Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
10/15/2002 - Packet
Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area Tuesday, October 15, 2002 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order/Roll Call and Introductions Motion to call meeting to order, staff to take roll call. 2. Approval of Minutes-August 14, 2002 Motion from Board for minute approval. 3. Credit for Water Leak,Section 12.10.0 70-Rich Sattler(10 minutes) 4. Request for Credit-malfunctioning water meter,Scholls Car Wash-Rich Sattler(10 minutes) 5. PW Director's Utility Report-Ed Wegner(20 minutes) a. Schedule Revisions b. Beaverton Intertie c. Aquifer Storage and Recovery 6. Informational Items Items will be discussed briefly if time allows-otherwise printed info will be distributed. 7. Public Comments Call for any comments from public. 8. Non Agenda Items Call for non-agenda items from Board. Next meeting date Nov. 19, 2002, at Water Auditorium. 9. Adjournment-Approximate time 6.30 p.m. Motion for adjournment. Move to Town Hall for joint workshop meeting with Tigard City Council. A light dinner will be provided. Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1) (d), (e), (0&(h)to discuss labor relations,real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues and to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. All discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes August 14, 2002 Members Present: Bud Wilkinson, Patrick Carroll, Bill Scheiderich, Norm Penner, and Joyce Patton Staff Present: Ed Wegner, Dennis Koellermeier, Tom Imdieke, Kathy Kaatz, and Richard Sattler Visitors: Roel Lundquist, Paul Owen, Mrs. Wilkinson, and Brian Moore 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. Patrick Carroll arrived late at 5:45 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes —July 10, 2002 Commissioner Joyce Patton requested editorial changes to the statements she made regarding the Proposed Bull Run Drinking Water Agency in clarification of what was intended. The changes begin in page 2 starting with the first full paragraph and are as follows: "Commissioner Joyce Patton continued by stating that there has been an underlying concern to slow down the process, to be deliberative and not jump to conclusions. The governance discussion would help create the process slow down. The PSC meeting had lengthy discussions regarding the governance issue. For example, the representative from the Tualatin Valley Water District had differing personal opinions from some other TVWD Board members. Following a recess for TVWD to caucus, one motion was proposed and failed, and a second motion was unanimously adopted to move forward with an ORS-190 agreement as the focus of governance. "Commissioner Saltzman has been placed in charge of the Portland Water Bureau instead of Commissioner Sten and he attended the PSC meeting for the first time. He remained neutral through most of the discussions, however did vote in favor of continuing. The members are ready to move forward. "Mr. Wegner added that Commissioner Saltzman was given this new appointment without the benefit of orientation from Commissioner Sten and was somewhat uncomfortable because of that. However, Commissioner Sten has since spent a lot of time bringing Commissioner Saltzman up-to-date on the issues. Commissioner Saltzman has indicated he is comfortable in proceeding with the timeline and is in favor of transferring all of the Water Bureau, including the distribution functions. All indications show that momentum will not slow down during the transition time." Intergovernmental Water Board 1 August 14,2002 DRAFT COPY Commissioner Patton motioned to approve the minutes as changed for clarification and Commissioner Norm Penner seconded the motion. The vote to accept minutes with the changes presented was unanimous, with Bud Wilkinson abstaining. Ed Wegner announced that Councilor Joyce Patton was moving to Beaverton and would no longer be representing the City of Tigard at the IWB and regional water meetings. He introduced Brian Moore as the new Tigard City Council liaison for water issues and he would be the IWB representative. Commissioner Patton added that it was appropriate for Brian Moore to serve as liaison as he has been on the Council for many years and is familiar with Tigard's `water woes'. 3. Document Review— Tom Imdieke/Dennis Koellermeier Tom Imdieke introduced himself as Financial Operations Manager for the City of Tigard and was there to explain the significant changes/revisions and updates to the Tigard Municipal Code. • Section 12.03.030 (e)—The existing practice is that if a customer does not pay a bill by 10:00 a.m. on "shut-off day", the water will be shut off. Presently there is someone on staff until 7:00 p.m. to answer the telephone if someone wants their water turned back on after normal business hours and pays the additional $100.00 charge. If they pay after 10:00 a.m. the charge is $50.00. There are 17,000 customers that generate 102,000 bills annually and of those, only 16 times have customers called after hours to request their water service be turned back on. It is being recommended that the practice be discontinued. The City has maintained the operating costs of staff time after hours and Public Works staff is called in to turn on the water service after hours at a time and a half rate. The majority of other jurisdictions surrounding us have also discontinued the practice. • Section 12.03.030 (f) — Meter Disconnection Charge— If a customer physically disconnects their meter, there will be utility charges, water disconnection charges and meter disconnection charges. This change is to clarify understanding within the code. • Section 12.03.050 (b)— If repairs or replacements are required, the property owner will be charged and not the initial purchaser. • Section 12.03.060 — Routine adjustments to accounts will be reported to the IWB each month upon their request. Other changes to this section deal with raising the authorization levels for administrative adjustments (miscalculations, reading errors,) from $50.00 to $250.00 for the Finance Director, from $250.00 to $500.00 for the City Manager, and anything above $500.00 would go before the IWB for review and consideration. • Other changes to clean up the wording by changing USA to Clean Water Services and City Administrator to City Manager. These changes are on the City Council's agenda for August 27th. Mr. Wegner added that the Council would adopt these code changes based on the IWB's recommendations and the changes would go into effect in all affected communities (King City, Durham). Mr. Imdieke continued with the Resolution amendment of fees and charges. Intergovernmental Water Board 2 August 14,2002 DRAFT COPY • Resolution 02-06 — Exhibit A—Fire Hydrant Usage— Temporary- Rates have not been formalized and this will include them in the fees and charges. The rate for fire hydrant usage will be changed from the commercial rate to the higher irrigation rate, which will more appropriately cover current costs. Meter Disconnection—Will now include a 10% administrative cost. Meter Out-of-Order Test—This establishes the rate for the first time and will include calibration, actual labor and material costs, and 10% administrative costs. Water Main Extension—Designed and installed by others—This formalizes the rate that has always been used at that level. Dennis Koellermeier presented items that affect Public Works more than the financial side of things. New language is used to align the code to current practices and also has suggested deletions of things that are no longer done. • Section 12.10.030 —The meter size language was outdated and the plumbing division now determines the size on a fixture count basis. This change aligns the code into consistency with the plumbing code for the State of Oregon. This section also adds the provision allowing the installation of water services by the developer as part of the subdivision improvements. • Section 12.10.040 — Language changes and the creation of a new section to better address master metering. • Section 12.10.045 — Master Metering - Typical applications are for condominiums on private streets dealing with homeowner associations as the responsible party. The new section allows for better flexibility keeping the costs down for Public Works and the developer. • Section 12.10.060 —Service Pipe Standards and Maintenance — Changes to language dealing with plumbing codes. • Section 12.10.080—Jurisdiction — Clarification of Public Works operating facilities. • Section 12.10.140—Temporary Discontinuance of Service —Language clarifications dealing with fee changes. • Section 12.10.160 —Service Connection Maintenance—Added language clarifying the right to access of meters by City staff, the City's liability and recovery of charges related to clearing the area. • Section 12.10.220— Fire Hydrants —This section was deleted as these practices are no longer performed. • Section 12.10.240— Illegal Use of Fire Hydrant or Meter— Cleaned up the language and linked it into the civil infraction process. Commissioner Bill Scheiderich requested clarification about the master meters. Mr. Koellermeier explained that the concept of a master meter would be to add up all the small users and size the meter accordingly. The homeowner's association could sub-meter to deal with their equity of the meter. Different cases have varying scenarios but this section assures that a responsible party covers costs. Intergovernmental Water Board 3 August 14,2002 DRAFT COPY Commissioner Scheiderich asked what type of emergency situation availability the City had set up. Mr. Koellermeier explained that the City has trained Public Works staff available 24-hours a day to deal with shut-off problems or any other emergency situation. Ed Wegner requested a motion to approve the Resolution and two changes to the Tigard Municipal Code. Commissioner Patton motioned to approve the changes to the Municipal Code 12.10, Resolution 02-06, and Ordinance 12.03, and Commissioner Norm Penner seconded the motion. The vote to accept the motion was unanimous. Dennis Koellermeier added that procedurally as follow up, changes to the Rules, Rates, and Regulations would be brought back, mirroring the language for the effected Tigard residents and represented water area. 4. Proposed