
Sain Creek Tunnel 27,079,184 5,968,252 5,968,252 909,861 2,261,112 11,971,707
Raw Water Phase 1 53,685,628 7,392,511 7,392,511 1,127,398 5,454,460 32,318,748
Plant Upgrade#1 70,188,530 15,834,532 17,708,566 4,471,009 7,629,493 24,544,929
Fem Hill 31,308,135 6,054,993 4,536,549 1,145,878 5,507,101 14,063,614
NTLPhasellB 5,000,000 2,500,000 - - - 2,500,000
Fish Screens 2,400,000 480,000 - - 600,000 1;320,000
Transmission-Tigard 28,646,609 - 28,646,609 - - -
Transmission-Tualatin 25,238,680 - - 25,238,680 - -
Transmission-Beaverton 1 4,102,956 - - - 4,102,956 -
Transmission-Beaverton 2 2,037,922. - - - 2,037,922 -
Transmission-Beaverton 3 4,042,527 - - - 4,042,527 -
Capital Reimbursement,Tigard 6,753,053 - 6,753,053 - -
Direct Replacement Contribution 30,582,792 5,386,133 7;378,138 2,892,919 3,353,544 11,572,058
Subtotal:JWC Capital Outlay 436,848,607 75,746,905 110,514,161 40,684,040 47,161,961 162,741,540
Contributions to Other Agendes 16,281,974 13,436,581 - 2,845,394 - ma
Total Capital Outlay $ 453,130,5811 $ 89,183,486 $ 110,514,161 $ 43,529,434 $ 47,161,%1 $ 162,741,540
EXHIBIT 10—SCENARIO 3 ALLOCATED CAPITAL COSTS(FUTURE DOLLARS)
Scenarlo 3 Capital Costs 2003.2028
Willamette Treatment Plant Total TVWD Tigard Tualatin Beaverton Others
Plant Expansion $ 167,660,649 $ 106,480,392 $ 30,255,810 $ 17,551,713 $ 13,372,734 $ -
Transrrission-TVWD 60,101,524 60,101,524 - - -
Transrrission-Tigard 8,574,147 - 8,574,147 - - -
Transmission-Tualatin 2,974,938 - - 2,974,938 - -
Transmission-Beaverton 6,998,721 - - 6,998,721 -
Capital Reimbursement-TVWD 970,187 .9 70,187 - - - -
Capital Reimbursement-Tigard 4,355,043 - 4;355,043 - - -
Capital Reimbursement-Tualatin 2,526,406 - - 2,526,406 -
Capital Reimbursement-Beaverton 1,924,880 - - - 1,924,880
Direct Replacement Contribution 16,528,476 11,178,375 2,605,660 1,377,428 1,367,014 -
Subtotal:Willamette Outlay 272,614,972 178,730,479 45,790,660 24,430,485 23,663,349 -
Contributions to Other Agendes 28,601,652 21,802,714 - 2,845,394 3,953,544 Na
Total Capital Outlay $ 301;216,6231 $200,533,192 $ 45,790,660 $ 27,275,878 $ 27,616,893 $
Rates—Exhibit 11 illustrates the.rate forecasts we have assumed for PWB, JWC, and WTP in
these scenarios. It is important to note that in Scenarios 1A and 1B,we have assumed that
Page 7 of 1.1
FCS Group Memorandum
December 2,2003
those agencies paying the PWB pumped rate would be subject to the gravity rate after the
capital improvements are completed. To the extent those agencies purchase water from PWB
in Scenarios 2 and 3, they will still be subject to the pumped rate.
EXHIBIT 11 -ASSUMED RATES PER HUNDRED CUBIC FEET(FUTURE DOLLARS)
Agency/Class 2003 2008 2013 2018 2028
PWB-1A&1B
Gravity $0.757 $1.067 $1.362 $1.689 $2.404
Pumped $0.992 $1.399 $1.362 $1.689 $2.404
PWB-2&3
Gravity $0.757 $1.067 $1.362 $1.689 $2.404
Pumped $0.992 $1.399 $1.785 $2.214 $3.151
JWC
Base $0.217 $0.258 $0.306 $0.364 $0.496
Lease $0.407 $0.458 $0.516 $0.574 $0.706
WTIP
All n/a n/a $0.383 $0.455 $0.619
Additional Operating Costs-For each supply scenario, we have assumed additional
operating costs will be incurred as treatment processes are implemented or expanded.
Beginning in 2011, we have assumed new costs of$0.166 per hundred cubic feet (CCF) for
PWB Scenario 1A, in addition to the rates described in Exhibit 11. In PWB Scenario 1 B, we
assumed $0.110 per CCF in new costs, beginning in 2011. For Scenario 2 after 2011, we have
assumed an incremental treatment cost of$0.079 per CCF for JWC in addition to the rates
shown in Exhibit 11. For Scenario 3, the WTP rate is assumed to be 125% of the resulting JWC
rate(including the treatment cost increment).
Financial Findings
For TVWD, we find that Scenario 2, JWC, results in the lowest equivalent cost, with both PWB
scenarios yielding the highest costs of each options evaluated. Exhibit12 illustrates the
equivalent cost per CCF.
EXHIBIT 12-TVWD COMPARATIVE SUPPLY COSTS PER CCF
Tualatin Valley Wafer DisMct-S%_Dlscount Rate
szso
f
Wo $1.92 E
$1.73
s1.1a I
s,.00 i
$aso _ I
$aoo
S=WblA-Palmed SWWb1B-P01W SmWin2-J*04abr S=Wb3-VEmob
Mir&mu(Mmnbrme VV W Burma(W ComRWM Trwftdpbd
Fitrahn) Tr to"
Page 8 of 11
FCS Group Memorandum
December 2,2003
EXHIBIT 12(CONTINUED)—TVWD COMPARATIVE SUPPLY COSTS PER CCF
Tualatin Valley Water District-7%Discount Rate
$250 ..._......___.__
$700 5191
$1.70
$1.50 SfAo
� s1.1s
$1.00
$0.50
son
ScenarblA-Pbrland ScenarblB-Porlend Scenarb2-JDktVb* Sce_narb3-WBarrele
Wafer Bureau NeffWane Water Bureau(UV Common TreatrertPlard
Fftlm) Treaherrp
For Tigard, we find that Scenario 3, WTP, results in the lowest equivalent cost, with JWC being
the highest cost option. Please refer to Exhibit 13 to compare unit costs.
EXHIBIT 13—TIGARD COMPARATIVE SUPPLY COSTS PER CCF
TMard5%Discount Rate
$3.00
use 52as
sloe
uao $1.82
$1.50 $1.3f
$1.00
solo'
• so.00
S==b IA-Parland Mar Smnarb lB-Parlmrd Walr 6mw10 2-JdrdVVabr Smwb 3-W bffd b
Bureau(Mbrrb m Fkdm) Bureou(W Treak enq cmmraebn TreahnmtPmM
Tigard-7%Discount Rate
$3.00
V-50 ure
$ZVI
uoo $1.77
$1.50 5f 56
i
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
Smado 1A-Parland Vlkbr S=wb 1B-PWknd Water Swaft 2-JoWl,V r Scenarb 3-Welarrele
Bureau Nertbrere Bureau(W Treehoo Comrimb TreatnertK"
Fkdm)
Page 9 of 11
FCS Group Memorandum
December 2,2003
For Tualatin,we find that Scenario 3, WTP, is the lowest cost option, with Scenario 1 resulting in
the highest, but not substantially out of line with Scenarios 2 and 3. Please refer to Exhibit 14.
EXHIBIT 14—TUALATIN COMPARATIVE SUPPLY COSTS PER CCF
Tualatin-5•0A biscount Rate
$3.50
$3.00
cS S2.50
5207
$200 SL86
51.50
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
5omrm1o1A-PbrbWWhbr8 wb1B-PmbidVWW S=wb2-J*dWxW Smmb3-Wbn&
Bureau(Merrbrene Bicamr(W Trestwo comm4don Treahim OWd
Raft)
Tualatin-7%Discount Rate
$150
$3.00
U.
5250 i2A8 SIN
5200
d $1.50
$1.00
SM50
$0.0.0
Samwb 1A-PoAmrd Saenmb 1B-P*rftW Samwb 2.J*dvkw Scenmb 3-V wilt
Vater Bureau(MB hMW V"W Bureau(W Cmmis M TmalreMPW
Fftdm) Tma""
Finally, for Beaverton, we find that all scenarios are roughly comparable, with Scenario 3, WTP,
the lowest equivalent cost. Please refer to Exhibit 15.
EXHIBIT 15—BEAVERTON COMPARATIVE SUPPLY COSTS PER CCF
Beaverton-5016 Discount Rate
51.50
$1.25
�t
s1.00 so 8B
soee
aaso
$0.75 50.88
10.25
SO.00
S=wb1A-Paib Mar Somueb1B-Palk Vbbr Samwb2-JdrdVbbr SoEmb3-Viaumb
Burem,(Mm&mro felon) emamr(w Tme wl cmuksbn TreehreMPbnt Page 10 of 11
FCS Group Memorandum
December 2,2003
EXHIBIT 15(CONTINUED)—BEAVERTON COMPARATIVE SUPPLY COSTS PER CCF
Beaverton-7%Discount Rate
$1.50
$1.25
$1.00
$0.& $177
$0.75
$0.50
W
$0.25
$0_.00
Soanarb 1A-Poi lwt Webr Boanarb 1 B-PaYnd vftr Scenarb 2-J*ditW Scenarb 3-W bTft
Bureau(Membrane Bureau(W Trea ffl"Q cawwon Treatrerdpw
F*Won)
Page 11 of 11
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting
Informational Items Supplement
February 11 , 2004
• Oregonian, November 21, 2003, Wilsonville water samples prove hazard-
free
• City of Wilsonville, December 1, 2004, Willamette Water Quality:
Results of Independent Testing
• City of Portland, Bureau of Water Works, Lead and Copper Rule
Monitoring Results letter dated December 10, 2003
• Insiders helped get reservoir reprieve, December 12, 2003 article in
Portland Tribune
• Tigard Times, December 18, 2003 article entitled Tigard to join Joint
Water Commission
• Poll shows Tualatin supporting fluoridation, _December 19, 2004,
Oregonian
• Portland examines water-treatment costs, December 22, 2003,
OregonLive.com
• Children's cavities inspire call for fluoridation, OregonLive.com article
from January 8, 2004
• Wilsonville Spokesman, January 9, 2004, Report evaluates river's
qualities
Page 1 of 2
Amanda Rich
From: Tracy Holland [Tracy@westemadvocates.com]
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2003 9:21 AM
To: Hasina E. Squires
Subject: Wilsonville water samples prove hazard-free
The Oregonian
Wilsonville water samples prove hazard-free
An independent lab,testing material for the Tualatin valley Water District,finds no cause
for concern
11/21/03
RICHARD COLBY
Water samples from Wiilsonville's water treatment plant—and the frequently maligned stretch of
Willamette River that supplies it—passed tests last month that measured"really nothing" harmful
in the water or river-bottom sediments, a representative of an independent testing firm said this
week.
