Loading...
City Council Packet - 04/13/1999 CffY F 11GARD OREGON TIGARC CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 13,1999 COUNCIL MEETING ILL E TELEVISED I:WDMUESSICA%CCPKTI.DOC 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 • V ,r•ti ~C/ ~@YS I 1 7YV CITE` OF TIGARD 4 PUBLIC NOTICE: Anyone wishing to speak en an agenda item should sign on the appropriate sign-up sheet(s). If no sheet is available, ask to be recognized by the (Mayor at the beginning of that agenda item. Visitor°s Agenda items are asked to be two minutes or less. Longer matters can be set for a future Agenda by contacting either the Mayor or the City Manager. 'limes noted are estimated: it is recommended that persons interested in testifying be present by 7:15 p.m. to sign in on the testimony sign-in sheet. Business agenda items can be heard in any order after 7:30 ®.m. Assistive Listening Devices are available for persons with impaired hearing and should be scheduled for Council meetings by noon on the (Monday prior to the Council meeting. Please call 639-4171, Ext. 309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). Upon request, the City will also endeavor to arrange for the following services: • Qualified sign language interpreters for persons with speech or hearing impairments,- and • Qualified bilingual interpreters. Since these services must be scheduled with outside service providers, it is important to allow as much lead time as possible. Please notify the City of your need by 5 p.m. on the Thursday preceding the meeting date at the same phone numbers as listed above: 639-4171, x309 (voice) or 684-2772 (TDD► - Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf). SEE ATTACHED AGENDA COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 13,1999 - PAGE 1 r' TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA APRIL 13, 1999 MIX 6:30 PM • STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), e[ (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any Information discussed during this session. 7:00 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council ex Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:05 PM 2. VISITORS AGENDA 7:15 PM 3. CITY OF TIGARD PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL VOLUNTEER MONTH • Administration Department COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 13,1999 - PAGE 2 I It 111 111 11111 1 11 Il 11 !!1 1 11 4 7:20 PM 4. CONSENT AGENDA: 'T'hese items are considered to be routine and may be enacted In one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 4.1 Approve City Council Minutes - February 23, 1999. 4.2 Receive and File: a) Tentative Agenda b) Council Calendar c) Solid Waste Annual Reports for 1998 Memorandum from Finance Director Lowry 4.3 Approve Correction to January 26, 1999, Council Meeting Minutes 4.4 Local Contract Review Board: a. Amend Professional Engineering Services Consultant Contract for Improvements in the 691 Avenue Local Improvement District b. Approve Engineering Services Contract with DIGS Associates for Completion of Transportation System Plan Update Study 4.5 Initiate Vacation Proceedings - Approximately 9,076 Square-Feet of Public Right of Way on SW Ross Street, East f Nall Boulevard Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99U. Consent Agenda - Stems Removed for Separate ®isccrssion. Agy items requested to he removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion wiff he considered immediate/y after the Coime/ has voters on those Items which do not need discossion. 7:25 PM S. PUBLIC HEARING: SOURCE OF LONG-TERM WATER SUPPLY a. Open Public hearing b. Staff Introduction Public Works Department C. Public Testimony Council will hear public testimony from individuals and groups. Please sign rep on the testimony sign-in sheet provided at the back of { the Town Hall Room. Each individual will be allowed 3 minutes for public testimony. Groups, which have prearranged with the Public { Works Director to speak at this hearing, will be allowed 15 minutes per group for testimony. d. Council will deliberate toward a decision at the April 27, 1999, City s Council meeting. In order to give the Council time to review testimony, the deadline for receipt of written public testimony for the Council's consideration is April 15, 1999, 5 p.ra. COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 13,1999. PAGE 3 r' 9:25 PM 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - 1351 "ENUE DETOUR EASEMENT VACATION - The purpose of the hearing is to consider the proposed vacation of an approximately 28,645 square-foot portion of SW 1351 Avenue, south of the Summer Creek Apartments. The request was filed with the City on December 4, 1998 and initiated by the City Council at the request of the applicant on February 23, 1999. Any interested person may appear and be heard for or against the proposed vacation of said 1351 Avenue detour easement vacation. Any written objections or remonstrances shall be filed with the City Recorder by 7:30 p.m. on April 13, 1999. a. Open Public clearing b. Declarations or Challenges C. Staff Report: Community Development Department d. Public Testimony: Proponents, Opponents, Rebuttal e. Staff Recomendation f. Council Questions g. Close Public Hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99-~. COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 13,1999 - PAGE 4 9:3s PM 7. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER TO APRIL 20, 1999 - (COUNCIL CALL-UP) - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (SUB 98- 0009/PDR 98-0010/VAR 98-0010) The reauest s to bulla a 58-lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41-icre site. This site also involves a request for a Variance to the maximum street grade. LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 109th, north of the Summerfield Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodview subdivision and Marion Estates subdivisions. WCTiM 2S110DA, Tax Lots 00100, 00200 and 00500. ZONES: Sine-Family Residential (10,000 Squae Feet); R- 3.5. The purpose of the R-3.5 zoning district is to establish large urban residential home sites. Planned Development; PD. The pu oses of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a means for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community development which will result in a superior living arranglament; to facilitate the efficient use of land; and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and amenities through_ the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type and design of a velo development to a articular site, among other purposes. APPLICABLE RENEW CRITERIA: Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.48, 18. 9 8.834, 18.88 8, 18 92 0 18.91 x.16 .100, 18.1020 18.106, 18.108, v Continue Consideration of Final Order to April 20, 1999 9:35 PM 8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 9:50 PM 9. NOW AGENDA ITEMS 10:05 PM 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), ex (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed. to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. 10:20 PM 11. ADJOURNMENT 1AADM\CATHY\CCA\990413. D0C COUNCIL AGENDA - APRIL 13,1999 - PAGE 5 MINES Jill Sim 11111111M ~i Agenda Item No. 3. T'IGARD CITY COUNCIL Meeting of 5. a5 -~9 MEETING MINUTES APRIL 13, 1999 • STUDY SESSION > Meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Mayor Jim Nicoli > Council Present: Mayor Jim Nicoli, Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla. > Staff Present: City Manager Bill Monahan; Public Works Director Ed Wegner; Asst. to the City Manager Liz Newton; Legal Counsel Jim Coleman; City Recorder Catherine Wheatley; Community Development Director Jim Hendryx; Legal - Counsel Jim Coleman; > AGENDA REVIEW Bill Monahan, City Manager, reviewed the procedures for the public hearing on water. He mentioned that the three mayors would like to speak early because of time constraints. He stated that Channel 2 informed staff that its crew would film tonight's meeting at some point. Liz Newton, Assistant to the City Manager, advised the Council that Channel 2 has asked if the City would participate in their Town Hall program discussing drinking water. She said that she told them that the City had its volunteer dinner on April 22, the original shooting date, and the station indicated that it could shoot the show on April 21. The Council agreed that Tigard representatives should participate on April 21. > EXECUTIVE SESSION The Tigard City Council went into Executive Session at 6:36 p.m. under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), (f) & (h)to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, records exempt from public discussion, current and pending litigation issues. > Executive Session adjourned to Study Session at 6:55 p.m. Mr. Monahan reviewed several administrative items, including the Mayors' Prayer Breakfast scheduled for Thursday, May 6, the First Nighter's Banquet scheduled for April 30, the revised agenda showing the detour easement hearing, the additional testimony received today for the water hearing, a revised list of when the TVCA program on water was scheduled for airing, and the first page of the Cityscape. > Mayor Nicoli adjourned the study session at 6:59 p.m. 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board Mayor Jim Nicoli called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 1.2 Roll Call Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 1 were present. A 9 A A- .-Y 4.1ouncii Communications Mayor Nicoli asked the Council to set aside time at the workshop next week for his remarks about recycled water and conservation. He advised 1he..-Council that he learned at the WCCC meeting last week that there would not be the extra money for extra projects that they had hoped to have. He said that, unless Metro or Portland decided to give back some of the mass transit money, there would only be enough for the projects at the city level already committed or on line. Councilor Moore asked for time at the workshop meeting to discuss the upcoming Transportation Task Force and the issues Council wanted it to cover. 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items Mr. Monahan announced that the applicant has requested continuation of the final order for the Erickson Heights subdivision (Item 7) to next Tuesday at 8:30 p.m. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA o Walt Hitchcock, Mayor of Sherwood, pointed out that the decision Tigard made with regard to a future water supply affected all the cities in the southern end of Washington County. He emphasized that, while each city would do its due diligence in analyzing the proposals, they would rely heavily on Tigard's decision. He observed that, given the economics of water, it took all of the cities together to make this happen. Mayor Hitchcock reviewed five basic criteria for selecting a water source: water quality, provision of a sufficient quantity of water at a reasonable price, system reliability, enhancement of system reliability for the regional water system, and feasibility. He defined `feasibility' as not requiring a number of extraordinary improvements or approvals in order to accomplish provision of water. He said that, while he has not studied the issue in depth, he understood that the Willamette River would fulfill these objectives. Mayo: Hitchcock encouraged the Council to feel free to make its decision, unconstrained by the comments of vocal people with differing opinions. He said that they had great confidence in Tigard's process in evaluating the options, in Tigard's staff and consultants, and in the Council's decision making ability. He reiterated that the Council's decision would weigh heavily on Sherwood's decision. e Rob Drake, Mayor of Beaverton, PO Box 4755, read from a prepared statement. He mentioned the outstanding working relationship between the cities of Beaverton and Tigard, and Tigard's excellent staff which represented Tigard's interests in a professional manner around the region. He noted that he served as Bcaverton's representative to the Regional Water Consortium Board and to the Joint Water Commission (a water source partnership and owners group made up of the Cities of Hillsboro, Forest Grove, and Beaverton and the Tualatin Valley Water District). He mentioned that he was also the chair of the Regional Emergency Management Group, a group of local elected officials who advised Metro and area emergency managers on policy issues related to disaster preparedness and recovery process. Mayor Drake asked the Council to consider that the current Bull Run and Clackamas River watersheds were both located in close proximity to Mt. Hood and subject to compromise in the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 2 11=0 11100M 1=0111111111 _1111IM1110i Mill event of a volcanic eruption. He pointed out that the failure of these two sources left only the Joint Water Commission source in the Coast Range as the major source for water in the region. He commented that the Willamette River was the logical water source and alternative for Tigard and surrounding communities. He said that he made no arguments for or against the Willamette River option but he did ask the Council to recognize that an alternative to the potentially vulnerable Bull Run and Clackamas River should be found. Mayor Drake told the Tigard community that he believed that they could have confidence in Tigard's Mayor, City Council, and the Tualatin Valley Water District to make the right, informed choice. He cited the years of qualified study of the issue and the numerous task forces and hearings. o Lou Ogden, Mayor of Tualatin, commented that the testimony from the two previous mayors summed up the general perspective of the region. He said that Tualatin's situation was unique because they bought into the Washington County Supply Line when it was built, thus gaining access to and ownership of a direct line from the Bull Run reservoir. He noted that their contract with Portland expired in 2003, and while they believed that they could re-negotiate the contract to get the 10 mgd their community currently needed, they anticipated needing 14 mgd at build-out. He said that, with the knowledge that they did not have enough water for the long term, they have participated in the Willamette Water Supply Agency (WWSA) and in the Regional Water Consortium. Mayor Odgen stated that Tualatin was vitally interested in Tigard's decision because it did affect other communities. He indicated that Tualatin would seriously consider a partnership with Tigard, if the Council chose the Willamette River option, because the line would come right through Tualatin. He commented that this was the time to size the line to meet Tualatin's future needs. He explained that, since the Washington County Supply Line would supply Washington County's needs for the long term, they knew that this time they would face the enormous cost of building another transmission line to Tualatin from the Powell Butte reservoir alone. Mayor Ogden said that they believed that it was in tharegion's best interest to consider seriously the Willamette River as a supply. He commented that the financial impacts of the Willamette option compared to the Bull Run option were obvious. He concurred with Mayor Hitchcock, that while he has not studied the issue in depth, he did trust the work that the Tigard Council has done. He pointed out that, while Tigard's decision did not guarantee which decision Tualatin would make (because this was a public process), it would have a significant influence. He said that Tualatin would do its due diligence to make sure that all aspects, including water quality, were investigated thoroughly and properly communicated. He indicated that he did believe that Tigard's study has already done so. Mayor Ogden pointed out that, as any elected official knew, getting 51 % of the people to agree with the Council was a good thing. He commented that there were always split factions and people with different opinions but, at some point in time, the Council had to take the leadership and make decisions in what it believed was the best interests of the community. He said that the taxpayers had a right and responsibility to inform the Council of their concerns and the Council had a responsibility to address those concerns to the best of its ability. He stated that he believed that the long term relationship between Tigard, the region and the other cities could be continued. He remarked that they looked forward to the solution that Tigard found. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 3 -MM a F 3. CITY OF TIGARD PROCLAMATION IN RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL VOLUNTEER MONTH Mr. Monahan noted that April was National Volunteer Month. He said that the City would recognize its volunteers at the Volunteer Recognition Banquet on Thursday, April 22, and the Library would hold its Annual Volunteer Recognition on Tuesday, April 20 at 10:00 a.m. 4. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Scheckla, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla voted "yes.") 4.1 Approve Council Minutes of. February 23,1999 4.2 Receive and File: a. Tentative Agenda b. Council Calendar c. Solid Waste Annual Reports for 1998 Memorandum from Finance Director Lowry 4.3 Approve Correction to January 26,1999, Council Meeting Minutes 4.4 Local Contract Review Board a. Amend Professional Engineering Services Consultant Contract for Improvements in the 69`h Avenue Local Improvement District b. Approve Engineering Services Contract with DKS Association for Completion of Transportation System Plan Update Study 4.5 Initiate Vacation Proceedings - Approximately 9,076 square-Feet of Public Right of Way on SW Ross Street, East of Hall Boulevard. Council Consideration: Resolution No. 99-23 5. PUBLIC HEARING - SOURCE OF LONG TERM WATER SUPPLY Mayor Nicoli reviewed the hearing procedures and testimony time limits. Mr. Monahan explained the timing process and clock. Mayor Nicoli asked the audience to remain civil when someone with a different opinion was speaking and to go outside to the hall if they wished to talk among themselves. a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. m Hillary Abraham, Oregon Environmental Council, distributed handouts. She mentioned the objectives of her organization to protect and preserve Oregon's environment both now and for future generations. She said that the listing of threatened and endangered native fish populations and other water quality indicators recently focused the OEC's work on the Willamette River. She stated that her organization has consistently opposed using the Willamette River as a potential drinking water source because they did not believe that enough clear information about the river's water quality existed to insure its safety as ? drinking water source. She mentioned other reasons of public policy and water resource management. Ms. Abraham pointed out that the Willamette River valley, while comprising only 12% of the state's land, contained 70% of the state's population. She commented that, in addition to serving as a recreational playground and home to the native fish, the river has become a CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 4 dumping ground for billions of gallons of pollution each year. She stated that she believed the Council's charge was to give careful consideration to the issue of tapping the river as a drinking water source. Ms. Abraham stated that only eight of the 48 pesticides identified in the 1997 USGS survey of the Willamette basin currently had drinking water standards. She mentioned that, although Portland was attempting to address the problem of a combined sewer overflow into the river, the problem was so bad that the state legislature has drafted legislation to address it. She said that native fish often served as an indicator species, and that the recent listing of endangered species in the Willamette spoke significantly to the overall health of the basin. She held that all these factors, including the deformed fish found in the Newberg Pool, called into question the reliability of the Willamette River as a drinking water source. Ms. Abraham asked how the proponents of the Willamette option could be certain that the river's water met the drinking water standard. She referenced the amount of new information developed daily at the state and federal levels regarding the relationship between toxic substances and human health. She spoke to finding out first what that relationship was before developing a strategy to clean up the Willamette River. Ms. Abraham spoke to the implications that Tigard's decision would have for the region's commitment to water conservation. She mentioned the 1996 Regional Water Supply Plan intended to identify potential water supply sources to address increases in demand. She noted that the plan had numerous economic and sound water management benefits for the participating communities as well as a commitment to water conservation (calling for an 18.6 mgd reduction in consumption over the next 50 years). She speculated that the region providers included water conservation in the plan because they saw the efficient use of water as a value to the region's future water supply scenarios. She argued that creating a large new supply could undermine any incentive to meet the conservation goals. Ms. Abraham stated that there were a growing number of Tigard residents opposed to drinking Willamette River water who were so concerned that they have filed a ballot initiate to secure its defeat. She urged the Council to weigh these concerns in its final decision. Mayor Nicoli mentioned that previously the OEC indicated its aggressive opposition to any changes in the Bull Run system. He asked if it was a fair interpretation to say that the OEC did not want Tigard to go to the Bull Run and it did not want Tigard to go to the Willamette River. Ms. Abraham said that, at the time that the OEC stated that position, the options on the table appeared to be building a third dam or the Willamette River option. She said that they remained opposed to building a third dam but Commissioner Sten and the Portland Water Bureau have now spoken of raising the height of the existing dam and filtering the water as a way to temporarily address the long term water supply needs for the region. Mayor Nicoli pointed out that the Portland system did not consist solely of Bull Run water. He explained that 20% of the Portland water in the summertime came from the Columbia South Shore well fields (which had contamination problems). He asked why the OEC did not address the issue of the contamination of the well fields at the same time as speaking to the potential problems in the Willamette River. Ms. Abraham said that she agreed that it was important to took at both issues. She explained that Portland could safely remove 92 mgd from the well fields during the summer without much risk of contamination. She spoke to using conservation to offset the well field supply. She agreed that it was important to recognize that they should not rely on the well fields anymore than necessary because of the contamination. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 5 Mayor Nicoli mentioned that that was also assuming that the federal government would allow the Bull Run system to be enlarged. He pointed out that if the Bull Run system could not be enlarged, then the well fields were Portland's only other source of water. Ms. Abraham agreed. Mary Driscoll, 16235 SW Copper Creek Drive, noted the information from the City that the Willamette River water would be EPA approved. She expressed concern that they still did not know what chemicals and contaminants could cause health problems and birth defects in the future, citing the prior EPA reversal on DDT as a safe chemical. She said that, as technology improved, additional health risks became evident. She mentioned her experience with the water in Los Angeles while visiting her brother. She described it as EPA approved with stuff floating in it, and therefore everyone drank bottled water. Ms. Driscoll said that she found the idea of drinking Willamette River water as stressful, and hoped that it turned out not to be a viable option. She stated that she would not expand her business to Tigard if it opted for Willamette River water. She held that health should not take a secondary position to a less expensive water source. She said that she would gladly pay two to three times more for a healthy water source that would not cause health problems for her family. o Judith Anderson, 16640 SW Jordan Way, King City, commented that, as a professional public administrator, she was very impressed with Tigard's level of citizen participation. She stated that she had started out favoring the Portland water source. She explained that, as she came to understand the issue, she saw that it was more complicated than simply water quality, that it also involved availability and cost. She stated that, after serious consideration and attendance at meetings, she now favored the Willamette River option. Ms. Anderson spoke to the importance of having water available, pointing out if they had no water at all, water quality meant nothing. She commented that, as a recently retired public administrator, she found it bordering on recklessness to select Portland, an option that provided only surplus water and held a vulnerable position with regard to natural disasters. She spoke to the ability of the current state-of-the-art filtration system proposed for the Willamette River to achieve acceptable drinking water standards. She noted that the cost of the Willamette River option was considerably lower to future generations. She stated that she felt strongly about the responsibilities of the citizens today not to pass on costs to future generations. Roberta Swearingen, 11040 SW Cottonwood Lane, said that she has lived in Tigard for over 20 years. She stated that, although she did not want to leave Tigard, she could not live with the risk that drinking Willamette River water posed to herself and her family. She held that there were too many unknowns and not enough independent testing of the river. She said that the Bull Run was a proven water source used for years with no known health risks. She questioned taking a chance on an unproven source.. She held that most of the citizens in Tigard did not want to drink Willamette River water. She asked the Council to listen to the people who elected them. Gaby Gardener, 12021 SW 113`n Avenue, described her use of :eater during the day. She questioned giving up a good quality of water. She asked the Council to exhaust every resource to find some way to keep the good water they had and not use the Willamette River water. She said that she did not care what it cost, she did not want to drink Willamette River water. She said that if it made Tigard citizens and the people in the surrounding areas pay more taxes, that was fine; the cost of keeping good water did not matter. o Councilor Patrick Carroll, City of Durham, Intergovernmental Water Board member, said that the Durham City Council's discussion focused on three main points: affordability, a water CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES -APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 6 0111111IM11101 1111011 milli supply that they could control, and water quality. He noted that the choice of availability and cost were clearly in favor of the Willamette River. He said that the Council discussed the issue of water quality at great length. He reported that the Council voted 4 to 1 to support the Willamette River project because they wanted the ability to control their own destiny and not be beholden to Portland for their water supply. • John Helzer, 3305 Countryview Drive, President of the Wilsonville City Council, thanked Mayor Nicoli and the Council for selecting him as a member of the Tigard Water Advisory Task Force. He said that he spent well over 20 hours reviewing all the materials. He expressed his appreciation for the professionalism, expertise, and amount of effort put forth by the Task Force. He stated that he supported the Task Force's recommendation. He mentioned that they would start the public process in Wilsonville next month. He invited a Tigard City Councilor to participate in their process. He noted that Tigard's decision would impact Wilsonville's decision. Mayor Nicoli thanked Mr. Helzer for his service on the Task Force. He said that Tigard would participate as invited. • Ken Dickey, 145645 SW McFarland, said that he was a 14-year resident of Tigard. He mentioned his concerns about the health and litigation liability (which meant tax liability) and declining property values of a tainted Tigard water source. He held that, while the overall classification of water quality in the Willamette River basin was moderate, that classification degraded from fair to poor by the time the river reached Wilsonville. He said that, depending on the study consulted, between 1.5 million to 4.5 million pounds of effluent entered the Willamette River. Mr. Dickey argued that, with the weak reporting rules and the high expense of testing water for chemicals, they had no continuous quality sampling system in place. He held that, as development in industrial production increased, chemical spills would become more frequent. He argued that, given the thousands of chemicals introduced each year, he knew of no filtration system that would give them a high probability of filtering out everything coming down the river. He speculated that they tested for less than I% of the chemicals actually in the river. Mr. Dickey noted that the Willamette River was number 20 in the top 50 list of the most polluted rivers in the country. He mentioned the designation of a six-mile stretch of the Willamette in Portland as a superfund toxic clean up site. He commented that, although the intake valve would be located above that clean up site, he thought that it would take a lot of expensive testing to convince Tigard residents that the Willamette River water could be treated. He held that it was likely that toxic chemicals would pass through the proposed filtration system at some point in time, leading to litigation and health liability claims. He argued that such actions impacted him directly in tax liability and declining property values. He contended that these hidden costs made the Willamette River option too expensive to be considered. Frank Gearhart, PO Box 3426, Gresham, mentioned his written statement submitted previously. He held that the battle lines of the millennia-old water debate, recently drawn between the pristine Bull Run watershed and the highly polluted and contaminated Willamette River, have divided the community. He asked what the purposes of the consultants' studies were. He asserted that the rational approach to deciding how and where to get the purest and least costly drinking water for the community should be at the ballot box. He spoke to letting the people vote. Debbie Kneeland, 9690 SW Lewis Lane, commented that, in her discussions with neighbors CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 7 and friends in Tigard, she has found that most people had no idea what was going on with regard to the water issues. She said that the majority of those she spoke to favored going with the Bull Run regardless of the cost. She said that she was not convinced that the Willamette River was a safe source and would rather take her chances with the Bull Run, even though it cost more. She said that she would like to vote on the water source. o Warren Giljillen, 7420 SW Lakeside, Wilsonville, mentioned his background in environmental education and his interest in hunting and fishing. He commented that he found it hard to believe that the situation with the Willamette, a river system feeding from one of the most pristine areas in the country, paralleled the situation with rivers such as the Mississippi, the Ohio, and the Missouri. He argued that cities drawing their drinking water from those rivers was evidence of the existence of the scientific technology necessary to purify water of any quality to acceptable drinking water standards. Mr. Giljillen contended that they might be getting upset over a problem that did not exist, as he saw no reason why they could not solve the technical problems in this area with far less industrial waste than the cities back east. He pointed out that this was a high rainfall area with a good annual snow pack. He reiterated that the technical people should be able to solve any problems in treating the water to meet the drinking standards. o Kevin Hanway, Willamette Water Supply Agency Executive Director, explained that the WWSA was an intergovernmental group consisting of seven water agencies that were coordinating on long term water supplies and water quality. He submitted written testimony on why Tigard should select the proposed Willamette River water treatment plant as its long term water supply. Mr. Hanway observed that the testimony heard by the Council tonight and at other meetings demonstrated that there was a lot of emotion attached to the decision on the water supply source. He said that he wanted to reassure the audience and the Council that the first consideration they had, as water treatment professionals and utility professionals selecting a water supply source, was whether or not the water would be save for the public to drink. He said that, as water treatment professionals, they were entrusted with the public's health, and they took that charge very seriously. Mr. Hanway stated that they had the highest confidence, based on their extensive research and research done by others, that the tap water from the proposed Willamette River treatment plant Mal would be of the highest quality and would provide safer water than any other source in the region for the time being. He emphasized that if they did not firmly believe that, they would not be making this proposal. He pointed out that most of the staff working on this proposal lived in Tigard and Wilsonville and therefore had a personal interest in assuring their own families that the water was safe to drink. Mr. Hanway commented that many members of the Task Force who came in favoring the Portland system reviewed the technical information presented in the WWSA report and changed their minds. He asserted that nearly every citizen who has looked at the research they have done has come to the same conclusion as the WWSA staff. the Willamette River would provide an equal quality of water. Mr. Hanway stated that an extensive study of the river and available treatment methods preceded the decision by WWSA to propose a treatment plant on the Willamette River. He said that the Tualatin Valley Water District conducted a 28 month study on the river water quality from 1994-1996, including testing during the extremes of the low flow event in 1994 and the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 8 two flood events in 1996. He said that the sampling program resumed last summer and they expected to continue it indefinitely in order to maintain a good picture of the river's water quality. Mr. Hanway said that WWSA expanded the USGS study list to test for over 250 contaminants and characteristics based on anything that the USGS found anywhere in the Willamette basin, not simply things found near Wilsonville. He mentioned that the USGS conducted and assembled an extensive collection of research on the Willamette River water quality with results covering the entire basin from the headwaters to the Columbia, including the Newberg pool area near Wilsonville. He stated that the conclusions of the USGS report did not condemn the river as a polluted sewer but instead announced that the water quality throughout the basin was typical of other river basins studied in the country. Mr. Hanway pointed out that greater concentrations of contaminants were found in the tributaries (which had less water and a greater impact from agricultural, forest, and urban runoff) than were found in the main stem of the river. He said that, with the increased flow and dilution effects in the main stem, the water quality improved and the level of concentration of the contaminants substantially dropped. Mr. Hanway said that the 1994 - 1996 Tualatin Valley Water District studies (which the WWSA study resumed in 1998) and the USGS studies all found that the level of organisms, metals, and sediment in the area near Wilsonville (where the treatment plant would be located) was similar to what was found in the Clackamas River, the Tualatin River and the Bull Run. In addition, each study found occasional traces of chemical contaminants well below the maximum levels permitted in tap water under federal drinking water standards. He reiterated that these tests looked for any type of contaminants that would be present in the river from any kind of upstream discharge or runoff. He emphasized that they found that the level of contaminants in the raw water was so low that the raw water complied with the drinking water standards. Mr. Hanway reviewed the results of the Tualatin Valley Water District's seven-month pilot treatment plant study near the Wilsonville site, a study coordinated with the Oregon Health Division for review. He said that the consultant who conducted the test and the Oregon Health Division both concluded that tap water from a conventional water treatment plant (using chlorine and a sand filter) would meet all applicable safe drinking water standards. He mentioned that the pilot plant also tested ozone instead of chlorine for a disinfectant and granular activated carbon (GAC) in place of sand as a filtration medium. He stated that tap water quality improved with each change, and they proposed the second method for this treatment plant. 4 Mr. Hanway explained that, although these tests told WWSA more about the river and the tap n water than most agencies knew about their current operations, WWSA also sent samples out for N endocrine disruption testing. He said that the tests were led by the former head of the Center for the Study of Environmental Endocrine Effects and performed at the National Food Safety and Toxicology Labs at the University of Michigan. He commented that, although research in numerous locations on endocrine disruption theory has been unable to detect or document any human health effects from these chemicals, the fear of those effects remained. Mr. Hanway reviewed the specifics of the tests, noting that they found no endocrine disrupting activities. He mentioned that Dr. Wilson (who presented the results of the tests to the Council) had concluded that the water posed no threat of endocrine disrupting activity. He noted that Dr. Wilson also said that he would have no qualms about having his pregnant daughter drink tap water from the Willamette River treatment plant. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 9 - -W Ill. 11111 111MINE Mr. Hanway commented that there was the perception that the Willamette River was one of the most polluted rivers in the country. He agreed with Mr. Giljillen that, in comparison to the rivers in the Mississippi basin, the Willamette River was at a higher level of quality. Mr. Hanway said that the USGS report stated that the Willamette River was very degraded in terms of fish habitat. He pointed out that fish habitat meant poorly vegetated stream banks subject to erosion, too high a water temperature, and a high concentration of non-native fish throughout the basin. He argued that none of those criteria affected human health in and of themselves nor after treatment. Mr. Hanway mentioned the concern people have raised regarding the deformed fish. He said that the DEQ studies conducted throughout the river basin found a larger proportion of squaw fish in the Newberg Pool with skeletal and other deformities. He stated that if there was a contaminant in the river causing those deformities, then the WWSA members along with everyone else wanted to be sure that the plant would remove that contaminant. He emphasized that no one yet knew the cause of those deformities, and therefore, WWSA's approach included treatment plant methods to address whatever might be in the river. Mr. Hanway reviewed the three elements in the river that could cause a human health hazard: living organisms, something suspended in the water (or something attached to sediment) or something dissolved in the water. He stated that the proposed treatment plant would remove each and every one of those contaminants before the water got to the customer. He referenced the specifics of the four step treatment method, including removal of sediment, use of ozone to disinfect and kill the living organisms, and use of a granular activated carbon filter to remove contaminants to produce very pure tap water. Mr. Hanway referenced WWSA's tests of a GAC filter which demonstrated that 99.99% of a chemical spill in the river would be removed. He mentioned the GAC filter tests conducted by the City of Tampa, Florida, which demonstrated that potential endocrine disrupters were also removed by the filter. Mr. Hanway stated that WWSA vigorously objected to the notion that the Safe Drinking Water Act standards were inadequate. He mentioned that every professional in water treatment in public health who has reviewed WWSA's research has concluded that tap water from the Willamette River treatment plant would be the safest in the region. He said that these professionals included WWSA's consultant team of engineers and scientists (recognized experts in the field) and the Portland Water bureau staff. Mr. Hanway said that Dr. Richard Plant, the former chief engineer for Portland, conducted an independent review of the studies for the Water Advisory Task Force. He pointed out that the Portland staff had no incentive to deceive Tigard residents or their own customers when they said that the Willamette plant water would be safer than water from the Portland system until Portland built its own filtration plant in 20 years. Mr. Hanway reiterated that they understood the people's concerns about water quality. He said that WWSA saw water quality as its prime concern. He reiterated that they were entrusted with the public health and would not be here tonight if they did not firmly believe that this would be the safest water to drink. He cor mented that, once they got nay' 01e water quality issue, it was reasonable to look at cost and reliability and to conclude that the. . villamette was the best way to go. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 10 mill o Jan Drangsholt, Mayor of King City, commented that King City's partnership in the intergovernmental water agreement required them to vote at the Intergovernmental Water Board on any long term capital expenditure by the Tigard water system. She said that the Councilors recommended the Willamette River option at their April 7 Council meeting. She mentioned comments by several Councilors to illustrate their concerns. These included characterization of this as an emotional issue, indication of the need for another long range source of regional drinking water, and a desire to control their own water supply. e Norman Penner, Tigard Water District Board, explained that five elected commissioners composed the Tigard Water District Board and represented the consumers of Tigard water who resided in the unincorporated areas of the Tigard water system. He said that 7,025 registered voters composed their constituency, representing some 3,000 plus service connections to the Tigard water system. He pointed out that, after the City of Tigard, the District was the second largest group of water users in the Tigard water system, given their 21% of the total connections. Mr. Penner said that they were one of four signers of the 1993 intergovernmental agreement for water services that gave the City of Tigard water department the responsibility of operating the Tigard water system and which established the Intergovernmental Water Board. He noted that, under the terms of the 1993 agreement, the District Board "shared authority for decision making regarding the long terns water supply and capital improvement planning to serve present and future customers of the original district." Mr. Penner stated that the Board has participated in the various regional water source studies exploring possible solution to the regional water problems over the past ten years or more. He mentioned the work done by the Board in carrying out its duties as elected officials charged with the responsibility of representing its constituents' interests with regard to long term tap water needs. He noted the Commissioners' attendance at hearings and presentations and their review of all available written material. Mr. Penner reported that on March 29 the Board held a public hearing on the two water options in order to obtain public input; approximately 30 residents participated in the hearing. He said that, following presentation of information on projected costs, water quality, and long term availability of water under both options, the informal vote, Taken at the end of meeting indicated that the majority supported the Willamette River option. He presented the District Board's unanimous recommendation, based on the public hearing and its own research, to support the Willamette River option at the Intergovernmental Water Board's next meeting. Councilor Scheckla asked how many citizens attended the King City meeting. Mayor Drangsholt said that only five to six people showed up, despite their published agenda indicating a discussion on the water issue. She stated that one person spoke for the Willamette River and one spoke against it. She confirmed that King City's population was 2,160. She mentioned that the other citizens with whom she has spoken informally showed no real concern over using the Willamette River. e Stanley Wallulis, 7725 SW Village Greens Circle, Wilsonville, stated that he was a professional engineer in environmental and civil engineering, certified in four states. He mentioned that he worked for the City of Corvallis from 1967 to 1970. He reviewed the history of the two water treatment plants at Corvallis: the one on Rock Creek at Mary's Peak and the one on the Willamette River. He pointed out that the Rock Creek watershed was not quite as protected as the Bull Run watershed but the water was once asable without treatment, although that was no longer the case. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 11 Mr. Wallulis said that Corvallis built a 4 mgd treatment plant on the Willamette in 1949 when it outgrew the Rock Creek plant. He reviewed the various upgrades and reductions at this plant over the years as new drinking water rules and regulations came online. He said that the latest 1996/1997 modifications returned the plant to a 21 mgd capacity. He pointed out that the Rock Creek plant has needed no modifications over the years to maintain the water quality level. He held that a treatment on the Willamette could go through the same history as the government instituted new rules and regulations. Mr. Wallulis cited the report in the December 1998 issue of Water and Engineering Management reporting the large number of violations in the U.S. for not meeting minimum contaminant level and treatment technique requirements or monitoring and reporting requirements. He questioned how many of these violations went unreported in the self-interest of the operator. He pointed out that typically a 24-hour water treatment plant did not run lab tests 24 hours a day Mr. Wallulis stated that the head of utilities in Corvallis today told him that they have not detected any arsenic in the Willamette at their location. He mentioned that arsenic has been detected in the river in the Metro area. He referenced the engineering report in Appendix 4, pages 17-18, which discussed the testing methodology. He commented that a journal he was reading today stated that if a treatment method for arsenic had to get down into the sludge, there was a real danger that the whole sludge could be considered a hazardous waste and require trucking to a specified location. Mr. Wallulis cited an article in the November 1998 American Water Works Journal that said that the U.S. EPA program proposal would focus on running 15,000 suspect chemicals through prescreening assays to identify which needed further analysis He pointed out that they were beginning to realize that there were many chemicals and contaminants that they have not been able to find. He reiterated his concern that the testing was not comprehensive enough to find all the contaminants. He commented that, with the Bull Run supply, the major risk was cryptosporidium which would impact the folks on the east side of the river first. He said that Wilsonville could turn off the supply before the contaminated water reached the city. o Dr. Charles Scott, Citizens for Safe Water, said that he was certified in environmental toxicology and lived in Wilsonville. He said that this group asked him to review the consultant's report completed for the Cities of Tigard and Wilsonville. He reviewed the steps he took to obtain a copy of the raw data from the City of Wilsonville. He stated that he reported to the Wilsonville City Council that the consultant's testing did not meet the current raw water monitoring protocols because the river had not been sampled in the way stipulated by the contract with the City of Tigard. Dr. Scott reviewed a series of slides describing the contract for Willamette River raw water monitoring, the water sampling plan and the objectives of the contract, including the testing parameters, the periodicity and schedule of the samplings, the analytical program, and the 160 chemicals the consuitants were to test for. He noted the weekly, monthly and quarterly tests. Dr. Scott suggested that the City look at the report with a great deal of scrutiny to make sure that the sampling methodology fulfilled its contract. He said that Montgomery Watson held the August 12, 1998, sample too long to be tested by the EPA methodology, and re-took the sample on September 23, 1998. He said that it appeared to him that many of the parameters were not listed in the report for the September monthly sampling and October weekly samplings. He noted that the next sampling date was November 23. He disputed the report's statement in the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 12 sampling summary table that quarterly samples were taken every three months. He held that a second report did not show that a third quarter sample was taken on January 26, 1999, as reported in the first report. Dr. Scott contended that sampling data, as contracted for, was missing from the reports. He pointed out the 28 general notes listed in the report which he held were an indication of when the consultants did not do something right. He said that he was concerned at the number and type of "excuses" given by Montgomery Watson with regard to the sampling program and testing. Dr. Scott commented that the contract stipulated that everything would be taken out to 99.9%, leaving .1 % of the contaminants in the water. He argued that even this level posed a threat to newborns and children because trace amounts built up and accumulated in tissue, as has happened in the fish studies. He referenced his experience as the head of a birth defects lab at a college of medicine. He said that a concentrated amount of contaminant went to the liver which transformed it safely but a loose sample went into everything in the body. Dr. Scott reiterated that, in his opinion, the sampling results were not completed as specified in the contract. He said that the general manager of his independent lab stated that there were not enough data points to draw conclusions on the water samples taken. He stated that he conducted this review because he wanted to make sure that the sampling results told them what was in the water before it got to a treatment plant that could not take out all of the contaminants. a Dr. Marvin Haushman, Citizens for Safe Water, stated that he was a board certified neurological surgeon and a considered expert on the science of immunological disease and neuro-degenerative diseases. He reviewed his analysis of the DEQ's study (begun in 1991) of the Willamette River using a model developed by a Seattle, Washington, firm to predict human health and fish health criteria. He stated that he would testify before the Committee on Natural Resources this Thursday on his analysis of this test as part of the DEQ funding procedures. Dr. Haushmann stated that his analysis of the data supplied by DEQ found that the study did not satisfy the potential models created. He explained that one problem was that DEQ did not establish controls for what was normal for the fish it studied. Therefore, how could it determine what was abnormal? He noted that Station 30 (Springfield) and Station 18 (Newberg) both showed abnormalities in suckerfish, including abnormalities in the thymus gland. He stated that the thymus gland in humans supplied newborns with their immune systems. He questioned what the risk was to newborns and young children if the fish were abnormal due to the water. Dr. Haushmann said that these were the worst findings he has seen with regard to the abnormalities in the livers of the squawfish. He noted that the study found abnormalities in most squawfish at Station 30. He mentioned that no histo-pathologic study was done to find out what was in the livers. He commented that the USGS study for heavy metals at 19 stations found elevated levels of arsenic at several stations. He referenced an Oregonian article stating that the EPA had no adequate model for assessing the health standards of arsenic at this time. Dr. Haushmann stated that he believed that the evidence confirmed that the studies performed from 1991 to 1999 on the Willamette River have not resulted in an adequate model for use in assessing the impact of toxic pollutants on the ecological system in the Willamette River. He reported that DEQ was attempting at this time to organize studies to design a health model for human assessment. He spoke to demanding a health model for use in assessing whether or not the water has been sufficiently treated to be fit for human consumption. He mentioned an Oregonian article which stated that the State of Oregon was number one in deaths from CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 13 110-11- mi Parkinson's disease in the U.S. and number three in deaths from Alzheimer's disease. Mayor Nicoli asked if Dr. Haushmann reviewed the same data from the Portland system. Dr. Haushmann said that he only requested the Willamette River basin study. Mayor Nicoli questioned whether or not a "scientific report" was biased if it only looked at one source of data. Dr. Haushmann said that he would be happy to look at the data from the Portland system but he was not asked to do so as part of this protocol. He pointed out that the data for the Portland system has not been collected. Mayor Nicoli noted that Dr. Haushmann had made it clear during his report to the Water Advisory Task Force that the information was totally lacking from Portland system and that both systems needed to be studied in order to be fair in finding a solution. He held that it was only fair to make it clear also in his report to the Council. Dr. Haushman pointed out that he was not the scientist who did the studies conducted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. He said that he was asked by citizens to state his findings to date and that he would be pleased to review any data available. Dr. Haushmann stated for the record that he thought it would be a tremendous error not to develop a health model for human consumption of water similar to the model used for drug development, no matter what water source was used. Mayor Nicoli concurred. He noted out that Tigard did not own the Portland system and began this process without Portland's cooperation. He indicated that Tigard responsibly conducted those tests to gather data for analysis while Portland chose not to conduct tests on its system yet offered to sell water to Tigard. He asked who, in Dr. Haushmann's opinion, was responsible and who was irresponsible with regards to conducting tests to gather data for analysis. Dr. Haushmann said that the people who would consume the water were responsible for demanding a higher standard. He stated that, unless the Council was confident that the water supply was safe, it should not make a decision. Mayor Nicoli agreed that if Portland was going to sell water, then it should conduct the Sal-ne tests and go through the same process as Tigard. Dr. Scott commented that it was difficult to present a report comparing the Willamette River basin to the Columbia well basin in the limited time given. He said that he would be glad to review that information. Mayor Nicoli noted that Dr. Scott presented that information to the Task Force which in turn forwarded it to the Council. o Mayor Nicoli recessed the meeting at 8:55 a.m. for a break. o Mayor Nicoli reconvened the meeting at 9:02 p.m. + . Bob Rohlf, H20K Coalition for the Safest Drinking Water, stated that their mission was to a prevail upon Tigard to find the safest, most economical and most reliable drinking water source for the Tigard water system. He commented that, although their charter did not call for a given solution, all the evidence they have seen so far pointed to the Willamette River as the best solution. Mr. Rohlf explained that they formed this coalition to counter the misinformation being spread in the communities affected by this decision with facts. He pointed out that the ballot measure would preclude several partners in the Tigard water system from having a forum to work with the water decision. He said that the Coalition also wanted to help these partners become more CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 14 aware of that fact and to be more active in lobbying on their own behalf. Mr. Rohlf noted that this was also a very important decision. He argued that the decision to go with Portland was irrevocable and would eliminate the Willamette option, Tigard's opportunity to get water rights of its own, and the political alliance allowing the Willamette option to occur. He contended that, with a decision for the Willamette option, they could always go back to Portland because Portland were willing to sell surplus water at a price. Renee Cannon, PO Box 59169, Beaverton, H20K Coalition for the Safest Drinking Water, thanked the Council for the time they have spent in listening to public testimony. She addressed the issues of cost and control. She said that Tigard's share of the estimated cost of construction and interest for expanding the Portland system was $139.4 million while its share of the construction and interest costs for the Willamette option was $73 million. She pointed out that costs could be better controlled through local control of a water system. Ms. Cannon recounted examples of the impact of the Wilsonville water moratorium on Wilsonville businesses. She mentioned a small service business that could not upgrade employee facilities, a small manufacturing business that moved to Woodburn because it could not expand production, and a large business that found an innovative but costly solution to allow expansion of its daycare facilities. Ms. Cannon suggested that the Council think about how much control it wanted the citizens to have over their own infrastructure and water. She asked what happened if another entity controlled Tigard's water supply and then decided that that water needed to go to its own customers. Jan Olmstead, 8220 SW Fairway Drive, Wilsonville, H2OK Coalition for the Safest Drinking Water, contended that the citizens of Tigard, Wilsonville, and their surrounding neighbors had an opportunity to take control of their future water resource by deciding to build a state-of-the-art treatment plant on the Willamette River. She pointed out that professionals (with their livelihood at stake) have tested the water and concluded from their analysis of the test results that the water from the Willamette River at Wilsonville (upstream of any proposed superfund site) was safe to drink. She argued that other professionals (with just as much on the line) have designed a treatment facility to render the Willamette water as clean and pure as any drinking water available in the US today. Ms. Olmstead contended that these professionals were not con artists but serious minded people with reputations to protect, reputations established through years of study, honest reporting of their findings, and sound and honest business practices. She held that these professionals designed the proposed treatment facility using the latest in technology and taking into consideration every known contaminant. She said that she listened carefully to the testimony of the gentlemen before them, and she agreed with the Mayor that Portland should conduct the same tests that were conducted on the Willamette River so that they could hear both sides of the issue. Ms. Olmstead acknowledged that in 10 years a new pollutant or water borne threat could surface but she stated that she felt comfortable knowing that testing for such threats on the Willamette would be done on a regular basis and any adverse results dealt with immediately. She pointed out that they could not be so certain of this if they used Portland water, as Portland only disinfected its water with chlorine and would not treat it for the next 20 years. She mentioned that chlorine gathered harmful byproducts as it traveled. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 15 Ms. Olmstead commented that a frequently mentioned concern of the group opposing the Willamette was the deformed fish in the Newberg Pool. She noted that these fish fed at the bottom of the pool where the sludge collected while the water collected for drinking purposes would come from the upper reaches in the main flow of the river where millions of normal and properly developed fish swam. She remarked that many have eaten the normal fish and swum and played in the river without suffering ill effects. Ms. Olmstead addressed the opposition's concern regarding pesticide poisoning and endocrine disrupters in the river. She referenced the testimony of those more knowledgeable than herself regarding these matters. She stated that the treatment plant would handle all known contaminants and test for any future concerns, including testing during the five to seven years it would take to build the facility in order to address any unforeseen pollutant or problem as it arose. She mentioned a time constraint for making this decision. She argued that they could not wait for more testing before making the decision. She emphasized that the testing would continue even after the treatment plant came online. Mrs. Olmstead commented that, if the opposition's motive was to scare the population into believing that things existed in the river that could destroy their quality of life, then she must compliment them on their success. She argued that scare tactics were not fair tactics. She urged anyone who has been frightened by these tactics to do their own research on both sides of the issue and then make up their minds based on the known facts. She pointed out the question of whether or not Portland could supply the region to meet the water demand in the next 50 to 100 years. She said that the Bull Run was not an infinite resource and it was questionable whether the improvements needed to expand the system could even occur. Ms. Olmstead argued that deciding for the Willamette was a giant step towards assuring the future and cleanliness of the Willamette River for recreation and wildlife preservation. She held that if such a large portion of the region's population drew its drinking water from the Willamette, then they could be assured of significant lobbying efforts to keep the Willamette clean. She speculated on what could be accomplished (with regard to the Willamette River) if the same energy the opponents put into working against the Willamette was instead put into a campaign to preserve and maintain this valuable resource: Ms. Olmstead urged the Council and the citizens to reach a unanimous decision to support the Willamette River. She spoke to having the assurance of a safe, secure, and certain drinking water source and the stewardship needed to keep the river environment a healthy habitat. Trish Conrad, HZOK Coalition for the Safest Drinking Water, noted that what was most important to the citizens and professionals was the tap water quality. She pointed out that taking steps towards even positive change was difficult. She commented that the citizens who have said that they were concerned or afraid had every right to be concerned or afraid. She argued that preying upon those concerns and fears was wrong and irresponsible. Ms. Conrad asserted that every professional who has presented testimony to the Council which did not agree with the opposition's position has been discounted by the opposition. She stated that she had the one qualification that apparently the opposition deemed appropriate: she was a citizen. She recounted an experiment she tried recently, as a customer of the Portland water system, to get rid of the pink slime in her cat's water bowl. She said that, in her research into bottled water, she found out that the best bottled water to buy was tap water because the standards established by the Safe Drinking Water Act were more stringent than the FDA standards for bottled water. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 16 Ms. Conrad presented several different types of bottled water, str-:ing that she used the one that came from a municipal supply source that used ozonation to purify water. She said that there was no more pink slime in her cat's bowl when she used this water from "deeply protected wells in Santa Ana, Pasadena, and Los Angeles." She pointed out that the bottled water people said that they would use out of fear of the Willamette was the same kind of water that they would get out of the Willamette River. Mr. Rohlf mentioned that transportation and water were the two longest running problems in the City of Tigard. He pointed out that transportation was a difficult problem because the City did not control the roads that handled the bulk of the City's traffic. Therefore, the City could do nothing to improve traffic problems unless the problem became a priority for the controlling entity also. He argued that until now they have faced a similar situation with their water supply. Tigard had no ownership or control over this critical resource. Tigard was dependent on the generosity of other jurisdictions to sell their surplus water. Mr. Rohlf argued that Tigard had tot accept high water rates that incorporated suppliers' operating inefficiencies and trust that their suppliers would sell them quality water. He referenced Tigard's experience in the past when their suppliers did not have excess water to sell, causing Tigard to scramble to find water. He contended that all these factors left Tigard in a bad position. Mr. Rohlf said that they supported the Water Advisory Task Force's recommendation to build a plant on the Willamette River. He held that the factors of quality, reliability, and cost were all better satisfied with the Willamette option than with the Portland option. He argued that the water quality would be superior to anything in the Northwest because a state-of-the-art treatment plant would remove anything from the water. He pointed out that Tigard knew for certain what its costs were with the Willamette plant (based on the engineering study) and that Tigard would have control over the costs of its own plant. Mr. Rohlf contended that the uncertainties of the Portland option were beyond Tigard's control. He said that they did know that the known costs would push the rates two to three times higher than they would be under the Willamette option. He cited the angry reaction of the voters in West Linn to the City's attempt to double its water rates. He noted that the West Linn voters rescinded the rate increase and passed an ordinance requiring voter approval of any rate increase. He argued that local control of a water plant translated into a more reliable system where the City could maintain a safe water system. Mr. RohIf mentioned the emotion surrounding this decision. He stated that, in his opinion, it was not a tough call because the evidence he has sifted through clearly showed that the facts weighed beyond a reasonable doubt in favor of the Willamette River. He spoke to the Council using the facts in making its impartial decision. He argued that what made this decision politically charged was that the Council was being told that the majority of the voters in Tigard did not want to go to the Willamette. He argued that majority of the informed voters were willing to go to the Willamette. He noted that the Council was being told that cost did not matter but argued that, in reality, cost was a major factor. He asserted that citizens did not get straight facts from the Citizens for Safe Water Mr. Rohlf cited his experience in talking with people who started out from an anti-Willamette position but who became more open to the Willamette once they heard the facts. He argued that those opposed to the Willamette River presented no facts, no credible experts, and no science but instead presented a case attacking the City's facts, experts, and Task Force. He reiterated that the opposition gave the Council no basis on which to decide in their favor. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 17 w mill Mr. Rohlf noted that the Council has been told that it has no right to make the decision if the voters did not want it. He said that he respected the will of the voters. He argued that, in a situation where the issue was emotional and people were basing their opinions on falsehoods and misunderstandings, it was critical that the Council exercise common sense in using their administrative authority to decide the issue. He reiterated that the decision had to be based on facts, not emotions. He pointed out that the average citizen did not have the knowledge of this issue that the Council has gained from listening to countless hours of testimony and reviewing reams of reports. Mr. Rohlf stated that he thought that this issue was inappropriate for a general vote. He pointed out that, under the terms of the City Charter, a vote would only be advisory. He emphasized that it was the Council's sworn duty to make this decision. He stated that most of the people that he talked with indicated that making this type of decision was the reason that they elected people to the Council; they knew that they were not qualified to make these decisions. He argued that the Council would do Tigard a major disservice if it caved into a small group that represented itself as the majority and questioned the Council's authority, integrity and intelligence. Mr. Rohlf suggested that the Council commit itself to the Willamette option, to further educating the public, and to continuing the testing while it built the elements common to both the Portland and the Willamette River option. He pointed out that this left open the option to revert to Portland if something showed up in the testing. He stated that this decision was the most important decision that this Council would make with impacts 50 years in the future. He contended that only the Council could decide whether to give their children both water and control over a vital resource or to leave them in a position of beggars pleading for surplus water that might not exist in 50 years. e Gordon Martin, 12265 SW 72nd Avenue, spoke in support of the Clackamas Intertie option also available from Portland. He reviewed the route of the Intertie on a map, showing its connection from Powell Butte down the I-205 corridor. He also noted the route of the Washington County Supply Line from Powell Butte across the Willamette, the option analyzed by Portland. He suggested asking Portland to analyze in more detail the costs and merits associated with the Clackamas Intertie as a part of regional planning and providing a loop system for the region. Mr. Martin held that the Clackamas Intertie would allow the entire Metro area to have a system with safety and redundancy built into it. He stated that the water providers he has spoken with have indicated that, if they had the money, they would develop a loop system to allow several different sources to tie into it and to allow the cutting off of any one portion to repair problems while maintaining the flow throughout the region. He pointed out that Portland's only other source of water (besides the Bull Run) was the Columbia South Shore well fields. He argued that this system could tie in the Clackamas River as a back-up to the Portland system and possibly tie in the Trask River as a back-up if the Eastside systems failed. He spoke to looking at a regional water plan instead of making an isolated local decision for Tigard. Councilor Scheckla asked if the Clackamas Intertie scenario included water rights and system ownership. Mr. Martin said that, as he understood it, the difference between the Clackamas Intertie Line and the Washington County Supply Line was the route that the major trunk line would take. He said that the source of the improvements were similar for both lines: raising the height of the dam or recharging the South Shore well fields. He pointed out that the Intertie Line route lay closer to Wilsonville which would reduce Wilsonville's costs. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 18 111MINIMIN111 Ilion 111111111 millilillil~illi Councilor Scheckla asked if Tigard would get water rights and ownership beyond surplus water. Mr. Martin said that he was not part of the contract negotiations but he has talked to Commissioner Sten and Portland Water Bureau staff who led him to believe that Portland would address the ownership issues during the contract negotiations. He said that he personally would insist on some degree of ownership and positions on the controlling boards in order to guarantee a voice in the rates and expenditures of monies as part of the negotiations. He commented that he was hearing from Portland that they expected Tigard and Wilsonville to want a voice if they invested $60 to $80 million in a regional system. He said that Tigard would no longer be simply a surplus water customer but the details of Tigard's stronger role would be worked out during negotiations. m Bob Castagna, 13612 SW Hillshire Drive, said that he has lived in Tigard for three years. He stated that he was an attorney who served as the professional staff to the Oregon House of Representatives Special House Committee on Water Resource Problems in 1977. He explained that he came this evening because he received information with his water bill describing the water quality from the Portland source and the Willamette River source. He commented that he thought that the information was tilted towards the Willamette source. Mr. Castagna stated that, based on his attendance at three meetings, he has concluded that this was a situation with scientific experts of good will and excellent credentials coming to different conclusions. He argued that there were too many unknowns with regard to the Willamette River, referencing the Willamette River basin water quality study. He said that the Health Division told him that there were hundreds of contaminants in the Willamette River that would not be tested for. Mr. Castagna held that it was premature to make this public health decision that would affect all citizens of Tigard, both today and in the future. He stated that the water quality study indicated that standards were not available for all contaminants, and that fish skeletal deformities were observed at several locations, cause unknown. He said that any drinking water supply from any river had to be adequately treated to meet the established drinking water standards. He mentioned ongoing studies to characterize the risks of swimming in the river and eating fish caught in the river and to better understand the extent and location of fish deformities. Mr. Castagna commented that the community was pretty well divided over this critical decision that the Council had to make. He asked that the Council not decide in favor of the Willamette River because of the unknowns that put public health at risk. He commented that their system of government included both representative and participatory forms of government. He requested that the people of the community take the responsibility to vote on this issue. Kay Hill, 7380 SW Fairway, Wilsonville, pointed out that the citizens have not seen studies or heard presentations on the quality of the Bull Run water mixed with the Columbia River South Shore well field water. She said that all they knew was that it was unfiltered and treated with chlorine and other chemicals to prevent the chlorine from becoming toxic as it traveled through the transmission line. She stated that she was concerned that they had only half a picture. She spoke against making a decision against a system, for which they had a lot of evidence, until they knew what the other system had to offer. Ms. Hill referenced the newspaper reports that large companies, such as Enron, were interested in getting into the business of either treating or supplying water because it was lucrative and powerful, since everyone depended on water. She commented that Portland was not in a financial or research state to do much about a treatment plant for water until 2020 yet they knew now that they would need one. She held that they must have some idea that their water was not CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 19 as pure as it used to be. She pointed out that, even if the Portland water passed EA PA standards at this time, that could change in the future. Ms. Hill reiterated that it bothered her that people attacked treating the Willamette River water without knowing what the water quality would be from Portland. She said that she came from Chicago and her husband from Cincinnati, and that they were used to treated water from sources less clean than the Willamette. She noted that almost every city in the U.S. and many in the world all drank treated river water, and the Willamette River was in better shape than most of those rivers. She mentioned the state-of-the-art treatment methods, and that the intake valve was 17 miles upstream from the polluted portion of the Willamette River in Portland. She contended that most of the chemicals in the river at their location came from agricultural runoff and could be treated. Ms. Hill pointed out that the system included room to meet future EPA requirements. She reiterated that both she and her husband have lived a good long life on treated water. She commented that it was unlikely that water treatment technology would stop at its current level but rather the professionals would continue to develop new technologies to deal with future problems. e Bob Melvin, 10395 SW Bonanza, said that he did not like to characterize voters as "a pack of emotional know nothings." He held that, given the right information, the voters would make the right choices. He agreed that rivers back east were polluted yet the cities managed to purify the water into useable drinking water. He questioned how many of these cities would go to the trouble to treat water if they had a Bull Run. Mr. Melvin stated that they created Citizens for Safe Water when they realized that the Council was seriously intending to turn away from the pure water source of the Bull Run to the polluted and toxic Willamette River. He said that they have always seen the central issue as the right of the citizens to vote on their water source. He asserted that the Council, in a nod to finance over democracy, said that the nature of the project's funding was such that a vote was not required. He characterized the City's public relations campaign as an attempt to "sell the Willamette River." He held that the City did so because it felt that it needed public support for all the money it was spending on various studies. Mr. Melvin held that Tigard could not be talked out of its common sense or be convinced that a speculative expensive scheme should be supported over the pure water source that they now had. He said that was why they continued to gather signatures for a vote of the people. He said that they were certain that Tigard would vote down the Willamette River option. Gary Betts, 10305 SW Bryton, Wilsonville, stated that he was a botanist with information that he did not think that the Council has heard before. He said that the reason frogs were dying world wide was because of a mosquito control spray approved by the EPA as not toxic to amphibians. He explained that the spray itself was not toxic but once it got loose in the environment, the effects of ultraviolet and sunlight turned it into a different compound that did kill frogs. He mentioned that the National Research Council has advised the EPA to retest all the chemicals on its list, a process that would take 20 years. He argued that it was premature to make a decision about the quality of the river water for this reason. Mr. Betts stated that carbon was not an absolute filter; there were many molecules that it would not take out. He said that the head of the Oregon EPA lab knew that those molecules existed but he did not know what they were, as it would take a five year study at a minimum to determine them. He commented that there were some chemicals that reach higher levels of concentration CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 20 in purified water than in the raw water. He asserted that Montgomery Watson has stopped saying that it could make the water safe and has fallen back to saying that it could bring the water up to EPA standards. He agreed that they could do so. He observed that unfortunately carbon was the best filter they had available at this time. Mr. Betts said that he thought that the dioxin poisoning that was probably causing the running sores and skeletal deformities on the fish in the Willamette River came from historic landfills, if dioxin indeed was the cause. He commented that it was not surprising the Montgomery Watson found no dioxins in the river, as the EPA mandated tests were 1000 times less sensitive than the daily lethal dose of dioxin. He cited a paper published by the director of the 1993 EPA dioxin re-evaluation study in which he concluded that dioxin was a human carcinogen in any amount. Mr. Betts held that this was frightening information because 90% of Oregon's industry and a substantial portion of its agriculture were on the Willamette River drainage. He argued that they did not know what was out there but they did know that carbon filters could not take out everything. Mr. Betts referenced a paper published in Lancet last month linking extremely low level dioxins to dental problems in children. He mentioned the study's report that children eating fish with concentrated dioxins could not be vaccinated because their immune systems were destroyed. He said that he did an informal survey of two dentists and three dental hygienists in Corvallis who told him that they were seeing these effects on children in Corvallis. He held that it was indisputable that the effects existed, the only debate was over the amount. Scot Harger, 9690 SW Riverwood, asked why the pro-Willamette River issue was being railroaded through against the wishes of the constituents. He alleged that the Task Force members were hand-picked for their pro-Willamette stance and sympathetic association with the pro-Willamette Tigard staff. He asked why they wanted to partially detoxify polluted water when other options were available. He speculated that the proponents would not force their children to drink Willamette water but instead were planning on drinking bottled water like everyone else. Charles D. Frazier, 14155 SW Fanno Creek Drive, spoke to including in the discussion consideration of the emotional impacts on citizens of having to drink water that they felt would profoundly affect their quality of life and property values in Tigard. He mentioned the perception that many people did not want river water at their tap. He held that the citizens' feelings were the fourth thing to consider along with water quality, availability, and cost. ® Wendi Hawley, 14790 SW 79"' Avenue, commented that she thought that the public involvement process that the Council has used for this issue has worked very well in bringing out good information from both sides of the issue. She said that she thought that the Council has done its due diligence in listening to both sides, and that it was not premature for the Council to make a decision. Ms. Hawley mentioned that in 1988 and 1989 (when she served on NPO #5), the NPOs identified ownership of a water source as an issue of importance to the citizens that the Council should discuss. She said that the issue of ownership kept resurfacing at the Tigard Planning Commission in 1990 and 1991 (when she served on it) during the time that Tigard was having trouble in its negotiations with Portland about water rates and usage. Ms. Hawley noted that in 1992, when she was elected to Council, it had become obvious that the Tigard Water District was vulnerable to take over by other regional water districts which would CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 21 have put the Cities of Tigard, King City, and Durham, and the unincorporated areas in a position to be manipulated in terms of rising water rates and imposed water rationing. She stated that in 1993 Portland did impose water rationing on Tigard during a water shortage while allowing its own citizens to water their lawns. Ms. Hawley held that this action by Portland indicated the absolute right to suspect that Portland would protect its citizens' right to their water. She contended that this stance would not change. She stated that this was why Tigard needed its own controllable water source. She said that, having sat on the Council for three years and heard the arguments at the time when ownership was the most important issue, she supported going to the Willamette River. Ms. Hawley argued that the Council had the right and responsibility to continue to provide safe and reliable drinking water to the City. She commented that she did not see how remaining vulnerable to another city's whims about whether or not Tigard got water was either safe or reliable. She cited the cost issues as evidence that having their own water source paid off in dividends because they could control their own water rate. Ms. Hawley mentioned her frustration when, after spending hours on issues as difficult as this one, she had been accused of not including citizens in the decision. She asserted that this City was exemplary in allowing citizens access to information and providing every possible way for citizens to educate themselves on the issue. She encouraged the Council to make the decision itself and not to go to a vote of the people. She noted that the City has spent money over the last nine years to educate the population, to do studies responsibly, and to keep the issue alive for people. She said that she appreciated the citizens' concerns but she believed that the process has worked. She asked the Council to make a responsible decision for the city. o Norman Penner, 14712 SW Woodhue Street, spoke as a citizen and consumer of Tigard water system water who was not a resident of Tigard. He commented that the Mayor and Councilors were elected by the registered voters of Tigard and their usual business was listening to the concerns of the voters in their city. He argued that this decision transcended the Council's usual parochial scope because the Tigard water system was a regional water delivery system serving a community much larger than the City of Tigard. Mr. Penner recounted an experience he had previously with municipal water sources. He said that when he lived in Marin County, California, two water districts served the County with growth beginning to impact both districts. Both districts depended on reservoirs located in the coastal range for water but the seasonal rains were barely able to keep them full. The northern water district (which served the rural part of the county) asked the southern water district (which served the wealthier part of the county) to join with it in building a pipeline to the Russian River to obtain a more stable water supply source. But the southern water district refused because a vocal minority of citizens wanted to continue to drink the pristine mountain spring water, to limit growth, and to avoid water rate increases due to the costs of the pipeline. So the northern district took on the added financial burden and built the pipeline. Mr. Penner said that growth did not stop and a multi-year drought occurred. Soon the residents in the southern district were in serious trouble. They imposed severe limits on water usage and imposed penalties for non-compliance. Their lawns and parks dried up, trees died, swimming pools were drained and residents were encouraged to take showers every other day and save the shower water to water their houseplants. Water became both scarce and expensive in the southern district. Meanwhile, the northern district residents drank the awful river water, watered their lawns, filled their swimming pools, and took daily showers. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 22 Mr. Penner pointed out that one community made a decision out of fear and a lack of foresight while the other community recognized a real threat to its future and decided to act in order to insure that future. He encouraged the Council to do the same for the sake of the larger community involved in the Tigard water system, and to look to the Willamette River as the best option for the greater community. • Mark Mahon, Tigard Water Advisory Task Force, referenced the Task Force's written report. He thanked the Council on behalf of the Task Force for the opportunity to study the issue and make recommendations on an issue of such importance to the future of Tigard and its neighboring communities. He reviewed the broad make-up of the Task Force which included residents from different parts of Tigard and the Tigard water service area, business owners, major employers, and developers. He noted the wide range of backgrounds of the Tigard citizens, including a biochemist, a City of Portland engineer, a retired public works engineer, and an USDA hydrologist. He stated that the Task Force committed to meeting every Thursday evening for two months to study this issue. He mentioned the approximately 100 hours he has spent studying materials, attending meetings, and touring facilities. Mr. Mahon stated that the three criteria given to the Task Force by the Council were tap water quality, certainty of supply, and cost of supply. He said that the Task Force took tap water quality as the most important issue but once it was satisfied that it could have good quality water from either source, certainty of supply became the major issue. He commented that cost was the least discussed issue. Mr. Mahon reviewed the process used by the Task Force to hear presentations from the WWSA consultants, the City of Portland representatives, and the Citizens for Safe Water as well as question and answer sessions with Dr. James Pratt (Director of Environmental Sciences and Resources at PSU) and Dr. Eugene Foster, an environmental toxicologist with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. He said that the Task Force members each presented to the group as a whole what he/she saw as the pros and cons of each criteria for both the Portland and Willamette proposals. Mr. Mahon reviewed several points in the Task Force written report prepared by the three subcommittees appointed to write the sections on tap water quality, certainty of supply, and cost. He said that they found that more questions were raised about the tap water quality of the Portland supply than for the Willamette because the Willamette supply would be filtered. He mentioned Dr. Pratt's statement that a filtered Willamette supply would be a better quality supply than the unfiltered Portland supply, although that could change once Portland built its filtration plant. Mr. Mahon cited the susceptibility of the Bull Run to episodes of high turbidity. He pointed out that the potential was much higher in an unfiltered supply for the crpytosporidum and giaraida bacteria carried by warm blooded animals (which were found in the Bull Run watershed). He said that the Portland representatives and Dr. Pratt told them that the Columbia well field was hydraulically connected to the Columbia River. After pumping for a short period, the Portland water effectively became 20% Columbia River water blended with Bull Run water. He reported that when the Task Force asked the Citizen for Safe Water representatives about this fact, the representatives said that it should not be done. He commented that that did not change the fact that the Portland supply used blended water. Mr. Mahon said that, in their research into certainty of supply, they found out that the maximum water rights on the Willamette for this plant constituted 3% of the minimum stream flow set by the state for the fish runs. Therefore, there would be no shortage of water if they went to the CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 23 111111 1101 1111111MME E 11~10MEINJ Willamette. He mentioned the many physical issues involved with certainty of supply, such as the age and length of the supply line. He noted that the Portland conduits from the Bull Run were aging and have already had problems. He commented that they would build a new conduit from the Willamette plant to connect to Tigard's existing lines. Mr. Mahon said that the Portland plan called for improvements spread out over many years as opposed to getting them done now and starting with a new facility. He stated that the Willamette option provided a diversity of supply and an alternate water supply for Portland when it ran into periods of high turbidity, as happened this winter. He said that the problem the Task Force saw with the Portland option was that it moved the region closer to putting all its eggs in one basket as opposed to diversifying supply sources. Mr. Mahon noted the political issues surrounding the Portland option. He stated that, while Portland said that the process to change its current ordinance provision that allowed only the sale of surplus water was simple, the representatives would not make a commitment to changing the provision. Mr. Mahon mentioned other issues tied to the Portland option. He pointed out that the Clackamas Intertie proposal described by Mr. Martin went through many geographic areas, three counties, and an uncounted number of political subdivisions and utilities. He said that Portland also insisted that Tigard make a commitment to go with the Portland option before starting negotiations. He commented that, in business, one did not commit to a supplier before discussing the price. Mr. Mahon said that their analysis of the cost factors associated with both proposals found that the Willamette proposal came out much cheaper. He said that, with a proposal with good quality water, certainty of supply, and costs that were half those of the other proposal, the Task Force decided to recommend the Willamette proposal. He reported that the actual vote was 22 to 3 with 1 abstention by the Tualatin representative and one member out of the room. He stated that both proposals contained risks. He commented that, while the recent listing of salmon as an endangered species for the entire Willamette basin did not guarantee improvement in raw water quality, it did put the power of the federal government behind dealing with any decrease in raw water quality. Mr. Mahon stated that the Task Force found the Willamette River option to be superior with regards to cost and certainty, and comparable or better with regard to tap water quality. He expressed the Task Force's hope that their work provided meaningful input to the Council in deciding this issue. Mayor Nicoli invited the Task Force members to the Volunteer Banquet. He acknowledged the time and effort spent by the 27 member Task Force to meet the Council's short deadline and thanked them for their commitment to the process. Mark Mahon, 11310 SW 91" Street, spoke as a private individual. He addressed the issue of agricultural runoff from the Willamette basin. He noted that the basin was 70% forest, 22% agriculture, and 8% urban. He explained that he owned a farm in the Tualatin Valley in partnership with his in-laws. He stated that farmers were reducing their use of chemicals on their crops because it was cheaper to do so. He said that his family saved $10,000 a year by changing when it applied chemicals to their orchards. Mr. Mahon pointed out that the purpose of a farm was to produce a commodity in a profitable manner. If they did not make a profit, they did not keep the farm. He emphasized that fanners CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 24 throughout the Willamette Valley and the country were finding ways to produce crops without spending so much money on chemicals in order to achieve a profit. He stated that the result of this economic issue was less chemical runoff from the agricultural areas of the Willamette Valley, the Tualatin Valley, and the rest of the country. Mr. Mahon commented that farmers were sensitive to environmental issues because they worked the land for a profit. If the land stopped producing, they lost their profit. He said that those worried about runoff needed to realize that the situation was getting better year by year. Councilor Scheckla asked how big Mr. Mahon's farm was and how close it was to a stream. Mr. Mahon said that they had 400 acres in filberts q-d 200 acres in other crops in orchards both north and south of Forest Grove. He said that tributaries to Dairy Creek ran through various orchards. Councilor Scheckla asked if, in the future, some of the chemicals currently available for farm use would be eliminated. Mr. Mahon said that that was a possibility. He explained that any farmer applying chemicals had to get the same kind of applicator's license as an exterminator or lawn care professional did. He reiterated that pure economics motivated farmers to reduce their use of chemicals. He commented that some farmers found an increased risk in doing so but if they saved $10,000 in chemicals and bought a crop insurance policy for $1,000, they reduced their risk and transferred it to the insurance company. Councilor'Scheckla asked if it was the same for dairy farmers. Mr. Mahon said that the laws requiring licensed applicators applied to all farmers across the board. He stated that farms were run under heavy regulation these days. They even had to build separate storage units for chemicals instead of just putting them in the shed. 6. PUBLIC HEARING (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - 135TH AVENUE DETOUR EASEMENT VACATION The purpose of the hearing is to consider the proposed vacation of an approximately 28,645 square-foot portion of SW 135`h Avenue, south of the Summer Creek Apartments. The request was filed with the City on December 4, 1998, and initiated by the City Council at the request of the applicant on February 23, 1999. a. Mayor Nicoli opened the public hearing. b. Declarations or Challenges Councilor Scheckla declared that he drove by the site a couple of times. c. Staff Report Jim Hendryx, Community Development Director, stated that the Bowen Real Estate Group has requested vacation of a detour easement along SW 135`'' Avenue. He explained that this detour easement was granted to the City in 1989 for the construction of SW 135"' Avenue. He indicated that, with the street construction completed and no impact on utility easements, staff recommended vacation of the easement. He mentioned that none of the contacted agencies filed an objection. d. Public Testimony No one testified ITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 25 C L e. Staff Recommendation Mr. Hendryx said that staff recommended approval. E Council Questions g. Mayor Nicoli closed the public hearing h. Council Consideration: Ordinance No. 99-09 Motion by Councilor Scheckla, moved by Councilor Patton, to adopt Ordinance No. 99-09. The City Recorder read the number and title of the ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 99-09, AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF APPROXIMATELY 28,645 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF A DETOUR EASEMENT ALONG SW 135TH AVENUE IN THE CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. Motion was approved by a unanimous roll call vote of the Council present (Mayor Nicoli and Councilors Paul Hunt, Brian Moore, Joyce Patton, and Ken Scheckla voted "yes.") 7. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF FINAL ORDER TO APRIL 20,1999 - (COUNCIL CALL-UP) - ERICKSON HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION (SUB 98-0009/PDR 98-0010/VAR 98-0010) The request is to build a 58-lot Planned Development Subdivision on a 16.41 acre site. This site also involves a request for a variance to the maximum street grade. LOCATION: The subject parcels are east of SW 109`h, north of the Summerfield Subdivision, south of the Canterbury Woods Condominiums, and west of Hoodview subdivision and Marion Estates subdivisions. WCTM 2S1IODA, Tax Lots 00100,00200, and 00500. ZONES: Single-Family Residential (10,000 square feet); $-3.5. The purpose of the R-3.5 zoning district is to establish large urban residential home sites. Planned Development (PD). The purposes of the PD Overlay zone are to provide a means for creating planned environments through the application of flexible standards which allow for the application of new techniques and new technology in community development which will result in a superior living arrangement; to facilitate the efficient use of land; and to preserve to the greatest extent possible, the existing landscape features and amenities through the use of a planning procedure that can relate the type of design of a development to a particular site, among other purposes. APPLICABLE REVIEW Community Development Code Chapters 18.32, 18.48,18.80, 18.88,18.92, CRITERIA: 18.96, 18.100, 18.102, 18.106,18.134, 18.138,18.160 and 18.164. Mr. Monahan noted the continuation of the consideration of the final order for this application to April 20, 1999, at 8:30 p.m. at the request of the applicant. Mr. Hendryx mentioned that staff providrd notice to all parties and a general land use notice. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 26 8. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS: None. 9. NON AGENDA ITEMS: None. 10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Cancelled. 11. ADJOURNMENT: 10:36 p.m. Attest: Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder Mayor, o Tigar i Date: S Cl I:\ADM\CATHY\CC \9 0413.DOC I CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1999 - PAGE 27 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9 371 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising • City of Tigard • El Tearsheet Notice 13125 SW Hall Blvd. • Tiga,r. d , Oregon 9 7 2 2 3 • 13 Duplicate Affidavit • Accounts Payable • AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )ss' I, Kathy Snyder being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of theg'i qa rrl-Tua 1 at j n m; mes a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193,010 and 193.020; published at R' i as rrl in the aforesaid county and state; that the Council & Contract Review Board Meetincr a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for ONE successive and consecutive in the following issues: April 8,1999 Subscribed and sworn to b fore me this 4--, A cf Apr-4:1,1999 OFFICIAL SEAL ROSIN A. BURGESS Nota ublic for Oregon ? NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON COMMISSION NO. 062071 Ivey Commission Expires: Mr COMMISMON EXPIRES MAY 16, 2001 i AFFIDAVIT Tie fgllisvcrtng m ng i►ighliyp ~'"ta are publishal f9i your, ins~argi®atian: Full ' agestdas, tttay be :obtained from the City Recorder;.13125S,W Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, or by calling`b39-4171 TIGARD CITY COUNCIL. MEETING AND LOCAL CONTRACTREVIEW, BOARD MEETING April 13;1999 - 6030 PAL,:: , . TIGARD CITY HALL TOWN HALL 13125 SW HALL BOULEVARDTIGAIRD, OREGON Reports and'updates to Council on the following topics: Conduct (Quasi-Judicial) Public Hearing- 135th Avenue Detour Easement Vacation * Conduct Public Hearing - Source of Long-term Water Supply Council will hear public testimony from individuals and groups. Each individual will be allowed 3 minutes for public testimony. Groups, which have, prearranged with the Public Works Director to speak at this hearing, will be allowed 15 minutes per group for testimony. Council will deliberate toward a decision at the April 27, 1999, City Council aieeting.4h order to give the Council time to review the tes- timony, the deadline for receipt of written public testimony for the Council's consideration is April 15, 1999, 5 p.m. * Consideration of Final Order - Erickson Heights Subdivision Council Liaison Reports * Executtve''Seaston TT9371- Publish April 89 1999. n N :7 COMMUNITY NEWSPAPERS, INC. Legal P.O. BOX 370 PHONE (503) 684-0360 Notice TT 9362 BEAVERTON. OREGON 97075 Legal Notice Advertising Cii::y of Tigard • ❑ Teat-sheet Notice r 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard,Oregon 97223 ® ❑ Duplicate Affidavit ®Accounts Payable AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF OREGON, ) COUNTY OF WASHINGTON, )as' I, Kathy RnVapr being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Advertising Director, or his principal clerk, of thdili crard-Tiia I a_ti n Times (j a newspaper of general circulation as defined in ORS 193.010 and 193.020; published at Tir?arrl in the aforesaid county and state; that the 35t;h AAxnnn»e T*iej-o1J Easement Vacatinn a printed copy of which is hereto annexed, was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for TWO successive and consecutive in the following issues: fiarch 25,AAril 1,1999 Subscribed and sworn to fo me this 1, 19 9 9 / OFFICIAL SEAL Lg08W A. MM QM Notatf Pub is for Oregon NOTARY PUBLIC-OREGON TIP *COMMISSION NO. 062071 My Commission Expires: MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 18, 2001 AFFIDAVIT I 7 s►13`$E'DET47UR EASEMENT VACATIt)1►7< Ttte r1owd City Co4ttcil will hold a public liearing on.'W zda' Apnl,13, f 1994;'k .30M., at the Tigard tity Hall,,..Town Hall Room; 13125 SW Hall Boulevard, Tigard, Oregon 97223, td.consider tli6 prolitised vacation of an. approximately 28,645 square foot portion of. SW 135th Avenue, south of the Summer Creek. Apinments.'Th6Iequest'was%filed, withlhe City on December 4, 1998 and initiated :by the. City. Council at.the request of the applicant on February 23, 1999'Aoy interested person may appear and;;be.,hgsrd;,;againstthe.prc~pased~vaoation of said 135t1''ie`' detour easeme for,or tit vacation. Any written. obf&tions or;renionstra ice Aven s-shall be filed with the City Recorder by 7 30 .m on Apn1,13; "1999 SG~D~r e 3 c ' i I BEA CL i N - :2 EA, TO SE,'VACAT£D TT9362- Publi sh March 25, Apfi~ 1, 1999. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING In the Matter of the Proposed STATE OF OREGON ) County of Washington ) ss. City of Tigard ) I, _I FATIIFL)2 Kn1oc)P begin first duly sworn, on oath, depose and say: That I posted in the following public and conspicuous places, a copy of Ordinance Number (s) C- L which were adopted at the Council Meeting dated I copy(s) of said o dinance(s) being hereto attached and by reference made a part hereof, on the _ day of , 19.. 29 1. Tigard City Hall, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 2. Tigard Library, 13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, Oregon 3. Tigard Water Department, 8777 SW Burnham, Tigard, Oregon N~d I Subscribed and sworn to before me this J ! day of 19~. oFFVALSEAL tary Public for Oregon JESMA U GOMM NOTARY PUBUC-0REWN PAY CCPAPAIOMMIS ION NO.S31NCN. M 200 My Commission Expires: is\adm\jo\affpost. doe CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON rATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO.99-~ AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE VACATION OF AN APPROXIMATELY 28,645 SQUARE FOOT PORTION OF A DETOUR EASEMENT ALONG SW 135TH AVENUE IN TIME CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON. WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council initiated this vacation request pursuant to Section 15.08.040 of the Tigard Municipal Code on February 23, 1999 and approval has been recommended by the Community Development Department; and WHEREAS, the approximately 28,645 square foot portion of said easement had been previously dedicated to the public per Easement Document 89-20392 for the purpose of providing a detour during the construction of SW 1350' Avenue; and WHEREAS, Southwest 1350i Avenue has been improved and the detour easement is no longer necessary; and WHEREAS, all affected service providers have reviewed the vacation proposal and have provided no objections; and WHEREAS, notice has been mailed to all property owners abutting said vacation area and all owners in the affected area, as described by ORS 271.080; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Tigard Municipal Code Section 1.08.120, the City Recorder posted notice in the area to be vacated and published notice of the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the property owners of the majority of the area affected have not objected in writing; and WHEREAS, the City Council having considered the request on April 13, 1999, finds that it is in the public interest to approve the request to vacate said detour easement as the public interest will not be prejudiced by this vacation, as provided by ORS 271.120 and Tigard Municipal Code Section 15.08.130. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Tigard City Council hereby orders the vacation of said approximately 28,645 square foot portion of detour easement as shown and described on the attached Exhibits A and B (map and legal description of the area to be vacated), and by this reference, made part thereof. SECTION 2: This ordinance shall be effective 30 days after its passage by the Council, approval by the Mayor, and posting by the City Recorder. PASSED: By UlAt/1il' OU5 vote o all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this " day of -14,2 L 1999. C ity Recor r APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this _/-'3M day o '1999. eApproved as to form: Citytt rney y-13--~F 2 Date ORDINANCE No. 99- i:\citywidelordWacl35th2.ord (4/13/99 City Council Public Hearing) 03/24/99 5:40 PM ATTACHMENT 1: "EXHIBIT A" . C A C Z 0 w z HAWK'S z BEARD M ~tp CL 4 6i.0// n6. Y x z co ti ARE=A TO BE VACATED ~C o~ VICINITY MAP ~ SW 135TH AVENUE EXHIBIT DETOUR EASEMENT VACATION ma is not to scale ATTACHMENT 1: "EXHIBIT B" DESCRIPTION FOR THE VACATION OF DETOUR EASEMENT A PORTION OF THE TRACT OF LAND IN THE EAST 1/2 OF SECTION 33 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH RANGE ONE WEST WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY OF TIGARD, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF DEDICATION DEED RECORDED IN FEE NUMBER 89-20392 OF THE WASHINGTON COUNTY DEED RECORDS WHICH IS N 010 38'40" E 233.21 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID DEDICATION DEED; THENCE N 01- 38'40" E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 145.71 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 1 PARTITION PLAT 1996-059 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N 01° 38'40" E, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 320.29 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF SAID DETOUR EASEMENT; THENCE S 38° 21'20" E A DISTANCE OF 155.57 FEET TO A POINT 100.00 FEET EASTERLY OF (WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES) SAID EAST LINE ; THENCE S 01.38' 40" W A DISTANCE OF 227.66 FEET; THENCE S 41° 38'40" W A DISTANCE OF 26.65 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARTITION PLAT 1996-059; THENCE N 60° 30'26" W, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 8.42 FEET THENCE N 58° 35'39" W ALONG SAID NORTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 47.34 FEET; THENCE N 58° 44'38" W, ALONG SAID THE NORTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 39.48 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 28645 SQUARE FEET. 1 i i i ~ 3 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF TIGARD ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Chapter 16 of Title 14 of the Tigard Municipal Code is amended by replacing it in its entirety with the Chapter 16 as shown in Exhibit "A." SECTION 2: The ordinance shall be effective on May 3, 1998. PASSED: By _rrk-2 furl P~J_ vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this d 3rdday of c , 1999. Catherine Wheatley, City Recorder(j r~ APPROVED: By Tigard City Council this day of 99 S Nicoli, Mayor Approved as to form: Ci A orney 2 -23``t q Date i Aci tyMdebrdinanc.dot ORDINANCE No. 99-v2- Page 2 EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 99- Chapter 14.16 PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REGULATIONS Sections: PART 1 - GENERAL 14.16.010 Chapter Title. 