05/01/1999 - Packet (Best guess) MEMORANDUM
TO: Intergovernmental Water Board Members
FROM: Ed Wegner
RE: Water Information
DATE: May 21, 1999
Enclosed is various water related information for your review.
• Letter from EPA explaining briefly, the means by which the EPA sets primary
drinking water standards.
• AWWA"Waterweekn'We made the national AWWA's newsletter
• WWSA news release from May 3, Wilsonville City Council meeting.
• Portland Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and Contingency Plan. A
comprehensive strategy for meeting peak season water demand.
• Cascade Policy Institute— information on competitive bidding for water and sewer
services. A case study on Portland Water Abundance Plan and news release from
Indianapolis and Jersey City.
• Discussion paper on policy issues—Willamette Basin Reservoir Feasibility Study ,
• E-mail from Cathy Wheatley— Initiative Petition (Water)
KathV&k\info memo 5-20-99
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.
C
Legal/regulatory feasibility .
1. TVIinimize 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.
a
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.
c
Key Issues Cited in Prior Planning Efforts
Reg. Portland
Trans. DAP
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
,.dam ---------------
MurraySmith&Assn es,Ine.
Enoeeglanners 121 S.W.Salmon,Suite 1020 Portland,Oregon 97204 a PHONT 503.225.9010 FAX 503.269022
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
e s nc -Irne-. Fr: t'e 10! .=. l 1 f. t.t fIN Fo '• :r
system el r:�ents. Thc,c riteria s c..�« ._ e. �, z .:.e as. g a
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.\WINN7WtOFI ES\ADMUGSTRATOR\PFRSONAI-\TASIQ+gmg s&t mmo 82399Am
e
Table 1
Transmission Main Capacity and Diameter Summary
4 :
Pipehne Capacity - Pipeluie Diameter,
(Million Gallons Per 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:%VANNT%PROFRFSMDMINISTRATORUWMNAL%TA51Qngami.&Immn U399Am 2
r '
i
• 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
CIWINN PROPRPSWDMINLSTRATORW:MNAL%TASIQ m0oW.&t memo 82399.doc 3
r
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 capagity. 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.%WINNr&ROFlIFSWDMINISTRATORffRSONALVTA51Q ngiomWsMm 623"doc 4
ti
I of Vancouver Washougal River
6io
Comes shougol
45_ R t ISA-ld
66,
7jP
!j 1,
Forest
Grove 100 Hil sboro 0
77 12
Portland
Son
4- Y River
Beaverton
41 al 11!1
WTP LJ 4 4- 60- 61
4- 24' 0
36, )a
rc5o70 DOTIT—m-
Milwoukie
Gaston
36- Loke swego c.
ell Tigard R
King Gladstone rWTF
City urho Tualatin WTP WTP Clockarma Sandy
Tualatin
Sherwood WTP
R 24'
10000 0 10000 20000 q West Linn
24'
Oregon
R city
.0 96
EXISTING PROPOSED (01
63' Wilsonville
�
WATER TREATMENT PLANT 60 6Ti�
WTF
GROUNDWATER WELL SUPPLY
STORAGE RESERVOIR
Canby Figure I AUGUST 1999
PUMP STATION g0 0-
River 111� REGIONAL TRANSMISSION AND
PLANNED FUTURE PIPING STORAGE STRATEGY SCENARIOS
BASE CASE SCENARIO
REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM
RIONTMIIIIIIIIII[V WAT80N
0.e9.. MSA
Vancouver W shou of River
w;Ah
"•. Rover
-1Q0b'r Camas
cO°°^hent �• shougol
45, R s, s°Z
•f
Fre
Grove / Hil sboro ftp,
^N� la u
Portland
4
R Beaverton 44* SO" y River
d L 54 �'
WT R 4s• _ •• re
sr se a..
cOo: -39 _. '� 24• R jb 24• -�°•(�' Creek R --�ti-`• `�\ p-
WESTSIDE : R ti �''' °r I�ONDUIT
REGIONAL R NO.S
STORAGE '•• 1�`�
RESERVOIR 1 •..48„ Milwoukie cy)•
Gaston 01
o� ••• '' : I
o I R Lake swego 96...•t- l I.1 / cs
1 l
�z� I Tigard •. 96,. R — —
King Gladstone +.'wTP I
City Urha L
lotin Clock Sandy'uoP auras
Iuolbn1 ... WTI q�
A
Sherwood WTI EASTSIOE
c} 1 0- V24'
REGIONAL
10000 0 10000 20000 �I West Linn RAGE
RE�ER vOIR
• R Oregon
City
LECMr
EXISTNG PROPOSED \ SII Wilsonville o
WATER TREATMENT PLANT WTP wrP ` � Fo
� WTI \
GROUNDWATER WELL SUPPLY ® R`�eT •—•—L7` C
STORAGE RESERVOIR —
R ° Canby
PUMP STATION Qr o
Figure 2 AUGUST 1999
PLANNED FUTURE PIPING ——— River �f
REGIONAL TRANSMISSION AND
2CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING
........ STORAGE STRATEGY - SCENARIO 1
(PRIMARY) REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM
CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING —•—
(SECONDARY)
®Mulft'OOMBp1l W(OTtOMMSA
oartbn°,O•eRon
Vancouver W shougal P,wer
r
4 Comas
[, G.� - shougal
4J_ RIS�ppy• t
42�
Forest / Hil sboro �P�� a" '
Grove ,6• m
_ n
^N 7� Y Portland
4. R ss• San Y River
Beaverton � 44•
45_ 6 p" so- 44 res a
WTP 54'
36' q.
R n 60• R
SS 24' S6 24' Creek \
1o `96„
r 5 \ I�ONDUIT Np
t: •
R O• 36• �O
(O: 36' - ,,^
41 I
Milwoukie Ln: I
o
Gaston
36 Q Lake swego 54 ,....•�
Tigard ��:
Q King Gladstone
City urho WTP
TUalotin WTP
C ClOckomos Sandy
ITualatin -; WTP
Sherwood F WTP A
jN R 24• N
10000 0 10000 20000 LI West Linn
I4-
R Oregon
' City
LEON o TQ
EXISTING PROPOSED 0 �
Wilsonville o
WATER TREATMENT PLANT W T p W T p 6 3 1 r� F
o
WTP
W GROUNDWATER WELL SUPPLY
�2 �c
tr STORAGE RESERVOIR �R o�"� o
Canby
g� PUMP STATIONP
3 PLANNED FUTURE PIPING — River �(1,1� Figure 3 AUGUST 1999
REGIONAL TRANSMISSION AND
CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING STORAGE STRATEGY - SCENARIO 2
o (PRIMARY) REGIONAL RATER PROVIDERS CO)VSORTIUM
CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING —•—
(SECONDARY)
MSA
Vancouver W sho al Rver
C01,1jr),
Comas shougol
4245" R
66"
Forest
Grove 101 Hil sboro
1 /"-' -'8-7 7-�'
N Portland R Son
4- 56" Y River
Beaverton
44
WTP LR 4 54'
R p R
:c� •
24" 24' Creek
00 Tc 6N
WESTSIDE R \,96"776-u,
REGIONAL (D:
STORAGE
RESERVOIR
Milwoukie
Gaston 0-
:cn
o 36, Lake swego 66.......
Tigard ImoR.
King
City urho GladstonewrP
TUOIOtin WTP WT R Clackamas Sandy
Tualatin
.Sherwood p WTP EASTSIDE
R 24' REGIONAL
10000 0 10000 20000 LnI West Linn STORAGE
24' RESERVOIR
Oregon
City
LEGBO 01 vd
EXISTING PROPOSED (0 Wilsonville
WATER TREATMENT PLANT 6E�)
WTP
GROUNDWATER WELL SUPPLY
STORAGE RESERVOIR 0
Canby
PUMP STATION
PLANNED FUTURE PIPING ——— River Figure 4 AUGUST 1999
4 REGIONAL TRANSMISSION AND
CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING ........ STORAGE STRATEGY SCENARIO - 3
o (PRIMARY) REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM
CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING
(SECONDARY)
MSA
N "
Vancouver W sho al River
y�'•�'t5 cT R��er
Camas
shougal
v n of I
ForestGrove /1e• Hil sboro rro
fx
C.
Portland
. A. " ss Sandy River
Beaverton• 2 �•
HH 6Q'.
W T P U 43' �'
'•R " 4- o� Creek
n �: /` Cyt as ,oro5 `rCONDUIT 0
N S
Co.
.� Milwoukie ' -
Gaston 01 / I
7
xe• Lake swego �2•..... � /• �'
Tigard
�2, f: L.�1 r"
,• •=•—
King Gladstone
City orho wTP
Clock amus Sandy
Tualatin wT
TuwTP
alNn L ,,, .
Sherwood `'—•` MTP
o,: 1 N q 24-
10000 0 10000 20000 �• West Linn
I• \ xs•
Oregon
R C.Ity
LEOM
EXISTING PROPOSED
�N
Wilsonville o
WATER TREATMENT PLANT wTP wrP �j
� wTP
GROUNDWATER WELL SUPPLY
c
STORAGE RESERVOIR
Canby
m PUMP STATION 8 p
004 Figure 5 AUGUST 1999
PLANNED FUTURE PIPING --- River REGIONAL TRANSMISSION AND
CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING STORAGE STRATEGY SCENARIO - 4
S (PRIMARY) REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM
CONCEPTUAL FUTURE PIPING —•—
8 (SECONDARY) MSA.
eertm�e.asye• SA
------- — ----- 5�3 263 8621 P.02/d3
_— — — — w44BY UTILITY DOMM
X21-1999 11=24
r d d
AOL CANDY Aff[Lt." BOAREP .
JIM 164 K.W.f�BTAVEWF--P"-®iGCC1070-f 9=3
IrFAVS-W0W7HEUTW Y77AraSRWsYIDU
Septoiber 21,1999
Rob xApM tkwd Cb2fw
F+ WMdrapolitam 77 33 .
1120 S.W.Sth-#601
tea, OR 97204-1926
RC
Tbue Canby Utility Bbazd C"CM")Board of D voted m
vvitlrw�MW from Ste kcaXand WS=
j?Lvvjd=40 at tbw r S
14g 1999,Regdw Bowd.Msebn&
CUB joined tlo Raffi= l Congarti m at a time when tt was*MO O
be a ddhay pint on a regiaW mwim lme ad Ibere was no suitable 69"V&011
Ovpdzafi=to deal wrtth major waxes supply issRes-
Mu*has dMged since tltm The Utility Roved is a Garter Me mbcr of s sub
=M,mon(WWSA)to dads direetlY *Or long UM supply issues end
tcmuardwn.W&C=Dire Maft it&W gug&0`°C=W LLM "is Y ont of
the mon.
The Cusclum movedtheir fay on=Song MMM just as C=WS ices
wa becan&g mealce MjuC"*w eO lcoal. The Cans eMe s top M now
WW we is Canby see as`5mside the Metro Ute"issues m Bull Run owner vs.Bull Run
Outwnct issues.
COB las no bhrcst is Metra issues,we:am ng pmt of Metro and wo should mot
be apart of&e dwisioa making paw for Mctw . >3n11 Ron.isselea,ftOm wmr
Riva as a drag Wates MUM-
In ad&ficwa to ex�d ng wart oa iaasmes oflittle valwa to uwl,�badto de5�
tM��°6 pity to telae poddons an polit ml issues that we,f=osn.01
PjFPmiddy Deft to m2embe es,individual Bows or wuncgs.
r°'F
TCOF
. — — �Y CffILITY BMWSB3 26.3 Bfa21 P.bsiias
cEP-21-1999 11:24
Rob Kappa,Board Mair
loosl Water i'tovide�C
Sepmmber 21,1999
PW 2 .
To pd it emPl,Y,
AB's Ii of Mccum raviewed DIN reb omEp
wgh jjg Renal Cmwzdi=and wwbded CUB wad Bye Copsor'dum had domed so for
spar tover the Inst faw yeam that as continued mabombiP k dw psi Water
providem Cvnsordun would not w*U serve CUB cr*8 CoDsOdb .
DambigaeBesmee gazed ameme to DidcBorses,Gmeral Mmager of Caaby
Utilyty Bcm d and various otter agencies vdw did nat attend the Croma th=Bid
m0flfmgj2gvjedL vt *d umw da requeWd l*wee sdV=hrr as to v&edw cr not
COB mpporfs Smdiug YUr PwPmcd letter to Os�sa David Wu in%"sMm of
H3.623. oarmspqmis tisk CEMlwnoPM4MVfthYcFur5adW8 dtie 1etw as long
ss 7mrevwve Ca*bYUtMYBoard's same fmm thePmvwwmlcmmbeadL
CUB will oomtiuw to bs a a asp W WSA=embcr sad Ina sue ym vM Mus
from time to taauo wbea W WSA and C;xmm urm Asea.
'(J�1�bestaris�, '
C,ANBY lrnlX'Y BOARD
' .4
0
Robert Wwwott,'Bosrd Cbafi aau .
RWi41j4+v
bcc: Dominique Bussee
TOTAL P 03
r
i.. flay 87 1999 lS=86:23 Via Fax -> Ed Wegner Page 881 of 88_Z
Yrsit our Web site at
1 v ww.awwa.or9hvatervweek
for daily headline rf e-wvs.
Volume 8 No.19 American Water Works Association Dedcafed to Safe Ddhkft Water May 7, 1999
.fudge claims discretion Data lacking on water sector Y2K status
to consider options Lackof uformation on!fie Y2K readiness of US water and wastewater
for SWTR compliance utilities has led federal investigators to press for expanded public
disclosure of status information,including suggesting legislation to
A federal district court judge for the only require facrill it les to tell thekY2K status by September According to a new
District of Massachusetts has slated nGovernment Accounting Office survey of EPA,state,trade assodafion
slier whether filtration is thea only
October 14 evidentiary hearing and utr'lity activities an the=front,lack of EPA and state demands for
remedy for systems that fail to meet systems to report their status and weak responses to surveys by industry
the Surface Water Trot Rule's fit- associations makes it diTKxdt to assess and manage the related public
tration,a voidar i e criteria health(W3.
Ruling on an EPA motion for sum- Released this week(www gao�gov/dayboak19905WJrtm),the report
mary judgment to order the Massmhu- rates that EPA lacks the power and does not have time to develop rules to
setts Water Resources Authority to require systems to-report their Y2K status and"only a handful"of state
fitter its surface water supply, US Die- regulators believe they are responsible for ensuringY2K readiness.GAO
trict Court Judge Richard G. Steams listed only two states—C'oloado and Mnaessata—as having taken a
this week found that MWRA has failed proactive stance on assessing system readiness and providing compliance
meet the avoidance criteria and a
state-issued
guidance.GAO notes that a late-1998 water industry survey of 4,000
state-issued waiver is 'of no effect." operators generated only 725 responses,about half of which indicated
tion is therefore mandatory, assertlingm-
But he rejected EPAs chin that fithey had oorapleted asses ruents of their internal systems.AWWA,the
that the SDWA Jud inial enforcement Association of Metropolitau WaterAgencies and the National Association
provision [42 USC, Section SWO(b)] of Water Companies will send a follow-up survey out this month,with
does riot limit the court'to mechanical results due back in July(call Jon DeBoer at 303-347-6187 for details).
enforcement of EPA compliance
orders.' Tigard opts for Willamette River supply
He wrote: 'Why Congress might
not have wanted to eliminate judicial The Tigard.Ore.,city council onApril 27 culminated months of study
discretion in ordering compliance and debate over how best tomeet long-term public water needs by
with the S D WA is not di ffi c u I t to unanimously voting to but Willamette River water rather than buy water
imagine. Technology evolves more from Portland.With some council members claiming this was their most
rapidly than typically does legisla- important council decision for the city as well as the region,the panel
tion, and there is inherent danger in gwe a big boost to constructing a$42.7 million filtratian(a¢omation plant
attempting to legislate today's sol- by 2002 that could windup serving nearby cities of Sherwood,
erme as the foreordained solution for Wilsonville,and Tbalatin as well as customers of the Tua]atinValley
tomorrow's problems_' Whter District.
The hearing will focus an whether Sherwood,Tigard,Rulatin and the TV WD are members of the
MWRAs watershed protection/ozona-
tion/pipe rehabilitation plan'WR better Willamette Water Supply Agency.The treatment plant would be built in
serve Congress's objective of pro- Wilsonville,which last year restricted building in the face of a water
viding'maximum feasible protection of shortage and is slated to decide in June whetherto support the facift
the public health'than will EPAs insis- W &A,expects the other three member agencies with an interest in the
tense on filtration." • plant to decide by this fall whether to join the effort and bow to establish
ownership and funding structures.
This issue sponwred by MIOX Corporation
:N.C.
up ra water by_.e THE LEADING TECHNOLOGY FOR WATER DISINFECTION EQUIPMENT
moxtel: (505) 343-0090 email: info@miox.com website: www.miox.com
r0 Swr•aa
Macy 87 1999 15:87:16 Via Fax -> Ed Llegner Page EM llf 88Z
play 7,1999 .
Hot topicsconcentrations,testing time cut to about four hours and
cost-savings from being able to measure the presence of
PUBLIC NOTICE RULE EPA is expected to dozens of microorganisms in a single test.UWS,
publish proposed revisions to SDWA public notice Lyonnaise and bioMerieux expect the method to be
regulations for public comment next week.EPA bas operational upon completion of the pilot test:Call Olivia
already slated three public meetings to seek comment on Barbeds at 404-253-3993 for details.
the rule and its companion handbook:May 26 in CRYPTO WORKSHOP.Daring a late-April
Madison,Wm;June 3 in Wasbington,D.C.;June 8-9 in workshop sponsored by the EPA Office of Water's Office
Allentown,Pa.;and June 23-24 in Phoenix,Ariz.Call of Science and Technology,Cryptaspwi&um experts.
Carl Reeverts at 202-260-7273 for details. discussed whether any species other than C.pw-mm are
SOURCE PROITMION.EPA has amouaecd it is of regulatory concern under the SDWA.EPA opted to
seeking proposals by June 7 from state,local and tribal make the Iden-Enhanced Sudace Water Treatment
gem mments and non-for-profit community water systems Rule particular only to the Cryptosporidium genus,
and technical assisbwe organization for$2 million set giving scientists more time to assess whether any of eight-
aside to help fund source protection projects in small, other known species or strains are infective to humans.
rural or economically disadvantaged communities.As Experts at We April 29-30 meeting reviewed a report that
described in the May 6 Federal Register,EPA will divvy C.fr:lir has infected an inmwi ocompromised person,
up $L625 million of the total among its ten regional which would be the first time a non-.parvum species
offices to allocate as they see fit and retain$375 million has been identified as a human pathogen.They also
for EPA headquarters to award to national,multistate or discussed flow current technologies limit understanding
multiregion ptojeds.Preference will be given to projects. of its occurrence,the range of pathogenic species and
located wiithiaprrodty watersheds identified by states in route of disease transmission.Call Steve Schaub at 202-
their Unified Watershed Assessments developed under the 260-7591 for details.
Clean%terAction Plan.Eligible projects may support TOXICOLOGY Mixtures of aldicarb,atrazine and
community sauce water assessment and protection nitrate in concentrations commonly found in
activity as well as sta rmwater*nonpoint soaroe or wet groundwater can significantly influence neurological,
weather activities that help integrate groundwater immune and endocrine systems,according to the findings
concerns into watershed assessment/restoration plans, of a team of researchers at the University of Wisconsin at
support wellhead protection programs or help Madison.Published m the Janmry-March issue of
communities considering new source-protedionplams or Taazcotogy mid I ndustnal Health, the report by Branca P.
ordinances.Contact regional offices or Evyonne Harris at Porter et al describes results of five years of assessing
EPA HQ at 202-260-1399 for details. health effects on mice exposed to drinking water
ANALYTICAL METHODS:Consumers of Atla nta containing the contaminants at levels equivalent to their
city water learned today that the new contract operators current federal standards.In a UWM press release(at
of Allanta's water utility will pilot test the first gene- www.news.wba4-dulddsweWrestafcb/biQ(y99/pesdcide.
probe technology for detecting waterborne pathogens.In html),Porter says the`single most important finding of
a May 7 press conference in downtown Atlanta,officials the study is that common mixtures,not the standard one-
from New 7esey-based United Water Services and its chemical at-a-gime experiments,can show biological
French parent company Lyonnaise des Eaux announced effects at current concentrations in groundwater
that Atlanta will be the sole US site for a two--year pilot RISK h ANAGEMOEN'R Water systems that handle
test of the GeneChip array method being developed 2,500 th of more a chlorine,10,0001b at more of
under a$9 milrion development effort by Lyonnaise and anhydrous ammonia or 20,000 lb or more of aqueous
bioMerieux,one of the world's top biological diagnostic ammonia have until June 21 to submit Risk Management
companies(US office in St.Louis,Mo.).The technology, Plans to EPA as required under RMP provisions of the
developed for medical uses,works by matching up to Clean Air Act For details,check the EPA's'RMP Web
400,000 programmed genetic codes with the DNA site at www.epagov/swercepplacc-preIttral or call 800-
,signature of microbial contaminants.Touted advantages 926-7337 to order anAWWA video(No.65151)and/or
include accurate iderrtification of microbes even at low anAI6'WA Research Foundation report(No.90760).
WATEMEEK is published weekly by the American Water Works Association, 6666 W. Graney Ave., Denver CO 80235_
Copyrigta O 1999 by AWWA Distribution limited to recipient facility. Editor: Mark Scharfeneker_Phone:303-347-6263_ Fax:
303-7947310. Email: mscharfeeawwa_org_ To subscribe call 303-347-6167_ lrternet site: http.-Avww.awwa.orghvaterweek
Expanded reporting of selected stories in AWWAMnrvS-tEAM.
CASCADE rOL1CY INSTITUTE ( �
'zECE/VED c.o.r
APR 3 1999
April 29, 19999
To: Mayor Jim Nicoli
City of Tigard
Fr: Kurt T. Weber
Program Director
cc: Councilor Paul Hunt
Councilor Brian Moore /
Councilor Joyce Patton
Councilor Ken Scheckla
Re: Competitive bidding for water and sewer services
Enclosed is the"The Portland Water Abundance Plan: A Proposal to Use Managed Competition to
Conserve and Extend the Portland Metropolitan Region's Water Supplies."Many of the principles
and points in the report are applicable beyond the city named in the title.
In the bid to provide a suitable water supply at a low cost for your residents, I encourage you to
consider the experiences of Jersey City and Indianapolis; both have competitively contracted their
waster and sewer services. The results: lower costs and enhanced service. Numerous other cities
have experienced the same results.
For information about Indianapolis,call Mayor Stephen Goldsmith's office at(317) 327-3601.
Alternatively, refer to: www.indygov.org/mayor frameset.htm. To learn more about Jersey City's
contracting out of water and sewer services,call Mayor Bret Schundler's office at(201)547-5200,
or refer to: www.cityofjjerseycity.com.
Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. My email address is Kurt@CascadePolicy.org.
