08/17/1994 - Packet MTERGO" R 11 ENT L ' ATEA :.0 ,
Serving:T'igard ated Area
AGENDA.
Wednes*j August 7,:19:94
5:30 p:m..
1 �alr:to Order
2. l Call
3. V A.ppTo J:-8., X`904:Meeting Minutes
4 V/ Visitors
(;'lease im. coirixnents:to:five....... s)
5: Capital:!riiprcivcmoht:Plan
a; I atirodudion-:E.d Wegner
b' 1VltirrayStn th.:at d A-A" l tes
c. Questions and Answers:
cls; Timetable and Critieal'<Supply Issues-Ed Wegner
BREAK.
6 Director's.Report
a. Nlant.my Report.
b. Division of Assets,:SES.
c City of Tigard 1994f9.5,Adoptod:I iudget.
7 Nin-,Agenda
& Set Next Meetirig Agenda
9a; Adjournment
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
June 8, 1994
Board Members Present: Chair Peggy Manning, Chair-Elect Bill S.cheiderich,
Lynda Jenkins, George Morgan, John Swartz
Staff Present: Pat Reilly, Ed Wegner, Randy Volk, Mike Miller,
Mary Gruss and Kathy Kaatz
1. Call to Order
The Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting was called to order by Chair
Manning at 5:37 P.M. Roll call was taken and all members were present
with the exception of Bill Scheiderich who arrived a few minutes later.
2. Approval of Minutes
The minutes were approved as written.
3. Visitors Comments
Jack Polans wished to thank the IWB for placing the information in the
Tigard City Public Library. Jack questioned whether there is money that
the would be available to the IWB to provide information to people
outside the IWB? Pat Reilly stated that the City of Tigard has budgeted
funds for communication purposes, but the Tigard Water District is a
separate entity and they have their own budget and would be responsible
for providing that information to their constituents.
4. Discussion of Draft Bylaws
Pat Reilly suggested that since Murray Smith was in attendance at the
meeting we let them make their presentation at this time. Hearing no
objections from the Board, Chair Manning agreed.
5. Long Term Water Supply
Hall Murray and Chris Yuber were in attendance from the firm of Murray
Smith and Associates. They were in attendance at this meeting to
provide an update on the status of the water supply plan. This plan is
not complete at this time since they are waiting for some firm data from
the City of Lake Oswego. Theirf irm is looking at seven dif ferent water
supply alternatives or options of which the City's present water supply
from the City of Lake Oswego is one of and also the City of Portland.
See next page.
, a
WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES LOCATION OF FACILITIES
CITY OF LARK OSWEGO Raw water intake on the Clackamas River
(Clackamas River) in Gladstone. From the Clackamas River
across the Willamette River to
treatment plan in West Linn then pumped
to Lake Oswego along HWY 43. Tigard
connected to this system on Bonita Rd
um station near Walu a Reservoir.
CITY OF PORTLAND Two sources - Bull Run Watershed
(Bull Run and Columbia River located East of Sandy. City has 3
well fields) large conduits that supply system by
gravity most ends up at the Powell
Butte Reservoir. Also supplied from
the Columbia River Ground Water Wells -
these wells have an installed capacity
of 90 million gallons a day. But due
to ground water contamination issues
they are currently limited to 45
million gallons a day. They are
working with DEQ to keep syp2ly active.
CITY OF TUALATIN Supply begins at the Powell-Butte
(Bull Run and Columbia) Reservoir and is called the Washington
County Supply Line. It also supplies
water to the Tualatin Valley Water
District, City of Tualatin and Raleigh
Water District.
HILLSBORO/FOREST GROVE Joint Treatment Plant. Draw water from
Joint Water Commission Supply the Trask River and the Tualatin River
(Tualatin/Trask Run) through Scoffins Dam (Henry Haag Lake
Project) . Have a treatment plant
located SE of Forest Grove and can
treat river water which they provide
water to the 3 entities including City
of Beaverton.
SOUTH FORK WATER BOARD SUPPLY Water treatment plant located in Oregon
(Oregon City/West Linn) City and an intake on the Clackamas
River. Supply water to the City of
West Linn, Oregon City and the
Claremont Water District.
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Bull Run and the Columbia River Ground
SUPPLY Water Wells through the Washington
(Bull Run and Columbia River County supply line.
Well Field
RIVER SUPPLY ABOVE Potential treatment plan either City or
Wilsonville Regionally at the Willamette River.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 8, 1994-PAGE 2
a Chair Manning questioned the quality of water, what would the best
source of water be out of these choices?
Hal Murray stated that all water supplies meet the standards of EPA and
DEQ. The Portland water supply is not filtered, they have a waiver of
the need to filter their water, so there water does get chlorination and
ammonia in its treatment. It will soon be treated with additional
chemicals to raise the ph level. Lake Oswego Joint Water System,
Hillsboro/Forest Grove, South Fork all have filter system through sand
filters and chemicals are used. The quality of water probably does not
vary as much coming out of a filtered system. Portland water does vary
but still complies with the standards. A filtered water does contain
more chemicals than a non-filtered process. All the processes involve
adding Aluminum Sulfate which is an Alum which is either a liquid or
powder. This turns into Alum salt which creates a floc in the water and
this material kills bacteria and removes the air particles from the
water. This is intentionally added to the water to create a floc
(Flocculation process) . There is also added Chlorine, polymers are also
added as filter aids to toughen the floc so that it doesn,'t break
through the sand as the water passes through the sand bed. Lime or Soda
Ash is added to cause higher ph (more alkaline) and sometimes ammonia.
Portland is the only one that is using ammonia. Fluoride is added only
in Forest Grove, there is none in any of the water sources naturally.
All the water supplies that are being considered are quality water
supplies. The Water District is in a very unique position
geographically to buy water from a lot of various sources.
Lake Oswego is currently re-analyzing their Master Plan which states
that they need to expend a lot of money to provide water for themselves
as well as the Tigard area. They have hired an engineering firm to re-
evaluate and are turning that over to the City. At this time if Murray
Smith were to anticipate the cost of water, the City of Lake Oswego
water costs will be more than other options available.
Lynda Jenkins questioned the Columbia River fields and the quality of
water? Hal Murray stated that they have drilled fifteen wells along the
Columbia River near the Airport. There was a big plant there which is
currently owned by Boeing Company as well as another big plant near that
location all within an area that could contaminate the aquifer that
those wells were drilled in. The question came up when contamination
was found in Rockwood Water District well. This contamination has never
gotten into the Portland well although, the possibility of this
contamination reaching the Portland wells was certainly a consideration.
This would create a liability situation along with the property owners
(PRP - Principle Responsible Party) . They have shut some wells down
that are closest to the contamination until they complete further
investigation.
Chair Manning questioned whether the City of Tigard completes any tests
as the water comes into our system?
Randy Volk stated that we do monthly sampling, but do not have a source
sample. John Swartz questioned whether Federal Regulations require the
City to put in treatment plants?
Hal Murray stated that any water that is considered a surface water (out
of a stream or a well that is near a river or connected to the river)
are required, under the Clean Water Act to be treated with filters.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 8, 1994 - PAGE 3
• There was a provision in the law which allowed the cities that met
certain conditions to give waivers (City of Seattle, Tacoma, Portland)
based on the high quality of water they have because of the watershed.