14.16.020 Purpose. 14.16.030 Scope. 14.16.040 Application of Titles 14 and 18. 14.16.050 Use of Summary Headings. 14.16.060 Definitions, Generally. 14.16.070 Definitions. PART2-STANDARDS 14.16.080 Housing Maintenance Requirements, Generally. 14.16.090 Display of Address Number. 14.16.100 Accessory Structures. 14.16.110 Roofs. 14.16.120 Chimneys. 14.16.130 Foundations and Structural Members. 14.16.140 Exterior Walls and Exposed Surfaces. 14.16.150 Stairs and Porches. 14.16.160 Handrails and Guardrails. 14.16.170 Windows. 14.16.180 Doors. 14.16.190 Interior Walls, Floors, and Ceilings. 14.16.200 Interior Dampness. 14.16.210 Insect and Rodent Harborage. 14.16.220 Cleanliness and Sanitation. 14.16.230 Bathroom Facilities. 14.16.240 Kitchen Facilities. 14.16.250 Plumbing Facilities. 14.16.260 Heating Equipment and Facilities. 14.16.270 Electric System, Outlets, and Lighting. 14.16.280 Sleeping Room Requirements. 14.16.290 Overcrowding. 14.16.300 Emergency Exits. 14.16.310 Smoke Alarms and Detectors. 14.16.320 Hazardous Materials. 14.16.330 Maintenance of Facilities and Equipment. 14.16.340 Swimming Pool Enclosures. 14.16.350 Special Standards for Single-Room Occupancy Housing Units. PART 3 - DANGEROUS & DERELICT STRUCTURES 14.16.360 Dangerous and Derelict Structures, Generally. 14.16.370 Derelict Structures. 14.16.350 Dangerous Structures. PART 4 - ENFORCEMENT 14.16.355 Notice of Status as Derelict or Dangerous Structure. 14.16.340 Statement of Actions Required. 14.16.400 Notice of Unsafe Occupancy. 14.16.410 Abatement of Dangerous Structures. 14.16.420 Inspections Required, Right of Entry. 14.16.430 Fee-paid Inspections for Residential Structures. 14.I' .140 Occupancy of Residential Property After Notice of Violation. 14.16.450 Illegal Residential Occupancy. 14.16.460 Interference with Repair, Demolition, or Abatement Prohibited. 14.16.470 Violations. , , , , i PART 1-GENERAL 14.16.010 Chapter Title. This Chapter shall be known as "Property Maintenance Regulations," and is referred to herein as "this Chapter." 14.16.020 Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to protect the health, safety and welfare of Tigard citizens, to prevent deterioration of existing housing, and to contribute to vital neighborhoods by: 1. Establishing and enforcing minimum standards "or residential structures regarding basic equipment, facilities, sanitation, fire safety, and maintenance. 2. Regulating and abating dangerous and derelict buildings. 14.16.030 Scope, Conflict with State Law. This provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all property in the City except as otherwise excluded by law; however, the provisions of this Chapter do not apply to Group "I" occupancies as classified by the 1998 Oregon Structural Specialty Code. In the event that a provision of this Chapter conflicts with a licensing requirement of the Oregon State Department of Human Resources, the state licensing requirements shall be followed. In areas where the Oregon State Department of Human Resources does not regulate through its licensing process, the provisions of this Chapter shall apply. 14.16.040 Application of Titles 14 and 18. Any alterations to buildings, or changes of their use, which may be a result of the enforcement of this Chapter shall be done in accordance with applicable Sections of Title 14 (Buildings and Construction) and Title 18 (Zoning) of the Code of the City of Tigard. 14.16.050 Use of Summary Headings. This Chapter makes use of summary headings (in bold face type) on chapters, sections, and subsections to assist the reader in navigating the document. In the event of a conflict in meaning between the bold heading and the following plain text, the meaning of the plain text shall apply. 14.16.060 Definitions, Generally. For the purpose of this Chapter, certain abbreviations, terms, phrases, words and their derivatives shall be construed as specified in this Chapter. Words used in the singular include the plural and the plural the singular. Words used in the masculine gender include the feminine and the feminine the masculine. ".And" indicates that all connected items or provisions apply. "Or" indicates that the connected items or provisions may apply singly or in combination. Terms, words, phrases and their derivatives used, but not specifically defined in this Chapter, either shall have the meanings defined in Titles 14 or 18, or if not defined, shall have their commonly accepted meanings. If a conflict exists between a definition in Title 14 and 18, the definitions in this Chapter shall apply to actions taken pursuant to this Chapter. 14.16.070 Definitions. The definition of words with specific meaning in this Chapter are as follows: 1. Abatement of a nuisance. The act of removing, repairing, or taking other steps as may be necessary in order to remove a nuisance. 2. Accessory Structure. Any. structure not intended for human occupancy which is located on residential property. Accessory structures may be attached to or detached from the residential structure. Examples of accessory structures include: garages, carports, sheds, and other non-dwelling buildings; decks, awnings, heat pumps, fences, trellises, flag poles, tanks, towers, exterior stairs and walkways, and other exterior structures on the property. 3. Apartment House. See Dwelling Classifications. 4. Approved. Meets the standards set forth by applicable provisions of the Tigard City Code including any applicable regulations for electric, plumbing, building, or other sets of standards included by reference in this Chapter. 5. Basement. The usable portion of a building which is below the main entrance story and is partly or completely below grade. 6. Boarded. Secured against entry by apparatus which is visible off the premises and is not both lawful and customary to install on occupied structures. 7. Building. Any structure used or intended to be used for supporting or sheltering any use or occupancy. 8. Building, Existing. A building constructed and legally occupied prior to the adoption of this Chapter, and one for which a building permit has been lawfully issued and has not been revoked or lapsed due to inactivity. 9. Building Official. The Building Official, or authorized representative, charged with the enforcement and administration of this Chapter. 10. Ceiling Height. The clear distance between the floor and the ceiling directly above it. 11. Court. A space, open and unobstructed to the sky, located at or above grade level on a lot and bounded on three or more sides by walls of a building. 12. Dangerous Building. See Dangerous Structure. 13. Dangerous Structure. Any stricture which has any of the conditions or defects described in Section 14.16.380. 14. Derelict Building. Any structure which has any of the conditions or defects described in Section 14.16.370(A) 15. Duplex. See Dwelling Classifications, "Two-Family Dwelling. " 16. Dwelling. Any structure containing dwelling units, including all dwelling classifications covered by this Chapter. 17. Dwelling Classifications. Types of dwellings covered by this Chapter include: a. Accessory Dwelling Unit. An additional- dwelling unit within a detached single- family dwelling, subject to the provisions of Title 18. b. Single-Family Dwelling. A structure containing one dwelling unit, including adult foster care homes. , c. Two-Family Dwelling. A structure containing two dwelling units, also known as a "duplex. " d. Apartment House. Any building or portion of a building containing three or more dwelling units, which is designed, built, rented, leased, let, or hired out to be occupied for residential living purposes. e. Hotel. Any structure containing dwelling units that are intended, designed, or used for renting or hiring out for sleeping purposes by residents on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. f. Motel. For purposes of this Chapter, a motel shall be defined the same as a hotel. g. Single-Room Occupancy Housing Unit. A one-room dwelling unit in a hotel providing sleeping, cooking, and living facilities for one or two persons in which some or all sanitary or cooking facilities (toilet, lavatory, bathtub or shower, kitchen sink, or cooking equipment) may be shared with other dwelling units. h. Social Care Facilities. Any building or portion of a building , which is designed, built, rented, leased, let, hired out or otherwise occupied for group residential living purposes, which is not an apartment house, single-family dwelling or two-family dwelling. Such facilities include but are not limited to, retirement facilities, assisted living facilities, residential care facilities, half-way houses, youth shelters, homeless MENEM! shelters and other group living residential facilities. L Manufactured Dwelling. The term "manufactured dwelling" includes the following types of single-family dwellings: (1) Residential Trailer. A structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, that is being used for, or is intended to be used for, residential purposes, and that was constructed before January 1, 1062. (2) Mobile Home. A structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, that is being used for, or is intended to be used for, residential purposes, and that was constructed between January 1, 1962, and June 15, 1976, and met the construction requirements of Oregon mobile home law in effect at the time of construction. (3) Manufactured Home. A structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, that is being used for, or is intended to be used for, residential purposes, and that was constructed in accordance with federal manufactured housing construction 'and safety standards and regulations. Manufactured Dwelling does not include any unit identified as a recreational vehicle by the manufacturer. 18. Dwelling Unit. One or more habitable rooms that are.occupied by, or in the case of an unoccupied structure or portion of a structure, are designed or intended to be occupied by, one person or by a family or group living together as a single housekeeping unit that includes facilities for living and sleeping and, unless exempted by this Chapter in Sections 14.16.230 and 14.16.240, also includes facilities for cooking, eating, and sanitation. 19. Exit. (Means of Egress.) A continuous, unobstructed means of escape to a public way, as defined in the building code in effect in the City. 20. Exterior Property Area. The sections of residential property which are outside the exterior walls and roof of the dwelling. 21. Extermination. The elimination of insects, rodents, vermin or other pests at or about the affected building. 22. Floor Area. The area of clear floor space in a room exclusive of fixed or built-in cabinets or appliances. 23. Habitable Room (Space). Habitable room or space is a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas are not considered habitable space. 24. Hazardous Materials. Materials defined by the current fire code adopted by the Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue District as hazardous. 25. Hotel. See Dwelling Classifications. 26. Human Habitation. The use of any residential structure or portion of the structure in which any person remains for continuous periods of two hours or more or for periods which will amount to four or more hours out of 24 hours in one day. 27. Immediate Danger. Any condition posing a direct immediate threat to human life, health, or safety. 28. Infestation. The presence within or around a dwelling of insects, rodents, vermin or other pests to a degree that is harmful to the dwelling or its occupants. 29. Inspection. The examination of a property by a person authorized by law for the purpose of evaluating its condition as provided by this Chapter. 30. Inspector. An authorized representative of the Building Official whose primary function is the inspection of properties and the enforcement of this Chapter. 31. Interested Party. Any person or entity that possesses any legal or equitable interest of record in a property including but not limited to the holder of any lien or encumbrance of record on the property. 32. Kitchen. A room used or designed to be used for the preparation of food. 33. Lavatory. A fixed wash basin connected to hot and cold running water and the building drain and used primarily for personal hygiene. 34. Maintenance. The work of keeping property in proper condition to perpetuate its use. 35. Manufactured Dwelling. See Dwelling Classifications. 36. Motel. See Dwelling Classifications. 37. Occupancy. The lawful purpose for which a building or part of a building is used or intended to be used. 38. Occupant. Any person (including an owner or operator) using a building, or any part of a building, for its lawful, intended use. WIN 39. Occupied. Used for an occupancy. 40. Operator. Any person who has charge, care or control of a building or part of a building in which dwelling units are let or offered for occupancy. 41. Outdoor area. All parts of property that are exposed to the weather including the exterior of structures built for human occupancy. This includes, but is not limited to; open and accessible porches, carports, garages, and decks; accessory structures, and any outdoor storage structure. 42. Owner. The person whose name and address is listed as the owner of the property by the County Tax Assessor in the County Assessment and Taxation records. 43. Plumbing or Plumbing Fixtures. Plumbing or plumbing fixtures mean any water heating facilities, water pipes, vent pipes, garbage or disposal units, waste lavatories, bathtubs, shower baths, installed clothes-washing machines or other similar equipment, catch basins, drains, vents, or other similarly supplied fixtures, together with all connection to water, gas, sewer, or vent lines. 44. Property. Real property and all improvements or structures on real property, from property line to property line. 45. Public right of way. Any sidewalk, planting strip, alley, street, or pathway, improved or unimproved, that is dedicated to public use. 46. Repair. The reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing structure for the purpose of its maintenance. 47. Resident. Any person (including owner or operator) hiring or occupying a room or dwelling unit for living or sleeping purposes. 48. Residential Property. Real property and all improvements or structures on real property used or in the case of unoccupied property intended to be used for residential purposes including any residential structure, dwelling, or dwelling unit as defined in this chapter and any mixed-use structures which have one or more dwelling units. Hotels that are used exclusively for transient occupancy, as defined in this Chapter, are excluded from this definition of residential property. 49. Residential Rental Property. Any property within the City on which exist one or more dwelling units which are not occupied as the principal residence of the owner. 50. Residential Structure. Any building or other improvement or structure containing one or more dwelling units as well as any accessory structure. This includes any dwelling as defined in this Chapter. 51. Shall. As used in this Chapter, is mandatory. 7 52. Single-Family Dwelling. See Dwelling Classifications. 53. Single-Room Occupancy (Housing Unit. See Dwelling Classifications. 54. Sink. A fixed basin connected to hot and cold running water and a drainage system and primarily used for the preparation of food and the washing of cooking and eating utensils. 55. Sleeping Room. Any room designed, built, or intended to be used as a bedroom as well as any other room used for sleeping purposes. 56. Smoke Alarm or Detector. An approved detection device for products of combustion other than heat that is either a single station device or intended for use in conjunction with a central control panel and which plainly identifies the testing agency that inspected or approved the device. 57. Structure. That which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece or work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, including but not limited to buildings. 58.. Substandard. In violation of any of the minimum requirements as set out in this Chapter. 59. Supplied. Installed, furnished or provided by the owner or operator. 60. Swimming Pool. An artificial basin, chamber, or tank constructed of impervious material, having a depth of 18 inches or more, and used or intended to be used for swimming, diving, or recreational bathing. 61. Toilet. A flushable plumbing fixture connected to running water and a drainage system and used for the disposal of human waste. 62. Toilet Compartment. A room containing only a toilet or only a toilet and lavatory. 63. Transient Occupancy. Occupancy of a dwelling unit in a hotel where the following conditions are met: i a. Occupancy is charged on a daily basis and is not collected more than six days in advance; b. The lodging operator provides maid and linen service daily or every two days as part of the regularly charged cost of occupancy; c. The period of occupancy does not exceed 30 days; and d. If the occupancy exceeds five days, the resident has a business address or a residence other than at the hotel. 64. Two-Family Dwelling. See Dwelling Classifications. 65. Unoccupied. Not used for occupancy. 66. Unsecured. Any structure in which doors, windows, or apertures are open or broken so as to allow access by unauthorized persons. 67. Yard. An open, unoccupied space, other than a court, unobstructed from the ground to the sky, and located between a structure and the property line of the lot on which the structure is situated. PART 2 - STANDARDS 14.16.080 housing Maintenance Requirements, Generally. No owner shall maintain or permit to be maintained any residential property which does not comply with the requirements of this Chapter. All residential property shall be maintained to the building code requirements in effect at the time of construction, alteration, or repair and shall meet the minimum requirements described in this chapter. 14.16.090 Display of Address Number. Address numbers posted shall be the same as the number listed on the County Assessment and Taxation Records for the property. All dwellings shall have address numbers posted in a conspicuous place so they may be read from the listed street or public way. Units within apartment houses shall be clearly numbered or lettered. 14.16.100 Accessory Structures. All accessory structures on residential property shall be maintained structurally safe and sound and in good repair. Exterior steps and walkways shall be maintained free of unsafe obstructions or hazardous conditions. { { 14.16.110 Roofs. { { The roof shall be structurally sound, tight, and have no defects which might admit rain. Roof drainage shall be adequate to prevent rainwater from causing dampness in the walls or interior portion of the building and shall channel rainwater into approved receivers. a 14.16.120 Chimneys. Every masonry, metal, or other chimney shall remain adequately supported and free from MISSISSIPPI obstructions and shall be maintained in a condition which ensures there will be no leakage or back- up of noxious gases. Every chimney shall be reasonably plumb. Loose bricks or blocks shall be rebonded. Loose or missing mortar shall be replaced. Unused openings into the interior of the structure must be permanently sealed using approved materials. 14.16.130 Foundations and Structural Members. A. Foundation elements shall adequately support the building and shall be free of rot, crumbling elements, or similar deterioration. B. The supporting structural members in every dwelling shall be maintained structurally sound, showing no evidence of deterioration or decay which would substantially impair their ability to carry imposed loads. 14.16.140 Exterior Walls and Exposed Surfaces. A. Every exterior wall and weather-exposed exterior surface or attachment shall be free of holes, breaks, loose or rotting boards or timbers and any other conditions which might admit rain or dampness to the interior portions of the walls or the occupied spaces of the building. B. All exterior wood surfaces shall be made substantially impervious to the adverse effects of weather by periodic application of an approved protective coating of weather-resistant preservative, and be maintained in good condition. Wood used in construction of permanent structures and located nearer than six inches to earth shall be treated wood or wood having a natural resistance to decay. C. Exterior metal surfaces shall be protected from rust and corrosion. D. Every section of exterior brick, stone, masonry, or other veneer shall be maintained structurally sound and be adequately supported and tied back to its supporting structure. 14.16.150 Stairs and Porches. Every stair, porch, and attachment to stairs or porches shall be so constructed as to be safe to use and capable of supporting the loads to which it is subjected and shall be kept in sound condition and good repair, including replacement as necessary of flooring, treads, risers, and stringers that evidence excessive wear and are broken, warped, or loose. 14.16.160 Handrails and Guardrails. Every handrail and guardrail shall be firmly fastened, and shall be maintained in good condition, capable of supporting the loads to which it is subjected, and meet the following requirements: 1. Handrails and guardrails required by building codes at the time of construction shall be maintained or, if removed, shall be replaced. 2. Where not otherwise required by original building codes, exterior stairs of more than three risers which are designed and intended to be used as part of the regular access to the dwelling unit shall have handrails. Interior stairs of more than three risers that connect between floors with habitable rooms shall have handrails. When required handrails are installed they shall have a minimum height of 30 inches and maximum height of 38 inches, measured vertically from the nosing of the treads. They shall be continuous the full length of the stairs and shall be returned or shall terminate in newel posts or safety terminals. 3. Where not otherwise required by original building codes, porches, balconies or raised floor surfaces located more than 30 inches above the floor or grade below shall have guardrails at least 36 inches high. Open sides of stairs with a total rise of more than 30 inches above the floor or grade below shall have guardrails no less than 34 inches in height measured vertically from the nosing of the tread. When required guardrails are installed, they shall have intermediate rails or ornamental closures which will not allow passage of an object 4 inches or more in diameter. 14.16.170 Windows. A. Every habitable room shall have at least one window facing directly to an exterior yard or court or shall be provided with approved artificial light. Except where approved artificial light is provided, the minimum total glass area for each habitable room shall be 6.8 percent of the room's floor area, except for basement rooms where the minimum shall be 5 percent. These exceptions to the current code shall not apply where any occupancy has been changed or increased contrary to the provisions of this Chapter. B. Every habitable room shall have at least one window that.can be easily opened or another approved device to adequately ventilate the room. Except where another approved ventilation device is provided, the total openable window area in every habitable room shall be equal to at least one-fortieth of the area of the room. Windows required for secondary escape purposes in sleeping rooms must also meet the requirements outlined in Subsection 14.16.170(D). C. Every bathroom and toilet compartment shall comply with the light* and ventilation requirements for habitable rooms as required by Subsections 14.16.170(A) and (B), except that no window shall be required in bathrooms or toilet compartments equipped with an approved ventilation system. D. Windows in sleeping rooms that are provided to meet emergency escape or rescue requirements described in Section 14.16.300(A) shall have a sill height of no more than 44 inches above the floor or above an approved, permanently installed step. The step must not exceed 12 inches in height and must extend the full width of the window. The top surface of the step must be a minimum of six feet from the ceiling above the step. E. Windows in sleeping rooms that are provided to meet emergency escape or rescue requirements described in Section 14.16.300(A) shall have a minimum net clear opening at least 20 inches wide, at least 22 inches high, and, if constructed after July 1, 1974, at least five square feet in area. F. Every window required for ventilation or emergency escape shall be capable of being easily opened and held open by window hardware. Any installed storm windows on windows required for emergency escape must be easily openable from the inside without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. C. All windows within 10 feet of the exterior grade that open must be able to be securely latched from the inside as well as be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. This same requirement shall apply to all openable windows that face other locations that are easily accessible from the outside, such as balconies or fire escapes, regardless of height from the exterior grade. H. Every window shall be substantially weather-tight, shall be kept in sound condition and repair for its intended use, and shall comply with the following: 1. Every window sash shall be fully supplied with glass window panes or an approved substitute without open cracks and holes. 2. Every window sash shall be in good condition and fit weather-tight within its frames. 3. Every window frame shall be constructed and maintained in relation to the adjacent wall construction so as to exclude rain as completely as possible and to substantially exclude wind from entering the dwelling. 14.16.180 Doors. A. Every dwelling or dwelling unit shall have at least one door leading to an exterior yard or court, or in the case of a two-family dwelling or apartment, to an exterior yard or court or to an approved exit. All such doors shall be openable from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. All screen doors and storm doors must be easily openable from the inside without the use of a key or special knowledge or effort. B. In hotels and apartment houses, exit doors in common corridors or other common passageways shall be openable from the inside with one hand in a single motion, such as pressing a bar or turning a knob, without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. C. Every door to the exterior of a dwelling unii shall be equipped with a lock designed to discourage unwanted entry and to permit opening from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. D. Every exterior door shall comply with the following: 1. Every exterior door, door hinge, door lock, and strike plate shall be maintained in good condition. 2. Every exterior door when closed, shall fit reasonably well within its frame and be weather-tight. 3. Every door frame shall be constructed and maintained in relation to the adjacent wall construction so as to exclude rain as completely as possible, and to substantially exclude wind from entering the dwelling. E. Every interior door and door frame shall be maintained in a sound condition for its intended purpose with the door fitting within the door frame. 14.16.190 Interior Walls, Floors, and Ceilings. A. Every interior wall, floor, ceiling, and cabinet shall be constructed and maintained in a safe and structurally sound condition, free of large holes and serious cracks, loose plaster or wallpaper, flaking or scaling paint, to permit the interior wall, floor, ceiling and cabinet to be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. B. Every toilet compartment, bathroom, and kitchen floor surface shall be constructed and maintained to be substantially impervious to water and to permit the floor to be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. 14.16.200 Interior Dampness. Every dwelling, including basements, and crawl spaces shall be maintained reasonably free from dampness to prevent conditions conducive to decay, mold growth, or deterioration of the structure. 14.16.210 Insect and Rodent Harborage. Every dwelling shall be kept free from insect and rodent infestation, and where insects and rodents are found, they shall be promptly exterminated. After extermination, proper precautions shall be taken to prevent reinfestation. 14.16.220 Cleanliness and Sanitation. The interior of every dwelling shall be constructed in a safe and structurally sound condition to permit the interior to be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. The interior of every dwelling shall be free from accumulation of rubbish or garbage which is affording a breeding ground for insects and rodents, producing dangerous or offensive gases, odors and bacteria, or other unsanitary conditions, or a fire hazard. 14.16.230 Bathroom Facilities. A. Except as otherwise noted in this Section, every dwelling unit shall contain within its walls in safe and sanitary working condition: 1. A toilet located in a room that is separate from the habitable rooms and that allows privacy; 2. A lavatory basin; and 3. A bathtub or shower located in a room that allows privacy. B. In hotels, apartment houses and social care facilities where private toilets, lavatories, or baths are not provided, there shall be on each floor at least one toilet, one lavatory, and one bathtub or shower each provided at the rate of one for every twelve residents or fraction of twelve residents. Required toilets, bathtubs, and showers shall be in a room, or rooms, that allow privacy. C. When there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this section for hotels, apartment houses and social care facilities where private toilets, lavatories or baths are not provided, the building official may grant modifications for individual cases. The building official shall first find that a special and individual reason makes the requirements of this section impractical and that the modification is in conformance with the intent of this section and that such modification does not result in the provision of inadequate bathroom facilities in the dwelling. 14.16.240 Kitchen Facilities. A. Every dwelling unit shall contain a kitchen sink apart from the lavatory basin required under Section 14.16.230, with the exception of single-room occupancy housing units which shall comply with Subsection 14.16.350(B) and social care facilities complying with Subsection 14.16.240(C). B. Except as otherwise provided for in Subsections 14.16.240(C) and 14.16.350(B) and (C), every dwelling unit shall have approved service connections for refrigeration and cooking appliances. C. Social care facilities may be provided with a community kitchen with facilities for cooking, refrigeration, and washing utensils. + 14.16.250 Plumbing Facilities. t A. Every plumbing fixture or device shall be properly connected to a public or an approved private water system and to a public or an approved private sewer system. B. All required sinks, lavatory basins, bathtubs and showers shall be supplied with both hot and cold running water. Every dwelling shall be supplied with water heating facilities adequate for each dwelling unit which are installed in an approved manner, properly maintained, and properly connected with hot water lines to all required sinks, lavatory basins, bathtubs and showers. Water heating facilities shall be capable of heating water enough to permit an adequate amount of water to be drawn at every required facility at a temperature of at least 120 degrees at any time needed. C. In every dwelling all plumbing or plumbing fixtures shall be: 1. Properly installed, connected, and maintained in good working order; 2. Dept free from obstructions, leaks, and defects; 3. Capable of performing the function for which they are designed; and 4. Installed and maintained so-as to prevent structural deterioration or health hazards. D. All plumbing repairs and installations shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Plumbing Code adopted by the City. 14.16.260 Heating Equipment and Facilities. A. All heating equipment, including that used for cooking, water heating, dwelling heat, and clothes drying shall be: 1. Properly installed, connected, and maintained in safe condition and good working order, 2. Free from leaks and obstructions and kept functioning properly so as to be free from fire, health, and accident hazards; and 3. Capable of performing the function for which they are designed. B. Every dwelling shall have a heating facility capable of maintaining a room temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit at a point 3 feet from the floor in all habitable rooms. 1. Portable heating devices may not be used to meet the dwelling heat requirements of this Chapter. 2. No inverted or open flame fuel burning heater shall be permitted. All heating devices or appliances shall be of an approved type. a 5 14.16.270 Electrical System, Outlets, and Lighting. A. Every dwelling shall be connected to an approved source of electric power. Every electric outlet and fixture shall be maintained and safely connected to an approved electrical system. The electrical system shall not constitute a hazard to the occupants of the building by reason milli of inadequate service, improper using, improper wiring or installation, deterioration or damage, or similar reasons. B. In addition to other electrical system components that may be used to meet cooking, refrigeration, and heating requirements listed elsewhere in this Chapter, the following outlets and lighting fixtures are required: 1. Every habitable room shall contain at least two operable electric outlets or one outlet and one operable electric light fixture. 2. Every toilet compartment or bathroom shall contain at least one supplied and operable electric light fixture and one outlet. Every laundry, furnace room, and all similar non- habitable spaces located in a dwelling shall have one supplied electric light fixture available at all times. 3. Every public hallway, corridor, and stairway in apartment houses, hotels and social care facilities shall be adequately lighted at all times with an average intensity of illumination of at least one foot candle at principal points such as angles and intersections of corridors and passageways, stairways, landings of stairways, landings of stairs and exit doorways, and at least '/z-foot candle at other points. Measurement of illumination shall be taken at points not more than 4 feet above the floor. 14.16.250 Sleeping Room Requirements. Every room used for sleeping purposes: 1. Shall be a habitable room as defined in this Chapter; and 2. Shall have natural or approved artificial light, ventilation, and windows or other means for escape purposes as required by this Chapter. 14.16.290 Overcrowding. No dwelling unit shall be permitted to be overcrowded. A dwelling unit shall be considered overcrowded if there are more residents than one plus one additional resident for every 150 square feet of floor area of the habitable rooms in the dwelling unit. 14.16.300 Emergency Exits. A. Every sleeping room shall have at least one operable window or exterior door approved for emergency escape or rescue that is openable from the inside to a full clear opening without the use of special knowledge, effort, or separate tools. Windows used to meet this requirement shall meet the size and sill height requirements described in 14.16.170(D). All below grade windows used to meet this requirement shall have a window well the full width of the window, constructed of permanent materials with a 3 foot clearance measured perpendicular to the outside wall. The bottom of the well may not be more than 44 inches below grade. B. Required exit doors and other exits shall be free of encumbrances or obstructions that block access to the exit. C. All doorways, windows and any device used in connection with the means of escape shall be maintained in good working order and repair. D. In addition to other exit requirements, in hotels and apartment houses: 1. All fire escapes shall be kept in good order and repair. 2. Every fire escape or stairway, stair platform, corridor or passageway which may be one of the regular means of emergency exit from the building shall be kept free of encumbrances or obstructions of any kind. 3. Where doors to stair enclosures are required by City code to be self-closing, the self closing device shall be maintained in good working order and it shall be unlawful to wedge or prop the doors open. 4. Windows leading to fire escapes shall be secured against unwanted entry with approved devices which permit opening from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge, effort or tool. 5. Where necessary to indicate the direction of egress, every apartment house and hotel shall have directional signs in place, visible throughout common passageways, that indicate the way to exit doors and fire escapes. Emergency exit doors and windows shall be clearly labeled for their intended use. 14.16.310 Smoke Alarms and Detectors. Smoke alarms and detectors shall be required to be maintained as was required at the time of construction of the dwelling. Notwithstanding the provisions of the requirement at the time of construction, a single station smoke alarm or detector shall be located in all buildings where a room or area therein is designated for sleeping purposes either as a primary use or use on a casual basis. A single station smoke alarm or detector shall be installed in the immediate vicinity of the sleeping rooms and on each additional story of the dwelling, including basements and attics with habitable space. All alarms and detectors shall be approved, shall comply with all applicable laws, shall be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and shall be operable. 14.16.320 Hazardous Materials. A. When paint is applied to any surface of a residential structure, it shall be lead-free. r, B. Residential property shall be free of dangerous levels of hazardous materials, contamination by toxic chemicals, or other circumstances that would render the property unsafe. C. No residential property shall be used as a place for the storage and handling of hi6h_I; combustible or explosive materials or any articles which may be dangerous or detrimental to life or health. No residential property shall be used for the storage or sale of paints, varnishes or oils used in the making of paints and varnishes, except as needed to maintain the dwelling. D. Residential property shall be kept free of friable asbestos. 14.16.330 Maintenance of Facilities and Equipment. In addition to other requirements for the maintenance of facilities and equipment described in this Chapter: 1. All required facilities in every dwelling shall be constructed and maintained to properly and safely perform their intended function. 2. All non-required facilities or equipment present in a dwelling shall be maintained to prevent structural damage to the building or hazards of health, sanitation, or fire. 14.16.340 Swimming Pool Enclosures. Each swimming pool not totally enclosed by a structure shall be enclosed by a substantial fence at least 4 feet in height and equipped with a self-closing and latching gate except where bordered by a wall of an adjacent structure at least 4 feet in height. No swimming pool shall be nearer than 3 feet from any lot line, and no enclosing fence or wall shall be constructed nearer than 3 feet to the outer walls of the swimming pool, but in no case shall the distance between the pool and the lot line or wall be closer than allowed by Title 18. The lot line shall be as defined in Title 18 of City code. 14.:.6.350 Special Standards for Single-Room Occupancy Dousing Units. In addition to meeting requirements for residential structures defined elsewhere in this Chapter, hotels containing single-room occupancy housing units shall comply with the following: 1. Either a community kitchen with facilities for cooking, refrigeration, and washing utensils shall be provided on each floor, or each individual single-room occupancy housing unit shall have facilities for cooking, refrigeration and washing utensils. In addition, facilities for community garbage storage or disposal shall be provided on each floor. 2. When there are practical difficulties involved in carrying out the provisions of this sub- section where each individual single-room occupancy housing unit is not provided with facilities for cooking, refrigeration and washing utensils, the building official may grant modifications for individual cases. The building official shall first find that a special and individual reason makes the requirements of this section impractical and that the dsww~ ROOM! modification is in conformance with the intent of this section and that such modification does not result in the provision of inadequate cooking, refrigeration and utensil washing facilities for the single-room occupancy housing units. 3. Where cooking units are provided in individual single-room occupancy housing units, they shall conform to the requirements set forth below. a. All appliances shall be hard-wired and on separate circuits or have single dedicated connections; b. All cooking appliances shall be fixed and permanent, except microwave ovens; c. The Mechanical Specialty Code, as adopted by Chapter 14.04 shall be used for setting standards for cooking appliances. Cabinets over cooking surfaces shall be 30 inches above the cooking surface, except that this distance may be reduced to 24 inches when a heat shield with 1 inch airspace and extending at least 6 inches horizontally on either side of the cooking appliance is provided. Cooking appliances shall be located with at least a 6-inch clear space in all directions from the perimeter of the cooking element or burner; d. All cooking appliances shall be installed so as to provide a minimum clear work space in front of the appliance of 24 inches. PART 3 - DANGEROUS & DERELICT STRUCTURES 14.16.360 Dangerous and Derelict Structures, Generally. No property shall contain any dangerous or derelict structure as described in this chapter. All such buildings or structures shall be repaired or demolished. 14.16.390 Derelict Structures. A. A dereild structure is any unoccupied non-residential building, structure, or portion thereof that meets any of the following criteria or any residential building which is at least 50% i unoccupied and meets any of the following criteria: 1. Has been ordered vacated by the Building Official pursuant to Chapter 1.16 and Section 14.16.385, 14.16.390 and 14.16.400; or, 2. Has been issued a notice of infraction by the Code Enforcement Officer pursuant to Section 1.16.120; or, 3. Is unsecured; or, 4. Is boarded unless the boarding is required by the Building Official; or, 5. Has, while vacant, had a nuisance declared by the City r?- the property upon which it is located. B. Any property which has been declared by the Building Official to include a derelict structure shall be considered in violation of this Chapter until: 1. The structure has been lawfully occupied; or, 2. The structure has been demolished and the lot cleared and graded after approval is issued by the City, with final inspection and approval by the Building Official, or, 3. The owner has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Building Official that the property is free of all conditions causing its status as a derelict structure. 14.16.380 Dangerous Structures. A. Any structure which has any or all of the following conditions or defects to the extent that life, health, property, or safety of the public or the structure's occupants are endangered, shall be deemed to be a dangerous structure, declared a nuisance, and such condition or defects shall be abated pursuant to Section 14.16.410 and Chapter 1.16 of the City Code. B. High loads. Whenever the stress in any materials, member, or portion of a structure, due to all dead and live loads, is more than 1-1/2 times the working stress or stresses allowed in Chapter 14.04 for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, or location. C. Weakened or unstable structural members or appendages. 1. Whenever any portion of a structure has been damaged by fire, earthquake, wind, flood, or by any other cause, to such an extent that the structural strength or stability is materially less than it was before such catastrophe and is less than the minimum requirements of Chapter 14.04 for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, or location; or 2. Whenever appendages including parapet walls, cornices, spires, towers, tanks, statuaries, or other appendages or structural members which are supported by, attached to, or part of a building, and which are in a deteriorated condition or otherwise unable to sustain the design loads which are specified in Chapter 14.04. D. Buckled or leaning walls, structural members. Whenever the exterior walls or other vertical structural members list, lean, or buckle to such an extent that a plumb line passing through the center of gravity does not fall inside the middle one-third of the base. E. Vulnerability to earthquakes, high winds. 1. Whenever any portion of a structure is wrecked, warped, buck?ed, or has settled to such an extent that walls or other structural portions have materially less resistance to winds or earthquakes than is required in the case of similar new construction; or 2. Whenever any portion of a building, or any member, appurtenance, or ornamentation of the exterior thereof is not of sufficient strength or stability, or is not so anchored, attached or fastened in place so as to be capable of resisting a wind pressure of one half of that specified in Chapter 14.04 for new buildings of similar structure, purpose, or location without exceeding the working stresses permitted in Chapter 14.04 for such buildings. F. Insufficient strength or fire resistance. Whenever any structure which, whether or not erected in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances: 1. Has in any non-supporting part, member, or portion, less than 50 percent of the strength or the fire-resisting qualities or characteristics required by law for a newly constructed building of like area, height, and occupancy in the same location; or 2. Has in any supporting part, member, or portion less than 66 percent of the strength or the fire-resisting qualities or characteristics required by law in the case of a newly constructed building of like area, height, and occupancy in the same location. G. Risk of failure or collapse. 1. Whenever any portion or member or appurtenance thereof is likely to fail, or to become disabled or dislodged, or to collapse and thereby injure persons or damage property; or 2. Whenever the structure, or any portion thereof, is likely to partially or completely collapse as a result of any cause, including but not limited to: a. Dilapidation, deterioration, or decay; b. Faulty construction; C. The removal, movement, or instability of any portion of the ground necessary for the purpose of supporting such structure; or d. The deterioration, decay, or inadequacy of its foundation. H. Excessive damage or deterioration. Whenever the structure exclusive of the foundation: 1. Shows 33 percent or more damage or deterioration of its supporting member or members; 2. 50 percent damage or deterioration of its non-supporting members; or 3. 50 percent damage or deterioration of its enclosing or outside wall coverings. 1. Demolition remnants on site. Whenever any portion of a structure, including unfilled excavations, remains on a site for more than 30 days after the demolition or destruction of the structure; J. Fire hazard. Whenever any structure is a fire hazard as a result of any cause, including but not limited to: Dilapidated condition, deterioration, or damage; inadequate exits; lack of sufficient fire-resistive construction; or faulty electric wiring, gas connections, or heating apparatus. K. Other hazards to health, safety, or public welfare. 1. Whenever, for any reason, the structure, or any portion thereof, is manifestly unsafe for the purpose for which it is lawfully constructed or currently is being used; or 2. Whenever a structure is structurally unsafe or is otherwise hazardous to human life, including but not limited to whenever a structure constitutes a hazard to health, safety, or public welfare by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation, unsanitary conditions, obsolescence, fire hazard, disaster, damage, or abandonment. L. Public nuisance. 1. Whenever any structure is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance known to the common law or in equity jurisprudence; or 2. Whenever the structure has been so damaged by fire, wind, earthquake or flood or any other cause, or has become so dilapidated or deteriorated as to become: a. An attractive nuisance, or b. A harbor for vagrants or criminals. M. Chronic dereliction. Whenever a derelict structure, as defined in this Chapter, remains unoccupied for a period in excess of 6 months or period less than 6 months when the structure or portion thereof constitutes an attractive nuisance or hazard to the public. N. Violations of codes, laws. Whenever any structure has been constructed, exists, or is maintained in violation of any specific requirement or prohibition applicable to such structure provided by the building regulations of this City, as specified in Chapter 14.04 or any law or ordinance of this State or City relating to the condition, location, or structure or buildings. PART 4 - ENFORCEMENT 14.16.385 * Notice of Status as Derelict or Dangerous Structure. When the Building Official determines that a structure is a derelict or dangerous structure notice of infraction shall be given to the owner pursuant to City Code Chapter 1.16. Additional notice to other affected persons may be given at the discretion of the Building Official. In addition to the notice required by Chapter 1. 16, the Building Official shall give the statement of actions required to cure or remedy the condition and, if necessary, the order to vacate described in § 14.16.390 and 14.16.400. 14.16.390 Statement of Actions Required. A. Notice of the statement of action shall be given in conjunction with the notice of infraction pursuant to Chapter 1.16. B. The statement of the action required to cure or remedy a condition giving rise to classification of a structure as derelict or dangerous shall include the following: 1. If the building official has detennined that the building or structure must be repaired, the statement shall require that all required permits be secured and the work physically commenced within such time from the date of the statement and completed within such time as the building official shall determine is reasonable under all of the circumstances. 2. If the building official has determined that the building or structure must be vacated, the statement shall order that the building or structure shall be vacated within a time certain from the date of the statement as determined by the building official to be reasonable. 3. If the building official has determined that (a) the building or structure is vacant, (b) that building or structure is structurally sound and does not present a fire hazard, and (c) the building or structure has presented or is likely to present a danger to individuals who may enter the building or structure even though they are unauthorized to do so, the statement shall require that the building or structure be secured against unauthorized entry by means which may include but are not limited to the boarding up of doors and windows. 4. If the building official has determined that the building or structure must be demolished, the statement shall order that the building be vacated within such time as the building official shall determine is reasonable from the date of the statement; that all required permits be secured from the date of the statement, and that the demolition be completed within such time as the building official shall determine is reasonable. 5. Statements advising that if any required repair or demolition work (without vacation also being required) is not commenced within the time specified, the building official will order the building vacated and posted to prevent further occupancy until the work is completed, and may proceed to cause the work to be done and charge the costs thereof against the property or its owners. 14.16.400 Notice of Unsafe Occupancy. A. Posting Notice. In conjunction with an order to vacate, a notice shall be posted at or upon each exit of the building and shall be in substantially the following form: DO NOT ENTER UNSAFE TO OCCUPY i It is a violation of Chapter 14.16 of the City Code to occupy this building or to remove or deface this notice. Building Official City of Tigard B. Compliance. 1. Upon an order to vacate and the posting of an unsafe building notice, no person shall remain in or enter any building which has been so posted, except that entry may be made to repair, demolish or remove such building under permit. 2. No person shall remove or deface any such notice after it is posted until the required repairs, demolition or removal have been completed and a certificate of occupancy issued pursuant to the provisions of the building code ordinance, codified in Chapter 14.04 of this code. 14.16.410 Abatement of Dangerous Structures. All structures or portions thereof which are determined after inspection by the Building Official to be dangerous as defined in this Chapter are hereby declared to be public nuisances and shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, demolition, or removal in accordance with the procedures specified herein. If the Building Official determines that a structure is dangerous, as defined by this Chapter, the Building Official may commence proceedings to cause the repair, vacation or demolition of the structure. 14.16.420 Inspections Required, Right of Entry. A. Inspections. All buildings, structures, or other improvements regulated by this Chapter and all construction work for which a permit is required shall be subject to inspection by the Building Official. B. Right of Entry. Whenever the Building Official has reasonable cause to suspect a violation of any provision of this Chapter exists or when necessary to investigate an application for or revocation of any approval under any of the procedures described in this title, the Building Official may enter on any site or into any structure for the purpose of investigation, provided that no premises shall be entered without first obtaining the consent of the owner or person in control of the premises if other than the owner, or by obtaining a search warrant. C. Search Warrant. If consent cannot be obtained, the Building Official shall secure a search warrant from the City's municipal court before further attempts to gain entry, and shall have recourse to every other remedy provided by law to secure entry. 14.16.430 Fee-paid Inspections for Residential Structures. Requested inspections that are not part of the City's code enforcement program will be made as soon as practical after payment to the Building Official of the fee specified by resolution of the City Council. 14.16.440 Occupancy of Residential Property After Notice of Violation. A. If a notice of violation of sections 14.16.080 through 14.16.350 or 14.16.360 through 14.16.380 has been issued, and if the affected dwelling unit(s) is or becomes vacant, it shall be unlawful to reoccupy or permit re-occupancy of the unit(s) for residential purposes until the necessary permits are obtained, corrections made, and permit inspection approvals given. B. Notwithstanding Subsection 14.16.440 (A), the Building Official may permit re-occupancy of the dwelling unit if in the Building Official's opinion, all fire and life safety hazards have been rectified. 14.16.450 Illegal Residential Occupancy. When a property has an illegal residential occupancy, including but not limited to occupancy of tents, campers, motor homes, recreational vehicles, or other structures or spaces not intended for permanent residential use or occupancy or spaces constructed or converted without permit, the use shall be abated or the structure brought into compliance with the present regulations for a building of the same occupancy. 14.16.460 Interference with Repair, Demolition, or Abatement Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to obstruct, impede, or interfere with any person lawfully engaged in: 1. The work of repairing, vacating, warehousing, or demolishing any structure pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter; 2. The abatement of a nuisance pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter; or Chapter 1.16. 3. The performance of any necessary act preliminary to or incidental to such work as authorized by this Chapter or directed pursuant to it. i 14.16.470 Violations. A. A violation of this Chapter shall constitute a Class 1 civil infraction, which shall be processed according to the procedures in the civil infractions ordinance, set out at Chapter 1.16 of this s Code. B. Each violation of a separate provision of this Chapter shall constitute a separate infraction, and each day that a violation of this Chapter is conunitted or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate infraction. C. A finding of a violation of this Chapter shall not relieve the responsible party of the duty to abate the violation. The penalties imposed by this section are in addition and not in lieu of any remedies available to the City. D. If a provision of this Chapter is violated by a firm or corporation, the officer or officers, or person or persons responsible for the violation shall be subject to the penalties imposed by this Chapter. is /bidg/david/conunhous/council/ford l799.doc megm9 of i atd C°uncil Ten~tive Agenda T g "i 199 _ gusineSs p412 pe' 4115199 a - es Oxksbop Study Session torn►Diain & Sa°~~ Sew Q412p149 ' l~astec S 41819 Due 9 USA Worksl+OpTOp~cs e - 6.9 .m gusi~ess Wa 8 3p .m cin 4I13I99' 411199 WateT t Yto ecfuan d :30- goat g.3 m• with Libta Schist l~eetin ardlTualatiu w e i~u. }oint csludYS n -Executive Session am Alt. - a w1oTi kGleaso ZointMeetin ndYtO ectF Dtc oad g et~da potential R Consent Ag Tenarive AskDick G. for time & File: ,tes les - Final Ocdet - Receive Gioundru 3.1 A love Ecickson11CIP, is Discussion rllemorialYolicy fee A eal Liti anon v date °ngaildin din Ex Session: Yen ecutive C°ps~~t.p euda" geceive &File: mutes 31 A t°ve a ends 3 2 a, Tenta Calendar LoTeen b• COQ teReview Results - 32 Wasted DKS for letion eettt~ ecisiau gnsit~eSSM Source D 3 3 Solid on _ Moss St. com el 3.4lnitiate Vacs Consultant W Lon Ted Wat chise 31 of YtanU date -Vann1e ansfec of fnNiet Assigen- n- Ts a S stem gcbm~dt n gSA E da A pfficec f°r T ftomUSA 3.5 hon of Police resentati°n Discussion of Act n eve8 S ecies lvionth ess~ atianal V olunteet n°n. Water pToclacna Tenn `'acation to Con ue public Ileann Easeme, 135th Ave. Detour a1 Oidet- M°nOn EncksonKei htsFin Tigard Council Tentative Agenda 05118199 - ~Qrk§hop Business pue: 516199 05!11!99 - To ics. 4128199 ylyd$kshop p _ Visionin Rec. Pro ram Ri29199 - ~Pecial l~~eetmg due; ieetin Session School Board guts! Evaluation CIT -facilitator resource team mt . City A/lana er date date .m, liance u Council Goal U ion - 5:30 Metro Title 3 com executive Secs Council Liaison Re orts ro ects for FY 99100 (Gus - 30 min) proposed CIP p J G6isent Agenda - _ File: Receive & - _ mutes 3.1 A rove M 3,2a. Tentarive A enda 3 2b. Council Calendar $tisinW. Meeting. Vision St'ms Re ort Volunteer Presentation -Susan plan Amendment Babies-R US Comp• 1 ist Metro Greens aces Modi date - Duane Duane Title 3 u pg _ Modi Metr Greens aces(10 mm. - TTTrYf~T Y~f. rf~. r»t T b Agenda Item No. 4/11=1? 6 MEMORANDUM Meeting ot~/ 3 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council ' FROM: Bill Monahan DATE: March 1, 1999 SUBJECT: COUNCIL CALENDAR, April 1999 - June 1999 Regularly scheduled Council meetings are marked with an asterisk If generally OK, we can proceed and make specific adjustments in the Monthly Council Calendars. AAPril * 13 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting * 20 Tues Council Workshop Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) 22 Thurs Volunteer Dinner - (5:45 p.m.) Tigard High School * 27 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting May *11 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting *18 Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting (6:30 p.m.) * 25 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting 31 Mon Memorial Day Holiday - City Hall Offices Closed June * 8 Tues Council Meeting (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting *15 Tuesday Council Workshop Meeting (6:30 p.m.) 18-20 Thurs- Tigard Festival of Balloons Sun *22 Tues Council Meeting - (6:30 p.m.) Study Session - Business Meeting i Aad m\ca thy\cou n d1\ccca1.doc Agenda item Meeting of y 13 Gi MEMORANDUM CI'T'Y OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Bill Monahan, City Manager FROM: Wayne Lowry, Director of Finance DATE: March 15, 1999 SUBJECT: Solid Waste Annual reports for 1998 I have reviewed the annual financial reports submitted by the franchised Solid Waste Haulers for the calendar year 1998. The aggregate rate of return for the Haulers was 8.49%. This rate falls within the acceptable range established by the Council of 8% to 12%. No rate adjustment is therefore necessary due to the review of the annual reports for 1998. There may be other rate issues that should be considered. Metro has reduced the tip fee over the past several years and Tigard has not responded with a decrease in local rates. In addition, there may need to be an adjustment in local rates for the commingling issue. You and I and Loreen should discuss these other changes in the near future and decide if any changes in the rates should be recommended to the Council. CC: Loreen Aggregate F City of Tigard, Oregon 03/15/99 Franchised Solid Waste Halulers Financial Reports For Year ended December 31, 1998 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Drop Boxes Operating Revenue 1,070,859 1,230,542 1,309,249 1,548,569 1,529,431 1,931,297 2,083,047 2,076,126 Operating Costs 1,104,912 1,244,675 1,333,596 1,602,452 1,585,129 2,061,216 2,213,858 2,193,856 Net Income (34,053) (14,133) (24,347) (53,883) (55,698) (129,919) (1_30,811) (117,730) -3.18% -1.15% -1.86% -3.48% -3.64% -6.73% -6.28% -5.67% Drop Box Recycling Operating Revenue 0 0 0 47,912 43,348 32,254 0 0 Operating Costs 0 0 0 47,613 59,136 4,061 0 0 Net income 0 0 0 299 (15,788) 28,193 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.62% -36.42% 87.41% #DIV/01 #DIV/0! Total Drop Box Net Income (34,053 (14,133) (24,347) (53,584) (71,486) (101,726) (130,811) (117,730) -3.18% -1.15% -1.86% -3.36% -4.55% -5.18% -6.28% -5.67% Residential Cans Operating Revenue 1,247,835 1,364,323 1,486,082 1,623,219 1,940,689 2,046,903 2,047,792 2,162,565 Operating Costs 1,080,970 1,035,424 1,196,556 1,285,570 1,413,141 1,323,478 1,381,814 1,374,207 Net Income 166,865 328,899 289,526 337,649 527,548 723,425 665,978 788,358 13.37% 24.11% 19.48% 20.80% 27.18% 35.340/6 32.52% 36.45% Residential Recycling Operating Revenue 33,594 29,156 46,854 113,101 190,941 38,612 99,102 93,337 Operating Costs 234,857 377,101 447,920 542,501 710,881 633,153 624,541 630,434 Net Income (.201,263) (347,945) (401,066) (429,400) (519,940) (594,541) (525,439) (537,097) -599.10% -1193.39% -855.99% -379.66% -272.30% -1539.78% -530.20% -575.44% Yard Debris Operating Revenue 0 2,813 3,945 38,754 2,932 3,003 47,037 4,528 Operating Costs 0 6,035 8,746 193,788 372,953 336,095 .367,014 371,329 Net Income 0 (3,222) (4,801) (155,034) (370,021) (333,092) (319,977) (366,801) _ -4.00 -12620.09% -11091.97% -680.27% -8100.72% Total Residential Net Income (34,398) (22,268) (116,341) (246,785) (362,413) (204,208) (179,438) (115,540) -2.68% -1.60% -7.59% -14.21% -17.00% -9.79% -8.36% -5.12% Multifamily Cans Operating Revenue 0 602,231 696,049 692,996 782,064 811,326 801,327 829,582 Operating Costs 0 342,421 381,871 454,890 459,094 554,051 517,686 484,166 Net Income 0 259,810 314,178 238,106 322,970 257,275 283,641 345,416 0 0.00% 43.14% 45.14% 34.36% 41.30% 31.71% 35.40% 41.64% Multifamily Recycling Operating Revenue 0 6,702 10,944 33,001 53,082 15,526 20,102 16,413 -TI-LT-T-0 I T.TrTTC17rnrarr 11; 11 1! iiij! 00 Aggregate I City of Tigard, Oregon 03/15/99 Franchised Solid Waste Haluiers Financial Reports For Year ended December 31, 1998 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Operating Costs 0 73,395 79,036 81,722 67,716 68,737 72,880 93,271 Net Income 0 (66,693) (68,092) (48,721) (14,634) (53,211) (52,778) (76,858) 0.00% -995.12% -622.19% -147.63% -27.57% -342.72% -262.55% -468.27% Total Multifamily Net Income 0 193,117 246,086 189,385 308,336 204,064 230,863 268,558 0.00% 31.71% 34.81% 26.09% 36.92% 24.68% 28.11% 31.740/6 Commercial Containers I Operating Revenue 2,147,476 1,821,499 1,851,488 1,951,458 2,085,617 2,265,270 2,391,901 2,326,220 Operating Costs 1,385,438 1,146,363 1,166,407 1,206,299 1,270,238 1,410,526 1,443,952 1,459,727 Net Income 762,038 675,136 685,081 745,159 815,379 854,744 947,949 866,493 35.49% 37.06% 37.00% 38.18% 39.10% 37.73% 39.63% 37.25% Commercial Recycling Operating Revenue 72,479 70,972 72,717 166,378 236,215 117,498 126,771 120,917 Operating Costs 232,607 204,379 225,247 254,154 300,123 343,081 385,705 384,630 Net Income (160,128) (133,407) (152,530) (87,776) (63,908) (225,583) (258,934) (263,713) -220.93% -187.97% -209.76% -52.76% -27.06% -191.99% -204.25% -218.09% Total Commercial Net Income 601,910 541,729 532,551 657,383 751,471 629,161 689,015 602,780 27.119/6 28.63% 27.68% 31.04% 32.37% 26.40% 27.36% 24.63% Medical Waste Operating Revenue 47 998 17,491 24,951 12,393 7,665 1,627 1,962 Operating Costs 2,374 1,668 18,323 22,662 11,069 3,566 2 1 Net Income (2,327) (670) (832) 2,289 1,324 4,099 1,625 1,961 -4.76% 9.17% 10.68% 53.48% 99.88% 99.95% Consolidated Net Income 531,132 697,775 637,117 548,688 627,232 531,390 611,254 640,028 Other Revenue 9,419 6,191 35,916 20,235 8,257 57,745 12,074 8,776 Other Costs 118,611 102,474 83,652 91,900 (4,552) 0 0 (220) Grand Total Net Income 421,940 601,492 589,381 477,023 640,041 589,135 623,328 649,024 Total Revenues 4,581,709 5,135,427 5,530,735 6,260,574 6,884,969 7,327,099 7,630,780 7,640,426 Profit Percentage 9.21% 11.71% 10.66% 7.62% 9.30% 8.04% 8.17% 8.49% i NINE AGENDA ITEM # q* 3 FOR AGENDA OF 4-13-99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approve Correction to the January 26, 1999, Council Meeting Minutes PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK L&A"'CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Consider correction to the January 26, 1999, Council meeting to reflect that the Council considered Item No. 3.4 - Budget Adjustment No. 8 - Windows & Flashing Project - Resolution No. 99-03. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the correction as noted. INFORMATION SUMMARY Recently the City Recorder was asked by the Accounting Division to verify that the Council had approved a budget adjustment for the window and flashing repair project. As the Recorder prepared the documentation to send to the Accounting staff, she discovered that, while the resolution was signed and on file with the Council record, the minutes did not reflect the approval of the budget adjustment on the Consent Agenda. She checked further and the Agenda for the January 26 meeting showed that this item was before the City Council for review. The Recorder requests that the City Council approve an amendment to the January 26, 1999, City Council meeting minutes to reflect that this item was considered as Item 3.4 as shown on the agenda for that date. Attached for your review is a copy of the relevant agenda page as well as the section of the minutes, amended to show the addition of Item 3.4. Resolution No. 99-03, dated January 26, 1999, is also attached. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A i VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A s FISCAL NOTES N/A CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO.99- 03 A RESOLUTION APPROVING BUDGET ADJUSTMENT #8 FOR THE WINDOW AND FLASHING REPAIR PROJECT. WHEREAS, The window/flashing project was originally budgeted for $70,000 and was increased by a budget adjustment in October 1998 to $86,000. WHEREAS, The City Council approved changes to the project in the amount of $95,000 at their January 19, 1999 meeting and directed staff to bring back a budget adjustment at the next meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: (enter info here) SECTION 1: Appropriations for the general capital projects for the window and flashing project is increased by $95,000. SECTION 2: General fund contingency is decreased by $95,000. PASSED: This aU day of 1999. yor - City of Tigard ,3- ATTEST: " City Recorder - City of Tigard a iAdtiwideVesolut.dot f RESOLUTION NO.99- Page 1 113111 111M TIGARD CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 26,1999 AGENDA 6:00 PM • STUDY SESSION > EXECUTIVE SESSION: The Tigard City Council will go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, current and pending litigation issues. As you are aware, all discussions within this session are confidential; therefore those present may disclose nothing from this meeting. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discuss Ad during this session. > USA Maintenance Management Conveyance Systems Study > Ordinance to Amend TIGARD MUNCIPAL CODE 1.16.340, 2.16.050, 1.16.305 and 7.40.210(a) Concerning City Abatement of a Nuisance on Private Property so that the Public Interest is Served Without Violation of Property Rights 7:30 PM 1. BUSINESS MEETING 1.1 Call to Order - City Council & Local Contract Review Board 1.2 Roll Call 1.3 Pledge of Allegiance 1.4 Council Communications 1.5 Call to Council and Staff for Non-Agenda Items 7:35 PM 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA (Two Minutes or Less, Please) 7:40 PM 3. CONSENT AGENDA: These items are considered to be routine and may be enacted in one motion without separate discussion. Anyone may request that an item be removed by motion for discussion and separate action. Motion to: 3.1 Approve City Council Minutes - October 27 and November 10, 1998 3.2 Initiate Transfer of Jurisdiction of Certain County . Roads to the City of Tigard Resolution No. 99- 3.3 Budget Committee Appointments - Resolution No. 99- 3.4 Budget Adjustment No. 8 - WindowslFlashings Project - Resolution No. 99- Consent Agenda - Items Removed for Separate Discussion: Any items requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion will be considered immediately after the Council has voted on those items which do not need discussion. COUNCIL AGENDA JANUARY 26,1999 - PAGE 2 Mr. Monahan mentioned a non-agenda item: acceptance of the Albertson's land donation for parks purposes. 2. VISITOR'S AGENDA o John Anderson reported that the youth sports groups were concerned that the School District's consideration of cutting back on athletic field maintenance due to funding shortages could seriously affect the ability of the youth sports groups to use the facilities. He said that he was just mentioning the issue prior to the budget process so that it did not get lost. He asked the Council to give it further consideration. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by Councilor Hunt, seconded by Councilor Moore, to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion was approved by unanimous voice vote of Council present. (Councilors Patton, Scheckla, Hunt, Moore and Mayor Nicoli voted "yes.") 3.1 Approve Council Minutes of. October 27 and November 10, 1998 3.2 Initiate Transfer of Jurisdiction of Certain County Roads to the City of Tigard, Resolution No. 99-01 3.3 Budget Committee Appointments - Resolution No. 99- 02 * 3.4 Approve Budget Adjustment No. 8-Windows/Flashings Project-Resolution No. 99-03 *Correction to Minutes approved 4/13/99 4. WATER REPORTS - PRELIMINARY FINANCE INFORMATION o Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, used a series of slides to present a preliminary staff report on the two reports received in December from the City of Portland and the Willamette Water Supply Agency. He reviewed the criteria approved by Council for use in evaluating these reports. Mr. Wegner reviewed the governance issues discussed in the Portland scenario. He referenced the introductory letter from Commissioner Sten of Portland stated that he was willing to discuss alternative arrangements for the future to address Tigard's issues with this regionally significant resource. However, they wanted to use a collaborative process that included all their 13 wholesale customers. He said that Portland agreed that all the partners must be involved in the decision-making process and that they indicated a genuine desire for a mutually beneficial relationship. Mr. Wegner pointed out that Portland provided no details of a contract but most likely any contract would be similar to the contracts used for the other wholesale customers. He said that t he verified today that Portland did hope to reach contracts with its partners within a year of the partners saying yes. { Mr. Wegner mentioned the issue of reliability and system vulnerability. He noted that Portland has scheduled their buildout incrementally to tie in new supplies and transmission to respond to demand and growth as well as severe weather. He mentioned Portland's claim that they had redundancy for the backup for the annual average daily demand. Mr. Wegner stated that the Willamette Plan looked at five different options for governance, as well as going into some detail on how privatization could be used for design, construction, and CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY 26, 1999 N~1_1 11 - 11111m, =WN AGENDA ITEM # ~I -CL - FOR AGENDA OF Auril 13.1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Amendment to Professional Engineering Services Consultant Contract for the Im rovements in the 69"' Avenue Local Improvement District. A PREPARED BY: Vannie N 1 Ill guyen DEPT HEAD OK : A.P. ~ CITY MGR OK: Bill Monahan ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the amendment to the engineering services contract for the improvements in the 69' Avenue LID? STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends the Local Contract Review Board, by motion, approve the amendment to the contract with IDeHaas & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $79,478.40. INFORMATION SUMMARY In October 1998, the City Council approved a resolution directing its staff to prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID) to construct improvements to 69' Avenue. In a Council meeting on December 15, 1998, the Council approved a contract award of $56,928 to DeHaas & Associates for preparation of a Preliminary Engineering Report and design of 60% plans, specifications and estimate. In the Council meeting on February 9, 1999, the Council approved the Preliminary Engineering Report and declared its intention to form the district and make the public improvements. The Resolution of Intent No. 99-10 approved by the Council in that meeting included the following streets in the improvements: • SW 69°i Ave between the north right-of-way line of SW Hampton Street and the south right- of-way of SW Dartmouth Street. • SW Elmhurst Street between SW 68" Avenue and SW 70L Avenue. • SW Franklin Street between SW 68`' Avenue and SW 69 h Avenue. • SW Beveland Street between SW 68 h Avenue and SW 70'h Avenue. • SW Dartmouth Street between SW 69' Avenue and SW 70' Avenue (south side only). Two Public Hearings were conducted by the Council on February 23rd and March 9th, 1999. In the Council meeting on March 9th, 1999, after receiving and considering testimony from the citizens, the Council ordered the improvements to be made in accordance with the Resolution of Intent. Ordinance No. 99-07, approved in that meeting, authorizes the staff to finalize the engineering design and ready for construction in the first week of June 1999. MWMI Approval of the amendment to the original contract with DeHaas and Associates would allow the firm to complete their design ready for bid advertisement, provide construction staking and construction management services, perform some right-of-way acquisitions, and prepare the final report for the project. The original contract with DeHaas and Associates to prepare the preliminary engineering report and produce 60% design drawings is in the amount of $56,928.00. This amendment adds $79,478.40 to that original amount resulting in a total contract amount (ar'ler amendment) of $136,406.40. Attached to this item summary are the following documents: - Vicinity map. - Proposed LID boundary map. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED None VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY None FISCAL NOTES The contract amendment of $79,478.40 (resulting in a total contract amount of $136,406.40) will be funded from the FY 1998-99 SW 69th Avenue Local Improvement District fund. IACitywide\Sum\Council Sum-Final Design.doc H CIO a mill moo Jill ' uortmoutn atreet ~ is i iiUi 1 : L < /D Hoursday r /~a `t'> ao; ''r I f?OiD Y I :Q.:.,. i :ddb:: Q i0 p ' IGt« Street . ;:j may. i air' I i I a.. Sco%:1 "=200' } ~ . ' . a ;P• 1 i n.' . LID Soundory Momoton Street 11 EM milli Ill N PD4~ g911 ~~y < 4 Z ~ 'A dYy $ ~ `vr ~ ~ ~ ~ ~O n N Z` N K P, FANND z BARRD~' a~V Qr x NGDDNALD p RD YAARDE gDNIT?1 BULL AOUNTAIN RD i a h 3 DURNAIA o~ BEEF AND RO RIR R~C014STpu0Tt0~ 69,yVj ~►YEtAUpa 6TY SAP ENGINEERING DEgARWENT VgCI 13125 S.W. PAL 97223 ORE 4 0_7"7 7247 1 OF Taw cAx pTM AGENDA ITEM tit L4' q 10 FOR AGENDA OF April 12J9-99. CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE Approval of Engineering Services Contract With DES Associates for Completion of the 'Tranortation System Plan ate Study PREPARED BY. A.P. uenas DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Shall the Local Contract Review Board approve the Engineering Services Contract with DKS Associates for completion of the Transportation System Plan Update Study. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Local Contract Review Board approve, by motion, the Professional Services Contract with DKS Associates in the amount of $35,940.00 for completion of the Transportation System Plan Update Study. INFORMATION SUMMARY The transportation consultant firm of DKS Associates was contracted to perform the "Motor Vehicle" portion of the Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update Study. This firm has made substantial progress in completing that portion of the study. During the Council meeting on February 9, 1999, Randy McCourt of DKS presented the transportation alternatives necessary to accommodate traffic over the next 15-20 years. During the same meeting, he outlined the steps necessary to complete the Transportation System Plan Update. These steps include adding an analysis of the other modes of transportation including bicycles, transit, etc. He also proposed a public involvement process for developing the remainder of the plan and presenting a complete TSP for adoption by City Council. During the Council meeting on March 9`h, Council heard and approved the proposed public involvement process for completion and adoption of the updated TSP. This Engineering Services Contract with DKS Associates, in the amount of $35,940.00, would allow the consultant to address the other modes of transportation in their study, participate in the public involvement process, and prepare a complete Transportation System Plan for adoption by City Council. The process is expected to occur during the remainder of the calendar year with completion of a draft TSP by November or December of 1999. The draft TSP would then go through the public hearings process for adoption into the City's comprehensive plan during the year 2000. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The City could select another consultant to complete the study. However, DKS has performed the major portion of the work through the preparation of the "motor vehicle" segment and is best prepared to complete the remainder of the TSP. VISION Y ASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY The completed TSP would support the Tigard Beyond Tomorrow goals of Improve Traff c Safety and Improve Traffic Flow. FISCAL NOTES The TSP Update Study is funded through the FY 1998-99 Capital Improvement Program Budget. The funding source for the study is the State Gas Tax. 1-ACirywide\S=\Agenda Item for DKS Conbad to finish TSP I I I I f AGENDA ITEM Ll J~ For Agenda of. April 13, 1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGE NDA ITEM[ SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Initiation of Vacation proceedings for an approximately 9,076 square foot portion of Public Ri t-Of-Wa on SW Ross Street east of SW Hall Boulevard. PREPARED BY: Mark J. Roberts DEPT HEAD OIL l CITY ADMIN OK q ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Should the City Council initiate Vacation proceedings involving an approximately 9,076 square foot portion of public right-of-way on SW Ross Street east of SW Hall Boulevard? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council initiate vacation proceedings by adopting the attached resolution which sets a formal public hearing date on the petition for June 8, 1999. INFORMATION SUMMARY In the process of vacating streets, easements and other public dedicated areas, the City Council must pass a Resolution to schedule a formal public hearing to consider such requests. Lynn and Monica McDonald are requesting that the City Council initiate Vacation proceedings for an approximately 9,076 square foot portion of public right-of-way on SW Ross Street east of SW Hall Boulevard. The right-of-way had previously been dedicated as part of the Good Acres Subdivision. This right-of-way is partially improved but due to the re-alignment of SW Ross Street that will provide a signal at the Sattler/Hall/Ross intersection, there will be no further public need for the "old" Ross Street right-of-way. Right-of-way for the new alignment of Ross Street was sold by the petitioners to Matrix Development Corporation who have dedicated it and will perform the street construction and intersection signalization work. This work was a condition of approval of the adjacent Applewood Park subdivision. The petitioners are requesting that the City vacate this portion of the public right-of-way so as to incorporate it into the proposed Elderberry Square subdivision/planned development. Ross Street is listed as a minor collector street on the Comprehensive Plan Transportation Map. Appropriate agencies shall be contacted for comments prior to developing a report for Council consideration. n N Attachments: Exhibit A (Petition Requesting Initiation for Vacation) Exhibit B (Legal Description) Exhibit C (Vicinity Map) OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Take no action at this time. FISCAL NOTES There are no direct fiscal impacts as a result of this request as the applicant has paid all fees. 4/13/99 Council Initiation of SW Ross Street Public Right-of-Way Vacation Proceedings iAcityvAde\sum\vacateross,sum Mark J. Rolx:rts 31-1%,iar-99 ~ mmn~~ 'milli W1101101=1111 INN Q .f AGENDA ITEM # FOR AGENDA OF 4/13/99 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE _ Public Hearine: Source of Long-Term Water Supply PREPARED BY: Cathy Wheatley DEPT HEAD OK CITY MGR OK 14 ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL Conduct public hearing for individuals and groups to testify about the Tigard area's source of long-term water supply. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive public testimony from individuals and groups. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City of Tigard Council and staff have been studying the options to select a long-term water supply for many months. The two options for consideration were the Portland Water System and the Willamette River. The Council appointed a 35-member Water-Advisory Task Force to examine these two options and make recommendations to the Tigard City Council. The City Council is now at the point to receive public input. A hearing was held on March 23, 1999, at which time the Council heard public testimony from individuals. The second hearing, being conducted tonight, is the time for additional individuals and for groups, representing various areas of interest, to submit verbal and written testimony to the City Council. Each individual will be given three minutes for public testimony. Groups, which have prearranged with the Public Works Director to speak at this hearing, will be allowed 15 minutes per group for testimony. Attached are letters received since the March public hearing that are being submitted to the Council as written testimony. The Council is scheduled to select the final option for long-term water supply on April 27, 1999. In order to give the City Council ample time to review and consider written testimony, written testimony should be submitted to the Tigard City Recorder by 5 p.m., Thursday, April 15, 1999. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED N/A mom r VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY Visioning Goal: Actively participate in regional development of water sources and adequate innovative funding mechanisms to develop those sources for Tigard users while exploring local options for water reuse and groundwater sources. FISCAL NOTES Cost comparisons between the two options have been presented to the City Council and are one of the criteria upon which a fmal decision will be based. I:\ADM\CATHY\COUNCILWGENDA ITEM SUMMARY SHEET - WATER PUBLIC HEARING2.DOC SIN r Roster of Designated Times - Group Presentations for the April 13, 1999, Public Hearing - Long Range Water Supply Time 7:30 .m. Oregon Environmental Council 7:45 p.m. Durham Councilor Patrick Carroll, Wilsonville Councilor John Heiser 8:00 .m. Willamette Water Supply Agency 8:15 p.m. King City Mayor Jan Drangsholt & Tigard Water District Board Member Norman Penner 8:30 .m. Citizens for Safe Drinking Water 8:45 .m. 9:00 P.M. H2 OK - Political Action Committee 9:15 .m. 9:30 .m. Tigard Water Advisory Task Force 9:45 .m. z a Is Visitors Agenda - Speakers April 13, 1999 - City Council Meeting Time Ci Mayor 7:00 .m. Sherwood Walt Hitchcock 7:03 .m. Beaverton Rob Drake 7:06 .m. Tualatin Lou Ogden Roster of Designated Times - Group Presentations for the April 13, 1999, Public Hearing - Long Range Water Supply Time 7:30 .m. Oregon Environmental Council 7:45 .m. Durham Councilor Patrick Carroll 1, ~ 8:00 .m. Willamette Water Supply Agency 8:15 p.m. King City Mayor Jan Drangsholt & Tigard Water District Board Member Norman Penner S2 S 8:30 .m. Citizens for Safe Drinking Water ynL 8:45 .m. "Yl14~S 6r- 9:00 P.M. H2 OK - Political Action Committee C 'Pap 9:15 .m. 9:30 .m. Tigard Water Advisory Task Force 7 yv~ W* 9:45 .m. (MCt spk &4& I:ICITYWIDE\ROSTER OF DESGINATED TIMES.DOC City of Durham P.O. Box 23483 Durham Oregon 97281 (503) 639-6851 Fax (503) 598-8595 Rost Lundquist - Administrator / Recorder Linda Smith - Administrative Assistant March 24, 1999 Mayor Jim Nicoli City of Tigard MAR 2 9 1999 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor Nicoli, The Durham City Council at its regular meeting on March 231" considered the request of the City of Tigard that Durham state a position on the choices being considered by Tigard for a new water supply to serve Tigard, Durham and other areas. After considerable discussion centering on the factors of cost, quality and certainty of supply, the Council voted (4-1) to go on the record as favoring the Willamette River option. We have directed Councilor Patrick Carroll to state the city's preference for that option when the matter is before the Intergovernmental Water Board for a recommendation to the Tigard City Council. We understand that Councilor Carroll will state his own preference as well as the Council's formal position in his capacity as a member of Tigard's Citizen Task Force on this issue. The Council also voted, unanimously, to inform Tigard of its position on a proposed citizen initiative that will come before the Tigard City Council for referral to an election if and when the initiative supporters gather enough signatures on a petition. We believe that the subject matter of this initiative is contrary to the letter and spirit of the intergovernmental agreement between Durham and Tigard as to decisions on water related capital improvements, including a (new) source of supply. We do not believe that Tigard's voters can or should decide this important issue for the citizens of Durham. We also think it is misleading and unfair for Tigard residents who receive their water from another supplier (TVWD) to believe they will decide the source of water delivered to their homes by this vote. The City of Durham thus formally requests that the Tigard City Council not refer this initiative to an election should the initiative's supporters submit enough signatures to bring this matter back before the Council. We are aware that your own city attorneys have publicly advised against referring the measure. If the facts are as we have been led to believe, this proposed referral would result in a breach of the IGA contract on the part of the City of Tigard. We sincerely hope that you will consider the matter thoroughly before acting in a manner than could affect the future relationship of all of the parties to the Tigard Water District Intergovernmental Agreement. Sincerely, THE CITY O HAM May r Gery Schirado c: Bill Monahan, City Manager 1111011 Alvrnn - ,go fIX-4 n * 0 L_4 ly, Statement to the Tigard City Council April. 13,1999 Mayor Nicoli, City Council members, My name is Norman Penner and I am here tonight representing the Tigard Water District Board of which I am a member. As you well know, but apparently some citizens of Tigard do not, the Tigard Water District Board is composed of 5 elected Commissioners and we represent those consumers of Tigard water who reside in the unincorporated areas of the Tigard Water System. That is to say, those consumers who do not Jive within the city limits of Tigard, Durham or King City. Our constituency is composed of 7,025 Registered Voters and they represent some 3,000+ service connections to the Tigard Water System, That is some 21+% of the total connections. We are therefor, the second largest group (after Tigard city) of water users involved in the Tigard Water System. The Tigard Water Board Commissioners meet regularly and these meetings are open to the public. We are one of the 4 signers of the 1993 Intergovernmental Agreement for water services which gave the City of Tigard's water department the responsibility of operating Tigard Water System and established the Intergovernmental Water Board. We, the Tigard Water Board, under the terms of that 1993 agreement, "share authority for decision-making regarding the long-term water supply and capital improvement planning to serve present and future customers of the ORIGINAL, DISTRICT" and are a voting member of the Inter-governmental Water Board. We have participated in the various Regional water Resources studies which have explored possible solutions to the regional water problems over the past 10 or more years. The members of the Tigard Water District Board have spent countless hours reviewing all available written material and listening to presentations on the region's water problems and the various proposed solutions to those problems. More recently, we have attended numerous hearings and presentations by proponents and opponents of both the Portland and Willamette River proposals and have actively participated in these deliberations. We have worked hard to carry out our duties as elected officials charged with the responsibility of representing our constituent's interests regards their long-term tap water needs. As part of that responsibility, we recently sent out 3,100 written invitations to our constituents inviting them to attend our regular Board meeting on March 29. The announced purpose of this meeting was to report to them on the issues relative to the two options tinder consideration and to obtain their input. Some 30 residents of the unincorporated area attended and participated in this meeting. We provided them with information on projected costs, water quality and long-term availability of water under both options. The discussion was informative and productive. At the end of the meeting an informal vote was taken and the majority indicated their support for the Willamette option. Based upon these results, and our own intensive research, the Commissioners then voted unanimously to support the Willamette River option and instructed our representative on the Intergovernmental Water Board to vote accordingly at its next scheduled meeting. This concludes my remarks on behalf of the Tigard Water Board. Thank you for the opportunity to make the wishes of the citizens of the unincorporated area known to you! u 1211/6 4L-eSt~rn T-1 ~I1v Lfatvt tc 0 1 1f o F+~ t c►< i-iii=tic h CLEAN WATER FOR O U R COMMUNITIES April 13, 1999 Mayor Jim Nicoli City of Tigard 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor Nicoli and Members of the City Council: I am here tonight on behalf of the Willamette Water Supply Agency members to present our information on why Tigard should select the proposed water treatment plant on the Willamette River in Wilsonville as its long-term source of water supply. WWSA and its members have been studying the river and its potential as a water supply source for years, and we have complete confidence that the proposed plant will provide the safest and best quality water in the region. In addition, it will be the most economical and most reliable source of supply for Tigard. 1. The Willamette River treatment plant will provide the safest water for Tigard citizens. a. Protecting the public's health is our top concern. The very first consideration in selecting a water supply source is whether it will provide water that will be safe for the public to drink. We have conducted extensive research on the river and on treatment techniques, and have reviewed the extensive research that has been done by others. As water treatment professionals, entrusted with the public's health, we have the highest confidence that water from the proposed treatment plant will be of the highest quality and will be safer than water from any other source currently serving customers anywhere in the Portland region. If we did not firmly believe that, we would not have proposed this project. Remember, also, that most of the staff who are working on this issue for Tigard and Wilsonville also live in those communities. They have a very personal interest in assuring their own families that the water is safe to drink. b. Extensive research has been done by us and others confirming that the river is a high quality water source and that tap water from the plant will surpass all drinking water standards. Water Quality Research The decision to propose a treatment plant on the Willamette was preceded by an extensive study of the river and of the treatment methods that could be used in the treatment plant. WWSA members did not simply assume that the river was a good source. Working through the Tualatin Valley Water District, they conducted a 28-month study of water quality in the river from 1994 to 1996. That period covered the two extremes of the river, including a relatively dry summer period as well as the very high P.O. Box 745 9 1850 SW 170th Ave. a Beaverton, OR 97075 • Phone 503-642-1511 • Fax 503-356-3112 Rills INNEI 'T'Petimnr►y to Tigard Citv Council Willamette Water Supply Agency April 13, 1999 flows during the 1996 floods. That sampling program resumed last summer and is expected to continue indefinitely, so that we will always have a good picture of water quality in the river. Samples have been taken on a weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis for different measurements. The initial study tested for over 160 characteristics and contaminants. Based on the USGS research discussed below, that list was expanded so that now the samples test for every contaminant that has been found anywhere in the Willamette Basin by the USGS. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has conducted and assembled the most extensive collection of research on Willamette River water quality. Their results cover the entire basin, from the headwaters to the Columbia, including the Newberg Pool area around Wilsonville, where the plant would be located. Far from condemning the river as a polluted sewer, USGS found that water quality throughout the basin was typical of other river basins they had studied throughout the country. Greater concentrations of contaminants were found in the tributaries, because they were more exposed to runoff from farm and forest operations. Water quality in the mainstem of the river was found to be much better, due to the effects of dilution. That is, with larger flows the concentrations of these contaminants dropped substantially. The TWVD study and the USGS studies found the same results. In the area where the treatment plant would be located, the level of organisms, metals, and sediment were similar to those found in the other sources already serving the region - including the Bull Run reservoirs. Although some chemical contaminants were occasionally detected in the river, in each case they were already well below the maximum levels permitted in tap water under federal drinking water standards. The tests looked for the types of contaminants, such as metals and chemical compounds, that would be present in the river coming from any upstream discharges, whether from sewage treatment plants and industrial discharges or from runoff from agricultural, forest, or urban areas. What the tests found was that, even before the water was taken out of the river for treatment, the levels of these contaminants (by the time they got to Wilsonville) was so low that they already complied with drinking water standards. Pilot Treatment Studv But we have not proposed that Tigard get its water directly from the river without treatment. TVWD also conducted a "pilot" treatment plant study. For seven months, the district operated a miniature water treatment plant near the site of th-- proposed treatment plant. The study was coordinated with the Oregon Health Division, the agency in charge of enforcing the federal drinking water standards in Oregon, which reviewed the proposed treatment methods and reviewed the results of the research. Based on the pilot project, both the consultant conducting the test and the Health Division concluded that tap water from a "conventional" water treatment plant would meet all applicable standards. (A conventional plant would use chlorine for disinfection and a sand filtration system.) But, to assure that the plant would serve the city long into the future, the pilot project also tested methods that went beyond conventional treatment methods. To provide an extra measure of protection, the project tested with ozone instead of chlorine 2 Testimony to Tigard City Council Willamette Water Supply Agency April 13, 1999 for stronger disinfection. A filter of granular activated carbon, instead of sand, was also tested. Tap water quality improved with each of those changes, and those are the methods proposed for this project. Although these tests told us more about the river than most water agencies know about their water source, WWSA also went farther than these tests to check for a specific type of contaminant that had been identified as a public concern. Some scientists have theorized that some chemicals can act as "endocrine disruptors," interfering with the body's ability to receive and process the hormones essential for reproductive and developmental functions. Although subsequent research has not been able to document any human health effects from these chemicals, the fear of such effects remains. To address this fear, WWSA conducted a test last November to determine if there were any of these endocrine disruptors present in the river at Wilsonville. The testing was led by the former head of the Center for the Study of Environmental Endocrine Effects, using the labs of the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center at Michigan State University, both obviously experts in the field of endocrine disruptor study. The tests were conducted on human tissue samples. Using methods sensitive to 3 parts per trillion, their tests found no endocrine disrupting activity. In presenting their findings to this city council, one member of the research team concluded that the water did not pose a risk of endocrine disrupting activity, and that he would have no qualms about having his pregnant daughter drink tap water from a plant drawing on the Willamette River. C. The Willamette is not one of the country's most polluted rivers. When USGS reported its findings on the Willamette River last summer, there was a lot of confusion about what they really said. What USGS concluded was that the river "was among the most degraded" in the country in terns of fish habitat, but that the water quality (in particular for pesticides) was typical - about the same as - that in the other rivers it was studying. What does it mean to be "degraded fish habitat?" Their report explained that this means the stream banks are poorly vegetated and are subject to erosion, water temperatures are too high, and there are high concentrations of non-native fish species. None of those qualities pose any health risks to humans. Upon considering rivers across the country, it is obvious that the Willamette could not be one of the most polluted. The Mississippi River basin, which includes the drainage areas of the Missouri and Ohio Rivers, drains nearly half of the area of the United States. This area is very extensively farmed, and includes numerous metropolitan areas and their accompanying discharges. The Willamette doesn't begin to compare to the degraded quality of the Missouri River in Kansas City or of the Mississippi in New Orleans. Yet those cities draw their drinking water from those rivers without apparent health effects, using only conventional treatment systems far less sophisticated than what is proposed for the Willamette. d. The proposed water treatment measures will remove harmful contaminants from the water to levels well below Safe Drinking Water Act requirements, including any that might be causing fish deformities. 3 1111M 1111 INNER= Testimony to Tigard City Council Willamette Water Supply Agency April 13, 1999 Oregon's DEQ has conducted studies several years ago that found skeletal and other deformities in a large proportion of the squawfish taken from the Newberg Pool. To date no cause has yet been identified for those deformities. If it is a contaminant of any sort that is causing those deformities, WWSA members, just like concerned members of the public, want to be sure that their plant would remove that contaminant. Since the . cause is unknown, the treatment methods have to address whatever might be in the river that could pose a human health risk. What are the things in the river that could harm humans? They will fall into one of three classes: 1) some living organism, such as a bacteria or virus; 2) something suspended in the water, such as sediment, trace metals, organic matter, or a contaminant attached to those materials; or 3) something dissolved in the water, such as chemicals or trace metals. The treatment plant proposed for this project removes each of those contaminants from the river before it's delivered to the customer. 1) First, the water will be put through a settling process, called "sedimentation and flocculation." Inert treatment chemicals are added to the water to promote "clumping" of sediment and other particles in the water. The water then flows through a series of settling tanks, where these clumps of sediment settle to the bottom and are removed. This stage of the treatment process removes sediment, suspended trace metals, and organic material, such as wastes from fish and wildlife. 2) Second, ozone gas will be bubbled through the water. Ozone is a powerful disinfectant that will destroy harmful bacteria and other organisms in the water, such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia, as well as some chemicals. Ozone is also effective at eliminating unpleasant tastes and odors resulting from algae. Since the water has been through a settling process before disinfection, far fewer disinfection byproducts are produced than when chlorine is used or chlorine is applied to water that has not been settled or filtered. 3) In the third step, the water is run through a 5-foot bed of granular activated carbon (GAC), followed by an additional 10" of sand. In addition to removing the remaining sediment and organic matter, GAC is very absorbent and is the most effective method for removing chemicals from water. GAC also is very effective in removing unpleasant tastes and odors from the water. In a pilot plant test of a simulated chemical spill, more than 99.99% of the added chemicals were removed from the water, to levels that could not be detected with the sophisticated testing methods being used (sensitive to 0.05 parts per billion). We have also learned recently of a study by the Tampa, Florida, water system which demonstrated the effectiveness of GAC as a filter medium. They added 8 different endocrine disruptor compounds, then tested the water for those compounds after it had run through their GAC filtration system.' Their tests found no endocrine disrupting activity present after filtering through the GAC. The following natural and synthetic endocrine disruptor compounds and their metabolites were tested by the University of Mississippi for Tampa's water department: testosterone, equilin, estradiol, estradiol 3- glucoronide-17-sulfate, estriol, estrone, estrone-3-glucoronide, ethynylestradiol. 4 111 IN Testimony to Tigard City Council Willamette Water Supply Agency April 13, 1999 4) In the final step, a small amount of chlorine and ammonia is added to the water before it is delivered to the customer. This "residual disinfection " step prevents disease- causing organisms from developing while the water travels through the water lines. The result of these four steps of the treatment process is that tap water from this plant will be extremely pure, and that any contaminants in the water - whether we have identified them or not - will be eliminated or removed to safe levels. e. The Safe Drinking Water Act standards provide a wide margin of safetyfor the public's health. In determining whether the water from the proposed treatment plant is safe to drink, we have relied on the EPA Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards. Some people have contended that these standards are outdated and inadequate to protect public health. We vigorously object to that claim. The SDWA standards are set at the federal level and have been extensively reviewed over the last 5 years by committees heavily weighted toward toxicologists and public health specialists. The standards are generally conservative, providing an extra measure of protection, and are not simply set at the highest level that is still justifiably safe. The water utility industry across the nation, and across Portland, relies on the SDWA standards as the best indicator of public safety. If the pilot study showing compliance with SDWA standards at a Willamette treatment plant is not adequate assurance, then how can we feel comfortable about the water supplied by any of the other utilities in the region? • Levels of the microorganisms Cryptosporidium in Bull Run are virtually the same very low levels as those found in the Willamette. The SDWA standards tell Portland it's safe to disinfect with chlorine, which is acknowledged to be totally ineffective against Crypto. a The levels of organic matter are similar in the Bull Run and the Willamette for much of the year. Chlorine reacts with organic matter in water to form potentially harmful disinfection byproducts. The SDWA standards tell Portland it's safe to deliver water that hasn't been filtered to remove organic matter before its chlorine disinfection step. o Just like the Willamette, the Tualatin River flows through a large agricultural and forested basin, and it serves as the water source for Hillsboro, Beaverton and Tualatin Valley Water District. Testing the tap water for compliance with the SDWA standards is what we rely on to conclude that the water is safe for our customers to drink. f. The consensus opinion of water treatment and public health professionals is that tap water from the Willamette treatment plant will be the safest in the region. Every professional in water treatment and public health who has reviewed our research has concluded that the tap water from the proposed Willamette River treatment plant will be the safest in the region. That list includes: d Our water treatment consultant team of engineers and scientists, recognized experts in their field; 5 MM Cgs- M-1-1 M NEMESES= Testimony to Tigard City Council Willamette Water Supply Agency April 13, 1999 • Dr. Richard Platt, chair of the Environmental Sciences Department at Portland State University, who conducted an independent review of the TVWD studies; and • Portland Water Bureau staff, who acknowledged publicly that tap water from the Willamette plant will be safer than water from the Portland system (until Portland adds a treatment plant of its own some 20 years from now.) We agree with all of these experts that the treatment plant will provide the safest tap water possible. Since the quality of the water favors the Willamette, it is appropriate to consider the other significant factors in the source selection decision - cost and reliability. 2. The Willamette River treatment plant will provide the most reliable source of water for Tigard. a. Portland cannot guarantee that they will be able to supply Tigard for the long-term. The Portland proposal acknowledges that it cannot serve the long-term growing needs of its citizens, plus those of its existing customers, plus the needs of Tigard and Wilsonville, unless it can expand its storage capacity. In addition, Portland currently dries up 4 miles of the Bull Run River for several months every summer while the city diverts all of the water to its customers. To help the recovery of the endangered fish species in the river, Portland needs to start releasing water back into the Bull Run River so the fish have something to swim in. Portland has proposed to meet the needs of fish for more water by raising its existing dams. To meet the growing needs of all of the projected customers, Portland needs to build a new dam. Environmental regulations make it extremely unlikely that Portland will be able to build any of those projects, particularly the third dam. Several environmental groups have already announced their opposition to a new dam because of the 300 acres of old growth timber and 300 more acres of wildlife habitat that would be destroyed. Strict federal environmental regulations promise that a new dam would face, at best, years of costly litigation. If the dam can't be built, then all of Portland's customers face a real dilemma of how they will satisfy their needs for water. Ultimately, Portland will need to supply its own needs over the needs of suburban customers. The Willamette treatment plant does not face those same obstacles; it will be a reliable source of water long into the future. Plenty of water is available to meet the demand imposed by this plant. At its peak period, the proposed plant will use barely 1 % of the water flowing past; most of the year the plant will take less than 0.5% of the flow in the river. The plant and intake pipe have been designed in consultation with state and federal resource, fish and wildlife agencies to avoid environmental impacts. No significant difficulties are anticipated in getting regulatory approvals needed to build the plant. 