Loading...
08/16/1995 - Packet Ir INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES JUNE 14, 1995 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Scheiderich, Paul Hunt, Beverly Froude, Peggy Manning STAFF PRESENT: Ed Wegner, Randy Volk, Mike Miller, and Kathy Kaatz VISITORS PRESENT: None 1. Call to Order The meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was called to order at 5:30 p.m. on June 14, 1995. 2. Roll Call Roll call was taken and all members were present with the exception of John Budihas. 3. Visitor Comments There were no visitors present at the meeting. 4. Approve May 17, 1995 Minutes The minutes of the May 17, 1995 meeting were approved as written. 5. Water Quality Review - Mike Miller Mike Miller stated that in the June 2, 1995 edition of the Oregonian an article appeared in the National section regarding the poisoning of drinking water in the United States. This article was based upon a briefing paper by the National Resources Defense Council. Mr. Miller stated that the National Defense Council was striving to use scare tactics to make people aware of the condition of the drinking water in various states. The information consisted of raw data that was obtained from the EPA indicating what violations took place, whether it be clerical errors, misplacement of files, actual violations of Safe Drinking Water Act, etc. Mr. Miller stated there was an insertion in the Oregon Section of the Oregonian which targeted Tigard as a major violator based upon a population of 10,000 or more. Mr. Miller stated that he had contacted the State Health Division and spoke with Dave Leland who is the manager of the Drinking Water Program. Mr. Miller stated that he was unaware of any violations and Mr. Leland indicated that in December there was some confusion on the population base of Tigard. The routine water samples are based upon population and since the State Health Division had a higher population base for Tigard we had not completed the correct amount of samplings which did place Tigard in violation, although since the additional testing was completed we are current. Mr. Miller then discussed the lead/copper portion of the article and stated that anyone on the Bull Run system does have lead/copper problems that have to be dealt with. Mr. Miller stated that he has copies of the lead/copper analysis that is taken at the source (Bonita Road pump station) and at that location the copper is .01 ppm and the action level is 1.3 ppm. The lead at this location is .001 ppm with the action level being .015 ppm which places these well below the action levels, therefore the issues are strictly dealing with the homeowners plumbing within the home on homes built between 1982 and 1985. Mr. Miller stated that he received a fax from the AWWA, Public Affairs Advisory Committee which dealt with this briefing paper and it showed that the highest violations were on the East Coast. Commissioner Manning questioned how many inquiries we had in regards to this article? Mr. Miller stated that he did receive between 6 and 8 phone calls. Mr. Miller stated that since this article appeared in the National section versus the Metro section we did not receive as many calls. Chair Scheiderich questioned whether the staff has prepared a response and address what contamination threat is out there? Mr. Miller stated that there has been no direction to do so at this time. Mr. Wegner stated that he had discussed with the City Administrator doing a rebuttal but it was decided since there were minimal calls it would be better to continue handling those calls through Mike Miller. Commissioner Froude questioned talking with the author of the article and whether this person would be doing a follow-up article and let them know to speak with Mike Miller before publicizing. Mr. Wegner stated that Liz Newton is meeting with the press to discuss false and misleading information that is being published. 6. Water Rules, Rates and Regulations - Randy Volk Mr. Volk discussed the February draft of the Rules, Rates and Regulations and reminded the Board of the proposed changes (crossed out the original wording and bolded the recommended wording). It was discussed that the Board has not looked at the draft and at this time did not have their recommendations ready. It was decided that this item be placed on the next agenda (July 12) Mr. Wegner stated that we would like to have these recommendations made at the same time that the rate study is being completed. Mr. Volk stated that the additions/deletions are staff recommendations that were made by Wayne Lowry, Mike Miller, Mary Gruss, and himself. Chair Scheiderich discussed a concern about landlord and tenants bills, and detector meters around fire alarms and whose responsibility that is. Mr. Volk stated that the City does not read detector meters on fire hydrants. 7. Director's Report - Ed Wegner Mr. Wegner stated that he would be discussing a) Water supply status report, b)general status report and c) 1995/96 budget. Mr. Wegner initially discussed the interim water supply. He stated that Tigard City Council has approved the contract with Tualatin Valley Water District for the interim supply of water and it will be on the TVWD agenda tomorrow evening. After this draft was reviewed by the IWB it went to the City Attorney's office for review in which they recommended only one minor change. This agreement is for a ten year period and for up to 6 mgd. with the first year only having the capability of taking 2 mgd due to the Baylor intertie. We have the ability of terminating the contract with a one year notice if we reach a long term agreement with another entity. This contract with TVWD will be a secondary source with Lake Oswego as our main source and we will also continue if needed, to take water from Portland. The City of Portland did want to review this contract between the City of Tigard and Tualatin Valley Water District and they have verbally ok'd the contract but will have to be endorsed by the Portland City Council. The Tigard City Council also approved the construction of and awarded the contract for the Baylor Intertie project, which should be completed within the next couple of weeks. We are proceeding we our well maintenance program and well #2 is in need of some repairs. Mr. Wegner discussed the long term water supply with the City of Lake Oswego and stated that negotiations are continuing between the staffs. Mr. Wegner stated that there was an article in Sunday's Oregonian about the Regional Study (distributed to the Board) which stated that there is more water than was originally thought. Mr. Wegner stated that the consultant (CH2M HILL) for the rate study was approved by Council last night on the consent agenda and the consultant will meet with Wayne Lowry and himself the week after next to begin their research. He also stated that the crews have begun work on the Beef Bend Road project (temporary services and tie-ins) and have awarded a contract extending the contract with the County. This contractor will lay the pipe down the middle of the road beginning June 14. The Board was provided a copy of the City budget packet which included a recap of the operating revenues and expenditures. Mr. Wegner discussed the different budget sheets that were provided to the Board. Commissioner Froude questioned on the Capital Projects the location of Beef Bend at 173rd. Mr. Wegner stated that this was a typographical error and should read Beef Bend at 137th. Commissioner Manning commented on the fact that during the merger it was outlined that one of the benefits of the merger would be the reduction of FTEs. Ms. Manning stated that it is refreshing to see that the FTE has been reduced (9.4%) and reflected in the budget. Mr. Wegner stated that due to the merger we have been able to utilize FTE's more efficiently, utilize light duty employees, and have the ability of sharing equipment as well as purchasing new equipment. Commissioner Manning wanted to thank the staff for a job well done. Mr. Wegner stated that included in the tonight's packet was a letter from the Water Resource Department in response to the water rights application on the Willamette, and an article from Regional Plan which outlines the strategy to have a draft in the Participant's hands in late July at which time the IWB will look at in early November and make recommendations and forward onto the City Council. Also included in the packet were the committee minutes from the Regional Participant's meeting. The Board discussed Tigard having a shortage of water within five years. Mr. Wegner stated that there were five entities (Tigard, Sherwood, Wilsonville, Damascus and Canby) which will have water shortages after the year 2050. 8. Commissioner's Comments Chair Scheiderich polled the Board members regarding the July 12 meeting with no conflicts noted. Mr. Wegner stated that Mr. Monahan wanted to let the Board know that if any of the entities would like to have a presentation made at their respective meetings to be sure and let us know. Commissioner Manning stated that the City of Durham may be interested in a presentation during July. Mr. Wegner stated that he will place a note in with Mr. Budihas's packet to let him know that they will be available to meet. 9. Adjournment Commissioner Manning made a motion to adjourn and it was seconded by Commissioner Hunt with the meeting being adjourned at 6:12 p.m. kathy\iwb\6-14mtg,iwb JUNE 1995 WATER MONTHLY REPORT Revenues/Expenditures: Month of June Year to Date Prior Yr. to Date %of Budget Revenues: Water Sales $318,133.09 $3,963,773.33 $3,120,853.64 Meter Sales 45,545.00 460,675.00 549,295.93 Developer Fees 4,620.29 $138,828.97 98,247.02 Other Income 35,656.11 193,256.88 113,443.55 Total Revenue $403,954.49 $4,756,534.18 $3,881,840.14 125% Expenditures: Personal Services $83,847.23 $756,408.74 $858,306.20 Material Services 314,544.30 1,858,599.81 1,734,641.28 Capital Outlay 113,335.24 291,390.39 604,138.65 Cap. Proj. Res. Fund 00.00 00.00 300,000.00 *Total Expends. $511,726.77 $2,906,398.94 $3,497,086.13 79% SDC Fund: $57,702.25 $568,798.78 $699,473.68 144% SDC Fund Balance: $1,654,669.59 * City accounting system is on a cash basis Meter Installations: 5/8" x 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" Total Durham 1 0 0 0 1 King City 0 0 0 0 0 Unincorporated Area 38 3 0 0 38 City of Tigard 33 3 0 0 36 Total for June 75 Water Consumption and Loss: Total 100 cubic feet of water purchased or produced 277,479 ccf Plus amount of water from storage during June and consumption not billed in May 18,900 ccf Total 100 cubic feet of water billed <205,241 ccfl Water loss from flushing new lines in subdivisions < 192 ccfl Net amount of water in storage < 16,100 ccf> Amount of water consumed but not yet billed < 60,400 ccf5 Total Water loss 14,446 ccf 5% Work Accomplished: Durham • Water Division personnel responded to a few routine requests to check for water leaks or low water pressure at the customer's service and replaced two 5/8"x3/4" water meters. King City • Water Division personnel responded to a few requests to check for low or no water consumption and replaced one 5/8"x 3/4"water meter that was malfunctioning. Unincorporated Area *Water Division personnel repaired two 3/4-inch water services that were damaged; replaced two 3/4-inch regulators that were malfunctioning; replaced two 5/8" x 3/4" water meters; responded to six requests to check for low or no water consumption and three requests to check low or high pressure. • Water Division personnel completed our portion of the 12-inch water main relocation work along SW Beef Bend Road between SW King Arthur and SW 119th Avenue. The remaining portion, approximately 1,000 feet of 12-inch pipe, is to be installed by a private contractor during August. • Water Division personnel relocated a 6-inch water line and fire hydrant on SW King Arthur at SW Beef Bend Road. This work is part of the water system relocation work for Washington County's Beef Bend Road widening project. City of Tigard • Water Division personnel replaced seven 3/4-inch pressure regulators and nine 5/8" x 3/4" water meters that were malfunctioning. In addition Water staff also responded to 50 calls to check on water leaks at the meter, replace damaged meter boxes or checked reports of low water pressure. • Water Division personnel repaired a 3/4-inch water service that had been leaking at SW 98th Avenue and SW Sattler Street. Water personnel also repaired a 2-inch blow-off located at 10470 SW Kable Lane. • Water Division personnel installed 14 3/4-inch water services for Hillshire Estates 3, a single family residential development located on SW Essex Drive at the summit of Bull Mountain. • Water Division personnel installed insertion meter(mag meter) at the Tiedeman control vault in order to enhance our SCADA capability. This is our connection to Portland's system that allows water into our main reservoir zone. With the insertion meter installed we are able to vary the water flow. • Water and Street Division personnel repaired a sidewalk and a portion of SW Walnut Street that was damaged when the 8-inch cast iron water main failed in May. Status Report: Colt Construction, Inc., completed 85% of the installation of the 12-inch water main for the Baylor Street Intertie project. They were on schedule, targeted completion date July 5, until they encountered a massive rock formation where the meter vault is to be installed. They obtained a blasting permit and will complete the project by July 14, 1995. The eight inch turbine, which was ordered at the end of May, has not arrived as of yet. The manufacturer has been contacted, and there is a delay manufacturing the meter. We have canceled the purchase of the meter and have contacted another vendor that has a meter available in Texas. The meter is scheduled to be delivered to the City on July 17. Repairs to Well#2 have been completed and started producing June 27. Well #1 was to be started during June, but when we started the well it did not produce any water. Since this well was repaired last year, we had Mather & Sons Pump Company come out and pull the well again to see what kind of mechanical failure occurred. We discovered that the shaft had broken, the shaft is what the motor turns and the shaft turns the impellers which pumps the water. Mather & Sons will stand behind the workmanship and materials used last year, and will repair the well at their expense. June 26, 1995 Ed Wegner City of Tigard Water Department P.O. Box 230000 Tigard,Oregon 97281-1999 RE: Account Number 4105001 - Statement dated 6/21/95(copy attached) Dear Mr. Wegner: I am in receipt of a$702.17 water bill for the period of April 26, 1995 to June 21, 1995. This represents usage which is 51,300 cubic foot over the average usage for this account. The excess was caused by a leak which was not discovered-until June 3, 1995. The leak was discovered late on the night of Saturday June 3rd. I called a plumber and had a temporary repair completed Sunday June 4, 1995 and a final repair completed on Monday June 5, 1995. Total cost of this repair was $1,050. (receipts for this repair are attached) I am requesting consideration on the current bill for the usage caused by this leak. Since the excessive usage was caused by a leak and the leak was repaired immediately upon discovery, I believe an adjustment would be fair and equitable treatment on the part of the City of Tigard Water Department. The adjustment I am requesting would be an allowance for one-half of the usage above the average level. I believe this would show good faith on both the part of the water department and myself. I believe I took responsible and timely action with respect to this matter and that the cause of the excessive usage was beyond my control or knowledge. Your consideration and approval of an appropriate credit to my account would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Robert A. Moore (3 attachements) THANK YOU 5067 ® for your valued CONTRACTOR#9571),5 DATE �..�� � CONTRACT 1T patronage 24 HOURS 7 DAYS r ss „ ACCOUNT NO. CODE CC RADIO DISPATCHED ® EXPERT PLUMBING SERVICES r HOME PHONE -54N— 559�— DT P.O. BOX 1897 HOME PHONE Hillsboro,OR 97123 WORK PHONE 4I ,625_7 WORK PHONE SOLD TO: JOB ADDRESS 223-6447 292-9279 NAME Mcov e659-1180 357-5702 NAME ADDRESS V��V ADDRESS ;merica' Troubleshooter CITY STATE ZIP `7 CITY STATE ZIP WORK-AUTHORIZED DISPATCH TRK -- •- - N BER INIT. L -wv ire ,`S �dyo 3e e -e p� /a�L.S� loo - 1'�mw-mW 5'V r I)` 2e W — 9 V V A . S I INIT. CONTRACT# NIGHT&SUNDAY -Rep pD /`-"Iry_ ^e� a 1r�-./ CALLS ❑ JOB START COMPLETION DATE DATE WORK ORDER BY TECHNICIAN TECHNICIAN - - - ❑ CASH �K�❑� ❑CHARGE APPRV BY SERVICE RECOMMENDED CUSTOMER INFORMED ❑ DECLINED ❑ Any controversy or claim arising out - of or relating to this contract or any breach thereof, shall be settled in accordance with the arbitration t6. bunal of the BETTER BUSINESS WORK AUTHORIZATION PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE/CONTRACT DUE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK BUREAU.WARRANTY AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH ABOVE'WORK AUTHORIZED.I,the undersigned,am owner/authorized representativaAanant of the premises NOTES/TE RMS at which theworkmentioned above is to be done.I hereby autlrortze you to pedorm•sakl work,and to use such labor and materials as you deem advis- able.A monthly sentcharge of 1-1/2%will be added after ten days.1 agree to pay reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the event of legal See NOTICE TO OWNER" and action or reasonable bank agate fl my check fails to dear.I have read,agree to,and have received a copy o� I u any prim is not Including tax.All Paris will beremovedhompre17 and discarded unless otherwise spedfledherein. statement required on contract on hereby authorize you 1.proceed wflh the a erk at the flat rate of$ Li reverse side. AUTHORIZED X (Applicable in Oregon). SIGNATURE _ CREDIT CARD D EXPIRATION DATE ACCEPTANCEOF WORK PERFORMED-Pfirnd the service and materials rendered -- NO. -_ - - and installed In connection with the above work mentioned,to have been complemoln Ic AUTHORIZATION CODE DRIVER'S LICENSE NO. EXP. ACCOUNT NO. CUSTOMER a satisfactory manner.1 agree that the amount set forth on this contract In the ace DA E SERV REP. labeled lobe the total and -- - -- -- complete flat rete/minimum charge.I agree,tq pay reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the event of legal action.A monthly ser- SUB. vice charge of 1-1/2%will be added after to days.I acknowledge that I have read and TOTAL -- _--- ----- -- - _ received a legible copy of this contrail a e read the Notice to Owner and state TOTAL hereby state that the above as be install er and to the applicable mem required on centrad on reverse W Is in Oregon). TAX luilol7tyr Codes. �- Xt;�mann ACCEPTANCE ®� late •l service T a SI ature SIGNATURE X tom— TOTAL CUS TOMER COPY-WHITE ACCOUNTING COPY-YELLOW PLEASE PAY FROM THIS INVOICE ALPHA COPY-PINK INVENTORY COPY-BUFF THANK YOUCONTRACTOR#93705 DATE—6 J S� CONTRACT T 5078 C for your valuFfd ® patronage 24 HOURS 7 DAYS `'RADIO DISPATCHED" ACCOUNT NO. CODE CC EXPERT PLUMBING SERVICES s HOME PHONEHOME PHONE DT P.O. Box 1897 - - - Hillsboro,OR 97123 WORK PHONE WORK PHONE SOLD TO: JOB ADDRESS 223-6447 292.9279 � 659-1180 357-5702 NAt4E rr qq NAME - -_- ADDRESS b� 0 l h trVP ADDRESS America's ftubleshooter CI awn STATE Q� ZIP 17*Vq CITY STATE ZIP WORK AUTHORIZED o1SPTH TRK _ C NUMATH IF—s 1 0%4 1949r— F a — INIT. TDim 4 Y, At( f a� INIT. I v� CONTRACT#/ NIGHT&SUNDAY 1 _ r 1t CALLS ❑ 1 ) -- JOSE TART DATE A EPLETION - C. ✓v WORK ORDER BY TECHNICIAN C art—, S TECHNICIAN ❑ ECK ❑ C.C. C ❑12PG7 AD BY SERVICE RECOMM STOM R INFORMED ❑ DECLINED ❑ Any controversy or claim.arising out of or relating to this contract or any breach thereof, shall be settled in accordance with the arbitration tri- bunal of the BETTER BUSINESS WORK AUTHORIZATION PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE/CONTRACT DUE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK BUREAU.WARRANTY AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH ABOVEWORK AUTHORIZED.I,the undersigned,am owner/auftfted representative/tenant of the premises NOTES/TERMS at which the work mentioned above Is to be done.I hereby authorize yowto perform said work and to use such labor and materials as you deem advis- able.A monthly service charge of 1.12%will be added after ten days.I agree to pay reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the event of legal See NOTICE TO OWNER" and action or reasonable bank costs If my check fags to dear.I have read,agree 1o,and have receiv a copy of the Contract.I un�r�t any pdce,is not including tax.All parts will be removed from premises and discarded unto.. �n. �9 �Vstatement required on contract on I hereby with OT above work at the flat ral of E reverse side. AUTHORIZED (Applicable in Oregon). SIGNATURE X, --- r��-- CREDIT CARD EXPIRATION DATE ACCEPTANCE OF WORK PERFORMED-1 find the service and materials rendered I O, and installed,in connection with the above wok mentioned,to have been completed In - --- AUTHORIZATION CODE DRIVER'S LICENSE,NO. EXP. ACCOUNT NO. CUSTOMER a satisfactory manner.1 agree that the amount set forth on this contract in the space DATE SERVICE REP. labeled'TOTAL'to be the total and complete gat rate/mlNmum charge..I agree to pay reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the event of legal actbn.A monthly ser- SUB vice charge of 1-12N will be added,after IO days.I admovdedge that I have read and TOTAL - received a leggnla copy of this contract and have read the Notice to Owner and state- I--- ,l do hereby state that the abov as l4en Inst II 1 workm Ike manner and to the applicable ment required on contract an reverse side(Applicable M Oregon). TAX • building codes. X =f2 ..� ACCEPTANCEv Date service sig re SIGNATURE /� TOTAL 1 ( %� -I CUSTOMER COPY-WHITE ACCOUNTING COPY-YELLOW PLEASE PAY FROM THIS INVOICE ::ALPHA COPY-PINK INVENTORY COPY-BUFF CITY OF TIGARD ACCOUNT NO. DUE DATE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE WATER DEPARTMENT 4105001 7/12/1995 $537.17 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET P.O. BOX 230000 waseRDAMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN ee� TIGARD,OREGON 97281-1999 Cu1 (503)639-1554 or TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (503)639-4171 ROBERT MOORE 16230 SW 146TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT ----------------------------------------------- NAME ROBERT MOORE ACCOUNT NO. 4105001 SERVICE LOCATION 16230 SW 146TH AVE TYPE OF SERVICE FROM TO SERVICE RES 4/26/95 6/21/95 METER READING USAGE IN SEWER . WATER BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT 1010 CU.IT CODE CODEAMOUNTS 627 1156 529 MIN 13.13 WCAM 689.04 �i i SANITARY SEWER RATES ARE PROPOSED TO GO UP ABOUT $2 PER MONTH FOR THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD, STARTING JULY 1. IT IS THE FIRST RATE INCREASE IN THREE YEARS AND WILL PAY FOR '•:.•;s RISING COSTS TO CLEAN WASTERWATER. THE SURFACE WATER WILL REMAIN $3 PER MONTH. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL 648-8621. CURRENT BILLING 702.17 LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE 60.88 SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS PAYMENTS';',;. " 60.88 RECEIVED _ s ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE �F: -165.00 IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE'' 537.17 KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION - ON REVERSE SIDE • CITY OF TIGARD WATER DEPARTMENT KOIN-TV August 10, 1995 222 S.W. Columbia St. Portland, OR 97203 To whom it may concern: We would like to place a small camera on one of your water tanks located near I- 5 and I-ines Rd. We would use this camera on the air to show traffic and weather conditions in that area. The camera enclosure is about 6" high, 8" wide, and 24" long. It would also set on a pan/tilt head that is about 10" high and 8" around. It could be located at the top of the ladder and would be painted to match the tank. A additional small box would need to be located a ground level. Please let me know if you are interested in leasing this space to us. Thank You: TIGARD WATER DISTRICT RESOLUTION 20-92 A Resolution establishing a policy to restrict antenna height at District owned properties. WHEREAS, the Board desires a formal written policy regarding the height of communication antennas; and WHEREAS, the existing antenna as well as the proposed antennas for the District's new telemetry system can function at three feet above the roof ridge; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Commissioners of the Tigard Water District hereby approves a policy to restrict antenna height at District owned properties to not exceed three feet above the highest point of an existing structure or twenty feet above the highest point of finished grade, which ever is greater; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall take effect immediately. Chair of the Board ATTEST: Ad i istrative Director Date Sheetl Date Lake O. in Bull Run TVWD in Well#1 in Well#2 in Well#3 in Total MG MG in Demand MGD in MGD MGD MGD MGD MGD Pur./Prod. Storage in MG 7/1/95 3.39 6.73 0.615 10.735 10.26 10.305 7/2/95 2.24 5.2 0.61 8.05 11.66 6.65 7/3/95 5.24 0.76 0.609 6.609 12_.5 5.769 7/4/95 6.55 0.609 7.159 13.29 6.369 7/5/95 .6.08 0.611 6.691 12.44 7.541 7/6/96 7.5 0.612 8.112 10.9 10.462 7/7/95 7.06 0.611 7.671 11 6.761 7/8/95 6.3 0.611 6.911 12.08 5.831 7/9/95 4.9 3 0.609 8.509 11.96 8.629 7/10/95 7.11 0.611 7.721 14.43 5.251 7/11/95 6.14 0.216 0.609 6.965 15.76 5.635 7/12/95 7.12 0.609 7.729 15.94 7.549 7/13/95 6.95 0.613 7.563 15.77 7.783 7/14/95 6.46 0.615 7.075 15.66 7.185 7/15/95 5.26 1.3 0.612 7.172 14 8.832 7/16/95 4.13 5.5 0.611 10.241 13.78 10.461 7/17/95 2.62 3.85 0.609 7.079 14.84 6.019 7/18/95 2.19 4.03 0.609 6.829 12.66 9.009 7/19/95 5.63 3.85 0.611 10.091 12.15 10.601 7/20/95 4.45 3.9 0.605 8.955 12.58 8.525 7/21/95 5.24 3.07 0.598 8.908 12.81 8.678 7/22/95 6.91 0.607 7.517 12.61 7.717 7/23/95 6.86 0.609 7.469 11.05 9.029 7/24/95 6.82 1.02 1.01 0.61 9.46 10.3 10.48 7/25/95 6.15 5.07 1.71 0.605 13.535 13.12 10.445 7/26/95 6.6 1.53 0.2241 0.605 8.959 14.6 7.479 7/27/95 5.92 1.43 0.539 0.611 8.5 15.49 7.61 7/28/05 6.36 1.46 0.532 0.603 8.955 13.62 10.825 7/29/95 7.01 1.64 0.538 0.605 9.793 13.32 10.093 7/30/95 6.78 1.64 0.535 0.608 9.563 14.18 8.703 7/31/95 4.09 1.73 1.45 0.532 0.603 8.405 12.829.765 Averages 5.679355 3.281733 $:352613 13.14774 8.257774 Page 1 Sheetl Chart I July Water Purchases and Production 14 .......... ........ ........ ....... ................ .... ....... ........ ........ .. ... ........ .. ... . .... ... . ... ... .. ... . .... .............. ... . ....... .... ......... ........ ....... .......... .................... ... ....... ....... . ......... ...... ......... ......... ........ .. ..... ....... . ........ ....... ....... . . ........ ........ ....... . ..... ... ........ . ..... ....... .... OWell#3inMGD ...... . ... ...... ....... ... ........ ...... ... .. .... . , .. ......-, ....... ....... ... ...... . ... . ..... ....... ........ ... . ... ....I ...... ......... x . ..... ... ........ ................ ........ ..... .... ..... .... .. ...... ... ..... ......... ....... M Well#2 in MGD ........................ ... .. 1 11 .. 12 - ..... ........ .. . ....... O .......... ........ ....... .. . ....... Well#1 in MGD ..... .... ..... ............. .... ... ... . ... ..... .... .. .. ..... ...... .... . .... . 0 TVWD In MGD ..... .... ....... ...... ...... .. ..... ..... . .... ..... . ....... ....... ...... ..... ....... . ....... ....... i...... ....... . ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... E Bull Run in MGD . .. ... ... .. .... ... .. ..... . ..... ..... .... . ..... .... . ....... . .... - -1.111.1111.1.11 ... . ..... .... ... ... .... ......... ..... ........ ....... ....... . ... .... ..... ........ .. ... ....... ..... ... .. ... ..... . .. ....... . ........ .... . ....... ...... ... ......* .... .... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ...... ........ ....... ........ ...... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ...... ........ ....... ........ ...... ........ ....... ........ ...... ........ ....... ........ ...... ........ ....... ........ ...... ........ ....... ........ ...... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ ....... ........ .... . ........ .... . ........ .... ........ ....... 10 ... ........ ....... 0 Lake 0.in MGD .. ..... ... ...... . ....... .. . ...... .. ..... . ... ..... .. ..... x ... ..... ....... ....... .. ....... .. .......... ..... ...... ... .. .... ... ..... ...... ... .......... ... ........ . . .. . ........ .............. .. ... ...... ... ...... . ... ...... ---------- =0 8 -x*...-.. ... ... ..... ........... ............. ............... ................... 6 4 2 0 Date Page 1 Sheetl Chart 3 111=111 Lake O.in MGD July Water Demands& Storage Bull Run in MGD 1=1TVWD in MGD 16 Well#1 in MGD Well#2 in MGD —F Well#3 in MGD 14 Total MG Pur./Prod. MG in Storage 12 Demand in MG 10 s c� � s 6 4 I 2 0 F- r r r` I Iz ti r` N Date Page 1 s vu► ttiw bel7e 1 " arse if t17i3 .Weneco interest 1-4 ,We 5 ZZ._ !� bill is in the.hest - r ojh.light- of Oren," .he said. "Even if the THE ANNUAL Old Fashioned PaiF drew auris, then it offers thousaods of fun-seekers this lasf weekend. - ; n.. Randy Flduv,+r.-does 4d UM– yet:" ;the/ to get thele&Iature in.- _ Above,drummer Brad Melton leads the luau,b'at volved in crafting a transportation parade through the YYillarnetie area lit near uon Wod :'Page for Oregon with•a lot of right,West Linn resident Ed Kawasal(i tries h&s Legtsla-/mus on the tri-cbunty arm.I think luck at the Ferris wheel,along with Kellie, 'stair? the` it,wobld`be:a good ." 4�h,and Kevin,.2. At far right, Spar&y,`and id.. Light-rail off went,. o�'he Julie Conifer of tNe West Llnn Fire Departmerrt all grave, >s spring,e.akrnb for partake in the parade. (Staff photos by s ,wh,o fe g�tg.�gpitol t 7' Ivtartine} _ -_�— ;ces mor , See LIGHT RAIL.,,page A10No-go to � �M A@�i➢itl L0�: r 1�h e r i n rtf West Lt w%,n t a i 7n C1 Y At a prey our S Vroject to expand � l prayerty owners said tt�ke Oswego `S Lake Oswego's 1Jj f�•gr'I'�E; e had t3ucaterred LW-M v itl! candcm Linn nation if they rc!'used to_ s::ll t;^iii �� �^t a�'"°, water plant nets Kenthorpe {Zl`(eC pmperties: 1 Tint Barris.West Lrrur city riuor Io.CaJ O pPosit' ney, said Ire.didn't bclieva L ake Us j T �` r Mcrpletort /'� Q = LO wcgo could condemn protxrty 1 .° BY RAY PITZ water around rxistirg wvenant, ccx.e crtd Stat!Reporter astrictions policies. y a . STEIN o has had treatment It�:V �a For yews,Lake;t�sweg Howevac, 5chc�en7ng said his ci:y rr y �.�.: map/ S. No1. ng facility didn't plan anything-str drastic- Lake fit)t)� r a wat6r treatment plant in West residents Lriiri. Now, ;Caste Oswego•officials t � fir' It was never th;- cry ,inemtiar Wfltarne#te ' f C h E? d r C�p ea hopeto6pand[bar plant. Drive Oswego's attempt. to r.onc,cmn [list will. y' ro rt.�'ire said. some rale But'West West Linn authorities Gold' p Pe } ' F h E' ii i Q l T them they were atl•wet local sup. ��!est Linn owns or; a sma1E lackamas of the expansion would not be pi�.ce or property Pon that :rnusrs:: small t;y I Cake Oswego tend f u pro was re nested be- leas collected less than 20 pe Y pump `n y y Sul i i of Corn- forthcoming in the ?oris erm,sstan to expand. West ,a far, 5chacnin said the cit sLatic in the cess of giving p scent of Lake O wego4,a, iirrtd Although ! rm of the nt Itnn s support 9 I •t,,n5,:i d:dn' of lora landowners onf ri5a ]beton copse the cit owns a small chunk of the needed stgnatuces: roved ��ay �iateS kD � rrt e" rr -rs who y yout effo!ts. gathered P Ma le Glove end-recent testimony P ProP� Y sbo�rt ,he `�a it choices Drive in order to expand its canent land in the nearby P Mapleton Drive residents had nc S h an o n V r G`rt.4 n, a n o t i,'�7' flip, demoastatic treatment facility, located in West Subdivision. tans of changing thou minds soon. Mapleton Drive re�idisnt, said r drop ping of sion.The Linn on Kct7thorpe Way. While Lake Oswego has col- p 'm Mt we're ptativo of du-, ted their company that there were no ;fans to !�fore the J'< On July 24.Mark Schoening,�r bu lda tt aoesa'tph3vetienthrisiasu� talking about th sl bec usey sure hwe sad was told th a repr�i Drat ted p,7 sistant public works directai for willing r ' "' Dave Orant, who owns `� CJ.S. Army F Y Chair- Teton Drive. told ee WAT> l.a page A_5 Lake 45wego,asked the West Linn nzighbors lllin to let the p ojectoopy onp 1 son ,� !orf istad said. City Council to add its[tame to a,.list proceed. - swi!c�r�oan-i < = the"midst 4al list to darts; � i• . � .I rriah Iniiss;ion itAt-home �L Inn.H$ris'' nurnemus t;i, ittient of 5- I g�p�% rnatr. c:ause�i >f 1 1 Vater/ from page Al a . aftm vm d; in reaction to the , build outside the current propett} shay Green sem• Because of tits n ���8 �'� d lines.Vtornan said she felt mislead, action C3nm said West:Linn resi- R o b i t 0 it V o o 8 P i t sell; the her pro telae Laky 08- said Matt mavhstallor, anot ma lewn Drive resident, said he ,*sets were n d that �� v �ate r y, was told if-he d dn' city ,*ego vrould'_nevcr agate expar► e r ICs g 1 e tS Y 1 would exercise the"right of eminent faciltty. issues C� domain" also!mown as condem- '"That was the most unfair thing a of Sul) nation and take the propexty city eve; did to an unincorporated it sn Gwen rzrnemlers that it Gwen and a Erwp ] regardless area, oreen said. "Move theta t6ok lr/z Y� to called the porters — tiom what was then Con'- R.G. Thorington, who lives dawn the river where they belon8• needed signature to assure the krwxn thejVJgO 7 annexation of the RobiawDocl munity Club spent across the street from the current Howevbas frequen lysptrovided neighborhood into VJes?Linn in collecting tree re led signatures. treatment plant, said,expansion of OsWeBo "There were about 500 WesC.Linn wtlh water ist emergency the late 1960s. the,plantwouldbe-aft"eyesore." homes SIr Robimvoc+d tiiejt at;d „It's strictly a residential at�rxa and situations. The reason. it's West Lirm; it's not Lake Os- He said facilit-ies are located To make sure the city of Lake we. wcae considered e plum by " ' ton. wrier* they're the most effective, Oswego or any other jurisdiction the city of West TL inr, recaEod vlego, Mid Thoring "It's a lovelyresidential eroch�a�a mese Arid wast sewaternfacttttles are In Robinwood land and would never be ldo wa= Matith homes in the arca '��o had the borhood," said Y ns they pleased. higheat assessw•d value." renter on..the street. "Putting an in- oregcn City. Green helped lend the c�'n- In the end. Green's group dustrial plant on that street is going in the ead',West Linn City coun- paign atter ped Oswego was coll°cted tiie nwd� t<vo=thilds to totally change .that neigh- eilors age that places for expan ranted' permission by Clack sibn.attzres Born ',vest Linn urinary and asked g ronerty How ver, the most scathing for metro too o pmllm auras-County to build that city's rcgistere-d voters„ p sit taut*from longtime.West le said Lake water tYeatment plant in a ovunets and resid ts. residential acighborhood. Finally,.ia 1968. tits 'Robin- Jean rosWb1t__can Crreen, who sP+itl Councilor Ky expand were hborhood. Joined the the initial water treatment plant was Osw `s p for expo "We didA t even know Lake wood nrag- attst,3 and.a good pubic di.sctts� Oswego was doing it," said city in what Orem said` tete forced on the Robinwood P411- prem 1 fust borhaod'because the arca was uttin- Sion w"d:steed tb take p Grsen. "That's the reason we largest annaxatkm evf7 in t�,e "W don't know what they want' �Sq annexation." state to dao.,' - carposated at theiima, yle, -- Th� ctirrcttt'faciltty was built in to do on that}srONM," said K 1968.and Rabl.dwood'josned the city "We need°concrete plans."'Sch oo It rorn page Al tburial rollINd the school bteilt.on his land. Of �0 � �{�:nearby alto. He said 83 peroeat of those who responacd id not want a s t c u«�ro„rlei z Roeer'r�a hl said ' �nce`�'tha4. ive tifacts. _� .a N a �....