About the only way they would get out of compliance is if they get dirt
into it. There are some other organisms, one called cryptosporidium and
another is called giardia. Giardia is in a cyst and take a lot of time
under chlorination to kill it. The regulation on how long the water is
in contact with chlorine is very stringent. Portland meets this
criteria due to the length of time the water travels through the conduit
before reaching its first user. Cryptosporidium is more difficult to
treat. The City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin did have an outbreak of
sickness due to this organism. There was what was known as Surface
Water Compliance Rule that required all surface water to be treated.
Most small cities along the coast that were using supplies out of
streams, could not pass the waiver conditions. Portland is very careful
in how they use their reservoirs to prevent adverse conditions.
Discussed the turbidity of water and stated that it is an indicator of
particles in the water source.
Hal Murray then discussed the following water sources:
City of Lake Oswego - The City is presently purchasing water from this
source and the City of Portland. The City is currently purchasing this
water from Lake Oswego at the rate of .58 cents per 100 cubic feet.
Every indication now is that if Lake Oswego spent the money to expand
their system to continue our supply of water, we would pay more than the
current rate. The cost of new facility will increase the cost of water
and that cost will probably be in the neighborhood of $1.00 per 100
cubic feet. At this point, the City of Tigard has no long range
contract with the City of Lake Oswego. We are currently buying surplus
water from this source.
City of Portland - It would appear that their supply is going to be the
next long term supply for the City of Tigard. We will be buying water
at about the rate of .60 cents per 100 cubic feet and will be able to
get all the water needed. At some point, they may have to expand their
facilities which will impact the cost of water from this source as well.
City of Tualatin - At the present time they have excess capacity that
they will sell to the City of Tigard as long as the supply is available.
This would not be a long term supply. The City of Tualatin has a power
supply at the end of the Washington County supply line and they generate
power to reduce the pressure, which provides them with an income. They
carefully regulate this power. If they did not generate this power,
they would have an even greater capacity.
Beaverton/Hillsboro/Forest Grove Joint Water Commission - This source
has basically said that they cannot provide the City of Tigard with
water, they have only enough for their own supply. They have talked of
raising the Barney Reservoir which would triple the capacity of that
reservoir. This would also create the need to expand their water
treatment plant at Forest Grove, and Beaverton will have to build a
major transmission line extension at Forest Grove. They have also
agreed to sell some of their water supply to Tualatin Valley Water
District so they are in no position to provide to the City.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 8, 1994- PAGE 4
r South Fork Wates Board Supply - South Fork supplies water on this side
of the Clackamas to the City of West Linn and comes down to Lake
Oswego's water treatment plant which is located within the City of West
Linn. Therefore they have a tie with Lake Oswego to provide a minor
amount of water to West Linn so that South Fork and Lake Oswego have
some emergency water supply. This is only designed to pass about 5
million gallons a day compared to the current needs of 12 million
gallons a day. South Fork is also expanding their facilities and are
not in a position to supply other entities. Their facility has capacity
of 20 million gallons a day and are now using a peak of 14-15 million
gallons daily.
Tualatin Valley Water District - TVWD now has an agreement to purchase
water from Hillsboro/Forest Grove, so they currently have excess water
that they could sell.
Bill Sheiderich stated that TVWD is currently buying 6 million gallons
a day, but are not allowed to sell that to anyone. This would create an
excess from the Portland supply which they could sell. This would not
be another long term supply.
Willamette River - This source is available to stake out a site and
build a treatment plant, however, some research work being done by the
Phase II study shows that this is not going to be as easy as thought.
There was a request by the State, that anyone who had rights prior to
1909 needed to file for these claimed rights. At the falls near Oregon
City, the industries claimed they had water rights dated prior to 1909
that would exceed the flow of the river upstream at Wilsonville. This
will be a long process in evaluating these water rights issues. The
flow in the river is such that it may require you to take the water from
the Army Corp of Engineers dam above Salem. There was no authorization
in any of these dams when they were built. These dams were originally
built for flood control and irrigation uses and would require a re-
authorization before approval. Also during some environmental testing
they have seen some deformed fish near Newberg above Wilsonville. If
water is available from another source, it would be a better option.
The option of working with other entities on a joint project at
Wilsonville was discussed.
Wilsonville takes their water out of wells and at this time, they have
a sufficient amount of water. Wilsonville does have extremely hard
water.
Jack Polans made the statement that there is a trailer at Wilsonville.
He expressed concern with three cities having problems with buying water
reasonably. Jack addressed the Chair with the question of what the
chance would be of the number of water customers that the City of Tigard
would need to move forward to do their own water supply? What would the
cost be today or the cost 5-10 years from now?
John Swartz stated that was the purpose of the study by Murray Smith was
to determine what the options are.
Hal Murray stated that the little plant that was viewed on the
Willamette is an pilot plant operation where they are testing the
treatability of the Willamette river water at Wilsonville. This
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 8, 1994- PAGE 5
' operation is being financed by the Tualatin Valley Water District and
the City of Portland jointly.
Hal Murray stated that after all the discussion, the question remains,
how is the City to make a decision? Murray Smith has listed 8 areas
which they feel are important in making the decision.
Hal Murray displayed an Evaluation Criteria which was as follows:
• Initial capital costs of required improvements
• Estimated cost of water
• Supply connections and capability of exhausting supply
• Quantity of available supply
• Water supply agreement and contract provisions
• Water rights
• Water quality and public perception
• City ownership of facilities
Hal Murray then discussed the following individually:
What the capital costs will be of improvements to hook up to someone or
to continue using water. This has a big impact in use of Lake Oswego
water unless they transfer all of this capital costs to you, in the
costs of water. They can change your rate per 100 cf or they could ask
for a contribution of the capital costs of these improvements. Some day
the City will have to improve the facilities so that the City of
Portland can continue to supply water if we would continue that use.
City of Portland was asked how they would handle this? Will it be in
the cost of water of will they ask Tigard to contribute on a lump sum
basis? The City said they would have to negotiate that at a later date.
Without a fixed contract that states these terms, things could vary.
The City would want to look and make sure that anyone that we would
purchase water from is compatible from the standpoint of where the
connection is to be made and is in the right place (right elevation,
pressure) . Portland's water supply currently hooks into our system
without pumping. Lake Oswego supply is currently served by a pumping
station. We would also need to make sure the quantity of water that is
available for the supply is adequate to meet not only today's demands
but a period in the future. The water supply agreement and contract
provisions is one of the most important considerations. We currently
have an agreement with the City of Portland. It is a common contract to
all the proveyors that buy water from them, and it has some real
interesting provisions. It penalizes very strongly people for peaking.
Utilizing their facilities to obtaining our peak supplies. If the City
uses during a peak day in August, three times the amount of normal use,
the rate the next year will go up considerably. The systems need to be
operated in a manner so as to not peak, and utilize more water. The
take from the systems needs to remain as constant as possible. They are
able to discourage this type of usage by penalizing its users. The
operator of the system needs to make sure it uses the peak supply out of
reservoirs (lowers reservoirs) and does not use water directly out of
the pipelines.
John Swartz questioned how peaking is calculated?
