Loading...
09/22/1999 - Packet . BOOK COPY INTERGOVERNMENTAL WATER BOARD MEETING Serving 2-igard, King City, Durham and Unincorporated Area AGENDA Wednesday, September 22, 1999 5:30 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call and Introductions 3. Minute Approval a. July 14, 1999 b. August 25, 1999 4. Director's Report- Ed Wegner a. Raw Water Monitoring Contract b. Regional Transmission and Storage 5. Public Comments 6. Non Agenda Items 7. Adjournment Executive Session: The Intergovernmental Water Board may go into Executive Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 (1) (d), (e), & (h) to discuss labor relations, real property transactions, and current and pending litigation issues. All discussions within this session are confidential; therefore nothing from this meeting may be disclosed by those present. Representatives of.the news media are allowed to attend this session, but must not disclose any information discussed during this session. kathy\iwb9-2,2.agn r Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes July 14, 1999 Members Present: Paul Hunt, Beverly Fronde, Jan Drangsholt, Patrick Carroll, Bill Scheiderich Staff Present: Ed Wegner, Kathy Kaatz Visitors Present: Martha Bishop 1. Call to Order The regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was called to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call and Introductions Roll call was taken with all members present. 3. Minute Approval The minutes of the meeting on were approved as submitted with the change noted by Patrick Carroll on his arrival time, which was 5:45 p.m. 4. Rate Discussion—Preliminary Report—Mike Miller Due to the additional moneys being paid to Portland, Mike stated that he was assigned to look at the type of effect on the rates. This increase is for a one-year period only and the rates will be reduced in July of 2000. In 1995 CH2MHil1 completed a rate analysis for residential and commercial as well as looked at the SDC's. The model that was developed could be updated by staff, which has been completed, and has asked CH2MHil1 to look at the updated numbers and to also look at some of the contributed capital costs. CH2MHil1 will be looking at this to see what the impact will be and what type of rate will be needed to recover a portion or all of the increase costs charged by Portland. They will also be looking at the type of rates that is needed to cover the funding for a$42 million dollar bond if the City goes to the Willamette as a long term water source. Commissioner Hunt stated that we had also requested to change the rates to encourage conservation. Mike stated that a proposal from CH2MHill should be IWB Meeting Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 1 .r completed within the next three weeks with an anticipated presentation in September. Mike continued to say that the draw down in Bull Run will begin next week and briefly discussed the peaking factor. Mr. Wegner stated that when we receive a final product from CH2MHill they would make a presentation to the IWB. 5. Director's Report Mr. Wegner stated that the WWSA attorney and the City attorney should have a draft of the land purchase agreement with Wilsonville by Friday of this week. The City of Wilsonville had asked that we not have this ready until after June. The Mayor of Wilsonville is currently under some scrutiny over the purchase of this land from family members. Mr. Wegner stated that we did receive a preliminary engineering request from Murray Smith and Associates on those summer phase projects. We are now in the process of revising this project list and will work on the permitting and the transmission easement right of way work in the area where the line will run between Tigard and Wilsonville. We have a copy of the raw water-monitoring contract, which has been submitted, to Wilsonville for$97,000. The increase in this contract is due to the request for quarterly meetings where these quarterly results will be submitted to a three-member committee. The committee consists of Dr. Gene Foster(DEQ), a Wilsonville representative and one other member who will be chosen from the scientific community to review Montgomery Watson's work. Commissioner Carroll stated that there should be a clause in the contract, which will outline a penalty for failure to get a good test on time. Mike Miller stated that in addition to completing the quarterly samples, another two quarterly will be done one at first flush and one in May for the first flush of the herbicides and pesticides. Commissioner Scheiderich questioned whether there would be any land use approvals needed for the treatment plant or will it be a permitted usage? Mr. Wegner stated that it would require a Conditional Use Permit of which the process has not begun yet. Part of the purchase agreement will require that Wilsonville will have the Conditional Use Permit approved. Mr. Wegner discussed the Clute property, which is located at the end of 154th Street near the Menlor reservoir. Mr. Wegner continued by stating that everything we needed with the property has been completed and we need to make a decision on the use of the property. There are three options with the Clute property (2.5 —3 acre site): ■ Hold on to property and house ■ Donate to the greenspaces for park lands and nature center. When Tigard did their valuation of parks that area was deficient in greenspace however, since that time quite a bit of property has been purchased on top of the Menlor site in addition to other properties. IWB Meeting Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 2 ■ Sell the property. Sell off as is and go through a Minor Land Partition. Some neighbors have approached Tigard to see if there is interest in selling property adjacent to their property. Mr. Wegner stated that staff `s recommendation was to sell this property and purchase property above the Cash property in the 510 zone. Mr. Wegner stated that staff needs some direction from the Board on the future of this piece of property. Commissioner Scheiderich questioned and recommended that Metro be approached to valuate the desirability for preservation of open space, by way of significant drainage basin or significant stand of trees, etc. Mr. Wegner stated that we have not consulted Metro on this issue at this time. Mr. Scheiderich also made the recommendation to get a realtor's advice on whether it would be logical to partition this property. Commissioner Hunt questioned the ability to purchasing property at the 550 zone reliant upon the sale of the Clute property? Mr. Wegner stated that the funds generated from the sale of the Clute property would allow us to replenish the capital fund. Commissioner Froude stated the interests with some of the neighbors in a community center. Mr. Wegner distributed a handouts regarding water usage demands (memo from Mike Miller), a letter from Tualatin Valley Water District stated that the water rate will be decreased from 85.6 to 84.9 (maximum daily purchase limited to 2 mgd), and a handout outlining the location of the treatment plant, the direction of flow, potential Superfund citing, City of Portland and also the domestic discharge facilities are located on the Willamette River. Mr. Wegner stated that we have investigated and have received documentation from DEQ on the clean up of both an ex-dump site in Newberg and a battery factory that was located in Amity. 6. Public Comments No public comments. 7. Non Agenda Items The Board noted no non-agenda items. 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned. IWB Meeting Minutes July 14, 1999 Page 3 Intergovernmental Water Board Meeting Minutes August 25 1999 Members Present. Paul Hunt, Gretchen Buehner,Doug Comstock, Patrick Carroll, Bill Scheiderich Staff Present., Ed Wegner, Kathy Kaatz, Shawn Cutsforth Visitors Present. Paul Owen, Roel Lundquist I. Call to Order The regular meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was called to order at 5:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call and Introductions Roll call was taken with all members present with the exception of Commissioner Drangsholt who was represented by the King City Alternate,Doug Comstock. 