813 SW Alder - Suite 450 - Portland - Oregon 97205
(503) 242-0900 - Iax 242-3822 - www.CascadePolicy.org - Into@CascadePolicy.org
41LCdw ress
momm
WESTERN ORE./WESTERN WASH. EDITION AGIUCULTUIM, VVEXELY
•
$I ** FRIDAY,FEB.6.1998 Serving Farms and Ranches In Oregon,lVashhiglon,Idaho,Califorai,
OCLal
governments can Compete'
Let's play local government tion that ... more government
private companies for the right to guidance,Goldsmith employed the
Jeopardyl The answer is: Indi- spending improves services is do the citizen's work.. "Yellow Pages Test."
inapolis.Question:Where should the single most destructive idea All told, unionized employees "Look at the city's Yellow
Guest)ublic officials and concerned cit- that hampers government policy G uestt have won 37 of 86 contracts on bid. Pages,"he advises."If the phone
zeas look for solutions in the wake today." n Public employees even won back book.lists three companies that pro-
f Measures 5,47 and 50? Consider these select Indi- some contracts that private com- vide a certain service,the city prob-
Since 1992 Indianapolis has im- anapolis achievements: Kurt panies were fulfilling, Union ably should not be in that business,
)roved the quality of municipal ser- ■The cost of billing sewer users Weber members now suggest outsourc- at least not exclusively."
rices and reduced its cost by 25 dropped 33 percent. 'ing when it will save money!They For example, this writer sug-
?ercent under the leadership of ■ Eight-men crews with two Indianapolis has achieved sim- know they must be cost-compet- gests looking under"landscaping."
twice-elected Mayor Stephen trucks used to repair potholes.To- ilar results in its jails,airport man- itive — or they risk losing their You'll likely find more than three
3oldsmith. day, five-man crews and one agement,garbage collection,pub- contract to someone else when it companies.City,county and state
Mayor Goldsmith's recently truck do the same work.Savings: lic vehicle repairs and more.Zb add expires, employees could compete with
published'rwenty-first Century 25 percent. compliment to accomplishment, Stephen Fantauzzo,executive them for the contract to maintain
"ity"(Regnery,1997)provides prin- ■Copying costs have been re- employee morale is up,and work- director for the American Feder- our parks.
:ipled insight into how other duced by 27 percent. related ir4uries,sick time,and ab- ation of State County and Mu. On March 1,Cascade Policy In-
nties,counties,special districts and ■In 1993,towing and dispos- .senteeism are down. nicipal Employees Council 62,is stitute kicks off its third Oregon
;tate governments might replicate ing of abandoned vehicles cost tax- "Most civil servants are hard- a believer. Fantauzzo notes,"We Better Government Competition,
zis results. payers$174,000.In the next two working and talented....The prob. had for years been saying that if which seeks ideas on how to im-
Goldsmith proudly says,"We did years, Indianapolis earned lem is that they have been we weren't saddled with the bu prove local government services.
iot just cut the rate of growth,we $500,000 for the same activities. trapped in a system that punish- reaucracy and.the heavy layers of Pick up Goldsmith's "Twenty-
ictually spent less....Our budget ■ Management cost for two es initiative,ignores efficiency,and management,then we could pro- first Century City"if you need idea
n 1997 was 7 percent lower -wastewater treatment plants, rewards big spenders,"Goldsmith vide services as efficiently as as to how we can do it.
.ban the budget when I took of- already nationally recognized writes. any private vendor." We can improve services,low-
Ice....
ow-Ice....At the same time,we made models of of oleucy and perfor- He has freed public employees Goldsmith didn't appoint blue- er taxes,and have a better qual-
be largest infrastructure invest- mance, were slashed 44 per- and improved services through ribbon commissions or hire pricy ity of life. Look to Indianapolis.
nent in the city's history ... and cent.Savings:$65 million over five "market-testing," through com- consultants to achieve such cost-
)ut 100 more police officers on city years.On average,water leaving petition.Except for public safety, saving and attitude-changing re- Kurt T. Weber is the program di-
itreets _" the plants is cleaner than EPA re- many city services are put out for sults.He simply introduced gov. rector at Cascade Policy Institute,
He emphatically states,The no- quirements. bid.Public employees compete with ernment to competition.Tb provide a Portland-based think tank.
Cascade Policy Institute Portland, Oregon k.)) 242-0900 www.CaseadePolicy.org
JERSEY CITY
w i
CITY HALL
.ZET SCHUNDLER JERSEY CITY. NJ 07302
MAYOR (201)547-5200
r"
AT£
*Embargoed Until April 1, 1996*
s Official! "
Jersey City To Sign Contract With United Water
5 Year Pact Will Save Ci $38.5 Million
When: Monday,April 1st
10:00- 11:00 am
Where: Jersey City Council Chambers
City Hall, 280 Grove Street
Jersey City,NJ 07302
(Exit 14B of NJ Turnpike)
Jersey City—On Monday,Mayor Bret Schundler and Donaid"Correll, Chairman and CEO of
United Water, will make their partnership official by signing a 5 year management contract
between the City of Jersey City and United Water which will create the largest public/private
water utility in New Jersey. .
Mayor Bret Schundler says that the agreement will save the City$38.5 million over the term
of the contract while increasing investment in the utility's capital infrastructure:
"This contract represents the best of both worlds. Under this partnership,the City will be able
to benefit from United Water's management expertise while retaining ownership of the utility's
assets and the ability to set water rates.
(MORE) -
Jersey City Signs 5-Year Pact with United Water, Page 2
The highlights of the private management contract between Jersey City and United Water are
as follows:
* $38.5 million in projected savings for Jersey City
* Jersey City will retain ownership of its reservoirs and treatment facilities
* The City will continue to have sole control over water rates
* No employee lay-offs
Additionat savings of$20 million to the JC Sewerage Authority
* Increased revenues from improved collections and increased bulk water sales
The$38.5 million in projected savings will be generated as follows: $2.5 million concession fee
paid by United Water to Jersey City,$17.5 million in operational savings,$18.5 million from
increased revenues to the utility through improved collections and an increase in bulk water
sales.
"This public-private partnership will lay the foundation to improve-the strengths of the Jersey
City water system," said Correll. "During the five-year partnership,United Water will put
into operation advanced technologies to significantly improve service to our customers."
According to the contract, United Water will be responsible for all aspects of Jersey City's
water system,which provides its customers with approximately 55 million gallons of water per
day. Their duties will include:
* Management of the utility's 5,700 acre watershed
Operation and maintenance of the distribution system
* Provide billing and collection services
Provide customer and emergency services
The contract also includes several innovative incentive clauses which will allow United Water
to earn additional revenue if it increases the utility's collection rate and markets the utility's
excess water to other communities. While Jersey City's water utility has been marginally
profitable under public management, its revenues have been hampered by a 70% collection
rate.
Jersey City"s water utility currently has agreements tosell its excess water to Hoboken,
Lyndhurst, West Caldwell, and the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MUA).
However, its reservoirs have adequate safe yield capacity to increase its bulk water sales.
The contract between Jersey City and United Water was made. possible by the New Jersey
Water Supply Public-Private Contracting Act(PL 1195, c. 101), which allows municipalities
to enter'into contracts with private firms for the provision of water supply services.
(MORE)
Jersev City Signs 5-Year Pact with United Water, Page 3
Representatives of the NJ Board of Public Utilities, the NJ Department of Environmental
Protection, the NJ Department of Community Affairs, and the NJ Department of Personnel
have been invited to attend the contract signing ceremony.
THE PORTLAND WATER ABUNDANCE PLAN
A Proposal to Use Managed Competition to Conserve and Extend
the Portland Metropolitan Region's Water Supplies
Jerry Yudelson, P.E., M.B.A.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 1992 drought made it dear.that regional growth had overtaken the capacity of the water
supply system to function reliably in drought years.In response,a new regional water supply plan was
adopted by the City of Portland,the METROregional government and local water supply agencies,but
there have been few other effective short- solutions.Pressing tasks still remain from the 1992 drought,
including major investments in supply proposed by Portland water officials since that time.Because these
improvements come with high price tags,it is important to examine all options,using practical economic
thinking and lessons from the development of competitive energy markets over the past 20 years.
The basic premise of this report is that water should be procured and provided in a similar fashion
as other vitsl commodities such as natural gas, electricity and food.The public does not worry about
shortages of these commodities or carry the burden of investing in new supplies,nor should they with
water.This plan suggests that water users and ratepayers would be better served if the municipal monopolies
now providing water supply in the Portland area were required to submit to managed competition.:
The deregulation of energy markets demonstrates that under conditions of economicuncertainty,
managed competition can provide long-term price stability,plus better environmental performance and
more abundant supplies than regulated gmonopolies.This alternative includes competition in regional
water supply, distribution,billing, treatment and maintenance,and water conservation programs.The
report analyzes the benefits of amore critical look at our regional water system,and proposes immediate
concrete actions.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
JerryYudelson,P.E.,is a registered professional environmental engineer in Oregon.He holds an M.BA
from the Universtiy of Oregon,as well as B.S.from Caltech and M.S. from Harvard University in Civil
Engineering and Water Resources Planning respectively.He has studied and written on water resource
issues for nearly 30 years.Mr.Yudelson is currently marketing director for Glumac International,a West-
coast based consulting engineering firm.
All
Cascade Policy Institute,
813 SW Alder-Suite 300-Portland,Oregon-?97205 _
(503)242-0900-fax 242-3822-www.CascadePolicy.org-Info@CascadePoficy.org
This proposal was named a winner in the 1998 Oregon Better Government Competition,organized by
Cascade Policy Institute.Opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
those of Cascade,its staff,or advisors,nor should the contents be construed as an attempt by Cascade
Policy Institute to influence any election or legislation.
1998 Oregon Better Government Competition
Cascade Polity. Institute
INTRODUCTION a government function.Other equally essential services such
as energy supply and telecommunications have long been
The City of Portland enjoys the blessings of a wet Pacific conceded to the private sector as regulated monopolies and
Northwest climate and two mighty rivers flowing past and are now rapidlybeing opened to competition.Whyshouldift
through it, the Columbia and the Willamette. With these water supply also be opened to competition?
natural advantages water supply should not be a problem.
Moreover, since 1892, by decree of President Benjamin Public water supply planners and engineers have long
Harrison and subsequent legislative actions, the city has treated water as a commodity that�stsoutside ofeoonomics,
enjoyed exclusive and free access to the Bull Run River in spite of research over thepast 30 years that indicates water
watershed, located about 35 miles east of Portland in the demand does depend on pricing. Studies show a price
Mount Hood National Forest.This watershed has provided elasticity of demand,or a percentage reduction in water use
an abundant supply of pure water for the growth of the city caused by a certain percentage increase in water price,that is
and the surrounding area;' Portland sells roughly40%ofits real and cross-cultural.Price manipulation can therefore be.
water to other cities in the region! used as a tool to manage water demand.
Why, then,should water supply be an issue for public The Portland area has seen along-term trend toward
debate?Though partially a matter of public concern over the increased water use per capita,Presumablyas the
impacts of EI Nifio events,and global climatic chane the population
most proximate reason is the 1992 drought.A traumatic time beencounteredby as recent trend tmore obward reduhced per caough thispita
for many in Portland,1992 rationing turned many residents use due to a variety of factors,regional population growth,
into neighborhood'water police"and exposed the lack of projected at 45% over the,next 20 years,' will significantly
city mechanisms for addressing shortages.It was inconceivable stress water supplies.See Table 1.
to many long-time residents that a city in such a water-rich
region should run short of water!Althoughthe drought
bout five mon ended L.Re
in a
the and has not been followed by similar population G o,; r aon(Fours
events in the past six years,the episode forced local officials
to explore new supply alternatives. 1990 1995 1997 2017
1,412,344 1,596,100 1,658,500 2;271,000
In late 1996, the city and regional water suppliers An examination of the current water situation indicates
completed a plan to provide adequate water supplies through the City of Portland,and its regional water supply partners,
the year 2050.' In their plan, Portland officials propose would be well served by a change in the institutional
investing$120 to$150 million or more to build another dam arrangements for water supply,distribution and delivery.We
and reservoir in the Bull Run watershed,in order to provide cannot readily create more water,but we can provide it at a
post-2017 water supply. Other cities in the region are lower cost by using principles of managed competition.
considering,spending $80 million or more to use the
Willamette River,in the event they cannot obtain Bull Run LESSONS FROM THE 1992 DROUGHT
water.from Portland.'.
The spring and summer of 1992 brought drought
This Regional Water Supply Plan may turn out to be less conditions and record high temperatures to Portland.Lading
realistic and more expensive than many now expect,because a good backup well system or a reserve water treatment plant
it is based ori outmoded assumptions about water use,pricing, for Willamette or Columbia River water,the city was forced
and the impact Of population and economic growth on to resortto thatold standbyof poor planning rationing.From
-demand.Abundant and relatively cheap supply is extremely the 1991-92 fiscal year to the 1992-93 fiscal year,overall water
important to the region's economic grdwth,as witnessed by use dropped by 12V and during the drought months,by
the local siting of many water-intensive semiconductor plants 36%,' mostly through citizen cooperation and partially
in this decade.Further,the current moratorium on new water through the enforcement ofwater rationing rules.The system
connections in Wilsonville due to a projected shortage of survived:when the rains came again in October of that year,
supply,displays our profound dependence on an adequate the rationing was lifted.
supply.
The water rationing plans,however,were unpopular and
This said, it should be noted water is essentially an not very effective.In the middle of the drought,The Oregonian
economic good,no more important than electricity,gas or editorialized:
food for the region's population and economic growth;it is
unclear why water supply should automatically be considered
2
The Portland Water Abundance Plan JerryYudelson,P.E.,M.B.A.
Why in the world is Portland relying on water cops In a summer 1998 pamphlet mailed to water customers
and stringent rules to cut water use when it would the Portland Water Bureau daimed,"Last year the Water
be more effective to impose a surcharge on every Bureau served 93,000 more people than in 1991 and used less
water user who exceeds a certain level?The answer water. Water use per person has dropped 15% in recent
to that question..dies in an antiquated billing system years." In fact.overall water usage(including residential and
the City Council has been much too slow to commercial use)in the CityofPortland has dropped from 159
modernize—Conservation pricing would encourage gallons per person per day prior to the 1992-93 fiscal year to
prudent use of an increasingly strained resource.... 137 gallons per person per day for the 1997-98 fiscal year,a
It also makes good sense to let the marketplace be the drop of 14%.Over the same period,small meter residential
water cop,instead of midnight Patrollers....Portland customers in the City of Portland have reduced their average
and its regional customers,of the Bull Run water per person use from 85 to 75 gallons a day,a reduction of
system should speed up the water-use and billing 12%.16 However,as Table 2 shows,system-wide per capita
changes that have been on tap too long already.1 use, that is,residential and commercial use for the City of
Italics added] Portland and surrounding region,has not decreased.
This historyshows the flexibilityofshort-term residential
As City Commissioner Mike Lindberg(then in charge of water demand,at least in the 1%to 15%order of magnitude,
the Portland Water Bureau)explained,"People wanted equity with few economic incentives other than a slight change in
but they didn't like the Big Brother approach that turned the rate structure.Demand reductions could also be linked
neighbor against neighbor. This hit us so fast,and frankly to current trends toward"reurbanization,and higher density
we'd never faced anything like it before,so I think mistakes housing. Multi-family building permits in the.Tri-County
may have been made 710 region went from 25% of total permits in 1992 to 49% in
1997," which may have contributed to the declining water
For the 1994-95 fiscal year,three block rates for residential consumption.A planning process which emphasizes such
and commercial water users were adopted for the first time densification may continue to moderate future increases in
by the city council,with the highest block paying 50%more demand." Other causes of the reduced usage include an
than the lowest of the three blocks.Today,a resident pays a increased awareness of the finiteness of the earth's resources,
set amount for the first block of 1,200 cubic feet of water used a lifestyle trend toward resource conservation,and public
each month,a higher rate for the next 800 cubic feet and the mandates for more efficient water use equipment in new
highest rate for the third block or tier of water used,above buildings."
2,000 cubic feet per'month." The theory is that the higher
prices for increased monthly use will cause residential users to How much more flexibility would there be in water
reduce their heavy seasonal water use, such as outdoor demand if the,city were to fully embrace economics as a
watering,to avoid higher charges. demand regulator?Without new supply sources,if Portland
were to have another drought as severe as that of 1992,the
This block structure has been maintained since 1994,with city would need to curb water use by more than 25% to
average residential rates climbing 12.4%over four years,from account for the increased demands of the regional economic
$0.845 per 100 cubic feet in 1994-95 to$0.95 in 1998-99.12 and population growth.
To date,however,monthly residential billing,a key component
of increasing the effectiveness of block rate pricing to reduce Table 2 WateryU' Since 1991-92 Fisca�lf(ea20'
water use,has not been adopted in Portland (this billing TotalSyste nstimption(Br7h'onsofall �ns%Y_' y
option is available,but consumers rarely request it). Water Use Per
_W
Total System Consumption Capita Per Day
Water Use Since 1992-There had been a long-term trend Year (billions of gallons/year) Population (gallons)
(through I990) toward higher water use per capita in the 1991-92 36.5 720,000 139
population as a whole,caused by suburbanization and higher 1992-93 34.5 735,000 129
incomes." Recent reductions in use appear to challenge this .1993-94 36.5 754,000 133
trend,indicating that Portland residents have embraced the 1994-95 38.4 790,000 133
1992 conservation message. 1996-97 41.8 813,000 141
Average per capita consumption in Portland was down THE FORECASTED WATER SUPPLY SITUATION
12%, from 151 gallons per day in the pre-drought 1991-92
fiscal year,to 133 gallons per day in the post-drought 1993-94 The Portland water supply system,shown schematically in
fiscal year."Total system water use was at pre-drought levels, Figure 1,currently meets the needs of about 800,000 people in
in spite of a 5%increase in the served population(see Tible 2). the region,roughly 60%of the Portland metro area population.
3
PORTLAND WATER SUPPLE' `� � C
��, t MT.HOOD �o.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAMtx
WEST YbU�'ita !� SUPf 1.Y
SIDE EAST SIDE
TANKS ih
PtAvs HMWORKS
WELL FIELD POWEhisat TE W-- on
WELLS t.
NR AN
ol
CHLORINE
TANKS
PL A(PS AAA "� hw•i 7
AAA AA RM
_ x AA AA^
cc AA. � AA MT.TABOR' .
T4 RES, S RES, 1
WEST
S Mb� OF60St1t, . SIDE
w WL 7E R1' P
REQ. �
WASHNGTON
P PARK
PUMPS *- RES,.6
RM4 4b
P E'A'ST.sO .
'1 AWS. 4 PUMPS
'SUPPLY ��
WASHINGTON COUNTY �
The Portland Water Abundance Plan Jerry Yudelson,P.E.,M.B.A.
Over time,the Bull Run Riversystem can be expanded to meet Help to stretch existing supplies,deferring the
increased water demand by such means as a new dam,raising capital costs of expanding supply
existing dams and storing water in underground aquifers
during the winter to meet peak summer demands?' Make regulatory permits for expansion easier to
acquire.
According to the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP),
adopted in 1997 by all of the area water supply agencies and • Reduce supply-related operating costs for power
METRO,water demand in the region is expected to grow and chemicals.
steadilyythrough the year 2050 at a rate of between 0.7%and
2.1% annually" Peak season demand is expected to grow • Extend the lives ofwastewater treatment facilities
from 0.8% to 2.3% annually," the higher estimate being before they have to be expanded.
equivalent to a doubling time of 31 years.This forecast is based
on regional population and employment growth figures from The main focus of Portland's conservation efforts is on
METRO andon reductions in water demand due to"naturally peak-season (summer) demand, a time whenwater use
occurring conservation"through building codes,appliance increases(for outdoor landscape maintenance and irrigation)
standards,programmed and expected technological advances, and supplies are the lowest." However,there is also a strong
and'the competitive marketplaCe.-24 economic argument for reducing overall water use, even
during the non-peak months,in order to decrease water and
On the supply side,the RWSP indicates"committed"water sewer treatment plant operating and maintenance costs and
supply resource additions will add about 20% to regional extend the lives of existing plants.None of these benefits have
water supplies over the next 2 to 10 years." This will provide thus far been factored into the evaluation of the cost-
temporary relief against the demands of increased population effectiveness of conservation programs.
and economic growth,but may not be enough to offset the
impact of a string of abnormally dry years. The RWSP There are many economical conservation alteIriatives;"
concludes that"given existing and committed resources,the the first focus should be on reducing residential water use,
region will not need major new supply increments until dose attending to leak repairs,adhering to more efficient outdoor
to the year 2020."16 The main future options under watering methods,and utilizinglow flow toilets,showerheads,
consideration are a third dam in the Bull Run Watershed and/ and faucet aerators. System-wide conservation options
or a water treatment plant on the Willamette or Columbia include pressure reduction and leak detection/repair.The
Rivers?' industrial sector should target water reuse,as should large
landscaping water users. Commercial water users have an
According to local officials, through an equal split of even larger number of conservation measures available
"naturally occurring conservation"and new conservation through process changes and technology retrofits.
programs,i 1%(27 million gallons per day)could be shaved
from average peak season water demand by the year 2020.:" The Regional Water Supply Plan assumes, however,
The RWSP asserts, "This projected savings (from planning and conservation programs will remain the sole
conservation) provides substantially more`supply capacity' domain of public water supply agencies.A recent Oregon
than any other single resource option identified in the final Environmental Council survey of regional conservation
resources strategy."" In other words,the RWSP relies more efforts shows them to be woefully underfunded;' it is dear
on conservation than any other alternative as the most cost- public agencies have not yet invested sufficiently to make the
effective way to meet future water demand. RWSP's conservation projections come true.There is also a
concern at the Portland Water Bureau that conservation
Some of the recommended conservation program investments are not being taken seriously enough.36 It is time
concepts include:'* for a more aggressive program of public incentives,
implemented by private operators, to make conservation
• Conservation education(primarily in outdoor projections a reality.
water use)and outdoor water audits.
Incentives and regulations to install
water-efficient irrigation and landscapes.
• Conservation pricing structures.
Arecent reviewofPortland's conservationro ramsu � WATER DEMAND AND PRICING:
there are many benefits to such approaches.P They. LESSONS FROM BASIC ECONOMICS
5
1998 Oregon Better Government Competition Cascade Policy Institute' +
Economics should playa larger role in future water supply (except from wells,which are limited resources).Therefore,
decisions than it has in the past to obtain more efficient one would expect different pricing structures.
resource allocations,save the public money and reach better
long-term solutions.A fundamental tenet of economics is that As for the second question,this plan proposes to increase
the more something costs,the fewer units of it are likely to be the peak-season water costs (see Water and sewer Rates in
demanded.This is the basic law of supply and demand taught Portland below) in order to induce further investments in
in every beginning economics class.From the standpoint of conservation,changes in landscaping and irrigation use and
water supply, this law means there is no such thing as an changes in industrial processes that consume considerable
absolute demand for water;rather,there is an economic level water.Initially,these increases would likely generate excess
of demand at various prices.Therefore,water demand can, income for the Portland Water Bureau.Those funds should
within wide ranges, be controlled through the simple be used to finance a publidprivate partnership in.water
mechanism of raising prices to the largest or most inefficient conservation investments through a program of managed
users,and effectively communicating that increase. competition.In this way,water use will gradually decline on
a per
basis,reducing
Increased costs will lead to changes in the behavior of o as o eliminate the excessofunds. water service revenues
consumers, such as reductions in consumption-related
activities and investments in water conserving technology. During a drought period,dramatically increasing rates to
Decreases in water use per capita will depend heavily upon promote short-term conservation will probably not increase
the relative cost of water,the available alternatives for changing waterrevenues substantially,because water use,and total water
consumption patterns and the perceived benefits, both sales,will decline considerably.If there are excess revenues
economic and social,of reducing usage. during a drought emergency,they can be rebated when the
cri-sis is over in the form of a one-time rate reduction.