6 NEON= Testimony to Tigard City Council Willamette Water Supply Agency April 13, 1999 b. The Portland system is more subject to service interruptions due to natural hazards and system inadequacies. The Portland system is subject to numerous natural hazards that can and have interrupted service. Mt. Hood and the Bull Run reservoirs are in an earthquake and volcano zone. The pipelines from Bull Run travel through an active landslide area on Mt. Hood, as well as earthquake zones throughout its route to Tigard. The Portland system also has operational problems. Since the Portland system does not have a filtration and treatment plant, it is subject to shut-downs when turbidity in the reservoirs rises too much. These are not hypothetical risks. As recently as last December, the Bull Run system was shut down for 4 days because runoff caused by heavy rains raised the sediment levels in the reservoir. Under the SDWA, the city had to shut down because it could not filter the water to remove the hazardous levels of sediment. In 1996, 2 of the 3 pipelines that carry water from Bull Run were taken out in a landslide. Repairs took 5 weeks. The Willamette plant, on the other hand, will be much more reliable. The plant and pumps will be above the 500-year flood plain, so floods do not pose a problem to continuing operations. The filtration and treatment system have also proven in other locations to be more than adequate to handle the quality of water that would be faced during flood conditions. With seven miles of pipe going through relatively flat terrain, rather than 40 miles of pipe crossing steep slide and quake areas, the transmission system is far less subject to interruption. When a safer, more reliable system is available with the Willamette treatment plant, why would Tigard want to invest in a Portland system subject to greater risks and which may not be able to meet the city's needs in 10 or 15 years? 3. The Willamette River water treatment plant will provide the most economical supply of water for Tigard. If the last 20 years have taught us anything in the government sector, it is that the public expects us to provide services to them in the most efficient and economical manner possible. On every cost consideration, the balance of factors favors the Willamette as the preferred source. Cost to Build: Over the next 50 year period, only one new capital project is required on the Willamette option: a new treatment plant and transmission line to Tigard. Once that up-front cost is spent, no more system improvements will be needed to meet the projected demands of the city. Portland, on the other hand, has projected the need for 14 projects for that same period. Tigard and Wilsonville's share of the Willamette treatment plant cost, including interest payments, is $110 million. By the time Tigard and Wilsonville have paid off their shares of the proposed Portland improvements, they will have spent $293 million! That represents a difference of an extra $183 million to select the Portland system. Cost to Operate: From the day it opens, a Willamette River treatment plant will be cheaper to operate than Tigard's share of the cost to operate Portland's system. Until a new supply line is built to Tigard from east Portland, water from the Portland system 7 Y Testimony to Tigard City Council Willamette Water Supply Agency April 13, 1999 will have to be pumped. Those costs combine with the costs of operating and maintaining the Bull Run dams, wellfields, and 40 miles of pipe to Tigard, to make the Portland system a more expensive system to operate. Rate Impacts: By the time the Willamette treatment plant is paid off, the rates under the Portland option will be twice as much as those with the Willamette system. For the last 25 years of the 50-year planning period, customers in Tigard will pay 50 - 80% more for water from Portland than for water from the Willamette treatment plant. The survey the city conducted last summer, and the council's own experience with fiscal issues, must tell them that Tigard citizens are not willing to pay double the rates for water when a cheaper, better alternative is available. WWSA understands the emotions that people have about their water supply. That is why we have studied the river and the treatment process so carefully. We have proved that a Willamette River treatment plant will provide safer water. It will be a more reliable source, on a day-to-day basis and long into the future. The cost to build and operate the Willamette plant will be much less, and its impact on fish, wildlife and the environment are minimal. The choice for Tigard is obvious. We recommend that the Council select the Willamette River treatment plant as its long term water supply source. Sincerely, Kevin Hanwa Y Executive Director 8 One thing we can know about the Future Is that we will be surprised. With water quality surprises can be bad. The things that I am concerned about are health and litigation liability--which translates into tax liability--and decline in property values. Both of these things will happen if Tigard's water supply is labeled as 'tainted'. The Willamette River drains a large basin. While the water quality is 'moderate" overall, by the time the river reaches Wilsonville it had degraded to be classified as "fair to poor". Depending on whose studies you read, between 1.5 and 4.5 million pounds of chemical effluent enters the Willamette each year. There are very weak reporting rules and because of the high expense of testing water for various chemicals we have no continuous quality sampling system in place. As development and industrial production increase in the years to come, chemical spills will be come more frequent. Just this last year Fanno Creek has smelled pretty strange from time to time. There are a lot of'Fanno Creeks' which drain into the Willamette. Given the thousands of chemicals which are introduced each year, I know of no filtration system which will give us a high probability of filtering out all of the stuff coming down river in the years to come. [I would guess that we are testing for 11% of the chemicals which enter the Willamette]. The Willamette was number 20 on the PRIG Top 50 list of most polluted rivers in the country. Portland wants to designate a six mile stretch of sediment as a SuperFund Toxic Cleanup Site. I'm sure the proposed intake is upstream from the site. 8^) But back to the point. I think that it will take a lot of expensive testing to convince Tigard residents that the Willamette is not too polluted to be treated. I think that it is VERY LIKELY that spills or discharges of toxic chemicals will pass through the proposed filtration systems. I think that this will lead to litigation and health liability claims. These things affect me directly as tax liability and decline in property values--even if I don't drink the water. believe that these "hidden costs" make the Willamette option too expensive to consider. IN= V Citizens Interested In Bull Run, Inc, April 13, 199 PO Box 3426, Gresham, OR 97030-3265 Phone: (503) 6654777 E-mail: ciibri,c teleport.com FAX: (503) 669-9429 Mayor Nicoli and Councilors City of Tigard Willamette Water Supply Agency Board People have been debating and discussing water issues for milleniums. Recently the battle lines have been staked out between the pristine Bull Run Watershed source water and the highly polluted and contaminated Willamette River. WHY? Opinions and biases run fast and furious. Neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend and family members against each other. What is next? Professional experts and consultants are hired, studies and opinions pile up. For what purpose? Who will benefit? The rational approach on how and where to get the purest and least costly drinking water for our communities is: Let the people, who pay the bills, elect the managers and drink the water, make the decisions at the old fashioned ballot box! Away with all the rhetoric, let the people vote! Our democracy will stand or fall depending on the people's right to vote on such issues What should be the source of our drinking water? Thank you, Frank Gearhart, Pres. M 1 i Q~ i bb c +rshmon Testimony to the Tigard City Council April 13, 1999 Hilary Abraham Oregon Environmental Council Mr. Mayor and members of the Tigard City Council, thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening. My name is Hilary Abraham and I am the Drinking Water Director for the Oregon Environmental Council. The Oregon Environmental Council (OEC) is Oregon's oldest, statewide, environmental organization. We focus on clean air, clean water, and a sustainable economy. We bring Oregonians together to protect and preserve Oregon's environment now, and for future generations. I am particularly pleased to come before you tonight to speak to an issue, which has been of serious concern to my organization and the community at large. The OEC has a history of advocating for water quality throughout the state. Most recently, the listings of threatened and endangered native fish populations as well as a host of water quality indicators have focused our work on the Willamette River. Therefore, when the decision to examine the Willamette as a potential drinking water source became viable, we grew concerned. As the debate around the issue has taken place, the OEC has had a consistent position opposing this source. Our primarily reason remains that currently, there is not clear information regarding the river's quality which ensure its safety as a drinking water source. While this is the primary premise for our opposition, my testimony will also focus on the areas of public policy and resource management. Water Quality Known to many as, "The Eden at the End of the Oregon Trail" the Willamette River is a fertile valley. While it only contains twelve percent of the state's land, the Willamette Valley is home to seventy percent of Oregon's population. As it flows through the cities of Eugene, Corvallis, Salem, Albany, and Portland, the Willamette River encompasses much of what we know as Oregon. While individuals recreate on the river and native steelhead struggle to use it for spawning, the river has also become a dumping ground for billions of gallons of pollution each year. „ How polluted and how to clean it up is an issue which deserves considerable attention and vision. I recognize that your charge is not to devise a strategy to address the pollution, but I believe it is your charge to give careful consideration to this issue in of tapping it as a drinking water source. e In 1997, the United States Geological Survey conducted a survey of the Willamette Basin. In it, they found pesticides in each sample. Of the forty-eight pesticides identified, only eight currently have drinking water standards. 111111111 -1111111 110 . -1 LEE Hilary Abraham Oregon Environmental Council • Annually, millions of gallons of raw sewage are dumped into the River. Although the City of Portland is devising steps to address the problem of "combined sewage overflow" the problem is so egregious that even the state Legislature has drafted legislation to address it. • The Willamette River has recently been a part of Oregon's largest listing of an endangered species. Native fish are often regarded as an indicator species. These listings speak significantly to the overall health of the basin. • The area most likely to house the intake pump for a water treatment plant is at a stretch of the river known as the Newberg Pool. Skeletally deformed fish have been found here. What is causing the deformities is still not known. All of these issues keenly justify an aggressive strategy to address the river's water quality. They also call into question the viability of it as a drinking water source. Although the proponents of this option claim the river's water will meet drinking water standards, I ask how we can be certain. New information is developed almost daily on both a state and federal level regarding the relationship between toxic substances and human health. Research on endocrine disruption, cancer as well as other health conditions suggest these may be linked to consumption of toxic substances. Or they may not. But right now, we just don't know. It is our hope that in advance of securing answers to these questions, we will develop an aggressive strategy to clean up the Willamette River, eliminating much of its pollution and therefore many of these unanswered questions. At that point, the Willamette River may be clean enough to use as a drinking water source. That time has not yet come. Conservation: Regional Implications My next area of concern is in regards to the implications this decision will have for the region's commitment to water conservation. As many of you know, in 1996 a group of the region's water providers collaborated to create the Regional Water Supply Plan. It is my understanding the intention of this plan was to identify potential water supply sources to address an increase in demand. The OEC supports and finds value in this framework as it provides numerous economic as well as sound water management n benefits for participating communities. N One of the most enlightening results of that plan was the commitment made to water conservation. The plan explicitly laid out a strategy to address water conservation, calling for an 18.6% reduction in consumption over the next fifty years. My guess is that the region's providers integrated this component in the plan because they saw the efficient use of water as valuable to region's future water supply scenarios. Creating a large new supply may undermine any incentive to meet or exceed conservation goals. Hilary Abraham Oregon Environmental Council Citizen Opposition Finally, and perhaps most significantly there are a growing number of members of your community who are opposed to drinking Willamette River water. These citizens are so concerned about the prospect of this option they have filled a ballot initiative to secure its defeat. I urge you to carefully weigh the level of these concerns in your final decision. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any questions you have at this time. 6WIA Y1 Testimony of Rob Drake 4"1 9,7 Mayor of Beaverton Before the Tigard City Council April 13, 1939 Good evening. Mayor Micoli and Members of the Tigard City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening on the very important issue of future water sources to the City of Tigard and surrounding areas. Professionally, I serve as the Mayor of Beaverton. It is an honor to partner with your City on a daily basis. Our two cities enjoy an outstanding working relationship. In addition, you have quality staff that serves you well and represents your interests in a very professional way around the region. As Beaverton's Mayor and full-time chief executive officer, I am involved in many varied local and regional issues of importance to both of our cities. I am currently Beaverton's representative to the regional Water Consortium Board, of which Tigard is also a member. This Board deals with many water issues of local and regional significance. Future water supply sources are one of the topics the Consortium Board deals with on a regular basis. In addition, I am the first and only Chairman of the Regional Emergency Management Group (REMG), which was formed in 1993. REMG is a group of local elected officials who advise Metro and area emergency managers on policy issues related to disaster preparedness and recovery processes. I also represent the City of Beaverton to the Joint Water Commission (JWC) agency, which is a water source partnership and owners group made-up of the City of Hillsboro, City of Forest Grove, Tualatin Valley Water District and the City of Beaverton. a I have a unique and regional perspective regarding the future location of i additional water sources. 7 My interest in speaking with you tonight is to not necessarily favor one source over another. Rather, I would ask you to consider the fact that the current Bull Run Watershed and the Clackamas River basin are in very close proximity to Mr. Hood and potential future volcanic activity. A major volcanic event on Mr. Hood might likely compromise the Bull Run and Clackamas River sources. That would 1~ 0111IN111 - _ai~ - MJ leave, basically, only the Joint Water Commission source in the Coast Range as the only major source for water in the region until a new supply is found. The Willamette River is a logical water source and alternative for Tigard and surrounding communities. I make no arguments for or against this alternative. I do ask you to recognize that an alternative to potentially vulnerable Bull Run and the Clackamas River should be found. A second message I deliver tonight is to the Tigard community. I believe that you can have confidence in Tiigard's Mayor, City Council and Tualatin Valley Water District to make the right, informed choice given the years of qualified study of the issue and the numerous hearings and task forces they've sponsored. Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this very important subject. s IN, Testimony to the Tigard City Council April 13, 1999 Hilary Abraham Oregon Environmental Council Mr. Mayor and members of the Tigard City Council, thank you for the opportunity to testifv this evening. My name is Hilary Abraham and I am the Drinking Water Director for the Oregon Environmental Council. The Oregon Environmental Council (OEC) is Oregon's oldest, statewide, environmental organization. We focus on clean air, clean water, and a sustainable economy. We bring Oregonians together to protect and preserve Oregon's environment now, and for future generations. I am particularly pleased to come before you tonight to speak to an issue, which has been of serious concern to my organization and the community at large. The OEC has a history of advocating for water quality throughout the state. Most recently, the listings of threatened and endangered native fish populations as well as a host of water quality indicators have focused our work on the Willamette River. Therefore, when the decision to examine the Willamette as a potential drinking water source became viable, we grew concerned. As the debate around the issue has taken place, the OEC has had a consistent position opposing this source. Our primarily reason remains that currently, there is not cleff information regarding the river's quality which ensure its safety as a drinking *44 source. While this is the primary premise for our opposition, my testimony will Abi tdcus on the areas of public policy and resource management. Water Quality Known to many as, "The Eden at the End of the Oregon Trail" the"Willamette River is a fertile valley. While it only contains twelve percent of the state's land, the Willamette Valley is home to seventy percent of Oregon's population. As it flows through the cities of Eugene, Corvallis, Salem, Albany, and Portland, the Willamette Ricer encompasses much of what we know as Oregon. While individuals recreate orrt*Yliver and native steelhead struggle to use it for spawning, the river has also become a dumping ground for billions of gallons of pollution each year. { How polluted and how to clean it up is an issue which deserves considerable attentic~St } and vision. I recognize that your charge is not to devise a strategy to address the pollution, but I believe it is your charge to give careful consideration to this issue in o tapping it as a drinking water source. o In 1997, the United States Geological Survey conducted a survey of the Willamette Basin. In it, they found pesticides in each sample. Of the forty-eight pesticides identified, only eight currently have drinking water standards. Hilary Abraham Oregon Environmental Council • Annually, millions of gallons of raw sewage are dumped into the River. Although the City of Portland is devising steps to address the problem of "combined sewage overflow" the problem is so egregious that even the state Legislature has drafted legislation to address it. • The Willamette River has recently been a part of Oregon's largest listing of an endangered species. Native fish are often regarded as an indicator species. These listings speak significantly to the overall health of the basin. • The area most likely to house the intake pump for a water treatment plant is at a stretch of the river known as the Newberg Pool. Skeletally deformed fish have been found here. What is causing the deformities is still not known. All of these issues keenly justify an aggressive strategy to address the river's water quality. They also tali into question the viability of it as a drinking water source. Although the proponents of this option claim the river's water will meet drinking water standards, I ask how we can be certain. New information is developed almost daily on both a state and federal level regarding the relationship between toxic substances and human health. Research on endocrine disruption, cancer ai Well as otl,Ier health conditions suggest these may be linked to consumption of toxic substances. Or they may not. But right now, we just don't know. It is our trope that in advanRp of securing answers to these questions, we will develop an aggressive strategy to clean up the Willamette River, eliminating much of its pollution and th6refore many of th •e unanswered questions. At that point, the Willamette River may be clean enou to use as a drinking water source. That time has not yet come. Conservation: Regional Implications My next area of concern is in regards to the impli ns this d on wiwhave for the region's commitment to water conservation. As many of you k"., in 1996 a group of the region's water providers collaborated to create the Regional Water Supply Plan. It is my understanding the intention of this plan was to identify potential water supply sources to address an increase in demand. The OEC supports and finds value in this framework as it provides numerous economic as well as sound water n1o tAgement benefits for participating communities. One of the most enlightening results of that plan was the commitment made to rr conservation. The plan explicitly laid out a strategy to address water conservation, calling for an 18.6% reduction in consumption over the next fifty years. My guess is that the region's providers integrated this component in the plan because they saw the efficient use of water as vah*W to rquion's future water supply scenarios, Creating a large new supply may und$ r~ ine s incentiue to meet or exceed conservation goals. Hilary Abraham Oregon Environmental Council Citizen Opposition Finally, and perhaps most significantly there are a growing number of members of your community who are opposed to drinking Willamette River water. These citizens are so concerned about the prospect of this option they have filled a ballot initiative to secure its defeat. I urge you to carefully weigh the level of these concerns in your final decision. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any questions you have at this time. i i i i i f r Testimony to the Tigard City Council April 13, 1959 Hilary Abraham Oregon Environmental Council Mr. Mayor and members of the Tigard City Council, thank you for the opportunity to testify this evening. My name is Hilary Abraham and I am the Drinking Water Director for the Oregon Environmental Council. The Oregon Environmental Council (OEC) is Oregon's oldest, statewide, environmental organization. We focus on clean air, clean water, and a sustainable economy. We bring Oregonians together to protect and preserve Oregon's environment now, and for future generations. I am particularly pleased to come before you tonight to speak to an issue, which has been of serious concern to my organization and the community at large. The OEC has a history of advocating for water quality throughout the state. Most recently, the listings of threatened and endangered native fish populations as well as a host of water quality indicators have focused our work on the Willamette River. Therefore, when the decision to examine the Willamette as a potential drinking water source became viable, we grew concerned. As the debate around the issue has taken place, the OEC has had a consistent position opposing this source. Our primarily reason remains that currently, there is not clear information regarding the river's quality which ensure its safety as a drinking water source. While this is the primary premise for our opposition, my testimony will also focus on the areas of public policy and resource management. Water Quality Known to many as, "The Eden at the End of the Oregon Trail" the Willamette River is a fertile valley. While it only contains twelve percent of the state's land, the Willamette Valley is home to seventy percent of Oregon's population. As it flows through the cities of Eugene, Corvallis, Salem, Albany, and Portland, the Willamette River encompasses much of what we know as Oregon. While individuals recreate on the river and native steelhead struggle to use it for spawning, the river has also become a dumping ground for billions of gallons of pollution each year. How polluted and how to clean it up is an issue which deserves considerable attention and vision. I recognize that your charge is not to devise a strategy to address the pollution, but I believe it is your charge to give careful consideration to this issue in of tapping it as a drinking water source. ® In 1997, the United States Geological Survey conducted a survey of the Willamette Basin. In it, they found pesticides in each sample. Of the forty-eight pesticides identified, only eight currently have drinking water standards. NSJ Hilary Abraham Oregon Environmental Council ® Annually, millions of gallons of raw sewage are dumped into the River. Although the City of Portland is devising steps to address the problem of "combined sewage overflow" the problem is so egregious that even the state Legislature has drafted legislation to address it. • The Willamette River has recently been a part of Oregon's largest listing of an endangered species. Native fish are often regarded as an indicator species. These listings speak significantly to the overall health of the basin. • The area most likely to house the intake pump for a water treatment plant is at a stretch of the river known as the Newberg Pool. Skeletally deformed fish have been found here. What is causing the deformities is still not known. All of these issues keenly justify an aggressive strategy to address the river's water quality. They also call into question the viability of it as a drinking water source. Although the proponents of this option claim the river's water will meet drinking water standards, I ask how we can be certain. New information is developed almost daily on both a state and federal level regarding the relationship between toxic substances and human health. Research on endocrine disruption, cancer as well as other health conditions suggest these may be linked to consumption of toxic substances. Or they may not. But right now, we just don't know. It is our hope that in advance of securing answers to these questions, we will develop an aggressive strategy to clean up the Willamette River, eliminating much of its pollution and therefore many of these unanswered questions. At that point, the Willamette River may be clean enough to use as a drinking water source. That time has not yet come. Conservation: Regional Implications My next area of concern is in regards to the implications this decision will have for the region's commitment to water conservation. As many of you know, in 1996 a group of the region's water providers collaborated to create the Regional Water Supply Plan. It is my understanding the intention of this plan was to identify potential water supply sources to address an increase in demand. The OEC suppoits and finds value in this framework as it provides numerous economic as well as sound water management benefits for participating communities. One of the most enlightening results of that plan was the commitment made to water conservation. The plan explicitly laid out a strategy to address water conservation, calling for an 18.6% reduction in consumption over the next fifty years. My guess is that the region's providers integrated this component in the plan becauselChey saw the efficient use of water as valuable to region's future water supply scaUrios. Creating a large new supply may undermine any incentive to meet or exceed conservation goals. Hilary Abraham Oregon Environmental Council C}tiz,,~n Opposition Finally, and perhaps most significantly there are a growing number of members of your community who are opposed to drinking Willamette River water. These citizens are so concerned about the prospect of this option they have filled a ballot initiative to secure its defeat. I urge you to carefully weigh the level of these concerns in your final decision. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any questions you have at this time. Testimony of Rob Drake Mayor of Beaverton Before the Tigard City Council April 13, 1999 S, Good evening. Mayor Nicoli and Members of the Tigard City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening on the very important issue of future water sources to the City of Tigard and surrounding areas. Professionally, I serve as the Mayor of Beaverton. It is an honor to partner with your City on a daily basis. Our two cities enjoy an outstanding working relationship. In addition, you have quality staff that serves you well and represents your interests in a very professional way around the region. As Beaverton's Mayor and full-time chief executive officer, I am involved in many varied local and regional issues of importance to both of our cities. I am currently Beaverton's representative to the regional Water Consortium Board, of which Tigard is also a member. This Board deals with many water issues of local and regional significance. Future water supply sources are one of the topics the Consortium Board deals with on a regular basis. In addition, I am the first and only Chairman of the Regional Emergency Management Group (REMG), which was formed in 1993. REMG is a group of local elected officials who advise Metro and area emergency managers on policy issues related to disaster preparedness and recovery processes. I also represent the City of Beaverton to the Joint Water Commission (JWC) agency, which is a water source partnership and owners group made-up of the City of Hillsboro, City of Forest Grove, Tualatin Valley Water District and the City of Beaverton. I have a unique and regional perspective regarding the future location of additional water sources. My interest in speaking with you tonight is to not necessarily favor one source over another. Rather, I would ask you to consider the fact that the current Bull Run Watershed and the Clackamas River basin are in very close proximity to Mr. Hood and potential future volcanic activity. A major volcanic event on Mr. Hood might likely compromise the Bull Run and Clackamas River sources. That would leave, basically, only the Joint Water Commission source In the Coast Range as the only major source for water in the region until a new supply is found. The Willamette River is a logical water source and alternative for Tigard and surrounding communities. I make no arguments for or against this alternative. I do ask you to recognize that an alternative to potentially vulnerable Bull Run and the Clackamas River should be found. A second message I deliver tonight is to the Tigard community. I believe that you can have confidence in Tigard's Mayor, City Council and Tualatin Valley Water District to make the right, informed choice given the years of qualified study of the issue and the numerous hearings and task forces they've sponsored. Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this very important subject. 1 Testimony of Rob Drake Mayor of Beaverton Before the Tigard City Council April 23, 1999 Good evening. Mayor Nicoli and Members of the Tigard City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening on the very important issue of future water sources to the City of Tigard and surrounding areas. Professionally, I serve as the Mayor of Beaverton. It is an honor to partner with your City on a daily basis. Our two cities enjoy an outstanding working relationship. In addition, you have quality staff that serves you well and represents your interests in a very professional way around the region. As Beaverton's Mayor and full-time chief executive officer, I am involved in many varied local and regional issues of importance to both of our cities. I am currently Beaverton's representative to the regional Water Consortium Board, of which Tigard is also a member. This Board deals with many water issues of local and regional significance. Future water supply sources are one of the topics the Consortium Board deals with on a regular basis. In addition, I am the first and only Chairman of the Regional Emergency Management Group (REMG), which was formed in 1993. REMG is a group of local elected officials who advise Metro and area emergency managers on policy issues related to disaster preparedness and recovery processes. I also represent the City of Beaverton to the Joint Water Commission (JWC) agency, which is a water source partnership and owners group made-up of the City of Hillsboro, City of Forest Grove, Tualatin Valley Water District and the City of Beaverton. I have a unique and regional perspective regarding the future location of additional water sources. My interest in speaking with you tonight is to not necessarily favor one source over another. Rather, I would ask you to consider the fact that the current Bull Run Watershed and the Clackamas River basin are in very close proximity to Mr. Hood and potential future volcanic activity. A major volcanic event on Mr. Hood might likely compromise the Bull Run and Clackamas River sources. That would leave, basically, only the Joint Water Commission source in the Coast Range as the only major source for water in the region until a new supply is found. The Willamette River is a logical water source and alternative for Tigard and surrounding communities. I make no arguments for or against this alternative. I do ask you to recognize that an alternative to potentially vulnerable Bull Run and the Clackamas River should be found. A second message I deliver tonight is to the Tigard community. I believe that you can have confidence in Tiigard's Mayor, City Council and Tualatin Valley Water District to make the right, informed choice given the years of qualified study of the issue and the numerous hearings and task forces they've sponsored. Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this very important subject. INS I Statement to the Tigard City Council April 13, 1999 Mayor Nicoli, City Council members, My name is Norman Penner and I am here tonight representing the Tigard Water District Board of which I am a member. As you well know, but apparently some citizens of Tigard do not, the Tigard Water District Board is composed of 5 elected Commissioners and we represent those consumers of Tigard water who reside in the unincorporated areas of the Tigard Water System. That is to say, those consumers who do not live within the city limits of Tigard. Durham or King City. Our constituency is composed of 7,025 Registered Voters and they represent some 3,000+ service connections to the Tigard Water System. That is some 21+% of the total connections. We are therefor, the second largest group (after Tigard city) of water users involved in the Tigard Water System. The Tigard Water Board Commissioners meet regularly and these meetings are open to the public. We are one of the 4 signers of the 1993 Intergovernmental Agreement for water services which gave the City of Tigard's water department the responsibility of operating Tigard Water System and established the Intergovernmental Water Board. We, the Tigard Water Board, under the terms of that 1993 agreement, "share authority for decision-making regarding the long-term water supply and capital improvement planning to serve present and future customers of the ORIGINAL DISTRICT" and are a voting member of the Inter-governmental Water Board. We have participated in the various Regional water Resources studies which have explored possible solutions to the regional water problems over the past 10 or more years. The members of the Tigard Water District Board have spent countless hours reviewing all available written material and listening to presentations on the region's water problems and the various proposed solutions to those problems. More recently, we have attended numerous hearings and presentations by proponents and opponents of both the Portland and Willamette River proposals and have actively participated in these deliberations. We have worked hard to carry out our duties as elected officials charged with the responsibility of representing our constituent's interests regards their long-term tap water needs. As part of that responsibility, we recently sent out 3,100 written invitations to our constituents inviting them to attend our regular Board meeting on March 29. The announced purpose of this meeting was to report to them on the issues relative to the two options under consideration and to obtain their input. Some 30 residents of the unincorporated area attended and participated in this meeting. We provided them with information on projected costs, water quality and long-term availability of water under both options. The discussion was informative and productive. At the end of the meeting an informal vote was taken and the majority indicated their support for the Willamette option. Based upon these results, and our own intensive research, the Commissioners then voted unanimously to support the Willamette River option and instructed our representative on the Intergovernmental Water Board to vote accordingly at its next scheduled meeting. This concludes my remarks on behalf of the Tigard Water Board. Thank you for the opportunity to make the wishes of the citizens of the unincorporated area known to you! I gill M111111,51 IIIIIII -MMM===J Statement to the Tigard City Council April 13, 1999 Mayor Nicoli, City Council members, My name is Norman Penner and I am here tonight representing the Tigard Water District Board of which I am a member. As you well know, but apparently some citizens of Tigard do not, the Tigard Water District Board is composed of 5 elected Commissioners and we represent those consumers of Tigard water who reside in the unincorporated areas of the Tigard Water System. That is to say, those consumers who do not live within the city limits of Bard, Durham or King City. Our constituency is composed of 7,025 Registered Voters and they represent some 3,000+ service connections to the Tigard Water System. That is some 21+% of the total connections. We are therefor, the second largest group (after Tigard city) of water users involved in the Tigard Water System. The Tigard Water Board Commissioners meet regularly and these meetings are open to the public. We are one of the 4 signers of the 1993 Intergovernmental Agreement for water services which gave the City of Tigard's water department the responsibility of operating Tigard Water System and established the Intergovernmental Water Board. We, the Tigard Water Board, under the terms of that 1993 agreement, "share authority for decision-making regarding the long-term water supply and capital improvement planning to serve present and fixture customers of the ORIGINAL DISTRICT" and are a voting member of the Inter-governmental Water Board. We have participated in the various Regional water Resources studies which have explored possible solutions to the regional water problems over the past 10 or more years. The members of the Tigard Water District Board have spent countless hours reviewing all available written material and listening to presentations on the region's water problems and the various proposed solutions to those problems. More recently, we have attended numerous hearings and presentations by proponents and opponents of both the Portland and Willamette River proposals and have actively participated in these deliberations. We have worked hard to carry out our duties as elected officials charged with the responsibility of representing our constituent's interests regards their long-term tap water ' needs. As part of that responsibility, we recently sent out 3,100 written invitations to our constituents inviting them to attend our regular Board meeting on March 29. The announced purpose of this meeting was to report to them on the issues relative to the two options under consideration and to obtain their input. Some 30 residents of the unincorporated area attended and participated in this meeting. We provided them with information on projected costs, water quality and long-term availability of water under both options. The discussion was informative and productive. At the end of the meeting an informal vote was 61~ 1110111M taken and the majority indicated their support for the Willamette option. Based upon these results, and our own intensive research, the Commissioners then voted unanimously to support the Willamette River option and instructed our representative on the Intergovernmental Water Board to vote accordingly at its next scheduled meeting. This concludes my remarks on behalf of the Tigard Water Board. Thank you for the opportunity to make the wishes of the citizens of the unincorporated area known to you! H c~ lion Lill 31 aR WALLULIS & ASSOCIATES, I14C. REGISTRATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL-MUNICIPAL-ENGINEERING OREGON: ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER CHARBONNEAU DISTRICT CIVIL ENGINEER 7725 S.W. VILLAGE GREENS CIRCLE CONTROL ENGINEER WILSONVILLE, OREGON 97070 WATER RIGHTS EXAMINER PHONE: 503-694-1309 ENERGY AUDITOR E MAIL: sgwallulis@integrityonline.com LAND SURVEYOR WASHINGTON: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER CALIFORNIA: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ALASKA: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER NOTES FOR TIGARD MEETING/WILLAMETTE RIVER -.4/13/99 PROFESSIONAL. EXPERIENCE: 42 YEARS AND CURRENTLY PROFESSIONALLY ACTIVE ENGINEER 5 YEARS OF MUNICIPAL EXPERIENCE. 3 YEARS - CORVALLIS UTILITY: UTILITY ENGINEER FOR CORVALLIS 1967-1970. A brief history of the water supply is probably as follows: Probably unfiltered water from the creeks at Mary's Peak. Filtered through a media under pressure contained in a metal vessel. Prior to 1949 a conventional water treatment was constructed at Mary's Peak - 3.0 mgd. A second water treatment plant was constructed in 1949 located on the Willamette River. The name of this plant is called the H.D. Taylor Water Treatment Plant. A parallel can be drawn on the issue before the cities of Tigard and Wilsonville with raw water quality sources from Bull Run and the Willamette River. the Rock Creek Treatment Plant water source, however is not as pristine or in as controlled a setting as the Bull Run source. A brief history of the H.D. Taylor Treatment Plant is: Original construction in 1949 with a capacity of 4.0 mgd.. Plant was in 1961 was expanded to increase capacity to 8.0 mgd. During my tenure there, 1967 to 1970 a local engineering firm Cornell, Howland, Hayes & Merrifield, now known as C112M or CH2M-Hill was retained to design an expansion of the HID Taylor Plant on the Willamette River from an 8 mgd to a 24 mgd facility. The expanded plant was at that time constructed to what was then the "state of the art". In 1974, about 4 years later, the rated capacity of the H.D. Taylor plant was down rated due to more stringent Safe Drinking Water Act Regulations. In 1986, about 16 years later, the rated capacity of the H.D. Taylor Plant was down rated to 14 mgd to meet the new regulations, a reduction of 33%. In 1993, about 23 years later the H.D. Taylor Plant was further de-rated to meet new regulations to 11.2 mgd, a reduction of 47%. In 1996/87 the plant underwent major modifications to increase the treatment plant to a capacity of 21 mgd, the original design capacity in 1970. During this time interval the Rock Creek plant was still supplying the same designed capacity of 3.0 mgd without any structural modifications. The water quality of the raw water source is a significant factor in complying with the ever changing mandated promulgation's. In my discussions today with Tom Penpraze, Utilities Division Manager for Corvallis, he stated that the addition of activated carbon filters in addition to the mixed medi'a falters reduced the taste and odor that occurs infrequently during the year. He also advised me that there is no deductible presence of arsenic in the Willamette River at Corvallis. This is but one significant differences in the Willamette River quality at the two locations. PLANT OPERATIONAL FAILURES/PROBLEMS 1._ Reliability of Operation of Water Treatment Plants. Historically there has been numerous failures of water treatment plants to be operated in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1966. The following information for 1996, the most recent year of record, is derived from the December 1998 issue of WATER/Engineering & Management: ® 18,410 violations were for not meeting the Minimum Contaminant Level (MCL) and treatment technique requirements. 0 123,207 violations mostly for not meeting monitoring and reporting requirements. ® How many went unreported in the self interest of the operators/city management. How soon we forget that water that had been treated by a modern water treatment plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1993 permitted a Cryptosporidium outbreak resulting in making 400,000 people sick, 4,000 hospitalized, and caused more than 50 deaths. THE ARSENIC FACTOR (THE UNSPOKEN COST FACTOR) Excerpts From Murray, Smith & Assoc. Et. Al. Report dated December 1998 Appendix 4 pages-17 & 18): To avoid parts per billion, and reducing this to a scale of 2 to 200, the range currently being considered for an MCL for arsenic, arsenic was detected in two of 8 samples at strengths of 70 and 150. If an MCL very much below 200 is selected, the Willamette River will be required to be treated for arsenic as stated in your consultants report. The additional capital cost, maintenance and operation costs may result in doubling the cost of the Willamette River option. Of particular note, if treatment is required to remove the arsenic, the sludge may now be considered a hazardous waste and require hauling it to Arlington, Oregon. "Arsenic The current MCL for arsenic is 50 µg/L. The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA require the EPA. to propose a regulation for arsenic by January 1, 2000 and adopt regulation by January 1, 2001. Health effects data presented by EPA indicates the 104(l in 10,000) cancer risk (non lethal, skin cancer) estimate is 2 gg/L. Since EPA policy has been to regulate carcinogens in the 104 to the 10.6 range, a revised arsenic standard could fall in the range between 2 µg/L and 0.02 µg/L (20 parts per trillion). Estimates currently indicate that approximately 12,000 utilities in the United States have arsenic above the 2 µg/L in their raw water. Treatment Implications to Willamette River WTP. In the WRRWMP, arsenic was detected in two of the 8 samples at levels of 1.5 and 0.7 gg/L . Some level of arsenic removal can be expected through coagulation and conventional filtration and under the least stringent MCL (2 µg/L) the WTP would likely comply without additional treatment. However at lower levels, enhanced arsenic removal could be required, An MCL below 2 gg/L, particularly 0.02 gg/L would likely require specialized treatment such as ion exchange or reverse osmosis to achieve such low levels. Based on the prevalence of arsenic in raw water supplies, it is difficult to imagine a regulation that would require this level of treatment 2 µg/L). Therefore, it is assumed that a future arsenic regulation will not impact the Willamette WTP." At an earlier meeting held in Wilsonville where the City's consultants and the City of Portland made their presentations, I asked the City of Portland if they had any arsenic in the Bull Run. Their answer was a definite no. The following has been excepted from page 16 of the November, 1998 issue of American Water Works Association Journal. " USEPA has accepted final recommendations from the Endocrine Screening and Testing Advisory Committee for establishing a first-ever screening and testing program as required by the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act and Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) amendments. USEPA's program proposal, due by year's end, will focus on running about 15,000 suspect chemicals through prescreening assays that will identify those needing further analysis." There are no plans by the City to have their consultants test for the 15,000 chemicals that may be present in the Willamette River. In the operation of a water treatment plant treating highly polluted waters, there is a considerable time lag for several tests between the time some samples are collected and by the time they are analyzed. Consequently the water is already in the distribution system and delivered to customers before the results are known. Test costs SOCs = $945, SOC's, IOC's & VOC's = $1,550.00. These costly tests are not indicated for the proposed water treatment plant. Testing is required in Corvallis only once every 3 years. With the introduction of all the additional pollutants between Wilsonville and Corvallis, frequent testing should be mandatory. Unfortunately the test results take several days after the samples are taken. ARTIFICIAL RECHARGE CAN REDUCE CAPITAL COSTS BY 50% Artificial Recharge can reduce project costs 50% by downsizing of transmission lines, eliminating the need of/or reducing the size of a treatment plant by two thirds. Simply put there are only a few months out of the year when water demands are high (primarily from irrigation). The Columbia River Basalt aquifer have proven to be excellent large subsurface reservoirs (no maintenance). The City of Salem is currently constructing recharge wells and the City of Pendleton is in the planning stages to artificially recharge the basalt aquifers. Studies in eastern Oregon, based on carbon dating of the water, indicate that the ground water in the basalt aquifers has moved down gradient on the average only 5 feet per year. The Bull Run during the average year utilizes only 15 - 20% of the precipitation and snow falling inside the watershed with the balance going to the river and the ocean. The City of Portland has gone on record of making this winter surplus water available at a lower cost to cities and districts that want to utilize the water for recharge. Well placed recharge/production wells can act as a subsurface distribution system eliminating the need for sub surface water lines. Contrary to much published information the City of Portland's well system are only utilized in years when there is less than normal precipitation. Furthermore the City of Portland in it's presentations have stated their plans to artificially recharge this well field. Therefor the water injected from the Bull Run will be the water withdrawn if needed to meet summer irrigation demands. BULL RUN WATER QUALITY CONCERNS Promoters of the Willamette River Option have always raised the issue of the City of Portland not treating the Bull Run to remove cryptosporidium. We at this stage on water analysis can not with certainty be a 100% sure that the cryptosporidium is actually cryptosporidium and not giardia or something else, or if it is cryptosporidium are they viable and harmful for human consumption. While it may be true that chlorine may not kill cryptosporidium, the long contact time from the Bull Run source to the nearest customer must be making the cryptosporidium non-viable. Furthermore being situated on the far end of this as a water source, would provide us users with in effect guinea pigs that would provide early warning signs of contamination near the Bull Run source. I much prefer this then us being the guinea pigs for an operational failure at a treatment plant on the Willamette River. MISLEADING CLAIMS BY WILLAMETTE PROPONENTS The quotation below is but one illustration of the inability of the proposed water treatment process of the Willamette to rminove all harmful contaminants. "A Penn State environmental engineer* has developed the first successful microbiological process for treating drinking water contaminated by perchlorate, `Recent improvements in the detection of perchlorate have shown that it has become a widespread contaminant of water in the western United States.' Logan said. `The California Department of Health Services found 30 percent of 232 wells sampled were contaminated. The Southern Nevada Water Authority found perchlorate in its tap water in just under action level.' High doses of perchlorate interfere with the absorption of iodine by the thyroid and is a serious human health concern when present in drinking water. However, until Logan demonstrated his process, there was no proven removal technique available for the relatively low concentrations found in the water supply." *Dr. Bruce E. Logan. N i The following excerpt is from this same publication: "Citizens Know Little of Drinking Water Safety. The amount of knowledge that representative citizens demonstrated on drinking water safety in recent discussions ranged from `little to none' the EPA reports. Reliability & ]Liability possible with Willamette River as a Source. From the December 1995 issue of the AWWA Mainstream Publication. "The attorney defending Milwaukee against claims stemming from the city's 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak discussed emerging liability risks water suppliers may be facing and how to manage them. Linda Hansen said the Milwaukee cases raises many unanswered questions about how product liability law may apply to tap water, noting that strict liability only requires the plantiff to show that the problem was connected to the product and that regulatory compliance is not a protection (although non-compliance spells certain defeat). 01111 !li 11 oil 0 H.D. TAYLOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT Surface water source: Willamette River Demand Plant: Regular operating hours lam - 5pm. Operating hours extend during summer months, as needed, to meet the demand. Plant Staff: All certified by Oregon State Department of Health. • Water Operations Supervisor • 4 full-time plant operators • Support Staff - Technical Services: Water Quality Technician, Mechanical and Electrical Maintenance Technicians. 1949 - Original construction date: 4.0 MGD capacity, 2 filters, 2 flocculation/sedimentation basins. #1 Clearwell capacity 244,000 gal. 1961 - Treatment capacity increased: 8.0 MGD capacity, 4 filters, 3 flocculation/sedimentation basins. 1970 - Treatment capacity increased to 21 MGD. • Mixed media added to filters allowing higher filtration rate. High-rate tube settlers added to basins providing greater solids removal. 1974 - Plant capacity downrated due to more stringent Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. 1988 - Plant capacity established at 14 MGD due to SDWA Amendments. 1993 - Plant capacity further derated to 11.2 MGD due to clarifier limitations, advanced age of filters and CH2M Hills Facility Plan. 1996/97 - Plant capacity increased to 21 MGD with modifications and additions to plant. Increased intake pumping capacity to 28 MGD. Switched from chlorine gas to 12% sodium hypochlorite for disinfection. Modified chemical feed systems to flow-pacing. Added flocculation/sedimentation basin #4. • Horizontal flocculators • Lamella Plate technology used for increased solids removal. Filters #5 - 8 added with carbon caps for taste and odor removal. Chlorine Contact Basin added to meet requirements for chlorine contact time. . Capacity approximately 550,000 gal. Computer control system incorporated allowing increased process control and monitoring. Filter-to-waste capability added to existing filters #14. Effluent pumping capacity increased to 23.9 MGD with the addition of 500 hp Variable Frequency Drive pump. z Synthetic Organic Chemicals5 e 2,4-D~ . 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) Adipates Alachlor Atrazine Benzo(A)Pyrene Lindane Carbofuran Chlordane Dalapon Dibromochloropropane Dinoseb Dioxin Diquat Endothall Endrin ' Ethylene Dibromide Glyphosate , Heptachlor Epoxide Heptachlor Hexachlorobenzenesx~~ ' j Hexachlororyclopentadiene Methoxychlor .'tia . , y c 4.. .r XeT`r~0 c sr,' Pentachlorophenol is I In, Phthalates5 Picloram # y `"),~lu Polychlorinated Biphenyls , _ •¢YJ.4 1 it .l~., Simazine Toxaphene Vydate (Oxamyl) # b' $ 3-Hydroxycarbofuran ! ti' n S°~ v joctl!06 w Aldicarb x .j Aldicarb Sulfoxide ,x Aldicarb Sulfonea ft w' r I 44i. ..a tii. vk ¢ eb. ~t,. "kalx. It Aldrin Butachlor Geneeal Information About Water.. . Carbaryl Dicamba Sources of drinking water include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs Dieldrin and wells. As water moves through the ground or over various surfaces, it Methomyl dissolves naturally-occurring minerals and can pick up substances resulting from Metolachlor animal or human activity. All drinking water, including bottled water, may be rea- Metribuzin sonably expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. A contami- Propachlor nant is any substance found in water. However, not all contaminants are harmful; therefore, the presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling EPA !s Safe Drinking Water Hotline 1-800-426-4791. 4 - Water Quality Report March 1998 'm Pa E k J: Y Volatile Organic Chemicalss ,•.t. R' 1'1-Dichloroethylene v&~. 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1,2-Dichloroethane 1,2-Dichloropropane 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene Benzene Carbon Tetrachloride T rR Cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene Dichloromethane Eth (benzene n ~ Monochlorobenzene 1 o-Dichlorobenzene p-Dichlorobenzene Styrene Tetrachloroethylene t• Toluene Total Xylenes ¢e, Trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene - ,;„~„Ez.., r r Y~f.: ;"`1 ~'~'.9A.'?n~r$ t+~°;Fr i~ti/~4 y Le K F`'n'!.YIF 1 r;P r t'~$ 1 Fy" •k 1 Trichloroethylene Vinyl Chloride m-Dichlorobenzene r P"°Essr ~'r r Dibromomethane er 8?lth~nf~lgso t f Chlorotoluene t „k~r' l 1'~r"~~l€~!•~ o, ttoariatc~~asbe~t~;fa~he~outb rna~oc~ ' ~a an ~the~ p _ a$ tas p ~gtrlbu e t x ° 1,1-DichloroProPene ~Yv ~?•~t10 ~~~'%c rki7 r fM e8',•y°s°k~~g~41fiefipaund~#il °tw7~e~. e 1,1-Dichloroethane ""4es }vw Y iullss mowltlt,t}keBPA+cid~Co 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ~i, vdr;~r gl~er~"z . cr, 1,3-Dichloropropane p ultSy fm, QSr:' 4 ttn fe Chloromethane Y u of tes~(.!• every. a *d u~ Bromomethane ~j w t 1,2,3-Trichloropropane a,3 „Sk'" , > ` • , 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane y: of 1 w `t Chloroethane a 2,2-Dichloropropane o-Chlorotoluene The Latest Word From the EPA... ® p-Chlorotoluene Bromobenzene T he EPA proposed new rules last month that will require suppliers of drinking 1,3-Dichloropropene water to list any chemicals or microorganisms found in the water and outline any testing rules that may have been violated. The rules will require annual drinking water summaries called Consumer Confidence Reports. The information will be a way for consumers, especiaily those with special health concerns, to make informed decisions regarding their drinking water. The new EPA rules are expected to become final in August 1998 and will be incorporated into next year's annual water quality report. In Corvallis, the Public Works Department has been providing water quality information to its customers since 1991. March 1998 Water Quality Report - 5 ~~~r~- C Jill, iii Wombon Ad .uward v1sory 'Jorce ort t the Tigard City Council resented April 13, 1999 Page 1 of 7 MINE Introduction The Water Advisory Task Force would like to thank the Tigard City Council for the opportunity to study and make a recommendation on an issue of such importance to the future of Tigard and our neighboring communities. The members of the task force took this commission very seriously. The makeup of the task force was very broad. It included residents of various parts of Tigard and the Tigard Water Service Area, business owners, major employers, and developers. The Tigard area citizens of the task force included a biochemist, a City of Portland engineer, a retired public works engineer, a public health specialist, a USDA hydrologist, and people of many other backgrounds. This group of citizens committed every Thursday evening for two months (eight meetings, plus a presentation to the City Council), and many hours on their own time, to study this complicated issue, and develop a report to this city council. Of the three criteria that the Tigard City Council gave the task force, tap water quality was the number one concern of every task force member. Once our concerns about tap water quality were answered our focus moved to certainty of supply. Cost of supply was the least important of the three criteria. The task force gave the Willamette Water Supply Agency consultants, the City of Portland representatives, and the Citizens for Safe Water each one evening to present their proposals and/or their positions on Tigard's future water supply source. The WWSA consultants were given part of an evening to respond to questions raised by the Citizens for Safe Water. Then the task force spent an evening of questions and answers with Dr James Pratt and Dr. Eugene Foster Jr. Dr. James Pratt is currently Associate Vice-Provost for Research and Sponsored Projects, Director of Environmental Sciences and Resources, and Professor of Environmental Sciences at Portland State University. Dr. Eugene Foster Jr. is currently an Environmental Toxicologist with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The task force members then individually did work sheets on the pros and cons of each criteria for each proposal. Each task force member gave the whole group a presentation of their individual positions after the above process. Then on the next evening we discussed the groups position, voted on a motion, and appointed subcommittees write portions of the final report. With those pieces merged we have the report being presented to you this evening. The three sections of this report were written by three separate subcommittees. Because of the short amount of time between the completion of the task force's work and this council meeting, the sections are still in the form submitted by each subcommittee. Page 2 of 7 11 11 IS RIVER- Tap Water Quality Report A majority of the Task Force members indicated on their wor'rsheets that the Portland water quality has been good to excellent. However, based on information provided to the Task Force by various experts in water distribution and quality, a majority expressed concerns over the future quality of Bull Run water. Their concerns were: • The questionable quality of the Columbia River water that feeds the wells aquifer which would then be blended with water from the Bull Run e The vulnerability of the wells to the traveling plume of contaminants • The Bull Run's susceptibility to episodes of high turbidity • Potential for cryptosporidium disease and Giardia cysts if water is unfiltered • Aging primary distribution system In considering the quality of the Willamette River water, a majority of the Task Force members reported favorable on the Willamette River as a source of drinking water. They made the following conclusions: • The raw water has been tested and certified to be a good source of drinking water • The proposed treatment and filtration plant will be state-of-the-art and produce high quality tap water equal to or better than Portland water • Uses granulated activated carbon to remove organic compounds. • Flocculation and sedimentation to remove metals. • Filtration for turbidity. • Ozone to remove pathogens, odor, taste, disinfection byproducts, insecticides and metals • Finished water quality will be controlled by the consortium of water users • Proposed plant designed to meet current and future EPA drinking water standards • Better studied/monitored/researched than any other (surface) water supply in the Northwest • Large volume of water flow to dilute any oil or hazardous material spill upstream of the intake • New distribution system • A Portland Water Bureau spokesperson stated that Portland Water Board would have no problem tapping the Willamette supply if landslides or other catastrophic event hindered Bull Run source • Corvallis has used the Willamette River for drinking water for over 40 years with no illnesses Several Task Force members expressed concerns over the use of the Willamette River as a drinking water source. These concerns were expressed by the following comments: • Fear of the unknown - an unfamiliar commodity that some people are reluctant to drink • Subject to upstream pollution from agricultural, urban, and forest runoff • Unknown cause of deformed fish in the Newberg Pool In summary, a majority of the Task Force concluded that the quality of tap water produced by going to the Willamette River option will be as good as any drinking water currently being delivered to the public in the Portland Metro area. Page 3 of 7 Ili VMS 1' 11' 11111 Certainty of Supply Outline Introduction: With respect to certainty, it was Mark Twain who said "whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over." Although we have come along way since the late 1800s in determining water rights and usage, the bottom line is that when you turn the faucet on, there better be water coming out. Climate Change Issues • At times water is a very scarce resource in the West. In fact, due to the snowfall patterns resulting from the current La Nina some areas of Pacific Northwest may experience near record maximum runoff this spring while the Southwestern U.S. is expected to receive near record minimum runoff. • If a trend toward more frequent and greater extremes is a signature of climate change, then it makes sense to choose a drainage basin of over 7,280 square miles with 11 storage reservoirs instead of a two-reservoir system that drains 102 square miles to supply our water. The agencies entrusted with managing the Willamette must maintain a minimum streamflow of 6,000 cubic feet per second at Salem, Oregon. The maximum intake, based on the maximum water right granted to the Wilsonville treatment plant, is 186 cubic feet per second (about 3% of min. flow). If the next century brings and extended drought, then the Willamette provides the flexibility needed for a regional water supply. Physical Issues • The Willamette River option gives Tigard water users a state of the art facility owned by water users, with land available now, vs. Portland's aging distribution system, unfiltered water supply system. • The Willamette option gives Tigard water users a reduced chance of interruption of water supply even in the summer, unlike what has happened here when Portland has had problems. Portland's lack of filtration has caused Bull Run to be shut down during this last winter. • Portland plans for enhancements are spread over a 50-year period, with many uncertain dates due to the fact that they are currently operating with exemptions to current federal safe drinking water regulation's. The Willamette option would start with a new facility that would produce water that exceeds current and expected federal potable water regulations. • The Portland plan calls for 20% of the Portland water supply to come from the Columbia South Shore Well Field. We were told by the Portland representatives, and Dr. Pratt, of PSU, that this water is Columbia River water. • The Willamette option provides a diversity of supply and an alternate source if Portland has a catastrophic event like a mudflow, biological problem, or volcanic event. The building of the Willamette option moves us closer to a diversified strategic regional water concept. • The Willamette plant requires a much shorter main distribution system than the Portland option. And the distribution system from the Willamette would be new and less prone to slides than the conduits from Bull Run. • The Portland option moves us to close to an "all eggs in one basket" concept. 1 Page 4 of 7 mill I Political Issues • We have water rights now to meet 50 years of growth • Portland's convoluted and changing political and bureaucratic landscape is a cause of a lack of long- term stability of Portland as a source of water. Portland has a long history of being difficult to negotiate and work with. • Portland might need voter approval for well upgrade, dam elevation and treatment facility. Voters might not grant this and then Tigard, et al would be out of the picture, regardless of contracts. This constitutes a long-term risk if you go with Portland. • Portland is requiring us to commit to them before we can negotiate details of a water supply contract. This is not the way most of us are accustom to negotiating contracts. • Portland's current ordinances allow them to sell only "surplus water." While their attorneys have said that it is simple to change this, they have made no moves to change this within their ordinances. Portland in their presentation would not commit to a long-term supply for Tigard. They would only commit discussing future contracts. • The route proposed for the gravity line from Powell Butte will require the involvement and approval of many agencies and utilities in three counties. The political and engineering issues involved in building this line from Powell Butte will not be known for years. • The political issues surrounding certainty can be much more complicated than the hydrologic, climatic, or physical issues. Given the opportunity to make a decision now to guarantee water into the middle of the next century, free from the politics associated with Portland's bureaucratic labyrinth and voters, the answer is clear. Let's make the call to put in the Willamette water treatment plant and move onto other issues that will have greater impacts on this region's livability. Conclusion • With respect to certainty of water, based on the information provided to the Task Force during eight meetings, and independent research performed by Task Force members, we conclude that the Willamette Water Treatment Plant is a better choice. Page 5 of 7 F Choice of Water Source Cost: The majority of Task Force Members decided that the Willamette option is less expensive over the term of the period, although more expensive over the first few years. Ponland Certain factors were raised in support of the Portland option. Some members felt that the bigger population base of Portland would spread the capital costs over a larger group, and that its size would provide additional muscle in negotiating a favorable interest rate for the revenue bonds. On the negative side, Task Force members raised questions about the accuracy of the expense projections. • The proposed capital expenditures would occur so many years in the future • The long term capital expenditures would fall more heavily on West side rate payers • The EPA or Environmental litigation could require Portland's filtration plant to be built years earlier • Tigard would have little input into the size or timing of water rate increases • Portland's price for raw water will always include a profit for the City of Portland, regardless of who pays for the capital improvements. Willamette Task Force members mentioned several reasons to support the Willamette option: • The capital construction costs would be more predictable because the construction would occur almost immediately • The cost of operation would be lower because Tigard would not have to pay for raw water • Because of its ownership interest, Tigard would have significant input into the timing and cost of plant improvements Negative concerns regarding the Willamette option were: • The exact identity of the partners in the project are currently unknown which could impact capital and operational costs • Construction cost could be higher than currently projected because the plant contains new technology • More testing of the river may be required After analvsis of all the factors relating to costs, the Task Force decided that the Willamette option was the better choice. Page 6 of 7 EIREMI 1111110 mom NINE! 1111111=11 Conclusion Tap water quality was the number one concern of every task force member. But many presenters from various agencies, including the Portland Water Bureau, addressed these concerns. Several federal, state, and local agencies have studied the Willamette River's raw water. The results of these studies do not vary much, and none of the studies found any reason that the Willamette River would not supply quality drinking water after being treated by a modern water treatment facility. Also many questions were raised about the quality of the Portland water supply. These concerns grow as Portland uses the South Shore well field to supply a large percentage of their water needs. The Portland Water Bureau presenters and Dr. Pratt, from PSU, told us that the wells supply Columbia River water to the Portland water system. The recommendation of this task force, by a 22 to3 vote, is to move ahead with the Willamette River option. There are risks associated both the Portland and Willamette River options, but the Willamette River option has the least risks in all three criteria. The Willamette River option has the best tap water quality, until Portland builds a filtration facility for its water system. The Willamette River option has the best certainty of supply, with its larger source of water, and shorter distribution system. The Willamette River option has a superior cost of supply, with the Portland option being about double the cost of the Willamette River option in both capital costs. (with principal and interest) and on going operating costs. We hope that the work of the task force will provide meaningful input to this council as you move forward with the process of deciding this important issue. Page 7 of 7 THE QUALITY OF OUR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY Trish Conrad Project Coordinator Safest Drinking Water Coalition 25200 SW I arkwayAvenue, Suite 3 Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 570-X)50 pbone (503)57(4)522fax MOKAnctscape.net email Safest Drinking Water Coalition 25200 SW ParkwayAvenue,Suite 3 • Wilsonville,Orcgon 97070 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (503) 570.9050 phone • (503) 570-0522f- H20K@nctscapc.net email ME MEMO 111111 r FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY - WATER QUALITY - How can you assure me that treated water from the Willamette treatment plant will be safe to drink? The decision to recommend using the Willamette River as a source of water for a treatment plant to serve Tigard and Wilsonville was only made after several years of research on the river and on how to treat it. Willamette Water Supply Agency members have now completed more than 2 %Z years of testing the river water itself to determine what contaminants are present. They also conducted a 7-month trial project with a miniature "pilot" treatment plant, to test how effective the treatment plant would be at removing these contaminants from the river. The proposed treatment plant does not just treat for what was actually found in the untreated river water. The final design for the proposed treatment plant includes additional filtration materials designed to remove chemicals and other contaminants that may be present but have not been detected in our river water samples. The results of the pilot treatment plant project demonstrated that treated water from the proposed treatment plant will meet or surpass all EPA Safe Drinking Water standards, providing the highest quality drinking water in the region. Who says water from the proposed Willamette treatment plant will be safe to drink? The pilot plant tests mentioned earlier were coordinated with and reviewed by Oregon's Health Division, the agency in charge of assuring compliance with federal drinking water standards. The Health Division concluded after the tests that treated water from the plant would comply with all federal standards for safe drinking water, and that the GAC filtration planned for the plant would provide an extra measure of protection that would not be required to simply comply with the standards. Representatives of Portland's Water Bureau have publicly stated that water from the proposed treatment plant would be of higher quality than water from its Bull Run system, at least until Portland adds a water filtration plant and more advanced disinfection to its system. An independent review of the WWSA testing, conducted by the head of the Environmental Sciences Department at Portland State University, reached the conclusion that water from the proposed treatment plant would be the safest water in the Portland region. Future Water Supply Water Quality FAQ Page i Flow does water treatment work? The proposed water treatment plant will include four steps designed to remove harmful contaminants from the water before it is delivered to the customer. 1. First, the water is put through a settling process, called "sedimentation and flocculation." Inert treatment chemicals are added to the water to promote "clumping" of sediment and other particles in the water. The water then flows through a series of settling tanks, where these clumps of sediment settle to the bottom and are removed. This stage of the treatment process removes sediment, suspended trace metals, and organic material, such as wastes from fish and wildlife. 2. Second, ozone gas will be bubbled through the water. Ozone is a powerful disinfectant, that will destroy harmful bacteria and other organisms in the water, such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Ozone is also effective at eliminating unpleasant tastes and odors resulting from algae. Since the water has been through a settling process before disinfection, far fewer disinfection byproducts are produced than when chlorine is used or chlorine is applied to water that has not been settled or filtered. 3. In the third step, the water is run through a 5-foot bed of granular activated carbon (GAC), followed by an additional 10" of sand. In addition to removing the remaining sediment and organic matter, GAC is very absorbent and is the most effective method for removing chemicals from water. In a pilot plant test of a simulated chemical spill, more than 99.99% of the added chemicals were removed from the water, to levels that could not be detected with the sophisticated testing methods being used (sensitive to 0.05 parts per billion). GAC also is very effective in removing unpleasant tastes and odors from the water. 4. In the final step, a small amount of chlorine and ammonia is added to the water before it is delivered to the customer. This "residual disinfection" step prevents disease-causing organisms from developing while the water travels through the water lines. Flow can I know that harmful contaminants are being removed from the water by the treatment process? The proposed treatment plant'is a state-of-the-art design, designed specifically for this river, combining and adding several treatment processes that go beyond what is used in most treatment plants across the country. The ozone disinfection and GAC filtration methods have been proven effective in numerous other plants. Including the GAC filtration gives an extra measure of protection to customers over what would be required to meet federal standards. Based on what was detected in the testing of the river water, conventional sand filters would be adequate to treat the river water and still meet Future Water Supply Water Quality FAQ Page 2 IBM 111111111 1; federal standards. The GAC is much more effective than sand at removing chemicals from the water. Finally, the treatment process proposed for this plant was designed to remove the harmful contaminants that had been found, plus those that had not been found but which might be present. The pilot plant project demonstrated that nothing has been detected in the river, or theorized to be present in the river, even though undetected, that can't be removed by the proposed treatment plant. Will the treatment plant operators monitor the quality of the treated water coming from the treatment plant? Once the treatment plant starts operating, the water quality of the treated water will be monitored continuously. More than 100 tests will be conducted at the plant each day to assure that the water meets all EPA Safe Drinking Water Act standards before it goes to the customers. How will the treatment plant operators know about the water quality in the river after the treatment plant starts operating? The agencies proposing the Willamette treatment plant have committed to continue the regular sampling of the Willamette River at the plant site, even after the plant begins to operate. Currently, samples from the river are being tested for every chemical contaminant found by USGS anywhere in the Willamette basin. In addition, warning systems are in place through Oregon's DEQ to alert downstream water users in the event of a spill into the river of chemicals or other harmful contaminants. Isn't the Willamette one of the most polluted rivers in the country? In a word, NO! When you think about other rivers around the country, it seems pretty obvious that the Willamette is in better condition than most of them. The Mississippi, the Missouri, the Ohio - all of them flow through hundreds of miles of agricultural and industrialized areas, and all of them have far more sediment, organisms and chemicals in them than the Willamette does. Research confirms that the water quality of the Willamette is quite high. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the federal government's natural resources research agency, has conducted extensive water quality research on the Willamette and other rivers across the country. It recently reported that Willamette River water quality is average as compared to rivers nationwide. Sediment and bacteria levels are very low, about the same as those found most of the year in the Clackamas River, the Tualatin River, and the Bull Run reservoirs - all of which now provide water to citizens in the Portland metro area. Although the USGS testing has detected some chemicals at some locations throughout the Willamette basin, none of them were detected in the river above levels permitted by EPA in your tap water! In addition, most of those Future Water Supply Water Quality FAQ Page 3 chemicals are found only in tributaries, and not in the mainstem Willamette near Wilsonville, where the treatment plant will be located. The testing of the river that was done by Willamette Water Supply Agency members confirms these findings. USGS did say that the Willamette is one of the most degraded rivers in the country in terms offish habitat. In explaining that conclusion, the factors that they were most concerned about were the presence of many fish and animal species not native to the Willamette, the deterioration of plant habitat along the riverbanks, and water temperature. Although these factors make it hard for fish to survive, they do not effect human health or bur ability to treat the water. What about the discharges into the river from toxic sites and sewer overflows? The most contaminated part of the Willamette river is the portion that flows through downtown Portland. A site on Ross Island has been proposed as an EPA "Superfund" cleanup site because of dangerous PCB's. Portland's antiquated sewer system also discharges untreated sewage into the river every time it rains. Fortunately, the Willamette River flows north, so all of those toxic discharges get into the river about 25 miles after the treatment plant takes its water from the river. There are several communities upstream from Wilsonville that discharge treated wastewater into the river, and Corvallis also has some combined storm and sanitary overflows that result in untreated sewage going into the river. All of these communities operate under strict DEQ permits limiting the amount of sewage they can discharge. By the time the river reaches Wilsonville, tests of the river quality confirm that the discharges are diluted to the point that they can no longer be detected. Aren't there dangerous levels of dioxin in the river? WWSA's testing of the river and riverbed sediment near the proposed plant was unable to detect any dioxins, even at a level 10,000 times lower that the standard for tap water. USGS has tested 23 sites throughout the state, and found that the total dioxin levels detected in the river near Wilsonville were the 4°i lowest of the 23, and actually were lower than the total levels of dioxin found in Fir Creek in the Bull Run watershed. If dioxins were found in the river, they tend to attach to sediment. The pipe drawing water into the river will be well above the riverbed, so it will not be stirring up sediment and drawing it into the plant. The sediment that does make it into the treatment plant will be eliminated by the settling and filtration processes. What about the deformed fish - if there are deformed fish in the river near Wilsonville, 7 how can it be safe for us to drink that water? The treatment plant is designed to remove from the river water the things that we know are present, plus the types of contaminants that have not been detected but that might be present. If a chemical is causing the deformities, the GAC filtration will remove that chemical before it Future Water Supply Water Quality FAQ Page 4 Mnj goes to your tap. If there is a bacteria or other organism that is causing the deformities, the disinfection and filtration processes will kill and remove those organisms before it leaves the treatment plant. The fish that have been found to have the highest levels of deformities are bottom-feeders. Their diet is heavily contaminated with sediment. If the deformities are the result of something attached to the sediment, then the treatment plant has two barriers against it making its way to your tap. First, the intake pipe opening is well above the riverbed and will not stir up and draw sediment into the plant. Second, the settling and filtration processes will eliminate the sediment, and whatever is attached to it, from the treated water. In addition, there are numerous other potential causes of the fish deformities that have nothing to do with its ability to be treated and removed. The potential causes include such things as warm water temperature or a peculiarity of this group of fish. In any event, those are not conditions that make the water unfit for us to drink. I've heard that Oregonians have a high' incidence of Parkinson's Disease, which can be caused by metals in drinking water. Doesn't that mean chinking Willamette River won't be safe? First, if there are high levels of these diseases in Oregon, it's not because of the Willamette River water, since only one city in the state now uses the river as its water source. If there is some environmental exposure to metals that is related to this disease, we're already being exposed to it. Second, the extensive testing that has been done on the river shows that trace metals are not present at high levels in the river. For instance, arsenic has been suggested as being related to Parkinson's Disease. Arsenic levels in the river are below even the lower standard recently proposed for treated tap water. So, in terms of metals, water from the river is already in good shape. Finally, the water treatment process is specifically designed to remove trace metals from the water. Each step of the process - settling, disinfection, and filtration - reduce the levels of trace metals in the water. The pilot plant testing demonstrated that, in the treated tap water, the levels are well below what is considered safe for human health. Are the Safe Drinking Water Act standards adequate to protect our health? EPA has adopted a comprehensive set of standards for determining that tap water is safe to drink. The process for developing those standards includes participation by toxicologists and others in the medical field who are familiar with threats to human health. The standards have been set conservatively to provide a wide margin of protection for the public against potential threats from cancer, disease, or organisms. The regulations cover all types of contaminants, including organisms (bacteria, viruses, etc.), trace metals, chemicals, as well as other conditions, such as the presence of plant material and sediment in the water, which are not harmful in themselves, but can indicate the potential presence of other threats to health. Future Water Supply Water Quality FAQ Page 5 EMM WIN THE COST OF OUR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY Safest Drinking Water Coalition 25200 SW Parkway Avenue, Suite 3 • Wllsonville, Oregon 97070 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (503) 570.9050 pbone • (503) 570.0522 fax H20K®netscape.net email SWIM "I'll III III P FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY - COS'T'S - Why pump water from the Willamette when we can get water by gravity flow from Portland? Actually, Portland will also have to pump water from its system to serve Tigard and Wilsonville until a new gravity supply line is built in 10 years. Until that new line is built, the existing pipelines do not have sufficient pressure to serve all of Tigard and Wilsonville. With the cost of pumping and treating water from the Willamette River, won't it cost much more to operate a new treatment plant than to get water from Portland? Actually, from the day it opens, a new Willamette treatment plant will be cheaper to operate than the cost of operating the Portland system. Treatment, pumping, and labor costs for the Willamette treatment plant are outweighed by Portland's costs of pumping water to Tigard and Wilsonville, the large number of Portland Water Bureau employees, and the maintenance costs for Portland's infrastructure and for the 40 miles of pipe to Tigard and Wilsonville. How much will each option cost? TIGARD: Tigard's share of the proposed Willamette treatment plant is $42.7 million, plus $30.3 million for interest, for a total cost of $73 million dollars. Tigard's share of the construction cost of new Portland system improvements is $66.5 million, plus $72.9 million for interest, for a total cost of $139.4 million. WILSONVILLE: Wilsonville's share of the proposed Willamette treatment plant is $31.3 million, plus interest of $5.5 million, for a total cost of $36.8 million. Wilsonville's share of the construction cost of new Portland system improvements is y $62.5 million, plus $90.8 million for interest, for a total cost of $153.3 million. i Willamette Willamette Willamette Portland Portland Portland a Construction Interest Total Construction Interest Total Tigard $42.7 $30.3 $73 $66.5 $72.9 $139.4 a million million million million million million Wilsonville $31.3 $5.5 $36.8 $62.5 $90.8 $153.3 million million million million million million The savings with the Willamette treatment plant: Tigard: $66,400,000 Wilsonville: $116,500,000 Future Water Supply Cost FAQ Page 1 r' The members of H20K! think spending twice as much - an extra $182.9 million!- for inferior water from Portland is wrong! What new facilities must be built under each option? If the Willamette treatment plant option. is chosen, a treatment plant and a new transmission pipeline will be built. Those facilities are projected to be adequate to serve the needs of Tigard and Wilsonville for the next 50 years. The cost of those facilities is estimated to be $92.3 million, including design, construction and contingencies. Following is the list of new facilities Portland plans to build during the next 50 years so it can continue to meet the needs of its current customers in addition to Tigard and Wilsonville: Portland's Proposed New Facilities Year Cost Project 2001 $44,000,000 a Beaverton-Tualatin pipeline i Tualatin-Wilsonville pipeline 2005 $60,000,000 ® Expand Columbia South Shore welifield capacity; • Add reservoir at Powell Butte 2010 $100,500,000 Raise Bull Run dams; • New pipeline from Powell Butte to Tigard and Wilsonville; Build emergency backup connection to Joint Water Commission; • Build portion of new conduit from Bull Run to Powell Butte 2020 $166,000,000 • Build filtration and treatment plant for Bull Run; Y Add reservoir at Powell Butte 2030 $72,000,000 • Build west-side aquifer storage facility; i Second portion of new Bull Run conduit 2040 $113,000,000 ® Finish new Bull Run conduit; R Build east-side aquifer storage facility TOTAL $555,500,000 5 Future Water Supply Cost FAQ Page 2 MEM, 11,11 How do my water rates compare under the two options? Over the entire 50-year planning period, the Willamette treatment plant will be the cheaper option. Once the new treatment plant is paid off, water rates drop dramatically under the Willamette option. Under the Portland option, only a single pipeline is built to start service to Tigard and Wilsonville. But to continue to serve them, new facilities must be built and paid for on a regular basis over the next 50 years. Each new construction project requires a raise in rates to the water customers in Tigard and 'Wilsonville. TIGARD: For the first 10 years, water from a Willamette plant will cost a little more (estimated 16% higher) that: water from Portland's system. For the next 10 years, the Willamette option will result in slightly cheaper rates (about 5% lower) than Portland water. By 2020, because of all of the new construction in the Portland system, Portland water is estimated to cost 27% more than treated Willamette water. Once the treatment plant is paid off in 2025, water from Portland will result in water rates more than double (214%) those with the Willamette option, and they stay 70% - 80% higher for the rest of the 50-years. WILSONVILLE: Because of the high cost of building a new pipeline from Portland to Wilsonville, water rates under the Portland option are higher from the start in Wilsonville. By 2010, rates under the Portland option are 50% higher, and from 2020 on, Portland rates are estimated to be 62% to 86% higher than water rates with the Willamette treatment plant. i i i a Ii f , Future Water Supply Cost FAQ Page 3 r 1 TIDE RELIABILITY OF OUR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY Safest Drinking Water Coalition 25200 SW ParkwayAvcnue, Suite 3 • Wilsonville,Oregon 97070 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (503) 570.9050 phone • (503) 570-0522 fax I12OK@nctscape.nct email FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY - RELIABILI'T'Y - How do the two water supply options compare on reliability? The Willamette River is an extremely reliable source of water. There is plenty of water available in the river and the water quality is very consistent. The treatment plant and pumps will be located above the 500-year flood plain, so floods will not interrupt operations at the plant. The distance from the plant to Wilsonville and Tigard is very short; as a result the transmission line from the plant to the cities is exposed to less risk of damage from natural hazards, such as earthquakes. If a chemical spill occurs upstream from the treatment plant, the plant is designed to be able to remove any chemicals from the water before it is delivered to customers' taps. The plant operators could also take the extra precaution of not taking any water from the river for a few hours to allow the contaminated water to pass by. There is more than enough water stored in local reservoirs to cover customers' needs during such a short shut-down. Increased turbidity (sediment levels) in the water during floods will not pose a risk to operations, due to the settling and filtration processes in the treatment plant that will remove the sediment. During the floods of 1996, turbidity in the Tualatin River reached levels twice as high as what occurred in the Willamette; even so, the Hillsboro treatment plant operating on the Tualatin continued to treat water during those periods of very high turbidity levels. Portland's water system is also a reliable source of water supply. However, it is subject to several risks that the Willamette is not exposed to. Because there is no filtration plant for Portland's water supply, there are times that the system must shut down for several days at a time because the water can't meet Safe Drinking Water Act standards without filtration. Heavy rainstorms in the Cascades can cause increased runoff from the hills surrounding the Bull Run reservoirs, increasing sediment levels (turbidity) in the stored water. The most recent of these shutdowns occurred in December, 1998, when Portland shut down the Bull Run system for 4 days because turbidity levels were too high; during that time the city's only source of water was the Columbia South Shore wells. Water transmission from the Bull Run to Portland also is exposed to risk from landslides. Landslide hazards have been identified above Portland's pipelines throughout corridor from the Bull Run reservoir, and several landslides have occurred in recent years that interrupted service from Bull Run. In 1996 a landslide caused the collapse of 2 of the 3 pipelines from Bull Run. Portland and its customers. relied primarily on the Columbia South Shore wells for their water supply for the 5 weeks it took to repair the lines. Future Water Supply Reliability FAQ Page 1 /A1 ~ Y Portland's wellfields are also exposed to hazards that impair their reliability. Their location near the Columbia River means that they are subject to inundation during severe floods. During the 1996 floods, the wells were out of operation for several days while the pumps for the wellfield were submerged. Chemical contamination has been detected in groundwater near the Portland wellfields. Portland closely monitors water pumped from the wells, and none has been detected in the city's water. The city is also is underway on a project to remove the chemicals from the groundwater before it gets to Portland's wells. However, the risk remains that pYoduction from the city's wells will have to be cut back or shut down if the chemical contamination moves closer to the wellfields. (Portland's proposal states that it is planning to increase the pumping capacity from the wellfield. Production from the wells will be increased to 90 million gallons per day, to be mixed with water from the Bull Run system each summer.) Earthquakes also pose a hazard to water supplied from Portland. The Bull Run watershed is in an identified earthquake zone. An earthquake would likely rupture the pipelines delivering water from the mountain, interrupting service for an indefinite period. Unlike the landslide hazard, an earthquake is more likely to cause breaks at multiple points in the pipeline. Because the pipes extend more than 40 miles from Bull Run to Tigard and Wilsonville, there is greater exposure to the risk of line breaks. Portland's system is also exposed to legal obstacles that threaten its ability to provide adequate water to new customers. Portland's proposal acknowledges that the Bull Run system will have to be expanded for Portland to be able to serve Tigard and Wilsonville, in addition to the growing communities it already serves. Environmental regulations will make it nearly impossible to raise the existing dams or to build a new dam. The Bull Run River below the dams has already been designated with an endangered species listing for several species of salmon, so pore water needs to be released back to the river for fish survival, not diverted to new westside customers. That means the third dam will be needed to supply all of the new customers. The proposed location for a third dam includes more than 300 acres of old growth timber. Environmental organizations have already announced their opposition to building the third dam because of the loss of old growth timber and the wildlife habitat it provides. Approval would also be required from EPA before the dam could be built. Under EPA's "Environmental Impact Statement" requirements, a major consideration is whether alternatives are available to avoid the need for the proposed project. With research already completed that demonstrates that treated water frorn the Willamette will meet all of EPA's Safe Drinking Water standards and that water is available from the Willamette with less impact than building a new dam, what is the likelihood that EPA would approve the project? Future Water Supply Reliability FAQ Page 2 mw~l d o+n 1;,n,,~iA hey it rnakes .1.,..,. -e +s system is exposed to more risks th +an the 117111ax . Since Portland's for the region to diversify by adding a new water supply on the Willamette, rather than increasing its reliance on a single source. The Willamette provides greater reliability for Tigard and Wilsonville, and will help the rest of the region in the event of a disaster that interrupts service from Portland. Future Water Supply Reliability FAQ Page 3 LEM THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF OUR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY I I I I I Safest Drinking Water Coalition 25200 SW Parkway Avenue, Suite 3 • Wilsonvillc,Oregon 97070 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (503) 570-9050pborte • (503) 570-0522fax H20K®netscape.net email ENO v FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABUT OUR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY - ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - Won't the listing of salmon in the Willamette River as an endangered species prevent the construction of a new treatment plant? All of the environmental restrictions have already been taken into account in the design of the proposed water treatment plant, and those standards are not expected to stand in the way of approval for the project. The engineers met with the state and federal wildlife agencies through the preliminary design process to assure that their concerns would be addressed. Plant location: The treatment plant site is outside of the designated Willamette Greenway protected area. To minimize disturbance to the bluff and riverbank, the pumps will also be atop the hill, outside the Greenway area. The pipes to the river will extend straight down from the pumps, then horizontally to the river. Construction activities will occur only during the short period permitted by wildlife agencies to avoid interference with fish nuns. Intake Pipe design: The intake pipe is designed to avoid any impact on passing fish. The design has been reviewed with state and federal wildlife agencies, who indicated that it is likely to meet their requirements. The opening of the pipe will be covered with a screen with openings no larger than 1/8". Several other features minimize the impact on fish. The opening faces upward, rather than facing the flow. Several buffers will also be placed ahead of the pipe. As a result, the pipe will not be drawing water toward the opening at a rapid rate, creating a "vacuum" that will trap fish against the screen. Instead water will flow past the screen at less than 5" per second, slow enough for fish to be able to swim away from the screen. Water Availability: The state has already issued water rights for the water treatment plant. The plant will use a maximum of 100 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from the river; the average flow in this area is at least 15,000 cfs, and the lowest flows are usually about 8,000 cfs. The Corps of Engineers operates 13 dams on the Willamette River which release water throughout the summer to assure that adequate water is available for fish and other needs. Waste from the treatment plant: No wastes will be discharged from the treatment plant directly into the river. Sludge from the settling and filtration processes will be hauled from the plant for disposal at approved landfills or other approved land application. What kind of environmental restrictions apply to the Portland water system? Endangered Species Act: The federal government has designated several salmon species in the Bull Run River as "endangered." This designation will require changes in the operation of the Bull Run reservoirs and will restrict necessary expansions of the system. Future Water Supply Environmental Impact FAQ Page I 4 r As the reservoirs are currently operated, no water is released from the dams into the river for several months every summer. That means that the only water in the Bull Run River for 4 miles below the dams is the small amount that seeps up from the ground. Salmon routinely become stranded without water and die in that stretch of the river. To remedy that problem, Portland will have to start releasing water from the dams into the river. That will reduce the amount of water available to deliver to customers by about 2 Billion gallons each summer. The city is considering raising the 2 existing dams. Raising the dams will increase storage capacity by slightly more than the 2'billion gallons needed for the fish. Therefore, to assure an adequate supply of water for all its current customers, plus the growth that will occur in those communities, plus the new customers to be added in Wilsonville and Tigard, plus the growth that will occur in those areas, it's clear that even more expansion will be needed. A location has been identified in the Bull Run watershed where a third dam could be built. However, more than 300 acres of old growth Douglas Fir, and the habitat they provide for spotted owls, would be eliminated by the reservoir. Another 350 acres of high quality wildlife habitat would also be destroyed. Over 400 plant and animal species in the watershed have been identified for analysis and possible protection. The reservoir would also interfere with the native fish populations now present in the river above the dams. In addition to considering the potential impact on fish, wildlife and forests, Portland will have to demonstrate that there are not alternative water sources available that could be developed with less impact on these resources. An obvious alternative is to draw water from the Willamette River. It is closer to where the water will be used and will not require moving water from one river basin (the Sandy River basin, which drains into the Columbia before reaching Troutdale and Portland) to Portland, which is in the Willamette River basin. The research that has been completed demonstrated that treated water from the Willamette will comply with all federal drinking water standards, so it is a suitable alternative for consideration. As discussed above, the impacts on fish and other resources are also much less from developing the Willamette. Both of those findings will make it very unlikely that the federal government would provide the approvals that would be necessary for expansion of the Bull Run system. Future Water Supply Environmental Impact FAQ Page 2 SIMON WRITTEN TESTIMONY RECEIVED AND FILED WITH THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE APRIL 13,1999 PUBLIC HEARING Evelyn Bechler 16116 S.W. King Charles Avenue M. Verne Rupp King City, Oregon 97224-2455 10330 S.W. Greenleaf Terrace Tigard, Oregon 97224 Klaus Bechler 16116 S.W. King Charles Avenue Mayor Gery Schirado King City, Oregon 97224-2455 City of Durham P.O. Box 23483 Patricia M. Bryant Durham, Oregon 97281 9589 S.W. Lakeside Drive Tigard, Oregon 97224 Jim Sedgwick 14934 S.W. 109'' Avenue Randall Kaufmann Tigard, Oregon 97224 Kaufmann's Streamborn, Inc. P.O. Box 23032 Lucie and Don Selden Portland, Oregon 97281-3032 13506 S.W. Ascension Drive Tigard, Oregon 97223 Philip C. Kenyon 7709 S.W. Pfaffle Street, Apt. 66 David Smith Tigard, Oregon 97223-8450 9582 S.W. Jubilee Ct. Tigard, Oregon 97224 Richard C. Lawrence I:WDWCATHY\WATER-LIST.DOC Patricia A. Gray-Lawrence 9500 S.W. Lakeside Drive Tigard, Oregon 97224-5669 Stephen M. Mattox 10940 A S.W. Garden Park Place Tigard, Oregon 97223 Evelyn Bechler King City, March 31, 1999 16116 SW King Charles Ave King City OR 97224-2455 City Recorder Cathy Wheatley City Hall 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. APR 1 1999 Tigard OR 97223 Dear City Council Members: I strongly protest the planned decision to build a WILLAMETTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT and to abandon the relatively pristine BULL RUN RESERVOIR as a source of healthy drinking water for the town of KING CITY, TIGARD AND VICINITY. This questionable, suspect and highly objectionable planned decision should at least be put to the local voters for determination and not left to the vagaries of a few select council members. I demand to stay with the BULL RUN SYSTEM even at a larger cost to consumers - The alternative of a costly & possibly ineffectual WATER TREATMENT PLANT for a dangerously polluted water supply, namely the WILLAMETTE RIVER, would be laughable if it wasn't so serious & egregious a matt-,::r. Please add my voice in opposition to the planned WATER TREATMENT PLANT decision. Thank you Sincerely Evelyn Bechler ARM ( (1 ~lll J lnirr 7o_~r}~ .a,,. Klaus Bechler King City, March 31, 1999 16116 SW King Charles Ave King City OR 97224-2455 City Recorder Cathy Wheatley City Hall 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard OR 97223 ~R 1999 Dear City Council Members: First of all, LET US ALL SAY: BULL RUN WATER YES WILLAMETTE RIVER FILTERED WATER NO. There can be no question that the majority of water users in our area want to retain the BEST QUALITY WATER SOURCE, BEING THE BULL RUN. The problem might be deliberate misinformation, or perhaps accidental omission, false assumptions, all which are so familiar to us voters from the WIDE ...WIDE WORLD OF POLITICS. Questions should be asked and answered and lies contradicted. WATER IS WHAT KEEPS US ALL ALIVE, and polluted water is what slowly will make us sick and KILL. We live in the age of class action suits, just ask the TOBACCO INDUSTRY. Since a water treatment plant is made by humans, it will break down from time to time and give lawyers a chance ' sue for damages in front of a jury. It might turn out to be very costly for Tigard and a waste of funds dearly needed for more important causes in our community. Citizens for safe water should change their slogan to CITIZENS FOR SAFE BULL RUN WATER, or WE DON'T DRINK OUT OF THE WILLAMETTE. Supporters of"Safest Drinking Water Coalition",drinking water out of the Willamette that is, should call themselves: We would like to make a lot of money building a water treatment plant and control the price of water, but no guarantees to THE QUALITY OF THE WATER AT ALL TIMES. When you confront the bathroom mirror in the morning, ladies & gentlemen do you realize that most of what you see is WATER? Now let me ask you: Would you like to look like the WILLAMETTE, OR LIKE THE BULL RUN WATER? Finally, let us take time and hope everything that hasn't beer, said will be taken into consideration. In 20 years the WILLAMETTE might be so polluted, that you can walk across it...... Let's keep our water clean, so we don't have to filter it first! Si erely V-" I 111111 Mill I 11~lml 1 Ed Mesh" all?) MAR 2 4 1999 9589 S.W. Lakeside Drive CaaAq&l Tigard, OR 9722 March 23, 1999 Tigard City Council 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 To the Tigard City Council Members: Early this month Douglas W. Larson, water quality consultant and teacher in the Department of Biology at Portland State University, outlined more clearly and factually than I could possibly do, the argument against being forced to drink the highly polluted water from the Willamette River. There can be no comparison between the two choices open to us: Bull Run or Willamette. We are so very fortunate to be given the opportunity of access to the clean, safe, and, due to good planning and research, sure to stay that way Bull Run water. The Willamette, on the other hand, which has not been protected by such foresight, is filthy, polluted, and also sure to stay that way. The suggestion that it can be cleaned up by throwing in some more chemicals, does nothing to settle my stomach or change my mind. Proponents of the Willamette choice offer the notion that it would be cheaper to build and position an expensive water treatment plant, then continue to operate and apply more chemi- cals, than to pay a little more for the naturally pure Bull Run water. Even if this were true, I would still joyously pay more for Bull Run. Da~t s~re1y, Patricia Bryant b ?,.o ors 4 P ti ~ iv e 9589 S•4v. Lakeside Dr c~ r - - 22 Tigard, OR 9 1999 City Council Tigard Boulevard 13125 S.V4. Hall TIGARD, OR 97223 WAMMq~ A• ~ C LL Kaufmann's Streamborn, inc. EVERYTHING FOR THE FLY FISHER APR 2 1999 yo-, ^ Mail Order Address: P.O. Box 23032 Portland, OR 97281-3032 ~,,,rt - •r Phone (503) 639-6400 FAX (503) 684-7025 Tigard, OR Store: 8861 S.W. Commercial St. 97223 (503) 639-7004 3/31 /99 City Recording Cathy Wheatly City Hall 13125 SW Hall Tigard OR 97223 Ms. Wheatly: Please record that we are in favor of Bull Run water and do not want Willamette River water. Sincerely, Randall Kaufmann i i i i Kcdufmantrs streamborn, Inc. P. 0. BOX 23032 -r- - Portland, OR 97281-3032 F t /aG • t ~ - . .