� school on.his,Sete. .;;'Cb e. c}► -- - -- if Lake Oswc Treatment plant expansion i. n hot water By RAY PITZ refused to sell land to Lake Oswego.. ' . the Robinwood neighborhood from the start. Staff Reporter Tim Ramis, West Linn city attorney, said he Construction of the facility in 1968 helped Some West Unn residents say Lake Oswego doesn't believe Lake Oswego could condemn convince Robinwood property owners they officials are all wet if they expect help in accom- property to get around existing covenant, code should become part of West Linn, Green said. modating a water treatment plant expansion. and restrictions policies. Residents were promised that Lake Oswego Lake Oswego is seeking the permission of 75 Schoening said Lake Oswego wasn't planning would never again expand that facility,she said. J percent of the landowners on Mapleton Drive to to, anyway. It was never the city of Lake Os- '"Ilrat was the most unfair thing a city ever expand the treatment facility on Kenthorpe Way wego's attempt to condemn property,"he said. did to an unincorporated area; Green said. in West Linn. Lake Oswego has hired Right of Way As- "Move them down the river where they belong." On July 24, Mark Schoening,assistant public sociates to represent them in property buyout ef- Bob Thomas, a frequent critic of local works director for Lake Oswego,asked the West forts. government,suggested that Lake Oswego should Linn City Council to sign off on the expansion as Shanon Vroman, a Mapleton Drive resident, be able to afford to build a water treatment well.The city owns a small chunk of land in the said she felt misled because a representative of facility somewhere else. Maple Grove subdivision, housing a small pump Right of Way Associates told her there were no Schoening pointed out that Lake Oswego has station• plans to build outside the current property lines. frequently provided West Linn with water in When the treatment plant was built, it was in Another neighbor, Mau Mavhstaller, said'he emergencies. He also said cities put treatment unincorporated Clackamas County. Annexation was told if he didn't sell, the city would exercise facilities where they're the most effective,noting brought it into West Linn. the right of eminent domain and take the proper- that West Linn's water treatment and wastewater So far, the neighbors have been less than en- ty regardless. facilities are in Oregon City. J thusiastic about the project. Schoening said the R.G. Thorington, who lives across the street West Linn City councilors said plans for ex- city has collected less than 20 percent of the from the treatment plant, said the expansion pansion were too preliminary and asked for more needed signatures. would be an"eyesore." information."We don't know what they want to And recent testimony before the council "It's strictly a residential area and it's West do on that property," said Councilor Ted Kyle. showed Mapleton Drive residents have no plans Linn,it's not Lake Oswego,"said Thorington. "We need concrete plans." to change their minds soon. "It's a lovely residential neighborhood," said Council member Randy Stevens said he was "I'm not entirely sure why we're talking Kay Derochie,a renter on the sheet. "Putting an surprised the issue was initially placed on the about this because we said 'no.'" Dave Grant, industrial plant on that street is going to totally consent agenda, usually reserved for minor AN& A I who owns property on Mapleton Drive, told the change that neighborhood." housekeeping items that don't require discussion. council, However, the most scathing reprimand came City Manager Scott Burgess later explained In the past, several property owners said they from longtime West Linn resident Jean Green, that staff members weren't aware of the history were threatened with condemnation if they who said the water treatment plant was forced on involved. Notes/ from page 3 Magazine puts and Fourth streets, installation of a record and verifiable personal lines,and facilities at Lake Oswego traffic signal at Third and A. a new references, according to Berta Der- and the Tryon Creek Sewage Treat- spotlight on A roadbed, landscaping and medians, man, the center's client services ment Plant. and cobblestone crosswalks. coordinator. The study concluded that several A Lake Oswego street beautificu- For more information, call Der- tion project is July's cover story in areas of the city where water and Adult Center man at 635-3758. sewer lines are buried have poten- "Landscape Architect"magazine. tially liquifiable soils, which would The cover photo of the July issue, seeks driversSeismic study allow a quake to inflict serious "Downtown Strectscapes; is a view REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN -- PHASE 2 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING . Minutes of July 19, 1995 The meeting was called to order at 1:40 p.m. by Greg DiLoreto from the City of Gresham. Other Steering Committee members in attendance included Dale Jutila from Clackamas River Water, Mike Rosenberger from the Portland Water Bureau, Gene Seibel from Tualatin Valley Water District, and Tim Erwert from the City of Hillsboro/Joint Water Commission. Joel Komarek represented Duane Cline from the. City of. Lake Oswego. other meeting participants included Carter Harrison from Clackamas River Water; Denny Klingbile from Damascus Water District; John Thomas from Mt. Scott Water District; Rosemary Furfey from Metro; Jesse Lowman from Tualatin Valley Water District; Greg Nokes from The Oregonian; and Gayle Killam from the Oregon Environmental Council. Project staff in attendance included Lorna Stickel, Roberta Jortner, and Dominique Bessee. Gary Fiske from Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. represented the project consultant team. Approval of Minutes: The Steering Committee approved the meeting minutes of May 17, 1995 as written. Progress Reports: Proiect Staff: Lorna Stickel reported that project staff is preparing draft chapters of the preliminary Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) on public involvement, plan implementation, existing water systems, policy objectives, water reuse, and the planning process and history. Staff is also reviewing project consultant drafts of the other plan chapters. Project staff is developing an exhibit on the Regional Water Supply Plan for display at the Multnomah County Fair. Materials prepared for this exhibit will be shared with those participant entities coordinating exhibit space at the Washington and Clackamas County Fairs. Lorna indicated that the Tualatin Valley Water District has offered to supply a water cooler for the five-day event that begins on July 26, 1995. Project staff joined Denny Klingbile and Dave Winship on the cable access television program "Water Forum" to discuss the Regional Water Supply Plan. Materials were prepared for display on the program. Project staff attended a working meeting of the Willamette River Reauthorization Study to discuss project scope, budget, and participation. Lorna indicated that the Steering Committee would receive a written summary of that meeting. Lorna reported that a flavor profile analysis was conducted on July 11, 1995. The analysis involved water samples collected from the Cities of Corvallis, Portland, Kennewick, and the South Fork Water Steering Committee Meeting Minutes of July 19, 1995 Page 2 Board, Clackamas River Water, and the Joint Water Commission. The water samples were rated for odor, taste, and aftertaste. The Steering Committee received a report on the official panel results and some background information about the analysis. Lorna reported that a subcommittee of the participant group expressed favorable comments following their review of a "rough cut" of the video produced on the Regional Water Supply Plan. The video project is scheduled for completion in early August. Mike Rosenberger recalled that the Steering Committee previously decided that funding for the project would be allocated by county, and water providers in each county would determine how that amount was shared. Mike asked the Steering Committee to contact project staff if paperwork was required to initiate billing. Lorna mentioned that she was interviewed recently by KGW-TV and a number of other news media persons regarding anticipated future water use by high-tech firms such as Fujitsu and LSI in Gresham. Project Consultant Team: Gary Fiske said recent consultant team activities are reflected in the draft chapter on development of resource strategies, which was prepared for the Preliminary Regional Water Supply Plan (PRWSP) and distributed to the committee prior to the meeting. Gary said the draft chapter would be revised based on feedback received from the Steering Committee and then forwarded to the participant entities for discussion at the next Participants Committee meeting. Gary mentioned that the project staff prepared a draft chapter on plan implementation for the preliminary plan, which also will be given to the Participants Committee for review. The project team is drafting other chapters for the preliminary plan that largely will be condensations of technical analyses conducted earlier in the planning process. Lorna distributed copies of revised water demand forecast data for the Portland metropolitan area prepared by Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. The materials contain graphs that show peak day water demand for the high, medium and low forecasts, and forecast data for non-peak season, peak season, and peak day for the region and three counties. Tim Erwert asked whether the revised demand forecasts will affect the transmission analysis conducted by Murray Smith & Associates. Gary Fiske confirmed that the data will affect cost estimates for various local "spokes" of the transmission hub, and will increase demand deficits in Washington County. Preliminary Plan Draft -- Resource Strategies: Gary Fiske reported that project staff reviewed and provided some good suggestions on the draft chapter on development of resource strategies. Gary said he Steering Committee Meeting Minutes of July 19, 1995 Page 3 wanted the Steering Committee to have an opportunity to express any concerns regarding the draft chapter, and invited the committee to comment. Joel Komarek suggested repositioning the section containing key observations regarding the resource options to appear before the section describing the resource sequences and strategies. Gary indicated that he would rearrange the text to reflect that feedback. Tim Erwert suggested moving the general paragraph on conservation programs from the tenth page to a location earlier in the section on resource sequences. Tim also suggested .revisiting the section for clarity. John Thomas referred to the revised water demand forecast data and asked about changes made to the demand deficits for Washington and Clackamas Counties. Gary explained that the demand figures for Washington County were initially overstated while demand figures for Clackamas County were understated; however, the regional shortages remained unchanged. Gary said a programming error occurred in assigning water between the two demand nodes and that peak day forecasts were somewhat underestimated in previous results. These revisions affect transmission needs but not monthly and seasonal averages or the structure of the resource sequences. The Steering Committee returned to their review of the draft chapter. Tim Erwert said he believed that the graphs would be more understandable if the graph titles and indices show percentages instead of decimals. Gary Fiske agreed to make the modifications but said the graphics driver for the software was not very flexible and would require time to make the conversions. Gary asked whether the draft chapter could be released to the Participants Committee for review before these modifications occurred. The Steering Committee decided that the modifications could be made following the distribution. Dale Jutila asked about the possibility of producing overlay charts that show shortages associated with the five strategies. Dale also asked about overlay graphs to compare estimated average monthly residential bills increases. Gary said it was unlikely that those charts would be produced for the preliminary plan because the complexity would require color reproduction. The Steering Committee discussed other methods to produce a chart that overlays various aspects of the five strategies in the preliminary plan. Tim suggested that cost curves be created for resource strategies at the second and third levels of reliability. Tim suggested that the draft chapter include a statement explaining that rate impacts associated with the strategies are based on a hypothetical case in which all costs are spread evenly throughout the Steering Committee Meeting Minutes of July 19, 1995 Page 4 region. Roberta Jortner said the statement could mention that the costs are in inflated dollars. Lorna talked about the complexity of the resource strategy graphs, and suggested the addition of symbols to lend clarity and make them more readable. Gary seemed open to making the modifications suggested. Roberta commented that the lead times associated with the resource strategies seemed short, and it was difficult to discern the starting points of the resources. Gary agreed with these observations and said he would make the necessary changes, but would be unable to make extensive modifications before the chapter is circulated to the Participants Committee. Tim suggested inserting a paragraph that addresses the next step in the timeline should a particular step be not doable. Roberta suggested adding a contingency fall-back strategy to run simultaneously along the graph's timeline. The Steering Committee discussed this idea, and agreed that the benefits of this strategy would be to show the time required to reevaluate and re-tool for a particular strategy. Gary said he would include a discussion on this in the chapter. Most Steering Committee members agreed that the charts on the hypothetical resource sequences and strategies were difficult to understand. The committee recommended deleting these charts and incorporating the information elsewhere in the chapter. The consultant agreed to make this change. The Steering Committee talked about the difficulty of discerning various graph lines in the peak day demand charts. The committee proposed other ways to make the lines more apparent given the limitations presented by the proposed printing format for the preliminary Plan. Mike Rosenberger suggested emphasizing that the contribution of peak day conservation is more marked toward the end of the planning period. Gary agreed to do this. Carter Harrison suggested that summaries of key information be incorporated into the graphs as footnotes, which would allow the graphs to stand alone as information documents or be included in the Executive Summary. Lorna Stickel mentioned that project staff has prepared a draft chapter on plan implementation for the preliminary Plan, and was beginning to think about what might come from the regional deliberations. Lorna talked about the significant diversity among the Participant entities, and the complexity and range represented in the resource sequence paths and decision trees. Lorna said she believed it would be difficult for the entities to arrive at a selected Steering committee Meeting Minutes of July 19, 1995 Page 5 strategy absent any recommendations. Lorna said she.felt..strongly that some recommendation should be made about the resource. sequences. Lorna indicated that the project team questioned whether the region needed to decide on the future level of reliability at this time. Lorna suggested that the preliminary plan could characterize in a narrative section that reliability is important but does not need to be addressed until later in the planning period. Gary Fiske said that it was important to maintain reliability as a choice for the region, and that we need to know what resources will ultimately be added because there will be implications for transmission and short-term needs. Gary agreed that long-term timing issues affected by reliability choices may not need to be resolved at this time. Tim Erwert indicated that since the Regional Water Supply Plan is a long-term plan with periodic checkpoints, he believed that the project should continue using Level 1 Reliability. Tim said the same resource sequencing appears in Level 2 and Level 3 Reliability but carries different timing. Lorna said if she were preparing a recommendation on the resource strategies, she would go with resource sequences 1.4 or 1.5 because they meet the greatest number of policy objectives heard most frequently during the planning project's public involvement activities. Mike Rosenberger said he was hesitant to agree that those resource sequences were the best. Mike said he was unsure how resource sequence 1.4 would do a better job than sequence 1.3. Mike said he felt uncomfortable releasing the preliminary plan with a recommendation to implement one particular strategy. Mike suggested that the committee say something to the effect that given the results of the analysis conducted so far, the values and priorities expressed by the community, and the list of alternatives, it appears that the series of strategies meet "X", "Y", and "Z" policies in descending order from those strategies meeting more policies to those meeting less policies. Tim Erwert agreed with this approach and recommended indicating that the policy values were unweighted. Lorna continued to suggest making an attempt at a recommendation otherwise citizens and regional decision-makers would have difficulty narrowing and choosing from the strategies. Gene Seibel commented that the regional water providers hired the best consultants to assist with the planning effort, and the participant entities themselves were comprised of some of the best professionals in the area. Given these factors, Gene expressed concern about not including some recommendation in the preliminary plan. Steering Committee Meeting Minutes of July 191 1995 Page 6 Dale autila said he,believed that the preliminary plan should "point a finger" at a particular resource strategy however the Steering Committee decided to characterize it. Tim Erwert asked whether the ranking should occur prior to the upcoming Participants Committee meeting. After some discussion on this point, the Steering Committee reached consensus that some recommendation should be included in the materials distributed to the Participants Committee. Lorna said an "X" should be added in the "Catastrophic Events" column for resource sequence number 1..5 in the table that shows key policy objectives addressed by Level 1 Resource Sequences. Lorna said based on the values expressed during the project's public information and involvement activities, she would rank the resource sequences in the following manner: Sequence 1.5 which addresses policy objectives on costs, natural environment, catastrophic events, and efficiency; Sequence 1.3 which addresses policy objectives on costs, water quality, and efficiency; Sequence 1.4 which addresses policy objectives on catastrophic events and efficiency; Sequence 1.2 which addresses policy objectives on raw water quality and efficiency; and Sequence 1. 1 that addresses natural environment and efficiency. The Steering Committee seemed to agree with this ranking given the criteria defined. Gary asked whether the committee would translate the ranking into a recommendation. Tim said the Steering Committee could rank the resource sequences but advised against including a recommendation before the preliminary plan was released for the first round of public review and input. Gene Seibel said he believed that the rated resource sequences or recommended set of strategies should go to the Participants. Committee for consideration and feedback, before being included in the preliminary plan. Carter Harrison noted that the resources sequences were now ranked in ascending order of cost. The committee discussed how this unintentional result might be perceived by some reviewers. Gary noted that the additional transmission needed for strategy 1.5 makes it more expensive than at least one of the other strategies. Tim suggested that the committee move forward with the agenda given the time. Tim summarized the committee's discussion to this point. The resource sequences will be ordered according to how they met the evaluation criteria for inclusion in the draft chapter on development of resource strategies. A recommendation will be included in this chapter and in the chapter on plan implementation. The draft chapters will be distributed to the Participants Committee for review prior to discussion at the next meeting. Steering Committee Meeting Minutes of July 19, 1995 Page 7 Project staff and consultants will continue work on drafting the remaining chapters of the preliminary plan, and still hope to release the preliminary plan at the end of July. Preliminary Plan Draft Integration and Implementation Chanter: Lorna Stickel referred to the draft chapter on plan implementation. The chapter addresses the relationship between the water providers; the water providers relationship with Metro; near-term and long-term plan implementation strategies and institutional recommendations. Lorna indicated that the chapter would be modified further to reflect the Steering Committee's discussion. Gene Seibel said it may be necessary to have further discussions about governance issues with the Participants Committee. Gene noted there seemed to be a high level of consensus among the participant entities during the institutional issues workshops, and that these discussions warrant follow-up. Mike Rosenberger said there will be an opportunity for further discussion on this subject following the release of the preliminary plan. The Steering Committee agreed about the importance of the final RWSP showing the amount of work conducted with regards to governance issues. The Steering Committee was asked to review the draft chapter and forward comments to Lorna Stickel by 5:00 p.m. the next day. The project team will modify both chapters and deliver them to the Participants Committee on Friday. Metro Meeting Agenda: Mike Rosenberger said the institutional issues paper prepared by project staff would be used as a discussion document for the regional water supply coordination meeting between Metro representatives and the Steering Committee. The meeting will be held at Metro on Monday, July 24, 1995. The paper was based on comments voiced during the two workshops on institutional issues. Rosemary circulated copies of the meeting agenda being proposed by Metro. The purpose of the meeting is to initiate discussions that will identify future roles and responsibilities involved with planning, coordination, and implementation of the regional water supply plan. Rosemary indicated that Metro representatives at the meeting will include Mike Burton, Andy Cotugno, Jon Kvistad, and Susan McLain. Other Business and Next Meeting Agenda.: Rosemary Furfey reported that Mike Burton issued correspondence that recommends Metro Council and Metro Policy Advisory Committee (MPAC) request a briefing from the Metro Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee (WRPAC) on how the Regional Water Supply Plan will address water supply requirements for new industry coming to the region. Rosemary said she would circulate copies of the letter at a later time. The meeting adjourned at 4:20 p.m. REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN -- PHASE 2 STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Minutes of June 23, 1995 The meeting was called to order at '1:05 p.m. by Tim Erwert from the City. of Hillsboro/Joint Water Commission. Steering Committee members in attendance included Gene Seibel from Tualatin Valley Water District, Mike Rosenberger from the Portland Water Bureau, and Greg DiLoreto from the City of Gresham. Joel Komarek represented Duane Cline from the City of Lake Oswego. Other meeting participants included Carter Harrison from Clackamas Water District; Rosemary Furfey from Metro; and Duane Robinson from Rockwood Water PUD. _ Project staff in attendance included Lorna Stickel, Roberta Jortner, and DomiLigte Besse'e front `he Portland Viater suieau. Gary Fiske from Barakat & Chamberlin, Inc. represented the project consultant team. Gary Fiske mentioned that some Steering Committee members expressed a need to leave the meeting early. Gary suggested beginning the meeting with agenda items that required feedback from the committee. Based on this, the agenda was re-ordered to begin discussion with scenario formulation for the Preliminary Plan. Lorna Stickel said depending on the nature of feedback received regarding the institutional issues material faxed earlier to the Steering Committee, it may be unnecessary to hold lengthy discussion prior to circulating the discussion document to the Participants Committee. Scenario Formulation: Gary Fiske distributed tables that show resource sequences designed to meet specific policy objectives for cost, natural environment, water quality, and efficiency. Three levels of reliability were defined. The first level reflects near perfect reliability and would allow no shortages even in the hottest and dr.ieor year on record. Th^ 3ccond 1 vel of r::liability woald allow up to 20% expectancy of shortages during peak day events. The third level of reliability would allow up to 30% shortage during peak day events but no more than a 3% shortage over the peak season during the worst weather years. The resource sequence tables indicated which resource sequences seem to best meet policy objectives relating to cost, natural environment, water quality, efficiency, cost/natural environment, cost/water quality, natural environmental/water quality, and water quality/ efficiency. The tables also showed how the sequences rate in terms of societal cost, natural and human environment, water quality, watershed protection, and vulnerability to catastrophic events . Gary said the resource sequences are based on high water demand forecasts, and will be shown as decision trees in the Preliminary � r Steering Committee Meeting Minutes of June 23, '1995 . ' Page 2 Plan. Gary suggested that the Steering Committee review the resource sequences, and invited the committee to ask questions. Gary said the Preliminary Plan will portray reliability in language that describes how customer behavior will be affected. The Steering Committee talked about how customers will tend to use 1992 as a frame of reference in discussing reliability. The committee agreed that the preliminary report should indicate specific impacts that might accompany a particular level of reliability, and provide a description of system operation and shortage management. Carter Harrison commented that during the summer of 1992 water systems with in-town storage capacity experienced greater reliability than other .waiter sy. .tems . Carter, commented .on ,the: .medi.a.1 s tendency.-,to focus cover'age' on the Cortland Water Bureau during the 1992 curtailment, which did not reflect the experience of other regional water systems. Tim Erwert commented that curtailment would be necessary under Levels 2 and 3 Reliability only as the time approaches to implement additional resource options to meet increased demand. The Steering Committee agreed it would be necessary to maintain flexibility to allow individual water providers to achieve different levels of reliability in their jurisdictions. Gene Seibel commented that the policy objective labeled "costs" could be misleading because the intended reference was to overall costs and not costs to customers . The Steering Committee agreed with this observation. Lorna Stickel asked the Steering Committee for guidance on narrowing the twenty-four resource scenarios described in the tables to a manageable number that could be released in the Preliminary Plan. Gary invited the committee to comment on which resource sequences seemed sensible, and suggest changes to the resource sequencing. Tim Erwert :z�ted �1ae -passing tune, and asked the Steering Committee to first provide input on whether to distribute the institutional issues memorandum as a discussion document for the Participants Committee meeting on June 27, 1995 . The Steering Committee seemed comfortable with the document as drafted, and authorized circulating the material to the Participants Committee. Lorna said the Participants Committee meeting will provide an opportunity to continue discussion on the future role of Metro and the regional water providers during the morning session. The afternoon session will focus on scenario formulation for the Preliminary Plan. Lorna asked whether covering these topics warranted a full-day committee meeting. Tim Erwert recommended that the agenda allow sufficient discussion time and the committee begin the meeting at Steering Committee Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1995 Page 3 9:00 a.m. Tim said the meeting can adjourn early if the agenda topics are addressed sufficiently before 5:00 p.m. Lorna will provide a brief background on the, institutional issues document at the Participants Committee meeting, and Mike Rosenberger will facilitate the ensuing discussion to develop criteria for defining future roles. Project staff mentioned Rosemary Furfey's suggestion that the Participants Committee meeting include a presentation on the Conservation Program Descriptions. Rosemary said a presentation would help explain how the conservation options will be bundled, what criteria will be used, and how the conservation programs will be integrat.cd in the resource scenarios. Gary L i�:.e indicted that a presentation on the program descriptions was not planned but Phase 2 Participant entities were welcome to contact Skip Schick or himself with questions . Gene Seibel said he would encourage system reliability at a very high level, but recognized that there was room for compromise in the decision. Some committee members said the big debate in the region would concern the level of conservation to include in the resource sequences, and not on the level of reliability. The Steering Committee commended the project consultant on the tables of resource sequences. The committee said the tables do a nice job of showing the flexibility of each resource sequence . Tim Erwert expressed concern about using a policy objective labeled "water quality" when "raw or untreated water" was intended. The Steering Committee validated this concern. Gary Fiske described the timing of the resource sequence designed to meet the water quality policy objective with a third dam on the Bull Run River. After some discussion, the Steering Committee decided that there would need to be some amount of conservation before a. project like Bull Run Dam No. ' 3 could be approved. The committee agreed to consolidate that resource sequence (#3) , and a resource sequence designed to meet policy objectives for water quality and efficiency (#8) , to form a sequence that involves outdoor conservation and a third dam on the Bull Run. Roberta Jortner questioned the need to have resource sequences that meeting policy objectives for cost and water quality (#6) , and natural environment and water quality (#7) . Roberta noted that both resource sequences had similiar water quality ratings but divergent costs. Roberta said it would useful to determine the level of savings that could be attained from outdoor conservation versus maximum conservation. Roberta suggested creating a hybrid of these two r r, {rf I Steering Committee Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1995 Page '4 resource sequences, and add the Willamette River as the -final resource Tim Erwert noted that the Columbia River does not appear as a viable resource alternative in any of the remaining resource sequences. Lorna asked the Steering Committee to comment on whether the Columbia River should be removed from further consideration as a resource option given the sequencing results . The Steering Committee discussed this point, and decided against eliminating any resource options at this time. Carter Harrison suggested adding a resource sequence that maximized source diversity with the Willamette, Clackamas, and Columbia Rivers. Gary said the proposed sequence would be a good way to show source diversity. Tim Erwert asked about the resource sequence designed to meet the policy objectives for cost and water quality (#6) . Tim suggested following outdoor conservation and 50 mgd from the Clackamas River, with 25 mgd from the Columbia River at both the second and third source increments. Gary indicated that he would evaluate that resource sequence . Through further discussion, the Steering Committee identified resource sequencing that better met certain policy objectives than those defined in the tables . The committee was able to reduce the number of resource sequences to nine, which follow: Level 1 Reliability will show a raw water quality and efficiency oriented resource sequence for Bull Run Dam No. 3, with outdoor conservation; efficiency; a cost/natural environment oriented sequence with Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) first to lower the cost and increase diversity; and a cost/water quality oriented sequence. The committee added another sequence to show maximum diversity that would include ASR and the Willamette and Columbia Rivers. Level 2 Reliability will include a sequence with Bull Run Dam No. 3 and outdoor conservation, and another sequence for cost/natural environment with outdoor conservation, ASR, a.ld the Clackamas and Willamette Risers. Level 3 Reliability will include the same resource sequences as Level 2 Reliability although fewer resources will need to come on-line. The Steering Committee agreed that the tables of resource sequences effectively demonstrate the rationale used for the distillation process . The Steering Committee recommended that the sequence tables be included in the appendix section of the Preliminary Plan, and be accompanied by a narrative that indicate that the nine resource sequences are not the only ones possible but reflect the best way to meet the themes defined by the policy objectives. The project consultant indicated that he would be unable to revise the resource sequence tables to reflect the significant changes prior to the Participants Committee meeting next week. The Steering Committee Steering Committee Meeting Minutes of June 23, 1995 Page 5 decided that the Participants Committee will receive the resource sequence tables in its current form, and the project consultant will provide a description of the process used to narrow the sequence list. Given the late hour, the Steering Committee decided to eliminate presentations on project consultant and staff activities. The Steering Committee will review the written progress report on staff activities at a later time. The meeting adjourned at 4 :10 p.m. The next Steering Committee meeting will be held on July 19, 1995. Submitted by Dominique Bessee r ..� . Integrated Resources Planning Approach Regional Water Supply Plen- Portland Metropolitan Area Public dastttudonal Involvement Arrangements Design "integrated Water Resource Scenarios" Assess costs, benefits, impacts, risks and tradeoffs J Conservation supply soarce YNanso.ission Element AnallysU& Eifieleney What is the Regional Water Supply Allow providers to maintain a broad, Plan? regional view of the issues • Make the most efficient use of existing and Twenty-seven of the municipal water future regional supplies providers (cities and districts) in the Portland Increase financial savings through the tri-county metropolitan area plus METRO, with implementation of cooperative the help of an inter-disciplinary team of Programs and projects consulting firms, are developing a long-range Facilitate the evaluation of a range of supply regional water supply plan. and demand management alternatives Together, these agencies are funding and The plan will provide strategies for: managing an integrated resources planning project to determine how future water needs can Cooperative conservation programs and should be met until the year 2050. Efficient and flexible transmission systems • Coordinated development of new supply This unique level of interagency cooperation sources and joint project sponsorship will: l July 5, 1995 v �'1 • Options for-institutional arrangements for months, and extracting it for future use during providing municipal water service the"summer.. The approved Barney Reservoir throughout the region expansion .project,-some limited expansion of intakes on the Clackamas, and full use of the What is Integrated Resources Portland wellfield are presumed to be available Pig? to the region as part of the planning approach. Integrated resources planning, or IRP, is a System Efficiency and Transmission — planning approach that involves examining a including the characterization of existing range of water resource options including infrastructure and identification of sub-regional supply, transmission, and conservation. The and regional strategies for transmission, heart of the IRP process is the design and treatment, pumping and terminal storage that evaluation of different resource combinations to link together both existing and potential future determine their respective and relative costs, supply source. benefits, impacts, and risks. Using this IRP approach, the providers are: Institutional Arrangements — including available options for water services governance • Identifying policy values upfront to direct and how they relate to the most promising the formulation and evaluation of resource combinations for the future. alternative mixes of resource options- Identifying complex issues up front Public Involvement is also a cornerstone of • Evaluating uncertainties explicitly the planning effort. The integrated resources • Communicating with citizens and decisions planning approach incorporates public values and priorities into the analysis process. To better makers• Presenting the tradeoffs which must be understand public values in the region, project weighed and balanced before making Participants have undertaken a host activities to informed decisions provide public information and offer opportunities for public participation in shaping What are the Key Planning Elements? the plan. Public involvement tools include: Conservation and Demand Management Newsletters Opportunities — including measures and Media coverage(newspapers, television) programs that apply to indoor and outdoor uses Slide show of residential, commercial, industrial andVideo (available in July 1995) institutional customers. Conservation measures ' Stakeholder Interviews (1993) under consideration include both voluntary and ' Focus Groups (1995) mandatory approaches. Public Attitude and Contingent Valuation Surveys (1993) Water Supply Source Options— including a Forums, Workshops and Briefings for third dam and reservoir in the Bull Run interested citizens, organizations, anddecision makers Watershed, expansion and/or consolidation of existing water systems on the Clackamas River, The project participants have used public new diversions and treatment of the Columbia input and professional judgment to develop a River, and a technique for optimizing the use of supply called Aquifer Storage and Recovery. range of policy objectives and evaluation Aquifer storage and recovery involves criteria. The policy objectives are being used to underground during the winter high flow design the integrated water supply scenarios. They also provide the basis for measurable 2 July 5, 1995 e► criteria which will be applied to evaluate the various resource combinations or scenarios(The most recent version of the policy objectives is attached.) The project consultants also developed a computer model called IRPIanner to assist in generating and evaluating the scenarios. Model users can set up different "what if" scenarios by specifying different sources, supply amounts, transmission routes, conservation effort, and timelines to determine the how the various choices differ in terms of system reliability, efficiency costs,environmental impact, ability to manage catastrophic events, etc. The Preliminary Regional Water Supply Plan is scheduled for completion in July of 1995. The Preliminary Plan will be circulated for public review and comment region-wide. There will be a number of opportunities for citizens and decision makers to offer their thoughts and suggestions on the plan during the summer and fall. From this input,the providers will develop a final plan and implementing strategies which will be presented to the region's decision makers for adoption by the end of the year. What You Can Do If you would like additional information about the integrated resource planning process and its role in the Regional Water Supply Plan project, please contact your local water provider or the project management staff at 823-7528. 