European and North American water consumption
research point to the influence of price on water use.These
studies show an elasticity of demand for water,that is, the WATER AND SEWER RATES IN PORTLAND
percentage reduction in use caused by a certain percentage
increase in price, of-0.10 to -0.35." That means a 10% Water Rates in Portland.The Portland Water Bureau and
increase in water prices (in real terms) will decrease water the Portland City Council responded to the 1992 drought by
use by 1.0%to 3.5%.(A 100%price increase will reduce water instituting increasing block rate pricing for residential and
use by 100A to 35% per capita). Local studies verify these commercial water users,in which water use costs more per
findings;a 1992 analysis of the history of Portland area water unitconsumed the more total units of water consumed.Table
demand found the long-term price influence to be a 34% 3 shows summer 1998 water and sewer rates in Portland.
decrease in per capita use for each 100% increase in water
prices." These rate changes are both
an$ positive moves and run counter
to the still widespread"cost of service"mentality that says it is
Two interesting questions remain in considering the cheaper to distribute water to a larger water user,per unit
impact of water rates on demand. First, why don't other (because fixed costs oflocal distribution are spread over more
utilities have increasing block rate pricing structures?Second, watersales);therefore,water should get cheaper the more ofit
how would water be priced during drought or seasonal peak you use.In an era of increasing water scarcity and'increasing
demand periods,and what would be done with the excess cost per unit of new investment,the cost of service notion is a
funds generated? relic that should be resolutely discarded.
An answer to the first question is fairly simple: other Though the rate changes are a step in the right direction,
utilities have individual mechanisms for addressing demand they do not go far enough iii providing an effective economic
and present different situations..Electricity,for example,has incentive to conserve water.The Portland Water Bureau needs
traditionally been priced according to both power demand to take action to increase the differeriti4between rate classes
and energy use,i.e.,one pays a charge per kilowatt(power) for residences from.the current 50% ($1.38 per 100 cubic
and for each kilowatt-hour used (energy).The charge per feet vs.$0.92)to 100%.In addition,the price signals need to
kilowatt directly relates to the capacity of the system to serve be sent more frequently,in the form of a monthly bill.Such a
peak demand,the increasing cost of adding new power sources move will allow homeowners and renters to compare monthly
and the high cost of buying additional power at peak times. use on a year-to-year basis, providing a financial incentive
In addition,electricity can easily be produced at the time of for reduced consumption. The current quarterly billing
demand and is nearly impossible to store,whereas water is standard is both a burden on homeowners in the form of a
easily stored but cannot be produced at the time of demand large lump-sum'payment and an ineffective price signal;by
the time consumers get billed for summer water use, for
6
The Portland Water Abundance Plan Jerry YudelsQn,P.E.,M.B.A.
example,they cannot take immediate steps that will payoff in • Block 1 Water Charge $3236
reducing their bills for another year. (up to 1,200 cu.ft./month)
Sewer Rates in Portland The current sewer rate charge in • Block 2 Water Charge $ 8.60
the City of Portland is$3.01 monthly per 100 cubic feet for (bewtween 1,201 ans 2,000 cu.ftJmonth)
residences and $3.12 for commercial and industrial users,
reflecting the costs primarily of sewer system and treatment • Sewer Service Charge $11.94
plant maintenance,debt service.and presumably some of the
costs of the Combined Sewer Overflow program. • Sewer Volume Charge $77.63
However,sewer rates are based on winter consumption, (Based on winter average use of 900 cu.ft./month)
reflecting indoor water use,and thus the amount of water • Stormwater Management $21.93
that actually goes into the sewers.Therefore,to cut one's water
bill,it is far more-expedient to reduce winter water use than In the above example,of the$8.60 charged in Block 2 for
summer peak use(by a factor of more than 2 to 1).Cutting "excess water useless than$150,or less than 1%of the total
winter usage will in fact reduce overall per capita bill is due to the increasing rate structure.At a cost increase
consumption,but will do little to address the issue of cutting of less than 1%of the water bill,where is the incentive to
.peak demand during summer drought periods,which is at .conserve water? In addtion,the sewer volume.charge is based
the core of Portland's-water supply problem.While winter on winter water use,a distant memory by the summer and
surpluses could be stored for summer use,this would not go impossible to change in the short-run.
far enough to meet the region's demand.
Commercial Water Users. Commercial and industrial
The high sewer rates,at more than three times the lowest users are responsible for 44% of Portland's overall water
tier water rate,create a problem for using price signals to consumption."One may assume such entities have an even
control water use because they are fixed and do not depend higher price elasticity of demand than residential users
on summer usage.Even if the city raises the rate differential because of the following factors:
for the highest tier to 100%more than the lowest tier, the
effective increase in monthly bills for excessive water use, • Their bill is higher in absolute amounts(therefore,
combining both water and sewer charges,and neglecting the it will get more management attention).
$4.01 per month service charge for a moment,is only 24%
(from$3.93 to.$4.85). • They have more technological options for water
conservation investment
Therefore,the city should consider tying sewer rates to
the same increasing block rate structure as water rates.A major • They have greater access to financing for
increase in water use(for example,from below 1,200 cubic technology upgrades.
feet per month to more than 2,000 cubic feet per month,a
67%increase) would then lead to a 100%increase in water • There is a competitive advantage in cutting
bills.(At current 1998-99 rates,a 67%increase in water use operating costs.
would only increase total water and sewer bills by 11.7%,not
a strong incentive to cut water use).If price signals are received • They typically have trained operations and
on a timely basis, such a rate schedule would prompt maintenance personnel on hand.
residential water consumers to take strong action to cut
summer water use. Currently,commercial water users pay the-same rates per
100 cubic feet of water as residential users.Their block rate
Storm Water Rates.Portland water users are also charged structures are also progressive,with the third tier paying 50%
a gttarterly storm water rate of$23.46,assessed to cover storm more than the first tier.They pay a sewer rate of$3.12 per
sewer maintenance and debt service on revenue bonds." 100 cubic feet,about the same as residential users,with the
sewer volume charge also based ori winter water use.
Effectiveness of the Block Rate Structure:Figure 2 shows
atypical summer 1998 water bill fora 2,800 square foot home However,there is no incentive for water conservation built
occupied by two people,on a 15,000 square foot lot with a into the commercial structure except on a seasonal basis.
small garden and modest-sized lawn.This quarterly bill of Increasing block rates for commercial users are based on
S 168.89 consists of exceeding 40% of the average of the past 12 months'
consumption. This is presumably to discourage excessive
Water Service Charge S16.49 summertime water use, but under these block rates,
7
1998 Oregon Better Government Competition
Cascade Policy Institute
Bureau of wauw tE adm
Bureau of Envlronmentai Services
1120 SW Fifth Avenue,Room 601 12J04 $342-17
Porttand�Oregon 97204-197+4
(5031 623.7770
City of Portland
ABC C CWANY AOq�Es,: •,.
•11tisYu�n lt+u aa�ttnn w�tri ic,p Raamgrrt • wM�c1ec.
�;.. cam
wicpu walm wear•
:
!cArx"TO 118
NATER %CU.K AV
1
SERVICE CHARGE Z
METER Ri= OTWS L usAM, S14a#8 CA(C FT)
(100 aJR[C FT MCF) r 149 GALLCM.4)
FAIM
�• I �E
'
{iCtER {VCWIE L>uAG�S -
-LS CCF a A 2,
LS OCF iR 1.TDD ,t
D OGF g -000
SUITART SEVER 7acuRE CURGE
U.CRIAL MGLEW OF S& MF)
STOW-* LTER NAMAGENEUT
TMAL WAXER CKARf.ES }``'
fiafXL sFLE4 ctlutca:s
Rte.
PAEV§0UaUT>M CK4MEa i N Nl15
HA[JWCE
Ct tAEi�tif CK GES AMCKflV`t'131iE
z�a.2s a.Crj _ 290.26CR
-- 342.t 7 . x342.17 �
Pt«us« yrs:! .,rtyru-v..�.�,f�Xmeyttrya �> Iht} boc1f
o th,c
8
The Portland Water Abundance Plan Jerry Yudelson,P.E.,M.B.A.
Table 3.Portlan4 Water and Sewer;Rates-<M6jithly)41 u cost will not be proportionate to
($/100 cubicrfeetor750 gallons) increases in water use but much
less.Conversely unless an increasing
Customer Class Residential Commercial and block rate schedule is applied to
Multi-Family sewer rates,decreases in water use
Water Fixed Charge will not be rewarded
rg $5.69 varies depending on size proportionately either,a decrease
back to the first block of water use
will not proportionately decrease
First Tier $0.92 .$0.92 water bills because of the high fixed-
(up to 1,200 cu.ft./mo.) (up to 40%above past rate sewer charge based on winter
12 months'average) water use.
Second Tier $1.10 $1.10 In summary, today's Portland
(1201-2000 a1.ft/mo.) (1.4-2.0 times average) water and sewer rates do notprovide an effective economic
incentive to conserve water for
residential users and scarcely
Third Tier $1.38 $1.38 provide one for most commercial
(over 2000 cu.ft./mo.) (above 2.0 times users (except for the high sewer
average) charges.based on volume). The
Sewer.Fined Charge $4,01 Portland Water Bureau should
�$10.96 change the water and sewer rates to
reduce high summer use among
Volume Charge $3.01 $3.12
(based on winter homeowners and to encourage year-
round conservation on the part of
water usage) businesses. Though these rate
changes will likely reduce overall use
Stormwater Rate $7.82(fixed) variable per capita,however,there will still
be a need for investments in both
water conservation technology and
commercial water users can actually increase average monthly new supply in order to meet increasing regional water demands
use up to 40%per year and still pay the same cheap rate as due to population growth.
the most water-conserving homeowner!The only commercial
user that is penalized is the one whose water use fluctuates
widely,i.e.more than 40°x6 above the average monthly use. LESSONS FROM 20 YEARS OF ENERGY
Though this rate does address summer water use,it does little INDUSTRY PRIVATIZATION
to cut the long-term growth in commercial and industrial
water demand and therefore little to cut future summer peak The 1973 energy crisis, which resulted from a sudden
use.Wouldn't it be more effective to switch the residential reduction in imported oil supplies and a rapid increase in oil
user to the commercial plan,to penalize summer water use, prices,was essentially solved in.1981 when President Reagan
and the commercial user to the residential plan to force a decontrolled oil and gas prices.By 1986,oil prices had sunk
reduction in overall use during the year? to nearly half their 19811eveL%supplies were more abundant,
and the threat of political blackmail from Middle Eastern oil
The city should also move tp a more conservation- producers had evaporated.Today,the real price of oil(in the
oriented rate schedule for commercial users. For example, form of gasoline) is lower than at any time in the past 40
the rate structure could penalize businesses which do not years.
reduce their current consumption per employee or per unit
shipped, year after year. Alternatively,businesses could be Other than the decontrolling of prices,there were major
tasked with reducing water consumption to 75%of current institutional changes in energy production and distribution
levels,then given the same increasing block rates as residential that took place during that same period.The 1978 Public Utility
water users above that base level. RegulatoryPoliciesAct(PURPA),which required electric utilities
to purchase power from independent power producers,
In addition, sewer rates should also be charged on an unexpectedly gave rise to a dramatic increase in renewable
increasing block rate schedule;otherwise,the increases in water energy power production (primarily wind and geothermal
9
t 998 Oregon Better Government Competition Cascade Policy Institute-
power)and.in energy-conserving cogeneration.The country's 3. The nation's energy crisis of 20 years ago was solved
bent toward expensive nuclear power in the early 1970s was through a combination of deregulation, new
entirely replaced by more economic investments in both institutional arrangements and offering attractive
conventional and alternative sources of energy.In the 1990s, incentives for private capital to invest in new
the development of trading markets in pollution credits has technologies for energy supply.Local experience
helped dean the air of sulfur dioxide and other power plant concurs.When the Portland region Faced a solid
emissions.As we approach the next decade of the deregulation waste disposal crisis in the mid-1980s with the
of energy markets,nationwide competition in energysupply is closure of the St.Johns Landfill,an EPA Superfund
growing rapidly and fortuitously.At the same time,energy site, it turned .to a private company, Waste
prices in the nation's largest energy markets,for example,New Management,to build a regional landfill with private
York and California,have stabilized in real terms and in some funds to serve the city's needs.Two other private
areas are lower than prices 10 and 20 years ago. companies also built regional landfills east of the
Cascades with their own.funds.As a result,instead
What lessons does the deregulation of energy markets over of a waste disposal crisis,the pacific Northwest now
the past 20 years have for water supply planning in the has 40 years of guaranteed solid waste disposal
Portland area? Several come to mind: capacity at regional landfills, at no cost to the
aYem and with far fewer arvironmental
1. Conservation investments are almost always cost- than the publicly operated landfills they p ced.�
effective and much more readily available than
anyone believed..Even with low prices,many private Lesson:There are better uses for public investment
companies have continued to find ways to reduce money than spending hundreds of millions of
their energy use per employee and per unit of goods dollars on water supplies when private capital is
produced, while decreasing their air and water ready and willing to take on the task.We should think
emissions.Regulation has played a role,but good instead about selling our public water systems to
old-fashioned economics has led the way. private companies and creating an endowment with
the money to help meet some of the city's unmet .
Lesson: We need to begin deploying major water needs,such as funding for police, fire,and water
conservation investments before we begin to make bureau pensions.
expensive,and perhaps unneeded,investments in
regional water supply. 4. Improvements in energy conservation technology
and management happened because there were
2. Private markets and private companies can respond economic incentives to do so.Renewable energy and
quicker to a crisis in supply than any combination conservation technologies were fundamentally non-
of government agencies-and regulated monopolies. existent in 1975. Today, the United States and
We have cheap, reliable and abundant energy Western Europe, which faced similar crises, are
supplies.today because government actions created exporting these technologies throughout the world.
incentives for private capital,ingenuityand initiative
to solve the problem. For example, wind power Lesson:The City of Portland and the regional water
development was stalled in the early 1980s,with supply agencies should get out of the water .
hundreds of millions of federal dollars producing, conservation business and instead create the
almost no usable electric power.When tax incentives incentives to allow conservation investments to be .
were created for private companies,wind power made for economic reasons. Because commercial
generation grew in just five years,supplying nearly and industrial users represent large percentages of
5% of California's electricity by 1986. Today, water use in most cities of the region,and respond
electricity consumers alI ovef California are most dearly to economic reasoning,they should be
requesting that their power come from"green" the first targets.
sources such as the wind.
5. A new kind of business,called an Energy Service
Lesson:.Water supply planners should take good Company (ESCO ) grew up in the wake of
notes and open up the region to a full-scale program deregulation to fund and install energy
of managed competition, including inviting such conservation investments,sharing the savings with
multi-billion-dollar enterprises as Enron and U.S. the equipment and facility owners.Energy Service
Filter to take part,along with large engineering and Companies are private sector responses to new
construction firms such as Bechtel and Fluor Daniel. economic opportunities;government didn't have to
create or regulate them.They made their own deals
10
` The Portland Water Abundance Plan Jerry Yudelson,P.E., M.B;,
with private businesses who would benefit from Managed competition does not require.existing public
reducing energy costs and were willing to share the employees to lase their jobs,'eun ent incomes or other benefits.
savings with private entities. In fact,it offers them the promise of greater freedom to do a
better job than they are allowed to do today,and greater
Lesson: We can anticipate that Water Service rewards for so doing.It may be the case,in such operational
Companies(WASCO's)will grow up in the wake of areas as running a monthly meter reading and billing system,
water supply and price deregulation.If the Portland that today's Portland Water Bureau employees would emerge
Water Bureau were to establish a price,it would pay the winners in a managed competition program.These are
for water conservation investments,at less than the tasks that can easily be made more efficient by front-line
cost of new supply investments,it would be able to employees and middle managers who know intimately the
buy conservation the same way it would buy new inefficiencies in the current system.However,even if a private
supply.Businesses would receive financial incentives operator submits a lower bid for the same work,many of the
to invest in conservation,perhaps as rebates on their city's employees could be transferred to that company and
water bills,perhaps as low interest loans.It's safe to might still be represented by the same union.
predict that myriad businesses would find a way to
make such savings pay for commercial and industrial I Bother areas,such as running conservation investment
water users(as well as homeowners)and to make a programs,it is likely that private businesses,community and
profit for themselves.This program would save the environmental groups would offer superior programs to
city's taxpayers and ratepayers tens of millions of government agency-run'efforts:It may be that private
dollars and would again serve to make Portland a engineeringfconstruction companies would be willing to
model for progressive civic action in this arena. provide new water supply and distribution investments and
to operate the current systems at a cost the public agencies
would have trouble meeting. However, the purpose of
THE PORTLAND WATER ABUNDANCE PLAN managed competition is to allowall entities to compete fairly
in public services,to the public's benefit.
The Portland Water Abundance Plan relies on three levels
of public awareness and change in current water supply Three Levels of Change. Specific measures proposed
planning,procurement,distribution and sale.It requires a under this program are grouped under the following three
fundamental willingness on the part of the publicwater supply, levels, representing possibly increased difficulty in
authorities to let go of the reins and give the promise of implementation(mostly for political reasons)and increased
managed competition an opportunity to take root in the payoff in supply and economic benefit. The levels and
Portland area. programs are summarized in Table 4.
Managed Competition. Managed competition has Level 1 - Improving on Business as Usual
successfully reduced the costs of sewage treatment plant 1. Implementproposalsdatingfromthe 1992 drought
operations,the sewage and stormwater collection system and to provide monthly billing of water and sewer
one of the city's dams in Indianapolis," and is now being charges..A conservation-oriented water pricing
introduced in Atlanta." In Indianapolis,according to Mayor structure will not work if the city cannot send timely
Stephen Goldsmith,the costs of sewer service were reduced signals to consumers and businesses to reduce water
by 20% ($23 million in the first two years) and effluent use.Monthly billing is eminently feasible,and the
violations fell by 50%,in a city that had been considered a city water bureau is just dragging its feet in
model for efficient wastewater treatment plant operations.'S implementing this change.Though more expensive,
its benefits outweigh the cost,and the higher expense
Describing the Indianapolis experience,Mayor Goldsmith could make water,officials more amenable to
comments: contracting out alternatives.
We consistently showed that free-market 2. Provide timely notice (required undercurrent
competition could do something critical to solve the wholesale water distribution contracts),to regional
fiscal crisis facing state and local governments: it water customers ' the next three years that future
could increase service while cutting costs,thereby contracts with the City of Portland for wholesale
changing the basic equation that describes water supplies(up for renewal beginning in 2004)
government failure everywhere today.Competition will require adoption of conservation-oriented rate
could stop the spiral of higher taxes paying for worse structures, monthly billing and aggressive
services." investments in water conservation.
it
1998 Oregon Better Government etition Com +
P Cascade Polity Institute
Create a Portland Water Conservation_Investment employees. ,
Fund,using surplus revenues from a conservation-
oriented increase in water rates, to.begin a city- Level 2 - Managed Competition (Limited Scale)
sponsored but privately run program of aggressive 1. Createa managed competition program for meter
investments in water conservation technology in reading,billing and collecting water use charges,on
single-family residences,businesses and multi-f unify a monthly basis.The city has had six years to create
housing. (A recent report on conservation rate an effective monthly billing program and has not
structures showed that Portland had made progress done so.This is an activity that private businesses
in setting up rate structures and programs to can probably do better than public agencies.Open
Promote conservation,but still had a way to go,and the competition to private utilities in the region as
that most other water agencies in the.region lagged well as the city's water bureau. This will create
.far behind."Therefore,relying on the effectiveness experience with managed competition that can be
of public agency-run conservation programs seems extended in the Level 3 program. In a similar
like a bad bet.) competition,the Cityof Atlanta,Georgia,has chosen
an outside operations and maintenance contractor,
The Portland Water Conservation Fund would be with a guaranteed savings of$26 to $28 million,
put under private-sector or institutional-sector depending on the length ofthe contract"
management to see which companies or institutions
(such as community organizations,environmental 2- Work closelywith regional Bull Run water wholesale
groups,or"water trusts")can use,technologyand
customers to negotiate changes in current water
management incentives to create the highest amount supply contracts that will mandate conservation-
of water conservation from a fixed level of oriented water rate structures. The prospect of
investment.To address legitimate concerns of water locking in a long-term supply source could prevent
agencies as to whether conservation investments will suburban cities from using lowerwater rates for large
pay off,all such investments would be required to industrial users as an incentive to attract water-
be: a) real, b) surplus, c) permanent and d) intensive industries such as electronics
measurable. manufacturing.To continue receiving high-quality
and abundant Bull Run water from Portland,water
Fund investments would come from more wholesalers would agree to aggressively fund
conservation-oriented rate structures that yield conservation investments, to adopt the same
revenues above and beyond current needs for increasing block-rate structures as Portland and to
maintenance, debt service and general fund take other measures to promote water conservation
cuntnbutions. Assuming a first-year increase in and the efficient use of water.
revenues of 10%,an initial funding level of$5.5
million per year is well within reach(this amount is 3. Create a program of managed competition for
about 10% of projected water sales in fiscal year water conservation investments using money from
1998-99).Such funding would increase current city the Pordand Water Conservation Investment Fund-
water conservation investments of about 31 million Entertain proposals from outside contractors to
per year,five-fold" deliver specific amounts of conservation,selecting
those that provide the"biggest bang for the buck,"
4 Expand the economic incentives in the city's in terms of real,permanent,verifiable water use
increasing block rate water pricing program by reductions. Outside service providers could focus
raising the current 50%rate differential between the on either the residential or commercial sector and
lowest and highest rate blocks to 100%over a period would work primarilyon installing water-conserving
of three years,and by applying the block rate pricing technology upgrades.
to Sewer volume charges. These changes will
promote effective conservation during future Level 3 - Full-Scale Managed Competition
droughts by reducing both overall water use 1. Phase out city efforts to develop neww-atersupplies
increases and peak summertime use.At the same as a government monopoly.Entertain private-sector
time,the city needs to ensure that the poor will not and city water bureau proposals to provide a mix of
face increases in their water bills by continuing its investments in conservation and new supplies to
current program of subsidizing bills for-lower-
meet water needs scheduled through the year 2020.
income ratepayers.Fcr commercial users,the target If the city decides to invest in another reservoir in
must be to reduce water use year after year,or pay the Bull Run watershed, then let private sector
higher rates,adjusted by either gross sales or total engineering and construction firms bid on the
12
The Portland Water Abundance Plan Jerry Yudelson, P.E_,M.B.A.
complete project, including build, operate and guaranteed under contract b the "
transfer programs, in which a private company- y prnratecompa�:
would bund the system,operate for a fixed number Under managed competition,the waterbureau could
of years(usually 15 to 25 years)at agreed upon rates, reduce its costs enough to self-fund a major water
then transfer ownership to the city at a price set in conservation program without raising overall
advance. revenues. In other words,the rate structure could
still be made more aggressively pro-conservation
2. Open up the entire Portland.Water Bureau without raising the total revenues of the water
operation to managed competition and remove it bureau. Therefore, the most water conserving
from management by city commissioners,breaking residential and commensal customers could actually
out the functions of water supply, billing and see their water bills drop, even as conservation
maintenance.This bureau can be completely self- investments were being aggressively funde&
supporting and can contribute a negotiated amount
each year to the city's general fund. Whether 3. Keep title to Bull Run Watershed water,but sell the
managed by current water bureau managers or current water distribution and treatment system to
Private companies, the water bureau needs to be a private operator to create a permanent
removed from political control by elected officials, endowment for the City's unmet needs, such as
Powers to invoke rationing,in case of failure on the underfunded police and fire pensions, as well as
part of private managers during extreme droughts, underfunded water bureau pension plan liabilities
can be retained by the city council. ($142 million as of December 31,1995).S'As of jure .