~.«-.-.`.ems C City Recording City Hall 13125 SW Hall Tigard OR 97223 March 27,'99 Water Resources Commission Nis Cathy Wheatley, Having closely followed the planning for our City future water supply study and now read the two proposals in detail I and my household have to confirm our approval for the longer term and an independent city administered Water supply authority. The Portland, and County control has been adequate with good water but expanding conditions comprising unknowns doesn't allow the flexibility city leaders must have for their citizenry. To pursue changes whatever for the City is reliant on outsider negotiations both as the Bull Run and Wells have surplus and the Portland faction considers their priorities not inclusive of which may revamp in place volume cost rates. The solid path is to construct a viable system as long as the design and its' designers are responsible to the City for that H 1 set of goals deemed reliable. Respectfully, Philip C Kenyon WO'' 14Of? logo lVir y , hffi' n Ke pt ' T 74wd, OR 97229.84W yr, City s 13125vd► City Tgod CR Trz23 Bill Ohl ic 1113 MARCH 27, 1999 CITY RECORDER TIGARD CITY COUNCIL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 GENTLEMEN; AS CONCERNED CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, THIS FAMILY IS VEHEMENTLY AGAINST THE HEAVY USE OF CHEMICALS NECESSARY TO TREAT WILLAMETTE RIVER TO MAKE IT PALATABLE AND OF A QUALITY THAT MIGHT BE QUESTIONABLE. AS TO ITS PURITY FOR OUR HEALTH.. OUR PRESENT WATER FROM BULL RUN HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOOD AND RELIABLE. WE SEE NO REASON WHY A CONTRACT FOR LONG TERM FUTURE SUPPLY CANNOT BE NEGOTIATED AND GUARANTEED AS PROMISED BY THE CITY OF PORTLAND. THERE IS AN OLD ADAGE THAT SAYS - `IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT I I I I I". IF THIS IS SO, THEN WHY MONKEY AROUND WITH BUILDING A NEW QUESTIONABLE WATER TREATMENT PLANT COSTING $90 MILLION. WE TRUST THAT YOUR WISDOM WILL PREVAIL AND THAT THE COUNCIL WILL NOT EMBARK ON A COURSE THAT WILL FORCE CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS TO BE PIPED INTO OUR HOUSE AND DOMAIN . YOURS SINCERELY. HARD . LA REM E RCL:RL PATRICIA-A- GRAY-LAWRENCE P.S. - -WE WILL NEVER USE WILLAMETTE WATER I I I I I I I I I I Polls 11 millipalm Elm 1111111mlooll MARCH 27, 1999 CITY RECORDER TIGARD CITY COUNCIL 13125 SW HALL BLVD. TIGARD, OREGON 97223 RE: LONG TERM WATER SUPPLY GENTLEMEN; AS CONCERNED CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF TIGARD, THIS FAA MY IS VEHEMENTLY AGAINST THE HEAVY USE OF CHEMICALS NECESSARY TO TREAT WILLAMETTE RIVER TO MAKE IT PALATABLE AND OF A QUALITY THAT MIGHT BE QUESTIONABLE AS TO ITS PURITY FOR OUR HEALTH.. OUR PRESENT WATER FROM BULL RUN HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOOD AND RELIABLE. WE SEE NO REASON WHY A CONTRACT FOR LONG TERM FUTURE SUPPLY CANNOT. NEGOTIATED AND GUARANTEED AS PROMISED BY THE CITY OF PORTLAND. THERE IS AN OLD ADAGE THAT SAYS - IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT 11111". IF THIS IS SO, THEN WHY MONKEY AROUND WITH BUILDING A NEW QUESTIONABLE WATER TREATMENT PLANT COSTING $90 MILLION WE TRUST THAT YOUR WISDOM WILL PREVAIL AND THAT THE COUNCIL WILL NOT EMBARK ON A COURSE THAT WILL FORCE CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS TO BE PIPED INTO OUR ROUSE AND DOMAIN, YRCL:RL PATRICIA-A. GRAY-LA CE P.S. -WE WILL NEVER USE WILLAMETTE WATER 1111111111 NMI= RECEIVED m4r. Stehazd Q Lawrence de Dr. ZM Mgutt ORR99722U MAR 2 61999 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT r NNW milli 11111 C : 3; ~c Ed ~1~cs~;~ony 10940 A S.W. Garden Park Place ~ i 3/4-x'1 Tigard, OR 97223 March 24, 1999 City Recorder Cathy Wheatley City Hall 13125 S.W. Hall Blvd. Tigard, OR 97224 MAR 2 6 1999 Dear Ms. Wheatley: I wish to comment on the long-term water source for the City of Tigard. Water is water is water. If treated properly, it is completely safe. Therefore I feel the city of Tigard should look for the most reliable, cheapest source. This appears to be the Willamette River. People claim to be worried about pollution. Consider the astronauts. They drink purified, recycled sweat, urine, and whatever "used bodily fluids" are available. They get along just fine. If purified, water is water is water. Do we consider ourselves better than the astronauts? I think not. Go with the cheapest, most reliable water source for our long-term needs, namely the Willamette. Sincerely, Stephen 1u1. at ox 598-9625 i i i milli ~~j,].7l~~LS .L ~ i it ~ I ~ ry...~ f- G _ ~S~Allve Steve MaVLcx - AS paikpl. A S jJ. Gar g7223 Vat" AT~9a~d, OR C:ty@C~; der Cit 12 a~ ~ ~ ja11 Blvd. 13 (1 g770 t APR i 1999 p e M5 - -Q - : E- ---C t Ak-6 . Lam 12- 14 934 SWl Ave 0~ Tigard, OR 97224-3676 P11-1 f:,4 3i ~,:.i? w ' • -,~~y~c7aa Rate cYkTH Y w H EfT~- y c IL-e t-~ RL-c- r 3 ~5 5 . Li-) . R Iiu- B Lv t), 1 C~ e$~~ J ©EZ Z2,3 Hill II,IIIIII,IIIIIIIIIIIIIII,$IIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111191OilIt11 y v- r i - i ~IVI s City of Durham 7 P.O. Box 23483 Durham Oregon 97281 (503) 639-6851 Fax (503) 598-8595 Roel Lundquist - Administrator / Recorder Linda Smith - Administrative Assistant March 24, 1999 Mayor Jim Nicoll MAR Z 9 X999 City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor Nicoli, The Durham City Council at its regular meeting on March 231 considered the request of the City of Tigard that Durham state a position on the choices being considered by Tigard for a new water supply to serve Tigard, Durham and other areas. After considerable discussion centering on the factors of cost, quality and certainty of supply, the Council voted (4-1) to go on the record as favoring the Willamette River option. We have directed Councilor Patrick Carroll to state the city's preference for that option when the matter is before the Intergovernmental Water Board for a recommendation to the Tigard City Council. We understand that Councilor Carroll will state his own preference as well as the Council's formal position in his capacity as a member of Tigard's Citizen Task Force on this issue. The Council also voted, unanimously, to inform Tigard of its position on a proposed citizen initiative that will come before the Tigard City Council for referral to an election if and when the initiative supporters gather enough signatures on a petition. We believe that the subject matter of this initiative is contrary to the letter and spirit of the intergovernmental agreement between Durham and Tigard as to decisions on water related capital improvements, including a (new) source of supply. We do not believe that T igard's voters can or should decide this important issue for the citizens of Durham. We also think it is misleading and unfair for Tigard residents who receive their water from another supplier (TVWD) to believe they will decide the source of water delivered to their homes by this vote. The City of Durham thus formally requests that the Tigard City Council not refer this initiative to an election should the initiative's supporters submit enough signatures to bring this matter back before the Council. We are aware that your own city attorneys have publicly advised against referring the measure. If the facts are as we have been led to believe, this proposed referral would result in a breach of the IGA contract on the part of the City of Tigard. We sincerely hope that you will consider the matter thoroughly before acting in a manner than could affect the future relationship of all of the parties to the Tigard Water District Intergovernmental Agreement. Sincerely, THE CITY O HAM May r Gery Schirado a c: Bill Monahan, City Manager 111111 1 t1t! MAR 3 0 1999 q~13lg9 March 27,1999 Tigard City Council;, Re: Tigard water supply, :1 do not think it is wise to consider using the Willamette River as a source for drinking water when there is a much better option, the Bull Run system. There is more than monetary concerns involved here. Although l would deem the cost of building a water treatment plant for the Willamette River would in itself be costly. The concern is water purity. The optimum being with the least amount of chemicals to achieve this end. My husband and a, as Tigard residents, are totally opposed to the Willamette River as a source of our drinking water, regardless of how it is chemically cleansed. Sincerely, Lucie and bon Selden 13506 5, W. Ascension br. Tigard, Oregon 97223 goo= o'y - vsnl3 - Selden R Don t~ 13506 SAN Ascens,on Dr. Tigard, OR 47223 C6 c,cOrCF~' W# 10 l a'j 3 11,1 „1,,, i,,1 J „1,1„11,1 „1,,,,il,l „l ►1„1 „1,1,1,1„,11,1 C-d Nj13 ~ fl 1999 C,izl c) V L S,) P fi~ S~x Cs ~ ul ~ 5 G~- L lQ "fit? ~r rr C) v Z 0, S 5 0 ~ V 0~X W4~ L:L Lam tYf._ j SNP WFIR David 3f- bifa Gt. g,e,s25W,la 7224` ORS c~- IS i'iii!il: awl Pill { { s M. VERNE RUPP 10330 SW C mmdaef Taff. Tigard, OR 97224 C73/z -.3 c Pd l G: • ~qk~ 13:z.f.I~~ f3.wa P~lic ~st'mor~`r rev C~z 97,z~ ~/~l3/~iy MAR 2 5 1999 ~P•4-2- i -/Y c~V~~if?/-~T~ i2 e° A O / •cJ 7a O l 6"o.cJ:~n) T"i'{q ~ Ov2 /~cl'v2etr ~<l7~2 S'ocJ2ee `-~'/1~,-~'/ `n lC~~j~ 1~'~ LCJ ~'i .C~ S✓h~~i'YI//~~T•' ~ y v/~''4~ S~P~-s 'TO ->wC ~h4~ GU~7~i~ _.rit'{€ f~r~G~STlO J 4-4e,-L (f N GP4'iT~} /R/71 ar S /~P•( 4'T~ie /~Dp/y~U.tc~~~rt p ~ ~4'T~/L •~T C~.1J,00 ~j72cf ~J o:.~+C.v-9'L=I~/ ~C ~'.'~T c G ~✓t~(/r a~i.-t t- Jt~ rTlocv.~!-~Y it/,2/P~-'Z7~'-l~E.cli ~.Ci fTCs GuQV~JO he Qu~s77-6 #9 c ^ "e- -/70 CU~~~ E'/3YZ~lG~~"G'7r t/C/Y/P22vv3 Y~2rz zr-/-/ you, F'_o_~~/ rN 7?5c coo c2 6) ~/'O~'P~"O~f~?ff'' ~ot.t/ C't17 ~>~/7~n C,/o'u ~C'-lc+c✓ 2.~ l~Q har.~ 4'~7 Q,~~,✓a.9-ucE a/cvafr~i~ ~o~ ~7 e m /7 .~4, ol-b v.2 eels - -7;r/.5" ~4 2 U W ~W ? a WRITTEN TESTIMONY RECEIVED AND FILED WITH THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE APRIL 13,1999 PUBLIC HEARING (Testimony received at City Hall on April 13, 1999) Garry Ott Task Force Member - Minority Report Mr. and Mrs. Lester Hintz 14845 S. W. 100th Avenue Tigard, Oregon 97224 Betty Atteberry Executive Director Westside Economic Alliance 10200 SW Nimbus, Suite G-3 Tigard, OR 97223 Rob Drake, Mayor City of Beaverton P. O. Box 4755 Beaverton, OR 97076 Also, City Recorder Cathy Wheatley received a telephone call from Ms. Helen Fehrenbacher who advises that she is "very much opposed to taking water from the Willamette River." Mrs. Helen Fehrenbacher 11685 SW North Dakota St. Tigard, OR 97223 i 1AA M\CATHYMATER-LIST3.DOC 1 i i 1 i i i M. Nerve RIUM. 10330 SW G~rn(e ?enwe ;ate oti• E hard, OR 97224 ti J p N', `ti t9 MAR X399 G~ .?sue!) ~ / Ir. e_c3'Gvt/~ er y-. /-3126 S' GJ w /~iJ. ll~itIII tell 11111111!„i11lilts I,IIIII IIIIII,fill It 111111efill iiii~,;~ll~lil!ll~ EMIR= ~ -.1'6~~1 V Cr aPR 13 . M~ i WATER ADVISORY TASK FORCE Minority Report 4/13/99 Mayor and Council Members I would like to take this opportunity to present a minority opinion regarding the findings of the Water Advisory Task Force. As a resident member of the Task Force, I want to thank all the members for their dedication to the future of Tigard and their effort in developing a recommendation to the Council. We were a diverse group who objectively listened to a number of individuals and presenters, asked good questions, and participated in an open discussion of the issues. This minority opinion would agree that: 1. Treated Willamette River water quality will be as good or better than that of the Portland water supply (Bull Run plus Columbia River). 2. In the long run, cost of treatment, transmission, and operation favors the Willamette supply, This opinion differs somewhat from the majority report in that it believes a major element for "certainty of supply" involves the instituational, financial and political will to own and operate a treatment system. More specifically- A treatment plant is complex and relatively expensive to startup and operate. Treatment and supply is highly regulated (water quality, safety). Treatment and transmission takes political and financial muscle to maintain. The simple solution (i.e.. let others provide treatment) is often the better. Does Tigard have the commitment to raise rates to keep up with operating costs? Is there commitment to institute system development charges that reflect cost of capacity for new development without passing this on to the existing ratepayer? In order to meet the "muscle test", this report recommends the City of Tigard only pursue the Willamette option as part of southwest regional water consortium or authority. Submitted by Garry Ott Task Force Member C APR 13 1999 avgf k PAD op v Pin i9~ u..,..~.~r...~...-~~ Acom 1 d'OtW i 97224 9-7 ►1,►1,,,►Itt1t,1J,►1►►1d,l►lt►►il►1 f. 11►1►►1►►,1,►i►1►►ld►,tl J APR-13-1999 16:46 WESTS I DE ECONOMIC ALu me 503 624 0641 P.01/01 ECONOMIC ALLIANCE P R F.ti 1 n F. NT seevtng sloe acortonrit AD(frlPauritLCS Of the SurtsQ CotPfdot 4W Al Taalatin Tf1I(ey 101to KAYK TkKTatwix, IKC. VICE. PKENIDENT %TF.t'F VIAKt: CfTAtMMITY N£t.nrnrFk; April 13, 1999 Sl:l'RF.TARI' JAt'K C )YC11011 RALL,IANIK U,P TRF.ACURFK JACK RFAKIT(TN WVASUMMOK SQUARE DIRFCTORS I viv RtNKLrr VU FACS1160 .E 684-7297 UmLANU IJAKI7Y£ R£NNErr l• 1'1'tiU' . 16gayor Jim Nicoli LOIS nITMAKS Y£nK1 nKT Timm: K tiO11AKF 13rt12S of Tigard SW Hall Blvd. MM11- s nKAr1.K I~FNSrut I.tNll 0 IMrA~v, N4t,' Tigard, OR 97223 ' SUNNA n1IK111:1. T1,.,.~ INSIt:NW21 W, INC. Dtal Jim: Scuff F.ATr1N RIKTCN£a PanrsaTr Nckt•IcLy. This letter is to express the Alliance's endorsement of the Willamette River as a long-tam source nraK.t rook of drinking water for the City of Tigard. We have followed the study conducted by the Waxer ORECIM r,KADVATF Advisory 'ask Force and have heard from technical experts and decision makers regarding the lt,%1TI M LFF S(:l£NC£ 1, subject. AC11KUVxiT Tkwiy Ito REJ SfAnua R£ -FsFsntrF We based our decision on several factors. Obviously, like every one, are primary concern has lnr:t AL INw..wK, been the assurance that our drinking water is safe. We arc convinced through the analysis that DICK 1.1 11TUMALTI£K has been conducted that the Willamette River source, given the Garment technological treatment PArTRI,CT capabilities, will provide clean, aa& drinking water for the area And it can be delivered at a X1 JAMLS MARK much more favorable rate than other alternatives in the study. ~tF•J.rll: t~tApK C(IMFANies A'arr MATtrlaw. Secondly, we believe it is important at this stage in the area's growth that consideration be given TKAMMY•11 ('Kf)W to additional sources of water to relieve dependency ti RIiSIiTFKTIAI. on one source thus assuring futrsm capacity requirements. Given the opportunity we have to invest in another source of water at this time rtAKtFKF wu,FK)s 411 we should also think in terms of rctectin the against a natural disaster; a. major mud slide or earthquake for example. 1'vurJ¢ tiAI-%I:n'F.a In IT:L t.l)1trt1aA1'InN Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. If you have questions p1em give me a .&I'm SCI-Ism) tv I. 11 PACIFIC: call. Kv..N Y.INtiu 11stovinFNct, 11£A(TII SYSTEM Sincerely, nrkF:( TORS. WESTSIDE ECONOMIC ALUANCE FX-OPPICTO Roe naAKr. Cter t1F J1mminN AIM AATSION WASIIINGTt. Col irtl y I)AVIII L1WK£NC£ 1GTCeartive D r crrr (IF 1111.L;I1"ktT IAN£r )tx1Nt: CrrY nFTt6(LATIN itF,'I'I'Y Armauity %WTsim. FCUNomic ALUANCK w2ao S.W,, Nimbus Avenuc, Suite G-g, Tigard, Orcgon 9721-. Phonic: ,ns,y68.SToo a Fax: 503,624.0641 - E-mail: Westside-economic:nmsn.coft, 04/13/99 TUE 17:08 FAT 503 526 2571 MAYORS [it 001 Testimony of Rob Drake Mayor of Beaverton Before the Tigard City Council April 13, 1999 Good evening. Mayor Nicoli and Members of the Tigard City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening on the very important issue of future water sources to the City of Tigard and surrounding areas. Professionally, I serve as the Mayor of Beaverton. It is an honor to partner with your City on a daily basis. Our two cities enjoy an outstanding working relationship. In addition, you have quality staff that serves you well and represents your interests in a very professional way around the region. As Beaverton's Mayor and full-time chief executive officer, I am involved in many varied local and regional issues of importance to both of our cities. I am currently Beaverton's representative to the regional Water Consortium Board, of which Tigard is also a member. This Board deals with many water issues of local and regional significance. Future water supply sources are one of the topics the Consortium Board deals with on a regular basis. I In addition, I am the first and only Chairman of the Regional Emergency Management Group (REMG), which was formed in 1993. REMG is a group of local elected officials who advise Metro and area emergency managers on policy issues related to disaster preparedness and recovery processes. I also represent the City of Beaverton to the Joint Water Commission (JWC) agency, which is a water source partnership and owners group made-up of the j City of Hillsboro, City of Forest Grove, Tualatin Valley Water District and the City of Beaverton. I have a unique and regional perspective regarding the future location of additional water sources. I 7 My interest in speaking with you tonight is to not necessarily favor one source over another. Rather, I would ask you to consider the fact that the current Bull Run Watershed and the Clackamas River basin are in very close proximity to Mr. Hood and potential future volcanic activity. A major volcanic event on Mr. Hood might likely compromise the Bull Run and Clackamas River sources. That would 04/13/99 TUIE 17:09 FAX 503 526 2571 MAYORS X002 I I. I leave, basically, only the Joint Water Commission source in the Coast Range as the only major source for water. In the region until a new supply is found. The Willamette River is a logical water source and alternative for Tigard and surrounding communities. I make no arguments for or against this alternative. I do ask you to recognize that an alternative to potentially vulnerable Bull Run and i the Clackamas River should be found. A second message I deliver tonight is to the Tigard community. I believe that you can have confidence in Tiigard's Mayor, City Council and Tualatin Valley I Water District to make the right, informed choice given the years of qualified study of the issue and the numerous hearings and task forces they've sponsored. I Thank you for the opportunity to address you on this very important subject. I I 1 I i I WRITTEN TESTIMONY RECEIVED AND FILED WITH THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR THE APRIL 13,1999 PUBLIC HEARING Norma A. Beaty 12170 S.W. James St. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Mayor Jan Drangsholt King City 15300 S.W. 116th Avenue King City, Oregon 97224-2693 Linda Hogberg-Counts 9600 S.W. Riverwood Lane Tigard, Oregon 97224-5428 D.H. Lee 14545 S.W. Chardonnay Ave. Tigard, Oregon 97224 Jack F. Reardon Macerich Company 9585 S.W. Washington Square Rd. Portland, Oregon 97223 Tigard Area Chamber of Commerce 12420 S.W. Main Street Tigard, Oregon 97223 Mr. & Mrs. Ray Utz 14880 S.W. 133' Tigard, Oregon 97224 I;\AD M\CATHY\WATE R-LI ST2. D OC APR 9 1999 12170 S.W. James St. Tigard, OR 97223 March 25, 1999 Tigard Water District 8777 S.W. Burnham St. Tigard, OR 97223 To Whom It May Concern: With reference to your recent notice Fora meeting on March 29th re our local Water supply. I regret I will be able to attend, however, I would like to express my feelings on the matter. What have we come to that we have to drink (and probably not even properly purified) contaminated water out of the Willamette River where dead bodies have existed along with human sewage, chemicals and'pollutants dumped? I cannot believe we have to resort to that. It all boils down to getting "the cart before the horse". Too much building has been allowed; we are overcrow ded with no facilities to handle the situation as a whole. Just a case of greed for the big out of state developers. Tigard is better known now as "TERRIBLE TIGb.RD" instead of "Terrific Tigard" as we all Xnew it. Sincerely yours, No a A. Beaty nb a - i i i APR KING CITY g 1999 15300 S.W. 116th Avenue, King City, Oregon 97224-2693 Phone: (503) 629.4082 e FAX (503) 639.3771 April 8, 1999 Mayor Jim Nicoli City of Tigard 13125 SW Hall Blvd. Tigard, Oregon 97223 Dear Mayor Nicoli, The King City Council at its regular meeting on April 7`h, after considerable discussion and listening to public testimony focusing on ownership, cost, quality of water and supply, voted unanimously to go on record supporting the Williamette River option. The Council has directed Mayor Drangsholt to state the city's preference for the Willamette River water supply when the matter is considered before the Intergovernmental Water Board. The Council unanimously agreed that the citizens' initiative which may be referred to an election is contrary to the letter and principles of the intergovernmental agreement between King City and Tigard as to decisions on water related capital improvements. The citizens of King City have conveyed to the Council that they believe Tigard's voters should not be the ultimate decision makers to decide this important issue for the citizens of King City. The City of King City formally requests that the Tigard City Council not refer an initiative petition to an election should the initiative's supporters submit enough signatures to bring this matter before the Tigard City Council. The King City Council is cognizant that Tigard's city attorneys have publicly advised against referring the measure. It is our understanding that a proposed referral would result in a breach of the IGA contract on the part of the City of Tigard. On behalf of all the citizens of King City, we sincerely hope that this matter will be thoroughly considered before acting in a manner contrary to the IGA which could affect the future relationship of all the parties to the Tigard Waiet Dist,ia Intergovernmental Agreement. Sincerely, THE. CITY OF KING CITY Ja rangsholt, Mayo cc: Wm. Monahan, City Adm. APR 9 1999 April 7, 1999 To: Mayor James Nicoli and City Council Members I am writing to state my opinion on the future of Tigard's water supply. I will not be attending the public hearings but certainly believe that all written input is just as valuable. I have read much of the literature that has been available on this issue including the recent Cityscape. I am convinced that going with Bull Run water in the future is better. I feel it is viable and for the slight cost increase we can be assured of good water. Bull Run is not subject to the raw sewage overflow that continues to happen. Even though the reports indicate Willamette River water can be treated, I would rather go with water that is cleaner from the start. I would also like to state that I am in no way concerned the Tigard own it's water supply. Who really owns the earth's resources anyway? Since we have contracted with Portland since 1996 I see no reason to be concerned that they wouldn't continue to be fair business partners. Please listen to the citizens of Tigard who would like to have the opportunity to vote on this matter. I believe that allowing this would be the best way to listen to the people and serve the public. Sincerely, G~ q Linda Hogberg- ounts Omni ;,r P t t N ~QB• a ~ n 39- ` mod, SW w OR 224-6428 1 i { y { ~t~tt~t~tt~~t~tsllitt„1'tiit~sl~t!►tlsittftt~lt ~C r 'ltllflf4tl11 - e r 1 •'~~Ci art April 6, 1999 APR 1999 P~`u To: Tigard Water District Tigard City Council From: D. H. Lee Subject: Proposed Willamette River Water Supply System Please find below several comments on the proposed Willamette River Supply System preliminary engineering report published Dec. 1998: Appendix: Section 3 Raw Water Quality This section contains data taken over a 2 year period(April `94 to April `96). Unfortunately there are no meaningful data presented from April `96 until present so it is impossible to tell if the water quality trends are staying the same, degrading or improving. For example, the turbidity, total coliforms, and fecal coliforms trends appear to be increasing which would be consistent with an increase in the agricultural and land development upstream from the collection site. Without data from `96 until current this is impossible to assess. Basically, we don't know what the quality of the of the Willamette is today. Assuming that agricultural development upstream will continue to rise, the report does not address the controls that will need to be put in place to insure that the quality of the Willamette will not degrade proportionately. Annendix: Section 3 Raw Water Quality This section only contains data from the Willamette with NO corresponding data from the Portland water supply over the same time period. Without these data it is impossible to determine if the proposed Willamette River water quality will be equal to, better, or worse than the current Portland supply. I can't see how anyone would be convinced to support the Willamette River Water System project without this detailed comparison. Section 3: Water Supply Facilities There is no detailed discussion in this section of how the water quality will be monitored real time, what the shut down limits will be, and what procedures would be in place to divert or shut down the water supply should the water quality degrade below current and future regulation. If the filtration system fails, what is the backup plan. Section 7: Financial Evaluation And Analysis There is no sensitivity analysis of costs in this section. If the cost actually are higher by 50, 100, 200%, then what are the consequences. This needs some detailed analysis because of the complexity of the project and the uncertainty in how efficient the system will be in delivering the required water quality, the costs could easily increase by 2X. Sincerely, I~'fI. Lee 14545 S. W. Chardonnay Ave. Tigard, Oregon 97224 PS It is hard to believe the Dr. Wilson would conclude that there is a high degree of certainty that no adverse affects will occur in the Willamette River based on ONE data point. You might ask any statistician in any of the Portland/Oregon Universities what they think of such a ridiculous statement. P ® WASHINGTON SQUARE TEL:5036205612 Apr 09'99 15:09 No.012 P.01 "Wr. Make Good Thing% 11apisen" April 9, 1999 VIA FACSIMILE: 5031684-7297 The Honorable Jim Nicholi, Mayor and City of Tigard Council Members 13125 S.W. Hall Boulevard Tigard, OR 97223 RE: Willamette River Water Proposal Dear Mayor and Council Members: With the projected growth of the Metropolitan area and the fact that Bull Run is a sole source of water, which could restrict regional supply in case of natural disasters, it seems reasonable to go forward with a plan to use Willamette River water. Based on the study results, it appears clear that the Willamette Alternative makes a lot of sense. Therefore, I support the plan. Yours Truly, ack F. Reardon, CSM/CMD Washington Square • Square Too 9585 S,W. Washington Square Road Portland, Oregon 97223 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 23635 • Tigard, Oregon 97281.3635 Telephone 503.639.8860 • Facsimile 503.620.5612 www,macerich.com APR 1999 TIGARD Chamber of Commerce FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 5, 1999 FOR INFORMATION CONTACT: S. CAROLYN LONG I 639-1656 TIGARD WATER PROPOSAL THE TIGARD AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECENTLY REVIEWED THE BULL RUN VERSUS THE WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER PROPOSAL. BOTH PROPOSALS HAVE MERIT. THE BULL RUN IS A PROVEN PERFORMER BUT THE WILLAMETTE RIVER PROPOSAL IS THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE. THE ISSUE OF REGIONAL WATER IS A COMPLEX PROBLEM. TIGARD HAS BEEN STUDYING IT FOR NEARLY TEN YEARS. STAFF AND A CITIZEN TASK FORCE ARE NOW STUDYING THEIR FINDINGS. A RECOMMENDATION WILL BE FORTHCOMING SHORTLY. THE TIGARD CHAMBER URGES ALL CONCERNED TO ATTEND THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ISSUE ON APRIL 13TH AT CITY HALL AT 7:00 P.M. UPON COMPLETION OF THE HEARING, THE TASK FORCE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WE SUPPORT THE ELECTED OFFICIALS' DECISION. WE FEEL THE COMPLEX DECISION IS BETTER MADE BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL VERSUS A POPULAR VOTE. ; 12420 S.W. Main Street, Tigard, Oregon 97223 • 503-639-1656 • FAX: 503-639-6302 www.tigardchamber.com • into Otigardchamber.com -76 ao~ ~ / 6661 L WV t1~° l~ ~j Aze T v' 67 7 -2 1 ~ v „1,,,,11,1Oslo) „I „t,l,l,l,,,lt,t s ~ MEMORANDUM i CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FRONT: William Monahan DATE: April 9, 1999 SUBJECT: Water Public Hearing The Public Hearing on Water will be held on Tuesday, April 13, 1999. A schedule of presentations by representatives of local governments and interested groups is attached. Representatives of local governments will probably complete their comments within five minutes or less. Those presenting on behalf of a group have been advised that they have up to 15 minutes. A sign-up sheet will be available at the hearing for individuals wishing to speak on their own behalf. Mayor Nicoli has advised that he will take names from the sign-up sheet and insert them into the speaker schedule as time permits. During the Water Advisory Task Force meeting last evening, Garry Ott advised the committee that he may submit a minority report which discusses issues related to water treatment plant ownership and operation. It is not clear at this time whether Garry will submit a written report or make a presentation to Council. The advisory committee indicated that a five minute presentation would be appropriate. If Garry contacts me prior to the meeting, and indicates that he wishes to speak, I will add his name to a revised speaker list. Attached to this memo are the following materials for the Water Public Hearing: 1) A list of written testimony received and filed since the agenda summary for the Council packet was completed 2) All information presented to the Water Advisory Task Force at the meetings of: a) February 18, 1999 b) February 25, 1999 c) March 4, 1999 d) March 11, 1999 e) March 18, 1999 f) March 25, 1999 g) April 1, 1999 h) April 8, 1999 02dramcom MIN IN 01 111M Page 2 Please note that the April 8, 1999 Task Force packet includes the minutes of the April 1, 1999 meeting. That is the meeting at which each task force member was given the opportunity to present their comments on the pros and cons of the two proposals. Committee members had an opportunity to complete three separate worksheets addressing the questions of cost of water, certainty of supply and tap water quality. The minutes illustrate the comments made and incorporate the worksheets. Last evening, the Task Force members adopted these minutes. The Task Force members have drafted a report and recommendation for City Council. That report is being finalized and will be presented to the City Council on Tuesday evening. The final piece of information attached is a tally of committee member attendance. The Task Force directed staff to forward this information to the City Council prior to Tuesday's meeting. I: WDM\B ILL%990409M EMO-COUNCI L.DOC Visitors Agenda - Speakers April 13, 1999 - City Council Meeting Time city Mayor 7:00 .m. Sherwood Walt Hitchcock 7:03 .m. Beaverton Rob Drake 7:06 p.m. Tualatin Lou Ogden Roster of Designated Times - Group Presentations for the April 13, 1.999, Public Hearing - Long Range Water Supply Time 7:30 .m. Oregon Environmental Council 7:45 .m. Durham Councilor Patrick Carroll 8:00 .m. Willamette Water Supply Agency 8:15 p.m. King City Mayor Jan Drangsholt & Tigard Water District Board Member Norman Penner 8:30 .m. Citizens for Safe Drinking Water 8:45 .m. 9:00 P.M. H2 OK - Political Action Committee 9:15 .m. 9:30 .m. Tigard Water Advisory Task Force 9:45 .m. a i 1ACITYWIDEROSTER OF DESGINATED TIMES.DOC 3 pill Water Advisory Task Force Agenda Thursday, February 18, 1999 7:00 p.m. Tigard Water Building Auditorium 8770 SW Burnham Street Tigard, Oregon 1. Welcome and Introduction - Tigard City Council 2. Background - Ed Wegner ® Where we have been • Council criteria ® The mission of the task force from the resolution 3. Task Force Process Y Select chairperson C Choose meeting dates o Set calendar 4. Distribute Summaries of the Proposals from e WRWSS o City of Portland 5. Questions of staff i 6. Adjourn a 3 \\TIG333\USR\DEPTS\ADM\BILL\WATERTFRCAG.DOC CITY OF TIGARD WATER SUPPLY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION CRITERIA REVIEW TAP WATER QUALITY Treated water (tap water) quality Current water quality standards Exceed existing standards Future water quality standards Near term Mid term Long term Classes of regulated constituents - SOCs/DBPs/pathogens, etc. Unregulated constituents - endocrine disruptors Raw water quality Existing conditions Future conditions CERTAINTY OF SUPPLY Likelihood supply source can be implemented Likelihood supply source will be available to meet ultimate demands Regulatory or physical obstacles that may impact ability to implement supply source. COST OF WATER Cost per 100 cubic feet Wholesale water purchase costs Capital costs j Operations and maintenance costs f Present and future costs per 100 cubic feet Present worth analysis .for financial comparison of alternatives REQUIRED UAPROVEMENTS AND ESTMATED PROJECT COSTS Facilities required to serve Tigard to meet ultimate demands Project costs of facilities OPPORTUNITY FOR CITY OWNERSHIP OF SUPPLY SYSTEM/ WATER RIGHTS No ownership Ownership of capacity only Ownership of facilities and capacity Surplus water Water rights in City's name WATER. SUPPLY AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACT PROVISIONS Key Provisions/Issues Term or perpetual Renewable Fair and reasonable rate basis Meet demands Share the pain if shortages Relief for non-performance Point(s) of delivery Delivery conditions and restrictions Other SUPPLY IMPLEMENTATION TIMING Ability to develop new supply by expiration of current purchase agreement in 2005 Ability to match demand growth thereafter to ultimate demand Q Risk of not achieving above requirements - potential need to seek other source or { sources 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Impacts on general environment (Phase II Regional Water Supply Plan) Update with current data DIVERSIFICATION OF SUPPLY Development of additional local/regional supply source - important? 02/01/99 HADOMEVALIEVAL CRITERIA OUTLINE.doc 114,000 111911 2111 111MMENE CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 99- Oq A RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH A WATER ADVISORY TASK FORCE TO ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL ON DETERM HNG A PERMANENT LONG-RANGE WATER SUPPLY FOR THE CITY OF TIGARD WHEREAS, the Portland Water Supply Plan for the Southwest and the Willamette River Water Supply Plan are under discussion by staff and have been submitted for review by the Tigard City Council; and WHEREAS, the Tigard City Council desires to have a thorough review of the two water supply plans by a diverse group of individuals representing a broad range of interests, backgrounds, and areas of concerns. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Tigard City Council that: SECTION 1: A Water Advisory Task Force is hereby established and its membership shall consist of those individuals fisted on the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 2: The Mission of the Task Force is to 'submit a report to the Tigard. City Council on April 13, 1999, advising the' Council on determining a permanent, long-range water supply for the City of Tigard. The Council will consider the report of the Task Force in its consideration of this issue. SECTION 3: The basic groundrules of the Task Force shall incorporate the following process points that are intended to assist the Task Force in accomplishing its mission: • First Meeting: The first Task Force Meeting is scheduled for February 18, 1999. At this first meeting the Task Force shall-select from its membership a chairperson to act as the presiding officer. In. the absence of the chairperson at a scheduled meeting, the membership shall elect, by majority vote, a member of the Task Force to stand in as the presiding officer. The presiding officer shall conduct all meetings, preserve order, enforce the rules of the Task Force. In all other actions, decisions and matters relating to the conduct of business of the Task Force, the presiding officer shall have no more or less authority than any other Task Force member. • Criteria: The Task Force will endeavor to complete its Mission stated herein by adhering to the eight criteria established by the City Council for selecting a new water supply source. These eight criteria will be provided to the Task Force by the Staff Liaison in advance of the February 18, 1999, meeting. • Completion Date: The Task Force, at its February 18, 1999, meeting will establish a timeline for completing its Mission by April 13, 1999. RESOLUTION NO. 99-0'( Page 1 • Public Meetings Law: Task Force meetings shall be noticed and conducted in accordance with the State of Oregon Public Meetings Law (ORS 192.620). A quorum shall consist of eleven (11) Task Force members and a quorum shall be required in order for the Task Force to meet. • Communications Between Task Force Members and City Staff: 1. Task Force members are encouraged to maintain open communications with the staff, both as a group and individually in one-on-one sessions. Jennifer Renninger, Associate Planner/Water of the Public Works Department is the staff liaison assigned to work with the Task Force. Other City Staff will also be available to provide assistance to the Task Force. 2. Task Force members are encouraged to direct inquiries through the City Staff, giving as much information as possible to ensure a thorough response. Task Force members are encouraged to contact the Public Works Director Ed Wegner or Confidential Executive Assistant Kathy Kaatz in the absence of the Associate Planner/Water. • Task Force Agendas and packet information: 1. The Staff Liaison will have agendas available for the Task Force members at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. 2. Agenda add-ons and handouts distributed at the start of the meeting are to be minimized. 3. Agenda topics shall be limited to those that will further the Mission of the Task Force. 4. Task Force members and staff will prepare in advance of public meetings and issues should be presented fully in packets. • Communications Among Task Force Members: 1. Task force members are encouraged to suggest agenda topics by contacting the Staff Liaison. 2. Add-on Agenda items should be brought up at the start of the meeting and generally considered only if a majority of the Task Force members present agree. 3. During meetings, Task Force members should be recognized by the presiding officer before speaking. RESOLUTION NO. 99-_0 Page 2 4. During meetings, Task Force members should allow staff members to give their entire presentation on agenda items before commenting or asking questions. 5. During meetings, discussion participants shall be limited to the Task Force and City of Tigard Staff members and invited guests/experts/consultants. There will be time reserved at the end of each agenda for comment and questions from the general public. h PASSED: This day of u& 1999. Ma r City of Tigard ATTEST: City Recorder - City of Tigard MADMCATHMOUNCIURESOLUTION - WATER ADVISORY BOARD.DOC RESOLUTION NO.99n~'( Page 3 EXHIBIT A - WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE LIST 215/99 Stan Baumhofer, Business Community Will Serve Elaine Beauregard, Planning Commission Applicant Will Serve suggested b Mayor and Councilor Moore Martha Bishop, Tigard Resident Will Serve Bonnie Bishop, Citizens for Safe Water Will Serve Gretchen Buehner, Present TWD Board Member Will Serve Patrick Carroll, Durham Council Member/IWB Will Serve Sue Carver, Tigard Resident Will partcipate if the committee meets any other day than Thursday Henrietta Cochrun, King City Resident and KC Planning Will Serve Commission John Cook (Sr.), Former Tigard Mayor Cannot meet on 2/18 but wants to participate Craig Dirksen, Tigard Resident Will Serve Jan Drangsholt, Mayor of King City/1WB Will Serve Deb Fennell, Tigard Resident Will Serve Katharine Forrest, City of Tualatin Council Awaiting response (2/9) after Council meeting Scott Franklin, Sherwood City Council In place of Walt Hitchcock Bev Froude, Present TWD Board Member/IWB Will Serve Bob Gray, Tigard Resident Will Serve John Haunsperger, Present TWD Board Member Will Serve John Helser, Wilsonville Council Member Awaiting response (2/9) after Council meeting Marland Henderson, Tigard Resident Will Serve Marv Leach, Business Person Cannot meet on 2/18 but wants to participate Mark Mahon, Tigard Resident Will Serve Sterling Marsh, Tigard Resident Will Serve Gene McAdams, Tigard Resident Will Serve Bill McMonagle, Tigard Resident Cannot meet on 2/18 but wants to participate Dennis Moore, Durham Resident Will Serve 1 I loom 11111 RUDE Clarence Nicoli, Former TWD Board Member Will Serve Gary Ott, Tigard Resident Will Serve Paul Owen, Surnmerfield Representative Will be out of town early April but will participate Phil Pasteris, Tigard Resident Will Serve Norman Penner, Present TWD Board Member Will Serve Bill Scheiderich, Tigard Resident/IWB Chair Will Serve Randy Volk, Tigard Resident Will Serve Tony Weller, City of Tualatin Council Member Awaiting response (2/9) after Council meeting John Wiitala, Tigard Business Replacing Leon Hartvikson/Representing large commerical property owners. Chuck Woodward, Tigard Resident Will Serve CAWINDOWSWEMPNEXHIBIT A • WATER ADVISORY BOARD 2.DOC 2 WATER AD VISORY TASK FORCE Agenda Thursday, February 25, 1999 7: 00 p. era. Tigard Town Hall 13125 S W Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 1. Introduction and Roll Call 2. Distribution of Materials Resource List IGA 3. Presentation - Murray, Smith and Associates 4. Questions/Answ,,ers by Task Force Members BREAK 5. Written Questions/Answers - Public i 6. Future Meeting Agenda Items Meeting Location/Sound System 7. Public Comments I:\pwtw2cl2-25 agcnda INS EN City of Tigard Long-Term Water RESOURCE LIST Copy of . Executive Check out report summary complete available available document " toyal~ j ~s't.'9y: ! n1r r,,- a1! t~,'r `t# " 'r ! ~;K i kr-.a` of +t'~,'e t!` s > r ! J~ ~iK"!F'~5~ ~uv~'^S`bbt'L 3~ .r3A~,$, • tf }~H• i"gKT.'.~``d` 4~, -fit ~y~t sV1 ~i'+'~~5 ~~'~yi 7 v! r 4 ''MTh N~~~ pl~•~° ~,f;~~h ! ..irw rt ~ s+~Y Willamette River Raw Water Monitoring Program X X Annual Report 94-1996, Montgomery Watson 3/97 City of Wilsonville Water Supply Study Final Report X. 3/97 Washington County Supply Line Capacity Analysis X X MSA, 9/97 Willamette River Water Treatment Pilot Study X X Montgomery Watson 8/94 Willamette River Water Supply Study Montgomery X X Watson 3/96 Water Supply Plan Update / Tigard MSA, 10/94 X X Regional Water Supply Plan Water Providers of X X Portland Metro Area 10/96 Willamette River Basin Task Force Recommendation X X to Governor John Kitzhaber 12/97 Steelhead Status National Marine Fisheries Service X 3/98 ca H Dioxins and Furans in Bed Sediment and Fish Tissue of X d the Willamette Basin, OR USGS 92-95 Plain talk, about drinking water. Q & A about the water X you drink 97, Dr. James M. Symons, AWWA d a Copy of Executive Check out report summary complete available available document Oregon Insider, Willamette River as a water supply X 1/99, Kevin Hanway Cascade Water Alliance, Interlocal Contract 1998, new X regional water supply entity for Seattle, suburban cities and water district in King County Portland water supply scenarios Preliminary. Info and X correspondence Portland/Tigard 1997 Water Quality Report Portland Bureau of Water X Works Report on drinking water sources, quality & programs City of Portland, Bureau of Water Works Information X Packet Keeping the River, Focus on Environment 9/98, The X Business Journal Wholesale contracts, making sense of buy-sell X agreements. 52t //9r9, Opflow Am. Water Work Assoc. ' ~,Ra-'~F`' r Z tc...d,.e.,S+`s«t.:e .,rt.t r?_. u: 51. Let's talk about tap water quality 11/98 X What are Tigard's Water Supply options? 5/98 Fact X sheet packets on City Water Supply options and Willamette River Water Quality Q&A i Portland Water and Willamette River - Comparison of X treatment systems 10/98 a Portland's South Shore Well Field staff reports on X subject matter Fall 98, Mike Miller, City of Tigard I~ Cost Efficiency, both initial construction cost & costs of X ongoing operation & maintenance 2/16/99, Draft, Wayne Lowry CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. 434x/_ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, APPROVING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT, AND'APPOINTING THE WATER DISTRICT'S MEMBER AND ALTERNATE TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD CREATED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE AGREEMENT. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD THAT: SECTION 1: The Intergovernmental Agreement for water services between the City and Tigard Water District, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is approved. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement. SECTION 2: The City Recorder is authorized to do all things necessary to secure signatures from the Tigard Water District and to deliver a copy of the signed Agreement to the City of-King City and the City of Durham. SECTION 3: o h vt SC K4_0("'; is designated as the City's member on the Intergovernmental Water B and created under Section 3 of the Agreement. k-a- c L 14U.Ak - is designated as the City's alternate member on the Intergovernmental Water Board. PASSED: By-'. L LV -VXA MOW-0 vote of all council members present after being read bynumber and title only, this ~ _ da of rCevY1 , 1993. Cathy Wheatley, City R order APPROVED: This o~ 7Ge o ' 93 i i { ral d war s, mayor Approved as to f V C y Atto y Date: ach\tigard\jwa\igatduwd.= CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. q3- (t S A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, APPROVING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND THE CITY OF KING CITY, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT, AND APPOINTING THE CITY'S MEMBER AND ALTERNATE TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD CREATED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE AGREEMENT. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD THAT: SECTION 1: The Intergovernmental Agreement for water services between the City and King City, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is approved. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement. SECTION 2: The City Recorder is authorized to do all things necessary to secure signatures from the City of King City and to deliver a copy of the signed Agreement to the City /of Durham and the Tigard Water District. SECTION 3: Jo h n• Sch U.-IlAr+') _ is designated as the City's membe on the Intergovernmental Water Board created under Section 3 of the Agreement. ~G"u L H un+ is designated as the City's alternate member on the Intergovernmental Water Board. PASSED: By U(1L (\*tM0US vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this Q84' day of 1993. Ca Wheatley, City Rep rder APPROVED: This day GP~t'YL , 1993. era wards, Mayor Appr ved as to fo Ci Attorney Date: . , IAU CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON RESOLUTION NO. q-5 (t A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON, APPROVING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND THE CITY OF DURHAM, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT, AND APPOINTING THE CITY'S MEMBER AND ALTERNATE TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD CREATED UNDER SECTION 3 OF THE AGREEMENT. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIGARD THAT: SECTION 1: The Intergovernmental Agreement for water services between the City and Durham, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is approved. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Agreement. SECTION 2: The City Recorder is authorized to do all things necessary to secure signatures from the City of Durham and to deliver a copy of the signed Agreement to the City of King City and the Tigard Water District. SECTION 3: John ScVriwa~ is designated as the City's member on the Intergovernmental Water Board created under Section 3 of the Agreement. k-b-u•l t- un l- is designated as the City's alternate member on the Intergovernmental Water Board. PASSED: By UnCL( 'tmc v~ vote of all Council members present after being read by number and title only, this aVL41_ day of -4-**)2Ca4y0aAJL , 1993. alley, City Rec der APPROVED: This a~ r , 1.993. ira Edwards, Mayor Ap roved as to ~o ` Ci y Attorne Date: lag K3 EXHIBIT A INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TIGARD AND THE TIGARD WATER DISTRICT FOR DELIVERY OF WATER SERVICE TO TERRITORY WITHIN THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES This Agreement is made and entered into by the City of Tigard, an Oregon municipal corporation, (hereinafter "Tigard") and the Tigard Water District, a domestic water supply district existing under ORS Ch. 264, (hereinafter "District"). Tigard and District are jointly referred to herein as "the Parties." Unless identified as "original," District refers to the remnant district. RECITALS: 1. The cities of Tigard, King City and Durham (collectively the "Cities") withdrew from the original District effective July 1, 1993. 2. Pursuant to ORS 222.540, the District is obligated to turn over to the Cities its water mains, service installations, structures, facilities, improvements and other property in the area withdrawn from the District as it existed on June 30, 1993, (original District) that are not necessary for the operation of the remainder of the water supply system of the District. 3. The area withdrawn by Tigard was a major portion of the original District. Because of this, Tigard is entitled to a major portion of the original District's infrastructure pursuant to ORS 222.540. King City and Durham are entitled to smaller portions of the original District's infrastructure. Furthermore pursuant to ORS 222.550, should the District dissolve, Tigard will be in a position to obtain all of the District's remaining assets which have not been di4tributed under ORS 222.540. 4. With the assets and infrastructure obtained by its withdrawal from the original District, Tigard is creating a city water department. 5. The Cities and District agree that it is in their best interest if King City; Durham and the District were to be an integrated part of a water supply network receiving water service from Tigard's city water department. Tigard will receive revenue from water users in Tigard, King City, Durham, and the District, and with that revenue Tigard will provide the funds to pay for expenses incurred in providing water service. 6. The Cities and District agree that it is in their best interest to share authority for decision-making regarding the long- term water supply and capital improvement planning to serve present and future water customers of the original District. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 1 (12/23/93 - FINAL) MJ Tigard - One Member King City - One Member Durham - One Member District/Unincorporated Area - One Member At Large - One Member selected by a majority vote of the Other Members B. Intergovernmental Water Board Terms. (1) Initially, three Board members shall be appointed for a term of three years (from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996) and two Board members shall be appointed for a term of two years (from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1995). There shall be a drawing of lots to determine which Board members will serve two years and which will serve three years. Thereafter, Board members shall have two year terms. (2) Board members shall be appointed in December for the following two year term. Each term will begin on January 1. Each term will end on December 31 and each Board member shall serve until a successor has been appointed. Members may be re-appointed to succeeding terms. Vacancies may be filled in the same manner as a regular appointment. (3) Board members shall be an elected official serving on the respective governing body except for that member selected by a majority vote of the other members. Each respective governing body may appoint an alternate to attend meetings in the place of a regularly appointed Board member. The alternate shall be appointed in the same manner and must meet the same qualifications as the regularly appointed Board member. C. Tigard may appoint city officials as ex officio members of the Intergovernmental Water Board to assist the Board in its duties. They shall serve at the pleasure of the Tigard City Council and shall have no voting privileges. D. A quorum of the Board shall be three (3) members. All actions of the Board shall require at least three (3) votes, excluding abstentions. E. The Intergovernmental Water Board will make recommendations to the Tigard City Council on water service issues and will have the following responsibilities: (1) to make a continuing study of the rate structure of the water system. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 3 (12/23/93 - FINAL) lisli~ilillilloilimm 4. Division of Original District Assets. A. Pursuant to ORS 222.540(4), the District agrees that the division of assets after withdrawal from the original District by the Cities shall be consistent with the following concepts: (1) Assets include real, personal and intangible property. "Intangible property" includes but is not limited to: moneys, checks, drafts, deposits, interest, dividends and income. (2) Assets will be divided into two groups: a. System Assets: Assets necessary for the operation of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original District, not including those "other assets" of Tigard. Personal and intangible property are system assets. Water. mains, service installations, structures, facilities, improvements or other property necessary for operation of the City of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original District are system assets. b. Other Assets: Assets not necessary for the operation of the City of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original District. Other assets shall become the property of the jurisdiction in which the asset is located. Water mains, service installations, structures, facilities, improvements or other property not necessary for the operation of the City of Tigard's water supply system throughout the original District are other assets. B. All system assets and other assets shall be pledged by the Cities and t f District to Tigard. All system assets and other assets shall be managed by Tigard and shall be utilized by Tigard in order to provide water services to properties, residences and businesses in the original District. C. Should one of the Cities or the District terminate its water service agreement with Tigard, the Cities' and the District's proportionate interest in a system asset shall be determined based upon the following formula: Jurisdiction's Proportionate Interest = (A + B + C)/3 A = Jurisdiction's Percentage of current Consumption in original District B = Jurisdiction's Percentage of Current Real Market Value in original District INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 5 (12/23/93 - FINAL) assets, these costs will be shared in an equitable manner. (4) Tigard shall maintain (i) casualty insurance insuring the assets against loss. or damage by fire and all other risks covered by the standard extended coverage endorsement then in use in the State of Oregon and any other risks reasonably required by District in an amount equal to at .least the replacement value of the assets and, (ii) liability insurance that protects District, including its officers and commissioners, from liability arising from Tigard's operation of the water supply system in an amount satisfactory to District and (iii) worker's compensation insurance covering all employees working on, in, near or about the assets as required under the laws of the State of Oregon. Tigard shall furnish to District, certificates evidencing such coverage. All such insurance shall be with insurers that are authorized to issue such insurance in the State of Oregon, shall name District as additional insured and shall contain a provision to the effect that such insurance shall not be canceled or modified materially and adversely to the interest of District without first giving written notice thereof to District at least ten (10) days in advance of such cancellation or modification. All such casualty insurance shall contain a provision making any losses payable to Tigard and District as their respective interests may appear. Tigard may meet any of these requirements through a self-insurance program. Such insurance requirements may be waived in writing by the governing body of the District. (5) To the extent permitted by law, Tigard shall indemnify, protect, hold harmless, save and keep harmless District from and against any and all liability, obligation, loss, claim and damage whatpoever, regardless of cause thereof, and all expenses 2n connection therewith, including, without limitation, counsel fees and expenses, penalties and interest arising out of or as the result of the entering into of this Agreement, the ownership of any asset or any accident in connection with the operation, use, condition, possession, storage or return of any asset resulting in damage to property or-injury to or death to any person; provided, however, that Tigard shall not be deemed to be indemnifying District for claims arising from its own conduct. The indemnification arising under this paragraph shall continue in full force and effect notwithstanding the termination of this Agreement for any reason. B. The fees, rates and charges charged by Tigard for providing water services to properties, residences and businesses in District shall be the same as those charged within Tigard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Tigard may impose higher fees, rates and charges for providing water service to properties, residences INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 7 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 10111 (b) The capital improvement program must be approved by the governing bodies of one less than the number of jurisdictions holding an ownership interest in the water system. A governing body may not unreasonably withhold consent if the program is supported by sound engineering analysis, is in the best interests of water customers within the original District and consistent with the goal of working together to provide all of the residents and property in the original District with a clean, economical water supply. If a proposed capital improvement program is not approved as provided for in this subsection, then the governing bodies of any two jurisdictions may.request mediation under the provisions of ORS Chapter 36 to determine if approval of the program has been unreasonably withheld. (c) Tigard shall prepare and deliver to the District a proposed capital Improvement Plan no later than June 30, 1994 for consideration by the Cities and the District. The District's Capital Improvement Plan dated June, 1993, will guide Tigard's spending on capital projects until a capital improvement program is adopted pursuant to subsection (b). (2) The capital improvement program shall establish the location of a capital improvement whether within Tigard, King City, Durham or the District and shall distinguish whether a capital improvement qualifies as a system asset or other asset. (3) Capital improvements made subsequent to entering into this Agreement that are determined to be other assets shall-become the property of the jurisdiction in which the improvement is located. For capital improvements made subsequent to entering into this Agreement that are determined to be system assets, the Cities and the District each shall have a proportionate interest in such "system asset" capital improvement's depreciated value. The depreciated value shall be based upon- the useful life of the capital improvement under generally accepted accounting principles using a straight line method of depreciation. The Cities' and the District's proportionate interest in such "system asset" capital improvement's depreciated value shall be determined based upon the formula in Section 4.D. of this Agreement. (4) Should one of the Cities or the District terminate its water service agreement with Tigard, such jurisdiction shall have rights to the use of all system assets equal to its Jurisdiction"s Proportionate Interest as IMTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 9 (12/23/93 - FINAL) water activities will be recorded in the water fund. Applicable indirect charges will be apportioned to the water fund in the same manner as such charges are apportioned to other enterprise funds to properly reflect the costs associated with each activity. Tigard shall use generally accepted accounting principles applicable to utility enterprises for the recording and identifying of all revenues and expenditures made for the water system. The Intergovernmental Water Board shall review such allocation and methodology. (2) The accounting method used by Tigard shall, to the extent possible, document the use of assets by Tigard for non- water system activities. Use of assets by Tigard for non-water activities shall be funded from resources other than the water fund. H. The Parties to this Agreement shall not have the might to transfer ownership of or remove system assets or any interest therein received or kept as a,result of the Cities' withdrawal from the original District or any interest in system assets acquired during the term of this Agreement without written consent of the other Party. Neither the benefits received by the District nor the obligations incurred under the terms of this Agreement are assignable or in any manner transferrable by the District without the written consent of the city. I. No part of this Agreement shall be interpreted as a waiver of either Party's statutory rights upon annexation of territory. 6. Indebtedness. A. Each of`''the Parties shall be liable for their respective share of the debt, if any, acquired or retained as a result of the Cities' withdrawal from the original District. B. Tigard may incur, without the consent of the District, debt relating to the water supply system, provided payment of the debt is.fee, rate or charge based. If the debt is to be paid for by means other than fees, rates or charges, Tigard must have approval and consent of the governing body of the District in writing prior to incurring sual,debt. The District shall be liable for its proportionate share of any debt for which it has given its written approval and consent. C. Tigard is authorized to perform the function and activity of incurring water revenue bond indebtedness for the water system by authorizing the issuance of water revenue bonds pursuant to ORS 288.805 to 288.945, as.amended, for the financing of water system capital improvements. Such debt may be secured by a pledge of INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 11 (12/23/93 - FINAL) milli lool 1111111 E. The District may use the former Tigard Water District office building for meetings of the District Board and for receipt of the Board's correspondence. To the extent that Tigard charges other governmental entities for use of the building, the District agrees to compensate Tigard a reasonable amount for use of the building. F. Tigard agrees to assist the District in preparation of budgets, organization and noticing of meetings and other administrative duties at the request of the District. The District agrees to compensate Tigard a reasonable amount for such assistance. 8. Rules and Regulations. A. The Rules Rates and Regulations for Water Service 'Handbook, (November, 1992), adopted by the Board of Commissioners Tigard Water District is attached hereto as Exhibit "A1° and shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. B. The Tigard City Council may modify, alter or repeal the rules, rates and regulations in Exhibit "A." Rules and regulations will be modified, altered or repealed only after the Intergovernmental Water Board has had the opportunity to study the proposed rules and regulations. The Intergovernmental Water Board is-empowered to make a continuing review of any and all rules and regulations regarding the water system which may be adopted by the Council and periodically to make recommendations to the Council for additions or amendments of such rules and regulations. The Parties agree to comply with the rules and regulations currently in effect and as hereafter adopted by. the Tigard City Council, and water service to the District shall be governed thereby. 9. Extension of Service. A. Extension or modification of District's water distribution system shall be done only with prior written approval of District. Furthermore, Tigard will not make any extensions' or service connections within King City's or Durham's Urban Growth Boundary without permission from the King City or Durham City Council. B. For the unincorporated area within the District, it is the governing body of the District which, subject to the rules and regulations specified in Section 8, has the authority to allow connections to the water supply system. C. Residents located within the District shall not be responsible for any expenses associated with efforts of the City of Tigard to withdraw from the Tualatin Valley Water District to reach the goal of having a single water purveyor for the City. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 13 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 16. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be effective January 1, 1994. CITY O/T ; OREGON Attest: By L hZ UY,-k TIGARD WATER DISTRICT, OREGON Attest: By: dgard\dsardWD.iga(12/23/93 - final) INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TIGARD/WATER DISTRICT - 15 (12/23/93 - FINAL) 111 11 21 EXHIBIT 1°A" ~tjll • RULES, RATES, AND REGULATIONS s For Water Service ;=5 November i • r ••'~~'.yt••i'.i~l':.Sl;,ilir~i~•t~••~:.~•.~'r~?1: t . • . { y!ti jJ~., Adopted by the BOARD OF COMMISSIONER$:: TIGARD h• r • WATER DISTRICT' L~.,",~'.°~```f 4'!;!~'•t Phone 503/639-1554 Y ( 4•w: TlGARD WATER DISTRICT `=t 8777 SW Burnham PO BOX 230000 NOVEMBER 1992 Tigard, OR 97223 Tgard, OR 97281=1999~'t, ::r J. 4` . son °•.rr-Mc:.. 2=,. 3 is ; <<' RULES, RATES; AND REGULATIONS charges for these are shpwn in Appendix l.. The of the'... size of meter shall be determined by management. TIGARD WATER DISTRICT District shall prescribe the number of buildings to be served from one meter and such determination shall be final. No user shall furnish water to any . The Board of Commissioners has adopted the family, business, institution, or premises other than • ' following rules; rates, and regulations for service those occupied by that user; provided, however; - in the Tigard Water District. that the Board may permit a user to supply others - . through user's service connection, in which event Section 1. Application for Service. No service such user will be charged an additional monthly will be supplied or water furnished to any premises minimum for each additional user so supplied. except upon the written application of the legal Such permit may be revoked and separate service owner of the premises, or his duly authorized connections required at any time. agent, upon the printed forms of the District. Such , owner shall be responsible for all charges for Section 5. Furnishing Water. The District shall . service to said premises, whether supplied to not be obligated to furnish and install, at its hiniself or to a renter or occupant thereof, and for expense, system facilities for all property within the thq compliance of any occupant with all rules of District. The District shall, so far as reasonable the District. and practicable and within its financial means,, however, provide adequate source of supply,-. Section 2. Use of Water. Water will be furnished necessary primary feeder mains, storage facilities for ordinary domestic, business and community and other improvements necessary to make water' purposes, and fire protection, only. No water will service generally ;available to all areas within the be furnished for the direct operation of steam District:,,Extensions to furnish water to areas not boilers, machinery or golf courses, except on an now served by the Digtdct will be made at the ' interruptible basis, and the District will assume no expense of (hose persons requesting service. I responsibility therein. Such extensions will be made by the District or by those expressly authorized by the District. All Section 3. Service Size. A standard service applications for line extensions to provide new connection, with 5/ 8" x 3/4" meter, will be service are subject to review by the Board of F installed from the main to the street curb or Commissioners. Consideration will be given to the property line. (See charges in Appendix 1.) The District's ability to serve and to eligibility-for amount of the meter installation charge shall annexation to the'District of the property to be accompany all applications. Larger meters may served. be required for some services. The additional r ;connection which it may have for servicing the don or pollution due to cross connections. property. Water service to any premises shall be,contingent ' upon the customer providing cross connection Section. 11. Cross Connection Control control in a manner approved,by Tigard Water Program. Be it resolved that the Board of District. Backflow devices required to be installed d Commissioners, Tigard Water District, hereby shall be a model approved by the Oregon State • ' • adopts a cross connection control program as Health Division. described below, effective May 13,1986: Authorized employees of Tigard Water District with The purpose of this resolution is to protect the proper identification shall have free access at ' water supply of Tigard Water District from reasonable hours of the day to those parts of a contamination or pollution from potential cross. premise or within buildings to which water is connections; and to assure that approved supplied. Water service may be refused or backflow devices are tested annually. terminated to any premise for failure to allow necessary inspections. The installation or maintenance of any cross connection which would endanger the water ADOPTED by the Board of Commissioners, Tigard supply of Tigard Water District is prohibited. Any Water District, on May 13,1986. such cross connection now existing or hereafter installed is hereby declared unlawful and shall be These requirements must be strictly observed as a rectified as directed by the Board of Commission- matter of public health and to prevent any possible ers or its authorized representative(s), contamination of the water system. The control or elimination of cross connections Section 12. Reading 'Billing. Meters will be read shall be in accordance with the regulations of on or about the 20th day of each month for the Oregon State Health Division. The policies, preceding iwo months. Fifteen days or less will be procedures, and criteria for determining appropri- billed as a half-month. Over 45 days will be billed ate levels of protection shall be in accordance with as two full months. ' the Accepted Procedure and Practice in Cross Connection Control Manual, Amer. Water Works Section 13. Payment-Delinquency. All bills are Association, Pacific Northwest Section, current due on the 12th day of the calendar month .,edition (OR Admin. Rules, Ch. 333-61.070). following billing. The amount due must be paid to an authorized agent of the District, Unpaid bills it shall be the objective of Tigard, Water District to become delinquent after the 12th of the month. protect the potable water system from contamina- When a delinquent bill is not paid, or a rule is ' I MINIMUM violated, thexater will be shut off and service Section 18. Main Extensions, designed and disconnected until payment is received in full, and Installed by the District. All extensfons.of mains, ; I compliance With all rules is made. and laterals of the District, and installed by the. ! District, shall be paid for by,the person or their. Section 14. Water Rates. See Appendix Ii. assigns who desire such extensions, at cost plus Charge for turning off'and on when water service 10% for overhead and supervision, and 8% for. i+ is discontinued for non-payment of bill: $5.00 for engineering. The estimated cost thereof, together ! the first two times; $10.00 thereafter. with such-18%, shall be deposited with the District when application for such main extensions is Section 15. Discontinuance of Service for 30 made. days or more will be made upon written applica-' ' jl tion, without charge, provided all bills are paid. Designed by others, installed.by the District. ii When design or supervision of installation of Section 18. interrupted Service-Changes in improvements is performed by licensed engineers, Pressure. The water may be shut off at any time subject to approval by the Water District,and for repairs or other necessary work with or without installed by the District, a fee shalt be paid of 10% notice. Conditions may cause a variation of the for administration, inspections, water loss, pressure. The District will not be responsible for ' sampling, etc., and 2% for engineering review. any damage caused by interruption of service or The estimated cost therof, together with.such varying pressure. When service is interrupted, hot 12%, shall be deposited with the District when water faucets should be kept closed to prevent application for such. main extentions is made.. 11 back flow of hot water or steam. Designed and Installed by others.When design, Section 17. Service Connection Maintenance. I or supervision of installation of improvements is ' The Water District will maintain all standard I performed by, licensed engineers, and installation d service connections in good repair without is performed and paid for by others, subject to r expense to the users. Each user is required to use approval by the District, a fee of 12% of construc- r reasonable care and diligence to protect the water lion costs shall be imposed for development t meter and meter box from loss or damage by charges. freezing, hot water, traffic hazards, and other ' causes, in default of which, such user shall pay to Size of such extensions, type of pipe, location, the Water District the full amount of the resulting gate valves, fixtures, fire hydrants and other damage. fittings shall be under District specifications and ' subject to District approval, and such mains shall be laid from the end of the existing main to the far Bill TTITTl1 T TTf1TT~n ReT Section 26. Amendmpnts Special Ruie~-. Section 21. Construction Water. Water used via a permanent meter installation for construction Contracts. The Board may at any time amend, . ..'purposes will be billed at the one month's rate change or modify any rule; rate.or charge, or make • special ru,e, rate or contract, and all water. i (See Appendix at completion of construction, any service is subject to such power. but not to exceed a period of 6 months, unless . I authorized by'the District. Section 27. Grievances. Any unresolved E grievances as to service or complaint shall be Section 22. Meter Out-of-Order--Test. If a motor reported and will be considered by the Board at shall fail to measure accurately, the bill shall be the next regular monthly meeting. ' the average for the same periods in prior years. I Tests will be made periodically without charge to Section 28. The Administrator and Employees:. the user, A user may demand a test upon payment are not authorized to make any changes In these ! of a $5.00 charge for such test. If the motor reads rules, rates, or regulations. 5% or more over, such charge shall be.rebated to , ` the user. Section 23. Fire Hydrants. Firo hydrants will bo Approved November 28,1972, installed by the Water District upon receipt of Revised November, 1992;• payment in advance of the estimated cost of the BOARD OF. COMMISSIONERS hydrant, fittings, and installation, plus 10% for I overhead. i Section 24. Fire Hydrant--Temporary Use. Any person who desires to usa a fire hydrant for temporary water supply must obtain'permission of the District. The user will be charged $25,00 for i hook-up. service plus the effective user rate as i shown in Appendix II plus $25.00/month for continued use.'User is responsible for repair and/ or replacement of damaged meter. ' Section 25. Illegal Use of Fire Hydrant or Meter. The penalty for connection to a fire hydrant or meter without proper authority is a $100 fine.. - mill ATTENTION Corrections to Rules, Rates and Regulations, January 1993. • 'These changes to the Rules, Rates and Regulations for Water Service occurred after printing. Please Insert the following in the appropriate places. Wording changes 9 ges within paragraphs are underlined. We apologize for any problems this may have caused. Section a. Separate Connection: (Add the entire section.) A separate service connection will be required for each dwelling, ' apartment or motel, place of business, and institution. All outlying buildings and premises used as a part of such dwelling place or ` business or institution may be served from such connection, as well as all buildings on such premises operated under the one 1 t ' ' management. District shall proscribe the number of buildings to be served from one meter and such determination shall be final. No 1 user shall furnish water to any family, business, Institution or premises other than those occupied by that user, provided, however, that the Board may permit a user to supply others through users' service connection in which event such user will be charged an additional monthly minimum for each additional user so supplied, Such permit may be revoked and separate service connections required at any time. Y • . • • Soctton 9: (Change ~ ' second sentence to read) ' Plumbing should be of high lost. and first class and in egafor te aDOroDrt acodes of ih fllrfadl lion Is~ulnn Ih 1~ manes with the a pressure regulator and where pressures may become high, and 1"motors may be installed at the motor e~ n' y on 5/6"414 by the District to control varying pressures... ='t Section 12: Roading••13MIng. (Cllminate the entire section.) Section 18: (Add sentence at the beginning of the last paragraph In Section 18.) The developer or owner renue_sling the nnstn~ctlon oroje .t shill b If^ble for anv added rost d~!e to det►gn ~(tfi ,IU t. Section 22: (Delete $5.00.) (Add) `...A user may demand a test upon payment of a $225.00 charge for such test... . .r 'h •h:• i+. ytr✓ ''1:•• t "~i• !i . r• •C. ' I • rry' 1 . n+r:.!:•• Y. D~J F 7 Water Advisory Task Force - Future Meeting Agenda Items February 25 7-9:00 Willamette River Supply Plan Review - MSA March 4 7-9:00 Portland Water Supply Plan - Portland Water Bureau March 11 7-9:00 Citizens for Safe Water March 18 7-9:00 Other Cities - Status March 25 7-9:00 Staff - Update (prepare for 2 applicants) April1 7-9:00 Discussions April 8 7-9:00 Recommendation - Designation of spokesperson April 13 Recommendation to City Council 1Apw\wac\Cuture agenda items i 7 i a i 3 IN QD TLAlyO CITY OF Jeffrey L. Rogers, City Attorney p City Hall, Suite 430 u 1221 S.W. 4th Avenue POR'TI1AND, ORE GO Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 823-4047 OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY Fax No.: 823-3089 Iasi February 1, 1999 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Rosenberger, Administrator Bureau of Water Works FROM: Terence Thatch' \ Ruth Spetter Deputy City Attrneys SUBJECT: Wholesale Water Sales: Issues of Certainty and Governance You asked us to address certain legal issues arising from the renegotiation of the City's long-term wholesale water contracts. In particular, you wanted us to discuss: (1) the City's legal authority to sell water wholesale (the "surplus water" question); and (2) methods available to expand wholesale customer involvement in the "governance" or ownership of the City's water system or an expanded regional system. In what follows, we give brief answers to your questions. We will first discuss the City's authority to build and operate a water supply system and its right to sell water outside the City limits. Given our answer to•those questions, we will then discuss various ways in which the region could address concerns about system "governance" and ownership. 1. City Authority to Develop a Water Supply System and Sell Water Outside City Limits The City Charter contains three provisions directly relevant to the City's authority to own and operate a water supply system. Two are found in the general enumeration of City powers found early in the Charter where the City is granted the power to provide for the location, construction, repair and maintenance in or outside the City, of -.iy ditch, canal, pipe, or other facility for the impoundment, storage or conduct or water.. . as it may deem necessary or convenient; [and] to provide for furnishing the City and its residents with water, and to sell water to or for nonresidents. An Equal Opportunity L•mplovct TDD (For Hearing tc Speech hnpairedI f')03! ' Mike Rosenberger February 1, 1999 Page 3 Here, the broadest authority to develop a water supply and sell water is contained in 2- 105(a)(30) and (31). No other Charter section contains an explicit limitation on the authority there granted. Our considered opinion, therefore, is: (a) that the City is authorized to develop a wat--: system sufficient to serve its residents as well as persons and entities outside City limits and (b) that the City need not, although it may, sell only "surplus water" outside the City. (The City Code authorizes the Water Bureau to sell "surplus water" to non-residents. § 21.28.010. Given our reading of the Charter, the Code authorization need not be so limited.)' 11. Governance and Ownership Issues We next turn to the question of how the wholesale customers might gain more ownership or more say in the governance of the regional water supply and transmission system much, but not all of which, is currently owned by the City of Portland. Please bear in mind that this is simply a summary of options. If any are deemed of particular interest, we and lawyers for the other interested parties will have to spend time looking more closely at how they might be implemented. In almost all cases, questions of the legality of a particular approach should be addressed with the specific proposals before us, rather than on a hypothetical basis. A. Joint Ownership of Facilities There are a variety of methods whereby existing or new'facilities could be jointly owned by any number of municipal entities. First, ORS 225.050, long in the statute books, authorizes "any and all cities [to] construct, own, or operate jointly, in such proportion as they may agree, waterworks and water pipe lines, water rights and water." They may own and operate such systems in their own na mes or through joint commissions or agencies. Second, and more broadly, ORS 190.003 to 190.110 allow local governments to enter into virtually any intergovernmental agreement useful to fulfill their public functions. An inter- governmental agreement could clearly allow for water supply facilities that are "jointly constructed, owned, leased or operated." ORS 190.010(3). B. Cooperative Management No matter who owns the facilities, the City Charter and Oregon statutes are also flexible enough to define a variety of arrangements for "governance" or participation in water system management. s The City's Charter authority is also reinforced by the general statutes of Oregon, which allow municipalities broad authority to sell water to both their own residents and others. ORS 225.020, 030. By contrast, water districts appear to be limited to the sale of-surnlus Nvnicr' outside district boundaries. ORS 264.111. Mike Rosenberger February 1, 1999 Page 5 Conclusion We hope this discussion is useful to you. At your convenience and if you wish, we would be happy to discuss any of the topics we address here in more detail. TLT/RS.jtl GAWATERVAI SC.TT1SURPLS.BRF Water Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes February 18, 1999 Members Present. See attached list Staff Present. Mayor Nicole, Paul Hunt, Rill Monahan, Ed Wegner, Mike Miller, Kathy Kaatz, Jennifer Renninger Visitors Present. None L Welcome and Introduction - Tigard City Council Bill Monahan opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and began by passing a sign up sheet to the committee members requesting contact information. Mayor Nicoli welcomed all members of the committee and stated that a decision needs to be made on long-term water, which will include spending millions of dollars. Four years ago Council thought that a deal had been made with the City of Lake Oswego which did not work out and now we have two good options on the table for the committee to look at. The Council thought it would be a good idea to have people from all facets of the community come together to evaluate the long-term water needs. This includes people opposed to the Willamette option, people for this option as well as neighboring communities that will be partners. Mayor Nicoli continued by stating that the Council is requesting this committee to look at this issue and make a decision fairly quickly. These two reports were received in December and staff has reviewed these reports. Mr. Nicoli continued by saying that staff would be available to the committee although staff would not be running the committee. This Water Advisory Committee will need to elect their own chairperson and move quickly in making a decision. Mayor Nicoli asked the committee to keep in mind that two partners, Sherwood and Wilsonville are out of water and have desperate needs. Mayor Nicoli stated that if the Committee wishes, staff will arrange for Portland and the consultants to make presentations. The City of Portland have been very up front with the City of Tigard and has taken the City Council members to Bull Run and showed them the downside to their system. Mayor Nicoli stated that he would like to return to one of the next couple of meetings and share his observations and views with the committee. Mr. Monahan continued with the introduction of staff, Council Members and Committee members present and their area of representation (see attached list). He indicated that the staff members present as well as those not present would be available to the group. Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page 1 I AP W\ W AC\2-18 W A C. M TG. d oa 4• 2. Background - Ed Wegner Where have we been? Mr. Wegner began his discussion of where the City of Tigard has been in relation to the long-term water supply. Mr. Wegner displayed a map outlining the Tigard water service area. He stated that the Tigard water service area is made up of what used to be the Tigard Water District including the unincorporated area (Bull Mountain, Walnut Island), City of Tigard (minus 72nd Street East to I-5), City of Durham and King City. As City staff and elected officials, our responsibility is to provide adequate, safe and economical water service to the citizens. Tigard Water District and the City of Tigard have purchased surplus water from various providers and therefore Tigard does not have one source. Water has been purchased from the City of Lake Oswego for about 20 years and in recent years that purchase has lessen due to growth and expansion in the Lake Oswego area. Tigard currently has contracts for surplus water purchased from City of Portland through the year 2007 with an intertie (Bradley corners) that allows for 8 mgd. The City does own three very low producing wells with a total capacity of approximately 1.2 mgd, however these wells are located in a critical ground water aquifer and are allowed use for only four months of the year. All projections available show that current contracts are only good for short-term water needs. The contract with Lake Oswego is a year to year contract that can be discontinued at any time. Over the past three years there has been a significant reduction in water purchased from Lake Oswego, some of which was caused by economics as well as demand limitations. A contract with Tualatin Valley Water District is for an additional 2 mgd (Baylor). Surplus water is usually constrained due to two reasons, 1) by limit of contract and 2) size of the infrastructure in place. As will become evident in the next few weeks, a lot of infrastructure will be needed to get a long-term water supply for this area. Up until 1994, 80-90% of water was purchased from Lake Oswego, which is treated Clackamas River water. In 1994-95 Lake Oswego growth and demands were making it increasingly difficult to continuing supplying Tigard's summer needs. At that time a revised buying pattern was reversed from purchase of Lake Oswego water to Portland. Today water is purchased at the following rates: 70% City of Portland, 20% Tualatin Valley Water District, 5% Lake Oswego, and 5% or less from City owned wells. In 1993 Tigard began negotiations with Tigard Water District to become more involved with the water supply issues surrounding the City of Tigard. After much deliberation and negotiation it was decided that Tigard would become the operators of the water system for this area. In the Fall of 1993, Tigard commissioned Murray, Smith and Associates to compile an update to the Tigard Water District - Water Supply Plan. In the last few years there has been an 11% increase in water services. As of September of 1998 there are 14,309 services. Water Advisory Conunittee February 18, 1999 Page 2 1:\P W\WAC\2-18 WAC.MTG.doc o < 10,000 services in Tigard a 3,000 in the unincorporated area ® 1,000 King City m 341 Durham Daily and peak averages for 1997 and 1998, which are used for planning, are listed below: m Daily average 1997 5.4 mgd • Peak day 1997 12 mgd ® Daily average 1998 6 mgd Peak day 1998 13.1 mgd Projection for the year 2010 for average daily demand have been estimated at 6.8 mgd and 16.4 peak daily demand. These projections are based upon initiation of an aggressive conservation program (additional decrease of 15%). We have currently reduced water usage over the past five years by 17% with water conservation. The City of Tigard has recently hired a conservation specialist within the last five months to assist with the conservation program. In 1994 the City of Tigard's Water Plan was presented to the Intergovernmental Water Board, which is made up of elected representatives from the Tigard, Durham and King City City Councils as well as a representative from the Tigard Water District and one member at large. Upon recommendation from the IWB to the Tigard City Council this plan was adopted. This plan outlined 7 alternatives for water supply as outlined below beginning from the bottom: 7. Tualatin Valley Water District - uses Bull Run water and the South Shore well fields and the Tualatin and Trask (part of the Joint Water Commission - Hillsboro, Forest Grove, Beaverton, Tualatin Valley Water District). It was determined that this would provide no adequate long-term supply. 6. South Fork Water Board - Made up of West Linn and Oregon City with intake on the Clackamas River. No surplus water was available nor were there any plans for expansion. There were also significant infrastructure needs at a high cost. 5. Joint Water Commission - Barney was-raised a couple of years ago. Tigard is not a member of the JWC and they built only for their members' needs. 4. Tualatin - Purchases all water from the City of Portland. The entities of Portland, Tualatin, Tualatin Valley Water District own the Washington County Supply Line which also had no surplus water available. Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page 3 1APW\WAC\2-18 WAC.MTG.doc With no options available for these sources the remaining three options were reviewed: 3. Lake Oswego 2. Portland Bull Run/Well Fields 1. Willamette River A matrix was developed with emphasis on ownership, water supply agreements and contract provisions, estimated costs of projects, water rights, water quality, system supply implementation timing and certainty of water. These are the same criteria that the Council has suggested be used for this evaluation process. At the time this matrix was developed the following options were rated: 1. City of Lake Oswego 2. City of Portland 3. Willamette - Subregional group 4. Willamette - Tigard by itself The City of Tigard then spent 18 months negotiating with the City of Lake Oswego since Tigard wanted to become a partner versus just purchasing surplus water. Tigard agreed to assist with plant expansion to cover the needs of Tigard and Lake Oswego for an equal partnership. One of the major reasons for not being able to work out a deal was the fact that Lake Oswego's plant is located in the City of West Linn and the West Linn residents objected to any form of expansion and only allow improvements necessary to meet EPA standards. Lake Oswego during the past four years has looked at contracts with other cities such as SouthFork to provide them with future water needs. During this same time period, Tigard was talking with City of Portland and the current Commissioner at that time stated that they were not interested in supplying additional long-term water supply to Tigard, but only the connection for 8 mgd. In late 1996 Tigard began looking at the Willamette River as a water source at the same time that Wilsonville, Sherwood, Tualatin and Tualatin Valley Water District also became interested for various reasons. Tualatin Valley Water District owns water rights on the Willamette for 130 mgd at Wilsonville, City of Wilsonville also has water rights for 20 mgd. At this time, Wilsonville wells are experiencing some water quality problems and are having a hard time obtaining permits from the state to build more wells. Sherwood is also experiencing similar problems and Tualatin is beginning to considering their future options. It was decided that maybe the Willamette should be looked at as a sub-regional option. Since Tualatin Valley already had water rights, they completed a pilot study on the Willamette. The City of Portland, Tualatin Valley Water District and the American Water Works Association Research Foundation placed a small package plant on the Willamette and found it to be a very viable source of drinking water. At this same time, Tualatin Valley completed a raw water monitoring study. The raw water that Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page 4 1AP W\WAC12-18 WAC.MTG.doc will be discussed is the water prior to it entering the filter plant before it has any type of treatment process. In 1997 Tigard began working on this project and Council wanted assurance that this project would be economical and meet or exceed all standards. Last February while working on the Willamette as a source of drinking water, City of Portland approached Tigard for use of Hull Run as a regional asset. This statement was also made to Tualatin for continued service, and Sherwood and Wilsonville for new service. Portland then agreed to have something for these entities to look at by December 15, 1998. These entities are targeting a decision by April of 1999. Mr. Wegner stated before beginning discussion on criteria he would address questions from the committee: Phil Pasteris What Cities upstream are pulling water from the Willamette? Mr. Wegner stated that only Corvallis. Mr. Wegner stated that on March 6 there will be a tour of the Corvallis treatment facility. He continued by stating that Corvallis does not do the raw water monitoring that Tigard has studied. Bev Froude How long have they been drawing from the Willamette? Mr. Wegner stated that they have drawn from the Willamette for a lot of years, but will find out how many years. Gene McAdams How does Tigard fit into the water rights scheme that Tualatin Valley, Sherwood and Wilsonville have? Mr. Wegner stated that t_-, - only entities that have water rights on the Willamette at the Wilsonville diversion point are Tualatin Valley and the City of Wilsonville. There is an agreement in place with the Willamette Water Supply Agency (WWSA) that states they will assign 26 mgd to the City of Tigard if they withdraw the application for separate water rights on the Willamette in which Tigard has agreed. Mr. McAdams questioned how far this 26 mgd would take Tigard? Mr. Wegner stated that it was originally thought that we would need 26 mgd to take us through the year 2050. With a perfection of conservation demands and projections we feel that we can get by with 20 mgd through the year 2050 and have asked both Portland and Willamette Supply Plan to reflect this. Mr. McAdams questioned whether these water rights would be guaranteed? Mr. Wegner stated that through Tualatin Valley they would be guaranteed contractually. Pail Pasteris On the Portland proposal from last year where they offered to be a regional resource - did this mean they would put in dam #3? Mr. Wegner stated that although he did not want to get into the different proposals at this meeting, Portland had wanted to talk Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page 5 1 AP W\WAC\2-18 WAC.MTG.doc about expansion of dam 1 & 2 or build dam 43 to accommodate everyone's needs in the region. Mr. Pasteris questioned the pipe that was laid about ten years on Barbur Blvd., whether this was for the Bull Run supply? Mr. Miller stated this was for the Washington County Supply line, which is tied to Bull Run and owned by Portland, Tualatin Valley Water District and City of Tualatin. Randy [yolk Mr. Volk questioned the issue of PGE's water rights on the Willamette? Mr. Wegner stated that the rights of PGE have not been adjudicated although they said they would be willing to agree if a plant with capacity of 130 mgd is built. Deb Fennell Mr. Fennell questioned the demand of others downstream effect on the Wilsonville site? Mr. Wegner stated that the Willamette study that will be distributed tonight will show even with low flows there would still be adequate supply within the Willamette basin. Phil Pasteris How many cfs would this be? Mike Miller stated that would be approximately 186 cfs on 120 mgd Council Criteria Mr. Wegner discussed information that was provided in the packet to Committee members on evaluation criteria. The City Council and the Intergovernmental Water Board have expressed a strong desire of meeting these criteria when determining long term water supply. a Opportunity for ownership - not a long term contract for twenty five years or a year to year contract but ownership. ® Water Supply Agreements and contract provisions - the desire to be included with others in the region a Certainty of Supply - Will there always be a supply (primary or secondary), ensure water 365 days per year ® Costs of water - what it costs to do business i Water rights - What were the water rights and how are they being handled, who owns and how will they be assigned? • Improvements and estimated project costs - A plan and costs outlined a Supply implementation timing - Ability to meet demand, how will it affect us not „ only short tern but out to 2050 a Water quality - finished treated water will meet or exceed Safe Drinking Water Standards and EPA Standards. In the Fall of 1998, the Council and IWB, in preparation for the two studies determined that the same criteria would be used. In addition they wanted a reflection of a top tier and lower tier values. Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page 6 1:\P W\WAC\2-18WAC.MTG.doc The top tier of criteria figured equally is: • Water quality • Certainty of Supply • Costs Mr. Wegner continued by stating that the players on the Willamette supply are Wilsonville, Sherwood, Tualatin, Tigard, and Tualatin Valley Water District and are proposing a plant near the I-5 Bridge in Wilsonville near the rock and gravel pit. When talking about Bull Run and the Portland System we will be discussing the headworks located at Mount Hood in a restricted area where there are currently two dams, conduits (large piping) that bring the water down to the Powell Butte reservoir located in the Gresham/Sandy area and getting this to the Westside transmission area. We will also be discussing the Columbia South Shore Wellfield. This discussion will be in regards to a regional system for the metropolitan area. Mr. Pasteris questioned whether there would be an opportunity to sell water to Beaverton? Mr. Wegner stated that Beaverton has all water they need and they have the expansion necessary with the Barney system. Mission of Task Force from the resolution - Bill Monahan Mr. Monahan discussed the language in the resolution, which outlines the mission of the task force. He continued by stating that the mission as stated in Section 2 states: The Mission of the Task Force is to submit a report to the Tigard City Council on April 13, 1999, advising Council on determining a permanent, long-range water supply for the City of Tigard The Council will consider the report of the Task Force in its consideration of this issue. Mr. Monahan continued by discussing the basic ground rules'in Section 3 with the following highlights: • Ground rules can be modified to meet the needs of the group. • Committee has 35 members with 24 in attendance at this meeting. • Selection of chairperson and presiding officer if chairperson not present • Criteria - Mission statement connected to criteria established by Council • Completion date - April 13, 1999 • Public Meeting law - follow requirements of ORS 192.620 - Staff to handle • Communications between Task Force Members and City Staff - Jennifer Renninger is the staff liaison assigned to work with the task force and encouraged them to communicate with her. • Task Force agendas and packet information - agendas available at least 24 hours prior to meeting. Agenda topics to be limited to items that would further the mission of the Task Force. Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page 7 1 AP'%V\W AC\2-18 W AC. MTG.doc R ~7 • Commitment - Staff will attempt to provide the Task Force with as comps °te information as possible prior to the meeting and would request that Task Force members are prepared so meetings are as productive as they can be. • Communications among Task Force Members - encourage to suggest agenda items with add on items submitted at beginning of the meeting with hopes that the presiding officer will be able to keep meeting running smoothly. Allow presentations to be made completely while allowing time following presentations for questions. • During meetings discussion will be limited to Task Force members and will allow public comment at the end of the meeting. Break was taken and meeting resumed at 8:25 p.m. Mr. Monahan stated before continuing with the discussion on item 3 of the agenda he would like to address a couple of questions that were raised. Mike Miller addressed Mr. Pasteris question and stated that 120 mgd would equate to 186 cfs. Another question raised was how many Tigard residents do not receive water from City o f Tigard? Mr. Wegner stated that 1,700 service connections are within the City of Tigard but receive water from Tualatin Valley Water District. Select Chairperson Bonnie Bishop - Ms. Bishop stated it was a pleasure to be included in the group. She stated that she is representing a group in Tigard and wanted to call attention to the item in this Resolution that the object of the Task Force is to make recommendation to the Tigard City Council. She expressed concern over the fact that it appears that there are eight members or more that are from Tualatin, Wilsonville, King City and Durham and Sherwood. Although she recognizes there is a problem with their municipalities, it is her understanding that this committee was to give the citizens of Tigard the opportunity to come together and make a recommendation to our City Council. Jan Drangsholt stated that they (King City) are as much a part of the Water District as she is and have every right to be there. Norman Penner agreed as well in regards to the unincorporated area. Patrick Carroll stated that 30% of the total service district is outside the City of Tigard. Ms. Bishop stated that she had been asked to make an objection on behalf of hundreds of citizens of Tigard that this group does not represent citizens of Tigard only. Ms. Bishop stated that they have asked the City Council for greater representation and it seems that by looking at the list, other municipalities are represented. Bill Monahan's response was to bring it up to the group and the group could make some recommendation to the Council or Ms. Bishop, as an individual, may find that she is a minority on this issue. Mr. Monahan stated that this item could be set for a future agenda item or discuss later this evening. Bill Monahan stated that since a chairperson had not been selected yet, he would act as presiding officer and keep the meeting moving. Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page 8 1 AP W\WAC\2-18 W AC.MTG.doc Mark Mahon stated that he had not analyzed the list of Committee members but questioned the percentage of members that are residents or residents of the Tigard Water District versus those outside the City of Tigard or the Tigard Water District? Mr. Monahan restated the question to be how many folks on the Committee live in communities that are not served by our water supply? Stan Baumhofer Steve Chrisman (absent) Tony Weller Scott Franklin (absent) John Helser (absent) Marv Leach Bill McMonagle John Wiitala Jan Drangsholt stated that there appears to be some misunderstanding since discussion of water for King City is Tigard's water and they are a part of the Tigard water service area whereas a lot of Tigard citizens are not and have no voice in where there water ~.omes from since they are Tualatin Valley Water District customers. Ms. Dransholt continued by stating that they feel disenfranchised because 30% of people served by the Tigard Water District have no say in any Tigard's decision - the way they have a voice is through their involvement with the Intergovernmental Water Board and their participation on this Task Force. Bev Froude stated that she would feel comfortable before making any decision to bring back copies of the Intergovernmental Agreement that was signed by all members since this is not a Tigard issue but a Tigard Water District issue. This will be placed on future agenda. Ms. Bishop stated another part of this objection was the amount of people in this room that are tied in with the water board. Citizens are upset about the amount of representation from the Citizens for Safe Water being just one when there are hundreds that have signed a petition that would cancel this whole thing. Mr. Monahan stated that when the Council prepared this list they wanted to put people on this committee who had the time, energy, commitment and interest as exhibited in their prior commitment to governmental issues to look at this question and make an informed recommendation. The Council chose people who have expressed interest and did not attempt to balance the committee. Mr. Monahan stated that this is a Committee that the Council has chosen and if Ms. Bishop, as a committee member wants to raise some objection she can do so. Bev Froude made a comment in regards to this being a public meeting and those people could have attended if they chose to. Bill Monahan reiterated his statement regarding Public Meeting Laws (ORS 192.260) top bullet on page 2 of the Resolution. Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page 9 1:\P W\WAC\2-18 WAC.MTG.doc Craig Dirksen commented on Section 3 'of the agenda on election of a chairperson and stated that many members of the Committee had concerns on having a member of the committee as chairperson. He stated that he would not be interested in chairing this committee as others have expressed as well, since they would prefer to focus on the facts and issue versus the process of the meeting. Mr. Dirksen stated that he would recommend that someone other than a member of the committee chair the meeting and suggested using someone from the City of Tigard's facilitator system. Mr. Monahan requested that Mr. Dirksen explain the facilitator program with the other members. Mr. Dirksen stated that the City of Tigard's CIT process allows for monthly meetings that are facilitated by a trained CIT facilitator to run the meeting in an impartial manner and take no part in the discussion or decision making process. Gretchen Buehner stated that there are some trained facilitators on the Committee, although Mr. Dirksen stated that the same problem would exist and he feels that it would benefit the committee to have an outside unbiased person facilitate the meeting. Mr. Dirksen motioned to research the idea of having a City of Tigard facilitator to facilitate the meeting versus a member of the committee to be finalized at the next meeting. If a facilitator is unavailable a chairperson will be appointed. This motion was seconded by Bonnie Bishop. Phil Pasteris questioned how this would affect Section 3 of the Resolution in regards to appointing a chairperson? Mr. Monahan stated that the Committee could hold off on selection of a chairperson until the next meeting and select a presiding officer for the next meeting to work through this process. Gretchen Buehner stated that she would recommend not to follow that proposal for the following reasons: 1) Committee does have trained facilitators as members, 2) Committee has a seven week window in which to complete task and do not have time to not get leadership and procedural issue resolved tonight and 3) this group is cumbersome enough without having to bring someone up to speed on this complicated issue. Bonnie Bishop also raised another objection in regards to the window of time, which has been imposed by the Mayor and City Council. With a clarification of the motion, Mr. Monahan stated that staff would take the direction that between now and the next meeting, staff would go to the list of trained facilitators and ask if anyone is interested in serving in this capacity and bring back to the next meeting. If there are no available facilitators, the Committee can chose another course or chose a chairperson. A vote was taken on this motion passing with a vote of 12 for and 6 i opposed and 6 abstentions. Choose Meeting Dates As stated in the Resolution from the Council a deadline has been set for April 13, 1999, Mr. Monahan questioned whether the Committee would like to stick with this date and modify later as needed or if there are objections to that deadline they can be addressed to Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page- 10 1 AP W\WAC\2-18 W AC.MTG.doc Councilor Hunt. Jan Drangsholt stated that a deadline is necessary in order to make a commitment in order to allow time to implement action since there are other cities waiting for Tigard's decision. Craig Dirksen questioned how this date was determined? Mr. Monahan stated that since Council had made statements that they wanted to reach a decision in April. Mr. Wegner stated that Council had tentatively scheduled to make a decision at Council meeting on April 27 and to back that up we would need a recommendation by this Committee by April 13. Bev Froude questioned whether some other partners are waiting for our decision. Mr. Monahan stated that Wilsonville and Sherwood have commented through staff that everyone is on a different track although they all want to make a decision in 1999. Tony Weller from the City of Tualatin stated that 80% of their need has already been allocated but are looking at filling the gap for long term situation. Bev Fronde asked what the moratorium date for the City of Wilsonville? Mr. Monahan stated he was not aware of that date. Bonnie Bishop stated that she hated to see the Committee put constraints on itself since Wilsonville is also circulating a petition to not go to the Willamette River. Phil Pasteris stated that other than the report to be distributed to the Committee for review, a schedule of what materials will be presented has not been supplied, so it is hard to gauge a deadline. Mark Mahon stated that it is important to have deadline although not enough info has been submitted to consider whether the deadline is reasonable but it is important to get process started and the deadline may need to be adjusted at a later date. Bob Gray stated that we are only talking about quality of water, certainty of supply and costs and if the information can be obtained relative to those issues should not be a problem. Bill Monahan stated that the Committee needs more information prior to making a decision and at this point Ed Wegner will distribute the sunuriaries of the proposals to the Committee and perhaps provide an estimate of time needed to review this information. Mr. Wegner stated that when the Council and Staff received the full reports it was determined that it was easier to have presentations by both individual agencies. At the IWB, both Murray, Smith and Associates and the Portland Water Bureau were invited to make about a 45 minutes presentation followed by a short question and answer period. Mr. Wegner distributed the executive summary, which is a recap of all chapters in the report, which includes the eight criteria points. i Discussion was held on whether it would be beneficial to hear both presentations on the same night or separate on different nights. Bonnie Bishop questioned whether the Task Force members would have the opportunity to have independent technical medical i presentations made? Bill Monahan stated that this group would make those decisions. If j the group as a whole wants to ask for additional resources they can decide if that is an Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page 1 l 1:\P W \W AC\2-18 W AC. MTG.doc expenditure they want to make. Chuck Woodard stated that he felt it was important to begin the base information before reviewing other information. Tony Welder suggested that the Committee hear both presentations at the same meeting and then develops a work plan and evaluate the deadline. He also suggested that the Committee plan the next 2-3 meetings and develop a scope of work. A motion was made by John Haunsperger to meet next Thursday and then meet regularly each Thursday between now and the deadline date. This motion was seconded by Mark Mahon. Motion was voted upon with vote results 21 for and 2 opposed, 1 abstention. The next meeting will be Thursday, February 25 with staff attempting to get Portland and Murray, Smith and Associates to make presentations. Mr. Wegner stated that the process used at the IWB and Wilsonville meetings was to do the presentations with questions from the Board or Council and took written questions from the public at the end. Distribute Summaries of f the Proposals Mr. Wegner stated that there are complete reports available from both Portland and Murray, Smith and Associates and staff will be put together a list of other information and resources available to the next meeting. At this time the executive summaries of both reports were distributed to the Committee. Gene McAdams stated that in reference to the membership of the Committee and that he was unaware that there was area outside the Tigard area that was served by the City of Tigard. He continued by saying that some assurance to the citizens that various agencies will have to assume the same responsibility for costs and water delivery would take some worry out of the membership of the group. Jan Drangsholt suggested that the cost comparison of both reports be provided. Bonnie Bishop questioned whether the membership would be interested in a handout that the Citizens for Safe Water Group and their technical people have prepared? She then distributed those to all members present. Norman Penner suggested when discussing outside consultants that the Committee have a chance to review credentials and a written statement be presented to the Committee prior to placing them on the agenda. Henrietta Cochrun stated that if an outside consultant is allowed to do a presentation that an equally qualified expert be allowed to attend to clarify or rebut the presentation. c The next agenda will include the following: • Presentations on proposals e Resources available • Future meeting agenda Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page 12 1 APW\WAC\2-18 WAC.MTG.doc jglil~zjpi so RPM Mr. ivi3itaiiali btiltrlu again iflat Ur, UVII ia4it ~iBTatiia JLV U i'a %'IU iiucv is JVrALLva a&&%& w contact her if interested in taking the tour of the Hillsboro - Joint Water Commission on February 27 or the Corvallis plant on March 6. Jennifer can be reached at 639-4171, extension 429. Bill Monahan also stated that copies of the IGA would be provided at the next meeting. We will be contacting all members not present at this meeting and ensuring notification of the next meeting. The location of the next meeting will most likely be at this location although the other options are at Town Hall or the Senior Center. Bev Froude stated that we need to emphasize the importance of welcoming the public and need to accommodate the Committee to ensure that everyone can hear and see all the presenters. Gretchen Buehner questioned whether a microphone system could be included? Staff to check into availability. Mr. Monahan stated that a press release will be issued that this meeting was held and the next meeting will be on February 25. This press release will also include a comment that clarifies for the public that these meetings are open to the public and that there will be an opportunity on the end of the agenda for questions and comments from the general public. Ed Wegner stated that on Wednesday, February 24 from 7:00-9:00 p.m. At the Water Building there will be a Water open house with stations set up and represented by Portland, WWSA, conservation, Citizens for Safe Water and City of Tigard. There will also be an opportunity to ask questions of the presenters. The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page 13 1APW1WACl2-18 WAC.MTG.dcc NIN 11:111I1I i John Haunsperger, Tigard Water District Member Elaine Beauregard, Tigard resident Phil Pasteris, Tigard resident, employed by Dept of Agriculture Randy Volk, Tigard resident, ex employee of Tigard Water District Clarence Nicoli, ex Tigard Water District Board Member Bob Gray, Tigard contractor Bonnie Bishop, Representing Citizens for Safe Water, Tigard resident, retired from Portland Community College Sterling Marsh, Tigard resident Mark Mahon, Tigard resident Gretchen Buehner, Tigard resident, Tigard Water District Board Member Paul Hunt, Tigard City Council, Intergovernmental Water Board Mike Miller, Utility Manager, City of Tigard Ed Wegner, Public Works Director, City of Tigard Kathy Kaatz, City of Tigard Patrick Carroll, Durham City Council, Intergovernmental Water Board Gene McAdams, Tigard resident Jan Drangsholt, Mayor of King City, Intergovernmental Water Board Beverly Froude, Resident unincorporated area, Tigard Water Board, Intergovernmental Water Board Henrietta Cochran, King City resident Roel Lundquist, City Administrator - City of Durham Craig Dirksen, Tigard resident 'INTorman Penner, Unincorporated resident, Tigard Water District Chuck Woodard, Tigard resident Gary Ott, Tigard resident Marland Henderson, Tigard resident Stan Baumhofer, Tigard water consumer, Lake Oswego unincorporated area resident Tony Weller, Tualatin City Council Paul Owen, Tigard resident Jennifer Renninger, Assistant Water Resource Planner - City of Tigard Water Advisory Committee February 18, 1999 Page 14 IAP W\WAC\2-18 WAC.MTG.doc WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT Presentation to Water Task Force February 25, 1999 HE 99 PROJECT OVERVIEW O Certainty of Supply for Participants o Demand and Capacity Needs o System Components - Size and Location o Permitting o System Reliability o Endangered Species Act O Water Quality o Willamette River Raw Water -Take Another Look o Treatability o Drinking Water Standards ® Present ® Futu re O Costs o Initial o Financing o Operation and Maintenance o Long Term Financial Impacts a i i ~ d LL ETTE RIFER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM-, SUPPLY SYSTEM COMPONENTS River Intake & Rave Water Pump Station O Water Treatment Plant O High Service Pump Station O Finished Water Transmission Main WI L LAMB l ROVER ATeR SUPPLY SYSTEM pill IM C"'APITAL COSTS O City of Tigard's Costs o Construction: $34.7 million o Contingencies and Other Factors: $5.5 million o Project Cost: $40.2 million O Total Project Cost: $92.3 million d How far does this $40 million investment take the Tigard water service area? --WILLAMETTE ROVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM-, poll 1 wool costs Ot costs Certainty ioo~ i i i 1 cn C s 43 i U { a T prelimina~ CL Engineering Level Construction S Jr F. ineerin9 L V S Ong I su { 0 Conceptual ` ---.MEN now SCHEDULE O Tigard's New Supply Could Be Complete in -2002 o Decision to Proceed Spring 1999 o f=inancing in Place Mid 1999 o Biological Assessment Complete Mid 1999 o Wetland Delineation and Mitigation Efforts Initiated Mid 1999 o Permit Applications Submitted Mid 1999 O Implementation Issues o Governance o Project Development o Project Financing o Further Detailing Technical Issues ' WILLAMETTE ROVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM a man- SUPPLY SYSTEM RELIABILITY O Reliability o Floods o Turbidity • 1996 Flood Events ® Recent Storms - Joint Water Commission - City of Corvallis o Power Outages o Water Quality *-WILLAMETTE ROVER WATER SUPPLT SYSTEM-* PREVIOUS RAE/ WATER MONITORING SHOWED THE RIVER IS SUITABLE AS A WATER SOURCE O 1994-1995 TVWD Monitoring O 1991-1995 USGS Monitoring O Potential for Organic Contaminants a Concern i i LLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUFFLY'SYSTEM TIGARD BEGAN UPDATED RAW WATER MONITORING IN JULY 1999 O All SDWA Regulated Contaminants O EPA Contaminant Candidate List O All Pesticides and Herbicides Detected by USGS Anywhere in Willamette Basin O 25 Suspected Endocrine Disrupters WILLAMETTE ROVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM4 Moll TABLE 1 WILLAMETTE RIVER RAW WATER MONITORING PLAN TARGETED CONTAMINANTS EPA Secondary Drinking EPA Primary Drinking Water Standards Water Standards Supplemental Measurements Contaminants Organics, continued Aluminum (Phase II) alkalinity Fluoride trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene Chloride calcium and total hardness Dichloromethane Color (Color Units) total organic carbon Volatile Organics 1.2-Dichloropropane Corrosivity. Sat. Index dissolved organic carbon Benzene Oinoseb (Roudde)z UV-254 Absorbance Carbon Tetrachloride Dioxin Fcaming Agents (Total Coliform) p-Dichlorobenzene Diquat Ircn Fecal Coliform 1,2-Dichloroethane 2.4-D Manganese HPC 1,1-Dichloroethylene Endothall Odor (TON) Ammonia nitrogen Tdchloroethylene Endrin (pH) Flavor Profile Analysis 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Epichlorohydrin' Silver (Giardia) Vinyl Chloride Ethylbenzene (Sulfate) Cryptosporidium Ethylene dibromide Total Disscived Solids Bromide Coliform and Surface Water Glyphosate Zinc (Zrnc) Treatment Heptachlor Total Organic Halogens (TOX) Giardia Lamblia Heptachlor epoxide (VOCs) Legionella Hexachlorobenzene (Inorganic Chemicals) Standard Plate Count Hexachlorocyclopentadene EDB/DBCP Total Coliform Lindane (Organochlorine Pesticides) Turbidity Methoxychlor Semivolatiles Viruses Oxamyl(Bydate) Carbamates PAHs(benzo(a)pyrene) (Herbicides) Inorganics PCBs (Gtyphosate) Antimony Pentachlorophenol (Dioxin) Asbestos(>10m) Phthalate (di(2-ethylhexyl)) (Endothall) Barium Picloram (Diquat) Beryllium Simazine (Gross alphaibeta) Cadmium Styrene Chromium(total) Tetrachloroethylene Cyanide Toluene Mercury(inorganic) Toxaphene Nitrate 2,4,5-TP Nitrite 1,2,4-Tdchlorobenzene Selenium 1,1,2-Tdcliloroethane Thallium Xylenes(total) Organics Lead and Copper Acrylamide' Lead Adipate(di(2-ethyihexyl) Copper Alachlor Atrazine Other Interim Standards Carbofuran Betalphoton emitters Chlordane Alpha emitters Chlorobenzene Combined Radium 2261228 Dalapon Arsenic Dibromochloropropane Total THMs _ o-Dichlorobenzene + cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene a i JOTES: a 1. No limits have been developed for acrylamide of epichlorohydrin. EPA Primary Drinking Water Standards cite best treatment technology applications. (Contaminant) identifies a repeat parameter already listed. 3. EPA Candidate Contaminant List includes pesticides currently under EPA Organophosphate Review. Viable methods have not yet been developed for measuring microbial contaminants found on the Contaminant Candidate List. i. Contaminants listed in order of greatest USGS Study sampling frequency: Dislribudon of Dissolved Pesticides and Other Water Ouality Constituents In Small Streams and their Relation to Land Use In the Willamette River Basin, Oregon 3. No quantitative methods exist for the measurement of fonofos. 1996. 1. EPA is in the process of developing reliable methods for quantifying organotins and RDX. These contaminants will not be measured. 3. For these compounds, there is either no EPA method available for measurement, or the current methods produce 'flake' results. TABLE 1 CGgrl WILLAMETTE RIVER RAW WATER MONITORING PLAN TARGETED CONTAMINANTS u y o rsso ve es is es Suspected Endocrine EPA Candidate Contaminant List in the Wlliamette River Basin, 1996' Disruptors contaminants contaminants, Continued ::ontaminants (atrazine) 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (Sulfate) (atrazine) (simazine) 1,2.4•trimethylbenzene Terbacil desethylatrazine (metolachfor) 1,1•dichloroethane Terbufos (samazine) (desethylatrazine) 1,1-cichloropropene Triazines & degradation (metolachlor) (diuron) 1,2-diphenylhydrazine products (incl. but not (diuron) hexazinone 1,3•dichloropropane limited to Cyanazine, and Tebuthiuron (diazinon) 1,3-dichloropropene atrazine-desethyl) Pronamide cycloate 2,4,6-trichlorophenol Vanadium (Prometon) desisopropylatrazine° 2,2•dichloropropane (Metribuzin) (terbacii) 2,4•dichlorophenol Microbial Contaminants` (Diazinon) (DCPA) 2,4-dinitrophenol Acanthameoba (guidance Triclopyr (EPTC) 2,4-dinitrotoluene expected for contact lens (EPTC) (napropamide) 2,6•dinitrotoluene wearers) Ethoprop (prometon) 2-methyl-Phenol Adenoviruses (2,4.0) (chlorpyrifos) Acetochlor Aeromonas hydrophilia Dichlobenil° (ethoprop) Alachlor ESA and other Cyanobacteria (Blue-green (rerbacil) (fonofos) degradation product of algae), other freshwater Bromacil (carbaryl) acetanilide pesticides algae, and their toxins Chlorpyrifos (carbofuran) Aldrin Caliciviruses Triailate' (tebuthiuron) Boron Coxsackieviruses Carbaryl (metribuzin) Bromobenzene Echoviruses MCPA (pronamide) DCPA mono-acid degradate Helicobacter pylori Atrilluralin trifluralin DCPA di-acid degradate Microsporidia Dicamba (trichlopyr) DOE (Enterocytozoon & Septata) Oryzalin (2.4-D) Diazinon Mycobacterium avium (Carbofuran) Cieldrin intracellulare (MAC) (DCPA) Disulfoton Napropamide Diuron Insecticides Under Review (Fonofos)s EPTC Chlorpyrifos Propachlor Fonofos' (Diazinon) Bentazon Hexachlorobutadiene Malathion (Malathion) p-Isopropyltoluene (Terbufos) (Alachlor) Unuron Parathion Norfurazon' hfanganese (Dinoseb) Methyl Bromide Bromoxyrile Metolachlor Proparnl' Metribuzin Molinate MTBE Naphthalene Nitrobenzene Organotins7 Perchlorate Prometon RDX~ Sodium 0 NOTES: ~ 1. No limits have been developed for acrylamide of epichlorohydrin. EPA Primary Drinking Water Standards cite best treatment technology applications. 2. (Contaminant) Identifies a repeat parameter already fisted. 3. EPA Candidate Contaminant List includes pesticides currently under EPA Organophosphate Review. 4. Viable methods have not yet been developed for measuring microbial contaminants found on the Contaminant Candidate List. 5 S. Contaminants listed in order of greatest USGS Study sampling frequency: Distribution of Dissolved Pesticides and Other Water Ouali y Constituents In Small Streams and their Relation to Land Use in the Willamette River Basin. O' 996 S. No quantitative methods exist for the measurement of fonofos. 7. EPA Is in the process of developing reliable methods for quantifying organotins and RDX. These contaminants will not be measured. 3. For these compounds, there is either no EPA method available for measurement, or the current methods produce 'flake' results. RESULTS OF FIRST FOUR MONTHS CONSISTENT WITH PAST RESULTS O No Detects in 2 Sets of Lour Flog Samples o 64 Semi-Volatile Organics o 19 Acid Extractable Organics (Phenols) o 15 Herbicides o Diquat, Paraquat, EDS, DSCP o 14 Organophosphorous Pesticides o 41 Nitrogen and Phosphorous Pesticides o 64 Volatile Organics o 30 SPINA Regulated Pesticides o Dioxin WILLAMETTE RIFER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM-* lull MAY BE N DETECTS OUT of 17 ORGANIC CHEMICALS ANALYZED O Simazine (1.7 ug/L) Detected by Montgomery Labs Method O Not Detected by 2 EPA Methods in Sarre Water Sample O Not Detected in Repeat Sampling on September 23, 1999 O Not Detected in November 1993 Sampling O Not Detected in Previous Sampling O If Present, Still at Levels Below MCL of 4 ug/L, will Be Further Removed by Treatment *-WILLAMETTE -RIVER WATER SUPPLE' SYSTEM_* MAY BE No DETECTS CUT OF 170 ORGANIC C EMICALS ANALYZED O Dichloromethane Detected at 102 ug/L in Second Round, Not in First Round O Not Detected in Previous Sampling O Frequent Laboratory Contaminant O If Present, Still at Levels Well Below MCL of 5 ug/L WILLAMETTE RIVER WAFER SUPPLY SYSTEM OTHER PARAMETERS TYPICAL OF PNW !MATER SOURCES AND PREVIOUS RESULTS O Hardness O Glardia, Crypto, Microbials O Metals O Turbidity O Natural Organic Flatter - (TOC) Disinfection by Product Precursors 1 L&AMET E RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM** *TR TREATMEN-T ROPOSE Raw n qq water t ~ icot Addition: Chem chloride to users ®Ferric flocculation Sedimentation opolymer Oxidation Filtration activoted • Ozone a carbon r(GAC) Chlorine Contactor s Sond o Moderate Filtration rotes mom NEW= TREATMNT PROCESS MEETS CURRENT REGULATIONS Current Floc Sed Oaonation GAC Corrosion Final Regulation Filtration Control Disinfection Turbidity ✓ ✓ ✓ (IESWTR) Coliform ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Bacteria (TCR) Giardia ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (IESWTR) Cryptosporidium ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (IESWTR) Lead (LCR) ✓ SOC's (Phase I, ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ II, V) THM's (D/DBP) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ HAA's (D/BBP) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ i d AN ANTICIPATES FUTURE REGULATIONS Regulation Floc Sed ®aonation GAC' Corrosion Final Filtration Control-. Disinfection THM DBP)s (Stage 2 V/ ✓ V/ DBP) DBP) (Stage 2 HAA's V/ V/ IV/ DBP) Cryptosporidium ✓ d (ESWTR) Filter Backwash ✓ V/ ✓ Contaminant Candidate List V/ V/ WILLAMETTE RIVER WAFER SUPPLY SYSTEM* PLANT DESIGNED TO MEET REGULATIONS TO AT LEAST THE END OF THE NEXT DECADE Regulatlon Date Regulation Ceases Into Effect THM's (Stage 2 DBP) 2007 HAA's (Stage 2 DBP) 2007 ESWTR (Cryptosporidium) 2007 Filter Backwash 2003 Contaminant Candidate List 2007 2013 + I LLAMETTE RIVER WAFER SUPPLY SYSTR ~ 1010 FINISHED WATER AT THE TAP WILL BE THE BEST IN THE REGION Regulation Willamette River Typical Regional EPA Standards Supply Range! Bacteria 0% 0% 5% Lead 5-10 10-15 15 Turbidity 0.01-0.1 0.05-0.3 0.3/1 THM's 5-10 15-40 80 (40) HAA's 5-10 15-30 60 (30) Giardia >99.99% 99.9% 99.9% Removal Removal Removal Cryptosporidium >99.99% 0-99% 0-99% Removal Removal Removal (99-99.99% Removal WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY STSTE C T I ACTS Assumptions o Inflation o Tigard's Current Bond Rating o System Development Charges (SDC's) Growth Pays for Growth Maximize Utilization of SDC's O Key Issues o ownership Will Impact Long Term Costs o Owning Tangible Assets Allows SDC's to offset Customer Costs WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLI SYST E KO SSUMPT1 UO"' No S O 3% Inflation - O 5.1% Interest O Growth per City Water Demand Estimates WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPL ' SYST man J EC°T COST IMPACTS O Operating Costs - Volume Charge O Capital Costs - City Funded with Debt O SDC's - Used to Offset Debt Service i 7 WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY STSTENa GROSS SUPPLY CST City of Tigard Gross Supply system Water Cost Summary $9,000,000 $8.000.000 $7,000,000 ❑ Supply System 12 $6,000,000 Capital Costs a o $5,000,000 a $4,000,000 $9,000,000 ® Wholesale Water $2,000,000 Charges $1.000.000 O`t' 00 00 ~ '~'1 20 ti0 Rr° 'LO 32 O~ 00 20 20 I ON 20 ~O 20 ~O ~O Ip ,ti0 ZO Fiscal Year Ending ~ WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM-, I - I GROSS UNIT COST F WATER City of Tigard Gross Unit Cost Summary $2.50 $2.00 f ` f ` $1.50 c e - ` e . c $1.00 0 $0.50 00`ti 000` 00rO 000 0y0 0,ti Oye` 0~6 O'.0 0`1O 0`t~ 0<lb O`b~° O't0 0,~0 001. 0~0. 000 00® 0b0 Fiscal Year Ending - - -Escalated Dollars Constant 1998 Dollars i i s WILLAMETTE ROVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM NET UNIT COST WATER City of Tigard Net Unit Cost Summary $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 m a $1.00 - - - - $0.50 00`L 000` 000 000 0.~0 0.~`L O'.e` Oyr° 0,~® 0`LO O`1'~'' Ode` 0~0 09® 000 O"9' 000` OOr° 000 00,0 Fiscal Year Ending Net Cost, Escalated $ Net Cost, Constant 1998 $ --Net Savings, Escalated $ -Net Savings, Constant 1998 $ i i 3 P WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLI SVST SUMMARY O Certainty o Effort Has Increased Tigard's Level of Certainty O Water Quality o We Know What is Really in the Water o The System Will Supply the Highest Quality Drinking Water O The Proposed Willamette River Water Supply System For Tigard o Economic o Certain o Long Term WILLAMETTE ROVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM-* WATER ADVISORY TASK FORCE Agenda Thursday, March 4,1999 7:00 p.m. Tigard Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 1. Introduction and Roll Call 2. Distribution of Citizens for Safe Water Speaker Credentials 3. Presentation - Portland Water Bureau 4. Questions/Answers by Task Force Members BREAK 5. Written Questions/Answers - Public 6. Comparison Questions/Answers by Task Force Members a. Portland Water Bureau & Murray, Smith and Associates 7. Future Meeting Agenda Items 8. Public Comments 9. Adjournment 1:\pw\wac\34 agenda City of Portland Water Bureau Proposal for Expanded Service Presentation to the Tigard Intergovernmental Water Board January 13., 1998 City of Portland Water Bureau. Portland Water System Plan for Proposal for Expanded Service Expanded Southwest Service ®A contract already exists with Tigard effective until 2007. Presentation to the ®The Portland water system is of very high Tigard Intergovernmental Water Board quality and backed by a base of January 13, 1998 experience to operate that system. ®The proposal contains a specific set of improvements designed to meet Tiigard's water supply needs over the long term. Portland Water System Plan for Portland Water System Plan for Expanded Expanded Southwest Service Southwest Service EFlexibility of proposal ®Conservabon ® Proposed east-west transmission route could ® The costs and savings of conservation be located further south and benefit from programs not included in proposal. multiple users. ® Assumption of regional commitment. ® Winter use of Portland system ® Refines timing and costs of system ® Added supply increments could include a improvements. third dam'in the Bull Run. Primary Issues Addressed by the Portland Proposal Water Supply Needs Assumptions ® Adequate transmission and storage. ® Portland water demand forecast is based IN Supply source enhancements utilize existing on actual historical consumption data and investments and are increased incrementally climate records back to 1943. over time. ®Population forecasts were obtained from ® The projects are implementable in a timely Metro based on geographic service areas. manner. ® Reliable system provides high quality water. ®A factor for historic reductions due to ® Reasonable costs are equitably allocated. conservation have been included in the forecast. 1 Portland Water System Plan for Portland Water System Plan for Expanded Southwest Service Expanded Southwest Service •Cost of providing Portland water service is reasonable ® More analysis and detail can be provided. and based on equitable cost distribution. ® Portland welcomes discussion about Wpplying water ® Portland recognizes Tigard and other wholesale for duration of edsting contract and over the longer customers want role In selecting system Improvements. term. ■Actual costs and rates need refinement through contract negotiation. ® Some facilities In the proposal could be financed directly by those using facilities. Expanded Southwest Service Plan Water PEAK SEASON DEMAND Supply Needs Table 4 1. Peak Season Demand and Supply ro. µins.. a.a..Q ou•.a f•asM. a.a..p i •wMa •.w.n 2. Peak Day Demand and Supply 2- 'S• 28.2 31.3 I.A 3. West Side Demand and Supply . 114 149 194 pn.n )Li ' 75J DJ 4. Emergency Demand and Supply .z 326 36.4 b.° Peak Season Supply Table3 PEAK DAY DEMANDS TaNta 5 I I ;e<c •a Z",1 M4 2 3104 +v.......r.ry... 1-a ma em.r s a+.d I ~ se i u's limo ~.w•s.lM+.s_i~'~H_i.°!..iL~- i liao__. L_ w_M~' fry. w •...ry t1_ 3 Expanded Southwest Service Plan Facility Summary Table 2 Cost Analysis ~Trw~lii Tew'.d6sp: w~...rrni-rVa~ _j (a ""W4 1. ® Existing Major Supply and Transmission i j ft row n~ ® New Major Supply and Transmission ryrae n.rrvan.e..a xwI°o Southwest Transmission Facilities +:cW Urndo wrq i ~ i i 55 a. .e. c m.n Cam -?~sarrEO - -ss- 'lwa-~uw-emu _15._ Major Supply and Transmission Existing Major Supply and Transmission Existing Facilities Facilities: Assumptions ®Extension of existing contract pricing M Facilities include: R Costs ® Supply - dams, Headworks and I Operations and Maintenance (O&M) groundwater system I Asset depredation (based on replacement value) ® Conduits from watershed I Return on Investment (ROI) • Terminal storage ® Unit Costs I Total of all costs/total demand I No differential peaking ratios between customers Dam MIMI Major Supply and Transmission Existing Major Supply and Transmission New Fa ilitipc Acc~~i r ne Facilitip-- _ ® Dam 1 and 2 raises EContinuous facility reinvestment M New Conduit 5 92% Increase In depreciation and ROI ®O&M cost increase at 2% Inflation M Well field improvements field ® ASR i 5 Cost Per Unit for Existing Supply and Transmission Facilities Cost Per Urit for 64 sting 9-jt9p y & TramM ss cn Facilities $1.60 51. a0 s,a9 o $1.00 E $0.60 so.bo $0 .410 2"0 9040.- 3120 9090 9040 2D60 Figure 9 Peak Season Supply with Incremental Enhancements Compared to Demand During Driest and Average Weather Conditions so- supphl 2A BG 45 East sure Asa 2A BG 24 BG Went Side ASR 40 Teeawwd IS GG a Dam ad" 0 2.3 0G 35 GW t7 a 30 c 0 In 25 20 15 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 v"ra - Unit Costs of Systemwide Additions to Supply and Transmission i lt-it Costs of Gysb3mW da Addti ores i tc) txly andTra-isnisdon 6ystem i $ 00 ~ $0.80 v 7 $0.00 v $0.40 kwaa~ M~ m~sad W ~ «eer tnmw.e tit aan. $0.00 2000 2090 20120 2030 210140 2150 t . . ` T Of y H y United States Department of the Interior P . ` 'GEOIZGICAL 6URVEY Water Resources Division - Pacific Nordumst Area Oregon District 10615 S.E. Cherry Blossom Drive V Portland, Oregon 97216 September 21, 1991 Mr. Michael Walker Tualatin Valley Water District P.O. Box 745 Beaverton, Oregon 97075 Dear Mr. Walker: Enclosed is a joint funding agreement for development and operation of a flora routing model to calculate mean daily discbarges for the Willamette River at Wilsonville, Oregon. `le agreement covers the 1993 fiscal year (October 1, 1992, to September 30, 1993). The flaw model (DAFLO) will route flows from the Willamette River at the Salem gaging station and the South Yanhill River gage to the WilLimette River at Wilsonville. 4he model will be initially calibrated by ecwparing historical data from the old Wilsonville gage, and thereafter will be adjusted to periodic disdui ge measurements the USGS (U.S. Geological. Survey) will take at Wilsonville. Accuracy of the routed flows is e--q ted to be within 5 percent for the 1993 water year. Accuracy for the 1992 water year will be slightly less due to the lack of discharge measurements at Wilsonville during this period. We can provide provisional data for the 1992 water year in January 1993, and provisional 1993 water year data on a bimonthly basis beginning in January 1993. Mie flow-routed data will remain provisional until all supporting measured data have been published. Federal matching dollars (50/50 cost share) are available for this program. Cost for our fiscal year 1993 (October 1, 3992, to September 30, 1993) are as follows: TVWD USGS Total i 1992 WY (water year) flow calculation $1,100 $1,100 $2,200 ' 1993 WY flow calculation and discharge 3,250 3,250 6,500 measurements f Total for FY 1993 $4,350 $4,350 $8,700 Fofm:i36G Department of the Interior V: 666) Geological Survey. Joint Funding Agreement FOR Water Resources Invqstigations , THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the • 1st °daif 'of October 1992 by the GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. UNITED STATES *DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, party of the first part, and the Tualatin Valley Water District party of the second part. 1. The parties hereto agree that subject to the availability of appropriations and in accordance with their respective authorities there shall be maintained in cooperation a streamflow routing program for the Willamette River at Wilsonville, Oregon, hereinafter called the program. 2. The following amounts shall be contributed to cover all of the cost of the necessary field and office work directly related to this program, but excluding any bureau level general administrative or accounting work in the office of either party. (a) $ 4,350 by the party of the first part during the period October 1, 1992, to September 30, 1993 (b) $ 4,350 by the party of the second part during the period October 1, 1992, to September 30, 1993 (c) Additional amounts by each party during the above period or succeeding periods as may be determined by mutual agreement and set forth in an exchange of letters between the parties. 3. Expenses Incurred in the performance of this program may be paid by either party in conformity with the laws and regulations respectively governing each party, provided that so far as may be mutually agreeable all expenses shall be paid in the first instance by the party of the first part with appropriate reimbursement thereafter by the party of the second part. Each party shall furnish to the other party such statements or reports of expenditures as may be needed to satisfy fiscal requirements. 4. The field and office work pertaining to this program shall be under the direction of or subject to periodic review by an authorized representative of the party of the first part. 5. The areas to be included in the program shall be determined by mutual agreement between the parties hereto or their authorized representatives. The methods employed in the field and office shall be those adopted by the party of the first part to insure the required standards of accuracy subject to modification by mutual agreement. 6. During the progress of the work all operations of either party pertaining to this program shall be open to the inspection of the other party, and if the work is not being carried on in a mutually satisfactory manner, either party, may terminate this agreement upon 60 days written notice to the other party. 7. The original records resulting from this program will be deposited in the office of origin of those records. Upon request, copies of the original records will be provided to the office of the other party. 8. The maps, records or reports resulting from this program shall be made available to the public as promptly as possible. The maps. records or reports normally will be published by the party of the first part. However. the party of the second part reserves the right to publish the results of this program and. if already published by the party of the first part shall. upon request, be furnished by the party of the first part. at cost. Impressions suitable for purposes of reproduction similar to that for which the original copy was prepared. The maps, records or reports published by either party shall contain a statement of the cooperative relations between the parties. 9. Billing for this agreement will be rendered annually . Payments of bills are due within 60 days after the billing date. If not paid by the due date, interest will be arged at the current Treasury rate for each 30-day period. or portion thereof. that the payment is delayed beyond t ue date. (31 USC 3717; Comptroller General File B-212222. August 23. 1983.). Tt1ALA WVAEY R DISTRICT GEOLOG ICAL SURVEY UNITED STATES By DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR . • n~ T o By (SIGNATURE & TITLE) By Marvin 0. Fretwell District Chief Oregon tUSE REVERSE SIDE IF ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES ARE REOUIRED) CORRECTION THE PRECEEDING RECORD OR DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN RE-PHOTOGRAPHED TO ASSURE LEGIBILITY OR SEQUENCE AND THEIR II4AGE OR IMAGES, APPEAR IMMEDIATLEY HEREAFTER. sppz ~ is agreeable to you, please sign and return two copies of ftuing agr t to this office. You may retain the thlxd. Copy for your files. If you have any questions, please call Tom Herren in our Portland Field Office at 231-2257. Sincerely, O Marvin O. Fretwell District Chief, Oregon Enclosure TAH: sw cc: Marvin RretweU Gary Gallino Karen Killer Ed Hubbard Tony laenen T m Herrett a 1 - a t i 3 i ;Forr*i y:i366 Department of the Interior 6• (•'~V: tiltifi) Geological Survey. Joint Funding Agreement FOR Water Resources Invgstigations , THIS AGREEMENT is entered into as of the ' is t 'daft *of October 1992 by the GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, UNITED STATES 'DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, party of the first part. and the Tualatin Malley Water District party of the second part. 1. The parties hereto agree that subject to the availability of appropriations and in accordance with their respective authorities there shalt be maintained in cooperation a, streamflow routing program for the WiI Iamette River at Wilsonville, Oregon, hereinafter called the program. 2. The following amounts shall be contributed to cover all of the cost of the necessary field and office work directly related to this program, but excluding any bureau level general administrative or accounting work in the office of either party. (a) $ 4,350 by the party of the first part during the period October 1, 1992, to September 30, 1993 (b) $ 4,350 by the party of the second part during the period October 1, 1992, to September 30, 1993 (c) Additional amounts by each party during the above period or succeeding periods as may be determined by mutual agreement and set forth in an exchange of letters between the parties. 3. Expenses incurred in the performance of this program may be paid by either party in conformity with the laws and regulations respectively governing each party, provided that so far as may be mutually agreeable all expenses shall be paid in the first instance by the party of the first part with appropriate reimbursement thereafter by the party of the second part. Each party shall furnish to the other party such statements or reports of expenditures as may be needed to satisfy fiscal requirements. 4. The field and office work pertaining to this program shall be under the direction of or subject. to periodic review by an authorized representative of the party of the first part. 5. The areas to be Included in the program shall be determined by mutual agreement between the parties hereto or their authorized representatives. The methods employed in the field and office shall be those adopted by the party of the first part to Insure the required standards of accuracy subject to modification by r utual agreement. 6. During the progress of the work all operations of either party pertaining to this program shall be open to the inspection of the other party. and if the work is not being carried on in a mutually satisfactory manner, either party, may terminate this agreement upon 60 days written notice to the other party. 7. The original records resulting from this program will be deposited in the office of origin of those records. Upon request. copies of the original records will be provided to the office of the other party. 8. The maps, records or reports resulting from this program shall be made available to the public as promptly as possible. The maps, records or reports normally will be published by the party of the first part. However, the party of the second part reserves the right to publish the results of this program and. if already published by the party of the first part shall. upon request. be furnished by the party of the first part, at cost. impressions suitable for purposes of reproduction similar to that for which the original copy was prepared. The maps, records or reports published by either party shall contain a statement of. the cooperative relations between the parties. 9. Billing for this agreement will be rendered annually . Payments of bills are due within 60 days after the billing date. If nc . paid by the due date. Interest will be arged at the current Treasury rate for each 30-day period. or portion thereof. that the payment Is delayed beyond t ue date. (31 USC 3717; Comptroller General File B-212222, August 23. 1983.). TUALA N VA EY TER DISTRICT GEOLOGICAL SURVEY UNITED STATES By DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR fko^ni►.r(sTWA-raO~.. By (SIGNATURE & TITLE) By rMarvin 0. Fretwell District Chief Oregon eUSE REVERSE SIDE IF ADDITIONAL SIGNATURES ARE REQUIRED) SENT United States Department of the Interior GEOLOGICAL SURVEY f Water Res Division Pacific northwest Area Oregon District 10615 S.E. Cherry Blossom Drive Portland, ozWcn 97216 October 18, 1993 Mr. Michael Walker E Tualatin Valley Water District P.O. Bolt 745 Beaverton, OR 97075 Dear Mr. Walker: Enclosed is a table and hydzogragh of estiraated mean daily discharge for the Willamette River at Wilsonville, Oregon for October 1, 1992, to July 11, 1993. The dim were calculated using the DAFT-Ow flow routing model developed by the U.S. Geological Survey. The flaw model-routed ebserved mean daily flogs from the Willamette River at Salem, South Yamhill at Mitescn, North Yamhill at Faixdale, and Haskins Creek near McMinnville, to the Willamette River at Wilsonville. Model generated discharge was verified by actual stxeamflow merits using a Broadband Acoustic Doppler Q =rent Profiler (BBADCP) an Dlovember 12, 1992, and May 5, 1993. Instantaneous measured discharge checked model results within 1.5 percent. Additional minor estimates were used to cover ungaged inflows into the system. Zhe 1.993 water year data will be recalculated when remaining flaw data are available from the Willamette and Yamhill basin gages. If you have any questions, please feel free to can me at 251-3236. S y, cmas A. H Supervisory Hydrologist Enclosure WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILSONVILLE, OREG. ROUTED FLAWS - BASED ON FLOWS AT WILLAMETTE RIVER AT SALEM AND YAMHILL RIVER BASIN DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1992 TO SEPTEMBER 1993• DAILY MEAN VALUES DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 1 7270 13000 35600 41400 31000 14200 28500 44200 35200 12000 2 7380 17600 45700 39500 28400 15:00 26600 41100 47200 11600 3 7510 19200 54900 36400 26600 17300 33200 38400 54900 11300 4 7820 11400 54500 35000 25100 20500 53200 40900 54800 10900 5 8120 14900 48200 37000 22800 27400 68600 45600 54600 10500 6 8170 13200 42300 36700 21000 32300 69300 46400 54600 10200 7 8140 12300 38700 34600 20200 31400 62400 46000 51700 9870 a 6430 12200 35700 30400 19600 28400 56300 47400 47400 9580 9 8740 13400 35700 25800 19000 25500 55700 50500 42800 9340 10 8460 15000 47700 22500 18400 23000 63900 50200 39400 9130 ---®~,~e 12 8250 15600 66600 20300 isloo 21100 73000 46500 36500 12 8600 15600 71200 19800 18200 19700 74800 42000 34900 8900 t 13 .8990 16100 61000 18800 17900 18400 66700 37500 33700 p~we\aoj ~y 'ds -10 14 9100 16600 48700 17000 17200 17300 56800 34400 31600 t~ 15 9070 16400 40500 15800 16300 19800 50000 32400 28900 V 16 9050 16000 36200 15300 15700 35400 46300 30100 26700 17 9050 15500 35800 15200 15000 59000 44600 28300 24700 18 8960 14900 39800 15100 13900 76900 45600 26300 22900 19 8830 14900 40200• 15100 13200 86000 48100 23700 21600 20 8760 16600 36800 23200 13800 86100 46700 22200 20400 21 8760 19200 38900 48600 15200 81200 43100 23300 19200 22 .8900 31900 44600 69000 17800 76500 40300 24600 17600 - 23 9020 47800 46400 73500 19900 80700 39400 25700 16100 24 8790 49300 45300 66700 19900 87600 42100 25400 15500 25 8400 43500 41600 57900 18600 86100 46100 23800 15300 26 8140 37100 37800 52900 17000 81500 49400 23000 14600 27 8020 32000 36800 49400 15800 72700 51100 23600 13700 28 8020 30300 40600 46100 14800 56800 49200 25500 13100 29 8120 30900 46800 43600 47000 45000 27400 12600 30 8420 31500 47400 40400 38100 44300 28800 12400 31 9540 43900 35200 32300 29600 TOTAL 262830 659900 1385900 1098200 530400 1417100 1520500 1055000 914800 MEAN 8478 22000 44710 35430 18940 45710 50680 34030 30490 MAX 9540 49300 11200 73500 31000 87600 74800 50500 54900 MIN 7270 12200 35600 15100 13200 14200 26800 22200 12400 AT17_T.Q X T_TrrfSLTrlrJrT 100,0170 ~ " Uhlp ~U ~ a necono~ o RSI®N i N Al t: ' 'f ! • t•, ,t i w t t .t : t r H 10,000 0.000 ' H " lt9 U •t. 4 • i i Ir 000 so ~ ss ti OCTOBA is s u i♦ is N 2999928 t D is is J0 ~BER c is t° JdARY a s io sr ++i ~EBIiUAfiys t iM jt is t~ I+RCH APRIZ 93L' lays tc t s is 1~ bAtZ Dz~E 9 SAN ~AZZYWIZ -Ve (cps) A~pW2ZS0 ~urue 7p ' jutY, E RO NVx ZE, 9$D0O DxSO GE RI RAT t1EOTS D I4~OREG, MEASilRED FZOW~F) RIVER I (P 4tci G. A $ASEJ WILSORy1Z A dREG ) ZE United States Department of the Interior GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water Resources Division Pacific Nortbw est Area Oregon District 10615 S.E. Cherry Blossom Drive Portland, Oregon 97216 *`i r April 26,1993 Mr. Michael Walker Tualatin Valley Water District P.O. Boat 745 Beaverton, Oregon 97075 Dear Mr. Walker: Enclosed are tables and hydrographs of mean daily disciiazge.for the Willamette River at Wilsonville, Oregon for the .1992 water year (October 1, 1991, to September 30, 1992) and October 1, 1992, to January 20, 1993. Zhe discharges Were calculated using the DAFLOW flow routing model developed by the U.S. Geological survey. Mhe flow model routed observed mean daily flows frm the Willamette River at Salem, South Yamhi.ll at Wiiteson, North Yamhill at Fairdale, and Haskins Creek near KcMinmrille, to the Willamtte River at Wilsonville. Additional minor estimates were used to cover engaged inflows into the system. The 1993 Water year data will be updated again in May and bi-aMthly thereafter. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 251-3236. Icmas y, A. Hydrologist mom UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - GEOLOGICAL SURVEY - OREGON DISTRICT 04/15/93 STATION NUMBER 14198000 WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILSONVILLE, OREG. STREAM SOURCE AGENCY USGS LATITUDE 451757 LONGITUDE 1224500 DRAINAGE AREA. 8400.00 DATUM STATE 41 COUNTY 005 PROVISIONAL DATA SUBJECT TO REVISION DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1992 TO SEPTEMBER 1993 DAILY MEAN VALUES DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 1 7270 13000 35600 41400 2 7380 17600 45700 39500 3 7510 19200 54900 36400 4 7820 17400 54500 35000 5 8120 14900 48200 37000 - » 6 8170 13200 42300 36700 7 0140 12300 38700 34600 8 8430 12200 35700 30400 9 8740 13400 35700 25800 30 8460 15000 47700 22500 11 6250 15600 66600 20300 12 8600 15600 71200 19800 13 8990 16100 61000 18800 14 9100 16600 48700 17000 15 9070 16400 40500 15800 16 9050 16000 36200 15300 17 9050 15500 35800 15200 18 8960 14900 39800 15100 19 8830 14900 40200 15100 20 8760 16600 36800 23200 21 8760 19200 38900 22 8900 31900 44600 23 9020 47800 46400 24 8790 49300 45300 25 8400 43500 41600 26 8140 37100 37600 27 8020 32000 36800 28 8020 30300 40600 29 8120 30900 46800 30 8420 31500 47400 31 9540 43900 TOTAL 262830 659900 1385900 MEAN 8478 22000 44710 MAX 9540 49300 71200 MIN 7270 12200 35600 AC-FT 521300 1309000 2749000 CFSH 1.01 2.62 5.32 IN. 1.16 2.92 6.14 CAL YR 1992 TOTAL 5890380 MEAN 16090 MAX 72000 MIN 5750 AC-FT 11680000 CFSM 1.92 IN. 26.09 Ill: 1! A mr Sri 109,000 r i ~ . A 0 W W w w µ 10,000 % co so N 6 13pRY A " s, so 1993 s s DEER so- e 21 11 i i~ FR R A,T, WILSOI'LE O'C' j992 sER 1,000 , , DVS WDSSSp,RG tCF'~ SALEM ORES . ® DASyY ? A 4191000 %ST tBla' tCF DNIL D . UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - GEOLOGICAL SURVEY - OREGON DISTRICT 04/15/93 STATION IRU41M 14198000 WILLAMETTE RIVER AT WILSONVILLE, OREG. STREAM SOURCE AGENCY USGS LATITUDE 451757 LONGITUDE 1224500 DRAINAGE AREA 8400.00 DATUM STATE 41 COUNTY 005 PROVISIONAL DATA SUBJECT TO REVISION DISCHARGE, CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, WATER YEAR OCTOBER 1991 TO SEPTEM3ER 1992 DAILY MEAN VALUES DAY OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP 1 11000 16300 58500 17200 36500 20400 8830 15800 6150 6470 5910 6240 2 11000 15400 51300 16100 34100 18700 8750 17600 6080 6440 6000 6210 3 11200 14600 46800 17000 30400 17400 8590 16700 6010 6330 6100 6100 4 11500 14100 43200 19600 25800 16400 8430 14900 5970 6180 6150 6030 5 11600 14100 40700 23600 21800 16100 8420 13600 5920 6130 6030 6030 6 11400 18100 45500 25300 18900 16500 8750 12700 5860 6270 5890 6130 1 11100 22500 64500 24400 16900 17000 9180 12500 5660 6460 5880 6240 8 10900 22900 78600 22300 15600 17300 9370 12400 5840 6520 5980 6260 9 10800 21000 80800 20500 14800 17000 9860 12400 5840 6400 6070 6230 10 10800 16700 76100 19200 14500 15800 18600 12400 5840 6220 6120 6200 11 10800 16900 68100 20800 14100 14200 33900 12300 5840 6060 6080 6140 12 11000 15800 60000 24900 13500 13000 36400 12300 5860 5970 6000 6080 13 11000 16600 55.000 26300 13100 12300 32500 12200 5970 5950 5870 6060 14 10800 20600 . 51100 24900 13100 11900 30000 11900 6200 5940 5810 6100 15 10600 24700 46900 22700 13100 11600 27800 10500 6450 5910 5860 6170 16 10500 26700 43200 21100 12800 11500 24900 8910 6490 5360 5930 6230 17 10500 27100 39900 21900 12400 11300 23900 8090 6350 5810 5980 6260 18 10500 29100 36400 21800 13500 11400 30700 7750 6200 5650 6000 6280 19 10500 34700 37000 20100 23100 11500 36700 7510 6100 5870 5960 6270 20 10500 40700 38400 18400 46100 11300 34100 7400 6010 5810 5890 6290 21 10600 48690 37100 17100 66700 10900 28800 7470 5940 5760 5840 6330 22 10600 52300 37800 16200 72000 10600 25300 7430 5910 5750 5630 6360 23 10800 49300 38100 15000 69100 10300 23000 7220 5840 5790 5950 6360 24 11100 43200 35400 14200 59400 9990 20900 6990 5770 5880 6150 6430 25 11,500 41200 30600 14800 41600 9730 18800 6750 5770 5930 6210 6750 26 11900 48700 26800 16600 38300 9560 16800 6570 5810 5960 6110 7370 27 12000 60000 24400 18400 31200 9440 15200 6480 5820 6010 6000 7680 28 13600 67400 22400 25500 26000 9320 14200 6430 5640 6050 5980 7520 29 16200 69100 40500 37400 22600 9150 13500 6390 6050 6020 6050 7320 30 17200 66100 19300 42100 8990 13500 6300 6340 5950 6110 7230 • 31 17000 18400 39700 8880 6210 5900 6170 TOTAL 360500 976500 1372800 685300 637000 399460 599680 314100 179950 187450 185910 192900 MEAN 11630 32550 44280 22110 28860 12890 19990 10130 5998 6047 5997 6430 MAX 17200 69100 80800 42100 72000 0400 36700 17600 6490 6520 6210 7680 MIN 10500 14100 18400 14200 12400 8880 8420 6210 5770 5750 5810 6030 AC-FT 715100 1937000 2723000 1359000 1660000 792300 1189000 623000 356900 371800 368800 382600 CFSM 1.38 3.87 5.27 2.63 3.44 1.53 2.38 1.21 .71 .72 .71 .77 IN. 1.60 4.32 6.08 3.03 3.71 1.77 2.66 1.39 .80 .83 .82 .85 WTR YR 1992 TOTAL 6291550 MEAN 17190 MAX 80800 MIN 5750 AC-FT 12480000 CFSM 2.05 IN. 27:86 MEN TTl7 T [l T T TfTTFTf A ITPY 100,000 i Z w • ,t i {r i a St A7 m 10.000 i % CJ L', i ~NI NNw 'k Fr . wr, • -'•r+wrr'•~'rN w •'~•M ~'p 'w rrrrww. 1,000 34 ~T08ER ~ I1 1~ =3 = ER » 30 30 1991 U~~ER `J~ARY33 3FEBRUARy` _ q MAR 33 to a u CH APRIL 1 u 1, u 1 • 4198000 wu 19 MAY JUNE _ f 13 =1 3 3. " r 141 1000 E, OREGSLY AUGUST 77 SEPTEP~ERl~ wrLSr,AME TG (cps) A~ wrLSONVILL ILY DISC G~ RIVER AT SALEM, OREG. CITIZENS TASK FORCE MEETING MARCH 119 1999. 7 to 9pm - Tigard City Hall CITIZEN FOR ~A U WA TER SPEAKER AGENDA Questions from the Task Force (and written questions from the public) will be answered after all speakers have completed their presentations. The questions may be addressed to any individual speaker, if desired. 1. Jim Hansen - Citizens for Safe Water.. Chief Petitioner for City Initiative Petition "VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR WILLAMETTE RIVER AS DRINKING WATER SOURCE'. Mr. Hansen will discuss the issues of why the CFSW group formed, why they started an Initiative Petition to require a public vote before Willamette River Water can be used as a drinking water source, and what the group CFSW wants. Time: approx. 7 minutes. 2. Stan Wallulis - Environmental, Control, and Civil Engineer; Water Rights Examiner, Energy Auditor. Mr. Wallulis will be speaking on the issues of Water Treatment Plant cost and operation. Mr. Wallulis worked for a number of years as a Utility Engineer at the Corvallis Willamette River treatment plant. Time: approx. 10 minutes. 3. Dr. Charles Scott - Ph.D. ACT. BCFE, Board Certified Environmental/Industrial Toxicologist. Dr. Scott has been following the Willamette River water quality studies for many years, and will be addressing the current water quality issues, the EPA and Oregon Health Division Drinking Water Standards, and the previous studies which have been done on Willamette River water quality. Time: approx. 17 minutes. 4. Dr. Marvin Hausman, M.D. - Dr. Hausman is considered an expert on the science of immunological and neurodegenerative diseases. He is president of AXONYX INC.- a biotechnology company engaged in the discovery, development and acquisition of proprietary pharmaceutical compounds and new technologies useful for the treatment of cognitive disorders including Alzheimer's disease. Dr. Hausman will address the problems with previous studies on the Willamette, and will suggest what should be done before the Willamette is ever considered n for a drinking water source. Time: approx. 17 minutes. N 5. J. Marshall Gilmore, P.C. - Mr. Gilmore is a Wilsonville attorney who has been studying the Willamette and Bull Run water options for several years. He will be talking about the legal j issues involved in water systems. Time: approx. 10 minutes. Following the presentation, questions from the task force and written questions from the public will be answered by the panel: 29 minutes. Total time: 1 hour 30 minutes it ALLUL1S & ASSOCIATES, INC. REGISTPUTIONS, CERTIFICATIONS ENMONATWaA_L-MMVICIPAL-ENGINEERING OREGON: E\'ViRONNMNTALENGMFR CKARUONNEAU DISTRICT OvIl. PA(;INFFR 7725 S.W. VILLAGE GREENS CIRCLE CW ROLB GMEL•R WII.SONVELLE, OREGON 97070 WATER RIGHTS EXANILNER PHONE: 303-694-1309 E X ERGY A111 ITUR E MAIL: Sgwagulil'u integrltyonline.com I-AND SURVEYOR WASHINGTON: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER CALIFORNIA: PROWSSIONALF"'GINPER AU-Sl£A: PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER CHARLES D. SCOTT, Ph.D. ACT. BCFE. F. A. C. F. E. Board Certified Forensic Examiner Environmental/Industrial/Regulatory Toxicologist Member, The American College of Toxicology Member, The American College of Forensic Examiners Diplomate, The American Board of Forensic Examiners Fellow, The American College of Forensic Examiners President of Northwest Consultants of Oregon EDUCATION: B.S. Chemistry and Animal Science, Chico State University, California. M.S. Animal Science, University of California., Davis. Ph.D. Genetic Toxicology, University of California, Davis. Predoctoral Fellow, 1966-1965. National Institute of Health Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1965-1969. National Institute of Health Board Certified Forensic Examiner, 1996 American Board of Forensic Examiners Fellow, 1997. American College of Forensic Examiners Retired College Professor (Medical School, University of Utah, College of Medicine) Emuerience Summary: Supervision and oversight of total Toxicological evaluation of several hundred chemicals and their effect on both human and animal studies. Has been a General Manager, Vice-President and President of several research institutes, conducting toxicology and chemical research. Taught at Portland. State University during the Summer Session 1992-1996. Development and oversight of total laboratory GLP's and safety function. Developed first aid response team for laboratory chemical accidents. Conducted safety training in handling chemicals for supervisors and technicians doing toxicology research. Biological, medical monitoring, and screening of employees occupationally exposed to chemical environments. Development of corporate safety manuals for research institutions. Compliance responsibilities for all local, state, and federal regulations for testing of chemicals and environments. EPA and State Has worked for EPA and the State of Idaho in the development and implementation of the Hazardous Waste Program (Federal Enforcement Officer). NEW Has trained over 500 State and County employees in Idaho (24 Hour Safety Course) on "Responding to a Hazardous Materials Accident." Couxnty Has worked for Owyhee County, Idaho for three (3) years as the Environmental Safety Officer and trained 128 individuals to respond to hazardous wastes or hazardous materials highway accidents within the County. Has run, and is running, his own Environmental & Industrial Toxicology and Regulatory Management Firm for the eleven (11) western states (Northwest Consultants of Oregon). Technical Consultant to the Idaho Transportation Department of Idaho. 1983-1986 Technical Consultant to the Idaho Association of Counties Committee for Hazardous Waste Leo slation. 1982-1986 Has written the complete Safety and Health Program for several large companies in Oregon and Idaho 1982-1996 Has written the complete RCRA & OSHA Compliance Programs for several State and County Agencies in Oregon and Idaho 1982-1997 aiI Eafety. Health and Management Hazardous Materials Courses Attended Personnel Protection and Safety Classes (Hazardous Materials Spills), U.S. EPA 40 hours, 1976, 1978, 1981, 1984 1986, 1988, 1990, 1994, & 1996. The Management and Disposal of Hazardous and Chemical Wastes, J.T. Baker Chemical Company, 16 hours, 1982,1986. Hazardous Materials Training, State of Idaho, 40 hours, 1982. OSHA Hazardous Materials Training, ODOT, State of Oregon, 24 hours, 1991. i OSHA, Advanced Toxicology, 40 hours, 1976, 1976, 1980, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1996. Lnstructed the following courses: a RCRA Emergency Procedures and Contingency Plan Implementation. Proper Handling and Storage Procedures for Hazardous Wastes. Field Safety and Hazard Recognition. Supervisory Safety Responsibilities During Chemical Accidents. Emergency Response and Safety Equipment Uses During an Accident. OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 - 5 Day 40 Hours 1980-1997 OSHA 29 CFR 1910.1200 - Hazard Communication Program 1980-1998 OSHA 29 CFR 1910.20 Medical Records 1980-1998 DOT 49 CFR 172-173 - Transportation and Handling Hazardous Materials,1980-1994 EPA 40 CFR 260- 270- RCRA- Hazardous Waste Regulations, 1980-1998 EPA 40 CFR 761- (TSCA) PCB Regulations 1980-1998 Sampling Procedures and Documentation for Hazardous Materials, 1985-1998 Environmental Toxicology in the Workplace , 1980-1996 Hazardous Materials and Emergency Response Procedures (OSHA) 1990-1997 Environmental Audits and Assessments for RCRA Facilities and Real Estate Properties, 1988-1997 Toxicology 5 Unit Course at Mt.Hood College 1988-1990 (Wrote the Class Text for this class) Completely wrote and designed the Part A and Part B permits for the only major RCRA and TSCA Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Substance Storage and Transfer Facility in the state of Oregon. 1986-1988 Environmental Site Assessments Qualified at ten (10) Banking Institutes in Oregon for Environmental Site Assessments Phase I & II. Environmental Site Assessments for RCRA Facilities and Real Estate Properties, 1981-1998. Has written the class text and taught this course at Portland State University & Mt. Hood College, 6 Years, 8 Hour Class for CEU Credit for State of Oregon. Northwest Consultants of Oregon 32170 SW Armitage Court N. • Wilsonville, Oregon 97070 (503) 692-4370 • Fax (503) 692-0587 • ~•O. F.f... rtrcier•r • ~ O oRarurc ~wmrrnmromae awa March 3, 1999 TO: Tagard Water Advisory T Force FROM: Charles D. Scott, Ph.D., ACT. BCFE. Board Certified, Environmental/Industrial Toxicologist SUBJECT: Evaluation & discussion of the "Willamette River Monitoring & Quarterly Sampling Summary Report" Dated February 4, 1999. My review of the Montgomery Watson "Willamette River Monitoring & Quarterly Sampling Summary Report " dated February 4, 1999, indicates that the data i:i insufficient to be accepted as a valid study on which to base the safety of water from the Willamette River. The actual number of samples tested, the collections testing protocol, and the reporting of the data will be analyzed for scientifi validity, and lack of collection data and points of concern. Sincerely; C arles D. Scott, Ph.D. Charles D. Scott, Ph.D. ACT. BCF1E. • EnvironmentallIndustrial Toxicologist MIN-11 0 MEMO TO THE SENATE February 11, 1999 Marvin S. Hausman, M.D. Health is more important than gglitical dignity Qr politic-al pride Oregon leads the nation in deaths from Parkinson's disease and is number three in the nation in deaths related to Alzheimer's disease. A f n-ther study on Parkinson's disease published in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that most Parkinson's disease occurrences -are related to environmental factors and are not genetic in nature. The people of the state of Oregon are AT RISK and these facts require immediate attention and resolution. The following actions are recommended: 1. Organize a scientific board of medical experts to design studies to identify the relationship between specific pollutants and, but not limited to, the following disease states: Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer. 2. Identify specific pollutants and the source of pollution. 3. Conduct epidemiological studies in order to reveal the association of the pollutants to specific disease states. 4. Design a corrective water treatment process to produce sufficient quantities of safe, healthful water. Rate of growth should proceed hand in hand with medical and public health advances to allow future generations to live in a safe, healthy environment. Ambb 2/10/99 Marvin S. Hausman, M.D. received his medical degree from New York University School of Medicine in 1967 and has done residencies in General Surgery at Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York, and in Urological Surgery at U.C.L.A. Medical Center in Los Angeles. He also worked as a Research Associate at the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. He has been a Lecturer, Clinical Instructor and Visiting Surgeon at the U.C.L.A. Medical Center Division of Urology and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. He has been a Consultant on Clinical/Pharmaceutical Research to various pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Meyers International, Mead-Johnson Pharmaceutical Company, Medco Research, Inc., and E.R. Squibb. Dr. Hausman is currently the President and Chief Executive Officer of Axonyx Inc. Axonyx is a biotechnology company engaged in the discovery, development and acquisition of proprietary pharmaceutical compounds and new technologies useful for the treatment of cognitive disorders including Alzheimer's Disease. Hsi 111:6 WA TER AD VISOR' TASK FORCE Agenda Thursday, Mare_h 11.9 1999 7: 00 p.m. Tigard Town Hall 13125 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 1. Introduction and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. February 18, 1999 b. February 25, 1999 2. Presentation - Citizens for Safe Water 4. Questions/Answers by Task Force Members BREAK 5. Written Questions/Answers - Public 6. Future Meeting Agenda Items 7. Public Comments 8. Adjournment 1:\pw\wac\3-11 agenda IN 11811 EMPIRE 11 Ing LL NNIMM111911MMI J Water Advisoty Task Force Meeting Minutes Marcia 4, 1999 Members Present: See Attached Last Staff Present: Bill Monahan, Ed Wegner, Mike Miller, Kathy Kaatz, Jennifer Renninger Visitors Present: City of Portland Representatives, Lorna Stickel, Dennis Kessler, Bob Rieck, and Mark Knudson 1. Introduction and Roll Call Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Distribution of Citizens for Safe Water Speaker Credentials Credential information was provided to Board Members as previously requested. It was also noted that information was received from last weeks presenter, Murray, Smith and Associates and Montgomery Watson and will be provided to the Board next week. 3. Presentation - Portland Water Bureau Facilitator, Lenny Borer reviewed the ground rules from the Resolution for the presentation for members that were not present at the previous meeting. Lorna Stickel introduced herself as the Chief Planner for the Portland Water Bureau since 1990 as well as the project manager for the Regional Water Providers Consortium. Ms. Stickel stated that she would be discussing the overall proposal as well the demand forecast assumptions used when putting proposal together. She continued by stating that Dennis Kessler from the Eagineering group will discuss specifics and water demand and Bob Rieck, Finance Director will discuss the financial analysis and Mark Knudson, Water Resources Management Group will discuss water quality issues. Ms. Stickel discussed the following: • Existing contracts with Tigard and Tualatin and have allowed limited service to Sherwood and Wilsonville through 2005 (Tigard's contract expires 2007) • Portland water system has operated continuously for over 100 years Water Advisory Task Force Page 1 0 •11 /Q9 1,1=1- Nano 1 I • Proposal contains specific set of improvements designed to meet Tigard's water supply needs and the needs of all of the people on this system. • Proposal has flexibility built in • Conservation - Costs and savings of conservation programs are not included in this proposal. • Proposal has made assumption of regional commitment Some of the primary issues addressed by this proposal include: • Adequate transmission and storage. • Supply source enhancements utilize existing investments and are increased incrementally over time. • Projects are implementable • Reliable system that provides high quality of water • Reasonable rates are equitably allocated Water supply needs assumptions that were made while putting together proposal for timing and sizing of the improvements so a water demand forecast will be based upon actual historic consumption data and climate records back to 1940. Population forecasts were provided from Metro based upon geographical service areas. A factor for historic reductions due to conservation have been included in the forecast. West side demand forecasts assumptions are based upon data for the TVWD service area which include estimates going out to 2050 for peak season and peak day demands. Some other water supply needs assumptions that were made were: • Forecasts for non-peak season and annual average use average of all weather years • Non-peak season average demands used for sizing emergency supply • Annual average forecast is used to estimate revenue flow for financial portion of proposal • Demand modeling can accommodate changes in future demand forecasts • Over time, create demand forecasts for specific wholesale providers based on consumption data Dennis Kessler began by discussing the projects included in the proposal with a focus on their timing and their needs. The proposal was put together to address four specific needs that deal with system: • Peak season demand - period of time when inflow to watershed is not able to meet demand. Need to supplement with either storage or other supplies. • Systemwide peak day demand - ability to meet with transmission capacity or storage capacity • Ability to meet the Westside demand on peak days - Tualatin 5mgd, Tigard 25 mgd, Tualatin 20 mgd, Sherwood 10 mgd • Emergency backup - non peak season average for entire system Water Advisory Task Force Page 2 03/ 1 1 /99 ".1m EVIENEIMMINI so Peak day supply - how do we propose to meet these demands, system wide? • 2005 Well field upgrade (304 mgd) Powell Butte II (30 mgd storage) ® 2010 Phase I conduit (327 mgd) ® 2020 Powell Butte III (30 mgd storage) 2030 Westside ASR (347 mgd) ® 2040 Conduit 5 (450 mgd) Westside supply - Peak day supply 0 2000 West side capacity (90 mgd) WCSL, pumped and TVWD (JWC) ® 2001 Wilsonville to Beaverton pipelines ® 2010 WCSL II (+60 mgd) 150 mgd capacity Emergency Supply e 2030 Capacity (92 to 103 mgd) Westside capacity (90 mgd) TVWD (JWC) 10-20 mgd Other 10-20- mgd - ® 2005 Capacity (120-140 mgd) Well field 90-100 mgd A 2010 JWC/Portland Connection • 2020 Bull Run Treatment 0 2030 Capacity (140-160 mgd) Westside ASR 20 mgd Canyon Leg Conduit No 5 ® 2040 Capacity (160-180 mgd) Eastside ASR 20 mgd Water Advisory Task Force Page 3 03! 11/99 Bob Rieck discussed the financial analysis which he divided into three parts which consisted of the following areas: • Existing major supply and transmission • New major supply and transmission system • Southwest transmission facilities He continued by discussing the major supply and transmission facilities being those facilities that are the major dams (Bull Run Dam # 1 and #2), the headworks system, the groundwater system along the Columbia River, conduits that come from the watershed that are turned in to storage at Powell Butte. Included in the report a number of assumptions were made in the area of supply and transmissions which included: • Extension of the existing contract pricing provisions Costs O&M Asset depreciation Return on investment (ROI) Unit Cost Total of all costs/total demand No differential peaking ratios between customers • Continuous facility reinvestment 2% increase in depreciation and ROI • Operations and maintenance cost increase at 2% inflation Putting all costs together and dividing by total demand of all wholesale customers in the forecast to 2050, yields curve which explains unit costs starting at about .50 cents/ccf and end up at 2050 with close to $1.40-1.50. Second group of facilities that Mr. Rieck talked about were major supply and transmission facilities: • Dam 1 and 2 raises • New conduit 5 • Treatment facilities • Well field improvements • ASR The assumptions used in pricing out these facilities for the proposal was the cost that Dennis Kessler talked about of these projects (new treatment facility in year 2020 @ $141 million dollars) inflated costs at 2% out to 2020 and then converted total costs to an amortized value as if funds had been borrowed to finance the project and therefore had a annual debt service for repayment of that borrowing at 6% interest and level payments. Water Advisory Task Force Page 4 03; 11,99 SEEM I Operation and maintenance cost assumptions were figured as follows: • Fixed costs associated with the operation of facilities which range from 0.25% to 5.00% of initial inflated construction costs • Variable cost change with demand • Fixed and variable costs increase at 2% for inflation • Unit costs were figured by annual total costs divided by total demand Bringing both of those costs for categories of facilities (common supply and transmission assets) both new and existing yields the cost outlined in table 9 of the Portland report. The costs reflected in this report go from .51/ccf to a maximum of $2.01/ccf in the year 2050 in inflated dollars. Mr. Rieck continued by stating that the annual demand forecasted for the City of Tigard and applying this demand times the unit costs yields the annual unit costs for both existing and new major facilities for Tigard and at the year 2050 this estimate is around 8 million dollars per year. Distribution of Costs Mr. Rieck continued by discussing the distribution of costs that was divided amongst the cities that would be benefiting from those facilities. He then displayed table 10 and 11. Mr. Rieck then stated he would summarize for all facilities which included both the existing and new supply and transmission and the Southwest transmission facilities and pulled together to display totals in inflated dollars. He then displayed tables 12 and 13. These numbers displayed are for the cost of delivering water to Tigard and does not include the internal costs such as distribution, billing or customer services costs. Ms. Stickel discussed the institutional issues which relate to the governance arrangements that would be necessary in order for Tigard to join with Portland and the other providers who currently benefit from that system. Ms. Stickel stated in summary the following: • Portland's proposal does not specify what those details are and specific terms and arrangements can be finalize when Tigard, Wilsonville and Sherwood determine what their source choice is and when Portland knows what the number of new and existing customers will be on the system. • Portland is already beginning the process to proceed with what those contracts and terms will look like. • Portland is willing to discuss issues of supply certainty, ownership and decision making as a part of those contract negotiations. • Portland also anticipates that the contract negotiations within one year after Tigard and Wilsonville and others new customers make their decision about choice. • Portland water system can be expanded to meet the needs of Tigard, Wilsonville and Sherwood as well as the existing customers Water Advisory Task Force Page 5 03/11/99 i • Proposal assumes a high service reliability including emergency backup and makes improvements to reduce system vulnerability • Projects in the proposal can be implemented and can be backed up with other potential improvements • Costs of providing water service is reasonable and is based upon equitable cost distribution • Wholesale customers want a role in selecting what system improvements will be • Costs and rates will need refinement through contract negotiations - information given are not rates but unit costs as estimated • Some facilities in proposal could be financed directly by those using the facilities • More analysis and detail can be provided • Welcome discussion regarding the supply of water for the duration of the existing contract and the longer term Ms. Stickel turned over the presentation to Mark Knudson who would be discussing some water quality issues associated with the Portland water supply system. The Portland Water Bureau's has a commitment to ongoing protection of both the watershed and the wellfield. The watershed is closed to all public access and includes 70,000 acres of trees, rocks and water and sole purpose is to produce potable drinking water. Mr. Knudson discussed briefly the history of reliable performance and the commitment to further treatment improvements. 4. Questions/Answers by Task Force Members Facilitator, Lenny Borer stated that this item on the agenda will be to direct questions specifically to Portland and later on the agenda will address comparison questions. The following questions were raised by Task Force members: Bob Gray - Questioned the quality of water for proposed plant utilizing Willamette River versus Portland? Mark Knudson - Stated that he can discuss Portland water quality but did not feel comfortable discussing the Willamette proposal in terms of water quality. Bonnie Bishop - Based upon your assumption of the conditions of the Willamette River a presently and Bull Run water source - would the raw water source be compared as the same? Mark Knudson - As a raw water source they are not comparable from the standpoint of s turbidity, contamination, bacteriological. The Bull Run meets the criteria for finished a water supply as an unfiltered supply which indicates the quality of the raw water. The Willamette requires filtration and additional treatment. Water Advisory Task Force Page 6 011. 11 99 IIIIIIIIIEN mill f Paul Owen - Questions raised by reading the Willamette Week - suggest reading and address differences at next meeting. Henrietta Cochrun - Questioned use of wells and blending the water and ASR, are there any potential problems with contamination when pumping water into an aquifer and then take it out? Mark Knudson - Well water and Bull Run has been blended many times. Currently in the process of making additional improvements at the groundwater pumping facilities to ensure the disinfection process are compatible which makes the blending seamless. Portland has tried to limit the blend ratio (how much ground water is blended with Bull Run) the target amount is 20% groundwater with 80% Bull Run when using blending operation. Gary Ott - How close to the Columbia River are the groundwater wells and could they be taking some Columbia River water? Mark Knudson - 50% of capacity of wellfield is in an aquifer (1 of 5) that is hydraulically connected to the Columbia River water which represents about 50% of the wellfield supply. When pumped after about one month, about 50-70% of the water from the well is essentially Columbia River water that has gone through several hundred feet of sand, gravel, rock and soil and is considered not under the influence of surface water - it does however, from a mineral standpoint look like Columbia River water. Jan Drangsholt - What was meant by ownership that would be discussed. Is this ownership of pipes, water system or ? Bob Rieck - In the presentation it was stated that facilities that are from Powell Butte to the Southwest (113 million dollars worth of transmission facilities) are something that communities could own and operate. In the context of other facilities from Powell Butte going upstream into the Bull Run, Portland is open to discussion about the degree to which communities choose to participate, particularly in decision making about new facilities. Jan Drangsholt - Is the Portland Water Bureau willing to assign water rights to guarantee a certainty of supply to the Westside entities? Lorna Stickel - Portland other than groundwater system, does not own water rights to the Bull Run. What they have is a piece of statue in Oregon Revised Statues that gives the right to Portland for the full flow of the Bull Run and the Little Sandy River only subject to prior rights (prior to 1909). The only entity that can claim prior rights on the Little Sandy is potentially PGE for the hydroelectric project. These rights are un-ajudicated and Portland does not know when these rights will be adjudicated. Since Portland does not have water rights the only question is whether there could be some change to the State Statues - a few years ago a change was made that made clear that Portland is able to distribute that water outside the city of Portland. The contract would be the most reasonable place to expect certainty of supply. Ms. Stickel stated that they have a City Attorney's opinion that addresses the issue of the sale of surplus water. Portland does have a City Charter that allows them to sell surplus water. Water Advisory Task Force Page 7 01111.99 Jan Drangsholt - Are the citizens of Portland aware of these plans and if there was no surplus water, how will the citizens feel? Lorna Stickel - Portland has solely utilized the Bull Run and have sold water outside the City since 1913 (Gresham) and have a long history of sharing the water supply. Current contracts were not signed until 1978 and they do contain language that outlines under periods of shortage, lists a process for who would get a priority of supply. It does say that outside customers can be cut off, although the institutional history states they will not do that. Mark Knudson: - Portland has a utility review board which is a citizen oversight group which views all of its utilities and makes recommendations and reports to the City Council - have begun discussion with them and they are very interested in selling water outside the City and re-negotiation of these contracts. Mark Mahon: - Proposal included a factor called return on investment - is this what is considered as profit? What guarantee would there be that Portland will not sell out to private companies? Bob Rieck - 3 elements included in current contract: 1)cash demands for O&M, 2)depreciation, 3) return on investment. ROI is the return to the investor (Portland ratepayers) in a proportional share that is reflected to the risks they took in making those investments. There are a few limited cases in the United States that private companies have purchased water systems, typically they have occurred in communities where there is fiscal distress or inability on a the part of the community to comply with regulations. Neither of these are the case with the Portland water system and there would be long term contracts in place that would address these issues. Phil Pasteris - Has Portland done a assessment of the geological risks of Mt Hood volcanic flow and long term outage of water supply. Dennis Kessler - Portland is in process of having assessment finalized. With regard to volcanic activity the Bull Run system is protected since it is not on the slope of Mt Hood and there is actually a valley between the Bull Run system and Mt Hood and the Sandy river flows around. Gene McAdams - In tonight's presentation reference made to only surplus water to be sold outside City per a Charter provision. According to February 1 memorandum, City Attorneys opinion, states it is a code provision. If it is a code provision can that not be amended by the Portland City Council? Lorna Stickel - Stated she is not an attorney, the attorneys view is that it is legally defensible. If Portland says they are selling water - it is a guaranteed supply. Stay: Baumhofer - Why does Portland want to supply water to Tigard? Lorna Stickel - Portland system is big with 40% supply is currently sold outside City limits. Portland will need to address these issues contractually which include certainty of supply, cost calculation, and decision making on future improvements. Since there are significant improvements to the system regardless of whether water is sold to Southwest Water Advisory Task Force Page 8 03/11/99 1111M III oil 101111 MINE= or not, everyone will benefit from having a large customer base for the unit costs of improvements to be more reasonable. John Haunsperger - Treatment plant in the year 2020, the costs being presented were based upon the wholesale customers participation in those costs - will any of the costs be borne by the City of Portland? Bob Rieck - These are new facilities and would expect all participants would share in those costs including the City of Portland. The costs are based upon the total costs for the facilities divided by the total system wide demand. Randy Volk - In 1992 when DEQ would not allow pumping from the wells since there was a contaminated plume in that area, is it still there? Alark Knudson - In 1992 little was known about the extent of the contamination and how the aquifers were layered in. They were not aware that even though there was contamination they were not aware that pumping wells would cause contamination to spread. At that time they spent a lot of money in exploratory drilling to find out what the geological formations and extent of the contamination and how it affects their aquifers. Portland has received a record of decision which is a ruling by DEQ that defines the conditions of pumping allowed. Bonnie Bishop - Why is the Clackamas intertie not developed in the proposal? Lorna Stickel - Washington County Supply Line II - moving water south of Powell Butte and pick up connections with treatment plant on Clackamas (4 in April) and moving along I-205 to Tualatin or North through Lake Oswego and into city of Tualatin. The reason this was not included since the proposal needed to be something that Portland knew they could do. The proposal that presented is accomplishable and know what the costs will be. The Clackamas intertie proposal will cost more money and there are several entities that this proposal would pass through. Portland did not feel it was fair to put a proposal on the table that would require more cost share partners. Gary Ott - Are there franchise fees involved with Portland. Bob Rieck - Currently Tigard is not paying a franchise fee although Portland residents do pay a franchise fee of 73/4%. 5. Written questions/answers - Public Lenny Borer stated there were two questions from the public that are both future agenda items, as follows: ® Can we hear from Wayne Lowry on financial question and assumptions of both plans. Bill Monahan stated that Wayne will be attending one of the upcoming meetings. Water Advisory Task Force Page 9 031 1/99 • Is it possible that treatment of the Bull Run system can be done sooner if there were more problems that occurred like this week, (i.e. kayaker that is still missing)? Mark Knudson stated that the kayaker that drown and is still missing went into the river at about 7 miles downstream of the intakes and was lost about 9 miles downstream of the intake. The gate that closes the watershed is five miles downstream of the intake so you would have to walk and violate trespass rules, 5 miles before getting into the physical drainage where you could conceivable influence the water quality. • Your cost projections only go out to 2050, where the costs are at their highest. What happens to the cost after 2050, when the following is paid off? Bob Rieck stated that as financing is paid off the costs would drop off. Y What is the a typical percentage mark up for a municipality to change its end users above its wholesale cost? Bob Rieck stated there is not a mark up and there are many ways that costs can be recovered by seller of wholesale services. The current contracts provide for that through depreciation, return on investment and shared operations and maintenance. It is not a percentage mark up it is based on facilities and their costs and the life of those facilities. • Do you know why your costs estimates to the user in your 12-15 proposal are substantially less than those projected by the Tigard Finance Director, Wayne Lowry? Bob Rieck stated that they had consulted with Wayne and generally agree with the equalization factors he is using. 6. Comparison Questions/Answers by Task Force Members Mr. Borer stated the purpose of this section was to ask comparison questions of both proposal presenters. Phil Pasteris - For the water treatment plant on the Willamette there is one decision, one time and 130 mgd water rights on the Willamette which is one decision. For Portland it looks as though there are several steps, ground water upgrade, dam II rise, and the treatment plant in 2020 and involves a lot of decisions. Do you see any possible delays in any of these steps and will these decisions be made and don't require a vote or any kind of interaction with the public? Bob Rieck stated that how those decisions will be made are going to be significant focus of the contractual negotiations. The assumptions is that the permanency for susceptibility to any other parties will be solved with contract negotiations. Patrick Carroll - Proposals are susceptible to environmental challenges and the ability to supply water may be jeopardized and how do you plan to handle the vulnerability of the environmental question of the major proposals to increase water supply at Bull Run? Dennis Kessler stated that is why a dam III has not been proposed. This proposal can be done without a dam III. There is only one proposal on the increase in the height of dam II that will impact Bull Run and would be subject to those concerns and there are alternate ways to deal with that capacity if it does not work. Water Advisory 'faskForce Page 10 03/11/99 Craig Dirksen - Comparison of capital costs between two projects. It was reiterated that Wayne will attend a future meeting to discuss. Bob Gray - Quality of water coming out the treatment plant on the Willamette and the quality of water coming from Bull Run and if they are just as good as one another, why is Portland considering a treatment plant on the Willamette twenty years from now? Mark Knudson stated that this largely regulatory motivated. Since this is unfiltered water system and there are animals and turbidity that influences the water, there are indications that US EPA will establish requirements that will require further treatment. Joe Glicker, Montgomery Watson representative stated in comparison of the Willamette with a treatment facility and the Bull Run system with current treatment process - the supply at the top will be better than any regional source including Bull Run, Clackamas or the Trask. i Bonnie Bishop - Concerned about the cost of gravity flow as compared to the Willamette proposal in terms of power usage? Chris Uber, Murray, Smith and Associates stated that the cost estimate in the Willamette proposal were included. Bill McMonagle - Is the dioxin level on Bull Run higher than levels sampled from Willamette River? Mark Knudson stated he has not seen data or studies although the numbers did indicate a higher level and are trying to track down the study. Joe Glicker stated that USGS did sampling and all sample are considered non-contaminateel :although the numbers were higher for Bull Run. Gary Ott - Eventually both systems would have filtration systems, what kind of incremental operating costs will it add? Joe Glicker stated that it would add approximately 10% to the cost. Mr. Ott questioned whether Portland would use ozone if filtration was added? Mark Knudson at this time the answer would be no. Elaine Bureaugard - Was the cost figured the cleaning of the water at the optimum contamination? Joe Glicker stated that costs were based on results of the pilot study and the water was tested under various conditions. Gene McAdams - When would negotiations start and how long would they take? Bob Rieck stated that on March 10 the Water Bureau Administrator will be meeting with the Water Managers Advisory Board and will present what the discussion process needs to be in regards to contract negotiations. Portland would like to begin negotiations as soon as possible and conclude within one year or 18 months. Lorna Stickel stated that if a decision was reached in April it is anticipated that negotiations would be concluding within one year. Water Advisory Task Force Page 11 03/1 1199 Bonnie Bishop - Why deformed fish in Newberg pool? Joe Glicker no one knows. Henrietta Cochrun - Is Tigard required to make commitment before negotiation begins? Lorna Stickel stated that the process would begin ASAP. Portland would like to have all participants involved at the beginning of negotiations whether a decision has been reached or not. Marland Henderson - Addressed to the Willamette proposal presenters, what proposal would be in terms of contracts? Chris Uber stated that within the plan itself the participants involved in the developing the plan outlined a framework on how contracts and governance would be handled. This framework is outlined in Section 5 of the report and it is essentially a 190 organization that would take approximately 3-6 months to accomplish. Bill McMonagle - If the amalgamation of all cities involved with Portland would get together to help the City finance raising the dam and other improvements, will Portland commit a number of gallons of supply per day, without a cut off system ? Lorna Stickel stated that if that is a condition by which Tigard will accept Portland as a water supplier it will either be a part of the contract or it won't and Tigard will either agree or not. Portland is very aware that certainty of supply is a big issue for customers. Bill McMonagle - Will there be uninterruptible source of water? Lorna Stickel stated that Portland is aware that is an issue and concern and if it is not contained in the contract - don't sign. Chuck Woodard - If some participants went to the Willamette while others used Portland as a suppler - would Portland be willing to share supply in time of a catastrophe? Lorna Stickel stated that Portland recognizes within the region water suppliers in general in such a circumstance would ensure that water services are returned as quickly and as safely as possible. Portland will still have interties with Tigard no matter what choice is made. Gene McAdams - If the Portland City Charter only allows for the sale of surplus water then memo from City Attorney states that is not the case, can the City of Portland revise the City ordinance to eliminate the surplus water phrase? Lorna Stickel stated that the Charter has the surplus water phrase in it and it can only be changed by a vote of the citizens. Lorna stated she would put Mr. McAdams in direct contact with the City attorney. 7. Future Meeting Agenda Items Next week's agenda is the Citizens for Safe Water speakers. Gary Ott motioned that presentation is limited to one hour with a full hour questions and answers. The motion was seconded by Marland Henderson and voted upon unanimously. Water Advisory Task Force Page 12 03/ 1 1 /99 i I Bonnie Bishop questioned since she is not available to attend the Corvallis trip on t Saturday, could someone else from the Citizens for Safe Water attend? The members approved. 8. Public Comments No public comment. 9. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Water Advisory Task Force Page 13 03/11/99 1111111111MIN -M H.D. TAYLOR WATER TREATMENT PLANT Surface water source: Willamette River Demand Plant: Regular operating hours 7am - 5pm. Operating hours extend during summer months. as needed, to meet the demand. Plant Staff: All certified by Oregon State Department of Health. 0 Water Operations Supervisor 0 4 full-time plant operators a Support Staff - Technical Services: Water Quality Technician, Mechanical and Electrical Maintenance Technicians. 1949 - Original construction date: 4:0 MGD capacity, 2 filters, 2 flocculation/sedimentation basins. #1 Clearwell capacity 244,000 gal. 1961 - Treatment capacity increased: . 8.0 MGD capacity, 4 filters, 3 flocculation/sedimentation basins. 1970 - Treatment capacity increased to 21 MGD. Mixed media added to filters allowing higher filtration rate. High-rate tube settlers added to basins providing greater solids removal. 1974 - Plant capacity downrated due to more stringent Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. 1986 - Plant capacity established at 14 MGD due to SDWA Amendments. 1993 - Plant capacity further derated to 11.2 MGD due to clarifier limitations, advanced age of filters and CH2M Hills Facility Plan. 1996/97 - Plant capacity increased to 21 MGD with modifications and additions to plant Increased intake pumping capacity to 28 MGD. Switched from chlorine gas to 12% sodium hypochlorite for disinfection Modified chemical feed systems to flow-pacing. Added flocculation/sedimentation basin #4. • Horizontal flocculators Lamella Plate technology used for increased solids removal. Filters #5 - 8 added with carbon caps for taste and odor removal. • Chlorine Contact Basin added to meet requirements for chlorine contact time. • Capacity approximately 550,000 gal. • Computer control system incorporated allowing increased process control and monitoring. Filter-to-waste capability added to existing filters #1-4. Effluent pumping capacity increased to 23.9 MGD with the addition of 500 hp Variable Frequency Drive pump. MEMO TO THE SENATE February 11, 1999 Marvin S. Hausman, M.D. Health is more important than political dignity or political nrid. Oregon leads the nation in deaths from Parkinson's disease and is number three in the nation in deaths related to Alzheimer's disease. A further study on Parkinson's disease published in the Journal of the American Medical Association revealed that most Parkinson's disease occurrences are related to environmental factors and are not genetic in nature. The people of the state of Oregon are AT RISK and these facts require immediate attention and resolution. The following actions are recommended: 1. Organize a scientific board of medical experts to design studies to identify the relationship between specific pollutants and, but not limited to, the following disease states: Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer. 2. Identify specific pollutants and the source of pollution. 3. Conduct epidemiological studies in order to reveal the association of the pollutants to specific disease states. 4. esig a corrective water treatment process to produce sufficient quantities of safe, healthful water. Rate of growth should proceed hand in hand with medical and public licalth advances to allow future generations to live in a safe, healthy environment, Ambb 2/10/99 WILLAMETTE RIVER STUDY PRESENTED BY DR. JAMES WILSON IS FLAWED The Willamette Water Supply R gency contracted CTRAPS (Consultants in toxicology, Risk Assessment and Product Safety), a Washington, D.C. based firm, to analyze four river water samples for estrogenic disruptors only. Representatives from both the Tigard and Wilsonville chapters of Citizens for Safe Water attended Dr. Wilson's technical seminar on Feb. 8, 1999 at the Oregon Graduate Institute. Dr. Wilson's study was challenged by many of those present, including members of the US Geologic Survey who have studied the river, and others from the medical and toxicological communities. Many of the questions regarding the testing could not be answered by Dr. Wilson because he did not do the testing himself, but he was only delivering the results. He told us of his background as a chemist for Monsanto, and that he was not an endocrinologist, immunologist, or toxicologist. Citizens for Safe Water have concluded that the Willamette River water study by CTRAPS is flawed for the following reasons: 1. The four test samples were not properly collected and transported to the testing facility in Michigan. 2. The test samples were taken from the river at a time when pesticide contamination would be at its lowest level (November, 1998). 3. Only one estrogenic model was tested with the river water. "There are four other estrogenic receptor models that could have been tested which might have produced different results. 4. The testing was done "in vitro" in a petri dish. This type of testing does not predict how a chemical will react when it is introduced into a living model ("in vivo" testing). 5. This testing model did not address the synergistic effect of several chemicals in the water, nor the accumulative effect these chemicals could have on the body. In conclusion, we should not make a snap decision that the Willamette River is a safe drinking water source based on a flawed test which was only testing for one of many different potentially harmful substance: in the water. An independently conducted, properly funded study with strict controls should be done to determine the effects of not only endocrine disruptors, but also the effects of heavy metals and pesticides in the water. Until this is done, the citizens of Oregon should not be forced to drink Willamette River water. • s. MONTGOMERY VVATSON To: Mike Miller Date: February 4, 1999 From: Jeanne Work Reference: 1065098.011601 Subject: Willamette River Monitoring Cc: Joe Glicker, Lisa Obermeyer, Quarterly Sampling Summary Jeff Bauman A summary of the weekly, monthly, and quarterly sampling completed prior to January 12, 1999 is provided in the attached tables. This summary includes the results of the two previous quarterly sampling events on (August 12, 1998, and November 2, 1998. The third quarterly samples were taken on January 26, 1999; weekly and monthly samples were also taken on that day. Results from the quarterly sampling will be expected from the Montgomery Watson Laboratories in 4 to 6 weeks. , • r GENERAL NOTES TO ACCOMPANY QUARTERLY MONITORING RESULTS SUMMARY FOLLOWING NOVEMBER QUARTERLY MONITORING General Note, (Contaminant) identifies a repeat parameter almady listed. Note 1. Weekly sample analyses include pH, turbidity, and temperature measurements taken on- site. Weekly samples were sent to a local laboratory, AmTest Oregon, for alkalinity, calcium, hardness, TOC, DOC, UV-254, total coliform, fecal coliform, and heterotrophic plate count. Monthly analyses conducted by AmTest Oregon include ammonia and Flavor Profile Analysis. Montgomery Watson Laboratories conducted giardia and Cryptosporidium analyses monthly. Note 2. Giardia and Cryptosporidium reporting methods are undergoing revisions by EPA as part of the Information Collection Rule. The new standard reporting procedure is used in this summary. Note 3. No limits have been developed for acrylamide of epichlorohydrin. EPA Primary Drinking Water Standards cite best treatment technology applications. Note 4. Several xylene compounds (m, o, and p-xyienes) were sampled and none were detected. Note 5. Trihalomethanes (THMs) are found in treated waters as disinfection byproducts. THMs were not monitored as part of this raw water evaluation. Note 6. Supplemental measurements were taken to further characterize the raw water source. Note 7. EPA Drinking Water Method 525 was used to identify a wide range of semivolatile organic compounds. In addition, EPA Wastewater Method 625 was used to identify additional semivolatile organic compounds. By these methods, no semivolatile components were found. Note 8. Several carbamates were sampled as part of the monitoring program, including several forms of aldicarbs, baygon, dursban, methiocarb, and oxamyl. No detections were found. Note 9. EPA Candidate Contaminant List includes pesticides currently under EPA Organophosphate Review. Note 10. Many forms of tiazine were sampled, including atrazine, hexazinone, simazine, and cyanazine. With the exception of an unconfirmed low detection of simazine, no triazines were found. Note 11. No quantitative methods exist for the measurement of fonofos. Note 12. For these compounds, there is either no EPA method available for measurement, or the current methods produce "flake" results. Note 13. EPA is in the process of developing reliable methods for quantifying organotins and RDX. These contaminants were not measured. Note 14. Viable methods have not yet been developed for measuring microbial contaminants found on the Contaminant Candidate List. MOINES will Note 15. Contaminants listed in order of greatest USGS Study sampling frequency: Distribution of Dissolved Pesticides and Other Water Quality Constituents in Small Streams and their Relation to land Use in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, 1996. Note 16. Samples taken during the 8/12/98 sampling event which were to be analyzed by the EPA 507 method were held beyond the method's recommended holding time prior to analysis. A new sample was taken on 9/23/98 and the 507 analyses were redone. Note 17. The analyte simazine was analyzed by three methods, EPA 507, EPA 525.2, and ML 614, 619, 8141. It was detected using method ML 6141 619, 8141, at a level of 1.7 ug/l, but was not confirmed by either of the other two methods with lower detection limits. Note 18. The total organic carbon measurement from November 2, 1998 is reported using Montgomery Watson Laboratory data. The local laboratory, AmTest Oregon, did not conduct TOC or DOC measurements. Note 19. Lab results not returned at time of summary preparation. Note 20. Samples taken during the 8/12/98 sampling event which were to be analyzed by the EPA 507 method were held beyond the method's recommended holding time prior to analysis. The samples could not be retaken in December due to loss of the sampling station intake, but were resampled in January as part of the quarterly sampling event. Note 21. A short list of Montgomery Watsons Labs Method 614, 619, 8141 was conducted. As a result, some analytes were not measured by this method. Resampling was to occur in December to capture the long list of ML 614, 619, 8141, but loss of the sampling station intake prevented this from happening. Quarterly sampling in January will capture these analytes. Note 22. The Laboratory Control Sample recovery for Method 515.1 (TCDD analysis) failed. However, from EPA method 525.2, sect. 1' ).2.4 reads: "Phthalate esters and other background components appear in variable quantities in laboratory and field reagent blanks, and generally cannot be accurately measured at levels below about 2 ug/l." The compound is not regulated; the method defines as quantitative only. Note 23. The sampling station intake was lost shortly after Thanksgiving following stones and high river flows. A new river intake was installed in inid-December and sampling resumed on December 23, 1998. Note 24. A new pump was installed in late December, but was not functioning properly during early January. As a result, weekly samples could not be taken during the first week of January. Sampling resumed on January 12, 1999. t . 0 ° °o QP o°jQ~ e° a oP o}e~o ° °o a QP 50~ eo y0g 0t~ 0•~ ~ o oe be §o 5p~ alli Ili, A 11 11 TSwi~~•°°~HP~~~M~~ all eo°o D o e o 00 00 0 00 0 0 0 OP o y_ y H1 v v ° P P oP o ail Eli Wo, lip sssasesass• I HIM rrrrrrr-rrr tl PAP§Lq °bPAb~pp~~1e°7~, gy~ PPoepyo10,, L0, a+opob° }A b i o9~s t PPoP ob7,~ ge pSpg oten o10,, 10,, w 4.92M_f~pYppqpP M$AY A~'3o ~ 1~ Q4 9$ Q9 b__ C~S74Q1?bO_ ¢ EEEEEEEE E EE EEEEEEEEEEE_v'E 4~ EEvvvaEv E EEEEEEE - - - EEEEE~ 44 E; EE > L- LLL L I y444999 44»44» ~{>!~$~94>49y9.y49y9@444•>9r (4~! r~4 c49 94999494 99 {¢Q{ 3i~~~~ yp»1!{ »g7iN iR• 1'rA Y'~I+NwTZwTE~R~~o~~a a{ 8y»(~N ~~F]9~21~>~y~,S > yg»yg»»»(i!f$ !C y"$~S !C Q Q J~R~_V•wI~P H ~lyfpy y~~H Diu +N gi+<• +HHHkN:. Ny~i~~~auH b1p 753 ~r^~bb~~b~$ {.rHbH/aNbbT 86 si ~iffi 7K~~Ui~iR ~mm~o+ fl 38 8N 76 3 g ZZ a d " y e rr r M - V w N Z ? . c; t 1-1 1 gtl~7~~U~~S 1j Au r ON " 61 gt~iu iM w S g tl AAA AAA N P +4 S IP V ---=.~~fl w v ~ n a + N r,~ g _ 1 1Y " w y, ~ vil9k +P w tw It rr M + P 11 . Hill 111 1! b ~ + N P~ N W Y + Ill I ALL 9 1 J~ N f1 A r~ i $ :fro ==Z€o $ t4 2R Z g $ € $ $ $ & or o0 v rv a $ $ 212 a If $e $ qa R;~A $ s $ $ $ $ $ Y v v v w w w n yy 14 tt SS zy ZZ v v N -Y -4 R 7~ Qg 4 aR R V tii 14 A u W 14 ifRAt o2 5tfi~~aa ~ 1 Eli <s ri<«<«< « « < < < < < < « < < < b< bb -rbbb®Bbb ~ ebb bbd ~b ~b ~ b ~ ~b b b a eb b ~ ~ b a 11 Wd O o 0 ~ 4~ 0 A ' N F N N R "I I., Sd 00 0 ~ 00 0 112 RIMS S w^~y gO .Y Y Y ~ ~ ~ it ~ G~~~ 4G vd. 1.11A j.. v4 ngg Y 6 r7 i Y r~ i 9 9 m s ~a i 4 4 2 2 2 2 22 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2$ 8 2 g s . a III H ry ~4 r N ~ Sf ~ N N N N N N N r{ ~ 3-$ and 4 9 q R~~ ~ 4 o d£ 0 0 0~ m o d d d d d ~ a d d o 0 . 1 ~ i ! ~ Ja*E~~ A diyr~ ~ }{E~(~ ~ III, fill 11 1111, ~ e e n ~ t. o s I s s z z~ ~r i $ 2 $ r ~w t V1 N ~ N ~ ~ e ° d a o - N G • P ` i s l IfI111111 111IM111 1111111 11 1111 a ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FFF - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - pp ypP p PpQQpp P_PPP P P P P~S~P >~$~$g ° r §r $ 8 44 4 i~443 44+ § 4R__»_ ~ 84r4 4§§r8~+ wN~i ®~iriwa p_ P v__P $EEEEEEEE~sEfEEE ~EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEE EE EE ~ E >v$ypyy$i$y!~V$q19a~a$~ ~ ~~q~ q~~~~g999R949~@9994999~9~J999R8~949~~~4 49 T$$$$$$~'$$$ $ $ ~3"533~3~ Q N N N p~bc »>»»~»s»> >s»>~s> V 3 t,t V F v P 4 MU6166 15i !1117M 9 _ _ I III 111 11 T-111 11 s s ~ -1-1 TIT 11 g fill [fill 111111gliffilif If ON 61,02 1 igs061516 M59191 aiall 311 1 lie IN 11 Him, 1111111. ''11 t 1,H] Ht Itj I I L 1111111 ill H 111111111 11 1111 1 11 1 1 1 111 111 I 7ift I'll 71 LLI--i __im u t lk Kill r alp + - R + I COMMON EM F E ZEE EEEEEEE EVER € EE EE ®P 94449949444444 4444949 99 449 4 > >s>ss>ras>s» »yg » N151 s »NyP. s ss Ila w, » » » >r»>wwwwwwwww wwwGGa'twwGwwG V HIM 1111. III I III Ill I In I. V G t aaab€aaa~a~~~~~~a~a~a~~~ga~a~~a~a~aaa a€a a r I H11111111111111111111 11111 s 1 $y • P CITY OF TIGARD WILLAMETTE RIVER RAW WATER MONITORING Flavor Profile Analysis Date of Month Sample Odor Description 7/10198 8/6/98 9/1/98 10/1/98 11/2/98 12/29/98 1/2999 Musty 8 8 - 3 - - Results Earthy 4 4 3 5 5 5 Not Yet Fishy 4 - - - 5 5 Available ,•k Testimony To: Senate Committee on Natural Resources September 23, 1998, Salem, Oregon Good Day Senator Tarno, and Senate Members of the Natural Resource Committee My name is Dr. Marvin Hausman. I am a board certified Urological Surgeon and a considered expert on the science of immunological and neurodegenerative disorders. I have been asked to come before you today to. discuss my findings to date regarding the role of heavy metal products in the Willamette River Basin as they relate to the potential causes of human disease. I have reviewed the following documents: 1. Willamette River Basin Water Quality Study by Tetra Tech, Inc., dated June 30, 1993, Report No. TC 8983-10. This report was apparently prepared at the request of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) 2. Occurrence of Selected Trace Elements and Organic Compounds and Their Relation to Land Use in the Willamette River Basin, 1992-94. This report was prepared by the US Geological Survey (USGS) in cooperation with ODEQ, i Mimi- Willamette River Technical Advisory Steering Committee and the National Water Quality Assessment Program, Report No. 96-90234. 3. Analytical Data from Phases I and II of the Willamette River Basin Water Quality Study, Oregon, 1992-94. USGS Report No. 95-373. 4. Distribution of Dissolved Pesticides and Other Water Quality Constituents in Small Streams, and their Relation to Land Use, in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, Water Resources Investigations Report 97-4268. 5. USGS Water Quality in the Willamette Basin, Oregon, 1991-95 6. Willamette River Basin Task Force, Recommendations to Governor John Kitzhaber, December 1997. 7. Internet requests from the National Library of Medicine, topics relating to heavy metals and neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease etc. 2 swum 8. Fax Sheets from the Agencies for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (A.TSDR), topics Cadmium, Mercury, Aluminum, Chromium, Copper, Lead and Zinc. My review to date has raised more questions than answers. The main objective in my analysis was to establish what relationships, if any, existed between levels of heavy metals in Willamette River water and possible links to diseases. I am most concerned about heavy metals and free radicals because of recent evidence that shows a link between these agents and the occurrence of various diseases such as stroke, Alzheimer's Disease, heart attack and liver disease. Please refer to items 1-6. This data was acquired from a Medline search on the Internet. The information indicates a potential role for heavy metals in the occurrence of Alzheimer's Disease, i.e. 3 zinc, Parkinson's Disease, i.e. iron and oxygen free radicals, and nonspecific nerve death, i.e. zinc. A recent telephone conversation with Dr. Thomas O'Halloran, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, also revealed that abnormal levels of copper can cause liver disease( Item 7). Please refer to item 7. Overload of copper is specifically dangerous for people with Wilson Disease and Menkes' Disease. These hereditary diseases each occur roughly once in every 30,000 births. You are all aware of the hubbub over Mad Cow Disease and I would like to inform you that the transmission of Mad Cow Disease to humans, in Europe, to date, has an occurrence ratio of 1:1,000,000. Obviously the occurrence of Wilson Disease and Menkes' Disease is much more significant and therefore the level of copper in drinking water must be critically controlled, as well as the level of copper in fish consumed by humans. 4 ~~A Senators, do you have any questions at this point? I have established the link and at this point I want to present abnormal findings in the Willamette River ]Basin Studies. 1. Tetra Tech attempted to assess the ecological health of various biological communities of the River. They state on page 12 of their Executive Summary (Item 8) that they want to "provide data to assist ODEQ in developing biological criteria for monitoring water quality" One of the stated developments appears to be a "toxics model" called Smptox 3. This model would predict water and sediment concentrations of toxic elements and organic compounds and includes relevant partitioning and decay processes. Field sampling was collected in August 1992, at a time of low flow in the Willamette River. I want to emphasize that their data is voluntarily skewed to low river flow rates. Although they stated that they wanted to conduct special studies to evaluate temporal changes under 5 storm conditions. I could find no data relevant to this topic in their report. Also recommended were studies that would assist ODEQ in either identifying emerging chemicals of concern or interpreting model study results to aid in regulatory decision making. It is obvious that the results of this study do not satisfy the potential model to be created. Tetra Tech, performed a fish community assessment study. Using the test of Geode, internal visual analysis of organs was performed. Please refer to page 4-43, section 4.2.6 Fish Community Assessment (Item 9). ® Fish are good indicators of long term effects and broad habitat conditions because they are relatively long-lived and mobile. ® Fish communities generally include species that represent several different feeding modes (e.g. herbivores, omnivores, insectivores, planktivores, piscivores); ® Fish are consumed by humans and are thus important organisms for assessing contamination. 6 I have included in your package the entire section on fish community assessment. Please refer to figure 4-14 and 4-15; pages 4-59 and 4-60. Station 18 is downstream from the City of Newberg and station 30 is upstream from the mouth of the Multnomah Channels discharge to the Columbia River. Greater than 90% of the livers of Squamrfish were abnormal at these two stations. Moreover, all stations had a significant increase in the percentage of abnormal livers. Figure 4-15 also shows abnormalities of thymus; Most severe at station 1,9, and 18. The thymus serves a role in the development of the immune system. Pathology of the thymus in these fish may represent immune abnormalities which could lead to inability to fight infectious and cancerous diseases. Of course you are all previously aware of the severe cytoskeletal abnormalities in these fish found at the Newberg Pool, station 18, pages 4-65 to 4-69. 