3 July 5, 1995 R l Water CuDoly Plan-Po • Used to help design integrate water resource scenarios. Provide a foundation for caiteda with which to evaluate options and/or scenarios. (�apture the d'i'verse set of values and priorities in the region—will help show tradeoffs. Some policy objectives may be complementary(e.&,maxrm�e efficiency and ' "or"conflict" (eg., environmental protection),while some may"compete minimize cost and maxim=reliability)- 'Ihew is overlap between some objectives(e.&,reliability,flexibility,impacts of catastrophic;events—and the role of>rmMissro4 • Each objective has one or more evaluation criterion. • Policy objectives have been reviewed by participant decision maldng bodies. Pn1:.w Obiect O Efficient use of wager Maximize the efficient use of wager resources,taking into account the potential ' practicality,and relative cost- effectiveness conservation,availability of supplies,pracxi _ V effectiveness of the options. • Make best use of available supplies before developing new ones. Reliability • Minimize the frequency of water shortages of any magnitude an:duration. • Ensure the ability to manage the,duration and magnitude of shortages(e.g., through the operation of raw water storage facilities or through access to alternative sources of wager). Water Quality Meet or exceed all current and future federal and state water Quality standards for finished wager. Maximize the ability to protect water quality m the future,including the,ability to • use watershed-protection based approaches. • Utilize sources with highest raw wager quality. • Maximize the ability to deal with aesthetic factors,such as taste,color,hardness, and odor. • Ensure the ability to mix Fater sources across the region. Impacts of CataAmphic Events 1Vf rnize the magnitude,frequency,and duration of service inw=ptions due to natural or human caused catastrophes,such as authqualms,landslides.volcanic eruption,floods,spills,fires,sabotage,etc. Economic Costs Minimize the economic impact of capital and operating costs of new water resources on customers• Assure the ability to relate the ratty impacts associated with new water resources to • the benefits gained within the region on an equitable basis over time• public Acceptability Maximize the acceptability of regional water resource strategies by meeting the needs of the public at large. Maxunize the acceptability of regional water resource strategies by meeting the needs of stakeholders. Maximize the acceptability of regional water resource strategies by meeting the • needs of elected officials,including the state legislature and Metro. Institutional arrangements • Ensure that feasible institutional arrangements exist or can be developed to implement the selected resource strategyCies). Environmental Impacts Minimize the impact of water resource development on the natural and human environments. Growth Be consistent with Meads regional growth strategy and local land use plans. Flexibility to Deal with Future Uncertainty Maximize the ability to anticipate and respond to unforeseen future events or • changes in forecasted trends. Ease of Implementation • Maximize the ability to address local,state,and federal legislative and regulatory requirements in a timely manner. Operational Flexibility • Maximize operational flexibility to best meet the needs of the region, nclluud g the ability to move water around the region and to rely, as necessary, P sources_ Existing Water Supplies Regional Water Supply Plan - Portland Metropolitan Area. 0 q l TPASK mer a prnMas Mom OWN" • N4uaAE"E Source: Montgomery Watson What is the Regional Water Existing Water Supply Supply Plan? The metropolitan region contains an Twenty-seven cities and water districts in intricate web of water supply systems, one that the Portland Metropolitan area along with has evolved over the past century. It is a Metro are developing a long-range water combination of run-of-river intakes, surface supply plan. The plan, due to be completed in water storage, groundwater, water treatment late 1995, will provide strategies for meeting plants, and a host of pipes, pumps and tanks future water needs to the year 2050. The used to convey the water. The supply sources water providers are evaluating a host of water function on regional, sub-regional and local supply and conservation options to determine levels. A few entities supply the water, and the best resource mix for the region. An many others purchase the water wholesale and important place to begin is the storage and then distribute it throughout their service delivery capacity of the existing water supply areas. systems. Existing water supply systems have a 1 July 5, 1995 maximum reliable storage capacity of 11.4 .Local Sources- Local sources in the three billion gallons and.a delivery capacity of 413.8 counties of the Portland metropolitan area million gallons-on a peakday(mgd). Current supply up t6.60 mgd, coming from small peak day regional demand is about 370 mgd. surface and groundwater sources. Few additional small resources are committed in the Current Sources local area at this time. The Bull Run Watershed-For over one Ransmission- Numerous pipes, pump stations hundred years, the Bull Run Watershed has and storage facilities are located throughout the been supplying water to the region. region. These facilities move the region's Delivering some of the highest-quality raw water supplies to where they are needed, when water in the world, Bull Run water has never they are needed. Large lines incluue the Bull violated any of the federal or state water Run conduits, the Washington County Supply quality standards. It is one of the few surface line, and the Southeast Supply Line. There water systems exempted from filtration. The are also numerous interties that allow water to two reservoirs located in the watershed can be conveyed between systems. store over 10 billion gallons and deliver up 210 mgd. Water is supplied to reservoirs at _ Committed Sources Powell Butte, Mt. Tabor Park, Washington Park and numerous tanks for in-town storage. The attached table presents the different supply sources used today, listing the The Qackamas River- Three suppliers can maximum reliable delivery and storage deliver up to 66 mgd to the southern part of capacity of each source. It also lists the the metro region. The Clackamas Water delivery and storage capacities of new or District has a peak delivery capacity of 30 expanded sources that are already committed mgd. The South Fork Water Board, serving to be developed. For the purposes of this both Oregon City and West Linn,has a peak plan, these committed resources are assumed delivery capacity of 20 mgd. And Lake to come on line within two to ten years. So as Oswego can deliver up to 16 mgd. the participants are developing different water supply options for the future, both the current The Traskrfualatin System- Water that and committed resources provide the baseline supplies the Joint Water Commission-the for existing supply capacity. The committed cities of Hillsboro, Beaverton, and Forest sources will increase delivery capacity by Grove-comes from both the Trask River about 80 mgd and storage capacity by over 5 (with storage in Barney Reservoir) and billion gallons. Tualatin River (including storage in Hagg Lake.) The peak delivery capacity from the The Clackamas River- Along the Clackamas, JWC treatment plants is 43.5 mgd, and up to the South Fork Water Board and the City of 1.2 billion gallons can be stored. Lake Oswego will expand their river intakes by 10 and 4 mgd, respectively. The Oak Columbla South Shore Wellfteld- Current Lodge Water District is committed to usable capacity of the wellfield is about 35 providing new supply up to 8.5 mgd. In sum, mgd. Use of full capacity up to 90 mgd is these new resources will supply an additional currently restricted to reduce the risk of 22.5 mgd from the Clackamas River. influencing groundwater contamination from nearby sites. The Trask/Tualatin System - The Barney Reservoir will be expanded to deliver an 2 July 5, 1995 additional 20 mgd and store over 5 more billion gallons. Columbia South Shore Wellfield- The Portland wellfield will be able to provide an additional 37 mgd as a result of an aggressive remediation program and ongoing maintenance of the system. What You Can Do If you would like additional information on the existing water supply system in the Portland Metropolitan Region and how it fits into the Regional Water Supply Plan, please contact your local water provider or the project management staff at 823-7528. Information Sources Portland Water Bureau, The Bullrun Dispatch, January 2, 1995. Barakat& Chamberlin,Regional Water Supply Plan:Existing and Committed Supply Sources Table, May 1995. Personal communication with local water providers in March, 1995. Montgomery Watson, Review of Existing Information and Assumptions:Source Options Analysis Element, August 1993. 3 July 5, 1995 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN t7QST1NG AND COMMITTED SUPPLY SOURCES ADDITIONAL EXISTING 3 EXISTING COMMITTED ©OBD Usable Usable Usable ' Delivery Storage Delivery Storage Delivery storage capacity Capacity Capelly capacity Capacity Capacity. (IDS 1091 0ll9sl! 409) (Mgd) ( Bull Run Res 1.2 210 10200 210 10200 Clackamas CWD 30 90 SFWB 20 10 30 Lake Oswego 16 4 20 Oak Lodge 68 6.5 8.5 Subtotal22.5 88.5 TraskiTualatln 43.5 1153 20 5214 63.5 6367 Southshore Welltield 35 37 72 Local Sources South 28.4 28A West 12.8 12.6 East 16.1 18.1 Subtotal 59.3 59.3 TOTAL 413.8 11353 79.5 5214 493.3 16567 BARwT (`VCHAI►iBERLIN LOCAL WATER SUPPLY SOURCES East Node Fairview 2.7 GW Interlachen 1.3 GW Powell Valley 1.8 GW Troutdale 6.4 GW Wood Village 1.4 GW Portland 4.5 GW(farmer Parkrose wells not part of the Portland wellfield totals) TOTAL 18.1 mgd West Node Forest Grove 13 Clear Crk.summer North Plains 1.1 GW Sherwood 2.8 GW Tigard 1.1 GW TVWD 3.0 GW Cornelius/Gaston/Hill. 3L5 Haines Falls TP TOTAL 12.8 mgd OuLlNode Sandy 2.5 Alder Crk.&Brown Sp. 1996 cap. Canby 6.0 Mollalla R,wells,&springs 1996 cap Boring 1.0 GW-actual production 1995 Damascus 3.3 GW Lake Oswego _3 GW Milwaukie 6.7 GW River Grove 1.3 GW Wilsonville 6.0 GW Skylands/G.Morie .3 GW Estacada 1.4 Clackamas River TOTAL 28.4 mgd GRAND TOTAL 59.3 mgd Regional Water Demand Forecasts Regional Water Supply Plan-Portland Metropolitan Area 800 700 PORTLAND REGIONAL WATER 600 DEMAND FORECAST 500 1992-2050 High Range* A 0 400 —fir Peak Day 300 —�- Peak Season 200 100 ---�— Non-Peak Season 0 1992 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 •Includes naturany oewring conservation Source: Barakat&Chamberlin,1994 What is the Regional Water Supply Plan? As shown in the graph above,water metropolitan region. The fore,:asts,in demand in the Portland Metropolitan conjunction with information on existing Region is expected to increase water supplies and infrastructure substantially over the next 50 years or so. (treatment,transmission)provide the To address future water needs,twenty- basis for determining how much additional seven cities and water districts in the water and/or water savings the region will region,along with METRO,are developing need in the future. a long-range water supply plan. The plan, due to be completed in late 1995,will GeIIeral Demand Forecasting provide strategies for meeting future Methodology water needs to the year 2050. The water providers are evaluating a host of water Project consultants generated the supply and conservation options to water demand forecasts for the Regional determine the best resource mix for the Water Supply using an econometriclend- region. use modeL This model translates the effects of projected population and Role of the Water Demand economic growth,weather variability, Forecast anticipated conservation and other factors into estimated future water needs through The water demand forecasts play an the year 2050. The model applies separate integral role in the Regional Water Supply demand forecasting equations for the Plan(RWSP)project for the Portland cities and districts participating in the July 5, 1995 1 project. These equations have been In this instance,the_naturally customized and to capture the demand occurring conservation relates to existing patterns of 47 different entities from legislation which allows only low-flow throughout the tri-county region. plumbing fixtures to be installed in new construction. The term'vintaging"refers The model relies on population growth to the rate at which existing and future projections provided by the Portland area building stock would be expected to Metropolitan Service District(Metro). incorporate low-flow fixtures. The Metro has projected future growth in application of this model serves to reduce households and employment as part of the the demand forecasts over the 50-year Region 2040 project. Metro created high, planning horizon. medium,and low projections to reflect uncertainties inherent in the forecasts. Finally,the model factors the effect of The water demani forecasting model anticipated real price increases over time translates Metro's forecasts into high, into the forecasts. (A real price increase medium and low projections for future. is that increase over and above the rate of Those projections,are key variables in the inflation.) The conceptual basis for this demand forecasting system. piece of the modelling is an expectation that the real cost of providing water will Several key variables in the model grow by some amount due to factors such depict the relationship between water as increasing cost of complying with demand and weather. These relationships regulatory standards and replacing were established by analyzing how water obsolete facilities. For the high forecast, demand changes with the variation in no change in price was assumed. For the historical precipitation and temperature medium and low forecasts,025 and 0.5 patterns,as well as during extremely hot percent annual price increases were dry periods. The model also applies assumed. peaking factors for participating water providers and several non-participants to The forecasts indicate that winter- generate forecasts for individual entities. time(non-peak season)demands could increase from 21 to 72 percent region- wide,with a mid-range estimate of 52 percent. Peak-season demand increases are projected to range from 26 to 87 percent,with a mid-range of 58 percent. Forecast Results Regional Demand Forecasts(in mgd) Non-peak Season Peak Season Peak Day 1995 2050 1995 2050 1995 2050 High Estimate 149 257 223 417 366 780 Med.Estimate 148 225 221 350 365 667 Low Estimate 147 178 219 275 365 535 In addition,an end-use,vintaging Peak-day regional demands are expected model predicts the effects of"naturally to increase by.28 to 93 percent,with a occurring conservation.' Naturally mid-range of 62 percent. These demand occurring conservation refers to the forecasts reflect population growth amount of future reduction in demand forecasts received from Metro of about which is expected to occur without any 735,000 new residents in the tri-county additional water-provider effort. urban areas,about a 70 percent July 5, 1995 population increase from 1992 to 2040. (The demographic forecasts were extended to 2050 for purposes of the Regional Water Supply Plan Demand increases are projected to vary by county with the greatest proportional changes predicted for Washington and Clackamas counties. For example,high-peak day demand is projected to increase by 136 mgd or 137 percent in Washington County, 107 mgd or 121 percent in Clackamas County,and 100 mgd or 54 percent in Multnomah County. These differences reflect differing anticipated growth patterns in each county. Putting the Pieces Together The Region's providers are in the process of evaluating how well different resource combinations meet not only future water demand but objectives for cost,reliability,water quality, environmental impacts,and other important policy issues. The preliminary plan(scheduled for completion in late July 1995)will present different resource combinations and associated tradeoffs for review by citizens a.-Ad decision makers. The plan will then be finalized for regional adoption by the end of the year. What You Can Do If you would like additional information on the Regional Water Supply Plan project,please contact your local water provider or the project management staff at 823-7528. Information Sources Barakat&Chamberlin,Inc.,regional water demand forecast information prepared for the Regional Water Supply Plan project. METRO,data and information prepared for the Region 2040 project. July 5, 1995 Columbia River Option Regional Water Supply Plan-Portland Metropolitan Area Camas Washougal Y �s 9 Im I Rha i R fAtlEli9 n' IYV(gNE raw Ar uae our=Metro What is the Regional Water Existing Water Supply Uses Supply Plan? Twenty-seven cities and water Currently,the Columbia River is not used as a drinking districts in the Portland metropolitan drinking water source in the area,along with METRO,are developing a Portland metropolitan region. However, long-range water supply Plan. The plan, the river supplies water to upstream Washington cities such as Kennewick, due to be completed in late 1995,will Pte,and Richland,along with provide strategies for meeting future downstream St.Helens;Oregon. water needs to the year 2050. The water providers are evaluating a host of water The Port of Portland has a municipal supply and conservation options to water right to use up to 15 cubic feet per determine the best resource mix for the second from the Columbia River. The region. One of the source options under water will be used primarily for irrigation consideration is development of water and non-potable industrial purposes. supply from the Columbia River. An overview of key issues associated with the Columbia option is provided below. 1 June 16, 1995 V Wates Availability and Water Rights Average monthly flows in the Columbia South Shore wells..A regional Columbia River(measured at The Dalles) transmission line would be needed to range' from a minimum of about 75,000 connect the Columbia water treatment Plants to the regional storage facility. cubic feet per second(cfs)to about 400,000 ch. (Peal[daily flows can be higher or Addititonal storage on Powell Butte could lower than these monthly averages.) be accommodated with or without blending Columbia water with Bull Run The Columbia River is heavily water. controlled by upstream storage and hydropower dam operations. Minimum Water Quality and Mreatment discharge required-from Bonneville Dam is currently 70,000 cfs. The Columbia River Basin encompasses about 255,000 square miles The Rockwood Public Utilities District in the United States and Canada Both has applied for a 50 mgd water right on the size of the basin and diversity of land the Columbia River. The application is uses pose a high risk of pollution from under review by the Oregon Water municipal and industrial discharges, Resources Department„ nonpoint sources,and possible accidental spills of toxic or hazardous chemicals, Water availability may be limited by relative to other sources under regulations designed to assist in recovery consideration. However,large amounts of of threatened and endangered fish in the flow in the river provide significant Lower Columbia Basin. dilution capacity for inputs to the Columbia upstream of the Portland Potential Uses &Facilities metropolitan region. The region s water providers are The quality of the Columbia River considering development of an intake water source is generally fair compared facility and treatment plant on the with other regional source options,and good compared with other sources Columbia River. System capacities under nationwide. The Rockwood Water District study range from 25 to 600 million gallons sponsored a pilot water treatment study per day(mgd). completed May 1994. Study conclusions The representative site for an intake state that the Columbia River is"a source and treatment facilities is located jest of excellent quality water,better than the majority of river sources available in the downstream of the confluence of the USA The report concludes that Columbia and Sandy Rivers. The site is direct filtration process,....can effectively currently used for gravel processing. treat the Columbia River water." This The need for regional storage is also concurs with the Regional Water Supply Plan water quality and treatment interim anticipated in conjunction with reports. development of a Columbia River supply system. The representative site for a new There are some water quality regional storage reservoir is located on constituents which exceed drinking water Powell Butte. A 50 million gallon standards including turbidity,micro- underground reservoir is presently located organisms,perhaps aluminum and a few on Powell Butte. It is used to store water trace organics. The water is also from the Bull Run watershed and moderately hard. 2 July 5, 1995 'X Measurements taken between 1984 confirmed on the site,but plants could be and 1992(at the Portland airport)indicate avoided or transplanted if it is found that radionuclide concentrations are less there. Purple martins could be affected by than those set in federal and state construction of water intake. The drinking water standards. Although installation of new°pilings with nest boxes radionuclides have not been detected in on the riverfront(avoiding the breeding significant concentrations,there is public season)away from the site would reduce concern about potential contamination the impact on the birds. from the Hanford facility upstream of the Bonneville Dam. Wetlands-Loss of riverine wetlands at the representative site could be mitigated For purposes of the regional water by restoring disturbed areas on site and/or supply plan,it has been recommended offsetting loss of scrub/shrub emergent that treatment of the Columbia source wetland by creating wetlands off-site. include ozonation for disinfection, granular activated carbon(GAC)for Geotechnical Hazards-The soils on filtration,and sedimentation basins., and in the vicinity of the representative These processes would provide multiple site could be subject to liquefaction during barriers against microbial and organic seismic events. Detailed seismic studies constituents in the water,and could would be needed to ascertain the potentially treat particulate radionuclides. geotechnical risks and determine This method of treatment is assumed for appropriate engineering standards. purposes of the Regional Water Supply Plan project. (More advanced treatment Hazardous Materials-The might be needed to treat certain ionic representative intake and facility site radionuclides.) could be subject to contamination from off- site sources of hazardous materials. The Key Environmental Issues Reynolds Metal Co.site to the southeast is currently proposed for national priority Fish-Development of future water listing under Comprehensive Environmental Response,Compensation, supplies on the Columbia River could and Liability Act(also known as affect fish populations including listed "Superfund"). Additional siting analysis threatened and endangered salmon stocks. will take plaice if the Columbia is selected Impacts from flow reductions should be as a future water source for the region. minimal since the contemplated diversion levels would reduce flows by a fraction of a Land Use-The representative water percent even during low flow months. facility site contains high voltage There could be impacts on migration of Bonneville Power Administration(BPA) Sandy River smelt and sturgeon. A transmission lines. It may be necessary to special screening design might be needed find an alternative site for the Columbia to avoid impacts on larval fish due to River intake and/or treatment plant existing,slow water velocities in the because current BPA regulations do not Lower Columbia River. allow land grade alterations and facilities Terrestrial Threatened and to encroach under powerline easements. Endangered Species-Two threatened, There are number of alternative sites endangered,or sensitive plant and bird which may be available and appropriate species have been reported on or near the for locations of water supply facilities. representative site for an intake and water treatment facility. These species could be affected by construction of potential water supply facilities. The presence of Columbia cress has not been 3 July 5, 1995 4,:: Costs,- InfornLatioA Sourems Costs of the.pmjectandndehoth From the Regional Water Supply Plan capital costs.for design and construction, interim reports List: as well as ongoing varible costs to operate and maintain the facilities. Murray Smith and Associates, Evaluation of Water Rights and Water Use. The capital costs to construct a Permitting Requirements,March 10, 1994. Columbia River water system are estimated to be about$150 million for a 50 Montgomery Watson,Water Quality mgd facility,and about$82 million for a Analysis,February 1994. 100 mgd facility Capital facilities included in these costs involve a river Montgomery Watson,Water Treatment intake,raw water pump station, Analysis,May 1994. treatment plant,finished water pump station,a regional tranmission line,and Montgomery Watson,Surface Water additional regional storage. Power and Availability,July 1994. chemical.costs are projected to be about $205 and$41 per million gallons, Parametrix,Inc.,Environmental respectively. (Note: Variable costs may be Analysis of Future Water Source Options, subject to revision.) December 1994. Putting the Pieces Together Other Sources: The Columbia River option will be Black&Veatch in Association with evaluated,along with water conservation Lee Engineering,Columbia River Water Treatment pilot Study,May 20, 1994. programs and other supply sources. The evaluation will involved comparing how well different resource combinations meet objectives for cost,reliability,water quality,environmental impacts,and other important policy issues. The preliminary plan(scheduled for completion in late July 1995)will present different resource combinations and associated tradeoffs for review by citizens and decision makers. The plan will then be finalized for regional adoption by the end of the year. What You Can Do If you would like additional information on how the Columbia River fits into the Regional Water Supply Plan project,please contact your local water provider or the project management staff at 823-7528. 4 July 5, 1995 Willamette River Option Regional Water Supply Plan-Portland Metropolitan Area Wits vi .i 7 Y 1 WMamette RW& She _ ®FVw NO s!haj d She P"` • UO8 source. Metro What is the Regional Water Supply Plan? Twenty-seven cities and water 30 cities of more than 5,000 residents districts in the Portland metropolitan each,and many major industries. Total area,along with METRO,are developing a population in the basin is about two long-range water supply plan. The plan, million residents,or about 70 percent of due to be completed in late 1995,will the total Oregon population. The basin provide strategies for meeting future also contains some of Oregon's most water needs to the year 2050. The water productive agricultural lands, and providers are evaluating a host of water supports important fishery resources. supply and conservation options to Water-dependent and water-related determine the best resource mix for the recreational opportunities abound in the region. One of the supply options under basins lakes and streams. consideration is development of a municipal water supply system on the Currently,the Willamette River is not Willamette River. An overview of the used as a municipal water source in the Willamette River option is provided below. Portland metropolitan region. The river is used for municipal purposes upstream by Existing Water Supply Uses the City of Corvallis. The Port of Portland has a water right The Willamette Basin is the largest river and is developing a non-potable water basin in Oregon. The basin is 11,000 system to use up to about 22 cubic feet per square miles and contains 13 major sub- second(cfs)of water from the Willamette basins, all or parts of ten counties,about for industrial purposes. 1 July 5, 1995 Water Availability and Water Rights City to the mouth of the river(at its Median daily flows in the Willamette confluence with the Columbia River). River at Wilsonville range from about 6,300 cubic feet per second(cfs)in August The Oregon Department of Environmental to about 48,000 cfs in January(based on Quality(DEQ)has also established a mean daily flow frequencies from 1949- water quality flow target of 6,500 cfs from 1972). Flows can and do run a lot lower Salem to the mouth. The DEQ presumes and higher than this,however,with the that this amount will be available to help extreme low flow for that period recorded assimilate pollutants when reviewing at 3,600 cfs and the high flow recorded at applications to discharge into the river. 339,000 cfs. Participants in the Regional Water Flows in the Willamette River Basin Supply Planning effort(e.g.,Tualatin are influenced substantially by releases valley Water District and the City of from 13 upstream reservoir projects owned Wilsonville)hold permits to use and operated by the U.S.Army Corps of approximately 150 mgd of Willamette Engineers(Corps). More than half the River water for municipal purposes. flows are supplied through storage These permits are assigned priority dates releases from August through October. To of 1973 and 1974,respectively. These date,the primary use of these projects has permits have not been developed and are been for flood control. Over time,the being held to supply future water reservoirs themselves have become demands in the region. popular flat-water recreation facilities. The Bureau of Reclamation holds water Participants in the regional water rights to use the total usable storage of L6 supply planning effort have applied for million acre-feet for irrigation. Only about permits to use an additional 319 mgd from three percent of this amount has been the river. These applications are pending contracted for irrigation use downstream. action by the Water Resources Department. While technically there is The Corps,Oregon Water Resources went natural flow available to supply Department and other stakeholders have these applications,there may not be proposed that a reauthorization study be enough water during low flow summer conducted to determine how stored water months'to issue all of the pending permits should be allocated and how the reservoirs without reducing flows below DEQ water should be operated in the future. qty flow targets. Minimum perennial streamflows on There are a number of uncertainties the Willamette River mainstem were which make availability assessments for established in the mid-sixties to maintain the Willamette River hard to pin down. flows sufficient to support aquatic life, For example,the minimum perennial minimize pollution,and again the highest streamflows await conversion to instream and best use of waters released from water rights(pursuant to state law). The storage. At Wilsonville,the minimum total flow amounts may change prior to perennial streamflow is 1500 cfs year conversion. In addition,Portland General round(for natural flow)and 4,700 efs year Electric has registered a pre-1909 claim round for releases from upstream storage for substantial flows on the lower reservoirs. The minimum perennial Willamette River at Willamette Falls. It streamflows are set at identical levels is possible that when the river is from above Willamette Falls at Oregon adjudicated(probably some years from now)that this claim would lower the 2 July 5, 1995 -------------- reliability -- --reliability of this source for municipal Water Quality and Treatment purposes in the Portland region. At the same time,the Oregon Water Resources Department has been asked to reserve a The relative quality of the Willamette large amount of natural flow and stored River raw water is generally fair relative to other regional sources and good relative water to meet future municipal and irrigation demands in the basin. Finally, to sources nationwide. The Tualatin Fi the ultimate fate of the Corps storage and Valley Water District sponsored a pilot the availability of stored water for treatment study of the Willamette River municipal purposes remains unclear. which concludes that"historical water quality records,as well as data collected Despite the complexity of water during the pilot study indicate that the allocation issues on the Willamette River, Willamette River is a high-quality source water." there is a good supply of water in the river and in storage.. There are also many There are upstream industrial and opportunities for resolving these issues in municipal discharges and nonpoint a cooperative and creative manner. Discussions among interested parties have Pollution sources which can impair water been initiated and will continue. quality in the Willamette. Some raw water quality constituents exceed drinking water standards such as turbidity, Potential Uses and Facilities microorganisms,and perhaps aluminum and a few trace organics. Concentrations The region's water providers are of general and regulated inorganics are evaluating the possibility of a new river low,however certain metals have been intake and treatment plant on the reported at concentrations exceeding the Willamette. As part of the regional water maximum contaminant levels established supply planning effort,capacities of the in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Turbidity facilities under study have ranged from 25 in the Willamette is low to moderate. Its mgd to 500 mgd. mineral quality is similar to the Clackamas River. The representative site is under consideration to co-locate an intake with Studies have identified fish fish screens,a raw water pumping plant, deformities in the Newberg Pool area and treatment plant facilities. It is where the representative intake site is located on the north side of the river,just located. A relationship between water upstream of the I-5 bridge in Wilsonville. quality and this phenoma has not been Currently,the northernmost portion of the established. The Oregon Department of property is used for agricultural purposes Environmental Quality is now conducting while the primary use of the site is a sand sediment analyses in attempts to and gravel operation. The potential water determine the source(s)of the fish supply facilities are allowable under local deformities. land use and zoning designations. The water can be readily treated to Additional regional storage would be meet Safe Drinking Water Act standards needed in conjunction with a Willamette as documented in the Tualatin Valley River Water Supply System. The Water District sponsored study. In representative site chosen is on Cooper addition,the drainage basin is large and Mountain. It has the advantage of being has a fairly high dilution capacity in the located between the river and the major mainstem. There are also a number of population and economic centers of watershed management efforts beginning Washington County(on the west side of or underway throughout the Willamette the region). basin. 