The URL can be used to link to this page

02/18/2003 - Packet FILE COPY Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Serving Tigard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area AGEND'A Tuesday, February 18, 2003 5:30 p.m. L Call to Order/Roll Call and Introductions Mcfio,:to cal'. meeting to order, strlfto talo roll call. 2. Approval ofMinutes January 21,2003 Motion from Board for minute approval. 3. Requests for Credit from Leaks—Tom Imdieke a. Stevens Marine,Inc. 4. Assistant PW Director's Utility Report—Dennis Koellermeier(15 minutes) 5. Informational Items Items will be discussed briefly if time allows—otherwise printed info will be distributed. 6. Public Comments Call for any commentq from public Z Non Agenda Items Call for non-agenda items from Board. Next meeting date- Wednesday,March 12, 2003, at the Water Auditorium. (Back to regular meeting dates) 8 Adjournment—Approximate Time 6.30 p.m. Motion for adjournment. Move to Town Hall for joint workshop meeting with Tigard City Council. A light dinner will be provided. Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660(1)(d), (e), 69&(h)to discuss labor relations,real property transactions,current mrd pending litigation issues and to consider records that are exempt by law from public inspection. All discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of the news media are allowed to attend this session. but must not disclose n„y .nformation discussed during this session. Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes January 21, 2003 Members Present: Brian Moore, Jan Drangsholt, Norm Penner, and Bill Scheiderich (arrived late at 5:43 pm) Staff Present., Ed Wegner, Tom Imdieke, Sally Mills, and Kathy Kaatz Visitors: Paul Owen, Roel Lundquist, Jim Dedmon (Scholls Car Wash), Martin Soloway (Greenburg Oaks Apartments) 1. Call to Order, Roll Call and Introductions Commissioner Jan Drangsholt called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes— November 19, 2002 Commissioner Brian Moore motioned to accept the November 19, 2002, minutes and Commissioner Norm Penner seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to accept the minutes. 3. Requests for Credit from Leaks— Tom Imdieke Greenburg Oaks Apartments— Martin Soloway, deputy director of Community Partners, was in attendance represented the apartment complex. Tom Imdieke, Finance Manager, reported that there had been a leak for sometime and both the City and CPAH had worked to determine the leak location. The problem has been repaired and CPAH has been going through the process to get some financial relief. A formula has been developed for issuing credits using normal procedures under the Tigard Municipal Code; however credits above$500.00 require approval of the Intergovernmental Water Board. Both the City and CPAH request that the credit be issued. (Tape Recorder Turned On) Tom Imdieke explained that the methodology used takes into consideration the vacancy rate and peak consumption in order to come up with the equitable amount for credit. He said the leak-could have started as early as January 1999 and numerous attempts were made to detect the cause of the leak. Commissioner Brian Moore made a motion to credit CPAH with $4,026.81 and Commissioner Norm Penner seconded the motion. The board members voted unanimously to allow the credit. Intergovernmental Water Board 1 January 21,2003 DRAFT COPY Scholls Car Wash--Jim Dedmon was there representing Scholls Car Wash. Tom Imdieke gave a brief history of the Scholls Car Wash; basically, that the car wash opened in September 1998, and at that time they had no basis to evaluate the consumption they would incur at the site. Over time their computer program showed increased consumption when compared with their other five car wash sites (two of which are identical to the Scholls site). The car wash has been working with Public Works staff over the past 1 %years to identify the problem. Public Works has worked on the optics at the site, which reduced the consumption to be comparable to other similar sites. In June 2002 the meter was replaced, but no further reduction occurred. There has been no clear resolution as to what caused the situation, but currently the consumption rate seems to be under control. The car wash has requested they receive a credit to offset the leak going back to the opening of the car wash in September 1998. The calculations the City of Tigard made would grant a credit that would include the mark up based on analysis and consumption rate of similar sites. Based upon that analysis a credit of$3,987.00 would be given for water and $3,027.49 for sanitary service for that time frame. Staff met with Mr. Dedman to explain to him the previous practices of the IWB regarding credits. The car wash is requesting a full credit. Ed Wegner explained that the optics were replaced and later the meter, however the manufacturer could not find any malfunction in the meter. Jim Dedman has checked his records and equipment as well and found no malfunction on his side either. Mr. Imdieke stated that the board needed to consider two issues, (1) the amount over the $500 Tigard Municipal Code limits permitting staff to approve for credit, and (2) the methodology the Tigard Municipal Code allows to grant a customer in calculating the credit or mark up value. Commissioner Moon: asked what authority the IWB had to deviate or vary from what the Tigard Municipal Code states. Mr. Imdieke said that historically the IWB has split the difference with the customer; however, he thought that anything above that would need to go to the Tigard City Council for any deviation from the code. There was a brief discussion regarding the issue and to clarify the board members' understanding of the authority they hold in granting credit or whether the issue should be sent to the Tigard City Council for resolution. Commissioner Jan Drangsholt made a motion to recommend approval of a credit in the amount of$11,704.42 for the Scholls Car Wash because Tigard Water System had not been able to discover a leak and it seemed there may have been a malfunction of- equipment fequipment characterized as a billing error. Commissioner Brian Moore seconded the motion and the board was unanimous to approve the motion. 4. PW Utility Report— Ed Wegner ASR—The project is nearing completion of the final report A meeting with the contractor took place last week to review the draft report and they expect the final document the first Intergovernmental Water Board 2 7anuary 21,2003 DRAFT COPY week of February. The injection process for summer storage will start the second week in February with a target injection rate of 700gpm or 1 mgd for 120-150 days. Flow Test—Testing will take place the end of this month to see how much water we get from the Bradley Comer connection, which is where we get our Portland water from. Alberta Rider School and Reservoir Site—The process for construction of the pump station and piping improvements has started. Brian Rager(from Engineering Dept.)will be transferred to Public Works within the next 30-60 days to handle the Water Capital Improvement Projects through the next two years until this project is completed. Commissioner Drangsholt requested information on what could be done about the water shortage due to the lack of snow fall. Mr. Wegner said that the City of Portland tells us that their water supply is not based on snow fall, but the Bull Run is based on rainwater. They have a good fill pattern and are not predicting anything yet. The Joint Water Commission (Scoggins) is on the same fill pattern. Snow pack has little to do with these sources at this time. 6. Informational Items- Ed Wegner Informational items were distributed and briefly reviewed with the board members by Ed Wegner and included the following points: 4t Two packets were distributed containing basic information on water supply issues, including feasibility studies, and the informational items • Consortium Board minutes • Articles from newspapers regarding the regional water entity • Letter from ex-Mayor Drangsholt regarding surcharge of water rates • Bull Run Treatment article • Mt. Tabor reservoir capping and drowning articles 6. Public Comments— None 7. Non Agenda Items Mr. Wegner reported that February will be the IWB's last scheduled joint meeting with the Tigard'City Council where comparisons will be made, questions and discussions and then decisions and recommendations from the IWB and Council will need to be made. Mr. Wegner indicated that there was dwindling enthusiasm for the Bull Run project due to the City of Portland's inability to meet and provide information to the interested agencies. Commissioner Moore stated that Portland's priorities have changed. 8. Adjoumment Commissioner Drangsholt motioned to adjourn the meeting and Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. All board members voted in favor of adjournment and the meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m. Intergovernmental Water Board 3 January 21,2003 DRAFT COPY MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Intergovernmental Water Board J_ FROM: Tom Imdieke, Financial Operations Manag RE: Stevens Marine Inc. DATE: January 22, 2003 The attached credit for leak request is being forwarded to you for your approval at the next scheduled meeting on February 18, 2003. The method used in calculating the amount of the credit is based on existing policy and there are no extenuating circumstances to this particular request. As noted in the request, a City meter reader actually discovered the leak that was caused by a frozen sprinkler pipe. The amount of the-credit as calculated would be $630.02 and requires your Board approval before processing. If you have any questions regarding this item, please feel free to call me at 503-718- 2488. 12/03/2002 11:53 FAX 503 639 1471 CITY OF TIGARD H db SpJ,Nklw) 0001 REQUEST FOR ADJUSTIV NNT DUE TO A LEAK The City of Tigard Utility)aepar=ent has a policy of issuing partial credits for leaks that are G3 90 repaired in a timely manner_ Genially,we expect leaks to be repaired within ten days of R discovery. Credits are based on your average usage for the same period in previous years. This average is deducted from the total consumption used during the time of the leak The excess usage is charged at the wholesale rate of water,with the difference between wholesale and resale cost deducted from the utility account as the Credit for Leak Please describe the specific circumstances of your request: we, WAD At S P'i nncJv A fa'p t -•�e- �� o c c.duvco , Wt. 1+-A0 ±4 C.-CA~L PLEA ETTER PLEASE SEND LETTER Date leak.found: �t 12-o r 1'3 — O 2 Date leak repaired: it —14-(22-- - Account##: 0116000- 000 Location of Service: .'.7to CustomerName: Wry tN t - - 1J Mailing Address: (j%60 StW- &Av AIKA a. SV - 'T-t Sfk f d n C� cl'I-a�S b DO-'t OX3 Street address City State Zig Phone . QA�� YtAA�E?r DOCUMENTATION .PLEASE SUBMIT COPIES OF PLUMBER'S BILLS AND/OR RECEIPTS FOR PARTS,REQUIRED TO FIX THE LEAK FOR OSCE USE ONLY J-'040 $1.56' $1.54 1.50 $I.93 - .91¢ _ 1 ' o I ¢ RES 3Wa COM IND mss ' 1$�I Maw Previous years usage: 1�S(D � 31p� 3S 3 _ -•� _ —7 41 5 s #Periods used �.-- 303 - " - s 01 (03D, 02 Average Leak Pcriod Leak cef Markup Credit Adjustment Total Credit:$(M' s� Date Issued: � �S U3 Issued B2 Invoice r: Number: dour to, arth Customer no: ; ,. Dote: ;_ /�� .. �. w..o,... (503)684-3500 P..upe Sold To: 13075 S.W.Pacific Hwy. Ship To: Tiga rd,OR 97223 J� c Your order no: Our order no:Date shipped Shipped via: FOB: Terms: Item Quantity Description 9uontity, Unit Amount Ordered Shipped Price C C� I I L-- Total Thank you for your order Due CITY OF TIGARD Utility Billing Printed: 01/22 • User:Sheryl Account History List I Account Number: 011600 000 Reference Number 7004650 Account Status: Ac Customer Name: STEVENS MARINE Owner Name: STEVENS MARINE Connect Date: ? Customer Address:9180 SW BURNHAM ST Service Address: 9180 SW BURNHAM ST Final Date: ? TIGARD OR97223- **************Account Balance************* Balance Due: 886.49 Water Sewer SWM Penalt Misc Sur hr Sery 7 ' 491.95 349.74, 74.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 •*•*•••**•*•••Account History****••••**•*** Date Type Amount Water Sewer SWM Penalt Wisc SurChrq Sery 7 01/15/2003 Balance 886.49 494.95 319.74 74.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/15/2003 Billing 886.49 494.95 349.74 74.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12/09/2002 Payment 2,193.06 1,757.59 352.87 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1-1/20/2002 Balance 2,193.06 1,757.59 352.87 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/20/2002 Billing 2,193.06 1,757.59 352.87 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10/04/2002 Payment 509.23 60.11 363.92 85.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/18/2002 Balance 509.23 60.11 363.92 85.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/18/2002 Billing 509.23 60.11 363.92 85.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 07/26/2002 Payment 1,172.09 753.34 337.45 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 07/17/2002 Balance 1,172.09 753.34 337.45 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 07/17/2002 Billing 1,172.09 753.34 337.45 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 05/24/2002 Payment 1,017.23 785.92 157.91 73.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 05/15/2002 Balance 1,017.23 785:92 157.91 73.4.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 05/15/2002 Billing 1,017.23 785.92 157.91 73.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04/08/2002 Payment 870.68 630.26 164.32 76.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 03/20/2002 Balance 870.68 630.26 164.32 76.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 03/20/2002 Billing 870.68 630.26 164.32 76.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/2512002 Payment 601..68 353.33 169:65 78.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/16/2002 Balance 601.68 353.33 169.65 78.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/16/2002 Billing 601.68 353.33 169.65 78.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12/11/2001 Payment 832.24 575.96 174.98 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/21/2001 Balance 832.24 575.96 174.98 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/21/2001 Billing 832.24 575.96 174.98 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10/05/2001 Payment 725.80 465.55 177.65 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/19/2001 Balance 725.80 465.55 177.65 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/19/2001 Billing 725.80 465.55 177.65 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 08/06/2001 Payment 552.00 282.74 184.06 85.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 07/18/2001 Balance 552.00 282.74 184.06 85.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 07/18/2001 Billing 552.00 282.74 184.06 85.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pagel CITY OF TIGARD. Utility Billing Printed: 01/22/03 14:13 User-sheryl I Account History List Account Number: 011600 000 Reference Number 7004650 Account Status: Active Customer Name: STEVENS MARINE Owner Name: STEVENS MARINE Connect Date: ? Customer Address:9180 SW BURNHAM ST Service Address: 9180 SW BURNHAM ST Final Date: ? TIGARD OR97223- **************Account Balance************* Balance Due: 886.49 Water Sewer SWM Penalt Misc SurChra Sery 7 Sery 8 491.95 319.74 74.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 **************Account History Date Type Amount Water Sewer SWM Pe a t Misc SurChrq Sery 7 Sery 8 06/01/2001 Payment 552.29 230.25 249.94 72.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 05/16/2001 Balance 552.29 230.25 249.94 72.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 05/1612001 Billing, 552.29 230.25 249.94 72.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04/02/2001 Payment 570.07 206.19 282.58 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 03/21/2001 Balance 570.07 206.19 282.58 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 03/21/2001 Billing 570.07 206.19 282.58 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02/05/2001 Payment 585.94 210.90 291.14 83.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/17/2001 Balance 585.94 210.90 291.14 83.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/17/2001 Billing 585.94 210.90 291.14 83.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/28/2000 Payment 623.83 295.68 254.75 73.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/15/2000 Balance 623.83 295.68 254.75 73.40 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/15/2000 Billing 623.83 295.68 254.75 73.40 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10/10/20(00 Payment 720.79 356.91 282.58 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/20/2000 Balance 720.79 356.91 282.58 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/20/2000 Billing 720.79 356.91 282.58 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -07/3112000 Payment 726.31 263.66 383.95 78..70 0.00 0.00 0..00 0.00 0.00 07/19/2000 Balance 726.31 263.66 383.95 78.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 07/19/2000 Billing 726.31 263.66 383.95 78.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 06/06/2000 Payment 803.11 317.21 403.30 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 05/17/2000 Balance 803.11 317.21 403.30 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 05117/2000 Billing 803.11 317.21 403.30 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 04/04/2000 Payment 744.41 320.27 352.04 72.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 03/15/2000 Balance 744..41 320.27 352.04 72.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 03/15/2000 Billing 744.41 320.27 352.04 72.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 02/11/2000 Payment 920..10 387.59 442.01 90.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/19/2000 Balance 920.10 387.59 442.01 90:50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/19/2000 Billing 920.10 387.59 442.01 90:50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/12/2000 Payment 884.64 444.20 365.64 74.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/17/1999 Balance 884.64 444.20 365.64 74.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Page 2 I CITY OF TIGARD Utility Billing Printed: 01/22/03 14:13 User Sheryl Account History List t Account Number: 011600 000 Reference Number 7004650 Account Status: Active Customer Name: STEVENS MARINE Owner Name: STEVENS MARINE Connect Date: ? Customer Address:9180 SW BURNHAM ST Service Address: 9180 SW BURNHAM ST Final Date; ? TIGARD OR97223- **************Account Balance Balance Due: 886.49 Water Sewer SWM Penalty Misc SurChrq Sery 7 Sery 8 491.95 319.74 74.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 **************Account History Date Type Amount Water Sewer SWM Penalt Misc SurChrq Sery 7 Sery 8 11/17/1999 Billing 884.64 444.20 365.64 74.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10/25/1999 Payment 939.88 461.03 397:55 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/24/1999 Payment 890.32 404.42 403.30 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/22/1999 Balance 939.88 461.03 397.55 81,30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 09/22/1999 Billing 939.88 461.03 397.55 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 07/21/1999 Balance 890.32 404.42 403.30 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 07/21/1999 Billing 890.32 404.42 403.30 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 07/16/1999 Payment 807.70 321,:80 403.30 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 05/19/1999 Balance 807.70 321..80 403.30 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 05/19/1999 Billing 807.70 321.80 403.30. 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 05/1311.999 Payment 613.28 181.04 358.84 73.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 03/23/1.999 Payment 755.83 285.08 390.75 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 03/17/1999 Balance 613.28 181.04 358.84 73.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 03/17/1999 Billing 613.28 181.04 358.84 73.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/20/1999 Balance 755.83 285.08 390.75 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/20/1999 Billing 755.83 285.08 390.75 80.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 01/04/1999 Payment 998.84 566.60 358.84 73.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11/18/1998 Billing 998.84 566.60 358.84 73.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 10/01/1998 Payment 1,354.36 860.36 410.10 83.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 09/23/1998 Billing 1,354.36 860.36 410.10 83.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 08/03/1998 Payment 919.39 433.49 403.30 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 07/22/1998 Billing 919.39 433.49 403.30 82.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ( BL 14 06/01/1998 Payment 769.84 548.24 140.30 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 's i 1 Page 3 CITY OF TIGARD Utility Billing Printed: 01/22/03 14:13 User:-sheryl i Account History List Account Number: 011600 000 Reference Numbor7004650 Account Status: Active Customer Name: STEVENS MARINE Owner Name: STEVENS MARINE Connect Date: ? Customer Address:9180 SW BURNHAM ST Service Address: 9180 SW BURNHAM ST Final Date: ? TIGARD OR97223- **************Account Balance************* Balance Due: 886.49_ Water Sewer SWM Penalty isc SurChrq Sery 7 Sery 8 491.95 319.74 74.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 • •**•**********Account History******•••***** Date Tvpe Amount Water Sewe SWM Penal Misc SurChrq Sery 7 Sery 8 05/20/1998 Billing 769.84 548.24 140.30 81.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 04/01/1998 Payment 746.79 543.65 128.34 74.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 03/18/1998 Billing 746.79 543.65 128.34 74.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 02/18/1998 Payment 701.60 497.75 141.85 62.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY . 01/21/1998 Billing 701.60 497.75 141.85 62.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 12/01/1997 Payment 747.50 543.65 141.85 62.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 11/19/1997 Billing 747.50 543.65 141.85 62.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..00 0.00 BL 10/10/1997 Payment 881.06 702.77 124.19 54.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 09/17/1,997 Billing 881.06 702.77 124.19 54.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 08/14/1997 Payment 982.58 771.62 147.06 63.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 07/23/1997 Billing 982.58 771:.62 147.06 6190 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 06/02/1997 Payment 774.95 505.40 208.55 61.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 05/21/1997 Billing 774.95 505.40 208.55 61.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 04/01/1997 Payment 400.88 158.09 187.69 55.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY Page 4 i I ' -ITY OF TIGARD Utility Billing Printed: 01i22/03 14:13 User=sheryi Account History List i Account Number: 011600 000 Reference Number 7004650 Account Status: Active Customer Name: STEVENS MARINE Owner Name: STEVENS MARINE Connect Date: ? Customer Address:9180 SW BURNHAM ST Service Address: 9180 SW BURNHAM ST Final Date: ? TIGARD OR97223- Account Balance************* Balance Due: 886.49 Water Sewer SWM Penal Misc SurChrci Sery 7 Sery 8 491.95 319.74 74.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 **************Account History pate Tvoe Amount Water Sewer SWM 1'enal Kisc SurChrci Sery 7 Sery 8 03/1-9/1997 Billing 400.88 458.09 187.61 55.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL 02/14/1997 Payment 377.26 129.82 191.34 56.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 PY 01/22/1997 Billing 377.26 129.82 191.34 56.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 BL Meter Information Route Number: 0070 Sequence Number: 5440 Serial Number: 6159 Read Dt Readin Consumption 01/10/03 000002058 000000245 11/14/02 000001813 000000881 09/12/02 000000932 000000031 07/09/02 000000901 000000414 05108/02 000000487 000000432 03/13/02 000000055 000000346 01/14/02 000009709 000000193 11/15/01 000009516 000000316 09/14/01 000009200 000000255 07/1'3101 000008945 000000154 05/09/01 000008791 000000125 03/15/01 000008666 000000129 1 i l Page 5 MEMORANDUM TO: I ntergovem mental Water Board FROM: Tom lmdieke, Financial Operations.Manag RE: Stevens Marine Inc. DATE: January 22, 2003 The attached credit for leak request is being forwarded to you for your approval at the next scheduled meeting on February 18, 2003. The method used in calculating the amount of the credit is based on existing policy and there are no extenuating circumstances to this particular request. As noted in the request, a City meter reader actually discovered the leak that was caused by a frozen sprinkler pipe. The amount of the credit as calculated would be $630.02 and requires your Board approval before processing. If you have any questions regarding this item, please feel free to call me at 503-718- 2488. Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Informational Items Supplement February 18, 2003 • Regional Water Providers Consortium Board, Executive Committee, Notes of November 13, 2002, meeting • Regional Water Providers Consortium Board Meeting, Minutes of December 4, 2002 • Water Supply Feasibility Study (WSFS), Supply Options Evaluation Summary • Oregonian article dated 2/6/03, Dayton may face fines for raw sewage spill • Tigard Times dated 1/30/03, City looks west for water supply • City comes up with a plan to safeguard well water, 2/4/03 article, Portland Tribune . Oregonian article dated 2/6/02, Wilsonville water plant weathers spill REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM BOARD EXECUTIVE COIVDM=E Notes of November 13,2002 Consortium Board Chairman John Huffman called the meeting of the Executive Committee (EC)to order at 5:47 p.m. Introductions were made. Executive Committee members present at the meeting included Councilor Forrest Soth from the City of Beaverton, Commissioner Bruce Fontaine from Clackamas River Water, Commissioner John Huffman from Powell Valley Road Water District, Councilor Don Allen from the City of Sandy, Commissioner Mike Grimm from Sunrise Water Authority and Board Vice President Jim Duggan from Tualatin Valley Water District. Other meeting participants included Tom Pokorny from Powell Valley Road Water District,Harvey Barnes from Rockwood Water PUD, and Dale Jutila from Clackamas River Water. Consortium staff included Lorna Stickel,Rebecca Geisen,Lindsey Berman and Patty Burk. Approval of Minutes: The Executive Committee unanimously approved tht minutes of August 14,2002 as written. Regional Water Supply Plan Update: Lorna.Stickel reviewed the memorandum on the Regional Water Supply Plan(RWSP)Update. The RWSP Update involves activities related to the Water Demand Forecast, Conservation Update, Integration Model, Source Options Analysis and Public Involvement. Source Options Analysis—Lorna Stickel reported that Economic and Engineering Services (EES)has prepared a final version of the water rights technical report. She noted that included in the meeting materials packet was a memorandum and table prepared by EES,which would help to facilitate a later discussion regarding future alternative modeling scenarios. The memorandum outlines the current base case resources,those built or committed and about new source options that have been discussed by the Consortium,in the RWSP, and in Master Plans or special studies prepared by individual water provider entities. Water Demand Forecast—Lorna reported that staff is working on producing demand forecasts for almost all of the water providers based on population forecast provided by Metro on their"base case" scenario. She noted that the forecasts will be created using provider data and identifying surrogate entities for those that did not have consumption/production data. Lorna commented that the population forecast from Metro is causing some irregularities and gaps in population numbers for some entities in part due to areas that have no water service area assigned. Ms. Stickel said the Consortium Technical Subcommittee(CTSC)has been wrestling with the decision of whether or not Consortium Executive Committee Meeting Minutes of November 13,2002 to wait until the allocated population numbers based on the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)decision in December are available from Metro. Ms. Stickel commented that Metro has now said that the new allocated population forecasts will not be available until June 2003. Ms. Stickel advised that the Consortium Technical Committee would be discussing this item at their meeting on November 19. Source Options Analysis (cont.) Loma Stickel reported that during the CTSC meeting held on October 21,preliminary source option strategies were identified for evaluation in the Confluence model. The discussion focused on the schedule of development of major source options. A memorandum from EES was provided in the meeting materials packet, which included a revised version of Table 1. This revised version of the table shows the "base case"and source expansion or development options that may be considered in the future execution of the Confluence model. Ms. Stickel explained that the base case is defined as those source options that are currently being utilized or are committed for development. Table 1 also indicates the estimated additional capacity to be made available by each project. , Ms. Stickel commented that six general source option strategies (some with sub options) have been proposed for the Confluence modeling. They're described in general terms below: A. Existing Master Plans—Include all projects for supply/capacity/transmission that are in the various master plans of the Consortium entities; does not include development of regional transmission. B. Limited Expansion/No Larger Projects—Smaller increments of source expansion and development throughout the region including"localized"sources(ASR, smaller WTP expansions and dam raises, groundwater development); allows development of regional transmission. C. West Side Source Development Emphasis—full Scoggins Reservoir Raise and JWC WTP expansion: (C1)without regional transmission; and(C2)with regional_ transmission. D. East Side Source Development Emphasis—Bull Run Dam#3/Bull.Run groundwater with regional transmission. E. South Side Source Development Emphasis—Utilize Clackamas River water treatment plant expansion: (El)to the highest level commensurate with existing water rights and Timothy Lake Dam Raise; and(E2)to the highest levels including existing water rights and added increment from water applications before Oregon Water Resources Department.Development of regional transmission is allowed for both strategies. F. Columbia River Emphasis—Utilize Columbia River to develop a water treatment plant: (F1)to highest level using the Rockwood 50-mgd water permit as the basis; and(F2)to the highest.level using Rockwood 50-mgd and assumed added increment of water rights. Development of regional transmission is allowed for both strategies. 2 Consortium Executive Committee Meeting " Minutes of November 13,2002 Councilor Forrest Soth asked why Aquifer Storage and Recovery(ASR)projects are being considered as a potential source when ASR depends on another source for water injection. Ms. Stickel advised that ASR is considered it own source because it makes large quantities ofwater available during a time when otherwise that water would not be available i.e.,peak summer months. Commissioner Mike Grimm commented that ASR could really be looked at as peaking source. Ms. Stickel asked the EC members to review and consider the identified source option strategies and provide feedback.Ms. Stickel noted that the new alternative source options would be presented to the Consortium Board at their December meeting for review and discussion. Chair Huffrnan asked if Consortium staff,when preparing the RWSP Update Progress Report, could provide a glossary of some sort for all of the acronyms found in such report. Conservation Review—Rebecca Geisen reported that Planning and Management Consultants,Ltd. (PMCL)reviewed the recommended programs in the 1996 Regional Water Supply Plan and current conservation technologies and knowledge. PMCL has completed an analytical evaluation on those conservation programs based on a set of criteria including technical feasibility, customer acceptability,utility acceptability and cost effectiveness. Based on this analysis,PMCL prepared a draft conservation program recommendation report. Ms. Geisen advised the draft report has been given to the Consortium Conservation Committee(CCC) and the CTSC for their review and feedback_ Ms. Geisen reported that residential information, education and awareness, trade ally irrigation and landscape workshops,property manager workshops, commercial, industrial and institutional(CH)indoor audits and large landscape audits were programs that meet all of the established aforementioned criteria. Ms. Geisen noted that there were some programs that did not rate as well for feasibility and acceptability but were very cost effective. They were waterless urinals,multifamily submetering,toilet rebates/replacements,residential indoor audits and evapotranspiration(ET) controller retrofits. Ms. Geisen said she has asked the CCC and CTSC to review the proposed programs and make their top ten program recommendations. Ms. Giesen commented that they continue to struggle with the reality that some conservation programs are better implemented on a regional basis and some on a subregional or individual water provider,level and how to reconcile that. She noted that a balance of conservation programs between residential and CII programs needs to be found. Ms. Geisen said the CTSC members decided that two conservation scenarios, a residential based emphasis and a CII based emphasis,would be 3 Consortium Executive Committee Meeting Minutes of November 13,2002 developed. An entity can then choose which emphasis they would like to have included in the Confluence model for their demand node. Commissioner.Grimm asked instead of having a two program emphasis approach, could each entity choose the conservation programs they feel is best for their own individual needs. Ms. Giesen said the number of conservation options needs to be limited because the model has to be run each time a change is made. Lorna said it could be done if for each node specific sets of programs are chosen up front. Commissioner Grimm said the idea would be that each individual entity board or commission would,commit to those programs that faired well regionally i.e.,education and outreach and then could pick a set of other conservation programs that fit their needs best and include those for their demand node. Dale Jutila commented that one of the challenges is how we maintain conservation as a regional effort. He noted that some conservation programs may be more effective in certain jurisdictions but it seems like we should be targeting something closer to a regional water conservation program rather than twenty-three separate ones. Board Vice President Jim Duggan asked if there is a significant difference in the amount of conservation done by individual_entities above what is being done on a regional basis would that create a big enough variable that it would be valuable to the model or is it just one of variables that factors into the uncertainty. Ms. Geisen said it would probably depend on what type of program was being done. She concluded it would be very difficult to know. The Executive Committee members discussed additional conservation programs and ideas. Ms. Geisen advised that she hoped the final conservation program recommendations report would be available at the December Consortium Board meeting. Conservation Committee Report: Lindsey Berman reported that the CCC recommended to the CTSC to renew the summer marketing campaign contract with Dodge, Schmitgall, inc. (DSi) for another year. Ms. Berman said the CCC hopes to work with DSi to expand some of the educational outreach to include a full year marketing spectrum rather than just concentrating on a summer marketing campaign. Ms. Berman reported that the Salmon Festival was held on October 12 and 13. She noted that approximately 8,400 people attended the festival and that the Consortium booth attracted a lot of visitors. The CCC is.currently planning for the Yard, Garden and Patio show in February and will again be participating in the Clean Water Festival in March. 4 Consortium Executive Committee Meeting Minutes of November 13,2002 Rebecca Geisen mentioned that DSi did an evaluation of the summer marketing campaign and the report will be in the Consortium Board meeting materials packet. She noted that each water provider would receive a copy of the television and radio advertisements.. Consortium Work Program and Budget for FY 03-04: Ms. Stickel reviewed the budget concepts for FY 03-04 memorandum that was included in the meeting material packet. She said at the Board meeting in December the process has been to present the budget concepts to the Board for discussion and then have the Board adopt the budget at their March meeting. Ms. Stickel reminded the EC members that the Consortium Intergovernmental Agreement actually calls for the adoption of the budget and work plan in February but the Board has always done it at their March meeting. Ms. Stickel noted that the Consortium has always waited until the March meeting because the water provider data used to calculate dues is not available until January,the Consortium Conservation Committee's detailed conservation budget is not available until after the beginning of the year,budget carryover amounts are often not available by the December Board meeting and article 8 of the Consortium by-laws state it will be the general policy of the Board to wait to take action on substantive policy matters only at a meeting following a meeting at which such policy matters were previously discussed. Lorna advised however,that at the 2001 December Board meeting the Consortium Board members seemed eager and ready to adopt the budget and work plan. Lorna commented that she has received several call from participants in the past prior to the March Board meetings asking for dues information for individual entity budgeting purposes which is one of the drawbacks of waiting to adopt the budget in March. Ms. Stickel advised that the CTSC made a recommendation to go forward with the adoption of the work plan and budget at the December Board meeting. Ms. Stickel said it is possible to adopt the work plan and budget in December and then adjust the Consortium dues sheet accordingly when the data from the water providers is available in January. She noted that the dues sheet is based on a formula that is already contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement. Ms. Stickel reported that this next fiscal year the need for a special assessment for the RWSP Update will be finished. The base budget for the last two years has been augmented with a special assessment of$246,988 each year to pay for the update. The base budget for this fiscal year is $515;330(reduced to $442,965 by a prior carryover amount). The current base budget is about half allocated to the regional conservation program and the balance to support for the Consortium activities and specific work elements (including some work on the RWSP Update). In February of 2002 the City of Lake Oswego Mayor asked the Consortium to carefully consider the amount of this next year's budget,"...with the goal of finding ways to more efficiently use increasingly limited financial resources and identify reductions,where possible,that can be made without jeopardizing program efficacy." In addition to this sentiment,there are also a number of Consortium members who are pursuing the potential establishment of a Bull Run Regional Drinking Water Agency,which has also called for funds.and attention to be applied to regional issues. 5 Consortium Executive Committee Meeting Minutes of November 13,2002 The primary concepts for the Consortium budget this year that would be in keeping with a leaner more targeted budget are recommended to include the following: Logistical Support(Business administration&Public Involvement) Continue to support the bodies of Consortium with a full time administrative assistant,part time temporary help with clerical functions, and materials and services to support the mailings,notices, meeting rent and audio,printing, food, and other assorted costs.Personnel costs--- $83,500, osts=$83,500,Materials&Services=$36,500. TOTAL $120,000 Conservation Program—Continue to fund the regional conservation program,including full time staff and a quarter time support staff, at the current level for this fiscal year. The conservation program includes funds for monitoring and tracking($3,200),programs in education,workshops, supplies,web hosting, and marketing($188,300), and a small travel&training($2,491). The focus will be directed on developing a year round marketing campaign rather than emphasizing a summer only effort. Campaign will focus on integrating all Consortium programs for consistent brand identity and message. Programs will concentrate on education and outreach efforts—promoting the conservation message through awareness,information and action. Media campaigns, web development, school programs,brochures, event displays,and partnerships will be developed to support the Consortium's conservation message. The CTSC also recommended on November 6,2002 increasing the conservation program by$50,000. The reasons for this increase are: ✓ The Consortium Conservation Committee recommended specific education/outreach and incentive program additions,particularly since the regional conservation program has remained at the same level for the last several years. ✓ The direction of the Consortium Board at their June 2002 meeting was to emphasize the regional role in education and outreach over implementing specific programs that are better done at the individual provider level. ✓ The State has adopted new rules for Water Management and Conservation Plans in order for municipal water rights to be held for future growth; one of the mandatory requirements is for an education/outreach program. ✓ Various water providers in the region have documented reductions in water use since 1992 when conservation programs were implemented by many providers and by the region. Since the conservation program package does not involve additional personnel costs there will be no additional overhead charge associated with it. The decision package includes programs in education and incentive programs. TOTAL $333,000 Task Work Program—This is the primary remainder of the Consortium's base budget. The CTSC discussed the various work program elements that could be considered in this budget.and they recommended the following tasks for this next fiscal year: 6 Consortium Executive Committee Meeting Minutes of November 13, 2002 • Completion of the RWSP Update—this would include staff commitment to follow through with the various providers the recommendations on the preliminary plan, completion of the final RWSP Update document,and supporting the adoption process with the various providers. ($15,000)- • $15,000)• Further work in the area of emergency planning and coordination inkeeping with one of the three key Strategic Plan elements;particularly if any grants are obtained during the current fiscal year that require work into the next year. The development of a model IGA was called for in the_Strategic Plan by the end of 2003. ($10,000) • Intergovernmental Coordination—Past experience has shown that this work task can be conducted by individual water provider staff and linked to the Consortium on an as needed basis. The recommendation for this year to reduce the amount assigned to this topic to only the time necessary to formulate position statements or do limited research on topics of interest to the Consortium. ($2,0.00) • Planning workshops—This is could be a new work item for the Consortium to benefit members in areas of presenting in a group setting information about water supply planning, emergency training session,new permit extension rules, source protection methodologies,ESA,water demand forecasting,or other issues of interest to providers that pertain directly to local water supply development. ($18,000) • Update of the Consortium Strategic Plan—This is a work task that was supposed to be done on an annual basis,however,this has not been done since adoption in 2000. Many of the strategies identified in three key areas have been completed and should be updated. ($5,000) TOTAL $'50,000 Contin encu—Staff recommends a reduced contingency budget of$5,000. TOTAL $ 5,000 Overhead—This area represents a change in established policy on the part of the City of Portland. After conducting a study of the actual costs associated with supporting staff for administrative overhead(which includes space rental, equipment, supervision, accounting &payroll, legal, and other support functions)the City has determined that overhead charges for personnel will be moved from 15%to 36.47%. This reflects a considerable underestimate of support services in the past. This will be applied only to the personnel costs and not to other costs associated with materials and services or any pass through costs,which will not have an overhead charge, associated with them in the future. On the basis of a personnel amount of$227,509 this represents an overhead charge of$82,973. TOTAL $82,316 Total Budget If this budget is implemented the total costs for the Consortium would be$590,316. Again,for comparison the current fiscal year's base budget is $515,330. This recommended budget for next year represents a base budget that is $74,986 higher than this fiscal year,but an overall reduction of $172,002 from this fiscal year's total budget. As noted above, the actual amount needed to be collected from dues could be reduced if 7 4 Consortium Executive Committee Meeting Minutes of November 13,2002 there is any carryover from FY 2001-02 that was not associated with the RWSP Update. Ms. Stickel noted that a comparison of the dues between this year's budget and the recommended next year's budget is attached. Dale Jutila commented that the$50,000 increase in the conservation budget was largely driven by the water management plans that are now required by the new Division 86 and 315 rules regarding water rights permit extensions. Mr. Jutila noted that an enhanced regional conservation program would help to facilitate that process for all water providers. Councilor Forrest Soth commented that he saw no reason to wait until March meeting for the adoption of the work plan and budget and that doing so in December would help entities with their own budgeting needs. Chair Huffman asked the Executive Committee for a consensus to recommend to the Board to adopt the budget and work plan at their December meeting. The EC agreed to the recommendation and advised Consortium staff to go forward with presenting the work plan and budget for adoption at the December Board meeting. Outcome of the September Consortium Board Meeting: Lorna Stickel reminded the EC members that at the September Board meeting the Board participated in breakout sessions to discuss policy objectives and source options. She commented that those sessions assisted staff and the CTSC in the development of the source option packages being considered for the Confluence model. Councilor Don Allen thanked the.Consortium staff for the quick turnaround in the transcription of the breakout session notes. He noted that they were very helpful to have for discussion at his committee meeting the following week. December Consortium Board Meeting: Lorna Stickel reviewed the draft agenda in the meeting materials packet. She commented that she did not anticipate having a breakout session at this meeting. Ms. Stickel noted that there would be an executive committee report,the presentation and adoption of the work plan and budget for FY 03-04, an emergency planning committee report, a conservation committee report and an update on the Regional Water Supply Plan Update. Ms. Stickel advised that one additional item needed io be added to the Board agenda. She noted that the Consortium is a bit behind on appointing some new Executive Committee members. Chair Huffman was the Multnomah County EC representative so that position is now vacant. The three at large EC representative positions are also up for reappointment. Ms. Stickel advised that Consortium staff would write a memorandum that outlined who currently serve as a county representative and who are the at large EC members and which positions are up for reelection. The memorandum will be included in the Consortium Board packet. 8 Consortium Executive Committee Meeting Minutes of November 13,2002 Councilor Soth commented that he would not be able to attend the December Consortium Board meeting but was interested in continuing to be a member of the Executive Committee. The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee is Wednesday, February 12,2003 at 5:30 p.m.in the Portland Water Bureau,Fir Creek Conference Room. Submitted by Patty Burk, Consortium Staff. 