30, 1996,the book(accounting)value of the city's
As an example of this public/private partnership water system was$200 million,;:At a paltry yield of
approach,the City of Evansville,Indiana,recently 6%,Sellingthe
system at that Valuation would yield
contracted out both water and sewer line
$12'million per year in perpetuity for the ciWs
maintenance,water meter billing,operation of the ons,At more realistic 'el the
water filtration plant and water distribution Pmt n �' ves.if old to a
management to a private company,while retainingyield up to$20 million for the pensions.If sold to a
private company,the city's water system might well
control of customer service,billing,capital project sell at a substantial premium above book value.
planning and engineering and the monitoring of all because of the benefit to the acquirer's stock value.
contracts.Substantial savings in public costs were The City of Birmingham, Alabama is currently
Table 4.Tie: ortland Water Abuu .
daiice<Plan =.
Program Elements Level 1 Level 2 Level 3e
Water Conservation Monthly billing; Managed
Incentives Increase block-rate competition for Portland
differentials water conservation funds.
Regional Water Require conservation Renegotiate current. Managed Competition
Supply Arrangements in contract renewals contracts to promote for regional water
conservation rates supply;Sell the
current water
treatment and
distribution system
Funding Conservation Create Portland Water
Investments Conservation
Investment Fund
Portland Water Bureau Managed competition Managed competition
A4anagement for meter reading, for all water bureau
billing,and collecting operations
13
1998 Oregon Better Government Competition Cascade Policy Institute
considering asii i proposal to sell the watersystem proposed by regional water officials,the operational savings
to private investors,to pay for improvements to the of 20% or more potentially available through managed
city's schools.s' competition should make the Portland WaterAbundance Plan
the most appealing solution.
Just as the City of Portland has tried to create a
national model for urban livability over the past 20
years by energizing and incentivizing the private CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
sector to rebuild downtown Portland, now is the
time for the city to emulate the efforts of Long-term population and economic growth appears to
Indianapolis and other cities to become a model be a reality in Portland's future,with population predicted to
for efficient provision of major urban services grow 45%over the next-20 years.The city and the region are
through effective implementation of managed ill-prepared to cope with anothersevere droughton the order
competition.The Portland Water Bureau is a good of 1992s occurrence and certainly not with more than one
place to start. drought-year ata time.This is true even as an emerging ethic
of water conservation appears to have taken a slight hold in
the region.There is a need for a better way to manage the
BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION region's water supply and demand in the future.
The most obvious barriers to implementation are At a time when investments in the hundreds of millions
institutional and political.The water bureaucracies will. of dollars for new water supplies are being discussed, the
certainly argue they run a tight ship and,except for the 1992 public should ask hard questions:
drought, they deserve credit for keeping water supplies
adequate for supplying the region's economic growth.There • Are there better ways to address the water supply
is certainly a measure of truth to this claim.In addition,one situation,using marketplace mechanisms?
may anticipate the potential objection of the unions
representing the Portland Water Bureau,although in a sound • Why shouldn't the water bureaucracies compete
managed competition program,the waterbureau employees for the right to continue to enjoy a protected
could prevail.As Indianapolis showed,even the best run monopoly?
public water agency can reduce its costs when forced to
compete. Wouldn't we save money by having managed
competition in water supply?
In the City of Portland, with its antiquated system of
political management of city agencies,it will take political Why haveret they come up with more imaginative
courage to make the water bureau the first test case for programs for engaging the enormous
managed competition.The issue will be for the city council entrepreneurial energy of the private sector in
to divest itself of authority over a revenue-producing agency water conservation and new supply?
and to tacitly admit that its management has not been the
best. Such a divestiture may take public action to change Why,in light of the slow and to date inadequate
aspects of the city's charter oraction in the Oregon Legislature response to the 1992 drought,shouldn't the water
to allow the City of Portland to contract these functions to a agencies yield to private enterprise in the
private company. These legal requirements have not been management of the water system?
investigated as,part of this study.
Changes in water rates to promote conservation will
The most sensible alternative is to provide a staged
be The
to introduce managed competition for all of the key
politically palatable if they are coupled with both a low- water supply tasks: supply development and distribution,
income rebate rate program (some of which is already in system maintenance, meter reading and billing, and
place)and an aggressively run Water Conservation Investment conservation investments.
Fund that will..help businesses, industries, rental property -
owners and homeowners make cost-effective conservation Beyond managed competition,the cityshould investigate
investments to reduce their water costs. selling the water supply treatment and distribution system
altogether to a private operator for a one-time capital gain
The managed competition option should be seriously that could be applied to critical capital requirements,such as
considered before making any further regional decisions on underfunded police, fire and water bureau pensions. The
water supply or conservation funding. In light of the high capital gain could be turned into a permanent endowment
costs associated with the supply investments currently to provide protection against future tax increases as these
14
: The Portland Water Abundance Plan Jerry Yudelson RE., M.B.A.
pension liabilities come due.The city will also be spared the 13 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,Water System
need to go to the bond markets for water system and supply Demand Study,Portland,February 1992.
upgrades, preserving bonding capacity for other more
essential purposes. 14 Combined Annual Reports(1993-1994;1994-1995),op,cit,
This Pordand WaterAbundance Plan proposes to introduce 15 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,Stretch our
marketplace mechanisms into a century-old public bureaucracy SummerSupply:It Benefits Everyone,consumer
as a feasible and cost-effective way to provide for adequate pamphlet,Portland,1998
future water supplies to support the region's forecasted
economic and population growth. 16 Ann Conway,Finance Section,Portland Water Bureau,
personal communication.
ENDNOTES 17 Urban Growth ReportAddendum,Draft;op,cit,p.15.
1 R Gregory-Nokes,"Little Sandy's future is fluid:Logs or 18 Urban
.Growth Report;Final Report,op.cit.
water?"The Oregonian,Match 10,1997,p.Bl.
19 Regional Water Supply Plan:Final Report,op.cit.
2 R Gregory Nokes,"Old idea for Bull Run might provide
water solution."The Oregonian,February 21,1998, 20 City of Portland City of Portland Bureau of Water Works
p.B 1. of Water Works,data sheet through 6/30/95,July 19,
1995;City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,1996-
3 Water Providers of the Portland Metropolitan Area, 1997Annual Report,Portland,1997,p.6;Stretch our
Regional WaterSupply Plan:Final Report,Portland, Summer Supply:It Benefits Everyone,op.cit.
October 1996.
21 Ten Year Financial Plan,op,cit,p.23.
4"Old idea for Bull Run might provide water solution."
OP.cit' 22 Erik Sten,"Expanding the Portland Water System,"
presentation to the Regional Water Providers
5 METRO,Urban Growth Report;Final Draft,Portland; .
Consortium,Portland Water Bureau,Portland,
December 18,1997,p.l.
September9,199&
6 Ibid,p.71;METRO,Urban Growth ReportAddendum, 23 Regional Water Supply Plan:Final Report,op.cit,p.56
Draft,Portland,August 26,1998,p.7.
-
7 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,Ten Year 24 Ibid,p.61
Financial Plan,Portland,July 1997,p.34. 25 Ibid,p.44.
8 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,Combined 26 Ibid,p_68.
Annual Reports(1992-1993,1993-1994),Portland,1994,
p.12. 27Ibid,p.242.
9"Pay for water use:Higher prices for water abuses would 28 R.Gregory Nokes,"A framework for growth:Metro's
be better than midnight water police patrols."The regional plan aims to guide growth and livability."The
Oregonian,July 3 1,1992,p.B2. Oregonian,December 11,1997,p.A21.
10 Dana.Haynes,"Future of water supply considered:'The 29 Regional Water Supply Plan:Final Report,op.cit,p.265.
Oregonian,November 24,1992,'p.BL
30 Ibid,p.264.
11 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,Water Rates/
Sewer Rates(1998.-99),Portland,July 1998.Note that 31 Ibid,p.264.
100 cubic feet of water equals about 750 gallons.
32 Roberta Jortner and Cynthia Dietz,"Regional Water
12 City of Portland Bureau of Water Works,Combined
Annual Reports(1993-1994;1994-1995),Portland,1995; Conservation Presentation;'presentation to the
Regional Water Providers Consortium,Portland,
Water Rates/Sewer Rates(1998-1999),op.cit. September 9,1998.
15
1998 Oregon Better Government Cometition ,
P Cascade P01icy Institute
cformer and Dietz,op.cit. 53 EngineeringNews Report,op.cit.
34 Rocky Mountain Institute,Water Efficiency.A Resource
for Utility Managers;Community Planners,and Other
Decisionmakers,Snowmass,Colorado,1991.
35 Oregon Environmental Council,WaterCoraervatioADDITIONAL SOURCES
n Is
the Price Right?,Portland,1998,pp.15-17. Neal,Kathy,et al.,RestructuringAmerica's Waterindustry;
Comparing.investor-Owned and Government-Owned
36 Jortner and Dietz;op.cit Water Systems,Reason Foundation,No.200,Los
37 Lars G.Hansen,"Water and Energy Price impacts on Angeles,January 1996.
Residential WaterDemand in Copenhagen,"Land White River Environmental Partnership,City o
Economics,February 1996,v 72,n.1,PP.66ff..;Terry L. Indianapolis Contract Operations ofthe AWT Facilitie
Anderson and Pamela Snyder,Water Markets.Priming and Collection System;4th yes
arSummary of���,
the,Invisible Pump,Cato Institute,Washington,D.C. United Water Services,Harrington park,New Jersey,
1998.
38 WaterSystem Demand Study,op.cit
39 Eric Sten,"Our challenge is to make storm-water rates
fairer."The Oregonian,East Zone edition,March 12,
1998,p.2-
40 1996-1997Annual
.401996-1997Annual Repom op.cit.
41 Water Rates/Sewer Rates(1998-1999),op.cit
42 United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Municipal Landfill Regulations Mean Safer Disposal of
Solid Waste,EPA/530-SW 91-066,Washington;D.C.,
September 1991.
43 Stephen Goldsmith,The Twenty-First Cen tury City,
Regnery Press,New York,1997,pp.33-36,199-211.
44"Cities Mull Utility Outsourcing;EngineeringNews-
Record,September 7,1998,p.16.
45 Goldsmith,op.cit.,pp.207-208.
46Ibid,p.29.
47 Oregon Environmental Council,op.cit
48 Jortner and Dietz,op.cit-
49
it49 Engineering News Record,op.cit
50 Jack J.Danks,PubliclPrivate Partnerships.Breaking New
Ground,Public Works,September 1998,pp.45-50.
51 1996-1997Annual Report,op.cit_
52 Ibid.
16
QdRT`"No o C ITY OF Erik Sten,Commissioner
Michael F. Rosenberger,Administrator
Qo 1120 S.W.5th Avenue
PORTLAND, OREGON Portland,Oregon 97244
Information(503)823-7404
Fax(503)823-6133
BUREAU OF WATER WORKS TDD(503)82.3-6868
Memorandum
TO: Interested Citizens and Stakeholders
FROM: Michael F. Rosenberger,Administrator
DATE: April 28, 1999
SUBJECT: Draft 1999 Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and Contingency Plan
Attached for your review is the Revised Draft 1999 Seasonal Water Supply Augmentation and
Contingency Plan(dated April 22, 1999).
The plan provides a comprehensive strategy for meeting peak season water demands during the
summer of 1999. The strategy reflects up-to-date projections of water demand and available
supply resources as we approach this year's summer season.
Portland's`Baseline"supply resources include water savings from conservation,Bull Run
supply(including streamflow,storage,and a portion of Bull Run Lake),routine seasonal
wholesale demand offloads,and supplemental groundwater from the Columbia South Shore
Wellfield. "Contingency"resource options include additional groundwater, existing system
interties and offloads,portions of Bull Run Lake,and curtailment of water use. Our most recent
projections indicate that the City's baseline water supply resources should be more than
sufficient to meet 1999 peak season demand.
The proposed summer supply plan is designed to meet multiple objectives including high level of
supply reliability and water quality,fish habitat enhancement,and.cost management. Please
review this draft plan and direct questions or comments to Roberta Jortner(tel. 823-7473;e-mail
r ortner@water.ci.portland.or.us). Please provide your comments by Tuesday, May 11, 1999 so
they can be considered as the draft is revised. The City Council will be considering the plan at
9JO a.m.on May 26, 1999.
Thank you for your interest.
cc: Commissioner Erik Sten
Angela Wilson - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - ----
Rosemary Menard
An Equal Opporlurtiiv Emplover
1999 Summer Water Supply Strategy- Hightlights
What is the Summer Supply Plan?
The Water Bureau is developing its annual summer supply plan for 1999. This is the seventh
annual plan developed since the 1992 seasonal drought.The plan will go to the City Council
for endorsement in May.
■ The summer supply plan reflects up-to-date information on water demand and supply: The
plan provides an overview of key supply and demand management options,including
"baseline"and"contingency"resources.
■ Baseline resources include the City's primary surface water system in the Bull Run
watershed,our supplemental groundwater supply system in the Columbia South Shore
Wellfield,as well as water savings from year-round and peak season conservation efforts.
■ Contingency resources include additional water from Bull Run Lake,use of interties with the
Clackamas River,additional groundwater and water use curtailment.
■ The summer supply plan also provides an overall framework and priorities for meeting peak
season demand and making operational decisions during the peak season. The plan and
operating strategies will be designed to balance and meet multiple objectives for
- water use efficiency
- supply reliability
- optimizing water quality in the system/water quality compatibility and stability
- environmental stewardship and regulatory compliance
- managing costs cost effectiveness.
On the Demand Side
■ Water for People -The Water Bureau is currently producing summer water demand forecasts
for our current retail and wholesale customers. The Bureau's are short-term and long-term
demand forecasting capabilities are strong and getting stronger as our models"mature"
allowing clearer identification of relationships and trends.Per capita demand is about 8%
lower than it would have been without conservation,based on pre-1992 trends.
Demand management is a key component of the Bureau's seasonal water supply strategy.It
includes a peak season media campaign urging customers to use water wisely. The peak
season campaign complement's the Bureau and Columbia-Willamette Conservation
Coalition's year-round'conservation efforts. The Bureau is also participating in the
development of a regional strategy to track and measure water conservation effectiveness.
■ Water for Fish—This year's summer supply strategy provides water to assist in the recovery
of listed threatened fish species(Steelhead and Chinook)in the Sandy River Basin. The
Bureau is planning to release flows from existing Bull Run reservoirs during the spring and
summer. Springtime releases will help facilitate downstream migration of fish smolts in the
lower Bull Run and Sandy Rivers_ - - --- -
■ The Bureau also intends to conduct several flow release tests during August and September.
These tests will shed light on how different flow levels can improve fish rearing habitat and
instream water temperatures. The Bureau will also be exploring other types of fish habitat
improvements such as adding spawning gravels to the lower Bull Run River and modifying
culverts to facilitate fish passage into upstream habitat. The results of these tests will help the
City in meeting Endangered Species Act requirements and honing the Bureau's summer
supply strategy for future years.
On the Supply Side
■ Bottom line: Between the City's primary surface water system in the Bull Run Watershed,
and our supplemental groundwater wellfield in the Columbia South Shore,there should be `
Plenty of water(baseline resource)to meet projected demands for people and fish, even if we
have a long hot summer.
■ Preliminary modeling efforts for 1999 predict it is likely that there will be a surplus of Buil
Run storage remaining when the reservoirs begin to refill in fall. However,in any given year,
there is.a 10-15 percent'chance that Bull Run supply will need to be supplemented with
groundwater(up to about 5 BG).In order to ensure a high level of supply reliability and
good,stable water quality,the Bureau plans to begin blending groundwater from the
Columbia South Shore Wellfield with Bull Run water on a routine basis.By pumping
groundwater at low levels(e.g., 10-20%blend)starting early in the season,the Bureau can
reduce potential water quality fluctuations that affect customers,manage,peak day demands,
test out new disinfection improvements,and minimize the risk of water use curtailment.
Substantial groundwater is available to provide a higher level-of augmentation if needed. The
Bureau will'consider actual weather and supply conditions in determining if and when
supplemental supplies are needed.
■ The Bureau has developed several operating strategies that can accommodate the range of
potential weather and supply conditions. '
4
a
A
WILLAMETTE WATER SUPPLY AGENCY
Page 2 of 3
standards. He noted that the water treatment process would further reduce these levels
atter the water was taken from the river.
Dr. Eugene Foster,an aquatic toxicologist with DEQ,reported that Willamette
River water quality is already high and is improving. Water quality near Wilsonville
scores near 90 on the Oregon Water Quality Index 100-point scale..The department's
latest data also shows a drastic drop in the incidence of fish deformities A survey
conducted for the department in 1998 found the incidence of deformities near Wilsonville
was one-fifth of what had been detected in a sample 5 years earlier.
Dr. Foster noted that the question of whether the Willamette is an appropriate
water supply source is more than academic for hire. He is a Tigardresident;the Tigard
City Council recently selected the Willamette as its long-term water supply source.
When asked if he would drink tap water from the proposed plant,Foster answered that,
although there is anecdotal evidence that makes people nervous about the river,all of the
available data supports the conclusion that the tap water from the plant will be safe to
drink.
Dr. Kenneth Williamson,an OSU civil engineering professor who specializes in
water treatment,stated"There are no flaws in this water treatment plant design-" He
emphasized repeatedly that granular activated carbon(GAC)is extremely effective at
removing chemicals,metals and other contaminants. He also noted that the 6 foot deep
GAC filter proposed for this plant is deeper than what is generally used in water
treatment plants,providing a very large safety factor.
One questioner was puzzled by the panels'conclusion that water quality in the
Willamette River at Wilsonville is quite good. Dr.Dick Pratt,a PSU environmental
toxicology professor,explained that the only significant pollution problem in the river
occurs downstream from Wilsonville with sewer overflows from Portland's combined
storm sewer system- The proposed treatment plant will withdraw water from the river at
a point before those overflows contaminate the river. The most significant health concern
in ore river at Wilsonville is from bacteria,according to Pratt. The disinfection process in
the treatment plant will easily destroy those organisms,making the water safe to drink
Telephone: 503-642-1511 P.O. Box 745
Fax: 503 3515-3112 Beaverton, Oregon.97075
WILLAMETTE WATER SUPPLY AGENCY
Page 3 of 3
Dean Hill,,an expert in testing procedures,reported that the sampling and testing
procedures followed by the city's consultants were good He concluded that the test
results showing no detection of chemicals and metals in the water were reliable.
The members of the panel were:
• Dr.Jeffrey Jenkins,Associate Professor of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology,
Oregon State University. His research focuses on pesticides and their impact on
human health and the environment
• Dr.James"Dick"Pratt,Director of Environmental Sciences and Resources
Department, Portland State University. His work concentrates on aquatic toxicology
and ecosystem health.
• Df. Kenneth Williamson,Professor of Environmental Engineering,Oregon State
University,and Director of the Oregon Water Resources Institute. His focus is on
environmental management and on treatment of hazardous and municipal wastes.
• ;Dr.Eugene Foster,Environmental Toxicologist,Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality. His work involves evaluating the risks to aquatic life and
human health from exposure to toxic pollutants.
• Dean Hill,Senior Consultant for Quality Associates Inc. His practice involves
consulting on compliance with EPA"Good Laboratory Practice"regulations. He is
the former Chief of the EPA Pesticides and Toxic Substances branch, with
responsibility for inspecting laboratories in 47 states for compliance with the Good
Laboratory Practices regulations.
For further information,contact:
Kevin Hanway,Executive Director
503-G32-1511
Telephone: 503.842-1511 P.O. Sox 745
Fax: 503-356-3112 Beaverton, Oregon 97075
Discussion Paper on Policy Issues
Willamette Basin Reservoir Feasibility Study
Overview
The Willamette reservoirs are a system of thirteen projects operated together-to provide many
benefits to the region and the Nation. Of the thirteen Willamette projects, two are re-regulation
projects and do not provide conservation storage. The purpose of the feasibility study is to
investigate to what extent existing conservation storage in the Willamette reservoirs can meet
current and future water needs in the Willamette Valley. Water providers purchasing storage to
help meet their needs will also benefit the Nation by returning revenues to the U.S.Treasury.
Of the 1.6 million acre-feet of conservation storage available during the summer months, about
60,000 acre-feet is currently under contract with the Bureau of Reclamation for irrigation. About
250,000 to 350,000 acre-feet is used each conservation season to maintain minimum reservoir
releases and summer flows on the mainstem at Albany and Salem. Water retained in the
reservoirs supports an estimated 3 million annual visitor days in the summer for a variety of
recreational uses,which benefits the economy in many nearby communities.
Since the 1940s and 1950s, when most of the projects were constructed,conditions in the
Willamette Valley have changed dramatically. As the population continues to grow, demand for
water supplies to serve communities and industry will increase, and interest in nearby
recreational opportunities will.grow. Agricultural production also is increasing and depends .
upon access to adequate water supplies.- Additional storage needs for water quality purposes was
discussed early in the study, as well as the dedication of conservation pool elevations at
important recreational reservoirs. In March 1999,steelhead and chinook salmon were listed as
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act(ESA). Although undetermined at this
time, additional flow and operational changes may be needed for recovery of these fish species.
This discussion paper reviews Corps planning and policy guidance, including previous
discussion papers addressing similar topics,pertaining to potential policy issues associated with
the Willamette Basin Review feasibility study. These issues include:
• Originally Authorized Project Purposes
Future Water Needs and Sponsorship Requirements
Cost-sharing Requirements for Water Supply
• Multiple Benefits from Releasing Stored Water
When Congress authorizes construction of a Corps reservoir, it specifies the pprposes for which
the reservoir may be used, based on the needs in the region at that time, and the federal interest
in supporting those needs. After a reservoir is constructed., the Corps has the authority to
recommend changes in the operation of a reservoir to address current needs or reflect new
definitions of the federal interest. The Corps uses the allocation of reservoir space to each
purpose as a measure of the overall federal interest in constructing a reservoir, and as the basis of
cost-sharing among the authorized purposes.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999 t
A.