3 July 5, 1995 According to the pilot treatment study, disturbed by the gravel operations. On- "a multiple barrier treatment process can site construction is expected to be located successfully treat Willamette River water within existing disturbed areas,thus to meet stringent water quality and minimizing the possibility of impacts to operational goals...and provide drinking wetland and riparian areas. The effects water of excellent quality." Recommended on downstream wetlands and backwater treatment for the Willamette involves use areas due to reductions in flow are of ozone for disinfection and oxidation, expected to be minor. There are several along with granular activated carbon ways to avoid to mitigate imparts to (GAC)filtration for removal of trace wetland areas. These include creating an organics. This approach to treatment environmentally sensitive project design, would provide multiple barriers against revegetating of disturbed areas,and both regulated and unregulated microbial enhancing of wetland areas on-site or and organic contaminants. nearby. Other methods include reducing the level of diversion and/or augmenting Bey Environmental Issues flow with stored water from upstream Corps reservoirs. Fish- Development of a water supply Wildlife and Habitat-Development of system could have adverse impacts on fish a water intake and treatment facility populations. Impacts may occur due to could adversely affect wildlife and habitat changes in flow and potential entrapment, at the representative site. Effects are injury or death at the intake facility. expected to be minimal since construction Reduced flows during summer months could be concentrated in already disturbed could cause migration delays and was. Those species potentially affected associated straying and pre-spawning include deer,squirrels,bull frog, mortality. Oregon Chub is the only fish roughskin newts,song birds,red-tail hawk species on the Willamette River which is and raccoon. Impacts can be prevented in listed under the federal Endangered age part by designing the project to Species Act. Chub have not been observed minimize disturbance,avoiding in the lower mainstem since 1970 and are disturbance of stream corridor habitat on believed to exist in the tributaries. the site,and restoring existing disturbed Several additional Willamette species areas have been petitioned for listing or as listed as species of concern. IAM Use-Potential water supply intake and treatment facilities are Appropriate fish screening design can allowable under current land use and reduce fish impacts at the intake. Flow augmentation may be achievable to zoning designations. However,City of Wilsonville planning officials suggest that mitigate impacts by contracting for sit would be most appropriate to rezone the storage in Corps reservoirs upstream. The presence of salmonid fry and the potential site to a Public Facility Zone. The southern portion of the property is located for larval stage sturgeon,combined with low flow velocities may warrant the use of in the Willamette Greenway which involves special development standards to micro-screens or bypass facilities to foster sensure that the integrity and aesthetic safe fish passage. Enhancement of Seely Dquality of the natural environment is Ditch and Wood Creek(located on the representative site)could also enhance Preserved. A possible mix of uses which fish resources. has been suggested includes a treatment facility,designated trails,enhanced Wetlands -Construction and operation natural areas,public river access and a of a Willamette River water supply stem small community park. could result in enhancement of on-site riparian and wetland areas currently 4 July 5, 1995 A regional storage facility could be sited on Cooper Mountain with the Information Sources issuance of a major conditional use permit and efforts to avoid ponderosa pine stands From the list of interim reports and headwater streams. produced for the Regional Water Supply Plan project: Costs Murray Smith and Associates, Costs of the project include both Evaluation of Water Rights and Water Use capital costs for design and construction, permitting Requirements, March 10, 1994. as well as ongoing varible costs to operate Montgomery Watson,Water Quality and maintain the facilities. Analysis,February 1994. . The capital costs to construct a for a Montgomery Watson,Water Treatment 50 mgd Willamette River supply system Analysis,May 1994. are estimated to be about$264 million. A 100 mgd facility would costs about$378 Montgomery Watson,Surface Water million. The system would include a river Availability,July 1994. intake,raw water pump station,raw water pipeline,treatment plant,finish Parametrix,Inc.,Environmental water pump station,regional tranmission Analysis of Future Water Source Options, line,and regional storage. Power and December 1994. chemical costs are estimated to be about $179 and$41 per million gallons, Other Sources! respectively. (Note: Variable costs may be subject to revision.) Hegwald,Leslie,Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments,Personal Putting the Pieces Together Communication,May 11, 1995. The Willamette River option will be Montgomery Watson,Willamette River evaluated,along with water conservation Water n eatment Pilot Study,prepared for programs and other supply sources. The the Tualatin Valley Water District, evaluation will involved comparing how August 1994. well different resource combinations meet objectives for cost,reliability,water Oregon Water Resources Department, quality,environmental impacts,and other Willamette Bolin Report, 1992 important policy issues. The preliminary plan(scheduled for completion in late July U.S.Geological Survey,Statistical 1995)will present different resource Summaries of Streamflow Data in Oregon: combinations and associated tradeoffs for Volume 1--Monthly and Annual review by citizens and decision makers. Streamflow and Flow-Duration Values, The plan will then be finalized for regional Open File Report 90-118, 1990 adoption by the end of the year. What You Can Do If you would like additional information on how the Willamette River fits into the Regional Water Supply Plan project,please contact your local water provider or the project management staff at 823-7528. 5 July 5, 1995 • Bull Run Dam No.3 Option Regional Water Supply.Plan-Portland Metropolitan Area BULL RUN UGW G� UNfT SWNDMY POTM AL3 DM S RESEF21/OIR �[I (,051 NO.1 POTENitAL lake R�V�OIR 3 RCOIR BULL RUN WATERSHED i+o.2 i Buff Runs lone LXk er What is the Regional Water Supply Plan? decades. The Bull Run Watershed,located Twenty-seven cities and water about 35 miles east of Portland in the districts in the Portland metropolitan upper Sandy River Basin,includes area,along with METRO,are developing a approximately 179 square miles. Most of long-range water supply plan. The plan, the watershed lies within the Bull Run due to be completed in late 1995,will Watershed Management Unit(BRWMin, provide strategies for meeting future an area of 150 square miles. The BRWMU water needs to the year 2050. The water is closed to the general public to maintain providers are evaluating a host of water high water quality. supply and conservation options to determine the best resource mix for the Currently,the Bull Run Watershed region- One of the supply options under provides water to about 750,000 people, consideration is a third dam and reservoir about one-quarter of the Oregon in the Bull Run Satershed. An overview of population. The Bull Run River was the the Bull Run Dam No.3 option is provided original water supply source for Portland. below. Bull Run Lake, located at the headwaters of the watershed,was the first source of water used to supplement river flows Existing Water Supply Uses during the summer season. Today Bull The Bull Run River has been the Run Lake is used only in very dry years. The City of Portland constructed one primary source of drinking water for the reservoir in the watershed during the City of Portland for 100 years. Cities and 1920's and another in the 196Vs. These water districts in the region have reservoirs provide more than 50,000 acre- purchased Bull Run water wholesale for feet of storage capacity. 1 July 5, 1995 e1 r The reservoirs remain full during Water Availability much of the year. In the warm summer :,and Water Rights months,these reservoirs are drawn down to meet the higher demand for water. Currently,the City of Portland and 19 The system relies on.fall,winter,and wholesale customers use about 25 percent spring rains(rather than winter :. of the total water yield of the Bull Run snowpack)to ensure that the resrvoirs Watershed,or about 37 billion gallons per start out full at the beginning of the Legislature summer drawdown season. year. In 1909!the Oregon granted Portland the exclusive right to use Unlike most other water suppliers in the waters of the Bull Run River for the United States,the City is not required municipal purposes. The City of Portland to filter Bull Run water because the raw has and could continue to expand the water quality is so high. Reservoirs collect municipal use of Bull Run water without sediment from natural processes over obtaining additional water rights. time. Because the water is not filtered, The City of Portland has registered a the City must take special precautions to claim with the state to use up to the full prevent degradation of water quality flow of the Bull Run River. The caused by the stirring up of sediment in registration sets forth a priority date for and adjacent to the reservoir pools. use of August 6, 1886. The verification of One strategy is to avoid drawing the this claim is subject to adjudication of the reservoirs down below specified elevations. Sandy River Basin. Restricting drawdown reduces the risk of The City has water rights to divert up erosion off the banks Restricting to 3,500 cubic feet per second(cfs)of Bull drawdown also limits total usable water Run Water to generate hydroelectric stored in the reservoirs to about 10.2 power at two power stations just below the billion gallons(or about 31,000 acre-feet). dams As summer ends and the fall rains begin, the reservoirs usually refill quickly and Preserving flows to meet aquatic the cycle is repeated. systems health objectives is part of the Bull Run water is disinfected at the recently established Northwest Forest Plan. However,no specific instream flow system Headworks(where intakes are requirements have been set for the Bulllocated). The water is then fed by gravity from the Bull Run Watershed to the Run River. The Bull Run River is located Portland metropolitan region via several upstream of a portion of the Sandy River large conduits. The water is brought to a which is a designated State Scenic Waterway and Federal Wild and Scenic 50 million gallon underground reservoir at Powell Butte(southwest of Gresham). The River. The Oregon Water Resources Commission has established current transmission capacity from Bull flow levels(or Run into the metro region is 210 million "Duck"flows)needed to meet the objectives of the State Scenic Waterway gallons per day(mgd). In ninety-five authorizing legislation. percent of the years,the existing Bull Run system can meet a demand of about 146 mgd during the summer and early fall Potential Uses and Facilities (June-October). A third dam and reservoir in the Bull Run are being evaluated as part of the Regional Water Supply Plan project. The representative site for the potential project is located below the confluence of the Log 2 July 5, 1995 Creek and Blazed Alder tributaries on the main stem of the Bull Run River. To address the possibility that future regulations or changes in water quality At a'maffimuni dam height of about would require the Bull Run supply source 400 feet,this project could provide an to be filtered,the Regional Water Supply additional 67,520 acre-feet,or about 22 Plan project included the cost of a.Bull billion gallons,more than double the Run alternative that includes filtration. existing reservoir storage in the Findings from previous studies indicate watershed. It is estimated that the that Bull Run water can be effectively average daily peak season availability treated(filtered and disinfected)to meet would increase by about 134.8 mgd(with all drinking water regulations. The 95 percent annual reliability). Supporting treatment processes found to be effective facilities would include new access road(s), and recommended for use if filtration is intake facilities, Headworks expansion,a required at some point include ozonation new conduit(s)from the watershed to the disinfection and the use of granular Portland metro area,and additional activated carbon(GAC)for filtration. regional storage at Powell Butte. Filtering Bull Run water would provide about 34 mgd additional supply Water Quality and 1�eatment availability for an average peak day (applying a confidence of 95%). The quality of raw Bull Run water is excellent generally compared to the other Key Environmental Issues regional water supply sources under consideration for future water supply,and Fish-The development of a third dam is among the highest in the country. and reservoir in the Bull Run watershed Currently,Bull Run water does not could have potential impacts on fish require treatment other disinfection with (including cutthroat and rainbow trout, chlorine,followed by addition of ammonia coho salmon,and potentially bull trout). to meet State and Federal drinking water Resident fish populations in the upper standards. It is one of the few remaining Bull Run watershed could be further unfiltered surface water supplies in the segregated or isolated from spawning or United States. Filtration requirements rearing habitat. The project would reduce have been avoided due to the very high riverine habitat and could cause changes quality of the water produced directly from in downstream temperatures. Increased- the ncreasedthe watershed and the City's watershed rearing habitat and food availability in the protection program. impoundment area could increase fish growth and production capabilities and One concern is how developing a third change species composition. Flow impacts reservoir in the Bull Run might affect the in the Lower Bull Run and Sandy Rivers water quality of the existing supply could change sedimentation rates and system downstream. Water quality in the water quality,and could affect fish river and the two existing reservoirs could populations and habitat downstream. be affected during construction of Bull Some of these impacts could potentially be Run Dam No.3. Substantial changes mitigated by releasing water from the could result in requirements to build a reservoir system for instream flow filtration system estimated to cost purposes. between$150 million and$250 million. However,preliminary geotechnical Wetlands -A third dam and reservoir analysis indicates that major water could affect riparian wetlands adjacent to quality impacts such as high levels of the Bull Run river or its tributaries due to sediment and turbidity from the project disturbance from construction or reservoir could be avoided or mitigated during filling. The project would cause construction. permanent loss of the perennial 3 July 5, 1995 streamflow and associated riverine. Late-Successional Reserve. The purpose wetlands.along the,river and its of the late-successional reserve tributarieiwid&lthe potential pool area designation is to maintain a functional, interactive,old growth forest ecosystem. Wildlife and Terrestrial Threatened The Bull Run has.also been designated a and Endangered Species-Bull Run Dam Tier 2 Rey Watershed. The Tier 2 No.3 also has the potential to affect Watershed designation was applied to terrestrial wildlife, The project would highlight the importance of maintaining result in the loss of about 640 acres of high high water quality. quality,diverse wildlife habitat. Of key concern are potential impacts on the No programmed timber harvest is northern spotted owl population resulting allowed in late-successional reserves, from the loss of approximately 330 acres of Thinning can occur under very stringent suitable owl habitat in the reservoir pool conditions. The Standards and Guidelines area. A small population of Howell's prohibit or discourage land management daisy,a candidate for federal listing as a activities that adversely affect the riparian threatened or endangered specie;could be areas. Tier 2 Key Watershed designation flooded by the reservoir,depending on the requires strict conformance with an exact location of the plants and pool level. Aquatic Conservation Strategy that is Bald eagle,common loon,fir club-moss, included in the Standards and Guidelines. and a plant called kruhsea are also found The Aquatic Conservation Strategy in this vicinity,but impacts to these involves maintaining instream flows to species are unlikely. Loss of habitat sustain riparian,aquatic,and wetland would affect amphibians,reptiles and habitats;and maintaining and restoring small mammals. Larger mammals and the species composition and structural birds would be displaced and might be diversity of aquatic dependent species. unable to find suitable unoccupied habitat. This requirement could be imposed on a third dam and reservoir in the Bull Run There are 408 plant and animal Watershed. species of concern identified for analysis and protection pursuant to the President's Because the Forest Plan was only Northwest Forest Plan. The Forest Plan recently adopted,the process for review requires that an analysis Bull Run and action on a third dam in the Bull Run Watershed(and other designated Key is uncertain. The Standards and Watersheds and Riparian Reserves)be Guidelines would require that siting a conducted to assess the condition of third dam in the Bull Run be evaluated as specified resources. A compilation of a special case subsequent to completion of existing species data,and possible a Bull Run Watershed Analysis and inventories of those species expected to necessary amendments to the Mt.Hood exist in the area,will be conducted as part Forest Plan and Bull Run Final of the required Watershed Analysis Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS). (scheduled to begin during 1996). Providing direct mitigation for impact on The Standards and Guidelines have wildlife and habitat would be challenging. language indicating that new development However,opportunities to acquire,protect, proposals which address public needs or and/or restore alternate habitat areas provide public benefits may be approved if have not yet been explored. More it can be shown that adverse information on the President's Forest Plan environmental impacts can be minimized is provided below. and/or mitigated. This provision could provide avenues for development of Buil President's Northwest Forest Plan-As Run Dam No.3. part of the President's Northwest Forest Plan,the Bull Run Watershed has been made part of the Mt. Hood National Forest 4 July 5, 1995 The Forest Service has not established 1995)will present different resource protocols for environmental impact combinations and associated tradeoffs for minimization and mitigation for Late- review by citizens and decision makers. Successional Reserves and Key The plan will then be finalized for regional Watersheds. Such definitions may emerge adoption by the and of the year. from the Watershed Analysis phase of Forest Plan implementation. Mitigation What You Can DO may include rehabilitation of downstream waterways,flow augmentation, If you would like additional stabilization and/or removal of forest information on how Bull Run Dam No.3 roads,or re-establishment of riparian fits into the Regional Water Supply Plan corridors. project,please contact your local water provider or the project management staff Costs at 823-7528. Costs of the project include both capital costs for design and construction, Information Sources as well as ongoing vanble costs to operate and maintain the facilities. From the Regional Water Supply Plan list of interim final reports: Technical The estimated capital cost for the Bull reports: Run Dam No. 3 option is estimated to be about$509 million. This includes the dam Squier Associates,Inc.,Bull Run Dam and reservoir,conduit from Headworks to No.3 Preliminary Site Selection Lusted Hill,Headworks improvements, Evaluation, February 3, 1994. and additional storage at Powell Butte. Montgomery Watson,Water Quality Power requirements are negligible Analysis,February 1994. because Bull Run water flows into the region by gravity. Chemical costs are Montgomery Watson,Water Treatment minimal(e.g.,@$5/million gallons)given Analysis,May 1994. that filtration treatment is not currently required. Montgomery Watson,Surface Water Availability,July 1994. If the Bull Run were required to be filtered at some point in the future,the Parametrix,Inc.,Environmental additional capital costs for a 275 mgd Analysis of Future Water Source Options, filtration plant are estimated to be about December 1994. $115 million. Power and chemical costs are estimated to be about$90 per million Squier Associates,Perlimina y Site gallons produced. Evaluation of the Log Creek Dam Site, Bull Run River,April 19, 1995. Putting the Pieces Together Other Sources: The Bull Run Dam No. 3 option will be Montgomery Watson, Water Treatment evaluated,along with water conservation Pilot Study,April 1992. programs and other supply sources. The evaluation will involved comparing how well different resource combinations meet objectives for cost,reliability,water quality, environmental impacts,and other important policy issues. The preliminary plan(scheduled for completion in late July 5 July 5, 1995 Clackamas River Source Option Regional Water Supply Plan-Portland Metropolitan Area y HiVY 212221 . � \ ROOTS ST r Johnson 0 GUM i p,eft"od M1. 1 LAW o ww Co Bwewt/di' •. \ �/G ne C FORsrnrE Rn i q ai �\ :a.� �`- ,1• i. / 1 t*%A m Area SMS \ ;/ ®ftj.M SM West Linn F "� Oregon C" nr UGB ~Souks: Metro What is the Regional Water Supply Plan? Twenty-seven cities and water region. One of the source options under districts in the Portland metropolitan consideration is expansion and/or area,along with METRO,are developing a consolidation of existing supply systems long-range water supply plan. The plan, on the Clackamas River. An overview of due to be completed in late 1995,will key issues associated with the Clackamas provide strategies for meeting future option is provided below. water needs to the year 2050. The water providers are evaluating a host of water supply and conservation options to determine the best resource mix for the 1 July 5, 1995 t Existing Water Supply Uses The Clackamas River currently . capacity assumptions for the regional provides municipal water supply to about plan. Near�erm capacity increases 175,000 residents within the regional include 8.5 mgd from a new Oak Lodge water supply plan study area. Clackamas Water District intake and treatment water system capacity within the planning plant, 10 mgd from an expansion of the area is about 66 million gallons per day South Fork Water District facility,and 4 (gpd).Water is diverted and treated to mgd from an expansion of the Lake meet drinking water standards by the City Oswego facility. of Lake Oswego,Clackamas River Water Aside from the near-term expansions district(formerly the Clackamas Water described above,the region's water District),and the South Fork Water Board providers are evaluating additional (which serves the cities of Oregon City and expansion of existing diversions and West Linn). treatment plants,along with the potential Upstream,water from the Clackamas consolidation of facilities at a single site. River also supplies the City of Estacada Under consideration are alternatives In addition,several Portland General to expand the Oak Lodge Water District Electric facitilities are operated for facility by 8.5 mgd,the South Fork Water hydropower production. Board Facility by 10 mgd,the Clackamas River Water facility by 50 mgd,and the Water Availability and City of Lake Oswego facility by 18 mgd. Water Rights Consolidation of facilities could involve Municipalities hold water rights to use maintaining or phasing out existing 265 tabic feet per second(cfs)or 171 intakes and treatment plants,and million gallons per day(mgd)on the consolidating new facilities at one site. Clackamas River. Only 66 mgd of capacity The representative site being considered has been developed to date. The for consolidation is located adjacent to the remainder could be developed to meet existing Clackamas Water District water future growth in demand. intake and treatment facility. For purposes of the Regional Water Regional storage is also anticipated in Supply Plan,about 22.5 mgd of additional conjunction with expansion of the Clackamas River supply is scheduled for Clackamas River supply system. The development in the near-term. Over an representative site for a regional storage above these"committed resources,"up to reservoir is located on Forsythe Road. The 83 mgd of additional supply is under site is generally located on a topographical consideration as part of the Regional bench area near the community of Water Supply Planning project. This is Outlook. A regional transmission line about the maximum additional supply would be needed to connect Clackamas that could be developed under existing water treatment plants to the regional water rights. storage facility. Potential Uses and Facilities Water Quality and Mreatment Several new or expanded Clackamas The quality of the Clackamas River River water supply facilities are planned raw water is generally good compared to be completed by 2000. As mentioned with other regional source options,and above, a total of 22.5 mgd from these very good compared with sources projects are included in the baseline nationwide. The river has a low incidence 2 July 5, 1995 „ r of natural and human-caused Hey Environmental Issues contaminants. There are some constituents that exceed drinking water Fish-Development of additional standards including turbidity and water supplies on the Clackamas River microorganisms. Sporadic nutrient(e.g., could affect fish populations. Adverse nitrogen,phosphorus)increases can occur impacts can occur due to flow changes and during low flow periods causing taste and or killed at the odor problems. The water is easily treated if fish t trapped,!*md, to meet drinking water standards. intake facilities. Some of the intake sites appear to present more risk of impacts to The upper Clackamas watershed is fish than others. However,an instream largely in forest use while the lower flow incremental methodology(IFM watershed contains diverse land uses and study is recommended to characterize fish is experiencing rapid population growth. habitat and better ascertain the impacts From the headwaters of the Clackamas on fish and fish habitat associated with River to Carver Bridge is a designated one or more intakes on the river. Fish State Scenic Waterway. Although these impacts can be avoided or mitigated areas are upstream from municipal intake through intake design,appropriate fish sites under consideration,these special screening, and reducing diversion sizes. designations afford opportunities to Wetlands-Expansion of Clackamas institute watershed protection measures River water supplies is expected to designed to protect water quality. There pp e� minimal to no impacts on wetlands. are few discharges to the river upstream Construction of supply facilities at the from intake sites under consideration. The lower basin contains diverse land uses representative site for a consolidated and is growing rapidly. There is growing facility could avoid on-site wetlands. iImpacts to wetlands due to expansions on interest among citizens and agencies in watershed management opportunities for existing facility sites are expected to be the Clackamas basin. minor. Impacts can be mitigated by minimizing site disturbance and providing Currently,exisuing water purveyors enhancement of nearby riparian areas and filter and chlorinate water from the wetlands. Flow changes are not expected Clackamas river. This process has been to affect downstream wetlands,however, effective in producing high-quality potable ongoing assessment of the impact of flow water that surpasses all safe drinking reductions on downstream floodplain water standards. wetlands is recommended. For purposes of the regional water Recreation-Facility siting and supply 1 plan,it has been recommended to additional diversions on the Clackamas p River could have an adverse impact on the project participants that future River recreation opportunities. treatment replicate existing conventional acts could be mitigated imp Potential treatment of sedimentation and filtration Pot l imp design and s' along with the use of granular activated carbon thr ��' ng for filtration. The use of granular with the possible establishment of activated carbon would provide a barrier riverside trails. against microbial and organic constituents Land Use-Expansion and in the water. consolidation of facilities are generally consistent with local comprehensive plans. Expansion of the Lake Oswego intake facility would require an amendment to the City of Gladstone zoning code to allow the facility as a conditional use in an Open Space zone. 3 July 5, 1995 Information.Source8 Costs From the list of reports produced for Costs of the.project include both the Regional Water Supply Plan project. capital costs for design and construction, as well as ongoing vanble costs to operate Murray Smith and Associates, and maintain the facilities. Evaluation of Water Rights and Water Use Permitting Requirements,March 10, 1994. The capital costs of expanding system capacity an the Clackamas River are Montgomery Watson,Water Quality estimated to be about$157 million for a 50 Analysis,February 1994. mgd:acility. A 75 mgd facility would cost about$87 million. These costs are based Montgomery Watson,Water Treatment on an assumption that expansions would Analysis,May 1994. take place in a consolidated fashion on the representative site adjacent to the existing Montgomery Watson,Surface Water Clackamas River Water facility. They Availability,July 1994. include costs for a river intake and raw water pumping station,treatment plant Parametrix,Inc.,Environmental and finished water pumping station,a Analysis ofFuture Water Source Options, transmission line and regional storage. In December 1994. addition,power and chemical costs are projected to be about$148 and$25 per million gallons,respectively. (Note: Variable costs may be subject to revision.) Putting the Pieces Together The Clackamas River option will be evaluated,along with water conservation programs and other supply sources. The evaluation will involved comparing how well different resource combinations meet objectives for cost,reliability,water quality,environmental impacts,and other important policy issues. The preliminary plan(scheduled for completion in late July 1995)will present different resource combinations and associated tradeoffs for review by citizens and decision makers. The plan will then be finalized for regional adoption by the end of the year. What You Can Do If you would like additional information on how the Clackamas River fits into the Regional Water Supply Plan project,please contact your local water provider or the project management staff at 823-7528. 4 July 5, 1995 Aquifer Storage&Recovery (ASR) Regional Water Supply Plane Portland Metropolitan Area Inje«ion Ground surface New water level due to Muco«+(hydraullic effect) Q PasabA wnaeo Pre-injecdon water level V Rivet Front of injected wafer (disoacemeru effect) fI .;JS r); 1ih45�ZQ. Source: Montgomery Watson What is the Regional Water What is ASR? Supply Plan? Aquifer storage and recovery(ASR)is a Twenty-seven cities and water water management approach which districts in the Portland metropolitan involves storing surface water in area,and METRO,are developing a long- underground aquifers(water-bearing rock range water supply plan. The plan,to be strata)and then extracting the stored completed in late 1995,will provide water for later use. This approach being strategies for meeting future water needs considered as part of the Regional Water to the year 2050. The water providers are Supply Plan project for the Portland evaluating a host of water supply and metropolitan area. conservation options to determine the best resource mix for the region. One of the Aquifer storage has certain supply management options being advantages over surface water reservoirs considered is called aquifer storage and including lower evaporation losses, recovery,or ASR. An overview of ASR potentially large storage volumes, and opportunities for the region is summarized potentially fewer and less damaging below. environmental impacts. In the Portland region,ASR could be used to help meet peak season demands,provide emergency backup system benefits,and improve water quality by lowering temperatures in supply distribution systems during the summer. 1 July 5, 1995 p.. Existing Water Supply Uses Columbia,or TrasknIualatin rivers. ASR is used in other parts of the United States such.as California,Arizona, Generally,surface waters would be and Florida. The City of Seattle has diverted and stored underground during the high flow months(e.g:,winter,spring) installed and operates a 10 mgd ASR facility. In addition to providing water when municipal demands are relatively slow and excess water(under existing or supply,ASR can help recharge depleted gfuture water rights)and treatment plant groundwater resources and prevent salt water intrusion in coastal areas. capacity would be available. Each of the sources,with the exception of the In Oregon,ASR is being implemented Columbia,could be accessed for ASR in the Hermiston and St. Helens areas. A without requiring additional source water rights. (Additional permits would be pilot project is underway to determine required to inject and extract the water, whether ASR is feasible to develop as part of the City of Salem's water supply however. See Key Environmental Issues below.) system. Currently,there are no ASR projects Potential Uses and Facilities in the Portland region. The Joint Water Commission and Tualatin Valley Water Two representative sites are being District have sponsored studies and evaluated as part of the regional planning development of an ASR project concept. project. One representative site is located The project,which would be located in in the Powell Valley area southeast of Washington County,is also part of the Gresham. The area under consideration is regional water supply planning effort. about 31 square miles. The Troutdale The Mt.Scott Water District in Clackamas Gravel Aquifer was recommended for County is also conducting a study to we storage and recovery due to its relative how ASR might be able to help meet a thickness,unconfined geologic features, portion of their supply-requirements. and unused capacity in the unsaturated zone above the water table. Water Availability and The second representative site under Water Rights study is located in the Cooper-Bull For purposes of the Regional Water Mountain area about four miles to the P southwest of the City of Beaverton in Supply Plan project,an ASR facility would Washington County. This site is about 24 provide at least 20 million gallons of water square miles in size. Water would be per day(mgd)for 120 days,(generally stored in,and extracted from,the during the summer and early fall)in order Columbia River Basalt formation. This to be considered regionally significant. area is close to population and economic Limiting the evaluation to facilities of at centers in the western portion of the least 20 mgd does not preclude the region and has available storage volume potential for smaller ASR projects to due to historical groundwater depletion in contribute to the region's overall supply the vicinity. picture over time. It is estimated that both the Powell It is also assumed that surface water Valley and Cooper-Bull Mountain ASR sources for ASR could come from any of projects would involve 28 wells each. Well the region's current or potential supply yields would average about 500 gallons sources. These include waters from the per minute(gpm). These estimates Bull Run, Clackamas,Willamette, presume that the same wells could be used for both injection and extraction. Wells 2 July 5, 1995 would need to be spaced about 4,000 feet Under current state law,source apart to achieve the desired yield and waters for ASR would need to meet safe prevent interference. Well yields may be drinking water standards prior to injection' overestimated for the Cooper-Bull into the ground. It is assumed that water Mountain area if interconnecting multiple sources for ASR in the Portland metro water bearing'zones in the aquifer is region would have already been treated prohibited by state law. (i.e.,filtered and/or disinfected)to meet drinking water standards. The water Water Quality and might need to be disinfected after Water Treatment extraction before it can be distributed for potable uses. For water quality issues No known cases of significant water associated with potential ASR source quality contamination exist in either the water,please refer to fact sheets on the Powell Valley or Cooper-Bull Mountain Bull Run Dam No.3,Columbia River,Willamette River,Clackamas River,and representative site areas. Both sites are Trask/Tualatin rivers options located outside of the Metro urban growth . boundary(UGB)which should reduce the One of the assumptions associated risk of contamination from urban and with the ASR concept is that there will not industrial land uses. Nevertheless, be extensive mixing between the source developing a comprehensive wellhead water and ambient groundwater in the protection program will become a high aquifer. As mentioned above,the source priority if aquifer storage and recovery water may come from one or more of the facilities are developed. existing or future regional water supply There is little information on sources. The raw water quality of new or groundwater quality at either of the expanded sources ranges from fair to representative sites and more data is excellent. Each can be treated to meet needed before proceeding with an ASR, state and federal drinking water project. Land uses consist mostly of single standards. Please refer to source-specific family residences with relatively large lot fact sheets for additional detail. sizes,and some agricultural and nursery The extent and effects of interaction uses. Groundwater in the Powell Valley between the source water and the .area may be naturally protected in part by groundwater is important to consider a relatively impermeable layer of sediment when conceptualizing a potential ASR at the ground surface. project. Changes in temperature, Available data shows that chemical quality,and physical groundwater quality is variable in the characteristics can cause mineral Cooper-Bull Mountain area. Several precipitation,biological reactions,or samples contained high levels of total blockages which can affect the aquifer and dissolved solids which is not uncommon in clog wells. While the planning project has groundwater sources. In addition,saline involved some preliminary analysis,a water may have migrated upward through pilot project would be needed to determine the faults and fractures of the basalt whether and to what extent problems rocks. Generally,the water quality in the occur,and how they can be mitigated upland basalt aquifers is fairly good. It through project siting,operation,and/or may be possible to obtain groundwater design. samples from existing private wells to Protecting the water quality of water enhance the level of information on stored in aquifers is also an important groundwater quality in the vicinity of ASR issue. Prevention of contamination can be representative sites. acheived throught the establishment of standards for land use and land 3 July 5, 1995 management practices in the vicinity of costs the wells. Costs of the project include both Key Environmental Issues capital costs for design and construction, as well as ongoing vanble costs to operate Fish.and Aquatic Life-Instream flow and maintain the facilities. impacts would occur during the winter high-flow months when ASR source water The capital cost to construct an ASR is diverted for injection. Implementation facility that can produce 20 mgd at the of ASR could reduce the need to divert Powell Valley Representative Site is surface water flows during the summer projected to be about$15 million. The and early fall when streamflows are power and chemical costs are estimated to typically low and critical for fish and be about$208 per million gallons. aquatic organisms. This would likely benefit aquatic species.Potential The capital cost to construct an ASR reduction in winter flows to supply an facility that produce 20 mgd at the ASR project would be very small relative Cooper-Bull Mountain Representative Site to current flows in the Clackamas, is projected to be about$17 million. The Willamette and Columbia Rivers. power and chemical costs are estimated to be about$177 per million gallons. Well Interference-Technical and water quality considerations include potential The cost for post-extraction interference between an ASR facility and disinfection will vary depending on the both existing groundwater wells and source water used for injection. surface water bodies(including wetlands) during injection and/or extraction of the Costs shown hhere for power and source water. Interference can occur when chemicals pertain to a four-month groundwater levels and pressures change extraction period post-extraction due to pumping or extraction. In addition, disinfection only.) increasing water levels could interact with existing land uses(eg.,rock and Putting the Pieces Together aggregate mines)causing water quality problems. Hydrogeologic investigations Aquifer storage and recovery will be and pilot tests would be needed to evaluated,along with water conservation determine the extent of potential programs and other supply sources. The interference with land uses and the evaluation will involved comparing how beneficial uses of groundwater and surface well different resource combinations meet water. objectives for cost,reliability,water quality,environmental impacts,and other "Commingling"of Water-Drilling important policy issues. The preliminary wells through different water bearing plan(scheduled for completion in late July zones could pose risk of contamination 1995)will present different resource between the zones. This"commingling"of combinations and associated tradeoffs for groundwater is prohibited by state law. review by citizens and decision makers. There are also risks of point and non-point The plan will then be finalized for regional source contamination from surface land adoption by the end of the year. uses. Stringent well construction approaches and effective wellhead protection programs would be warranted to help manage such risks. 