Analyses done or arranged by Coffey Laboratories for the Tualatin Valley Water District mostly
produced long strings of"ND"—for"none detected"—next to lists of contaminants known to reach
water supplies, according to a 235-page report the firm presented to the district.
When amounts of certain chemicals were detected by sophisticated laboratory equipment, they
showed up as minuscule fractions of levels considered harmful, the Coffey Laboratories
representative, Ragheda Kaady, told the water district's board of commissioners Wednesday.
The commissioners in September hired the Portland-based Coffey firm to test-treated water from
the Wilsonville plant plus untreated river water and Willamette bottom sediments to answer
concerns by safe-water advocates. Opponents of using the river for drinking water have
contended that chemicals from upriver farming, paper-making or sewage-treatment operations
may make the water unsafe to drink.
In recent years, discoveries of deformed fish in the river near Newberg accentuated their
concerns.
Since the city and Tualatin Valley Water District went in together to build the treatment plant
starting in 1999, the district has owned 39 percent of the plant but has never drawn water from it.
Wilsonville began supplying its residents with the plant's water when it was completed in April
2002.
However, some of the water district's commissioners had expressed fears that the agency, as the
plant's co-owner, could be held legally responsible if a Wilsonville water user was harmed by a
river contaminant.
Another consultant that the district hired earlier reported in July that water-testing done during the
1990s to help design the plant's treatment process had been improperly documented and could
not be defended in a court suit.
Coffey Laboratories' results of water and river-sediments it took Oct. 17 appear to allay such
concerns, said Richard Burke, Tualatin Valley's presiding commissioner. "I was astonished to see
1/9/2004
Page 2 of 2
how good the water looks," he said Thursday.
Tom Long, a member of Citizens for Safe Water, a group that has opposed the Willamette's use,
also reacted happily. "I want to thank you all for putting my mind to rest," Long said. "My only
criticism is that this could have been done a long time ago."
But the happiest person at the commissioners' meeting appeared to be Jeff Bauman, Wiilsonville's
public works director and the water-treatment plant's supervisor. "I commend the district for this
thorough, independent analysis," he told the board.The Coffey results, he said, confirm
consistently good results from regular analyses that water regulators require the city to perform
every three months.
Todd Heidgerken, the water districts government-relations manager, said Thursday that under its
contract,the Coffey firm will conduct another round of quality tests next spring when the
Willamette is high with spring runoff to see whether that would produce different results.
The sampling and analyses Oct 17 and next spring will cost the district about$26,000 out of
$,250,000 it has budgeted for water-quality tests in the next 18 months.
Without a vote, the water commissioners also agreed to proceed with a public-opinion poll that
among other things will ask 400 district customers next month about their attitudes toward
fluoridation.
Commissioner Gordon Martin,who has expressed health concerns about fluoridated water, said
he thought the questions weren't properly drafted, because the customers to be polled might not
be aware of all arguments for and against fluoridation.
Burke and Heidgerken responded that the telephone survey, to be conducted by a Portland polling .
firm, Davis& Hibbitts,wasn't for testing customers' knowledge but only whether they were aware
of fluoridation and their attitudes about it. The survey, costing the district about$13,000, also will
ask respondents about district employees'contacts with the customers and other issues that come
before commissioners.
Copyright 2003 Oregon Live.All Rights Reserved.
1/9/2004
12/1/03. '
lam417f4 = 30000 SW Town Center Loop E
` — � f d" �U „ Wilsonville.Oregon 97070
v
7" ��°r (503)682.1011
WILSONVILLE (503)682-1015 Fox
oaeWN (503)e82-oa43 TDD
WILLAMETTE NATER QUALITY:
RESULTS OF INDEPENDENT TESTING
The Tualatin Valley Water District recently conducted an independent test of
the Willamette River, and the drinking water produced by the water treatment
plant in Wilsonville. The following pages (prepared by Wilsonville staff)
summarize the results of the independent laboratory's 2-35-page report. For
purposes of comparison, federal/state drinking water standards are included, as
well as data for Portland's water supply.
In reading the attached chart, the following information is helpful to keep in
mind:
All data shown for the Willamette River (both untreated and treated water) were
generated by the independent laboratory team assembled by and paid for by the
Tualatin Valley Water Dimicl+ This team dfd not test for copper;thus the results
shown for copper are taken from the City of WUsonWHe's Consumer Confidence
Report published in the spring of 2003.
All data shown for the Portland water supply are based on.the City of Portland's
Consumer Confidence Repor4 published by the Portland Water Bureau in the
spring of 2003.
For the sake of consistency, all chemical concentrations are shown in parts per
billion. To put this concentration level in perspective, one part per billion is the
equivalent of one minute over the span of more than 19 centuries
n1a = not applicable
ND = none detected at or above the detection limit
--- = not measured as part of this monitoring.
Page 1 of 13
e
12/1/03
Drinking Water Willamette Willamette Portland
Standards Untreated Treated Water Supply
Microbial Contaminants:
Total Coliform less than 5%of any present ND ND to 0.35%
Bacteria monthly sampling
E. coli no more than 1 detection present ND . ND to i detection
per round of sampling
Giardia 99.9%inactivation 40,cysts ND ND to 12 cysts
per 100 liters per 126 liters
Cryptosporidium based on treatment 20 oocysts "ND ND to.3 oocysts
technique per 100 liters per 126 liters
Turbidity 0.3 * 3.35 0.11 0..24 to 2.2
turbidity units turbidity units turbidity units turbidity units
*Portland currently has an exemption from this turbidity standard. At the present time,the applicable standard for Portland is 5.0 turbidity units.
Disinfection Byproducts (expressed in parts per billion):
.Bromate 10 - - - ND n/a
Total Trihalomethanes .80 ND 8.9 to 10.3 10 to 26
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
Page 2 of 13
12/1/03
Drinking Water Willamette Willamette Portland
Standards Untreated Treated Water Supply
Disinfection Byproducts (continued)
Total Haloacetic Acids 60 - -- 5.3 15 to 35
Monochloroacetic acid
Monobromoacetic acid
Dibromoacetic acid
Dichloroacetic acid
Trichloroacetic acid
Inorganic Chemicals (expressed in parts per billion):
Antimony 6 ND ND. ND
Arsenic 50 0.6 ND. ND
Barium.' 2,000 5.3 4.3 ND
Beryllium 4 ND ND ND
Cadmium 5 ND ND ND
Chromium 100 ND ND ND
Cyanide 200 ND ND ND
Fluoride 4,000 ND ND ND
Mercury 2 ND ND ND
Nickel.' n/a ND ND ND
Page 3 of 13
1'2/1/03
Drinking Water Willamette Willamette Portland
Standards Untreated Treated Water Supply
Inorganic Chemicals (continued)
Nitrate 10,000 300 300 10 to 50
Nitrate-Nitrite 10,000 300 300 - - -
Nitrite 1,000 ND ND 7-
Selenium
-Selenium 50 ND ND ND
Sulfate 250 4.2 10 - - -
Thallium 2 ND ND ND
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- --
Copper • action level = 1300 - - - 70 500.
Lead ♦ action level = 15 ND 0.3 17
o Per drinking water reporting requirements,copper and lead results are measured at the customers' tap and reported as 90`,percentile values.
Regulated Volatile Organic Chemicals (expressed in parts per billion):
1,1-Dichloroethylene 7 ND ND ND
1.,1,1-Trichloroethane 200 ND ND ND
1,1,24iichloroethane 5 ND ND: . ND
1,2-Dichloroethane 5 ND ND ND
1,2-Dichloropropane 5 ND . ND ND
Page 4 of 13
12/1/03
Drinking Water Willamette Willamette Portland
Standards Untreated Treated Water Supply.
Regulated Volatile Organic Chemicals (continued)
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 70 ND ND ND
Benzene 5 ND ND ND
Carbon Tetrachloride 5 ND ND ND
cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene 70 ND ND ND
Dichloromethane .5 ND ND ND
Ethylbenzene 700 . ND ND ND
Monochlorobenzene 100 ND ND ND
o-Dichlorobenzene 600 ND ND ND
p-Dichlorobenzene 75 ND ND ND
Styrene 100 ND ND ND
Tetrachloroethylene 5 ND ND ND
Toluene 1,000 ND + ND ND
Total Xylenes(total) 10,000 ND ND ND
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 100 ND ND ND
Trichloroethylene 5 ND ND ND
Vinyl Chloride 2 ND ND ND
* Note: For one sample,toluene was reported at 0.6 parts per billion. However,this came from the"blue ice"in the cooler,not from
the water sample itself..
Page 5 of 13
12/1/03
Drinking Water Willamette Willamette Portland
Standards Untreated Treated Water Supply
Regulated Synthetic Organic Chemicals (expressed in parts per billion):
2,4-D 70 ND ND ND
2,4,5-TP(Sylvex) 50 ND ND ND
Adipates 400 ND ND ND
Alachlor 2 ND ND ND
Atrazine 3 ND ND ND
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.2 ND ND ND.
BHC-gamma(Lindane) 0.2 ND ND ND
Carbofuran 40 ND ND ND
Chlordane 2 ND ND ND
Dalapon 200 ND ND ND
Dibromochloropropane 0.2 ND ND ND
Dinoseb 7 ND ND ND
Dioxin(2,3,7,8-TCDD) 0.00003 ND ND ND
Diquat 20 ND ND ND
Endothall 1.00 ND ND ND
Endrin 2 ND ND ND
j
Ethylene Dibromide 0.05 ND ND ND
Page 6 of 13
o
12/1/03
Drinking Water Willamette. Willamette Portland
Standards Untreated Treated Water Supply
Regulated Synthetic Organic Chemicals (continued)
Gylphosate 700 ND ND ND
Heptachlor expoxide 0.2 ND ND . NID
Heptachlor 0.4 ND ND ND
Hexachlorobenzene 1 ND ND ND
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 50 ND ND ND
Methoxychlor 40 ND ND ND.