Mike Miller stated that we currently purchase the majority of our water
from Lake Oswego which doesn't count for the average take from the City
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 8, 1994- PAGE 6
Y of Portland. The less water that is purchased makes the peaking rate
higher.
Ed questioned if we would agree to purchase water from the City of
Portland, would we negotiate for a new annual average due to the change
over from purchasing a small amount from City of Portland in the past
due to a larger purchase from Lake Oswego to avoid high penalties? Is
this a negotiable item with the City?
Murray Smith stated that when you use a larger amount it would establish
your usage for the year. It would take a full year to establish the new
usage rates.
Randy Volk stated that there is a 3-5 year average that you are required
to meet each year. We are currently taking about 3.8% of water usage
from the City of Portland. The more water that is purchased, the more
you are required to take.
Bill Scheiderich questioned whether the City of Portland still required
pass through conservation covenants if they mandate conservation? Smith
stated they do.
Randy Volk stated that City of Portland is so rigid on the 25 year
contract that they are not willing to negotiate anything with anybody
that would start a chain reaction and make all the other contract users
start negotiating.
Hal Murray stated that our current contract with Portland has some
provisions that they have backed off from. Some years ago there was a
provision in the contract that addressed the growth factor. If a city
grew at a rate which was above a rate that was in the original
agreement, they would penalize you. There are also some things that
they are doing that are not in the agreement. The peaking factor is not
actually spelled out in the agreement. Randy Volk stated that since
they would back off on the growth factor, they would add the peaking
factor. The City of Portland has an advisory group that meets, which is
made up of some of the proveyors (Mike Miller is a member of this
group) , and they have agreed that they will change some of these items,
although they are not in writing. Smith stated that this is not an
easy agreement to operate under. Once you are committed to using major
portions of water from Portland, you have to continue to use those
amounts.
After the regional plan is completed they may make some contract changes
to make Portland a more regional proveyor rather than as the contract
now exists.
Chair Manning questioned whether there is a possibility of Metro taking
over the water supply? Murray Smith stated they did not see that
happening. Murray stated that he thought we would be seeing more
alliances and people joining together sub-regionally or regionally. It
is there advice to stay with anyone in the Washington County area who is
doing anything.
Chair Manning questioned whether Mr. Murray envisioned the cost per unit
to be less with the Portland water supply in regards to building new
facilities, due to their larger customer base as opposed to the Lake
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 8, 1994 - PAGE 7
• Oswego system? Mr. Murray stated that the larger the system or the
bigger the pool, the less per unit cost would be.
Chair Manning questioned whether Portland is anticipating any large
capital improvement projects? Portland is not anticipating anything
unless they build the third dam on the Bull Run River which is part of
the plan being considered in the Phase II Regional Water Study. There
are six water sources being looked at in the Regional Study, the third
dam on Bull Run, treatment plant in Willamette, a treatment plant on
Columbia River maybe even a combination, Hillsboro/Forest Grove raising
of Barney Reservoir, use of wells (recharged) aquifer storage and
recovery systems, and the Clackamas River being expanded.
Murray stated that in regards to contracts:
• City of Lake Oswego, we would need to start over.
• City of Portland if narrowing it down to these two options, we
would be stuck for another 10 years unless they would choose to
negotiate there agreement.
Water rights - The City eventually has none. The only thing to look at
their is the entities that we are dealing with have those rights and do
they have the rights to supply both themselves as well as other
entities. Portland has the rights to all of Bull Run, so that would not
be a concern. Bill Scheiderich questioned if water rights pertained
only to surface water? Mr. Murray stated that is correct and they also
have the rights to the wells. Bill Scheiderich questioned the wells
owned by this district? Mike Miller stated that the City's water rights
were wells, which did not produce that amount. Bill questioned to what
extent we are drawing on those wells? Mike stated that we only draw on
two of those wells during the summer months.
Lynda questioned what kind of water rights does Portland have in
relationship to the Clackamas River? Mr. Murray stated they have none
on the Clackamas. There are four entities that have water rights on the
Clackamas; South Fork Water Board, Clackamas Water District, City of
Gladstone (although they are currently using water from the Clackamas
Water District) , City of Lake Oswego, and Oak Lodge Water District
(which is considering building a separate treatment plant using
Clackamas River water) . Oak Lodge are currently being supplied water
through Clackamas Water District, but are considering using their own
water rights to build plant.
Lynda questioned why all these different jurisdictions with water rights
in such close proximity are not working together? Mr. Murray stated
that it is difficult for all these jurisdictions to get together with
timing, financing, political feelings.
Discussed water quality and the public perception of the quality is
actually at times more important.
Lastly, Mr. Murray discussed whether the City has a possibility of
ownership in any of these systems (Lake Oswego or Portland)? At this
time, he does not see any ownership, unless Lake Oswego offers that, he
does not foresee Portland offering that.
George Morgan questioned inter-tie agreements and emergency standby
agreements to ensure reliability? Mr. Murray stated that you would want
to maintain all the inter-ties that you can.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 8, 1994- PAGE 8
a Agreement with Portland would allow for emergency situations are would
it contribute to the peak water usage? Volk stated that Portland is
good about providing water during an emergency situations.
Chair Manning stated that in the Intergovernment Emergency Agreement are
there overrides in the event of a natural disaster? Is that an
automatic agreement between entities? Volk stated that in the past
although there is nothing in writing, different entities have joined
together to help out others in need. Mr. Murray stated that there is
wording in the contract with Portland that allows for emergency use.
George Morgan questioned a formalization of those emergency procedures?
Mr. Murray stated that it is a good idea to have formal agreements. Mr.
Murray did state that they have helped the City of Lake Oswego and South
Fork and it is much more complex than most would be.
Chair Manning thanked Murray Smith for the presentation. Manning
stated that at this point we are at an interim report waiting for the
information from Lake Oswego. She questioned whether Murray Smith had
a time frame for obtaining this information? Mr. Smith stated that as
soon as they obtain that information they will draft a report and
provide that to the Board for their review.
Chair Manning suggested that Murray Smith keep Ed Wegner or Randy Volk
updated on that information.
Chair Manning stated that the Board would take a short break.
Upon returning, John Swartz introduced Bob Rolf who is a new City
Councilor.
Chair Manning asked the Board for agreement on discussion of the draft
bylaws being held over to the next meeting. All Board members agreed.
6. Director's Report
Water Budget Update
Ed Wegner stated that if anyone had any questions regarding the audit
report those could be directed to Mary Gruss from the Finance Division.
George Morgan questioned whether there were any areas of the audit that
surprised the Finance Department. Mary stated there were not any areas
of concern. Mary did state if the Board would like to have the auditors
come and make a presentation to the Board that could be arranged. Chair
Manning stated that the Board did not see the need for such a
presentation.
Ed Wegner stated that the proposed 1994/95 budget was submitted to the
Budget Committee as viewed by the Board and to his knowledge was passed
onto City council for approval on June 28th.
Ed Wegner discussed the monthly report for the month of May that was
left for each Board member to review. Ed stated that the work during
the month of May went very smoothly and the Water Division was able to
begin some maintenance work that had not been started. One realization
was that the grounds maintenance was turned over to the Parks Crew and
that due to some internal communication difficulties, the service levels
would need to get back on track.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 8, 1994- PAGE 9
Chair Manning stated that the grounds around the Water Building are
looking very nice. Randy stated that the thanks should go to the Park
Crew.