4 July 5, 1995 What You Can Do If you would like additional information on how aquifer storage and recovery fits into the Regional Water Supply Plan project,please contact your local water provider or the project management staff at 823-7528. Information Sources Squier Associates,Inc.and Montgomery Watson,Screening of Potential Aquifer Storage and Recovery Areas,January 31, 1994. Mongomery Watson,Aquifer Storage &Recovery Detailed Analysis Report,May 1994. Parametrix,Inc.,Environmental Analysis of Future Water Source Options, December 1994. 5 July 5, 1995 TRASB/TUALAT]N;.(Barney Reservoir) Source Option Regional Water Supply Plan - Portland Metropolitan Area . What is the Regional Water Supply Plan? Joint Water Commission (JWC), consisting of Hillsboro, Forest Grove, Beaverton, and Twenty-seven cities and water districts in the Tualatin Valley Water District. It is the Portland metropolitan area are located just south of Forest Grove and developing a long-range water supply plan. currently has a capacity of 40 mgd. The plan, due to be completed in late 1995, will provide strategies for meeting future Together, these plants serve a large rural water needs to the year 2050. The water area of Western Washington County, the providers are evaluating a host of water incorporated communities of Cove Orchard supply and conservation options to (Yamhill County), Cherry Grove, and determine the best resource mix for the Dilley, the Cities of Gaston, Cornelius, and region. These options involve baseline the Laurelwood Academy Water assumptions about facilities already existing Cooperative. In addition, they serve the full in or committed to the region. One source needs of Hillsboro and Beaverton and some option is the expansion of existing supply of the needs of Forest Grove and the systems using the Trask (Barney Reservoir) Tualatin Valley Water District. and Tualatin Rivers. An overview of key issues associated with this option is provided Water Availability and Water Rights below. The JWC and its members hold about Existing Water Supply Uses 102 cubic feet per second(cfs) or 66 million gallons per day (mgd) of water rights to The Trask/Tualatin System currently divert water from the Tualatin River. provides municipal water supply to over (Beaverton holds additional rights to a 120,000 residents and to many business and portion of water produced by the JWC institutional customers within the western plant.) Of that, 43.5 mgd are actually portion of the regional water supply plan diverted at this time. However, this water study area. The current capacity of the is not available during the dry season, which water system within the planning area is typically lasts from early June through about 43.5 million gallons per day (mgd). September. During this time, Hillsboro and Water is diverted and treated to meet JWC must rely on water released from drinking water standards in two locations. storage. Currently, there are two reservoirs The first, owned by the City of Hillsboro, is for use: Hagg Lake on Scoggins Creek, a small slow sand filter plant(3.5 mgd) near which is a tributary of the Tualatin, and the the community of Cherry Grove. The Barney Reservoir on the Trask River. second is a full treatment plant owned by the Together, they have a total of 21,500 acre y 4 feet of storage(47.5 mgd for the normal dry The river has a lower incidence of natural season). and human-caused contaminants than some of the other'proposed sources. There are In addition, an expansion of the Barney some constituents that exceed drinking_ water Dam on the Trask River is under standards including turbidity - and construction. Upon completion, it will add microorganisms. Sporadic increases in 14,000 acre feet(38 mgd for the normal dry turbidity and nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, season), for use by JWC. While this totals phosphorus) can occur during high flow 96.3 mgd, there is loss from transpiration periods. Existing facilities treat the water and evaporation, and required releases for readily to meet drinking water standards. fish. Also, the dry season lasts longer during some years. Reliable reservoir The upper Trask and Tualatin watersheds storage capacity on this system is about 80 are largely in forest use while the lower mgd. The JWC and its members hold water watershed contains diverse land uses and is rights to 18,000 acre feet of storage of the experiencing rapid population growth. Barney Reservoir (including expansion) and However, the Hillsboro Cherry Grove intake 13,500 acre feet of storage of the Scoggins is upstream from any known residences, and Reservoir as well. the JWC intake is upstream from any sewage treatment plant discharges. Potential Additional Capacity Therefore, population growth should have little impact on water quality for this source. An expansion of the JWC treatment plant is ready to go to bid, with construction Currently, JWC and Hillsboro filter and planned to be completed by mid-1997. A chlorinate water from the Trask/Tualatin total of 63.5 mgd from the original plants System. This process has been effective in and this expansion are included in the producing high-quality potable water that baseline capacity assumptions for the surpasses all safe drinking water standards. RWSP. For purposes of the Regional Water Supply Transmission facilities from the plant to Plan, it has been recommended to the Hillsboro and further east are limited to project participants that future treatment under 40 mgd. With the expansion of the replicate existing conventional treatment of dam and treatment plant, JWC is also in the sedimentation and filtration with the use of process of constructing a new transmission granular activated carbon for filtration. The line that will allow use of the full expanded use of granular activated carbon would capacity of the reservoir. This line is provide a barrier against microbial and targeted for completion in 1997 or 1998, organic constituents in the water. The and is also part of the RWSP baseline expansion of the JWC treatment plant will capacity assumptions of 63.5 mgd for the include capacity for this level of treatment. Trask-Tualatin System. Key Environmental Issues Water Quality and Treatment Expansion of the Barney Reservoir on the The relative quality of the Tualatin River Trask River involved completion of a full raw water is generally good when compared environmental impact statement (EIS) and with other regional source options, and very review and approval by a large number of good compared with sources nationwide. governmental agencies. All necessary 2 July 25, 1995 permits including U. S. Army Corps of Information Sources Engineers 404 permit and State of Oregon Division of State Lands permit have been From the list of reports produced for the issued to allow construction to begin. Regional Water Supply Plan project: Mitigation for lost wetlands, transplantation of a rare plant, restoration of elk habitat, Murray Smith and Associates, Evaluation of and replacement of spawning beds for the Water Rights and Water Use Permitting native cutthroat trout were the major Requirements, March 10, 1994. environmental concerns, and mitigation plans have all been approved. Montgomery Watson, Water Quality Analysis, February 1994. All land use and construction permits from Washington County have also been issued. Montgomery Watson, Water Treatment Analysis, May 1994. Costs Montgomery Watson, Surface Water The capital costs of the committed Availability, July 1994. expansions of the system capacity on the Trask-Tualatin are estimated to be about$50 Parametrix, Inc., Environmental Analysis of to $60 million for the 20 mgd increment. Future Water Source Options, December These costs are not included in the RWSP as 1994. these expansions are considered to be baseline assumptions. Power and chemical Additional source: costs are projected to be about $81.18 and $19.54 per million gallons, respectively. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Final Environmental Impact Statement, Barney Putting the Pieces Together Reservoir Expansion, May, 1994. The Trask/Tualatm (Barney Reservoir) source option is considered as a baseline assumption and therefore a part of each source option being considered for the RWSP. The preliminary plan(scheduled for completion in late July 1995) will present different resource combinations and associated tradeoffs for review by citizens and decision makers. The plan will then be fmalized for regional adoption by the end of the year. What You Can Do If you would like additional information on how the Trask-Tualatin system fits into the Regional Water Supply Plan project, please contact your local water provider or the project management staff at 823-7528. 3 July 25, 1995 w! y Regional Water Supply Plan-Portland Metropolitan-Area, Assessment of Water Reuse,Recycling,and Direct Use What is the Regional Water Supply Plan? Twenty-seven cities and water districts in As part of the Conservation and Demand the Portland metropolitan area,along Management element of the Regional with METRO,are developing a long-range Water Supply Plan project,qualitative water supply plan. The Dan,due to be and economic screenings were applied to completed in late 1995,will provide the stormwater capture,cisterns,gray strategies for meeting future water needs water systems and industrial water to the year 2050. The water providers are recycling options. evaluating a host of water supply and conservation options to determine the best Qualitative Screen-The vast majority of resource mix for the region. conservation measures passed the first qualitative screening. Those passing Here in the Portland metropolitan region, included residential gray water systems, along with many other parts of the United cisterns,and recycled cooling water. States,there is increasing interest in Eliminated from further analysis were water reuse and recycling,and the direct gray water systems for use of stormwater and untreated river or commercial/landscape application and groundwater. These types of supply large scale stormwater storagetpump options are typically considered for non- systems. The primary reasons for potable purposes,however in some parts screening out these measures are of the country,they are also candidates for summarized below. potable use. Gray Water Systems for The municipal water providers of the Commercial/Landscape Application- Portland metropolitan region are learning For purposes of this project,gray water more about the opportunities by is defined as untreated laundry,bath examining reuse,recycling,and and bathroom sink water that has not stormwater as part of the Regional Water come in contact with soiled diapers, Supply Plan project. An overview of this meat or poultry. Gray water is analysis is provided below. typically considered for irrigation or other outdoor,non-potable or non- contact uses. In Oregon,using gray Potential Uses water as a supply source is not currently permitted. State regulations Options which have been evaluated as provide standards only for disposal of part of the regional planning effort gray water in approved on-site septic include: systems, sumps,and sewage treatment systems. Various public health issues, • Stormwater capture regulatory changes,and consumer • Cisterns education would be required before • Gray water systems gray water use would be allowed. • Recycling of industrial cooling water • Reuse of treated wastewater effluent In a residential setting,gray water use may be appropriate given the small scale and ability of the resident to control how and when it is used at the 1 July 5,1995 home. Ina commercial setting, animals. It can also contain however,itis very difficult to control contaminants washed from sites at who comes into contact with gray water which chemicals have been stored in prior to entering or after leaving the' leaking receptacles. CSO flows also system. Due to concern over potential contain raw sewage and associated health hazards,commercial gray water pathogens. systems did not pass the qualitative screen and were eliminated from Using this water for most non-potable further evaluation under the Regional purposes would probably require at Water Supply Plan project. least secondary if not tertiary treatment. Any in town storage of Large Scale Stormwater Storage and water would need to be covered or Pump Systems-The Portland otherwise treated to prevent algae metropolitan region experiences rainy growth and the proliferation of disease- winters with substantial amounts of spreading vectors such as mosquitoes. runoff after frequent,and often intense storms. Managing this stormwater is Economic Screen-The purpose of the increasingly costly and complex due to economic screening process was to recent,increasingly stringent compare the costs of water savings from regulations on water quality,surface individual conservation measures and water discharges,and combined sewer non-potable sources with cost of water overflows(CSOs). Given the need for from potential future water supply new water supplies,the Regional Water options. A benefit-cost advantage was Supply Plan project team evaluated the assigned to conservation measures during potential use of captured stormwater to the screening process. This advantage meet future demand. was designed to account for benefits that are either difficult to quantify or have not As a result of the qualitative screening, yet been quantified(e.g.,avoided large scale stormwater storage/pump enviromental impacts,energy use systems were eliminated from further reductions,reduced demand on waste analysis. Oneprimary reasons for water traatment plants,etc.). Only those screening out this option is the massive measures that were found to be clearly storage requirements. The storage cost-prohibitive(ie.,costing 2.5-5 times requirements for large scale capture higher than preliminary,'ballpark" and use of stormwater would be estimates for potential new supplies)have extensive,involving large land areas been eliminated from further study. and the construction of enormous pipes, tunnels,and/or reservoirs. In addition, Low-tech Graywater Systems- Low- even significant increases in in-town tech gray water systems passed the storage would provide only a few days economic screen. A low-tech gray additional supply. water system is defined here as one providing 50 gallons per day via a 55 Significant water quality issues would gallon drum which is connected to need to be addressed as well laundry facilities only. The water Stormwater is generated when rain or would be applied through drip melted snow runs off impervious or irrigation with no leach field or saturated surfaces into storm sewers, backflow prevention device. However, catchment basins,and local streams. based on additional analysis and This runoff contains numerous examples from other areas,the contaminants including petroleum by- potential for allowing gray water products from roads,gas stations,and systems without backflow prevention vehicle lots,fertilizers.and pesticides devices appears extremely unlikely. from landscaped areas,and wastes from domestic and non-domestic 2 July 5, 1995 Heating, ventilation and Air dry summer season when the water Conditioning(HVAC)and Industrial was most neede& Using the economic Recycling-The use of an air cooled screening approach,the cost per unit rather than a water-cooled HVAC of water provided from cisterns was system was also found to be found to range from 20 to 33 times economically viable depending on the more than the preliminary,per unit tonnage size. The cost-effectiveness of cost of"new water." Thus,this various industrial water recycling technology was recommended to be processes would need to be determined eliminated from further study. on a case-by-case basis. Measures which did not pass the economic Use of heated Wastewater screen include high tech gray water The potential for using treated wastewater systems and cisterns. for non-potable purposes is also being evaluated as part of the Regional Water HighrTech Gray Water-The high-tech Supply Plan project. In Oregon,the approach to gray water would involve Department of Environmental Quality larger systems with multiple sources regulates the use of treated effluent. For (vs.laundry only),application via poses of the Regional Water Supply subsurface leach fields,and the use of Plan project,it is recommended that only backflow prevention devices. During bevel IV,the highest quality of treated the economic screen,the cost per unit effluent should be considered to meet of water provided from a high-tech identified demands for non-potable gray water system was projected to be supplies in the region. Level IV water can more than sig and one-half times the be applied to agricultural crops,including estimated,per-unit cost of water from food crops,and to areas where public anew source. Thus,this technology access is not controlled such as parks, was eliminated from further study for green spaces,and golf courses with the remainder of the Phase 2 project, contiguous residences. The availability of water treated to T.evel IV would increase Cisterns-Cisterns are rainwater the potential reuse opportunities in the collection devices that divert water region. from roof gutters into holding tanks or barrels which store the water for later Currently,two out of ten wastewater use. An overflow device diverts the treatment plants(WWTPs)in the region water back into the storm drain provide the tertiary treatment required to system once the tank or barrel is full. meet Level IV effluent water quality Rainwater is generally clean enough standards. The Rock Creek and for all non-potable uses,although Wilsonville WWl'Ps have plant capacities contamination can occur when water of 20 mgd and 2.3 mgd respectively. The comes in contact with catchmentremaining eight plants have the capacity surfaces. Other issues arise including to provide secondary treatment for up to regulations prohibiting"standing 176 mgd. water,"vector control,unforeseen use of cistern water for potable use,and Based on existing information,there aesthetics. appears to be substantial markets for treated wastewater in the region. Water can be collected in the cistern However, there remain considerable system during the rainy season but uncertainties,particularly in the key would not be needed during much of areas of costs and markets as shown in the the year. Water from the system following examples. would then be depleted rapidly during spring and summer,but the system would not regularly refill during the 3 July 5, 1995 Preliminary studies show potential technical information for use in future markets for up to 108.5 mgd of non- program decisions. In addition,BES has potable supplies in the current Bull Run contracted to develop a facilities plan,part service area and potential future Bull Run of which will focus on identifying reuse Service areas. Of that;60 mgd was markets and opportunities until 2040. allotted for groundwater recharge and plume control at or near the Columbia Direct Use of Untreated South Shore Wellfield. Currently, Groundwater and Surface .remediation strategies are being evaluated Water and it is unclear if and how water injection fits into future remediation efforts. Currently,the direct use of untreated The results of a Recycled Wastewater groundwater and surface water("direct cY use")is thought to play a key role in Master Plan prepared for the Unified meeting non-potable demand in the Sewerage Agency estimated that reuse region. The amount of direct use potential could reach up to about 75.0 occurring at this time cannot be readily mgd. However,the driving force behind quantified. Yet,region-wide,it is likely this analysis was to identify readily that existing on-site or proximate,(non- available,low cost markets for treated municipal)groundwater.wells and surface wastewater and reduce effluent discharges water diversions are used to meet to the Tualatin River. The study focused significant irrigation(and some industrial) primarily on the application of treated demands. wastewater to irrigated agricultural lands. More recently,water quality compliance The Ronal Water Supply Plan project issues have been addressed and the effort does not include evaluation of regional to keep effluent out of the river has been water sources. For this project,it is scaled back. Yet,a more focused analysis assumed that the proportion of future of potential feasibility of using treated water demand met through direct use will wastewater specifically for non-potable be the same as it is today. For the short, municipal purposes Washington County term,direct use systems are expected to be could yield very different results than the developed on a case-by-case basis at sites previous analysis. which are nearby or adjacent to available surface water and groundwater sources. Treated wastewater is currently being used in the metro region currently. USA For example,the Port of Portland recently provides treated effluent from the Rock acquired municipal water use permits Creek Plant for irrigation at two golf (rights)to use the waters of the courses,school fields,a dairy and a small, Willamette and Columbia rivers for non- light industrial firm. USA is also potable industrial and irrigation uses. discussing the option of using treated Direct use by the Port should,over time, wastewater with water users in reduce the demand on the Bull Run Washington County. potable water supply system substantially. The City of Portland,Bureau of Given the potential benefits and Environmental Services(BES)is exploring efficiencies achieved by meeting non- reuse options by constructing a facility at potable demand with non-potable sources, the Columbia Boulevard Treatment Plant it may be worthwhile for water providers that will provide Level III treated effluent to continue exploring direct use for irrigation use at the site(currently opportunities during implementation of provided by groundwater wells). The the regional water supply plan. initial capacity will be 4 mgd. BES intends to expand the capacity to 12 mgd in the future. This facility will be used as a pilot/education project. It will provide 4 July 5, 1995 -.Costs groundwater which is hydraulically The preliminary cost estimates for use of connected to surface water. In addition,in treated wastewater in the region vary portions of the region(e.g,Columbia widely. Current reports show the giver Basalt aquifer in Washington potential cost of treated effluent ranging Count,)groundwater levels are declining from$700-$44,300 per acre foot. The id s of the resource are(or wide ranges in cost estimates reflect may become)restricted. different assumptions regarding the size of the market,type of treatment plant upgrades,and transmission and Coordination with Wastewater distribution requirements. Based on a 1V,unageffient Agencies 1993 national survey of municipal water providers using treated wastewater for The water providers participating in the irrigation uses,the per-acre-foot costs Phase 2 planning effort have coordinated identified in the survey ranged from$300- with the regions major wastewater $2000. The cost estimates developed for management agencies at several work reuse of wastewater from USA facilities sessions and regularly scheduled meetings are within the range of costs of similar of the Metro Water Resources Policy types of systems examined in the national Advisory Committee(WRPAC). survey. As mentioned above,continued Preliminary estimates of potential coordination,research and pilot work will markets for treated wastewater were also be needed to hone our understanding of developed for Clackamas County. If about the future role of water reuse and one-half of total estimated future park recycling in the Portland metropolitan acreage and one-half of existing golf course region. As our understanding grows,the area could be irrigated using reclaimed role of water reuse and recycling will be water,associated markets for the water incorporated into the regions water would be approximately 5,000 acre-feet supply future via plan updates over time. per year,or 9 mgd. Additional markets could probably be identified through a What You Can Do more detailed analysis of land use and future residential and commercial If you would like additional information on industrial/development potential. how water reuse and recycling fits into the Regional Water Supply Plan project, In the Portland region,potential irrigation please contact your local water provider or markets are expected to be seasonal in the project management staff at 823-7528. nature. More continuous demand could reduce unit costs for the heated wastewater. However,even in the south Information Sources and southwest where irrigation markets for non-potable sources are nearly year- Ballantyne,Don,Dames and Moore, round, alternative discharge and/or Telephone Interview,July 25, 1994 storage facilities are still needed during low-demand periods(similar to what Barakat&Chamberlin,Inc., Final Draft- might be expected in Oregon). Conservation Measure Technology Profiles;May 11, 1994. One previous study projected costs of direct use (groundwater)to be lower than for reuse of Level IV treated wastewater. However, it may be difficult to obtain new water rights for surface water, or 5 July 5, 1995 Barakat&Chamberlin,Inc., Inc.;Telephone Correspondence;7/94, Memorandum to Members of the(Phase 2) 8✓94. Steering Committee,from Slip Schick and Jennifer Stout Supplementary Meeting Doug Sovern,Telephone Interview,8W" Materials(Conservation/Demand Side Management Element),July 20, 1994. Vanderplatt,Tom;Unified Sewerage Agency;Tel.Interview;August 15, 1994. Doane,Jim,Memorandum to Roberta Jortner,August 31, 1994. George,Barbara,Bureau of Environmental Services;Personal Interview;July 28, 1994. HDR Engineering,Inc.,in Association with: Barney&Worth,Inc.;Cascade Earth Sciences;C112M Hill;Jeanne Lawson Associates;Public Financial Management;Robert A.Gearheart;and Wetland Management Services,"Recycled Wastewater Master Plan-Draft,"Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County, August 1991. KOLLT Report 2,Final;May 1, 1994. Kleiwer,Dave,City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services,Telephone Interview;7/94. Lee, Lester,City of Portland,Bureau of Environmental Services,Telephone Interview;7/20/94,9/12/94. Lichtman,Helene,Clackamas Public Utilities;Telephone Interview;9/12/94. McKeever,Mike,McKeever/Morris; Telephone Interview;August 31, 1994. Montgomery Watson,Technical Memorandum to Gary Fiske,from Garry Wohlgemuth;Phase 2 Wastewater Reuse- Evaluaation as a Supply Side Resource; May 23, 1994. Read,Michael,City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services(BES);Personal Interview;8/94. Stevens, Henry,City of Portland, BES; Personal Interview;8/8/94. Stout,Jennifer, Barakat&Chamberlin, 6 July 5, 1995 Conservation Opportunities Regional Water Supply Plan - Portland Metropolitan Area E: , Residents of the Portland the best ways to combine conservation metropolitan area hold a high value for with potential water source options. This water conservation, according to a recent method treats conservation as a resource survey sponsored by the metro region's option to meet future demand and water providers. The Portland area has highlights successful means of using our been blessed with access to several high current water sources more efficiently. quality water sources. But as the region is Conservation savings aim to delay and/or expected to grow by 800,000 people by reduce the need for new sources. the year 2050, there is a need.to ensure that high quality water for the future. To Selecting Conservation Measures meet the increase in water demand that The project team has created this ® process to identify which conservation measures best meet the region's needs: Update the water demand forecast. Regional population growth estimates and "naturally occurring conservation" both serve as the base for projected water demand. Naturally occurring conservation refers to future reduction in demand that is will certainly accompany such growth, 27 expected to occur without any additional of the areas water providers and Metro water provider effort. In this case, it have come together to devise the Regional results overtime, by replacing old Water Supply Plan. The first phase of the plumbing fixtures with the new efficient plan projected future regional water fixtures now required by national demand, evaluated potential sources, and legislation. identified ways to conserve water. The second phase is now underway, and Identify the universe of conservation participants are trying to identify the measures. A list was compiled of over conservation measures most suitable for 100 water saving technologies and this region. management practices that are available to the region. The list included measures Conservation as a Resource Option applicable to indoor and outdoor uses in the residential, commercial, and industrial, Through the regional planning and institutional sectors. process, the water providers are evaluating 1 July 5, 1995 Apply a qualitative screen to narrow Integrate program details into the the broad list. The qualitative screen resource planning model to evaluate along assesed the viability of each conservation with potential supply options. Three measure using the following criteria: the different conservation program levels were level of technological development,, designed for use in the integration model. customer acceptance, environmental and Each is increasingly aggressive in nature health concerns, and the availability of and they are outlined as follows: other measures that reduce demand more effectively. Develop technology profiles. The . profiles detail the cost, savings, and lifetime of each measure passing the qualitative screen. Apply an economic screen. Economic criteria were used to eliminate any measures that were clearly not cost- effective for the region. The costs of LEVEL 1 water savings from individual conservation At this level of effort, the water measures were compared to the providers would take an educational, preliminary costs of viable future water informational approach toward supply options. A benefit-cost advantage implementing conservation. The was assigned to conservation measures to measures included in Level 1 rely on account for factors that were difficult to customer initiative to achieve water quantify (e.g. the avoided cost of savings. Level 1 would also provide transmission operation and maintenance, the foundation of customer awareness and environmental impacts.) The majority necessary for the next levels to of conservation measures passed this succeed. Examples include: economic screen. Any measure passing this screen remains under consideration so In the residential sector none are prematurely excluded based on O water education and awareness cost alone: O landscaping workshops for customers Package the remaining measures into O workshops for people working in conservation programs. Program concepts landscaping=related trades include components such as water savings, participation targets, delivery mechanisms, In the commercial, institutional & and cost (see attachment 1). General industrial sector. approaches include education and O preparation and distribution of awareness, technical assistance, financial materials on efficient plumbing incentives, direct installation, and appliances and outdoor water uses regulation. O heating, ventilation and air- conditioning equipment workshops 2 July 5, 1995 o irrigation workshops and workshops In the commercial, institutional& for people working in the industrial sector. landscaping-related trades o Ultra-low flush toilet regulation and retrofit rebates LEVEL 2 o single-pass cooling program Level 2 focuses on using cost- o landscape ordinance effective, market-based incentives to encourage water conservation. The water providers would offer customers on-site water audits, technical assistance, and financial incentives. Examples include: In the residential sector. o water audits o appliance labeling and incentives o landscaping and irrigation system rebate program Putting the Pieces Together In the commercial, institutional & industrial sector. Conservation programs will be o indoor, outdoor and large landscape evaluated for the magnitude of water water audits savings they provide, how long these o heating, ventilation, and air savings will continue, the costs and conditioning financial incentives avoided costs and impacts, the level of o industrial process optimization public acceptability, organizational o technical assistance feasibility, and whether they occur in trz o landscaping and irrigation system summer, winter, or year-round. Through rebates the plan integration process, the region's water providers are looking for the optimal LEVEL 3 mix of conservation and new supply The third level is the most aggressive sources that meet citizens' needs and level of conservation under values. consideration in the planning effort. Under Level 3, water providers would Cost pay to install conservation measures directly, at little cost to the customers. Costs for implementing conservation Level 3 also involves the possible programs will vary according to the level adoption of landscaping ordinances. of the program. For each level, there are Examples include: costs to the water utility - either administrative costs, capital costs or both - In the residential sector and costs to the customers. All costs o Ultra-low flush toilet rebate presented below span the length of the o landscape ordinance planning period, to the year 2050. 3 July 5, 1995 Y w is important to avoid double counting the Implementation.of a Level 1 anticipated water savings. For instance, conservation program would have a the incremental savings from conservation present value cost to the water utility of rates should be added to savings from $215 million, all of which would be conservation programs already planned or administrative costs. The cost to underway. Depending on the programs in customers would be $10 million over the place, incremental savings from length of the planning period. conservation pricing are expected to range between 3.5 to 5% in the region. Level 2 conservation would have a total present value cost to the utility of What You can Do $360 million, $285 million of which would be administrative costs and $75 million If you would like further information capital costs. The cost to customers would on how conservation fits in to the regional be $50 million over the length of the water supply plan project, please contact planning period. your local water provider or the Regional Water Supply Plan project management Costs for implementing Level 3 staff at 823-7528. conservation would have a total present value of$375 million to the water utility, Information Sources $300 million of which would be administrative costs and $75 million capital Barakat & Chamberlin, Conservation costs. Over the length of the planning Program Descriptions - Final Report, period, the cost to customers would be May 17, 1995. $145 million. RWSP Demand Management and Please see the attachment for a Conservation Element, July 7, 1994. breakdown of the savings each conservation program would offer. Conservation Rate Design Another idea under consideration is conservation rate design, which may be used to complement other conservation efforts. Under this system, the unit price of water increases as water usage increases, so it will cost a customer more to use more water. Some providers in the metropolitan region have already implemented some type of conservation rate design; others have not. In evaluating both conservation programs and conservation rate design, it 4 July 5, 1995 .