7 I called several representatives of the Tetra Tech company and requested additional pictures and possible pathology reports on the abnormal internal organs of these fish. I spoke with Linda Fosse of Tetra Tech and Steve Ellis, a previous employee. Mr. Ellis has left Tetra Tech and is currently employed by EVS Consultants, in Seattle, WA. I would like to inform this committee that no pathology studies were performed on these internal organs except for a visual determination of disease. I was also informed that apparently all data records and pictures from this study were destroyed when Tetra Tech moved to a new location. I subsequently called Chauncey Andersen, USDS, to track down additional data regarding the fish. I was referred to Dr. Gene Foster, ODEQ, and was informed that the preserved fish specimens had been treated for the skeletal study in such a way that no further chemical or pathological analysis could be performed on the internal organs. I asked the representatives of Tetra Tech why this apparently severe abnormal liver finding had s oil MINNIIIIII not been investigated further. I was informed that the protocol did not cover this issue nor was there adequate funding to do more critical studies such as microscopic examination for cancer or tissue analysis for levels of toxic heavy metals or free radicals. I also questioned what study cooperation occurred in sample collection between USGS (Items 10-12) and Tetra Tech and was told that all studies were done independently of each other. In essence, we cannot compare heavy metal levels in suspended sediment collected by USGS with the abnormal ecosystem findings of Tetra Tech. The data from USGS reveals abnormally high levels of the following toxic metals; arsenic, chromium, lead and zinc.. These heavy metals were found in unfiltered water in reproducible fashion, table 10, page 23, USGS Report 96- 4234(Item 12). Water quality criteria was specified by ODEQ and exceedences for trace elements are shown in Table 9, page 21, USGS Report 964234 (Item 12). Moreover, HBP levels, which are defined for protection of human health, were exceeded for 9 arsenic at 7 locations and lead at 1 location. Copper and zinc exceeded acute and chronic aquatic life criteria at 5-6 of the 9 urban sites sampled. It is apparent that toxic accumulations of trace elements are higher at urban runoff locations. Three of the urban sites were storm drains or manholes. I would also like the committee members to note that the minimum reporting levels screens used in this study were set at higher levels than acute toxicity and chronic toxicity for aquatic life and in 1 or 2 categories for human health criteria. Senators, please refer in Item 12 to page 27, column 1, second paragraph. "analytical methods....... Biological concerns. Depending on the study objectives filtered water samples" In Summary: 1. Toxic levels of trace elements are present in suspended water sampling and in, the particulate material at the bottom of the river. 10 2. Significant aquatic marine pathology has been identified; squawf sh- liver, thymus, etc. 3. Studies to date are inadequate and did not assess causal links. a. squawfish are bottom dwellers. USGS collections were from suspended sediments at a level where this fish doesn't live. b. Tetra Tech performed its study in August 1992 and at a time when the river flow is way down. A proper scientific study shouldn't allow the method to dictate the results. 4. Data for reanalysis has been purged from the files of Tetra Tech. My recommendations are as follows: 1. Coordinate future studies with proper protocols to assess both ' pathology and chemical analysis at the same locations and similar collection times. Collect fish from same level that the toxic metals are collected from. 2. Submit all biologic specimens to an expert pathologist for proper chemical examination, as well as microscopic study. 3. Perform a critical assessment of the levels of heavy metals, free radicals and antioxidant activity on water samples collected according to proper scientific protocols at different locations, temporal changes and various flow rates. It is Imperative to study the water during high turbulent flow and especially after spillage of raw sewage. 4. Guarantee proper funding for adequate study protocols 5. Perform epidemologic studies on the populations who are currently exposed to drinking "treated" Willamette River Water. These studies should particularly address the occurrence of liver disease, Lou Gerhigs Disease and other human afflictions that I have outlined in this address. 12 Milli I would like to emphasize that I have posed many of my questions and issues to the professionals involved in the studies presented to you and that they have not been able to refute my findings as well as my conclusions. I am of the opinion that Willamette River Basin water filtered, unfiltered or treated should not be consumed by humans pending more complete analysis of contained toxic heavy metal agents as well as the impact to date on biologic organisms within this ecosystem. The people of the State of Oregon have the right to demand that a properly funded, well designed scientific study with proper controls be performed and the results completely analyzed prior to being required to drink potentially toxic Willamette River Basin water. 13 GLOSSARY Free Radicals - Chemicals that react with molecules, cells and tissue that can eventually cause disease. Heavy metals - elements such cadmium, selenium, chromium, zinc, lead, copper Wilson Disease- A rare hereditary disease characterized by toxic deposits of copper in many organs, which in the liver, lead to progressive and fatal changes. Menkes Disease - An inherited disorder that results in reduced absorption of copper from the intestines. 14 lir i ES .H CIENTI..",.T VOLUME 12, No. 18 THE NEWS JOURNAL FOR THE LIFE SCIENTIST September 14, 1995 Ambitious Flan to Screen for Endocrine Disruptors Unveiled BY PAUL SMAGLIK A group of 39 scientists from government, EPA scientist, noted during an ACS press the growing anecdotal evidence in animals. academia, and industry drafted the plan, conference. "We have some clear links and Timm note,-, that the U.S. government requites A proposed plan to screen about 15,000 which was presented at the American Chemi- some broad evidence," Timm commented. a higher burden of proof to regulate chemicals commercial chemicals that may cal Society's annual meeting in Boston last "But not enough to convict!' than does most European governments. interact harmfully with the endocrine month. The Endocrine Disrupter Screening The testing plan aims to provide that evi- Ideally, two sets of data will emerge over system could be one of the most ambitious and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) dence. But even scientists who support that the course of the project-the level of expo- and expensive such efforts ever. The first tier was formed after 1996 amendments to the plan-including Timm-acknowledge that sure humans and animals have to endocrine of the two-part plan would cost an estimated Food Quality Protection Act and Safe Drink- evidence won't come easily or cheaply. The disrupters, and the magnitude of effects such $200,000 per chemical for high throughput ing Water Act. The amendments required the high throughput testing will only yield a "sus- exposure causes. "I hope that somewhere screening. Those screens would test chemi- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to cre- pect" list, Timm explains. And chemicals that down the line we will be able to put this infor- cals for interactions with five endocrine ate a consensus plan that would set priorities pass that test successfully may interact with mation together," says Timm. receptors, including estrogen, androgen, and for testing, including recommendations of the endocrine system indirectly, perhaps Right now, the information is scattershot thyroid receptors. Chemicals testing positive specific screens and tests. involving other receptors, or in tandem with and limited. "The human data is very scant would move on to the next level, which Anecdotal evidence-such as masculin- other chemicals. right now," John Brock, an epidemiologist could cost up to $2 million apiece. Chemi- ized snails and feminized birds exposed to Still, creators of the plan maintain its utility with the Centers for Disease Control and Pre- cals in that level would be tested in a variety pesticides, fertilizers, and other commercial and worth, given the abundance of these chem- vention explained. The problems in humans of animal models for damage to reproduc- chemicals that have seeped into the environ- icals--especially commercial pesticides and include small sample sizes and cases limited tion and development. ment-already exists, Gary E. Timm, an herbicides that flow into groundwater-and (Continued on Page 4) ~1.~b„ R_ r d • , ; t _ yY~!'th~. R h . ~ M F. . ..!Mk` " :S, ~y..w. Et ilcalYr ,.e 01 R, lay b6 Ts o p ev~;(7 a1 I es19~1s, ;Y' x t' e r BY S BuNx evelop s wo'u~lbe affoid- w ' a le in they `deV 6p.ing cotititriesi~ where Baiantea Placebe Ualpa Doable nand -,)alga Tor a think that is "notlu i placebo the full) cols a§,toa i s t Y1`e has beget"";mt~bh. s kely wtdely'A.hI e1 f A,e B Whenever th r""d i a en- Also Corti buttt g tort iiiiterest an: s'0 tioned placebo this yb it often has Beene plicebos is df'erFopuIA8ly o># alternattYe ?r.. in the context of clinical trials overseas for medicine, mini-body concepts, titcl~btia~. oaoayrarars,ne treatments. t6'prevent,,perinatal HIV .*iorafireatmentsforvarious:disoiYters,whiCh`t', om ii... «sr ink, ourbadraaon trau, tran~tntssibn jhe studies were • contto may involve psych,&8r a ,6sponses srm _ ON , e.enr F ial,,, ,~.r H~,N" ver hecause most of them employed ilar to tho§~~du`&@" plc bo titse How- laceao cun"fs.with the variouFn eat= eve%Anne+ e llia`s °f 8' g~H and Unt'rrrlents binf ed,'ilthotrght trial .the 'versity o 9 the h~f sctenceUnitat' and _Prancl alieri had no`te's, y'Allie ve inedtcitT',just is''' indicated ,that tha'antiretrovirA druk reluctant a5 -,her,. otm. of rt~ediclaV 1,0 4,idovudiri 6L° ,T)~ceduced th$',A e.tkc say thei elong to the placebo*' ofm~therEei{%ildransmi stob`typc~leffectib0it. has,aenscen•a5notluag., to sn +s u w es ub- ;aHiV . Zonner;et Neiv_ EhglaritlY She edrl ti ne oI ft `1 bIffflapt" lodd afafMedicine;3Y 1738,1494) ishedcenonthbfsubJt(An at usraArottcoumemofamtroiaascn lV~jdlUteS `A debata erupted over whether rt "-,vas ton, ed , T7'` 1'(aceb$ peCt: A rs . , . A r . BLIND OR BAU&el)7 Subjects `il'} to of recelvtd caffeine (left) lofted higher for" proper io give' people placlio when an' ciplinary xpldrttttori, Cambridge; iVlass., phyatoleglcal slyhs of tehalon than lulitAetrt rlgh0 who raveh~djhm dray under double blind effective therapy was availably, ,even Harvard UniVer9tty ress,199'1): ' or me, condltlbtfidl it - though the.hew studies were atfeinpts toy lh (ConF~nued on Pa e, zj 'N, . i Technology Transfer Pact Could Be A Mode I for .Future Agreements BY EUGENE Rosso both academic and commercial institutions. All parties contend that the agreements could serve as models for After months of complaints, hundreds of scien- future agreements between academic and commercial tists will finally be able to use a long-coveted research institutions. recombinant technology without looking over "What we've worked [out] with the NIH is a role their shoulders. On August 19, National Institutes of model for how comrrercial institutions can put impor- Health Director Harold Varmus announced an agree- Cant inventions for free into the academic domain while ment with DuPont Pharmaceuticals that will enable retaining commercial rights that are reasonable," NIH and NIH-supported researchers to use a DuPont- claims David Block, vice president of product plan- developed technology, called Cre-lox, without compro- ning and acquisition at DuPont. mising the company's ability to receive the appropriate Cre-lox allows investigators to efficiently cut out or value for commercial applications. put in any size chunk of DNA into a designated sector In a separate agreement with DuPont, the Jackson of the genome. It's the first technology that's been laboratory, a nonprofit institution in Bar Harbor, proven to do so in post-mitotic cells such as liver cells. BIODIVFRSITY ABOUNDS: Algae and sponges line the underwater ledges of ` Maine, and a designated national repository for geneti- "We're told by many investigators that it surpasses Navessa, a tiny, uninhabited Island in the Caribbean that recently got a rare cally engineered mice, will be permitted to receive, many other recombinase systems in its simplicity and visit from scientists. See story on page 6. breed, and distribute animals containing Cre-lox to (Continued on Page 6) 0160-94966 VM NOSN3A31S OI6 k09 Od AF,THE,rIS OT HtCI! D ` d 11303S311 1tl0I03W 1S3MH141ON T a s.,Ant ties ]t t0 Il~ > I , • a~"a._ l d IZO Ntlk Sn(~yyH N AdyyW ggpp Z40o p 0S890L1 MOO 5'•5 N sCI . 9g6oI9I0-£rea*x*aan~toty*reaarEasrritxrEaxxana*asa a ii. Itfi f5sy~tre oche tl ' .:rota urr i o e~6tt~16• NEWSPAPER: Time-Sensitive Material NMI! .h AnOng f®r Answers How Do antifreeze Proteins Work? By PAUL SMAGLIK hydrogen bonding-performed exactly like ' the wild type without hydroxyls. Those Antifreeze proteins produced in some fish results convinced the investigators that hydro- have hooked the attention of industry. But gen bonding does not play a significant role in chemists are still casting inquiries into how antifreeze activity (A.D. Haymet et al., FEBS these proteins act to prevent some species of Letters, 430:301-6, July 3, 1998). flounder, cod, and sculpin from icing up in In Davies' presentation, he noted that below-zero Centigrade water. hydrophobic interactions may have a bit part, Scientists at the 216th American Chemical but he contended that the hydrogen bonds Society Meeting in Boston last month trolled play a dominant role. In a series of expert- through the merits of a number of mecha- men.ts, Davies and colleagues compared nisms--including the role of hydrogen bond- antifreeze proteins found in fish to much ing, the interaction of the protein's structure stronger ones produced in some moths and with ice, and the possibilities of hydrophobic beetles. The insect proteins inhibited ice interaction between the protein and water. The growth up to 6 degrees Celsius-about four forum failed to spawn a conclusive answer. tiretes the efficacy of known fish proteins. "We are less certain of how it works now than Davies remained convinced that threonine we were 10 years ago;' Garth L. Fletcher, plays a role, especially since the molecule is president and CEO ofA/F Protein Inc., a Cana- more abundant in the insect proteins than in than biotech firm with patents on naturally the fish proteins. occurring antifreezes, told The Scientist, fol- In an attempt to clear the water, Chi- lowing the meeting. _Iing C. Cheng, senior researcher at the The prevailing current, developed by University of Illinois at Champagne- RED HERRING: Although antifreeze proteins produced by the flounder are the most studied, Peter L. Davies, a leading biochemist in the Urbana's department of molecular and inte- they may be the least representative. field, from Queen's University in Kingston, grative physiology, traced the evolution of Ontario, posits that specific hydrogen bonds the proteins and noted that comparative form on the surface where protein meets ice genomics shows that the four known types tein's pencil shape. 'Ile winter flounder is for the proteins to be reeled into service. and inhibits crystal growth. At the meeting, of antifreeze proteins have different genetic structurally different than everything else,' Industry could net them to expand the shelf Anthony D.J. Haymei, : ' -tversity of Hous- sequences, although the proteins all perform Laursen told The Scientist following the con- life of blood platelets, increase the efficacy of ton chemist, swam against th•::,rinicn. The roughly the same function. "Although the ference. Therefore, it may be misleading to cryosurgery in tumors, produce freeze-resis- antifreeze molecules accumulate at the inter- [sequences] are extremely different, they all use that protein as a model for how all the cant fish, and stop crystallization of frozen face between ice and water, not at the inter- seem to bind to the same structure: the ice other work. face between ice and a vacuum' Ha met crystal:' Chen said at the conference. The types foods. Fletcher and from agues have already Laursen agrees with Davies that the trans lanced eves from flounder, which contended, adding that the dominant theory question remains, "How did this diverse hydrophobic reaction may at least have some p g pro.. fails to take the presence of water into array of antifreezes with different structures effect. "I think 'playing a role' is a safe thing duce antifreeze, into Atlantic salmon, which account. Instead, he hypothesizes that a come to perform the same function?" to say," Laursen explains, echoing Davies. do not. So far, the antifreeze effects in the hydrophobic reaction between the protein and Looking at more species may be the key, But he suspects the fact that all antifreeze pro- ttansgenic fish have been negligible, although the neighboring water prevents the water noted Richard A. Laursen, professor of teins present one face rich in hydrogen-bond- four generations of fish have expressed the from forming ice crystals. chemistry at Boston University. "By focusing ing amino acid groups may be too much protein. However, inserting the insect To test the theory, Haymet, Margaret on the winter flounder protein, we've been led evidence to ignoro--especially since so many antifreeze protein into other substances and Harding, of the University of Sydney, and to a red herring:' Laursen notes that the pro- other structural and sequential aspects of organisms could produce stronger antifreeze colleagues synthesized several mutant floun- tein, found in the winter flounder, is long and antifreeze proteins differ drastically from effects. And a greater understanding of how der proteins and compared them to the wild thin, while the other three types of antifreeze type to type. the different types of antifreeze work could type. Two mutants lacking all threonine proteins are more circular, resembling Eng- Fletcher notes that the mechanisms don't help scientists build an even more effective residues-Ate hydroxyl groups necessary for lish muffins, as opposed to the flounder pro- necessarily need to be completely elucidated synthetic molecule. • tom' effect means that different dose levels will tend to change over time-including compe- rather than the isolated conditions of the EnC~mine have to be screened for each receptor. So far, tition from other species, urban sprawl. and lab. "We can approximate what we know is (Continued prom Page t) interpreting environmental evidence has been ultraviolet rays. "UV exposure was big a cou- in the environment, Kubiak emphasized. difficult. In a study he presented at the confer- ple years ago, but I don't think people buy ' But he acknowledged that even the best- by self-reporting. Human data directly linked ence, LeNoir and colleagues found high con- into that anymore:' Other deformities-such thought assays have their limitations. to levels of exposure or health outcome after centrations of pesticides in Sequoia National as the widely publicized cases of deformed "You're not going to catch every permuta- exposure is almost nonexistent, Brock noted. Park, which borders farmland. The chemicals frogs-result from viruses or other nonchem- tion and combination:' Animal data, too, is confusing, noted were detected in the park's air, water, vegeta- ical causes. Population declines in frogs, for At this stage, the committee must take James LeNoir, an environmental scientist tion, and in animals, including frogs and fish. instance, may be related to the emergence of two preliminary steps to ensure the project's with the Center for Environmental Sciences Still, the chemicals on their own may not those viral diseases or endocrine disrupters, a success. The first is developing and validat- and Engineering in Reno, Nev. "Endocrine account for all the birth defects. combination of both, or neither. ing the assays, then standardizing them so disrupters tend to have the greatest impact at He acknowledges, too, that theories on the that each of the labs involved run the tests in low concentrations," LeNoir attested. That causes of birth defects and species extinction Difficulties Abound exactly the sanne manner. The second is Pinning down specific chemicals as coming up with a way to pay for the testing. endocrine disrupters will be difficult, agrees The government may foot some of the bill, Timothy Kubiak, national water quality coor- especially for the start-up costs and infra- k. dinator at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a structure, Timm noted at the conference. But 44 i, 2r m ' ° e t€s r i z y member of EDSTAC, despite the magnitude of chemical companies who produce the com- - j ' d3sf the proposed testing. The first wave will likely Pounds maybe asked to pay for tests of each miss some chemicals, because the tests are of their compounds. only for limited receptors. "If it's negative, it "°~~Nna„yi, doesn't mean it's not an endocrine receptor Burden of Proof disrupter, Kubiak told The Scientist. Even the Kubiak admits he doesn't need any more .r„! V 1► Recq " y ` ~ second wave of testing, in animal models, evidence that endocrine disrupters are having won't conclusively prove for certain that a sus- an effect on wildlife. "You have alligators with l+ K;:l pect chemical can be truly labeled an shorter penises in the lakes in South Florida endocrine disrupter. Only observing genera- You have a lot of reproductive effects in the c'*' ••y ,•,F. teons of animals over time exposed to the birds of the Great Lakes," he says. "It's e chemicals will provide the answer, as scientists absolute. It's real. The circumstantial evidence trace how exposure to trace amounts of the is in humans. It's not in fish and wildlife." ai chemicals in one generation affect different tis- But he emphasizes that the chemical com- r ` , a ty L sues of animals in subsequent generations, panies do require a higher burden of proof to Kubiak notes that the panel has already convince them that certain chemicals cause addressed one potential weakness of the specific effects in certain tissues, which, in study, by proposing that some combinations turn, lead to specific diseases and birth of chemicals-like pesticides and herbicides defects. "If you want a high burden of proof, s ; F commonly used in tandem-be tested togeth- you have to pay for it:' Kubiak concludes. 0 er. Sophisticated EQUIPMENT AVAILABLE: OSI Pharmaceuticals high throughput robotic screening systems test se assays can also detect the millions of compounds per year. The devices will help make an ambitious plan to screen over separate effects of some compounds found The EDSTAC draft report can be found at 15,000 chemiclas for interaction with five endocrine receptors possible. in the chemical soup of the environment, hitpJ/www.epagov/opptirur/opptendo% 4 • THE SCIENTIST • September 14, 1998 4 lit oompow- wow Copp IS moo wEvEi Fi1v ® Basin covers state fiver length X04 r~i1G r lat1On 7po/e Ot state POP . s NltV~jn basin . r~sld~ ~M~ Sll pQr S 0101 SIpt18 11 ~70% forest land tau* Y1M`~ rlcultl~re land 1w W~ ®23®f© ag nor ® 7% urban sec-TIO0 X-fel) , OIL Jc f gm 26.2 „alatir~ Riper T mole 9 r~l~ r~s~ ~i Puddin9 River • , St~o~,rr1 rj G~ii Afl©Ila1a depQs'tio 3a.® o00 ~F s R s a lot Plant Site ® Media" tIO~ Orville R~ 41.0 P% tv~ yvIls • d,ss~arg~rs n~►~l~r ®1~ RM 48.6 lapstream ~arnhell River R~ 00.0 A 0 w ~ vt .lFt ~i ® W(f4 e o s Mona= {Mf y~, ' f ~~i J. a, r r « ~ ~ i V ,U ~ ;..r~ y :'j~n ti` ^ b t ~a {~f,~ m +1 • ® ~ . ~i, ® o ~ O ~ . !ice ~+'N 0 ~ 1Y~~✓n~~~~ i 4"~ r '~~pt♦ t~I}r ~l Lf•~ r~~~. ,lj ,'i'rT -Z►r.{2~jFy..y t ~k"~ A^~~ / .y~1 ' r' ~ ~ v~' t , w' ~z' f~ x3€~~ Q. V- ~ s • L i V M~ L ~ .e r ,}a c. Aft 4b p • ~ p ~ ~ * ~~.f Sig al 111;11;~I L; ~ gip. ~n +►i p. i(~7 , e~w y + iy~? Oro . ® 1 / a / 40 :o 1 ® 1 a ` a ~ a 1 v v ~ a 0 v a 0 1 v ® v ~ 0 ~ m v V -1: -ml XN ~,,,'E r....~~.:. `l'•• f{ : C 1.~.:.1~`Q:, o~W ' ~^,..~5.. " *•~totss .,1~ r„ •~~~'~'`c1r,,~, 'ti~t~,t~''~'. ~a°'-~ ~1 rM•:~ r ,~Ctt 'r~4- - ~o ,fin ~t t. ~ i ~.~i:~;~,~ y~'.S'•4?y.;'~~+;i:y.+y`... ~..~;g4`6a,~•i:j~s•~i;~,.n~►4~~'.' Y~y.7,~}~'~',A~, yr tip d;'- sl S•~~ :*c~~ c'~~°ii~ + 1..~~Y. L r~'fF . 2 c i~`'c• . p~~ t ^i s ti"T' t f"L< l . .r. ~ r..~i-~.~v.<ir1!` •.-^J:'.>~r. ~,bl:Jw'L.{~:.~:.rl:u....•!i.-Lv. i.i;: i'~:':' j. 2:: 111111, ills 111011 RS C GA*C EID ODO- A01b, IEWVECOT Bol n -a I III III D odors are year-round, at how detect ed levels ~ 66 99 odors detected in summer c11 and vuoody otced by most e •n FOShy enough to b are high Intensities treated ii not activity baby occur due to asgat p ro low Raw Y r a H v ~ r a• ti.r}~5~ t M ~y Y.f{~~ 77M`r`• ~ ~•~!p~Y T1~ ~i r ry ® Y O A ;.rv~ Jac RONNIE Milli v R i "1~?W. ~ ~.kY, , W 1,~ ~~yy•.+' 0 B I / I I P ® ~ ~~`r~a its k,- 0. do 4m w r: • j'~~ fw S ® ® r",, i~A^I ~go~*~51 { rlr~` 4.4 i; 4 • i c 't 9 1 ~i i I~['~IIII~II~I t i ~ ti>> NIPW R • W A WON .y~'a ~J•'i~A.~' ~ ® 0 AN llj~ 14 a Li M C . • ~yy U ALI XORS of It4DIC A, .measure ofi wader cloudiness -Turbidity Warm-blooded Colijorm bacteria = Polluflon by animals Giardia and CryptO protozoan pathogens .tastes and odors • Flavor profile analysis Hardness measure of mineral content potential to form o Total organic car oducts disintectiOn bv p chemicals =human pollutants Synthetic organ►it r, c VENTIGNAL. AT TREATMENT PROCESS DIAGRAM Raw Water - p Preoxidation: TITI, - - chlorine ®a 00 a o _Sz Chemical Addition: G _ - Alum Sedimentation P- - polymers Filtration: - anthracite coal To - sand Users - low rates Chlorine Contactor Ills DOE t)O? *T -1 ~T Rem , ~rypt~~p a Pest tide Byproducts . • ~~~t~~C~ .Tastes and Odors - ~~~t~rva ent ~ its increases tC quavity to act1eve benefits D9.7111"..'', -TIMIZE mom HUH DOES Turbidity P estidides °f~stes OLr°d 0d0rs CDBPs 0 co .rate, deeper ~ilt~r design b b°gb ~r ital C~sts ~ ,duces cap e OPTIMIZED WATER TREATMENT PROCESS Treatment costs comparable to other conven- tional facilities, but ozone and CAC provide additional water quality benefits City of Tigard Long-Term Water RESOURCE LIST Copy of Executive Check out report summary complete s available available document ' ~ rr^ J }t.y Firay w~ ,y ~"r~ L i d'~ M +'IC~If°n r. Y{~! q~~'4~iJY ,+~ri✓l r}i ~~_`~7~~1~ ~y~ Nx S~Y/®~i~~. tt ✓1. t" 7 t ~ 4 51 \ t. ! 'F, •~aj~. \~.t jV ]S.e t2,,~ ;f , ~ 45~51' ~y .1. i 45,, Willamette River Raw Water Monitoring Program X X Annual Report 94-1996, Montgomery Watson 3/97 City of Wilsonville Water Supply Study Final Report X 3/97 Washington County Supply Line Capacity Analysis X X MSA, 9/97 Willamette River Water Treatment Pilot Study X X Montgomery Watson 8/94 Willamette River Water Supply Study Montgomery X X Watson 3/96 Water Supply Plan Update / Tigard MSA, 10/94 X X Regional Water Supply Plan Water Providers of X X Portland Metro Area 10/96 Willamette River Basin Task Force Recommendation X X to Governor John Kitzhaber 12/97 Steelhead Status National Marine Fisheries Service X 3/98 Dioxins and Furans in Bed Sediment and Fish Tissue of X the Willamette Basin, OR USGS 92-95 Analytical Data from Phases I and II of the Willamette X River Basin Water Quality Study, Oregon, 1992-94 USGS Plain talk, about drinking water. Q & A about the water X you drink 97, Dr. James M. Symons, AWWA I:\pw\wat(\resourcc_list.doc 03110/91) Copy of Executive Check out report summary complete available available document IyT,. J ~ tires a~!e~q{ w zi k ~ '~fif~a` YELC" e z 1, ~dz,'f. ew if... F.'S.fr..•~, .~f.:e;~.z.i. ST ~cy'~' 61bk.."$.. ry.. na~+. 1'rj;, _dnok ass,111111-11P,~.1,1 Estrogenicity of Willamette River Water Summary X Report 1/99, Daniel M. Byrd III, PhD; DABT & Tim Zacharewsk, Ph.D. Technical supplement in support of summary report X about Estrogenicity of Willamette River Water 1/99, Daniel M. Byrd II, Ph.D.; DABT & Tim Zacharewski, Ph.D. Testimony to senate committee on natural resources X 9/98 Dr, Marvin Hausman, Urological Surgeon and member of Citizens for Safe Water Final rules- Interim enhanced surface water treatment X rule - applies to public water systems. Serving 10,000 or more people 12/98 AM- Works Assoc. Ferric Chloride plus GAC for removing TOC 2/99 X Nowack, Cannon, Arora, Journal AWWA Strategies for minimizing ozonation by-products in X drinking water. 2/99, Thomas Grosvensor, Water Eng. & Mgt. g`,V B j ~fyY S t jY r Nov 98 & Jan 99 Reports Willamette River X Monitoring Program Montgomery Watson 1/99 Water quality survey of major American rivers 4/98 X Montgomery Watson Information report to regional water providers X consortium on potential Willamette River treatment facility and consistency with regional water supply plan 2/98 WWSA USA Today Article 10-98 - USA issues related to X EPA and state enforcement of Safe Drinking Water Act Regulations. Water Quality in the Willamette Basin, Oregon, X 1991-95 USGS i I I:\pw\watt\resource_hst.doc 03/10/99 Copy of Executive Check out report summary complete available available document }-;,'"•'i, wr rzF;~ i'~'7; e'~''~' ry F;,f•U }7 r; >^rr ; ~ ,t"i0. ) cy„i~.ry`i`ci.. u. ' rX~ r~~,r~ ' j fi aa { ✓~t t +ro `i r G4 xi~~S ~ i + f ,f )'y. rr p s ~ {,',~.F 1 "N>~e 5~.x Y t y 7~ y i / r, r rt H fix, 7 ~.fi;' Yob 18 y'1t~U T7s Urp:i."?®i.'' y:t~:.l:; t~ ,~~'pw'i► c f~ t yJ+f~. '{or L ?r~r,t„~Tk rU+ '134'R l t?~, r~@d f t zi'7,1Y`'~'e` FFtF h.4 ~tez{ ti 1,7 u ytt C}}h Y.`.4. t L! t ' s,t,+~i wkfKh C ~cps.I6 ■ Y vt t _,x~,n ruity t! ~'11yh r~~i iYt9 4Sr7r ,S E. :.{dv:~ zt ..i..:l :t :n 'r, x.r_ .-i•..a.. ti. e.`.+4K..,~. ~,Mi......Z.~. 1* ~)xt.s ~''C., Quality of Shallow Ground Water in Alluvial Aquifers X of the Willamette Basin, Oregon 1993-95 USGS Seasonal and Spatial Variability of Nutrients and X Pesticides in Streams of the Willamette Basin, Oregon, 1993-95 USGS Distribution of Dissolved Pesticides and Other Water X Quality Constituents in Small Streams, and their Relation to Land Use, in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon USGS Occurrence of Selected Trace Elements and Organic X Compounds and Their Relation to Land Use in the Willamette River Basin, Oregon, 1992-94 Oregon Insider, Willamette River as a water supply X 1/99, Kevin Hanway Cascade Water Alliance, Interlocal Contract 1998, new X regional water supply entity for Seattle, suburban cities and water district in King County Portland water supply scenarios Preliminary. Info and X correspondence Portland/Tigard 1997 Water Quality Report Portland Bureau of Water X Works Report on drinking water sources, quality & programs City of Portland, Bureau of Water Works Information X Packet Keeping the River, Focus on Environment 9/98, The X Business Journal Wholesale contracts, making sense of buy-sell X agreements. 2/99, Opflow Am. Water Work Assoc. 1:ipwlwatf\resourcc_Hst.doc u3%10/99 a ~ Copy of Executive Check out report summary complete available available document x a s .0 gv 1 4r t +«:3. C4 - Z" L PT'r:L"4 wt+" LH.Ya.y+r.~ .+`iSdw'~' wlown, v_ Let's talk about tap water quality 11/98 X What are Tigard's Water Supply options? 5/98 Fact x sheet packets on City Water Supply options and Willamette River Water Quality Q&A Portland Water and Willamette River - Comparison of x treatment systems 10/98 Portland's South Shore Well Field staff reports on x subject matter Fall 98, Mike Miller, City of Tigard Cost Efficiency, both initial construction cost & costs of x ongoing operation & maintenance 2/16/99, Draft, Wayne Lowry I:\pw\wati\resource_Iist.doc 1)3r 10/99 WATER ADVISORY TASK FORCE Agenda Thursday, March 18,1999 7:00 p.m. Tigard Town .Platt 13125 SW hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 1. Introduction and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. March 4, 1999 3. Presentation - Wayne Lowry 4. Presentation - Raw Water Monitoring - Montgomery Watson 5. Questions/Answers by Task Force Members 6. Written Questions/Answers - Public 7. Future Meeting Agenda Items 8. Public Comments i 9. Adjournment i 1:\pw\wac\3-11 agenda Wayne Lowry is a graduate of Long Beach State University, Long Beach California. He earned a BS degree in Business Administration with • a concentration in Accounting in 1980. Wayne worked for Orange County California as an internal auditor from 1980 through 1984. He began with the City of Tigard as the Accounting Manager in 1985 and was appointed the Finance Director for the City in 1987. Wayne is a Certified Public Accountant. He served as the President of the Oregon Municipal Finance Officers Association in 1998/99. He also serves with the Government Finance Officers Association as a• Budget Award Program reviewer. Din; Z-~G-99 Cost El"T"O"Iciency Kano= lilillimil both Initial construction costs and costs of ongoing operation and maintenance MT T Cl 'r 'r v-,- Eve l cation UP%f Costs P ette Proposals ■ Assumptions for comparison ■ Construction costs ■ Repayment of borrowed funds n Operation and Maintenance Costs ■ Consolidated Net Rate per CCF Comparison 11 RIMINI IIIM Ii; pgyr ZaG-59 As suCl'1 [)tiow-L1S ■ Demand per "'MSA report to Tigard Inflation 2w/o per year, growth rates as provided.bY MSA, Pumping costs.. o TMD Wheeling charge ■ Portland Debt Service rates adjusted to' 525% 0/uyr 2-L'95 Construction Costs ■ Tigard Share 70- m Portland $66.5 60 million so ■ Willamette $42.7 40 Portland million 30M Willamet 20 to 10 0 Cost Ov+w z-iN9 Repayment of B orrowed Funds ■ Portland total $139,417,182 140 ixo ■ Willamette Total 100 NPO~uaw $72,970,787 so co ■wuamet ee ao zo 0 Debt Service tJl~ 2/iL/94 portland[Willamette Comparison for Ilgard ~Portiand combined Rates •-Willamette Combined as 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 w V v 0 2.00 m 1.50 1.00 0.50 ~ 0.00 O ti ~ OHO O~ ~O O~ti O~~ 0 O~~ p ~Oty~' 'co ~Oq ryOp ~~O ~~O ~p It ~O ct, q, ~r {L Years o N N ~ in p CJ W 2000 1, - 2002 a, I 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 E 2016 a' a O 2018 co m .V O 2020 a ni 2022 ®p Q, n 2024 O CL 2026 CD N 2028 ❑ o ~7 2030 ::L n; w CD Q 2032 U (D 2034 (D 2036 m 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050 b O O N N W W O in C) in O cn Co in O O O Co O O O O 2000 2002 . 2004 i 2006 2008 s 2010 2012 O A co 2014 Q. 2016 (D 2018 5 0 2020 CCD 2022 3 CD (D 0 2024 m m O r3 y 2026 O CD 2028 w ~ 2030 3 O m CD 2032 m N O CD 27 2034 v (D 2036 :2 0 m 2038 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 2050 Table of Compared hates at dive Year Increments For City of Tigard r, ence Portland Willamette _Difference 2000 1.73 1.97 -0.24 2005 1.97 2.28 -0.31 2010 2.35 2.26 0.09 2015 2.46 2.33 0.13 2020 2.98 2.35 0.63 - 2025 3.23 1.51 1.72 2030 3.18 1.58 1.59 2035 2.67 1.66 1.01 2040 3.20 1.77 1.43 2045 3.13 1.88 1.25 2050 3.38 2.00 1.38 ~v fi s, City of Tigard Willamette River Monitoring Program Overview 1> Lisa obermeyer, P.E. Jeanne Work, P.E. Montgomery Walson Questions: o Is there adequate data to support the conclusion that the Willamette is a suitable sourceP >t~ 0 Is quality control of Tigard's sampling program adequate P s Willamette River water quallPJ has been studied since 1991 + f;, oTYWDWater Treatment Pilot Stndy.1994 ='¢o TVWD monitoring program 1994-1996 o USGS Sampling 1991-1995 o Tigard monitoring 199"resent i o studies Indicate Willamette a good source 1 What did the pile[ Reatnicn` StOw aav P o The River is a feasible future supply option oozone/RACtreatment metstringent water .w quality goals o provides "multiple harrier" to contaminants o source water quality is good What Is Montgofnerv Watson's experience In water treatment p o Design of over 120 new water treatment plan%1750 IND „ o design of more Wan 00 treatment plant upgrades and expansion 1-365 NO o evaluation of 200 operating WTP'S ..c o design a evaluation of 30 ozone systems - ' o 100 bench and pilot plant studies r MW as extensive NW pilot experience a i ~o Bull Run filtration o Portland corrosion control :st o Seattle Taft and Cedar Pilot Studies o Victoria, 8.0 o Vancouver B.C. a ; o Tualatin River r 0 Willamette giver gill I What did the 1994-1996 Sampling program indicate? o focus on water treatability and public k' health ' o look at worst-case high now conditions o both years above average rainfall o recommended process will produce high quality water > Nothing observed at levels of concern o Soft, low organic content, low turbidity s.~ o bacteriological quality good o cyst concentrations typical of NW 0160 organic chemicals analyzed o occasional detects of chemicals at put levels, well below treated water standards -Q ' What has USCS sampling shown P i s o USES has focused on tributaries o many detections of orgaolcs in small, wadeable sUeams o 121 organic chemicals tested on mainstem a 3 s • 4 dateeu et Parts Pet tritltotr Ie+rels _ 1OU less UM treated Patel suadard for Y Midated a c6ealeais straddle. slMdeo o USES results consistent with utlllty sampling 3 . What are the objectives of Tigard's program P o Compare to prg Aous study results: HAS ` ANYTHING CHANGED P o Expand focus on organic chemical ' detection • SBWA • EPACoala0daa0tCa0dldatetist BSGS-detected theadcals au where 10 Batlo s0spemdaadearlae dlsraptors about 259 c&emiealf aaatned Sampling targets high and low flow conditions o Weekly for basic treatment parameters o monthly for Glardla/Crypto and ammonia O gnatrteriy for exhaustive list of organics Tigard Program Roles and Responsibilities o Wilsonville • site aad saE-0p assistance o Tigard wafts" MaOttdy sampil0y y, ^ 602rtedy $=Pa0l assistance O Montgomery Watson w • ti iiWa® • OOaPterly saa+/f109 data aualysls 4 Who Is doing TIMI S Sampling P o Tigard Water Quality Program Coordinator ~A juagOlybeaedalandddainerosldnelUNP1130ROM d1sulbndan system • well sampUa® • Cress Ceaaeet 0II Central preDram ;;®s o OHO certifled water distribution system Operator, level 11 o with Tigard stace 9998 MW ProVideS Program SUPP®rt e o training to Tigard staff :A o field training and mitten laatMctfons s o on-site analyses • rocord•taeepia0 eaalp®Cataaleteaaaea Cailbratlw ~s • YS6ap11n® o sampling assistance : - 11 LaPoratorV anaiVSIS a Weekly samples by AmTost Oregon o OHD certilled for drinking water auahisis . o has performed Tigani's distribution system and groundwater analyses for last 28 years ~ baCtedeloplcal • load ad c"Pet pnnadwater•ahratearDtYaasregaaed J r_•, Montgomery lobs for organics Analysis :A s o Commercial lab specializing in drinking crater analysis for 30 years o certined In 29 states, incl. Oregon o 10,000 analyses per month, 50,000 «.~s compounds T o serve > 100 of largest U.S. utilities o located in Pasadena, CA Montgomery Labs Qualifications o lab director chair of Standard Methods o member Of EPA 108 DBP workgroun o member ®IAWWA D/DBP Technical Advisory Group o staff active in technical committees rf o president of Association of CA Testing Laboratories - - Montgomery Labs Qualifications s o Outstanding performance an nationwide PE H studies a > o score conslsfendv higher than other commercial labs, Including 10 EPA regional labs o report > twice as Many parameters as most ► labs, lower Dl's c; o awards tram Assoc. of CA testing labs for past 3 years 6 What Is the sampling process P o Receive prepared Bowes from lab o 1111 bottles per Instructions o pack on let led ex to lab o chain-oRustodv report .:y :ac , • ' Now does the lab assure quality of results? •f o sample cbeck-In o assign 10 number egnlpmoutcalibradan s o EPA approved methods a ~ a Door review of data o Internal blind performance evaluations NOW does Me lab assure quality of results P o Internal qualltg control Is rigorous ~`•i tGP4W~m(0~ {E1CtRi~1 Efm@~mtdE iRe~9M.s6~sP~amyletiaRAarAs i 7 Ca• r. > How does the lab assure quality of results P o State and federal evalaation programs o Quality Assurance officer checks r o preventive maintenance of Instruments ` 0 report of non-conformance with QC What Is the scope of Yigard's program P o weekly 0 monthly o quarterly ' o about 580,000 In direct costs per year, plus ` staff labor and field cuafpment What are the results to date ? o August 1998 quarterly sampling 'f-44 . • to detects of 64 saa~olat9fe srgaalCa • Bad ateds of 19 meld aaadahie argaalCs • as detects of 15 Yeridddes • so detects of'Ugowparagaat/Ea91aaCP • as detects of 13 W94800posP9oroes Pestkides • &a detects of 64 reffWat ed TOC•s > • as detects of 36 regulated Pa dc1des • me detects of dloxla 0 3 Mad8s of Pom b LMML I'll August 1999 results o Regulated herbicide simazine detected at 13 ppb by Wabs method va~ o Not detected by [PA-approved drinking ''a® water method s o simazine not previously detected o MCL In treated water Is 4 ppb o ozone/6AC treatmentwouid remove 'w . August, 1998 sampling o N/iP pesticides bolding time exceeded o 42 chemicals out of 250 oresampledSeptember 23,1998 ostill lowflow, lowturbldDYconditions o no detects In resample Organics sampling in November, -;a 1999 - ■o detects of 64 sawkefstfie erossics ] a . as detects of 19 acid extractable erBaWcs • as detects b 15 herldeldes > • no detects eldlgaat/ParaMat MB188CP j , • so detects of 14 e!9asaphossherenPestletdes • me detects sf63reeeletedVOC's • as detects of 38 regelated Pestlcldes 7 • so detects of d1asfo03 td8laaths of goo 9 Organics sampling in November, 1998 o regulated organic chemical dichloromethane detected at 1.2 Pab o 1101 PfCVIQUSIV detected o MCL in treated water Is 5 opb o fregmntlab contaminant November, 1998 sampling o If/P pesticides holding time exceeded o 42 chemicals out of 250 > o planned resamPle In December delayed ' due to pump failure and flooding ~ o resample with January quarterly's Organics sampling In lanualy,1999 tv _ me detects of 64 semkWaVia otpjlcs • ma date= of 15 acideMtt*eern ics • aQ deteds of U aidicarlm i > • ea details of 16 hdtrlddes •r~.. • BadeteM0diaaaUpuagaat/E031IBCF > • as detects of 13 aepama UspWrns sestiddes i` • so detects of 41 NIP pestlddes • Be detect: of 64 rewstad ®di: s • me detects of 31 ra a ad pautddas • fra detcaY at @o~da @! ttlaloaf6s at ppsr 10 What have been problems to date a o August 2t 1998 organics • MR pesticide beldlo9 times exceeded - • MsmplOSe0Mber23.1998 o November Z1998 organics • aR pestlelde koidloo times exceeded ;;~Y • resmPle failed doe to 0=0 flooding • cansampling lanxury26.1999 o 4/35 weeks down due to pump problems What's next P o cost quarterly sampling end of May o spring rains, toward end of pesticide/berblcide application period ®o continue weekly and menthiv sampling o final detailed report In laiy,1999 4 Conclusions So Far o No change observed from previous results o occasional detects of organic chemicals at { trace levels o soft, low turbidity ajo good bacteriologic and cast quality o treatment recommendations ox o good source 11 CITY OF TIGARD SAMPLING PROGRAM WEEKLY PARAMETERS pH measured in field turbidity measured in field temperature measured in field alkalinity AmTest calcium and hardness AmTest total organic carbon AmTest dissolved organic carbon AmTest UV-254 absorbance AmTest total coliform AmTest fecal coliform AmTest HPC AmTest r, Mill CITY OF TIGARD SAMPLING PROGRAM MONTHLY PARAMETERS ammonia nitrogen AmTest flavor profile analysis AmTest Giardia MW Labs Cryptosporidium MW Labs NMI ~9 r lit 4 :m i n K t Y w~ lai a `r 111 'n-': 6 g ^ till l i t N n ~ $ tQa~ yyq~y ~9t h ^n ~ eq +~gg+~ 333 ~ S ~ y pr. n ~ fj~ NNMN N TIGARD SAMPLING PROGRAM WEEKLY SAMPLING CHECKLIST WEEK COMPLETED ? NOTES 13-Jul x 20-Jul x 27-Jul x 3-Aug x 10-Aug x 17-Aug x 24-Aug x 31-Aug x 7-Sep x 14-Sep x 21-Sep x 28-Sep x 5-Oct x 12-Oct x 19-Oct x 26-Oct x 2-Nov x 9-Nov x 16-Nov x 23-Nov x 30-Nov pump failure 7-Dec 14-Dec 21-Dec x 28-Dec x 4-Jan flooding 11-Jan x 18-Jan x 25-Jan x 1-Feb x 8-Feb x 15-Feb x 22-Feb x 1-Mar x 8-Mar x 15-Mar x TIGARD SAMPLING PROGRAM MONTHLY SAMPLING CHECKLIST MONTH COMPLETED 7 NOTES JULY started mid-month AUGUST X SEPT X OCT waited for DEQ NOV X DEC X JAN X FEB X MAR X QUARTERLY EVERY 3 MONTHS LAST QUARTERLY WILL BE 4 MONTH INTERVAL _=011110mmill MINE= Ell Us/10/ut! lU:LC rAe buJ 04J IU&4 r~nai.rai+u 11AIU11% LOVAL'.Au L&W uuc Erik Sten, Commissioner CITY OF Michael F. Rosenberger, Admintsuator a 1120 S.W. 5th Avenue 0 u ORT D9 OREGON Portland, Oregon 7204 L Information (503) 623--7404 Fax (503) 623-6133 ` BUREAU OF WATERWORKS TDD (503) 623-6868 TO: Tigard Water Advisory Committee FROM: Bob Rieck, Finance Director, Portland Water Bureau' SUBJECT: Tigard Cost Estimates for Willamette and Bull Run Proposals Staff from the Portland Water Burcaa has reviewed the economic and financial assumptions (such as interest rate, inflation rate and term of borrowing) used by the city of Tigard in developing a comparative analysis of the Willamette and Bull Run water supply alternatives. In our opinion, the financial and economic assumptions used by Tigard appear to be appropriate and useful for comparing the alternatives. We did not review any assumptions made by Tigard regarding internal Tigard water system operating costs or their apportionment to ratepayers. CC: Mike Rosenberger Lorna Stickel Anne Conway Dennis Kessler i An Equal Opporruniry Fmplu~er ' 4 C17Y OF 1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Room 240 Portland, OR 97204-1998 PORTLAND OREGON (593) 823-3589 a Fax (503) 823-3596 ~qpq~~+~+ ~y~g~ erik@ci.portland.orus tees COMMISSIONER ERIK J 6 E 7 www.ci.portland.or.us March 10, 1999 M MO1tAIDUM TO: Portland Area Water Providers FROM: Erik Sten, Commissioner City of Portland SUBJECT: Contract Development Water policy in the Portland Region will be important to the future in many ways, including impacts on the region's economy, environment, and development. A new, forward looking framework for wholesaling water is an important element of that policy. I have had the pleasure of meeting with many of you over the past year. It seems that there is a broad, growing consensus in the region for cooperative, businesslike solutions to water supply issues. Portland will support a collegial, professional approach to contract development. We have all learned from our experience with the current contract, as well as the work we have been doing in the area of regional supply planning; it is time for us to build on our mutual experience. As Commissioner in Charge of the Portland Water Bureau, I have directed Administrator Mike Rosenberger and his staff to enter into active development of a new, long-term contract to provide the basis for wholesaling Portland water for the coming decades. Although the existing contracts have a few years to run, changing circumstances and new opportunities encourage us all to move forward on a new contractual approach. On behalf of the Portland City Council, I will provide general oversight and policy direction to this contract process; the Water Bureau staff will be Portland's representatives. I look forward to the product of your work in developing a new contract. I will be prepared to carry a sound, mutually beneficial contract approach forward for ratification by Portland when your contract discussions are complete. CC: Mayor Vera Katz Commissioner Jim Francesconi Commissioner Charlie Hales Commissioner Dan Saltzman Mike Rosenberger An Equal Opportunity Employer TDD (For Hearing 6 Speech Impaired) (503) 823-6868 • u,aT t"'aN0 of fl CITY OF Erik Sten, Commissioner ~o Michael F. Rosenberger, Administratoi z 1120 S.W. 5th Avenue r PORTLAND, OREGON Portland, Oregon 97204 Information (503) 823-7404 BUREAU OF WATER WORKS Fax (503) 823-6133 ,AS, TDD (503) 823-6861 March 3, 1999 TO: Portland Water Bureau Current and Potential Wholesale Customers FROM: Michael Rosenberger Water Bureau Administrator SUBJECT: CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Enclosed are two documents. One is the current draft of the process we are proposing. The second is a summary of the key issues identified during interviews with many of you. I will discuss these items at the next Water Managers' Advisory Board meeting. I believe the proposed process is a good one (obviously, or I wouldn't propose it). It is focused on the objective of creating'a collegial, problem-solving processjor us to work through issues that matter to all of us. It is structure d around two "Groups"; one is a small oversight group composed of representatives of current contract holders; the other is actually two working groups - composed of people appointed by the Oversight committee. Participants in the working groups need not be current contract holders. Meetings and discussions of all of these groups and committees are open to anyone interested, and all can participate. Please look over this material, and call me if you want to talk about any of it before next week. I am looking forward to getting this process underway. Cc: Commissioner Erik Sten Water Bureau Contract Team An Equal Opporlrynilr SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN CONNECTION WITH PORTLAND WATER BUREAU LONG TERM CONTRACTS February 25, 1999 I. Regional & Governance Issues A. Wholesale customers would like to have more input into the CIP, helping determine in a meaningful way what is built and the scheduling of improvements. 1. One idea for structuring this input: create a "Regional CIP" as distinguished from each utility's "Local CIP," to identify and isolate those improvements that have impact on the wider utility community from,, purely local issues. B. The region needs more and better coordination of issues related to transmission, storage, operations, and emergencies. C. Most of those involved see the need for a more aggressive; better coordinated regional approach to water conservation. D. Some wholesale customers would like a more participative system for directing operation of the regional system to make them more like partners and less like simply customers. E. The issue of "surplus water" must be clarified. The level of security that wholesale buyers can achieve through a contract with Pov gland should be clearer and simpler. F. In order to be more collaborative, system governance acrd management structures must rnmimize Portland Water Bureau liability. _ • G. "Standards of Good Practice" for system operation may be needed to ensure that some members of the system don't cause public confidence problems for others or otherwise carry out actions that have an adverse effect on other members of the system. H. A governance structure that is simple and easily understood would be very desirable. 1. The contract should contain provisions that allow members of the group to buy and sell goods and services other than water among themselves, if desired. M Rates & Finance Issues A. The Water Bureau must have some assurance on amount and duration of commitment to i purchase water, for purposes of financial and system planning. B. The rate structure must be perceived by all as clear. understandable, and equitable. C. Portland ratepayers must, in some fashion. receive an appropriate return on investment as the system "owners." D. There must be a solution to the expectation that "growth will pay for growth" in a way that is fair, understandable, and politically acceptable. - r.& E. A way must be found to fund future capital improvements. Impact charges? Wholesale SDC's? It would be desirable if system vYide capital needs could be funded in a way that al lows wholesale customers to choose between putting their share of costs into their rate base or handling it through SDCs or some other mechanism. F. Clarity must be achieved on exactly what participants are buying---water, ownership interest, preferred supply or rates, etc etc. G. Who benefits from economies of scale for the system and how? For example, if the system sells "winter water" or another interruptible supply to "outsiders," does the whole contractual group benefit or just Portland? How? H. Should there be classes of wholesale customers, such as "partners" vs. purely customers or regular, year-round purchasers vs. seasonal or interruptible customers? If there are classes, should there be different contract vehicles? 1. Should a distinction be made in contract type or feature between those who bring "something extra" such as sources of supply to the group as opposed to those who are simply buyers? HIM ij~111 PORTLAND WATER BUREAU WHOLESALE CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS DRAFT 2/23/99 I. PURPOSE OF THE PROCESS To develop consensus or long-term contract language and concepts for wholesale of water from the Portland Bureau of Water Works to other water utilities in the Portland area. This consensus will form the foundation for a standard contract document to be drafted by Portland as the basis for a new contract. 11. OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE An Oversight Committee ("The Committee") will guide the contract development process to achieve its purpose as set forth above. The Committee will be chaired by the Administrator of the Portland Water Bureau or his designee. This committee is to be composed of representatives from: • Portland Water Bureau • Tualatin Valley Water District • City of Tualatin • City of Tigard • City of Gresham • Rockwood Water District • Holders of current contracts with the Portland Water Bureau who are not included in the designated list of Oversight Committee members will chose one agency from among their group to represent them on the Committee. III. WORKING GROUPS A. The Oversight Committee may create working groups to provide research, analysis and advice to the process. The effort of working groups will be limited to assignments given by the Oversight Committee. If a working group feels that it should investigate other issues, it should request such an assignment from the Oversight Committee. 0 B. Initially, two working groups will be created: (1) Working Group on Rates & Finances, and (2) Working Group on Institutional & Regional Issues. C. The Oversight Committee Chair will designate two co-chairs for any working group created. One of the co-chairs will be a representative of the Water Bureau. D. ' Membership on working groups will be as designated by the Oversight Committee a E. All those water providers who are current or potential contractors for Portland water are a welcome to attend and participate in the working groups. Working group assignments are intended to make responsibility clear for work products, not to limit or restrict . participation. 7 IV. OTTER PARTICIPANTS A. Water providers who currently hold contracts with the Portland Water Bureau and who are not members of the Oversight Committee are encouraged to attend meetings of the Oversight Committee, where their views and input will be welcome. B. All water providers who currently hold contracts will be welcome to participate on working groups as full participants. C. The Oversight Committee may elect to invite other water providers, who do not hold current Portland contracts, to participate as observers of the Oversight Committee. V. OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE PRINCIPLES OF INVOLVEMENT Members of the Oversight Committee agree to the following principles as conditions for their involvement: A. A committee member designated by the Water Bureau Administrator will serve as Chair. The Administrator may designate himself for this role. B. The Portland Water Bureau will provide administrative staff support for.the Commit!ee C. Participants are present as representatives of Boards and Councils and are not the final decision makers D. The goal of the process is consensus on the provisions of a contract, recognizing that individual circumstances will need to be adopted in individual contracts when they are formally negotiated. For this purpose, "consensus" is defined as "each member can live with the proposed outcome even if it is not their first choice" E. Participants will direct staff and consultants to work together in a collegial, problem solving manner F. . Meetings of the Committee and all working groups will be open to any interested water utility and the Committee will undertake to ensure that all interested utility viewpoints are heard' G. Members will make every effort to attend all meetings and to participate in a positive manner. The Committee may replace any member who, it's the judgment of a majority of the Corr-nittee, is not reasonably responsive in terms of attendance or contribution H. The Committee will make an effort to ensure that all interested water utilities have ample opportunity to express views, concerns, and comments 1. The proceedings will not be electronically recorded, but summaries of Committee meetings will be kept. Draft meeting summaries will be circulated to participants to review for accuracy. 7 i -I i i i o TLA • ova CITY OF Jeffrey L. Rog City Hall, ers, City Attorney Suite 430 ~y g A ~T~1 1221 S.W. 4th Avenue u z PORTLAND, OREGON ~1 Portland, Oregon 97204 Telephone: (503) 823-0047 OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY Fax No.: 823-3089 rssz February 1, 1999 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Rosenberger, Administrator Bureau of Water Works FROM: Terence Thatch R uth Spetter -5 Deputy City Attorneys SUBJECT: Wholesale Water Sales: Issues of Certainty and Governance You asked us to address certain legal issues arising from the renegotiation of the City's long-term wholesale water contracts. In particular, you wanted us to discuss: (1) the City's legal authority to sell water wholesale (the "surplus water" question); and (2) met::ds available to expand wholesale customer involvement in the "governance' or ownership of the City's water system or an expanded regional system. In what follows, we give brief answers to your questions. We will first discuss the City's authority to build and operate a water supply system and its right-to sell water outside the City limits. Given our answer to those questions, we will then discuss various ways in which the region could address concerns about system "governance" and ownership. 1. City Authority to Develop a Water Supply System and Sell Water Outside City - Limits The City Charter contains three provisions directly relevant to the City's authority to own and operate a water supply system. Two are found in the general enumeration of City powers found early in the Charter where the City is granted the power to provide for the location, construction, repair and maintenance in or outside the City, of any ditch, canal, pipe, or other facility for the impoundment, storage or conduct or water as it may deem necessary or convenient; [and] to provide for furnishing the City and its residents with water, and to sell water to or for nonresidents. An Equal Opportunity Employer TDD (For Hearing & Speech Impaired) (503) 823-6868 E8 0 2 lg9g E11111111111111MEN111 11011111MIJ Mike Rosenberger February 1, 1999 Page 3 Here, the broadest authority to develop a water supply and sell water is contained in 2- 105(a)(30) and (31). No other Charter section contains an explicit limitation on the authority there granted. Our considered opinion, therefore, is: (a) that the City is authorized to develop a wate,. system sufficient to serve its residents as well as persons and entities outside City limits and (b) that the City need not, although it may, sell only "surplus water" outside the City. (The City Code authorizes the Water Bureau to sell "surplus water" to non-residents. § 21.28.010. Given our reading of the Charter, the Code authorization need not be so limited.)' II. Governance and Ownership Issues We next turn to the question of how the wholesale customers might gain more ownership or more say in the governance of the regional water supply and transmission system much, but not all of which, is currently owned by the City of Portland. Please bear in mind that this is simply a summary of options. If any are deemed of particular interest, we and lawyers for the other interested parties will have to spend time looking more closely at how they might be implemented. In almost all cases, questions of the legality of a particular approach should be addressed with the specific proposals before us, rather than on a hypothetical basis. A. Joint Ownership of Facilities There are a variety of methods whereby existing or new facilities could be jointly owned by any number of municipal entities. First, ORS 225.050, long in the statute books, authorizes "any and all cities [to) construct, own, or operate jointly, in such proportion as they may agree, waterworks and water pipe lines, water rights and water." They may own and operate such systems in their own names or through joint commissions or agencies. Second, and more broadly, ORS 190.003 to 190.110 allow local governments to enter into virtually any intergovernmental agreement useful to fulfill their public functions. An inter- governmental agreement could clearly allow for water supply facilities that are "jointly constructed, owned, leased or operated." ORS 190.010(3). B. Cooperative Management No matter who owns the facilities, the City Charter and Oregon statutes are also flexible enough to define a variety of arrangements for "governance" or participation in water system management. ' The City's Charter authority is also reinforced by the general statutes of Oregon, which allow municipalities broad authority to sell water to both their own residents and others. ORS 225.020, 030. By contrast, water districts appear to be limited to the sale of "surplus water" outside district boundaries. ORS 264.111. L= ffims~~ - RINANOWURRUMM= Mike Rosenberger February 1, 1999 Page 5 Conclusion s We hope this discussion is useful to you. At your convenience and if you wish, we would be happy to discuss any of the topics we address here in more detail. TLT/RS.jtl GAWATEPWISC.TnSUP-'LS.B F MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Willamette River Water Quality DATE: March 5, 1999 On January 21" the Wilsonville City Council held a special meeting devoted to Wilsonville's future water supply options. As a follow up to that meeting, citizens have requested additional information regarding aspects of Willamette River water quality. Jeff Bauman, Wilsonville's Public Works Director collaborated with several people to assemble the following information addressing the issues that have been raised. ISSUE: Level of Pollution in the Willamette River Some citizens have the impression that studies conducted by the Unites States Geological Survey (USGS) paint a different picture of Willamette water quality than is reflected in the monitoring conducted by Montgomery Watson. One citizen asserts a USGS report entitled "Distribution of Dissolved Pesticides and Other Water Quality Constituents in Small Streams, and their Relation to Land use, in the Willamette River Basin" detected 36 toxic chemicals virtually every time they test for them. Is the Willamette more contaminated than Montgomery Watson is reporting? RESPONSE: The USGS has published several studies regarding the Willamette watershed (see attachments showing cover pages of theme studies). In the report referred to above, the USGS looked for 86 (not 36) chemicals in each of 95 samples from tributaries to the Willamette River. The results are as follows: 5 chemicals were "frequently detected" in the 95 samples; 15 chemicals were "occasionally detected" (i.e., in 10-37% of the 95 samples); 16 chemicals were "rarely detected" (i.e., in less than 10% of the 95 samples); 50 chemicals were not detected at all in any of the 95 samples - - despite the exceptionally low detection limits used by the USGS labs. i This particular USGS study focused on agricultural chemicals in tributary streams. As the water flows into the main stem of the Willamette River, the concentrations of such chemicals are a reduced to unmeasurable levels. This is due to a variety of factors. The larger volumes of water 1 in the river further dilute the concentration of any chemicals present. Also, many of the chemicals settle in the sediments of the streams and in the river. And to varying degrees the chemicals undergo physical and biological degradation. Other USGS studies have directly tested the main stem of the Willamette River itself. The closest testing site upstream of the proposed 03/05/99 loll A„ Willamette water treatment plant was in the Newberg area. -At that location, USGS tested for 127 regulated and unregulated chemicals in the water. Of these, only 4 were detected - - and they were at parts per trillion levels, which do not violate drinking water standards (even in untreated water). The ozone/GAC process in the proposed Willamette water treatment plant has been demonstrated to be effective for removal of the organic contaminants that were detected by the US GS. ISSUE: Adequacy of Laboratory Methods Used for Testing Water Qualit}-Some people claim the detection limits of Montgomery Watson's study are not sensitive enough compared to sampling conducted by the USGS. RESPONSE: The laboratory methods being used by Montgomery Watson follow EPA methods of analysis. These methods and their corresponding detection limits have been developed by the EPA labs in Cincinnati, Ohio. These methods are used by hundreds of labs certified for drinking water analysis around the country, by the Oregon State Department of Health, by the EPA, and by all water utilities for regulatory compliance. These methods are designed specifically for drinking water compliance purposes, and are the only legally defensible results that will be accepted by the State Department of Health and the EPA for approval of a water treatment plant on the Willamette. The USGS, by contrast, is a research organization that develops its own lab methods and is free to continually modify those methods in pursuit of the lowest possible-detection limits. Nonetheless as noted above, in the vicinity of the proposed Willamette water intake the vast majority of pollutants were not detected - - even with USGS methods. ISSUE: Isn't the Willamette River One of the 10 Most Polluted Rivers in the U.S.? RESPONSE: No. The USGS released results of a comprehensive study of the Willamette Basin in May, 1998. This study was conducted as part of the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, and is one of 20 such studies underway. The NAWQA Program will ultimately evaluate 50 of the nation's largest river basins and aquifers. Key findings of the NAWQA Study include: Compared to conditions on 19 other NAWQA basins, fish communities and stream habitat in agricultural and urban areas in the Willamette Basin were among the most degraded. The most common factors contributing to these conditions were poor riparian quality (riverbank conditions), bank erosion and a high degree of channel modification. None of these conditions are expected to be factors in the treatability of the Willamette River for drinking water. Nutrient concentrations at Willamette Basin stream sites were similar to those found nationally. Pesticide concentrations in streams were representative of other NAWQA sites. Concentrations of 03/05/99 r organochlorine pesticides and PCBs in bed sediments and fish tissue were typical of other NAWQA sites. Trace element concentrations in bed sediments were lower than typically found nationally. Concentrations of semivolatile organic compounds in bed sediment were low compared to other NAWQA sites. ISSUE: Adequacy of Water Treatment Technology A few citizens have expressed concern that granular activated carbon (GAC) is not a reliable method to remove toxic chemicals from the water. Cincinnati was cited as an example where difficulties have arisen with GAC being able to adequately treat organic chemicals, thereby contributing to problems with trihalomethanes. RESPONSE: The treatment process proposed for the Willamette River is "state of the art". The proposed plant will be one of the most advanced in the country. In 1998, Montgomery Watson surveyed six cities in the U.S. whose source of drinking water is also a major river. Cities were selected to provide a wide geographical distribution, to include watersheds with a variety of land uses and associated contamination issues, and treatment plants representing a full spectrum of treatment technology. Surveyed sources included: Delaware River - Philadelphia, PA Sacramento River - Sacramento, CA Missouri River - St. Louis, MO Colorado River - Las Vegas, NV Ohio River - Cincinnati, OH Red River - Fargo, ND Source water quality results: The Willamette River watershed is not as heavily developed for agriculture and industry ai tither watersheds surveyed, and this is reflected in the low frequency of detection and low levels of chemicals present in the Willamette compared to other sources of a similar size. In spite of inputs of pollutants in other, more highly developed ,.watersheds, concentrations of organic contaminants in other major rivers are extremely low, in the range of a i few parts per billion or less. This was true in of all rivers studied, from the Red River that is surrounded by intense agricultural development, to the Ohio River with its numerous industrial 1 and urban discharges. The high flows of these major rivers reduce concentrations of these chemicals to extremely low levels. Treatment process comparison: All plants surveyed produce treated water that meets drinking water standards. Only three of the plants surveyed use activated carbon as a barrier to organic contaminants. These three plants are located downstream of point source discharges and are subject to agricultural runoff and chemical spills. The Richard Miller Water Treatment Plant of the City of Cincinnati draws from the Ohio River, one of the most heavily polluted rivers in the U.S. The plant uses post-filtration activated carbon treatment (i.e. water is treated through conventional filtration, and then passes through an activated carbon bed). None of the regulated 03/05/99 synthetic organic compounds (SOC) or volatile organic compounds (VOC) have ever been detected in the treated water from the Cincinnati plant in the past 10 years. The vulnerability of a potential Willamette plant to contamination is far less than the Ohio River. The proposed treatment process for the Willamette will be as or more advanced than any plant surveyed, including Cincinnati's, in that both ozone (the strongest oxidant/disinfectant available) and GAC filtration (the most effective process for synthetic and volatile organic compound removal available) are incorporated into the process train. Activated carbon regeneration: Due to the relatively small size of the proposed Willamette plant (35-40 mgd) and the relatively small amount of carbon used, economics strongly favor the thermal regeneration of activated carbon off-site (as opposed to on-site as is done, at Cincinnati's 235 mgd water treatment plant). Current operation and maintenance cost estimates assume that the spent carbon will be sent to a facility in northern California, which processes GAC for California utilities. ISSUE: Won't some organic compound12ass through the GAC process and lead to problems with trihalomethanes? (Note:. The final step in the water treatment process is typically the addition of chlorine or related disinfectants. The benefit of this step is to inhibit the growth of bacteria as water flows through the transmission system from the source to the end user. One drawback of this disinfection process is that chlorine can combine with naturally-occurring organic compounds to create trihalomethanes and other halogenated organic compounds - - a class of potentially harmful chemicals.) RESPONSE: Enhanced control of trihalomethanes will be one of the primary benefits of a potential Willamette River ozone/GAC treatment plant compared to current drinking water quality in the region. Another major benefii of the proposed process will be protection from disease-causing protozoa such as Giardia aO Cryptosporidium through the use of ozone. In these two respects, the proposed Willamette plant will provide unsurpassed drinking water quality at the tap compared to all current supplies. p~ The Willamette River is similar to most surface waters in the region, having an average raw pp~~ water Total Organic Carbon (TOC) concentration of less than 2 mg/L. TOC includes naturally- occurring carbon that goes on to react with chlorine in the treatment process to form chlorinated disinfection byproducts. The Northwest is fortunate to have relatively low TOC water, which can range up to 20 mg/L in surface waters elsewhere in the U.S. Even without ozone/GAC a treatment, and instead utilizing conventional filtration, levels of disinfection byproducts in the finished Willamette River water would be comparable to the current Clackamas, Tualatin, W~ Mollala and Bull Run supplies. Pilot plant testing has demonstrated that the use of ozone/GAC a will reduce these levels even further. This is how we conclude that disinfection byproduct concentrations will be well below current and anticipated drinking water standards. In fact, these levels will be significantly lower than any current source of drinking water in the region. 03/05/99 With respect to the treatment capabilities of the Cincinnati plant, their water treatment facility has been studied intensively by many outside agencies, engineering consultants including Montgomery Watson and the EPA. The Cincinnati plant consistently meets drinking water standards. ISSUE: Pharmaceutical Byproducts in Drinking Water Could there be dangerous pharmaceutical drugs in the Willamette River supply as a result of sewage treatment plant discharge to the river? RESPONSE: This issue has been discussed in the past few years in the media, primarily as a result of German and Swiss analyses of surface waters. The European scientists have detected numerous medicinal drugs in surface waters receiving treated human wastes. In the European studies, the highest concentrations tended to show up in the smallest rivers, where up to 50 percent of the river flow could be treated sewage treatment plant effluent. At these high fractions of "recycled" flow, total concentrations can reach several parts per billion (Science News, March 21 1998). It is important to note that even in the most heavily used rivers (i.e. 50 percent treated wastewater), concentrations of pharmaceuticals are in the parts per trillion and parts per billion range. By contrast, the required dose of the most commonly used Arugs is in the milligrams per liter (parts per million) range. In other words, the dose being discovered under worst-case conditions in the environment is at least 1,000 to 1,000,000 lower than the dose required to evoke a response. The current concern about these chemicals focuses on their effects on fish and biota. While additional study may show that these low levels do have an effect on sensitive animal species, they are not anticipated to be an issue for human health as it relates to drinking water treatment. A second point is that we. a far from the heavily utilized rivers of Europe here in the Northwest. The closest municipal sewage treatment plant to the proposed intake belongs to the City of Newberg approximately 8 miles upstream, with an approximate average discharge of 3 mgd. This compares to the average flow of the Willamette River of 10,000 million gallons per day (USGS, 1998). Thus the fraction of river water composed of treated effluent is far less than one percent. The next upstream municipal discharge in the Willamette is the City of Salem, 37 miles upstream of Newberg. In this country, research into the environmental effects of wastewater effluent has focused on the female sex hormone, estrogen. Human females secrete several estrogen compounds, including naturally-produced estrogen and its metabolites, as well as synthetic estrogen from birth control pills and menopause drugs. These chemicals have come under scrutiny because they are prevalent in wastewater, and some studies suggest that they are highly active, i.e. able to induce effects in animals. Estrogenic chemicals should be present in by far the greatest amount of any drug in the raw water, by virtue of the levels produced and excreted per female every day. The Willamette Water Supply Agency (WWSA) recently contracted with the firm CTRAPS (Consultants in Toxicology, Risk Assessment and Product Safety) to perform a highly sensitive 03/05/99 bioassay for the presence of estrogenic chemicals in the untreated water. Multiple Willamette River water samples did not detect estrogens, chemicals which mimic estrogens or substances which interfere with the action of estrogen (i.e. "endocrine disrupters") with a detection level of 0.00002 parts per trillion. A final point is that if pharmaceutical compounds were present in the Willamette River, the proposed ozone/GAC process would be effective in their removal. These compounds are large organic molecules that would be highly susceptible to destruction by ozone. Montgomery Watson is not aware of any current efforts by the EPA to investigate this issue. No other cities or municipal water utilities have this issue "on their radar screen" for sampling, even in much more highly developed, urbanized watersheds. ISSUE: Health Risk Due to Dioxin Numerous concerns have been expressed regarding dioxins. Such concerns are that: dioxin is so toxic EPA says no amount of dioxin is safe; the laboratory methods used weren't sensitive enough to detect lethal amounts of dioxin; pulp mills, such as the Smurfit facility in Newberg, and incinerators are major sources of dioxin; contaminated sediments pose a serious dioxin threat to water supply; and there are eight kinds of dioxin but Montgomery Watson looked for only one. RESPONSE: There are 75 different dioxin compounds. The toxicity of the dioxin compounds varies widely. The most toxic form is 2,3,7,8-TCDD, which is currently regulated to a level of 0.00000003 milligrams per liter (3x10-8 mg/L). This is the dioxin Montgomery Watson tested for. Montgomery Watson used the same contract lab for analysis of dioxin as did the USGS for its Willamette Basin sampling program. The method reporting limit (the detection limit) for individual samples vanes with the sample, but is typically in the range of 1 to 3 picograms per liter (10-12. mg/L, or one-ttaFusandth of apart per trillion). This detection limit is 10,000 times lower than the treated water standard for this chemical, so there is no danger of non-detection in concentrations approaching those of impact to. human health. It is noteworthy that dioxins are among the least soluble of all substances. Rather than dissolve in water, dioxins readily bind to sediment particles. From a drinking water standpoint, this affinity for sediment is helpful in that water treatment processes are extremely efficient at removing particles through settling and filtration, and would accomplish removal of this contaminant should it be present. Research by the USGS reveals that dioxins and furans (a related chemical compound) are not present at levels of concern in the Newberg Pool, the location for a potential water treatment plant intake. The USGS survey collected sediment samples from 23 locations including the Newberg Pool, the polluted Portland Harbor area, the pristine upper reaches of the Willamette River tributaries, and the Bull Run watershed. Some important conclusions of the study are: 03/05/99 Dioxins and furans were found in every bed sediment sample collected, although 2,3,7,8-TCDD itself was below the detection limit in samples from the Newberg Pool. The levels detected in sediment from the Newberg Pool were the fourth lowest of the 23 sites, and are comparable to those detected in undeveloped rural areas that were selected to represent "background' concentrations of this pollutant in the Basin. Levels of total dioxins and furans in the Newberg Pool (100 pg/g) were lower than those which are considered to be background concentrations at reference sites elsewhere in the U.S. (400-900 pg/g) where atmospheric deposition is the presumed source. Levels of dioxins and furans in bed sediment from the Newberg Pool were lower than those detected by the USGS in sediment from Fir Creek in the protected Bull Run watershed (250-300 pg/g). Again, atmospheric deposition is the presumed source of dioxin in the Bull Run watershed. Filtration is not currently employed to remove sediment from the Bull Run source. The Smurfit newsprint plant in Newberg has been accused of being a source of dioxin releases to the Newberg Pool. This is incorrect. While dioxins and furans can be produced in the bleaching of wood pulp with chlorine, the Smurfit plant has never used chlorine in its production of paper. The Pope & Talbot pulp mill about ten miles upstream of the City of Corvallis, however, has used chlorine in its bleaching process. USGS tests on sediment samples in the Willamette River at Corvallis show dioxin and furan levels to be approximately the same as the levels found in Fir Creek sediments in the Bull Run. There is no indication that dioxin has caused health problems for consumers of treated Willamette water in Corvallis, and there is' no reason to expect this to be a health problem for Wilsonville if the City chose to use treated Willamette water for municipal water supply. Human exposure to dioxins is almost entirely via ingestion of food products, not from drinking water. According to information provided by the Oregon Health Division, estimated average daily intake of dioxins by the general U.S. population is 120 picograms. Of that, an estimated 47 picograms are in the form of 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The attached chart from EPA`s dioxin reassessment document shows that less than one one-hundredth of one percent of a person's total daily intake of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is from water. Daily intake from air is estimated to be 2 percent. i Approximately 98 percent of a person's total daily intake comes from food products. i Here is what the EPA has said about dioxin: "While dioxin has been shown to be toxic to certain lab animals, evidence is lacking that it has serious long-term effects on humans. The public's perception has been largely based upon information reported on toxic effects found in lab animals. People tend to relate these effects to humans and begin to fear them. Once fear has been created, it is hard to dispel." (EPA Environmental Educational Series - Volume 11 1: Solid and Hazardous Waste, 1992) 03/05/99 In 1994, the EPA appointed a Scientific Advisory Board composed of 42 scientists, academics, government researchers and industry representatives, to review the EPA's Dioxin Exposure and Health Effects Documents. This Board found that while human effects from dioxin (and like compound) exposure occur at levels closer to background than previously estimated, "the conclusion that dioxin and related compounds are likely to present a cancer hazard to humans at exposure levels within one or two orders of magnitude above background is not well-supported by the existing human epidemiologic database." (EPA Science AdvisoryBoard Dioxin Assessment Review, May 15-16,1995). ISSUE: Cancer Rates Some people have speculated that cancer rates will go up if the Willamette River is used as a source of drinking water. RESPONSE: There is no direct correlation established between drinking water and cancer rates. If such a causal relationship exists, and if the consumption of Willamette River water is presumed to increase cancer risks, then one would expect cancer rates to be higher in Benton County (where people drink Willamette water) than in Multnomah County (where the majority of the population drinks Bull Run water). In fact the opposite is the case. Benton County has one of the very lowest cancer rates in Oregon, whereas Multnomah County has one of the very highest cancer rates in the State. The greatest risk factors for cancer are tobacco use, alcohol use, genetics and workplace exposure to carcinogens - - not drinking water. According to Michael Humarnn, Deputy Epidemiologist at the Oregon Division of Health, there are no studies that have shown a link between municipal drinking water and cancer incidence. The only study purporting to show a link between cancer and drinking water was done by the EPA in Woborn, Massachusetts, where certain residents were exposed to extremely high levels of trichloroethylene through contaminated groundwater. (This case was dramatized in the book and the movie "Civil Acti.It However, even in this case, the EPA stopped short of concluding that additional cancers were caused by the drinking water. By the way, trichloroethylene has not been detected in the Newberg Pool of the Willamette River. But low levels of trichloroethylene are detected in the Columbia South Shore well field, and for that reason the City of Portland operates an air stripping facility on one of its wells to remove this chemical from the drinking water. These responses are not intended to ignore or downplay concern about health and safety issues. To the contrary, protecting public health is a critically important objective in planning for Wilsonville's future water supply. That is why far more time and money and pilot testing have been devoted to evaluating the Willamette River than any other potential water supply in the state and in the nation. The question is: by what "yardstick" should we measure all this information? Rather than depend on the individual opinions/preferences of staff or consultants 03/05/99 or citizens or interest groups, we have started with federal and state drinking water standards. These standards have been established by scientists and health experts from around the nation who have spent decades researching this issue to assure municipal. water supplies are safe to drink. But we have gone beyond drinking water standards alone. The proposed Willamette water treatment facility is designed not only to meet current drinking water standards, but is also designed to meet proposed future drinking water standards. It is also designed to remove chemicals for which no standards exist, as well as chemicals that are OR MAY BE PRESENT below the detection limit of the most sophisticated laboratory tests. It is a non-specific (i.e., broadly effective) treatment process that has been demonstrated in this country and around the world to effectively remove pesticides, herbicides, solvents, gasolines, dyes, PCBs, industrial chemicals, and combustion products. Therefore, we do not have to "know" every compound which could be present in the Willamette in order to understand that the chemicals of concern will be readily removed by the process. It's worth a final reminder that after numerous samplings for an exhaustive list of potential contaminants by utilities and by the USGS, there are none present at levels of concern, even in untreated water. The issue revolves to a large degree around the adequacy of the EPA Safe Drinking Water Standards and whether those standards truly provide for safe drinking water. Both Montgomery Watson and the City of Portland stated at the Council's January 21 work session that the EPA standards do in fact provide for safe drinking water. Citizens have presented no evidence to the contrary. 03/05/99 The tl b Boones - essenger A message from The Most Piol[uted River in the US,? ill- the one of the ciatrtis we've heard thrrttrou(the W((lamettc basin have atgtahe 6Vdiamctte River citing the eantly ultued h hxtslGet (e.g.. stream orpubtie debate over As the City Council hay grappled with the TcEo:t whether chanaelixation: 1911rte of Wetlands: dame to extremely weighty issue of long-tam water it-a appropriate to even consider the river as a spawning habitat, etc.). So it a fair to say that 1 supply. we have waded through an hxrcdiblc drinking water source. if yov 'rc o fish, the Willamette may be ape amount of taformation; some of it supplied by We've also heard some ray scary rhetoric the most impacted watershedo in the nation. the city atafT. some by ou44rdc consultants. thrown around regarding cancer. endocrine But to terms of water quality, according to some by the city of Portland and some by dieruptore. diordn and agricultural pesticides. the Environmental Protection Agency, the Wilsonville citizens. wcve been busting our buns researching Middle Willamette (the stretch front Selem to As cram absorb all of this input, we must these issues trying to find out what'e fact and Oregon city) is to relattvely good shape. The decide not only what to relevant. vie must what's Action. So let's take a good hard look EPA gave the middle wWamettc a score of 3 separate fact from belief or opinion. at what weve beard and what wctie found our on its Index of wataohed indicators, • which tine of the two water oupply options still fret. It's important W understand what rates every watershed in the U.9. for its under eonaidemUon to a treatment plant on kind overall health on a 146 scale, with I kind of toting has actually been done ' and 6 bel orrc the Willamette Rtes (tic olio is a connection Fen the Willamette River and bow the `better water qualtty ~ -mo to the City of Portland for a blend or Bull flan treatment serious water quality problems - The Claeka- and Columbia river well field water) and over In e ~ prating dating back works. to 1894 mac River (which serves 1.alxe 0$ 0. West the course of more than a year of public . the errgtneer- LA= and an Ing debate on that option, many things have been tir:n of Montgam- cttico In Clacks said that we have conic to (earn arc simply cry Watson tested for 7f you re a fish, the Will vnette may County) was also scored not true. any ever chemical been en dctdc( thatceted at had be an wrig the rnost• (mpocted uxdcr- at 3 and the Tualatin we have corwistently rcfroined from any level anywhere in sheds in the ncttfort. But in terms of River; which supplies publicly correcting those mimtateruenta for the Willaracttc River water quality, according to the Env(- ddrilsIng water portions fear that vre would be accused of having a basin by the U.S. rcrtmental Protection Agency: the of Washington county. was scared at 4 blas for the wtltnmetic diver option. Howvvw. Geological Surrey, as . rtittcld(e Walamette (the stretch from in this issue of the Boons Fury Mcwcager. well as anyeheudcal in addition.•the SCL(erl t to Oregon Cftyl Cs in re(alitrely report of the Governor s Ln the rather lengthy article at right, we will there was stases to address some of the myths and rrdsstatcments believe might be there, good shape.' Willamette River Basin head-ore. ?iris to riot to suggest that we on the even if it hadn't been Task Force states that Council have made up our minds - we detected by USOS. as well at:. of course. all -Most experts apnet that the VB11amette river haven't. But when the trine comes for us to EPA regulated contaminants and all EPA Probably in better health today than ii has make a decision. vac intend to make that candidate contaminants. This to by far the been for a century.' Tttc report their goes on decision on the basis of fuets. to address the problems that still need to be thorou I hope you will, too. amost ere in h testing of arrywater source tadkled. t a a the U.S. ryyAlmost all l o of these contaminants arc not Finally WcW came across a list of `Mc 50 On the prison front. cnic local Citizen Almo most polluted rivers or watcrbodles in the described the current state of affairs as 'the prrwe oY eQ levels ot the we detec U.S.,' published by the Environmental Work- cad game" to the tight to prevent a prison ,d+" River n earwCsorwdie Thasc that are detected In$ Group. a Washington. DC, lobbying, the Dammaseh State Ho : ital. are present ierela that arc below safe p drinking water maximums and all can be research and public Wormatioa orgaratxation. Uafortunatcly both the House and Senate removed by the proposed txceitment process. The wMaruettc appears on that list at #50x: eceru to be hell-bent on a bill (Serrate Bill 91 7he treatment process is whata called a dead last. (11 list measures only total direct that- mould unite Dammasch end re-atte the mt 4)2ffk system. Sediments vv ooaturucd on ruse paje Soincar a prison and tntakc center to Umatilla. arc reb om mm the ra asw Ttda is despite the Governer promfse of a arc water, ozone gas veto and the fact that the votes are not there granular actuated act acteria !urotaated carbon th and rWtcr repathogmen. and a of ov<a v a o to override a veto to eltlicr chamber or the Lcgtslatura remalr iM eoutarutnants. The system Is The result of a veto and the [allure to designed to rueet or pieced all existing and -1 override vwuld be that Darnmaach would anticipated EPA safe de"dog water titan- ra a lards. R will produce the safest, hkaicat 3 remain legally sited and funded. None of our quality drkddng water in the reglov, a fact ~ senators or representatives appears to bave a that water quality experts with the qty of a plan for what happens next when things play w out this way. My very Icgrumate fear to that Portland do not dispute- 4 more detailed C when the veto override vote falls, the Governor where description g the system u contained der- o k to tits issue of the Messenger will simply cut his losses and order construe- M y. now lets take a look at some of 0 tton to begin at Dammasch. The l eglelaturc, td f!? 4 meamvWle. v4ll be unable or wrvdlling to claims we keep hearing' r~ p` (vJ~~ muster the political will to engage to further ~E MOST POLLUTED ~ ~ a wrangling on this issue and will etmlRy let the in b LLZtthat to Darnmasch. Remember. This 13 ROVER IN TH~ (/.S. R ° W ig an issue once you get outstdc the earea. The vast majority of Orego- Or the fvuN moat potiutcd or the i9fth 't much care whether the prison is most polluted or the tenth most polluted. whatever we have been unable to find an K ammnseh or not and it's not likely y documentation to subetenttatc these claims. egtalature will want to expend much S canritmcd oa back pup( It is certainly true that physical ehangea saw jlf~ ISM a concluded that there are no endocrine magnitude above background is hot well aftZ1< dtorupters prceent in the Willamette. supported by the edstkxg hutnan a ld ° c.atinued fm- farm they readied tht7 conclusion by exposing Plogic database." (SPA Sdcrtoe 15-16. (oxtc discharges Into the water, but not other human endocrine rcmp(ops to Willamette ioxtially. nrca tacres May > 995 ) factors that contribute to vats Quality prvb- l4iver water take' firm the point what the Florally, we came across this Udbtt: in tuns. It also doesn't account for dfluU(kt that intake for a treatsaent plar)t'would be located 1892-95, the U.S. Geological Survey con- occurs in rivers with larger volumes of watcr.l and then looking for evidence of endocrine ducted a eomprchetulvc study of tltorgtl level, to dtanaptora binding to the receptors. In other Of course. there are more than SO ri In Northwestern Orcgvn. Ilia report looked the U.S. and we're not trying to a than 50 that words. rather than looking for specific clean- for 27 varieties of dtawns and fur wU. One of the WUlamcttc is free of pollution. But if cam. Drs. Byrd and?adnarewski look'ed for the test sites was in the Willaunctte River near anyone reading this knows of a way to sub- evidence that arrytlting m(ght be present that Newberg, and another teat site was Fir (reek stantiate the claims that the M Uatactte Is the would act as an endocrine disruptor. Nothing in the Bull Min watershed. The tests showed most polluted river 1n Amerim wed like to was found. And" is an extremely sensitive the total dio)dn lc--Ls at both sitca ire below hear from you. Please call Dave Kam- test, capable of detecting reactions at concen- background levels and the most todc dioxin public affairs director, at 570-1605. trations of Icas than 20 pasts per trillion. (2:3.7.8=YiCDD) was below the USoS detection Drs. Byrd and 7acharewsld thus con- limit. But the level ortotal dtoxina.was ht~ 2. t~ANC~R eluded that -disruplton of estrogenic systems in Fir Creek In the Bull Run Watershed than It it has been said or interred that drtnkirtg Is not of concern for humans consuming writ' in the Willamette River. (USUS, Dio 1pe water from the VAawnette River.' and( Fltr6ltls 1n Bcd Sediment And Rrah Trot... treated Willamette River water will lnereasc of the Wfllamette sefn. 19961 your cancer risk. Not so. say the health 4. D j®xrm experts. .5. D*'Enc~ON L.imsTS According to Michael F(umann. deputy Dloxio to scary stuff. Or at least the Word epidemiologist. Oregon Health Division. there generates a lot of fear. Dieudn is the name We keep hearing that Montgomery Watson are giver to a familyc(chernlcals whose basic used tests that weren't acmiUve enough or 'Benton County (Wftere studies that structure consbts of two molecular rings of that the U.S. Ocologl•Sutvty consistently people drink Willamette have shown carbon atoms connected by two oxygen atoms. found contaminants that Montgomery Watson some dioxin are created when chlorine mLems didn`t because the USGS used more sensitive Rivet water) has one of any unk with organic substarroes. as in the bleaching tats. the very lowest ealicer municipal process foranerly used by pulp and paper Montgomery Watson labs did in fact use a rates to OMgort, whereas drinking milts. One of the scaclwt chlorinated dioxdns different testing method with higher dcteeuon Multnomah County water and to called 2.3.7.6 tctrachlorvdtbalro-p-dioxin limps than (where a maJortty of rest- (or TODD) which is a waste product of mat 1- the USGS tab `7IteM weR° 36 Chem( cancer dents dririlc BULL Run ova- incidence ads used in production of two pesticides and methods. eels detected at least what's in the production ofhexachlotvphcne. an That explains Wj has one of the very More, says antibacterial agent. TCDD is also produced in why on once. Node of the 36 the incomplete combustion of numerous occenton Chemicals were detected highest cancer rates in Hunumn. the state." the cancer matalaas. it decomposes rapidly In sunlight USGS de- in the m+0.itlSierti Of Ole risk pre- but tends to toc persistent for up to tea years teded cherni- l,Pt(la Wtte RWer:" seated by water that facets EPA safe drinking !n sot( layers not cafs at trace water standards is 'Immeasurably swag-" JA00prding to LSWj exposed to levels that were below the Montgomery if there is in fad a causal relatiomhip the level Of total di- sunlight. Watson lab's detection Uurit. Like the Oregon between water supply and cancer. and If the oxirts LtxtS hfy(ter ft According to Health Division. the City of Portland. and betwe consumption wet of supply River water is the Oregon state-of-the-art commercial tabs, Montgomery i one F(r creek in the Bull Health Division. Watson used EPA-approved drinking water resumed iof VAll a cancer risks, t water presumed highs to Run watershed than all of us arc monitoring methods. These art: destgncd to expect nca a to be cre ar rates a risks. Benton County (where pcoplc drink V11- it was in the Wit- exposed to dioxin test for compliance with EPA dtiriIdng water ts=ttc River water) than to Multnomah la nette R(Wr:" at vc4' low levels standards. The monitoring done by USGS County (where the majority of the populati (-badrgmund involved academic research methodologies drinks Bull Run water). in fact the appo5 is levels") every day. But 96% of that exposure which are not approved by EPA for drinldng tine cases Denton county has Onaefthe very u from food. 2% is from air and J= (hart one- water monitoring ateridarde. lowest cancer rates in Or(:gon. wht)c tmtb of 1% is from mater sat what did the. USG3 acbttat(y IInd? Multnomah County has one of the vay high- Steff hag been unable to substantiate the The USGS looked for 86 chemicals in eac tat cancer rafts to the start. (Ott goer Health calm that them is no threshold for wW of eS separate tests of the Willa netts River Dlviston, nccr In Oregon. 19961 The amount of dfoxln. licre is what the EPA and its tributaries. Them were 56 ttcmtcals greatest risk factors for cancer ere tobsom actually hm to'asty about dfodw Ue dioxin detected at least once. None of tdie 36 choral use, alcohol usc, genetics and w Q dgAQ0-- has been shown to be toxic to certain lab cats were detected in the mainetem Of the cgmaure to Csretnogcrts - - not tap water. animals. evidence to lacking that it has Berl- Willamette River. (19.9. Gcotogfeal Survey. our long-term effects on humorm The public a 12ts5bibrrtiett of Of.satvv-~t +trtdes t3ad Oft 3. ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS perccpuoahaebeenlargelybased upon ~rOunlityConOtt- Iasi nS :ul~5t~~►*!• aruptonv are a fam4lr of infor matioi repotted on toxic cCocts found !n g0$1 cir A,tion lo Errdotxinc dt o Land UAL in the Wii_ chemicals either up lab animals. People tend t6 relate thane effects ja_m ,rteRiver 13an. 1997) c human that skate are nd arc in suspected ndy corpsrtat at ofion to humans and begin to fear firm. Once fear In a separate stud. the USGS tested the c - has been c e'ated, u is hard to dispel: (EPA, ma~trvtern of the W(Aamette River near having u.-nan negative health and level- "there are noeado- Fnvlronmemal Edueatlon Series - Ye use Picc+berg for 224 ehcmda]81tr the river wale: opmental effects. trine disruptors )n ltd nd H MO& M• w etc. 1992) and bed sodiments. Only 17 chemicals wen in 1994. the SPA appointed a Scientific detected, all of them at levels below safe This has been a present to the Wil- Advisory Board composed of 42 scientists. drinking aster standards. The oroae/GAC major sourer of larnette (and id is academes, government researchers and eoctecrrr for water process at the proposed WlUanaette water not of concern for industry mpresentatives, to review the EPA's treatment plant would remove at1 17 of then suppliers. Dto:dn F,xpmutre and Health Effects Docu- eh=wcala - plus all of the other chemicals However a hurrnans cottsum- menu Thin Board found that while human that were not even detected. new study con- flag water flout the effects from dioxin (and like eompouad) ducted by Dr. WMamette Rfuer." exposure occur at levels closer to background The diagram on the next Daniel Byrd of - than previously esdroated. -Ilse conclusion pasom Consultants in To)deoloa- Risk Assessment ~COttYttl~ of t¢ that dlwdn and related compounds are likely wul Wll(ataettt; W2ttaP s~P(r MOO and Product Safety, and Dr. Tfrr. Zehssevfski to p..-snit 2 crstoer hazard to humans at of the National Food Safety and Toid-logy expoaure kvcis within one or two ordcra of ~l Y'aE-'1p Saivw. 5~ err Center at Michigan State Uruversity. has ttttEi MS Q der Ems. EUGENE P. FOSTER, Ph.D Environmental Toxicologist Science & Data Section Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division Dr. Foster received his Ph.D. In toxicology from Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR i SCOTT A. WELLS Professor of Civil Engineering BS 1979 Tennessee Technological University, MS 1982 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, PhD 1990 Cornell University Dr. Wells' research areas are in modeling of environmental fluid mechanics: surface water quality and hydrodynamics, and solid-liquid separation processes. Topics under investigation are reservoir water quality and thermal modeling, modeling of sedimentation and dewatering processes in solid-liquid processes, experimental techniques analyzing the desaturation of porous materials, effects of wetlands restoration on estuary water quality and hydrodynamics, analysis of new conditioning aids for water and wastewater treatment-processes.- water quality-and hydrodynamic modeling of effects of combined sewer overflows on surface waters, and the effect of landfill leachate on neighboring surface waters. In Oregon, he has been involved in water quality modeling studies on the Tualatin River, Hagg Lake, the Lower and Upper Columbia Slough, Smith and Bybee lakes, Klamath River, Bear Creek, Johnson Creek, Snake River, Stone Creek below Timothy Lake, South Slough off Coos Bay, and areas of Tillamook Bay and the Columbia River. His experience includes water quality studies in Idaho, Hawaii, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Washington, and the Ukraine, where he spent a year as a Fulbright scholar. Dr. Wells may be reached by e-mail at scott@eas.pcbc.edu or by phone at (503) 725-4276. Wells, S. and LaLiberte, D. In Press. Modeling density currents in circular clarifiers, Fluid/Particle Separation Journal. Wells, S., and Savage, G. In Press. Gravity drainage during and prior to cake filtration. Advances in Filtration and Separation Technology. Wells, S. In Press. Mathematical modeling of filtration in a plate-and-frame press. Fluid Particle Separation Journal. Wells, S., LaLiberte, D., Whelan, M. 1997 Density currents in sedimentation tanks, pp. 507- 512. In E. Baumann and L. Weisert (eds.) Advances in Filtration and Separation Technology, Volume 11, American Filtrations and Separations Society. 4 Wells. S.A., Berger, C.J., Abrams, M. 1996. Winter storm event impacts on dissolved oxygen n levels in the Columbia Slough system, The Pacific Northwest Floods of February 6-11, r, 1996, pp. 107-126. A. Laenen (ed.), Proceedings of the Pacific Northwest Water Issues Conference, American Institute of Hydrology. Berger, C. and Wells, S. 1995. Effects of management strategies to improve water quality in the Tualatin River, Oregon, pp. 1360-1365. In W. Espy and P. Combs (eds.) Water Research Engineering. Karl, J. and Wells, S. 1995. Modeling of gravity sedimentation in one dimension, pp. 400-410. In KC Choi (ed.) Advances in Filtration and Separation Technology, Volume 9, American Filtration and Separation Technology. James R. Pratt November 1998 SSN: 53844-0527 BIRTH DATE AND PLACE March 7, 1950, Tacoma, Washington ADDRESS Office of Graduate Studies and Research (OGSR) 3434 SW Dickinson St. Portland State University Portland, OR 97219 PO Box 751 (503) 977-2305 Portland, OR. 97207.0751 Voice: 503n25-3419/- 8038 Fax: 503!725-34161 -3888 E-mail: prattja@pdx.edu WWW: www.esr.pdx.edu/--pratt/dick.html EDUCATION 1971 BA Biology, magna cum laude. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 1981 MS Biology, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington 1984 PhD Zoology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYMENT present American Council on Education Fellow, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Associate Vice-Provost for Research & Sponsored Projects, Director of Environmental Sciences and Resources, and Professor of Environmental Science, Portland State University 1987-1994 Assistant, Associate Professor of Aquatic Ecology, School of Forest Resources The Pennsylvania State University 1986-87 Director, Hancock Biological Station and Assistant Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Murray State University, Murray, KY 1984-86 Research Associate and Assistant to the Director, University Center for Environmental Studies, VPI&SU 1986 Visiting assistant professor, Department of Biology, VPI&SU 1984.86 Investigator, University of Michigan Biological Station, Pellston, MI 1983-84 Cunningham Fellow, Department of Biology, VPI&SU 1982 Instructor, Department of Biology, VPI&SU 1981-82 Graduate teaching assistant, Department of Biology, VPI&SU JR Pratt - 2 1981-83 University of Michigan Biological Station, Pellston, MI, graduate teaching assistant 1980-81 Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA, graduate fellow 1975-80 Liberty School District, Spangle, WA, classroom teacher, general sciences and mathematics 1973-75 Moses Lake High School, Moses Lake, WA, classroom teacher, chemistry 1971-73 Seaton Boys Technical High School, Education Department of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, classroom teacher, biology, physics, general science and mathematics HONORS AND AWARDS 1998 American Council on Education Fellow (1998-99 academic year) 1994 ED Bellis Award in Ecology, Penn State Ecology Program 1994 Gamma Sigma Delta 1992 National Academy of Sciences-Russian Academy of Sciences Biodiversity Program 1989 New Investigator Award, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry/Air Force Office of Scientific Research 1989 Best Paper Award, Fourth International Symposium on Toxicity Testing Using Microorganisms 1985 PhD Research Award, Society of Sigma Xi 1985 Omicron Delta Kappa 1983-84 Cunningham Dissertation Year Fellowship, Graduate School, VPI&SU 1983 Best Student Paper, Virginia Water Pollution Control Association, Annual Meeting 1981-82 Tuition Scholarship, Graduate School, VPI&SU 1980-81 Graduate Fellowship, Eastern Washington University, 1971 Phi Beta Kappa ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEES 1998- Pew Leadership Award, campus committee Urban Universities Portfolio Project, Pew Memorial Trusts, cooperative project among six urban universities PSU/DEQ/PHL laboratory addition, architect interview committee Science Panel, Oregon State of the Environment Report JR Pratt - 3 PORTALS management team: university-community college-high school collaboration in distance education (USDE funded project on electronic communication) 1996- National Research Council, Committee on Indicators of Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecosystems American Council on Education, Leadership and Institutional Transformation (PSU faculty and administrative team charged with addressing faculty development issues; project funded by WK Kellogg Foundation) National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, delegate, Commission on Food, Environment, and Renewable Resources American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the Analysis of Water and Wastewater 1995-97 University Curriculum Committee, Portland State University (Chair, 1996, 1997) Educational advisory committees: Capitol Center, Hillsboro Public Schools, Hillsboro OR 1994-96 Technical Working Group, Identification of parameters for ecological restoration, US Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS 1991-94 Working group, GESAMP (Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution, United Nations Environment Program; charged with developing guidelines for monitoring and assessing pollutant impacts and ecosystem health) Instruction and Curricular Affairs, College of Agricultural Sciences, Penn State University (Chair, 1993-94) Graduate Studies, School of Forest Resources, Penn State University Task Force on Undergraduate Education, School of Forest Resources School Environment Committee, School of Forest Resources (Chair, 1993-94) Awards Committee, School of Forest Resources (Chair, 1992-94) 1989-94 Candidacy examination, Intercollege Graduate Degree Program in Ecology, Penn State University (Chair, 1990-94) 1990-91 Chair, ad hoc committee on facilities, School of Forest Resources, Penn State University 1988-89 Organizing committee, Center for BioDiversity Research, Penn State University 1986-87 Graduate Studies, Department of Biological Sciences, Murray State University Administration, Organization of Biological Field Stations (OBFS) i COURSES TAUGHT Applied Environmental Statistics Aquatic Toxicology Introductory Biology, Principles of Biology Advanced Ecology Ecosystem Dynamics Ecology of Stressed Ecosystems 1111111111M i JR Pratt - 4 Ecotoxicology Effects of Pollutants on Aquatic Ecosystems Environmental Risk Assessment Introduction to Environmental Systems Case Studies in Ecosystem Management Protozoology Resource Systems Analysis Restoration Ecology Winning the Games Scientists (and Engineers) Play PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS American Association for the Advancement of Science American Society for Microbiology Ecological Society of America Certified Senior Ecologist (1993-date), Ecologist (1988-93) North American Benthological Society Oregon Environmental Technology Association (Board of Directors, 1995; Treasurer, 1996-98) Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society Awards Committee, Penn State Chapter, 1992-94 Society of Protozoologists (Session Chair - 1985, Nominating Committee - 1991, Session Chair, International Congress -1993) Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (Fellowship Committee - 1990-97, Symposium co- chair - 1989; Session chair - 1991, Education Committee - 1996-97) INVITED LECTURES Restoration ecology - the basics, Salmon Corps conference, Environmental Conservation Corps (Americorps)/Columbia Intertribal Fish Commission, March 1998. Ecological redundancy: threat to biodiversity, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, May 1997. Functional redundancy in ecological communities, System Science PhD Program, Portland State University, November 1996. Education and training needs in Oregon's environmental industry, Capitol Center, Portland Community College, May, 1996. Developing an undergraduate environmental science program, Oregon Community College Science Faculty, Portland Community College, September 1996. Effects of protozoan predation on the outcomes of bioremediation, Oregon Graduate Inst., December, 1995. Ecological redundancy and ecosystem health: predicting effects of toxic chemicals, University of Northern British Columbia, April 1994. JR Pratt - 5 Applied environmental statistics (two-week short course), Faculty of Environmental Science, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, March 1994. On the relationship between ecosystem health and ecosystem services, NATO Advanced Research Workshop, Montebello, Quebec, October 1993. Protozoa and the prediction of adverse environmental effects: how redundant are microbial communities, Symposium on Pollution, LX International Congress of Protozoology, Berlin, August 1993. Effects of chemicals on ecosystems: politics, philosophy, prediction, Gettysburg College, February 1993. Community and ecosystem response to stress, UNEP workshop, Indicators of Ecosystem Health, Geneva, November 1992. Trends in ecotoxicology, Second European Conference on Ecotoxicology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, May 1992. Restoration ecology: repaying the national ecological debt, High Altitude Revegetation Conference, Fort Collins, CO, March 1992. Artificial habitats and ecological restoration: managing for the future. Symposium on Artificial Habitats for Fisheries, Long Beach, CA, 1991. Stream ecosystems: biological structure and function. Association of State Floodplain Managers, Pittsburgh, PA, 1991. A community approach to predicting ecological effects of chemicals, Texas A&M University, 1991 Microbial communities and nonpoint source pollutants, Heidelberg College (OH) Nonpoint pollutant symposium, 1991 Biocriteria and biomonitoring: where is the ecology in environmental protection, Washington College (MD) Environmental Science Lecture Series, 1991 Detecting Ecosystem Response to Stress, United Nations University - University of Ulm Global Environment and Human Health Symposium, 1990 Making the transition from toxicology to ecotoxicology, American Chemical Society Pedagogical Symposium, 1990 E Historical considerations in restoring damaged ecosystems, Environmental Protection Agency, ERL - rn Corvallis, 1990 Testing for the effects of chemicals at higher levels of biological organization. Austin Peay State a University, Honors Seminar Series, 1987 Effects of atrazine on freshwater communities: an ecological approach. University of Louisville, 1987 Microbial communities as surrogates for ecosystems. Georgetown College (KY), Senior Seminar Series, 1987 0 t b JR Pratt - 6 Comparison of estimators of toxic effects in aquatic ecosystems. U.S. Army Medical Bioengineering Research and Development Laboratory, Fort Detrick, MD, 1986 Protozoa as biological indicators of adverse ecological effects. Washington College (MD) Lecture Series, February 1985 REVIEWS FOR JOURNALS AND AGENCIES Journals and Publishers Acta Protozoologica American Naturalist Aquatic Sciences Archiv fiir Protistenkunde (Editorial Board, 1991-97) Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Ecotoxicology Environmental Technology Letters (North American science editor) Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry FEMS Microbiology Letters Handbook of Ecotoxicology (Lewis Publishers) Hydrobiologia Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology (formerly J. of Protozoology) Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Le Naturaliste Canadien McGraw-Hill/WC Brown Publishers Ohio Journal of Science Pennsylvania Academy of Science Bulletin Progress in Protistology Research Journal of the Water Environment Federation (formerly Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation) Water, Air and Soil Pollution Water Research Water Resources Bulletin Agencies, Foundations, Publishers American Society for Testing and Materials Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental biology panel, 1994, 1996, 1997; Ecological Research Centers review team, 1996) Jeffers Trust John Wiley and Sons Publishers, Inc. Lewis Publishers National Park Service National Science Foundation Ohio State University Research Foundation Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (Procter and Gamble Predoctoral Fellowships - 1993- 1997, Travel Awards-1996, Best Student Paper-1997) W.C. Brown/McGraw-Hill Publishers West Virginia Water Resources Research Center JR Pratt - 7 TRAINING COURSES Ecological modeling using microcomputers, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, January 1988. Environmental gene probe workshop, Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, July, 1992. GRANTS Current PSU-OrPHL collaborative for molecular analysis of emerging infectious diseases, Oregon State Public Health Laboratory. Technical assistance grant, Friends of Blue and Fairview Lakes, with S. Wells (PI), Environmental Protection Agency (re: East Multnomah County groundwater contamination site). Columbia Slough impervious surfaces study, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services, with S. Wells. Previous Research Support Air Force Office of Scientific Research Army Biomedical Research and Development Laboratory Clark Co. (WA) Public Utilities Environmental Protection Agency Florida Institute for Phosphate Research Environmental and Water Resources Research, Virginia Water Resources Research Center National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration National Park Service National Science Foundation, Secondary Science Teacher's Workshop, co-investigator, grant to University of Michigan Biological Station Naturalist-Ecologist Training Program, Mellon Foundation-University of Michigan Biological Station Oregon Economic Development Department (Metropolitan Regional Strategies Board, Portland, OR) Pennsylvania Power and Light Penn State Biotechnology Institute Pennsylvania Wild Resources Conservation Fund (Pennsylvania Bureau of Forestry) Research Triangle Institute, Environmental Protection Agency Monitoring and Data Support Division Roy F. Weston, Co. SMC Environmental Services Group Small Projects Grant, College of Arts and Sciences, VPI&SU Sybron Chemical, Inc. i GRADUATE THESES JM Balczon, Response of two microecosytems to copper stress, MS Ecology, 1990 (PhD program, Penn State) AJ Menezes-Filho, Effects of adaptation on community response to stress, MS EPC, 1990 (Brazilian Dept. of Environmental Toxicology) JR Pratt - 8 AE Melendez, Field and laboratory effects of diquat on microbial communities, MS EPC, 1992 (private consulting, Puerto Rico) M-F Lu, Toxicological implications of interactions between pH and nickel, MEPC, 1992 (PhD program, Rutgers Univ.) ME Glackin, Microbial bioindicators of acidification, MS Ecology, 1994 (PhD, Clemson Univ., inst. The Citadel) RL Kepner, Jr., Interactions of organic matter, bacteria, and heterotrophic flagellates in the microbial loop, PhD Ecology, 1995 (Post-doctoral associate, Desert Research Institute, Reno) JM Balczon, Feeding strategies in surface grazing ciliated protozoa, PhD Ecology, 1995 (Faculty, Westminster College, Sharon, PA) Kip Shenefelt, Estimated effects of land application of sewage waste water, MEPC, 1997 (Centre Co. Conservation Dist.) Z Xu, Cosmopolitan distribution of microbiota, PhD Ecology, 1996 (Post-doctoral associate, Tufts Univ.) DG Mochan, Rapid toxicity assessment using ciliate protozoa, MS Biology, 1996 (Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality) M Urban, Pennsylvania's algal protists, MS Ecology, 1998 S Hubler, Effects of toxins on ciliate feeding performance, MS Biology, 1997 (Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality) M McVee, Efficacy of orphan herbicides on problem aquatic plants, MS Biology, 1998 W Rifer, Environmental assessment of product life cycles, MEM, Env. Science, 1999 S Rollins, Protozoa in the freshwater microbial loop, MS, Env. Science, 2000 POST-DOCTORAL ASSOCIATES Steven Tessier (Pennsylvania State University), 1989-90, Microbial community analysis. R Barreiro-Lozano (Univ. Santiago de Compostele), 1991-92, Effect of trophic status on toxicant action in j complex ecosystems. i NJ Bowers (Pennsylvania State University), 1994-97, Molecular genetics of ciliate protozoa (NSF Post- doctoral Fellowship in Environmental Biology). 