Originally Authorized Project Purposes
For reasons that are not totally clear, there is confusion as to the originally authorized purposes
of the Willamette projects as authorized by House Document(HD) 531 enacted into law by the
flood Control Act of May 17, 1950.1 This may be because "authorized purposes" have not been
clearly distinguished from"operating purposes" and authorized purposes have to be as broad as
operating,purposes, and may in fact be broader.'' For the Willamette projects,municipal and
industrial water supply(water supply) has rarely been acknowledged in Corps documents
subsequent to HD 531 as an originally authorized purpose.
For example, the document,Authorized and Operating Purposes of Corps of Engineers
Reservoirs3 lists the authorized purposes of the eleven Willamette projects with conservation
storage as navigation, flood control, irrigation,fish/wildlife, water quality,recreation, and
hydroelectric power(at Cougar, Detroit,Big Cliff, Dexter,Foster,Green Peter, 11ills Creek,
Lookout Point). Water supply.is not listed among the authorized purposes. The document also
lists the operating purposes for each project,which are identical to the.authorized purposes with
the exception of navigation; a footnote explains that, "the upper river above Willamette Falls
Locks is no Ionger utilized by commercial navigation."
A key issue addressed in this discussion paper concerns the long-standing debate as to whether
water supply was an originally authorized purpose of the Willamette projects. Two alternative
approaches could be taken in the feasibility study, depending upon the resolution of this issue by
the Corps. This discussion paper attempts to highlight the differences between the two
approaches when discussing applicable policy issues.
Approach 1 --Originally Authorized Purposes Water supply is among the originally
authorized purposes of the Willamette reservoir projects. The feasibility study is not proposing
to add or delete project purposes to those originally authorized by Congress. Flood control was
the major use and focus at the time of authorization of the reservoir system, and dedicating the
conservation storage to the various authorized purposes was not. The feasibility study is
reviewing all benefit categories and may propose operational changes as well as an initial
allocation of the existing conservation storage among the original authorized purposes.to meet
the future water needs in the Willamette Valley.
Approach 2_—Reallocation. Water supply is not accepted as an originally authorized
purpose of the Willamette reservoir projects. The feasibility study is proposing to add this
purpose by reallocating the existing conservation storage using Corps guidance and authority
provided by the Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended. Corps guidance defines reallocation as
the reassignment of use of existing reservoir storage space to a higher and better use.
1 John Breiline,CENWP-OC,dated 16 Sep 1997,subject: Willamette Basin Authorities—H.Doc 531/FCA May
17, 1950.
Z John Breiling,CENWP-OC, Draft Memorandum for Record dated 31 Jul 1997,subject: Willamette River
Authorities.
3 Authorized and Operating Purposes of Corps of Engineers Reservoirs. Second Printing,November 1994.
U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,Washington,D.C.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4//3/1999
2
The Corps recently completed a Water Supply Handbook(December 1998) that discusses the.
reallocation process,or the permanent transfer of storage from another authorized use to water
supply. The feasibility study is reviewing the benefit categories of the other purposes authorized,
based on projected future water needs in the Willamette Valley,to determine if the existing
conservation storage should be reallocated to include water supply.
Authorizing Documents for the Willamette Reservoir System
There are several Congressional acts and associated House and Senate documents that contain
the authorizing language and rationale for the Corps Willamette projects (table 1). The Flood
Control Act of 1938 (PL 75-761) approved plans described in HD 544 and resulted in the
construction of seven projects. The Flood Control Act of 1950(PL 81-516)authorized plans
contained in HD 531 and resulted in the construction of five more projects. Finally, the Flood
Control Act of 1960(PL 86-645) authorized plans contained in Senate Document 104 to
construct the Foster project in the basin.
House Document 531 (8 151 Congress, 2d Session, March 20, 1950) with its eight volumes
presented long-range flood protection plans for the entire Columbia River Basin after the
disastrous flood of 1948. It is considered to be the "umbrella"document for the current
operation of the Willamette system,and presented an overall water resources development
plan that included those projects constructed as part of previous legislation.
Table 1. Congressional Authorizations of Willamette Basin Projects .
Willamette Project Flood Control Act Authorization Report
Hills Creek 1950 House Document 531
Lookout Point/Dexter 1938 House Document 544
Fall Creek 1950 House Document 531
Cottage Grove 1938 House Document 544
Dorena 1938 House Document 544
Cougar 1950 House Document 531
Blue River 1950 House Document 531
Fern Ride 1938 House Document 544
Green Peter 1950 House Document 531
Foster 1960 Senate Document 104
Detroit/Bio Cliff 1938 House Document 544
Volume V of HD 531 is entirely devoted to the Willamette River Basin and provides several
-references to the beneficial effects of providing water for a variety of purposes.- A key paragraph -
in HD 531 occurs on page 1831:
"The primary accomplishment of the proposed projects would be the provision of flood
control and major drainage. Secondary accomplishments would be the generation of
hydroelectric power, improvement of main stem Willamette for navigation; increase of
water supplies for irrigation and domestic use; increase of low flows which would result in
abatement of pollution and improved fish conditions for fish life: and improved .
recreational conditions at reservoirs and downstream."
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999
3
This theme is repeated throughout the document, for example, in the Report of the Division
Engineer contained in Volume I of HD 531 (page 246, paragraph 527,Accomplishments):
"The primary accomplishments of the proposed plan of improvement will be the control of
floods and solution of major drainage problems. After the flood season, stored water will
be released in a manner best suited to provide increased depths for navigation,for
generation of hydroelectric power, and for the several conservation uses -namely,
irrigation;potable water supply;and reduction of stream pollution in the interests of
public health,fish.conservation, and public recreation. A brief discussion of the
accomplishments and benefits creditable to the various phases of the project is contained
in the paragraphs following."
Paragraph 533: "Ample storage in individual.reservoirs will be made available at
relatively low cost for domestic use, and a reasonable charge could be made for stored
water used by municipalities fordomestic purposes. An annual benefit of$307,800 could
be expected in the future."
Paragraph 534: "Willamette River and the lower reaches of the tributaries are becoming
increasingly polluted as a result of the discharge of raw domestic sewage and industrial
waste into surface drainage.systems throughout the basin. Stream flow regulation by the
proposed system of storage reservoirs will increase low-water flows and provide sufficient
dilution to reduce appreciably the cost of necessary sewage treatment.' Resulting annual
benefits would amount to$701;800."
Also in the Report of the Division Engineer(Volume I, main report, page 244,Willamette Basin
Project Section,paragraph 514,Project Description):
"In view of the comprehensive nature of the plan of improvement; the interdependence of
the various elements, and the coordinated operation required to secure maximum over-all
benefits, the plan of improvement is considered as one project. The project is designed to
accomplish the greatest control and use of the water resources of the sub-basin consistent
with economic considerations and social conditions."
Volume V of HD 531 also specifically discusses the Willamette River Basin (Chapter IV,
Accomplishments,on page 1831, paragraph 555):
"The primary accomplishment of the proposed projects would be the provision of flood
control and major drainage. Secondary accomplishments would be the generation of
hydroelectric power; improvement of main stem Willamette for navigation; increase of
water supplies for irrigation and domestic use; increase of low flows which would result in
abatement of pollution and improved f sh conditions for fish life;and improved
recreational conditions at reservoirs and downstream."
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/11/1999 4
Aiso on page 1831, paragraph 558:
"Because of the well-defined limits of the flood season,,e}fective use of the storage space in
the proposed flood-control reservoirs to provide multiple purpose benefits after the flood
season has passed is possible. Surplus spring run-off would be stored for subsequent
release during the low-water season in the combined interests of navigation, irrigation,
domestic water supply, power production,pollution abatement,fish life, and increased
recreational use of Willamette River and the principal tributaries."
In Volume V,Section II, Problems and Solutions, recreation,pollution abatement, and domestic
water supply are discussed separately:
Recreation,pages 1730-1731,paragraphs 169-176: "The proposed reservoirs would
provide opportunity for recreational activities such as sightseeing,fishing, boating,
swimming, duck hunting,picnicking, and camping. At certain reservoirs, sites for
organized camps and cabins would be available. Downstream from the dams, the
recreational potentialities would be enhanced by pollution abatement, lower flood stages,
and increased low-water flows. The maximum development of these potentialities would
require close collaboration by all interested Federal, State, and local governmental
agencies, organized groups, and individuals."
Pollution Abatement,pages 1731-1732,paragraphs 177-180: "The proposed system of
storage reservoirs would modify the present stream-flow regimen in such a way as to delay
the need for secondary treatment of sewage. Present low-water flows would be increased
to minimums of 5,000 and 6,500 second feed at Albany and Salem, respectively. The
increasedflows lows would provide sufficient dilution so that, on the basis of forecasted
developments, secondary treatment would not become necessary until after 1970. Without
such increases in low-waterflow, complete treatment would be required prior to that time .
to attain the minimum standards required for fish life."
Domestic Water Supply, pages 1735-1736,paragraphs 192-198: "The total quantity of
water required for domestic use would be small in comparison with the total storage
capacity of reservoirs proposed for flood-control and other multiple-purposes uses. Ample
storage in individual reservoirs, therefore, would be available at relatively low cost for
domestic use when current facilities can no longer meet the demand. Communities could
obtain water from the reservoirs or streams by gravity diversions or by pumping.
Reduction of flood danger would permit the advantageous location of new pumping and
treatment plants."
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999
5
The initial and ultimate benefit estimates for the Willamette River plan as provided in HD 531
(page 248,paragraph 538, table IV-55) are shown in table 2.
Table 2. Initial and intimate Benefit Estimates, Willamette Basin
Initial Ultimate
Feature_ Annual Benefits Annual Benefits
Flood control $11,881,400 $11,881,400
Drainage $6,354,300 $15,844,400
Navigation $813,500 $813,500
Power $4,922,800 $4,922,800
-
Irrigation $1,655,000 $1,655,000
Recreation $361,400 1 $361,400
Pollution abatement $701,800 $701,800
Domestic watersupply. $307,800 $307,800
Total $27,008,000 $36,498,100
Recommendation. (minor edits to make text a recommendation). From the language .
and quantified benefit estimates presented in the authorizing documents for the Willamette
projects,it appears clear and well documented that Congress originally authorized the projects
for.all the following purposes: flood control, drainage,navigation,power, irrigation,water
supply,flow augmentation for pollution abatement and improved-fishery conditions, and
recreation at the reservoirs and downstream. The authorizing documents include water supply as
an authorized purpose and, in fact, pre-date the Water Supply Act of 1958. This would lead to
utilizing Approach 1 for the feasibility study. In addition, an inherent priority for the originally
authorized purposes appears specified in the authorizing documents in that flood control and
drainage were considered primary, and all other authorized purposes considered as secondary,
and more importantly, equal in their application during the conservation season.
Future Water Needs and Sponsorship Requirements
The sponsorship requirements associated with the increased use of existing conservation storage
to meet current and anticipated future water needs in the Willamette Valley are discussed below
with respect to irrigation, fish,water quality,recreation, and water supply. The major benefit to
the Nation would be the reimbursement of the federal investment, and operation and
maintenance costs, for the acquisition of conservation storage in the Willamette reservoirs.
'Irrigation
(moved sentences around;added prices)
The Bureau of Reclamation administers the water service contracts for irrigators using
conservation storage from the Willamette projects. Currently, about 60,000 acre-feet of storage
is used for this authorized purpose. The 2020 and 2050 irrigation demand estimates developed
for the feasibility study include an additional 95,500 and 550,500 acre-feet of storage,
respectively. The cost per acre-foot of this storage is based on the original cost of the projects
with no escalation of original costs to current price levels or interest, plus an administrative fee.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999 6
As.of April 1999, the.Bureau charges a base price of$8 per acre-foot of water plus and
aministrative/processing fee of$100. The sponsorship and cost-sharing requirements for
agricultural crop irrigation are clearly established and will not be changed under either
approach taken for the feasibility study.
Fish
In March 1999,steelhead and.chinook salmon were listed for the upper Willamette Basin as
threatened species under the ESA. Federal and State fishery agencies and the Portland District
are in the process of coordinating specific actions relating to increasing releases from the
Willamette reservoirs and possibly operational changes with respect to recovery of these species.
For either approach taken for the feasibility study, the Federal Government would be responsible.'
for the costs resulting from Section 7 consultation. Congressional approval would be
necessary if the storage reallocated for ESA-listed fish species has a severe effect on other
authorized purposes or involves major operational changes.
Water Quality
About 250,000 to 350,000 acre-feet of storage is currently used to meet the minimum flows at
Albany and Salem as originally authorized in House Documents 544 and 531. Both documents
recognized that these flows would also benefit stream conditions by diluting wastes and
increasing dissolved oxygen for fish life. Although a navigation channel is no longer maintained
upstream of Portland, the originally established minimum flows are maintained for pollution
abatement and fishery purposes. In recent years, the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality has issued discharge permits based on slightly reduced minimum flows of 4,500 ft3/sec
at Albany and 6,000 ft3/sec at Salem.
Because water quality is an originally authorized purpose met.by current minimum flows,
Approach 1 would be utilized for the feasibility study. The use of storage for water quality
purposes above what is currently provided to meet authorized minimum flows at Albany and
Salem requires a sponsor to cost-share(purchase) the additional conservation storage from the
Corps. For example,storage from the reservoirs could be purchased for water quality
purposes by industriallprivate providers. Using additional storage solely for water quality
purposes was discussed early in the study process;at this time, no demand estimates for the
feasibility study are likely to be developed by the sponsor.
Recreation
-Recreation demand at the Willamette projects is currently strong. Current operation of many of
the projects incorporates this originally authorized purpose; therefore, Approach 1 would be
utilized for the feasibility study: Recreation use of the reservoirs is a by-product of
conservation storage. Although the reservoirs are held as high as possible to provide
recreation opportunities, instream flows take a higher priority. Population growth in the basin
will increase recreation demand and many communities have come to rely on the tourism
generated by the projects. Dedicating conservation storage at reservoirs important for recreation
requires a sponsor to cost-share (purchase) the storage necessary to do so.
Policy.Issues Discussion Paper 411311999 7
Dedicating pool elevations solely for recreation was discussed early in the study process;at
this time, no demand estimates for the feasibility study are likely to be developed by the
sponsor.
Water Supply
Population growth will increase future demands for municipal and industrial water supply in the
Willamette Valley. The 2020 and 2050 water supply demand estimates developed for the
feasibility study are about 103,000 and 208,000 acre-feet of storage,respectively: Unexercised
water rights and existing facilities improvements will be used to meet near-term increased water
supply demands. The use of conservation storage for water supply requires a sponsor to cost-
share(purchase) the storage from the Corps.
Municipal water providers in the Willamette Valley have yet to contract with the Corps for
storage. Their belief is that the price, when using the updated cost of storage method
(reallocation)and including facilities costs for diverting, treating, and distributing the water,
would be significantly higher than the costs for developing other sources. In addition,.the
Corps methodology for pricing storage creates a strong sense of inequity when compared to
the price of storage charged by the Bureau of Reclamation for irrigation.
(Took out cost data in this section and added text). There are many planning efforts underway
in the Willamette Basin concerning future water supply needs and potential sources of water.
For example, water providers in the Tualatin, Calapooia, Molalla-Pudding,and Coast Range
subbasins are investigating the use of natural flow(if available), raising existing dams to
provide more storage, and constructing small storage projects to satisfy long-term water needs.
Also, the Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP), prepared by the water providers of the Portland
metropolitan area(October 1996) provides a comprehensive, integrated framework of resource.
strategies, and implementing actions to meet water supply needs to the year 2050. The possible
options discussed in the RWSP to meet the region's future needs include water savings from
both.naturally occurring and outdoor conservation;aquifer storage and recovery;expanded
use of the Clackamas River;constructing a third reservoir at Bull Run;diverting water from
the Willamette River;and diverting water from the Columbia River.
Cost-sharing Requirements for Water Supply
There are several issues related to cost-sharing requirements for water supply. These include:
e ,
System vs. project pricing of storage due to the system-wide operation of the projects.
e Immediate vs. future use because future water supply demands are.bei_ng considered in
the feasibility study.
Derivation of storage costs based on the two alternative approaches.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4113/1999
s
System vs. Project Pricing of Conservation Storage
There are many references in HD 544 and 531 that describe the operation of the.Wil amette
projects as a system to balance the range of authorized project purposes and to maximize system
benefits. For example, Volume I of HD 531 (page 244, paragraph 514) states,
"In view of the comprehensive nature of the plan of improvement, the interdependence
of the various elements, and the coordinated operation required to secure maximum
over-all benefits, the plan of improvement is considered as one project The project is
designed to accomplish the greatest control and use of the water resources of the sub-
basin consistent with economic considerations and social conditions."
As recognized in the authorizing documents,it is the annual weather patterns in the Pacific
Northwest and the runoff characteristics of the basin that allow the system to be operated to
balance the range of authorized purposes as provided for in HD 531. The well-defined limits of
the flood season and planned use of storage space after the flood season allows for the
impoundment of spring runoff. During the summer and early fall months,stored water is either
retained in the conservation pool for recreation,or is released downstream to meet other
authorized purposes. Water is released according to each project's drawdown priority. For
example, the Fern Ridge and Detroit reservoirs are used last, if at all, for augmenting mainstem
flows because of their high recreation demand. Starting after Labor Day, water is released from
the reservoirs to bring them back down to their minimum flood control pool elevations in order
to provide storage for the winter flood season.
The Willamette projects are currently operated as a system, which provides the Corps the most
flexibility when formulating the annual Willamette Basin release plan. Even though the water
may be withdrawn directly downstream of a specific project, it is necessary to coordinate
releases elsewhere in the system to meet minimum flow requirements at Albany and Salem.
Also, a system-wide pricing concept was forwarded to HQUSACE in conjunction with
purchasing surplus water storage from the Willamette reservoir system. The ASA(CW)
approved the system-wide pricing for surplus water agreements on January 10, 1997.
Recommendation. The feasibility study should continue to stress the need for a system-
wide operating scheme and utilize a system-wide pricing concept for sponsors willing to
purchase conservation storage. By calculating user costs based on the total conservation storage
-(about 1:6 million acre-feet), operational flexibility of the system is maintained and an equitable
price that can be easily administered is established.for sponsors.
Immediate vs. Future Use
The authorizing documents for the Willamette system of projects provided for future water
supply from the Willamette reservoirs, for example Volume I of HD 531 (paragraph 533):
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999
9
I
"Ample storage in individual reservoirs will be made available at relatively low cost for
domestic use, and a reasonable charge could be made for stored water used by
municipalities for domestic purposes. An annual benefit of$307,800 could;be expected in
the future."
And Volume V, Domestic Water Supply, a es 17 -
pages 35 1736, paragraphs 192-198:
"The total quantity of water required for domestic use would be small in comparison with
the total storage capacity of reservoirs proposed for flood-control and other multiple-
purposes uses. Ample storage in individual reservoirs, therefore, would be available at
relatively low cost for domestic use when current facilities can no longer meet the demand.
Communities could obtain water from the reservoirs or streams by gravity diversions or by
pumping. Reduction of flood danger would permit the advantageous location of new
pumping and treatment plants."
However, Corps policy provides a limit on future use storage as found in ER 1105-2-100, 4-
30(a)(4), 31 Oct 1997.
The Water Supply Act of 1958, as amended,,says not more than 30 percent of total
construction costs can be allotted to water supply for future use. In addition, Corp policy
is to obtain full payment of allocated capital costs from water supply sponsors prior to or
during construction, or failing this to negotiate a repayment agreement,payments to begin
immediately after construction completion. Thus,formulation of water supply storage
without a current sponsor willing to participate is an exception requiring prior approval
Forward requests for exception to HQUSACE CECW-P.
Future water supply demands are being considered in the feasibility study, and are estimated to
be up to 208,000 acre-feet of storage by the year 2050.
Recommendation. It appears clear that the authorizing documents provided for future
water supply storage in the Willamette reservoirs. Also, the future demand estimated for the
feasibility study would be well below the 30 percent total construction cost limitation of the
Water Supply Act of 1958. A request for exception to Corps policy limiting future use storage
should be forwarded for approval
Derivation of Conservation Storage Costs
Approach 1: Originally Authorized Purposes: The price of water supply storage for
originally authorized purposes would be based on the original cost of the storage, instead of the
methods required by ER 1105-2-100(highest of benefits or revenues foregone, the replacement
cost,or the updated cost of storage). This approach would apply to all originally authorized
purposes (except irrigation) of the Willamette reservoir system in deriving a cost of storage for
sponsors seeking the use of Corps storage to meet current and future water need's.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999 10
Using original project costs, the cost of storage to be purchased is 5189 per acre-foot (cost
rounded to nearest dollar). An additional cost of$6.23 per acre-foot is added to include
FY 1998 operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation (OMRR&R) costs.
Therefore, a water user would be charged$195 per acre-foot of storage purchasedfrom the
Willamette reservoir system under Approach 1.
Annroach 2: Reallocation: Corps guidance for reservoir reallocations and associated
cost-sharing requirements is found in ER 1105-2-100, dated-28 December 1990(Section VII of
Chapter 4 specifically discusses water supply and was revised on 31 October 1997). As
specified in this regulation, the cost of reallocated (permanent)storage in a Corps reservoir to
add water supply is the highest of benefits or revenues foregone, the replacement cost, or the
updated cost of storage. Added to this annual cost for storage is an estimated annual cost for
OMRR&R.
The updated cost of storage method provides the highest cost for permanent storage in the
Willamette projects. However, this is because inflating the project costs using the ENR index
and CWCCIS factors over a+40 year period distorts the costs so significantly that they become
meaningless. Applying this method does not appear appropriate for the Willamette reservoir
system, and the replacement cost or some other method should be investigated (benefits or
revenues foregone would not apply). Nevertheless, the derivation of storage costs based on the
updated cost of the eleven storage projects is described below.
For the updated cost of storage method, the capital costs at the time of construction are
calculated and costs allocated to specific purposes are subtracted. These resulting costs (joint
use)are then escalated to current price levels. This amount is then multiplied by the ratio of
requested storage to total usable storage(in acre-feet).
(Total Construction Cost- )Specific Costs x Storage Requested
p Total Usable Storage[acre-feet]
Added to this updated cost of storage is an appropriate share of the joint-use OMRR&R costs for
the fiscal year prior to the year of the agreement. Repayment of all these costs, including interest
at the current federal rate,is made using a thirty-year amortization period.
Using the updated cost of storage method, the cost of storage to be purchased is $1,508 per acre-
foot(February 1999 price level,cost rounded to nearest dollar). An additional cost of$6.23 per
acre-foot is added to include FY 1998 OMRR&R costs. Therefore, a water user would be
charged$1514 per acre-foot of storage reallocated from the Willamette reservoir system.
Recommendation. Approach 1 provides reasonable cost of storage that, when added to
the facilities costs for diverting, treating, and distributing the water, would likely make the use
of storage in the Willamette reservoirs attractive to many water providers as a future water
supply source. Using the updated cost of storage method(Approach 2), the cost of storage
combined with facilities costs becomes significantly higher and may preclude the use of
Willamette storage by water providers in the basin.