The classification reviews which were part of the transition and the
merger process have been completed. The employees have meet with the
consultant and job descriptions have been drafted and will be presented
to the Personnel Director the first part of next week.
July 1 is the target date for the combined sewer and water billing for
the City of Tigard residents who are within the water department service
area.
George Morgan questioned going from 2.8%, 4%, 6.6% water loss? Has
anything unusual happened to contribute to that degree of increase?
Mike Miller stated that the Water Division is into the season where
people use more water and it is really hard to get clear picture of how
much was purchased but not billed during that period? George Morgan
questioned if this is due to a high consumption month versus a lower
consumption month?
Bill Scheiderich asked what control there is regarding builders tapping
into hydrants? Randy stated that they have a fairly good control on
water theft through fire hydrants. Sam Morrison the Inspector is
constantly checking on the 10 fire hydrants meters that are issued to
builders.
Ed Wegner stated that construction began on Monday on the North Dakota
Street project.
7. Non Agenda Items.
Hearing none, Chair Manning went on to the next agenda item.
8. Set Next Meeting Agenda
The draft bylaws were set for the next agenda.
George Morgan questioned if the next meeting would be the first meeting
in July? Chair Manning stated that meeting would be scheduled for July
6, 1994 at 5:30. Pat Reilly stated that if Murray Smith had any updated
information that could also be added to the next agenda.
Pat Reilly stated that in the Intergovernmental Agreement there is
annual meeting of all the various entities and perhaps that meeting
could be billed around the tentative adoption of the budget, as well as
an overview of where the Murray Smith report is.
Chair Manning also wanted to thank George Morgan for the letter that the
Board received regarding budget concerns.
Ed Wegner stated that on the back of the billing statements are the
dates of various meetings. We are in the process of ordering new
billing statements and would like to include that meeting date on the
new forms.
Lynda Jenkins stated that the second Wednesday would be July 13th
instead of July 6th.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES-JUNE 8, 1994- PAGE 10
• Chair Manningstated that since we were nearing the completion of the
Murray Smith report we would need to meet twice a month. The Board
decided to have listed on the billings that the regular meeting would be
on the second Wednesday of the month and if there were additional
meetings scheduled, they would be noticed.
9. Motion to Adjourn
George Morgan made a motion to adjourn and it was seconded by Bill
Scheiderich.
kathy\iwb\iwb6-8.min
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING MINUTES -JUNE 8, 1994-PAGE 11
KING CITE
15300 S W.116th Avenue,King City,Oregon 97224-2693
® Phone:(503)639.4082•FAX(503)639.3771
AUG 0 9 1994
August 9, 1994
.0
Cathy Wheatley „
City Recorder
13125 S.W. Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223
Dear Cathy:
With the recent death of Councilor Loren
Cochrun, the Council has appointed a new
alternate member for the Intergovernmental
Water Board. I have attached the resolution
for your records.
If you have any questions, please give me a
call.
Sincerely,
Terryl Be arzyk
City Recorder
Enclosure
4,
CITY OF KING CITY
RESOLUTION NO R-94-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF KING CITY, OREGON, APPOINTING
THE CITY'S MEMBER AND ALTERNATE TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD
CREATED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR
WATER SERVICES.
WHEREAS, the City of King City has withdrawn the area within its boundaries from the Tigard
Water District; and
WHEREAS, an Intergovernmental Agreement for water services between the City of King City
and the City of Tigard has been approved by the City Council and executed by the Mayor as reflected in
Resolution R-93-25, and
WHEREAS,the designated alternate member on the Intergovernmental Water Board has resigned
from the King City Council, necessitating the naming of another alternate member;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the KING CITY COUNCIL that:
Section 1 Manor Lynda M. Jenkins is designated as the City's member on the Intergovernmental
Water Board created under Section 3 of the Intergovernmental Water Agreement.
Councilor Graham Haynes is designated as the City's alternate member on the
Intergovernmental Water Board.
INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED by the City of King City Council and signed by me in
authentication of its passage this 3rd day of August . 1994
CITY OF KING CITY, OREGON
By. `J '
Lynda M. enkins
Mayor - King City
ATTEST:
By.
Te lynn dnarzyk
City Recorder
RESOLUTION NO R-94-16 Page 1 of 1
JUNE 1994
WATER MONTHLY REPORT
Revenues/Expenditures:
Month of June Year to Date Prior Yr to Date %of Budget
Revenues.
Water Sales $299,011.21 $3,120,853 64 $2,690,860 75
Meter Sales 30,160 00 549,295.93 304,054 12
Developer Fees 2,24148 98,247 02 126,047 19
Other Income 7,428.28 113,443.55 125,723 72
Total Revenue $338,840.97 $3,881,840.14 $3,246,685.78 105.4%
Expenditures.
Personal Services $94,45000 $858,306.20 $958,42070
Material Services 186,212.46 1,734,641.28 1,530,193 47
Capital Outlay 85,130 75 604,138 65 339,090 00
Cap. Proj Res. Fund 0000 300,000 00 300,000 00
Total Expends. $365,793.21 $3,497,086.13 $3,127,704.17 75.9%
SDC Fund: $33,620.00 $699,473.68 $405,185.78 227.0%
Meter Installations: 5/V x 3/4" 1" 1 1/2" 2" Total
Durham 6 0 0 0 6
King City 0 0 0 0 0
Unincorporated Area 28 0 0 0 28
City of Tigard 22 1 0 3 26
Total for June 60
Work Accomplished:
Durham
• Water Division personnel responded to a few requests for routine pressure
and meter problems. The most common meter problems consist of
determining whether or not a water leak actually exists on the customer
side of the meter
King City
• Water Division personnel also responded to a few requests for routine
pressure and meter problems within the city limits of King City
Unincorporated Area
• Water Division personnel performed meter maintenance in various
locations throughout the unincorporated area. This work involved
adjusting water meters and the meter boxes to the proper grade;
replacing the concrete meter box covers that were damaged, mstalling
concrete traffic meter boxes when necessary; and replacing water meters
that were stuck,broken, and fogged.
• Water Division personnel installed seven 3/4-inch water services for
Foxglove III, a single family residential development located on SW 146th
Avenue, north of SW Beef Bend Road.
• Water Division personnel continued with the relocation work of fire
hydrants and water services along SW Bull Mountain Road for the Bull
Mountain Road Bike and Pedestrian Path improvement project. This
involved relocating and updating two fire hydrants and the relocation of
one water service.
• Water Division personnel repaired the PRV that failed at Site#2, which
increased the water pressure to the residents in the Rose Vista area. The
increase in water pressure caused some water heater pressure relief valves
to open or fail. Because parts were not immediately available to repair the
PRV, Water personnel installed ten 3/4-inch pressure reducing valves at
the affected homes. These pressure reducing valves reduce the line
pressure going into the homes.
City of Tigard
• Water Division personnel installed a water and oil separator; 176 feet of 6-
inch PVC pipe; and tied together the storm water lines, so that they do not
discharge into the Vehicle Wash Basin located in the Water Operations
yard on SW Burnham Street. The 6-inch PVC pipe and water oil separator
are connected to the sanitary sewer system. This will put us in compliance
with DEQ regulations regarding vehicle wash discharges.