Pentachlorophenol I ND ND ND
Phthalates 6 ND ND ND
Picloram 500 ND ND ND
PCBs 0.5 ND ND ND
Simazine 4 ND ND ND
Toxaphene 3 ND ND ND
Vydate(Oxamyl) 200 ND ND ND
Unregulated Volatile Organic Chemicals (measured in parts per billion):
Bromobenzene n/a ND ND ---
Bromomethane n/a ND ND - - -
Page 7 of 13
12/1/03
Drinking Water Willamette Willamette Portland
Standards Untreated Treated Water Supply
Unregulated Volatile Organic Chemicals (continued)
Chloroethane n/a ND ND - - -
Chloromethane n/a ND ND
2-Chlorotoluene n/a ND ND
4-Chlorotoluene n/a ND ND - - -
Dibromomethane n/a ND ND " "-
1,3-Dichlorobenzene n/a ND ND `
1,1-Dichloroethane n/a ND ND - - -
1,3-Dichloropropane n/a ND ND - - -
2,2-Dichloropropane n/a ND ND - - -
1,1-Dichloropropene
- -
1,1-Dichloropropene n/a ND ND -- -
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene n/a ND ND - --
trans-l,3-Dichloropropene n/a ND ND - --
1,1,.1,2-Tetrachloroethane n/a ND ND - --
1,1,2,2-Tetra6loroethane n/a ND ND - - -
1,2,3-Trichloropropane n/a ND ND
m,p-Xylene n/a ND ND - - -
o-Xylene n/a ND-. ND - - -
Page 8 of 13
a
12/1/03
Drinking Water Willamette Willamette Portland
Standards Untreated Treated Water Supply
LregulatedSynthetic Organic Chemicals (measured in pai ts per billion):
Butylbenzyl phthalate n/a ND ND - --
Di-n-butyl phthalate n/a ND ND - - -
Di-n-octylphthalate n/a ND ND -
Diethyl phthalate n/a ND ND
Dimethyl phthalate n/a ND-. - ' -
Butachlor n/a qD ND -- -
Metolachlor n/a qD ND - - -
Metribuzin . n/a 9D ND ---
Aldrin n/a ND - - -
Dieldrin n/a ND - --
Dicamba n/a ND -- -
3-Hydroxycarbofuran n/a 14D ND -- -
Aldicarb n/a ND ND - - -
Aldicarb sulfone n/a ND - - -
Aldicarb sulfoxide n/a ND - - -
Carbaryl n/a ND - - -
Methiocarb n/a ND ND - -
Page 9 of 13-
12/1/03
Drinking Water Willamette Willamette Portland
Standards Untreated Treated Water Supply
Unregulated Synthetic Organic Chemicals (continued)
Methomyl n/a ND ND -- -
Paraquat n/a ND ND - - -
Unregulated Extractable Organics (measured in parts per billion):
Azinphos-methyl n/a ND ND
Bolstar n/a ND ND
Chlorpyrifos n/a. ND ND - - -
Coumaphos n/a ND ND'
Demeton O-S n/a ND ND -. -
Diazinon n/a ND ND - - -
Dichlorvos
- `Dichlorvos n/a ND ND -
Dimethoate n/a ND ND -- "
Disulfoton n/a ND ND " "-
EPN n/a ND ND - - -
Ethoprop n/a ND ND - - -
Fensulfothion n/a ND ND " - -
Fenthion n%a _ ND'. ND - - -
Page 10 of 13
A r
12/1/03
Drinking Water Willamette Willamette Portland
Standards Untreated Treated Water Supply
Unregulated Extractable Organics (continued) .
Malathion n/a ND ND
Merphos n/a ND ND ' " -
Mevinphos. n/a ND ND - --
Naled _ n/a ND ND - - -
Parathion ethyl n/a ND ND -- -
Parathion methyl n/a ND ND - --
Phorate n/a ND ND -`-
Ronnel n/a ND ND ---
Stirofos n/a ND ND - - -
Sulfotepp n/a ND ND -- -
Tokuthion n/a ND ND -- -
Trichloronate n/a ND ND
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Chemicals,List.1:
(measured in parts per billion)
Perchlorate ND ND ND
2,4-Dinitrotoluene ® ND ND ND
Page I 1 of 13
r
12/1/03
Drinking Water _ Willamette Willamette Portland
Standards Untreated Treated : Water Supply
Up>tregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Chemicals, List 1 (continued)
2,6-Dinitrotoluene ® ND ND ND
4,4'-DDE ® ND ND ND
Acetdchlor ® ND ND ND
EPTC ® ND ND ND
Molinate ® ND ND ND
Terbacil ® ND ND ND
DCPA di acid degradate ® ND. ND ND
DCPA mono-acid degradate ® ND ND ND
Total DCPA ® ND ND ND
MTBE ® ND ND ND
Nitrobenzene ® ND ND ND
® EPA requires monitoring of these chemicals,but there are no drinking water standards for these chemicals.
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Chemicals, List 2:
(measured in parts per billion)
Diuron n/a ND ND - - -
Linuron n/a ND ND - --
Page 12 of 13
6
A
12/1/03
Drinking Water Willamette Willamette Portland
Standards Untreated Treated Water Supply
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Chemicals, List 2 (continued)
2-Methylphenol(o-cresol) n/a ND ND - - -
2,4-Dichlorophenoi n/a ND ND -
2,4-Dinitrophenol n/a ND ND - --
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol n/a ND ND ---
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine n/a ND ND ---
Diazinon n/a ND ND ---
D.isulfbion
--
Disulfoton n/a ND ND " " -
Fonofos n/a ND ND
Prometon n/a ND ND
Terbufos n/a ND ND ` ""
Page 13 of 13
Dan Saltzman,Commissioner
CITY OF Morteza Anoushiravani,P.E.,Administrator
i;wl i 1900 N.Interstate Avenue
PORTLAND, OREGON Portland,Oregon 97227
Information(503)823-1514
BUREAU OF WATER WORKS Fax(503)823-4117TDD(503)823-6868
December 10,2003 WQ 1.11.4
Department of Human Services
Drinking Water Program
PO Box 14350
Portland,OR 97293-0350
To Whom it May Concern:
In conformance with the requirements of OAR 333-061-0040,the results of our Lead and Copper Rule
monitoring for the second period of 2003 are submitted in the attached technical memorandum.
Monitoring was conducted as described in our joint monitoring proposal submitted April 16,2003 and
approved by the DHS in their letter of April 17,2003. As described in the plan, all water systems using Bull
Run water as their sole or major source of supply are considered as a single large system for compliance with
Lead and Copper Rule monitoring requirements.
In summary, 110 samples verified as collected according to protocol were taken from Tier One homes
throughout the service areas of participating systems. Samples were collected between October 21 and
November 4,2003.The 90th percentile values for the joint monitoring results are as.follows:
Lead 0.008 mg/L
Copper 0.33 mgt
Distribution results are submitted separately on forms designed to match the DHS forms and reporting protocol.
The target pH at the entry point to the distribution system was 7.8.
In June of 1998 DHS set entry point water quality parameters for the Bull Run system. Although these data are
reported monthly in a separate report,it should be noted that excellent treatment control has been maintained.
Please contact me at 503-823-7648 if you have any questions or concerns regarding this information.
Sincerely,
A—"4,
Yone Akagi
Water Quality Engineer
Attachment
c: Participating Utilities,Mark Knudson,Alberta Seierstad, Steve Schenk,Kathy Casson
a
TECIMCAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 10,2003
TO: Yone Akagi
FROM: Taryn H.Eddy
SUBJECT: Lead and Copper Monitoring Results for July to December 2003
Obiectives
This technical memorandum summarizes the monitoring required by the Lead and Copper Rule. The
October-November 2003 lead and copper tap sampling and source water results are included. Distribution
results have been submitted separately on forms designed to match the DHS forms.
Corrosion Control Treatment
The target pH at the entry point to the Portland Water Bureau distribution system is 7.8. Sodium hydroxide
levels necessary to maintain this level have ranged from approximately 3.11 to 4.8 mg/l.
Monitoring Plan
The monitoring during the second six-month period of 2003 was conducted according to the proposed joint .
monitoring plan submitted April 16, 2003 and approved by DHS in their letter of April 17,2003. As
described in the plan, all water systems using Bull Run water or Columbia South Shore well water as their
sole or major source of supply would be considered a single large system for complying with Lead and
Copper Rule monitoring requirements. The monitoring plan is based on Tier One home occurrence,with
the number of samples taken by each water system proportional,to the percentage of Tier One homes
within each water system.The following systems in Table 1 are participants in the Joint Monitoring Plan.
Table 1. Joint Monitoring Plan Partici ants
Water District Water District Water District Water District
ID ID
Burlington Water District 4100644 Portland Bureau of Water Works 4100657
City of Gresham 4100357 Raleigh Water District 4100667
City of Sherwood 4100816 Rockwood Public Utility District 4100668
City of Tigard 4100878 Skyview Acres Homeowners 4100786
Association
Lake Grove Water District 4100460 City of Tualatin 4100906
Loma Water Company 4100662 Tualatin Valley Water District 4100665
Palatine Hill Water District 4100653 Valley View Water District 4101427
Powell Valley Road Water District 4100666 West Slope Water District 4100660
Pleasant Home Water District 4100360
2
Tap Monitoring for Lead and Copper
Table 2 below summarizes the sampling required by the revised Joint Monitoring Plan and the actual total
number of home tap samples collected in the second six-month period of 2003. Extra samples were
collected to provide contingency in the event that individual homeowners withdraw from the program over
time.
Table 2. Tap Sampling for the Revised Joint Monitoring Plan, October-November
2003.