Bull Run Drinking Water Agency— Ed Wegner/Joyce Patton Ed Wegner reported that they received the Principles of Agreement at the last meeting (that information was forwarded to IWB members) and was being reviewed by all agencies. Any comments should be directed to Commissioner Joyce Patton. Dennis Koellermeier and Commissioners Patton and Moore will be attending a public hearing next week on Thursday to receive input. By taking another month for review and deliberation of the Principles of Agreement, the final report would not be adopted by the Policy Steering Committee (PSC) until September, which will push back that report to the IWB into October. Also during the last month, three public meetings were held in the cities of Gresham, Tigard and Portland. Tigard's meeting received the most participation, but that was primarily by staff and elected officials and about six interested members of the public. There were very few questions asked at the meetings and to date, no comment cards have been received from the open houses. Next week's Thursday meeting will be taped by Multnomah County Cable TV who will be doing a feature story and they will hopefully make that available to Clackamas County and Tualatin Valley Cable TV channels. Members of the PSC and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) attended the Water Spot (Citizens for Safe Water) live television broadcast several weeks ago. Those who attended thought it was a good experience. Two of the technical memos have been approved by the TAC and are to be forwarded to the PSC for consideration. The meetings have had a few heated discussions about money, asset values, directions in voting, and what is to be included/excluded. The TAC report will probably say that there are still unanswered questions, but it will also provide the 13 participating agencies with good information to base decisions on for future consideration of participation in the Proposed Bull Run Water Agency. More money will be involved if it is decided to continue, appraisals of the assets may be required, and an outside consultant may be brought in to analyze the pros and cons. Commissioner Patton reported that Commissioner Saltzman and Eddie Campbell were speaking with all the PSC members on an individual basis. She made it clear to them about concerns regarding the financial issues, the change in Portland's Commission Intergovernmental Water Board 4 August 14,2002 DRAFT COPY representatives in mid-stream, and the need for getting the numbers out very soon. She said some jurisdictions will make speedy decisions after receiving the report. Mr. Wegner added that Portland provided some preliminary numbers on Monday, but those numbers have not been analyzed yet. Attempts are being made to set up a meeting to discuss the wholesale contract with the City of Portland on September 18'h. It is anticipated that some agencies will make decisions quickly and decide to stick with the wholesale contract and not participate in the new agency as a partner. It will be very costly to participate, but the value may be worth the money. The overall value needs to be measured carefully and Tigard will have to look at all the options. Commissioner Patrick Carroll said the wholesale contract should be available to compare as an option. Mr. Wegner said the decision would be difficult because the comparison will be between apples and oranges. There will be political and financial aspects to compare as well as consideration as to where Tigard wants to be in the future with the water issue. The decision will have to be made on the information available and will be a gamble no matter what direction is chosen. Commissioner Patton stated that the regional process has been good in that it has held Portland accountable for providing information they have never been willing to discuss until now, it has allowed the development of relationships with surrounding jurisdictions and has strengthened and united the groups on the west side. Tigard will not be the first to make their decision and will be able to observe the reactions to other's decisions. It may be beneficial to continue our participation in the regional negotiations or combine with our surrounding jurisdictions in order to formulate a unified strategy on how to proceed. This process has shown that there is strength in numbers. The purpose of the regional process has been to determine whether it is feasible to create the new agency. Portland cannot afford to have a lot of negative public relations at this point. A lot of the issues being brought to the table are from Portland citizens about Portland issues that will have to be dealt with no matter which direction the regional agency takes. The report will address issues that the City of Portland will have to respond to such as the charter changes and legality of governance. On Monday Commissioner Saltzman stated that Portland holds all the water rights and they will probably keep their name on the water rights because of the congressional authority they were given with those rights. However, he indicated they will proposed to assign, pledge, or give full rights and privileges to that water to the new agency at no charge, with the understanding that the water rights charges will be recuperated from the O & M costs and other costs associated with the assets of the system. Mr. Wegner said he thought there would be a rather large contingency of Portland citizens that will not want to give up their water system. It has been questioned as to what Portland will do with the money they receive from the participating entities and Portland has indicated they will put it into their distribution system. Portland has stated they need $400 million worth of improvements to their distribution system and they appear to be willing to sell part of their assets to pay for fixing the distribution system. Intergovernmental Water Board 5 August 14,2002 DRAFT COPY Mr. Wegner reported briefly on the Tualatin River Basin Study and said that next month he would be reporting in detail about it. He said that it would cost more money to proceed in that direction. The progress reports are slow, but cohesive in that there are not the political issues with the agencies involved and all the member agencies are working together to accomplish a positive outcome. Due to federal issues dealing with security, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has had funding cutbacks and the support and commitment that was hoped for from them has been slow in coming. It would cost Tigard an additional $80,000 to continue, but that would be worth it if the damn is built. Mr. Wegner will discuss the additional funding proposal at the September IWB meeting. Technical reports will also soon be ready for presentation. He reiterated that the progress has been slow, but deliberate and cooperative in its coordination. 5. Assistant PW Director's Utility Report— Dennis Koellermeier ASR—Water has been pumped from the well since July 5th without any problems. The well has been producing 700 gpm and even though we know it can produce more than that, for good data-stream throughout the completion of the pilot program, we have been asked to stay at that level. The summary report of the ASR project will be ready in October or November and at that time a decision will need to be made as to how to proceed. Beaverton Intertie —The piping work is completed and we are now in the testing phase. Switches will be flipped in about 30 days. Mr. Koellermeier said he would be presenting a revised CIP schedule next month reflecting the necessary changes to accommodate the school district reservoir project. The (RFP) Request for Proposal will go into process within the next few weeks. Rich Sattler reported on the Summer Operation Plan. With the higher temperatures, demand has also been up and that has stressed the system and required optimizing of the system. There have been a few days that we have reached 12.5 mgd, which causes us to be more vulnerable. We have been utilizing the system more with storage that we have. The current water supplies come from the City of Portland, Tualatin Valley Water District, and Beaverton and today we started using the City of Tualatin connection. The ASR water has been very productive and so has Well #2. The conservation message still continues to promote the even/odd watering of one-inch per week as well as the rebate program. The projected weather trend will allow us to get the upper hand again. 6. Informational Items Informational items were distributed for review by the Board Members. Mr. Wegner encouraged Board Members to read the Regional Water Supply Plan newsletter update, complete the conservation survey and mail it in. 7. Public Comments— None 8. Non-Agenda Items - None Intergovernmental Water Board 6 August 14,2002 DRAFT COPY 9. Adjournment The next IWB meeting is scheduled for September 11'" and Mr. Wegner explained that there are several memorial functions planned throughout the area that evening as well. It was discussed and recommended that the IWB would still meet that evening but plan to adjourn no later than 6:45 p.m. Commissioner Patrick Carroll motioned to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Joyce Patton seconded the motion. The vote was unanimously carried and the meeting was adjourned. Intergovernmental Water Board 7 August 14,2002 DRAFT COPY Scholls Soft Cloth Car wash 12390 SVV Scholls Ferry Road (503)620-2184 Mailing addre55: 9295 SVV Electric St Tigard, OR 97223 August 5, 2002 Intergovernmental Water Board c/o City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, OR 97223 On March 9, 2001 we became aware of a leak at Scholls Soft Cloth Car Wash caused by construction near the water meter. After the leak was resolved, we analyzed water usage before and after the leak at this location and found that a significantly larger amount of water was metered at Scholls compared to our two locations which have the same equipment. I informed Tigard Water of this and showed them the water amounts of Scholls Car Wash and the other two locations. Tigard Water replaced the optics in the eater meter in November 2001. With no change in Scholls Car Wash equipment, our water usage was cut in half. The amount of water used after that was consistent with the other locations. We found we'd been overcharged for water from September 1998 when the business opened to the time when the optics were changed. The complete meter was changed on June 13, 2002. The amount of water used was still consistent with the other locations. Scholls Car Wash requests refund due to malfunctioning water meter beginning in September 1998: -)if"orenc:. between amcIL!nt metered , nd actual water and sewer use 5,597 ccf Feel free to contact me if you need additional information. Sincerely, Jim Dedmon SG`iDllS SG�f �fp f•'1 �iI'�'Y �/�S`f qA$ � � b __�_�._ .