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999 I
Multiple Benet is from Releasing Stored Water
This concept was included in the Project Study Plan at the request of the sponsor, and resulted
from discussions with water providers and their concerns over the high cost of purchasing
storage from the Willamette reservoir system. Release of stored water for water supply in the
lower end of the basin could have multiple benefits as it travels downstream which may make it
possible to share the cost of the storage. For example, if benefits from this water could also be
derived for ESA-listed fish species, then it could be argued that environmental restoration cost-
sharing (35%sponsor/65% federal) could be applied to the cost of storage for water providers
near the end of the system. While the concept of multiple benefits is an interesting one, fish
benefits would need to be quantified;which is a complex and likely impossible task. On the
other hand,use of this concept for the feasibility study also could open up the issue so that
anyone;anywhere in the system would demand preferential cost-sharing for storage.
Recommendation. It is recommended'that this complex and possibly inequitable
concept not be pursued for the feasibility study-
Policy Issues Discussion Paper 4/13/1999
12
U.S. ARMY CORPS of ENGINEERS
Willamette River Basin Reservoirs
inti �t.
ti
BIG CUFF
DETROIT
GREEN PETER
J
o.•. `� FOSTER
N IDGE BLUE RIVER
mss::K COUGAR
Mfn FALL CREEK
�^ LOOKOUT POINT
DEXTER--
•..
DORENA �
COTTAGE OVE
HILLS C
OPERATIONAL DATA FOR THE WILLAMETTE STORAGE PROJECTS
Minimum Maximum Total Authorized Typical Draw-
Flood Control Conservation Conservation Minimum Release Release Power down
Project Pool Pool Storage Feb-Jun/Jul-Nov Jun/Jul-Aug Project Priority
Feet NGVD Feet NGVD Acre-Feet cis cfs
Hills Creek 1;448.0 1,541.0 194,600 100/100 1000/300-400 yes 4th
Lookout Point 825.0 926.0 324,200 1200/1000 2500/2500 yes 1 st
Fall Creek Y 728.0 830.0 108,200 30/30 250/200-400 no 5th
Cottage Grove 750.0 790.0 28,700 75/50 75/50 no 5th
IDorena 770.0 832.0 65,000 190/100 250/100 no 5th
Cougar 1,532.0 1,690.0 143,900 300/200. 700/400-900 yes 2nd
Blue River 1,180.0 1,350.0 78,800; 50/30 200/50-500 no 3rd
Fern Ridge 353.0 373:5 93,900 50/30 50/75 no last
Green Peter 922.0 1,010.0 249,900 300/300 750/650-700 yes 5th
Foster 613.0 637.0,
24;800 600/400 1250/650-750 yes last
Detroit 1,450:0 11563.5 281,600 1000/750 1700/900 yes last
Notes on Reservoir Pool Elevations
Fern Ridge, Detroit, & Reservoirs kept high as possible for recreation thru Labor Day, then pool lowered for flood control.
Hills Creek
'Lookout Point Pool down to el.880 by Labor Day, for release of 2,500 In Sep-Oct (fishing &spawning).
Fall Creek For ODFW: Pool down to of. 825 by Aug 15;el. 815 by Aug 30; and el. 694 by Oct 30 to Nov 30.
Cottage Grove & Dorena Small reservoirs. Held as close to full as possible for recreational use.
Cougar& Blue River No special considerations for pool elevations,
Green Peter Pool held-high except to help Foster meet minimum releases.
Foster Fish passage: Pool down to el. 614 to May 20; refill to el. 637 from Green Peter& hold to Oct 15.
WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN PROJECT-TOTAL USABLE STORAGE
COST/ACRE-FOOT ADJUSTED TO CURRENT PRICE LEVELS Feb-99
Updated to 1999
Total Total Total
Storage Exempt Usable ENR Index ENR Index Initial '
Project Full Pool Storage• Storage Corot. Mid-pointGorst.mid- factor to Cnnat.Cost Indexed Costs- 199�••
(Acre-feet) (Acre-feet) (Acre-feet) Period or Corot. point 1967 (Joint-Use) Total Acre-foot
Blue River 89,520 3,970 85,550 4/63-2/69 3/66 1019 1.054 $28,729,730
$150,960,037 ,51,763
Cottage Grove 32,930 3,140 29,790 8/40- 12/49 4/45 308 3.487 2,276,000 $39,634,411 1,330
Cougar 219,270 4+4,050 155,220 6156. 11/63 2/60 824 1.303 49,393,000 $320,666,344 2,066
Detroit 472,600 154,400 318,200 1/47- 10/53 5/50 510 2.106 41,405,200 435,731,300 1,369
Dorena 77,600 7,090 70,510 6/41-10/52 2/47 413• 2.6 13,373,000 173,606,929 2,462
Fall Creek 125,000 10,000 115,000 4/62- 12/65 1/64 936 1.147 20,099,700 114,960,584 1,()00
Fern Ridge 111,434 8;300 103,134 4140-12/41 2/41 258 4.163 2,296,000 47,847;836 464
Foster 60,700 31,100 29,600 6/61 -6/67 6/64 936 1.147 18,669,000 107,048,233 3,616
Green Peter 430,000 1()0,000 270,600 6161-.6/67 6/00 936 1.147 46,012,000 262,938,795 . 974
Hills Creek 356,000 156,000 200,000 5/56-6/63 11/59 797 1.348 39,185,900 264,232,136
1,321
Lookout Point 477,7(X) 118,800 358,900 4/47.7/54 1150 510 2.106 65,793,500 700,056,676 1,951
Total 2,452,754 716,850 1,735;!04 $327,233,030 $2,617,685,282
Ave cost per acre-foot-Usable Storage $189 $1,508
• Ihrd�or inactive storage+storage for hydropower bead,
••CWCCIS Index applied 1967- 1999
Note: Estimated 100-Yr sediment volume assumed to Impact only dead or Inactive-storage space,
except at Fern Ridge Lake, (1,300 AF)
FY 1919 Water7Supply Interest Rale Applicable 10 Reallocated Storage and Surplus Water Contracts: 5,375%.
From: Breiiing NWP, John J
Sent. Tuesday, September 16, 1997 08:08
To: Mahan NWP, Tyrae L; Obradovich NWP, Patricia M; Rea NWP, Matt T; Posovich
NWP, Michael S; Moriuchi NWP, Davis G; Brown NWP, David O; Craner NWP,
Douglas C; Berger NWP, Edmund H; Brei ling NWP, John J; Slusar NWP,. Robert T
COL.; Brice NWP, Kevin J LTC
Subject: Willamette Basin Authorities - H.Doc 531/ FCA May 17, 1950
To All:
1. This message is primarily for PM's and Planning with copies to others who
may be interested in subject.
2. For reasons that are not totally clear, there are a lot of Corps documents
including USACE documents that do not fully reflect all of the authorized
purposes of the Willamette Valley Project asauthorized by House Document 531
enacted into law by the Flood Control Act (FCA) of May 17, 1950. In addition
there appears to be some confusion over the role of bank protection works and
levees as a critical components of the Willamette River Basin flood control
plan.
3. P.. 236-254 of vol. 1 of H..Doc. 531 present the main features and
authorizations of the Willamette Valley Project as authorized. Copies of
these pages are being provided to Tyrae Mahan (as acting chief of Planning in
Pat O'Bradovich's absence) and to Matt Rea, Karen Bahus's successor as study
manager on the Willamette Basin reauthorization study.
4. Two questions are answered by these pages. The first is the list of
authorized purposes for Willamette Valley Project as originally provided, by
Congress (this list has been supplemented by subsequent legislation, but it
is the list of original purposes that seems to have been miscopied and
misunderstood) . This list of purposes is taken from several sources:
a. problems to be fixed list, pages 236-241: navigation, flood control and
drainage, power, irrigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, pollution
control, domestic water supply, and watershed treatment (to be done by
others) .
b. Accomplishments (p. 246-248) :
Paragraph 527 provides:
"The primary accomplishments of the proposed plan of improvement will be the
control of floods and solution of major drainage problems. After the flood
season, stored water will be released in a manner best suited to provide
increased depths for navigation, for generation of hydroelectric power, and
for the several conservation uses -- namely, irrigation; potable water
supply, and reduction of stream pollution in the interests of public health,
fish conservation, and public recreation. "
Paragraph 537 provides:
"In order to obtain the benefits listed above, the various units of the plan
will be operated in a coordinated manner in the combined interest of flood
control, navigation, irrigation, power, drainage, fish and wildlife,
recreation, domestic water supply, and stream pollution abatement. "
c. Dollar benefits are assigned most of these purposes. For example,
domestic water supply is assigned an annual benefit of $307,800 at paragraph
533 : "Ample storage in individual reservoirs will be made available at
relatively low cost for domestic use, and a reasonable charge could be made
for stored water used by municipalities for domestic purposes. An annual
benefit of $307,800 could be expected in the future."
5. The second question is the ability to operate and maintain various flood
control features. At paragraph 493, p. 238, the flood control plan is
summarized as follows:
"The most logical solution to the closely related flood control and drainage
problems appears to be construction of additional reservoirs, to store
floodwaters, supplemented by levee and channel improvements; and provision of
major drainage outlets and interior field drainage.
The plan of improvement at p. 242 includes:
• (i) Construction of a partial system of supplemental levees, in lieu of
additional flood-control storage (paragraph 5101
(j) Construction of overflow channel closures at certain locations . . . .
(o) Tributary channel improvements in 17 sub-basins . . . to include major
drainage features for the realization of flood control and major drainage
benefits.
(p) Tributary channel improvements in two .sub-basins primarily for the
realization of flood-control benefits.
(q) Rehabilitation of existing interior drainage systems and installation of
additional interior drainage facilities by local interest . . . .
(r) .Construction of bank protection works at 171 locations and execution of •a
channel clearing and snagging program on the main stream and lower reaches of
eight major tributaries. "
In addition paragraph 511 at p. 243 also recommended:
"Further study is proposed of supplemental levees on Willamette River below
the mouth of the Long Tom River and of additional draiange projects
throughout the basin. "
At pages 244-245, paragraphs 516 through 520 describe an extensive system of
levees and bank protection works:
"516. The proposed supplemental levees will be located discontinuously along
Willamette River from Springfield to the confluence of Long Tom River, along
McKenzie River from HeAdricks Bridge to the confluence with Willamette River,
and on Middle Fork Willamette River from Dexter to the mouth. Total length
of levee would be 87.4 miles. Levees will be designed to confine, in
respective reaches, a flood comparable to that of 1861, modified by
regulation afforded by existing and proposed reservoirs.
517. Bankful capacities for reservoir regulation are values determined by
predominant bank heights for the particular stream. At certain low points in
the banks, overflow will result from flow at adopted bankful discharges. Some
of the low points are inlets to sloughs and secondary channels. The project
includes closure of these inlets with low levees at locations where such
works appear justified. These structures will be designed to withstand
overtopping without serious damage, and the lower ends of the sloughs and
channels will be left open to eliminate prolonged ponding.
518. Complete drainage of lands in Willamette River Basin will involve flood
protection by reservoirs and supplemental levees; rectification and deepening
of tributary stream channels for flood control and drainage; rehabilitation
of existing interior drainage and installation of new interior drainage
works. Improvements of this nature involving some 422 miles of channel
improvement, are proposed on 17 tributaries to provide flood control and
drainage for 387,000 acres of agricultural lands. Two additional proposed
projects involving 14.8 miles of channel improvement will provide' flood
control benefits. Included in the 17 projects for flood control and drainage
are modifications to the authorized Pudding River and Amazon Creek projects
for flood control to allow realization of drainage benefits.
519. Bank protection works will be provided at critical areas on the main,
stream and major tributaries to stabilize eroding banks and to prevent
continuing damage. The protective works will consist of revetments, training
dikes, and fascines. Such.works are proposed at 77 individual locations on
Willamette River and at 94 locations on major tributaries. The above figures
are based on the present number and extent of erosion areas. Due to changing
channel conditions, the actual erosion areas may be in different locations
and of different extent at the time of construction of proposed protective
works.
520. Channel improvement is proposed on Willamette River and major
tributaries in order to increase channel capacities, reduce bank erosion, and
help prevent formation of undesirable cut-offs. Tree and brush growths,
encroaching gravel bars, and snags will be removed; and certain channel
rectification work, especially in upper river reaches above Corvallis, will
be accomplished. Improvements as described above are propsoed on 300 miles
of river channel."
6. The local cooperation requirements are given at Table IV-56 on page 248:
Supplemental levees: lands, easements, and rights of way;
Bank protection: lands, easements, and rights of way;
maintain works on tributaries not influenced by reservoir regulation;
Channel clearing and snagging: maintain works on uncontrolled tributaries;
Overflow channel closures: lands, easements, and rights of way;
Tributary channel improvements for flood control and drainage:
lands, easements, and rights of way;
relocations of bridges and utilities;
maintain improved channels on uncontrolled tributaries;
bear full cost of interior drainage and 25% of cost of major drainage.
7. At p. 242, Paragraph 509 stated:
"No written commitments by local interests as to their willingness to comply
with requirements have been received. Indications; however, are that State
and other Federal agencies intend to cooperat fully. The laws of the State
of Oregon provide for the formation of water-control districts, for flood
control, drainage, and irrigation. '
These organizacions have the .necessary legal authority for entering into
contractual relations with individual property owners and with the Federal
government and to guarantee the local cooperation required. "
This paragraph gives every expectation that the locatl interests would form
various units of local government to provide the necessary local cooperation
required.
8. It should be noted that many of the headwaters of the various tributaries
have in the intervening years been adopted into the federal wild and scenic
rivers program by federal legislation. This subsequent legislation has had
the effect of modifying the Willamette Valley Project by withdrawing
portions of waters in basin from flood control and drainage works, thereby
increasing the amount of flood control and drainage works required downstream
of the wild and scenic portions of the various rivers. (Senator Hatfield
sponsored legislation classifying over 100 segments of Oregon waters as wild
and scenic rivers - more than any other state including Alaska.)
9. To the all important question of whether major repairs can be made to the
various parts of the federal Willamette Valley Project when it is determined
either that the repairs exceed the obligations of local sponsors for ordinary
maintenance or that no local sponsor is required. (e.g. the dams and
reservoirs) , the answer is an obvious yes. The Comptroller General has long
held that:
"The spending agency has reasonable discretion in determining how to carry
out the objects of the appropriation. This concept, known as the
'necessary expense doctrine, ' has been around almost as long as the statute
itself. An early statement of the rule is contained in 6 Comp. Gen. 619, 621
(.1927) :
'It is a well-settled rule of statutory construction that where an
appropriation is made for a particular object, by implication it confers
authority to incur expenses which are necessary or proper or incident to the
proper execution of the object, unless there is another appropriation which
makes more specific provision for such expenditures, or unless they are
prohibited by law, or unless it is manifestly evident from various precedent
appropriation acts that Congress has specifically legislated for certain
expenses of the Government creating the implication that such expenditures
should not be incurred except by its express authority. , • "
(p. 4-15, Vol. 1, Principles of Federal Appropriation Law)
The same reference at pages 4-15 to 4-16 states that the Comptroller General
has never tried to define all of the applications of the rule because of the
impossibility of such a general definition. At 4-19, the Comptroller General
also states:
".However, specific statutory authority is not essential." If a particular
spending activity "is directly connected with and is in furtherance of the
purposes for which a particular._appropriation has been made, and an
appropriate administrative determination is made to that effect, the
appropriation is available for the expenditure. " (Citations omitted. )
There is also a very extensive annotation of Supreme Court caselaw on federal
property authorities and rights at 49 LEd2d 1239, following the Kleppe v. New
Mexico case found at 49 LEd 2nd 34 (426 US 529, 96 S Ct 2285 (1976) ) .
Under these holdings, the proper conservation, repair and maintenance of
7_7De=zj is normally authorized as an obvious requirement of the
original authorization to acquire the property in the first place. No
property is properly protected without some effort and expenditure.
Consequently, the Flood Control Act of 1950 authorization for the Willamette
Valley Project / Willamette River sub-basin plan in House Document 531 is
also a general authorization to maintain and repair the works so authorized,
consistent with the local cooperation requirements of the House Document 531.
Exactly how repair and maintenance is performed is subject to managerial
discretion based upon available authorities and appropriations. Besides the
original authorization, there are occasionally other available authorities
within the civil works program. The Comptroller General has stated that once
an election is made as to how to proceed in the face of two available
appropriations, one is stuck with one's, election, unless Congress has
specifically provided authority to augment appropriations (which again
Congress has so done with regard to certain Portland District operating
costs, specifically authorizing BPA to augment Corps civil works
appropriations in some cases for hydropower maintenance and for fish
activities.)
Hopefully, enough citations have been provided to assist PM and Planning in
dealing with questions from USACE and division. If further information is
required, please advise the undersigned at 808-4522. Thank you.
John
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Intergovernmental Water Board Members
FROM: Ed Wegner
RE: Water Information from Wilsonville
DATE: May 19, 1999
I attended the Wilsonville City Council meeting last evening to hear public testimony on
water options. Mayor Nicoli and Mark Mahon from our Water Advisory Task Force
made statements as did members of'H2OK, Citizens for Safe Water and the Willamette
Water Supply Agency. I heard of no new information however, I did receive two pieces
of literature you might be interested in reviewing.
➢ Wilsonville cost information. In this information, however the Portland figure
does include Tigard as a possible partner to go with the Portland scenario.
➢ Review of Montgomery Watson Willamette River Monitoring Data.
Quality Associates, Inc., is a consulting firm that conducted an independent
evaluation of Willamette River monitoring data. Both a one page executive
summary and complete report are attached.
If you have any questions regarding this information, give me a call.
Thanks!
Encl.
KathyWhamettelcc iwb memo 5-19
s
QUALITY ASSOCIATES, INC.
Review of Montgomery Watson Willamette River Monitoring Data
Executive Summary:
QUALITY ASSOCIATES, INC. (QAI), a consulting firm located in Columbia,
Maryland, conducted an independent evaluation of Willamette River monitoring data that
have been developed by Montgomery Watson,Americas, Inc., Portland, Oregon, and
Montgomery Watson Laboratories, Pasadena, California, from July, 1998 through
February, 1999. This assessment was at the request of the City of Wilsonville, Oregon,
which is considering using the Willamette River as a potential source (aftertreatment)of
drinking water. The developed data were based on a work plan which called for periodic
sampling and analyses of a wide variety of organic and heavy metal contaminants and
microorganisms of concern, as well as routine water quality parameters.
The analytical findings were reviewed by QAI primarily from the standpoints of meeting
the work plan goals and overall quality, including achievement of stated detection limits
and conformance with quality control standards. Sampling data and related information
were also reviewed.
In summary, even though there were some shortcomings, as described herein, QAI deems
that the work plan goals were largely met and that the reported data are of overall
acceptable quality, including achievement of the stated detection limits. One target
contaminant was previously overlooked by Montgomery Watson Laboratories, and
several more compounds for which analytical methodology only recently became
available, will be analyzed for as part of the next sampling event to be conducted this
Spring.
o
Introduction:
At the request of the City of Wilsonville, Oregon, QUALITY ASSOCIATES, INC.
(QAI)conducted a independent review of Willamette River raw water monitoring data
developed by Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc.,Portland, Oregon and Montgomery
Watson Laboratories, Pasadena, California(hereafter both entities are referred to as
"Montgomery Watson") over the period July 1998 through February 1999-for the cities
of Wilsonville and Tigard, Oregon. The basis for the review was two documents
prepared by Montgomery Watson entitled Scope of Work for the city of Tigard
Willamette River Raw Water Monitoring Plan (hereafter referred to as the work plan) and
an interim report of findings entitled City of Tigard, Quarterly Report, March 1999
(hereafter referred to as the quarterly report). The former document spelled out the
overall scope of work to be performed by Montgomery Watson for the Willamette
monitoring project, including the proposed sampling schedule and the rationale for the
target analytical parameters. The quarterly report summarized the findings through
February 24, 1999, as well as providing a number of explanatory notes regarding
sampling and reported findings.
The QAI review was based on review of photocopies of original sampling and analytical
data generated by Montgomery Watson and its analytical subcontractors. Due to time
constraints and the large volume of available data, only a portion could be examined by
QAI in any detail. Focus was given to review of all sampling information and analytical
data for organic compounds (including the dioxin,TCDD and pesticides) and heavy
metals, as these were deemed most critical from the standpoint of potentially harmful
contaminants in the river. Organic compounds and heavy metals were sampled and
analyzed for on three occasions on roughly a quarterly basis and, as part of the overall
review, an attempt was also made to evaluate representative sampling and analysis data
for all three events.
The classes of organic compounds reviewed by QAI included nitrogen and phosphorus
pesticides, chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides,chlorinated acid herbicides,carbamate
insecticides, base-neutral acid extractable compounds, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and the ethylene dibromide group, as well as the individual herbicides
glyphosate, endothall, linuron,diuron, paraquat and diquat.. The heavy metal analyses,
including mercury were also evaluated. Reported TCDD (a dioxin) findings were also
reviewed. All available sampling data were reviewed.
The Montgomery Watson and other associated analytical data were evaluated by QAI
with respect to: (1)Conformance with standard methodology(including meeting the
target parameter list and holding times); (2)achievement of stated detection limits; (3)
meeting quality control (QC) parameters and associated acceptance criteria; and(4) the
overall level of documentation. Sampling data were evaluated primarily from the
standpoints of completeness and preservation.
It should be noted that, although included by Montgomery Watson as part of the quarterly
report, some the routine water quality parameter findings, such as alkalinity, ammonia,
2
hardness,total organic carbon (TOC), dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and several other
indicators, were determined directly for the City of Tigard, Oregon by AmTest Oregon
L.L.C., located in Tigard. Underlying raw data and other records were not provided to
QAI for these determinations - only the analytical reports - thus a full assessment of
reliability could not be performed by QAI. It appeared from the reported findings,
however, that there may have been analytical problems with the determination of
dissolved organic carbon for samples collected during August and September.
Montgomery Watson subcontracted out the analyses of several organic compounds,
including TCDD (a dioxin) to Quanterra Laboratories, Sacramento, California and the
herbicides linuron,diuron and oryzalin to North Coast Laboratories, Arcata, California.
Raw data were provided to QAI for all but the oryzalin determinations and the reported
results were determined to be supportable. Radionuclide analyses were also
subcontracted to another Quanterra analytical facility in Richland, Washington, however,
these data were not further reviewed by QAI beyond verifying the findings given in the
quarterly report were consistent with the individual Quanterra reports.
In summary, in spite of some noted deficiencies,primarily the need for an enhanced level
of underlying documentation, the organic compound and heavy metal results, as reported
by Montgomery Watson in the quarterly report was deemed acceptable by QAI for their
stated purpose. Several targeted organic compounds and one heavy metal that were not
analyzed for during the first three quarters of monitoring will be determined during the
next sampling event.