3. Rate Study Proposal Mr. Wegner discussed the information that was provided in the packets titled Scope of Services. Mr. Wegner continued by stating that in May or June the Board discussed the need to update the rate study at which time Mike Miller and Cyndi Turner went through and added figures to the model. We then asked CH2MHill to look at our revised version and it was their recommendation for them to look at the new information and they have submitted the Board with the Scope of Services proposal. Their proposal is for$18,400 to conduct a scenario analysis and preparation of a draft and final report. We have asked them to prepare a scenario that will allow us the flexibility to create a three-year average. The goal is to be able to maintain our million dollar capital line. This scenario will only look at our present system and has nothing to do with a potential 42 million-dollar bond issue for capital improvement, since that would need to be covered by a revenue bond. Commissioner Scheiderich questioned the current work that has been completed on the feasibility study on the Willamette? Mr. Wegner stated that would be covered under current budgeted contract but could also be covered under a bond issue. IWB Meeting Minutes August?5. Page 1 Commissioner Hunt questioned how rates could be adjusted? Mr. Wegner statdd that rate adjustments must be approved by each of the other entities and-then it comes back to the IWB for approval and then forwarded to Tigard City Council. Mr. Wegner stated that if the Board wanted to make a recommendation to have 2 million dollars in surplus set aside, CH2MHill can place those numbers into the scenario and show what that would look like. Mr. Wegner clarified that the direction that was given to CH2M11ill was to create a five-year capital improvement program and at this point we have not directed them to what capital limits this is to include. These are funds that are set aside to complete major capital improvements to the existing system. Commissioner Buehner questioned whether the current one million that is identified now is sufficient to continue over the next several years? Mr. Wegner stated that right now it would be but over the next three years we will need more funding. He continued by stating that in the past our revenue has been more than the expenditures so we have had a little over the 1 million that was identified which has been sufficient. Commissioner Buehner continued by questioning whether this amount should be increased to cover the necessary inflation for maintenance of the system? She also questioned we should request CH2MHi11 to set up two separate scenarios, one that would cover a maintenance fund and a second scenario to be set up to cover a proposed plant? Mr. Wegner stated that he would recommend that we asked CH2MHi11 to set up a scenario for a long-term water solution. It was noted that we currently have the software from CH2MHi11 although at this time we do not have the financial staff to run this system. Commissioner Scheiderich stated the importance for CH2MHi11 to analyze if the current capital set asides are sufficient. The Board discussed CHMHill furnishing the Board with a scenario that would allow the Board the flexibility of applying a"what if'theory: A motion was made by Commissioner Buehner to enter into a contract with CH2MHi11 to conduct a rate study pursuant to the terms discussed by the Board. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Carroll and passed unanimously. Mr. Wegner stated that this work should be completed by the end of September and may be able to provide a preliminary report at the next meeting. 4. 1%Sales Agreement Mr. Wegner discussed the 1% sales agreement identified in the IGA where each entity receives 1% of the sales in a calendar year for each respective entity. Various members of the Board have questioned the ability to increase this amount if the funds were to be spent for other items. A document was provided for each member outlining this information. Mr. Wegner stated they looked at the historical records and found the amount of sales for each entity and what funds were received by each entity. Mr. Wegner then projected based upon last years sales, what if that amount increased to 2-5%. IWB Meeting Minutes August 25. ]999 Page 2 Included as also an attorney's draft of an amendment to the IGA to allow these Figures to be adjusted. Mr. Wegner stated that the IGA was designed to allow these funds to be used however each entity desired. If the additional funds were to be used for a special fund, the length of time and the determination of the increased percentage would need to be identified. Mr. Wegner continued by stating that the issue of how to structure this addendum.to the contract may be discussed in executive session either tonight or next month and will want to be discussed at each entities respective Council meetings. S. Director's Report Mr. Wegner had distributed in packets the Lead and Copper monitoring results from Portland, which is provided to all their wholesale customers. Commissioner Buehner questioned the high level of ph and it was noted that that is something that can be adjusted once the water is into our system. He also distributed the Columbia-Willamette Water Coalition Report, which outlines projects that Tigard is involved with jointly with other agencies. Mr. Wegner also distributed a report from Kim Swan on Tigard's youth education annual report. 6. Public Comments There were no public comments. 7. Non Agenda Items A motion was made to go into Executive.Session under the provisions of ORS 192.660 to discuss pending litigation at 6:10 p.m. The regular session of the IWB resumed at 6:46 p.m. 8. Adjournment The next meeting of the Intergovernmental Water Board was set for September 22, 1999 and the meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. IWB Meeting Minutes August 25. 1999 Page 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Intergovernmental Water Board Members FROM: Ed Wegner RE: Regional Water Providers Consortium DATE: September 16, 1999 Please find the enclosed year—end report from the Regional Water Providers Consortium. The City's representatives on the Consortium Board are Paul Hunt and myself. For this year the consortium will focus its attention in four primary areas: 1. Strategic Plan —The development of a strategic plan for the next five years. that would help guide future board policy decision making, budget and work plans for future years. 2. Conservation Implementation —The regional role in conservation is directly a consortium issue. What part of conservation implementation belongs at a regional level and what part belongs at the local level? 3. Water Supply and Transmission Interconnection —The work plan will lead to a discussion of a regional strategy for system interconnections and potential adoption of a strategy. I will be discussing the initial evaluation criteria and four scenarios at the next IWB meeting. 4. ESA (Endangered Species Act) — Metro is in the process of carving out a role for itself, as are other water providers. A possible partnership could be established to promote a concept of watershed to tap water. I will continue to keep you informed as to the progress of these consortium projects but they happen slowly—just ask Councilman Hunt about the board meetings!! Attachments cc: Bill Monahan, City Manager Mike Miller, Utility Manager REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM Portland Metropolitan Area CONSORTIUM PARTICIPANTS REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM City of Beaverton Canby Utility Board Clackamas River Water YEAR-END REPORT Damascus Water District City of Fairview for City of Forest Grove FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 City of Gladstone City of Gresham City of Hillsboro City of Lake Oswego Metro City of Milwaukie Mt. Scott Water District Oak Lodge Water District City of Portland Powell Valley Road Water District Raleigh Water District Rockwood Water PUD City of Sandy City of Sherwood South Fork Vater Board City of Tigard City of Tualatin Tualatin \allev Water District West Slope Water AUGUST 1999 District City of Wilsonville City of Wood Village Regional Water Providers Consorthan. 