- - - -1 Sit_�_ ___�i 1�iD�G$ iZ`�,Yui �i• '� �. 6-)/0S68 13125 z 35 L?lr1 Ti 140 3 M. a� 1p� All -__.4 -V-1- / _ 6/8/oo--- -6 �_ z�3Z 13, 6�0 36 • 796 6 6L y.�`.l_.... a 1�Z y�'b - 63 5'z8 18 283 l�,S c"q ILIZ y- as z6� l s-6, 33Z ZZ, 692- 6 . ons Iz6 r3 �f zj'18 13 Ct 23,3 22 `7 I �/, 29a 71 23, E - ol j0 Id ?, ©oe) 203 15 (, r/3 2,( 26 )6 -01 ) z 3 �r � , 3 s yy -5.'7 r4 2419 5- ? ) 6 ,y fir ? r4 4 '/C) r fa 1-02- To��l 3, 35 L/, T1 o 1g9:VY �2- 3 03 22.41 Gf� t g� /oo ids y22- 920 22, z 30e/ 2 6 1 '? oo , a� y� ZStz6Q 18, 8 � d .� qj z/��a r �y� l �`l 75 b cl, 33 ► z /9/��__- . -_ ro%clot g,96�bz� 23 1, zy o opo L162,��6 l� y . To�• / Gbl I cG� , ��� / GCS= Public Works Memo TO: IWB "Public Works Makes it Happen" FROM: Richard C. Sattler RE: Establishing Wholesale Water Rate for fiscal years 02/03 DATE: 9/3/02 During the process of updating our Tigard Municipal Code, Chapter 12.10 staff came across a section of the code which has not been specifically addressed, by the IWB. The section of the code that needs your direction is "Credit for Water Leak", 12.10.070. The issue regarding this section is that the Intergovernmental Water Board is required to set the average wholesale cost of water for each fiscal year. This process has not been done on a regular basis. The average wholesale cost of water has been historically established in-house by finance and public works staff. The way that staff established this rate is by taking the highest water purchase cost. For example; I-n fiscal year 2001/2002 the City of Portland charged the City of Tigard a rate of $.907 per ccf. This rate was then used for the wholesale rate on the "credit for leak form." Based on past practices of determining the wholesale cost, staff is recommending that IWB establish a rate of $.927 per ccf for fiscal year 2002/2003. This rate of $.927 per ccf is the highest of three rates we will pay for water this fiscal year. In the future staff will bring you the rate used for "credit for leak" process each June for the coming fiscal year. Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Informational items Supplement October 15, 2002 • City of Portland Bureau of Water Works, Triannual Water Quality Analysis Report, April 2002 • Tigard Times article dated P,-±gus' 15, 2002, Water conservation should be a top priority • Tigard City Council Meeting Recap, August 27, 2002 • The Oregonian, Washington County News, September 5, 2002, Split board supports Willamette water panel • September 11, 2002 Memorandum to Consortium Technical Subcommittee regarding 2002 Conservation Survey Report • The Oregonian, September 23, 2002, Portland council, suburbs review Bull Run plan '-s0 TL 4 z City of Portland Bureau of Water Works Trlannual Water Quality Analysis ? April 2002 Bull Run Water Secondary standards are guidelines set to assure good The City of Portland,Bureau of Water Works aesthetic quality and are secondary maximum supplies water to approximately 840,000 people in contaminant levels(SMCL)Secondary standards the Portland metropolitan area. The primary source identify levels of substances that may affect taste, is water drawn from two reservoirs in the protected odor or color of water, may stain sinks and bathtubs, Bull Run watershed 35 miles east of Portland. The or may interfere with treatment processes. water from Bull Run is very low in dissolved i.unerals and meets or is netwi than all water quality Summer Supply standards Bull Run reservoirs began drawdown July 10 when customer demand first exceeded streamflow. The Groundwater Supply Bureau expects to have adequate supply to meet peak The Portland system has a groundwater supply, season demand and to continue releases for fish. which comes from 27 wells located near the south The Bureau will blend Bull Run water with shore of the Columbia River. Groundwater is groundwater if needed during the summer. We do primarily used to supplement summer supply or not anticipate a need to curtail customer water use. provide extra water in an emergency.The Water Bureau last used groundwater from October 8 to October 19,2001 to supplement summer supply About the Report This report presents tables of current analysis results Water Treatment for Portland's Bull Run water to users needing Water is fust disinfected with chlorine(at about 2 technical data. Six key parameters marked with a f�' parts per million). At the end of the disinfection are graphed to show annual trends. Additional process, sodium hydroxide(NaOH)and ammonium background information is available in the 2002 hydroxide(NH4OH)are added to the water. Sodium Water Quality Report,which is mailed to Portland hydroxide(at a dose of 2.5 to 3.5 ppm)is added to postal customers beginning in June. raise the pH slightly(approximately 1 pH unit). This helps prevent corrosion of household plumbing and Most substances listed are reported in units of lowers the levels of lead and copper that can leach concentration,parts per million. One part per million into the water. Ammonium hydroxide is added(at a is approximately equivalent to a drop of water in 12 dose of about 0.35 ppm as NH3-N)to form a long- gallons. When other units are used,they are shown lasting chloramine disinfectant residual. adjacent to the name of the substance. Wateruall Standards Many substances were not present or were present in Q �' anlevels below the detection limits of the prescribed The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) method. These results are shown with a ND(Not and the Oregon Health Division set water quality Detected)in the result column.The value shown in standards. the detection limit column is the minimum quantity that can be detected by the test method. Primary standards are set by regulation to protect public health and are usually maximum contaminant Abbreviations' levels(MCL). Lead and copper standards are primary standards that are action levels. Action Not Detected M levels,when exceeded at selected consumers'taps, MCL Maximum Contaminant Level trigger requirements that water providers take steps to SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level reduce corrosion and to provide public education. m Parts Per Million(equivalent tom L City of Portland Bureau of Water Work; 1900 N.Interstate Portland,Oregon 97204(503)823-7770 Water Bureau Web Site: http://www.water.ci.portiand.or.us Bull Run Source These samples are taken of water before treatment. Microbiological Contaminants are tiny living or ams ms such as bacteria and parasites. Microbiological Contaminants Past 12 months Detection March 2002 EPA Standard Limit Primaty Contaminants Total Coliform Bacteria 100%below 1 i 00°io below 90%below 100/100ml- colonies/100ml- 100/100ml- 100/100mL in previous over previous 6 months 6 months Fecal Coliform Bacteria 100%below 1 100%below 20/100mL 90%below 20/100ml- colonies/100mL 20/100m1- in previous 6 months over previous 6 months Giardia lamblia cysts/I OOL ND-5 1 2 Treatment Technique Unregulated Contaminants Cryptosporidium oocysts/1001- ND—1 1 <2 Not Regulated Turbidity,a measure of light sca«er indic..atirg the pr.sence of_f;urtie:es in�.ie waver,is considered a primary contaminant because these particles can interfere with disinfection. Physical Characteristics Past 12 Detection March 2002 EPA Standard Months Limit Turbidity(NTU). 0.26—3.16 ---- 0.32-0.63 5 Treated Water The treated water samples were collected at the outlet of the Lusted Hill Treatment Facility on April 8,2002. Physical characteristics include temperature,pH specific conductance,color, and solids. These characteristics themselves pose no health risk. Results reported as parts per million unless otherwise noted. Physical Characteristics Past 12 Detection April 8,2002 EPA Standard Months Range Limit Secondary Contaminants SMCL pH(Standard units) 6.9-7.8 ---- 7.4 6.5-8.5 Total Dissolved Solids 22-24 0.1 20 500 f� Color(Standard Units) ND- 15 5 5 15 Unregulated Characteristics Specific Conductance(gmhos/cm @25°C) 21-38 0.1 24.2 Not Regulated Water temperature(°C) 4.6-17 0.1 6.8 Not Regulated Suspended Solids 0.5-2.0 0.5 0.5 Not Regulated Total Solids(@180°C) 23-26 0.1 20 Not Regulated Nutrients are chemicals which plants and bacteria need to grow.All results reported as parts per million. Nutrients Past 12 Months Detection April 8,2002 EPA Standard Range Limit Primary Contaminants MCL Nitrate Nitrogen(NO3-N) 0.01-0.04 0.01 0.02 10 Nitrite Nitrogen(NO2-N) Not Detected 0.005 Not Detected 1 Unregulated Contaminants Ammonia Nitrogen(NH3-N) ND-0.34 0.020 Not Detected Not Regulated Nitrogen,Organic(N) 0.04-0.05 0.01 0.24 Not Regulated Phosphorus-Reactive(PO4-P) ND—0.004 0.003 0.003 Not Regulated Phosphorus,Total(P) 0.006-0.007 0.005 <0.005 Not Regulated Silica(SiO2 as Si) 3.3-4.2 1.0 4.0 Not Regulated f-' Total Organic Carbon(TOC as C) 1.30-2.20 0.05 1.10 Not Regulated Treated Water (cont.) Anions and cations are negative and positive ions. Water is an excellent solvent. When water flows over soil and rocks,major constituents dissolve in water where they form anions and cations. Bull R wdun water has low levels of these anions and cations. All results reported as parts per million. Anions and Cations Past 12 Months Detection April 8,2002 EPA Standard Range Limit Primary Contaminant MCL Fluoride(F) Not Detected 0.05 Not Detected 4.0 Secondary Contaminants SMCL Chloride(CI) 1.7-2.3 0.2 1.7 250 Fluoride(F) Not Detected 0.05 Not Detected 2.0 Hardness(as CaCO3) -9.2-8 1 0.1 5.9 250 -Sulfate(St4) Not Detected 0.5 Not Detected 250 Unregulated Contaminants Alkalinity(as CaCO3) 6.3-15 0.5 7.9 Not Regulated Hydroxide(as CaCO3) Not Detected 0.1 Not Detected Not Regulated Carbonate(as CaCO3) Not Detected 0.1 Not Detected Not Regulated Bicarbonate(as CaCO3) 6.5-8.8 0.1 7.9 Not Regulated Carbon Dioxide,Free(CO2) 0.6-0.9 0.1 0.7 Not Regulated