3 UNDERGRADUATE HONORS THESES Jeffrey Dillon, Population dynamics of colpodid ciliates (Univ. Wisconsin, MS, soil science, UW Law School, in progress). JR Pratt - 9 Kirsten Hauser, Performance of a novel, green-house based wastewater treatment system (Smithsonian Estuarine Research Center, Annapolis, MD) Carrie Belback, Rapid toxicity assessment of metals using Colpoda growth inhibition (DeKalb County conservation district) Siri Larsen, Impacts of fertilizer nutrients on soils and soil communities. PUBLICATIONS 1. Pratt, JR. 1981. Seasonal variation in protozoan communities inhabiting artificial substrates in a scabland pond. M.S. Thesis, Eastern Washington University. 2. Pratt, JR and BH Rosen. 1983. Associations of species of Vorticella and planktonic algae. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 102:48-54. 3. Pratt, JR. 1984. Export of species from sources of differing maturity and complexity. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 4. Paulsen, PC, JR Pratt, and J Cairns Jr. 1984. Relationship of alkaline stress and acute copper toxicity in the snail Goniobasis livescens (Menke). Bull. Environ. Contain Toxicol. 31:719-726. 5. Pratt, JR, J Cairns Jr., and K Meier. 1984. Migration of species during early colonization. Amer Mid. Nat. 113:92-101. 6. Pratt, JR and J Cairns Jr. 1985. Export of species from sources of differing maturities. Hydrobiologia 121:103-109. 7. Pratt, JR and J Cairns Jr. 1985. Long-term patterns of protozoan colonization in Douglas Lake, Michigan. J. Protozool. 32:95-99. 8. Niederlehner, BR, JR Pratt, AL Buikema Jr, and J Cairns Jr. 1985. Laboratory tests evaluating the effects of cadmium on freshwater protozoan communities. Environ. Tox. Chem. 4:155-165. 9. Cairns, J Jr, JR Pratt, BR Niederlehner. 1985. A provisional multispecies toxicity test using indigenous organisms. J. Test. Eval. 13:316-319. 10. Pratt, JR and J Cairns Jr. 1985. Functional groups in the Protozoa: roles in differing ecosystems. J. Protozool. 32:4091117. 11. Stewart, PM, JR Pratt, J Cairns Jr., and RL Lowe. 1985. A comparison of diatom and protozoan colonization of artificial substrates in lentic habitats. Trans. Amer. Microsc. Soc. 104:369-377. i a 12. Pratt, JR, BZ Lang, RL Kaesler, and J Cairns Jr. 1986. Response of protozoan communities on artificial substrates to seasonal changes. Archiv fiir Protistenk. 131:45-57. 13. Stewart, PM, EP Smith, JR Pratt, PV McCormick, and J Cairns Jr. 1986. Multivariate analysis of a protozoan communities in lentic systems. J. Protozool. 33:146-151. 14. Cairns, J Jr, JR Pratt, BR Niederlehner, and PV McCormick. 1986. A simple cost-effective multispecies toxicity test using organisms with a cosmopolitan distribution. Environ. Monit. Assess. 6:207-220. NMI JR Pratt - 10 15. Shen, Y-F, AL Buikema Jr, WH Yongue Jr, JR Pratt, and J Cairns Jr. 1986. Use of protozoan communities to predict environmental effects of pollutants. J. Protozool. 33:152-156. 16. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1986. Ecological consequences assessment: effects of bioengineered organisms. Water Res. Bull. 22:171-182. 17. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1987. Commentary: on the relationship between structure and function. Environ. Toxicol. Chem 5:785-786. 18. Pratt, JR, J Cairns Jr, and R Horowitz. 1987. Protozoan communities of the Flint River-Lake Blackshear ecosystem. Hydrobiologia 148:159-174. 19. Pratt, JR and NJ Bowers. 1987. Substrate associated microfauna. JWPCF 59:597-601. 20. Pratt, JR, BR Niederlehner, NJ Bowers, and J Cairns Jr. 1987. Estimates of permissible concentrations of copper from microcosm toxicity tests. Toxicity Assessment 2:417-436. 21. Pratt, JR, M Ladzick, and J Cairns Jr. 1987. Metazoan colonization of polyurethane foam artificial substrates. Arch. Hydrobiol. 110:519-531. 22. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1987. Ecotoxicological effect indices: a rapidly evolving system. Water Sci. Tech. 19:1-12. 23. Pratt, JR, PV McCormick, KW Pontasch, and J Cairns Jr. 1988. Evaluating soluble toxicants in contaminated soils. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 37:293-307. 24. McCormick, PV, JR Pratt, DG Jenkins, and J Cairns Jr. 1988. A comparison of protozoan, algal, and metazoan colonization of artificial substrates of differing size. Trans. Amer. Microsc. Soc. 107:259-268. 25. Cairns, J Jr, and JR Pratt. 1988. Gathering time-dependent information: an optimization problem. Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 107:1-11. 26. Pratt, JR, BR Niederlehner, NJ Bowers, and J Cairns Jr. 1988. Effect of chlorine on microbial communities in naturally derived microcosms. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 7:679-687. 27. Pratt, JR, NJ Bowers, BR Niederlehner, and J Cairns Jr. 1988. Effects of atrazine on freshwater microbial communities.. Arch. Environ. Contain Toxicol. 17:449-457. 28. Genter, RB, FS Colwell, JR Pratt, DS Cherry, and J Cairns Jr. 1988. Changes in epilithic communities due to individual and combined treatments of zinc and snail grazing in stream mesocosms. Toxicol. Ind. Health 4:185-201. 29. Bowers, NJ and JR Pratt. 1988. Substrate associated microbiota. JWPCF 60:1088-1093. 30. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1989. Advantages and disadvantages of employing microorganisms as indicators of pollution. Curr. Prac. Environ. Sci. Eng. 4:111-123. 31. Pratt, JR and JD Chappell. 1989. Abundance and feeding of freshwater microflagellates from a eutrophic lake. Hydrobiologia 182:165-169. 32. Pratt, JR, NJ Bowers, BR Niederlehner, and J Cairns Jr. 1989. Responses of laboratory ecosystems to environmental stress: effects of phenol. Tox. Assess. 4:161-174. L JR Pratt - 11 33. Foissner, W, A Skogstad, and JR Pratt. 1989. Morphology and infraciliature of Trochiliopsis australis n. sp., Pelagohalteria viridis n. comb., and Strobilidium lacustris n. sp. (Protozoa, Ciliophora). J. Protozool. 35:489-497. 34. Pratt, JR and NJ Bowers. 1989. Substrate associated microbiota. JWPCF 61:1068-1072. 35. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1989. The scientific basis of bioassays. Hydrobiologia 188!189:5-20. 36. Genter, RB, JR Pratt, NJ Bowers, and J Cairns Jr. 1989. Algal and protozoan community response to individual and combined treatments of phosphate and zinc. Cuff. Prac. Environ. Sci. Eng. 4:133-153. 37. Niederlehner, BR, KW Pontasch, JR Pratt, and J Cairns Jr. 1990. Field evaluation of predictions of environmental effects from microcosm and conventional toxicity tests. Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 19:62-71. 38. Pratt, JR, NJ Bowers, and J Cairns Jr. 1990. Effect of sediment on estimates of diquat toxicity in laboratory microcosms. Water Research 24:51-57. 39. Pratt, JR and NJ Bowers. 1990. A microcosm method for evaluating ecological effects of chemicals and mixtures. Toxicity Assessment 5:189-205. 40. Pratt, JR and NJ Bowers. 1990. Effects of selenium on microbial communities in laboratory microcosms and outdoor streams. Toxicity Assessment 5:293-307. 41. Cairns, J Jr, BR Niederlehner, and JR Pratt. 1990. Evaluation of joint toxicity of chlorine and ammonia to aquatic communities. Aquatic Toxicology 16:87-100. 42. Bowers, NJ and JR Pratt. 1990. Substrate associated microbiota. JWPCF 62:614-618. 43. Stewart, PM, PV McCormick, JR Pratt, and J Cairns; Jr. 1991. Structural and functional comparison of protozoan assemblages at three types of sewage treatment plants, Prog. Environ. Sci. Tech. 5: 129-144. 44. Balczon, JM and JR Pratt. 1991. Substrate associated microbiota. JWPCF 63:726-730. 45. Pratt, JR and NJ Bowers. 1992. Variability of community metrics: detecting changes in structure and function. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 11:451-457. 46. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1992. Restoring ecosystem health and integrity during a human population increase to ten billion. J. Aquatic Ecosys. Health 1:59-68. 47. Barreiro, R and JR Pratt. 1992. Effects of toxic chemicals on microorganisms, Research Journal of the Water Environment Federation 64:632-641. 48. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1993. Trends in ecotoxicology, Science of the Total Environment Suppl. 1993:7-22. 49. Melendez, AE, RL Kepner, JM Balczor., and JR Pratt. 1993. Effects of diquat on microbial communities, Arch. F.nviron. Contain Toxicol. 25:95-101.. 50. Balczon, JM and JR Pratt. 1994. Estimation of ecological effects of copper. comparisons of microcosm performance, Hydrobiologia 281:101-114. JR Pratt - 12 51. Kepner, RL and JR Pratt. 1994. Comparison of fluorochromes for estimating microbial numbers: effects of sediments, Trans. Am. Microsc. Soc. 112:316-330. 52. Barreiro, R and JR Pratt. 1994. Interaction of toxicants and communities: the role of nutrients. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 13:361-368. 53. Pratt, JR. 1994. Artificial habitats and ecosystem restoration: managing for the future, Bull. Marine Sci. 55:268-275. 54. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1995. Ecological restoration through behavioral change. Restoration Ecology 3:53-57. 55. Kepner, RL and :R Pratt. 1995. The use of fluorochromes for the enumeration of aquatic microbiota. Microbiological Reviews 58:603-615. 56. Bowers, NJ, and JR Pratt. 1995. Estimation of genetic variation among isolates of Colpoda h1flata Stokes (Protozoa: Ciliophora) using the ploymerase chain reaction and restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis. Arch. F. Protistenk. 145:29-36. 57. Balczon, JM and JR Pratt. 1995. A comparison of methods for estimating short-term feeding rates in algivorous ciliated protozoa. Arch. f. Protistenk. 146:49-58. 58. Balczon, JM and JR Pratt. 1996. The functional response of two benthic, algivorous cilated protozoa with differing feeding strategies. Microbial Ecol. 31:209-224. 59. Kepner, RL and JR Pratt. 1996. Characterization of surface-associated protozoan communities in a Lake Erie coastal wetland (Old Woman Creek, Ohio). J. Great Lakes Res. 22:63-76 60. Bowers, NJ, JR Pratt, D Beeson and M Lewis. 1996. Comparative evaluation of soil toxicity using lettuce seed and soil ciliates. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 16:207-213. 61. Xu, Z, NJ Bowers, and JR Pratt. 1997. Variability in the morphology, ecology, and genetics of Colpoda inflata (Stokes) from five beiogeographic realms. Eur. J. Protistol. 33:136-144. 62. Pratt, JR, D Mochan and Z Xu. 1997. Rapid toxicity testing using soil ciliates: sensitivity and bioavailability. Bull. Env. Contain Toxicol. 58:387-393. 63. Pratt, JR, R Barreiro, AL Melendez, and N Bowers. 1997. Predicting the ecological effects of herbicides. Ecol. Appl. 7:1117-1124. 64. Barreiro, R and JR Pratt. 1998. Effect of trophic status on community response to diquat. Arch. Env. Contam. Toxicol. 35:404-411 Book Chapters 3 1. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1985. Muitispecies toxicity testing using indigenous organisms-a new cost effective approach to ecosystem protection. Proceedings, 1985 TAPPI Environmental Conference. 2. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1985. Developing a sampling strategy. In BG Isom, ed. Rationale for Sampling and Interpretation of Ecological Data in the Assessment of Freshwater Ecosystems, STP 894, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 168-186. h JR Pratt -13 3. Pratt, JR, J Cairns Jr, and PM Stewart. 1985. Development of microbial communities on mined lands. In RP Brooks, DE Samuel, and JB Hill, eds, Wetlands and Water Management on Mined Lands, Pennsylvania State University, pp 239-260. 4. Pratt, JR and J Cairns Jr. 1985. Conference Summary. In RP Brooks, DE Samuel, and JB Hill, eds, Wetlands and Water Management on Mined Lands, Pennsylvania State University, pp 1-8. 5. Pratt, JR and J Cairns Jr. 1985. Recovery of microbial communities in lakes following phosphate mining. In F Weber, ed, 12th Conference on Wetland Creation and resioration, Hillsborough Community College (FL) Pp. 201-209. 6. Niederlehner, BR, JR Pratt, AL Buikema Jr, and J Cairns Jr. 1986. Comparison of estimates of hazard derived at three levels of complexity. In J Cairns Jr, ed, Community Toxicity Testing, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp 30-48. 7. McCormick, PV, JR Pratt, and J Cairns Jr. 1986. Effect of a complex organic; 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol (M-M), on the structure and function of protozoan communities established on artificial substrates. In J Cairns Jr, ed, Community Toxicity Testing, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia pp. 224-240. 8. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1986. Ecological consequence assessment: effects of bioengineered organisms. In JR Fiksel and VT Covello, eds, Biotechnology Risk Assessment, Pergamon Press, New York, pp. 88- 108. 9. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1986. Factors affecting the acceptance rejection of genetically altered microorganisms by established natural aquatic communities. Aquatic Toxicology and Environmental Fate: Ninth Symposium, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 207-221. 10. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1986. Use of protozoan communities in protecting aquatic environments. Biologica Hungarica 33:187-197. 11. Pratt, JR, BR Niederlehner, NJ Bowers, and J Cairns Jr. 1987. Effects of zinc on freshwater microbial communities. In SE Lindberg and TC Hutchinson, eds, International Conference on Heavy Metals in the Environment, vol. 2., CEP Consultants Ltd., Edinburgh, pp. 324-326. 12. Pratt, JR, J Mitchell, R Ayers, and J Cairns Jr. 1988. Comparison of estimates of effects of a complex effluent at differing levels of biological organization. In GW Suter H and MA Lewis, eds, Aquatic Toxicology and Environmental Fate: Eleventh Volume, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 174-188. 13. Pratt, JR and J Cairns Jr. 1989. Use of microbial colonization parameters as a measure of functional response in aquatic ecosystems. In Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt, eds, Functional Testing for Hazard Evaluation, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 55-67. 14. Pratt, JR and T Pluto. 1989. Wetlands for treating industrial and nonpoint source pollutants. In SK Majumdar, RP Brooks, FJ Brenner, and RW Tiner Jr, eds, Wetlands Ecology and Conservation: Emphasis in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Academy of Science, pp. 315-332. 15. Pratt, JR, J Cairns Jr, and MS Henebry. 1990. Microbial community dynamics and microbial functional indices for assessing wetland impact. In RR Sharitz and JW Gibbons, eds, Freshwater Wetlands and Wildlife, USDOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Oak Ridge, TN, pp. 1005-1017. 1111~'7 JR Pratt - 14 16. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1990. Biotic impoverishment: effects of anthropogenic stress. In Woodwell, GM, ed, The Earth in Transition: Patterns and Processes of Biotic Impoverishment, pp. 495-505. 17. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1990. Integrating aquatic resource management, In RY McNeil and JE Windsor, eds, Innovations in River Basin Management, Canadian Water Resources Assoc., Cambridge, Ontario, Canada, pp. 265-280. 18. Pratt, JR. 1990. Aquatic community response to stress: prediction and detection of adverse effects. In Aquatic Toxicology and Risk Assessment, 13th Volume, WG Landis and WH van der Schalie, eds, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 16-26. 19. Pratt, JR and EP Smith. 1991. Significance of changes in community structure: a new method for testing differences. In Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation, Office of Water, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 440/5-91-005, Washington, DC, pp. 91-103. 20. Pratt, JR. 1991. Making the transition from toxicology to ecotoxicology, pp. 25-42 in RA Baker, ed, Organic Substances and Sediments in Water, Vol. 3, American Chemical Society, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI. 21. Pratt, JR and RL Kepner Jr. 1992. Artificial substrata for collecting protozoa. In JJ Lee and A Soldo, eds, Protocols in Protozoology, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS, pp. B-9.1-9.7. 22. Pratt, JR and JM Balczon. 1992. Biomonitoring using protozoa. In JJ Lee and A Soldo, eds, Protocols in Protozoology, Allen Press, Lawrence, KS, pp. B-12.1-12.5. 23. Pratt, JR and J Cairns Jr. 1992. The ecological consequences of species loss in ecosystems, in J Cairns Jr, BR Niederlehner, and DR Orvos, eds, Predicting Ecosystem Risk, Elsevier, London, pp. 93-117. 24. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1993. A history of biological monitoring using invertebrates. In D Rosenberg and V Resh, eds, Freshwater Biomonitoring and Benthic Macroinvertebrates, Chapman and Hall, New York, pp. 10-27. 25. Pratt, JR, NJ Bowers, and JM Balczon. 1993. A microcosm using naturally-derived communities: comparative ecotoxicology. In WG Landis, JS Hughes, and MA Lewis, eds., Environmental Toxicology and Risk Assessment, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, pp. pp. 178-191. 26. Pratt, JR and J Stevens. 1993. Restoration ecology: repaying the national ecological debt. In WG Hassell, SK Nordstrom, WR Kemmerer, and J Todd. eds. High Altitude Revegetation Workshop No. 10, Information Series No. 71, Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Fort Collins, CO , pp. 40119. 27. Pratt, JR and JL Rosenberger. 1993. Community change and ecosystem functional complexity: a microcosm study of copper toxicity. In JW Gorsuch, FJ Dwyer, CG Ingersoll, and TW LaPoint, eds. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2nd Symposium, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 88-102. 28. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1995. The relationship between ecosystem health and ecosystem services, Ecosystem Health and Its Measurement (NATO-ARW D Rapport and P Calow, eds., Springer Verlag. pp 63-76. 29. Pratt, JR and J Cairns, Jr. 1996. Ecotoxicology and the redundancy p.oblem: understanding effects on community structure and function. In MC Newman and CH Jagoe, eds., Ecotoxicology: A Hieracrchical Treatment, Lewis Publishers, pp. 347-370. 2 JR Pratt - 15 30. Pratt, JR, DG Mochan and NJ Bowers. 1998. Ciliate microbiotest applications: metal contaminants in water and soil. In Microscale Aquatic Toxicology - Advances, Techniques, and Practice, Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI pp. 349-357. 31. Pratt, JR. 1997. Colonization and island biogeography. In OR Anderson, ed., Use of protozoa in the classroom, National Science Teachers Association. 32. Pratt, JR. 1997. Effects of contaminants on aquatic ecosystems. In OR Anderson, ed., Use of protozoa in the classroom, National Science Teachers Association. Books 1. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt, eds. 1989. Functional Testing of Aquatic Biota for Estimating Hazard of Chemicals, STP 988, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. 2. Majumdar, SK, EW Miller, DE Baker, JR Pratt, RF Schmaltz, and EK Brown, eds. 1993. Conservation and Resource Management, Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, Easton, PA. 3. Pratt, JR, NJ Bowers, and JR Stauffer, eds. 1996. Making Environment Science: A Festschrift in Honor of John Cairns Jr. Ecoprint, Inc., Portland, OR. Pamphlets 1. Pratt, JR 1992. ERM Writing Guide: A manual of style and usage for ERM students, ProCopy, State College, PA. (Revised as ESR Writing Guide, March 1997). Book and software reviews, letters to editor, newspaper articles 1. Pratt, JR 1985. Review of A Functional Biology of the Protozoa, by J. Laybourn-Pang, J. Protozool. 32:758. 2. Pratt, JR 1988. Review of "Time Zero: The Integrated Modeling Environment," by T. Kirchner, Bull. Ecol. Soc. Am, 69:172. 3. Pratt, JR 1991. Review of River Pollution - An Ecological Perspective, by S.M. Haslam, J. North American Benthological Society 10:345. 4. Pratt, JR 1991. Units Unite! (letter to editor), Science 417:498. 5. Pratt, JR :1992. Review of Taxonomische and bkoloeishe Revision der Ciliaten des Saprobiensystems - Band 1, by W Foissner et al., Europ. J. Protistol. 28:364. 6. Pratt, JR 1993. Review of Ecological Effects of Wastewater. Applied Limnologv and Pollutant Effects by EB Welch and T Lindell, J. North American Benthological Society 12:309. 7. Pratt, JR and ME Glackin. 1994. Review of Ecotoxicology of Metals in Invertebrates, by R Dallinger and P Rainbow, eds, J. North American Benthological Society (in press). 01111111 JR Pratt - 16 8. Pratt, JR. 1995. Education is the key to a growing economy, Summer Vanguard, Portland, OR, 51(1):2 (12 June 1995). 9. Pratt, JR. 1997. High tech tools and the role of the professor, Chronicle of Higher Education,44(12):B 12 (14 November 1997). Limited Distribution Reports 1. Pratt, JR. 1984. Protozoa, in Ecosystem Studies of the Flint River and Lake Blackshear, 1983. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 2. Pratt, JR, J Cairns Jr, PM Stewart, NB Pratt, and BR Niederlehner. 1985. Recovery of lakes following phosphate mining. Florida Institute of Phosphate Research. 3. Pratt, JR, BR Niederlehner, NJ Bowers, and J Cairns Jr. 1986. Microbial Community Toxicity Testing. Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle, NC. 4. Cairns, J Jr and JR Pratt. 1986. Ecological con-sequence assessment: effects of bioengineered organisms. In VT Covello and JR Fiksel, eds, The Suitability and Applicability of Risk Analysis Methods for Environmental Applications of Biotechnology. National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. Report No. NSF/PRA 8502286, pp. D-1-D-32. 5. Pratt, JR, PV McCormick, KW Pontasch, and J Cairns Jr. 1986. Evaluating potential groundwater contamination from contaminated soils. Virginia Water Resources Research Center. 6 Pratt, JR. 1987. Analysis of Agency Needs in the Area of Tracking, Monitoring and Emergency Response Concerning Genetically-Engineered Agents. Life Systems, Inc., Report to Environmental Protection Agency. 7. Pratt, JR. 1989. How to manage your small streams. How to Manual, Bureau of Forestry, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. 8. Pratt, JR, JL Rosenberger, and CT Morrow. 1991. Naturally-derived microcosms for estimating chemical effects in aquatic ecosystems, US Army Biomedical Research and Development Laboratory, Fort Detrick, MD, 9. Pratt, JR, RF Carlin, JR Stauffer, F Fiss, SW Heckman, and C Kristine. 1991. Toxicological Study of Upper Spring Creek. SMC Environmental Services, Valley Forge, PA. 10. Pratt, JR and S Tessler. 1992. Biological monitoring of Nomini Creek, Westmoreland County, VA, Phase I Report. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. ' 11. Pratt, JR and S Tessler. 1992. Biological monitoring of Nomini Creek and Owl Run watersheds, Phase H Report. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 12. Kepner, RL and JR Pratt. 1993. Organic matter and microbial communities at Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Springs, MD. 13. Pratt, J.R. and J.D. Hardy. 1994. Protozoa, in J.D. Hardy, Biological inventory of the island of Tobago, Tobago House of Assembly. JR Pratt - 17 14. Pratt, JR and RE O'Connor. 1994. Scoping for environmental impact assessment: a case study at Gettysburg National Military Park and Eisenhower National Historic Site. National Park Service, Natural Resources Report NPS/MAR/NRR 94-003, Mid-Atlantic Region, Philadelphia. 15. Pratt, JR and NJ Bowers. 1994. The effects of test duration and aeration on the outcome of algal growth inhibition tests. Research Evaluation Associates, Chapel Hill, NC. 16. Pratt, JR. 1996. Education and training needs in Oregon's environmental industry. Environmental Sciences and Resources, Portland State University, Portland, OR. 17. Heaton, A, S Mrazik, MD Sytsma, JR Pratt. 1996. Survey of aquatic plants in selected lakes of Mt. Hood National Forest, Report 96-4, Lakes and Reservoirs Program, ESR, Portland State University (report to Mt. Hood National Forest, US Department of Agriculture). 18. Wells, SA, S Li, M Beeson, M Cummings, JR Pratt, R Annear, and K Brandt. 1996 Impact of groundwater contamination in East Multnomah County on the Interlachen community. Technical Report EWR-2-96, Portland State University. 19. Pratt, JR, D Mochan. 1997. Use of microeukarotes in rapid toxicity testing. US Army Biomedical Research and Development Laboratory, Fort Detrick, MD. Submitted Xu, Z, JR Pratt, Y Feng, and J-M Bollag. Effect of grazing by the ciliate Colpoda in, Plata on biodegradation by a bacterium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. Balczon, JM and JR Pratt. The ecological energetics of two benthic algivorous cilated protozoa. J-NABS (in revision). Pratt, JR and N Bowers. Protozoa as biomonitors of pollution, in Biological Indicators of Water Quality, A Gerhardt, ed. In Preparation Books Cairns, J Jr, JR Pratt, and K Holl, eds. Restoration Ecology, Chapman and Hall. { Foissner, W, I-I Blatterer, H Berger, F Kohmann, and JR Pratt. Taxonomic and ecological revision of the ciliates of the saprobian system: vol. I. Cyrtophorida, Oligotrichida, Hypotrichida, Colpodea. Chapman + and Hall environmental Management Series). i Papers Pratt, JR and WH van der Schalie. Interlaboratory comparison of ecological effects of copper. Environ. J Toxicol. Chem. Lu, M-F and JR Pratt. Interactive effects of zinc and pH on freshwater microbial communities, Aquatic Toxicol. r =NEI mi JR Pratt - 18 Pratt, JR and RE O'Connor. Assessing environmental impacts: case study of Gettysburg National Military Park. Environ. Manage. Mochan, DG and JR Pratt. Rapid toxicity determination using the ciliate Colpoda inflata. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol Hubler, S and JR Pratt. Feeding rate as a rapid, sublethal measure of toxicity. Environ Toxicol Chem Abstracts (not representing full-length papers) 1. Pratt, JR and J Cairns Jr. 1982. The rate of species export from islands: an experimental approach with protozoan communities. Assoc. of Southeastern Biologists Annual Meeting, Richmond, KY. ASB Bulletin 29:79. 2. Pratt, JR. 1982. Response of protozoan communities on artificial substrates to seasonal changes in a small pond. Soc. of Protozoologists Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, J. Protozool 29:288. 3. Pratt, JR and J Cairns Jr. 1983. Export of species from sources of differing maturity. Assoc. of Southeastern Biologists, Annual Meeting, Lafayette, LA, ASB Bulletin 30:70. 4. McCormick, PV, JR Pratt, PM Stewart, and J Cairns Jr. 1983. Effect of leaf leachates on colonization of artificial substrates. Virginia Academy of Science, Va. J. Sci. 34:137. 5. Stewart, PM, JR Pratt, J Cairns Jr, and RL Lowe. 1983. Early colonization patterns in protozoans and diatoms. Virginia Academy of Sciences, Va. J. Sci. 34:134. 6. Pratt, JR and J Cairns Jr. 1983. Investigating species transfer using laboratory mesocosms. American Society of Zoologists. American Zoologists 23(4):703. 7. McCormick, PV, JR Pratt, and J Cairns Jr. 1984. Effect of 3-trifluoromethyl-4-nitrophenol CIFM) on the structure and function of protozoan communities established on artificial substrates. Virginia Academy of Science. Va. J. Sci. 35:116. 8. McCormick, PV, JR Pratt, and J Cairns Jr. 1984. Colonization of temporary artificial bodies of water by Protozoa. Virginia Academy of Science. Va. J. Sci. 35:84. 9. Pratt, JR, PV McCormick, KW Pontasch, and J Cairns Jr. 1986. Evaluation of Residual Toxicants in Waste Site Soils, SETAC Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. i 10. Pratt, JR 1987. New species of peritrich ciliates from Australia. Soc. of Protozoologists Annual Meeting, Champaign-Urbana, IL. i i 11. Stringfellow, WT and JR Pratt. 1987. Inhibition of algal growth by pigmented Pseudomonas exudates. American Society of Microbiologists Annual Meeting, Miami, FL. s 12. Pratt, JR 1988. Growth and feeding of heterotrophic microflageilates in a eutrophic lake. Society of Protozoologists Annual Meeting, Bristol, England. 13. Pratt, JR and NJ Bowers. 1988. Laboratory and field evaluation of diquat effects. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Cheinistry Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. 11111191~~~ 111111021 INIMi 7i JR Pratt - 19 14. Pratt, JR and NJ Bowers. 1989. Variability and detection power of community metrics, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Toronto, Canada. 15. Pratt, JR. 1940. Measuring protozoan interactions in the periphyton, North American Benthological Society Annual Meeting, Blacksburg, VA. 16. Arnold, DE, JE Gallagher, and JR Pratt. 1990. A demonstration on mitigation of acidity in Pennsylvania streams, with studies of biological effects. Conference on Atmospheric Deposition in Pennsylvania: A Critical Assessment, ERRI, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. 17. Pratt, JR. 1990. Protozoan community patterns in a small, managed catchment. Soc. of Protozoologists Annual Meeting, College Park, MD. 18. Pratt, JR and WH van der Schalie. 1990. Inter-laboratory comparison of copper effects in freshwater microcosms. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Annual Meeting, Arlington, VA. 19. Balczon, JM, NJ Bowers, and JR Pratt. 1990. Effects of complex effluent mixtures on microbial communities. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Annual Meeting, Arlington, VA. 21. Pratt, JR and NJ Bowers. 1991. Ecological hazard assessment using microbes: repeatability of effects. North American Benthological Society Annual Meeting, Santa Fe, NM. 22. Smith, EP and JR Pratt. 1991. A new method for testing changes in community structure: effect of community measure. North American Benthological Society Annual Meeting, Santa Fe, NM. 23. Pratt, JR. 1991. Microbial community responses to nonpoint source pollution. Symposium on nonpoint source pollutants, Heidelberg College (OH). 23. Balczon, JM, AE Menezes, and JR Pratt. 1991. Microbial community adaptation to copper toxicity. East Coast Regional Meeting, Society of Protozoologists. 24. Kepner, RL Jr. and JR Pratt. 1991. Growth of Bodo edax under differing conditions of bacterial availability. East Coast Regional Meeting, Society'of Protozoologists. 25. Pratt, JR. 1991. Repeatability of adverse effects of copper in naturally derived microcosms, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Annual Meeting, Seattle, WA. 26. Pratt, JR. 1992. Microbial community responses to nonpoint source pollution: a long-term study, North American Benthological Society, Annual Meeting, Lousiville, KY. 27. Pratt, JR and R Barreiro. 1992. Effects of nutrient status on the expression of toxicity in laboratory microcosms. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Annual Meeting, Cincinnati, OH. 28. Balczon, JM and JR Pratt. 1993. An evaluation of methods for estimating feeding rates of ciliated protozoa. North American Benthological Society, Annual Meeting, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 29. Kepner, RL and JR Pratt. 1993. Methodological considerations in estimating numbers of microbiota. Annual Meeting, Ecological Society of America, Madison, W1. 30. Pratt, JR. 1993. Predicting effects of toxicants on ecosystems: how redundant are microbial communties? International Congress of Protozoology, Berlin. JR Pratt - 20 31. Glackin, ME and JR Pratt. 1993. Effects of acid deposition or algal communities of temporary ponds. Annual Meeting, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Houston, TX. 32. Pratt, JR, SE Tessler, Z Xu. 1994. Long-term monitoring of watersheds: lessons from eight years of studying stream communities. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Area Conference, Hershey, PA. 33. Gutowski, MG, JR Pratt, and JR Stauffer. 1994. Ecoregional patterns of invertebrates and fishes in Pennsylvania. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Area Conference, Hershey, PA. 34. Glackin, ME and JR Pratt. 1994. Temporary ponds study of the effects of acidification on algal assemblages. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Area Conference, Hershey, PA. 35. Balczon, JM and JR Pratt. 1994. Functional responses of the benthic ciliated protozoa Trfthigmostoma cucullulus and Urostyla sp. fed Navicula cryptocephala. North American Benthological Society Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL. 36. Pratt, JR and Z Xu. 1994. Use of Soil Ciliates for Rapid Assays of Chemical Toxicity. Society of Protozoologists Annual Meeting, Cleveland, OH. 37. Kepner, RL and JR Pratt. 1994. Aufwuchs Protozoa in a Lake Erie Coastal Marsh (Old Woman Creek, OH). Society of Protozoologists Annual Meeting, Cleveland, OH. 38. Balczon, JM and JR Pratt. 1994. The Effect of Temperature on the Feeding Rate of Benthic Herbivorous Ciliates. Society of Protozoologists Annual Meeting, Cleveland, OH. 39. Xu, Z, NJ Bowers, and JR Pratt. 1994. Biogeographic differences in colpodid ciliates. Society of Protozoologists Annual Meeting, Cleveland, OH. 40. Glackin. ME and JR Pratt. 1994. Effects of acidification on algal assemblages in temporary ponds. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Denver, CO. 41. Pratt, JR. 1994. Rapid toxicity assessment without culturing: short-term tests with micro-eukaryotes. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Denver, CO. 42. Mochan, DG and JR Pratt. 1996. Evaluation of sub-ecoregional differences in benthic macroinvertebrates in Pennsylvania. North American Benthological Society, Kalispell, MT. 43. Bowers, NJ and JR Pratt. 1996. A partial phylogeny of the ciliate genus Colpoda based on large subunit ribosomal DNA sequences. British Section, Society of Protozoologists, London, England. 44. Bowers, N, T Kroll, and JR Pratt. 1997. Geophylogeny of cosmopolitan soil ciliates determined by molecular genetic analysis. International Congress of Protozoology - X, Sydney, Australia. 45. Pratt, JR, S Hubler, and Z Xu. 1997. Rapid tests to determine contaminant effects on ciliate growth and feeding. International Congress of Protozoology - X, Sydney, Australia. 46. Hubler, S and JR Pratt. 1997. Feeding by the ciliate Colpoda inJlata as a rapid indicator of toxicity, Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, San Francisco. WATER ADVISORY TASK FORCE Agenda Thursday, March 25,1999 7: 00 p..m. Tigard Town dull 13125 SWddall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 1. Introduction and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. March 11, 1999 3. Questions/Answers - Portland State University Representatives Dr. James A. Pratt Dr. Scott A. Wells 4. Questions/Answers - DEQ Representative Dr. Eugene P. Foster 5. Written Questions/Answers - Public 6. Final Product - Discussion 7. Future Meeting Agenda Items 8. Public Comments 9. Adjournment 1:\pw\wac\3-25 agenda FROM Norm Penner PHCW NO. 503 590 4737 Mar. 19 1999 10:54s^M P2 Eugene Foster Jr. Environmental Toxicologist Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Division 811 S.W. 6th Avenue Porfland, OR 97204 PH: ($03)229-5310 FAX: (503)229-6124 estaail: foster.eugene p@degstate.or.tas urM60 1994 Oregon State University: Ph.D. Toxicology: Thesis Title - Congener-spectJlc disposition (fp ychlorlnated biphew,61n rainbow trout. 1979 University Missourl Columbia: B.S. Fisheries & Wildlife Work Rxfxrienoe 1994 to 1Prwent Environmental Toxicologist: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR 1992 to 1994 Graduate Research Assistant : Oregon State University, Toxicology ProSmut, Corvallis, OR 1989 to 1994 Aquatic R sottrce Specialist: Omen Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR (1992 to 1994: part-tame stouts) M7 to 1989 Seniur Technician: Ortgm Vepa ti ent of EnvirontnenW Quality, Portland, OR 19136 to 1987 Technical Assistance Team (TAT): Roy F. Weston, Inc., Chimed. IL 8980 to 1486 Agam& Sckndst Environmental Men= d` Dgim- g inc., St Louis, MO Exnerierrce Smmrtt$rv Pg Oregon D~O~ ent of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Dividon • investigate pollutant efkcts on fish physiology, reproduction and development: • Evaluate risks to aquatic life and hanian health from expoauv to toxic pollutarus. • Draft a reglowl nunnual for evaluating the suitability of dredged sodiumts for in-water disposal. • Expect witness for the Oregon Depaxmm-t of Envirmnental Quality providing testanony and preseatadons on dioxin to the Environmental duality Commission and the Oregon State Legislative. • Review toxic pollutant water quality criteria. FROM : Norm Penner P{ Iq E NO. : 503 590 4737 Mar. 19 1959 i0: 5 Ptl P3 C Plan and implenwd toxic pollumnt monitoring in fish. sediment, and w-tter. • Review wetland till and channel dredging projects for rampliance with section 401 of the Clean Water Act. anvirenwatal Science and FAglneeriag, Inc. St. Louis, Missouri • Prejoct management for aquatic ecology, water quality, and hazardous wash studies. • Supervise field activities for aquatic ecology, water quality, and hamrdous wage studies. Atopaiatmaerts 19% to present Portland Staats University: Adjunct Assistant Professor Environmental Science Program 1997 to present Omgo n State University: Adjmtt Ass3.ctant Professor Toxicology Program fnslrttebmiki !*r~s 19%-97 Portland State University: Ecological Toxicology (BSR4251510). 4 cr. UndcxvdVzduabe lechae. 1997 Portland Stag University: Endocrine Disrupters in Fish & Wildlife (FSR 510). 1 cr. mminar. 1996 Oregon State University Emkx-rine Disrupters in Fish & Wildlife (FW407). I c r. seminar (CO-=&)- RekFeed ftmal Artl*$ 1. Poster, E.P., Vrolijk, N.H., Chen, T.T., and Cwtis, L.R- (1998). 2,2',4,4',5,5'-Hw=htorobiphenyl induction of hepatic eyrtochrnne P4SO IA enzyme and CYP I A I mRNA In rainbow trout (Oncorliyucus rnyldss). J. Toxicol. Env. Health. 53(A)- 313-325. 2. Ca ids, l..R., Cwpmter, H.M., Donohoe RM.. WERarna, D.B., Hads4vn, O.R, Dehmer, M.L., Beftein, M.A., Foster, R, Galas, R (1993). Sensitivity of cytodumne F4504 Al kdutdon in fYsh as a bkv=lm r .rr distribution of TCDO and. TCDF in the WiUww tc River, Oregon. Or rom San. Toeh'aol. 27(10J. 2149-2157. 3. Fogbar, E.P., brake, D., Fariow, R 1499. Polychbrinated dibenzo-p-diw& mid polychlorinated dibamfuran congener profiles is fish, crayfish, and sodimeut collected am a wood tt eatittg h dW anti a bleached krsft pulp mill. Bull. Envirom Cmdam. Toxicol. (in press). ~ BoalrsAGt+sotcrs 1. Foster, E. and Drake, D. (1997). TCDD and TCOF Monitoring near s bleach haft pulp will discharging to the Willis tM River. in River Quality: Dynamics and Restoration. Edo A. Laenen and D.A. Dunneft. CRC Press. p 259-262. PhnbUshed Zroceedines and Abstracts FROM : Norm Peru-v,--r PHONE NO. : 503 590 4737 Mar. 19 1999 10:566M P4 1. Foster, E Y. and Curtis, L.R 2,5,2',5'-Tetnzchloroblp ndyl (TCB) mtreatment altered the tissue distribrttitxt of a mibsequent dose of [14C]TCB in rainbow trout 36 annual Mewling of the Society of Toxicology. March 2.5, 1998. 2. Foster, E-, Fitzpatrick, M., Feist, G., and Sch=k, C. Hepatic EROD and P450 Induction in wild Columbla River and In W*iy white sturgemt (Ac* penser mmvn-wt vi ts). Society of Envirmnerla] Toxicology and Chenisby I e Annual Meeting, November 16-20,1997. 3. Foster, E., Drake, D., and DiDomenicA G. Seasonal change of mercury tismm distrtilsution in largemouth bass (Mienpterus salrnoides). Society of Fnv€aonnuenttal Toxicology and Chemistry 19* Annual Meeting. Novetaber 16-20,1997. 4. Fitzpatrick, M., Feist, G, Foster, E., and Schreck, C. Reproductive steroid levels and gonadal histology in white swgeun (Acgmmo t tranvaontamcs) fDn?mI Columbia River populations wi$t differential reprodvzUvt success. Society of Environmental Toxicology wW Chemistry I96 Annual b. November 16-20,1997. 5. Fkwatdt5c hiS, Feist,. G. W, Foster, E.P., and Scbreck, C.B. Reproductive physiology of wild sturgeon, (Ac"nwr trammortanuJ) from the Columbia River- aft International Symposium on Sturgeon. July 8-11,1997. 6. Poster, BY, Fitzpatrick, M.S., Feist, G.W, and Sehreek, C.B. Sh* of reploUtive biomarlcers in Columbia River felt species. Contaminant Effects on Fish Symposium Proceedings. lnten ati anal Congress on the Biology Fishes. American Fislwies Society- July 1418,1996. 7. Fitzpatrick, M.S., Feist. ON, Chilwood, ILL, Poster, EP., and Scl=ck, C.B. Seat steroid levels in Columbia River white uwVx a Culture sod Managmu nt of Sturgeon and Faddlellsh Symposium Prvc eedaVL international Congress on the Biology of Fishes. American Fisheries Society. July 14-18,1996. 8. FkTatri k, M., Feist, G. Faster, F, and Schrock. C. R,epavductive biomarlters in Cohmnbia River salmon and sturgeon. Western Regional Conference on Comparative Fndotxiaology. March 24-26,1996. 9. Curtis, Lit. Foster, E.P., VroliXN, and Chen, T.T. 2,4,5,'',41,5'-Hexaehlorobiphzayi (2HCB) induces rainbow trout hepatic my1hyd'ocarbon bydroxylase (A "and increases cgmsion of me of two cyknko rB P450 (CYP)1 A mRAIAs. 34th Acmual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology. Mmmb 10-14,1996. 10. Post r, E, Cwtis, L, and Donohoe, R. (1995). 2-7.4.49.5,Y -13(exachlorcbiphenyl (2HCB) mnd 3,31,4,41,5,5'- limachlorabiphanyl (3HCB) alter plasma dryrexbm (T4) levels in ra bow trwn (QnCorhymus nnykiss). second World Congress for the Society of Envitr -rental TmkokW and Charms y. Noveanber 5-9,1995. 11. Foster, E.P. and Gratis„ 1._R. (1995). 2,4,5,2',4',5' -Hexachlorobipheoyl (2HCb) and 3,4,33'-9',5 = hexachlorobipht nyl (3HCB) k arose biliary f=cretiom of7,12-dimdM[n]a2s@rrw=z (UMBA) in rainbow trout. 33rd Annual lu co ing of the Society of Toxicology. March 5-9, 1995. Technical R02rt:n 1. Woluiakowski, K.U. and Foster. E.P. (1989). Aasessramt of waterbody impaimunt by priority pollutants In the waters of the state of Oregon- Oregon Department of Fnviromnenntal Quality Report, Water Quality Division, Portland OR 2. Fostws E.P. and Stifel, B. (1994). Willamette River toxics study: 1988/199 L Oregon Dqm trent of Envitnrn imW Quality Report. Water Quality Division. Portland OR- r FROM Corm Pe:rreer PHONE NO. 503 590 4737 Mar. 19 1999 10:56W P5 ~ Society of Environmental Toxicology and chemistry Americen Fisheries Soc[ery: Physiology Season 1997 Co-Priaciipal Investigntar, Orgon Stag University Enviroam W KcaM Scknces C=W sad Mum Fmshwmr Eicmedica] ftWm. Rgmxbxbw mWOn" of chmook mlmm to.Xmmtrogem.1 year, S25,Om0• 1945 Ca-hiDC d1 In cr. WeS M BmrhM"eral Lavr Ceater. Study of reproductive biomarlets in Cohmtbia River fish spocias. 2 years, s140,000. 1990 Principal invesi➢gator, U.S. EnvironmenW Prowctim Agency sad Lower Cohuubia River'13i-Stmre Program. Dkmin snit fwm love[a in fish S$om the Columbia River. 2 years, $79,650. Commitb= A.pffl 1947 to present Ecosystem Heahh/Ske[etat Aboomudities 3ttbcommitbcc m tim Willamette River Tedmical Advisory Steering Cwm dttw- April 1997 to prevent Hum= Hc~affi Fnh Conmmi;K on Subcommife to the Willamette RivwTechnical Advisory Steering C,om iW- May 1997 to present Lang-term M0it0ring Subcommittee to the Lower Columbia River n July 1997 to present SRF 392 - Evatuadon of the hapact of Pest mid Vegetation pAgnagment Tcchnklues on Wz= Quality T: eclmical Advisory Coammhme. i i • i i lot MEMORANDUM TO: Water Advisory Task Force Members FROM: Ed Wegner pr-- RE: Additional Portland Material DATE: March 24, 1999 Attached is a letter from City Manager, Bill Monahan that was sent to Commissioner Erik Sten regarding the sale of surplus water. This letter with the information that was distributed last week at the Water Advisory Task Force meeting, completes the governance and certainty information the City of Portland has submitted to the City of Tigard since the Plan was distributed on December 15, 1998: We will provide you with Commissioner Sten's response as soon as we receive it. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks! c: Tigard City Council Intergovernemental Water Board C1 I if OF 11GARD OREGON March 16, 1999 Commissioner Erik Sten Portland City Hall, Room 240 1221 S.W. Fourth Avenue Portland, Oregon 97204 Re: Sales of Surplus Water Dear Erik, As you are aware, the City of Portland has responded to a request by Tigard and other southeastern Washington County Cities to provide a contract for a long-term water supply. Tigard is presently reviewing the proposal and raising questions where clarification is needed. A Citizen's Task Force was formed to assist the Tigard City Council in making a decision. During a recent presentation to the Task Force, Portland representatives discussed a recent legal opinion issued by your City Attorneys office addressing the question of sale of water other than surplus water. A member of the Task Force, Gene McAdams spoke with Ruth Spetter of the City Attorneys office, seeking clarification of the opinion. Tigard has operated for quite some time under the assumption that Portland was restricted by its City charter to provide only surplus water to Tigard. The City Attorneys' recent opinion indicates that the charter does not prohibit the sale of water that is not just "surplus". Instead, the opinion notes that there is an ambiguity between one section of the Charter and another section. Attorney Spetter notes at the bottom of page two of her memo (copy attached) that the larger grant of authority to sell unlimited water for residents and non-residence prevails. Therefore, Portland may exercise this broad authority and sell to us. Mr. McAdams and the Task Force requested that I write to you asking if the City of Portland will amend the appropriate sections of the Charter or provide a total assurance of the sale of Portland water to Tigard, King City, Durham, the Tigard Water District area, Tualatin, Sherwood, and the Tualatin Valley Water District, other than surplus water. 13125 SW Hall Blvd., 11gard, OR 97223 (503) 639-4171 TDD (503) 684-2772 r Commissioner Erik Sten l'Aach 16, 1999 Page 2 Since the Task Force is on an aggressive time line to complete its work, to make a recommendation to the Tigard City Council so that the Council can respond to your proposal, I must impose on you for a very prompt response. Thank you for your consideration of this request. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, William A. Monahan City Manager I:ADM\B ILL\990315LTRSTEN 03-15-1999 03:34PM FROM TO 684-7297 P.01 • CITY OF Jet? rey 1. Rogers, .attorney Cirj .,Suite 430 _ PORTLAND, OREGON Pr8 t s %.Avcnue . ~ ' gt2oa omcF OF crry-ATToRNEY Tel 'Sig February 1., 1999 ' ~ asp BITE lt061CE MEMQR NDUM , j 't6 u, TO: Mike-Rosenberger, Administrator Bureau of Water Works ROM: Terence ThatcD cP p Ruth Spetter Deputy City Attu ys ¢ . SUBJECT; Wholesale Water Sales: Issues of Certainty ai.,; Governance Yo.it asked us to address certain legal issues arising from the renegotiation of the City's ioztg-term Aolesale' water contracts. In particular, you wanted us to discuss: (1) the: City's legal authority to sell water wholesale (the "surplus water" question); and (2) methods available to expand wholesale customer involvement in the "governance" or ownership of the City's water system or an expanded regional system. r In what follows, we give brief answers to your questions. We will fast discuss the City's Authority tb build and operate a water supply system and its right to sell water outside the City limits. Given our answer to those questions, we will then discuss various ways. in -which the legion could address. concerns about system "governance" and ownership. I.• City Authority to Develop a Water Supply System and Sell Water Cilatside City Limits The City Charter contains three provisions directly relevant to the City's authority to owri aiid operate a water supply system. Two are found in the general enumeration of City powers found early in the Charter where the City is granted the power . i . to provide for the location, construction, repaii and maintenance in or outside the ' City, of any ditch., canal, pipe, or other facility for !he impoundment, storage or conduct or water as it may deem necessary or convenient; [and) to provide for furnishing the City and its residents with water, and lo sell water to or for nonresidents. An Equal OpportunityEmplover TDD (tor lic3rln4 & Speech Impaired) (503) 523.6868 03-15-1999 03:35PM FROM TO 684-7297 P.02 Mike Roseatberger bebruary 1! 1999 ' ~i Charter ~405(a)(~O), 2-105(a)(31) (emphasis added). The third water-related Charter provision i8'§ I1-101;. It provides (emphasis added) as follows- _ The City may construct, ntconstruet, purchase or otherwise acquire, maintain, improve, alter and change water works and all plants and facilities found appropriate by the Council for furnishing water to the City, its property, its inhaabitantS, and the places and people along or in the vicinity of the pipes; conduits or aqueducts constructed or used for that purpose.. The Council may make all necessary expenditures to carry out these purposes and may enter into con~racts for supply of water by the City or supply of water to the City or its inhabitants. Any sztrplus water maybe sold to persons, public or private, outside the City, on terms and conditions the Cotincils finds appropriate. On • rst reading, these Charter provisions may appear sotnewhar confusing-. One section gives the Ciouncil unlimited authority to sell water to residents and non-residents; another specifically authorizes the sale of "surplus water." The ambiguity can be reconciled, however, upon a cloter reading of the Charter as a whole. Upon such a reading, we conclude that the ; Council has very broad power to sell water, not just "surplus water," outside the City limits. The basis of out opinion follows. Sec•4tion 2-106 of the Charter announces that Thd enumeration of particular powers granted to the Council in this Charter shall not be construed to impair any grant of power herein contained, express or ' implied, nor io limit any such general grant to powers of the same class or-classes Tam as those so enumerated. The City Council may exercise any power or authority granted by Oregon statute to municipal corporations at any time and also to cities of a class which includes the City of Portland. hi addition, § 13-20.1 of the Charter says that Ar'y restriction or limitation imposed on the authority of the Council by Charter ~ +ision, applies only as its language explicitly and necessarily requires. E Simultaneous or subsequent specification of authori ty is not exclusive and does no~ impair other or general authority and power granted by existing or future Charter provisions, by statute or by general law.... This Section applies, unless expressly negatived„ to all present and future Charter provisions. We read these sections of the Charter to allow the Council to exercise, any. power granted to it according to the specific terms of the grant. A separate but more limited grant of a similar 1 ;power does not diminish a broad grant of authority unless the limitation is explicit. Put ;otherwise,- if the Charter contains both a larger and a smaller grant of authority on the same subject, the Council may generally exercise the broadest authority available to it. NJ 11 03-15-1999 03:36PM FROM TO 684-7297 P.03 Mike Rosenberger i'Vebruary 1, 1999 Rage' 3 i ' i He e, the broadest authority to develop a water supply and sell water is contained in 2i. 105(a)(30) and (31). No other Charter section contains an explicit limitation on the authority :there granied. Our considered opinion, therefore, is: (a) that the City is authorized to develop a j ! water system sufficient to serve its residents as well as persons and entities outside City limits 'kind (b) that the City need not, although it may, sell only "surplus water" outside the City. (The 'City Code authorizes the Water Bureau to sell "surplus water" to non-residents. § 21.28.010. !Given ourreading of the Charter, the Code authorization need not be so linnited.)` !I1. G6vernance and Ownership Issues We next turn to the question of how the wholesale customers might gain more ownership ' or more say in the governance of the regional water supply and transmission system much, but not all of ivhich, is currently owned by the City of Portland. Please bear in mind that this is simply a summary of options. If any are deemed of particular interest, we and lawyers for the other inteiested parties will have to spend time looking more closely at how they might be itnplemen ed. In alnnost all cases, questions of the legality of a particular approach should be j addressed!with the specific proposals before us, rather than on a hypothetical basis. A-2 Joint Ownership of Faeilities ' There are a variety of methods whereby existing or new facilities -could be jointly owned ! liy any nu6ber of municipal entities. First, ORS 225.050, long in the statute books, authorizes j "any and all cities [to) construct, own, or operate•jointly, in such proportion as they may agree, waterworks and water pipe lines, water rights and water." They may own and operate such systems iii their own names or through joint conumssions or agencies. j Second, and more broadly, ORS 190.003 to 190.110 allow local governments to enter into virtually any intergovernmental agreement useful to fulfill their public functions. An inter4 govemmehital agreement could clearly allow for water supply facilities that are "jointly constructed, owned; leased or operated." ORS 190.010(3). .i 18.' Cooperative Management N6 matter who owns the facilities, the City Charter and Oregon statutes are also flexible enough to define a variety of arrangements for "governance" or par!icipation in water system management. ' The City's Charter authority is also reinforced by the general statutes of Oregon, which allow municipalities broad authority to sell water to both their own residents and others. ORS ` 225.020, 030. By contrast, water districts appear to be limited to the sale of "surplus water" outside district boundaries. ORS 264.111. 03-15-1999 03:36PM FROM TO 684-7297 P.04 Mike Rosenberger " February 1, 1999 gage 4 First, the City Charter authorizes the City Council to establish "such boards and commissions as it may deem necessary _ " and to "delegate any of its non-legislative functions"'to such boards. City Charter 2-103, 2-104. Without question, the Council could establish aboard or commission of wholesale customers to advise the City Council on wateF supply management. It could also probably give that-board or commission more or less actual decision-retaking authority on water management decisions, although in each case we would have to look closely at whether the authority granted was "legislative" or "non-legislative:" Second, ORS 190, already mentioned, offers several options for setting up cooperative nanagement schemes. One party can act for any or all others. ORS 190.010(4). <?r a :"consolidated department" can be created. ORS 190.010(1). Or an entirely new organization can emerge from such an agreement. ORS 190.010(5). Most broadly put, the entity or person -designated to act for an intergovernmental group may be "vested with all powers,-rights and duties relating to (its] functions and activities that are vested by law in each separate party t4 ;flee agreement, its officers and agencies." ORS 190.0.30(1). As-you may recall from discussions during creation of the Regional Water Consort ium, lawyers for some of the regi'on's municipalities believe that there are limits to thezdelegation of legislative. functions (such as budgeting) even under ORS 190, but all agree that there is also ;substantial leeway. We believe, at a minimum, that the options under ORS 190 present fruitful avenues for investigation, although each proposal should be viewed carefully on its own merits. C, Regional Water Utilities With Independent Governing Boards ' The: region could also, if it wished, try to create one or more new consolidated utilities, perhaps using the statutes allowing creation of water authorities or people's utility districts or domestic water supply districts. Each of these approaches can involve a generally similar process, starting either with citizen petitions or resolutions of governing boards of cities and distriLts that want to merge to create a new district or authority. See generally, ORS 198.010 to` 198.915; ORS 261.005 to 261.900; ORS 450.650 to 450.700. Water authorities, people's utility districts, and domestic water supply districts, once formed, become separate entities from the districts or cities from which they were created. They are governed by a separate; elected board .of directors. Presurnably,, if a regional entity of this sort were formed, it could then, -by inter- governmental agreement, perform whatever functions the "various municipalities sand districts 1 agreed it should perform. Water authorities are specifically granted the right to accept water rights and water permits fron-. any other municipality. ORS 450.695. Similar transfers could probably be arranged under ORS 151 to a regional people's utility district or dorriestic water supply district, although such transfers raise waterlaw questions we have-not yet; begun to explore in depth. TO 684-7297 P.05 0~-15°1999 03:37PM FROM Mike Rosenberger February 1, 1999 Pa e 5 'Conclusion We hope this discussion is useful to you. At your convenience and if you- wish, we would b!e happy to discuss any of the topics we address herd ire mare detail. #T/RS-j4 : Q.%WATER%MJSC.TTI.SURPLS.BRF i 7 i IL S~= 9 Water Advisory Task Force Meeting Minutes March 18,1999 Members Present: See attached List Staff Present: Bill Monahan, Wayne Lowry, Mike Miller, Kathy Kaatz, Jennifer Renninger 1. Introduction & Roll Gall The meeting was called to order by Gretchen Buehner who was acting as facilitator for this meeting at 7:02 p.m. Roll was taken (see attached list). 2. Approval of Minutes - March 4, 1999 Motion to approve the minutes of the March 4 meeting was made by Task Force member, Bob Gray with a seconded by Sterling Marsh. With no amendments noted, the minutes were approved unanimously. 3. Presentation - Wayne Lowry Wayne Lowry, Finance Director for the City of Tigard began his discussion on the issue of cost efficiency and stated that the objective was to take information from the Portland proposal and the Willamette proposal and present them equally to show a cost comparison. Mr. Lowry continued by stating that one of the criteria identified by the Tigard City Council was cost efficiency to include both the initial construction costs and the costs of ongoing operation and maintenance. Mr. Lowry stated he would discuss the following: Assumptions for comparison - only three or four and how they were handled • Construction costs - In dollars • Repayment of borrowed funds - How both projects would be funded, mostly by debt service where funds are borrowed and paid for over time by the rates ® Operation and maintenance costs - Getting to water to both of these systems ® Consolidated net rate per ccf comparison - Rate paid by the rate payers. Costs on annual basis divided by estimated demand for that period. Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 1 Assumptions for Comparison When the process began for comparing both proposals it was noted that different assumptions (i.e., demand, inflation, debt service, interest rates, etc.) had been made by both proposals and in order to do a fair comparison, it was necessary to have each of the proposals to rework their assumptions. There were also some costs noted on the Portland proposal that were not initially figured in and those have been added. The costs outlined in their proposal was to provide water to the Powell Butte facility and the cost to get the water from Powell Butte to Tigard is additional and was not included in the proposal. • Remand per MSA report to Tigard - Portland's proposal had originally used a different set of assumptions for demand. Peak demand figures were lower and peak daily demand figures were higher. It was agreed to use the numbers that MSA had used to determine rates. • Inflation 2% per year, growth rates as provide by MSA - Portland used 2% for everything including construction, operating, and labor. MSA was using 3% and 3.75%. Both proposals were re-computed the construction and operation of the Willamette using 2% inflation. • Pumping costs - Costs added to Portland proposal since numbers quoted only dealt with getting water to the Powell Butte facility and not into Tigard's system. The additional costs to get water into the Tigard system amounts to .15/per unit for a period of ten years until the Washington County Supply line is finished. • TVWD Wheeling charge - Until the Washington County Supply Line is finished we will get water through TV WD's transmission system and the wheeling charge to TVWD was added at the rate of. I 5/per unit. • Portland debt service rates adjusted to 5.25% - Since Portland had used 6% for debt service and taking into consideration the market study and credit rating for City of Tigard. Portland re-computed and used 5.25% to be comparable with MSA figures. Construction Costs Tigard's share of the Willamette proposal is $42.7 million which will include the intake facility, treatment plant and transmission system. In looking at the Portland proposal there are two pieces, one is Tigard's share of the transmission system on the Westside which would not need to be built unless all the Westside water purveyors needed water (this portion of costs is $40 million) and in addition there is some well field improvement (raising dams, conduit 5, and other improvements) which all users will participate in adds in another $26 million. This brings Tigard's share of the Portland proposal to $66.5 million dollars. Rate comparison Mr. Lowry displayed overheads that demonstrated total rates on a per unit basis for a fifty year period using each of the proposals. A couple of conclusions according to Mr. Lowry can be drawn which show that the Willamette project is a little more expensive for the first ten years versus the Portland project. The reason for this is that the Willamette project issues debt service initially to build all facilities, whereas the Portland proposal Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 2 a larger improvements are 10-20 years later. The debt service for the Willamette project drops off after 24 years while the debt service on the Portland project will continue on. Mr. Lowry stated that on page 15 of the Portland proposal is their table of projects which add up to $555 million dollars over a fifty year period with Tigard's share being $66.5 million. Mr. Lowry discussed the three components to the rate: • Tigard currently operates a water system - labor, equipment, transmission, reservoirs, pumps, etc. which demonstrates costs built into current rates (starts out at.50/unit). In the current long range financial plan is the assumption that we will be adding more staff to the water function over the next few years. Tigard's costs are the baseline for both proposals. • Cost of water - costs that are projected from Portland. In July of 2000, Tigard will be paying over $1.00/unit due to a peaking penalty. This figures shows up in both drafts since Tigard would continue to purchase water from Portland while a Willamette plant would come on-line. Also included are the Wheeling costs for TVWD. In the year 2020, the graph increases with the addition of the water treatment plant. • Debt Service - Both proposals are given the same credit for SDC's. Mr. Lowry then discussed the Willamette component rate chart: • Tigard's projected operation costs without purchasing water • Costs of water - If a plant is built on the Willamette river, Tigard will become an owner of that system and will not incur rate per unit since you are producing the water. The costs are for operating the plant and the transmission system as opposed to buying a product. • Inflation costs • Debt service - interest only for approximately 1-2 years with principal for the remaining 23 years with debt being paid off in year 24. The debt service piece of these proposals average about $1.00/unit. There will be partners (Sherwood and Wilsonville) that will need to make improvements to the proposed Willamette plant before the end of the fifty year program. Mr. Lowry then displayed the table on the rates per unit at five year increments which outlined the Portland proposal being less expensive the first ten years and then the Willamette proposal begins being less expensive with dramatic differences beginning in the year 2025 due to the debt service being paid off. Currently rates are charged to Tigard users at $1.32/unit and after the debt service goes away for the Willamette plant (twenty-five years from now) rates will be charged at $1.51 and $3.23 for the Portland proposal. How this translate to an average user follows: Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 3 o......■.. - Esc Y a Currently, average residential user (winter average) consumes 16 units per billing cycle (2 month) which equates to 800 cf per month. The water portion of their bill reflects $1.32/unit for a total water service charge of $21.12 for two month period. O Year 2000, the Willamette project would cost them $3.84 per billing cycle more than the Portland proposal. A Year 2010, the Willamette project would costs them $1.44 per billing cycle more than Portland ® Year 2020, the Willamette project would costs them $10.80 per billing cycle less than Portland • Year 2025, the Willamette project would cost them $27.52 per billing cycle less than Portland Mr. Lowry continued by saying that a sincere effort has been made to honestly represent both proposals on a comparable basis. Portland staff has agreed with how the numbers have been used and Mr. Lowry stated that included in the task force members packet was a memo from Bob Rieck, Finance Director for the Portland Water Bureau stating the agreement to the assumptions used. Mr. Lowry briefly discussed the repayment of borrowed funds (debt service). For the Willamette proposal the repayment of funds including principal and interest over fifty years will be $72,970,787 and the Portland proposal will be $139,417,182. The following questions were then addressed to Mr. Lowry from Task Force Members: Phil Pasteris - What are the consideration for the length of financing of the treatment plant itself? Wayne Lowry - There are revenue bonds issued for the plant that a have long life as this plant for 20-30 years. A decision will need to be made at the time of issuance regarding the length of the payment by matching the cost and the benefits. Gary Ott - The 2% inflation rate is probably low and what would happen if we go with a o a higher rate? Wayne Lowry - Both assumptions used the same rate so both proposals would carry the same, difference. Craig Dirksen - If the debt service is longer for one proposal than the other, the inflation rate could have a greater influence on the longer debt service? Wayne Lowry - Once the rate for the debt service is set the inflation rate does not effect. mom Bonnie Bishop - Questioned whether the same numbers were used on both side for SDC's and how were those amounts factored out? Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 4 NMI Y• Wayne Lowry - The same assumptions were used for both proposals. Murray, Smith and Associates did a computation of SDC's for the Willamette project which is approximately a $40 million project and Portland did not do this. Since SDC's cannot be charged for the system wide improvements that belong to Portland, so they were figured for those improvements effecting the westside pipeline. Mark Mahon - What effect would changes in the interest rate that Portland is borrowing versus borrowing at the current rate? Wayne Lowry - If a decision is made today to go with the Portland project and issue debt 20-40 years from now you would be risking an interest rate risk since you are not locking those rates up. Phil Pasteris - Is the any peaking penalty anticipated with the Wilsonville plant? Wayne Lowry - The peaking factor is a creature of the Portland contracts. Mr. Lowry stated that it if a long term contract is entered into with Portland, it is expected that we would negotiate the peaking factor for the tern of the contract: In the Willamette proposal there is a must lease amount factored in. If a partner needed more capacity than originally paid for they would have to pay additionally for the increased need. Chris Uber, MSA, stated that peaking is a matter of ownership. Elaine Beauregard - Who will be doing the financing? Who would vote on the revenue bonds? Wayne Lowry - The partners would go to their Councils and they would issue revenue bonds and bring to the table their share of the funding. Revenue bonds do not have to be voted upon. The City Council can pass a resolution declaring their intent to purchase these bonds as long as they have met the requirements of advertisement and time period. On the Portland proposal, they would expect Tigard to issue their share of the revenue bonds for the westside pipeline and Portland will issue bonds for the system wide improvements. Bill McMonagle - In 20-25 years when the debt service is paid for and improvements and updates are needed will another debt service be incurred? Wayne Lowry - The operation and maintenance costs have replacement reserves built in. i Bonnie Bishop - If the EPA lowers the arsenic level within the next two years, couldn't the cost double? Wayne Lowry - Could not answer Elaine Beauregard - Have catastrophic incidents in the Willamette been calculated 7 financially? Wayne Lowry - This was not factored into either the Willamette or the Portland proposal. Jan Drangsholt - Explain how revenue bonds are repaid. Wayne Lowry - Twenty-five year bonds are issued at a set interest rate and instead of taxing properties, the rates are increased to cover the bonds. Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 5 4. Presentation - Montgomery Watson Chris Uber from Murray, Smith and Associates made a brief presentation in response to some issues that fall into three categories that were raised at the last meeting. • Political • Technical error or omission in the preliminary design report • Errors in water quality testing, treatment plant process and water quality monitoring. Mr. Uber stated that the political questions are best answered by the City. He stated that Lisa Obermeyer and Jeannie Work from Montgomery Watson were present at the meeting and have both been involved in the treatment plant work, raw water monitoring and the pilot plant study. He stated that they will be able to address questions on water quality. • Long term climate change - Mr. Uber stated that the report did not directly analyze long term climate change but historical flow rates in the Willamette were considered. He continued by stating that they recognized that in the Willamette basin there are 13 storage reservoirs operating maintenance flow in the Willamette. The assumption was made that they will continue to operate this system of reservoirs in a responsible manner. In addition to the documentation that is in the resources, a correlation was done between the gate rate and the flow volume in Salem with correlation to the flow volume in Wilsonville diversion point. • SCADA costs - Mr. Uber addressed the issue of SCADA (System Control and Data Acquisition System) costs not being included in the report. He continued by referencing page 611, appendix F and throughout each component of the report there are references to the SCADA costs. These costs are also itemized on table 318 on page 370. • Bonding costs - Wayne Lowry has addressed this issue. The financial assessment in the report is included in Section 7 which include bond options and revenue bonds. • Costs omitted - A questions was raised that engineering, administrative and legal costs were not included. These costs are outlined Section 4, page 4-4 (project costs), table 4-1 the costs are proportionate for all partners. Lisa Obermeyer from Montgomery Watson presented an overview on the raw water supply. She continued by stating that she would focus on the raw water sampling program and the work that has been completed and is continuing by the City of Tigard. She stated that she would cover the areas on how the sampling is done, how quality is controlled and what the results are showing. The major issues that she wanted to clarify in this presentation are: • Is there adequate data to support the conclusion that the Willamette is a suitable source? • Is quality control of Tigard's current sampling program adequate to ensure that these results are usable? Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 6 She continued by displaying the studies that have been done since 1991 funded by TVWD and some done by USGS and the current monitoring that Tigard is doing. These studies have concluded that the river is a feasible future supply option and with the ozone/GAC treatment the river was able to meet the stringent goals that are more stringent than the current drinking water regulations and that the source water is good. Ms. Obermeyer continued by giving background information on the firm of Montgomery Watson. This information was provided in the handout that was distributed to the Task Force Members. She continued by stating that the 1994-96 sampling program funded by Tualatin Valley Water District, focused on water treatability and public health which looked at the worst case flow conditions indicating that the recommended process would produce high quality water. During this program nothing was observed at levels of concern. The water was classified as: • Soft • Low organic content • Low turbidity • Bacteriological quality good • Occasional detects of chemicals at ppt (parts per trillion) levels, well below treated water standards Ms. Obermeyer continued by displaying what the USGS sampling showed: • USGS focused on the basin as a whole and the tributaries • Many detections of organics in small wade-able streams • organic chemicals tested on mainstream Detects at ppt levels 100x less than treated water standard for 2 regulated chemicals atrazine, simazine • USGS results consistent with utility sampling The objective of the Tigard sampling was to determined if anything has changed and expand focus on the organic chemicals testing for. Tigard's testing has included high and low flow conditions and are sampling the river weekly for the basic treatment parameters that a water treatment plant operator would like to know. Monthly samples are looking for protozoa and cysts and quarterly samples are testing for 250 organic chemicals. The program is a collaborative effort between City of Wilsonville (contribution of site), City of Tigard performing the weekly/monthly sampling and assisting with quarterly sampling and Montgomery Watson is providing training, quarterly sampling and data analysis. She addressed the issue of who is doing Tigard's sampling. Ms. Obermeyer stated that Tigard's Water Quality Program Coordinator is responsible for collecting and handling the sampling and is currently collecting routine bacteriological and chlorine resource samples from Tigard's distribution system, well sampling and cross connection control program and is a certified water distribution operator. Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 7 Weekly laboratory analysis are done by AmTest of Oregon which is a certified lab and Tigard has used their services for the past twenty years. Organic analysis are done by Montgomery Labs and she continued to list the Montgomery Labs qualifications. The organic sampling program involves telling the lab what we will be testing for and in turn they send prepared bottles and the Water Quality Program Coordinator then takes the bottles to the sampling point. The sample bottles are then filled according to instructions, packed on ice, completed chain of custody report and then Federal Express them to the lab. Once the lab receives these samples, in order to assure the data results is of the highest quality, there is a specific process followed: • Sample check in • Assign ID number • Equipment calibration • EPA approved methods • Peer review of data • Internal blind performance evaluations • State and federal evaluation programs • Quality assurance officer checks • Preventative maintenance of instruments • Report of non-conformance with QC Currently Tigard is spending approximately $80,000 in direct costs per year, plus staff labor and field equipment in support of this program. Ms. Obermeyer than displayed charts outlining the weekly, monthly and quarterly parameters for the testing program. This information was also included in the handout that was provided to all members. With a focus on the organics, the results to date are: • No detects of 64 semi-volatile organics • No detects of 19 acid extractable organics • No detects of 15 herbicides • No detects of diquat/paraquat/EDB/DBCP • No detects of 13 organophosphourous pesticides • No detects of 64 regulated VOC's • No detects of 30 regulated pesticides • No detects of dioxin @ 3 billionths of ppm In the August 1998 results, the regulated herbicide simazine was detected at 1.7 ppb by Montgomery Labs method, but not by the EPA approved method for drinking water. This has not been detected before although it is a regulated chemical with an allowable limited in treated water at 4 ppb (the raw water find was at half that level). This is a chemical that is easily oxidized by ozone and absorbed by GAC. During the August 1998 sampling, a batch of nitrogen/phosphorus pesticides samples were held too long at the lab which invalidates the sample, which meant that 42 of the Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 8 250 chemicals were lost. These samples were retaken in September with the same conditions in the river with no detects in the re-sample. The next quarterly sample was in November of 1998 and there were no detects in the 210 various organic chemicals. During this November sampling another regulated organic chemical, dichloromethane was detected at 1.2 ppb, this chemical has not been previously detected and the maximum contaminant level in treated water is 5 ppb. In November of 1998 another sample was held too long and was to be re-sampled in December but due to a pump failure, it was delayed until the following quarterly sample in January of 1999. These full results were recently received with no detects on 250 organics chemicals in the water. Ms. Obermeyer recapped the problems to date with the sampling program: • August 21, 1998 organics N/P pesticide holding times exceeded re-sampled September 23, 1998 O November 2, 1998 organics N/P pesticide holding times exceeded re-sampled failed due to pump flooding next sampling January 26, 1999 • 4 of 35 weeks down due to pump problems Ms. Obermeyer closed with the following conclusions: • No change observed from previous results • Occasional detects of organic chemical at trace levels • Soft, low turbidity ® Good bacteriologic and cyst quality • Treatment recommendations OK • Good source 5. Questions/Ahswers by Task Force Members Bob Gray - Please explain why Dr. Scott was concerned about the number of tests and the timing? Lisa Obermeyer - Understood that was a concern and there was only four missed tests total. Randy Volk - Where did Dr. Scott get the information that he displayed and why was it different? Lisa Obermeyer - Do not know - since she did not see chart he displayed. Jeannie Work stated that she provided Dr. Scott with the data and he had the same information that Ms. Obermeyer displayed tonight. Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 9 r Elaine Beauregard - Cyst level is typical for the Northwest, what does that mean? Is it lower in other parts of the country? Lisa Obermeyer - It is actually higher in other parts of the country. Typical cyst level in surface water is 100 Giardia cysts per liter a nd we have no confirmed Giardia cysts. Bonnie Bishop - Questioned if aware of EPA considering lowering the arsenic level requirements? Lisa Obermeyer stated that arsenic is a mineral that gets into water by erosion and her understanding is that EPA is considering lowering the maximum contaminant limit (currently at 50 ppb) and they are required by Congress to set IVMCL by January 1, 2000. We are expecting schedules next week for the National Academy of Sciences to issue a report on the risk assessment associated with arsenic. Nobody knows at this time where the limits will be set. At this time we have completed three quarters of sampling and so far levels of arsenic in the Willamette are 2 ppb or less. This is as low as Wilsonville groundwater, lower than Columbia South Shore groundwater, same as Tigard, Clackamas or Tualatin river raw waters are unknown. Bonnie Bishop - State Fire Marshall states that there are over 22,000 chemicals used in the basin and most of these are eventually leach into the river and the USGS study detected over 50 pesticides in the river. At the present time only 8 of these are required to be removed from the water and there could be more. She questioned whether heavy metals and estrogen disrupters are not present in any of the testings? Lisa Obermeyer - USGS is focusing on the Willamette basin as a whole and they are not concerned with the mainsteam and are looking at the tributaries as well. When the USGS comes to the mainstream of the river where the flow is very high (15,000 cf per second) they looked for 127 organic chemicals and found 4 at ppt level which are about the same results found with our testing. Hot spots can be found in small streams throughout the basin but these are not in the mainstream of the river. Currently Corvallis is the only city in Oregon using Willamette river water so you would not base your conclusion that Parkinson and Alzheimer is high due to Willamette river water. This could possibly be tied to Bull Run since that supplies most of the state if you were going to tie this specifically to the water. She continued by saying that they are currently sampling for heavy metals which are definitely a health concern but are all non-detects. Gary Ott - Ozone oxidizes organics if present? Lisa Obermeyer - The herbicides and pesticides is what the real concern is about and ozone does have some partial oxidation but it is really the GAC that is named by the EPA as the best available technology for removal of organic chemicals. GAC is very porous, fine pieces of material are absorbed onto the GAC and removed. The water quality of this river demonstrates no problems with the removal of trace amounts of organic chemicals with ozone and GAC. Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 10 Gretchen Buehner - During the process of the work that Montgomery Watson has done with Bull Run - was there any raw water monitoring done and what kind of chemicals are getting into the water because of the pollution? Lisa Obermeyer - Montgomery Watson did not do any raw water monitoring although City of Portland does have an extensive monitoring program since they are an unfiltered supply and have to be very careful since they have no way to control the water quality. The concern in Bull Run is atmospheric deposition and how that stuff can get into the watershed. When Montgomery Watson was asked if dioxin was a health threat in the river they went to the USGS for the best data and found that dioxin levels in sediment are higher in Bull Run than in Willamette River sediment. The principle root of occurrence of dioxin is atmospheric deposition and since the watershed is downwind of Portland this is understandable. Bill Scheiderich - If somehow the EPA were to set the maximum contaminant level of arsenic at less than 2 ppb, how would the treatment plant strip the arsenic out of the water? Lisa Obermeyer - If the EPA makes this change to the allowable arsenic levels, all water systems will need to change the way they treat water. The level at 2 ppb is at about the lowest level detectable. The highest level that the arsenic has been detected for raw water was at 2 ppb with other results at non-detect. Arsenic is treatable by coagulation and water treatment. As the water comes in, the particles that are in the water are negatively charged and repelling each other. In order to get these particles out of the water we would need to add treatment chemicals to stabilize the electrical charges in the water. Treatment chemicals takes the suspended chemicals in the water and clump them together and they settle (coagulation) and then the remainder .are removed through filtration. Phil Pasteris - Assuming that the plant would go in, how would the treated water be tested, what would the frequency be, who would do the testing? Lisa Obermeyer - All water utilities are required to monitor their treated water based upon the size of the population served. Norman Penner - Even bottled water sold has traces of heavy metals including arsenic? i a Lisa Obermeyer - Although she stated she is not an expert on bottled water - there has been a lot of concern on how to regulate that industry. 3 Gene McAdam - After touring the Corvallis plant and in their publication it is noted that i they had to decrease plant capacity due to more stringent EPA regulations. Since you have worked on the Bull Run system as well as testing on ehe Willamette, is there any Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 11 sense that the Willamette river water being less clear than the Bull Run water in regards to concerns about similar things happening with the Willamette plant where in the costs estimates could be changed dramatically if extensive additions are needed and made to the Willamette? Lisa Obermeyer - This situation is different than Corvallis since we don't have an existing plant that went into service in 1945. Corvallis is having to continually upgrade their plant to meet new regulations. With a proposed plant on the Willamette, we are in a better situation since we know what the current regulations are and know what the proposed regulations are to be in 2020. Chris Uber stated that we did anticipate this and that costs were developed into the preliminary engineering plan looked at a higher level treatment with the addition of Ozone/GAC. Bonnie Bishop - In 1996 during the floods, high water turbidity required the Corvallis plant production be cut almost in half to 6 mgd and the plant ran 24 hours a day for five days to compensate. Since the proposed Willamette plant is scheduled to operate 24 hours a day, how will they be able to compensate for high turbidity? Lisa Obermeyer - Not really the person to answer. This brings up a couple of questions, what to do if you need to take a plant off-line. The water system needs to have the backup storage that is required to supply water during a plant shut down not for just turbidity but for chemical spill or mishap up river. You also would have the option of putting out less water and slow down the infiltration rate and'backwash your filters more frequently and take water from other sources. Tigard is fortunate since they do have other sources available. Mark Mahon - Have there been raw water studies done on the Tualatin River? Lisa Obermeyer - No. Nobody has subjected their raw water to the level of scrutiny that Tigard has. Jan Dransholt - Has there been testing done on the Clackamas River? Lisa Obermeyer - Only on the treated water - no raw water testing. i i 6. Written Questions/Answers - Public i No written questions from the public. s i 7 Future Meeting Agenda Items Lenny Borer questioned whether Mr. Wegner has checked on EPA and USGS representative for the next meeting? Mike Miller stated that the EPA was not available Water Advisory Task Force 03125/99 Page 12 until next week and there was no contact made with USGS. Mr. Miller stated that Public Works will check on contacting both EPA and USGS this next week. Mr. Miller stated that he, Chris Uber and Lisa Obermeyer met with Portland State today and they will be available for next weeks meeting if the Task Force desires as well as a representative from DEQ who would be able to address concerns with skeletal deformities in the Newberg Pool. The credentials for the following were distributed to Task Force Members and they will be at next weeks meeting: m Dr. James R. Pratt, PSU o Scott A. Wells, PSU • Eugene P. Foster, DEQ Norman Penner made a motion to recommend that these three individuals attend next weeks meeting to answer questions on both proposals. Motion was seconded by Mark Mahon and passed unanimously. Bonnie Bishop questioned whether they had consulted with Dr. Larsen? Mr. Penner stated that he did not and that he is not a doctor and is not a permanent member of the faculty. Mr. Penner also wanted to clarify that he has never met these individuals before today. Lenny Borer questioned whether the Task Force wanted to have other cities attend? ' Mike Stone from the City of Wilsonville stated that Wilsonville will not be available next week. Lenny Borer clarified that next weeks meeting would involve the three individuals from PSU to answer questions and possible attendance by USGS representatives and a discussion on the final product. Gary Ott - In regards to last weeks discussion he stated there was an article on Sunday regarding the impacts on the Endangered Species Act and quoted a statement from the article "the City of Portland next summer plans to keep water in Bull Run river by supplementing the rivers water with water drawn from back up flows from South Shore Columbia River. The summer drinking water probably will be a mixture of 10% to 90% Bull Run water, the change which Commissioner Sten states will be unnoticeable". The question is we are starting to mix'Columbia River water into the Bull Run water, we' don't have pure Bull Run water any longer and that trend, I am assuming will continue. Is anyone addressing this issue and is anyone concerned about drinking Columbia River Water and where we are going? Lenny Borer questioned whether this would be a question that someone will be able to address next week. Mr. Penner stated he believe the representatives next week should be able to address. Lenny Borer questioned agenda items for the April 1 meeting? Bonnie Bishop stated she felt the entire meeting on April 1 should be dedicated to discussion of the final product. Mark Mahon stated while reviewing the draft agenda items distributed at 2-18 meeting, April 8 meeting will be available to discuss the final product. Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 13 Mr. Borer stated that if anyone is interested in inviting outside individuals to attend meetings if so, it needs to be done next week or the week after. Bonnie Bishop stated she would like to contact Dr. Douglas Larsen although he will not be available until after April 1. Ms. Bishop made a motion that Dr. Douglas Larsen be invited to the April 1 meeting, if available either as a presenter or to answer questions. This motion was seconded by Norman Penner with a vote taken with results of 12 yes and 8 no. Ms. Bishop will get bio and distribute to the group. Craig Dirksen wanted to clarify that Dr. Larsen would be answering questions not doing a presentation. Chris Uber stated that he had the flow records from the USGS available for Task Force Members. Mr. Monahan stated that he also had a copy of the letter from Ed Wegner to the Mayor on March 5 which relates a lot of information regarding the Willamette River available. Mike Stone questioned whether the group wanted a representative from Wilsonville to attend a future meeting? Lenny Borer stated that in addition to the availability of Dr. Larsen, he questioned whether the group wanted a presentation from the City of Wilsonville on April 1? The answer was yes and it was decided that Public Works will make contact with the other cities on availability for the April 1 meeting. Phil Pasteris questioned whether there was anything in the charter that will give an idea on the structure for the report. Mr. Monahan stated that when reviewing the resolution there is some criteria to follow. 8. Public Comments No further comments. 9. Adjournment Meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. s a a Water Advisory Task Force 03/25/99 Page 14 Water Advisory Task Force Members Present March 18., 1999 Beverly Froude Bill McMonagle Henrietta Cochrun Bill Scheiderich Jan Drangsholt Bob Gray John Helser Bonnie Bishop John Witala Chuck Woodard Mark Mahon Clarence Nicoli Marland Henderson Craig Dirksen Martha Bishop Deb Fennell Norman Penner Dennis Moore Patrick Carroll Elaine Beauregard Paul Owen Gary Ott Phil Pasteris Gene McAdams Randy Volk Gretchen Buchner Sterling Marsh Water Advisory Task Force 03/25199 Page 15 iusenic limit risks health, council warns ® Volcanic rock in Oregon is a source of the naturally occurring poison in drinking water THE OREGONIAN, THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 1999 METRO/NORTHWEST By JAMES LONG _ of The Oregonian staff In a study that holds particular significance for ® 13 schools top tNoes hold Oregon, the National Research Council said Wednesday that the federal government allows too much arsenic in the nation's drinking water and HContinued from Page 81 Institute of Technology in Klamath there are no significant arsenic for- worth worrying about, particularly should reduce the legal limit as soon as possible. bating figures between 2 and 20 mi- County; Innavale Elementary in mations or deposits within the Bull in the southern Willamette Valley Oregon health officials agreed that the fmdhigs crograms of arsenic per liter, with Renton County; Ewing Young Ele- Run watershed, which means we or anywhere the ground water sits are important because arsenic - a natural ele• 10 micrograms "being a good mentary in Yamhill County; Kidco have no detectable levels of arsenic in volcanic rock. ment sometimes used as rat poison - is a fre-- guess." Headstart in Linn County; and Will- in Bull Run water," said Mark "Truth is," Leland quently detected trace contaminant in Oregon's At least eight Oregon cities and 13 ow Creek Elementary and Harper Knudson, Portland's water quality worry a lot more about microbial ground water. schools - including a state juvenile Elementary and High School in Mal- and treatment manager. It comes from volcanic rock, and we've got a lot reformatory - depend on drinking heur County. contamination because, with that, of volcanic rock," said David E. Leland, manager water that consistently shows 10 mi- Accordin to Leland, the onl The city's 20 backup wells on the you get sick right now. With arsenic of the Oregon Health Division's drinking water crograms or more of arsenic per water supply in the state that south shore of the Columbia River you don't get sick right now average about 3 parts per billion of program. liter, according to Health Division doesn't meet the EPA standard of 50 arsenic, which is only 6 percent of Leland says getting arsenic out of The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's records. The cities of Creswell, micrograms is at the Harper even the current EPA standard. the drinking water won't be cheap. limit for arsenic o drinking water is 50 micro- Lakeview, Lowell, Marcola, Nyssa, schools. Those schools decided to let If the standard becomes 10 micro- .t and Woodburn could parents determine whether The Portland water system serves s he said, the notional cost is grams per liter, or 50 parts per billion. However, beyaffected b they about 800,000 people, a quarter ofgram, the. research council said the-EPA *standard is all by a reduced limit, wanted to send bottled water with the state's Population estimated at $710 million annually. based on outmoded studies that revealed only a Leland said. _ their children, said Karen Steele, . Oregon's share could exceed the av- possible link between trace amounts of arsenic deputy school board clerk. The Although just one water supply erage, he said. and skin cancer and other skin disorders. Scimois on the Est school district is getting bids for a system is known to exceed the EPA More recent studies, the council said, "suggest The schools that might be affected system to reduce the arsenic level. arsenic limit, Oregon doesn't re that drinking water with high levels of arsenic are Maclaren School for Boys, quire that private wells be tested You can reach James Long at also can lead to bladder and lung cancer, which North Marion Elementary, North Ground crater affected most unless the property is sold. Leland 503-221-4351 or by e-mail at jim- are more likely to be fatal." Marion High and Pratum Elemen- Oregon's arsenic worries mostly estimates that 500,000 Oregonians long@ttems.oregonian mm For example, the report said "studies examining tary, all in Marion County; Selma have to do with ground water and get their drinking water from pri- males who daily consume water that contains 50 Elementary in Josephine County; have little impact on surface sup- vate wells'. i micrograms of arsenic per liter show that they Trent Elementary and Walterville plies such as Portland's Bull Run In certain areas of the state, he have about a 1 in 1,000 risk of developing bladder Elementary in Lane County; Oregon reservoir. "We're fortunate that said, arsenic in a well might be cancer, far exceeding EPA's goal of limiting can- cer risks to 1 in 10,000." Some members of the study committee argued' that the risk is even greater, perhaps 1 in 100. Whichever figure is correct, EPA's standard for acceptable arsenic contamination "does not suffi- ciently protect public health," said Robert Goyer, the study's chairman, who is professor emeritus of pathology at the University of Western Ontario. Congress has given the EPA until Jan. 2, 2001, to come up with a new standard. According to Le- land, officials across the United States are de- Please turn to woceu~r n....., oe WATER ADVISORY TASK FORCE Agenda Thursday, April 1, 1999 7:00 p.m. Tigard Town hall 13125 SW hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 1. Introduction and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. March 18, 1999 3. Worksheet Discussion - Task Force Members 4. Three Minute Presentations - Task Force Members 5. Discussion of Final Work Product 6. Public Comments 7. Adjournment I:\pw\wac\4-1 agenda 'No III I WATER ADVISORYTASK FORCE Meeting Attendance To date there have been six (6) meetings. Listed below are the number of meetings attended by each member. Bev Froude 6 John Haunsperger 4 Bill McMonagle 3 John Helser 4 Bill Scheiderich 4 John Wiitala 2 Bob Gray 5 Mark Mahon 6 Bonnie Bishop 6 Marland Henderson 5 Chuck Woodard 6 Martha Bishop 4 Clarence Nicoli 3 Norman Penner 5 Craig Dirksen 5 Patrick Carroll 5 Deb Fennell 4 Paul Owen 5 Dennis Moore 1 Phil Pasteris 6 Elaine Beauregard 6 Randy Volk 5 Garry Ott 6 Scott Franklin 3 Gene McAdams 6 Stan Baumhofer 4 Gretchen Buelmer 5 Sterling Marsh 6 Henrietta Cochran 6 Tony Weller 1 Jan Drangsholt 6 Meeting dates: Feb 18 Mar 3 Feb 25 Mar 11 Mar 18 Mar 25 Water Advisory Task Force Thursday, March 25th, 1999 Meeting Minutes Members Present: See Attached List Staff Present: Ed Wegner, Kathy Kaatz, Jennifer Renninger 1. Introduction and Moll Call Lenny Borer called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Roll was taken (see attached list). 2. Approval of Minutes - March 11, 1999 Motion to approve the minutes of the March I Ith meeting was made by Task Force member Craig Dirksen. Bonnie Bishop stated that the minutes were not complete for the presentation by Stan Wallulis. Jennifer Renninger stated that she had done the minutes and the presentation was almost verbatim. Gretchen Buehner seconded the motion and it was voted upon unanimously. 