1120 S.6i: 5th#60/, Portiand, Oregon 97204-1926 Regional Water Providers Consortium ' Year-End Report for Fiscal Year 1998-99 Introduction The Regional Water Providers Consortium is made up of 27 of the Portland metropolitan region's water providers and the regional government,. Metro. The organization was formed in late 1996 but did not begin its official dues-supported work program until July 1, 1997. The Consortium has completed its second year of work pursuant to its adopted work plan and budget. The work plan included a host of activities involving administration, public information and involvement, and projects and programs. This report is intended to present the Consortium's primary accomplishments and budget status for FY 1998-99. The work program for this year is attached to the end of this report, along with the financial report charts. Primary Accomplishments Consortium Business and Administration j The Consortium Intergovernmental Agreement establishes three working bodies responsible for meeting the purposes and objectives of the organization. The Consortium Board is comprised of one elected official from each member agency as well as an alternate. The Consortium Board serves as the policy body for the organization and meets on a quarterly basis. During this year a new Strategic Planning Committee was established by the Board to increase Board participation directly in policy discussions that will be taken to the Board for decisions and to work with the CTC and Consortium staff to develop a 5-year Strategic Plan for the Consortium. The SPC is comprised of up to seven members of the Board who will meet between the full Board meetings. The Consortium Technical Committee (CTC) is made up of staff directors from each of the 27 member agencies. The CTC is responsible for overseeing Consortium work. program implementation and meets on a monthly basis. The Consortium Technical Subcommittee (CTSC) is a subset of the CTC. The CTSC membership is geographically representative of the metropolitan region, with three members from Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties, plus one Metro representative. This group works closely with staff on work tasks and is advisory to the CTC. The CTSC also meets on a monthly basis. Over the course of the year, each of these bodies have met to discuss and provide direction to Consortium staff in implementing key work program tasks described below. A Consortium By-law Amendment was adopted in September. 1998 on advocac\ positions of the Board to require that policy positions he discussed and adopted ov:�r -v meetings to allow the Board members to take matters back to their respective decision- making bodies. An exception to this is'allowable upon a vote of 2/3's of the members at a meeting at which a quorum is present. This would allow the Board to act on time sensitive matters. Public comment is invited at meetings of both the Consortium Board and the CTC. Administrative, technical, and financial staff services are provided to the Consortium by the Portland Water Bureau through a separate intergovernmental agreement with the Consortium. Consortium staff coordinated meeting logistics and meeting room set-up with host agencies, and provided detailed minutes for Board, CTC, and CTSC meetings. Consortium staff also provided program management and technical planning services for key activities described in the remainder of this report. Financial management and accounting services for the Consortium have involved, among other things, the calculation of yearly participant dues, issuance of invoices, collection of Participant dues, and the payment of Consortium obligations. Consortium staff prepared bi-monthly fiscal reports on Consortium expenditures for personnel and professional services, and materials and other services. Information, Outreach, and Involvement J During FY 1998-99 the Consortium as a collective organization has put considerable effort into public information, outreach and involvement activities outlined in its public information and involvement plan for this year. Key activities have included: • Maintaining a mailing list comprised of approximately 250 individuals and agencies, and providing those on the list with meeting notices, meeting minutes, and materials for various consortium committees. • Providing a central telephone and e-mail contact to respond to the numerous inquiries for information,briefings, and written materials. 0 Participating in multiple venues in which the Regional Water Supply Plan and Consortium activities were discussed directly or were relevant to the topics at hand. Consortium staff delivered presentations at various agency or non-governmental organization meetings and classes, and provided written materials at these and other community events and conferences. • Providing information about the Consortium and its meeting schedule on the City of Portland's web page. Providing notices of Consortium Board meetings to The Oregonian as well as other local print media. 0 Soliciting public comment on various topics at Consortium Board and Technical Committee meetings. 2 • Maintaining and fostering positive working relationships with media contacts in the community. Development of Regional Transmission/Storage Strategy In September the Board directed the staff to develop a work program element that would help the region consider the future vision for regional transmission and storage. This was anoutgrowth of the efforts of several Consortium entities to identify.long-term water sources for the southwestern cities of the region. .The Consortium Technical Committee and Subcommittee developed a specific scope of work which would allow the Board over a 14 month period to identify the alternatives for how the region could develop increased system interconnections and what they would mean to the specific water providers represented by the Consortium. A workshop for the region's water providers was held in November 1998 at which both the technical and institutional issues associated with the ability to interconnect .the region's water sources was discussed. The outcome of this work was a work program concept for presentation to the Board in December. The Board approved the conceptual work program for this element and the CTC and Consortium staff refined the scope of work to include specific work tasks and a budget for a one-time apportioned assessment for the FY 1999/2000 work program and budget, as well as reallocated funds in FY 1998/99 to begin this work in this fiscal year. The Board approved the CTC recommendation at their February meeting when they adopted the FY 1999/2000 work program and budget. The CTC directed staff to conduct the necessary process to acquire professional services assistance to conduct the work tasks contained in the scope of work for the transmission element. The consulting firm of Montgomery Watson, Inc. was selected for this project and was awarded the contract in May 1999. The goals for this project include the following: • Reach consensus on short-and long-term vision for water transmission and storage in the Portland metropolitan region. • Reach consensus on institutional arrangements that will facilitate the short-and Iong- term transmission/storage visions,and identify any continuing Consortium role. •. Identify ways to complement and integrate planned water supply system improvements into the transmission/storage vision. • Provide information water providers and/or the Consortium needs to make informed, timely decisions and commitments to pursue selected future transmission/storage actions. During the last two months of this fiscal year the consultants started work on the first task of the work scope, to develop criteria for the evaluation of different transmission scenarios for the region. 