Carbon Dioxide,Total(CO2) 6.6-8.3 0.1 7.6 Not Regulated Calcium(Ca) 1.5-2.0 0.01 1.4 Not Regulated Magnesium(Mg) 0.59-0.76 0.01 0.59 Not Regulated Potassium(K) 0.24-0.33 0.01 0.19 Not Regulated Sodium(Na) 1.1-3.4 0.01 2.3 Not Regulated Metals are a group of similar elements that occur in the earth's crust. Many are toxic at low levels and are considered primary contaminants by EPA. Other metals,such as iron,are not toxic,but can cause nuisance effects, such as discolored water. These are considered secondary contaminants. All results reported as parts per million. Metals Past 12 Months Detection [-Xp-ril8,2002 EPA Standard Range Limit Primary Contaminants MCL Antimony(Sb) Not Detected 0.001 <0.001 0.006 Arsenic(As) Not Detected 0.001 <0.001 0.05 Barium(Ba) 0.001-0.002 0.001 <0.001 2 Cadmium(Cd) Not Detected 0.001 Not Detected 0.005 Chromium(Cr) Not Detected 0.001 <0.001 0.1 Copper(Cu) ND-0.02 0.010 <0.001 Treatment Technique Lead(Pb) Not Detected 0.001 <0.001 Treatment Technique Mercury(Hg) Not Detected 0.001 Not Detected 0.002 Selenium(Se) Not Detected 0.001 Not Detected 0.05 Secondary Contaminants SMCL Aluminum(Al) 0.052-0.12 0.001 0.033 0.05-0.20 Iron(Fe) 0.016-0.12 0.001 <0.001 0.3 Manganese(Mn) 0.011-0.016 0.010 <0.001 0.05 Silver(Ag) Not Detected 0.001 Not Detected 0.1 Zinc(Zn) ND-0.021 0.001 <0.001 5 Unregulated Contaminants Nickel(Ni) Not Detected 0.001 <0.001 Not Regulated Distribution System These samples are taken from a network of sampling stations located throughout the afeas served by the City of Portland. Other water providers using Bull Run water sample within their systems. Substance Past 12 Detection March 2002 EPA Standard Months Range Limit Primaty Contaminant MCL Total Coliform Bacteria(%of monthly 00o to 0.4% 0.2% 0%positive No more than 5%positive samples where bacteria detected) per month Disinfection Chlorine Residual detection Zero%below 0.01 Zero%below No more than 5%below detection ' detection detection per month for any consecutive 2 months Chlorine residual measured in ppm 0.2-2.0 m 0.01 0.6 to 1.5 ppm Disinfection by-products form when chlorine reacts with naturally occurring organic matter. Results shown are the average of 4 sites in Portland's distribution system. Disinfection by-products Past 12 Detection March 2002 EPA Standard Months Range Limit Primary Contaminant MCL Total Trihalomethanes ppm 0.010-0.022 0.0005 0.022 0.100 Unregulated Contaminants ,�P Haloacetic Acids ppm 0.020-0.037 0.0005 0.034 1 Not Regulated Home Taps These lead and copper results are from over 100 homes which because of their age and pipe materials are most likely to have elevated lead levels. The homes are located throughout the Bull Run service area. The EPA specifies the selection of homes and requires reporting the 90th percentile value for lead and copper. The 90th percentile is the value that 90 percent of the homes are at or below. Primary Contaminants Detection Home Sampling: EPA Standard Limit go,,percentile (May 2002) Action Level Copper,ppm 0.001 0.42 1.3 Lead,ppm 0.001 0.013 0.015 ecnt p �;dju"s > nt � x In mid-March, 2002,the Water Bureau slowly increased the pH of Portland's drinking water from about 7.5 to 7.8. As a general rule, as pH increases, the corrosion of lead and copper in a customer's plumbing decreases, but these effects are subject to variations depending on other water chemistry. The Bureau's interest is in studying the effect this slight change would have on the effectiveness of corrosion control of soft water from Bull Run.. Our system experiences this range of pH during normal seasonal variations in the Bull Run source. Annual Trends in Key Parameters p April 1, 2001 to March 31, 2002 Figure 1 : Turbidity 5 — a N 3 F- 2 Z 1 0 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Date I Figure 1. Turbidity is a measure of the light scatter indicating the presence of particles in the water and is measured in nephelometric turbidity units(NTUs).This graph shows the turbidity of the Bull Run source water before treatment. For unfiltered systems,the Maximum Contaminant Level for Turbidity is 5 NTU. Figure 2: Color 20--- — — I 15 101 U � - 5 -40,- -- 0 - � r t- r A Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Date Figure 2.Color,measured in color units is the apparent color of the water due to substances dissolved or suspended in the water. It is measured by comparing the water with a sample of measured color. Color may result from the presence of plant by-products or sediment or dissolved metals(such as iron). The average,minimum,and maximum for each month are shown. ----------------- --------------- Figure 3: Water Temperature 20 w ? 15 - t� d U 10 d m rn 5 - d 0 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 O6tete Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 Figure 3. Water temperature varies throughout the year and is highest in late summer. As the water flows through the water distribution system,the temperature will rise. Annual Trends in Key Parameters (cont.) Figure 4: Total Organic Carbon 2.5 -- — 2 a 1.5 CL U 1 O H 0.5 0 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 D ate Figure 4. Total Organic Carbon(TOC)is a measure of carbon from organisms once living. TOC is verylow in Bull Run water. The peak values occur in late fall and early winter,when leaves drop and rain washes organic material into the water. Source water before treatment results shown here differ slightly from tabled results. Figure 5: Trihalomethanes (THM) 2 5 -- — -----— - — --- 20 15 d m 10 5 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 THM , ppb Figure 5. Trihalomethanes(THMs)are by-products of disinfection. THMs are formed when chlorine reacts with naturally occurring organic matter. THMs are typically highest in late fall and early winter,when leaves drop and rain washes organic material into the water.The results shown are the average for four locations in the distribution system. The current EPA maximum contaminant level is 80 parts per billion for total trihalomethanes ao Figure 6: Haloacetic Acids HAA5 30 .0 C. CL uS 20 x 10 0 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 Apr-02 Date Figure 6. Haloacetic Acids(HAA5)are by-products of disinfection and are formed in a similar manner to trihalomethanes. The results shown are the average of four locations in the distribution system. The EPA Maximum Contaminant Level for Haloacetic Acids is 60 parts per billion. A2-0-August 15, 2002 mater conservation should be a top p 'By taking steps to conserve, days. scape's water needs and offer advice on how to During the summer months,people typical- improve the ..fficiency of their irrigation sys property owners can qualify for - ly use two to three times more water while tem earns a$50 rebate; rebates from the city rainfall is greatly diminished,Danz said. ■ Stoppin.; their automatic system from This scenario, known as summer peaking, watering whe,.-i rainfall is sufficient by adding a TIGARD —City officials are urging resi- is a concern because it draws water from reser- rain sensor(i switch to temporarily disengage dents to conserve water as temperatures hit voirs faster than it can be replenished. Last the system earns a$25 rebate; record highs this week. summer,use of t!-,e odd-even system resulted in ■Using manual bib timers to tum off hoses "These hot days are stressing our reser- a 10-percent decrease in water use. and sprinklers at pre-set times will earn a voirs," said Sara Danz, water conservation According to city officials, many land- rebate up to X25, or 512.50 e,.-`i for a maxi- coordinator."We need to keep cLLr reservoirs aL scapes are over-watered; some watering sys- mum of two timers; least 75 percent fill for firefighting and other tems could use a tune-up;some watering prac- ■Adding mulch to flower and garden beds emergencies. tices could be improved upon; and some soils to prevent the soil from drying,decrease weed Ironically, Danz issued her message late could use a good conditioning for better plant growth, reduce erosion and add nutrients to Tuesday morning, just hours before a four- root development and water retention. their soil ears a$25 rebate. alarm apartment fire broke out at the intersec- As an incentive to using less water,the city Property owners can receive a maximum tion at Hall Boulevard and Scoffins Street. is instituting a Watersaver Landscape Rebate total rebate of$150. According to Danz, the demand for water program. Rebate p-ogram participants must be resi- increases toward the end of summer,"so water According v: information provided about dential water customers in the Tigard water conservation is more important than ever with the program, thc: city feels a responsibility to service area, and a limited number of rebates the hot weather,"she said. actively promote easy,efficient,economic and will be giver on a first-come,first-served basis. Danz reminds residents that lawns and gar- environmentally sound water use and toner- The city will honor receipts for applicable dens only need I inch of water per week to;xay vation. rebate services and products between April 1 green and healthy. Participation in the rebate program will and Oct.31,2002.Rebate applications must be "We want to thank everyone for following help curb the summer peak, help residents submitted by Nov. 15 to be eligible. the odd-even watering plan,"she added. increase their watering efficiency;and improve Property owners will receive their rebates in The city recently requested residents to vol- the appearance and health of landscapes. the form of a credit on their water bills. untarily change their watering schedules so The city will offer rebates to property own- For more information, call Danz at 503- that those with odd-numbered addresses water ers for several specific projects: 639-4171; Ext. 2599 or e-mail on odd-numbered days and those with even- ■ Scheduling a certified Irrigation sara@ci.tigard.or.us or visit numbered addresses water on even-numbered Association auditor to evaluate their land- www.ci.tigard.or.us. TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING RECAP Mayor Griffith called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. Council Present: Mayor Griffith; Councilors Dirksen, Patton, and Scheckla • STUDY SESSION > UPDATE —WATER ISSUES Councilor Patton updated Council on the status of the