Number of Samples
Provider Specified in Revised Extra Samples Tested
Joint Monitoring Plan*
in. 100 Sample_)
City of Gresham 17 4 21
City of Sherwood 1 1
City of Tigard 8 2 10
Lake Grove Water
District
Palatine 1411 Water 0 1 1
District
.Portland Bureau of 25 2 27
Water Works,
Powell Valley Road 4. 4
Water District
Raleigh Water District 1 1
Rockwood Public 3 1 4
Utilities District
City of Tualatin 3 _ 1 4
Tualatin Valley Water 36 35**
District
West Slope Water 1 1
District
TOTAL 100 11 110
*Reflects updated data on Tier One homes in the West Slope Water District. As a result West Slope
submitted one sample. TVWD gained this one sample.
**TVWD collected 37 samples but two samples(140, 141)did not meet sampling collection protocols.
The remaining systems each represent less than one percent of the Tier One homes of the Bull Run service
area. Since the monitoring plan is based on percent of Tier One Homes of 100 samples,these systems are
not required to collect samples.
All samples were collected in October and November of 2003 based on the revised Joint Monitoring Plan.
The Portland Water Bureau collected samples at one more home far this period than in May-June 2003.
Portland Water Bureau was not able to obtain samples at homes 62 and 80. These were replaced by homes
6,42, and 90 from the Tier One sampling pool.TVWD collected 37 samples but two samples(140, 14 1)
did not meet sampling collection protocols. As a result only 35 samples were tested. TVWD had six
3
r
samples less tested this period than last period.TVWD added one new home(198)and did not sample
homes 133, 139, 140, 141, 187, 191, 192,and 227.Raleigh Water District did not sample home 226. City
of Gresham added four homes 205,231,232,and 233.Otherwise,the participating utilities sampled the
same homes in October-November 2003 as were sampled in May-June 2003. All added homes were Tier
One homes.
Home tap samples were collected between October 21 and November 4,2003. Directions provided to
customers specified first draw one-liter samples drawn from the cold water kitchen tap,unless there was an
inline filter on the kitchen tap that could not be bypassed. Complete instructions provided to the residents
are shown in Appendix 1. We offer this as demonstration that the water system informed residents of the
proper sampling procedures according to OAR 333:061-0036(2)(e)(B)(ii). The customer filled in the time
and date of sample collectionand the time and date oflast water use. No samples were included which
had less than a six hour standing time.
All but four samples were noted as collected from the kitchen sink tap.These four samples were collected
from bathroom sink taps.
The Portland Water Bureau Water Quality Laboratory performed analyses. The 90th percentile lead and
copper values were determined as described in 40 CFR 141.80 and clarified by the Lead and Copper Rule
Guidance Manual(1991). In this round of sampling there were 110 samples collected according to
protocol. As the guidance manual states, "Interpolation of lead and copper levels may be necessary m
some cases to determine system performance at the desired frequency. If the 90'h percentile value is
represented by the sample position other than an integer, (e.g. 0.9 x#samples=17.3),then the 9e
percentile value must be found by interpolating the results of the lower and higher samples(e.g.the.17'h
and 18''results in this case)." In this round of sampling,the 90`h percentile values reported are based on
sample position 99 for both lead and copper and interpolating between positions was not.needed.
Tau Monitoring for Lead and Couper Results
The lead and copper results from tap sampling at the 110 Tier One homes sampled in October-November
2003 are shown graphically in Figures 1 and 2. The lead and copper raw results are shown in Tables 3a
and 3b and are briefly summarized below.Addresses for the 110 homes are shown in Appendix 2.
The 9e percentile result for lead was 0.008 mg/L.This is below the action level of 0.015 mg/L.The
copper 9e percentile result was 0.33 mg/L. This is below the action level of 1.3 mg/L.
4
A6 NEWS Porf]]and Tribune Friday,December 12,2003
■NP�Y91®IY 1p R,II
es
Process
'' M
n's . wasn.
-like'
eoan
h 1 0
e pe-d et.-, From page Katz,too,said she is"thrilled" the total project will cost more
by the opportunity for more pub- than$107 million.
lic process.She said she had been. Monday afternoon, Saltzman
9 designs for the Mount Tabor approached by Kohnstamm's announced that he would pull the
® reservoirs. Instead, the group group, agreeing with some of ordinances from Wednesday's
started telling him they were their concerns before she heard agenda and postpone the con-
concerned about a lack of public Saltiman's idea for the panel. tracting of the project. He said
. reservoir . process in the issue. Cmd�COIIIIINI*Iva& he'd put it off until the work of the
"People were concerned that citizen advisory panel was com-
■ Dan was going about this in away The controversy began when pleted..
that wasn't Portland-like,"Kohn- the City Council approved the ,
stamen said. burial of the city's 100-year-old in �S hands
repriv,V The list of attendees included reservoir system in May 2002,in As the logistics of the panel are
Tom Koehler,a government Tela- the wake of the Sept.11,2001,ter- decided in coming weeks, Floy
tions consultant and book pub- rorist attacks. Jones of Friends of the Reser.-
lisher with Celilo Group Media; The council approved the proj- voirs said she's afraid the panel
Burial project goes on hold after Bob Stacey,executive director of ect as part of the Portland Water will just "rubber-stamp" the
1000 Friends of Oregon;Michael Bureau's fiscal 2002-03 budget.At council's previous decision.
intense lobbying by city S inner circle Powell, owner of Powell's book- the time,the council thought it was Orloff,however,said he is Opti-
stores 'Brian Rohter,president of essential to cover the city's five mistic that the panel will provide
By JIM REDDEN New Seasons Market;Chet Orloff, open water reservoirs to guard a credible layer of review.
andformer Oregon Historical Society them against potential attacks. "I thinks it's impossible to re-
Me JENNIFER ANDERSON director,and Mark Gooden P P
The Tribune an,vice The bureau estimated the bur= dict"what the panel will say,he
president of City Center Parking. ial of all five reservoirs and relat- said. "They could come up with
They spoke solely about-the. ed costs at approximately $107 something completely original, .
A small circle of behind the scenes political reservoir project, at times con- mfflion.The facility-at Mount Ta- such as disconnecting the reser-
players have succeeded in persuading city offs- trasting it to the public. input bor, which stores 70 percent of voirs from the water system,leav-
cials to take a second look at the controversial process that occurred in the plan- the city's water supply,was first ing them as ponds and building
decision to bury the Mount Tabor and Wash- ning mages for the Interstate light- on the list. new reservoirs somewhere else.
inhipark reservoirs.
This
rail line or Rose Garden arena.' Although the burial concept Who can say?"
This week, Commissioner Dan Saltzman an- Saltzman said the loose-knit had been discussed for years,the Members of Friends of the,
pounced that he's putting.the project on hold while group of friends "hadn't really public was not fully notified that Reservoirs plans to speak with
an independent panel of said anything I hadn't heard be- the project would be authorized Saltzman next week about the
about a.dozen citizens, fore,"and that he left without any by the council's budget vote. panel's makeup.Saltzman said he
evivs: ie'.City Coun-', decision being made.He reiterat When wordof out man
g � Y Pan- does not favor putting a member-
ed his belief that burying the ple living around Mount Tabor of Friends on the panel,because
M »;, reservoirs with $14 million in Park complained that they had the point is to have people who
3 park improvements was neves- been blindsided by the vote.They are impartial, which would
ex-
saxy to safeguard the citys water also argued that the project dude anyone who is part of an ad-
system and to meet federal drink- would destroy the historic nature vocacy group.
ing water regulations. of the parks and questioned the ' Saltzman said the panel will
Saltzman said his perspective city's cost estimates, saying the consist of experts from fields such
widened during that meeting. project could cost$200 million or as public health and emergency
After .Saltzman left, Kohn- more in the end. member of the
• - ✓�. .d�� management, a
stamen said, the group wasn't The Friend h its 25
g P s group,,wit Portland Utility Review Board;a
sure he had r
• ;rsa:,_; :_ app eciated the serl- core members and dozens of ad- member of the Portland Parks
°•.','=, 4 k4wK .; t -' "„`”"' '`x' '` ` "- ousness of their concerns.They ditional supporters, sta.
ged
Board,and impartial citizens and
worried that he didn't realize how protests, testified at numerous business representatives.
alienated citizens were becoming council hearings and kept up a The committee will begin in mid-
by the council's un �3'
,,--" media.willingness to continuous campaign with local Jan and have the assistance of
„' `;� '� �' listen to them It also filed a lawsuit in a facilitator and technical adviser
So a.subset of the group began Multnomah County Circuit Court whowill be hired with a yet un a two-month lobbying campaign. to allow a public vote on the rev- known amount of money from the
Kt6t? atli : vt': ... Y
There were private meetings enue bonds that are slated to fund _water bureau.The council will use
` pi`Fv�'` tlydee ' A,s with Mayor V r
o, era Katz,the of part of the project.A ruling could the panel's re
the co report to augment the
Y - until and a number of com- come any day. information it has and then decide
- i'bade ' eci :o'�Q� munity leaders—including Ken Despite the opposition, the what course to take.
w Novack,chief executive officer of council repeatedly has reaffirmed The group will research and
."
ssardyhav `at�opurrousud Schnitzer Investment Corp. and its support for the project. Ed- consider all five options available
daa1r. "teesiosimply':tlfa�;it ln?di
chairman of the Portland Busi- ward Campbell, a staff assistant to the city in meeting new federal
' ddet p°ocess-. ness Alliance. In the end, their to Saltzman, said the external drinkin water re ations:
g g
quiet persistence paid off. costs associated with the Mount ■B the reservoirs with
.right"putt to'ta�� etjnt�:=:ate:: :' Burying e
"I dont have anything against Tabor reservoir burial to.date is ark improvements
lot Aw., l%n .a:t onti act.for the wozl£.tb repised'ti e P
the Friends, but their position . estimated 'at $912,592. That ■Burying the reservoirs with-
r Kevin Kohnstamm s bendthinits itresulted 41,east seems to change a lot,"Saltzman amount includes the costs of the out park improvements
in part,'because of a coffee meeting that Saltzman at- said."They talk about cost,yet they public involvement process for . ■Instead of burial,providing a
tended at his home in October.Kohnstamm,a former advocate options that are more ex- what goes on top of the buried treatment technology for the
city employee and Enron Corp.communications di- pensive.They talk about process, reservoirs, 'the preliminary de- open reservoirs
rector whose family owns Timberline Lodge,'said he and.I'm not sure process is what sign,the beginning of the tank de- ■Putting together a.risk miti-
wrote a letter to Saltzman a few months ago describ- they want.I think they just dont sign and the general design com- gation plan that may include ree-
want anything to'happen:I think petitions. ommending perimeter fencing
irig his concerns that the proper public process for the they don't want to accept there are Saltzman's announ
reservoircement of a and temporary reservoir covers
project had not taken place.