3. Questions/Answers - Portland State University Before introducing the speakers, Lenny Borer clarified that follow up questions are okay, but not a totally different question. He stated that the presenters had an hour for questions and answers. Norman Penner introduced the speakers from PSU. Dr. Pratt is a Professor and Director of Environmental Sciences and Research at PSU and Eugene Foster is an Environmental Toxicologist at DEQ and also teaches at PSU. Dr. Scott Wells could not make to the meeting. Lenny Borer asked for questions from the Task Force members. Bonnie Bishop - Asked if either were water quality or water treatment experts. Dr. Pratt - Both he and Dr. Wells have done a fair bit of work on contaminants and toxicity and their affects. Spent his entire career doing this. Dr. Foster - His background is in environmental toxicology on fish and sediment issues and to a certain extent bioaccumulation. Not so much water treatment but he has worked on water quality criteria. Bonnie Bishop- As a follow-up question have either of you had any opportunity to test Willamette or Bull Run? Dr. Foster- He ran some bioassays in 1993/1994 on the Newberg sewage treatment plant water, Smurfit effluent and Bull Run water and also Willamette. In addition he has conducted studies looking at contaminants and fish in the Willamette with sediment contamination as well as the Columbia. Part of his job is to study sediment, water and fish contaminants statewide. Water Adviosry Task Force Page 1 I:\PW\WATF\3-25_MTS.doc Dr. Pratt -He has been here 4 years. The Defense Department, EPA and the Air Force fund most of his research. It is mostly lab work not in the Willamette or Bull Run watersheds. Norman Penner- Have you reviewed the Willamette River Water Supply System report and do you have any general or specific criticisms of the report? Dr. Pratt - Reviewed the report. When looking at reports he asks did they miss anything? Dr. Pratt stated that his group has worked in a number of areas like the East County wellfield for East Multnomah County groundwater contamination site for the Friends of Blue Lake doing the same thing. Looking at the report he questioned whether the study adequately assessed contaminates, potential for waterborne diseases, effects of DBPs and how they might influence the water supply? He could find no evidence that indicates anything was missed. More than 250 contaminants were tested. The known and priority pollutants nationwide were covered. He looked at the description of the proposed water treatment plant and he thinks it's a tribute to consultants in terms of the assessment. Gene McAdams - Questioned the consultants and they said the Willamette River represented an excellent source of safe drinking water after treatment. Do you have any comments? Dr. Pratt - Raw water studies conducted indicate that it is drinkable as is except for E Coli. The biggest issue would be the turbidity at some times of the year. There's no evidence the water can't be drunk untreated with the exception of bacterial contamination. With treatment the Willamette represents one of the largest and best water supplies. Dr. Foster - Mostly critiquing the contaminants, not so much water supply and treatability. USGS studies found toxic materials in the tributaries and occasionally in mainstem of the Willamette River. Those materials can meet ambient water quality criteria. Looking at the data it appears okay. Henrietta Cochrun - On p. 39 of the Portland report it says "Agreements and cooperative working relationships with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), designed to address contaminated sites, including promptly establishing hydraulic control." It also mentions hydraulic control of the wells in the Portland water system. What does hydraulic control mean? Dr. Foster - Hydraulic control is controlling withdrawal from the wells so the plume of contaminants is not drawn into the wellfield and creating a flow of contaminants into wellfield. Henrietta Cochrun - Is it correct that it takes 10 to 20 years for the contamination to spread to other wells? The wells pumping today can eventually become contaminated? Dr. Pratt -Pumping the wells creates a cone of depression and water upgradient of the wells is drawn into the wells. The principle contaminant in the wellfield is trichloroethylene. It doesn't move like water, it sticks to organic matter. If particles of this material area tracked it might take 20 years to get to the wells along the Columbia River. This is an estimate at :which the contaminants could be detected in the wellfield if nothing is done. There is a 20-year plan to cleanup those sites and recirculate injection wells. Dr. Pratt continued stating that testing occurs at three different levels because there are three different aquifers with potential contamination. These aquifers are upgradient from the supply wells. If the wells are pumped, the contaminants might get there. The testing wells pump 20 thousand g/day. When Portland uses those wells, Water Adviosry Task Force Page 2 IAPW\WATF3-25_N1TS.doc they pump 70 mgd, but they don't use them very often. Depending on how often the wells are used the contamination may be drawn into the supply wells. Gary Ott - The drinking water standard for copper is 2 milligram/liter and Tigard's water supply is 1.5 milligram/liter. Portland's finished water is 1-1.5 milligrams/liter. What is the copper level in the Willamette? Dr. Pratt - Dr. Pratt stated that he did not know. Dr. Foster - He thinks in the n&rograms/liter range (parts per billion) compared to the MCL (parts per million). The ambient water quality standard for surface water is below the MCL by a factor of 100. Jan Drangsholt - There has been some concern about the squawfish in the Newberg pool near the proposed treatment site. Can you discuss the issue and talk about any healthy fish species in the Willamette? Dr. Foster - The 1994 data reports about 1-5% juvenile fish with skeletal deformities. Near the Albany area it's about 20%, and 30-75% near the Newberg pool. Below the Newberg pool it gradually decreases to about half of that and in the Portland harbor it was about 1-5% most likely from the dilution of the Columbia River into the Willamette. Follow up studies are currently being conducted. The 1998 data is not yet available. In 1992 a number of fish species were collected for fish health assessment. These included large scale suckers, large mouth bass, and squawfish etc. Based on the anomalies, the large scale suckers and squawfish had the poorest health. Focused on squawfish because they tend to stay in one location for their adult life. Squawfish and suckers are the most sensitive. Henrietta Cochrun - Norman Penner and she went to DEQ and spoke to Mr. Yon about stressors known to influence fish skeletal deformities. These include water temperature. This is not unique to the Willamette. Are there other waters with skeletal deformities and what are they doing about it? Dr. Foster - There are numerous stressors that can cause fish deformities including physical factors like temperature, nutritional status, genetics and effluent from pulp mills etc. A lot of the studies looked at effluent to determine if there were adverse affects. Treatment technology was instituted at the pulp mills to reduce effluent into river. Basin wide studies have not been done on other rivers such as the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. Looking to use this fish skeletal study as a monitoring tool. Gretchen Buehner - #1- Issue raised that Bull Run is down stream from Portland and has high levels of dioxin and #2 - In conjunction with fish issue, have studies addressed heavy metals falling out into solution in Newberg Pool? Dr. Fester - Why do fish at Newberg pool have high rate of skeletal deformities? Is it because of upstream dischargers and lowflow in pool, sewage treatment plant and pulp mill effluent mixing, landfill leachate, incident of parasites, habitat, shallow riffle area upstream of Newberg to deep channel? Juvenile fish tend to hang out near shallow water habitats. Dr. Foster has no idea what's causing the skeletal deformities; scientists are trying to identify what is causing the deformities. It could be any one of those things. They have looked at hybridization and it didn't seem to be a factor. Dr. Foster continued and stated that as for dioxins, air pollution can be Water Adviosry Task Force Page 3 I:\PW\WATI.13-25-MTS.doc deposited in the watershed. Not familiar with research of dioxins in Bull Run watershed, however there is long range transfer of pollution. Dr. Pratt - There is wet and dry deposition in the Bull Run watershed. There are no pristine places on the planet. Dr. Pratt continued by siting a study of Albatross on Midway Island. The island is isolated, yet the birds are contaminated with chemicals used in other places. The contaminants are transported over distances via wet and dry means. Bonnie Bishop - Have you seen Dr. Hausman's report? Dr. Hausman is a surgeon, immunologist, and expert in Alzheimer's disease and neurodegenerative disorders. He made a recommendation to identify specific pollutants in the river and a source of pollution, conduct epidemiological studies along Willamette to reveal the association of pollutants to specific disease states such as liver cancer, prostrate cancer and Parkinson's disease. Given his credentials is this a reasonable suggestion? Dr. Pratt - Has not seen report only looked at raw water, water supply and pilot plant studies. It is his opinion that an epidemiological study would be a giant waste of time and money. It is unclear what the link is between living along the Willamette and these diseases. Secondly, most people in Oregon weren't born here and don't live along the Willamette. Few drink Willamette water and fewer eat fish from river. What is the point? Epidemiology can be a powerful tool, but the magnitude of changes required to make conclusions is huge. Huge differences are needed to gain a relationship. A study of well water would be good idea because it is largely unregulated. Dr. Foster - Agrees with Dr. P-att. People along river aren't exposed to river water. DEQ is concerned with who's eating fish #'rom the river, how much and what's in the fish? DEQ has conducted an initial fish consumption survey and the follow up is to look at chemical contaminants in fish tissue. The analytical method to detect contaminants is usually above water quality criteria. Instead of looking at the water column they look at fish tissue. Martha Bishop - Do you have any hard evidence against the Willamette that it is not safe to drink? Dr. Foster - Fish skeletal quantity data is available, but not hard evidence. Fish consumption advisory has been issued for consuming large mouth bass and squawfish because of mercury. The primary route for mercury is through fish however; the levels are below ambient water quality criteria. There is circumstantial evidence that says it's unsafe to drink, but based on the data you can't say it's dangerous to drink. The treatment design is designed to remove most organics in Willamette River water. Dr. Foster lived in Corvallis and switched to bottled water when they went to Willamette water because of the smell. That was an emotional response. From an analytical perspective, there's every indication that it shouldn't be anymore risky than other sources of water. Mark Mahon - Tigard City Council says there are three most important criteria in deciding on a water source: tap water quality, reliability and costs. Which factors do you think are important and how do Portland and the Willamette measure up? Dr. Pratt - In his opinion as an environmental toxicologist, water quality is the most important factor. On the other hand, you can't discriminate water quality issues between Portland and treated Willamette. From a reliability perspective, you need to ask what are you really drinking when you drink Portland water? Sometimes it's Bull Run and others its Columbia wellfield water. Water Adviosry Task Force Page 4 I:\PW\WATF\3-25_MTS.doc Bull Run conduits are susceptible to slides. East County wellfield is down gradient of a contaminated site and this is a significant water quality issue. Cost issues depend on the time period. Bull Run is less expensive over the next few years but more expensive over the long- term. Phil Pasteris - Are there any fish in Bull Run, Clackamas that have been tested or seen deformities? You can't rule out skeletal fish deformities in the Bull Run? Dr. Foster -Haven't looked in Bull Run for skeletal deformities, but have looked in the tributaries of the Willamette and the Pudding River area. These areas showed lower rates of deformities than the Newberg pool. Don't know the incidence rate in Bull Run. Norman Penner - Dr. Scott, a toxicologist, made the statement that dioxin will kill you in low doses of parts per billion. Can't find anything to confirm this assertion. Did find the most hazardous kind of dioxin, TCTB, is the cause of chloracne. Animal tests indicate that rabbits are affected but not guinea pigs. Also read there is no effect on humans. Which statement is. correct? Dr. Foster - While at DEQ, they studied TCTB. A pronounced affect of TCTB is chloracne, which is acne from exposure to chlorine. There have been some epidemiological studies on workers with exposure to TCTB. However, industry says the studies are flawed. Dioxins are long lived and hard to get out once they get into the source. It's better to be cautious. Just because we haven't' developed a positive link between humans doesn't mean there is one. Epidemiological studies lack power to determine differences between humans. Bill Schiederich - Can you tell me the human health risks of DBPs and what is the relationship between the incidence of DBPs and turbidity? Dr. Pratt - There are drinking water standards for THMs and HAAS. Many water supplies have limited of DPB by changing the disinfection scheme. Using chloramine - CL and ammonia, doesn't produce DBPs at levels that CL does and is not as susceptible to turbidity. Turbidity interferes with disinfection because it is a consumer of chlorine. Portland sometimes has this problem during times of heavy rains. The proposed treatment plant has disinfection on both ends. Ozonation doesn't produce DBPs or trihalomethanes or HAAS. Chloramine is much preferred in a large system. Gretchen Buehner- Referred to an arsenic article in the paper today. The article referenced arsenic levels in Bull Run and Columbia southshore wells. Do you know the arsenic levels in the Newberg pool? Dr. Pratt- The levels in the raw water study are 1.7 micrograms - parts per billion. These fall below the proposed standard - 2 micrograms. It has been proposed to revise standard downward 2 or 20. If the standard is revised to 2 micrograms then many people will be affected. Bonnie Bishop- The study of Parkinson's disease stated that those persons in urban areas not along the Willamette are a contributing factor. Are you aware of this? Dr. Pratt - No. Washington has high rate of multiple sclerosis. People in urban areas are exposed to a wider variety of chemicals. Water Adviosry Task Force Page 5 I:\PW\WAT \3-25_MTS.doc MOM Randy Volk - Lives in Tigard, if you purchased his house and the City went with Willamette River would you feel comfortable drinking it? Dr. Foster - Analytically it's not a bad idea. It's hard to separate the analytical from the emotional side. His family uses a filter at home now. Dr. Pratt - Largest density of scientists drink Willamette River water. Jan Drangsholt - There is a concern of sewage treatment plant dischargers upstream of the proposed plant. Does this pose any hazard? Dr. Foster - Municipal dischargers are required to meet certain effluent quality. During storm events there are combined sewer overflows. During these events bacteria levels are the primary concern. With the disinfection instituted it will not be a huge concern. If the water plant is put in, upstream dischargers would be discharging very clean water. Phil Pasteris - He swam in the Tigard and Tualatin pools for 20 years. Is there a risk with treated water in swimming pool? Dr. Pratt - It depends on your definition of risk. No. Mark Mahon- With the recent ESA upgrades, what effect will they have on raw water quality of the Willamette River? Dr. Foster - National Marine Fisheries Service has consulted with the EPA to modify fish temperature standards. Most of the contaminants in the Willamette have been attributed to non- point source pollution. Governor Kitzhaber's plan encourages communities to work together. Quality of water will improve Scott Franklin - Regarding the Albany plant and the output of contaminates. In the event of significant flood and flowing back into Willamette, how far would contaminants come down in the Willamette? Dr. Foster - Problems in that area from toxic pollutants or chloride levels. A significant source can trail long ways. An example is the bleach pulp plant at Halsey, RM 148. They discharge chlorinated organics into the water. A measure of those organics is AOX and there are very high levels downstream of the pulp null but then they gradually decease downstream. Significant sources of pollution can still be seen many miles downstream. Scott - Does the proposed treatment facility have the capability to remove these contaminants? Dr. Pratt - Doesn't know. Treatment elements are there to treat water as we understand it, but contaminant levels estimates are needed to answer the question. Dr. Foster - The AOX levels are in parts per million. It's not necessarily toxic just a signature of effluent discharge. Activated carbon will take care of the organics and should be non-detectable. Gretchen Buehner - The Portland plan proposes to use 80% Bull Run and 20% wellfield water. Will they have to raise water levels in the river for Endangered Species thereby raising turbidity issues? Is this a concern? Dr. Pratt - There will be more water discharged in Bull Run River than now. Whether they raise the dams or not, more wellfield water will be used for backup. When and why that happens will be driven by weather. It's Columbia River water. Water Adviosry Task Force Page 6 I:\PW\WATF\3-25_MTS.doc Henrietta Cochrun - Has this proposed multi barrier process been successful in other parts of the country and Europe? Dr. Pratt - The ozonation in the beginning of the proposed treatment is unique. It's not unusual to see less treatment in other water supplies than what is proposed. GAC is not used a lot in the east. It's a fairly unique application with ozone in initial step of process. Ozone is comparatively expensive to CL but does not produce DBPs. Bonnie Bishop - If EPA lowers the arsenic level, wouldn't it double cost to filter out arsenic? Dr. Pratt - Doesn't know because you can't filter it out. Flocculation with ferric chloride will remove it. Not more costly because the proposed plant is flocculating. Right now water is 2 parts per billion, don't have to do anything. EPA is likely tc reduce it to 10. Treatment process would remove it. Gary Ott -The cost of construction of Portland facility is a function of when the water treatment plant comes on line. Is this consistent with regulations? Is 20 years a realistic number? Dr. Pratt - Don't know. Portland may never filter. They could continue to rely on Bull Run by cutting off surplus water supplies. If there is a Giardia epidemic they will have to filter. Portland had one a long time ago. Bonnie Bishop - Mark Knudson stated in the Oregonian that there is no arsenic in Bull Run water? Is this true? Dr. Pratt- It's not possible to make that statement. Mr. Knudson probably meant to say it was not detected. Can only tell you what can be detected. Portland has looked and found very low levels. 4. Written Questions from the Public Lenny Borer read two questions from the public. e Currently the proposed filtration and treatment of the Willamette River will bring water to acceptable drinking water standards. In the future development of the Willamette valley will continue. Will more of the same type of development or possibly a different type of development such as industry, change, reduce or eliminate the effectiveness of the current water filtration in terms of treatment? Dr. Pratt - The biggest component of pollution in the Willamette is non-point source pollution; agricultural, street runoff, silviculture. If the valley is developed and becomes industrial and municipal it will be under greater control because point source pollution is already controlled. There will be more regulatory control of the pollutants. Better or worse? Depends on if it's urban or industrial. ® Concerns have been raised about the presence of chemicals, metals in treated or untreated wastewater in the Willamette water. Do you have any comments on the effects of dilution? Dr. Pratt - Is there a way to remove metals, trace organics, to disinfect waterborne diseases, ALL yes. State of the art treatment plant should remove these contaminants. Organics will come out in GAC, flocculation should remove metals and ozonation will get rid of waterborne diseases. If it works it should be better than what you have now. _ Water Adviosry Task Force Page 7 I:\PW\WATF\3-25_MTS.doc Lenny Borer gave an eight minute break. S. Final Product Discussion Worksheets were passed out. Bonnie Bishop asked why the cost page was on top. Ed Wegner stated that was the way they were stapled. Ed Wegner stated that the City staff is still trying to get someone from EPA and USGS to come speak. Lenny Borer stated that the Task Force needs to come up with a process, as well as a description of a final product. If there are no speakers next week then the meeting will totally be dedicated to final product. Lenny Borer stated that he will be late next week and Gretchen Buehner will facilitate again. Lenny Borer asked for ideas from the Task Force: Craig Dirksen - Open discussion leading to vote for recommendation to Tigard City Council. Ed Wegner stated that on. April 13th six groups will give a 15 minute presentation to the City Council. Those groups include the Task Force, Citizens for Safe Water, Coalition for Safer Water, Oregon Environmental Council, WWSA and Intergovernmental Water Board. Jan Drangsholt- Likes worksheets. Pro and con gives something to work from. Open discussion is too open, need more structure like worksheet. Mark Mahon - Need to address each criteria individually in addition to overall recommendation, Look at each criteria and develop each one and then come to overall conclusion. Gretchen Buehner- Develop structure for making decision - majority, minority, etc. Need to decide how decision will be made. Bonnie Bishop - Emphasized opportunity for minority report. Scott Franklin - Discussion from every member. Have each member speak from worksheet or notes. Garry Ott - Limit statements to a minute. Lenny Borer reminded Task Force of three meetings: April 1st, 8th, 130`. Bonnie Bishop - Concern of Task Force members not present or who have not attended all meetings. Who gets to vote? Ed Wegner - Staff can compile attendance lists next week. Water Adviosry Task Force Page 8 IAP'W\WATF\3-25 MTS.doc Craig Dirksen - Asked Task Force if they want City staff present to keep minutes? Task Force indicated that they would like City staff present to take minutes. Elaine Beauregard - Suggested consultants not attend discussion meetings. Bonnie Bishop seconded motion but motion was denied because state public meeting laws cannot exclude anyone from attending meeting. Members of the public may attend but may not participate in discussion. It was determined that Task Force members would not ask questions of the public in attendance. Martha Bishop - Suggested that any Task Force member who misses more than three meetings should not vote. City staff will provide attendance records next week and it will be decided then who should be able to vote. Stan Baumhofer - Suggested Task Force speak from worksheet for three minutes, turn in sheets and distill into common comments. Jan Drangsholt - Likes idea of pros and cons, then collating worksheets by staff for April 8th meeting. It was decided that Task Force members take worksheets home and bring completed sheets to April I't meeting. Members will then speak for three minutes to state highlights of sheet. Stan Baumhofer - Have City staff distill comments. Any time left over at April 1' meeting will be dedicated to discussion of decision making. If no time is available then the decision-making discussion will be on April 8,'. Craig Dirksen - Do we need to select a Task Force member to make presentation to City Council? Lenny Borer stated that this is part of discussion for April 8ei. Phil Pasteris - Doesn't like idea of distilling comments. Staff should reproduce worksheets and Task Force should distill comments. Ed Wegner stated that City staff did not feel comfortable distilling or translating comments. Staff will collate, organize and reproduce comments. Now Bonnie Bishop - Asked for the format of the minority report. Lenny Borer stated that this will be addressed at the April 8v' meeting. Bev Froude - If there is a majority and minority report, does everyone fit into one of these? Lenny Borer stated that this will be addressed at the April 18th meeting. i Gene McAdam - Members should have the opportunity to justify their statements. Doesn't feel three minutes is enough time to do this. Likes idea of collecting and collating worksheets, but does not want staff to distill them. City Council should know the numbers of the majority and 3 minority. Lenny Borer asked if the Task Force wanted to have a question period following the discussion of worksheets. Task Force indicated that no questions will be asked only discussion. Water Adviosry Task Force Page 9 IAPW\WATFU-25_MTS.doc ON! Gamy Ott - Suggested that members have three minutes to speak, but cannot give their time to another member. Jan Drangsholt - Questioned how members who left early will receive worksheets. Paul Owen, John Haunsperger, Randy Volk left early without worksheets. Gretchen Buehner - Need to address how long April 1't meeting will be. Should the meeting be three hours? Lenny Borer stated the time issue will be decided at the beginning of the April l' meeting. Task Force members decided not to start at 6 p.m. but may go until 10 p.m. From the discussion, the following things were decided: ® Open discussion by each member for three minutes. Members will vote on recommendation to City Council. ® Structured discussion based on worksheets. o Address each criteria individually. ® Have a minority report. e Have each member speak from worksheets. ® Worksheets will be collected, organized and collated by staff for April 8`s meeting. No yielding three minutes to other members. 6. Future Meeting Agenda Items ® Decide how decision will be made. o Decide who gets to vote. ® Decide who will present recommendation to City Council. Z Public Comments No further comments. 8. Adjournment Lenny Borer adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Water Adviosry Task Force Page 10 I:\PW\WATF\3-25 MTS.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Intergovernmental Water Board Members Water Advisory Task Force Members FROM: Ed Wegner 4/ RE: Quarterly Report - Willamette River Monitoring Program DATE: April 1, 1999 Attached is the Executive Summary of the Raw Water Monitoring Program, Quarterly Report for the Willamette River. A complete copy of all the tests results are on file at the Public Works facility. Please contact me if you would like to see the complete report. Thanks! INS CITY OF TIGARD WILLAMETTE RIVED MONITORING PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT .March, 1999 Background The City of Tigard is currently conducting raw water quality monitoring of the Willamette River near Wilsonville. The City began a 12-month monitoring program in July of 1998. The City's program is a continuation of an ongoing effort to characterize water quality of the Willamette River, an effort which has been funded by regional water utilities since 1994. A previous sampling program was in operation at Wilsonville, Oregon from April 1994 to July 1996. The City's current program maintains the emphasis on understanding the physical, chemical and biological parameters which are of interest for water treatment and public health. This sampling program includes regularly scheduled sampling for a variety of drinking water quality parameters, microbiological contaminants, trace metals, inorganic chemicals, and synthetic organic chemicals. The sampling program has been designed to encompass current and anticipated federal and state monitoring requirements, in addition to better understanding the presence of chemicals which are in use in the Willamette River Basin. The water quality information collected in this ongoing sampling will continue to inform decisions about potential future treatment requirements for this supply. The City's program includes weekly sampling for routine water quality parameters which are relevant to drinking water treatment, as well as weekly and monthly sampling for standard physical, chemical and biological indicators of water quality. The program includes quarterly sampling over a range of river flow conditions for an exhaustive list of organic and inorganic chemicals, including: a parameters regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, o the entire EPA Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) which comprises all constituents which could be subject to drinking water regulation sometime in the future, e all pesticides and herbicides which were detected by the USGS from anywhere in the Willamette Basin; and ® 25 suspected endocrine disruptors. Table 1 summarizes the contaminants monitored under the City's program. City of Tigard page I Raw Water Monitoring Program - Quarterly Report 01- 111,111 Field Measurements Water quality sampling results which are available at this time for the City of Tigard's program encompass a seven-month period from July 10, 1998 to February 24, 1999. Raw water turbidity was measured weekly in the field, and was below 5 NTU for the late summer/early fall period prior to the fall rains. Turbidities increased dramatically during the winter months with a recorded high of 233 NTU on December 29, 1998. Total organic carbon during the low flow period averaged approximately 2.3 mg/L. TOC also increased during winter months with the recorded highest level of 5.3 mg/L on January 19, 1999. The Willamette River during the late summer and fall period can be characterized as. a soft, low turbidity water with a low organic content. Although the Willamette River is more turbid in the winter months, it can still be characterized as a soft water with low organic content. This is consistent with findings of previous years. Bacteriological Quality Overall bacteriological quality of the river during the late summer and fall period was good. Total numbers of coliform colonies during the first four months ranged from 30 to 500 colonies/100 mL. Total coliform counts increased to greater than 1,600 colonies/ 100 mL from November through February in response to rains. This is consistent with patterns observed in previous years. It should be noted that the coliform counts currently being observed are about ten times higher than have been observed during previous phases of the Willamette sampling program. The results currently being obtained are more consistent with historical data observed by the ODEQ from 1982 to 1993. The cause of this discrepancy is most likely a difference in laboratory methods between the Portland Water Bureau lab, which conducted the analysis in previous phases, and the current commercial lab, AmTest Oregon. Giardia and Cryptosporidium Monthly samples for Giardia and Cryptosporidium were collected in August, September, November, and December of 1998, and January and February of 1999. Presumptive Giardia counts ranged from non-detectable to 318 cysts per 100 liters. "Presumptive counts" mean that using fluorescent antibody staining, are object can be identified under the microscope with the correct size and shape of a Giardia cyst. No Giardia cysts were confirmed in any of these three samples. "Confirmed counts" have been verified by examining the object at higher magnification. Presumptive Cryptosporidium counts ranged from non-detectable to 140 cysts per 100 liters of water. No Cryptosporidium oocysts were confirmed in any sample. A summary of results is presented in Table 2. City of Tigard page 2 Raw Water Monitoring Program - Quarterly Report Metals Twenty-seven metals and inorganic chemicals were sampled in three quarterly events, on August 12 and November 2, 1998, and January 26, 1999. The first two sampling events corresponded to low flow, low turbidity conditions in the River. The third sampling event targeted high flow, high turbidity conditions. In general, most metals were detected at levels in the hundredths and thousands of a part per million. Regulated inorganic constituents were either not detected, or were detected at levels well below the treated water standard. Aluminum was detected at 0.25 mg/L and 0.12 mg/L for the two fall sampling events, and 1.1 mg/L for the winter sampling event. Aluminum is a common dietary component, with the average dietary intake being about 20 mg per day (AWWA, 1990). Aluminum is also common in treated waters, particularly those where alum is used as a coagulant in the treatment process. The USEPA has proposed a secondary standard for this contaminant of 0.05 mg/L, primarily to ensure that coagulated material is removed ahead of the distribution system. A summary of metals and inorganics results is given in Table 3. Organic Compounds Quarterly organic chemical scans were conducted on August 12 and November 2, 1998, and January 26, 1999. The first two sampling events were scheduled to capture low flow, low turbidity conditions. The January sampling event targeted high flow, high turbidity conditions. A total of 170 organic compounds were analyzed, including regulated contaminants, constituents on the EPA Contaminant Candidate List, detected pesticides and herbicides as part of the USGS Study of Dissolved Pesticides in the Willamette Basin, 1996 and suspected endocrine disruptors. Table 4 presents the results of all sampling to date. In the August sampling, the following results were obtained: • no detects were registered in 64 semi-volatile organic compounds by EPA Method 525.5; • no detects in 19 acid extractable compounds (primarily phenols); • no detects of aldicarb pesticides; ® no detects of 15 herbicides by EPA Method 515.1; • no detects of diquat, paraquat, EDB and DBCP; • no detects of 14 organophosphorous pesticides; • no detects of 41 nitrogen and phosphorous pesticides by EPA method 507; • no detects of 64 regulated volatile organic chemicals; • no detects of 30 pesticides regulated under the SDWA; and ® no detect of dioxin, with a method detection limit of 3.1 picograms per liter (10-9 mg/L or one-billionth of a part per million) The regulated herbicide simazine was detected Montgomery Laboratories method (ML614,619,81'41) at a level of 1.7 ug/L. This herbicide was not detected in the same City of Tigard page 3 Raw Water Monitoring Program - Quarterly Report Water sample by the two EPA methods which were applied for detection of semi-volatile compounds or nitrogen/phosphorous pesticides (EPA 525.5 and EPA 507). Resampling on September 23, 1998 for N/P pesticides did not detect the presence of simazine. Simazine has not been detected in previous phases of the raw water sampling program. Simazine is a regulated organic chemical under the Safe Drinking Water Act, with an MCL of 4 ug/L. It is anticipated that simazine would be removed by ozone and GAC treatment. In November, the following results were obtained: a Simazine was not detected by EPA Methods 525.5 and 507; ® All organic compounds described above were non-detects, with the exception of the detection of the regulated volatile organic chemical dichloromethane (also called methylene chloride) at 1.2 ug/L. The proposed MCL for this contaminant is 5 ug/L in finished water. It should be noted that laboratory contamination is a frequent confounder of occurrence data for this chemical (AWWA, 1990). • There was no detection of dioxin, with a method detection limit of 1.5 picograms per liter (10-9 mg/L or one-billionth of a part per million) In January, the following results were obtained: ® All organic compounds described above were non-detects; • Simazine was not detected; ® Dichloromethane (also called methylene chloride) was not detected; ® There was no detection of dioxin, with a method detection limit of 1.5 picograms per liter (10-9 mg/L or one-billionth of a part per million.) Winter River Conditions Severe flooding throughout the Willamette Basin was experienced in December. High river flow conditions broke loose the intake line from its submerged mooring in early December. Sampling was interrupted in December while the intake line was repositioned. The raw water sampling pump was submerged by flood waters at the end of December. Sampling was on hold until January 12, 1999 when the intake pump was replaced. Future Sampling Activity The next quarterly sampling event will occur in May, 1999, following the spring application of pesticides and herbicides in the Willamette Basin. The sampling event will be scheduled to capture runoff events following the pesticide and herbicide applications. City of Tigard page 4 Raw Water Monitoring Program- Quarterly Report r TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF GIARDIA AND CRYPTO SAMPLING RESULTS DATE GIARDIA GIARDIA CRYPTO CRYPTO PRESUMPTIVE CONFIRMED PRESUMPTIVE CONFIRMED 8/12/98 ND ND 38 ND 9/23/98 50 ND. NO NO 11/2/98 180 ND 140 ND 12/23/98 41 NO 14 ND 1/26/99 180 ND <44 NO 2/17/99 318 ND <18 NO City of Tigard page 5 Raw Water Monitoring Program - Quarterly Report r• ~ TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF METALS AND INORGANICS RESULTS CONCENTRATION IN MG/L CONSTITUENT 8/12/98 11/2/98 1/26/99 MCL OR REGULATORY STATUS aluminum 0.25 0.12 1.1 riority for health and treatment research antimony nd nd nd 0.006 mg/L arsenic 0.002 nd nd 0.05 m /L barium 0.0066 0.005 0.013 2.0 m /L beryllium nd nd nd 0.004 m /L boron nd - nd priority for regulatory determination bromide nd nd nd no regulation anticipated cadmium nd nd nd 0.005 m /L chromium 0.016 0.0034 0.0097 0.1 m /L copper 0.004 0.0046 0.0057 regulated b treatment technique snide nd nd nd 0.2 m /L fluoride nd nd nd 4.0 m2/1- iron 0.34 0.23 2.2 Ina regulation anticipated lead 0.00072 0.0008 0.00057 regulated by treatment technique mn ensium 2.1 1.8 1.85 no regulation anticipated manganese 0.028 0.016 0.042 priority for re ulato determination mercury nd nd nd 0.002 m /L nickel nd nd nd nor ulation antici ted nitrate 0.26 0.21 0.63 10 m /L nitrite nd nd nd 1 m /L selenium nd nd nd 0.05 m /L silver nd nd nd no regulation anticipated sodium 722 6.5 3.24 priority for health research sulfate 4.9 3.0 2.4 priority for re ulatory determination thallium nd nd nd 0.002 m /L zinc 0.0069 nd 0.0012 no re ulation antici ted City of Tigard page 6 Raw Water Monitoring Program - Quarterly Report 111111M Now References American Water Works Association. Water Quality and Treatment. McGraw-Hill, Inc. 1990. . r City of Tigard page 7 Raw Water Monitoring Program - Quarterly Report t Bill! WATER ADVISORY TASK FORCE Agenda Thursday, April 8, 1999 7:00 p.m. Tigard Town Hall 13123 SW Hall Blvd Tigard, Oregon 1. Introduction and Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes a. March 25, 1999 b. April 1, 1999 3. Final Product Discussion 4. Public Comments 5. Adjournment 1:\PW\WATFA-8 mtg agenda doc a WATER AD VISOR Y TASK FORCE Thursday, April 1, 1999 Meeting Minutes Members Present: See Attached List Staff Present: Bill Monahan, Ed Wegner, Kathy Kaatz, Jennifer Renninger, Mike Miller 1. Introduction and Roll Call Gretchen Buehner, acting as facilitator, called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Roll was taken (see attached list). 2. Approval of Minutes - March 18, 1999 Motion to approve the minutes of the March 18th, 1999 meeting was made by Task Force member Gene McAdams. Jan Drangsholt seconded the motion and it was voted upon unanimously. 3. Worksheet Discussion - Tusk Force Members Gretchen Buehner asked the Task Force how they would like to proceed with the three minute statements: Mark Mahon suggested no passes. Jan Drangsholt asked for clarification as to what the members are supposed to discuss - the worksheet, the meetings etc. Gretchen stated that the members would give a three minute statement based on the worksheet and overall feelings. Gary Ott suggested they discuss anything they want. Ed Wegner demonstrated the three minute stop light - two minutes yellow light and one minute red light. Gretchen asked members to stand up when speaking or use the microphone. The three minute statements proceeded using the Roll Call list, alphabetized by first name. q Three Minute Presentations - Task Force Members Bev Froude - Bev presented her information from the three worksheets - tap water quality, cost of water, certainty and supply. Bev read through all three worksheets attached. Bill McMonagle - Bill mentioned that Bev covered most of what he had. He added that in the area of cost of water, he was concerned about the quantity of water that Portland will commit to consortium cities. To date, he has not heard a commitment. He does not have a high degree of confidence in Portland. He expressed concern whether the residents of Portland will vote to allow enough water for our use. (Bill submitted copies of his three worksheets, which are attached.) Water Advisory Task Form - April I, 1999 Page I 1:\watS4-1 minutes Bonnie Bishop - As in the case of Bill McMonagle, Bonnie prepared worksheets which were submitted for each question, and those are attached. Her comments addressed an additional issue. She responded to a comment made during an earlier task force meeting by Lisa Obermeyer of Montgomery Watson Engineering. The issue centered on a concern for taking care of contaminants related to the water protection process. Bonnie found a toxicologist with the Center for Disease Prevention to address ozone treatment. The toxicologist told Bonnie that there are too many by-products from ozone treatment that need to be studied. He said that ozone gas is unstable so chlorine treatment is also needed. Also, the operation and maintenance using ozone are relatively high and complex. She noted that electricity is 26 to 43% of the cost of operation for small systems. In the area of cost of water, she noted a con for the Willamette is that in her opinion, we in Tigard are being pressured by the City of Wilsonville because of their prison and water shortage problems. In addition, she noted that Governor Kitzhaber will take the issue of educational matters to the people. She says that the Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, of which she is a member, have received support of people who want a say in the City's decision. Chuck Woodard - Chuck provided worksheets on all three topics. He read the comments into the record. He also noted that at the outset of the Task Force effort, he thought that the Bull Run was the direction to go, however, after experiencing various "scare tactics" he now thinks that the Willamette will be a safe drinking water source. Clarence Nicoli - Clarence noted that he has nothing in addition to add to those comments made by other committee members. His opinions are contained within the three worksheets which he has submitted and are attached. Craig Dirksen - Craig submitted three worksheets and a handwritten note which are attached. He also noted that he would be happy to continue using pristine Bull Run water, however, that isn't what is offered. He would favor mixed Portland water if we could be partners with Portland, however, he does not see this happening. He expressed concern that we would pay $60 million to Portland and not have an ownership stake. He has noted that we will have an ownership stake with the Willamette plant development so he favors the Willamette. Deb Fennell - Deb did not submit worksheets, however, he noted that he is convinced that the Willamette is viable and the answer to our needs. He said that is the way to go. Elaine Beauregard - Elaine did not submit worksheets. However, she noted that she was negative against the Willamette at the outset and has been educated through the Task Force process. After the second meeting, she was convinced the ownership issue is the main concern, not drinking water quality. She noted that the issue of cost has not fully been resolved. She feels that none of the figures given concerning the two proposals are carved in stone. She is concerned about both sets of cost figures. She also noted that she could not argue against the Willamette proposal because the technology to clean the river water is there. She further noted that two statements, which she heard during the Task Force process, stand out to her: Water Advisory Task Force - April 1, 1999 Pagc 2 I:\watl\4-I minuws 1. Which is the better water - the Willamette consultant said that when Portland puts in its treatment plant, Portland will be the better water. 2. Dr. Foster of PSU said that he has emotional reservations about drinking Willamette River Water. Elaine noted that she has many open unanswered questions. She thinks that we can work out a partnership with the City of Portland. Garry Ott - Garry submitted a two page memo covering the three topics. They are attached. Garry noted that when he came to the process he considered why Tigard, a relatively small community, would want to run a treatment plant. He favors simplicity. He expressed concern that Portland will rely more on well water in the future. He stated that with treatment, the Willamette River water is superior tap water. He spoke of the process to treat the water. The Willamette provides a long-term security to Tigard residents, he is not sure if Portland will be able to deliver long-term. He stated that he believes that the Willamette River is a good source of quality drinking water for a reasonable cost. Gene McAdams - Gene read a prepared statement, which is attached. He stated that he will vote for the Willamette River Treatment Plant. Henrietta Cochrun - Henrietta prepared the worksheets and read into the record as much of the worksheets as she could within the time limits. Copies of her three worksheets are attached. Jan Drangsholt - Jan noted that the cost of ozone treatment is also included in the Willamette plant cost. She then went through her three worksheets which are attached. John Haunsperger - John went through his worksheets which are attached. John Helser - John noted that as a Wilsonville City Council member, he is not ready to vote on the issue. He then read from his three worksheets which are attached. Due to time constraints, he was not able to read into the record all of his prepared statement. John Mitala - John stated that his business has been served by Tigard for several years. He is concerned about water quantity over time. He noted that last summer, his company was called by the City and were told that they needed to shut off their irrigation system, which he considers to be a threat to their investment. He feels that both proposals have understated costs. He feels that the Willamette system is the appropriate choice. John submitted three worksheets which are attached. Water Advisory Task Force - Apri l 1, 1999 Page 3 [AwatM-1 minut"s Mark Mahon - Mark submitted comments on all three issues. He noted that in tap water, we are comparing an unfiltered supply with a filtered supply. He said that the costs are significantly higher for the Portland option. Both proposals, he believes, are showing lower costs than will actually occur. He noted the quality from the Willamette River, he thinks will be okay. Mark cited a Saturday, March 27, Oregonian article showing that Enron has bought up a Canadian water system. He suggested that Portland could sell its system to a private entity so, if we invested in the Portland system with no return in the future. He expressed concern about Tigard making a major investment in the Portland system, but not being an owner. He noted that when the Task Force process started he was pro the Bull Run system. He feels now that quality, certainty of supply and cost of the Willamette River system is better. Marland Henderson - Marland submitted worksheets on each of the three questions. He noted that he appreciates the Council's opportunity to participate in the Task Force process and that he learned a lot. On the issue of cost, he agrees that the costs are not real. He feels that costs would be very high with Portland once 2050 arrives, while the Willamette would be lower in cost. He also suggested that the Willamette River will need to have additional testing to address consumer concern. He is not convinced that Bull Run will supply the entire area. He said that it is fragile, we need another source. He suggested that Tigard continue to work with the City of Portland to retain the Portland system as a secondary source. He proposed the Willamette River as the choice for Tigard. Martha Bishop - Martha did not submit worksheets. She did note that she has not heard hard evidence for the Willamette River option. She would like more documentation. She feels that the average citizen would accept a system approved by EPA. Also, she feels everything is too primary at this time. There are so many unknowns. Norin Penner - Norm noted that he has been a strong supporter of the Willamette from the beginning. He has not heard anything to think that the river can't be treated. He noted that he has experienced drinking river water from other sources that were safe. He noted that long-term dependability of water source is an issue and he has a concern that Portland is not certain of what it can deliver. Portland says it will not discuss Tigard's concerns i until we first agree to go with Portland. So, we would have no leverage in dealing with Portland. a He noted that the Willamette is the best choice. Norm submitted worksheets on all three issues which are attached. 3 Patrick Carroll - Patrick did not submit worksheets. He did note that he has a concern about dealing with a big city like Portland, stating that we would have little control. He cited Durham's experience with the Unified Sewage Agency where Durham has little control. He Waier Advisory'rask Force - April 1. 1999 Page 4 1:\waln4-1 minutrv noted that "because of Portland's sewer and water system issues, there is a requirement for a lot of improvements in future years." He cited concerns over the cost of water to customers of Portland, which would be necessary to help pay for Portland's improvements. Phil Pasteris - Phil submitted worksheets on tap water quality and certainty of supply. He also read a prepared statement dated April 1, 1999, which is attached. The conclusion of his statement, which was read into record, is that he is 100% in favor of the Wilsonville Water Treatment Plant. Randy Volk - Randy submitted three worksheets which are attached. He noted that Portland needs an emergency source of water. The well fields can't supply all of the system as a back-up if the Bull Run is not available. He noted that a plant on the Willamette will allow for back feeding other systems. He feels that the cost is "out of whack" for both proposals. But, if we build the plant now, we have more control of costs than if we went with the City of Portland, which has future improvements. Lee Weislogel (Sherwood - speaking on behalf of Scott Franklin) - Sherwood did not submit worksheets. Lee noted that Sherwood is interested in preserving their options. Stan Bau=nhefer - Stan submitted worksheets on all three issues. He noted that others have expressed his thoughts already. He noted that the recommendation to Council is for long-term. No one is suggesting that users drink contaminated water. He feels we can get treated safe water. He is concerned about Portland as a reliable source because of potential changes that could occur. He recognized the need for the Willamette as an important element of a regional system. He feels that we need it. Sterling Marsh - Sterling submitted worksheets on the three issues along with a handwritten note. He also noted that what has been said by many of the members of the Task Force has clearly stated the good and acceptable aspects of both water supplies. He noted that both would deliver quality water to the Tigard system. Cost and ownership or contractual interests are primary to our consideration. He noted that his personal choice is to support the Willamette River option. Bill Scheiderich - Bill submitted worksheets on all three issues. He noted his background, working with Beaverton he had reservations about the Willamette possibility, suggested by the Tualatin Valley Water District. He was not aware that Portland was using Columbia River water. He is worried about use of that water that will be part of Portland system. He prefers having the ability to raise concerns to the Tigard City Council as the provider of water, rather than the City of Portland. He is also concerned about the threat posed by by-products from chlorine used to treat water with the Portland system. Water Advisory Task: Force - April 1. 1999 Page 5 1:\watR4-1 minutes r Bob Gray - Bob submitted worksheets on each issue. He noted that the decision for him is to go to the Willamette. He sees it as being a strong source, close to us, we can supply Portland and our own in case of emergency and ownership is an issue. On the question of tap water, he spoke with the City of Vallejo, California, a city with a plant similar to the one which we propose. He noted that the representatives for Vallejo told him that tap water is excellent there. He prefers the Willamette. Gretchen Buehner - Gretchen submitted one worksheet. She noted her concerns that Portland politics indicate that Portland wants control over everything. In the past, they were riot interested in dealing with Tigard. Her concerns with Bull Run are: 1. What about earthquakes? 2. We are now in the wet season, later we could have a dry period with forest fires which could impact water quality. 3. If environmentalists let Portland build a third dam, the construction activity will impact quality of the water. 4. Increased use of wells could speed up contamination of the wells. She noted that the Willamette quality issues have been addressed and feels that the Willamette is a better source for us now. S. Discussion of Final Work Product Lenny stated the topic of discussion: How to prepare and deliver final report do final report. The understanding of the report is that 15 minutes are given for a majority report and five minutes for a minority report. Bonnie Bishop asked who determined the time allotments: 15 and 5 minutes? It is her understanding that it is the Task Force's decision to determine the time limits. Discussion: Norman Penner asked if Citizens for Safe Water (CSW) would have 15 minutes for their presentation. Ed Wegner stated yes. All the groups presenting on April 13°i will have 15 minutes to speak, but if the Task Force has two groups the Council is willing to give them more time. Mark Mahon asked who those groups are and Ed responded: CSW, Safe Water Coalition, Intergovernmental Water Board, Oregon Environmental Council, Task Force and Willamette Water Supply Agency. Jan Drangsholt stated that a minority report never has as much time as majority. Bob Gray made a Motion that the allocation of time for a minority report should be a function of the number of get two minutes. Stan Baumhofer seconded the motion. Discussion - Gretchen argued against the motion because it's only fair the minority get the full five minutes. Bill McMonagle believes the minority should get equal time as the majority report. Norman Penner opposed to giving 15 minutes to minority because CSW already has 15 minutes. Watcr Advisory Task Porcc - April 1, 1999 Pagc G 1:\watf\4-1 minutes Craig Dirksen asked the question, When did the Task Force make the decision to have a minority report? Lenny stated that this was part of discussion then decide what the report will look like. Bonnie Bishop commented that the motion is out of order because the Task Force had already decided to have a minority report. Lenny stated that it had not been decided upon and the Task Force needs to vote on this issue. Bob Gray withdrew the motion so the issue could be voted upon. Discussion: Mark Mahon requested clarification on whether there would be a minority report. Patrick Carroll made a Motion that the City of Tigard allocates 5 minutes for the minority report in addition to the 15 minutes for the majority report. Gretchen Buehner seconded the motion. Discussion: Stan Baumhofer stated that the issue would then be in City Council's hands and could say no.. Bill Monahan stated that the Council is asking what the Task Force wants and they would probably accept additional time request. Jan Drangsholt said that the minority report could be presented in a written form, rather than orally. Bonnie Bishop suggested she submit her resignation to solve the problem. Lenny stated that no vote has been taken for a majority and minority. Twenty-four voted in favor of the motion and three were opposed. Motion was passed by majority. Discussion: What will the majority report look like? What is it and how to go about it? Patrick Carroll suggested taking a vote between Portland and Willamette, then split into majority and minority groups accordingly. Jan Drangsholt stated that is doesn't make a difference whether there's a vote. Need to decide how to present report not the content. Lenny stated that how and what the report the will say needs to be decided. Mark Mahon stated that the final report needs to address each criteria. The Task Force should take four votes- cost, certainty of supply, water quality and overall and then make recommendation on these votes. Bonnie Bishop asked what part of the report would use the worksheets? Craig Dirksen stated that a few people or one person would write the report and incorporate worksheet comments. Bonnie asked if there was a vote taken on the decision and Lenny stated that an official vote had not been taken. The only vote taken was on the time allotment. Jan suggested following Mark Mahon's idea and have three people present one criteria with reasons why allotting five minutes each. Phil Pasteris pointed out there may be continuity problems in the presentation. Bonnie Bishop asked who reviews the reports? Phil Pasteris suggested that the Task Force appoint a master editor and three people to write the three criteria and develop the report with one presenter. John Haunsperger made the Motion that the Task Force recommend the Willamette as a water source. Bob Gray seconded the motion. Twenty-two members voted in favor, three opposed and two abstained. Water Advisory Task Force - April 1. 1999 Page 7 1:\watf\4-I minutcs Rim -=on MIME11=111111511 Nil 19MIUM 11111H Discussion: Bonnie Bishop stated that the work of the Task Force is for not because of the initiative petition. Sterling Marsh asked the question why Bonnie thinks she has won and can submit reservations? Bonnie responded that Tigard residents will have the opportunity to vote. Jan Drangsholt stated that the initiative petition has nothing to do with the Task Force and she resents Bonnie's comments. Phil Pasteris made the Motion to suspend proceedings until all Task Force members are present. Jan Drangsholt seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Patrick Carroll suggested the Task Force develop a strategy to develop the report. He suggested volunteers write each section of the criteria and make initial recommendation then finalize the recommendation at the April 8"' meeting. Marland asked when staff would have comments copied? Bill Monahan asked the Task Force to clarify what they expect of the City staff. o What are the expectations? ♦ What form should the worksheets follow? e Copies or collating comments per criteria? o What is expected from the minutes and when? The Task Force decided that the staff should make copies of all the worksheets and divide into the three criteria. Minutes will include topical notes of oral statements and copies of written comments from the worksheets. Bonnie Bishop stated that she would prefer a list of all pros and cons for each three criteria. Gretchen Buehner asked if she could submit her vote on the Willamette and Lenny said no. Lenny asked for volunteers to work on the three criteria and summarize worksheet comments for those. Certainty of supply - Phil Pasteris and Mark Mahon, Bill McMonagle Tap water quality - Elaine Beauregard, Jan Drangsholt, and Norman Penner Cost of water - Gretchen, Henrietta Cochrun Mark Mahon asked if there is a majority and minority report, then shouldn't they have their own groups? i Elaine Beauregard stated that just because she voted against the Willamette doesn't mean she wants to be a minority. Those working on subcommittees will use the worksheets to write a report for review at the April a 8`s meeting. Lenny asked the Task Force if they wanted a vote on each criteria and they a responded - No. Lenny then asked who would be working on the minority report? Bonnie Bishop stated that she will not because she resigned. Gary Ott volunteered to write the minority report but stated that it may not be Bull Run. If no one wants to write the minority report then there won't be one. Water Advisory Task Force - April 1, 1999 Pa8e g Bwatl\4J minutes 1 Marland made a motion to discuss the matter of the minority report next week. Motion was not made because only minority can vote. Gretchen suggested having the minutes available for the three subcommittees. Bill Monahan stated that topical notes and copies of the worksheets could be available as soon as possible Lenny asked the three subcommittees to stay and determine when they would like to start working. Bonnie Bishop made a statement about her resignation. She has suspected that the Task Force was designed for pro Willamette people. A very high City official confirmed this statement this past week. Bonnie continued by saying that the Task Force is a mockery of democracy. She feels she can better spend her time on the initiative petition. Norman Penner stated Bonnie disregarded and ignored a large number of Tigard citizens use the Tigard water system. 6. Public Comments No public comments were made. 7. Adjournment Lenny adjourned meeting at 9:06.pm. Water Advisory Task Force - April 1, 1999 Page 9 Bwatlt4-1 minutes MEIN I ~~n~c~jA~~er•- Cost of Water. Worksheet Portland Willamette River m Pro vyG 7ia9~,_E~~/~~.Y•i,'a2',~..),~c~.4-T~2_ Pro $v~y/ ,co ~3r/J'vE2yLcrm Con T~ .Con N ' N I o:) U03 i old . l r j ~ ~ j ~ :r i ,'i 7 old puel~pod f: /•~J~Jt/t r ~ ~ ~ ! ~J aanld adu'~ll!M 40 1500 aaUs~~~M a~~~M P, . eC ~~Q~~S~eet River cost ot mat \,N amei~te ~ Wt-~L©`' pro fr,~ r Gib CPf ~la pro v; c a ~{~S Gv t + , Gtwvs 4 All* w5 ~ S AN~~NS Con ~`t t <<~~ , ~t ~~L►- OLAYJ r GIL- con 1-604A CC>S r, 6s W)J_ tr,~ v~ Ojv%.O ooutj .t Y TAT Cost of Water worksheet Willamette River Portland Pro Pro con con E5 (L D o G®~ TTtT T L1 2 T TrfTCrf.C1 rJTT .sw~130 II i - Cost of Water Worksheet Portland Willamette River Pro Pro Shorter route - but uphill - First 10 years are less expensive to Tigard water ratepayers according to comparison chart prepared by Tigard's Finance Director. - Conservation rate is at 17% according to Tigard Cityscape. - Clackamas Intertie being worked on by City of Portland Water personnel - Possibilities with City of Portland: - Raising of the 2nd resevoir level - Construction of 3rd Dam - Many municipalities participating with the City of Portland's plan for the Clackamas Intertie would spread out the cost considera ly. Many of the hundreds of Tigard residents Con- I've talked with recently concerning this - Not proven to cost less, water issue, have told me "I'd rather pay - Cost comparison assumes only Tigard paying more for water if I know it's SAFE to - Additional costs to Filtration Plant with drink." soon to be announced new EPA lowering of of Arsenic levels for drinking water sour e. CON - Electricity represents 26 to 43 percent of total operating and maintenance costs for small systems. (Nat'l. Drinking Water Clearinghouse Fact Sheet) - This is no sma 1 system at Wilsonville, so how much money his been estimated for electricity? - Wilsonville pressure on Tigard because of: 1) Prison 2) Building moratorium r TTi T T Y T T TTfTT h rTrf gem er \N°rvsheet giver C0.t Qk mat ~V►11a'mette R pro ~ d J ~ j 1 Portland r vh f ovn~ pro 0,9 ~m If r Con tit ~?E 1teT-1r~ ~ Con y~~ ff 1 s pr . ~I►/t. tic ter ,Vory,svieet cost of vVa R~~,er WWaMette v✓ portiand pro r fx ltd too pro -'r ra con con OS OF e go o 17 1 X11: 14-LW6< ~u (SA) 46 H~y a J~` ~ ~,tv t ` 4k V Cost of Water NN pr~Sheet \Njijamette River land pro STS G (-5; r~.1 pOtt ct) W,J tT~~nu~~ cT~A0-Y 0 pro M o VC, GaST v-4sQ vm i con V4 1r1~ Qom ~ con ,15 ~`xp~NsrJ` ~ ~l Water Advisory Task Force Worksheet Evaluation April 1, 1999 1. Tap Water Quality Worksheet Portland Pro - - Bull Run, high quality water source. (very big positive, see attached water quality testing data.) . - Consistant Con - - Reliance on wells that are directly connected to Columbia River - Increased reliance on wells due to growth, and environmental pressure (ESA) on bull run supply. - No plan to treat Columbia River water. - No plan to test for pollutants in Columbia River water. - Does not meet EPA requirements to surface water treatment (filtration). - Soft water leaches copper and lead from plumbing resulting in increaded levels of copper and lead in drinking water. (Portland recently installed facilities to raise pH to mitigate this effect.) - Potential threat from giardia and crystosporium from unfiltered source. These diseases not amenable to treatment by chlorination. - Subject to episodes of high turbidity. - Idea that Portland is supplying "pristine" tap water is a myth. Willamette River Pro - -JtZIlD P YE> 'VD 36 Nl(;A-i WAUkV \N, 9q . - Good quality water supply (not as high quality as Portland supply) - Treated water equal or greater in quallity to that of Portland. (Portland does not treat water other than pH control and disinfection.) Willametter River water treated to remove organics (activated carbon), metals (floculation and settlement), turbidity (filtration), pathogens (ozone). - Tap wafer equal to or better than Portland. VEJt~S -4P, EMOZ1 V" ax iQ, g Vj Con - - Subject to upstream contamination (ie. wastewater treatment plant discharges). - Pollutants from agricultural, urban and forest runoff (pesticides, herbicides). - Public perception. 1~.4J 2. Cost of Water Worksheet Portland Pro - - Lower initial cost (little treatment cost). - Bigger (numbers) base over which to distribute cost. - More financial muscle (bond rating, ability to sell bonds) Con - - higher long term cost (due to significant treatment capital and operating cost.) - Pipelines not in place to serve Tigard area. Willamette Pro - - Lower long term cost (retirement of debt) Con - - Higher inital cost (construction and operation of high tech treatment facility) 3. Certainty of Supply Worksheet Portland Pro - - Bull run system. - Reliable (Subject to environmental pressure to maintain stream flow and resistance to increasing storage volume, ie raise dam height.) - Simplicity of Tigard purchase and distribute water. Con - - Bull run system constraints (ESA) may limit growth (expansion) potential. - Control by City of Portland Council. - Subject to pressure to cut off supply to outside users. - Possible sending of Bull Run to Portland, wells to outside users. - Portlands take it or leave it attitude. Willamette Pro - - Existing Water Rights (current and projected uses) - Reliable supply (Corps of Engineers dams operating proceedures require in stream flow) - Tigard (and regional supply participants) control destiny. Con - - Complex system to finance, own and operate. Based upon my interpretation of the evidence presented and the rigid time frame within which we work, I make the following observations: 1. Please recall my motion to ask if Portland would amend its ordinances and allow us to share equally as a partner in the Bull Run water source. My purpose in making the motion in the first place was to verify that Portland is really not that inter- ested in providing a guaranteed potable water supply to this part of the metropolitan area. Tigard has a very serious problem. It needs to secure an unequivocal, guar- anteed water supply. As far as I am concerned, if Portland will only sell surplus water to surrounding cities, we have an overwhelming argument for going to the Willamette River. However, if Portland should amend it's ordinances and allow us equal entitle- ment to its water supply, the possibilities for meaningful negotiations for the long term change dramatically. (Parenthetically speaking, were I on the Portland City Council, I would4*ver- 1~01 vote to alter Portland's primacy to it's water source.) 2. 1 do not believe continued studies on Willamette River water will prove that fruit- ful. 3. The quality of treated Willamette River water has been certified as adequate to meet known needs. 4. Oregon's learned scientific establishment, (OSU-Corvallis) has been drinking treated Willamette River water for years. 5. More and more consumption on the Bull Run system encourages more and more potential demand on Columbia River sources--Hanford is upstream. 6. So while I feel uncomfortable with the constant shadowing 6( iD'ur consultants, and the idea that we may likely be offered water that may smell in the summer,-the worries of making the right decision...... based upon the totality of information presented to date (including the fundamental importance of water rights as well as cost), com- bined with constant assurances as to the acceptability of Willamette River water as a reliable, treatable, source, I will vote for the Willamette River treatment plant. mom Water Worksheet Cost of Willamette Riper Portland Pro,. ,~P -Ile a1 -3) U Con ,t~~sl ~~~s~J r ( \ Q ,,1 p Con') c y Owl) A ff ,,6~ tV, OA C9 a 00 Q~Z4'~ ~ 4,"d PC's nit 4) '1 VA -"A r M a..s~yyyr t ateC \1®CkShee River cost Willamee• pro 6 C ; portla C,vv' 3 i~~ qy . t°<«; .~l ',~'n.~{/~ l r ~ ~ 1. .ir ~ t .Z'' ~ • t, C~,.~-<, I.i,'+~ ~ I G n r pro t`.rJ z: , ,1 t1 VV t {1,~ t 1 r LI ~u:~C~ ~ , tilr"~~,~:t ✓t't aU.L ~'ti '~,C L`4 ~ Ct'`t >lU ( ~f`' ~ Ala rJtT w .s J 3 J°~~" L ~v~~` trr C'"lC'L ~ 1 1`~y,l~~ ~.5b C.e~i1 t ,(1'i~f y' `n v'~a, r 1 a' !Y"` f Coll r i C U e i' r I P,~yvLtl,Yl~~.~ r~{X cony 3q►~ e~:: u ~.r~ JOj `t 1 1Z1 "t 11GCtf 1i'11? t ll.Y~ yv l1 U? t tiv`V4.1~ W, , • r 'J VYV Q'L L6, I; Lt~~►,~ 2 Gt ~Lw water VYO~.ksneet ~ GOSt pf River Wiiiarnette r s Portland pro Pro JA Y&Af C~n Con ;,vim u~ o m 9- U4.1 con c~n9►u~- 'fin _ ~ ~ ~ . ~ m.A;"' volt f ~ IBM Water ~orKsheet Cost of \N. mette R,ver c'r pR ~P3c, ~ ~ ~~r~RtESY portand pro 50 YEAR we's '7$7 Pro rRG~ o~,rN6RS ~rNx lP oP M~ttN~• ~1lREF:r Vr-"5N eteATIOd tR~G~ l~yp4vgltt¢►~S v1 ~ LvEJ'?E~f W ~7~ F~fUR~ 'ex ~ p I REGT jN i!C poRTlR,v© ~ ~Nr~6{~s7" met SAC. con pR ► tic, 50 yEoft COST t1? ~7 !g .va UGH mµ417 OcGUR M 1 con d,I't 125 aTA~tia 6r ~ogT e~ V ZO s~R rN1aN FoR~6i°t57' ¢•~3 M1LLIOd ~aoN ~PfR~TJ°'1G Gosh of GRyQfoS~~Rct7►vM ~`51NFtrGY'oJ4ooe►CR'f~~rt ULfFtFk g pnll.tioF! S ~5 141 v,+aN YD t2• SRM~ AS 1„(,a~.~tnrEtCE 6' ~rlod ►~o~Gtr ~ T~~ W1.4~rRat~~RBL~ pE- tvcuRRE© sobr~G Co5T , 4 fl~.o► eT~~1 low Cost of Water Worksheet Submitted By: John Heiser April 1, 1999 31305 SW Country View Ln Wilsonville OR 97070 Portland Willamette River Pro: Pro: Would be able to use Portland's size and bonding capacity to ♦ Lower capital cost. secure favorable interest rates. o Less money borrowed, hence less interest paid for debt service. Lower rates over time. ♦ Greater control of cost for treatment and transmission. ® Lends itself to more modular increments of expansion. e Greater certainty of cost, because major capital expenses occur up front. e Avoids potentially expensive peaking charges. Con: Con: Would be even more expensive if some jurisdictions choose ® Large "up front" cost for initial capital investment. not to participate. e Don't know what actual rates will be (Portland study does not indicate cost for peaking factor or cost of using existing Washington County supply line). o Tigard and Wilsonville would have relatively little say in timing or magnitude of rate increases. JMGfJH(CSMMFkS8Q3131199 i i~ Cost of Water Worksheet Portland Willamette River ZejAnL Pro Pro sue. cam. r Sotu c~~t- of cas-rs Con Con ti 16~q To /ill} t ~S -th ax tg At&w"p I SEEN= • Cost of Water Portland (Bull Run/Columbia River) Option Pro: Consumer cost per unit is lower until 2010 Con: Uncertainty of future cost due to uncertain date of filtration plant requirement for Portland. Uncertainty of future cost due to uncertainty of effect of the listing of certain fish species in the Sandy River basin as endangered as per the Endangered Species Act. Current cost estimates for construction is about 55.74% higher than the Willamette option. Portland insistence on a profit margin (return on investment) for all water sold, regardless of who pays for the capital improvements. Willamette River Option Pro: Current cost of construction is less than the Portland option. Total Debt service is 47.66 % less than the Portland option. Consumer per unit cost is lower after 2010. Consumer per unit cost is significantly lower after 2025 Con: Final Cost estimates will not be available until more complete engineering of the plant is completed. Nnf,.t r t of water worksheet cis Wlitamette over Rortland pro } (G t loav-(2- con con i~"0~ . A(61 a m a N A O Cost of Water Worksheet Willamette River Portland pro Lower project costs & lower rate costs after initial Pro startup period costs & timing under our control first 5+ project initial cost per unit to end user lower during Greater degree of political certainty, fewer politi whi h years entities involved in decision making process, results in greater degree of cost projections and control. Local control over operation of the ~ system' ownership of the system, rate setting authority- Able to collect fees from new subdivisions to offset operational costs. Con per unit of water to end users Slightly higher cost p con first 5 years. Projected costs of overall project higher than the during Willamette project rovements not under our Timing of project capital imp control improvements not under our Cost of project capital control Each phase of project will be political uncertainty- roval of Portland City subject to approval/ disapp agencies Council. State government as well as federal can interfere with project timing and costs. S IsIll A Report to the Water Task Force By Phil Pasteris 4/1/1999 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Taskforce. It has been a privilege to take part in this opportunity to make a strategically correct and visionary recommendation to the Tigard City Council. The Council asked us to address a number of water issues and my statement addresses "Certainty of Water, Quality of Water and Cost of Water." With respect to Certainty. It was Mark Twain who said "whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over." Although we have come along way since the late 1800s in determining water rights and usage, the bottom line is that when you turn the faucet on, there better be water coming out. As a hydrologist and meteorologist in my professional career with the Department of Agriculture, a significant portion of my job deals with predicting and managing water, at times a very scarce resource in the West. In fact, due to the snowfall patterns resulting from La Nina, the Southwestern U.S. is expected to receive near record minimum runoff this spring, while some areas of the Pacific Northwest may experience near record maximum runoff this spring. If this contrast is a symptom of climate change and the trend is to more frequent and greater extremes, it makes sense to choose a drainage basin of over 7,280 square miles with 11 storage reservoirs instead of a 2 reservoir system that drains 102 square miles to supply our water. The water management agencies entrusted with managing the Willamette must maintain a minimum flow of 6,000 cubic feet per second at Salem, Oregon. The maximum intake, based on the maximum water right granted to the Wilsonville treatment plant, is 186 cubic feet per second. It is my judgement that certainty of water is not an issue with the Willamette, but is certainly a cause for alarm if we were to rely on a 102 square mile watershed and enter an extended period of dry years in the next century. The political issues surrounding certainty are much more complicated than the hydrologic or climatic. Given the opportunity to make a decision now to guarantee water into the middle of the next century, free from the politics associated with "return on investment" used by Portland to build their system, the answer is clear. Let's make the call to put in the Wilsonville water treatment plant and move onto other issues that will have greater impacts on this region's livability. With respect to Quality. I am a product of the Midwest having grown up in Joliet, Illinois. Midwest water distributed through public systems is treated I am completely comfortable with the technology I viewed during the Corvallis Water Treatment tour earlier this year and that proposed for Wilsonville. My daughter is a Sophomore at Oregon State University and I have no misgivings about her drinking the tap water. As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved, especially with the proposed, but yet unapproved improvements to the Portland system that may, or may not, be subject to a public vote in which we, Tigard and surrounding areas, may have no legal right to vote. With respect to Cost. The excellent presentation by Wayne Lowry shows that the costs may be a bit higher now, but when asked specifically if there would be mandatory water reductions or rationing in the summer based on Willamette water rights , the answer supplied to the Task Force by the City Officials was "no." I want the water to be there. Let me choose whether or not to water my lawn or use water based on cost and my respect for this precious resource. I am confident that the technology used will provide an excellent cost/quality ratio to the people of this region. In conclusion, based on the information provided to me, full attendance of all meetings, and independent research I have performed, I am 100% in favor of the Wilsonville Water Treatment Plant. tiC C - l - CpSt o _----\ater Vvor Sheet Nlitlarnegte River Pro bISF portl3nd 04f pib. ti DO rl pro Con r rk~~~~~if tom`` Con 10 cv~o r~vto WITti 4, -7 10- IL cvu. QLO j~~t f4,VAI~1J~ . .~c 1 ~®cksh~et ~r cost of Water Wiilamette River pro pro - ~ Con ' r f trfYf, J a {f V--, ~~r con ~'7 4 t~~ C 11 ==MINI Cost of Water Worksheet Portland Willamette River Pro Pro cUJ /D O'lfr°// ``:•c-/•r. /~'~,r}_~.yr~,~J_ ny C.C1K~yac1'c.a~( /.r'JJi>rc:.J~I 1 J Con/ Con r 44 V /l~i(/1"" ~~,LQ ~1~'~G"~l. sQQ•l. ~ ~ ~'1Q~ C~ c~ A/LP d f~ --r E'Pr1 AKIC wx- ntovr o~ ~1411, Cost of Water Worksheet Willamette River Portland pro- Pro Con con Cost AOlt- e of W ter orksheet' Portland 4 Pro Willamette River $ Pro Con Con 1} of sub y ~~t ar~f 9 e.- c~rtalnt~l Wtilarne~te ~l~~r~, Farlan Pro ' I Pro O~ I 0 Con ✓ ~i ~ 77ZV Con paic - sill Certainty of Supply Worksheet Willamette River Portland Pro n ~4- )V 1' r p _ c- .1 _ l I `~r Con j.-: • ; ; f, ff con J{~~,.,~ ~~t 1 J t /--o ~Z -1 46 l< c t f f 5C,Aprd8p CertaintV of Supply Worksheet vviiiamette River portiand pro C's pro A rl 015-'( ~ If ox-,e7o bd'C'~'~ ~ 1' c P►~ ~~c.~5 j Con Con G~ d R-trP~~ 4 (,d i t S~`~ ~ is ~ f~-N' ~a/~,,(t-i Sd►!~`t'~ lN~ us t4, ~rJVU rf r Neil c.~-~vc.Ib IS IBM! ' Certainty of Supply Worksheet Po land Willamette River Pro Pro 'A c, V h e, 1; Z AC E. GV5 Con Con Certainty of Supply Worksheet Portland Willamette River Pro Pro - Plenty, according to City of Portland officials. - City of Portland proposals offer part- ownership - Gravity flow is prevalent in the supply of water from the Bull Run Watershed. - City of Portland officials are interested in providing and working with Tigard, et al on a Regional Water Provider basis. - i.e., Clackamas Intertie and the Bull Run. - Proven professional and experienced Water staff con con - No gravity flow from Will, River supp~.ty- has to be puipped upphill- high electrici y costs - Ozone operation ana maintenance are-rela- tively complex. (National Drinking Water Clearinc H-:ouse Fact Sheet) - Power failures "Operation and maintenance are relatively high. Operation and maintenance are relatively complex. ELECTRICITY represent 26 to 43 percent of total operating and maintenance costs for small systems." (this is no small system) (Nat'l. Drinking Water Clearinghouse Fact Sheet) - "Ozone gas is unstable ...-a secondary dis- infectant, usually chlorine, is-r~guired because ozone does not maintain•an adequat residual in water." (Nat'l.Drinking Water) I it t 11' ~orKs,~eet Berta intO~ sum", i~~at~e ye River r w . pro Y- ~e 01 Qy~ pro b O' i j :~YiE~ is ~ Q » Con YVII" ,r LL e con e, M~4 vela} a,Mr1 v~rl. 4t c. fir.. tt f t~ e= r c /d ~~o n ie-W7 L e,.r y ff 1 , warn • arty( r`Y iv v~ O _,,,eet ~r certal~ltV O¢ Sup ~ N r W;amette River Q t% port-land pro ~r c,- Pro uzs. r Con con //V r VV 61- Sr~r~ s Kr~ A 5 or N 0 AJ ill Ot ~rf I. S Y f b y t", ~s r 'AJ u L) le,-4 46 qj~ dip f) $u" 1 sN p rr s ° v cirri ooh ~ J~-~Jl 01 _ certainty of supp'V Worksheet Wiliamette River portiand pro 1 p PJ'P ~P~3 rt`,od t't-t- t(N.96a- pro Z~ ~~rrzcr~R vat-MME S~fpi..y- R~o2Tu~~~Y LtNt IT(- con con p F Q o ~z -rC A L 1~ct ~TW 6 R Cdr at~0 To sP~GP~s ~G~ Water Advisory Task Force Worksheet Evaluation April 1, 1999 1. Tap Water Quality Worksheet Portland Pro - - Bull Run, high quality water source. (very big positive, see attached water quality testing data.) - Consistant Con - - Reliance on wells that are directly connected to Columbia River. - Increased reliance on wells due to growth, and environmental pressure (ESA) on bull run supply. - No plan to treat Columbia River water. - No plan to test for pollutants in Columbia River water. - Does not meet EPA requirements to surface water treatment (filtration). - Soft water leaches copper and lead from plumbing resulting in increaded levels of copper and lead in drinking water. (Portland recently installed facilities to raise pH to mitigate this effect.) - Potential threat from giardia and crystosporium from unfiltered source. These diseases not amenable to treatment by chlorination. - Subject to episodes of high turbidity. - Idea that Portland is supplying "pristine" tap water is a myth. Willamette River Pro - - 1- iED p.tJZ> TD BE OL6ti WALrk/ . - Good quality water supply (not as high quality as Portland supply) - Treated water equal or greater in quallity to that of Portland. (Portland does not treat water other than pH control and disinfection.) Willametter River water treated to remove organics (activated carbon), metals (floculation and settlement), turbidity (filtration), pathogens (ozone). ~C!`>uJs' A S~arr~pQflS - Tap water equal to or better than Portland. Con - - Subject to upstream contamination (ie. wastewater treatment plant discharges). - Pollutants from agricultural, urban and forest runoff (pesticides, herbicides). - Public perception. LO 2. Cost of Water Worksheet Portland Pro - - Lower initial cost (little treatment cost). - Bigger (numbers) base over which to distribute cost. - More financial muscle (bond rating, ability to sell bonds) Con - - higher long term cost (due to significant treatment capital and operating cost.) - Pipelines not in place to serve Tigard area. Willamette Pro - - Lower long term cost (retirement of debt) Con - - Higher inital cost (construction and operation of high tech treatment facility) 3. Certainty of Supply Worksheet Portland Pro - - Bull run system. - Reliable (Subject to environmental pressure to maintain stream flow and resistance to increasing storage volume, ie raise dam height.) - Simplicity of Tigard purchase and distribute water. Con - - Bull run system constraints (ESA) may limit growth (expansion) potential. - Control by City of Portland Council. - Subject to pressure to cut off supply to outside users. - Possible sending of Bull Run to Portland, wells to outside users. - Portlands take it or leave it attitude. Willamette Pro - - Existing Water Rights (current and projected uses) - Reliable supply (Corps of Engineers dams operating proceedures require in stream flow) - Tigard (and regional supply participants) control destiny. Con - - Complex system to finance, own and operate. ~ti~ 11 1111 111 YEMENI Based upon my interpretation of the evidence presented and the rigid time frame within which we work, I make the following observations: 1. Please recall my motion to ask if Portland would amend its ordinances and allow us to share equally as a partner in the Bull Run water source. My purpose in making the motion in the first place was to verify that Portland is really not that inter- ested in providing a guaranteed potable water supply to this part of the metropolitan area. Tigard has a very serious problem. It needs to secure an unequivocal, guar- anteed water supply. As far as I am concerned, if Portland will only sell surplus water to surrounding cities, we have an overwhelming argument for going to the Willamette River. However, if Portland should amend it's ordinances and allow us equal entitle- ment to its water supply, the possibilities for meaningful negotiations for the long term change dramatically. (Parenthetically speaking, were I on the Portland City Council, I would PAweF i-A vote to alter Portland's primacy to it's water source.) 2. 1 do not believe continued studies on Willamette River water will prove that fruit- ful. 3. The quality of treated Willamette River water has been certified as adequate to meet known needs. 4. Oregon's learned scientific establishment, (OSU-Corvallis) has been drinking treated Willamette River water for years. 5. More and more consumption on the Bull Run system encourages more and more potential demand on Columbia River sources--Hanford is upstream. 6. So while I feel uncomfortable with the constant shadowing Ot;bur consultants, and the idea that we may likely be offered water that may smell in the summer, the worries of making the right decision...... based upon the totality of information presented to date (including the fundamental importance of water rights as well as cost), com- bined with constant assurances as to the acceptability of Willamette River water as a reliable, treatable, source, I will vote for the Willamette River treatment plant. a ~ ~~lit ~ ~orKsheet .r-- ta►~~v Of Su~~ y iilame~e Raver irs cer W resevO of Lngineers Gorps lour flo~.:. stored in t summer +~1and pro jater ds all P- U en Cortland - to contr°l •`1pO c connecti°n v%yth Po Z:rrvo~rs, Bull R rese re se out of v emeen ~t - wellss ;ester °~xatin.; - ve aquifers,a ale water .M°r a Tonal ;:a er L ° o_ t; pro eia71 proylde tiahen ReG New ...'c_: yak built Raver en filtration gloat swith Glackamas ure Gave ~ voiiwh t up iUtertj-e islat a' Le6 ~ Plan is se at Powell Valley° k4!, n shallow wells Bull Run water. rites to J u rL~~~.`( all m- con d environ- con orth:;est sorest plan an top°raphy Of 4._ . c . Presidents N at Pam 3• Steep tro3hy a catas tnentbllistspwill f y mudflows • Fire ~ompete d rove to ink p°licy• stem ~ w4tersheof Portland chanttourers. ;,e]-~ink system tics a cus ; ; politics oli h esal ther wof witjj 19 °n• t v e GL tO Bur n t {T~rtrs T T TrrT Hwy- ` ty Of Supp'y Worksheet Certals~ ~r willamette River Portland Pro pro V-;~ L~ I-.- ~ - ►a~~- ~ ~,'Y` d~ a ,~N~h` cam ~ h cy"a OL, Con W Con o,.° wozh~( 7 Una~ a 9-UXL cum, w w m~ °r" act vyu,w TO fir, d~ "''diA NOUN= piV ~°r~s"eet 11 ~aint~ of sub River ce W111-amette to ntTt~~b~N7l a~ AsER S►f~® fE portland Pro 005 ~r,~k TilvER nrr,TY xa)o, gtMgNT' Y GA R°L °FQuRtIrY 90A ~~rR6R~v $ FxP~,voRC, ® g~N~ Pro p1R~G ROTyEA TAN RcM ofR ~uww j~u~ PBf~aYr,~caY S p~r f a ,~Up ~R INy WOOL W EST /J 5uN p~0s WAVE t ~dtG v~P NO o yDvQ( F5 e¢ FvTa~F ur1C~R~~rN'~Y TAtER~ F1~aR+ CVELo gxPAr~sfo~ lNnus7RlRL D PLOT N5 MAC R~S~R,cT flK~ Coll To '~~ERrMNT ou5 Y~L. Of If ~ 7N1RD tN'f dAZaRb £~v~RONME'~ ESPE~Itt~ 'L VlPrr~ SHED PANT`! F&ut,ATtO~ flF POT"Ta"PuN tNtd CA of SUL,- Run! olpLf5 of )06, ~£S~RvaO~ R~~u~StCfl Pao' a fy worksheet certainty OtllA999 River W illame~e John Helser view 1-n mitted By' 3 h gW Gou 97070 Sub vine OR pro: ssured• are "in hand„ uitably located. d Wilson Ownership'swater rights is purchased and u sJ1 year noun p,ortlan4 ecessary facility adeq with little ♦ All n eatment assures roues, e Land for trflow of Wiliame s is ti.e 'multiple " several citizen g Re gulated h1c even pro- supported by to handle catase ergerncy)- Actively osition. supply' f1e-, ility case of ern has organized OPP ♦ Greater draw from in day p oerations from Wiliaea f orm gull Run sources less to of day todiverted e More control water water avert anon, use than o Gallon for . aver EA I 'Vjcations) land option• SP, °n %MV er than port {this may implemented soon Would be osed by some citizen groups. conActively opP agreements {dam interagency rovals; con' at more peCrn~ts approval; lan tsde s-; etc i Requires ASR testin9~ contra aUstatelloca p cts; edby other lurls6ct►ons, modifications; feder Wholesale supply impact thereof). makIn9 clout peak season eiforts {or lack little decision drought conservation have Kelat►vely events, hic Smaller entities haddress catastroP of service. flmOv lty to a disrUptio. Less or temp°ia ot►attoms conditions for contract n g ,Time needed Ulr~r 4+- Certainty of Supply Worksheet Portland Willamette River Pro Pro pp -lam !6 A s~sr~o+n PNs c. i-W dA~ "Po w- / Con con 1,=NVIPZM C b~~►~1 3 -?ass,ac ev RIB SF 1 ~t~° Certainty of Supply Portland Bull Run/Columbia River) Option Pro: Strong experience of the Portland Water Bureau staff. Con: Lack of ownership of system or part of the production. Distance that water is transported. Uncertainty of effects of Endanger Species Act on the total supply available from Bull Run, especially in the summer and early fall periods of each year. Aging primary distribution system n o Willamette River Option Pro: Geographically close to the current distribution system. Percentage of water withdrawn from the river as compared the minimum stream flow requirements for fishgrotection (less than.001 % of MSF) is insignificant. Con: Uncertainty of effects of Endanger Species Act % pt's or,(sheet Certalnt Of Sup \N1113mecte Rive' portland 'Pro c- - Pro ID) i~~- Con Can C, Ce t~ V o ~0 N f2 O jvvrv ply Worksheet River c,ertainty Of Su Willamette " than b much larger Watershed Portland pro fed by and therefor not as and o Willamette Rive S stem an e pond portland Water tural disasters as susceptible to na pro only i l meS of over gystem• and Political control ® None Proximity to source is an which level of economDing operation Higher and ong of supply rojects an my capital p h degree of certainty State the art Purification plant • State con None con terms of a contract leaving otiating n JIust commit before neg variables over No up front gmggai~g strength. dependent upon nterous po litical us with little or no bar of water • Long term availability ol; which We bave little or no contT ised? Will dams be ra needs are et? 3 etc• ➢ ,a dam be built? deman ➢ Willican available after 1) fish' s w industry How Wher e ds for water, Mueb a is is w Yort land s dev topment going• natural disasters ➢ dlor disruption due to y " • Significant risk of system closure an ➢ merest fates in water shed p Mud slides ➢ Fardl4n~es y volcanic acu°n the Columbia well fields ➢ contamination from floods or droughts to outbreak more des protect from Giardia and )0 Weather cYcles, i•e•. provi uate pr~ures to ant of consumption • Inade9 mission tines from source to po • tong trans for system failures opportunities o Antiquated delivery system' _ A Report to the Water Task Force By Phil Pasteris 4/1/1999 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Taskforce. It has been a privilege to take part in this opportunity to make a strategically correct and visionary recommendation to the Tigard City Council. The Council asked us to address a number of water issues and my statement addresses "Certainty of Water, Quality of Water and Cost of Water." With respect to Certainty. It was Mark Twain who said "whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over." Although we have come along way since the late 1800s in determining water rights and usage, the bottom line is that when you turn the faucet on, there better be water coming out. As a hydrologist and meteorologist in my professional career with the Department of Agriculture, a significant portion of my job deals with predicting and managing water, at times a very scarce resource in the West. In fact, due to the snowfall patterns resulting from La Nina, the Southwestern U.S. is expected to receive near record minimum runoff this spring, while some areas of the Pacific Northwest may experience near record maximum runoff this spring. If this contrast is a symptom of climate change and the trend is to more frequent and greater extremes, it makes sense to choose a drainage basin of over 7,280 square miles with 11 storage reservoirs instead of a 2 reservoir system that drains 102 square miles to supply our water. The water management agencies entrusted with managing the Willamette must maintain a minimum flow of 6,000 cubic feet per second at Salem, Oregon. The maximum intake, based on the maximum water right granted to the Wilsonville treatment plant, is 186 cubic feet per second. It is my judgement that certainty of water is not an issue with the Willamette, but is certainly a cause for alarm if we were to rely on a 102 square mile watershed and enter an extended period of dry years in the next century. The political issues surrounding certainty are much more complicated than the hydrologic or climatic. Given the opportunity to make a decision now to guarantee water into the middle of the next century, free from the politics associated with "return on investment" used by Portland to build their system, the answer is clear. Let's make the call to put in the Wilsonville water treatment plant and move onto other issues that will have greater impacts on this region's livability. With respect to Quality. I am a product of the Midwest having grown up in Joliet, Illinois. Midwest water distributed through public systems is treated. I am completely comfortable with the technology I viewed during the Corvallis Water Treatment tour earlier this year and that proposed for Wilsonville. My daughter is a Sophomore at Oregon State University and I have no misgivings about her drinking the tap water. As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved, especially with the proposed, but yet unapproved improvements to the Portland system that may, or may not, be subject to a public vote in which we, Tigard and surrounding areas, may have no legal right to vote. With respect to Cost. The excellent presentation by Wayne Lowry shows that the costs may be a bit higher now, but when asked specifically if there would be mandatory water reductions or rationing in the summer based on Willamette water rights , the answer supplied to the Task Force by the City Officials was "no." I want the water to be there. Let me choose whether or not to water my lawn or use water based on cost and my respect for this precious resource. I am confident that the technology used will provide an excellent cost/quality ratio to the people of this region. In conclusion, based on the information provided to me, full attendance of all meetings, and independent research I have performed, I am 100% in favor of the Wilsonville Water Treatment Plant. beet Certainty of Supply Works Willamette River Portland Pro % I - u re g O Pro e C con cons s-e cu +r e V\ 0 stv+~ e1 Q~s A r nk nos, uo:) ~3C of tom!+w"~ VrA UOO lodw oad vod i oad pug , to N 1J~ p ,ant ~1ddnS ~ aaauSVoM MENNEN= Supply Worksheet Certainty of \Nwame'te River portland pro pro G con con z) 1 3. ~ J CertaintY of Supply Worksheet Willairette River Portland pro 7-V N 'D AJ Yu pro CO 1 / t / If v C sj G`l5r'~ !on wr, con C T/.ac--r/ 74 he' --r Ce4.lc'ql Can -S1,, r VD C/v ~i o- ..~.~rwane~rna~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ►~IIIBIYi111~ft16N~f~Nln~r~mnrmnrrt ~ WWWWON0,00 1111~11~'~~ p~~' Supp~Y warksneet Certainty 9~ Willamette River Portland Pro y~AAe pro Alf- con con lP/t et GD~ ,y/1 } {uc..~ /bto cio certainty Of Supply WorKsheeC W1113mette River port~and Pt0 7~7 a~ pro U Con con ua1i~4 ow i dap ~NateC w~ua~'e ~ R►~re _ - yj clylJl~E~ _ Pr I pr.0 •~fffr~-~1 Con L " r° Al i f1~ , r r, C©%~ 111G c ' T~TCrT~rT`~ 'O - .~-r~T T h T T AA N 11 . • if J 1 : i- ~ ,1 •1 ! ..'f ! 'r .^r . t r 7 +r r v v • f , U00 t r ~i 1, ~ ..)1` , G ~ c,r» f r r rr, r ' r. -,f, oid r~ . , • t , , - oaa puel~ EM Mommomm, ali U worysneet 000 Tap weer Chu Oi1arY►e e River and pro i Ports dt pro r ~ ~ ~v ca/t-~£S c3F CA De° 15u ~~v, . X55. ' ~ r UM ~ ~ ~ /tars S ~ 7 Con Jo con tsS -6 Lj Tap Water Quality Worksheet Portland Willamette River Pro Pro Zhu-) ATEV, ??E5T~ W&TEZ PQEFWMC- ~ -4? C I uveA t k.9, Con Con F s Tap Water Quality Worksheet Portland Willamette River Pro-Over a 100-year track record of delivering Pro. SAFE drinking water to its' customers. - No detectable Arsenic in Bull Run water - Protected watershed (closed to agricultural, industrial and recreational activities) A - Govt. testing of chemicals has been done on each chemical separately rather than on the mixture of dhemicals you actually find in the Willamette River. - All EPA chemical toxicology testing has, and is being done based on the chemical effect on a 155 pound male, but it is children who are at most risk from this situation. - "The Willamette River as a-Dotential source o drinking water is problematic because the water can be treated but will still contain trace amounts of dioxins." (Don Yon, Willamette River Basin Coord. DEO1 - The Montgomery Watson ;rater sampling study ha Con No record of delivering a SAFE drinking not been fully completed according to regulations. water supply from the proposed location of (Charles D.Scott, Ph.D. ACT.BCFE the filtering plant. Con if neeed, So. Shore Well - blending with - An Oregon toxicologist with the Center for Bull Run (What's the difference - we do Disease and Epidemology told me on the ph ne some blending now with Tigard's water supply. March 30, 1999, that the use of OZONE for drinkinn_ water filtration needs more stud because of some negative byproducts that re still questionable. - EPA's lowering of Arsenic level could im- pact the Willamette River as a drinking water source - both in safety and additio al costs to be in compliance with EPA stds. - UNKNOWN CAUSE FOR DEFORMED FISH IN NEWBE POOL. - Possible breakdowns of co-I equipment - Dioxin - Recycled sewage water - DEO 9,le cha F - ARSENIC founAgeiR Willamette River Tap Water ouality Worksheet Winamette River Portland ~ Pro 7' / P'►t I Pro rl. •~v //~n r f~ r ~~+1- hPeE-t :r's-'•.~'cr a Uvr~/~'►'!~ !S u j1i l grc~do.r+~ @k/s 1'%rr~ tG~+ ✓jC°G tiffs! ~ 7Rc" > e' ~ ,JO►+~' ~c~.v wa. ! a CJ ~e L ay / oC►rTjt OV/d ~.frCo m: y,rsG E ll /T T akHy Gf/Q/G►' syS ~vr ! S• 4 • y / / 1t ~ztcOxcc.:al CZ V CU ~~pY'YIe. '/cK~ l,~ ¢/Irr+~GelaTPi►',hoarCY ov/f . Ale hatlc r+Q ~ /crud -Sl, '0 r m 114r Con ~~c 7"~~orGo.~✓1 Con ~ ee C 9 /e r ~ ~ ~1Ti►~ t.~J -71- Ile 'Y 1.~ /'7)I ~G ci t l1 . its WQ~~S~~~t ai Tap ~ateC ~u Will3 mette er N 1C6'f ► ► pro portiv ILA/ el 15 t 1.I-- O A. f T Pro /fAl V) j J s 5~- lv tN (3 con t- con Al (f- t-< r tjlv or sfiAr W!A r . 4iv 1• D EM t~ta e J! 6~ ~k~ 5~,,1A a ~~r3 oN 'L r OS 4QA 15 j< . M 14 . fi t r5 ty~ G ~f b~ t4l ~LY2 1114, H~y `jtJt 17 -TI? pa et-PJ~ yo 0 IL~,~ V low ~al Capmater Cit4 worksheet - \Nillamette River A ~ ovAGIry 0_0N.TZOL(A Portland pro w -C6p g t15 pro ~~~~,2, IAA ~ ?(ZA e)4 C~Ly CAMP o;z~,t~Y> > Con h QUAur7 Je JG C- T pv2 con 9re~,~,G!"', art C~~~NI,c Q yeNfl ,ptP~NPA" ` r t4 ,,~A AL A ie AAA L it~$l l Qebtrt~7 .G~~ J ~ATH~~~ J~a N t,1tCc=ttnN r pN~ #(A NS N o tNA4 oN A 6 A- T Z~ No VIA' d~C,RA AT 71 Water Advisory Task Force Worksheet Evaluation April 1, 1999 1. Tap Water Quality Worksheet Portland Pro - - Bull Run, high quality water source. (very big positive, see attached water quality testing data.) - Consistant Con - - Reliance on wells that are directly connected to Columbia River. - Increased reliance on wells due to growth, and environmental pressure (ESA) on bull run supply. - No plan to treat Columbia River water. - No plan to test for pollutants in Columbia River water. - Does not meet EPA requirements to surface water treatment (filtration). - Soft water leaches copper and lead from plumbing resulting in increaded levels of copper and lead in drinking water. (Portland recently installed facilities to raise pH to mitigate this effect.) - Potential threat from giardia and crystosporium from unfiltered source. These diseases not amenable to treatment by chlorination. - Subject to episodes of high turbidity. - Idea that Portland is supplying "pristine" tap water is a myth. Willamette River Prb - -If 7 Iw11D ?,1?fll~ ID 36 Nlbk ~L kv \145.' . - Good quality water supply (not as high quality as Portland supply) ? - Treated water equal or greater in quallity to that of Portland. (Portland does not treat water other than pH control and disinfection.) Willametter River water treated to remove organics { (activated carbon), metals (floculation and settlement), turbidity (filtration), pathogens { (ozone). - Tap water equal to or better than Portland. CO JS A t -'1<.M I' Con - I - Subject to upstream contamination (ie. wastewater treatment plant discharges). - Pollutants from agricultural, urban and forest runoff (pesticides, herbicides). - Public perception. bA 2. Cost of Water Worksheet Portland Pro - - Lower initial cost (little treatment cost). - Bigger (numbers) base over which to distribute cost. - More financial muscle (bond rating, ability to sell bonds) Con- - higher long term cost (due to significant treatment capital and operating cost.) - Pipelines not in place to serve Tigard area. Willamette Pro - - Lower long term cost (retirement of debt) Con - - Higher inital cost (construction and operation of high tech treatment facility) 3. Certainty of Supply Worksheet Portland Pro - - Bull run system. - Reliable (Subject to environmental pressure to maintain stream flow and resistance to increasing storage volume, ie raise dam height.) - Simplicity of Tigard purchase and distribute water. Con - - Bull run system constraints (ESA) may limit growth (expansion) potential. - Control by City of Portland Council. - Subject to pressure to cut off supply to outside users. - Possible sending of Bull Run to Portland, wells to outside users. - Portlands take it or leave it attitude. Willamette ` Pro - - Existing Water Rights (current and projected uses) j - Reliable supply (Corps of Engineers dams operating proceedures require in stream flow) - Tigard (and regional supply participants) control destiny. Con - - Complex system to finance, own and operate. Based upon my interpretation of the evidence presented and the rigid time frame within which we work, I make the following observations: 1. Please recall my motion to ask if Portland would amend its ordinances and allow us to share equally as a partner in the Bull Run water source. My purpose in making the motion in the first place was to verify that Portland is really not that inter- ested in providing a guaranteed potable water supply to this part of the metropolitan area. Tigard has a very serious problem. It needs to secure an unequivocal, guar- anteed water supply. As far as I am concerned, if Portland will only sell surplus water to surrounding cities, we have an overwhelming argument for going to the Willamette River. However, if Portland should amend it's ordinances and allow us equal entitle- ment to its water supply, the possibilities for meaningful negotiations for the long term change dramatically. (Parenthetically speaking, were I on the Portland City Council, I would t-dt vote to alter Portland's primacy to it's water source.) 2. 1 do not believe continued studies on Willamette River water will prove that fruit- ful. 3. The quality of treated Willamette River water has been certified as adequate to meet known needs. 4. Oregon's learned scientific establishment, (OSU-Corvallis) has been drinking treated Willamette River water for years. 5. More and more consumption on the Bull Run system encourages more and more potential demand on Columbia River sources--Hanford is upstream. 6. So while I feel uncomfortable with the constant shadowing to Dur consultants, { and the idea that we may likely be offered water that may smell in the summer,-the a worries of making the right decision...... based upon the totality of information presented i to date (including the fundamental importance of water rights as well as cost), com- bined with constant assurances as to the acceptability of Willamette River water as a reliable, treatable, source, I will vote for the Willamette River treatment plant. s a ~l(/ 7f 14 ROM Tap Water Quality Worksheet Portland Willamette River Pro water is d but not pristine. Blended well Pro River is one of five water sources being con- water is okay moo. Clorine, amonia, and sodium hydr sidered for Portland Metropolitan Area Regional xide are not noticeable. Water Supply Plan. Multiple surveys, reports, test of raw water indicates the contamiranats will be pre-treatment levels of contaminants regulated and removed by the state of the art multi-barrier meth d unregulated arwell below maximum contaminant to safe levels or remove entirely. There are 40 levelo mint' cue1. wX ' m a.~ , •-Z 2~~ Ozone water plants in U.S. since 1970. Ozone is GiG~(Yitaeffective for control of pathogens, disinfection- ( . . by products. taste, rs, pesticides & metal. ((JJ°° GAC filter also hasAood reportsa i v Con Con Wells are v•ilnerable to contamination plum a if ,Jatershed is susceptible to agricultural, & in- pumped too much increases time-of-travel of plumes. dustrial pollution. 13 tributaries (major) are (pg 39&48 Portland Proposal) cuum polluted by nonpoint pollutants sources which pumping water out of an aquifer creates a vannum do not lend themselves to regulatory control. which can cause contamination to travel towards well I hope a concerted effort is madeclean up the B lending has low contaminant risk (pg. 6 r: 13) river banks. as rgcoTmended y dillamette River Raw water has minute contaminebts.(Portland Water Basin Task Force quality report )ta x1t %411' VVateC Quality WooKsheet 'rap Willamette River f Portland d. V6 GAAJ~ pro &AXT'-R Pro u.bjj- 107.OYLk- C~.um con con • ,~1~- ' 10 Ca,Un- Oil pil Bill worKs!~eet Tap mater quail y Willamette River and Pro e ~4c, ~,rTY of POC`tl TftT~ ~ T~ saRL ~oR 1 Fpot,,,Mo CAW09"' fo~4 a o➢IAY awT f°o! " ~RR~w~Aa o,oOrRnAjsJA+J'rs & T ~ysrs 2 oR~RN~G Pro wRfrR ,rv Gr® e~SE G►R~R~ yyNrrtE~''c R~y~,pE ri~Sr~fE Goon +~~kL 15 f1 (..J M fl ~.J z'O t~ C,R-tpfoSi°Q~►Dr~` - Oz oCR ~rosfo{t►vruNt E0 S ETHRN ~awottdlPt ~~F?t.0 Prc~ ~ ~4, 05 Con ~Tjavu~~ ~~~ca~t~►?' 6~,R~ rs TR~►~r~~►T~T~o~S on F1ME F~~ RAY R¢Q~` a KNaa 'r:Mg {~3 prANT ~rtt ,~rELa, f i t TR~•fiON ~ "r3~ A ~ e~ SQI~,cY ~d R W 5ytoa~ TAI:pTPO P :l fl,5o RQQl-tF-s ~~~.r~pnff3 vo Tap Water W or~Sheet p ~ ~ t 1999 er lower Helser Wiliam e~e ~0hn SW View Ln Willamette water has Submitted 6y 31305 0Rng7070 pro: icals, treated ville Portland water' icals that are no Wilson 4, for regulatedthem ove chetn Portland levels than untreatea Tiers to rem water multi ple b detected. other water erceive to be an @ provides not monitored, not researc s in the entire drinnaC►on)king le p regulated, lied , Ahan any that peop monitored< than} n better Pro knov~n com o~d water supply stud + 11 g ne water. rinkin9 water a Belter ly in the N° as$ tt (p be eve pOceptiona Y r►stine alp► me el d supp to sure o Calls to mind P to consistentlY Designed netoperated standards. s Deslg standards. Con t some People are reluctant to inodity ha delormed f►sh- : iliac com 6 An unfar of portland Harbor and filtrat►on drink. ind ima9eS oridium unt►uunless e Calls to'm Giard%a of CrIptosP Con: are built. ® N° barrier t0 facilities b products. copper rule)' ted'On and d►slnfect►on er►n9lead and i her levels eiswnater ~trig9 lumb►a ,,ell field. tJlare "a99ress►v untreated) CO ~ Dependence on t rily erceptionispeculation. on p facts; some ate based prima roslcons are documented by NptE: Some of these p xTN~~ x:rY`R~rt~ t4 1 Tap Water Quality Worksheet Willamette River Portland Pro - "Ct:o rnes-U s`ue' C~sa'~ sa~~ Pro v con con ' ~a r ~ ~~~a `2~~ar1 Tap Water Quality Portland (Bull Run/Columbia River) Option Pro: History of supplying quality water. Con: Unfiltered supply. Aging primary distribution system. Blending of Columbia River water with water from the Bull Run system. Willamette River Option Pro: Filtered supply. No unfiltered water blended into supply. New state of the art filtration plant. New state of the art distribution system. Large volume of water flow to dilute any oil or hazmat spill upstream. Con: Urban and agricultural development in the Willamette watershed. IBM Tap water ®uality Worksheet H 0 VVIttamette River Portland Pro pro ~ ~-<<.~~- ~~5~ • , Con Con L V J b rl aD O O CO A N ~v v . atitY orKsh~et Qu -tap mater Wiilamette River p°rtiand pro tion system vain produce p water water in of the art urifica safest tap once only state us},ity. ination °f water ationi highest q119-l' sk of contain roCess. does not require filtr Very low n and distribution p pro entlY the purification an a Raw water curt l dislnfec ords ent EPA drinking Water stand Meets curt con i None of _ wire insWlat'on a will req con ears. Uncertain n yre Within next t s ,at would urifica s stem tu p Susceptible to various na uality disaster Suscep ficarit impact °n q have signi _ A Report to the Water Task Force By Phil Pasteris 4/1/1999 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Taskforce. It has been a privilege to take part in this opportunity to make a strategically correct and visionary recommendation to the Tigard City Council. The Council asked us to address a number of water issues and my statement addresses "Certainty of Water, Quality of Water and Cost of Water." With respect to Certainty. It was Mark Twain who said "whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over." Although we have come along way since the late 1800s in determining water rights and usage, the bottom line is that when you turn the faucet on, there better be water coming out. As a hydrologist and meteorologist in my professional career with the Department of Agriculture, a significant portion of my job deals with predicting and managing water, at times a very scarce resource in the West. In fact, due to the snowfall patterns resulting from La Nina, the Southwestern U.S. is expected to receive near record minimum runoff this spring, while some areas of the Pacific Northwest may experience near record maximum runoff this spring. If this contrast is a symptom of climate change and the trend is to more frequent and greater extremes, it makes sense to choose a drainage basin of over 7,280 square miles with 11 storage reservoirs instead of a 2 reservoir system that drains 102 square miles to supply our water. The water management agencies entrusted with managing the Willamette must maintain a minimum flow of 6,000 cubic feet per second at Salem, Oregon. The maximum intake, based on the maximum water right granted to the Wilsonville treatment plant, is 186 cubic feet per second. It is my judgement that certainty of water is not an issue with the Willamette, but is certainly a cause for alarm if we were to rely on a 102 square mile watershed and enter an extended period of dry years in the next century. The political issues surrounding certainty are much more complicated than the hydrologic or climatic. Given the opportunity to make a decision now to guarantee water into the middle of the next century, free from the politics associated with "return on investment" used by Portland to build their system, the answer is clear. Let's make the call to put in the Wilsonville water treatment plant and move onto other issues that will have greater impacts on this region's livability. With respect to Quality. I am a product of the Midwest having grown up in Joliet, Illinois. Midwest water distributed through public systems is treated I am completely comfortable with the technology I viewed during the Corvallis Water Treatment tour earlier this year and that proposed for Wilsonville. My daughter is a Sophomore at Oregon State University and I have no misgivings about her drinking the tap water. As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved, especially with the proposed, but yet unapproved improvements to the Portland system that may, or may not, be subject to a public vote in which we, Tigard and surrounding areas, may have no legal right to vote. With respect to Cost. The excellent presentation by Wayne Lowry shows that the costs may be a bit higher now, but when asked specifically if there would be mandatory water reductions or rationing in the summer based on Willamette water rights , the answer supplied to the Task Force by the City Officials was "no." I want the water to be there. Let me choose whether or not to water my lawn or use water based on cost and my respect for this precious resource. I am confident that the technology used will provide an excellent cost/quality ratio to the people of this region. I I In conclusion, based on the information provided to me, full attendance of all meetings, and independent research I have performed, I am 100% in favor of the Wilsonville Water Treatment Plant. stet t~uatity Worksheet Tap W Willamette over Portland 1y~c Pro r,. ► PG PrYo i1 Con n PpA -TT'7 T e x 7.7rr7s~ril!~T low alitV Worksheet wwwwwww Tap Water Qu ~ W iliame~e Raver portland pro ?w, uR-~ of W~rt~2. ~ -chAt` 3 ttrkov4'4 pro ~,~~,1~ _ ~rf A4 ~►~+m'"-~ Quv3L~' t `~1o~~c~• Con +for Coll LL' 6' ~4 P C' 1 ell .t \NQr~sheet Imp Water wall ~1 wtilamee River poftmnd Pro pro con con T TTfTf ~Y s Tap Water Qua11tV WorKsheet r~&Willamette River Portland pro f~~tlor ~ So'r.rcC1 Pro lt:, r~ vr~''` Con Con J'j LIM C, a ~)~~riC~- ell < ~Qy G't t.D ^ o- I Gf~~•y 7~C~; . 6-5 ~y ce ' d ,Igo Will Quatit~l Worysheet Tap Water \Nillamette Rlver Portland pro pro o, 7Yj Con con Tap water Quality Worksheet Portland Willamette River Pro Pro r G;i4 Con con IN I; G~ TTU T c x .T.TrTTSTT?)!7'T N N IL m J d cc WATER ADVISORY TASK FORCE MEMBER ATTENDANCE RECORD ° N ' L` I V m iD FIRST LAST FEB 18 FEB 25' MAR 4 MAR 1.1 MAR 18 MAR 2S APR 1 APR 8 TONL Stara Bay mhoffer X X X X X X 6 14Jaine Beaus' and X X- X X X X X X_ 8 Bode Bishop X X -left early X X X X X 7 RESIGNED Martha Bisbo x X X X X X 6 ° Grekben Baehner x X X X X X X 7 Patrick Carroll x X X X X X X 7 Henrietta Cochran x X X X X X X X 8 John Cook 0 Craig Dirksen x X X X X X X 7 Jan Dram sholt X X X X X X X X 8 Deli Fennell x X X X X 5 Scott Franklin x X X SUB 4 Bev Fronde x X X X X X X X 8 Bob Gray x X X X X X X 7 John Haan a er X X X X X 5 John Heiser x X X X X X 6 Marland Henderson X x x X X X X 7 Mann Leach 0 LL Mark Mahon x X X X X X X X 8 sterling Marsm x X X X X X X 7 Gene McAdsum x X X X X X X 7 m Bill McMona e x X X X X 5 m Dennis Moore X I a Clarence Nicoli X X X X X 5 I m m m 117103331USR1DP.PTS1PMWAIrATIW.dao" 04/09/99 1 10 - APR ~ a X X X 4 B i8 132S X X X X 6 LAST X X X X ~ , ~T ~ en X X X X X X X 4 r ~ X Paul ?asg~ri~ X X X X 8 v p~~ pem~e~' X X X lelaces~a~1 ex X X Vol X• X ~o~ ' vpiit~a X X ~0 VY006 0 r Y • 04149!99 'doe 'L MEW 11 moll - 11-11111 NNE AGENDA ITEM # For Agenda of: April 13.1999 CITY OF TIGARD, OREGON COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ISSUE/AGENDA TITLE: Vacation of an approximately 28,645 square font portion of a detour easement along S 13 h Avenue. south of the Summer Creek Apartments. PREPARED BY: Julia Powell Haiduk DEPT HEAD OK A/ CITY ADMIN OK VVIVI ISSUE BEFORE THE COUNCIL. Should the City Council vacate an approximately 28,645 square foot portion of a detour easement along SW 135`' Avenue, south of the Summer Creek Apartments? STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the vacation as requested. INFORMATION SUMMARY The City Council initiated this Vacation on February 23, 1999 (Attachment 2, Resolution No. 99-11). The Bowen Real Estate group requested that the City Council Vacate a detour easement along SW 135°i Avenue. In 1989, a twenty (20)-foot slope and detour easement was granted (Easement Document 89-20392) for the construction of SW 135" Avenue. Now that the construction of SW 135 Avenue is finished, the slope and detour easement is no longer necessary. Generally, when easements of this nature are required, there is language in the recording document stating that the easement can be deleted upon completion. However, there is no mention of that in this easement recording document. The slope easement and a portion of the detour easement were previously vacated for the property to the south by Ordinance No. 87-03. The applicant is requesting that the remaining portion of the detour easement be vacated since it has served its purpose in aiding the construction of SW 135th Avenue. The applicant would also like to remove the appearance of a conflict between the easement and their existing development because the easement now runs through an apartment complex built on the property. Appropriate agencies have been contacted for comments and did not provide any objections to the proposed vacation. Attachments: ATTACHMENT 1 - (Proposed Ordinance) e "Exhibit A" - (Site Plan) ® "Exhibit B" - (Legal Description) ATTACHMENT 2 - (Resolution No. 99-11 Initiating The Vacation) OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 1. Deny the easement vacation request. 2. Take no action at this time. VISION TASK FORCE GOAL AND ACTION COMMITTEE STRATEGY N/A FISCAL NOTES There are no fiscal impacts as a result of this request as all fees have been paid by the applicant. 135" Avenue Detour Easement Vacation iAcitywide\sum\vac135W.sum X4/13199 City Council Public Hearing) 24-Mar-99 5:25 PM No MEMO== lxwm~l I ;NEW