3 Water Conservation Implementation Successful, prompt implementation of water conservation programs is a key factor in the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) Strategy for meeting future water demands to the year 2050.. Currently regional conservation programs and projects are being implemented by the. Columbia/Willamette Water Conservation Coalition (Coalition). Approximately 18 members of the Consortium are also members of the Coalition. Some individual providers are also conducting their own conservation programs. The conservation work being performed to date will contribute toward meeting the water savings targets in the RWSP. However, additional work is needed to transform the region's conservation strategy to one that treats conservation as a water supply "resource." Recognizing this need,the Consortium continued to place a high-priority on conservation implementation in its work program for FY 1998-99. In conjunction with the Coalition a baseline survey on the status of existing conservation programs and data available to monitor and track conservation program savings was completed. This work was published in April 1999 in a report titled, "Tracking and Measurement of Water Conservation Program Impacts on Water Demand i'h the Portland Metropolitan Region" produced by Maddaus Water Management and the Weber Group. This report noted that although considerable effort was being applied to conservation in some parts of the region, additional work is needed to consistently track production and demand data by the individual water provider entities. This activity is necessary before it would be possible to evaluate the actual savings associated with specific conservation program implementation, including the associated costs of those programs. The Board was given a presentation on the regional conservation program implementation work at September 1998,December 1998,and March 1999 meetings. As a result of the conclusions of the Maddaus Report, the Coalition and consortium staff developed a specific proposal on monitoring and tracking of individual water provider production and demand data. The recommendation involved asking each water provider in the Consortium to consider monitoring and tracking water production on a_daily basis and demand data on a monthly basis. This work included development of specific spreadsheets for use by the water providers. The collection of this data and its analysis will enable the region and each water provider to more effectively understand the water savings of water conservation programs and to integrate these programs into their financial-and capital planning processes. The Board was asked at their June meeting to approve a shift in fimds from personnel to professional services to allow hiring Jennifer Stout, from Water and Energy Consulting, to complete a review of the Regional Water Supply Plan conservation program descriptions, costs,and savings targets. In addition this work will include recommendations for specific work program design to implement the specific programs. 4 either regionally or locally. The Board approved this request including carry-over of these funds into the next fiscal year, and a contractwas prepared and signed in June 1999. Coalition-supporting-members of the Consortium conducted summer water use campaigns during both the 1998 and 1999 summer seasons. Strategic Planning During this year a proposal was made by the Consortium Board to increase their involvement in policy development by forming a Strategic Planning Committee made up of seven members of the Board. This Committee has been given the charge to do the following: To provide an effective policy linkage between the Board and the staff of both the Consortium and individual members. Activity by the committee will assist the Board in taking action on policy matters in a timely and meaningful manner. In fulfilling this mission,the committee will: • Evaluate and prioritize policy issues to be considered by the Board • Recommend action on policy issues to the Board • Develop a 1-5 year Strategic Plan for Board consideration and action by June 2000. This plan is expected to provide focus and guidance for: ✓ Longer-term Board activities ✓ Future work programs and budgets Coordinated Emergency Planning An Excel database was created, and responses to an emergency preparedness survey have been entered. About half of the Consortium members responded to the survey. The next step will be to analyze this data leading to the identification of a set of priorities for the providers to consider to improve coordinated emergency preparedness in the region. This work is being coordinated with the transmission/storage work element tasks. Source Water Protection/Interagency Coordination Consortium staff and individual water provider staff have continued to forward the implementation of the RWSP and the policies of the Consortium on source water protection in a number of different ways over this year. The Board adopted a Source Water Protection Participation Strategy in May 1997. Key coordination activities have included: • Consortium staff and Consortium member Greg DiLoreto participated in the Governor's Right to Know Task Force, which was attempting to develop a consensu position on legislation for the 1999 Legislature. This effort was related to the got! 5 Protection Strategy which would allow water providers and others to know which hazardous materials were being used and where. The Legislature did not pass right- to-know bills. Staff also worked with the Oregon Environmental Council for presentations to be made to the Technical Committee and the Board about another related legislative effort to develop a pesticide tracking and reporting system statewide. The Board passed a resolution generally supporting the concept of this legislation in February 1999. The Legislature passed BB 3602 on pesticide tracking. • Staff reviewed a report on Oregon federal lands affecting municipal water supply watersheds prepared by the U.S. Government Accounting Office,which was requested by Senator Wyden after the 1996 floods. Staff provided comments on this report at a workshop held in Portland to support better relations with federal land managers, a broader analysis of watersheds including federal and private lands, and to support more partnerships for data collection and analysis. Staff presented a research paper on federal land management issues and municipal watersheds in the Willamette Basin at the AWWA National Conference in Dallas, Texas in the summer of 1997. • Staff along with other water provider staff have continued to participate in the Metro advisory committee process. Consortium staff sit on both the Water Resources Policy Advisory Committee(WRPAC)and the Technical Advisory Committee(MTAC). Some members of the Board are also members of the Metro Policy Advisory Committee(MPAC). Specific items of interest to the Consortium members have included: ✓ Completion of Title 3 of the Metro code during the first part of the year. These measures to protect water quality in the riparian and flood areas of the region were the result of considerable staff review and comment to insure that water supply facilities were addressed. The next major effort involves the development of a Goal 5 analysis,which will assess the need for further land use restrictions to protect water resources and wildlife habitat. ✓ Analysis of the capacity of urban reserves in terms of their water supply implications and costs was assisted by Consortium staff and individual provider staff. Staff has also monitored the completion of the 1999 Urban Growth Report,which will be an important basis for further changes to the urban growth boundary. ' ✓ Work began this year on Metro's role in coordinating, assisting, and in some cases,the adoption of regulatory directions to foster recovery of species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA). • Staff worked with Dan Bradley of South Fork Water District to compile and deliver comments on DEQ's draft Source Water Assessment Manual that has now been adopted. 