- SUMMARY OF CONSERVATION SAVINGS RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS MGD Saved MGD Saved Level 1-Education&Workshops Year 2025_ Year 2050 Target Market Residential Education 326 4.32 A9 resklerdial Customers Resider"Customer Landscaping Workshops 0.81 1.52 Existing home reiandscapes Trade Ally Landscaping Workshops-Res.Portion 0.82 1.74 New landscaping&kdg.equip. Subtotal Level 1 4.89 7.68 Level 2-Technical Assistance&Incentives Residential Audits 0.91 0.91 Existing customers-top 20% Appliance Tagging and incentives 2.16 3.07 New&replacement dOdwswashem Residential Outdoor Incentives 5.00 12.90 New&replacement landscaping&brig.equip. Subtotal Level 2 8.07 16.88 Level 3-Retrofit&Regulation Residential ULFT Rebate 2.05 - Retrofit of existing inefficient toilets Residential Landscaping Ordinance 8.51 2205 New landscaping and irrigation systems CI&1 PROGRAMS MGD Saved MGD Saved Level 1-Education&Workshops Year 2025 Year 2050 Target Market Commercial Plumbing&Appliances Educ. 0.35 0.45 All CI&I customers HVAC Workshops 0.45 0.45 Existing CI&I CI&I Outdoor Education 0.34 0.44 AQ CI&I customers CI&I Watering Practices Workshop 0.14 0.14 All CI&I customers&trade allies Trade Ally Landscaping Workshops-CI&I Portion 0.47 1.22 New landscaping and irrigation equipment Subtotal Level 1 1.75 2.70 Level 2-Technical Assistance&Incentives CI&I Indoor Audits 0.44 0.44 Existing customers-top 20% CI&I Outdoor Audits 0.78 0.78 Existifig customers-top 2im Large Landscape Audits 0.98 0.98 Existing large landscapes HVAC Incentives 1.33 1.70 New and replacment HVAC equipment Industrial Process Technical Assistance&Incentives 2.01 2.97 New,replacement,&existing indust.process CI&I Outdoor Incentives 2.41 6.60 New landscaping and irrigation equipment Subtotal Level 2 7.95 13.47 Level 3-Retrofit&Regulation CI&I ULFT Direct Install and Incentives 2.00 - Retrofit of existing inefficient toilets Single Pass Cooling 0.27 027 Retrofit of existing single pass systems CI&I Landscaping Ordinance 4.42 12.35 New landscaping and irrigation systems CI&I ULFT Regulation 3.97 8.05 GRAND TOTALS WITHOUT CONSERVATION RATE LEVELS 1&2 22.66 40.63 %of Average Regional MGD Seasonal Demand(1) 8% 12% LEVELS 1&2 W1 CI&I ULFT REG AND SINGLE PASS: 26.90 48.95 %of Average Regional MGD Seasonal Demand* 10% 14% LEVELS 1,2,&3 W/O ORDINANCES 30.95 48.95 %of Average Regional MGD Seasonal Demand` 12% 14°/a LEVELS 1,2,&3 W1 ORDINANCES[2] 36.47 63.85 %of Average Regional MGD Seasonal Demand` 14% 18% [1]Figures used are average MGD price net seasonal demand in the medium scenario for the years 2025(268 MGD)and 2050(350 MGD). (2]When the ordinances are in effect.outdoor incentives are not offered- See next page for grand totals with conservation rate. t GRAND TOTALS WITH CONSERVATION RATE Program Savings:LEVELS 1 8 2 22.66 40. 63 Additional Savings with Conservation Pricing 13.40 .. 17.50 (S%of ay.seasM MGD In 2025 and 2050 111) rva .06 7°16 1 GRAND TOTAL:Programs*Pricing 313376 57 %of Average Regional MGD Seasonal Demand[t] 1 1 . . ( Program Savings: 16 2 VW Clad LILFT REG 8 SINGLE PASS: 26.90 48.95 Additional Savings with Conservation Pricing 13.40 17.50 (5%of ay.seas?MGD in 2025 and 2050[1p GRAND TOTAL-Programs*Pricing 40.30 66'4 %of Average Regional MGD Seasonal Demand[1] 16% 19% Program Savings: LEVELS 1.2.8 3 WO ORDINANCES 30.95 48.95 , Additional Savings with Conservation Pricing 10.72 14AO (4%of ay.seas9 MGD In 2025 and 2050 111) 896 1 41.67 6 GRAND TOTAL:Programs*Pricing 8 ' %of Average Regional MGD Seasonal Demand[1] 16°k 1 Program Savings: LEVELS 1.2.8 3 W!ORDINANCES 36.47 63.85 Additional Savings with Conservation Pricing 9.3E 12.25 (3.5%of ay.seas9 MGD in 2025 and 2050(1]) � 2 GRAND TOTAL:Programs*Pricing 4 17 76.10 20� %of Average Regional MGD Seasonal Demand(1] 7°� 2" [1]Figures used are average MGD price net seasonal demand in the medium scenario , for the years 2025(268 MGD)and 2050(350 MGD). t e Mckabuabsociates 4336 SW Condor Avenue Portland,Oregon 97201 503/228-5565 Fax: 503/228-7456 REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN Focus Group Research June. 1995 ' a Introduction Since 1993; metropolitan-area agencies have been working together on Phase II of the Regional Water Supply Plan to meet the projected needs of the growing population over the next 50 years. Public involvement is an important component of the planning process. Specifically, the area's water providers are interested in understanding what tradeoffs customers are willing to accept in the future relative to their water service - level of reliability, acceptability of other water sources and other providers, environmental impacts, increased conservation, and increased costs. To bring additional definition to the public's tradeoff priorities, two focus groups with metropolitan area residents were conducted in June, 1995. The focus groups explored in depth residents values, interests and acceptable tradeoffs regarding the future of their water and water supply. The following report outlines the key findings and conclusions from the focus group research. 2 Findings Residents are interested in a balanced approach to planning for the region's future water supply. The more they hear about the options and corresponding tradeoffs, the more convinced they become that a multiple approach plan will diffuse/dilute potential negative impacts. Residents have a bottom line relative to all the trade-offs,but appear willing to accept some changes - except in the areas of drinking water quality and availability. Original Source of Water • Although residents appear to know the source of their water, they generally are not wedded to their current source. This area has multiple sources that meet residents basic source priorities: Clean, pure, fresh, safe, good taste, good color. Bull Run, Clackamas River, and the Trask River are examples described by residents. One respondent goes so far to say, "It's better to have multiple sources so we don't have to ration. Its a wise idea, like not putting all your investments in one vehicle." • Of more concern are sources of water that might be contaminated or require significant chemical treatment before they are safe to drink. "Sources of water I'm not comfortable with are rivers that are being polluted already from ships throwing their refuse into the water, oil and other chemical wastes or sewage overflows." Or, "I would feel uncomfortable drinking water that was very bad, but was treated enough to drink it." `'My concern is the tradeoff between the cleaning aspect if they have to use a lot of chemicals and what that chemical does to me." Both the Columbia and Willamette Rivers are mentioned as unsafe sources of water. • Residents basically trust that their water is being tested and meets water standards, but in part it is because, "you have to trust the system, you don't have a choice." "It's probably the one thing you want to have credibility in." "If our water agency ever lost credibility or tried to cut a corner, there would be a tremendous reaction to it." Water that tastes or looks unclean makes residents skeptical of their water safety. Some focus group respondents mention drinking bottled water or using water filters as precautions. 3 • Still; there is consensus, that most of the region's water sources are superior to those of many cities throughout the nation. Respondents cite examples of poor ("undrinkable") water in California, Nevada, and Arizona. Reliability of Water Supply • Reliability of water supply is paramount to residents because water is critical to life. At a minimum, residents want a secure, reliable water supply for their drinking and washing needs. Some focus group respondents also mention the importance of a reliable water supply for attracting and retaining businesses. Most residents are willing to give up discretionary needs for water such as washing the car or watering the lawn, in tunes of drought. 'Z don't have a problem not watering my lawn or washing my car. Now, that's just part of the cycle." • Intellectually, residents will accept that the region has a limited water supply because of the projected population growth; however, on a day-to- day basis, they acknowledge difficulty believing the region's water is in short supply. "Growing up in Oregon, we are spoiled. Even in those drought times, there has always been plenty of water." Part of the problem is that water supply reliability is a seasonal issue. Residents note that most of the year, the region has plenty of water. And, "Certain times of the year, there is too much water. They just have to let it go over the spillway and down the river anyway." Water Providers • Residents are even less wedded to their current water provider. "If the water is monitored correctly and meets the federal standards, the agency doesn't matter." "I don't care as long as they do it right." General concerns raised about water providers include: - Accountability - For some, smaller districts mean being able to have more control over the local boards. Some express concern about private companies "cutting corners to make a buck." One respondent expresses dissatisfaction with the quality of customer service from a larger agency, "they think of themselves as right and we are wrong." 4 i• I - Quality of the delivery system - 'I'm less concerned about the source of my water than what happens to the water as it gets to me, the pipes getting to me." "Bull Run used to be the best water around, but in the last 30 years the (delivery) system has aged, the water doesn't taste the same." "I wish I was back on Clackamas Water. They have filtration plants, so they are on top of their water better." • The public's general cynicism with government is also reflected in the focus groups. Residents worry that water revenue is supporting other services, rather than maintaining the water system. Or that fees charged to developers should be paying the costs of developing additional water supply. "What does the administrative fee on my bill really cover? Does that mean improved systems down the road?" "Are they spending the money on systems that we can actually use? Or, like the wells that we couldn't use because they were contaminated." "With Metro, there are too many people too conservative about the environment, and those people.tend to be very active. (Like we need a road and they won't let us build it.) I don't have a lot of confidence in Metro and see the same potential with this water planning (if they are involved)." "The distrust is with the elected officials who are administering the funds, who don't have the knowledge, foresight or capability." • Side issues associated with the multiplicity of water providers in the region mentioned by respondents include: Difficulties encountered by water-using businesses (eg landscaper) when working with the "twenty or more different sets of rules and regulations, water pressures and qualities;" and frustration when a water provider changes and water bills increase dramatically, "for no reason." Conservation • Residents are becoming sensitized to not wasting water, one form of conservation. Most respondents mention not letting water taps run on and waiting to operate dishwashers and washing machines until they have a full load. Several group participants say they do not water their lawns during the summer. • Water conservation is value residents embrace, but are more likely to aggressively practice in times of water shortages. "When water is plentiful, most people don't pay attention. When the word goesout that there is a drought, most people are flexible enough to pull back." One 5 respondent describes her frustration with using water conservation devices, "I got a reduced flow shower head and the water came out in such a trickle that I couldn't even rinse the shampoo out of my hair. The bladder for my toilet was a joke." • The public may also be getting mixed messages about conservation from the public sector. "I don't see the government conserving water. Why aren't the fountains off all the time, not just during bad times? They should be consistent." Another respondent comments on seeing her Fire Department open up the fire hydrants to clean them out. Environmental Impacts Residents are not willing to trade away irreversible or significant impacts on the environment to ensure having a reliable supply or to maintain their current source of water. While most focus group participants appear to be resigned to having some environmental impacts as a result of developing the region's future water supply, minimizing the impacts is clearly one of their priorities. Examples include: - "I'm concerned about the big picture, I don't want the food chain interrupted. But all the branches running off to the side, that are irrelevant to that food chain, (the snail darters,) I'm not concerned." - "I can't imagine that developing water wouldn't affect the environment in some way. We all live in areas that were at one time environmentally impacted. The question is how much?" - "It depends on the need. If it's absolutely necessary, some impact is ok. But not if you are just trying to get a jump start on the problem. If it's not necessary at that time to make that development, then why do it?" - "I would want to know what the impacts were and if they were irrevocable. Damaging a species of waterlife that can't adapt someplace else, I draw the line. If they can adapt, then it's ok." - "If it is going to impact the fish runs, find another way." 6 Development Options Focus group respondents provide interesting insight as to potential public responses to the various development options currently under review: • Even though the Bull Run, Clackamas and Trask rivers are seen as the best sources of water, concern is raised about additional development. "When you start talking about the Clackamas and Trask rivers, those are classic rivers. That's what Oregon is made out of. You start messing with rivers like that, that hurts. Those rivers, the fish are already endangered." • Underground storage is perceived to have less environmental impact that + other options. "It seems that if you build underground you would have the least impact on the environment. You could still have an ecosystem on top of that storage." • "Taking more water out of the mouth of a river doesn't sound like it has as much environmental impact as damming it up." • Using gray water for outdoor use is also acceptable,j there is the assurance that the water is safe for human and animal contact, including "accidental" drinking by kids or dogs. Costs • No one says they are unwilling to pay anything additional to ensure the region's future water supply. However, most add caveats to their willingness to pay more: - "I would pay more and probably conserve to keep my quality source." - I would rather pay more and have the least or no environmental impact." - "I don't have a lot of money, but I would be willing to pay somewhat more in order to develop alternative supplies. We have to do something. But there are limits to how much we can pay as well." - "If there are a lot more people moving here, there will be a lot more people paying for water. The increased costs shouldn't be that much." - "I would pay more if I could be assured that the money wasn't going to help out some other bureau." 7 "If I pay more, I want to get more. If the water was more reliable or better quality, that's worth paying more for. The problem now is, you pay more for your water, but you don't get anything for it." Public Involvement • Focus group respondents say that are interested in knowing more about the planning being done. Direct mail and a public media campaign are described as the best communication vehicles to reach them. Beyond staying informed, it is not dear that most residents would become more actively involved in the planning process. • Residents support multiple water agencies involvement in the Regional Water Supply Plan. "I am very pleased to see there is a common effort by all water districts to do this together. A lot of the small districts.didn't have the expertise in planning their water and drilled wells where the groundwater was polluted. This common effort helps everyone." • One dynamic that occurred over the course of each focus group was the increasingly opinionated responses from participants as the groups progressed. This is not atypical of focus groups. However, it is important to remember that a similar process will occur as the public becomes increasingly informed on the Regional Water Supply planning. Providing information on all the issues raised by these focus group respondents will be important as public perceptions and opinions are formed. 8 9 Conclusions As the draft Regional Water Supply Plan report nears completion, valuable insight on the potential public response to the draft is provided by the focus group research. While the research reflects only one point in time along the public review continuum, several conclusions can be drawn relative to the public's core values and water supply tradeoffs. • A broad based approach to the region's future water supply will have the most credibility with the public. Residents reference the interdependencies of water, the environment, economy, public health, quality of life and future generations. Residents are uncomfortable with a single solution, narrow-based plan, worrying "that issues can get over weighted the wrong way, we need to have some balance." For residents, a credible Regional Water Supply Plan will include: conservation - residential, business, governmental - both ongoing and during times of low water, discussion on potential environmental impacts and efforts to minimize those impacts, multiple supply sources, level and type of treatment required of each recommended supply source, improvements to the delivery system, recycling (gray water), description of projected revenues, and allocation of costs to each component of the plan. Residents want the approach to plan for future generations, not the short term. • While residents are willing to make some environmental, cost, and supply tradeoffs to achieve a balanced approach, they also have bottom line thresholds: - No shortages in the minimum amount of water needed to live safely (for drinking, washing, etc) and to maintain jobs. - No water sources that are so inherently contaminated that high levels of chemicals are required for treatment. - No endangering of species of fish or wildlife. - No residential outdoor use of recycled water if the water is not safe for human or animal contact/drinking. - No unsubstantiated increases in costs. 9 • Beyond those minimum threshold tradeoffs,-residents prefer development of those water supplies with the least impact on the environment. Some increased cost is acceptable and expected, as is an occasional water shortage in a time of drought. The public also expects to be reminded to have a water conserving lifestyle, but also expects businesses and the government to be conservation partners. • Residents will want and expect to be informed of the Regional Water Supply Plan. The focus groups indicate a media campaign and direct mail are effective vehicles. Underscoring the joint efforts of all the agencies involved is a plus. 10 Methodology Research Objective To test residential priorities and tradeoffs relative to the region's future water supply. Methodology Focus groups with Portland metropolitan area residents. Respondent Selection Portland residents were randomly contacted by telephone and pre-screened to meet the following criteria: • Portland metropolitan resident Principal utility bill payer for the household • No one in household employed by the government, public utility, advertising agency or market research company In each group a mix of ages, geographic location and gender was included. Water Districts Represented in Focus Grouvs 6 pm Group: 8 pm Group: Beaverton Beaverton Milwaukie ("Some agency in Milwaukie") Mt Scott Oak Lodge Oak Lodge Portland Oregon City Tualatin Valley Portland Tigard Tualatin Focus Group Dates/Location Both groups were held the evening of June 8, 1995. Recording Both groups were audio and video-taped. 11 Regional Water Supply Plan Focus Group Research June,1995 Discussion Guide I. Introduction Explanation of focus groups,confidentiality of opinions. No right or wrong answers. Importance of speaking candidly,answering for yourself. Introduce myself. Ask others to introduce themselves (First names only). Describe what they do,how long they have lived in area. 11. General Discussion-Water A. Where does your water come from? What is the source of your water? Who delivers your water,who is your water agency? B. When you think of your water service,what is most important to you? What do you value most? Why is that most important? What else is important? Why? III. General Discussion-Water Source A. The region's water comes from a variety of sources. Is the source of your water important to you? What about the source of your water is important to you? B. All sources of water must be treated to meet water quality standards. Knowing this, does it still matter to you where your water comes from? Why? Do you think all sources of drinking water can be treated to a level of quality at which you are comfortable? In short,would you drink any source of water? Why? Generally,do you trust the drinking water standards set by the federal and state governments? Why/Why not? C. What potential sources of water in this area are unacceptable to you? Why? I V. General Discussion-Water Provider A. How important to you is the agency providing your water? Why do you say that? Specifically, what is important to you regarding your water agency or district? B. Would you be comfortable with a different agency? Why/Why not? V. General Discussion - Water Reliability A. How important to you is having plenty of water,even during dryer times of the year? Why do you say that? B. What kinds of water saving activities are you willing or able to do if there is a water shortage? What did you do when the region had the drought a few years back? 12 VI. General Discussion-Conservation A. How important is water conservation? Why do you say that? B. Personally,what are your expectations regarding your own conservation of water? Realistically,how much conservation are you likely to do? How much more would you be willing to do? What would it take to get you to do more? C. How comfortable would you be using waste water that has gone through treatment for outdoor water uses,such as watering your yard or landscaping? Why is that? VII. General Discussion-Environmental Impacts A. How important to you is minimizing impacts on the environment when using or planning for the area's water supply? What environmental impacts,if any,concern you? B. Are certain environmental impacts more important to minimize than others? Why do you say that? VIII. General Discussion-Costs A. Typically,how much do you pay for your water? B. How important to you is the cost of your water service? Is your water service a good value for the money? In what way? C. Would it still be a good value for the money if it cost somewhat more? A lot more? Why do you say that? IX. Preliminary Prioritization - Water Service Characteristics Rank: Water source quality, provider, reliability of supply, environmental impacts, conservation,cost. X. Trade-Offs A. What should be done to meet the needs of the area's future water demand? B. (Order of the following trade-offs will depend on the preliminary priorities): 1. (Quality of Source) What you be willing to trade-off to ensure getting your water from a high quality source: a. Paying somewhat/a lot more for the water? b. Incurring additional impacts on the local environment/habitat? c. Going through occasional shortages in drought situations? 2. (Supply/Reliability) What would you be willing to trade-off to ensure having plenty of water at all times? a. Paying somewhat/a lot more for the water? b. Incurring additional impacts on the local environment/habitat? 13 C. Having your water come from an alternative source 3. (Environment) What would you be willing to trade-off to minimize impacts on the environment? a. Paying somewhat/a lot more for the water? b. Going through occasional shortages in drought situations? c. Having your water come from an alternative source 4. (Conservation/Cost) Would you be willing to conserve more water,if it would: a. Help keep future water service costs more manageable? b. Help minimize future impacts on the environment? c. Even if the cost of water increased? 14 XI. Eggional Water SuMlly Plan/Public Involvement Given the projected population for this area, water service agencies throughout the region have been developing a plan to address the future water supply. Options being considered include increased conservation,development of the Bull Run,Clackamas, Columbia,Trask/Barney Reservoir and Willamette River water supplies and underground storage of water during winter months for use during summer and fall. A. How confident are you that these planning efforts will be able to manage the area's future needs for water? What makes you feel that way? What would make your feel more confident that future water demands will be met in effective and efficient ways? B. Realistically,is this plan something you are interested in knowing more about? How much more? How would you like to receive the information? How involved would you like to be in the planning/review process? What would it take to get you involved? 15 z DISCUSSION OF A REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY ORGANIZATION _ FOR THE PORTLAND METROPOLITAN AREA Draft# 1 - July 1995 Introduction: those During the May and June Participants Commieas a p sart of the present began a dialogue about institutional arrangements of work includes Phase 2 Regional Water Supply Plan(RWSP). The scope methods looking at the otential institutional Pt will include a ed tsimplement Of p various future supply options,and the final the institutional implications of resource options selected to meet future water needs by the region's decision makers Thbut identificaetails of tion�n�� titutional changes will not be presented in the plan, changes will,become an important implementation task for the future. In terms of understanding the institutional issues,a workshop of would Participants icipa to was held on May 23. Those present. resent were asked what they project and what were some of the barriers a successful outcome for theoseou owes. The maters from this session was or obstacles to achieving was drafted- The two major issues were: 1) steed and a discussion paper What will be the future role of Metro in the area of water RWS'pP is completed and 2) What will be the role of the water providers after 27 dealt with went meeting of the Participants on JuneAll three of these these tque i subsea of this meeting was prepared- two questions. A summary documents are attached for your review). The major outcome of these meetings are detailed below. The Future Role of Metro e will continue to be a point of discussion as the providers and Metro This issue the adoption of the RWSP. The region's water providers continue through c language in the Regional Urban have requested that Metro adopt specifithe requirement of the Metro Growth Goals and Objectives (RUGGO) detailing Charter to adopt an Urban Water Supply and Storage Element of their Regional language was recommended to the Metro Framework Plan. 'Thep Po u This language would require Metro Council by the WRP?p and n element groups- to base its water'supply P�element on the adopted RWSP. MetroRWSP and participant and will provide recommendations on the p� resolution. The relationship of the region's water adopt the final RWSP by ion as we move providers (cities and districts) to more needs about theme roles and toward adoption of a RWSP the final RWSP, The relationships will be beneficial to formulating the mutual participants discussed on June 27 a set of criteria for defining roles.The following were accepted generally b those present: • The region's water Providers and Metro should work to develop an ongoing mutually supportive partnership- which does present an • The region's water providers are numerous l plan and obstacle to putting a coordinated water supply P if adopted by the implementation strategies into action.mto place a document which majority of water providers, doea vacuum. A RWSP should be reduces this barrier and eliminatesproviders in order to have adopted by a significant majority of water p in place a plan and strategies to meet the region's future water supply needs. This plan should reflect consideration of public input regarding the range of issues associated with water resource decision making- The process needs to incorporate public values in the evaluation and formulation of alternatives- * The region's water providers recognize Metro's overarching responsibilities for,growth.management. The RWSP will be based on Metro's demographic projections and the adopted elements of the Metro growth strategy. The RWSP will be evaluated over time to reflect Metro's updated growth Projections, the UGB, and Regional Framework Plan,and local comprehensive plans. The region's water providers do not want to be in a position of either restricting approved growth patterns or encouraging inappropriate growth. Metro's role is an important part of the RWSP both in terms of its development, adoption, and revision over time. • The region's water providers are responsible for providing water supplies and they have the authority to finance and construct any needed improvements. They should provide the primary plan and strategies for any Urban Water Supply Element of the Regional Framework Plan to be adopted or updated by Metro. • Metro is a participant in the RWSP and will be a part of the adoption process, thereby ensuring that their issues will be considered as the RWSP is developed,adopted and updated over time. • Metro and the region's water providers should continue to work together as water supply strategies are implemented and updated. An ongoing dialogue should be maintained about institutional issues, particularly in the implementation stage of the RWSP. • Any regional role for Metro in facilitating water conservation should-be developed jointly by the region's water providers, the wastewater agencies,and Metro. Metro proposed that a smaller subgroup of Participants,project and Metro staff, Metro Executive, and Council meet to discuss these issues further. The Participants delegated the Steering Committee,.plusa Canby representative (as a jurisdiction outside the current Metro district) to take on this role and a meeting has been set up prior to the July Participants Committee meeting. The Future Role of the Water Providers On the future role of the water providers, there was general agreement that some type of formal organization of the region's water providers should be put into place upon adoption of the RWSP. A set of desired criteria was discussed for this organization and couple of alternative organization models were presented. one very informal(such as the old RPAG) and the other more formal (such as one formed by an ORS 190 intergovernmental agreement). The formation of a regional water provider organization was felt to be so important because of the following reasons: to provide Sde forn of the plan and to give it a home, to provide one entity Peak for our ''Joi interests, to fill the need for a unified regional wh vider voice with those who have authority and the responsibility to mpeo the public trust for safe potable water supplies, to update and monitor implementation of the RWSP, to provide a voice for providers in discussions with Metro and other agencies, to coordinate regional programs such as some aspects of water _ conservation, and to continue discussions aboutfuture institutional issues that could lead to further organizational changes: Generally. the Participants.present favoreda m re formal organization and agreed on the following roles and responsib • To meet on a regular enough basis to coordinate water supply activities that are regional in nature. • To speak for the region's water providers in"owning" the RWSP before bodies such as Metro,ACWA, State agencies ( e.g. WRD, DEQ, ODF&W, DSL), and federal or inter-state agencies (USFS, EPA, NWPPC) and to water providers both inside and outside the region. • To provide a"home" for the RWSP documents, model, demand forecasts,and other materials that support the plan. • To monitor the implementation of the plan and to examine the need for modifications over time due to changes in contingencies identified in the plan or others not foreseen. • To conduct updates of the plan based on a time frame identified in the plan,or based on other external drivers such as Metro Water Supply Element updates or changes in conditions which warrant an update. • Initially, a regional conservation role could be envisioned for this organization, particularly if the adopted RWSP contains such regional conservation program strategies and a regional body offered the advantages of such coordination. (This could be build on the existing Columbia Willamette Regional Conservation Coalition.) • To coordinate on other water resource issues affecting the water providers in the region, such as state rules, legislation, federal rules, programs and legislation, or other matters of regional significance. • To sufficiently support the selected roles and responsibilities through in-kind or contributed resources based on size or benefit received. Public information, • To coordinate in developing and implementing p education, and"marketing" strategies. The details of such an organization were not agreed upon and some of the above responsibilities could be accomplished in a variety of ways. Such an organization could be called the Portland Area Metropolitan Water Providers and could be formed through a jointly signed intergovernmental agreement such as that which financed and managed Phase 2 (These are often called ORS 190 agreements). This group would then have official sanction and could adopt by-laws covering things like, membership, dues, body and voting structure, policy making, an amendment process, officers, and functions. The Participants also seemed to agree that initially the formation of such a group should have no formal role in affairs of individual participants and would not take on a regional water authority role in asset ownership and management It could, however, become the basis for further formalization of all of these functions if desired. a regional entity with some or The Participants in the Phase 2 project for adoption of a RWSP recommend that they each discuss these issues with their elected boards, commissions, and councils to make sure that there is agreement about the general concept of moving forward with a more formal water provider organization as a part of - Implementing the RWSP. Further discussion with Metro will take place to better refine and understand the relative roles and relationships between the providers and Metro. This refinement will be incorporatedintoe them pion with elected officials before any more detailed proposal is with forming such an organization. Another Participants Committee workshop on this issue will be held after the release of the preliminary RWSP in August i Draft July 21, 1995 — CHAPTER XI DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCE STRATEGIES The final product of the Phase 2 RWSP is a set of resource strategies that best meet the needs of the region as expressed through the policy objectives and as measured by applying the evaluation criteria. As pointed out earlier, a basic premise of this planning effort is that there is not a single "best" future resource strategy for the region. Rather, there are many possibilities that reflect the tradeoffs that the region must make among the policy objectives. This chapter presents alternative strategies that illustrate and explain the key choices available to policymakers. Defining Resource Sequences and Strategies A resource plan that is to be used by and useful to the region's policymakers and water agency managers must be dynamic in the sense that it must account explicitly for the future uncertainties faced by the region. The plan must provide guidance regarding future resource development as those uncertainties are resolved. For example, associated with each source option are many important factors about which we currently have limited knowledge. These include, but are not limited to, costs, construction lead times, ability to obtain permits, legal and regulatory constraints, institutional structures, and public acceptability. In the extreme, the outcomes for any one or more of these could result in the region being unable to develop a particular source option. At the very least, differing outcomes will affect the relative attractiveness of the source options. Conservation, too, has major cost and impact uncertainties associated with it. One of the most critical areas of uncertainty is the base demand forecast itself. In many ways, the demand forecast underlies the entire planning effort. The forecast depends on a number of difficult-to-determine components, such as regional population and employment growth, the spatial distribution of that growth, the impacts of naturally occurring conservation and rising water and sewer prices, the responsiveness of demand to variations in temperature and precipitation, and the relationship between average and peak day demands. In light of the importance of future uncertainties, it is useful to distinguish between a resource sequence and a resource strategy. 1 M ■ A resource sequence is a linear progression of resource and transmission additions over the planning period. Note that a resource sequence provides no flexibility for the region. It is a single development path that does not change in response to changing future conditions. ■ A resource shWegy is a multi-branched "tree" of sequences that defines the actions that should be taken under various sets of uncertainty outcomes. It is a "road map" of recommended actions under a wide range of future conditions. It provides a series of points at which the region can respond to new information about then-current conditions. Resource strategies must balance the coverage of all possible future uncertainties with the needs of policymakers and managers for a useable tool. The Phase 2 RWSP strikes this balance by focusing on the key uncertainty of future water demand. Each strategy includes a series of future water demand assessments. Throughout the planning period, the region will have to repeatedly assess demands and adjust its resource plan accordingly. The resource strategies will demonstrate how this will occur. The strategies are "thematic" in the sense that each will be driven by a specific policy objective or set of objectives. (For example, one strategy may be designed to achieve high reliability while minimizing environmental impacts. Another might achieve moderate reliability with the highest possible raw water quality.) The essence of integrated resource planning is making tradeoffs among conflicting policy objectives. The strategies developed in this chapter are intended to represent the key tradeoffs that face regional policymakers. Choices must be based on these tradeoffs. Water Supply Reliability: A Key Choice for the Region One of the fundamental goals of the RWSP addresses the issue of water supply reliability. This goal is embodied in the policy objective of "minimiz(ing) the frequency of water shortages of any magnitude and duration." In many ways, supply reliability is basic to the RWSP, since concern about future to reliability is the key reason that the region's providers joined to develop the plan. Note that there is a separate policy objective that addresses the impacts of catastrophic events. While a wildfire, slide, volcanic, or spill event has the potential of interrupting a portion of the regional supply, this type of event is much less predictable and more sudden than a shortage caused by an imbalance between supply and demand. Moreover, the actions necessary to minimize impacts of catastrophic events may differ from actions that the region would take to maximize what is being called "water supply reliability." The catastrophic events policy objective will be discussed below. The current section is devoted to the issue of reliability as a function of supply/demand imbalances. 