EPA drinking water issues and ag- delay seemed to come out of the ■T offline
Saltzman said he proposed to meet them at Taking the reservoirs o
Kohnstamm's home, intending to show them the
inginfrastructure issues.I think we blue.Just last week,he asked the as a drinking water source have to do something." council to hear two ordinances Saltzman said he hopes the
So RESM01185 P0 6 Kohnstamm said the difference that would exempt the project panel's review will be finished in
in the influence of the two groups from competitive bidding and 90 days so work could begin in the
was disturbing, award a contract of up to$1.6 mil- dry season next year.
"That was the lesson learned in lion to a company to oversee the "I clearly think that burial with
this that bothered me the most," project. $14 million in park improvements
Kohnstamm said. "That in City Meanwhile,the Friends group is a good option," he said. "But
Hall,it matters who you are,not was mounting a public relations I'm going to keep an open mind
what you're saying." assault on the ordinances,argu- and see what the review panel
Saltzman,however,said that's ing that the bidding exemption says, and I think that's probably
not true. made favoritism in the awarding true for the rest of council as
,"Everybody who wants to meet of contracts more likely. well."
with me can meet with me,"he The group also noted that the
said,noting that he has a meeting $1.6 million'contract was approxi- Contact Jim Redden at
at his office scheduled with mately$1.3 million more than the jredden@portlandtribune.com
Friends of the Reservoirs next .original cost estimate,emphasiz- and Jennifer Anderson at
week."It's always been that way."' ing their continued claims that janderson@portlandtribune.com.
..Tigard to-join oin Joint Water Commissioi
.
The.Joint Water Commission will vote in "We've talked to King City, Durham and .the.
January on whether to accept Tigard Tigard Water-Boakuand they have all $geed that
Tigard should• accept the offer;' said Dennis.`'
TIGARD.--After takingmiry small steps for Koelle#meier,assistant public works director.
years toward finding a--permanent and affordable . He pointed out that this is the fifth potential water .
source,of water for Tigard,'the city took-a giant step ' source thatTugard'has pursued.While Tigard would
forward_Tuesday: The-City Council voted unani- not have to pay any money;upfinnt, it would over
moursly to
join Joint Water Comitiission, time become,a vested partner and.own water rights.
•Comriussion.members,representing the cities of by helping pay for.future capital iiriproyements snch
Hillsboro,. Forest'Grove and Beaverton and the as ming the-level of the:Scoggm Dam,adding treat-
Tualatin Valley Water. District, recently offered _ment-plant•capacity or ea Andmg transmission lines..
membership to Tigard and ate scheduled to vote.in, According.to Koellermeier, .Tigard purchases..
January on whether to accept Tigard as a member. water frbm.tlte Joint Water Commission at a.rate.of
In river n'to water';rights'for the.Tualatin and. :67 ceirts per 100-cubic feet(cco,while it is`paft .
Trask river wa4ersheds, the connmission s assets' . $1.49 per ccf for Bull Rum water. -igard's-average..
include a 70 million-gallons-per-day treatment plant, demand is 61VIGD;but in the summer it liar.
the'Scoggin and Barney reservoirs, a 20-MGD,fin-
ished-water
daily
reservoir.and transmission lines. .peaked at over 13-MGD.'
Tigard now.buys 2 MGD-from the Joint Water. - "we're one step .closer to becoming a water
Commission,which would increase to 4 MGD under, oar,"saidCouncilor Brian Moore. "'This puts us
the partnership agreement, Tigard:officials project in a position to be an owner This is a great step for-
that the city would receive 18 MGD by2018.. waW"
fCit'ohi-aiked to'fpport road.hazards.
:.T TGAKD Tigard's'Streets Division encourages residents to.
` 0 report possible.hazards such as potholes;'bumps and depressions so
1 city., s c�i'address diem in a timely manner.Tigard has 140. .
mi `s of public roads. e c A.yt ts,part*fft 86,0i}„
off ;gtate;;citykc3 �+ ts �Y-o ros,
t.. .3"$ ,Y? ol�. Onven on these roads anrau-
ally,mag their epaii auD`niamteiiauce;a necessity.Please.report
all streethazards to'I1oward Gregory,streets supervisbr,*at 503-718-.
2606 of1dWard@ci.tigard oras or fill out a sheet Bazardreport
form on the city's Web.site at www cUgard-oras..
City con�itides artrivalaeaf�collection
TIGARD—To minimize the potential for flooding within the
city,die,city's Stormwater Division sponsors two leaf-collection
days each year This year;on•Nov 22.and Dec.6* over 170 residents'
delivered.miore than 200.yards of leaves,surpassing the fiist year's
total•o€160 yards.Also,Team Tigard,which is.a group of city
emploee volunteers,encouraged people to bung along ngnperish
able fbbd for the Oregpu Food-Bank,and residents responded.by
doniting'woretban 1;1oo oumds.The Stormwater Division
employees would like to thank everyone who participated in the pro-
gram and for k4p.mg a-keep:the city's storm drains flee of leaves.
BZ ® 3M SW-T . .
The two districts merged to
Poll'show's
form Tualatin Valley' in 1991. After seeing the poll's results,
Wolf Creek residents voted in none of the.other four district
1963 to have.fluoridation.
commissioners expressed con- .
�'udai 1 Hibbitts said the poll found ceras about fluoridation..
fluoridation's approval much, "I don't see any reason for the
�+}�'tihigher in the farmer Wolf Creek board to make any change in
Suppoi ng area.There,80 percent said they policy,"-Richard Burke,the water
approved of fluoridated water, board's presiding .officer, said
compared with 64 percent in the Thursday."It would be up to cit-
fluoridation former Metzger district izen groups,if they want to see a
One Tualatin Valley commis- change,to use the initiative pro-
sioner,Gordon Martin,who has. cel"
.4..expressedoppositionto fluori In Beaverton, where. voters
About 78 percent of those dation,said he thought the poll's last year approved.fluoridating
tel honed in the district results might have been different city-supplied water by a,53-to47
if the customers had been told of ratio,bids were opened Wednes-
approve, at some leve4 of health.concerns-that he and fel- day for installing the city's fluori-
the'water additive low fluoride opponents share. dation equipment.. Hollinger
But at the district stats.direc- •Construction of Longview,
By RICHARD COLBY tion,Hibbitts said Thursday,the Wash., submitted.the lowest of
ME oREdOMAN poll wasn't designed.to be more four bids at$588,375.
ALOHA — A survey of 400 than an attitude survey based on Once the bidder is deemed
Tualatin Valley Water District what the poll respondents•al- qualified for the job,Finance Di-
customers found that 78 percent ready knew or believedabout rector Patrick O'Claire said,work
approved of fluoridated drinking • fluoridation. Attaching a view- is expected to begin early next
water:for improving their own or point to a question would influ- month and be completed by
theirchildreri's dental health ence. responses, invalidating �AL iTll,-fluoridation facility is
The telephone poll by the Da- them,Hibbitts said. neeia;8cikiwest :209th Avenue
VIS& Hibbitts.polling firm was The district commissions atti- alai Valley Highway ori
conducted Dec.84D 10.It found tude samplings every two years, the city's main water pipe,from
;49 percent "strongly" 'approved said Todd Heidgericen,the agen- Hillsboro..
of fluoridation-and another 29 -Lys government relations man
percent were"somewhat"in fa- ager. Five questions related to
mr. -fluoridation were added this
The poll's margin of error wasyear,he said, because commis- '
plus or minus 4.8 percent; ficin sinners had expressed interest in
principal Tim Hibbitts told the the topic.
district's commissioners The poll also sought opinions
Wednesday, . . about the quality of the district's
The district supplies fluon- . services—96 percent either said
dated water to more than three- "excellent" or "good" — and
fourths of its 180,000 customers. how customers got their infor-
They live .in the former Wolf mation about the district News-
Creek Highway Water district, letters .-sent with water .bills
,mostly north and west of Bea- 'ranked highest
verton but including parts of the Gordon said he was con-
city, denied enough about fluorida-
The remainder, living in the tion that he will ask fellow com-
former.Metzger-Water District, missioners to consider havi'rig a
receive unfluoridated water. water-testing firm examine the
That area is between Beaverton fluoride compound the district
and Portlandand includes, a injects into the water to attain a
wedge of Tigard. 1 part-pier-mrllion fluoride con-
centration.
,)regonLive.com's Printer-Friendly Page Page 1 of 2
amw1he.com
Portland examines water-treatment costs
A city commissioner says suburban.customers should pay 70 percent if a filtration system
Is Installed
12/22/03,
SCOTT LEARN
Portland's suburban water customers will have to.pick up most of the freight if a.$200 million
filtration plant for Bull Run water is to go.forward,.Portland City Commissioner Dan.Saltzman said.
A citizen panel,endorsed the membrane filtration plant in 2002,even though.it was the most
expensive.option to meet upcoming federal,mandates on eliminating cryptosporidium from
drinking water.
The panel,liked.the.filters'ability to remove mud as well.as the.potentially lethal parasite. Mud in
the.water has.shut down the Bull Run reservoirs near Mount Hood after heavy winter storms.
But Saltzman, under pressure to,reduce.climbing water rates,said last week that city ratepayers
should not have to spend more than they would.for the least cost option:a$60.million ultraviolet
irradiation.plant..Ultraviolet would kill the parasite but wouldn't remove.mud from the.water.
Suburban agencies that buy water from Portland stand to benefit the most from.a filtration plant,
Saltzman said. Filtering the water would expand Bull Run's capacity and.address color problems
that have generated,the most complaints in the suburbs.
It could.also remove mud created by.construction of a third Bull Run dam, allowing.for expansion
of the system to accommodate suburban growth,Saltzman said.
"Our wholesale customers would have to step up to the plate at the outset,"said Saltzman,who
oversees the Water Bureau.."That's where a higher share of the demand would be."
The city's 19.suburban customers, including Gresham,Tigard and the Tualatin Valley Water
District, use about 4`percent of the water from Portland's system. Saltzman's plan would require
them to pick up.at least 70 percent of the filtration plant's cost.