following activities regarding water supply and service: v Bull Run Drinking Water Agency A public hearing was held last Thursday before the Policy Steering Committee on the draft principles of an agreement for a Bull Run Drinking Water Agency. Councilor Patton noted there was a limited amount of public testimony with some concerns expressed about whether this agency would be the appropriate mechanism to provide regional water services. It is anticipated that the Policy Steering Committee will finalize the principles of agreement and four technical policy papers by the end of September. Once these items are completed, they will be forwarded to each participating jurisdiction to review. Jurisdictions will then develop their own public involvement process. Draft financial numbers were distributed at the last meeting for each jurisdiction for a 20-year planning cycle. This information will need to be reviewed by staff and Councilor Moore (newly appointed water- issue Council liaison) and then distributed to Council. Each jurisdiction will review the principles of agreement, develop a public involvement process and then determine whether to go forward with membership in the Drinking Water Agency. Councilor Tigard City Council Meeting Recap - August 27, 2002 Page 1 1 Patton expects that some of the jurisdictions currently involved may drop out quickly. She said she would like to see Tigard remain in the process, but said it would be best if Tigard could be the last agency to decide whether to move forward with the Agency because the financial numbers will be more Ifirm. The current estimates for a long- term water source for Tigard are not unrealistic advised Councilor Patton. As a member of the Agency, Tigard would be able to buy ownership into the Agency. Councilor Patton suggested it might be better to develop a buy-in scenario based on a shorter capital improvement program (CIP) period of 5, 10 or 15 years (draft numbers are now based on a 20-year CIP). City Attorney Ramis advised that Tigard would ultimately be given some sort of option as to what degree Tigard will want to buy-in. After the statement of the principles of agreement has been finalized, the next step will be to develop and approve a detailed contract for participating jurisdictions. Participating jurisdictions will not receive water rights; those will stay with Portland. However, Portland will contractually provide all the legal rights jurisdictions will need as partners. v Joint Water Commission Clean Water Services has a significant role in the feasibility study process. The biggest problem at this time is the lack of federal funding, which is slowing down the project. It is hoped that the timeline can be followed; however additional funds will be needed from participating jurisdictions. Assistant Public Works Director Koellermeier explained that if the partners pick up the federal funding anticipated to be allocated in the future, then the partners would be reimbursed when the funding is received. More information will be presented to the Council on this matter next month. The study is focused on the feasibility of raising Scoggins Dam. There has been an active public involvement process with neighbors of Hagg Lake (Scoggins Dam); the reception has been positive. y Water Supply Plan The Water Supply Plan is updated every five years. Councilor Patton referred to information distributed to the City Council, including a questionnaire regarding conservation and its role in the future of water Tigard City Council Meeting Recap - August 27, 2002 Page 2 supply. Council members were asked to take a few minutes to fill out the survey. The update should be completed by summer/fall 2003. y Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) Assistant Public Works Director Koellermeier advised that the ASR project is going exceptionally well. Tigard has been using water from the wells since July 1 and will continue to do so until the end of September. Long-Terni Water Contraf;t with Portland Assistant Public Works Director Koellermeier reported that a comparison would be done for continued costs associated with continuing a long-term contract compared to a contractual buy-in in an agency. Councilor Patton added that an interim wholesale contract would be needed even if the Council determines to proceed with the buy-in option. UPDATE — RANDALL GRANT PROGRAM As ' tant to the City Manager Newton reviewed the status f this item. The City s awarded $10,667.99 from the Departm t of Justice for reimburse nt of 50 percent of the cost of bullet oof vests. Randall identified the g it opportunity and prepared the gra on behaif of the City. The City has requeste ssistance from Randa to pursue funding through the Meyer Memorial Trust mprovements to a open space portion of the new library site for an enviro ental edu tional component. Also, the City's contact at Randall has identi ne federal legislation that may be a source for funding mobile data terminal. r the police. Funding may also be available, due to support from na Wyden and Smith and Congressman Wu, for a Tualatin Riv pedestria ridge. > ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS y Assistant City Manag Newton advised that ashin n County officials Tom Brian nd Dennis Mulvih' ould be atte 'ng the upcoming Rail-Volu ' n Conference ' ashington D.C. y Assistant to the Ci Manager on advised there might be ped e attending tonigh ' busin meeting who will want to comment o Agenda Itemo. regarding the proposed Bull Mountain Annexation p i irection. This is not a public hearing; there will be a public i mation and involvement plan developed if Council adopt a roposed resolution. After discussion, it was determined t if peop are present to comment on this matter, that they may do Tigard City Council Meeting Recap - August 27, 2002 Page 3 Page 1 of 2 oregoWotCllcskhereoee�F » More From The Oregonian Washington County News Split board supports Willamette water panel 09/05/02 RICHARD COLBY BEAVERTON --Two commissioners on the.Tualatin Valley Water District want the district to drop its membership in an Untergovernineiitai group exp!i_•ring the eventual tapping of the W+11,1mette ; :vor as a. household water source. But during a Tuesday work session the two, Gordon Martin and rFrom Our Advertiser Lisa Melyan, didn't persuade the district's other three commissioners to go along with the idea. , KAISER Other commissioners said that the district's pulling out of the Willamette Water Supply Agency would doom it.The district is the only one of the agency's six members that holds water rights to the Willamette, and it contributes a majority of the agency's budget. z Martin and Melyan said that the supply agency, formed by local governments in 1997, is obsolete. Environmentalists -- including the two commissioners - contend the Willamette is unsafe as a drinking water source. iur �" M s I I M� da Pointing to deformed fish found near Newberg, the anti-Willamette every Friy forces say the river and its tributaries draw massive pollution fromwww.kp.org/jobs industrial and agricultural operations while flowing through the Willamette Valley. The water can't be treated adequately to make it safe, they contend. With a $75,000 annual budget this year, the Willamette supply agency, headquartered in West Linn, studies how and where to tap the Willamette between Wilsonville and Gladstone. It also shares the Tualatin Valley district's water rights to the Willamette,which are currently unused. Clackamas agency quit Other agency members are Canby, Gladstone, Sherwood, Tigard and Tualatin. Another member, Clackamas River Water, recently decided to drop its membership because it holds water rights on the Clackamas River. Dues are based on a formula including populations of the member agencies. The Tualatin Valley district, with the largest population of 172,000, pays$42,170 of this year's budget, or 56 percent. Martin was elected as a commissioner last year with Melyan on an anti-Willamette platform. He argued that the agency membership should be dropped because the district customers he has talked to don't want the river's. water coming through their pipes. Strong resistance But the other three commissioners balked. "Customers I have talked to want the district to manage resources in its best fiduciary interests,"said Commissioner Jim Duggan. 4r,,..ii.- \«rn.T„nIaTc\rrFr4n\r:%xrinnnz-7 uTM 9/5/02 Page 2 of 2 Duggan contended that even if the district didn't take river water for domestic use, it might be used for irrigating farm crops and supplying industrial plants. That would offset future agricultural and industrial demands for Portland's cleaner Bull Run Reserve supplies and water from the Coast Range. Commissioner Jim Doane said the water supply agency's existence also provides an opportunity for member governments to pool their resources campaigning for cleaning up the Willamette. Doane also said that other members of the agency, such as Canby Utility, which supplies city water and electricity, could suffer if the Tualatin Valley district pulled out of the Willamette agency, because they have no Willamette River right of their own. At the session's conclusion, the five commissioners agreed to instruct Tualatin Valley's general manager, Greg DiLoreto, to ask other agencies, including Portland,whether they would like to join an expanded agency to increase its influence a,-,d bud; et tow;-d clearin, the r., .iir.