2 As discussed in Chapter IV, the region must make a choice about the desired level of — future reliability, just as it must make choices about the other policy objectives. Indeed, there are tradeoffs between increased levels of reliability and other important objectives such as minimizing costs and environmental impacts. Policymakers must understand the consequences of different reliability levels so they can make informed decisions. To accomplish this, resource strategies were defined for each of three reliability levels. Defining levels of reliability During any period, in any geographic area, and under specified weather and streamflow conditions, reliability (i.e. the ability of the system to fully serve demand during that period in that area under those conditions) is a function of the availability of supplies, the geographic distribution of demands, and the ability to deliver those supplies to the demands. Supply availability and demands depend, in turn, on weather and streamflows and the manner in which the system is operated. As discussed in Chapter X, the IRPlanner modeling tool simulates all these features. There are many ways to express the reliability of a water supply system. The evaluation criteria laid out in Chapter IV illustrate three key reliability indices. They are: Probability of Shortage(P . The likelihood of any shortage whatsoever. Probability of Designated Shortao (pODS). The likelihood of a shortage larger than a specified level. For example, the 10% PODS is the probability of a shortage greater than 10%. Exmted Unserved Demand (EUD). The expected fraction of demand that is not met. Thus, for example, one index of reliability for the year 2020 might be the probability of a shortage greater than 5% in the west node over the summer season under "typical" (or randomly selected) weather and streamflow conditions. Another might be the year 2040 expected unserved peak day demand for the entire region under the most severe historical weather conditions. Shortage tyres. It is important to distinguish between two types of shortages. The first is . volunw-driven and results from an insufficient supply of water in the region. Volume- driven shortages are caused by low streamflows and/or inadequate storage volume. In the Portland region, the 1992 event was a volume-driven shortage. The second type of shortage results from insrficient delivery capacity to meet demands on particular high-demand days. The capacity "bottleneck" may occur in various parts of the system, including intakes, treatment plants, transmission mains, pumping plants, etc. In this case, there is sufficient water, but it cannot be delivered at the rate it is being 3 demanded. Operationally, there are important differences between the two types of shortages. Volume-related shortages can be spread over a lengthy period to "stretch" the available supplies through extended usage reductions. Capacity-driven shortages cannot be spread and rely on the "instantaneous" reduction of customer demands. Over the RWSP pkmning horizon C.e. through the year 2050), the Portkwd region has sh icient water to avoid all volwne-related shortages, even wider high demand and law flaw conditions As described in Chapter VI, the Phase 2 "base case" includes a variety of supply sources that the region's water providers are committed to develop during the next two to 10 years. These committed resources total nearly 80 mgd that was not available in 1992. With those sources, were 1992 flow conditions' to occur again at any point throughout the planning period, the region would still have sufficient water to meet even high demands.2 Therefore, the region does-not have to concern itself with summer-long water shortages. It will, however, be facing capacity shortages on high-demand days. Since demands are a function of temperature and precipitation, the severity of these shortages will vary depending on weather conditions. Over the course of a summer, the historical weather pattern in the region is such that these peaking events will occur infrequently and will be fairly short-.' On the vast majority of summer days, demand will not strain system capacity. Therefore, average shortages over the summer season can be expected to be very small. Figures M-1 through M-4 illustrate these points. Figures M-1 and M-2 respectively show the expected magnitude of regional peak-day and average peak-season percent shortages over the planning period assuming base case (i.e. current and committed) resources, typical historical weather conditions, and high demands. Figures M-3 and M-4 show regional peak day and average peak-season shortages assuming the same resources and demands and the hottest historical daily conditions. Not surprisingly, the graphs show that the expected magnitude'of all of these shortages will increase over the planning period as projected demands increase. The graphs also show that, even with high demands and no resource additions (including conservation) 11992 was the worst streamflow year on record. 2Strictly speaking, near the end of the planning horizon, 1992 conditions will result in small volume constraints under high demand assumptions. However, long before that point, additional resources would have been added to address the region's capacity needs. These resources would add more than enough water to the regional system to preclude the possibility of volumetric shortages. 3Historically, hot weather events have almost never lasted more than five days. 4 beyond the base case, shortages don't begin until around 2017. From that point, expected — peak-day regional shortages would rise to almost 25% by 2050. On days that approach historically-high temperature levels, that could rise to close to 40%. As illustrated in Figure M-5, portions of the region would suffer devastating service reductions. The Phase 2 RWSP assumes that these projected system reliabilities are unacceptable. Resources must therefore be added to improve future reliability while also being cognizant of other policy objectives. The question that the region must address is how much should reliability be improved, or, put another way, how much unreliability is acceptable. As discussed in Chapter IV, reliability is one of many areas for which the region has defined policy objectives. The level of reliability that is desirable for the region must be determined in light of the tradeoffs between reliability and these other objectives. To demonstrate these tradeoffs, resource strategies are developed that achieve one of three levels of reliability. The type of shortage with which the region must concern itself determines the manner in which these alternative levels of reliability should be defined. Since the regional system is capacity-constrained rather than volume-constrained, the key distinctions in reliability relate to peaking events. Table M-1 provides several indices that characterize the three levels of reliability on which the resource strategies are based. Discussions of each follow. Level 1 Reliability: A resource sequence that achieves Level 1 reliability will result in no shortages whatsoever for any portion of the region for any time period under any historical weather and streamflow conditions. This is, in other words, a perfectly reliable system. Level 2 Reliability: A resource sequence that achieves Level 2 reliability will result in some small and infrequent shortages. As shown in Table M-1, a Level 2 system will allow for no more than a 10% peak day shortage for any demand node under the worst historical weather conditions.° At.the points in the planning period when system reliability deteriorates to this level: A peak-day shortage of some magnitude in at least one node can be expected to occur under 15% of the historical weather conditions; A peak-day shortage that exceeds 5% in at least one node can be expected to occur under 6% of the historical weather conditions; and The expected peak-day shortage under ZTiml weather conditions for the 4 I other words, this is the largest shortage that would occur on the hottest day on record over the 65-year historical period. 5 most severely-affected node will be about 1% .5 Level 3 Reliability: A resource sequence that achieves Level 3 reliability will result in some additional peak-day shortages. As shown in Table M-1, a Level 3 system will allow for no more than a 20% peak day shortage for any demand node under the worst historical weather conditions. At the points in the planning period when system reliability deteriorates to this level: A peak-day shortage of some magnitude in at least one node can be expected to occur under 20% of the historical weather conditions; A peak-day shortage that exceeds 5% in at least one node can be expected to occur under 15% of the historical weather conditions; A peak-day shortage that exceeds 10% in at least one node can be expected to occur under 12% of the historical weather conditions; A peak-day shortage that exceeds 15% in at least one node can be expected to occur under 5% of the historical weather conditions; The expected peak-day shortage under focal weather conditions for the most severely-affected node will be about 2%. Under either Level 2 or 3, individual providers will face choices on how to deal with these lower service levels from the regional supply system. Some providers may choose to serve their customers at these levels. Others may choose to take other actions such as developing additional local storage. Recall that Phase 2 does not explicitly address these local system issues. The Resource Options: Some Key Observations Before tracing the development of resource sequences and strategies that are designed to achieve each of these three reliability levels, it is useful to highlight the key features of the individual resources. Brief discussions of the supply source options are followed by a discussion of conservation programs. Bull Run Dam 3. The Bull Run source provides the highest raw water quality and degree of source protection of any of the supply sources. There are significant costs and environmental problems associated with developing Dam 3. Possible Note that these are the maximum possible values of all of these indices. When these values are approached, resources will be added. This implies that, in most years of the planning period, system reliability will be better than indicated by these figures. 6 permitting difficulties also make Dam 3 a very difficult resource to develop. — The source is located away from the portions of the region that will experience shortfalls over the planning period. The magnitude of the Dam 3 project makes it an inflexible resource in terms of the region's ability to respond to future demand uncertainties. Additional development of the Bull Run will increase the region's vulnerability to catastrophic events by increasing over time the dependence of the region on this single source. Clackamas River. The Clackamas is a proven source with high raw water quality and a generally wellprotected watershed. The Clackamas is well-located,.since significant shortages are anticipated in Clackamas county. The environmental impacts of smaller (up to 50 mgd) capacity additions on the Clackamas are small. Larger increments result in larger impacts to the natural environment. Source development on the Clackamas is limited by the size of the river and limited existing water rights. Additional development on this current source will not make a large contribution to reducing the region's vulnerability to catastrophic events. Willamette River. The raw water quality of the Willamette is good, but lower than the Bull Run, Clackamas, or Columbia. The Willamette is a difficult watershed to protect because of the degree of upstream development. It is located near the areas in Washington County where future shortages are anticipated. Impacts of Willamette development on the natural environment are minor. Implementation issues on the Willamette are many and complex, but in general, it is felt that it will be considerably easier to develop up to 154 mgd of Willamette capacity (the permits currently held by regional providers) than higher levels. The Willamette is a relatively expensive source to develop, largely due to the distance between the representative intake/treatment plant site and the terminal reservoir site. As a new source, the Willamette reduces the region's vulnerability to catastrophic events. Columbia River. The water quality of the Columbia is slightly better than the Willamette, but lower than either the Bull Run or the Clackamas. The size and diversity of the watershed makes protection problematic, although the volumes in the Columbia result in a high dilution potential. Environmental impacts associated with Columbia source development are significant, although not as large as those associated with Bull Run Dam 3. The Columbia is distant from the south and west areas where it is anticipated that future needs will occur. Water availability on the Columbia is not an issue, although water rights may be. Currently, the only municipal water right application on file by a regional provider is 77 cfs (50 mgd) by Rockwood PUD. Implementation issues on the Columbia are 7 y -- difficult to predict, but fishery concerns will be an important consideration in any Columbia intake. As a new source, the Columbia reduces the region's vulnerability to catastrophic events. Its location makes it particularly valuable as a back-up to the Bull Run source. Aquifer Storage and Recovery. The major advantages of ASR are its low cost and its ability to make use of existing sources, thereby delaying or reducing the need for new sources. While there are still large knowledge gaps regarding ASR, environmental impacts are assumed to be minor and water quality as the water is extracted is assumed to be moderate, but somewhat inferior to all of the surface sources. The west side ASR site is close to the Washington County needs. The east side ASR site is close to the Clackamas County demands, and can also utilize the existing Bull Run conduits and Washington County Supply Line to serve the west side. As a new source, ASR will contribute to reducing vulnerability to catastrophic events. Table XI-2 shows the ratings for each source option against each of the source-specific evaluation criteria. Conservation. Each resource sequence begins by implementing some conservation programs. The savings associated with those programs then ramps up over a period of years as program penetration rates increase. The regional conservation plan that is summarized in Chapter IX describes a detailed analysis of a wide variety of conservation programs. Based on that analysis, the regional providers must determine the most appropriate set of programs and a detailed implementation plan. The sequences are configured to illustrate the value to the region of different types of conservation. The key distinction is between the efficacy of "outdoor" and "maximum" conservation for the region.6 The "outdoor" conservation results in a reduction in peak-day demand of about 94 mgd. "Maximum" conservation increases this figure to 120 mgd. Both the "outdoor" and "maximum" conservation packages include landscape 611e "maximum" conservation package, as its name suggests, includes all conservation programs. It is designed to show the limits of the contributions that conservation can make to the region. The "outdoor" conservation programs include: Residential, commercial, industrial, and large landscape audits Residential, commercial, and industrial landscaping and irrigation incentives Residential, commercial and industrial landscape ordinances Conservation pricing 8 ordinances for new development. Such ordinances provide an inexpensive way to phase in, over time, a large amount of peak-season conservation. However, these programs are often controversial and difficult to implement. Some portions of the region may implement these programs earlier, while others may implement them later or not at all. The extent and timing of landscape ordinances throughout the region are issues that must be carefully addressed by the providers. Depending on the outcome of these deliberations, the timing of required supply additions may have to be moved forward.' Resource Sequences and Strategies to Achieve Level 1 Reliability Description of Level 1 Sequences There are many ways for the region to add resources and facilities that will ensure no future shortages. The choice among these different sequences depends on what other policy objectives are considered most important. Following is a discussion of five approaches to meeting the region's needs and achieving the highest possible level of reliability. Each of these five sequences emphasizes different policy objectives or combinations of objectives. Table XI-3 provides a guide to the key policy objectives addressed by each sequence. The sequences themselves are illustrated in Figure XI-6. These sequences are not the only ones that will meet this high reliability standard. They are intended to span the range of approaches that the region can take. Each represents the approach that would be taken if the specified objective(s) were to be emphasized. Variants and hybrids can be considered. Each of these sequences assumes the high-case demands discussed in Chapter V. Sequence 1.1. This sequence emphasizes the following policy objectives: Environmental Impact Mnimize the impact of water resource development on the natural environment. Efficient use of water •• Maximize the efficient use of water resources, taking into account the potential for conservatioP4 availability of supplies, practicality, and relative cost-effectiveness of the options. Make best use of available supplies before developing new ones. Note that, even under high demand assumptions, a lack of any conservation at all results in the initial requirement for new supply being moved forward by about 6 years. 9 Since the regional objectives of environmental protection and resource efficiency are — - emphasized, the two resources that are relied upon are, fust, conservation and, second, the Willamette.`Conservation contributes to both objectives. It is a resource that avoids the development of new supplies and, therefore, the environmental impacts associated with supply development. Among the supply sources, the Willamette has the smallest environmental impacts. Therefore, under this approach, the region would implement all of the conservation programs described in Chapter IX and then would develop, in stages, sufficient capacity on the Willamette to meet the most severe peak day demand. In addition, as shown in Figure XI-6, the region would develop the necessary transmission capacity to move the water where needed. Sequence 1.2. This sequence stresses the objectives of maximizing raw water quality and water use efficiency, as follows: Raw Water QaI4 Maximize the ability to protect water quality in the future, including the ability to use watershed protection hared approaches Utilize sources with highest raw water quality. Efficient use of water Mmantize the efficient use of water resources, taking into account the potential for conservation, availability of supplied practicality, and relative cost-effectiveness of the option Make best use of available supplies before developing new ones With these regional priorities, the two resources to which the region must turn are conservation and the Bull Run. The raw water quality of the Bull Run source is superior to other sources in the region. The protected nature of the Bull Run watershed is also an important advantage in maintaining that high quality in the future. Thus, the preferred source option for this sequence is Bull Run Dam 3. Additional transmission capacity is required to move the Bull Run water to demands in the west and south nodes. The efficiency objective is addressed through the implementation of some of the conservation programs, namely those that are targeted to outdoor use. As indicated above, close to 80% of the potential peak demand reductions that result from conservation programs are associated with the outdoor programs. The cost to achieve the last 20% of peak-day savings is extremely high. Due to the capacity-constrained nature of the regional system, outdoor conservation programs are much more cost-effective to the region than are indoor programs. 10 Sequence 1.3. Like Sequence 1.2, this sequence stresses efficiency and raw water quality. However, it attempts to soften the adverse cost and environmental impacts associated with Sequence 1.2. The key policy objectives that are emphasized include: Economic Costs l mnuze the economic impact of capital and operating casts of new water resources on customers Efficient use of water Morimae the efficient use of water resources, taking into account the potential for conservation, availability of supplies, practicality, and relative cost-effectiveness of the options Make best use of available supplies before developing new ones Raw Water Quality mrcimize the ability to protect water quality in the future, including the ability to use watershed protection based approaches Utilize sources with highest raw water quality. Rather than developing Bull Run Dam 3, this sequence relies on maximum development of the Clackamas source, as well as development of the Columbia source. The Clackamas has very high raw water quality, although not as high as the Bull Run. The upstream watershed is also well protected. As discussed in Chapter VII, the Columbia raw water quality is somewhat better than the Willamette. Sequence 1.4. This sequence emphasizes the region's vulnerability to catastrophic events and the importance of water use efficiency. The specific objectives that are underscored are: IIpacts of Catastrophic Events Minimize the magnitude,frequency, and duration of service intemgVons due to natural or human-caused catastrophes, such as earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions,floods, spills,fires, sabotage, etc. Efficient use of water Maximize the efficient use of water resources, taking into account the potential for conservation availability of supplies, practicality, and relative cost-effectiveness of the options. Make best use of available supplies before developing new ones. 11 4 Vulnerability to catastrophic events is reduced by developing three new sources: ASR, the Willamette, and the Columbia. Since there is no new development of the Clackamas River source, transmission is required to the Clackamas basin from both the east and west so that Clackamas demand can be fully served by Bull Run, Columbia, and Willamette supplies. Sequence 1.5. This sequence seeks to balance the policy objectives of environmental protection, efficiency, reducing catastophic event vulnerability, and cost minimization. Thus, this sequence seeks to achieve the following objectives: Environmental Impact Mmniize the impact of water resotem development on the natural environment. Efficient use of water Maximize the efficient use of water resources, taking into account the potential for conservation availability of supplies, practicality, and relative cost-electiveness of the options Make best use of available supplies before developing new one. impacts of CatastEmbic Events Mnin= the magnitude,frequency, and duration of service interruptions due to natural or huanan-caused catastrophes, such as earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions,floods, spills,fires, sabotage, eta Economic Costs Mnimize the economic impact of capital and operating casts of new water resources on customers. The key difference between this sequence and Sequence 1.4 lies in the substitution of the Clackamas source for the Columbia. This reduces the source diversity, since only two new sources are developed rather than three. Environmental impacts are reduced, since all of the sources in this sequence have relatively small impacts on the natural environment. Although less transmission development is required to meet the needs of the Clackamas basin, a south-east transmission link is added primarily to reduce vulnerability to catastrophic events. This link provides back-up in the event of a loss of either the Bull Run or the Clackamas source. Comparison of Level 1 Seq eu nces The foregoing discussion has laid out five potential ways to provide the most reliable level of service throughout the planning period, assuming high demands. Table XI-4 is a complete matrix of the scores of each of these sequences against all of the evaluation 12 criteria! (Each of the criteria is defined in Chapter IV.) Because of the number of - evaluation criteria that are included in the Phase 2 RWSP;Table XI-4 includes a huge amount of information. For ease of presentation, Table XI-5 extracts the key evaluation ratings. Following are discussions of the key evaluation results for each sequence. Sequence I.I. This sequence was designed to maximize water use efficiency through conservation and minimize impacts to the natural environment. It does this, but at a high cost. The present value of the costs to society are far higher than any of the other sequences. This is due largely to the high costs of the conservation programs included in this sequence. These costs include costs to the utility that are reflected in rates as well as significant out of pocket costs to customers for more efficient fixtures, appliances, and equipment. An alternative way to compare the economic impacts of different sequences is to focus on the amount by which customer water bills would be higher than they would otherwise have been in the absence of any resource or facility development beyond the base case. Figure XI-7 shows the average monthly bill increase that result from Sequence 1.1 for a typical residential customer who uses 8,000 gallons per month. These monthly bill increases climb to more than $17 by the end of the planning period.9 Sequence 1.2. This sequence addresses the two goals of water use efficiency and raw water quality. It relies on Bull Run Dam 3 as the single source of new supply in the region. The raw water quality is excellent, but the costs are high in terms of dollars and environmental impacts. The region is also very vulnerable to a catastrophic event in the Bull Run watershed. Figure XI-8 shows the typical residential monthly bill impacts, which jump to $15 when Dam 3 becomes operational and slowly decline from that level (due to reduced operating costs and increasing regional demands over which the debt service costs for Dam 3 are spread) over the remainder of the planning period. Sequence 1.3. This is the lowest-cost sequence; it also has good water quality. It improves water use efficiency through implementation of outdoor conservation programs. Its environmental impacts are moderate. It adds a single new source of supply (the Columbia), which leaves the region somewhat vulnerable to catastrophic events. Figure XI-9 indicates that the monthly bill impacts for a typical residential customer climb to almost $14 by the end of the planning period.. 8A11 of the qualitative evaluation ratings are "snapshots" at a point in time. The values in this and succeeding tables are for the end of the planning period(year 2050). 9The estimated bill increases in this and subsequent graphs are expressed in nominal (inflated) dollars and assume that the annual revenue requirements are spread equally across all usage throughout the region. 13 1 Sequence 1.4. This sequence focuses on reducing the vulnerability to catastrophic events and improving water use efficiency. It adds three new sources of supply. This places the region in a much better position to withstand the catastrophic loss of any single source. This approach also exhibits fairly low costs and moderate environmental impacts. As shown in Figure XI-10, the maximum monthly bill impact for a typical residential customer reaches $14 by the end of the planning period. Sequence 1.5. Sequence 1.5 rates well on environmental impacts, water use efficiency, raw water quality, watershed protection, and vulnerability to catastrophic events. Its costs are moderate, but comparable to sequences 1.3 and 1.4. Figure XI-11 indicates that residential bill impacts are also comparable to sequences 1.3 and 1.4. The maximum monthly bill increase, which occurs at the end of the planning period, is about $12. Each of these sequences is also rated for "ease of implementation." This rating is a composite of judgments regarding the anticipated regulatory and legal barriers to developing each component source option. Generally speaking, a higher numerical rating indicates a higher likelihood that such obstacles would prevent the sequence from being developed as set forth and that substitutions would have to be made for one or more source options. As implementation issues become more apparent in the future, the regional providers must determine which, if any, such modifications must be made. A similar affect can result from varying degrees of future public acceptance of particular source options. Development of Level 1 Strategies The foregoing sequences are all based on the assumption of high demands. As described in Chapter V, the Phase 2 demand forecast summarized demand uncertainty in terms of three possible demand levels: high, medium, and low. Resource strategies that reflect this uncertainty were developed for each of the five sequences. These strategies indicate how future resource and facility development activities would vary as future demand forecasts .. are developed. The objective in all cases is still to achieve Level 1 reliability. There are many future uncertainties other than demands. Each of the source options may encounter permitting or other difficulties that result in an inability to develop that option. This would require other sources to be substituted as the plan is updated. Such updates must reflect the best available information on source implementation prospects. Figures XI-12 through XI-16 depict the five strategies. These diagrams show the multiple future resource paths that the region would follow as demand is repeatedly reassessed and 14 i can take on high, medium, or low values. The uppermost path in each diagram is the - corresponding high-demand resource sequence discussed above. These can be thought of as "worst cases" in terms of cost and environmental impacts. In these diagrams, demand is reassessed at intervals corresponding to the earliest points at which changes in the assumed demands could affect resource development paths. It should be noted, however, that demand reassessments should routinely be done more frequently than indicated in these diagrams, probably at least as often as once every five years. As discussed in Chapter V, there are many uncertainties associated with the Metro growth forecasts and the conversion of those forecasts into forecasts of annual, seasonal, and peak-day water demands. The possibility of future demands exceeding our "high" forecast can therefore not be discounted. Frequent demand reassessments will ensure that the region is not "caught by surprise" should such demand growth occur. Following each demand reassessment, development and on-fine dates of the appropriate resources are shown. These dates are those at which resource additions are necessary to maintain Level 1 reliability. One important feature of the resource strategy diagrams helps to evaluate their flexibility to Heal with future uncertainty. The specific policy objective in this area reads as follows: Maximize the ability to anticipate and respond to unforeseen future events or changes in forecasted trends The strategy diagrams provide a visual way to evaluate the extent to which this objective is achieved. A resource strategy that has more sequences through it-is more flexible. Such a strategy provides more options to tailor resource development to changes in the region's needs. Intuitively, one would expect strategies that rely on smaller and more diversified resource additions to be more flexible than those that rely on larger increments. The strategy diagrams bear this out. Strategy 1.2, which relies on a single large resource addition (Bull Run Dam 3) has many fewer possible sequences than, say, Strategy 1.5, which relies on up to four smaller additions. It is these resource strategies that provide the region with the necessary guidance to chart future resource development in light of uncertain demands. Table XI-6 presents the expected composite key evaluation ratings for the strategies. These are based on estimated probabilities that each possible sequence will be pursued. These in turn are computed from assumed probabilities for the different demand outcomes, as shown in Table M-7. The results can be compared to the "worst case" results that are shown for the high- demand sequences in Table XI-5. Expected costs are generally lower for all the strategies, reflecting the smaller magnitude and later timing of resource additions when demand is medium or low. For similar reasons, expected environmental impact and raw water quality indices are also lower (i.e. less environmental impact and higher raw water quality) in 15 most cases. The flexibility ranking is based on the number of possible sequences in each strategy. Strategy 1.4, with its multiple phased resource additions is the most flexible. It affords the region many possibilities to adjust to future conditions as they change. Strategy 1.2, on the other hand, is very inflexible due to the magnitude of Bull Run Dam 3. Imlications These results indicate that, even if the region were to decide to pursue the highest possible level of reliability and demands turn out to be high, no major resource additions are required until well into the 2020s. This conclusion is critically dependent on the region developing the committed sources in a timely manner.10 As long as that occurs, the region has considerable time before new sources must be developed. This does not mean that the region can afford to defer a decision on which resource strategy will be pursued. As will be discussed in Chapter XII, the region faces many challenges in the short-term which will require action to ensure that the needs of individual providers will be met. The adoption by policymakers of a long-term resource strategy will set the context within which these shorter-term decisions must be made. It is also critical to their dealings with other state and local agencies. Among other things, it will provide important direction to the water providers that will guide near-term actions such as regional conservation program implementation and additions to the region's transmission system. The latter point deserves some additional discussion. As pointed out in Chapter VIII, it is critical, in order to meet the near-term needs of individual providers, to upgrade the existing transmission system infrastructure. While such upgrades are necessary regardless of which source options are ultimately developed, the sizing and configuration of those upgrades will be source-dependent. Thus, in order to meet near-term local needs in a manner that will be consistent with the sources that are ultimately developed, a long-term resource strategy is essential. Level 2 and 3 Resource Strategies Each of the resource strategies that are designed to attain Level 1 reliability has its counterparts that achieve Level 2 or 3. These Level 2 and 3 strategies resemble the Level 1 strategies in terms of the resources that will be added but, not surprisingly, the resource additions are pushed even further back in time. Thus, there are few if any near-term actions that are affected by a regional decision regarding the desired level of reliability. 1ORecall that, without conservation and those committed sources, the region will require new resources beginning around the year 2004, assuming high demands. 16 Nevertheless, it-is important to understand the implications of the region choosing less- than-perfect reliability, particularly in terms of costs. To illustrate, Level 2 and 3 sequences that correspond to Level 1 sequences 1.2 and 1.5 were developed. These are portrayed in Figure XI-17.11 Figures XI-18 through M-21 show the average residential monthly bill impacts over time of those sequences. These bill increases are significantly smaller and occur later than is the case for the Level 1 counterpart sequences. For example, by the year 2050, it would cost a typical residential customer in the region about $8 per month to attain Level 3 reliability through sequence 3.5, $10 per month to attain Level 2 reliability though sequence 2.5, and $12 month to attain Level 1 reliability through Sequence 1.5. These bill increments are a measure of the cost to the region of higher reliability levels. Demand-driven resource strategies associated with each of these resource sequences were developed. They are shown in Figures XI-22 through XI-25. Table XI-8 contains the mean values of the key evaluation indices for these four new resource strategies. Their expected costs are significantly less than their Level 1 counterparts. Expected environmental impacts by the end of the planning period are the same or somewhat smaller. Note, however, that those environmental impacts can be expected to occur later with lower reliability levels than they would with Level 1 reliability. Not surprisingly, these strategies are less flexible than the Level 1 strategies due to the smaller magnitude of required resource additions over the planning period. Conclusions and Recommendations The water provider participants in the RWSP process have been meeting together to address how to meet the regions future water supply needs for nearly five years. The RWSP project started in May of 1993. Since that time, thousands of hours and been spent on the project. Several thousand pages of reports have been generated to summarize the work completed to date. The water providers have been and remain committed to examining the range of the potential options for meeting future needs, and to evaluating them in a fair and open process. The integration of information generated with concerns and values expressed by regional stakeholders, along with our desire to retain a regional perspective, has provided some very interesting and useful insights into the possible ways to meet water supply needs. Some of things that we have learned in the planning process include the following: o There is a significant amount of water available to the region. 