9 REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM BOARD MEETING Minutes of December 4,2002 Consortium Board Chairman John Huffman called the Regional Water Providers Consortium Board Meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. The meeting was held in the Metro Council Chambers/Annex. Elected representatives from fifteen Consortium member agencies were present at the meeting (which is a quorum), including Clackamas River Water, City of Forest Grove, City of Gladstone, City of Gresham, City of Hillsboro, Metro, Oak Lodge Water District, City of Portland,Powell Valley Road Water District,Rockwood Water PUD, City of Sandy, Sunrise Water Authority, City of Tualatin, Tualatin Valley Water District and West Slope Water District. Three other entities including City of Beaverton, South Fork Water Board, and City of Wilsonville had staff present. Consortium member agencies not represented by elected officials at this meeting included City of Beaverton, City of Fairview, City of Lake Oswego, City of Milwaukee,Raleigh Water District, South Fork Water Board, City of Tigard, and City of Wilsonville. Introductions: Introductions were made. Those in attendance included Dale Jutila and Commissioner Bruce Fontaine from Clackamas River Water; Councilor Susan McLain from Metro; Commissioner John Huffman and Tom Pokomy from Powell Valley Road Water District; Commissioner Les Larson and Katherine Willis from Oak Lodge Water District;District Board Vice President Jim Duggan and Greg DiLoreto from Tualatin Valley Water District;District Board President Sandra Ramaker and Harvey Barnes from Rockwood Water PUD; Commissioner Mike Grimm and John Thomas from Sunrise Water Authority; Councilor Jack Horner and Dale Anderson from the City of Gresham; Councilor Don Allen from the City of Sandy;Dan Bradley from South Fork Water Board; Commissioner Will Crandall and Joe Thompson from the City of Hillsboro;Commissioner A.P.DiBenedetto and Jerry Arnold from West Slope Water District;Jeff Bauman from the City of Wilsonville; Councilor Ed Truax and Mike McKillip from the City of Tualatin; Councilor Carl Gardner from the City of Gladstone; David Winship from the City of Beaverton; Commissioner Dan Saltzman, Edward Campbell, and Mort Anoushiravani from the City of Portland; Councilor Deena Barett from the City of Forest Grove and Lorna Stickel,Rebecca Geisen,Lindsey Berman, and Patty Burk from the City of Portland/Consortium Staff. Approval of Minutes for September 5,2002: The Consortium Board unanimously approved the September 4, 2002 minutes as written. Consortium Board Chairman John Huffman noted that he had received a letter from Clackamas River Water to notify the Board that Susan Adams Gunn will serve as Clackamas River Water's Consortium Technical Committee alternate. Public Comment: None. Consortium Board Meeting Minutes December 4,2002 Executive Committee Report: Consortium Board Chairman Jon Huffman gave a report of the Executive Committee(EC). Chair Huffinan noted that the EC met on November 13,2002. Chair Huffman commented that the Executive Committee's focus is to review and comment on items to be presented at the Consortium Board meetings,therefore,many of the items discussed at the EC meeting were available in the Board meeting material packets. The EC discussed and approved the December Consortium Board agenda. Chair Huffman noted that the Executive Committee reviewed the Budget and Work Plan for FY 03-04 and unanimously recommended the Consortium Board vote to approve it. Chair Huffinan stated that item five and six on the Board agenda would be switched. He said the Budget Concepts and Work Program for FY 2003-04 would be discussed first followed by the election of new Executive Committee Members. Budget Concepts and Work Program for FY 2003-04: Loma Stickel advised that the Consortium Staff has been working over the past couple of months with the Consortium Technical Subcommittee(CTSC),the Consortium Technical Committee(CTC) and the EC on putting together the Work Program and Budget for FY 2003-04. Ms. Stickel noted that the Work Plan and Budget for FY 03-04 was included in the Board meeting materials packet that was mailed to the members prior to the Board meeting. Ms Stickel said at the Board Meeting in December the process has been to present budget concepts to the Board for discussion and then have them adopt the budget in March. However, last year the Board seemed ready to adopt the actual budget in December. As a result,the CTSC, CTC and EC recommend that the Board consider adopting the Work Plan and Budget for FY 03- 04 at this December Board meeting. Ms. Stickel noted that the primary concepts for the Consortium budget this year that would be in keeping with a leaner more targeted budget are recommended to include the following: Logistical Support(Business administration&Public Involvement) Continue to support the bodies of Consortium with a full time administrative assistant,part time temporary help with clerical functions, and materials and services to support the mailings,notices,meeting rent and audio,printing, food, and other assorted costs. Personnel costs= $83,500, Materials&Services=$36,500. TOTAL $120,000 Conservation Proms—Continue to fund the regional conservation program, including full time staff and a quarter time support staff at the current level for this fiscal year. The conservation program includes funds for monitoring and tracking($3,200),programs in education,workshops, supplies,web hosting, and marketing($188;300),and a small travel&training($2,491). The focus will be directed on developing a year round marketing campaign rather than emphasizing a summer only effort. Campaign will focus on integrating all Consortium programs for consistent brand identity and message. Programs will concentrate on education and outreach efforts— promoting the conservation message through awareness,information and action. Media campaigns,web development,school programs,brochures, event displays, and partnerships will 2 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes December 4,2002 be developed to support the Consortium's conservation message. The CTSC also recommended on November 6, 2002 increasing the conservation program by $50,000. The reasons for this increase are: ✓ The Consortium Conservation Committee recommended specific education/outreach and incentive program additions,particularly since the regional conservation program has remained at the same level for the last several years. ✓ The direction of the Consortium Board at their June 2002 meeting was to emphasize the regional role in education and outreach over implementing specific programs that are better done at the individual provider level., ✓ The State has adopted new rules for Water Management and Conservation Plans in order for municipal water rights to be held for future growth; one of the mandatory requirements is for an education/outreach program. ✓ Various water providers in the region have documented reductions in water use since 1992 when conservation programs were implemented by many providers and by the region. Since the conservation program package does not involve additional personnel costs there will be no additional overhead charge associated with it. The decision package includes education,technical assistance and incentive programs. TOTAL $333,000 Task Work Program—This is the primary remainder of the Consortium's base budget. The CTSC discussed the various work program elements that could be considered in this budget and they recommended the following tasks for this next fiscal year: • Completion of the RWSP Update—this would include staff commitment to follow through with the various providers the recommendations on the preliminary plan, completion of the final RWSP Update document, and supporting the adoption process with the various providers. ($15,000) • Further work in the area of emergency planning and coordination in keeping with one of the three key Strategic Plan elements;particularly if any grants are obtained during the current fiscal year that require work into the next year. The development of a model IGA was called for in the Strategic Plan by the end of 2003. ($10,000) • Intergovernmental Coordination—Past experience has shown that this work task can be conducted by individual water provider staff and linked to the Consortium on an as needed basis. The recommendation for this year to reduce the amount assigned to this topic to only the time necessary to formulate position statements or do limited research on topics of interest to the Consortium. ($2,000) • Planning workshops—This is could be a new work item for the Consortium to benefit members in areas of presenting in a group setting information about water supply planning, emergency training session,new permit extension rules, source protection methodologies, ESA,water demand forecasting, or other issues of interest to providers that pertain directly to local water supply development. ($18,000) 3 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes December 4,2002 - • Update of the Consortium Strategic Plan—This is a work task that was supposed to be done on an annual basis,however,this has not been done since adoption in 2000. Many of the strategies identified in three key areas have been completed and should be updated. ($5,000) TOTAL $ 50,000 Contingency—Staff recommends a reduced contingency budget of$5,000. TOTAL $ 5,000 Overhead—This area represents a change in established policy on the part of the City of Portland. After conducting a study of the actual costs associated with supporting staff for administrative overhead(which includes space rental, equipment, supervision, accounting & payroll, legal, and other support functions)the City has determined that overhead charges for personnel will be moved from 15%to 36.47%. This reflects a considerable underestimate of support services in the past. This will be applied only to the personnel costs and not to other costs associated with materials and services or any pass through costs,which will not have an overhead charge, associated with them in the future. On the basis of a personnel amount of $227,509 this represents an overhead charge of$82,973. TOTAL $82,316 Ms. Stickel concluded that if this budget is implemented the total costs for the Consortium would be$590,316. For comparison,the current fiscal year's budget is approximately$762,000. This recommended budget represents a twenty-three percent reduction. Ms. Stickel noted that in the budget packet is a comparison table of entity dues for this year(FY 02-03) and next year(FY 03- 04). Ms. Stickel also noted that a dues sheet was included in the work plan and budget packet. She advised that the dues sheet is a draft and that it could not be final until the new account and the annual average water demand for 2002 information used to calculate the dues is available from the water providers in January. Ms. Stickel commented that staff anticipates that the proportionality of what an entity would pay will be similar to the draft dues sheet included. Ms. Stickel explained as long as the due formula that is outlined in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)is being followed,it is permissible to adopt the budget before the dues sheet is completed to the exact dollar amount. Chair Huffman commented that in looking at the comparison due table almost all entities will have a reduction in dues and that this dues reduction is in spite of the increase in the conservation budget. Chair Huffinan commended the Consortium staff'for putting together such a well- rounded proposed budget. Chair Huffinan called for a motion regarding the adoption of the FY 2003-04 Consortium Budget and Work Plan. Councilor Don Allen moved to adopt the FY 2003-04 Consortium Budget and Work Plan as presented. Commissioner Bruce Fontaine seconded the motion. Chair Huffinan asked if there was further,discussion on the Budget and Work Plan before the vote. District Board President Sandra Ramaker asked what the plan was to ensure equality throughout the region in regard to development of partnerships for incentives in the conservation work program. 4 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes December 4, 2002 Lindsey Berman explained a potential program to consider would be to work with the marketing company to create a partnership with a retailer e.g.,Home Depot, Fred Meyer, in which coupons for water saving devices might be offered in the development of an incentive program. These incentive programs are encouraged by and comply with Division 86,the requirement for water management and conservation plans. Ms. Berman said the Consortium Conservation Committee (CCC)would look to partner with retailers that are located throughout the entire Portland Metropolitan area if that type of program was considered. Harvey Barnes asked if the marketing company would be required to provide evidence that this type of incentive program would be accessible throughout the region. Ms. Berman advised that the CCC has not yet discussed the program with the marketing firm so it is still unknown how the program tracking would work. Ms. Berman stated that this is just one of several projects being considered by the CCC but if they were to go forward with such a program they would only do so if it was accessible to the entire region. Councilor Susan McLain noted that one of the other potential projects outlined in the conservation budget was a coupon book similar to the"Chinook Book". She stated that if the CCC is going to use that style of program it is imperative that it covers the entire region unlike the"Chinook Book"that only utilized partnerships with retailers in the mostly east Portland and Vancouver areas. Councilor McLain commented that if the Consortium is going to be doing large incentive type or other conservation programs,there must be a performance evaluation tool developed to evaluate how effective the programs are. The evaluation should be on going to ensure that funds are being spent on programs that are effective and being made available to all the providers in the region. Councilor McLain noted that in the budget matrix for conservation that evaluation piece seems to be missing. Loma Stickel stated that funds have been allocated in the conservation budget for demand tracking. Ms. Stickel stated that the only way that water providers have to get a handle on actual water savings is to track and monitor water use. Ms. Stickel commented that it is difficult to track conservation savings,however,individually the Consortium entities are seeing water savings in part due to conservation programs. Rebecca Geisen commented that over the years the CCC has used conservation funds to evaluate programs. Ms. Geisen noted that every couple of years; an evaluation is completed on the summer marketing campaign. She concluded that as we get into doing more hard conservation programs the evaluation component would be easier to build in. Harvey Barnes clarified that Rockwood PUD's concern was if the Consortium is going to be implementing a regional incentive program,that the region understands that the program is available and water customers throughout the region are accessing the program. He noted that there needs to be evidence that such a program is being distributed throughout the region. 5 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes December 4,2002 Chair Huffman reminded the Board members that Councilor Don Allen had made a motion and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Bruce Fontaine to adopt the Work Plan and Budget for FY 03-04 as presented. The Consortium Board voted(14:0:0)to adopt the FY 2003-04 Budget and Work Plan. Election of Executive Committee Members: Chair Huffinan noted that at this time the Board needs to appoint new members to the Executive Committee. Chair Huffinan explained the Multnomah County position is vacant and the three at large member terms have expired. Commissioner Bruce Fontaine nominated District Board President Sandra Ramaker for the Multnomah County vacancy. There were no further nominations. Ms. Ramaker was appointed to the Executive Committee representing Multnomah County. Commissioner Mike Grimm commented that at the November 13,2002 Executive Committee meeting Councilor Forrest Soth had indicated his willingness to continue to serve on the Executive Committee. Chair Huffman called for nominations for the three at large positions. Commissioner Grimm nominated Councilor Forrest Soth,District Board President Sandra Ramaker nominated Commissioner Mike Grimm and Commissioner Bruce Fontaine nominated Councilor Don Allen. There we no further nominations. Councilor Soth, Commissioner Grimm and Councilor Allen were appointed to the Executive Committee as at large members. Chair Huffman presented a Regional Water Providers recognition award the Commissioner Les Larson for his service as Chairman of the Consortium Board for the past two years. Emergency Planning Committee Report: Rebecca Geisen reported that approximately a year ago the Consortium Technical Committee established the Emergency Planning Committee to begin addressing the emergency preparedness tasks in the Consortium's five year Strategic Plan. Ms. Geisen stated that she wanted to give an update on the work the Emergency Planning Committee has done and what is still left to do. Ms. Geisen noted that a status report and the Emergency Communications Survey Report were included in the meeting materials packet. Ms. Geisen reported that in the five-year Strategic Plan,one of the goals was to develop an emergency preparedness plan specific for water utilities. In 1998,the Consortium surveyed its members to assess the level of emergency preparedness among the water systems of the Portland Metro Region. The survey inventoried who had emergency plans in place,what their back up supply was,what resources they had to share and who they coordinate with. In 2002,the Emergency Planning Committee conducted an Emergency Communications Survey to solicit information about communication methods used by water providers and to get contact information. The survey showed there are approximately sixteen different communication devices that are used by the twenty-two different water providers and it would be difficult to integrate those systems. The committee did make recommendations on how to improve communications:in other ways. Ms. Geisen reported that another area of the Strategic Plan was to outline potential coordination activities for emergency planning,management and recovery activities and to identify role and 6 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes December 4, 2002 responsibilities in an emergency. In response to that objective,the Emergency Planning Committee developed an Emergency Contact List for the Consortium entities. Ms. Giesen reported that the Emergency Planning Committee developed an Emergency Planning Resources for Water Provider notebook for each Consortium entity. She noted that the notebook includes the water provider emergency contact Iist, a schematic of what to do when a disaster occurs, information and a sample Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA) from the Cooperative Public Agencies of Washington County(CPAWC), and other resources and information regarding emergency planning and preparedness. Ms. Geisen reported that on December 3,the Emergency Planning committee hosted a meeting for Public Information Officers (PIO). She noted that eight agencies and a representative from Washington County participated in the meeting. Ross Walker from the City of Portland gave a PowerPoint presentation on the role of the PIO in an emergency. The meeting focused on how public information officers communicate with each other during an emergency and the group brainstormed ideas on how to send out a collaborative, comprehensive communication message in the event of an emergency. Ms. Geisen noted that the local Federal Bureau of Investigation(FBI) Special Agent Jeff Pritchett has attended two Consortium Technical Committee meetings to meet with the water providers. Mr. Pritchett has visited several of the Consortium water districts to learn more about our water systems and vulnerability issues. Another goal in the Consortium's Strategic Plan is to ensure that all of the participating water providers had an IGA for material and services during an emergency. She noted that this is essential so that if a disaster does occur, an entity can get needed equipment and personnel as well as reimbursement from the federal government,if necessary. The federal government will only reimburse agencies in an event of a disaster if they have an IGA in place. She commented that the Consolidated Public Agencies of Washington County(CPAWC)is open to any agency. It is not Washington County specific and it is very inexpensive to join. The Emergency Planning Committee is recommending for those entities that do not already have an IGA to join the CPAWC. In accordance with the Strategic Plan goal of holding regional emergency management and preparedness workshops and provide training, a workshop was held in 2001 with emergency managers,water managers and staff to review the strategic goals and identify barriers, gaps and opportunities and to get people's input on a regional plan. The outcome of that meeting has guided the activities of the Emergency Planning Committee. Ms. Geisen reported at this time no training has been scheduled for 2003,however,it has been suggested that the Consortium participate in some way with Quakex `03, a 9.0 Cascadia subduction zone earthquake and tsunami exercise in April 2003. Ms. Geisen commented that the Consortium would continue to explore grant opportunities that can benefit the region and tracking legislation regarding security issues and protecting sensitive information from public disclosure. Consortium Board Meeting"Minutes December 4,2002 • Ms. Geisen noted that the Emergency Planning Committee would begin discussing with the Consortium Technical Committee the development of a Regional Emergency Plan. Chair Huffman commented that he recalled that the American Water Works Association (AWWA)was going to develop some emergency planning models that the Consortium might be able to benefit from. Ms. Geisen said she would explore it. Conservation Committee Report: Lindsey Berman reported that at the September Consortium Board meeting,the television and radio advertisements from the summer marketing campaign had been presented. The summer marketing campaign focused on television,radio,public relations, and the Consortium web page. Ms. Berman noted that hits to the Consortium web page from 2001 to 2002 increased by 184%. 175 conservation web kits were sent out. The Consortium Conservation Committee is advocating to move forward next year in the development of a year around marketing campaign.. Ms. Berman advised that this would include expanding the web page and giving it a new look seasonally, adding an educational youth page to the web site, developing a regional informational brochure, linking programs together, more networking with the Trade Ally agencies,broadening the television/radio campaign, and increasing partnerships. Ms. Berman noted that all of the Consortium entities received'a notebook that included an executive summary of the summer marketing campaign, and video and audiotapes of the television and radio advertisements. Ms.Berman advised that over the next couple of months she would be visiting the Consortium entities to meet with the water managers and staff to discuss the Consortium Conservation Program. Regional Water Supply Plan Update: Lorna Stickel reminded the Consortium Board members that at their past two Board meetings they have had breakout sessions to discuss the role of conservation in the RWSP Update and source options evaluation and policy objectives. She noted that by the March 5,2003 Board meeting, she is hoping that specific recommendations for the Plan Update will be available. Ms. Stickel noted that the Consortium staff is monitoring the activities of Metro regarding the new population forecast and the Urban Growth Boundary expansion decision. Ms. Stickel advised that the Consortium staff has been meeting regularly with Metro staff. Ms. Stickel pointed out several large maps and tables that were displayed at the meeting. Displayed was a map of the Metro Executive Officer's recommendation for the UGB expansion. Ms. Stickel noted that there were two areas on that map that were of interest to the RWSP Update work. They are the two new areas in Boring/Damascus and the Stafford Triangle. Three large lists of Source Option Scenarios for the Confluence Modeling and Table 1,which outlines source expansion and development options were displayed. Also exhibited were the water provider service area map and a water source location map. 8 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes December 4,2002 Councilor Susan McLain commented that Metro Council would be meeting December 5 to hear public written and oral testimony on the Metro Executive Officer's recommendation for the expansion of the UGB. Councilor McLain noted that Metro has asked the State for an extension to complete the industrial land supply and that the extension has been granted. She said however,the residential areas would be completed by their December 21, 2002 deadline. Rebecca Geisen noted that at the June Consortium Board meeting, the Board members participated in breakout sessions to discuss the role of conservation in meeting water demand. She noted the Board gave direction and feedback in those sessions on conservation and things to consider in the RWSP Update. Ms. Geisen noted that some of the comments were to meet regulatory requirements, save customers money,reduce sewer flows and save energy, focus on larger water users and support the CII programs,reduce peak season use,begin to include indoor conservation programs,provide programs customers want,meet public demand for programs, continue to provide a consistent and regional message, use programs that are cost effective and provide measurable results, and provide flexibility based on specific water provider needs. Ms. Geisen reported that Planning and Management,Consultants, Ltd. (PMCL)reviewed the recommended programs in the 1996 Regional Water Supply Plan and current conservation technologies and knowledge. PMCL has completed an analytical evaluation on those conservation programs based on a set of criteria including technical feasibility, customer acceptability,utility acceptability,water savings and cost effectiveness.Based on this analysis, PMCL prepared a conservation program recommendation report. Ms. Geisen advised that the report has been given to staff and committees for their review and feedback. Ms. Geisen reported that residential information, education and awareness,trade ally irrigation and landscape workshops,property manager workshops, commercial, industrial and institutional (CII)indoor audits and large landscape audits were programs that met all of the established criteria. Ms. Geisen noted that there were some programs that did not rate as well for feasibility and acceptability but were very cost effective. They were waterless urinals,multifamily submetering,toilet rebates/replacements,residential indoor audits and evapotranspiration(ET) controller retrofits. Ms. Geisen said there were programs that had mixed feasibility and acceptability. Ms. Geisen commented that they continue to struggle with the reality that some conservation programs are better implemented on a regional basis and some on a subregional or individual water provider level and how to reconcile that. She noted that a balance of conservation programs between residential and CII programs needs to be found. Ms. Geisen commented that staff is currently working with PMCL to address these issues. Lorna Stickel reported that the CTSC and CTC have discussed and identified potential preliminary source options for evaluation in the Confluence model. A memorandum from EES was provided in the meeting materials packet;which included a revised version of Table 1. This revised version of the table shows the"base case"and source expansion or development options that may be considered in the future execution of the Confluence model. Ms. Stickel explained that the base case is defined as those source options