This project has been a cooperative effort between all divisions of
Maintenance Services. The Sanitary Sewer Division completed the final
inter-tie of the storm drain system, and the Streets Division is scheduled to
complete the paving portion of the project during July
• Water Division personnel installed nine 3/4-inch water services for
Hillshire Estates phase 7 This development is located at the summit of
Bull Mountain,north of SW High Tor Drive.
• Water Division personnel installed one 1-inch water service for the Oil
Can Henry's located off of SW North Dakota, south of SW Scholls Ferry
Road. Water Division personnel also installed two 2-inch water services
for future development in this location.
• Water Division personnel installed two 2-inch water services and raised
one 2-inch water service at Village at Fanno Creek Park(Main Street
Apartments). This finishes all of the water service installation work for
this project.
• Water Division personnel replaced a fire hydrant that was damaged by an
under aged driver located on SW Main Street and SW Commercial Street.
We have billed the responsible parties,but do not expect payment due to
the fact that the driver was 15 years old,has no insurance, and the parents
do not have the funds available to pay for the replacement of the fire
hydrant. In case the repair bill is not paid,the costs to perform the work
has been charged to fire hydrant repair and maintenance.
• Water Division personnel installed the SCADA panel,to hang the RTU
(Remote Transmitting Unit), at the SW Tiedeman Street PRV (pressure
reducing valve) site, located on SW Tiedeman Street and SW North
Dakota Street. This is the site that will reduce the pressure and control the
amount of flow from the city of Portland water system. The Water crews
also installed three underground conduits to carry the new cabling for the
SCADA system.
• Water Division personnel installed the irrigation system, from the water
meter to the backflow preventer, for the Parks Division at the Maintenance
Services Operations Center located on SW Ash Avenue.
• Water Division personnel installed a chlorinator and eye wash station at
the#2 Well site. This brings us in compliance with State mandates
requiring chlorination of well water and OSHA regulations for having a
chlorination station at this site.
Water Consumption and Loss:
Total 100 cubic feet of water purchased or produced 255,238 ccf
Plus amount of water from storage during June and
consumption not billed in May 80,200 ccf
Total 100 cubic feet of water billed <247,770 ccf5
Net amount of water in storage < 12,000 ccf5
Amount of water consumed but not yet billed < 67,000 ccf5
Total Water loss 8,668 ccf 2.58%
Status Report:
Golden Valley Construction, Inc. of Salem, Oregon started construction Monday,
June 6, on the SW North Dakota Street 12-inch Transmission Main Project. The
project was scheduled to be completed by July 2, 1994, but due to the additional
amount of asphalt.replacement, the contractor has requested, and has been granted, an
extension of six days to complete the work.
July 1, 1994, is still the target date for combined sewer and water billings for city of
Tigard residents who are also within the Water Department's service area.
Complaint Summary:
We are still receiving inquiries from citizens about the joint sewer and water billing
system. Number of calls. 15 to 20 last month.
There is still some confusion regarding the way the water bill is calculated. The
confusion stems from both the minimum ccf for the billing period and the dollar
amount. The inconsistency is from the information on the back of the water bills and
the way the computer system is setup to apply the minimum. The computer bases its
calculations on a 61 day billing period. Number of inquires. 5 last month.
Operational Changes:
No major operational changes during the month of June.
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON
TO: Bill Monahan
FROM: Ed Wegner
DATE: August 8, 1994
SUBJECT: Water Time tables and Critical Supply Issues
WATER SERVICES TIMTABLE AND CRITICAL SUPPLY ISSUES
WEEK OF AUGUST 08-12 MSA DRAFT TO STAFF
WEEK OF AUGUST 17 DRAFT TO IWB - REQUEST FOR 30
DAY EXTENSION
WEEK OF AUGUST 18 SEND TO TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
WEEK OF AUGUST 22-31 STAFF REVIEW
WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 07-14 JOINT MEETING - IWB, TWD, TCC
a. DIVISION OF ASSETS
b. CIP DISCUSSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
I �
WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 15-26 FINAL DRAFT
FIRST WEEK OF OCTOBER CITIS
WEEK OF OCTOBER 12 IWB ADOPTION
WEEK OF OCTOBER 18-25 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL
36
CV7
6. 3e C0
��y
WATER SUPPLY ISSUES
. A player not just buy surplus water
• Revamping Portland Contract
• Phase II Study in progress
• Regional concept: There is water reality shortage
• Need Lake Oswego Contract by December 31, 1994 or extension
based on negotiations with Capital Improvement Plans
SHORT T=X SUPPLY/DEMAND ISSUES
• Portland - We are increasing minimum purchases then have five
year buy out
• Lake Oswego - Cannot meet our demand
Average 8.9 million gallons per day
Plant Capacity 16.0 million gallons per day
• Wells - 1 . 1 million gallons per day
• Peak demand between July 20 - 31 was 13.6 million gallons a
day
TIGARD WATER SERVICE AREA PLAN
PRESENT TO 3 YEARS Increase well capacity
• Buy from TVWD
• Increase storage
• Conservation Education
• Manage Portland purchases to
minimize future commitment
• Complete Scada System for better
management of water supply
1-5 YEARS MSA Plan adoption of financial Plan
• Construction phases
• Willamette water condition
• Lake Oswego partnership - Existing
and new
• Water Comprehensive Master Plan -
u date
REGIONAL PLAN Need to be a player in sub-regional
concepts
kaft\tw htg.h20
Date Water From Water From Water From In/Out of System Daily Total Storage
Lake Oswego Portland Wells Storage Demand Usage SCADA
7/20 5 66 MG 0 18 MG 1 1 MG +0 41 MG 7 35 MG 6 94 MG 1195 MG
7/21 3 61 MG 1 04 MG 1 1 MG -0 99 MG 6 74 MG 6 74 MG 10 96 MG
7/22 3 80 MG 5 20 MG 1 1 MG -3 50 MG 13 60 MG 13 60 MG 7 46 MG
7/23 3 40 MG 5 20 MG 1 1 MG +1 75 MG 1145 MG 9 70 MG 9 21 MG
7/24 2 99 MG 5 20 MG 1 1 MG +0 96 MG 10 25 MG 9 29 MG 10 17 MG
7/25 6 40 MG 65 MG 1 1 MG +1 08 MG 9 23 MG 8 15 MG 1125 MG
7/26 6.20 MG 1 50 MG 1 1 MG -0 42 MG 9 22 MG 9 22 MG 10 83 MG
7/27 4 78 MG 2.16 MG 1 0 MG +0 22 MG 8 16 MG 7 94 MG 1105 MG
7/28 3 93 MG 3 60 MG 1 IMG -0.36 MG 8 99 MG 8 99 MG 10.36 MG
7/29 5 54 MG 1 40 MG 1 1 MG +0 44 MG 8 48 MG 8 04 MG 10 80 MG
7/30 6 74 MG 2.28 MG 1 1 MG -0 56 MG 10 68 MG 10 68 MG 10.24 MG
7/31 4 20 MG 2 93 MG 1 1 MG +1 85 MG 10 08 MG 8 23 MG 12 09 MG
8/1 4 10 MG 3 15 MG I 1 MG +0 38 MG 8 73 MG 8 35 MG 12.47 MG
8/2 6 47 MG 0 87 MG 1 1 MG -0 95 MG 9 39 MG 9 39 MG 11 52 MG
8/3 5 53 MG 3 07 MG 1 1 MG -0 40 MG 10 10 MG 10 10 MG 11 12 MG
8/4 6.20 MG 0 83 MG 1 1 MG +0 82 MG 8 95 MG 8 13 MG 1194 MG
8/5 6 01 MG 1 50 MG 1 1 MG -1 57 MG 10 18 MG 10 18 MG 10 37 MG
8/6 6 77 MG 1 55 MG 1 1 MG +1 09 MG 9 42 MG 8 33 MG 1146 MG
8/7 5 99 MG 1 04 MG 1 1 MG +0 66 MG 8 13 MG 7 47 MG 12 12 MG
8/8 6 58 MG 0 00 MG 1 1 MG +0 80 MG 8 48 MG 7 68 MG 12 92 MG
8/9 6 50 MG 0 00 MG 1 1 MG -0 11 MG 7 71 MG 7 71 MG 12 81 MG
8/10 6 50 MG 1 56 MG 1 1 MG -1 09 MG 10 25 MG 10 25 MG 11 72 MG
8/11 6 50 MG 0 00 MG 1 1 MG +0 88 MG 8 48 MG 7 60 MG 12 60 MG
8/12 6 50 MG 0 00 MG 1 1 MG -1 22 MG 8 82 MG 8 82 MG 11 38 MG
8/13 6 82 MG 3 70 MG 1 1 MG -1 24 MG 12 86 MG 12 86 MG 10 14 MG
8/14 5 09 MG 0 00 MG 1 1 MG +3 25 MG 9 44 MG 6 19 MG 13 39 MG
8/15 5 74 MG 2 60 MG 1 1 MG -3 92 MG 13 36 MG 13 36 MG 9 47 MG
8/16 6 86 MG 1 80 MG 1 1 MG +1 38 MG 11 14 MG 9 76 MG 10 85 MG
MUMMA
PPA
�s
- .............