��a�r,.rr�n�a7C�TFT�TU\(r�hTInnn"A7 AT-k4 9/5/02 l0 NAL � JO R S COIF Memorandum September 11, 2002 To: Consortium Technical Subcommittee From: Rebecca Geisen and Conservation Committee Subject: 2002 Conservation Survey Report Attached is a draft of the 2002 Conservation Survey Report for your review. As you may recall, the CTC requested more detailed information about conservation programs in the region and what types of programs individual providers were implementing. Last spring we asked all the Consortium members to complete this survey and I am pleased to report that we had a 100% response rate. The report summarizes all the responses received. I welcome and comments or questions you may have. 1001 SW 5" Avenue, Suite 450 • Portland, Oregon 97204 • phone: 503-823-7528 • fax: 503-823-7269 • www.conserveh2o.org City of Beaverton • Clackamas River Water • City of Fairview • City of Forest Grove • City of Gladstone • City of Gresham • City of Hillsboro • City of Lake Oswego Metro • City of Milwaukie • Oak Lodge Water District • City of Portland • Powell Valley Road Water District • Raleigh Water District • Rockwood Water PUD • City of Sandy City of Sherwood•South Fork Water Board•Sunrise Water Authority•City of Tigard•City of Tualatin•Tualatin Valley Water District• West Slope Water District•City of Wilsonville REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM CONSERVATION COMMITTEE REPORT 2002 Conservation Survey Results In the spring of 2002 the Consortium Conservation Committee (CCC) developed and distributed a conservation survey to all Consortium members. The survey was a follow- �p t; s milar"base-line" survey that was ;;onducted by Bill Maddaus and Jack Weber in 1998. Members of the Consortium Board and Conso tiurn Technical Committee ha"- requested aurequested information on regional conservation programs that would result from a survey of this kind. A survey was also timely with the update of the Regional Water Supply Plan and will aid the consultant, Planning and Management Consultants,Ltd. who is completing the conservation evaluation. The survey will also allow the Consortium to see how regional water conservation program implementation and budgeting has changed since 1998. The 2002 survey (Appendix A) has a slightly different focus from the 1998 base-line survey,however some questions were similar so that we could draw some comparisons over time. The 1998 base-line survey focused primarily on 1.) current and historical regional water conservation efforts and 2.) resources and data available for tracking and measuring conservation program effe ti mess. The 2002 survey focused on what programs were currently being implemented by individual providers, excluding regional programs, how much they were spending on programs and staff, what motivates them to do conservation and other related questions. The following is a summary of the results from that survey. All Consortium members (except Metro, who is not a water provider) completed the survey for a total of 22 responses. Newberg's responses were not included. Each entity's response is tabulated in Figure A (except Survey question 4 which is summarized in Table 1). Table 1 summarizes the programs implemented by individual providers. The survey specifically asked them not to include programs being implemented by the Regional Water Providers Consortium. While the survey asked about current programs (2002), dates they were started, and whether they were pilot or permanent, etc, some providers identified past programs. Therefore, the information in Table l reflects some programs that are no longer being implemented. Draft 1 Table 1 Type of Program Currently Past Pilot Permanent Partners Summer Year- with number of providers being program Prog. program program round implementing program implemented program Landscape or lawn 2 2 1 ordinance(residential) -. Voluntary lawn watering 2 1 1 2 3 schedule Distribution of indoor 9 1 1 7 GREAT/ 10 water saving devices PGE/ N WN/ FGPL Installation of indoor 2 5 2 PGE I water saving devices SWEEP Residential indoor water 1 1 audits Residential outdoor 5 2 Sub- water.audits regional ULF toilet rebates 1 3 1 1 SWEEP/ 3 GREAT Washing machine 3 1 3 1 SWEEP 4 rebates PGE Website with 12 12 12 conservation information Participate in Events to 15 15 15 highlight conservation Program for low 3 3 TVWD 3 income/elderly CEP ICI indoor water audits 3 3 3 3 PWB/ 2 3 GREAT Landscape or lawn 0 0 _ordinance(ICI) ICI outdoor water audits 3 �1 3 1 4 Residential outdoor 1 2 2 3 incentive program Large landscape 2 2 N.Clack. 2 irrigation automation Parks Demonstration garden 3 1 Clack. 4 Comm. College Bill inserts,newsletters 16 2 14 14 TV/Radio ads 2 5 1 2 PARC/ 3 WSWP School programs 13 2 1 13 Wolftree 13 SFWB Clack.Co. GREAT—Business program partnership with City of Gresham and funded by DEQ SFWB—South Fork Water Board PARC—Portland Area Radio Council WSWP—West Side Water Providers SWEEP—Save Water and Energy Education Program CEP—Community Energy Project NWN—Northwest Natural Gas PGE—Portland General Electric FGPL—Forest Grove Power and Light Draft 2 Table 3 shows the distribution of programs by County from the 2002 survey. Programs were grouped by type and then compared to the 1998 survey (Table 2) which had similar groupings of programs. The numbers in Tables 2&3 reflect the number of providers that have the type of program listed. The total column represents the total number of providers (and percentage of the total) that participate in a program type. For example, in 1998, 15 providers or 68% of those surveyed had a public education program. Table 2 - 1998 Summary of Conservation Programs by County County Clackamas Multomah Washington Total (Number of Utilities Surveyed) (9) (5) (8) (22) Public Education 6 4 5 15 (68%) Leak Detection&Repair 9 4 - 20 (Y 1%) Conservation Pricing 4 3 3 10 (45%) Fixture Replacement 1 2 2 5 (23%) Incentives&Rebates 2 - - 2 (9%) Restrictions & Ordinances 3 - - 3 (14%) Audits 1 2 3 6 (27%) ' Includes:newsletters,school programs,public relations,brochures,demo gardens, landscape seminars, landscape guidelines,rain gauge distributions,low-income education,media messages,and phone messages. 2 Includes: showerhead kits,plumbing retrofits,and kit distribution. 3 Includes:new construction landscape rebates and incentives for leak repair. 4 Includes:site visits,technical assistance,residential audits,and BIG program. Source: Technical Memorandum No. 1,Maddaus/Weber, 1999. Table 3— 2002 Summary of Conservation Programs by County County Clackamas Multnomah Washington Total Change (No. of Utilities Surveyed) (9) (5) (8) (22) from 1998 Public Education 8 5 6 19 (86%) +18677,, I Leak Detection& Repair N/A N/A N/A Conservation Pricing 5 2 3 10 (45%) No change Fixture Replacement 4 3 5 12 (55%) +32% Incentives&Rebates 2 3 4 9 (41%) +32% Restrictions & Ordinances 2 0 3 5 (22%) +8% Audits 1 3 2 6 (27%) ��Nocange Includes:website,events, low income and elderly programs,demonstration garden,bill inserts, TV/Radio ads,school programs. 2 Includes:Distribution and installation of indoor water saving devices 3 Includes:ULF Toilet Rebate,washing machine rebate,residential outdoor incentive program. °Includes:Landscape or lawn ordinance(residential and ICI)and voluntary lawn watering schedule S Includes: Indoor and outdoor residential and outdoor audits Source:2002 Conservation Program Survey,Regional Water Providers Consortium. Draft 3 It should be noted that the 1998 survey did not have identical respondents as in 2002 (some providers are no longer members of the Consortium) nor did it ask identical questions. Also, regional programs were included in the 1998 survey whereas the 2002 specifically did not include regional programs. Therefore, the comparison between the two surveys is not statistically valid, but it does give a general idea of how programs have changed in the region over time. Target Audience The top three target audiences for conservation programs are residential customers, students (and schools) and Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) customers, in that order. Program Evaluation Seven providers reported measuring the effectiveness of one of their programs. Clackamas River Water reported evaluating their commercial and residential water audit program. Wilsonville did a comprehensive evaluation of the SWEEP program. South Fork Water Board utilizes evaluation forms with their school programs to help evaluate their program. Gresham evaluated their pilot residential landscape and rebate program. Lastly, Portland has evaluated ICI programs and audit programs. Two providers reported using the ConEAST model. Conservation Goals Six providers reported setting conservation goals. The main goal cited is to reduce peak season demand. Other goals include LEED certification, establishing education and outreach program and meet water conservation plan benchmarks, and improving efficiency. Budget and Staffing Of the 22 providers, 17 had dedicated staff working on conservation, two providers had no staff and three did not respond. Of those who had staff, six providers had full time staff for a total of 7.8 FTE working in the region. Eleven providers had part-time staff and three had seasonal staff. Not everyone reported on the FTE for their part-time staff so the total number of combined full and part-time regional FTE could not be determined. Some that reported having full time staff also had part-time staff. Respondents were asked how much they spent on both conservation programs and conservation staff. The results are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Budget for: Programs Staff (#of providers) (#of providers) $0 4(18%) 5(23%) $1410,000 10(45%) 9(41%) $10,000425,000 3(14%) 1(5%) $25,000 - $75,000 4(18%) 5(23%) $75,000 + 1(5%) 2(9%) Most of the providers (over 40%) spend less than $10,000 for programs, same for staff. Draft 4 Motivation for Conserving Water Providers were asked what motivates them to do water conservation. As can be expected, the reasons were varied, but the primary reasons were customer expectations, sense of stewardship, regulations, delay infrastructure improvements, sustainability, extend supply, support RWSP and Portland Wholesale Contract. Program Aggressiveness Providers were asked how their programs had changed over the last four years and if they were more aggressive and why. Ten said their programs have remained at the same level. Three reported that their programs were less aggressive due to budget cuts and lack of clear local and regional goals. Seven stated that their programs were more aggressive. For some this simply meant developing a program that wasn't previously there. In some cases, moj:e money has beer,Luugeted and stall resources dedicated. Some a so reported a change in customer values leading to more conservation and also an interest on behalf of the provider to promote conservation. Conservation Plans and Drought Plans Seven providers have some type of a conservation plan. The primary driver for a plan is a state requirement driven by Oregon Administrative Rule 690, Division 86. Beaverton noted that theirs was driven by ESA requirements for the Barney Reservoir Expansion. Tigard is doing a plan voluntarily. Sixteen providers