Specific Findings:
Sampling
Documentation of Willamette River sampling events was provided by Montgomery
Watson primarily through notebook entries, Chain of Custody records and sample
container order forms. Sample receipt at the laboratory was documented for each
shipment by Montgomery Watson Laboratories (Pasadena,California) through a standard
Acknowledgement of Samples Received form. This form, a copy of which was returned to
the Portland based Montgomery Watson sampling staff, also listed(for verification
purposes) the various analyses to be performed for the particular sampling event. The
sample container order forms provided documentation that the appropriate preservative
had been added. The only noted deficiency was that it could not always be verified
through available records if the samples were shipped to the laboratory on ice, as
required, and whether the samples were still in chilled condition when received.
Review of these aforementioned records for the period August 12 through January 26,
1999 revealed that the work plan goals for weekly, monthly and quarterly sampling and
associated parameters were largely met, even though the collection events did not occur
precisely at weekly, monthly and quarterly intervals. Sampling during the target
quarterly low and high water periods was met. According to Montgomery Watson
3
records,several planned weekly sampling events in late December, 1998 were missed
due to storm damage at the intake point and one weekly sampling was missed due to a
faulty sampling pump. These problems should be considered normal for such a large and
lengthy project and appear to have only affected the weekly sampling for routine water
quality parameters and resulted in short delays in the December determination of the
parasites giardia and cryptosporidium:
Of significance is the fact that, according to the available records, the target quarterly
sampling for pesticides and other organic compounds, heavy metals, radio-nuclides and
viruses were met and reflect occurrences of both low and high water flows for the
Willamette.
In summary, although some weekly target•sampling dates for routine water quality
parameters were not met due to storm damage and equipment failure, the work plan goals
of the more critical monthly and quarterly sampling events were met. Necessary
preservatives were recorded as having been added to the sampling containers, and
although not every custody sheet reflects the presence of ice, this record keeping lapse
appears to have been due to oversight by Montgomery Watson.
Holding Times
The term"Holding Time" refers to the periods of time between sample collection and
initial extraction and the time between the extraction and final determination. Only the
holding times for organic chemical (including pesticides and dioxin) were evaluated as
part of the QAI data review. Montgomery Watson acknowledged in their quarterly report
that holding times had elapsed on two occasions (for the August 12, 1998 and November
2, 1998 sampling dates) for determination of nitrogen -phosphorus (NP) pesticides.
Review of the Montgomery Watson data revealed that on both occasions the subject
Willamette River water samples were extracted and analyzed within the required time
frames, however, the holding times for other water samples from non-related locations
were not met, thus the entire original sample set appears to have been rejected.
The August and November, 1998 samples for the determination of nitrogen—phosphorus
pesticides were collected again by Montgomery Watson in September and December of
1998;respectively. Analyses of these additional samples, as well as the originally
collected samples for both months, resulted in no detectable nitrogen-phosphorus
pesticides. No other holding time problems were apparent from the data reviewed.
Scone of Analysis
The overall scope of analyses for this project is presented in the work plan and the
specific compounds (or groups of compounds),elements and/or organisms targeted for
analysis are also spelled out in the quarterly report. The quarterly report also cites in the
General Notes section that EPA approved(or other acceptable) methodology is currently
4
not available for a number of the target compounds or elements. Communication with
Montgomery Watson staff indicated that methodology and laboratory capability are now
available for the metal vanadium, the pesticides terbufos and pronamide, and the
commercial chemical nitrobenzene. These will be analyzed for in the next quarterly
sampling. Adequate EPA or other Montgomery Watson analytical methodologies
currently do not exist for three other target organic compounds (all herbicides), i.e.
bromoxyniI, propanil and MCPA or specific microbial contaminants on the EPA
Candidate Contaminant List.
Analytical Methodology
Review of the available raw data and records revealed that Montgomery Watson (and its
contract laboratories) used the appropriate methodology to analyze for the various target
parameters identified in the work plan and as cited in the quarterly report. To the degree
possible, particularly for organic compounds and heavy metals, standard U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)or EPA recommended analytical methodologies
were cited as having been used by the laboratories. Some modifications were
documented in the data, such as changes in sample and extract volumes, additional (or
changes in) surrogate (quality control)compounds and changes in reference standard
dilutions. These changes were deemed by QAI to not have had a significant impact on
the performance of the method or the quality of the reported findings.
Detection Limits
Since most of the analytical results for organic compounds (including pesticides and
dioxin) and heavy metals were reported as "Not Detected"or"ND" at the method
detection limit (MDL)or considerably below the EPA Maximum Concentration Limit
(MCL), the accuracy of these reported ND findings are deemed significant. For all
organic compound and heavy metals analyses reviewed, the detection limits were
determined to have been accurately reported, based on the factors of initial sample size,
final extract volume,.lowest reference standard concentration and fortified sample
recoveries.
A positive values for the herbicide simazine during the August 12, 1998 sampling date
and a positive result for the organic solvent, dichloromethane, for the November 2, 1998
sampling event are discussed in the Montgomery Watson quarterly report and the
circumstances and explanation were deemed to be plausible.
5
Quality Control
Quality control (QC)related analyses are normally conducted in conjunction with each
set of determinations to verify the reliability of the analyst and the utilized
instrumentation, as well as verifying that there are no other significant negative factors
entering into the use of the prescribed analytical method. These determinations include
analysis of method and reagent blanks to verify absence of potentially interfering
substances from reagents, solvents and/or laboratory ware, and verification of acceptable
accuracy through determination of recoveries derived from analysis of representative
samples fortified with compounds of interest. Recoveries of specified representative
compounds fortified into the actual samples (called"surrogates") of interest also yield an
indication of method and analyst performance. A reference standard response
verification for extended analytical runs is required of most EPA methods, and a specially
prepared laboratory evaluation sample is required to be periodically analyzed for some
EPA methods to allow determination of instrument performance.
Review of a representative portion of the Montgomery Watson data for the organic
compound and heavy metal results cited in the quarterly report indicated that both the
level of quality control (QC) and the QC results themselves were adequate. The level of
QC determinations with some minor exceptions, were consistent with method
requirements and sound laboratory practice. Upon review, one negative QC result for
TCDD (a dioxin) mentioned in the General Notes section of the quarterly report was
found to be in error, probably due to a report writing error; there appeared to be no low
recovery of TCDD, as stated.
On a few occasions QC results were observed to be slightly outside the stated
acceptability criteria(e.g. organic phosphorus pesticides for January 27, 1999 sampling)
with no laboratory comment or repeat analysis and, on at least one occasion (e.g.
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides for November 2, 1998 sampling), the laboratory
evaluation sample was analyzed, but the results were not calculated or otherwise
reported. Visual inspection of the chromatographic data indicated no particular problem
in this case, however.
Analytical Documentation
The level of documentation, i.e. the recorded raw data necessary to reconstruct what was
actually performed in the laboratory, by whom and when, is necessary to allow full
reconstruction of procedures used and to verify the findings and conclusions given in the
analytical report. Although data were reasonably complete for some Montgomery
Watson analyses, such as for chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, acid herbicides and
nitrogen-phosphorus pesticides, such information was lacking for the determination of
carbamate pesticides, the herbicide glyphosate and the ethylene dibromide group. Other
determinations are supported by some level of documentation between these two
extremes. In some cases, only the internal standard solution is not identified and in other
instances the fortification solutions and/or levels are not specified. In each case where
documentation was lacking it was assumed that the cited analytical method was followed.
6
In summary,there is definite room for improvement in the level of documentation and its
attribution being provided by Montgomery Watson to support their analytical findings.
QAI will provide advice to the Montgomery Watson Laboratory with respect to
enhancing their overall level of documentation, particularly for analyses conducted in
support of the next Willamette River sampling event.
Report prepared May 13, 1999 by:
Dean F. Hill, Senior Consultant
QUALITY ASSOCIATES, INC.
9017 Red Branch Road, Suite 102
Columbia, MD 21045
TX: 410-884-9100
7
sea
Discussion I -te s
supply options
Financial Plan Assumptions,
Financial Plan Summaries
Rate Impacts
I SDC Comparison
Supply Options
9 Joint Willamette Water Treatment Plant
v Tigard, NWD, Tualatin, and Sherwood
Tigard only
I Willamette Water Treatment Plant -- Wilsonville
Only
Portland/Bull Run
1 Tigard, Sherwood and Tualatin
Wilsonville Only
10-Year Financial Plan --
Assumptions
t ' Capitalcostsincrease at 5%/yr
� 0&M costs increase at about 4.50/o/yr (growth and
inflation)
I Average annual customer growth 2.5%
Revenue bonds are rate/SDC backed
1 Maintain minimum balances
5% 0&M contingency
i 5% 0&M reserve
I SDC at calculated rates
I Consumption at 98/99 levels
10-Year Financial Plan --
Base Water System Costs
O ' Capital
Y $ 1 . 7 million supply
r $2.9 million reservoirs & storage
tl $8 .9 million transmission & distribution
r O&M
1 $ 1 . 4 million (99/00) ; $2 . 3 million (0-8/09)
10-Year Financial Plan --
Willamette Treatment Options
Joint treatment Plant with Tigard, TVWD,
Tualatin and Sherwood
I 10mgd Plant -- $21.9 million
r Net increase in O&M costs $571,000 (03/04)
1 Joint Treatment Plant with Tigard only
10 mgd plant -- $23.7 million
I Net increase in 0&M costs $639,000 .(03/04)
0 Wilsonville Only Treatment Plant
Y Initial 5mgd plant plus 5mgd expansion -- $31.4 million
I Transmission lines -- $2. 1 million
1 Net increase in 0&M costs $769,000 (03/04)
* Capital costs in 1998 dollars
10-Year Financial Plan --
Portland/Bull Run Options
I With Tigard, Tualatin, and Sherwood
r Supply lines -- $48.3 million
r Net increase in 0&M costs $1 .2 million (03/04)
r Wilsonville Only
I Supply lines -- $76.0 million
1 Net increase in 0&M costs $1 .2 million (03/04)
*Capital costs in 1998 dollars
10-bear Pr' ojmected Rate
Increases
Fiscal Years
Option 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04
W/WTTTS 22%. 20% 20% 20%
W/WT 22% 24% 24% 20%
W/WO 22% 17% 17% 17%
P/WTTS 22% 22% 21% 21% 21%
P/WO 22% 23% 23% 23% 23%
2.004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09
W/WTTTS
W/WT
W/WO 13% 13% 13%
P/WTTS 9% 9% 9% 9% 9%
P/WO 15% 15% 15% 15% 12%
I OwYFinancial Plan
BimMonthlyI� I Comparison
ME
$170 - Y .:.
$150 - - --- - - - .....
_. —.�-_ W/WTTTS
_ $130 ------- _. ..
a. --a�-- W/WT
$110 -------
cn W/WO
$90
�,.-- - -- P/W1TS
>, $70 ----- -- - -- - - — --- -- f
$50 -
S® $30 -
F
N CO d' LO C4 (` w O
7� O O O O O O O O O O O
00 O O r- N M d' lf� CD f` 00
O O O O O O O O O O
d7 O O O O O O O O O O
SDC Comparison ($/EDU )
Option Current Revised*
W/NVTTTS '$21681 $2, 753
W/VVT $2, 681 $2, 765
W/VVO $2,681 $3 , 825
PIWTTS . $2,681 $4, 575
PIWO $2, 681 $5, 717
'Figures are for FY2000/01 . Subsequent years adjusted by ENR.
Sa pieResidential
Wintertime
Water Bills
y
Willamette Annualized
River Portland Billing
Difference
Year With Partners Go It Alone
Capital Only $31 .3 million $90.8 million
Capital + Interest $56.8 million $200.6 million
20:00 $38 $38
2005 $64 $97 '�0
� � '
,0 a .
2009 $166
64
$
2015 $56 $142
,.zt>. :.. .
0 $53 - : { x
$137
202
2025 $43 $77 ''# "
. 'k
4,j%a.l. s�avy.
2030 $40 $71
2035 $41 $55 {
2040 $42 $63
. 0o* mruercial
Water Bills
by Broad Consuption Groups
Willamette River Portland
Withpartners) Go it alone
20001 200,51 2009 20001 20051 2009
Rate per CCF 2.135 3.548 3.548 2.135 5.403 9.205
CCF Approx.
Range % of total
Small Volume Users (1-18) 40% $38 $64 $64 $38 $97 $166
Video rental stores
Banks
Storage
Small Office
Medium Volume Users (25-75) 25% $107 $177 $177 $107 $270 $460
Auto repair
Dental
Copy and print centers
Light manufacturing
Larger Volume Users 20%
Restaurants. (110-140) $267 $444 $444 $267 $675 $1,151
Motels (300-575) $982 $1,632 $1,632 $982 $29485 $49234
Largest Volume Users (500 +) 8%
CITY OF TIGARD
CITY OF TIGARD OREGON
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT
WILLAMETTE,RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
Delivered to WWSA and membership at meeting of June 1, 1999
WWSA membership response to WWSA due no later than August 30, 1999
The City of Tigard delivers this Proposal to Construct(Proposal)the Willamette River Water
Supply System(Project)to the WWSA and its membership for their consideration pursuant to
Section 5.1 of the 1997 WWSA intergovernmental agreement. The Proposal includes this
transmittal document, the governance structure, Attachment 1 to this document, and the
December 1998 Preliminary Engineers Report for the Project(PER), which the WWSA and
members have previously received.
This Proposal is the culmination of four(4) years of action by the City,in coordination with its
WWSA partners and the City of Wilsonville, to evaluate the availability of the Willamette River
as a long term source of high quality drinking water at a competitive cost. Implementation of the
:Proposal will assure Project participants an ownership interest in a water supply system that will
provide high quality water in a manner that is consistent with the Regional Water Supply Plan at
the most competitive cost available. The Proposal will carry out the goal of WWSA to make
efficient use of the water rights held by WWSA for the collective benefit of the participants in
the Project.
Tigard proposes to build the Project as described in the PER,with the governance structure
outlined in Attachment 1. In summary the Proposal is to build:
1. A river intake and raw water pump station system, located approximately at river mile 39,
sized to allow the intake for the ultimate system capacity requirement of 120 mgd;
2. A 3 stage water treatment facility with an initial system capacity of 35 mgd, with the
ultimate system capacity requirement of 120 mgds, and purchase land for the facility;
3. A high service pump station;
4. System administrative facilities co-located with the treatment facility,
5. A transmission line from the treatment facility north to provide connection to the Tigard,
Tualatin and Sherwood systems, sized to accommodate future needs of the TVWD.
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT - Page 1
13125 SW Hall Blvd., Tigard, OR 97223(503)639-4171 TDD(503)684-2772
s,
Cost estimates for the Project are contained in the PER. The governance structure for the Project
will be consistent with the structure outlined in Attachment 1. The Project participants will own
the Project, and management of the Project will be governed by a Project board. Non-
participating WWSA members, and WWSA will retain the later buy in option provided by the
WWSA agreement. WWSA will transfer/assign sufficient water rights to the Project to allow it
to function at planned capacity. Tigard will be the lead agency, responsible for the permitting,
design, construction,administrative management, operation and maintenance of the Project. In
the Project agreement WWSA will transfer responsibility to the Project for the operational
functions reserved to WWSA in the WWSA agreement.
Section 5.1 requires WWSA members to notify WWSA of their acceptance or rejection of this
Proposal to Construct no late than August 30, 1999. Acceptance of the Proposal will be
acceptance of the Project and the governance structure. A failure of a member to respond by that
date will constitute a rejection of the Proposal by that member.
The City of Tigard has undertaken its leadership role in this process with enthusiasm, and the
results being presented in this Proposal provide a sound foundation from which Project
participants will meet the water supply needs of their'constituents for the foreseeable future. The
City is ready to assist any member with its evaluation of this Proposal, and to provide any
additional information or clarification that it can. After receiving and evaluating responses to
this Proposal to Construct the City looks forward to working with WWSA and its membership in
meeting the water supply needs of the region.
7 mc\acm\90024\waterconstruccptl(5/27/99)
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT - Page 2
CITY OF TIGARD
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT
WILLAMETTE RIVER WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
ATTACHMENT 1
GOVERNANCESTRUCTURE
A Project Agreement will be entered into by the original WWSA participants in the
Project and WWSA. It is currently contemplated that once the WWSA and its members
concur with the structure that Wilsonville will be invited to join as an original Project
participant. WWSA and members initially rejecting the Project shall retain the option to
acquire an interest described in Section 5.5 of the WWSA agreement.
The Project will be owned by the participants, with the exact nature of that ownership
interest to be fashioned in consultation with bond counsel. WWSA will transfer to the
Project participants the WWSA interests in the Project contemplated by Sections 4.1, 5.2,
6.1, 6.2,6.3 and 6,4 of the WWSA agreement relating to ownership, sale of wholesale
water and charges for use of transmission lines. WWSA will also transfer/assign to the
Project sufficient water rights for the Project to function at its ultimate planned system
capacity of 120 mgd. See PER Table 2-4.
A Project Board will be created as a ORS 190.080 entity. The Board will consist of one
representative of each participant (either an elected representative or employee of each
participant). WWSA will not have an ownership interest in the Project so it will not have
a member on the Board. Amendment to the Project Agreement must receive the approval
of the governing body of each participant and WWSA. The Board will provide
management oversight of the Project through administration of the terms of the Project
Agreement. The Board will have the authority to approve additional Project participants,
wholesale water sales, rates, wholesale SDC's, transmission line usage policy and fees,
central financing decisions,enforcement of the terms of the Project Agreement, and the
timing of expansion. Actions of the Board will be by dual majority vote based on the
recommendation in Appendix H of the PER.
The Project will be the Project described with cost allocations as defined, by the
December, 1998 Preliminary Engineers Report for the Willamette River Water Supply
System.
Tigard will be designated the lead agency for the Project and Project manager. Tigard
will be responsible for management, design, permitting, construction, operation and
maintenance of the Project on behalf of the entity. Tigard will be given the authority to
carry out these responsibilities in the manner it chooses, subject to the oversight of the
Project Board. A technical committee will be formed to provide advice to the Project
manager.
Page 1
The local funding option will be the choice for initial construction. A mechanism will be
included to minimize the risk to all parties to the extent possible from default by another
party. The agreement will contain a central funding option, to not be exercised until
initial Project construction debt is retired, or retirement is guaranteed through a
refinancing mechanism.
The proposals from Section 5 of the preliminary engindering report for capital cost
allocation principles, O+M principles,capacity rights,rate authority,provision for
latecomers, provisions for system expansion and "must lease", sale of wholesale water,
wholesale SDC's, and depreciation/replacement funding will be included as proposed.
The agreement will also include normal formality provisions, including dissolution,
withdrawal and amendment provisions.
jmc\acm\90024\waterconstruct.ati(5/27/99)
Page 2
rnca
wi Isonvi Ile z_jZ
W
� a cap z
off $°' € V C
- O
Go 69 it Q
V �'7
Your Community --- Your Newspaper Ln c
c�
VOL.14 NO.21 Wednesday,May 26, 1999 TWO SECTIONS—50 CENTS
Water debate as citizens have the' ir' say
Willamette foes aren't Willamette River water and Portland water. Force, the Safest Drinking Water Coalition The City Coun-
It wasn't the last chance for citizen input.
,,/ p (H2OK) and the Willamette Water Supply Is ex
reassured by studies Individuals will have a chance to give their Agency. to e ed
WYM
views at a public hearing scheduled for Portland proponents included Wilsonville - between the
that support river use June 7. Citizens for Safe Water,Tigard Citizens for wlilamette
A council decision will be made either Safe Water and the Oregon Environmental
River and
By CURT KIPP that evening or June 21 — the latter if the Council. '..a�� Portland water
Of The Spokesman council decides more public input is neces- The Wilsonville Chamber of Commerce following a
su'Y• was neutral.Board member Vicki hearingcki Yates said
The scientists have had their say on the Group opinions were fairly evenly split the chamber has not picked an option to en- next month.The river water
city's water dilemma. between the Willamette and Portland, dorse.A decision is expected after a private
. v would be
Now the citizens are having theirs. owing to the balanced list of groups invited forum for chamber members is held May
Invited citizen groups testified before the to speak. 25. drawn from aof
Wilsonville City Council on May 17 regard- Willamette backers included the city of point west the old west
nes
of
ing the upcoming choice between Tigard, the Tigard Water Advisory Task See DEBATE on Page 11 Ferry romp,
PhWo by Tom Aro►fen
.r
vebate
Continued from Page 1 Much of the information presented safe drinking water from sources Portland water as blended-water
has been heard before at previous more polluted than the Willamette, (most from Bull Run, but some
Portland absent council meetings. Manard noted. from city wells)is misleading.
Notably, Portland Water Bureau Still, the hearing did provide anHowever,the fact that.Portland's - Portland has:ysed its wells just 40
officials were not in attendance at opportunity for head-to-head clash- water comes from a protected.wa- days in the past four years,she said.
the meeting — even though their es on a number of important issues. tershed is.unique and .has great Scott concluded that Wilsonville
counterparts from the WWSA were. ❑ "Safest water in region?" value,Manard added. will be getting Bull Run water most
According to Wilsonville city Willamette supporters said the dy- River opponents said that raw of the time—not Columbia River
spokesman Dave Kanner,bureau of- er's finished water would be safer water qualityis important because. well field water.
ficials were asked to make a presen- than Portland's, but opponents treatment cannot possibly'remove However, Safest Drinking Water
cation at the hearing but declined strongly disagreed. . every,hazardous particle, . . Coalition member Kay Hill said
the invitation.He said Portland offi- Tigard Mayor Jim Nicoll quoted Scott cited Dr. Ken Williamson. •Wilsonville would get 26 percent
cials took the position that the facts a Portland official as saying that an engineer at Oregon State;Univer- well water, according to Portland's
of their proposal are already on the Willamette .water would be the sity, who,told the council May 3. proposal.All of the water,including
table. safest in the region under the pro-. that raw water quality is important:. the well water,would be unfiltered, .
Contacted by the Spokesman, posed treatment. (Williamson did conclude that treat-. she said.
Portland water commissioner Erik `Everyone has agreed, including ed Willamette water would be safe, Tigard's task force was very un-
the city of Portland,that if we go to however.) comfortable with the Columbia well
`The Willamette the Willamette River ... we will Bull Run is pristine, whereas the field water, according to member
have the best water of any city in Willamette River Is highly polluted, Mark Mahon.
(advocacy group) the metro area,"Ni coli said. Scott-said. . Meanwhile, Council President
But some river opponents,�in- . "Some of those things in the raw John Helser raised questions of his
is doing a whole eluding Dolores Scott,were skepti- water will get through the filtration own about Portland water.
cal that a Portland official really system,"she added, Helser contended that Bull Run
PR campaign. That'.. said the Willamette was better.. .. The filter system proposed for water,by Portland's own admission,
"if that's.the case, then Portland the Willamette would eliminate 100 hasseveral contaminants.The water
ought to make you should close up and use the Willa= . percent of pollutants initially, Scott has giardia, ttitralomethanes, heavy
n!G 1_� mette River," Scott said with dis- said,but its performance would de- metals, arsenic, and elevated lead
belief. cline overtime. and copper,he said.
Elr& Stell. Both Councilor John Helser and River supporters said that while "I want that on the record,"
.
river supporter Jack Rayborn said Helser said.