. .
• !��
........... ....
. . .
/•r%;: . ,/ i err, !! f
/ ..
.. .... .i:i.C:;. �/ .... .. .iiiiii.
...........
'1 1 1 !,!
1 1
rr .rrrr .../
rr
rf � G
:::::...;.�;�
1 r :: : < :''': ;i:::iii ':i::ii::'::::i'i� .::: :: ::::j::yy::!.::: ::::::
�: :::::::: 11 : ::: 1 ::::� 1::::: : i . 1 ,
SUMMARY INFORMATION FOR
PHASE 2
REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN
PROGRESS FROM MAY 1993 TO TUNE 1994
Prepared by the Portland Water Bureau
for the Regional Water Provider Participants
in Phase_2
June 28, 1994
1
Public Involvement--Accomplishments
• Stakeholder Interviews
• Public Roundtables
• Public Opinion Survey
• Contingent Valuation Survey
• Newsletters/Clip & Mail Form
• "In My Opinion"Piece and other various articles in
The nrMonian
• Various briefings and meetings with interested agencies,organizations,
and citizens
To date,we have contacted nearly 3,000 citizens and stakeholders directly to let
them know about the regional water supply planning effort andlor find out their
views on Iong-range water supply issues. We have received direct feedback from
nearly 2,000 citizens.
Some Input Highlights
• Stakeholder Interviews-Stakeholders and community leaders
throughout the region provided the following insights:
-The phase 2 project is appropriate and well-timed-
-
ell timed.-Cost and environmental impacts of potential new supply options for
new supply are the most important considerations for review during
Phase 2.
-Opportunities for cost savings should be sought.
-Participants must work closely with environmental organizations and
state and federal agencies to assure timely resolution of serious
environmental issues.
-Water supply savings through conservation should be the starting
point for examining future options. The public will strongly support
conservation in reducing the need for new supplies and meeting
environmental objectives.
-In examining new water supply sources,start with the best raw water
quality
-There tended to be preferences for the"local"option.
2
-Consolidation of provider agencies can promote economies of scale and
help convince the public that water is being managed cost-effectively.
-The public is viewed as not very interested in long-term water supply
issues and needs to be informed about the issues and the study.
• Public Opinion Survey-A significant portion of residents throughout the
region are unaware of their drinking water source Or/6).
• Citizens concur that the quality of the raw water source is important.
• Nine-out-often residents are willing to accept a different water source in
the future. Resident claim to be less willing to change providers.
• Conservation received the strongest rating and 85%of residents surveyed
report that they felt they were conserving water. No new source option
under consideration received strong endorsement or flat rejection. The
sources rated in this order; ASR,Bull Run,Clackamas,Trask(Barney),
Columbia and Willamette. Residents responded relatively favorably to
the ASR concept(similar in rating to Bull Run)
• Various environmental impacts were of concern depending on the source
being considered,however,over half of all those surveyed either felt there
was no impact or did not know if there was for all the sources considered.
• The top three reasons residents give for supporting a new water supply
option are concerns about water shortages,maintenance/improvement of
water quality,and lower costs. The top three reasons given for opposing
any new water supply option are costs,water quality and environmental
impacts. Concern levels varied depending on the source and the issue.
• Contingent Valuation Survey-Citizens throughout the region stated a
high willingness-to-pay for system reliability(or avoidance of shortage
and curtailment). Region wide,willingness-to-pay varied from a low of
$10.18/month to avoid a 10%shortage once every 30 years,to a high of
$18.08/month to avoid a 40%shortage every five years. Residents of
Clackamas County indicated a slightly lower WTP than Multnomah and
Washington County residents. (Error band=+/-$1.12)
Citizens also did not rank water shortage concerns very high in
importance relative to a host of other social,economic and environmental
concerns.
3
Demand Manon --.Accomplishments
• Extensive Data Acquisition/Database Development
• Refinement of Demand.Forecasting Model
• Identification of a"Universe of Options" (over 100 for indoor and out-door
uses,and residential,commercial and industrial customer classes)
• Qualitative Screening of Options
• Development of Conservation Technology Profiles-
Economic Screening of Options
• Development of Program Concepts(underway)
Some Key Points
• Conservation technology profiles developed for this project represent an
unprecedented compilation of information on state-of-the-art measures,
water savings,delivery potential and costs.
• An"inclusive approach"is being applied in identifying and screening the
measures. Conservation was given a benefit-cost ratio"premium"during
the economic screening since many benefits are difficult to quantify(e.g.,
avoided environmental impacts).
• Program concepts will employ some or all of the following general
approaches: education/awareness—technical assistance—financial
incentives,direct installation,regulation. Program selection criteria will
include: magnitude of savings—persistence of savings—tuning and
seasonality of savings—cost of savings—public acceptability,
organizational feasibility. Different programs will be designed to
illustrate different levels of intensity e.g.,educational/informational in
nature,market driven,accelerated with more reliance on regulation.
• The analysis is being conducted in consultation with the Willamette-
Columbia Water Conservation Coalition and is being shared with the
Environmental Task Force.
• Analysis of tiered conservation pricing options will be performed in
conjunction with evaluation of program concepts.