The proposal is part of Saltzman's effort to temper future rate increases..The bureau's.long-term
capital plan had included the$200 million filtration plant.Swapping it for.the$60.million ultraviolet
plant helped knock down projected 9.S percent rate increases for July 1 to 7.2 percent.
By 2008,.when the project would be in full swing,the lower cost would help,cut projected rate
increases.for Portland's ratepayers nearly in.half, bureau officials said,.from 13.6 percent to 7
percent.
Saltzman has asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for a waiver from upcoming
federal mandates on controlling cryptosporidium, a chlorine-resistant parasite. Portland's system
has little cryptosporidium.
The bureau will examine an alternative plan of putting an ultraviolet plant and new storage at
Lusted Hill,on.98 acres owned by the Water Bureau in rural east Multnomah County.
httn://www.oreeonlive.com/minter/nrinter.scf?/hace/nnrtland nPwc/10719?.5407.9450 xml?nrpanninn?nn 1
OregonLive.com's Printer-Friendly Page Page 2 o.
That alternative would require land use approval from the.Metro regional,government because
Lusted Hill is outside the urban growth boundary, Saltzman said. If the plan isn't feasible, it would
put the higher cost projects—and higher rates—back on the table.
Saltzman's moves are not enough to satisfy increasingly vocal business critics,who note that the
city's combined water and sewer bills.rank second-highest among big U.S.cities, behind only
Seattle.
Soaring sewer bills are the main reason for that ranking,though water bills have also been rising
fast.Water Bureau efforts to increase security and the agency's pians to bury its Mount Tabor
Park reservoirs are helping fuel higher rates.
Kent Craford, a,spokesman for a group of heavy-water-using Portland businesses,said 7 percent
annual increases aren't great news.
"Any decrease is welcome,"Craford said. "But I think Portland's.ratepayers, both residential and
commercial,would.much rather see water rate increases on.par with inflation.or lower..Otherwise,
incomes.and business revenues can't keep up
Craford'sgroup,the Portland Water Users Coalition,opposes membrane.filtration as.too costly
and.says.its untried technology is too risky at such a large.scale.
Craford said.it's impossible to know,if suburban customers would pick up more of the tab because
ongoing negotiations between the city and suburban agencies over new long-term contracts are.
dosed to.the public:.
The Portland.Utilities Review Board, established to look out for Portland ratepayers,has
recommended the cheaper ultraviolet treatment.
The deadline.for finishing the plant would probably be 2012, but it would need an eight-.to nine-
year construction lead time, bureau officiats say.
The board of.the Tualatin Valley Water District, Portland's biggest wholesale customer,favors
membrane filtration.And Todd Heidgerken,.the agency's government-relations manager,said it
makes sense for areas creating the new demand to pay more.
But he said a membrane filtration plant would give.Portland customers a more reliable supply and
clearer water during the fall season,when leaves and runoff can discolor water from Bull Run.
Expanding the system to take.in more suburban customers would also help Portland spread out
the costs of repairs,and improvements to Bull Run,to the main transmission system and to the
city's Columbia River well fields.
"It's not like there will be no benefit to Portland," Heidgerken said.
Scott Learn:503-2947657; scottleam@news.oregonian.com
Copyright 2003 Oregon Live..All Rights Reserved.
http://www.oregonhve.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/portland news/10719254028450.xml?oregonian?pn 12/22/2003
Iitgonuve.com's Printer-Friendly Page Page 1 of 3
OmgmLA '.dim
Everything C repn
Children's cavities inspire call for fluoridation
Dental workers and volunteers take their long campaign for treating public water supplies
to Hillsboro
01/08/04
RICHARD COLBY
As a dentist,.April Love could,handle the disasters she coriffronted in people's.mouths..
But after retiring and.volunteering to check preschoolers in Portland-area Head Start classes,
what Love saw shocked.her. Most of the young mouths had at least one cavity,many had several.
Some children's.mouths."were totally bombed out,"she.says.
Such sights galvanized.Love and other dental.workers,to begin what they knew would be a long
campaign to get public water supplies.fluoridated. In 2002,,Beaverton voters approved fluoridation
by 53 percent after Love and.an advocacygroup called Stand for Children.persuaded the City
Council to put the.issue on.the.ballot.
Now, Love and a new group, Healthy Teeth for a Lifetime Political Action Committee, take up the
fight in Hillsboro.They are.likely to face opposition not only from some Hillsboro residents, but
also from,a group.called.Oregon.Citizens.for Safe Drinking Water that fought fluoridation.in
Beaverton.
Although Beaverton officials, including Mayor Rob Drake,were easily persuaded to.present the
issue to voters,acceptance of.the idea in Hillsboro appears.farther off.
"It's been an.emotional.issue in the.past,"says City Manager Tim Erwert. He recalls that the city's
Utilities Commission,an appointed body with authority over water rates and other water-related
matters, recently declared it wasn't interested in pursuing fluoridation because of other water-
related issues coming up, such as expanding Hagg Lake.
"People can get revved up on either side of the issue,"Erwert says, noting Hillsboro voted down
fluoridation in the 1950s.
Even if Hillsboro's elected officials or voters.favored the idea, Erwert says, there's another
problem.The city's.water system sits at the center of a larger network that pipes water to Forest
Grove, Beaverton,Tualatin Valley Water District, Cornelius, North Plains,Gaston and the Laurel
Academy Water Cooperative, plus individual customers in rural areas.
Forest Grove and the Tualatin Valley Water District have fluoridated all or most of their supplies
for decades. Beaverton,with about 62,000.water customers,will follow suit in April.
Either other cities and their customers attached to Hillsboro's network would need to be won over,
Erwert said, or the city would have to install fluoridation equipment in several locations to avoid
injecting fluoride into outside.water supplies.
Healthy Teeth is undaunted by such reservations.
Laurie Johnson,a group member and a dental hygienist in Aloha, says she also has seen.high.
http://www.oregonlive.com/printer/vrinter.ssf?/base/metro west news/1073480512167220.xm1?oregonia... 1/13/2004
OregonLive.com's Printer-Friendly Page Page 2 oN
cavity rates while helping low-income people for Northwest Medical Teams.She agrees with Love,
"that's not something you see when you work in a dental office.
Love says she was devastated to find that tooth decay more often afflicts children.from low-
income families,especially migrant workers'children,than.people she'd encountered.in her
downtown Portland practice. The Head Start enrollees'decay rates also dwarf national:averages.
In one group of 50 Washington County.2-to 5-year-olds Love examined in the fall, 74.percent had
one or more cavities, compared with a national average.of..around 17 percent for that age.group.
National.health organizations such.as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.and.the
American Medical Association support fluoridation to combat tooth decay, Love says_
She explains that fluoridated water promotes.hardening.of tooth enamel against attack by acids
created by bacteria..No credible scientific evidence,.she.says, has been presented that the.
practice is ineffective or harmful, although too.high a dosage.does cause tooth-discoloration in
young children...
"People from back east consider this a no-brainer,".says Love, a Michigan native.who received
her dental training in.Detroit before moving to.Portland for a hospital internship and.nearly.20
years in private practice.She lives in the Scholls.area.
in Oregon,where fluoridation.over the years has remained controversial, less than 20.percent of.
public water customers receive.it, Love says_Although.it has long been used in Salem,.Corvallis
and McMinnville,the.state lags almost all other.states in the.proportion of its population.receiving
treated water.
Love shows a list of the 50 states compiled by the.Atlanta-based Centers for Disease.Control,and
state dental-health directors. It placed Oregon fourth from the bottom,with 17.6 percent of the
publicly supplied population receiving fluoridated.water, as of August 2002.
Meanwhile, problems with local school funding last year have caused Stand for Children to put
aside fluoridation and tum its attention to campaigning for money measures to keep schools open.
That hasn't stopped Love and the Healthy Teeth committee. Love says the group.has hired a
Portland polling firm to survey Hillsboro residents on.their fluoridation views in the next few
months. If favorable, she says,the results.will point the group toward its next move.
Whatever that move is, it's likely that Oregon.Citizens.for Safe Drinking Water will.appear in
opposition..The group contends that fluoride as a water additive has been insufficiently tested;that
Americans are overexposed to fluoride, through their water,toothpaste and diet;and that it stains
teeth. Members haveappeared before the.Beaverton.council voicing opposition to the idea, even
after the public vote.
Ina written statement,.the group's executive director, Lynn Campbell of Lake Oswego, says. The
gross inadequacies of'testing,.approval and regulation of fluoridation chemicals . . . need to.be
addressed.before anyone'advocates fluoridation."
Campbell,a former advertising buyer for a media outlet, adds that the Centers.for Disease Control
has found fluoride works"primarily by topical application, not ingestion,and is not effective in
preventing the most common types of decay,'pit and fissure'and 'baby bottle tooth decay.'We've
got better,safer alternatives for addressing tooth decay than fluoridated water and need to.focus
on the real crisis in oral health.across the U.S.—.access to dental care."
But Florian Cerkiewski, an associate professor of.nutrition at Oregon State University,.hasn't any
doubts about water fluoridated at the standard one part per million,which he's been drinking in .
Corvallis since he joined the faculty in 1979.
"There isn't any credible science that would support any adverse effects,"Cerklewski says."In
other words, its entirely beneficial."That, he adds, holds true for adults as well as children.
httpJ/www.oregonlive.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/metro west news/1073480512167220.xm1?oregonia... 1/13/2004
Q egonLive.com's Printer-Friendly Page Page 3 of 3
y
The best thing about water fluoridation,.Cerklewski says, is that it's available to the entire
population at something around$1 per person a year, even to those who can't afford dentistry.
"Try going.to the dentist for a dollar per person per year,"the professor says.
Richard Colby: 503-294-5961;dickcolby@news.oregonian.com
Copyright 2004 Oregon Live.All.'Rights Reserved.
http://www.oregonhve.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/metro west news/1073480512167220.xml?oreeonia... 1/13/2004
Wilsonville Spokesman Newspaper- Wilsonville, Oregon Page 1 of 2
30250 SW Parkway Ave., Suite #10 Wilsonville, OR 97070 Phone: 503.682.3935
Subscriptions
WKSOW, M SPOKSHM, Daily Regional Ads
Place Classified Ad
Friday,January 09, 2004
Community Report evaluates river's qualities
News
Local Stories
Wilsonville Week By Curt Kipp
Officials pleased with test results on city water, river sediments
Milestones
Share Your News The Tualatin Valley Water District has been testing the waters on the Willamette River
—figuratively and literally—since the 1970s.