6 i Staff has continued to participate in Meetings on the Willamette Basin Reservoir Study. The study has been extended for a period of a year to incorporate the status of ESA listings and their impacts on how the U.S. Army Corps reservoir projects could be managed to meet the needs of these species in concert with other key uses for stored water. • Staff participated several times in an Oregon Water Resources Department sponsored effort to develop a legislative bill on water resource stewardship and planning that would improve the current ability of the state to effectively build better methods to meet competing water use needs. The result of this collaborative process is SB 93 that was passed by the Legislature,and will create a Joint Task Force on Water Supply and Conservation. The role of this task force will be to develop recommendations relating to the process of siting and funding future water supply projects. • Staff reviewed and provided comments on rules related to municipal water right permit extensions. The rules, as adopted, exempt municipalities from permit extension rules until July 2001. The Oregon Water Resources Department worked with municipal water providers and other interests to develop a proposed process for dealing with municipal water right extensions resulting in the development of the Community Water Supply Task Force(not the same as the Task Force under SB 93). The Consortium will have one or two members on this WRD Task Force to evaluate the issues associated with municipal permit extensions and to develop proposed rules. • Staff has attended some meetings of the Willamette Livability Forum and has provided comments on draft documents that relate to water supply issues. In addition, staff have provided future water withdrawal estimates to a consulting firm(ECO Northwest) working.on developing future scenarios for the Willamette Basin as a part of the work associated with the Livability Forum and the Willamette Restoration Initiative established by the Governor. • Staff reviewed and provided comments on House Bill 2865 which enacted new standards for the placement of utility facilities in Exclusive Farm Use zones. This bill was passed by the Legislature. Financial Report (Fiscal year July 1, 1998 to June 20, 1999) Attached is a year-end financial report for Fiscal Year 1998-99. This preliminary report will remain in draft form until the City of Portland officially closes its books, and an independent audit is conducted, which will occur until December 1999 or early in 2000. This financial report indicates that there is under-expenditure during this fiscal year. However, part of that under-expenditure is allocated to the consultant contract work on the Conservation Work Element, leaving an approximate under-expenditure of S 16,44?. or about 7.5%. Although this figure is similar to the under-expenditure cif the nric�r iisc:. 7 year,this year the primary reason results from staff changes at the end of the fiscal year that resulted in reduced ability to conduct staff work.- The staff issue was resolved shortly after theend of the fiscal year and this same circumstance is not expected to reoccur. According to the Consortium Intergovernmental Agreement and By-laws,the extra amount will be credited to the following year payment unless the Board decides to allocate this in a different manner. Due to the year-end closing dates it will be necessary to allocate this under-expenditure in the following year. M 8 REGIONAL, WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM Fiscal Year 1998-99 EXPENSE REPORT I `>.%•�_;':' }, i�IR-rei`aJ''a* ,xv'1F eek E+6f�' ';y:�';41"^': Accounting Accounting Accounting Accounting Accounting Accounting k, _ ;:z.�i'�">'_�� - :� " :.,,. ..moi:• :: Period Period Period Period Period Period 1-3 4-5 6-7 8-9 10-11 12-13 Vlc (7/1-9/16/98) (9/17-11/11/98) (11/12/97-1/6/99) (1/7-3/3/99) (3/44/28/99) (/4R9-6/30/99) a. a'' : '� 001. i r v. p rsonii I;SetViees-4'ifte 1i i l l r 19,573 20,302 18,094 18,395 19,883 16,790 and btr$1',f1t3:($11A g ......,.,..: `� Ak r �! a... w r t s�lttlel S'e�'iti S�br�ral . �. : - . . ._ .0k .� _Ys°• .�i q'`�s� ��. ,�,.� -�; _.� . . des, �. ,: ,,.. .r.... .,_._. � r......r...t.. „nye=..; ',::i.;a: _:Y, :.•.r ..<-,.r.. ::t..:.lv ,G..a.,. r 1W a' Sitces2:i D': 12 763 12 214 2 4 �rYRbi -....... _ _ 73 _ 2 5 -j '.:..J,rr vv r ... ,...:.:. ,:!�.x.... nom. ...'Ji:i - - - - - - - _ ,9="=�2Mi. :G:a..�1I'::-•pct_ a.R�.A-�.__.... (7thenSetviee;s�: :: r1 .erlisng 4 y A ctprnal prlrttitlgy8 ptbdutAtlon 720 417 1,137 1,312 1,219 ,. .. - �.};_==' - °"r�a._..:tSx:'�--.3`. `?nY'=-:�� 1 h.t""::: „!'i•:.,,s,x: skai+iM9- �. ._'d. q'_?;;'�itr'''�`'r,,` �it�rhal,�uitu� 858 223 749 1,078 990 1,141 �.��:�-,:,>•�'�: �,r_ :.�'�U3.9=; n 'G�31i�11G\► :: W,V.'.,xri-,9.:kq_i.�'1 __ .:iis. _ _ _ od 116 93 590 209 161 673 L':-ii:�<: ! ,.J '"dl•:v:'.R.'-+M1=,�kx=.:;:,a ''x'-::;�'�J',da, lk �tf:�^": �" w�l ��J.� �,.�,�' '-.el^..',�*"e�!I�C�4.1(�. •a ;,....._... ��''`��3''�2,.:E.':.,,^�x�,-�.:�.`"�'it+�'@'�"'b' �� r-9.�•'�+�`v. y�z;a N"tz!=.: j .. .�aSxiF' ?ice:=:F iFJI: -"uvd.4 �: _•..f'h�.'k:i'.�!�. c. r. ..._,; •:.:...:.::�.::::.-:: .n-,- - may.,.;:�,.. .. ..�_. .. Jn:ri_.:_:�' ..... ....:_ a�:.o-:'....-:,,:.:_:•,x,:,: _ ,-,ik,��+9,'°,i "z`"t_;'S`'`s'j' � r�;'t ;..r�:_:t� - t+e:Stl' ,-'-_ -�^'��t`''-_ ''C:i:£' ..�Jx'• _ �::4,=.:'. stce ian ous.11 tt; al 6ty, 4 25 4 - .r- .:..:. !: .,.<.,.•:::,_ -r i. en?;fir = -r;`n�`. :'J'.:,' ���fi:,r„�"._ ��,,F.�&h,�:.�� eLr'=::K�ia3i'.��,'�.�•`:"L:,...::_ ,..:.. - _ c>r^4'Y4 !i•r-. : ost±�SS..01��_-:• _ _ -_ _ 568 76 319 745 633 562 �y�_ _ �;: a..: MM ....v-:.::. xu.'::k>-'�''v�4 1 ,F?iT�=„p. Sieii}'l:i•: u".,,L`.- '=2Fa:?. 'I�f S'�il�,i.:�i'.^. ,z 24.�:�::.. .x ir' r'h'SYv�•:!i if Se:i .:.,..:,..X:ii�:: _ �3 .'-M1�G>."=:=, - v.. ,. ...,.- ... .—....,. .....: ....,...- ._... r�.'. .., Y .....-r r,,,.r,r_:...:,.;.:. p... ...p..:.,4^."-, +' -.,:.1£. S , ., uhn...Y:�i a:.L,., i .,....A` n V, - OiC :4 _: -a i.::,,nr„ �'�tr����'�+�zfi'�6�+vfal,,.>.: ;$:,J- ,�.,.., . . '-a, 3 _. .. _.... :r_._.,�:��=�2Y��, . .._ .� k"�'.[.�a5, >.. _ NAMM nwe - �tYi f 3t 1 az 3,276 5115 3 134 30 i T t 4 6 79 10 TOTAL * $20,000 is committed to Conservation Program Monitoring and Tracking for Professional Services * $1`000 ns a carryover to FY1999-2000 for the conservation contract with Jennifer Stout,Water and Energy Consulting,acts as encumbrance. REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM , Personnel Services for FY 1998-99 AP1-AP3 AP4-AP5 AP6-AP7 AP8-AP9 AP10-AP11 AP12-AP13 TOTAL YTD'' $19,573 $20,302 $18,094 $18,395 $19,883 $16,790 $113,037 ACTIVITIES Hrs %o Hrs % Hrs %o Hrs % Hrs % Hrs % Hrs % Emergency Management Planning(2130) 7.0 1.3% 24.5 5.0% 9.0 2:0% 12.0 2.6% 0.0 0.0% 52.5 1.8% Consortium Business Administration/ Public Information&Involvement(2160) 349.0 73.90;'. 407.0 72.9% 328.5 67.0% 347.5 77.4% 319.5 68.0% 358.0 I 87.7%. 2109.5 74.1% Monitoring(2174) 14.0 3.0% 6.0 1.1% 0.0 0.0% 3.0 0.7% 2.0 0.4% 12.0 2.9%' 37.0 1.3% Interagency Coordination/ Participation 12125> 24.5 5.2% 35.0 6.3% 8.0 1.6% 8.5 1.9% 15.5 3.3% 9.0 2.2%' 100.5 3.5% Conservation Program Planning/Implementation (2176) 76.5 16.2% 55.0 9.9% 46.5 9.5% 46.5 10:3% 67.5 T4.4% 19.0 4.7%: 311.0 10.9% Transmission System Planning(2177) 0.0 0.0% 46.0 8.2% 67.0 13.7% 31.0 6.9% 51.5 11.0% 8.0 100%, 203.5 7.1% Source Viability/Protection(2178) 8.0 1.7% 1.0 0.2% 15.0 3.0% 3.5 0 80/c 1.5 0:3% 2.0 0.5OX. 31.0 1.1% Finance Coordination(2179) 0.0 ' 0.0% 1.0 0.2% 1.0 0.2% 0.0 _0 0%0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 I 0.0%_ 2.0 0::1%0 TOTAL 472.0 100.0% 558.0 100.0%° 490.5 100.0% 449.5 100.0% 469.5 100.00 408.0 ( 100.0% ! 