that are currently being utilized or are 9 Consortium Board Meeting Minutes December 4,2.002 committed for development. Table 1 also indicates the estimated additional capacity to be made available by each project. Ms. Stickel noted that it is important to remember that the budget for the RWSP Update only has the latitude to generate a limited number of source options due to the time it takes to create and evaluate each scenario. The model is not an optimization model that selects sources and programs based on a set of criteria. Each scenario has to be run many times and adjusted to ensure that demands are met for each entity and to ensure all necessary pieces are in place. Ms. Stickel commented that six general source option strategies (some with sub options)have been proposed for the Confluence modeling. They're described in general terms below: A. Existing Master Plans—Include all projects for supply/capacity/transmission that are in the various master plans of the Consortium entities; does not include development of regional transmission. B. Limited Expansion/No Larger Projects—Smaller increments of source expansion and development throughout the region including"localized" sources(ASR, smaller WTP expansions and dam raises, groundwater development); allows development of regional transmission. C. West Side Source Development Emphasis—full Scoggins Reservoir Raise and JWC WTP expansion: (C 1)without regional transmission; and(C2)with regional transmission. D. East Side Source Development Emphasis—Bull Run Dam#3/Bull Run groundwater with regional transmission. E. South Side Source Development Emphasis—Utilize Clackamas River water treatment plant expansion: (E1)to the highest level commensurate with existing water rights and Timothy Lake Dam Raise; and(E2)to the highest levels including existing water rights and added increment from water applications before Oregon Water Resources Department. Development of regional transmission is allowed for both strategies. F. Columbia River Emphasis—Utilize Columbia River to develop a water treatment plant: (F 1) to highest level using the Rockwood 50-mgd water permit as the basis;and(F2)to the highest level using Rockwood 50-mgd and assumed added increment of water rights. Development of regional transmission is allowed for both strategies. Councilor Susan McLain asked where the Wilsonville Treatment Plant(WTP) supply source is in this source option discussion. Ms. Stickel noted that in Table 1 in the"other"category of the base case,the Wilsonville Water Treatment Plant is listed with their 15 mgd capacity. Ms. Stickel said after having discussion with the staff at the City of Wilsonville,it was decided that the WTP would be limited to serve the Wilsonville demand node only in the Confluence modeling. Ms. Stickel noted that it would be recognized within the Plan that the Willamette source has future potential but that it would require voter approval in certain jurisdictions. Jeff Bauman commented that the Willamette WTP is doing spectacular: Mr. Bauman said from the beginning Wilsonville wanted to create a situation in which they could successfully address their near term and long term needs in a way that they would not be dependant on others. He 10 . Consortium Board Meeting Minutes December 4, 2002 noted that Wilsonville has the space,willingness and opportunity to develop that source for non- Wilsonville participation if and when others chose to do so. Councilor McLain asked in light of the work being done by Metro on the population forecast, what the timeline for the completion of the RWSP Update is. Ms. Stickel commented that the new Metro population forecast timeline would be the nature of the discussion at the next CTSC meeting. She noted that in talking with Metro staff, it is likely the new officially allocated forecast will not be available until June 2003. Ms. Stickel stated that the big question at this point is should the Consortium move forward with the base case Metro population forecasts or wait until the new allocated forecasts are available. Ms. Stickel said that in having discussions with the consultants, looking at how Iong we have been working on this project and knowing that forecasting is somewhat more of an art then science, the inclination is try to go forward with the Update with the base case population numbers already obtained from Metro. Ms. Stickel asked the Board to review the source scenario options and provide comments or feedback to her. A motion was voiced to adjoum the Consortium Board Meeting. The motion was seconded. The Consortium Board meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. The next meeting of the Regional Water Providers Consortium Board is Wednesday,March 5, 2002 at 7:00 p.m. in the Metro Council Chamber/Annex. Submitted by Patty Burk, Consortium Staff 11 Water Supply Feasibility Study([WSFS) Supply Options Evaluation Summary The purpose of the Water Supply Feasibility Study(WSFS)is to evaluate reliable, safe and cost-effective water supply options to meet the long term water needs of the Tualatin Basin community. The study began in November 2001 as a collaborative effort led by Clean Water Services in cooperation with the Bureau of Reclamation and local water providers.WSFS will follow National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)process in anticipation of developing an Environmental Impact Statement for the project. Background A series of water supply studies have set the stage for the WSFS. In the early 1990's the Regional Providers "Phase I Source Options Study"evaluated 29 different new water source options (options list attached). Expansion of Hagg Lake was not included in this study.Three regional advisory groups were involved in developing criteria and evaluating these options and recommended the following six for further study. • Third Dam at Bull Run • Diversion of the Willamette River • Aquifer Storage and Recovery(ASR) • Expansion of the Barney Reservoir • Full Water Rights Development of the Clackamas River • Diversion of the Columbia River Phase II of the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP),adopted in 1996,detailed how to meet regional 2050 water supply needs and added conservation to the supply options recommended above. The Integrated Water Resources Management Strategy(IWRIv4) completed in 2001 is a cooperative agreement among wastewater and storrnwater management agencies,municipal water providers,irrigators and county facilities managers on major Tualatin Basin water resource issues. A priority IWRM action is to pursue viable options to ensure.a safe,reliable and cost-effective long-term water supply to meet future basin needs. The IWWRM strategy estimated that the Tualatin Basin would face supply shortfalls by 2050 WSFS Source Options Screening The current Tualatin Basin WSFS is the next step of the IWRM. The WSFS is following the public decision-making process described in the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). NEPA applies to the WSFS because one of the source options under consideration—modification of Scoggins Dam— would require federal action by the Bureau of Reclamation.The NEPA process requires the consideration of environmental factors in decision-making,and sets forth a process where decisions are open to the involvement and scrutiny of Federal,State and local agencies,Indian tribal governments,the interested public and private organizations. In the NEPA process,information must be provided as to alternatives, impacts and possible mitigation. A No Action alternative must also be analyzed. A series of four public Scoping meetings were held in January 2002, The purpose of these meetings was to obtain early input on significant issues related to the potential source options (see Attachment A). Follow-up information distributed by CWS through direct mailing and press releases,presentations at community events,and stakeholder meetings have continued to provide input to the decision-making process. Using the comprehensive list of potential sources from previous studies and input from the scoping process,a set of options capable of providing a safe,reliable and cost-effective water supply to meet the basin's future needs were identified for more detailed evaluation.The previously identified Clackamas and Water Supply Fez6bikV Study page 1 Supply Options Evaluation Summary Columbia River regional options posed numerous challenges as viable,long-term water supplies for the Tualatin Basin. Issues with those options include water rights,engineering and constructability, institutional,legal and public perception.These sources are being further investigated as part of the RWSP Update now underway and may be re-evaluated as new information is made available. Expansion of Barney Reservoir has been completed. The following set of options was carried forward. • Water conservation. Programs and policies that reduce the demand for municipal/industrial and agricultural water supplies. • Wastewater reuse. Infrastructure to distribute treated wastewater for irrigation,primarily for non- food crops. Reuse would result in a reduction in demand in the municipal/industrial and agricultural sectors. • New Tualatin Basin storage. Includes several specific options: ■ Scoggins Dam raise. Constructed dam raise would result in a larger pool behind the dam and increased storage. ■ New in-line storage on a Tualatin River tributary. New dam on a tributary,similar to the existing Scoggins Dam. ■ Off-line storage on a Tualatin River tributary. Water impounded away from tributaries in the high flow season and pumped back to the tributary during low flows to satisfy in-stream water needs only. ■ Stimson Dam. New dam below Scoggins Dam and upstream from Stimson Lumber Mill. • Aquifer storage and recovery(ASR). Injecting treated drinking water into underground aquifers during low demand periods and pumping it to provide supplemental peak use supply.Assumed to satisfy municipal needs only. • Bull Run System Contracts. Two scenarios: Near-term(by 2020) expansion of supply capacity through filtration treatment and a raise of the existing Bull Run Dam Number 2;and construction of a third dam in the Bull Run watershed. Either requires a new transmission pipeline to Washington County and is assumed to satisfy municipal needs only. • Irrigation Exchange Pipeline from the Willamette River. Raw water pipeline from the Willamette River pumped for Tualatin Basin agricultural irrigation use.Provided to Tualatin Valley Irrigation District(TVID)in lieu of the Hagg Lake storage making that water available for municipal and in-stream use. WSFS Source Options Evaluation The Washington County Water Manager's Group(WMG) evaluated these options based on criteria developed from prior studies (IWRM,RWSP, 1992 Water Source Options Study,and 2000 Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy). Comments received during the NEPA scoping process from the Tualatin River Watershed Council,Clean Water Advisory Council and the general public also helped shape the following evaluation criteria list. • Cost • Recreation • Institutional and financial feasibility • Flood control • Legal and regulatory feasibility • Environmental impact • Supply reliability • Timeliness • Emergency reliability • Property rights preservation • Efficiency • Security from intentional harm • Water quality Existing information was collected and reviewed where possible. For source options where no existing data was available,planning-level studies were conducted to make an initial determination of Water Supply Feadbility Study . page 2 Supply Options Evaluation Summary suitability relative to the criteria. The objective of the screening process was to identify those source options that rated very poorly in terms of their ability to meet the criteria. These source options were not recommended by the WMG for further WSFS analysis. It should be noted that source options not being carried forward in the WSFS may be revisited in the future. Based on this evaluation,the WMG made the following recommendations for further WSFS detailed analysis. Source Options Not Recommended for Further Study These options were ruled out,primarily due to high cost or impact to private property: • Stimson Dam—New dam has the advantage of providing same amount of storage as 40 foot Scoggins raise with impacts similar to 20 foot raise and potential for meeting fish passage requirements on a new facility better than retrofit of existing dam. Main disadvantages are high cost per acre foot of new storage compared to the Scoggins Dam raise options,impacts to fish habitat,Stimson operations and relocation of access roads. • New in-line tributary storage— Storage sites throughout the basin have been studied for years and have been rejected for multiple reasons including high cost,water availability, feasibility,environmental and property impacts,and water rights conflicts. • Off-line tributary storage—Only useful to meet in stream flow needs.Significant drawbacks include area-intensive footprint,cost and competition with existing land use,and impacts to private property. • Bull Run Dam#3—This source option is being evaluated in a regional context as part of the RWSP Update,now underway. Information will be considered as it becomes available. This source option has the disadvantage of not increasing the diversification of the region's water supplies. Qualitative Assessment of Source Options Not Recommended for Further Evaluation Stimson Dam New In-Line Storage TT Off-Line Storage Bull Run Dam 3 will be evaluated in RWSP Update =good Q =fair ❑ =poor Water Supply Feasibility Slmdy page 3 Supply Options Evaluation Summary Source Options That Should Be Components of All Sup-ply Alternatives These options were perceived as strongly positive in one or more evaluation criteria and should be considered as part of any overall water supply strategy: • Water conservation—Reducing per capita demand is an ongoing goal.Water use in the Portland area peaked in the 1980's and has been dropping ever since(estimated to be a 20 percent drop). An 8%Washington County demand reduction assumption has been made for this analysis.Potential supply—7,600 AF/year. • Wastewater reuse—Based on Clean Water Service's Recycled Wastewater Master Plan,WSFS assumes that an intermediate level of reuse will be achieved by 2050. Potential supply—3,500 AF/year. • Aquifer storage and recovery—Several Tualatin Basin water providers have tested,or are currently testing,ASR. WSFS assumes 10 MGD will ultimately be developed including 4.5 MGD being developed by Beaverton. Potential supply—5,500 AF/year. (M/I use only) • Near-term Additional Supply from Portland-Assumes that Portland will continue to provide water and that additional water may become available to the Westside by 2020. New transmission pipeline will be required.Potential supply—9,200 AF/year. (M/I use only) Source Options Recommended for Further StudX • No Action—This scenario considers the impact of no increase in water supply on flow and water quality,on irrigated agriculture and on municipal/industrial demand in the Basin. • Scoggins Dam Raise (20 feet)—Raise would increase Hagg Lake storage but would not be adequate to meet projected 2050 water needs unless combined with conservation,reuse,and/or ASR Potential supply—26,500 AF/year. • Scoggins Dam Raise (40 feet)-Raise would increase Hagg Lake storage to meet 2050 projected need. WSFS will study the environmental impacts of any dam raise,as well as impacts to property and park facilities. Potential supply—50,600 AF/year. • Irrigation Exchange Pipeline from the Willamette River—Trading Willamette Riverwater for TVID irrigation supply in Hagg Lake. WSFS will study the engineering feasibility,cost and environmental impacts of the roughly 18 mile irrigation pipeline. Potential supply—25,000 AF/year. (MA and in-stream use only) Qualitative Assessment of Source Options Recommended for Further Evaluation No Action Scoggins Dam Raise-20' ScoWns Dam Raise-40' lirrigation Exchange Pipeline 0 =good Q =fair ❑ =poor Water Supply Feasibility Study page 4 Smpply Optionr Evaluation Summary Attachment A Water Source Options List Generated by the WMG and TRWC: The following list was developed by these groups in the course of planning meetings conducted during the IWRM project. The list is the result of brainstorming exercises conducted by the groups, and is not intended to be a comprehensive or prioritized evaluation of water supply. • Willamette River: • Drain Lake Oswego Every Year 1. trade for Hagg Lake &Reuse/Recycle Water storage • Bunkers -Underground Storage 2. use for irrigation • Trucking Snow 3. use for municipal supply • Create Water(Scientific Manner) • Bull Run: • Screening To Prevent 1. Another Dam In Bull Run Evaporation 2. Purchase more surplus • Icebergs • Increased Tualatin River • Desalination withdrawals • Deep Tunnel • Raise Hagg Lake • Two-Way Pipe To Willamette • Deepen Hagg Lake/Dredge Hagg River/Columbia River Lake . Put In Pump At Mouth Of • Side-System Storage On Tualatin& Circulate Back Tributaries • Subsidize Reuse • Off-Stream Storage • Using Effluent For Groundwater • Build Another Dam On Tualatin Recharge • Deepen Tualatin River Channel • Reuse Back To Hagg • Additional Groundwater Use Lake/Barney • Aquifer Storage and Recovery • Non-Potable Distribution (ASR) Systems • Yamhill River • Developing Extensive Grey • Columbia River Water • Storm Water System Collection • Potable Reuse • Snow Making Machines • Multiple Recycling • Cloud Seeding • Required Reuse • Fill In Lake Oswego • Dual Distribution For Reuse& Potable Water Supply Feasibility study page S Supply Options Evaluation Summary SW-O 9- Dayton face �11esma Y for raw sewage spiffi footbridge to the city's sewage; The incident exposed an treatment plant !: State regulations give cities omission from noMfication with treaur ent plant`q near rivers requirements: downstream the.leeway to decide.vyhe�her a spill presents an immediate dan- water usm -ger to human health,McFetridge said.Any such determination re- By DANA TIME quires cities to notify DEQ T o'EooNm_ promptly. In addition to posting The city of Dayton's apparent the river with warning signs,regu- failure to file key environmental lations also require cities and the documents could trigger signifi- department to notify,area news cant fines by a state agency inves- organizations of the situation. tigating the Jana 17 spill of tens of What the negulations apparent= thousands of gallons of raw sew- ly don't do—a practice that will age into the Yamhill River. change immediately, McFetridge The incident also is producing said—is tell downstream users of calls to strengthen mandatory re- theroblem. porting requirements in the event P of future. spills, particularly in ,For this event,the Wilsonville Pmt certainly should have been light of information that opera- tors at WilsoriviWs .Willamette notified," he said. "We will cer- River treatment plant 17 miles taWY do that in the future." downriver from Dayton,were not Rep. Jerry .Krummel,, R- notified of the spill. Wilsonville, said, "We need to Under the federal Qean Water make sure there is at least a cour- Act, Dayton could face fines as test'can made in events 1*e this- much as$10,000 a day until it files Maybe we do need to beef up no- contingency plans for handling tification standards." spills. Dayton's Bilodeau said he and "It appears that no such docu- another city employee spent the ment was ever submitted,".said first two or three hours of the spill Tim McFetridge, senior environ- trying to repair the pumps to halt mental engineer for the state De- the overflow,before they realized partment of Environmental Qual- the pumps' motors had been. ity. "We've referred the Dayton bred out They.notified DEQ case to our enforcement division about four hours later. - for formal enforcement action." "We were a little busy," Bilo- Dayton officials dispute the de- deau said It was two people run= nent's assertion around like Pam"We submitted our contingen- their heads cutff." c with cy plan on May 5, 1939," .said As things turned out, Wilson- Bruce Bilodeau, the city's public ville treatment-plant operators works director."We were good to weren't told of the spill for anoth- 90 The departments referral er 24 hours — when a reporter ��the informaticfn. comes more than two weeks after "Since this has happened, a contractor working for a Dayton �,� often their e-mail address; sand and gravel company a con- and well work better with them," entlyneci broke through a line con- Bilodeau said.'But the amount of netted to the city's sewage- the spill was minute.,It wasn't treatment plant even detectable. The quality of The break caused a large the water coming into their plant amount of debris, including ,t thane a bit chunks of concrete, to enter the �� g line.Initial reviews show that the "Really,it depends what you're material promptly blew out pri- dumping in. Now, if 500 gallons maty and backup pumps at the of diesel had gone into the river, city's sewage lift station, which we'd have been the first ones to lifts raw sewage to a pipe that say, We've got a problem here, crosses the Yamhill River under a guys."" IDo x g OQ0 0 ?? co ° o M w w ca .-• o '» cD .;a4 tb w A, o O o 1 J O CCD vii 1 n o ."�.•C)- o C L'O � wi `O N �b ° o `�'� n' 0 O• r. N CCD �.'3' �^,. G b A N• fri Cw�t4i _�X �'d=�vwyi•°.'1 appr7,a�Cra oAy yoK wnN�.w_.,NOSC �' bG4 * N r ,ny� p �p, pco N '.CD o o D Y0z0 N 4 o ° .. wC Cr -'p CA E :3 do y c 4 in.- . to mv< w ° a Cro y ,I c7CL a a ?' — NyGQ o � CCo Ln n 5r1< cD CD o=coa mo ° ¢ El � c< =+ oCD o ° 7 CD R o °a� �3 ^t C' O 0 -1 -1 MwW n- o D to' yr' cn: `° Mr 0 CD o o n ° Mpn "3 w CDfD � = a < ' 1 03 co occa.-•po° p CD 0 -_1 gor- UQ a n � mow v s CD � i CC gq CD CD CD � e G ( y «et _; ro CD C[n � CD Z3 N QGUQ , Water: `We ve worked too long and too hard on this' ■Continued from Al 2040, the demand is expected to increase to and either expanding the existing treatment 7.52 mgd,with the maximum demand at 19.1 plant or adding another plant. City Council last week. "By next month,we mgd. According to Wegner's projections,Tigard will have financial comparisons between the "We are projecting our daily demand would have to pay between $66 million and two plans.You will probably need to make a increasing by 30 percent by 2040," Wegner $68 million for approximately one-quarter =� decision in the next 60 days whether or not to said. "This is why we need our own source. ownership of the raw water, the water treat- proceed with Portland. a p Instead of spot buying, we need to have a nlent facilities, pump stations, force mains, - "We've worked too long and too hard on secure future water source" reservoirs and transmission lines. this. We don't want to-do any more studies The JWC obtains its water from the "(The JWC) will be working on a capital-• until we know if Portland is serious about pro- Tualatin River and Trask River watersheds and improvement program for the next 40 years, ceeding, They have nothing on their meetir operates a water treatment pla::t south of with or without Tigard,"Wegner said. schedule about this and have made.no.com.- Forest Grove capable of treating 70 mgd. It Councilor Craig Dirksen asked, "Is the mitment,but we will continue to watch!' also owns the Barney and Scoggins reservoirs. supply sufficient to serve basically all of Tigard currently provides 16,000 service For Tigard to join the agency, there would Washington County?" connections for a total of 55,000 people, be •initial buy-in costs plus usage charges and Wegner replied, "We believe this will be according to Wegner. In 2000, the average expenditures for future operating expenses the water-delivery service for Washington demand was 6 million gallons per day (mgd) and capital improvements. The JWC is con- County,and it has the potential to be the sole with a maximum demand of 13.84 mgd. By sidering expanding the Scoggins Reservoir source." C'ty comes up pl.anrd a ua New rules protect supply about 100 million gallons of In November,the city won$6.2 water per day. They have long million from two businesses,Boe- bachu water Supply u l1� served as an important backup ing Co.and Cascade Corp.,both of p pp I source to water piped in from the ' which had contaminated watery near Columbia River Bull Run Watershed. near the wells with trichloroeth +-4-'. Government Island' Cofuin River The water bureau draws from ylene, an industrial solvent andv t Airport the wells when reservoir levels probable carcinogen. By BEN JACKLET run low in late summer and when The pollution, discovered in u� '��- , �� s�.■.�� ` f,. v' The Tribune a catastrophic event such as the 1986,prevented the city from fullyg N.f. -... 1996 flood disrupts the normal wa- using its backup wells during a On the heels of receiving a mul- ter system. summer drought in 1992.Rather 1 timillion dollar settlement over Unlike the well-protected Bull than draw from the wells and risk: pollution near its drinking water Run reservoirs, however, the `a `'�` polluting them with TCE that z wells,the Portland Water Bureau wells are located in an ecosystem summer, the city used "water is looking to tighten environmen- that is far from pristine.They are cops"to enforce tight and unpop- The city is planning to protect its groundwater resources by enforcing environmental regulations wBhin the ii-square-mileproteaion tal regulations to protect the city's surrounded by many industrial ular water restrictions. area shown above with a dotted line.Businesses within the protection area will need to prove thatthey are properly disposing of groundwater supplies. businesses that use:a wide variety The city's new plan calls for hazardous chemicals and petroleum waste.The water bureau maintains 2J drinking water wells ustsouth of the Columbia River. The city has 25 wells just south of potentially 1}azardous chemi of the Colombia :River that can Gals. See VwER/PagB 4 I 1 ' �:TBIBUNE�GRAPNIC: FSS 61ABK3 m n b m r- ab�+ w ti Cr w Cn � � �, CL CL `tcD � � cv°, �� e'. _, oo � m >r O (D o � (DZ arn�0 �rCDt✓ � morin � �'� �� CtJ� e a. �, r. � ywao °� � y...w � o -c1 Cy mC•do ".3 � CDoC .