• Naturally occurring conservation(implementation of existing legislation
requiring installation of efficient water use plumbing fixtures) is estimated
to result in significantly less water use-12%-peak season,18%-average
annual(for Gresham)without additional utility intervention. (Note:
These are preliminary forecasts which will be revised based on new
population estimates.)
4
• The'demand forecasts were initially revised based on additional
information gained from the various water providers,adding weather
variables,and'Base Case 11"population forecasts provided by Metro. The
water demand forecast is going to be revised again based on new
population figures obtained from Metro which reflects more recent
growth management concepts as a part of the Metro 2040 process.
5
Source Optionsffransmission --Accomplishments
• Completion of reports on:
-Existing water supply and transmission infrastructure in the region-
-Facility siting for:
Bull Run Dam 3
Run-of-river intakes and treatment facilities on the Clackamas,
Willamette and Columbia Rivers
Aquifer storage and recovery facilities (2 reports)
-Water quality and Treatment
-Water Rights
-Water Availability(in progress-anticipated July,1994)
-Environmental Analysis(in progress-anticipated July,1994)
-Geotechnical core drilling in the Bull Run Watershed(drilling complete)
Some Key Points
• The siting analyses has led to the concept of the "representative site"
defined as: ...those potential intake,pipeline,water treatment plant;or
other supply-source-related facility location that merits detailed analysis
because they offer the highest likelihood for pursuing permitting and
potential development,based on preliminary analysis of technical,land
use,water quality,environmental,cost and other relevant factors."
Representative sites include:
-Bull Run Dam 3-Log Creek site;treatment Plant-Lusted Hill;
SSR,-Columbia River Basalt(CRB) aquifer at Cooper Bull Mtn.;
Troutdale Gravel Aquifer,Troutdale Sand Aquifer,and/or CRB at
Powell Valley;
-Clackamas River-intake/consolidated treatment plant-co-located on
property adjacent to existing Clackamas Water District facility;
-Willamette River--intake/treatment plant-co-located upstream of I-
5 bridge at Wilsonville on existing industrial(sand&gravel)site;
-Columbia River-intake/treatment plant-located north of Troutdale
downstream from the mouth of the Sandy River on an existing sand
and gravel site;
Note: Siting on existing industrial sites may afford opportunities for
environmental enhancement. The Trask/Barney project will likely be assumed as
a given addition to supply based on the permitting process already underway.
• Phase 2 provider participants hold extensive undeveloped water rights
on the Clackamas and Willamette Rivers,along with Portland's statutory
right to waters of the Bull Run Watershed. Hydrologic reliability and
access to storage are being evaluated.
6
• The Environmental Analysis follows a methodology which was reviewed
by an Environmental Task Force of regulatory agencies and interest group
representatives. Through evaluation of existing information and field
work,the consultant team is evaluating each new water supply source
(except Barney) for potential impacts in it areas:
cultural resources—fish—geotechnical hazards—hazardous waste—land
use—recreation—scenic resources.—T&E species—water quality—
wetlands—wildlife. Key cumulative impacts will be addressed as well.
Field work has included visits to each of the representative sites with an
interdisciplinary team of environmental specialists,"stream walks"in the
Bull Run canyon,boat trips,and helicopter fly-overs. The Environmental
Analysis will be submitted to the project Steering Committee and
Environmental Task Force in mid-July.
• Comparative costs of the sources will be developed.
• The development and evaluation of transmission alternatives awaits new
demand forecasts. This element of the project will be assisted by use of
the resource integration model.
• Uncertainties include:
-whether a third dam in the Bull Run would result in filtration
requirements;
-effect of the Clinton Plan(and Bull Run Legislation?) on"permit-ability"
of a third dam;
-existing or future water quality problems in the Columbia(e.g.,
radionuclides)and Willamette(metals,organics,deformed fish) rivers;
-access to Corps storage on the Willamette River(expound on activities
including reauthorization feasibility study,M&I pricing,PGE claim,
Willamette Reservation)
-ME species and other environmental issues,along with changing
regulations(create uncertainty for all of the options);
• Water quality parameters were assessed for each source including
organics,radionuclides,metals,bacteria/micro-organisms,turbidity and
SS. The relative ambient water quality of the sources was rated as follows:
Bull Run water was found to be excellent,Clackamas-good,and
Willamette and Columbia— fair
7
• A conservative approach has been applied in developing recommended
treatment technologies. Methods such as ozonation and granular
activated carbon(GAC)are recommended to ensure high levels of
finished water quality and to provide barriers against known or
potentially problematic contaminants. The Bull Run source has been
characterized both with and without treatment for the purposes of
formulating resource scenarios as a part of the integration element.
• A mid point review is scheduled for early Sept. The Steering Committee,
project mgmt. staff,and the consultant team will review all of the project
findings to date and assess where we go from here. Results will be used to
guide and streamline development of conceptual designs for new source
intakes,treatment facilities and major transmission facilities.
8
Integration Element
Accomplishments IRP Model
• The Resource integration Model is under development. The
computerized model will depict the existing water systems in the region
along with operational rules and constraints. It will also depict the water
sources,transmission configurations,conservation levels,and a series of
demand nodes. The model will allow the creation and assessment of
scenarios or"water supply futures" given different assumptions about
demand,supply,and other issues(e.g.,instream flow objectives). It will
also address system reliability explicitly.
Some Key Points -IRP Model
• The model will not be a black box that spits out the answer to our
questions. We will have to build scenarios of interest to us and ask the
model to show the implications.
• The model is being designed to provide a visual interface to facilitate
understanding and participation on the parts of interested parties and
decision makers.
• This model is something that the water providers of the region will be able
to use long after the Phase 2 project is complete.
Accom..plishments - POU01 Obie,_ctiues
• Phase 2 participants and project consultants are in the process of
developing policy objectives for use in the project. In this context,"policy
objectives"should reflect the range of policy-type statements that are
applicable to public water supply service in the region.
This range is necessarily broad,given the diversity of stakeholders
involved. Some objectives appear complementary while others appear to
conflict.
The policy objectives will be used in designing meaningful water resource
scenarios and will form the basis for criteria with which to evaluate the
scenarios.
9
Keu Points -Policy Ohiectives
• The draft was reviewed and reflects many of the comments received from
the Water Services Leadership Group,the Water Resources Advisory
Committee,and the Water Quality Advisory Committee.
• The draft is currently being circulated to local decision makers and
stakeholder groups.
• It is,at times,a fine line between a policy objective and a solution(this is
an issue which was pointed out by the Portland Water Quality Advisory
Committee-which noted that the operational flexibility objective regarding
being able to mix sources could be read as solution oriented towards
regional transmission system which could negate the importance of higher
raw water quality sources). The intent is to identify the range of objectives
that are held throughout the region and then use them to help identify
different ways of meeting future water needs. This will be done in such a
way as to portray alternatives which represent the tradeoffs inherent
between the various mixes of sources and conservation programs.
10
Mafor Elements & Tasks . e . e
■�■■ ■
Public : . w■■w■r■w■ww■■wwr■r■w■ww■w■■m
InvolvementPublic
`....��. . .r....... �.....��............�..r.....�.�..r�.��....�,...�.