1 These sequences assume high demands. 17 • Supply facilities will be added to the existing supply base in the near-term. — These "committed resources" in include expansion of the Barney Reservoir and treatment facilities on the Tualatin River, expansion of existing intakes and treatment plants on'the Clackamas Rivers, and return of Portland's Columbia South Shore Wellfield to full capacity. • Given our existing and committed resources, the region will not need to pursue any major new increments of supply until no sooner than about the year 2020, unless water demands increase faster than even the high projections or some of the committed resource additions do not materialize. In this case, the schedule for bringing new resources on-line would need to be accelerated. The key point is that, while the region must pursue near-term resource additions, we havesome lead time to revisit the projected longer-term demand forecasts, and study in more detail or pilot test future resource options based on the outcome of the RWSP. • Conservation program opportunities and water reuse offer significant water savings to the region. Implementation of these measures will delay and reduce the need to bring on line new or expanded supplies. • All of the supply sources studied since May 1993 still appear to be viable for different parts of the region. The region is lucky to have so many options. • Regional growth patterns are very difficult to predict. We need to design a plan that is flexible to allow for reassessment of growth trends and corresponding effects on water demand and supply conditions. Maintaining and updating the Regional Water Supply Plan is the best way to stay on top of changing circumstances. • People care about their water supply. It is an important public service that touches their lives every day. Getting people involved is a real challenge because the answers to water supply questions are often very complex and without easy answers. We have learned that people care a great deal about the environment, costs, water quality, system reliability, and using water efficiently. We have also learned that there are tradeoffs between these values when we consider different ways to meet our future needs. As a result of the planning effort and analysis of alternative resource strategies presented in this chapter, the region's water providers feel it appropriate to share with citizens and decision makers our sense of how well the alternative resource strategies meet regional priorities and values as embodied in the policy objectives identified for this project. 18 First, we must emphasize.that there is no one "right answer" or set of options that meets all of the values of the public perfectly. This is why we feel it important to present several strategies for consideration by the region. We do, however, evaluate n what we have and suggest a ranking of the alternative resource strategies based o learned up to this point. Second, the providers look forward to public discussion on the preliminary plan. The plan is being circulated throughout the region. The regional dialogue needs to address the long term strategies presented in this chapter along with the recommended near- term strategies proposed in Chapter XII. Citizens must consider near term and long term resource decisions, as well as institutional strategies. Reaching a regional consensus among the large number of participants will depend on extensive discussion of the alternatives, public review and comment, and a number of hearings on both the preliminary and final plan. Rol of ystem Reliability As discussed earlier in this section, system reliability was felt initially to be a key value that would help project participants differentiate between the alternatives. A decision was made to prepare the alternative resource strategies based upon a defined level of system reliability. However, the modeling results indicate that, given existing and committed resources, the region's water systems can achieve the highest level of reliability for about 25 years into the future even assuming the highest demand projections and hottest, driest weather events. While it is important for a regional dialogue to begin regarding the appropriate future level of water supply reliability for the region, that decision does not have to be made before going forward with the required near-term actions outlined in Chapter XII. In addition, the Regional Water Supply Plan will be revisited and revised on a periodic basis. These updates will provide new and useful information that will, at the appropriate time, assist the region's decision makers in determining what level of future reliability to pursue in the long-term. Evaluating and Deciding Among Long-Term Water Sunnly Strategies While near-term system reliability is not a key decision variable, many of the near term strategies the region must pursue will be affected by the resources choices that will be pursued over the long-term. Thus, it is critical for the region to consider the five strategies presented for Reliability.Level 1 discussed in this chapter, and to select or develop a strategy that can be endorsed and implemented by decision makers. (Note: As discussed above, this is not a recommendation to select the highest level of reliability at this time, but a commitment to determine the set of options which best meet the overall regional needs.) 19 Based on the evaluation of Strategies 1.1 through 1.5, providers are suggesting a ranking based upon how well each strategy meets the entire range of objectives. Table M'9 contains the ranking and the key policy objectives which are emphasized by each alternative. Based on analysis conducted to date, the providers are recommending Strategy 1.5 for consideration during the preliminary RWSP review period because it seems to best meet the broadest array of policy objectives identified through the planning process. This combination of options contained in Strategy 1.5 meets key criteria in the following manner: • Costs are relatively low. This strategy brings on-line sources that are close to the areas where the demands will occur and in increments sized to meet needs as they occur. • Environmental impacts are relatively low. The Clackamas and the Willamette both have relatively low impacts on the natural environment. Using ASR makes use of higher winter flows from sources, reducing need to divert summer flows. Other impacts from development of these sources are relatively low as evaluated in project analyses. • Efficient use of water is emphasized. Targeting outdoor conservation programs is the most cost effective way to reduce demand during the peak summer season when demands are highest and supplies are most constrained. • The strategy allows for use of sources with high raw water quality. ASR source water could be provided from any of the region's water sources with Bull Run a likely candidate due to high winter surpluses and low variable operating costs. Clackamas River water is of high raw quality as well. All sources are readily treated to meet or surpass safe drinking water standards. • Source diversity provides system robustness and reliability. Adding two new sources and additional transmission to the current mix of existing water sources and facilities insulates the region against catastrophic events and water quality hazards. . • Phasing provides flexibility to deal with future uncertainty. Addressing needs in small increments over time allows the region to reassess demand, explore other alternatives such as re-use and direct source use for non-potable water needs, and adjust our course if one or more of the new or expanded sources cannot be implemented for any reason. Resource strategies 1.1 through 1.4 are also fully capable of meeting the region's water supply needs. They meet some of the same policy objectives and are actually 20 more effective in meeting certain ones then Strategy 1.5. Nevertheless, none of the other alternatives seem to the providers to meet so many of the objectives that we have learned are important to both to citizens and the water professionals who are responsible for providing effective water service to the region. The recommendations in this preliminary plan reflect feedback on policy tradeoffs and priorities gained through the use of tools like focus groups and questionnaires. However, the providers recognize that through regional discussion of this plan, certain policy objectives may take precedence or priority over others. Through this discussion, we may learn that citizens value strategies that emphasize one or two objectives over others. Thus, we are laying out the array of alternatives beyond that which is recommended by the water provider professionals. The other strategies maximize certain policy objectives over others. Strategy 1.1 maximizes water use efficiency and minimizes environmental impacts, but does not perform as well in other areas such as cost or quality of source water. Strategy 1.2 maximizes raw water quality but has a high cost and high environmental impacts. Strategy 1.3 involves less cost than 1.1&2, reduces environmental impacts, and utilizes a new source which has slightly better raw water quality. Strategy 1.4 emphasizes reducing the region's vulnerability to catastrophic events by bringing on line three new sources of water. However, this approach results in higher adverse impacts to the natural environment and relies on two sources with lower raw water quality than existing sources. In summary, the preliminary plan, along with the other technical interim reports, present sufficient information for the public and decision makers to evaluate the sources under consideration for the region's long term strategy. Chapter XII contains recommendations for the near term, long term and institutional strategies. These should be reviewed and discussed over the next several months. The region's water providers are committed to an open and fair discussion about the merits of what is presented in this preliminary plan. We want to hear what people think about the resource strategies presented and how these meet their set of priorities. The providers have recommended a strategy that they feel best reflects an appropriate set of tradeoffs against the broad array of policy objectives. However, there are other strategies presented for serious consideration which contain a different set of tradeoffs and choices. The final RWSP will contain the set of near term, long term, and institutional strategies that best fits the values of our customers and the public at large as they emerge over the next few months. 21 TABLE XI-1 THREE LEVELS OF SYSTEM RELIABILITY ' hest Nodal Probatiil ty of Probabi ity of Pro abil ty of Probabi ity of Expected Hig o 10% Nodal 15% Nodal Peak-Day Any Nodal 5/° Nodal peak-Day Shortage Peak-Day peak-Day Peak-Day Shortage Under Peak-Day Shortage Shortage Shortage Worst Historical Shortage Weather 0 0 0 Level 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1% Level 2 10% 15% 6% 200/ 20% 15% 12% 5% 2% Level 3 ° , r TABLE XI-2 RATINGS OF SOURCE OPTIONS AGAINST SOURCE-SPECIFIC EVALUATION CRITERIA* ' Source Option Environment Raw Water Quality Vulnerability to Ease of Natural Human Ordinal Watershed Aesthetics Catastrophic Events Implementation Rating Protection 4.9 3.6 1.2 1 1 3.5 4.5 Bull Run Dam 3 2.6 2.5 2.1 5 2.5 3.3 3.5 Columbia Willamette 1 2.5 2.3 4 2 2.5 2.5 Clackamas (up to 50 mgd) 1 1 1.8 2 2 2.5 2 Clackamas (more than 50 mgd) 2.4 1 1.8 2 2 2.5 2 ASR 1.5 2.2 3 NR *" 3 NR ** 3 * Ordinal Scale ranging from 1-5 with 1 a the most favorable rating and 5 as the least favorable rating. ** Not Rated i TABLE XI-3 KEY POLICY OBJECTIVES ADDRESSED BY LEVEL 1 RESOURCE SEQUENCES Sequence Natural Water Use Raw Water Costs Catastrophic Environment Efficiency Quality Events 1.1 x x 1.2 x x 1.3 x x x x 1.4 x x x x 1.5 x TABLE X1-4 PERFORMANCE OF LEVEL 1 RESOURCE SEQUENCES AGAINST ALL EVALUATION CRITERIA Costsc envy nv ronmen Raw a er ua a a p cViase o pare ons V Societal PV Utility Ability Temporal Percent Natural* Human* Ordinal Watershed AesMatios•Ability to Compliance Ordlnsl Expected Seasonal No.of New Trendw Potential Imptementatton• storage Transfer Cost Cost to Share Equity onservabo Rating*Protection* MIX with Rating* Unserved Demand In Sources Raft to Affect Volume Ca pacity ($millions) ($millions) Costs Savings Sources Future Worst Year without 2 or Mo (bg) (fid) for Planning Regulations Sources Period Bull Run 2nd Largest Source .1 996.6 962.9 10.57% 1 15 2.3 2.1 2 2.3 23% 1.5% 1 0.65 2.5 20.7 319 Natural Environment EfSdency .2 722.2 802.6 5.04% 4.9 3.6 1.2 1.3 1 2.7 60% 0.7% u 0.64 4.5 39.7 2881 Raw Water Quality/ EfBdency 1.3 611 847.6 5.04% 3.2 2.6 2 2.1 2.3 2.4 16% 9.0% 1 0.39 3.1 20.7 192 osts/Water Quality/ Efclency .4 835.1 673.9 5.04% 2.9 3.8 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.4 2% 0.7% 3 0.42 3.8 25.5 208.5 Catastrophic Events/ Efficiency 5 647.9 673.9 5.04% 2.1 3.4 2.3 1.8 2.2 2:3 2% 0.9% 2 0.39 3:3 25.5 192 ; osts/Natural Environment/Cetastrophlc Rants/Effidemey Ordinal scale ranging from 15 with 1 as the most favorable rating and 5 as the least fev0r8ble rating. TABLE XI-5 PERFORMANCE OF LEVEL 1 RESOURCE SEQUENCES AGAINST KEY EVALUATION CRITERIA osts c enc atura a er ua ry alas rop c vents ase o Present Value Present Value Percent Environment" Raw Water Watershed Protection* Unse d Demand in Expected Seasonal NSourcesw Implementation" Societal Utility onservatioWorst Year without. ($millions) ($millions) for Planning Period Buil Run 2nd Largest Source 1 996.6 962.9 10.57% 1 2.3 2.1 23% 1.5% 1 2.5 Natural Environment/ Efficiency 2 722.2 802.6 5.04% 4.9 1.2 1.3 60% 0.7% 0 4.5 Raw Water Quality/ ! Efficiency 3 611 647.6 5.04% 3.2 2 2.1 16% 9.0% 1 3.1 Costsmater Quality/ Efficiency ' 4 635.1 673.9 5.04% 2.9 2.3 2.1 2% 0.7% 3 3.8 Catastrophic Events/ t Efflciehcy 0.9% 2 3.3 5 647.9 673.9 5.04% 2.1 2.3 1.8 2% Costs/Natural Environment/Catastrophic Events/Efficiency "Ordinal scale ranging from 1-5 with 1 as the most favorable rating and 5 as the least favorable rating t k E 'E Table XI-6 EXPECTED VALUES OF KEY EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LEVEL 1 STRATEGIES Strategy Costs Natural Water Quality Flexibility* Environment* Present Value Present Value Raw Water Watershed Societal Utility Quality* Protection* ($million) ($million) 1.1 864.3 797.8 1.0 2.0 1.8 3 Natural Environment/ Efficiency 1.2 580.6 619.9 4.1 1.2 1.2 5 Raw Water Quality/ Efficiency 1.3 494.0 501.4 2.2 1.7 1.7 3 Costs/Water Quality/ Efficiency 1.4 534.4 546.9 3.0 2.8 2.2 1 Catastrophic Events/ Efficiency 1.5 539.9 539.9 1.8 2.1 1.5 2 Costs/Natural Environment/ Efficiency/ Catastrophic Events * Ordinal scale ranging from 1-5 with 1 as the most favorable rating and 5 as the least favorable rating. TABLE XI-7 ASSUMED PROBABILITIES OF DEMAND OUTCOMES IF PREVIOUS DEMAND FORECAST WAS: PROBABILITIES OF DEMAND OUTCOMES IN NEXT FORECAST ARE ASSUMED TO BE: High Medium LOW HIGH 70% 30% 0 MEDIUM 25% 50% 25% LOW 0 30% 70% Table XI-8 EXPECTED VALUES OF KEY EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR LEVELS 2 AND 3 STRATEGIES Strategy Costs Natural Water Quality* Flexibility* Present Value Present Value Environment* Raw Water Watershed Societal Utility Quality Protection ($million) ($million) 2.2 517.2 537.2 3.7 1..1 1.3 5 Raw Water Quality/ Efficiency ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ......................................... ....................................... ....................................... ...... .... .... 2.5........ 494.1 487.8 1.8 2.0 1.5 3 Costs/Natural Environment/ Efficiency/ Catastrophic Events 3.2 481.9 490.9 3.7 1.1 1.3 5 Raw Water Quality/ Efficiency ....................................... ........................................ ........................................ ........................................ ....................................... ....................................... 3.5.............. .............. 476.2 462.9 1.7 2.2 1.4 5 Costs/Natural Environment/ Efficiency/ Catastrophic Events .....................................................................-.......................................................................-.................................................-.......................... * Ordinal scale ranging from 1-5 with 1 as the most favorable rating and 5 as the least favorable rating. TABLE XI-9 RANKING OF LEVEL 1 RESOURCE STRATEGIES Water Provider Ranking Outdoor 1.5 Cons,ASR, x x x x Clackamas, Willamette Outdoor 1.3 Cons, x x x Clackamas, Columbia Outdoor 1.4 Cons,ASR, x x Willamette, Columbia Outdoor 1.2 Cons,Bull x x Run Dam 3 Maximum 1.1 Cons, x x Willamette Figure XI-1 - I Expected Fraction of Peak-Day Regional Demand Unserved: Base Case Resources 0.30- 0.25- 0.20- 0.15- 0.10- 0.05- 0.00 1995 .300.250.200.150.100.0501995 2000 2005 2010 2 I5 2d2O 2 5 2030 20 5 2040 2045 2050 Year Figure M-2 - Expected Fraction of Peak-Season Regional Demand Unserved: Base Case Resources 0.30- 0.2.5- 0.20- 0.15- 0.10- .300.250.200.150.10 0.05- 0.00 .050.0 95 2000 2605 2 10 2 I5 2 0 2 2di3O 21 5 m W210 20'45 250 Year Figure M-3 - Worst-Year Fraction of Peak-Day Regional Demand Unserved: Base Case Resources 0.4- 0.3- 0.2- 0.1- 0.0 .40.30.20.1° 11995 2000 2005 2410 2 15 2d`2o 2d25 20`30 20J5 2040 20'45 2 50 Year Figure M-4 - Worst-Year Fraction of Peak-Season Regional Demand Unserved: Base Case Resources 0.4- 0.3- 0.2- 0.1- 0.0 1995 .40.30.20I0.0995 2 00 2005 2 10 2015 -2 0 2025 2030 2035 2440 2045 2050 Year Figure XI-5 - Worst-Year Fraction of Peak-Day Demand Unserved by Node: Base Case Resources 0.8- 0.6- WEST 0.4 SOUTH 0.2 0 EAST 000 0.1995 2 O0 2;t5 2 10 2015 20'20 2t 2 0 2t35 2 4O 2t45 2U50 Year Figure XI-6 Level 1 Resource Sequences—High Demand 1995 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Level 1 Reliability Sequence 1.1 Maximum Natural Environment/ conservation Wil amette— 60 mgd ■ Willamette—50 mgd ■ Efficiency Wi lamette— 50 mgd■ ! i Sequence 1.2 Outdoor East-South Bull un Dam 3 ■ Raw Water Quality/ A conservation 41 (75 mgd) Efficiency East-We t(75 mgd) • Sequence 1.3 Outdoor Clackam s—50 mgd ® Clacka as—33 mgd ! Colum is—55 mgd ■ Costs/Water Quality/ conservation Columbia 50 mgd ■ Efficiency East-West(75 mgd) A Sequence 1.4 Catastrophic Events/ Outdoor ASR E&W ■ Columbia —50 mgd ■ Columbia —25 mgd ■ Efficiency conservation East-South(50 mgd) Willamette—50 mgd ■ Willamette—25 rr gd ■ West-South(20 mgd) • Sequence 1.5 Costs/Natural ASR E&W ■ Wiliam tte—50 mgd ■ Willame e—50 mgd ■ Environment/Efficiency/ Outdoor Catastrophic Events AL conservation • South-East(50 mgd) Clackamas—50 mgd South-West(25 mgd) West- ast(60 mgd) • Conservation • Single Direction Transmission ■ Supply Option ♦ Bidirectional Transmission � f 95-920297.punl.bc0/95.ap r i 'I Figure M-7 i I Estimated Average Monthly Residential Bill Increases Due to Sequence 1.1 20 I 15 $/Month 10 s 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year Figure M-8 I i 1 Estimated Average Monthly.Residential Bi11'Increase Due to Sequence 1.2 I ! 20 is $/Month 10 I I i I 5 I 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year Figure XI-9 ------- - - � I Estimated Average Monthly Residential Bill Increase Due to Sequence 1.3 i I 20 15 $/Month to rl I 5 I II I I 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year i Figure M-10 f Estimated Average Monthly Residential Bill Increase Due to Sequence 1.4 I 20 , i is $/Month 10 I 5 i 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year 1 Figure XI-11 Estimated Average Monthly Residential Bill Increase Due to Sequence 1.5 i i j 20 j ; I I 15 ! j t 1 $/Month 10 I 1 I i 5 i 0 1995 2006 2017 2028 2039 2050 Year Figure XI-12 _ Level 1 Reliability — Strategy 1.1 Willamette—50 m d .................... Willamette H Wil—50 mgd Number of possible ------- sequences=23 H 50 mgd M ------------------------------M,L Willamette -------- Willamette—100 mgd Aft 60 mgd ---------------------- H Wil—100 mgd M H -------------------------- ------------------------ M ------------------------- - ` ------ L ---------------------------------------- H Willamette—50 mgd ---------------------- H Wil—60 mgd Willamette H -------- ----------------------------- H 110 mgd M M,L ------ L ---------------------------------------- Willamette—105 mgd ---------------------- H Wil—105 mgd Maximum M Willamette H Conservation M 55 mgd M -----_ L ---------------------------------------- Wil—105 mgd Willamette—55 md H L ------ Wit—55 mgd M ------ L -------------------------------- L Wit—105 mgd Willamette—55 m d H - L M,L ----- Wil—55 mgd LL ----------------- ----------M-- ------ lndcates online date 1995 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 95-920293-Fig-Xf-14.7N5.thJ I Figure XI-13 Level I Reliability — Strategy 1.2 Number of possible sequences=7 BullRun Dam 3 ..................................................................................................... ................ H B.R 3 ............................ . M . V .... H, M Bull Run Dam 3 -------------•,:,,,-... Outdoor Conservation .. ........................ M L .......................................... B.R 3 - ............................................... MI -� Bull Run Dam 3 0................ L ................................ M L ............................... L ......................................... indicates on-line date _ --.-----_ 2035 2040 2045 2050 1995 2015 2020 2025 2030 95-920293.Fig.Xl-I5.7/95.0h Figure XI-14 Level l Reliability— Strategy 1.3 Number of possible sequences=25 Columbia-55 gd Columbia-50 mgd H� Col 55 Clackamas-33 mgd M ----------------------------------H H M,L ----- Clackamas 50 mgd Columbia-105 mgd - H ackamas-----33----m-gd--------------- Cl Col-55 mgd H M ---- ------Clackamas-331ngd H M,L ----- Columbia-50 mgd L Clack-33 mgd H Clackamas-83 mgd -------------------------------M- L ----- Outdoor M Clackamas-50 mgd ------------------------------ M -------- Conser-. vation L L Clackamas-50 mgd ------------------------------ Clackamas-83 mgd LM -------------- L ---------------------------------- Indicates -------- --------------------- Indicates on-line date 1995 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 95-920293.Fig.Xi-I Q7/95.(h Figure XI-15 Level 1 Reliability — Strategy 1.4 Number of possible Columbia ---------- sequences=95 Will tte 25 mgd Columbia 25 mgd M ----------------------- Willamette H 50 mgd Col-25 m H 50 mgd M Mi .- H Wil-25 mg -------- M,l- ------------------------ Col-50 H Wil-25 Col-75 m d H Wil-25m ----- - -- M ---- I M ------------------------ ASR L M Col-50 mgd Wil-50 mgd H Col-50 H Wil-75 Col-75 m gg M Wil H Wil-35 mg ------------- -------- ----- -- ------------- H M 40 mgd ------------- ---- . � M,l_ Wil-40 mgd ASR ----------- -------- ----------M Wil-50 mgd L ------ H L ASR Willamette H Wil-50 mg d _______ M, 40 mgd Outdoor M M ASR L ---------- -------- Conserva on MASR Wil-40 mgd ASR Wil - ------------------------------M 40 mgd .. ASR _ M Ll ------------ -- ASR • Indicates on-line date M ----------------------------� ------------------- 1995 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 95-920293.Fig.X I-17.7/95.f h Figure XI-16 Level 1 Reliability — Strategy 1.5 Number of possible Willamette sequences=35 Willamette ----------H50 mgd 50 mgd M --------•------------------------• Clackamas H H 50 mgd M Willamette H 100 mgd ------------- ------- -M,� ----------------------------- ASR Clack—50 mgjd Willam a—19.2 mgd Wil—50 mgd H Clackamas— 0 mgcr H M Clackamas—40 mgd ----------------------- --- M Clack 40 H L L ---------_---- ----------- -- Clackamas _ L ------ M - - --40 mgd ASR Wil—50 mgd L H Clack—50 mgd Clack—50 mg H Wl—100 mgd Wil—100 mgd Outdoor MASR Clackamas—40msd-- - Clack—10 mgd --------------------------- M--- --------------- Conner- M M,L vation """--- L Clack—40 mgd M L ASR L M Clack—40 mgd -------------- ---- ---------- Clack—40 mg L ------------------------------M_ ASR ASR L ------ L M ------------------------------ L ------------------- • indicates on-line date 1� 1995 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 95.920293.Fig.X1-18.7J95.fh s Figure XI-17 Levels 2 and 3 Resource Sequences—High Demand 1995 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Level Reliability Sequence 2.2 Outdoor Raw Water Quality/ AL conservation •East-South(60 mgd) Bull Run Dam 3 ■ Efficiency East-West(50 mgd) • Sequence 2.5 Costs/Natural Outdoor Environment/Efficiency/ A k conservation East-South(50 mgd) ASR E&W ■ Willamette—60 ngd i Catastrophic Events Clacka mas—50 mgd ■ Level Reliability Outdoor Sequence 3.2 conservation 0 East-South(50 mgd) Bill Run Dam 3■ Raw Water Quality/ East-Vest (50 mgd) • Efficiency Sequence 3.5 Costs/Natural Outdoor i Environment/Efficiency/ AL conservation East-South(50 mgd) I ASR E&W■ Willamette—45 mgd■ Catastrophic Events Clackamas—50 mgd 111111111 Conservation • Single Direction Transmission ■ Supply Option ♦ Bidirectional Transmission 95.920293.ponl.bet.7195.ap Figure XI-18 Estimated Average Monthly Residential Bill Increase Due to Sequence 2.2 20 15 $/Month 10 s 0 1995 2006 2017 2028 2039 2050 Year Figure XI-19 _ Estimated Average Monthly. Residential Bill Increase Due to Sequence 2.5 20 15 $/Month 10 5 0 1995 2006 2017 2028 2039 2050 Year Figure XI-20 Estimated Average Monthly Residential Bill Increase Due to Sequence 3.2 20 rx 15 $/Month to 5 0 1995 2006 2017 2028 2039 2050 Year Figure XI-21 _ Estimated Average Monthly Residential Bill Increase Due to Sequence 3.5 20 15 $/Month 10 s 0 1995 2006 2017 2028 2039 2050 Year Figure XI-- 22 Level 2 Reliability — Strategy 2.2 Number of possible sequences=7 Bull Run Dam 3 ..................................... ............. H BullRun Dam 3 ...................................... H,M B.R 3 Outdoor Conservation M............................... M ....... L ..........................- Bull Run Dam 3 ..................... M B.R 3 LL................................ ............................•- .---••-........M L ................... L .........--• Indicates on-line date 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2020 2025 1995 i 95.920293.Fi g-M-22.7N5.fh I i t i , r i t Figure XI-23 Level 2 Reliability — Strategy 2.5 Willamette—60 mgd .............................. Clackamas H Wil—60 mgd Number of possible .— sequences 17 H 50 mgd M H -. ASR E&W M, L Willamette—60 gd ---- . - M Clackamas—5 gd Clackamas—20 gd .................................. M ---.............. L ....................................... ASR M Clack-50 mgd Wil-60 mgd_ ................... H Clack.-50 mgd,Wil.— mid...... Outdoor Conservation ASR H Clack—20 Mg d ................................. M M ................... L -------------------------------------- ASR __�..................• Clack�20 mgd _- L .......................•-- Clack-50m d WII-60mgd_-___- H �.�.....--- ASR Clack—20 m d ML M------------------------------------ L ................................ ASR L M Clack—20 mgd • Indicates on-line date L ...................................... 1995 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 t 95.920299.Fi g.X I.23.7N 5.Ih 1 : Figure XI — 24 Level 3 Reliability — Strategy 3.2 Number of possible ! sequences=7 I Bull Run Dam 3 ........................................................ H Bull Run Dam 3 ..................... H,M , Outdoor Conservation M B.R 3 ................................ M i L .................................... L .... Buil Run Dam 3 M B.R 3 L .................................... L Indicates on-line date 1995 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 j I I I i 95-920293.FigAI-24.7/95.IA I I 'I 3 Figure XI — 25 Level 3 Reliability — Strategy 3.5 Number of possible Willamette–25 mgd sequences=9 .............. Clackamas H H 50 mgd M ..................................... ASR Clackamas–50 mgd H Willamette–2 _qd ..................M � ....................................... H ASR Clackamas–50 mgd Willamette–25�gd••�-•-•-..•---• Outdoor Conservation M H ---•---•.-- ASR ................. M L . .............................L ASR ..................................M —•...................................... • Indicates on-line date Fi<, 1995 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 95.920293.Fig.XI-25.7/95.1h June 26, 1995 Ed Wegner City of Tigard Water Department P.O. Box 230000 Tigard,Oregon 97281-1999 RE: Account Number 4105001 - Statement dated 6/21/95(copy attached) Dear Mr. Wegner: I am in receipt of a$702.17 water bill for the period of April 26, 1995 to June 21, 1995. This represents usage which is 51,300 cubic foot over the average usage for this account. The excess was caused by a leak which was not discovered until June 3, 1995. The leak was discovered late on the night of Saturday June 3rd I called a plumber and had a temporary repair completed Sunday June 4, 1995 and a final repair completed on Monday June 5, 1995. Total cost of this repair was $1,050. (receipts for this repair are attached) I am requesting consideration on the current bill for the usage caused by this leak. Since the excessive usage was caused by a leak and the leak was repaired immediately upon discovery, I believe an adjustment would be fair and equitable treatment on the part of the City of Tigard Water Department. The adjustment I am requesting would be an allowance for one-half of the usage above the average level. I believe this would show good faith on both the part of the water department and myself. I believe I took responsible and timely action with respect to this matter and that the cause of the excessive usage was beyond my control or knowledge. Your consideration and approval of an appropriate credit to my account would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, /'z' Vz' LI(X/L C'LU Robert A. Moore (3 attachements) THANK YOU �j'�r-� CONTRACT T 5 0 6.7 �C i ® for your valued CONTRACTOR#93705 DATE patronage 24 HOURS 7 DAYS VVAA !� "RADIO DISPATCHED" ACCOUNT NO. CODE cc a EXPERT PLUMBING SERVICES L;� DT ! P.O.BOX 1897 HOME PHONE � '- CJJOI HOME PHONE C Hillsboro,OR 97123 WORK PHONE _♦�,� =) )57 WORK PHONE SOLD TO: Q rn JOB ADDRESS 223-6447 292-9279 NAME �' , `�� r ' ' rhe NAME 659-1180 357-5702 ADDRESS 1 64130 L 1�1° ADDRESS 'America's 73-oubleshooter CITY STATE ZIP CITY STATE ZIP WORK AUTHORIZED DISPATCH TRK ,i �� p r ) NUMBER fr: sevoice I /1 tyro fag t� 1. 'e e)u-se ! CJD . a INIT. r 0 (./�/ 1 V �'I I ES 1 INIT. R k CONTRACT# NIGHT&SUNDAY 94kB ov R_ /D'� CALLS ❑ JOB START COMPLETION DA E DATE WORK ORDER BY - - — - TECHNICIAN TECHNICIAN ❑ CASHK�❑� ElCHARGE APPRVI BY SERVICE RECOMMENDED CUSTOMER INFORMED ❑ DECLINED ❑ Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract or any breach thereof, shall be settled in accordance with the arbitration tri- bunal of the BETTER BUSINESS s WORK AUTHORIZATION PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE/CONTRACT DUE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK BUREAU.WARRANTY AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED WITH ABOVE WORK AUTHORIZED.I,the undersigned,am owner/authorized representativehenant of the premises NOTES/TERMS at which the work menijoned above Is to be done.I herebyauUarize you to perform said work and to use such labor and!materlals as you deem advis- able.A monthly service chitrge of 1-1/2%will be added after ten days.I agree to pay reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the event of legal See NOTICE T O OWNER" a n d action or reasonable,bankeostsdl my check fails to dear.I have read,agree to,and have received a copy of the 1 u s any price is not Mcluctngtax.ANpalls will beremoved from Pre sesand discarded unless otherwise specified herein. �� statement required On contract On I hereby authorize you:to proceed with the a ork at the fiat rate of$ reverse side. ,.AUTHORIZED �[ (Applicable in Oregon). 'SIGNATURE A CREDIT CAD EXPIRATION DATE ACCEPTANCE OF WORK PERFORMED-I find the service and:materials rendered NO. and installed in connection with the above work mentioned,to have been completed in AUTHORIZATION CODE DRIVER'S,LICENSE NO. EXP. ACCOUNT NO. CUSTOMER a satisfactory manner.1 agree that the amount set forth on this contract in the space DATE SERVICE REP, labeled'TOTAL"to be the total and complete flat rate/minimum charge.I agree to pay reasonable attorney's fees and court costs In the event of legal action.A monthly ser- SUB vice charge of 1.1/2%will be added after 10 days.1 acknowledge that I have.read and TOTAL received a legible copy of this contract a e read the•Notice to Owner and•state- I do,hereby state that the above as be install w Mntfl manner and to the applicable ment requireclon contract Gwreverse ' lean Oregon). TAX ,'building codes. _ X _. ..- - ACCEPTANCE Date', Servicer sig're SIGNATURE X JamTOTAL ©© • CUSTOMER COPY-WHITE ACCOUNTING COPY-YELLOW PLEASE PAY FROM THIS INVOICE ALPHA COPY-PINK INVENTORY COPY•BUFF THANK YOU for your valudd CONTRACTOR#93705 DATE J `�� CONTRACT T 5078 ® - patronage 24 HOURS 7 DAYS C �� ACCOUNT NO. CODE 10, RADIO DISPATCHED„�+aD' EXPERT PLUMBING SERVICES S 24 J / 3 P.O. BOX 1897 HOME PHONE s HOME PHONE Hillsboro,OR 97123 WORK.PHONE WORK PHONE SOLD TO: � � � � JOB ADDRESS 223-6447 292-9279 � I` b ” Ody*� 659.1180 357-5702 NAME rr /q� NAME ADDRESS b a3 Li� t h, �tVP ADDRESS America's Roubleshooter CI o", STATE P, _ ZIP 1�. � CITY STATE ZIP WORK AUTHORIZED NUMBERH TRK (' .S inn c �o Re t� e i' v ick Eroyn - INIT. -fo H > At 1 I INIT. UY• NIGHT&GS e� ! / CONTRACT CALLS ❑ UND eG JOB START COMPLETION DATE DATE IF I WORK ORDER BY TECHNICIAN CLt -t4 is TECHNICIAN I(L ❑�e1� VtkECK ❑ C.C. C ❑CHARG� APPRVD BY SERVICE RECOMM STOM R INFORMED ❑ DECLINED ❑ Any controversy or claim arising of or relating to this contract or breach thereof, shall be settle( accordance with the arbitration bunal of the BETTER BUSINE BUREAU.WARRANTY WORK AUTHORIZATION PAYMENT OF THIS INVOICE/CONTRACT DUE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK AUTHORIZATION TO-PROCEED WITH ABOVE WORK AUTHORIZED.I,the undersigned.am owner/authorized representative/tenant of the premises NOTES/TERMS ERMS at which the workwmenowed above is to be done.1 hereby authorize you to perform said work and to use such labor and materials as you deem advis- able.A men"service charge-of 1.1/2%will be added atter ten days.I agree to pay reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the event of legal See NOTICE TO OWNER" actiorr.or reasonable bw*costs4my check fails to dear.I have read,agree to,and have reoeN a copy of the contract.I underst iany price is not including tax.IwpartswWberemovedfrompromisesanddiscardedunlesSame � statement required on contract I hereby with above work et me flat re of y reverse side. (Applicable in Oregon). AUTHORIZED SIGNATUREkylml -� + CREDIT CARD EXPIRATION DATE ACCEPTANCE OF WORK PERFORMED-I find the service and materials rendered 42 NO and installed In connection with the above work mentioned,to have been completed in CUSTOMER a satisfactory manner.1 agree that the amount set forth on this contract in the space AUTHORIZATION CODE DRIVER'S LICENSE NO. DATE ACCOUNT NO. sE rICE REP. labeled TOTAL'to,be the tal and complete flat ratehninimum charge.I agree to pay reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the event of legal action.A monthly ser- SUB vice charge of 1-1/2%will be added after 10 days.I admrowledge lhat:l have read and TOTAL - received a,legible copy of this contract and have read the Notice to Owner and state- I do hereby state that the abov ben Inst le i workm ike manner and to the applicable menrrequired on contract on reverse side(Applicable In Oregon). TAX • building Odes. V i� - ACCEPTANCE/ Date Service SIg lure X SIGNATURE TOTAL n1 leTnaeccd r•naV-1AfI4ITG . Arrf11 INTINA rr1PY.YFI mw PLEASE PAY FROM THIS INVOICE .AI1P-IA cbPY-PINK INVENTORY COPY-BUFF CITY OF TIGARD AGCOUNT'NO. ". DUE DATE TOTAL'AMOUNT DUE'. OF WATER DEPARTMENT 4105001 7/12/1995 $537.17 8777 SW BURNHAM STREET P.0.BOX 230000 `�'�` TIGARD,OREGON 97281-1999 AMOUNT PAID IF OTHER THAN 1 (503)639-1554 or TOTAL AMOUNT DUE (503)639-4171 ROBERT MOORE 16230 SW 146TH AVE TIGARD, OR 97224 PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION WITH PAYMENT ----------------------------------------------- NAME ROBERT MOORE ACCOUNT NO. 4105001 SERVICE LOCATION 16230 SW 146TH AVE TYPE OF SERVICE FROM TO SERVICE RES 4/26/95 6/21/95 METER READING USAGE IN SEWER WATER BILLING PREVIOUS PRESENT 100 CU.FT. CODE CODE AMOUNTS 627 1156 529 MIN 13.13 WCAM 689.04 SANITARY SEWER RATES ARE PROPOSED TO GO UP ABOUT $2 PER MONTH FOR THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD, STARTING JULY 1. IT IS THE FIRST RATE INCREASE IN THREE YEARS AND WILL PAY FOR "•:.' ,e RISING COSTS TO CLEAN WASTERWATER. THE SURFACE WATER FEE WILL REMAIN $3 PER MONTH. FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL 648-8621. CURRENT BILLING 702.17 LAST YEARS WATER CONSUMPTION PREVIOUS BALANCE 60.88 SAME BILLING PERIOD LESS PAYMENTS 60.88 RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT 30 DAYS PAST DUE CREDIT FOR LEAK =165.00- IS SUBJECT TO TURN OFF TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 537.17 KEEP THIS PORTION MORE INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE ` VISITORS PLEASE REGISTER Date: 175 Meeting: -1&-j, re zfcrl, � Name (please print) Do you wish to speak? es or no 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.