�fD ,700 CD "J 0 rno �3 00 (D -1 ® Q� A Q' ^f' fn OU m Q `" o rn n cD O- C o N C o .f'O p y �* f CD �7 C]. A.a g p "C� w N o c, C �i Cr (D (D CD ."3' rr er(D -3 Yp e+ 'J'� `3'(D CD C. ro y .7'O, or fD0 � m -s •y �o � � a.3SEl �►, mao �o �b �cD �� ¢' a' coo � �'(7. ai zoo m � CD -s fDm � � � rn (nOCr � m0000W e`' ,cwo (D � pQ (30MC5 wCn oo ww � b �. IDwowo � � C]c�o �aao � ti .to:w m � (o 0 C,Z aa or (n m r. .. •-• O (D (D �. (D Z cC -t g. y v, ti O to O O �� w t t'W R7 0 (D O (D (D co m M ov v, o -,°•e � ¢,0 's R. � m O.'-s p, ro � E� O "`"�' ~•-y� C "S �p -�—•Fa, c� °' O "' r'M coo G co m O•n � sa oa' mac, sod r" cow_ vo OQ .10 ;off` oCD a (D -c�Mn, Z " MZ M 'o how m EJ.o ci, v, O O , p o w O a V F W oo O Cr a + N w o a Z? y �t a �� m ' w v, Cr _.I ,W Cr ,-t (n w o, � � a. r.m �'oo ow C � o � �� 0 co n CD O '� M Cr 0 M .. C � (D w (n C � � O w ..t aQ CD '''3'e+p Cr� y�'.�' O (D U].y "�A"3✓r-r 0 �--. a y O O .7 G w w i✓ y rn O (� O "G (D A f~ (n w O°G ti O a--A ri d O CD m a n fD s OQ. (D w CD a '�Gl pj•, (D .5 (n .� (D O ri n UQ _ CD M w (O to n CL n - 0 v' O ''t � r.CD O (n ,-•. fD w OQ Co (n � r- 0 oQ '=J n) � �10 w-R.�.f3.p. L].f✓ O�(D�4 �� a-'N'"' CA o o `C m m fy .04 x o bd >✓' 9 w o m (� Q • (o o o �' .y cD '_ `' m m cD o (D w < Y 1(D o w a w w O oQ O ..?o - �. • R cFD (n o G] ?� �.m w w u, a 6 ¢ ., m o C C] - o w G cc C -t w �, �.� �t. o c w w C),0 cD o �] SR.O El y b (�D O �'Er R.`GQ .N m y O. fD QOQ C�j o �'(yD cC Q'y ��'• .. .O (CD " CD (D CDD`C ,.:,`� a'C"3D R.fD C.r°w w p w g oq'd o -• (D �, O p (D w O C n O s w (D t7 (D -•l: O CD 0,�•CD Z .y w n •s to �r, �� w �!-- (D � n O (n y <, 7 R ffi o w (D O ..•+.. CD '•s = �.-w,T1 " t'O ('(D o K�P7 O �� O (M O p� O R, ��ti � b�n .CSD w �D o vi a'N W�� N'0 C i* -2'U ry o y -(D 0 yA A 'L7 0 -O a, (D m �'n (D O o rr' o 'Ls O o 0 00 � m r,.Cn � S=p7 w o (D -f G N m � O o (� � �C 2S pi(D O Ct O ZrO s1 „Y Cp O w Cn (D U, O C7 ,y CD L1 y O (D " . , -t O O U, G O O C (D O �3 n_ O -`3 O .` `�. fCD Cwd p O O O O y O O N O C) (D O V� -! o lD n A.c-r. M ti O w .+. ::r CD u, CL til .CD CD uJ O w r�i� ...t s]. O ,m.'b w .i Q, O a ry w '"' y 'y -wf'� w '(n 's O Kws � sr y (D (n vwi �' (D '.�'� En oQ (n ' o co� �' � -s �q �aQ r x oQ aQ � (o a o�a o '.� cD c� .tomo o (D � o.w cD. (D Y� � ♦�� o .•�,OQ O .7 '.3'w OKS (D C,..,, `�.w CL(D Cn C.-.O 2 Wi sonvi AMP watal ant cath pi wc Iwo Spill I he facility secures First real test SEQUENCE OF EVENTS a DEQ promise of Jan.15,9 a.m.:Automatic dialer in Day- (Nater: Dayton plant spilled Wilsonville's new water The treatment plant,which is about the size of 2112 football fields,draws water from the Willamette River,then ton's sewage lift station notifies eight local '• tributary treatment plant,which purifies it through processes of sedimentation,filtration,ozone injection and chlorination.Here is how it works: officials,including Bruce Bilodeau,public better notification draws water from the works director,of problems in a wet well'30 into Willamette ti ry Willamette River,passed its �nPing Settling feet underground. o f pollution incidents first real test last month, 1.Water, pumped Motors spin and agitate 2.Next water ispumped to Clarified Continued from Page 1 concern,E.coli'bacteria,was lower after more than 140,000 from the river by a the water,breaking up a clarification basin,where water goes to Jan.15.,9:30 a.m.:Bilodeau and another than the previous day,proving that gallons of raw sewage submerged intake any large materials sus ended rticles are oione basin employee determine that the station's pri could have shut it down while the the river's dilution power had done By RICK BELLA spilled into the watershed p THE OREGONLIN P pipe_beneath the settled out. mary and backup pumps have failed.Raw spill went past,"Bauman said."We its work upstream:The material riverbank: sewage flows into nearby Yamhill River at a really didn't have those options be- Meanwhile,the processed water WILSONUILI.E—Jeff Bauman is feel- passed.the Wilsonville rate of 100,000 gallons per 24 hours. cause we weren't informed." ing good about how well the city's new plant's intake 15 to 20. t that day showed better-than- '`°`" `A. -_ r,� Jan.15,10:30 a.m.:Yamhill,River water Instead, Wilsonville officials ., X,,. ,.:_ _ water treatment plant performed after a hours.`later,but caused no • `� ,y A r,, average turbidity readings. F. coli N..... ,,t, , ,,:t;" samples show E.Coli readings near the limit didn't learn of the spill until more u sewage spill upstream last month. problems,for the high-tech ., � � ' � :� ��; i., a p not detected m the than 30 hours after it an.When Bauman,the=ci s public works direr- treatments stem. � '� .,r � `� •� . � ., ,•� �_-��< � � of levels triggering mandatory reporting � tY' P Y �. daily lab test. �;, requirements.tor, is pleased that tbp plant; which 'x: f + ;._ ,.._`'x, _„ ;r. ;= q ements. word came in,they contacted engi- draws water from the Willamette River, N` - ' I neers with USFilter and Montgom- Bauman said the plant per- t o Jan.15,4 p.m.:Dayton officials notify ery Watson,which built the plant. formed so well because it uses sev- continued to produce clean, clear water Mark Hamlin,natural resource specialist eral redundant purification pro- that far surpasses federal drinking-water g ' I' ' r: 3 with the state Department of Environ- The spill; they learned, was P Environ- standards. - dumping about 70 gallons a min- cesses, enters system Settled materials.are removed. mental Qualit ,of a"bypass"at the city's Yarnh� Quality. ute into the River, which The treatment facility is over- "Everything worked the way it was Wilsonville.Rd. lift station.City posts warning signs along designed supposed to, Bauman said."We had no ,. river. ! was flowing at a rate of about 4,000 gned in the sense that problem with an here. The rob- z Ozonation .- Filtration. cubic feet per second.The Wiliam- drinking-water standards can be P Yang p l:iearWep Jan.16,3:30 p.m.:State DEO and city of ette River was flowing at more than met without such extensive treat- lem was with the notification system. It a „ 1 Water then 4.Continuing, 5.In'the find Dayton issue news release about ill. 40 mens, would have been nice to have been noti- a WILSONVIL�E flows to basin`:,' on the water, = btP 000 cubic fees per second where " Bauman said. "As you can g • :process.a water from the Yamhill entered. see, it worked just as it was de- fied." JLwhere ozone_ then flowssmall amount C Jan.16,4:30 p:m.:Wilsonville water On Jan.'16,a pumping station in Day- y is injected into. through six !t' ;:_ of chlorine =gym 1,: plant operators learn of the spill.Floyd "It was pretty diluted,"Bauman signed to." "``'" said. "In round numbers, where Mike Green, USFilter's r: the;water. t.;. feet of '.C�iarcoalr _ P Peoples,the city's operations manager, project ton failed, dumping more than 140;000 ; .; o, ammonia is Ozone kills n activated added to.the. calls Mike Stone,the city engineer. the Yamhill meets the Willamette, manager at the water plant, said gallons of raw,untreated sewage into the .bacteria and charcoal_. ;efl , the concentration was about one the city was lucky that the notifica- Yar?ahill River. less thanfive river miles matertomaintain its.di_infectar.-. Jan.16,5..p.m.:Kevin Batridge;assistant art per r_Mon a otherorgartisms, granules.The charcoal removes: E p and that was_5 don cyst..m broke down: during upstream from its confluence with the ®t j, qualities.:Pumps then force,the water water plant manager,and an engineer from ®® while redudng tastes,odors and - chemicafcontamnants and an into thki s distributions tem to Montgomery Watson,the company upstream of us. So you can get a minor incident rather than a major Willamette.Wilsonville's new$48 million sew- LE 1 y, Vs.. p y that comparable picture m our mind incident He said he water-treatment plant, which went on- sQace cyd�v�som,i,Ie, othe[.contaminants.;.:.: remaining;particles .watercustamei5thro houtHlilsonville a,;;. built the I P P Y and city offi- z plant,work to compute the sew- line last April,taps the Willamette about =` ra ' , w ••.= y =. a million to one is like one minute rials have discussed notification ' . n age's.rate of flow. MICHAEL MODE,MICHAEL,GUILL�N,PAT- ORECONIAN over a-span of about two years." procedures with the Oregon De- 15 miles downstream. Jan.16,5:30 p.m.:City officials decide Just to be safe, operators shut partment of Environmental Quali- The city has an agreement with US- Jeff Bauman,Wilsonville's pgfllic w� °director,saldi the..~ f2:`to leave:.1:46water,plant's intake shut dowh the water plant's intake until the tY• Filter to operate the plant through a$1 .� _ �.. a million annual contract.At this time of Dayton sewage spill bused no p Ms'fo�VWlsdgq lIle's =:1 as a prec Ution. i.f,�" next morning when, presumably, "We have all talked about the water-treatment plant,which draw titer from the - Jan.16,6'30 p.m:;`.Following mechanical any potential dangerhad passed. need for a better notification year, when water demand is relatively Willamette River.The spill proved to be the first serious repairs,Dayton officials restart lift station Later that day, they huddled to tem," Green said. "The DEQ has low in the city,USFilter operators gener- test of the$48 million plant,which went online last April. g g ally fire up the plant about 7:30 or 8 am. P pumps,stopping flow of sewage. study the readings taken of raw assured us that they would inform and run it until 4 p.m.,or until the city's ROBERT BACH/THE OREGONIAN Jan.17,7:30 a.m.:Wilsonville officials, water by detection equipment at us in case of any events like that in 10.7 million-gallon reservoir system is re- after conferring with officials from USFilter, the plant. The reading of greatest the future." charged. the company contracted to run the water _ "If e had, time to react, tive could p INSIDE plant,agree to open the intake and resume have increased our treatment, or we - � Plant operation. Dayton officials could face fines for not reporting the spill Please see WATER,Page 9 , . promptly/9 -Rick Be//a and Dana Tims Water Fluoridation Principles and Practices AWWA MANUAL M4 Third Edition FOUNDED 1881 ® American Water Works Association Contents Foreword,v Chapter 1 Fluoridation and Public Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 History of Fluoridation, 1 Dental Benefits of Fluoridation, 2 Health Effects of High Fluoride Levels, 4 Alternatives to Water Fluoridation, 4 Facts and Fiction About Fluoridation, 5 Status of Adjusted Fluoridation, 8 References, 9 Chapter 2 Compounds Used in AdUusted Fluoridation . . . . . . . . ll Sodium Fluoride, 11 Hydrofluosilicic Acid, 13 Sodium Silicofluoride, 14 Other Fluoride Compounds, 15 Chemical Impurities, 15 Chemical Shortages, 16 References, 16 Chapter 3 Fluoride Feed Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Solution Feeders, 17 Saturators, 20 Dry Feeders, 22 Auxiliary Equipment,26 Reference, 33 Chapter 4 Selecting the Optimal Fluoridation System . . . . . . . . 34 Fluoridation Installation,34 Selection of Feeder and Chemical, 38 Cross-Connection Considerations,41 Automatic Proportioning(Pacing),42 Equipment Installation Considerations,43 Planning a Fluoridation Installation,44 Reference,45 Chapter 5 Process Monitoring and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Control Scheme, 46 Troubleshooting,57 Records and Record Keeping, 62 References, 62 Chapter 6 Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 63 Fluoride Feeders, 63 Storage Areas, 64 Laboratory, 65 Chapter 7 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Chemical Handling, 66 Toxic Exposure, 67 Reference, 68 Bibliography,69 Index, 73 iv Foreword The fluoridation of water supplies has been described as one of the great advances in modern public health. It is simply a process of adding a naturally occurring element, fluorine, to drinking water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay, using guidelines developed by scientific and medical research. Fluoridation is safe, economical, and effective. This manual is intended to assist local and state engineers in designing fluoridation installations and to assist water utility personnel in operating them, so that the benefits of fluoridation can be realized to their fullest extent. Anyone plan- ning a fluoridation installation should carefully consider the available options. This manual provides information on the criteria governing the selection of an optimal system; however, the manual is not intended to take the place of expert advice when such is needed. The effectiveness of fluoridation depends on how consistently the water treatment plant operator maintains the optimal fluoride concentration. Because the operator holds the key to better health, this manual is particularly dedicated to helping the operator. The first edition of this manual was prepared by AWWA from material supplied and previously published by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The first edition was revised and updated, resulting in a second edition, which was published in 1984. This third edition was a result of updating the second edition in the following areas: • changing the adjusted fluoridation statistics to reflect current practice. • including a discussion of revised federal regulations for fluoride. • including references, where possible. • including a discussion of fluoride chemistry. • including a discussion of fluoride chemical shortages. Material for this edition was reviewed and approved by the AWWA Water Quality Division Board of Trustees, which at the time of approval included: A.A. Stevens (Chairman), USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio C.L. Hamann(Vice Chairman), C112M Hill, Denver, Colo. J.J. Costello(First Trustee), City of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. C.A. Blanck (Second Trustee), American Water Works Service Company, Richmond,Ind. R.J. Karlin (Third Trustee), Colorado Department of Health, Denver, Colo. J.M. Symons (Representative to the Technical and Professional Council), Department of Civil Engineering, University of Houston,Houston,Texas J.E. Courchene (Representative to the Standards Council), Seattle Water Department, Seattle,Wash. G.G. Robeck (Representative to the AWWARF Research Advisory Council),Laguna Hills,Calif. J.L. Cleasby (Past Chairman), Department of Civil Engineering, Iowa State University,Ames, Iowa F.W. Pontius (Secretary),AWWA, Denver, Colo. vi AWWA MANUAL Chapter 1 Fluoridation and Public Health Flouridation is the process of adding a naturally occurring element, fluorine (as the fluoride ion, F-), to drinking water for the purpose of reducing tooth decay. Fluorine ranks thirteenth in abundance among elements in the earth's crust, twelfth in the oceans,and thirteenth in the human body. Fluoridation of drinking water is not some- thing new; it is actually a naturally occurring process. Although concentrations vary widely, fluorine can be found in virtually every water supply used by man for drink- ing purposes. The fluoride compounds most commonly found in the earth's crust are fluorspar and apatite,calcium fluoride,and a complex calcium fluoride-phosphate.However,no way exists to distinguish between the origins of fluoride ions as they are found in water. There is no difference between fluoride ions dissolved from the earth's crust and fluoride ions occurring in water through the deliberate addition of fluoride com- pounds. Because of the wide distribution of the element, the difficulty in attempting to grow plants or raise animals without it, and its role in the formation of human bones and teeth, fluorine (as the fluoride ion) is considered to be essential to the normal growth and development of man. Fluorine, like chlorine (a gaseous halogen), is never found in the free state. It always occurs in combination with other elements as fluoride compounds. In water, these compounds dissociate into ions, and it is through these fluoride ions that fluorine is assimilated by humans. HISTORY OF FLUORIDATION In 1908,Dr. Frederick McKay,a dentist in Colorado Springs, Colo.,became concerned because the teeth of many children in the community were mottled. Later investiga- tions showed that mottling was caused by excessive amounts of fluoride in the local water supply.' In towns using naturally fluoridated water, it was discovered that 1 2 WATER FLUORIDATION dental fluorosis appeared only when, as in Colorado Springs, the fluoride content of the water was abnormally high. In addition, the residents of these communities had strong teeth and few cavities, and very few of them had lost any teeth. Analysis After the cause of dental fluorosis was discovered and the observation made that den- tal caries were relatively absent in the presence of fluorosis, the teeth of children in many areas and the drinking water supplies they used were analyzed. The examina- tion of the teeth of these thousands of children and the fluoride analysis of hundreds of water supplies showed a remarkable relationship between the concentration of waterborne fluoride and the incidence of dental caries.2,3 Three distinct relationships were discovered • When the fluoride level exceeds approximately 1.5 mg/L, any further increase does not significantly decrease the incidence of decayed, missing, or filled teeth, but higher levels do increase the occurrence and severity of mottling. • At a fluoride level of approximately 1.0 mg/L, the optimum condition exists— maximum reduction in caries with no aesthetically significant mottling. • At fluoride levels below 1.0 mg/L, caries reduction diminishes; the drop in benefits is much greater than the drop in fluoride levels. For example,when the fluoride level drops 20 percent over a period of time(from 1.0 mg/L to 0.8 mg(L), there will be a 50 percent drop in benefits. Because all water supplies contain measurable amounts of fluoride, all water supplies are, by definition, fluoridated. However, only those water supplies that con- tain fluoride concentrations near the optimal level (from 0.7 mg/L to 1.2 mg/L) have appreciable dental significance. These waters are referred to as naturally fluoridated. What is now referred to as adjusted fluoridation is an attempt to compensate for the randomness of the natural process of putting fluoride ions into drinking Water. Adjusted Fluoridation After the role of fluoride in water was determined,many years passed before the idea of imitating the natural process was first suggested.. The onset of World War II fur- ther delayed the first demonstration project. During this period, however, studies were undertaken for the purpose of verifying the fluoride-caries relationship and for determining the validity of proposed experimental adjusted fluoridation of municipal water supplies. The first adjusted fluoridation projects beian in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Mich.;Newburgh, N.Y.; and Brantford, Ont., Canada. '5.' - Over the past 33 years continuous studies of fluorides and fluoridation have been made by the US Public Health Service, state health departments, and non- governmental research organizations. Since 1970 alone, more than 3700 studies on fluorides and fluoridation have been conducted.7 Although chronic exposure to high levels of fluoride in drinking water may cause adverse health effects, recent studies have upheld the effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation at the optimal level 8,9 Health effects of high fluoride levels will be discussed later in this chapter. DENTAL BENEFITS OF FLUORIDATION Tooth decay is a complex process in which all of the factors involved are not entirely understood. It is usually characterized by the loss of tooth structure (enamel, dentin, and cementum) as a result of the destruction of these tissues by acids. Evidence shows that these acids are produced by the action of oral bacteria and enzymes on FLUORIDATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH 3 sugars and carbohydrates that are taken into the mouth. This action takes place beneath the plaque, which is an invisible film composed of gummy masses of micro- organisms that adhere to the teeth. The bacteria alone are capable of converting some of the simple sugars into acids, and the bacteria and enzymes acting in combination are capable of converting carbohydrates and more complex sugars into acids. The acids dissolve tooth enamel and initiate the process of tooth decay. As the enamel is dissolved, a cavity forms, which usually becomes larger as the decay process continues. The dentin underneath the enamel may also be damaged by the action of the acid. If the protective coverings of enamel and dentin.are destroyed, the pulp may be exposed to infection by bacteria. Tooth decay begins in early childhood, reaches a peak in adolescence, and diminishes during adulthood.10 The highest tooth decay activity is found in school-aged children. Nearly everyone suffers from dental caries,the most prevalent chronic disease of man." More than 98 out of every 100 Americans experience some tooth decay by the time they reach adulthood. By age 17, the average American will have 6.3 decayed, missing, or filled (DMF) teeth. Much of the pain and expense of dental decay can be prevented through fluoridation. No other public health measure is as effective in building decay-resistant teeth, and the benefits can be available to all without regard to education or socioeconomic background. Systemic and Topical Effects of Fluoride in Drinking Water When water containing fluoride is consumed, a small amount(20 percent) is retained by fluids in the mouth and incorporated onto the tooth by surface uptake (this is termed the topical effect). The greater portion (80 percent) passes into the stomach and is rapidly absorbed by diffusion through the walls of the stomach and intestines. It enters the blood plasma and is rapidly distributed throughout the body, including the teeth (this is termed the systemic effect). Distributed in this fashion, the fluoride ion is available to all the skeletal structures of the body,where it may be retained and stored in proportions that generally increase with age and intake. Although 80 per- cent of the fluoride is distributed throughout the body, only a small portion of the fluoride is deposited in the bones and teeth; the remainder is excreted through the kidneys. Bones, teeth, and other parts of the skeleton tend to attract and retain fluoride. The soft body tissues do not retain fluoride. Fluoride is a"-bone seeker," and about 96 percent of the fluoride found in the body is deposited in the skeleton. Because teeth are part of the skeleton, the incorporation of fluoride in the teeth is basically similar to that in other bones. It is most rapid during the time of a child's formation and growth. This time period is roughly from the fourth month of pregnan- cy to the tenth year of a child's life. The eighth year generally marks the end of the maximum rate of incorporation of fluoride in the teeth. Erupted teeth differ from other parts of the skeleton in that once they are formed,with the exception of the den- tin(inner part of the tooth) and the root, there is very little cellular activity. Because there is not as much change in the fluoride levels in the teeth after they are formed, it is important that children drink the proper amount of fluoridated water during the early development of the permanent teeth, usually before they start school. The effects of fluoridated water ingested during the years of tooth development have been amply demonstrated. At the optimal concentration in potable water, fluoride will reduce dental caries from 50 to 67 percent among children who ingest this water from birth.-12 These benefits continue into adult life. Stronger teeth result in fewer caries, requiring_ fewer and less extensive fillings, fewer extractions, and fewer artificial teeth. 