-Pl Plan developed In 2 Parts
Environmental Task Force
Sources . . ■w■■■w■w■■■ww■w■w■w■ww■w■■w■■w■■■
Study . • wwwww■w■w■■■
I ID and Screen Conservation Measures
�______ �wii■i�iiii■ wwwww■w■w■■■
Mid;.Point Review
MEN rw■■■NOON IMM■�:7■_■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
0 Conceptual Develop Options ■ �ii� loomw■ON ■
Institutional Arrangements Element
• Key Issues & Evaluation Criteria
• Develop Institutional Options
Scenario Evaluation .. ■ ■■■■■■■ ■■■
Formulate Resource Scenarios ■i��i■� i��ii�i��i®■�i� ■ ■�tea■■ ■■■
Preliminary Plan & Review Period
■r■■■■■■■rrw■r■■rwrr■■■w■■c ■rw
r■rrrrrr■■r■rrr■r■rrrrrr■r■■rw■■■
9. . ..,
Fact Sheet Regional Water Supply Plan
or the Portland Metropolitan Area-r1me 2
• In january 1991 the Portland City Council adopted a resolution directing the Water
Bureau(Bureau) to work with other water providers to begin to address regional
water supply issues.
• The Wafter Bureau organized the region's water providers to discuss these issues.
This Regional Providers Advisory Group(RPAG)has continued to meet on a
monthly basis for the last two years.
• The Bureau,in cooperation with the RPAG,contracted with consulting funis to
complete three studies. -The Thase I-studies projected future regional water
demand,evaluated potential wafter source options,and identified water conservation
opportunities for the Portland retail customer base.
• Phase 1 indicated that future wafter demand in the region will exceed all existing
supply sources by the year 2050. Some of the systems are already constrained on
peak days or for the peak season.
• phase 1 recommended that there be additional,detailed study of regional
conservation,transmission and system efficiency,and several new supply sources
including a third dam/reservoir on the Bull Run River,expansion of Barney
Reservoir on the Trask River,expanded diversion and treatment of the Clackamas
River,new diversions and treatment of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers,and
aquifer storage and recovery.
• After the studies were finalized,the RPAG distributed summary reports and held
workshops,roundtable discuss}ons,and briefings throughout the region to receive
public input on the Phase 1 and issues that should be addressed during"Phase 2"of
the planning effort. This public input was incorporated into the scope of work for
Phase 2.
• The RPAG determined that Phase 2 must provide dear guidance,on how to meet
regional water demand to the year 2050- Phase 2 must also provide phased
implementation strategies for regional water demand management programs,
transmission and systems efficiency,supply development,and institutional
relationships. Public involvement must be a key component of the planning effort.
• A group of regional*ater provider representatives and several technical experts
selected the firm Barakat and Chamberlin to manage the development of an integrated
water supply plan for the region B&C will be managing an interdisciplinary project.
team for the project. The team includes the firms Montgomery Watson,Parametrix..
Barney&Worth,Murray Smith and Associates,and Squier Associates.
For more information contact: Dominique Bessee
823-7528
• The integrated resource planning approach resembles the least cost planning
approach used by electric utilities. The approach involves evaluation of the costs,
benefits,impacts(including environmental externalities)and risks of both demand
management and supply options"on a level playing field." It includes extensive
public:involvement and assesses the ability of the individual options and scenarios to
meet the policy objectives and values of the region
• The project began in early May of 1993. Twenty-seven of the region's water
providers have signed intergovernmental agreement OGA)to fund and manage the
project The Administrator of the City of Portland Wafter Bureau chairs the 27
member Participants Committee, The project participants have delegated certain
project management responsibilities to a six member Steering Committee. The
Steering Committee consists of two representatives from Multnomah,Washington,
and Clackamas Counties,and chaired by the City Manager of Hillsboro. Portland-is
administering the project contract on behalf of the provider participants,and has
assigned professional planning staff to provide specific project management and
coordination services for the project as authorized through the IGA and-contract.
• The project will cost approximately$2,229,965 and will take about two years to
complete. Costs have been delegated apportioned on the basis of projected growth in
peak day water demand.
• Reasons for participating in the Regional Water Supply Plan project:
-Economies of Scale-the cost of doing this level of analysis-as individual providers
would be prohibitive.
-Understanding.the'big picture"-examining issues in regional,sub-regional,and
hydrologic sub-basin contexts will provide an understanding of complex,
interconnected issues that extend beyond jurisdictional and service area
boundaries.
-Facilitating program and project development-Using the integrated resources
planning approach will help ensure the success of regional demand management
efforts and reduce-the risks associated with permitting of supply projects(e.g.,the
Two Forks project).
-Facilitating public involvement and decision making-the IRP process
incorporates public values into the analysis,and displays the benefits,costs,
impacts,and risks of"alternative water supply futures"in ways that people:can
understand.
Demonstrating accountability as public service providers-participating in this
planning effort shows that we can.plan and operate regionally as responsible water
providers.
For more information contact: Dominique Bma
823-7528
Major Elements & Tasks 1994
. e
■
InformationInvolvement r ■r
n■■■■■ ■ ■rr■■■rrr■■ ■
■r ■rr■■■■■
e Public Involvement Activities �-:cccc:: -.c c c:: :.�c:cc:MEN■
,.PI Plan developed In 2 rr. ■■ !LN■■■ ■■■ ■ ME&��rrr■r■■
. rr■r■c._,.._�.__...__ ________.�■rrrr■■
Sources Analysis(Cons & Now Supply)
■■■■rrr■rrrrrrrr■rr■r■rrr■rr■rn■
Study Sources &Transmission Alter
MENcc:ccc �rr■rr■rrrrrrrrrrrrr■rrr■
a Mid-Point ReviewConceptual Designs&Cons. Programs
r■■■rr■■rrrrrrr■ rr■rr■rr■rr■rr■■
Develop Op . ® INN ■ ■■
Element'Institutional Arrangements Develop Institutional Options
r■■rrrr■rr■rrrr■■rrrr■rrr■rr■rr■■
Key Issues & Evaluation Criteria
�•�r ■
'integration Element
Scenario iv--a Fua_ti_o� 6riterla
Formulate Resource Scenarios
■■r■■rrrrr■r■rrr■rrrrrr�rrrrrr■■■■■
r ______________� ■■■ ■■ ■r
■■■r■r■rrr■rr■r■rrrrrrrrrrrrrr■r■
PHASE 2 of the REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PLAN
FINAL INTERIM .REPORTS
TITLE
° Water Quality Analysis,
Task 6, Source Options Analysis Element
• Task 1 Definition/Analysis of Existing Infrastructure
Regional System Efficiency and Transmission Element
° Bull Run Dam No 3 Preliminary Site Selection Evaluation,
Subtask 4 2
° Screening of Potential ASR Areas, Subtask 4 3
° Public Opinion Research
• Water Treatment Analysis -
Task 7 Source Options Analysis Element
• Evaluation of Water Rights and Water Use Permitting Requirements,
Technical Memorandum for Subtask 3 1
• The Value of Water Supply Reliability Results of a
Contingent Valuation Survey
° Aquifer Storage and Recovery Detailed Analysis Report
• Review of Existing Information and Assumptions,
Task 1 Source Options Analysis Element
° Summary of Sub-Regional Supply Sources,
Task 2, Source Options Analysis Element
• Conservation Measure Technology Profiles
• Surface Water Availability