But the agency has never done so as thoroughly as they did on Oct. 17, according to
Sports district and Wilsonville officials.-
On that day, scientists from Coffey Laboratories gathered untreated water from the
Local Stories Willamette River, treated water from the Willamette River Water Treatment Plant-, and
Briefs sediment samples from the bottom of the river.
Scores The samples were checked for regulated contaminants, as well as contaminants that
pSAA may be regulated in the future.
"We were really pleased with the results," TVWD General Manager Greg DiLoreto said.
"They came back showing that while there were some contaminants.in the sediments,
Viewpoints they were probably to be expected. They were not in the raw water, and in the finished
water, we didn't find anything."
Editorial TVWD board member Jim Duggan, who has served since 1993, was similarly pleased.
Letters "I was surprised at how clean the sediments were," he said. "Everyone thought the
Opinion sediments would contain the smoking gun showing the Willamette was undesirable as a
Submit your Views water source."
Wilsonville public works director Jeff Bauman said the tests confirmed what the city has
been saying for years.
About the "The water here at this intake is remarkably good quality, even before it goes into the
Spokesman plant," he said.
The untreated and treated water meets all drinking water standards, Bauman said.
Who We Are "It's not like they're even close," he said. "They're way under(maximum contaminant
Where to Find Us levels)."
The Rest of the The testing was done in part to respond to criticisms of prior testing by Citizens for Safe
Water, a group to which Charles Scott belongs.
Story. Scott has pointed out that prior testing done on the .Willamette would not stand up in
court, although Duggan said the prior testing wasn't designed to do that. It was only
Classifieds designed to explore possibilities.
Scott, a retired toxicologist from Wilsonville, maintained the prior tests should have been
Daily Regional done to the higher standard.
Ads "If they had done it right, they might have had more people backing them," he said.
Scott had positive things to say about this round of tests.
Place an Ad "We're really thankful that Tualatin Valley took it on to have the water evaluated," he
said. "It should give a lot of the people in Wilsonville comfort that it was tested, and it
Archives was tested right this time."
Scott tempered his praise with a note of caution.
Story Archive "This is only the low flow," he said.
Photo Archive According to agency officials, the water will be tested again during high flows to see if
contaminant readings are any different.
"If this next testing comes out as good as this one, (wife and fellow water activist)
Dolores and I would not be opposed to drinking the water," Scott said.
The next round of testing, Scott said, "will be good enough to make the first results
stronger, or bad enough to require an additional round of testing."
file //( \T)nrnmentc% (lanri% (1RP.tt1nOC\Amanria\T.nr.al%?ORPttinoq\TPmnnrary%?OTntPrnet%?OFi 1/9/7004
Wilsonville Spokesman Newspaper- Wilsonville, Oregon Page 2 of 2
The district does not use Willamette River water, but it has a strong interest in that water
—an $18 million interest, to be exact.
That's how much the agency invested in the Willamette River Water Treatment Plant,
which it co-owns with the city of Wilsonville.
The district has no means to get the water to its 179,000 customers in Washington
County. There's no pipe in place to do that.
Further, the agency has a rule on the books: the voters in the district must approve
before river water can be used. The agency's own board put the rule in place, after
grass roots activists put similar rules into city charters around the southwest Portland
Metro area via the initiative process.
The agency invested in the plant in order to perfect a Willamette River water right it has
held since the 1970s, Duggan said.
It currently gets its water from the city of Portland, which taps the Bull Run watershed as
well as a series of wells, and from the Joint Water Commission, which gets water from
the Tualatin/Trask watershed.
The Willamette represents a third water option as the district grows, Duggan said.
"At this point, we have the luxury of having three possibilities instead of just one," he
said. "I think the TVWD will-always have a connection to Bull Run, but if the price gets
too high we will look to developing those other sources rather than investing in an
expansion of Bull Run."
Still out there is the mystery about why studies have shown that abnormal percentages
of pikeminnows in the Newberg Pool of the Willamette River were found with skeletal
deformities.
The problems could have a number of causes, including temperature, genetic flaws in
the fish, microparasites, and the chemical makeup of the water. Studies currently are
being done to investigate that issue further.
O9AQ-top,
Webmaster COpyright Eagle Newspapers Inc., 2001 - 2004
fi1P //(' \T�nriimPntc%�(land%�n4PttinaclAmanda\T.neral% (1CPttinuc\TPmn�rary%�(1TntPrnPt%�(1Fi 1/9/7.(1(14
V rt rt� N
rKL
Supply Options Analysis:
An Overview
City of Tigard IWB
February 11, 2004
Presented by
Jeanette Hahn
Financial Consulting Solutions Group, Inc.
Purpose of Tigard Rate Study
■ Forecast annual revenue requirements
■ Ensure the ability of rates to fund projected
investments and ongoing costs and obligations
■ Determine a rate strategy for sustaining strong,
positive financial performance
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
1
Purpose of Supply Options Analysis
■ Identify total costs of alternative sources
■ Multi-agency effort
■ Provide information to Portland during contract
negotiations
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
Comparison of Findings from Both Studies
■ The Joint Water Commission is not the cheapest
source of new supply from a "total cost"
perspective
However...
■ Depending on structure, JWC may have the
lowest ultimate "rate burdens" to Tigard water
customers
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
2
Presentation Topics
■ Summary of supply options analysis:
■ Alternatives considered
■ Costs included
■ Evaluation basis
■ Outcome of analysis
■ Impact on rate study
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
Supply Options Evaluated
■ As primary source of supply after 2011 :
■ 1 A— Portland, using membrane filtration
■ 1 B — Portland, using UV treatment
■ 2 —Joint Water Commission
■ 3-Willamette Treatment Plant
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
3
Assumed Water Purchases (1 of 3)
Portland Scenarios 1A and 1 B
Tigard
9.0 olMllamel�......_..----.._..__..-_.___--.-----......__........_...------._....._....-...---------------,
®�nnc I
7.0
8.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
Assumed Water Purchases (2 of 3)
JWC Scenario 2
Tigard
ovu��
8.0 ____-_. ® ---.._.__.._...._.._.._..............................................__.._...................._...----.__._.....---....._.I
8.0 ®PVS
7.0
96.0
5.0 -
4.0
3.0
a 2.0
1.0
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
4
Assumed Water Purchases (3 of 3)
Willamette Scenario 3
rigard
9.0 .................
o'
Wdlam
ew ._...............__......_...._.._._....-__..........................._...._.._......_.............---......_............._.._........................
JWC
U PWB
7.0
GO
5.0O ,i
i
6 4.0
3,0
2.0
1.0
11" 1& ,§tip le 41
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
Capital Costs (1 of 3)
Portland 1 A and 1 B
Scenario.IA_Canital Costs 2003-2028 Scenario 18 Canttal Costs 2003-2028
Portland Water Bureau A Total Tigard Portland Water Bureau B Total Tigard.
Bull Run Treatment(Membrane) $241,906,356 $ 17,517,191 Bull Run Treatment(UV) $ 65,865,592 $ 4,769,532
Powell Butte Terminal Res.#2 66,939,887 4,847,325 Powell Butte Terminal Res.#2 66,939,887 4,847,325
Bull Run Dev.:Raise D.ams... 20,847,303 1,509,618 Bull Run Dev.:Raise Dams... 20,847,303 1,509,618
Conduit 26,712,139 1,934,309 Conduit 26,712,139 1,934,309
Washington Co.Supply#2 160,713,224 22,531,751 Washington Co.Supply#2 160,713,224 22,531,751
Subtotal:PWB•A Capital Outlay 517,118,909 48,340,194 Subtotal:PWB-B Capital Outlay 341,078,145 35,59$535
Contributions to Other Agencies 12,319,677 ConbibutonstoOther Agencies 12,319,677
Total Capital Outlay $529,438,586 ITotal Capital Outlay $353,397,822 -35,54535
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
5
Capital Costs (2 of s)
JWC Scenario 2
Scenario 2 Capital Casts 2003-2028
Joint Water Commission Total Tigard
Scoggin Dam $ 145,782,590 $ 32,130,483
Sain Creek Tunnel 27,079,184 5,968,252
Raw Water Phase 1 53,685,628 7,392,511
Plant Upgrade#1 70,188,530 17,708,566
Fern Hill 31,308,135 4,536,549
NTL Phase IIB 5,000,000
Fish Screens 2,400,000
Transmission-Tigard 28,646,609 28,646,609
Transmission-Tualatin 25,238,680
Transmission-Beaverton) 4,102,956
Transmission-Beaverton 2 2,037,922
Transmission-Beaverton 3 4,042,527
CapitalReimbursement-Tigard 6,753,053 6,753,053
Direct Replacement Contribution 30,582,792 7,378,138
Subtotal:,JWC Capital Outlay 436,848,607 110,514,161
Contributions to Other Agencies 16,281,974
Tatai'Capital Outlay $453,130,581 $110,514,161
Capital Costs (3 of 3)
Scenario 3 Capital Costs-20012028
Willamette Treatment Plant Total Tigard
Plant Expansion $ 167,660,649 $ 30,255,810
Transmission-TVWD 60,101,524 -
Transmission-Tigard 8,574,147 8,574,147
Transmission-Tualatin 2,974,938
Transmission-Beaverton 6,998,721
CapitalReimbursement-TVWD 970,187 -
Capital Reimbursement-Tigard 4,355,043 4,355,043
Capital Reimbursement-Tualatin 2,526,406 -
Capital Reimbursement-Beaverton 1,924,880
Direct Replacement Contribution 16,528,476 2,605,660
Subtotal:Willamette Outlay 272,614,972 45,790,660
Contributions to Other Agencies 28,601,652
Total Capital Outlay $301,216,62.3 $ 45;790,660
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867.1802
6
O&M Costs
$12,000,000 ......– Por land 1A and 1B....................--..._..._.............................__..............-...
–.-._._..,
—JWC 2
$10,000,000 —Willameme 3
i
$8,000,000
i
i
$8,000,000
I
$4,000.000 j
i
1
$2,000,000 i
I
$-
�^o
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
Comparison of Total Costs
■ Annualized present value of total costs, 2004-2028
Tigard
$3.00 ....................---«.._.............._.._.... __�...