4 WATER FLUORIDATION The reduction in DMF teeth in children has been well publicized.Less publicized have been the continuing benefits. Various studies in fluoridated communities over the past 30 years have shown a dramatic increase in the number of teenagers completely caries-free. It has been demonstrated that even teenagers without lifetime exposure have received benefits from adjusted fluoridation and that the benefits increase among those with lifetime exposure. Conservative estimates indicate that 20 percent of the teenagers in a fluoridated community will be caries-free. This is about six times as many as will be caries-free in a fluoride-deficient community. HEALTH EFFECTS OF HIGH FLUORIDE LEVELS High concentrations of fluoride in drinking water have been found to cause adverse health effects. Crippling skeletal fluorosis is an adverse health effect of the bone resulting from intakes of fluoride of 20 mg/d over periods of 20 years or more.13 A drinking water fluoride concentration of 10 mg/L, given a 2-L/d consumption rate, would correspond to this value. Crippling skeletal fluorosis, as well as rheumatic at- tack, pain, and stiffness, have been observed in individuals chronically exposed to fluoride in drinking water at levels of 10 mg/L to 40 mg/L.14 Maximum Contaminant Levels The US Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA)has established regulatory limits on the fluoride content of drinking water. Based on a detailed review of health effects studies on fluoride,13,14 the USEPA set a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4 mg(L in water systems to prevent crippling skeletal fluorosis.13,15 The MCL of 4 mg/L, therefore, provides an adequate margin of safety. A secondary maximum contaminant level of 2 mg/L has been established by USEPA as the level above which dental fluorosis is likely to occur.15 Dental fluorosis, however, is considered to be a cosmetic effect and not an adverse health effect.15 ALTERNATIVES TO WATER FLUORIDATION Although there are other ways to provide the benefits of fluoride besides the fluorida- tion of municipal water supply systems, municipal water fluoridation is by far the most cost-effective means available for reducing the incidence of caries in the com- munity. This conclusion is based on a mass of evidence demonstrating the effective- ness of the measure and on the most current information on costs of implementing fluoridation. Topical or Systemic Uptake Methods In general, there are six alternatives to community water fluoridation, using either the topical or the systemic uptake method: A. Topical uptake methods 1. Topical application of sodium fluoride 2. Fluoride gels 3. Fluoride mouthwashes B. Systemic uptake methods 1. Fluoride tablets 2. Fluoride drops 3. School fluoridation FLUORIDATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH 5 Topical uptake methods can be used in conjunction with the fluoridation of a municipal water supply system. Systemic uptake methods should never be used with municipal fluoridation. Water fluoridation is considered primarily a systemic uptake method of adding fluoride to teeth.!Fluoride tablets or drops duplicate the effects of water fluoridation in the body and the incorporation of the fluoride ion in the teeth. Dental fluorosis could occur if water fluoridation and fluoride tablets or drops were used together. Topical uptake methods apply fluorides only to the surface of the teeth and the possibility of fluorosis is minimal. School fluoridation will provide some of the benefits of community water fluoridation and is practiced in some areas. However, it is important that children drink the proper amount of fluoridated water during the early development of the permanent teeth, usually before they start school, to realize the full benefits of water fluoridation. Therefore, school fluoridation is not considered to be an acceptable alter- native to municipal water fluoridation. FACTS AND FICTION ABOUT FLUORIDATION Although community water fluoridation has been proven to be the safest and the most cost-effective method to prevent dental caries, a small percentage of the population continues to oppose its introduction into community water systems. When fluorida- tion is being considered for adoption by a community, persons opposed to fluoridation often introduce charges or allegations that attempt to disprove the benefits, safety, and effectiveness of fluoridation. Many of these charges are addressed to the plant operator, utility manager, and consulting engineer. They are generally divided into two groups: engineering charges and medical/legal charges. Sample charges are presented below. The charge. Natural fluoridation is different from adjusted fluoridation. The fact. No matter where the fluoride ion comes from, the fluoride ion in drinking water is the same. The element fluorine is comprised of atoms with a definite structure. When fluorine combines with another element, each fluorine atom gains one electron and the new substance is called fluoride. In a water solution,these fluoride particles tend to separate into charged particles called ions. Fluoride ions have unique properties that are different from fluorine and are consistent regardless of the origin of the fluoride ion. The charge. Fluoridation is wasteful. Less than one tenth of one percent of the water is drunk by children.. The remaining 99.9 percent is used for sanitary and industrial purposes, fighting fires, washing streets, sprinkling lawns, etc. The fact. Fluoridation can be considered as wasteful based on this argument, but in a similar manner,chlorination and all other water treatment processes are also wasteful. Fluoridation of only water consumed by children is not possible, so fluorides must be added to the entire water supply. Even with this admitted waste, the cost of this proven method of preventing tooth decay in children is small compared to the benefits received. The charge. There is a danger that,either by accident or design, a whole town will be over-fluoridated resulting in a mass poisoning of the community. The fact. In a properly designed and operated system, the apparatus, chemi- cals, and mode of operation are arranged so that the possibility of administering a dangerous dose to a whole community is remote. The type of feeding equipment commonly used is usually designed to add not more than 2 mg/L when operating at 6 WATER FLUORIDATION maximum capacity. In addition, the fluoride content of the water is checked routinely, so that any deviation from the optimum level is immediately discovered. The minimum fatal dose for a human is approximately 2 g of fluoride (as F-). To fluoridate 10 mil gal (32 ML) of water at 1 mg/L would require 190 lb (86 kg) of sodium fluoride or 140 lb (64 kg) of sodium silicofluoride. To raise the fluoride con- centration to a level where the minimum fatal dose(2 g)could be consumed in a 10 oz (300 mL) glass of water, it would be necessary to add to the same water supply approximately 700 tons (635,000 kg) of sodium fluoride or 500 tons (450,000 kg) of sodium silicofluoride at one time. Although the danger would probably be greatest in larger systems using dry feeders, the hopper capacity of the fluoridator(dry feeder)is designed to be limited to two-day's supply (about 50 lb [23 kg]), and even if one- weeks's supply was added at one time, it would only be about one five hundredth of the quantity required for the minimum fatal dose. Under these circumstances, it would be impossible for 700 tons (635,000 kg) of fluoride chemical to be put into the water at one time. The idea of mass poisoning of a community with fluoride is there- fore unrealistic. The charge: Fluoridation causes corrosion in the water lines. The fact: Corrosion by potable water is related primarily to dissolved oxygen concentration, pH, water temperature, alkalinity, hardness, salt concentration, hydrogen sulfide content, and the presence of certain bacteria. The fluoride ion itself is unrelated to corrosion at concentrations at or near the optimal level found in potable water. Under certain water-quality conditions, a small increase in the cor- rosivity of potable water that is already corrosive may be observed after treatment with alum, chlorine, hydrofluosilicic acid, or sodium silicofluoride. This increase in corrosivity is caused by a depression of pH resulting from these treatments and occurs in potable water with a low buffering capacity. The increase in the corrosivity is caused by a depression of pH resulting from these treatments and occurs in potable water with a low buffering capacity. The increase in the corrosivity of potable water as a result of the addition of the hydrofluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride is negli- gible for most water systems, but where it is significant, it can be reduced by adding small amounts of lime or caustic soda. The charge: Fluoride addes taste, color, or odor to the water supply: The fact: Taste, color, and odor are not affected by the addition of fluoride at a concentration of 1 mg/L. Water supplies normally vary in their taste, color, and odor. Materials other than fluoride, such as total dissolved solids and organic con- taminants,are primarily responsible for causing the tastes,colors,or odors in a water supply. The charge: The hardness of the water makes the introduction of fluoride dif- ficult. The fact. Calcium and magnesium can reduce the solubility of fluorides, but the effect is negligible with the concentrations present in natural waters. Under cer- tain conditions, softening of the water used to make a fluoride solution may be neces- sary to enable it to be added uniformly to the supply. For example, it may be necessary to soften the makeup water that is added to a fluoride saturator,but soften- ing of an entire water supply is not necessary for the addition of fluoride chemicals. The charge: Although fluoride may be added at a uniform rate at the source of the water supply,there is a likelihood of the fluoride tending to form pockets in water pipes that would give rise to uneven concentrations. The fact: At the concentration of 1 mg/L F-, fluoride is completely soluble and will not be precipitated out of solution, even in hard water. The concentration of FLUORIDATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH 7 fluoride at the plant tap will be carried throughout the distribution system. If, however, a change in the concentration occurs at the plant, there will be a time lag before the change reaches outlying parts of the distribution system. The time lag depends on the length of pipe through which the water has to pass. "Pockets of fluoride" do not occur in the distribution system. The charge. There are alternative, inexpensive methods, such as home fluoridation units, that can be used by families who believe in the value of fluorida- tion. The fact. There is no reasonable alternative to community fluoridation. It is impractical and expensive to attempt to equip each home with its own fluoridation system. The operation and maintenance problems are also difficult for the average homeowner to handle. The charge: Fluoridation is promoted by the big chemical companies that make huge profits out of it. The fact: Production and sale of fluoride chemicals for water fluoridation rep- ,resents only a very small fraction of the business of the fluoride chemical industry. There are other industrial uses of fluoride chemicals, such as in the aluminum industry. The charge: Fluoridation causes cancer. The fact: Early in 1975, the National Health Federation issued information alleging a relationship between fluoridation and cancer. Their allegations have been repeatedly disproved, both by separate reviews of their work and by independent studies, not only in the United States but in several other countries. Reviews have been conducted by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. In addition, independent studies conducted in the United States by the National Cancer Institute; the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and the Centers for Disease Control found no relationship between fluoridation and cancer death rates. After evaluation of the available studies on the oncogenicity of fluoride, USEPA con- cluded that adequate information does not exist to conclude that fluoride presents a cancer risk to humans.14 A recent study in Great Britain found nothing in any of the major classes of epidemiological evidence that could lead to the conclusion that either fluoride occurring naturally in water or fluoride added to water supplies is capable of inducing cancer or of increasing the mortality from cancer.16 The charge: Fluoridation causes heart diseases, diabetes,and liver and kidney ailments. The fact: Studies made in 64 cities (32 of which'have used naturally fluoridated water for generations and 32 of which used no fluoridation) show no sig- nificant difference in the mortality rates from these diseases. These findings have also been confirmed by studies in Illinois, New England, Texas, and New York. The charge: Fluoridation is mass medication. The fact. Fluoride is not a medicine. It does not treat or cure anything. It is a nutrient that prevents dental decay. Like other minerals in the diet,fluoride helps the body to resist disease, namely, dental decay. The charge: Fluoridation is an unconstitutional and illegal invasion of individual rights. The fact: Over the years the legality of fluoridation has been tested repeatedly. Courts in more than 25 states have heard fluoridation cases, and the constitutionality of fluoridation has been upheld by state Supreme Courts in more than a dozen states. 8 WATER FLUORIDATION In addition, at least eight times, the US Supreme Court has declined to hear these cases because no substantial federal constitutional question was involved. The charge: Fluorides in drinking water can produce allergic reactions. The fact. Fluoride, in the concentration recommended for dental health, does not cause such reactions. The American Academy of Allergy conducted a review of clinical reports of possible allergic responses to fluoride. The academy found no evidence of allergy or intolerance. Following completion of the study, the executive committee of the academy unanimously adopted the following statement:"There is no evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluorides as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies." The charge: The cumulative effect of a fluoridated water supply will per- manently damage the tissues and bones of the body. The fact. A minute part of the fluoride ingested is deposited in the bones and teeth; the remainder is rapidly excreted through the kidneys. Bones and teeth will accumulate fluoride over long periods of time. This is not a health problem,but rather a benefit when an optimal concentration is consumed. As discussed previously, adverse health effects may occur when a high concentration is consumed over an extended period of time. The charge. Fluoride is used as rat poison and, therefore, is harmful to humans. The fact: Although fluoride was used as a rat poison in the past, it was not very effective. At present, fluoride compounds are not used as a rodenticide. Large doses of fluoride are toxic to humans. It is essential to understand, however, that fluoride has a dual nature and is considered by many health authorities to be an essential nutrient in humans.Although serious toxic effects are possible from massive doses of extremely high levels of fluoride,trace amounts of fluorides in drinking water have a beneficial effect. The implication that fluorides in large doses and in trace amounts have the same effect is incorrect. Many chemical elements that are essential nutrients in humans are toxic in amounts larger than nutritional requirements, including magnesium, manganese, zinc, iodine, and iron. The list of objections to fluoridation, whether they relate to engineering, medi- cal, legal, or other questions, could go on indefinitely. If additional information is needed on any charge or fact not covered in this manual, contact the state regulatory agency for water supplies, the state department of health, or the Dental Disease Prevention Activity in the Federal Centers for Disease Control,Atlanta, Ga. Fluoridation has the support of the US Public Health Service, and in the more than 30 years that the program has been in effect, there has been no valid evidence of harm to anyone from drinking optimally fluoridated water.There is no valid reason for denying the benefits of fluoridation to the citizens of any community. As far as the water plant operator and engineer are concerned, the addition of fluoride to a water supply is well within their province, and it is their duty to follow the directives of health officials and the governing body of the community in not just adding fluorides,but in doing the job right. STATUS OF ADJUSTED FLUORIDATION As of 1983, fluoridation in the United States is practiced in approximately 7000 com- munities serving more than 112 million people. Residents of almost 2600 additional communities, serving more than 10 million people, consume water that contains at FLUORIDATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH 9 least 0.7 mg/L fluoride from natural sources. As of 1985, an estimated 131 million people have access to water with a dentally significant concentration of fluoride. One hundred cities with populations of 50,000 or more, including Washington, D.C., and Chicago, M., have had adjusted fluoridation for more than 20 years. Approximately 70 percent of all cities with populations of 100,000 or more have - fluoridated water. More than 22 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico provide fluoridated water to more than half their population. Of the 50 largest cities . in the United States (from the 1980 census), 42 are fluoridated. Of the 10 largest cities, only Los Angeles, Calif., San Diego, Calif., and Phoenix, Ariz., are not fluoridated, as of 1983. As of 1985, eight states (Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, Michigan, and South Dakota) require fluoridation at least for cities above a minimum population. Legality of Fluoridation ` The legality of fluoridation has been tested in the courts more often than any other public health measure. Beginning in 1952, injunctions were sought numerous times in order to prevent the initiation or continuance of fluoridation. These cases were generally based on several of the following types of arguments: violation of religious freedom, violation of pure food acts,lack of or abuse of police power or some municipal authority, an unreasonable or unnecessary measure, wasteful or illegal use of public funds, an unsafe measure or nuisance, availability of alternatives, breach of contract, class legislation(only children benefit), and deprivation of fundamental liberties. In all cases fluoridation has prevailed. During 30 years of litigation,fluoridation has withstood challenges under constitutional objectives (Amendments 1, 10, and 15), it has been upheld in the highest courts in more than a dozen states, and it has withstood legal challenges in more than 25 states. At least eight times the US Supreme Court has denied review, generally on the grounds that no constitutional question was involved. Even though the basic issues involved in fluoridation litigation were resolved more than a decade ago, cases based on the same issues continue to appear, although less often. Inasmuch as few of these suits were successful in obtaining injunctions, opposition appeared later in the form of campaigns to defeat fluoridation proposals by referendum. These were generally quite successful in that more fluoridation projects were defeated than were approved. Of the approximately 7000 adjusted systems, fewer than 8 percent were authorized through a referendum. It has been estimated that fluoridated water systems, if available throughout the country, could in time reduce the national dental bill by one half. In these terms, the benefits expected from fluoridation are considerable. References 1. MCCLURE, F.S. Water Fluoridation, The 3. MCCLURE, F.J. Ingestion of Fluoride Searth and The Victory. Natl. Inst. of and Dental Caries—Quantitative Rela- Health,Bethesda,Md.(1970). tions Based on Food and Water Re- t. DEAN, H.T. Chronic Endemic Dental quirements of Children 1-12 Years Old. Fluorosis (Mottled Enamel). Jour. Amer. Jour. of Diseases of Children, Amer. Medical Assn., 107:1269 (May 66:362(1943). 1936). 10 WATER FLUORIDATION 4. DEAN, H.T. ET AL. Studies on Mass 10. The Prevalence of Dental Caries in the Control of Dental Caries Through United States Children, 1979-1980. Fluoridation of Public Water Supply. The National Dental Caries Prevalence Public Health Rept. 65, Grand Rapids- Survey. Natl. Inst. Dental Res., Natl. Muskegon,Mich.(1950). Caries Program, Natl. Inst. of Health, 5. AST, D.B. ET AL. Newburg—Kingston Bethesda,Md.(Dec. 1981). Caries-Fluorine Study: Final Report. 11. STRiFFLER, D.F.;YOUNG,W.O.; & BURT, Jour. Amer. Dental Assoc., 52:290 B.A.Dentistry, Dental Practice, and the (March 1956). Community. Saunders, Philadelphia, 6. BROWN,H.K. &PomovE,M. Brantford- Pa. (3rd ed:, 1983). Sarnia-Statford, Fluoridation Caries 12. AsT, D.B. & FrrzGERALD, B. Effective- Study, Final Survey, 1963. Jour. ness of Water Fluoridation.Jour.Amer. Canadian Dental Assn., 31(8):505 Dental Assn.,65:581(Nov. 1962). (1965). 13. National Primary Drinking Water 7. Michigan Department of Public Health Regulations; Fluoride; Final Rule and Policy Statement -on Fluoridation of Proposed Rule. Fed. Reg., 50:47142 Community Water Supplies and Synop- (Nov. 14, 1985). sis of Fundamentals of Relation of 14. Final Draft for the Drinking Water Fluorides and Fluoridation to Public Criteria Document on Fluoride. Criteria Health. Michigan Dept. of Public and Standards Div., USEPA Ofce. of Health,Lansing,Mich. (1979). Drinking Water, Washington, D.C. 8. JACKSON,D.;JAMES,P.M.C.; &THOMAS, (1985). F.D. Fluoridation in Anglesby 1983: A 15. National Primary and Secondary Clinical Study of Dental Caries. British Drinking Water Regulations; Fluoride; Dental Jour., 158:45(Jan. 19, 1985). Final Rule.Fed. Reg., 51:11396(Apr. 2, 9. FL 130 National Prevention Dentistry 1986). Demonstration Program Reaffirms 16. KNOX, E.G. Fluoridation of Water and Benefits of Community Water Fluorida- Cancer. A Review of the Epidemiologi- tion. US Dept. Health and Human cal Evidence. Rept. of the Working Serv., Public Health Serv., Centers for Party on Fluoridation of Water and Disease Control, Atlanta, Ga. (July Cancer. Her Majesty's Stationery Ofce., 1985). London(1985). I j American Water Works Association Page 1 of 2 American Water Works Association The AuutMtprit,aM Resource For W8j Mnkdng Wt a �Advec-Cy �Cornniunications �Coiifercnces Education &Training, Science&Technology k Sectims D Press Room FACT SHEETS At Security.._Resources News Releases Fluoridation Fact Sheets a Ruorine'is a naturally occurring element. Fluoride is a negatively charged fluorine atom. Achievement Award Trace amounts of fluoride occur naturally in water. Public Affairs Resources a Fluoride,when administered at low levels of concentration,is proven to help prevent tooth - ...._.__.................._....__._._..... - ...... decay. e Since 1945,American water systems have added fluoride to their water supplies.This process is known as"fluoridation". e American water supplies have low concentration levels of fluoride. e The three primary agents used in fluoridation are sodium fluoride(sodium and fluoride atoms bonded together),sodium fluorosilicate(sodium,silicon and fluoride)and fluorosilic acid (hydrogen,silicon and fluoride). e The American Dental Association(ADA)endorsed fluoridation in 1950,reaffirming its endorsement in 1997.The American Medical Association endorsed fluoridation in 1.951,and reaffirmed its endorsement in 1996.The U.S. Public Health Service has also endorsed fluoridation. e AWWA endorsed fluoridating public water systems in 1976.The endorsement was reaffirmed in 1982. e As part of,its"Healthy People 2000"project,the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)set a goal of increasing the level of the American population serviced by fluoridated water systems to 75 percent by the year 2010. e In 1995,the U.S.Surgeon General estimated that 62 percent of Americans--approximately 167 million people--had access to fluoridated water. e Drinking water's fluoride content Is limited under federal law,The level of fluoride deemed acceptable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA)is 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L).The CDC has established the"optimal level"for fluoride content In drinking water to be the in the range of 0.7 mg/L to 1:.2 mg/L. e Despite fluoridation's benefits to dental health,exposure to high levels of fluoride can cause dental fluorosis,a condition which leads to mottled tooth enamel,tooth discoloration,and in some cases erosion of effected teeth to the gumline. e The US Department of Health and Human Services has not recognized a causal link between low-level fluoride exposure and occurrences of cancer,brain damage or osteoporosis: e The USEPA has found a link between prolonged exposure to high-level fluoride concentration and skeletal fluorosis,a condition similar to osteoporosis,as wel'as digestive and nervous system disorders. e Although the amount of fluoride and duration of exposure necessary to cause such ailments differs from person to person,there is no data linking these ailments to the level of fluoride in drinking water. aeon What Are the Best Methods � _�� for Fluoride Removal*, The fluoride concentration In one of by Jim Angers our town wells Is 3.75-mg/L and is currently blended with water from fim Angers is the Small Systems Helpline Specialist another well to lower the Contact him at 800-366-0107 or jangersOawwaxig. concentration at the consumers'taps.This limits our operating flexibility because the well cannot be operated by Itself.What are some methods for removing naturally The level of fluoride detect6d.4 is below the US Environrni4w, occurring fluoride from a 1,200-gpm.well? A Agency-established maximtim Wh� level(MCL)of.4 ing/L bufls'�`I- -6 h afth; d-cts.-Hig h concefitr�iions,of fluoride can cause bone'. is .t 6ijconcefii, dirig. e. effects m:tire level is above. of'municipal supplies,it is 1 31 t Verbu " required:_Wit con roversy.9: fluoridation 6ib' f naturally 'dcannotbe*us46r another supply.' qri..� ed _: If you C9nl iniii* your 6"J "itcesthd waterdistrict will.'save cina substantial investment;:oper4t,ing-.expenses,� d additional r0cesses-However, if you choose19 P., mo ifyitig_existing processes.sur as�-pagulation,lime softening,and green sand iron-re ran pWer ydiidt levels: orhe cdhi4ntio ri-Al treatment plants;such asscopie operat by`the 'wgrflu440�4 d t d esi _uAh by:25 percent by increasing coagulant for T� -USE A lists: ,eJ best .14ble technq ogy,.(BAT e rf be treatment f( Quality Associa ion. .aqivated.A uixiina d reverse osmosis�(RO).The Water tlists wellas electrodialysis, distillation additional re oval' h ds. . , ne!Mg,4n_ciis4l. in met o product aluminum production;alurriin _0 h 'Activated,%a umma isa b aluminum , ft y a.M.vatgd b k�6i.air,6io ekift�im 'd,caustic,soda..The AA is very I pp rous,and the:�- y,� peradsorbed to the ."ji of i�reight,is qulte.4ig surface 6 -A�A,,-pl) on f , .4`M orptcnbccurs.wheqiii�P4--d the WA r is in the5.04.6 range,which Is the obtfim`* f al i1rterficternovAtasVe -AAist also,oft the BAT list for Arsenic and uranium removal{V,, riReqiurri,,p s4t4t4tea 4t:i a regetierated'with'causfic'sc)da�, rinsed, neutralq&.- sol ' ft, utiohl�a �d Tlrls IRO This membrane treatment process forces-s�--, th -A imbrahe material.The per rough permeable me AWWA Policy Statement � ** membrane ---material. - 'has passed throughmors. the filter reiams little or n6 Fluoridation of Public Water-Supplies organics,depending on,membrane size..There are WA ting in the n view of the endorsement and resolutions of Ro units.o US that reduce fluoride operating the.American Dental Association,the Canadian tot1.mg/L.The flow into the membrane urn Dental Association,the American Medical ifi S'P fit,whlch;v,�ou!d allow only A* ,'percent��ge of ejfid. ....... ........ `ircaied through RO;26d then blended with'un ra- Association,the Canadian Medical Association, d'dilute the fluoride level and lower trea an I.::.-This w6ul V Vv d the Health League of Canada,the American Electrodialysis(ED) and Electrodialysis Reversaw ' Water Works Association supports the practice Both ED --d Nf : (EpR).Bo.. D and EDR are effective re u of fluoridation of public water supplies in confor- 113ilow,the MCL levels.They are similar to R in at' mance with the standards set by the appropriate membrane processes.ED-EDR processes,however,W;6�, iiGe t;= .2-1 regulatory agencies. ,,cgrrent to,electrically charge ions to be transferred. the,membrane-under.low pressure instead of fo through the membrane under hi. h pressure. 9 differently from ED,as it incorporateselectrical pole reversal to control membrane scaling foulin g.ED and EDR are selective in,the minerals removed and are not as effective for badeziologict:„ removal as RO. Bone Char.This method for removal of fluoride is similar to AA, although the bo e char's capacity for fluoride is reduced each time it is regenerated. Often the medium is discarded th than regenerated.This process is available in skid-mounted package plants..One major 'A treatment plant used this process in South Dakota from 1953 to 1971.Currently,a res interest in pursuing this process for drinking water is occurring in parts of the world with 6 Opftow October 2001 of naturally occurring fluoride,such as India and process design.Dilution,recycle,and concentratioii'of. Thailand., solids should,be practiced whenever possible.Concentrate Distillation,A method thatproduces high-quality' disposal can be a signs&cant portion of the overall cost.of. . treated water,distillation is.a process of boiling water and the removal,process.Check with local anti'state 'gulatory capturing the condensate.more aptly used as,a point-of- a encies for disposal requirements in. our area :.:. P . g P Y. P 9 Po �1 Y use or point-of-entry treatment than as i central_supply. . The process can be energy intensive and not cost-effective For More fnfortnatlon for central supply applications.Solar distiliation projects Contact the AWWA Bookstore,800-926=7337,;:.;::. have been successfuLfor small(single.family).applications custsvt4Pawwa.org,or<www.awwa:org/bo'okstore>,to along the Mexico-US border. . purchase the"AW.WA products belowor go to the Web`site <www.epsea.org/stills litml>to.:obtain informatiomon_ttie Waste Stream Concerns US-Mexico border protect. The disposal of backwash, spentregenerant, and spent media is a concern;particularly since arsenic,radon; 'C� AWWA Manua1.38,Electrodialysis and Electrodialysis:: radium, uranium,and other naturallyoccurring minerals Reversal,No 30038 or contaminants may also be removed during seperal,of v*.AWWA Manual 46,Reverse.Osmosisond Ngnofilbation,. these treatment processes No. 30046 In dryclimates the waste siudge,may"be dried and ¢,Chetrrtstry of water Treatment,2nd edition No 20381` disposed of in a landfill or hazardous waste facility.The disposai methods for liquid wastes,spent media,cleaning 'f Water Quality and 1 reatment,5th edition,No 30Q38 . solutions,andconcentrated-contaminant sludge vary 0 Management of- let T'reatme►it Ptunt Residuals; froni region to.region:Some wastestreams'are treated,and No:20416 _ then discharged to the ocean or surface waters, other + Water Treatment,2nd edition(Water Supply Operations'"~ + streams are disposed of.through the headworks of a wastewater tieatment plant. . es).'No 1956.. seri Disposal niethods.also'include.land application' 'dee fi USEPA Deesi ei Manual Removal o _F uoride% PP P.. . 8► t ( s fio t Drinking well injection,and evaporation:ponds. Waste:.'-,,,,, Water Supplies/iy,Activated Alumina,EPA=60/2-f34 134,: minimisation,should`be,considered,throughout the" <www.epa gog/safewater> . 0. Water Words to Know elution(1)The process of separating or washing out adsorbed material,especially byUTILITU • use of a solvent.(2)In ion exchange,the SCRUICI Co., inc stripping of ions from the medium by passing Professional Tank Services for the Utilities and Wireless Markets a more highly concentrated ionized solution through the ion exchanger bed. fusible plug A safety device on a WATER TANK SERVICES chlorine cylinder below the outlet valve that melts at 158'F(70°C)for protection from -Full Service Maintenance Programs excessive pressure when the cylinder is heated. -Interior and Exterior Painting,Repairs,Safety Accessories graywater Untreated household used water—such as wash or -Inspections, Washouts,Disinfections h ANNrinse water from a sink, -New Tank Sales and Leasing iv, AIt�WI-i1�7 bathtub,or other household plumbing .:.:,.. 1.c. feature,except atoilet— WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICFjS 2,c that does not contain -Antenna Site Management for Water Tanks human wastes. 3.b notating Oscillating or -Antenna Installations and Site Construction. . 4.a nodding back and forth. -Design RevieHslProject Management 5.d Some valve operators utilize a nutating gear 6.a motion to generate rotation.The drive gear Production Centers:Proctor,AR;San Jacinto,CA; Petry,GA; 7'c nutates upon a driven gear Pocahontas&Joliet,I,L;Pittsburg,KS;Madison,NC;San Antonio& . 8.b with one less tooth,thus Houston,TX 9.a Producing a rotation.The driven gear advances one Corporate Office: P.O.Box 1354,Perry,GA 31069•Toll Free:800-223-3695 10.b tooth for each nutation of FAX:478-987-2991•www.utilityservice.com the drive gear. October 2001 Optlow 7 \ll Q1 11c21111 1'11,0JVU1l.cJ - 1'"LA OLIVCA rage 1 V1 L National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Oral Health Resources Ora H alth Home I !Contact Us Resource Library Fact Sheet Browse by Topic Resource Library Water Fluoridation: Guidelines and Recommendations Background Information Data Systems Back to Fact Sheets and FAQs State-b,X._State.,.Reports February 2002—Tooth decay, also known as dental caries, is a health problem that has plagued humankind for centuries. Until as recently as 60 years ago, the damage caused by caries was an inevitable fact of life for most people. The disease often meant many visits to the dentist to have damage and painful teeth repaired or removed. Today, primarily as a result of fluoride, damage caused by this problem can be reduced and, in many instances, prevented. Fluoride's benefits for teeth were discovered in the 1930s. Dental scientists observed remarkably low decay rates among people • whose water supplies contained significant amounts of natural fluoride. Several studies conducted during the 1940s and 1950s confirmed that when a small amount of fluoride is added to the community water supply, decay rates among residents of that community decrease. Although these studies focused primarily on the benefits of water fluoridation for children, more recent studies demonstrate that decay rates in adults are also reduced as a result of fluoride in the drinking water. Fluoride prevents tooth decay two ways: primarily through direct contact with teeth throughout life, and when delivered through the water supply to children during the tooth forming years. The most Inexpensive way to deliver the benefits of fluoride to all residents of a community is through water fluoridation. All water naturally contains some fluoride. When a community fluoridates its water, it adjusts the level of fluoride in the water to prevent dental decay. Currently, over 162 million people in the United States are supplied with water containing enough fluoride to protect teeth. One of the health objectives contained in Healthy People 2010, the plan that sets health goals for the nation for the year 2010, calls for at least 75 percent of the population served by community water systems to receive optimal levels of fluoride. The current level is 65.8 percent. To reach this goal, approximately 22.5 million more people must gain access to fluoridated water through public water systems. Other sources of fluoride are also available. Forms of fluoride that can be applied directly to teeth include toothpaste, mouthrinses, http://www.cdc.gov/OralHealth/factsheets/fl-background.htm 2/3/03 and professionally applied fluoride treatments available in the dental office. These methods of delivering fluoride are more expensive than water fluoridation and require a conscious decision to use them. However, the widespread availability of fluorides, via water fluoridation, toothpaste, and other sources, has resulted in the steady decline of dental caries throughout the United States. Children whose dentists have evaluated as being at high risk for tooth decay and whose home water supplies contain low amounts of fluoride, can take dietary fluoride supplements. This daily supplement, which can be prescribed by a dentist or a physician, should be taken only by children if the home water supply has been verified to contain a low concentration of fluoride. This page last updated August 07, 2002 OraI...Health Home I Contact._Us CDC Home I Search I Bealth.Topics_A-Z,_ Privacx_Policy_ I Accessibility United__States Department of Health and_Human.Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Division of Oral Health http://www.cdc.gov/OralHealth/factsheets/fl-background.htm 2/3/03 *Arm•NUAL'11t' a P1001.lL"' Weekly February 22,2002/51(07);144-7 Populations Receiving Optimally Fluoridated Public Drinking Water --- United States, 2000 Dental caries (i.e., tooth decay) is a transmissible, multi-factor disease that affects 50% of children aged 5--9 years,67% of adolescents aged 12--17 years (1), and 94% of adults aged>18 years (2) in the United States. During the second half of the 20th century 0, a major decline in the prevalence and severity of dental caries resulted from the identification of fluoride as an effective method of preventing caries. Fluoridation of the public water supply is the most equitable, cost-effective, and cost-saving method of delivering fluoride to the community (,45). In the United States during 2000, approximately 162 million persons(65.8%of the population served by public water systems)received optimally fluoridated water compared with 144 million (62.1%) in 1992 (6).This report presents state-specific data on the status of water fluoridation in the United States and describes a new surveillance system designed to routinely produce state and national data to monitor fluoridation in the public water supply.The results of this report indicate slow progress toward increasing access to optimally fluoridated water for persons using public water systems. Data from the new surveillance system can heighten public awareness of this effective caries prevention measure and can be used to identify areas where additional health promotion efforts are needed. The 2000 and 2010 national health goals include objectives (13.9 and 21.9, respectively) (7,8)to increase the 1989 and 1992 national baseline fluoridation levels (61% and 62%, respectively) (6,9) to 75%of the U.S. population served by community water systems that receive-water with optimal levels of fluoride (0.7--1.2 ppm depending on the average maximum daily air temperature of the area). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not regulate the addition of fluoride to water, and EPA's Safe Drinking Water Information System(SDWIS) actively tracks fluoride concentrations only in water systems with naturally occurring fluoride levels above the established regulatory limits (2:2.0 ppm). During 1998--2000,CDC developed the Water Fluoridation Reporting System(WFRS), a surveillance database that included CDCs 1992 water fluoridation census (6) and EPA's SDWIS. To ensure that-initial data were accurate and complete, in 2000, CDC sent state-specific reports generated from WFRS to the oral health contact at each state health agency for review; updated information was returned, and nonrespondents were contacted through telephone calls and electronic messages. In July 2001,each state received its preliminary public water system data and was asked to submit corrections. Alabama, California, Kansas, Louisiana,Montana, Rhode Island,Texas, and Wyoming had not updated their data by September 1, 2001; therefore,existing WFRS data were used in this report. Fluoridation percentages were determined by dividing the number of persons using public water systems with fluoride levels considered optimal (naturally occurring and adjusted) for the state by the total population of the state served by public water systems.When the population served by public water systems exceeded the 2000 population census for that state,the state census was used as the population using the public water supplies. This might occur as a result of the methods used by water systems to estimate the population served. These states were Alabama, Hawaii, Louisiana,Massachusetts,Missouri, Utah, and Wyoming. In the United States during 2000, approximately 162 million persons (65.8% of the population served by http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtnil/mm5lO7a2.htm 2/7/03 r - --- - ------ ---o -r----------- public -------vpublic water systems)received optimally fluoridated water compared with 144 million (62.1%)in 1992 (6); state-specific percentages able 1)ranged from 2% (Utah) to 100% (District of Columbia) (median: 76.7%). In 27 states during 1992-2000,the proportion increased(range: 0.8%-63.8% [Georgia and Nevada, respectively]; median: 4.9%v), and in 23 states,the proportion decreased(range: from—0.1%to--6.0% [Iowa and Alaska,respectively]; median: 2.9%); the District of Columbia remained 100%fluoridated. Delaware, Maine, Missouri,Nebraska, and Virginia reached 75% in 2000 and Oklahoma reached 74.6%.The national objective has been met by 26 states, and the small increase from 1992 to 2000 of 3.7 percentage points has left a gap of 9.2 percentage points from the overall target. Reported by:D Apanian, MS, D Malvitz, DrPH, S Presson, DDS, Div of Oral Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Editorial Note: WFRS data indicate that during the 1990s, the estimated proportion of the U.S. population using public water supplies that maintained optimally fluoridated water increased from 62.1% to 65.8%. This modest progress occurred as the result of substantial increases in coverage in a few states and, in some instances, because several large metropolitan areas commenced fluoridation (e.g., Clark County [Las Vegas],Nevada; Los Angeles and Sacramento,California; and Manchester,New Hampshire). The findings in this report are subject to at least three limitations. First, nonresponses might have affected the accuracy of some states'final water fluoridation percentages by not accounting for changes in status. Second,use of the 2000 U.S. census data as the denominator for calculating water fluoridation percentages in seven states might have resulted in the percentages being underestimated because, in most states,the number of persons using public water systems was probably less than the 2000 U.S. census population. Finally, three states (Kentucky, Rhode Island, and South Dakota)reported their 1992 fluoridation rates as 100%; in these states, the apparent decrease from 1992 to 2000 in the percentage of persons using public water supplies receiving optimally fluoridated water represents an error correction in reporting methods rather,than a true decrease. WFRS will become an increasingly valuable tool for monitoring state and annually updating national water fluoridation data as more users register and routinely participate in entering data and receiving reports. WFRS updates and reports will assist states in monitoring the extent and consistency of water fluoridation. During 2002, CDC will provide online information on water fluoridation for states that update their data electronically. Although the new WFRS online site might facilitate public knowledge about optimally fluoridated water, efforts to convince jurisdictions to provide such water must address 1) the perception by some scientists, policymakers, and members of the public that dental caries is no longer a public health problem or that fluoridation is no longer necessary or effective; 2) the often complex political process involved in adopting water fluoridation; and 3)unsubstantiated claims by opponents of water fluoridation about its alleged adverse health effects (10). To reach the goal of 75% of the public water drinking population supplied with optimally fluoridated water,policymakers and public health officials at the federal, state, and local levels will need to devise new promotion and funding approaches to gain support for this prevention measure. Acknowledgements This report is based on data contributed by state health, natural resources, and environmental departments. S Randlett,Alaska Dept of Environmental Conservation. K Hayward, Arizona Dept of Health Svcs. L Mouden, DDS, Arkansas Dept of Health. D Brunson, MPH, Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment. H Link, Connecticut Dept of Public Health. H Davis, DDS, Florida Dept of Health. E Alderman, DDS, Georgia Dept of Human Resources. M Greer, DMD, Hawaii Dept of Health. L Penny, Idaho Dept of Health and Welfare. L Lampiris, DDS, Illinois Dept of Public Health. D Cain, Indiana State Dept of Health. M Magnant, Iowa Dept of Public Health. R Murphy, Kentucky Dept for Public Health. S http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/Mmwrhtml/mm5lO7a2.htm 2/7/03 v\I waM\a VLaJ.1vvva I AA.45 vt/\laaaw��' - wVaau{4\V\a 1 -WAA1 L11a411aab -.w\va V1LLV\L Vtw\\r J, ---- A"&V J Vl ✓ Russ, Maine Dept of Human Svcs. N Reilman, Maryland Dept of the Environment. F Barker, Massachusetts Dept of Public Health. J Shekter, Michigan Dept of Environmental Quality. D Rindall, Minnesota Dept of Health. J Young, DMD, Mississippi State Dept of Health.M Logston, Missouri Dept of Natural Resources. K McFarland, DDS, Nebraska Health and Human Svcs System. C Lawson, Nevada State Health Div.A Pelletier, MD, New Hampshire Dept of Health and Human Svcs. F Dickert, New Jersey Dept of Environmental Protection. R Romero, DDS, New Mexico Dept of Health. E Green, DDS, New York State Dept of Health. R King, DDS, North Carolina Dept of Health and Human Svcs. G Stewart, MPA, North Dakota Dept of Health. J Pierson, Ohio Dept of Health. M Morgan, DDS, Oklahoma State Dept of Health. K Salis, Oregon Health Div. N Gardner, DDS, Pennsylvania Dept of Health. R Lala, DDS, South Carolina Dept of Health and Environmental Control. M Baker, South Dakota Dept of Health. W Wells, Tennessee Dept of Environment and Conservation. K Zinner, MPH, Utah Dept of Health. A Lund, Vermont Dept of Health. K Day, DDS, Virginia Dept of Health. T Wilson, Washington Dept of Health. G Black, DDS, West Virginia Bur of Public Health. W LeMay, DDS, Wisconsin Div of Public Health. References 1. Kaste LM, Selwitz RH, Oldakowski RJ,Brunelle JA,Winn DM, Brown I.J. Coronal caries in the primary and permanent dentition of children and adolescents 1-47 years of age: United States, 1988-- 1991.J Dent Res 1996;75:631--41. 2. Winn DM,Brunelle JA, Selwitz RH, et al. Coronal and root caries in the dentition of adults in the United States, 1988--1991.J Dent Res 1996;75:642-51. 3. CDC. Achievements in public health, 1900--1999: fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries. MMWR 1999:48:933--40. 4. CDC. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States MMWR 2001:50(No. RR-14):26. 5. Griffin SO,Jones K,Tomar SL. An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation. J Public Health Dent 2001;61:78--86. 6. CDC. National Center for Prevention Services.Fluoridation census 1992 summary. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services,Public Health Service, CDC, 1993. 7. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2000: national health promotion and disease prevention objectives---full report, with commentary. Washington,DC: US Department of Health and Human Services,Public Health Service, 1990:357--8. 8. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people 2010-=-understanding and improving health. 2nd ed.Washington,DC: US Government Printing Office, November 2000:21-28. 9. CDC. National Center for Prevention Services. Fluoridation census 1989 summary. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services,Public Health Service, CDC, 1991. 10. Hodge HC. Evaluation of some objections to water fluoridation. In: Newbrun E,ed. Fluorides and Dental Caries: Contemporary Concepts for Practitioners and Students. 3rd ed. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas, 1986:221--55. Table 1 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/nun5lO7a2.htm 2%7/03 TABLE 1.Number of persons and percentage of the population receiving optimally fluoridated water through public water ►stems(AWS),by sate-Unitsd States,IM and 2000 2000 2000 2000 1892 Change in fluoridated tonal PWS perewm9e Parr da9e P0004tage State Population population fluoridated 1892-2000 Alabama' 3,887,059 4,447,100 89.2% 82.6% 68 Alaska 270,099 489,371 55.2% 61.2% -6.0 Adnana 2,700,354 4,M,065 55.5% 49.9% 5.6 Adonsaw 1,455,767 2,431,477 59.9% 58.7% 12 California 9,551,961 .33,238057 28.71PS 15.7% 13-0 Colorado' 2,852,386 3,708,081 76.945 81.7% -4.8 Connecticut 2,398,227 2,701,178 86.8% 85.9% 22 Delaware 505,7+17 624,923 80.9% 67.4% 13-5 District 01 cokxnw 5951000 595,000 100.0% 100.0% 0.0 Aorkfa 9,407 494 15,033,574 62.6% 58.3% 4.3 Geo(oa 6,161,139 6,638,635 92.9% 92.1% 0.8 flaywali` 109,147 1,211,537 9.0% 13.0% -4.0 Idaho 383,720 845,780 45.4% 482% -2.9 Illinois 10,453,837 11,192,286 93.4'% 95.2% -1.8 hsdiana 4232,907 4,441,502 95.3% 98.0% --3.3 Iowa 2,181,649 2,390,661 91.3% 91.4'% •-0.1 Kansas 1,513,306 2,421,274 625% 58.4% 4.1 Kanft eky 3,235.453 3,367,812 96.1% 100.0% -3.9 t.ot451ana• 2,375,702 4,488,976 532% 55.7% -2.5 Maine 466,208 618,033 75.4% 55JWo 19.6 Maryland' 4,124,958 4,547.908 90.7% 85.2% 4.9 Massachusetts', 3,548,099 6,349A97 55.8% 57.0% -12 Michigan 6,56$,151 7,'242,531 90.7% 88.5% 22 Minnesota 3,714.465 3,780,942 962% 93.4% 4.8 IAGsf65JW 1,227,268 2,685,075 46.0% 48.4% 2.4 Missouri, 4,502,722 5,50,211 80.5% 71.4% 9.1 Montana 143.092 645,452 222% 25.9% -3.7 Nebraska? 9882+62 1,243,713 77.7% 62_1'% 15.6 Nevada, 1,078,479 1.637,105 65V% 2.1% 63.8 New Hampshire 347,007 807,438 43.0% 24.0% 19.0 Naw Jersey 1,120.410 7,286,514 15.596 162% -0-7 New Mexico 1,187,404 1.548,084 76.741; 6529% 10.5 New YOW 12,000,000 17,690,198 672 69-7% -1.9 North CaroBna 4,862,220 5,837,926 83.3% 78.5% 4.8 North Dakota 531,738 557,595 95.4% 96.4% -•1.0 Ohio 8,355,002 9,535,188 87.6% 872Y. -0.3 Ctdahomat 2;1644330 2,900 000 74.6% 58.0% 16.6 Oragont 612,485 2,700)000 22.7% 24.8% 2.1 PONWsylvenia 5,825,328 10,750.095 542% 589% 3.3 Rhode Island 842,797 989,786 85.1% 100.0% -14.9 South Cama 3,08,974 3,383,434 912% 90.0% 12 Sarah Dakotat 553,503 626,221 88.4% 100.0% -11.6 Tennessee 4,749,493 5,025,998 94.5% 92.09'* 2.5 TOM 11,868,046 18,072,680 65.7% 64.0% 1.7 Ulaht' 43,816 2.233069 2.0% 3.1% -1.1 Vamrant 240,579 443,901 54.2% 57.4% -33.2 Virgfnta 5,677.551 6,085,435 93.3% 72.1% 21.2 Washin"t 2,844,893 4,925„540 57.8% 53.296 4.6 WestVhgiolat 1,207,000 1,357,000 87.0% 82.1% 4.9 Wisconsin 3,106,738 3,481,285 69.3% 93.0% -3.7 Wyoufts 149,774 493,782 302% 353% -5.4- Tofal 162.067241 246,120.616 6'5.8% 62.1% 3.7 •Reported PW9 population m meded total state population;PWS population was sal to the 2000 U.S.corms of slate popLAMlons. 