have a drought response or curtailment plan. Conservation Rate Structure Ten providers reported having a conservation rate structure, predominantly inclining block rates. That means over half of the regions water providers do not have a pricing structure that encourages conservation. Conclusion The majority of programs being implemented by individual providers are education and outreach programs, similar to the regional program's focus. Providers are focusing on events, school programs, bill inserts, give-aways and conservation information on their web pages. Funding for individual provider programs is relatively low, even if you consider the amount paid through dues for regional conservation. Over 40% of the providers spend less than$10,000 for programs and staff. Seventy-four percent of the providers spend less than $10,000 on regional conservation programs through their dues. The survey does show that providers have been working together to implement sub- regional programs and to pilot programs such as audits. The Consortium Conservation Committee continues to be a valuable forum for resource sharing. Draft 5 'Fi lureA uConservation :;urvey_2 002 0- _° a rn U, v: o n ° E o u 0 3 mE m E o c E g U f O U F m m 3 0U ° -, O d t „O u ° _ � - _ = a - kn 0 �i a _ o ° Ln am .0a o � a TL = � _ � u � _ Organizationally,resource Part of a water rights requirement Clackamas Duane 3rd-5th graders,homeowners, Commercial Water Audits, Brochures,informational $1- $1- stewardship@ cust.Request, Less Budget cuts,Less time to by the State. Not been updated Inclining 8 River Karstens gardeners,commercial customers Yes Residential Audits Yes sheets No Yes 0 1 0$10,000 $10,000 educate Aggressive devote io Conservation Yes recently Yes Yes 1 Block Rates general public-Indoor,residential- encourage customers to outdoor,Middle school,Youth Water Conservation give- $1- $1- conserve water.Our program 30 Tualatin Sue Patterson vounteers No Yes away kits No 0 0.05 0$10,000 $10,000 is at an awareness level Same Level _ No Yes No maintain purchase limits from 14 Raleigh I Matt Steidler N/A No No No 0 00 Portland Same Level No No No Annual/Bi-monthly 12 Fairview Bob Cochran None Given No Yes Newsletters No No 0 0 0$0 $0 Water Rights Permit condition Same Level No Yes No $1- $1- Volume 29 Milwaukie Jay Saatkamp redsidential Yes No No Yes 0 0 1 $10,000 $10,000 1 Same Level Yes Yes Yes based billing Reduce peak flow demands; Reduction in demand,delay Jadene Torrent Brochures,water savings maintain unaccounted-for water $1- $1- improvements,educate 10 Newberg Stensiand,PE 1 Residential lNo Yes items Yes rates below 10% Yes 1 0$10,000 $10,000 citizen's Same Level Yes Submitted to OWRD 022002 Yes No l ! Brochures,displays, Lake monthly City wide $1- $1- Reduce peak summer season 15 Oswego Mac MacDonell Residential No Yes newsletter No Yes 0.25 0$10,000 $10,000 demands Same Level No Yes No District has a stronger $1- lsto-'. Benefits of conservation to interest in conservation Inclining 2 Oak Lodge Katherine Willis Residential No Yes Newsletters No Yes 0 1$10,000 society Same Level but shcrt on Personnel No Yes Yes Block Rates Unofficially,reduse summer peak JWC resolution passed during Charlie season multiplier and maintain at $1- $1- Barney reservoir expansion 31 Beaverton Harrison residential No Yes Conservation Materials Yes <2.0 Yes 0 0.5 0$10.000 $10,000 Delay capacity increasing Same Level 1 Yes Project to meet EIS Yes lNo $1- 7 Sandy Mike Walker Residential No No No No 01 01 0$10,000 $o Sustainability Same Level No No No We started EverVOdd watering in the summer of 2001, reduce summer peak,delay stronger matured residential,elementary,middle,and compare to peak brochures,landscape $25.000-$25,000-new infrastructure,better More programs,school&bus. Fall 2002,voluntary not required 16 Tigard I Sara Danz high school students Yes demand Yes I rebate program brochure Yes Reduce summer peak demand Yes 1 0 01$75,000 $75,000 1 management of resource Aggressive Irelationships established Yes I by State Yes JNo Numerous brochures. l Performance Newsletters,Note 1-Evaluate con.as supply 2- Customer expectations,Delay Highly motivated to do Residential,ICI Customers, analysis done by pads,calendar, Investigate 3-Provide ways 4-Seek: $25,000-$75,000 of Capital Imprv.,Peak Moremore conservation Inclining JTVWD Tina Alexander Elementary Schools Yes �ConEast Jack Webber. Yes MultiConservation Kits Yes LEED certif. Yes 11 0.5 0.25$75,000 + Demand reduction Aggressive promotion Yes State Requirement Yes Block Rates Brochures,Sch inverted curriculum,Hdbook,Kits, block for Appliance efficiency contest 96-01 Daily goals system-wide in prior 2002 lack of sufficient Res/different Residential,ICI Customers,Middle Statistical Report,tradked published,doorhgrs, summer.Ap 2002 ended; $10,000 $25,000-supply,now,wise-use More 12-98 approved by OR Water Res. ial for ICI 2 Willsonville Jeff Bauman School Students Yes system-wide use 2 year comp Usage bi-weekly Yes magnets Yes treatment plant on 1 0 $25,000 1$75,000 conscious Aggressive Ladk et supply Yes Dept. Yes Yes cust asked for feedback to see how beneficial brochure,utility insert, Yr 1:establish prg education& Evaluation forms for school programs are for event display outreach-Wtr Mngmt.Plan Bench $10,000-$25,000-Strategic planning,Division 86 More Ramping up(no program 18 South Fork Kimberly Swan residential,Kindergarten-seniors Yes programs Teachers&Stus Yes ipanels,youth ed kits Yes mks Yes 1 0 0$25,000 $75,000 water rights rules Aggressive 14 years ago) No IWII be done 2003 Yes No $1- $1- Inclining 32 Forest Grove Kathy Pace Residetial,Grade schoolers No Yes Bill Stuffers No Yes 0 1 01$10,000 $10,000 Extend supply Same Level Yes Required bu state Yes Yes Block Rates Reducing peak demand,delay prog.didn't exist 4 years Schools(3rd&4th grade), $1- $1- need for additional More ago,change in customer Tiered rate 21 Sunrise Kim Anderson residential,parks,school landscape No Yes newsletters No Yes 0 0 0$10,000 $10,000 infrastructure&supply Aggressive values&expectations No Yes Yes structure Brochure,Billboard, Drought,More staff time, Schools,Residential and Industrial Radio Spots,Newspaper $25,000-$25,000-Reduce Peak,Stop Water More expanded partnerships. One will be done for the JWC this Indining 9 Hillsboro Tacy Steele Customers No Yes Tips,Spanish Brochure No Yes 1 01 2 0$75,000 $75,000 Waste,Good PR Aggressive formation of new dept. No year to fulfill State requirement. No Yes Block Rates Customer Newsletter, Encourage voluntary More staff time and 'Work towards meeting regional Schools,Residential Customers, Classroom Presentations, $10,000-$10,000-conservation,Positive public More interest in developing plan goals as member of 24 Rockwood Chris Shaw Industrial Customers No NA NA Yes Student Fieldtrip,Website No NA Yes 0 1 0$25;000 $25,000 relations Aggressive additional programs No' Consortium Yes No �NA Program Evaluation:ICI pre- Radio,bill stuffers,sery budget cuts of 20-30% Schools,Residential,ICI,call-ins,Ig postchange,res.&Lndsp learning pjL,video,art $75.000 $75,000 Customer&City Council Less over pest 2 years,lost 2 Inclining 221 Portland I Judi Ranton commercial(microtech).HVAC Yes audits,service learn multiple answers Yes books,kits,hndbk,wkshp No Yes 3 4 0+ + expectations Aggressive FTE No Yes IYes Block Rates reducers FTE and presentations,brochures. Reduce summer peak oay program budgets.lack of Keely Students,residential customer.and Regional Landsp.&Rebate articles,Council memos, demand.efficiency in system $25,000 $25,000-support RWSP and PWB's Less dear local and regional Indining 1 Gresham Thompson commercial customers. Yes pilot programs ConEAST model Yes articles,displays Yes management Yes 0. 0.1 $75,000 $75,000 wholesale water contract Aggressive goals No Yes Yes Block Rates 11 Gladstone Ron Partch 0 Annual bill stuffer sent p� 1 $1- $1- Wise use of water by our 17 Powell Val David Gilbey Yes with Spring bills No Yes 1 $10,000 $10,000 customers Same Level No Yes No 26 West Slope Portland council, a suburbs review BuU Run plan "The key issue here is this is a Many questions remain on midpoint check-in to make sure we're going in the right direc- the proposal to form a tion," Knudson said. "This is regional agency sharing clearly not a done deal. We wish we had more answers, but we water and its costs seem to think it indicates this is a By HENRY STERN good thing for Portland and the THE OREGONIAN region'" A plan'to form a regional agen- Meetings today,Thursday cy for the Bull Run drinking water The technical advisory com- will head to Portland City Council mittee is scheduled to meet at and the city s potential suburban i:30 p.m.today in the auditorium partners this fall with key ques- of the Portland Water Bureau, tions remaining for participants 1900 N. Interstate Ave. A policy to sort through for their ratepay- committee of elected officials ers. studying the proposal will meet at That unanswered list includes 7 p.m. Thursday in the council analysis of a regional agency's ef- chambers of Metro, 600 N.E. fect on water costs,how partners Grand Ave., to review and accept would vote on decisions and the the plan. buy-in costs for suburban cities From there, the proposal and water agencies that want,to would go to the 13 participating own part of Portland's Bull Run agencies: the cities of Beaverton, supply. Gresham, Portland, Tigard and The 102-square-mile Bull Run Tualatin; the Powell Valley Water watershed in the Mt. Hood Na- District, Raleigh Water Distric- tional Forest east of Portland has t,Rockwood Water People's Utility been a source of high-quality city District, Sunrise Water Authority, water since 1895. The watershed Tualatin Valley Water District and is owned by Portland,but used by West Slope Water District; Clean water customers throughout the Water Services;and Metro. region. The 13 expect to begin their re- Portland Commissioner Erik views in October and vote indi-. Sten first proposed regional own- vidually by February whether to ership in March 2001,as a way to participate in the third phase of share costs of watershed im- provements in exchange for giv- the study looking at the needed legal agreements, business plan, ing Bull Run water buyers a say in transition plan and transfer of as management. The Water Bureau has since been reassigned to