$2•50 $233
v $2.08
U
g$2•00 $1.82
� I
$1'50 $1.31
a`
a $1.00 -
w'
$0.50
$0.00
Scenarb tA-Porlard Wabr Smnarb 18-Porland Waley Scemlo 2.JDW Walar Soanarb 3-Wearrela
Bureau(Menbrane Maim) Bureau(UV Treaftnt) Comrsabn TreahenlPlant
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
7
Total COStS (1 of 3)
Portland Scenario 1 A
Tigard-Scenario 1A(Portland-Membrane Filtration)
$30,000,000 ............. .... ............... .................... .... ..................... ..........
$25,000,000
$20,000,000
$10,000,000
............. .......... ... ..................... ..............
$5,000.000
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2018 2016 2020 2022 2021 2026 2028
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
Total COStS (2 of 3)
JWC Scenario 2
Tigard-Scenario 2(Joint Water Commission)
$30,000.000 ...... ................... ...................................................... .......................................
$25.000,000
$20,000.000
$15,000,000
00.000.000
..... ................. .................................................
$5,000,000
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2010 2018 20" 2022 2024 2026 2121
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
TotaICOStS (3 of 3)
Willamette Scenario 3
Tloard-Scenario 3(Willamette TreatmentPlant)
S30000M0 ...... ..................... ............. .......... ....................................................................... ..........-......................................
$Z.=DM
S20.MDODD
616.000.000
610,=000.
66,000,000
2104 206 MM 2I0 212 2014 2016 201e 222 2M4 2021 2028
FCS Group Inc.
(425)867-�802
Key Outcome
• From a "total cost" perspective, Willamette is
the lowest cost option, while JWC is highest.
• The rate study shows that JWC results in a
lower "rate burden" than Portland.
Determining Factor.,
Direct Capital Investments versus Rate-Related Costs
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
9
Comparison of Cost Structures
Portland Scenario 1 A
Tigard Portland_Scenario 1A
$30,000,000 .............-....................................................................... .. ................_.._...- — --....................-....-.
$25,000,000 ®PWB 0&M
®PWB Capital
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
$10,000,000
$5,600,000
$-
ry�' ti ti� 1P ti0�ry 'LONA 10
0 01
b ry0R0 �0� 'Ce le
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867.1802
Comparison of Cost Structures
JWC Scenario 2
Tigard JWC Scenario 2
$30,000,000 .....................................................................................................................-.
$25.000,000 ■JWC O&M
®JWC Capital
$20,000,000
$15,000,000
i
$10,000,000
i
i
$5,000,000
`L`3-
�b 'Le 1P 'LD^O 'LD.�`L `LD 11 'LD.6 .�0 ry0 rL`L 1b 16 �0
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1602
10
Considerations Other than Total Cost
■ Capital Costs vs. Ongoing Expenses
■ Which costs can be shifted to SDCs or debt-
financed?
■ Which costs can only be loaded into rates?
■ Timing
■ Predictability
■ Level of local control
■ Stability of rules and costs
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867.1802
Critical Assumption. . .
■ Supply options analysis assumes each agency
selects the same source
■ Capital costs would likely increase significantly if
Tigard selected an option different from that of other
communities
■ Local decisions should not be made until cost
estimates and planning criteria are solidified
FCS Group,Inc.
(425)867-1802
11
Tigard Water Service Area Receives
Fluoridated Water
For over ten years the City of Tigard has been pursing ownership in a long-term
water source capable of meeting the current and future water demands of our
customers. In past month, the City of Tigard found itself one step closer to
obtaining that goal. .In January 2004 the. City of Tigard became a member of the
Joint Water Commission (JWC). The. JWC is a water system whose members
include the Cities of Beaverton, Hillsboro,Forest Grove and the Tualatin Valley
Water District. This filtered system draws. its water from the Trask and Tualatin
Rivers Watershed.
As a member of the JWC, the City of Tigard will purchase approximately 4
million gallons of water each day,which is close to one-half of our annual water
supply. This water will be delivered via the City of Beaverton's water
distribution system.
It is important to note that during the past two years the City of Beaverton has
been debating on whether or not to add fluoride to its drinking water supply. In
late 2003 the'Beaverton City Council approved the development of a fluoridation
plan. Fluoride injection is scheduled tobegin as early as April 2004, at which
time Beaverton will be delivering a fluoridated supply of water to the City of
Tigard.
Tigard Water Service Area residents will be kept informed as more information
becomes available. To learn more. about fluoridated water, check out the City's
website at www.ci.tigard.or.us/water. .If you have any questions and/or concerns,
please feel free to contact the City of Tigard's Water Quality Program
Coordinator, Sally Mills at 503-718-2604.or sally@ci.ti2ard.or.us.
The History of Fluoride in America's
Public Water Systems.
In the early 1900's a dentist in Colorado
observed that children in towns with a high
amount of naturally occurring fluoride
experienced mottled teeth however it was
noted that the residents of these communities
also had strong teeth, few cavities, and very digs
few had lost any teeth. Additional research
showed a remarkable relationship between the NW11.
concentration of waterborne fluoride and the absence of dental caries (cavities).
Once the role of fluoride in water was determined in 1945, cities throughout the
United States began adding fluoride to their drinking water supplies.
It is the responsibility of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), to regulate the amount of fluoride in
drinking water. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) prescribes
an addition of fluoride is from 0.7 mg/1 to 1.2 mg/1 to have appreciable dental
significance. At a fluoride level of approximately 1.0 mg/1 the optimum
condition exists for maximum reduction in cavities with no aesthetically
significant mottling. In 1986 the EPA set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
of 4.0 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to protect against crippling skeletal fluorosis,
an adverse health effect. In addition, EPA set a non-enforceable Secondary MCL
of 2 mg/l to protect against dental fluorosis.
Today, nearly two-thirds of the United �� G„ States population
which is served by public water supplies consumes
water with "optimum levels" of fluoride. In the
State of Oregon, 22.7% of Oregon's population is
served by public water systems with "optimum
levels" of fluoride. In the metro area, the Tualatin
Valley Water District and the City of Forest Grove both
currently fluoridate their water.
The American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the United
States Public Health Service and the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) have all endorsed the addition of fluoride to drinking water.
For more information check out the City of Tigard's website at
www.ci.tigard.or.us/water or contact the Water Quality Program Coordinator at
503-718-2604.
Facts about Fluoride
• Fluoride is a naturally occurring element.
• Water systems throughout the United States have r: 9
i Atomic Num
added fluoride to their water supplies since 1945. This '
process is known as "fluoridation".
• American water supplies have low concentration levels of fluoride.
• Fluoride, when administered at low levels of concentration, is proven to
help prevent tooth decay.
• The American Dental Association (ADA) endorsed fluoridation in 1950,
L reaffirming its endorsement in 1997. The
American Medical Association endorsed
fluoridation in 1951, and reaffirmed its
endorsement in 1996. The U.S. Public Health
Service has also endorsed fluoridation. The
American Water Works Association (AWWA)
endorsed fluoridating public water systems in
1976. The endorsement was reaffirmed in 1982.
• In April 1999, the Center. for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
proclaimed fluoridation to be one of the top ten greatest public health
achievements of the century.
• In 1995, the U.S. Surgeon General estimated that 62 percent of Americans -
-approximately 167 million people--had access to fluoridated water.
• Drinking water's fluoride content is limited under federal law. The
maximum level of fluoride deemed acceptable by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) is 4 milligrams per liter
(mg/L). The CDC has established the "optimal level" for
fluoride content in drinking water to be the in the range
of 0.7 mg/L to 1.2 mg/L.
• Despite fluoridation's benefits to dental health, exposure
to high levels of fluoride can cause dental fluorosis, a
condition which leads to mottled tooth enamel, tooth
discoloration, and in some cases erosion of effected teeth to the gumline.
• The US Department of Health and Human Services has not recognized a
causal link between low-level fluoride exposure and occurrences of cancer,
brain damage or osteoporosis.
• The USEPA has found a link between prolonged exposure to high-level
fluoride concentration and skeletal fluorosis, a condition similar to
osteoporosis, as well as digestive and nervous system disorders.
For more information check out the City of Tigard's website at
www.ci.tigmd.onus/water or contact the City of Tigard's Water Quality
Program Coordinator at 503-718-260
Sources of Fluoride-
Fluoride is available in various forms. Forms of fluoride that can be applied
directly to teeth include:
•
'Toothpaste;
• Mouth rinses;and
• professionally applied fluoride treatments (available in the
dental office).
These methods of delivering fluoride are more
expensive than water fluoridation and require a
conscious decision to use them. However, the
widespread availability of fluorides, via water
fluoridation, toothpaste and other sources,"has resulted
in the steady decline of dental caries throughout the
United States.
Children,whose dentists have evaluated as being at high risk for tooth decay
and whose home water supplies contain low amounts of fluoride,can take
dietary fluoride supplements. This daily supplement,which can be prescribed
by a dentist or a physician,should be taken only by children if the home water
supply has been verified to contain a low concentration of fluoride.
To. learn more about fluoridated water, check out the City's website at
To.
ww.ci.tijzard.or.us/water or contact the Water Quality Program Coordinator at 5037718-
2604.
HELPFUL LINKS
Organizations
il
��� ' • Oregon Department of Human Services (ODHS)
— Drinking Water Program (www.dhs.state.or.us)
4 • Center for Disease Control and Prevention
(www.cdc.gov)
• American Water Works Association
(www.awwa.org)
Articles
• Oregon Systems Adjusting Fluoride to 1.0 mg/L (1.0 part per million)
httpJ/www.dhs.state.or.usli)ublichealth/dwp/docs/fluodde.i)df
• Water Fluoridation: Background Information
hftp://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/factsheets/fl-background.htm
• Populations Receiving Optimally Fluoridated Public Drinking Water
hfti)://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/[)review/mmwrhtmi/mm5iO7a2.htm
• Fact Sheet: Fluoridation
hftp://www.awwa.o[g/Advoca.cy/Dr/991 11 Q.cfm
{
Sign-in Sheet for
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting
February 11, 2004
N e,(Please Print) Would you like to speak to the Board?
yf ,a