1 Complete data were not available from Water Ruorldallon Fkjpwft System;addiUWW hdomlallon was obtained from slates Return to top. Use of trade names and commercial sources is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services. References to non-CDC sites on the Internet are provided as a service to MMWR readers and do not constitute or imply endorsement of these organizations or their programs by CDC or the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services.CDC is not responsible for the content of pages found at these sites. Disclaimer All MMWR HTML versions of articles are electronic conversions from ASCII text into HTML.This conversion may have resulted in character translation or format errors in the HTML version.Users should not rely on this HTML document, but are referred to the electronic PDF version and/or the original MMWR paper copy for the official text,figures.,and tables.An original paper copy of this issue can be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents,U.S.Government Printing Office(GPO), http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtmUmm5107a2.htm 2/7/03 Washington,DC 20402-9371;telephone:(202)512-1800..Contact GPO for current prices. **Questions or messages regarding errors in formatting should be addressed to mznwrcl@cdc.gov. Page converted:2/21/2002 Print Help MMWR Home I MMWR Search I H@lp I Contact Us CDC Home I Search.I Health Topics A-Z This page last reviewed 2/21/2002 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/Mmwrhtnil/mm5lO7a2.htm 2/7/03 ) DHS DHS-DRINKING WATER PROGRAM SYSTEMS ADJUSTING FLUORIDE TO 1.0 mg/L(1.0 part per million) as of November 92, 2002 Name of Wager System County Population ALBANY,CITY OF Linn 39,000 ASTORIA,CITY OF Clatsop 9,813 BURNSIDE WATER ASSOCIATION Clatsop 290 COOS BAY-NORTH BEND WATER BD. Coos 37,000 COQUILLE,CITY OF Coos 4,300 CORVALLIS,CITY OF Benton 50,101 DALLAS,CITY OF Polk 12,960 ELLENDALE WATER CO-OP Polk 91 FERNHILL COMMUNITY WTR SYSTEM Clatsop 237 FLORENCE,CITY OF Lane 6,100 FOREST GROVE,CITY OF Washington 16,275 GEARHART WATER DEPARTMENT Clatsop 1,240 INDEPENDENCE WATER SYSTEM Polk 4,625 JOHN DAY WATER DISTRICT Clatsop 225 KEVER,CITY OF Marion 30,000 McMINNVILLE WATER&LIGHT Yamhill 24,800 MONMOUTH,CITY OF Polk 7,980 NEWPORT,CITY OF Lincoln 10,200 OLNEY-WALUSKI WATER ASSN. Clatsop 500 PHILOMATH,CITY OF-PUBLIC WORKS Benton 4,000 RINK CREEK WATER DISTRICT Coos 230 RIVER POINT Clatsop 150 SALEM PUBLIC WORKS Marion 170,000 SCAPPOOSE,CITY OF Columbia 5,126 SEASIDE WATER DEPARTMENT Clatsop 6,000 SHELLEY ROAD-CREST ACRES W.Q. Cons 475 SHERIDAN,CITY OF Yamhili 5,200 SIDWALTER WATER DEPT Warm Springs 100 SILVERTON,CITY OF Marion 6,700 SIMNASHO WATER DEPT Warm Springs 260 STANLEY ACRES WATER ASSN,INC. Clatsop 250 SUBLIMITY,CITY OF Marion 1,985 SUBURBAN EAST SALEM WATER DIST Marion 12,000 SWEET HOME,CITY OF Linn 7,800 THE DALLES,CITY OF Wasco 11,350 TUALATIN VALLEY WD(WOLF CREEK only) Washington 128,000 TURNER,CITY OF Marion 1,230 WARM SPRINGS WD Warn Springs 3,468 WARRENTON W.S:,CITY OF Clatsop 9,080 WILLOW DALE WATER DISTRICT Clatsop 95 Total 629,236 a�RTL j Dan Saltzman,Commissioner 4 CITY OF Morteza Anoushiravani,P.E.;Administrator 0 1120 SW 5`h Avenue PORTLAND, OREGON Portland,Oregon 97204 Information(503) 823-7404 ' Fax(503)823-6133 Iasi , BUREAU OF WATER WORKS TDD(503)823-6868 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 12, 2003 TO: Water Managers Advisory Board FROM: Mort Anourshiravani Administrator SUBJECT: Projected FY 2003-04 Rates Please find attached preliminary rate information for FY 2003-04. As always, there are possible rate changes due to budget adjustments between now and the rate ordinance in May. You will receive the full "Requested Budget"document as soon as it is published - near the end of March. Volume rates by wholesale customer are listed on the attached Excel spreadsheet first tab "Rates" (or attached Table 1). These rates are based on the Water Bureau's preliminary FY 2003-04 budget and calculated according to the 25-year contract cost of service methodology. The table shows a comparison between the "Projected Rates 2003-04" and the current "Ordinance Rates". The overall average wholesale rate increase is about 18% - compared to the City increase of about 8%. The "Rates"worksheet includes three columns that show rate impact due to: Status Quo Changes -The Cost of Service model updates to reflect new capital costs, budgeted operating revenue and expenditures along with updated rate of return data resulted in a 5% wholesale increase. Lower Demand-Water sales decreases of about 9% added another 9% to wholesale rates (for details see 'Water Sales"tab in spreadsheet). Seasonal Use Factor- As we studied the recent usage patterns it became clear that a more equitable cost allocation includes a peak season usage component. High peak season use by some customers means that without a seasonal use factor some customers pay more than their fair share. Peaking factors have been part of rate setting since the early 1990's but the calculations have changed over time. This change restores the principles of peaking into the methodology, but in a seasonal context, rather than a daily or hourly basis. Also, the rate structure in the Regional Implementation Plan recognized that"Because Portland ... stores water for its peak season demands in the Bull Run Reservoirs, the cost of providing water during this period should be accounted for in the cost-of- service methodology". The seasonal factor does not change the current 10% operational peak use method. An Equal OpportunitY Emplover r` Water Managers Advisory Board Projected FY 2003-04 Rates February 12, 2003 Page 2 A breakdown of O&M, Depreciation, and Rate of Return charges is summarized in tab"Costs by Service Area". The unit costs shown on Table 2 (Costs by Service Area)are the service area total costs divided by the total consumption in the service area. The "Component"tab shows comparisons between FY 02-03 and FY 03-04 for overall wholesale costs and costs per CCF. O&M costs are increasing about 3% and capital costs about 6% for overall cost increases about 5%. As noted above most of the rate increase is related to water sales reductions. Individual rates are based on different seasonal use factors. These proposed rates will be reviewed by the Commissioner-in-Charge and may change because of City Council action on the Bureau's budget. As provided for in the 25-year Agreement, purchaser will be sent a copy of the rate ordinance and notice of the City Council hearing. If you have any questions please call Anne Conway at 503-823-7468. Anne plans to attend the 02/12/03 Water Managers Advisory Board meeting October 24, 2002 Proposed Dam Raise on Hagg Lake Washington County Gaston, OR. The Honorable: Gordon H. Smith World Trade Center 121 SW Salmon St. Ste 450 Portland,OR 97204 Ron Wyden 700 NE Multnomah St. Ste 450 Portland, OR 97232 Representatives: Earl Blumenauer 516 E Morrison St. Ste 250 Portland, OR 97214 Darlene Hooley 315 Mission St. Ste 102 Salem, OR 97302 David Wu 620 SW Main St. Ste 606 Portland, OR 97205 Washington County Commissioners: Dick Schouten-6105 SW 14e Ave-Beavertton,OR 97007 Tom Brian- 7630 SW Fir-Tigard,OR 97223 John Leeper- 11160 SW Muiuwood Dr-Portland, OR 97225 Roy Rogers- 14429 SW Aynsley Way-Tigard,OR 97224 Andy Duyck-39848 NW Chalmers Ln -Forest Grove,-OR 97116 The Oregonian Publishing Co. 1320 SW Broadway Portland, OR 97201 Attention Laura Gunderson News Times Publishing Managing Editor PO Box 408 Forest Grove, OR 97116 . . t 4 Thirty years ago, Scoggins Valley property was purchased by the Bureau of Reclamation for the Hagg Lake project. Some lost their entire land and others lost a portion of their parcels. We lost 92 acres at that time. Now the Bureau wants to take more property and increase the dam forty feet. The Clean Water Services have held four public meetings with the residents of Hagg Lake and most of us believe that they are trying to tell the property owners what they think we what to hear. At the last meeting I polled those in attendance as to their thoughts on: 1. A forty foot raise 2. A twenty foot raise 3. Do nothing This is something that the Bureau nor the Clean Water Services has done during the proceedings so far. There is overwhelming support NOT to recommend or support a forty foot raise. We as a group truly do not know if more water is need or not. We also do not know if the LCDC will even allow expansion of the existing farm ground to residential,that would necessitate the need for more water. But, if more water is truly needed,we as concerned property owners believe we have an alternative plan that's feasible, if in fact the water needs to come from Haag Lake 1. Excavation of the lake is a good possibility and could be done at low water intervals. 2.The main channel would have to be dredged. 3. Offset the heavy irrigation use with a pipeline from the Willamette. (I am told this is all down hill and that no pumps are needed). 4.Utilize the water from the proposed Bull Run#3 The excavated materials could be put over the face of the dam and would create a large area for the park. We would acknowledge this is more expensive but given the waste that can be found in most Government agency's we feel that it is a viable alternative to the millions of dollars that will be needed to purchase the property needed. Relocate a large portion of the road and re-build the park to its present status. Given the current economic situation in Oregon,we say let's put several companies to work on the project. We also feel that a tunnel from Sain Creek to the Tualatin River would be better served by a small dam on the upper Scoggings to supplement Hagg Lake. We can't help but think what the needs might be in thirty more years. Where to go then? The Bureau of Reclamation has stated that there are no other dam sites that have been raised, that have effected private residences. I was also informed by the Bureau that if the residents around the lake would not support the raise on Hagg Lake,the Government would probably not pursue the project. The Bureau also has thousands of acres with steep ground and water that could be dammed with out making any changes to Hagg Lake or effecting private residence, and insuring the water needs for years to come. On a personal note,we have already lost 92 acres and do not want to lose any more. I also just retired in January and intend on building a replacement home on the property and we are not willing to wait another eight years to see if the existing site is suitable or not, due to a new highway location. Listed with this communication are copies of the signatures from the residents around the Lake. S' rel Greg and Edwards 53535 SW Scoggins Valley Rd. Gaston, OR.97119 503-639-3998 cc: Senators: Gordon Smith Ron Wyden Representatives: Earl Blumenauer Darlene Hooley David Wu Washington County Commissioners: Dick Schouten,John Leeper,Roy R Rogers,Andy Duyck,Tom Brian Bureau of Reclamation: David Nelson Clean Water Services: Tom Vanderplatt Publications: Laura Gunderson, The Oregonian Publishing Co. Editor,News Times Forest Grove 1 Name Address/ Phone s4.7r�E s .rG`f Z T c,a -t $71l 5-03-3�-�_03` j 85. n,�zo/9 �d`iv� 'S67�7 � 1� 86 's! J 4S.&Y L. 8.8. (,w,& a 9 7 aab, 9 90. 91. r 92. AM �/L .�ti,� 5 �� f,t' %Y fi`''r`?5-� 93. 6 A10 GV • l l,z t� �. v s�/ 94. 21141 �� 'h S 1 l 034 95. s S SL&- ,ecS V/ O R,1, yy 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. �s October 24,2002 Washington County Commissioners,Bureau of Reclamation and Clean Water Services The following property owners are against a forty foot raise on Sagg Lake for the partial reasons listed on a separate sheet. Name Address Phone Ian are Sea unku noted. 1. 5 !/ 2. 4' 3.�c. -be-fb° -r&m+5°n 1 1I SW MI I I R.0 q-7 It 4. 5. J - 6. 7. An �u P w e, 8. f . _d 6 CJ err 03 - -166 _ S }�isr- ar?Sw .. _ 98'3 '7 9. IA:l.�� lo. S 98S -31 S i 11. XICe ✓� ��: 1Z.ES (,S7 "G . ax 13. �r V /"ereek-ko� 7M 61 -73S- :5L2 4 er _ led � U� 14. U 7 WO S W /i. �/i' k1 �4-1/(Y)c 15. r 1 Page 1 Name Address 'hon 20. Ile 21. 24. J 4 �� •, lrw Xqm A i i i )arjI 1 �/ _ Y • / I 30. 1 sw NYS6 ctv.�Ic Pq ILAY)v � � i � 1 • 36.Ahdyev j�ej*<< _ ♦ _ Imo- / I Name Address Phone 40. - �a cin V� c�. i?(f"t '357- 79(. 41. 42. ✓ �3�- kj- 6'iA 45. s 11"7 46. A" w/_ /N 66_7y 4C 17-711 4s /.�uL� - �� ..�C tri` lee 9. 44x/1 , 1-4,16 51. S�iG`/S �Gcl sc0l�/�� 52. 53. K5 W 54. 55. ./ 56. 41 Aool 57.` ` 55`vSal ss. efx 4 , ew.g 1 59. lot" Aleg ler? �d Page 3 Name Address phone 62. D 63. -7i/,I 65. . 7701SAI 0% .�(,✓ - 7? .0.3-357 _%4;Ze 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.-- 78. 7._78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. Page 4 . mz -E,,'�u,+4F i, T'S'" —,'i"�`h�° �T+aC:s- A WX NP-A T E,, Rfu - a rp ph IT, oVe y',m 7 erwo.,o 15 % 0, 11R, or I y"o, garde :' r.: _ {urea + cl� ' llj�1�11� ge I Z • l a WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SCOPING COMMENTS JANUARY/FEBRUARY, 2002 BACKGROUND The US Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is the owner and operator of Scoggins Darn, which was constructed in 1975 on Scoggins Creek, a tributary of the Tualatin River. Henry Hagg Lake, with a storage capacity of 53,600 acre-feet (17.5 billion gallons), is the impoundment created by Scoggins Dam. Stored water in Hagg Lake is currently used for agricultural irrigation, municipal water supply and river flow restoration throughout the Tualatin River Basin. The Lake also provides park and recreational facilities that are operated by Washington County. Recreational activities at the Lake include wildlife viewing, biking, horseback riding, hiking, fishing, swimming, boating and water skiing. In 1997, a group of public and private agencies charged with managing water resources in the Tualatin Basin began a planning process to evaluate resource and environmental needs within the Basin. The objective of the project was to develop long-term water resource management strategies, as part of a collaborative process. The participating agencies included Clean Water Services, the Joint Water Commission (which is made up of the cities of Hillsboro, Beaverton, Forest Grove, and the Tualatin Valley Water District), the cities of Tigard and Tualatin, the Tualatin Valley Irrigation District, Washington County, the Oregon Water Resources Department and the Lake Oswego Corporation. The results and conclusions of the planning process have been described in the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Strategy, Final Report (MWH, 2001). River Flow Restoration. The IWRM Project identified potential major water supply deficits by the year 2050 in the Tualatin Basin. A major component of unmet need in the Tualatin Basin is water for flow restoration in the Tualatin River. The Tualatin River historically experiences low flows in the summer months, and yields less than 2 percent of its total annual discharge between the months of June and September. Low water flows coupled with high ambient phosphorous levels and high temperatures have created chronic water quality problems,particularly in the lower reaches of the River's mainstem. Impacts from urban development, farming and increased water withdrawals have contributed to the degradation of water quality in the Tualatin River and its tributaries. Clean Water Services is the agency responsible for meeting federal and state water quality standards established for the River and its major tributaries. Numerical standards have been established by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) for Water Supply Feasibility Study page 1 Scoping Summary nutrients, bacteria, dissolved oxygen and temperature. As one strategy to meet these standards, Clean Water Services maintains contracts for the release of stored water from Hagg Lake and the Barney Reservoir to augment river flow. However, additional flow augmentation is needed in order to meet water quality standards. Clean Water Services has also been charged by the Washington County Board of Commissioners to coordinate the Tualatin watershed's Endangered Species Act (ESA) response to the listing of upper Willamette spring Chinook and winter steelhead as "threatened" species. The ESA may require higher instream flows and/or changes to flow patterns during critical seasons. For these reasons,Clean Water Services is interested in exploring options for long-term water supply in the Tualatin Basin. Municipal and industrial demand. Twelve cities are located in the Tualatin Basin, serving a population,of 450,000. Current municipal and industrial (M&I) demands total about 11 billion gallons in the summer months. For the municipalities in the Tualatin Basin, summer-time demand (defined as demand between the months of May and October)must be met by stored supplies in Hagg Lake, the Barney Reservoir(owned by the Joint Water Commission) and by the City of Portland's Bull Run reservoirs. Currently, approximately 30 percent of the M&I demand in the Tualatin Basin is met by importing water from the Bull Run watershed east of Portland. M&I demands are projected to approximately double due to population growth in Washington County over the next 50 years. The projected long-tern demands exceed the capacity of the current supply system. For this reason,the cities in the Tualatin Basin are interested in exploring options for long-term water supply. Agricultural demand. The Tualatin Valley Irrigation District (TVID) is currently authorized by federal contract with Reclamation to irrigate up to 17,000 acres in the Tualatin Valley. Natural flows from the River are used to supply irrigation needs at the beginning of the season. As River flows decrease, the TVID transfers to stored water in Hagg Lake to meet irrigation demand. In addition, an undetermined number of agricultural water users are exercising individual water rights to natural flows on the Tualatin River and its tributaries. Trends in agricultural water demand in the Tualatin Basin will depend on population growth patterns, crop types and market value for agricultural products. Future water supply planning should be able to provide the flexibility to meet increased need for irrigation, or for decreased need for irrigation supply due to increased conservation and efficiency. Even if water demands do not increase over time in this sector, shifts may occur in where and when irrigators withdraw water from the River and its tributaries. These changes may be required as a response to the ESA or other environmental regulations. New water supply projects in the Basin may also cause a shift in demand patterns. For these reasons,long term water supply planning must consider agricultural water use. Water Supply Feasibility Study page 2 Scoping Summary SCOPING PROCESS SUMMARY The purpose of the Tualatin Water Supply Feasibility Study (WSFS) project is to evaluate long-term water supply strategies to meet combined water needs to the year 2050. The results and findings of the WSFS will be incorporated into a draft Planning Report/Environmental Impact Statement (PR/EIS). The need to prepare an EIS is anticipated because one of the major water supply options for the Tualatin Basin is a modification to Hagg Lake dam that is owned by Reclamation,a federal agency. A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS and an announcement of public scoping meetings was filed in the Federal Register on December 13, 2001. In addition, a meeting notice and project fact sheet describing the project, requesting comment and announcing the date, time and location of four public meetings was mailed to approximately 1,700 potentially interested individuals, groups and governmental agencies. Finally, a press release announcing the public meetings was sent to local and regional newspapers, on January 2, 2002. Copies of the Notice of Intent and project mailings are attached to this document in Appendix A. Reclamation and the sponsoring agencies including Clean Water Services, held a series of four scoping meetings on January 8 and 9, 2002. Two meetings were held at Clean Water Services Water Quality Laboratory, from 2 to 4 p.m. and from 6 to 8 pmL on January 8, 2002. Two meetings were held at the Metro Regional Center in downtown Portland, from 2 to 4 p.m. and from 6 to 8 p.m. on January 9, 2002. Reclamation and Clean Water Services provided background information on the project, including projected water demand and potential supply options, and provided opportunities to ask questions and receive input on issues ane concerns. A total of 15 people signed in as attending the four sessions. Comment cards were provided at the meetings. Flip charts were provided for recording of oral comments. A total of 4 comment cards and one written Ietter were received. No oral comments specific to the PR/EIS process were received. Copies of written comments received are attached in Appendix B. In addition to the public scoping meetings, presentations on the project were made by CWS at an Open House in the City of Tigard,held on February,6, 2002 and to the Clean Water Advisory Committee (CWAC) on January 30, 2002. Comments were received at these two presentations. Finally, meetings were held with relevant regulatory agencies in February to obtain input on the project. Agency comments on the WSFS are summarized in a separate section of this memorandum. The remainder of this memorandum summarizes the. comments received. Public comments have been divided into those that are within the scope of the WSFS and PR/EIS, and those that are outside the boundaries of issues that can be dealt with in the EIS process. Comments within the scope of the EIS will be considered by the technical team and addressed in the WSFS and draft EIS reports. Water Supply Feasibility Study page 3 Scoping Summary SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Comments within the scope of the PRI&S. • Who will be negatively impacted by the supply decision, and what can be done to mitigate adverse effects? • Sources should be geographically and hydrologically distributed, to reduce supply vulnerability due to earthquakes and extreme drought. • The study should identify supply options by cost per unit of benefit, in descending order. Where does raising Hagg Lake fall on the scale? What are the physical limitations to the dam raise? What will be the impacts to wetlands and tributaries? What will the impacts on migrating birds be? Created wetlands are not as effective as natural wetlands. Will a raise of the dam increase the likelihood of landslides? What will be the impact on sedimentation behind the dam?Fish passage will be required as part,of a dam modification. How will increased flows impact Scoggins Creek and the Tualatin River? • Property owners must be compensated for losses if the Lake is to be raised. Only voluntary sales should be considered. Property owners should be compensated during the study period for uncertainty. Previous land acquisition has been unfair. • My impression to date has been that raising Hagg Lake is the preferred alternative, yet the information presented at the Scoping meetings does not indicate this preference. What's"the straight scoop"? • Match point supplies to large-volume users; examples are Willamette River and/or reuse water for irrigation and for high-tech users. • Consider rainwater collection for large users. Intel is a candidate. • Conserve water by reducing leakage from irrigation and municipal systems from the currently allowed 25 percent to 1 percent. • The WSFS should address options for watershed restoration. Restoring watershed functions should be a goal of the Feasibility Study. • Consider mandatory and voluntary conservation measures. Consider reuse of treated wastewater effluent. • How would the Willamette River exchange pipeline impact the water quality of receiving waters? What are the water quality and health impacts of using the River Water Supply Feasibility Study page 4 Scoping Summary f r for irrigation? What are the costs for the pipeline, including energy costs for pumping? Cost will fluctuate with energy costs. • Off-line storage is preferable to in-line because it doesn't impact as much aquatic habitat. • How will ASR development impact local hydrology and historic hydrologic functions? • Is development of more groundwater a supply option? . • What is the accuracy of water demand projections? What if more water is needed for fish? Comments outside the scope of the PRIEM. • At some point, there may simply not be enough water to support public or private activity. • End subsidies to growth that lead to the increased demand for water. Control population growth through immigration restrictions. • Farmers need to keep their rights to irrigate. • Increased costs for water favor the wealthy. • Should Hagg Lake be protected and managed as a drinking water supply, similar to the Bull Run? • The over-allocation of water rights by the Water Resources Department should be reviewed. • How does import of Bull Run water from the City of Portland and the Barney Reservoir impact the chemistry of the Tualatin River? • The locations of underground water supplies should be mapped. SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS National Marine Fisheries Service. A meeting was held with Jim Turner of NMFS on February 5, 2002. The current consultation process between the Bureau of Reclamation Water Supply Feasibility Study page 5 Scoping Summary and NMFS on the impact of the existing dam on fisheries will set the stage for subsequent work in the WSFS. The Biological Opinion issued by NMFS will set standards for the Tualatin*Basin related to fish passage,mitigation and water use. It is anticipated that the biological assessment and opinion process.will be completed in the next year. NMFS interest is in achieving properly functioning conditions in the watershed. NMFS will evaluate any new water supply projects with respect to the limits of the watershed. Specific issues and goals include reconnecting the tributaries of the River to the floodplain, understanding the effects of the current project and any new projects on hydrology; on riparian forest and wetlands; on stream migration and habitat; on urban development and stormwater runoff and understanding the significance of flow augmentation. NMFS advocated a collaborative approach between the relevant regulatory agencies and the Partners for the conduct of the WSFS. EPA, Army Corps, ODFW, DSL. A joint meeting was held with these agencies on February 15. Permit review staff from each agency attended. Issues raised by the agencies included the following: • The potential listing of cutthroat trout is an issue, particularly under a dam raise scenario which could result in loss of tributary habitat. Anadromous cutthroat would be stopped by the Willamette Falls barrier, but resident species could be Iisted if present. USFW`has jurisdiction here(ODFW). • A concern with off-line storage options is their potential impacts on wetlands (DSL). Low-lying lands close to tributaries are likely to be wetlands. New dam sites and off- line storage should rank near the bottom of the list for water supply options. • DSL will focus on a functional assessment of impacts to wetlands, both the fringe wetlands and the interaction of wetlands with upland habitat. • Issues associated with the Willamette River pipeline will be stream crossings, pipeline right-of-way,impacts to wetlands and general land use impacts. • A list of sensitive plant species should be obtained from USFW. • Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) needs to.maintain good access around Hagg Lake for fire protection as well as-access to state forest lands up Scoggins Creek Road. • The project should consider the cumulative impacts of development in the Basin (EPA). Look at historical conditions, and then assess how land uses will change as a result of the project. Conduct a Future Analysis of the Basin, similar to what has been done for the Willamette Basin. EPA maintains a specific definition of cumulative impacts. Are we seeing a reduction in runoff for supply because of urban development? How can stormwater be integrated with the supply study? Conservation is important. What are the water quality impacts of transferring water between rivers? Written comments were submitted by EPA and ODFW and are included in the Appendix. Water Supply Feasibility Study page 6 Scoping Summary