sets. Commissioner Dan,Saltzman. Study costs in this latest phase Saltzman agrees hat several vi- l av- ' lotwc d about $2t�,CC1u, 1 J tal questions remain, but he said Knudson said. The plan recom- �L it's worthwhile to see whether mends a budget for the next r` they can be answered. phase of $500,000 to $800,000. U `We have a tremendous re Knudson said Portland probably source in Bull Run, and part of would pick up a significant hare s this is being a good regional part- of that cost, if the plan goes for- ecause much of the work ner," Saltzman said Friday. "This wouldbcome from the Water Bu- is also.a way to help share future infrastructure costs." reau. Advocates say the issue is time- Under the plan for the Bull Run ly because Portland's wholesale Regional Drinking Water Agency, water supply agreements with 19 only the Bull Run watershed and communities are set to expire be- Columbia South Shore wellfield tween 2004 and 2007. would' be tapped as water sources.Estimates call for a peak- Concerns about costs day supply capacity of 300 million But some members of the Port- gallons a day 70 percent from land Utilities Review Board are Bull Run and 30 percent from the raising red flags' about unan- wellfield. swered cost questions in the plan. ' Critics such as John Wish, a They question the plan's underly- member of the utilities review ing assumptions about future board,say those estimates are too water demand and note that the high given the slowdown in pop- plan estimates $18 million in ex- ulation and economy. penes for the Water Bureau to If each of the participants were repay bonds early as a precondi- to join the proposed agency, the tion of forming a new agency. plan projects that capacity would Their basic worry:that Portland be reached in 2010.A summary of will lose control over a valuable capital improvements designed resource in Bull Run. to increase storage as well as ca- "And at that point,, Portland pacity is pegged at$407 million. ratepayers have lost their voice," Each participant's share of those said Scott Fernandez, utilities re- costs would depend on how 4 view board member. many decide to join. Mark Knudson, water opera- Also to be.detemuned are the tions manager for the Portland value of assets to be contributed Water Bureau,acknowledged that to the agency,which include Bull much work remains. Run, the wellfield and the Wash- The plan says the proposed ington County Supply Line sys- principles of agreement "contain tem. The Washington County unresolved items of a significant supply system is jointly owned by nature. Valuation of contributed the cities of Portland and Tuala- assets and the method of voting tin,the Tualatin Valley Water Dis- are key unresolved issues." trict and Raleigh Water District. The plan also says that no anal- Buy-in calculations range from ysis has been conducted to de- $106 million to$553 million. termine whether creating the Wish said due diligence needs agency will drive up water costs. to be done on those assets. But Knudson,a member of the "As a ratepayer, I don't want advisory committee working on Portland to give away the family the plan, said the proposal pro- jewels,"he sldd. vides a good way for cities ;td water agencies to decide whcther they want to proceed in search of Henry Stern:503-294-5988; answers to those questions. henrystern@news.oregonian.com Appendix A \ONA� 7 �o` � �-F2s co'' Conservation Program Survey Please take a few moments to fill out and return the following questionnaire by April 26, 2002. The information gathered here is needed for the update of the Regional Water Supply Plan and will help guide our future planning efforts and coordination. Agency Name: _ ----------- 2. Water Conservation Contact Person: 3. Person filling out form if different from above: 4. Aside from water conservation programs implemented by the Regional Water Providers Consortium, does your agency have its own Water Conservation Program and if so, what water conservation programs do you currently implement? (NON— RWSP PROGRAMS) Please fill out the matrix below and use the extra rows to add programs not listed. i Type of Program Date Date ended #per year Pilot or Partners- Summer Started or ongoing (i.e. perm. please list or year- rebates) program round? Landscape or lawn ordinance(residential) voluntary lawn watering schedule Distribution of indoor water saving devices Installation of indoor water saving devices Residential indoor water audits Residential outdoor water audits ULF toilet rebates Washing machine rebates Website with conservation information Participate in Events to highlight conservation Program for low income/elderly ICI indoor water audits Landscape or lawn ordinance(ICI) ICI outdoor water audits Residential outdoor incentive program Large landscape irrigation automation Demonstration garden Bill inserts,newsletters TV/Radio ads School progra;;is — -- --- - — —, - --- -- Comments: 5. Who are your primary target audiences? (e.g. 4 graders, residential customers, ICI customers) 6. Has your agency evaluated or measured the effectiveness of any of the conservation programs you have implemented?If so, how and what did you learn? 7. What types of materials have you produced? (e.g. brochures or other media) 8. Has your agency set conservation goals? If so, what are they? 9. Do you have staff designated to work on water,conservation programs? If so how much staff is dedicated to conservation? (e.g. 1 FTE, `/2 FTE) Full time Part time Seasonal 10. What is your budget for water conservation programs and personnel,NOT including dues paid to the Regional Water Providers Consortium? (Note: while leak detection is an important component of any water conservation program, please do not include the costs for your leak detection program in your response.) Program Costs: $0 $1-$10,000 $10,000425,000 $25,000-$75,000 more that $75,000 Personnel Costs: $0 $1-$10,000 $10,000425,000 $25,000-75,000 more than $75,000 11. What is your main motivation for doing water conservation? 12. How has your program changed over the last four years? Would you consider it to be more or less aggressive than it was four years ago? Why? 13. Does your agency have a Conservation Plan? (If yes, was it done as a requirement by the State, or for other reasons?) 14. Does your agency have a drought response or curtailment plan? 15. Does your agency use a conservation rate structure? If so, what kind (e.g. inclining rate structure, seascrnai rates) Please return completed forms by Friday, April 26, 2002 to: Rebecca Geisen Portland Water Bureau 1001 SW 5`h Ave. Suite 450 Portland, OR 97204 (503)823-7493 FAX(503) 823-7269 E-mail: rgeisen@water.ci.portland.or.us City of Tigard's Longer Term Water Supply Options Work Timeline .................. .......... .......... X ............. ... .. ............ Xx, .. ............ .......... ........... 09/26/02 PSC Meeting Final booklet is presented regarding Bull Run Drinking Water Dennis&Sally Agency Proposal ...................................X.. ........................ ................... ........ ......... . ............ ...... ............ ................... .... ........ 10/01/02 Prep for 10-15-02 Council Meeting Materials that are to be included in the packet for the Oct. 15 Council Meeting are due by noon. ........... ..... ........... ...... X: . ..... ... .......... -X ............. ............ ..... xx X..... ...... ....... ..........: .... ........... ......................... ........................... ..... .... ..... . .... .... .......... ...............X� .................... .. ............ .......................... .... ..... ..............................----....... ... I 10/15/02 IWB&Council Workshop Present proposal to IWB and Council-discuss governance Ed and engineering topics ------------ ........... X X ........................ ........... .......... ......... ............. ... ....... . . . . . .... x :::............ .................... 11/05/02 Prep for 11-19-02 Council Meeting Materials that are to be included in the packet for the Oct. 15 Council Meeting are due by noon. x.;. .... ....... ........... ... . ... .... .. ... ............... ...................... ............................ . . . ...... .... .......... X .........................-, . . .... ........ .. . ........................ .. 12/05/02 CIT 20 min. presentation of what has been presented to the IWB & Sally Council regarding Tigard's long term water supply options COMMENTS/NOTES: City of Tigard's Longer Term Water Supply Options Work Timeline ..... .......... .... ......... xxxx N. ................ ... ................. xx .... .... . ................. . ........ ...... ............%....... .... ...... 0..... .... . .. ........ X .................. .. ...... ......X...... 0.1.1 -""%%-. :- - .. .. ... . . . ...... . ........:........ .. .............. ... . ............... .......... ........... ................... . .. .... . 01/05/03 CityScape Articles for Februarys CityScape issue are due .... ............ ........X ................ ..... ... .......... .. ............. . . . .. ........ . ................ ........ .......... ........... X .......... .............. ....... ....... ............. ... . ... . .... . X .. ... .... .. .. ......... .......................... ............. . . . . ...................... ................ .. x .. . ..... . ........ ........... ..... ..... 02/06/03 CIT 20 min. presentation of what has been presented to the IWB& Sally Council regarding Tigard's long term water supply options .. ................... ............. ........... ........................ ............. .......... ff�m ................. ..... ......... ... ............... ..... .......... .......... .. ... . . .. .......... . .... .......... ..... .............. ............. ..... .......... .... - ------------------ ------------ 02/19/03 IWB Meeting IWB makes its final recommendation to City Council regarding Ed & Dennis Tigard's long term water supply options .... . ... .... .%....... X.. ...... ...... ... ... .... .... . .. . ......... .......... 03/31/03 DEADLINE COMMENTS/NOTES: Upon receipt of the 2003 City Council Packet deadlines, Sally M. will included them in this timeline. Sign-in Sheet for Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting October 15, 2002 Nme (Please Print) Would you like to speak to the Board? Z:7-