2,847.0 100.0%. G:\USERS\PLAN\BESSEE\WPWINTINANCE\PERSV989.12 E Y E APR 2 9 NQ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE CITY OF 1NILSONVILLE REGKW 10 1200 Sixth Averwe Seattle,Washington 98101 Reply To Aan M OW-1 36 26 April 1999 Mr.Jell:Bauman Wilsonville Public Utilities 8455 S.W.Etfigsen Rd. Wilsonville,OR 97070 Dear Mr.Bauman: You have asked me to provide a brief explanation of the means by which the EPA sets primo drinking water standards. You have asked how chemicals are selected ro mon,what e process is for establishing the maximum levels of the regulated contaminants allowed in public water supplies and whether the standards are protective of human health. The following is a synopsis of this process that I trust will answer these questions. Contarninants are selected for regulation based on intensive technological evaluation which includes many factors. These include, but are not limited to, the potential for causing adverse health effects,occurrence in the environment,risk of human expose and special requirements of sensitive subpopulations.The EPA has established a Contaminant Candidate Lisi;(CCL),fiom which contaminants will be selected for future regulation. The CCL includes biological contaminants,(bacteria,viruses and protozoa)as well as chemicals. A wide variety of data sources are used in building the CCL,including environmental monitoring by a number of agencies,academic and research data and occurrence data from the unregulated contaminant monloring which is required of public water supplies: For each regulated contaminant,the EPA sets a maximum contaminant level goal,(MCLGI This non-enforceable goal is defined as`the maximum levet of a contaminant in drinking water at which no .known or anticipated adverse effect on the health or persons would occur,and which allows an adequate margin of safety.' To detemnine this health-based goal,EPA conducts a risk assessment,examining data for cancer and/or non-cancer causing health effects:The maximum contaminant level goal is determined by examining studies in whichthe contaminant has been established as causative for adverse health effects in humans or-by extrapolation from experimental studies with laboratory animals. For each contaminant,the EPA then sets a maximum contaminant level,(MCL)which is the enforceable maximum level of the contaminant which is allowable in public drinking water supplies. The MCL is set as Gose to the MCLG as is technologically feasible taking cost into consideration. For many contaminants,the.MCLG and the MCL are the same,since it is technologically and economically feasible to maintain the levels of those contaminants at the health-based level. For those MCLs that exceed their MCLGs risks of adverse health effects are calculated to assure that the MCL is acceptably protective of human health. 2 In estimating risk,the EPA uses a statistical model which assumes a linear relationship between dose and effect. This is an.inherently conservative model. The models for risk estimation can also be considered to yield conservative estimates in that they assume an individual to drink two liters of the affected water every day for a seventy-year.life span. Furthermore, the risks are adjusted upward through the application of uncertainty factors that can span an order of magnitude and additional adjustments are made to protect especially vulnerable populations,(e.g.,children). In general,the models used by the EPA are considerably more conservative,(.e.,protective)than most other schemas that are commonly used for risk estimation. The EPA's confidence in the adequacy of these methods is implicit in the Snandatory health effect's language- (40 CFR§ 141.32(e)) that is required by our regulations to be reported to consumers when a public water supply exceeds the maximum contaminant level for a particular contaminant These statements describe the range of health effects attributed to the particular contaminant,the types of studies that have implicated the contaminant and the maximum contaminant level for the contaminant derived as explained above. The statements conclude with the phrase,`..Drinking water which meets this standard is . associated with little to none of this risk and should be considered safe.' The standards are subject to periodic review,generally every five years. This period can be foreshortened if emergent information suggests earlier review and/or revision would be appropriate. I hope that this material will be useful to you in understanding the methods by which the EPA determines the primary drinking water standards and our confidence in the protections afforded by these standards.Please call me,or invite your constituency to call me at(206)553-1389 with questions or comments. Sincerely, , Gene Taylor, Ph.D. Health Effects Specialist Drinking Water Unit f GARY FISKE & ASSOCIATES Water Resource Planning and Management MEMORANDUM TO: LORNA STICKEL FROM: JOE GLICKER, GARY FISKE SUBJECT: REGIONAL TRANSMISSION PLAN CRITERIA DATE: JULY 6, 1999 We have reviewed material from the Regional Water Supply Plan(RWSP),the November 1998 Regional Transmission Workshop, and the Portland Infrastructure Master Plan(IMP). (The latter, although not a regional effort, is a good example of the types of criteria that need to be considered in this effort.) From those, we have identified issues ("potential benefits", "criteria", "messages", "information necessary for decision making", etc.)that may be relevant to defining evaluation criteria for regional transmission and storage scenarios. We have attached a table of 12 issues and the source from which they are extracted. Note that an `x' in the table only indicates some mention of the issue in the planning effort. We made no attempt to discern the relative importance of each issue within each process. It is interesting to note which issues were mentioned most frequently. The two dimensions of reliability,as well as the issues of efficiency, cost, and operating flexibility were mentioned in all four. Water quality was mentioned in three. While we should not read too much into this,this may be an indication of the importance of these issues. The words or phrases used to describe the issues in the table are often vague or imprecise, and undoubtedly meant different things to different people at the time. Following the table is an attempt to put some meat on the bones by listing potential criteria that seem applicable to this regional transmission effort. For several issues,there is more than one criterion. This generally reflects our uncertainty of what we really want this issue to mean. The next step is to develop metrics associated with these criteria. We will be prepared to discuss potential metrics at the July 14 CTSC meeting. Legal/regulatory feasibility 1. Minimize legal and regulatory hurdles. 2. Facilitate regional growth goals, standards, and requirements. Institutional/financial feasibility 1. Minimize the magnitude and difficulty of required institutional changes. 2. Minimize the difficulty of reaching agreement on regional/local control issues. Potential Criteria Associated with Issues Efficiency Maximize use of current supplies before developing new ones. "Weather-driven" reliability Minimize future daily and seasonal shortages (magnitude, frequency, duration, number of agencies affected) that result from existing supplies and infrastructure not being able to serve demands. Emergency reliability Minimize future shortages (magnitude, frequency, duration, number of agencies affected)that result from unexpected failure of supplies or facilities due either to catastrophic events or other causes. Water quality 1. Meet regulatory standards for all water delivered to all providers. 2. Maximize the ability of individual providers to choose the source(s) of delivered waters. 3. Maximize consistency among providers and over time of delivered water quality. 4. Minimize adverse water quality impacts within the transmission and storage system. Cost 1. Minimize cost to the region. 2. Maximize the perceived fairness of the manner in which costs are shared among the region's water providers. Environment 1. Minimize adverse environmental impacts (construction and long-term). 2. Maximize environmental benefits. Regional operating flexibility Maximize ability to use water from various sources to meet demands throughout the region. Long-term system development Minimize the foreclosure of long-term supply and infrastructure options due to near-term actions. Ability to meet immediate local needs Minimize limitations on local agencies' abilities to meet their short-term needs. P Key Issues Cited in Prior Planning Efforts . Reg. Portland Trans. IMP Issue RWSP Workshop Criteria Efficiency X x x "Weather-driven" X X x Reliability Emergency Reliability x x X Water Quality x x Cost X X X Environment x x Regional Operating x x X Flexibility Regional System x X Development Flexibility Ability to Meet x Immediate Local Needs Technical Feasibility x Legal/Regulatory X X Feasibility Institutional/Financial X x Feasibility _MS Murray,Smith R Associates,Inc. EnoeerOlanners 121 S.W.Salmon,Suite 1020 Portland,Oregon 97204 a PHONE 503-225.9010 PAX 503-225-9022 DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATE: August 27, 1999 TO: Mr. Joe Glicker, P.E., Montgomery Watson FROM: Chris Uber, P.E., Murray, Smith & Associates, Inc. RE: Regional Storage and Transmission Strategy Task 2.0 - Storage and Transmission Scenarios PROJECT NO.: 99-0423.101 Introduction This memorandum presents a general discussion of regional transmission and storage scenario concepts which begin to frame the discussion of strategies or directions available to the region's water providers. Estimated water demands are being independently compiled and, when complete, will be integrated into the scenarios presented below. Estimated planning level project costs will also ultimately be incorporated into the scenario development and evaluation process. Transmission System Sizing Criteria Transmission main sizing criteria developed and presented as part of Phase 2 of the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) will be used as part of this analysis to size proposed transmission $y$ten'i !`« nc^. mo F: t: lac C 1 F t.♦ �!\L F-et US b Ct ele-ments. Thcsc, c_aterta ..s ...�,.al_a _ -_e �^ + Hazen-Williams roughness coefficient, or C-factor of 130. Table 1 summarizes the relationship between pipe diameter and capacity. It is also assumed that the transmission corridor alignments and regional storage reservoir locations developed, evaluated and selected as part of the RWSP remain valid. Additional transmission sizing analyses and design efforts have been completed for several major transmission system improvements since the completion of the RWSP. These efforts include transmission system improvements completed as part of the expansion of the Hillsboro, Beaverton, Forest Grove and Tualatin Valley Water District Joint Water Commission (JWC) supply system and the Willamette River Water Supply System preliminary engineering efforts. C:\WINNMROFItES\ADMINISTRATOR\PFJMNAL\TASIQ,.gi.n,d 82399.d- f Table 1 Transmission Main Capacity and Diameter Summary Pipeline Capacity Pipeline Diameter' (Million GallonsPer Day) (Inches) 0.9 12 1.8 16 2.5 18 3.3 20 5 24 10 30 15 36 25 42 35 48 45 54 60 60 75 66 95 72 145 84 200 96 280 108 365 120 470 132 590 144 Regional transmission system example sizes are illustrated on Figures 2 through 5. Actual sizes will be developed as part of further analysis efforts. Existing Conditions and Scenario Development As part of scenario development, existing conditions are established that recognize ongoing transmission planning and design efforts. Figure 1 illustrates existing regional water supply sources, treatment plants, storage reservoirs, and pump stations as well as existing future planned transmission piping. The following facilities are considered underway or have been selected for development: C:\WINNT\PROFILES\ADMINISTRATOR\PERSONAL\TASK2 regional s&t memo 823",4- 2 • Joint Water Commission 72-inch,diameter transmission main • Willamette River Water Supply System facilities • Tualatin Valley Water District reservoir intertie with north side transmission main • Conduit 5 from Bull Run • Clackamas River supply systems intertie For the purposes of this effort the facilities described above are considered base case conditions. This set of assumptions has been recognized through the development of the scenarios presented below as a regional transmission and storage approach and scenario as well. Presented below is a brief summary and description of regional storage and transmission scenarios developed for review and further evaluation. Each scenario presents a differing approach to the function, purpose and extent of the regional storage and transmission facilities. Scenario I - Holistic Approach Scenario 1 reflects the concepts developed as part of the RWSP, which envisioned major regional water supply sources connected to regional storage facilities through a transmission system which allowed each local provider to ultimately use one or more of all of the supply sources. The key concepts associated with this approach include: • Interchangeable and multiple regional sources • RWSP concept storage reservoirs and transmission systems • Similar to an electrical power industry model • Ultimate expansion of supply sources to meet anticipated peak day demands from multiple sources Scenario 2 - Primary Source with Emergency Backup This scenario reflects a primary and emergency source approach where each local provider develops or selects its own primary water supply source and independently or jointly develops and/or selects emergency average day demand backup supplies. The key concepts associated with this approach include: • Regional transmission facilities serve to provide delivery of primary and emergency sources • Anticipates developments since the completion of the RWSP including: - Proposed Willamette River Water Supply System improvements - New JWC facilities - Construction of new NCCWC water treatment plant and Clackamas supply system interties - Ultimate construction of Conduit 5 from Bull Run C:\WINNT\PROFlIFSWDMINISTRATORUT"NALITASIQ mgionW s&lmemo 82399.dm 3 r Scenario 3 - Zonal Source Scenario 3 reflects the development and use of regional storage and transmission facilities to serve zonal supply sources developed to their maximum capacity. The regional transmission and storage facilities are developed to reflect serving two specific geographic areas, east and west, from these sources. The key concepts associated with this approach include: • East of the West Hills ridge is served by the Portland system and the Clackamas River supplies • West of the West Hills ridge is served by Trask/Tualatin and Willamette Rivers • The Willamette River and the Clackamas River treatment facilities are developed to full capacities • Both peak day demands and emergency demands are met from zonal sources • Some limited east/west connections would overlay between zones Scenario 4- Interconnected Subregional Supply This scenario reflects the ultimate development of existing sources and supplies to serve expanding water demand needs. Included under this scenario is the further interconnection of City of Portland, Trask/Tualatin and Clackamas Rivers supplies as well as an east to west connection of existing Clackamas River supplies. The key concepts associated with this approach include: • Expanded use and development of existing supply systems • Transmission systems are developed anticipating ultimate primary supply from these sources • Local providers may also choose to develop new supply sources within this scenario to their own immediate and long term needs, including the Willamette River Water Supply system Conclusion The scenarios presented and developed as part of this memorandum represent a wide range of storage and transmission options that will be further developed and evaluated as part of Task 4, Scenario Comparison, efforts. Facility sizing and the development of planning level cost estimates will also be completed as part of these efforts. C:\WINNT\PROFILESIADMINISTRATOR\PERSONAL\TASK2 regioFW s&t-82399.doc 4 MOyon Vancouver Washouq I River Co/, NO, River co 42 5' R Camas shou of � 11b� "— d Forest / Hil sboro o�P�rP Grove 6" 12 72 Portland 4. B. �. R 56" San Y River 4 L 44" N �y Beaverton so" 44 re WTP l^I 45" 54" 60" fib" 36" 24• R P 3fi 44• 0 Creek 36" ,OrCS \CONDUIT 1 36• N�.S � io Milwaukie c O ` Gaston or 14 36" Lake swego Q �z, Tigard ��= R Q King Gladstone WTP City urha Clackamas Sandy TUalO tln WTP WTP I Tualatin Sherwood I P WTP 70 cY N R 24" 10000 0 10000 20000 LnI West Linn z4• 6 Oregon I City �^ LEGEND o� v6 EXISTING PROPOSED c 6 Wilsonville WATER TREATMENT PLANT WTp IwrP!. �14 1 `O WTP e GROUNDWATER WELL SUPPLY ® R\vg( - STORAGE RESERVOIR d = o �, g Canby Figure 1 AUGUST 1999 e PUMP STATION ° REGIONAL TRANSMISSION AND S PLANNED FUTURE PIPING --- River P4 STORAGE STRATEGY SCENARIOS BASE CASE SCENARIO REGIONAL HATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM ©MONTOOMENY WATSON � 0'.,- 1 y�. Vancouver W shou I River C°lu X16;0 R�Ver Camas shougol 42 -45— R me L I8 d 66' Fore ^ �P Grovet Hilsboro ?� ^N� 2 Portland R 42' B• �. 56• Sandy RIVer Beaverton 44' , 54" 50. aaresa �R 45 ' WTI 54' 60- 66' r O; LO. 60' R `••� R � .—. 24' n 44. 56 2a- •�.� Creek 50' R 1• P °ray° \ `rCONDUIT \ WESTSIDE NO. REGIONAL R 36' e 51 STORAGE 'A RESERVOIR , •.•Q8„ Milwaukie 01• ' ' Gaston a vLake swego 96'...•� l 1 Tigard 18; 96 R Q I King Gladstone City urha WTI � Tualatin P ttn I Clack,mas Sandy toI . ' TuoI L '16" WTP u Sherwood I EASTSIDE A WTI ",t 1 R a4' REGIONAL �. 10000 0 10000 20000 •\ 'nl West Linn ^,% STORAGE I I•�• 24' RESERVOIR R Oregon City -� LEGEND o EXISTING PROPOSED \ �I Wilsonville cl WATER TREATMENT PLANT WTp W,1pI ,-' W7P \ e GROUNDWATER WELL SUPPLY © RAJ 81 R �el / c o STORAGE RESERVOIR Canby PUMP STATION g o m Figure 2 AUGUST 1999 A PLANNED FUTURE PIPING --- River REGIONAL TRANSMISSION AND CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING STORAGE STRATEGY - SCENARIO 1 G (PRIMARY) REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING —•— (SECONDARY) ©MONTOOMUNT WATSONJA ()e- �Oyoo: Vancouver Wash 00001 River Cov Camas shoU al aZ 45_ R e^�en� so^0 9 66' Fores ^ �P Grovt eHil sboro fiP _i9• 712 � Portland 42" �B. �. R 56• Son y River 4. Beaverton 44' I�-{1 so' o WTP 45. ..,60 0. 44 res • 36' 54" 0' 66' i 60' 36• R 24' 36 24" °(` Creek \.719/6" R 1e ve c• 36" 0ray \ I�ON�U�T �• I \ G Milw°ukie Ln; I O 1s Gaston R36• Lake swego 54',..... — l J2� Tigard �CP: c R Q King Gladstone City urho WTP I Tual otiWTP ti ClockOm OS Sandy n WTP Tualatin Sherwood WTP A. �I N R.. 24" 30 (D 10000 0 10000 20000 Lnl West Linn I24 I Oregon R City LECZNQ A, EXISTING PROPOSED (0I Wilsonville 7 O, WATER TREATMENT PLANT 63 WTP ` GROUNDWATER WELL SUPPLY `�0 P STORAGE RESERVOIR Canby PUMP STATION Figure 3 AUGUST 1999 PLANNED FUTURE PIPING ___ River REGIONAL TRANSMISSION AND CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING ........ STORAGE STRATEGY - SCENARIO 2 o (PRIMARY) ERS CONSORTIUM REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING —•— (SECONDARY) ©NIONTOONIRW WATSON SA orom�a.o•ego� Vancouver Wasncu aI River rhb;a Pill., co m 5'O"o Camas shougal 45� 6 `"` 42� 66• �� GroveForest /1B- Hil sboro +z n� Portland 42• *e• '.A. R s6• Sandy River ` 6. Beaverton eco d6Q so• as re WTP 45• 54• 60• 66• 1 *� 36• / Qg• R R 6 z. C ++• CT) n z4 36 eaa reek \` 96„ so• V y `�__ WESTSIDE R OO• m, 3a• JOr � TCONDUIT NO.\ REGIONAL .' . 36• c ; - STORAGE -A RESERVOIR " Milwaukie �• i Gaston o •' 1R \ 0 0 36• Lake swego 66,.....• J2� Tigard = eRR I 1_._._.l Q King Gladstone City urho WTP Clockamcs Sandy ITualatin WTP WTP R ' I Tualatin Sherwood66= I WTP EASiS(DE N R ze' REGIONAL �. 10000 0 10000 20000 nI West Linn ��� STORAGE 24- RESERVOIR R Oregon I City LEGEND 0 96 EXISTING PROPOSED col �^ Wilsonville 63) 0 \F WATER TREATMENT PLANT y y�7p 7 WTP 6 GROUNDWATER WELL SUPPLY ® R\�e( C �e � STORAGE RESERVOIR q� s e'� 0 Canby n PUMP STATION g o m m� Figure 4 AUGUST 1999 PLANNED FUTURE PIPING ——— River REGIONAL TRANSMISSION AND CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING STORAGE STRATEGY SCENARIO - 3 o (PRIMARY) REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING — (SECONDARY) ©NIONTOOMOM WATSON rAAA�a�a.0•<qo� Vancouver W shou al R;. ver CO/U NO, Ter Comas cove shougol R �°menl talon q2"—,5. a 66• �� Fores Grove /16• Hil sboro _ 12 ^N Portland 42• 4 �. R 56• Sandy River 6• Beaverton rn a4 44 res WTP tR i 45' 36' 54- 60' 66• r q, 60 R O R F 44- n• �• 4• a� Creek \ ti^ ICON (D: �. 36• DUIT NO.�\ Milwoukie Gaston o0- Lakeswego %':.....•= l l 1 /I P°' �2( Tigard R ......� King Gladstone City urha WTP Clockam Sandy TUala t in WT WTP as Tuol&frl L Sherwood `"—.` wTP m: 1 o- R 24• 30' 01 100West Linn -,-%00 0 10000 20000 I: \ 24- (.0: Orego R n City 1 LE13END ~ 96 EXISTING PROPOSED m _ Wilsonville WATER TREATMENT PLANT ytTp WTp J �1 �0 WTP � E GROUNDWATER WELL SUPPLY ® R1N8t C_ I�–I xQ P STORAGE RESERVOIR LJ _ \o�Q'� 0 1 n PUMP STATION g Canby a (� �C PLANNED FUTURE PIPING ——— f Figure 5 AUGUST 1999 River REGIONAL TRANSMISSION AND CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING ........ STORAGE STRATEGY SCENARIO - 4 o (PRIMARY) REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING ©NIOT'OOSO (SECONDARY) NINKRY WATSON MSA. 0",. —COY UTILITY l 503 263 BG21 P.02/w Sg -21-1999 11:24 cANBY,u- uiry BOAR► . FAX rr PAYS TO oha,FlE urXlny7tuT89 vm! September 21, 1999 Rob KApps.tk=d Chafr kqc nal Waken Providers C mmtium Portland Mettapolitan Axes lD l i2o S.W. Sib-#601 Portland, OR.97204-1926 Re: Memberft Dear Mr.Xappa The Canby utu►ty Board C"CUB")Board of Dircctm voted ansramoudY to witb&M membmsbm fVM the Regional Water Ptov'+=Consortium at Oww September 140 1499,Regubr Board MectmS- C OD joined the Regional Conoordm at s time wben it w"thought Canby mit be a delivery point on a rO&IMI WmMniss'M"no aofl there turas no wdoble sub-ztoeal organization to deal with moor water supply issum Much has c aged since thrtA. 0 'Utility Bvaxd is a Charter Meu3bcr of a sub- agon=hon(WWSA)tit dads 6=ctly wgh oar long tcan supply fasces and tate C have w d-it clear ffie&e-C=by Ilne"is c8UY out of t>1c question. 7Etc C,,,xuwii==wcd thw focus on regional issues,just as Cry's issues were beteg more M*x and local. Tba Consort'r,top oonccros are nvw wbst we m Csuby see as—made ft Metro MW issues or BuU Raaf oW=vs.Bull Run customer issues. CUR bas no Wtmcst in Metra issues,we we mot part of Metnv and vire should�t be a part of the decision mfg pxoeeas for Mdxv issues. Bull Run issues,from our pm,speative,are important OWy as they izpact the kwg terns viability of the WMumette River as a chinking wow source. pdclition bo, ug effia t on igsu oflittle value to us,we had to defanii against the Consorbum%pmpewty to tdw positions an poliU cal trines that are,frons our P "Q. a} ogriat dy left to member's individual Boards or oouacils. ' —f— — - - LfrILITY F2D %o 263 eG21 P.t�uias SEP-21-i999 11=24 Rob YjVM Board Clair Reewad W'wa Pravidas.CWsotthm Scptember 21,1999 Page 2 To pd it fly,CDB-s Bcod of Ditto c :filly►reviewed our relatioushig wifbRea Comsor snd concluded CUB=d flys Capsocd m lied&Iftad so far apaat over the Imst few years.%act ow mfimed m=bftWW iD the mWater Providers Cousardam would not well serve CUB or the Covnsoatium. Damistique Bcs=foxed a n x=to Dim Borges,General Mauaget of Canby utility Baaxd and various o8acr agencies who did not attend ft COnsa1701141 Bda[d M0dmg last wedL In that memo site regaaetW*bat wa advise Ler as to arbetiaer or mt CUB mppotfs=ding yourPMPNPcd 1cUxT tO conSwismw David Wu in oppoddou of HIL623. our Mponse is Out CUB has no problem with yOW seceding flu lett=*as long as yaai rewme Canby WHY Boat+d's=330 fiOW tIu�ansoatium 1 . CUB WM conte to be an acdve WWSA member and I am swe ymiwill see us fr+opn time to bonne when W WSA m d Coasaacti w business intcxserx. U�ffi thea best v abcs, CANBY TTIIITTY BOARD Robert Wwwott,Board C - RWJdjvv bcc: Baninique RG"ec TOTAL P.03