Portland water commissioner they remember the comment in �i Portland officials were not there
question. at that meetin in Janu, 'The citizens of to respond, so the Spokesman con-
"I tatted Manard to answer the ques-
Sten said he did not know if an in- ary," Raybom said. "The Portland Wilsonville must tions raised by Heiser's statements.
vitation was received. He said the people said the treated-water will be According to Mangd, lead and
water bureau is available to attend more pure.than Portland's system:' not allow them- -copper are found in Portland tap
any meetings if requested,but add- Gary Betts,a Wilsonville resident water, but they do not come from
ed that the bureau is trying to avoid speaking on behalf.of Tigard Citi- selves to be led the water source or the city's trans-
political discussions and,debates. zens for Safe Water, then attacked mission system. Rather, they leach
"We have tried to stay out of the Portland statement by saying the down the path of • into water from home plumbing—
meetings where people are debating person who made it was not quali- usually from brass faucets.
on what Tigard or Wilsonville. fied to make such a pronouncement. deceit preached by Brass is an au
should do;'Sten said"We're trying No one indicated which Portland alloy,and some brass
to just be factual. I'm not in the official made the statement the opponents Of(the contains higher proportions of lead.
y High dissolved oxygen can cause
mode of trying to sell it—I'm in were all arguing over. However the river)-' the metal to leach out Portland
the mode of saying it's an available official who made the comment in treats its water to reduce this leach-
option to you. question is Rosemary Manard,Port- ing,she said.
"The Willamette is doing a land's director of water quality en- Janet Olmsted Portland treats its water with
whole PR campaign. That ought to gineering. Safest Drinking Water Coalition chlorine to reduce giardia. Triha-
make you think. I'm not saying the Given the apparent disagreement lomethanes are treatment byprod-
information is inaccurate.But,you'd or confusion over Manard's January ucts suspected to cause cancer.T'he
never see us doing anything like statements,the Spokesman contact- treatment won't remove every con- chlorine treatment does result in tri-
that' ed her Monday for clarification on tarriinant, it will remove enough of halomethanes as a byproduct, but
Sten added that Wilsonville offi- the matter. them to be safe. the benefits of disinfectin the wa-
cials have been very gracious and Manard said it was never her in- Safest Drinking Water Coalition ter outweigh the risks frgom treat-
professional in keeping him up to tent to say that either source — (H2OK)member Janet Olmsted cit- meat byproducts,Manard said.
date during every step of the water Portland or the Willamette — ed the panel of scientists who testi- The most dangerous trihalome-
snurce selection process.- would better. fied May 3 that treated Willamette thanes would not be present in very
least one speaker at the May Rather,her intent was to commu- water would be safe. These were large amounts because Portland's
.caring noted that the Willa- nicate that both sources.are safe well-qualified, well-trained experts, system is low in bromide,she said.
mette option has an agency actively based on drinking water standards, she said. Portland may have trace,natural.
pushing it, and the Portland option though neither is absolutely risk- Willamette River water quality ly occurring amounts ofarsenlo and
does not. free. will improve if the river is selected. heavy metals in its system, but not
We don't have an entity that's "The real message I tried to bring because of"increased stewardship;' at unsafe levels,Manard said.
been hired to advocate for the Port- to that meeting is, there is no such Olmsted added. Site had strong :'' ❑ Cost.'Although most people
land system," 'Marshall!Gillmore . thing•as risk-free tap water," Man- words.for:,WiIlamette_,:opporiaats,•.y.believe,the 'AthIssue ol wamost quality le
said "Tha ,$.mirth io the;detdmenr:...ard'said,,,''"Iris;js,im issue:v4here it's 18is
�+ttig't$d have preyed on people's paramount, both sides bad argu.
of making an informed decision" not apples and apples.This is nota .fears. ;;,';•i; . ,. ; '
inerts' to;make:-about how water
Gillmore is a member of the anti- matter of better and worse. I don't "The mcitizens of Wilsonville must', rates should impact the decision.
river group Wilsonville Citizens for think anyone in the city (of Port- not allow themselves to be led down Wilsom�ille officials recently re-
Safe Wateri land)wants to say the Willamette is theath of deceit reached 'leased rate
tes showing
Though Portland water officials better or the Bull Run is better." ponents of this issue,"she said..op- .Portland water would be more exit
were absent, the groups that did Cities such as New Orleans and ❑ Portland water makeup.
speak covered familiar ground. Cincinnati use treatment to produce Scott argued that referring to the See DEBATE an Page 14
Page 14—Wilsonville Spokesman,Wednesday,May 26,1999
Debate '
Continued from Page 11 based on numbers that have not been According to Mahon, a provision the city can sell more than surplus "This seems t
negotiated,"he said. in Portland's city charter states that water,he said. o have more to do
Pensive than Willamette water, ex- In the Spokesman interview, Sten the city can sell only "surplus Mahon's objections to Portland than the with gooredtpUb�l�dand poCh y�onl
cept in a few select instances. The said Portland is willing to negotiate water,"and Portland was not willing water didn't stop with the city char- than said. "The treatment plant
Le-
rate estimates were generated by a with cities about water terms; if the to discuss changing it. ter. r also said Portland is not will- p
paid consultant. cities are serious about wanting Port- proposed by Tigard is unnecessary
Nicoli told Wilsonville councilors land water. ing to negotiate a water deal until the and a waste of money."
that Tigard opted for Willamette However,Tigard officials made itc cities involved commit to it. Lewotsky said many cities spend
water because recent experience has clear to him that they wanted to go With conservation That situation would give Tigard more on water ca ital im
shown that Portland water can be to the Willamette. ' and Wilsonville little choice but to
very expensive. Sten noted that Portlan p pmvements
we dont need to accept Portland's terms, Mahon be-. than on conservation. Tigard has
d already even spent more on public relations
Tigard currently buys Portland spent a lot of time and move on its Heves.
water as well as Lake Oswego water. initial, report released in December, address raising the "Who's in the driver's seat? The Promoting the Willamette plant than
According to Nicoli, Tigard is pay- He said he didn t see the point in seller is,"he said on conservation,she said.
g p Y P two dams. We have The task force preferred the Wil- Lewotsky did pose the city of
ing Portland $1.23 per 100 cubic spending more money to generate
feet for water wholesale this year— numbers or information that Tigard not adequately ad- mo ette because f would give e' and Wilsonville for its "intelligent" con-
almost double the old rate of 67 officials would use as ammunition more control of how, where and servation plan while still saying that
when money is spent,Mahon said, more conservation is needed.
cents per CCF Tigard's customers, against the Portland option.
dressed that in this River opponents did not dispute But Helser said conservation isn't
in tum,pay $1.32 per CCF on aver- 0 Certainty of supply. Willa- ,
age for that water. mette supporters said a treatment region. that a Willamette plant would give the answer in Wilsonville:
The increase came because Port- plant on the river is the only sure local governments control. "We've done every bit of conser-
more
land penalized Tigard for using too way to guarantee water is availableHowever, the OEC's Karen Lewot- vation we can do now,"he said. "It's
much water, said Ed Wegner, Tig- for local residents. - Karen Lewotsky sky said the issues of control and not going .to handle our water
ard's public works director. The "It is the only way to have ab- Oregon Environmental Council ownership of the new water supply needs." .
penalty-was part of Tigard's contract solute control over the quality and are trivial to local residents. What Lewotsky also believes Portland
with Portland• quantity of our water,"Olmsted said. they really care about is water quali- will not need to raise its two Bull
she sai .Portland proponents maintained Portland supporters countered that It's hard to say how "surplus
ty,Tigard's desire to build a water even Run dams though Potlawater deands,
nd anticipates
that future contracts with Portland the city of Portland is more willing water" is defined, Mahon added, treatment plant on the Willamette doing just at some point in the
are negotiable and need not include to negotiate on price and certainty That made the Tigard task force ner- River was driven b
such harsh penalties. than river supporters are willing to vous,he said. Y politics, not future.
shortages,Lewotsky said. "With conservation, we don't
Meanwhile, Gillmore said Wil- admit.
sonville's estimates of the cost of
Jim Hansen, a member of Tigard In fact, Lewotsky asserted that need to address raising the two
River proponents fired back that Citizens for Clean Water, disputed Tigard's water shortage can be dealt dams." she said. "We have not ade-
going to Portland are too high. Portland's willingness to negotiate is Mahon's claims. A memo from the with through conservation rather quately addressed that in this re-
"The data that is shown tonight is hampered by its own city charter. Portland city attorney maintains that than construction.
gion."
Tzmza) / ley
Tap Willamette;
allow the debate
The Tigard City Council Tuesday night should approve a plan to util-
ize treated Willamette River water as the city's primary source of drink-
ing water.
The decision will make many concerned citizens very unhappy.And
it will set the stage for Citizens for Safe Water,who oppose the use of
Willamette water,to require a vote next fall on the matter by Tigard
rcaistcrcd voters.
But the council's decision to proceed with treated Willamette water is
the right one.A full public discussion,an educational campaign covering
all viewpoints and scientific information,and an eventual citizen vote
should not be feared.Let's have a full, fair debate by Willamette sup-
porters and opponents.
That's the way it should be.
The debate's outcome not only will help decide Tigard's water supply
for the future,but also could determine water supply for Durham, King
City,unincorporated Tigard,Tualatin,Wilsonville,Sherwood and pos-
sibly areas of Beaverton served by the Tualatin Valley Water District.
That is,if citizens' votes are motivated by fact,need and cost.
But along the way,personal conviction,emotion and perception might
complicate a public review of the issue.This was evidenced by tes-
timony that a citizen offered last week before the Tigard City Council.
At least one person said,"The thought of drinking that is dreadful."
We can sympathize.For years we have been told that the Willamette
is a dreary,dirty waterway and the alternative,Bull Run water,is among
the nation's purest water sources.
In both,there is some truth.And some fiction.
The city of Tigard has done a good job in spearheading the controver-
sial review of where to get water for this region's future.
But even then,some folks are miles apart on the issue.And we admit
that even after significant future debate and public education by both
sides,some people will determine their vote on their perception of drink-
ing water taken from a river that some consider polluted.
To date,the city of Tigard wisely has sought to base its decision on
key issues—not perception,or misperception.
Water quality is the key issue.City officials say their studies indicate
that treated Willamette River water will be of the highest quality and safe
for human consumption.Opponents dispute the studies.
Tigard also has addressed the need for a reliable water system for the
region.As the Portland area.grows in the next 20 years by more than
500,000 people and our economy expands,a balanced water supply is
critical.That supply needs to diversify beyond the region's recent system
that heavily relies on Portland's Bull Run system.
Bull Run is,and will remain,a high-quality,reliable water source.But
expansion of Bull Run to meet future growth will be subject to environ-
mental limitations,and its operation could be imperiled by natural dis-
asters,including flooding,landslides or seismic disturbances around
Mount Hood.Adding other sources of water means we have a backup
supply.
The water debate also should focus on cost.Which systems are the
` most cost-effective and provide taxpayers a predictable expense and
return?
We have been impressed by Tigard's tenacity on this.Councilors and
staff have led the way and taken the heat for jurisdictions throughout
eastern W-ishington•County.And ihis from'acity that typically neither
takes risks noir leads public policy debate.
But of late—as long-term water relations have broken off with Lake
Oswego—.this is a city that feels it has no assurance of where it will get
water and how much that water will cost.
As a result,quiet Tigard has been the leader in helping shape a public
decision on future water sources for the region.
That decision should be advanced Tuesday night by a council decision
to affirm use of treated Willamette River water.And it's a decision that
should no(he endangered if citizens say they want a right to vote on the
m:Utcr
3
Drinking the Willamette
Tigard officials are leading the.suburbs to the river to drink,
while customers are bashing—and both have good reasons
rinking from the Willamette would impound enough water to serve
River isn't our first choice, the area for 200 years.
but if Tigard's residents From the suburbs' standpoint, tak-
want to take a sip, that ing water from the Willamette would
ought to be just fine with Portlanders. mean they would control their own
But the idea is unsettling enough source and not be dependent on rate,
that city leaders had better make sure conservation and other demands
that Tigard residents do want to take made by Portland.
that sip, and give them the chance to Most of the concerns have been
vote on their water source. about cost and the quality of water
Tuesday evening, the Tigard City they'll be"drinking. Staying with Bull
Council is scheduled to choose be- Run would be a bit cheaper in the
tween drinking-water sources, after short Tun, but more expensive.later,
months of study and controversy.Offi- as Portland adds to its system.
cials looking to the river say it will After weeks of questioning and por-
meet federal drinking water standards ing over reports, a citizens task force
after treatment. Opponents argue voted 22.3 for the Willamette. .
otherwise,challenging both the analy- One of the most difficult concerns to
ses and federal standards for address was raised by a six-year study
drinking-water safety. by the state Department of Envv400n-
It's much more than a local deci- mental Quality. It found .defortned
sion.if Tigard chooses to tap the Wil- squawfish in*the'Newberg pool, a 35-
lamette, Sherwood, Tualatin, King .mile stretch of the river"from New-
City,
ewCity, Durham and Wilsonville are se- berg to Oregon.City.The study did not
riously considering joining in. Port- conclude what caused the deformities;
land also has a.stake in the decision, and the'discovery is a rallying point
because the broader the Bull Run sys- . for those opposed to the river,
tem's user base, the more ratepayers Corvallis and Adair Village tap the
who help cover its costs. Willamette for their drinking water
We're inclined to go along with Ti- without documented health.problems.
gard officials in this case. Kevin ganway,' executive;director of
For one thing,both the 1992 drought the Willamette Water Supply:Agency,
and the slides of 1995 and .1997 that comprising seven`water suppliers in
plugged the now of some water from the area, avowed, "We haven't•found
Bull Run for a time are strong argu anythft in the.river that we cannot
ments for providing another major get out. of the water. We .have done .
source of water for the region. more testing than anyone•else has
From Portland's particular perspec done.We feel confident it is safe."
tive, not providing water to the.grow- Tigard officials.have given:citizens
ing southwest suburbs would.extend plenty of information and opportunity
the calendar for raising the two exist- to express their views. Many remain
ing dams or building a third one at skeptical, however, and are asking to
Bull Run. Raising the dams would vote—and they should.
meet all regional water needs for.the As planners may discover, you can
next 50 years,says Portland City Com- lead Tigard to water, but you can't
missioner Erik Sten. A third dam make it drink.
F—i--Thursday, April 29, 1999
r
A
A
Newgroup � . s
supports
711 q
use of the
Willamette
River opponents could
start gathering petition
signatures this week
By CURT KIPP tant for people to know that accept-
Of The Spokesman ing the 'us versus them' image por-
trayed by others is really seeing only
Just as one citizen group is gearing up half of the picture."
for a petition drive to require a vote on Rayborn said the group will try to
any use of the Willamette River for city debunk some of the objections raised
water, another group has formed — this by WCSW and a similar group in
one in support of tapping the river. Tigard. "Inflammatory comments
The Safest Drinking Water Coalition and scare tactics may get attention,
-has members in Tigard and Wilsonville, but they don't give you any real in-
both of which are cities that may decide formation,"he said.
to use the river. Co-chair Jack kaybom Like the petition backers,Raybom
represents Wilsonville, while co-chair views the petition as a public refer-
Bob Rohtf,a former Tigard city councilor, endum on the Willamette River. He
represents liigard. urged voters to examine all the evi-
The primary goal is to secure the dence before signing the petition.
safest, most practical, most economical "I'm recommending tl�ey do not
drinking water,"spokeswoman Trish Con- sign the petition until they read the
rad said. "We think the evidence shows published data,"Raybom said."I be-
that the water plant on the Willamette is lieve that people who have had the
the way to do that. opportunity to review the informa-
"Most people want the same things we
want, and I think WCSW (Wilsonville tion will realize that astate-of--the-art
Citizens for Safe Water)would want the treatment plant will produce the best
same thing. We just disagree on what the water."
safest source is.'
SDWC organizers say they represent a
silent majority that favors the Willamette
River.
"There is more than one side to this
issue," Rohlf said. "We think it is impor-
x
? Paid Ad%
TIGARD
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE TIGARL)
OREGON CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE 1-BILL OF RIGHTS. Section L Natural rights inherent in people
and all free governments arefounded on their authority,and instituted for their peace safety,and happutm,and
• Mr.Mayor and Councilors:Governing bodies are elected to carry out the will of the people.
History shows that on occasion when governing bodies attempt to do something that is against
the will of the vast majority of the people,things such as'Boston Tea Parties,and revolutions
occur. On April 27,you will be making a decision on our future water source which may
affect over 100,000 people. You will be voting on whether to continue using primarily Bull
Run water,or changing to Willamette River water as the Tigard Water District's water source
for the next 50 years. This decision will affect not only those in Tigard,but also residents in
King City,Durham,Wilsonville, Sherwood,and ultimately those in Tualatin and the Tualatin
Valley Water District.This is a momentous decision to be made by you five individuals.
The Citizens for Safe Water members have been gathering petition signatures and talking to
residents in the Tigard Water District.for almost a year,and over 90%of them do not want to
drink Willamette river water.When we are out gathering signatures the one question we get
asked the most is "What is driving this city toward the Willamette, when the Bull Run(one of
the six purest water sources in the country)is available?"There is only a small minority group
of individuals which is pursuing the filter plant. What gives you the right to force the citizens
to use the Willamette river when over 90%of them are against it?You as Council members
are supposed to represent the will of the people. But instead,you have allowed the City to
promote theWillamette River option,and negate the Bull Run option. Some of you have
actively campaigned for the Willamette. Over a year ago the city pledged$162,000 of taxpay-
er dollars and hired a public relations firm to promote the river.The city then employed a bla-
tant strategy of promotion,deception,lies,a rush to accomplish their mission,an aggressive
spending of taxpayer dollars to fight the citizens who are opposed to their plan,and they have
conducted an"end run"strategy to make it look like they had citizen input,without actually
getting it.
Some of these tactics are 1.The Nov `97 focus group study of 12 Tigard residents w�o
were put into a room for 2 hours, lectured on the merits of the filter plant,and paid$50 each.
This is the only survey done before you,mayor Nicoli,announced in Jan. `98 that the City was
building the filter plant.2.The CTT meetings last year which were used to"sell"the i
Willamette,but the citizens were not allowed to express an opinion. 3.The Sept."98 tele-
phone survey where residents were asked to weight the importance of 8"criteria"of a water
source,and later at the Oct.20 council meeting,you completely changed the order of the cri-
teria,moving ownership from last to the number 4 position,deleted some criteria and added
others,to make it more favor the Willamette. The city even put out a false press release to the
media,saying that as a result of this survey the citizens were"equally divided"on their prefer-
ence of Bull Run or Willamette river water,even though there was no question in the survey
that asked for a preference,and the Willamette and Bull Run options were not even mentioned.
4.The"Citizen Task Force"in which 30"independent unbiased residents" were selected by
you and a few members of city staff to"study"the water issue for 6 weeks and then give a rec-
ommen4ation to the council. Over half those selected were present or former councilors,may-
ors,and members of the Tigard Water Board or Intergovernmental Water Board-hardly an
independent selection. At the Feb. 9 council meeting you.,mayor Nicoli,admitted that you
personally knew half of the members. If there are citizens who are not affiliated with a City or
a water district who are in favor of the Willamette, we have not found them. To this day you
refuse to poll the people as to their preference,because you know the citizens would over-
whelmingly prefer Bull Run. A recent survey of Wilsonville residents showed that 78%pre-
ferred Bull Run. If the filter plant is built,the city of Portland will not accept Willamette
water even as an emergency drinking water source.Some of you have said that there is only a
"small minority"of citizens who are opposed to the Willamette.
W �"LA
D CITY COUNCIL from THE PEOPLE
pte. We declarr that aU men,when they fore:-.socia[compact are equal in right that OR power u inherent in the people,
2nd they have at all times a right to alter,rrefonn„or abolish the govemvwu m such roamer as they may think pamper
If you truly believe this, why are you afraid of allowing a vote of the people?
As you know,the group formed to build the filter plant is called the Willamette Water Supply
Agency(WWSA). Councilor Hunt,you are the chairman of this agency. During the last year,
you have been campaigning for and selling the Willaette River option. Mr.Hunt,you have
an EXTREME conflict of interest in this issue. You must certainly abstain from voting on
Apr.27. If you do not,there will certainly be ethical issues in your actions,and perhaps legal
ramifications. Mr.Hunt,you and the City have been stressing the importance of`ownership"
of a water source. A few months ago,some members of the Canby Utility Board spoke for an
hour at the WWSA meeting,relating the bad experiences the City of Canby had after the
acquisition of PGE by Enron. After the takeover,Enron would not honor the existing contracts
the city had with PGE. They expressed their concerns that if the filter plant is built, that Enron
could end up owning it. And yet,beginning next month, after the Apr.:27 vote of this council,
the WWSA is going to begin coordinating and funding a workshop on"privatization of public
water utilities". The workshop will be conducted by consultants,and will discuss how private
companies(such as PGE or Enron)might approach public water utilities to discuss privatiza-
tion and partnership possibilities. Does this mean that the cities will approve and build the
fdter plant,and then sell part or all of it to a company such as Enron?
Municipalities only go to polluted sources such as the Willamette when there is no other
source available.And a filter plant is a BLACK HOLE for expense. The operating cost is
six times that of gravity fed Bull Run water.Every time the EPA changes the water standards,
the plant must be modified.The proposed lowering of the Arsenic limits alone could double
the cost of the filter plant,which would invalidate all current cost projections. If this plant is
built,property values will undoubtedly decrease.
There is no rush to make a decision, There is plenty of water for another 15 years.
Wilsonville could solve their immediate shortage by doing what Sherwood just did and byd a
line(estimated at$3 million)from Tualatin to supply Bull Run Water. l
The City of Portland Water Bureau planning staff has been working on a plan to bring Bull
Run water from the Powell Butte reservoir to the SW cities of Wilsonville,Tualatin,Sherwood
and Tigard by way of a Southwest route commonly known as the"Clackamas Intertie."From
Powell Butte the Intertie generally follows the I-205 corridor ending at 1;75. The Intertie could
connect with the Clackamas water facility which has the capability for an additional 60 million
gallon per day production expansion.The significance of the Intertie is the construction of a
critical supply line that will complete a supply loop for the Bull Run system. The supply loop
greatly enhances the reliability and security of the entire region's water supply. This
Interne would be less expensive for both Tigard and Wilsonville,than expanding the
Washington County Supply Line. We request you to stop, take a serious look at the
Clackamas Intertie option,and Iook at a realistic independently produced cost comparison of
the Willamette and Portland options.The residents of Tigard will be paying for this water
and forced to bath in it and drink it. They should certainly have a say in whether they
continue to drink Bull Run water,or are required to change to the Willamette River. This
Council has been elected to cant'out the will of the citizens of Tigard. You should certainly
allow the citizens a vote on this extremely important issue. Citizens for Safe Water has already
collected enough signatures to place the measure on the ballot in September to require a vote
of the people before the Willamette can be used as a drinking water source. We strongly
request you to hold off on your further expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the construction of
the filter plant until after this election. To do otherwise would certainly be ethically(and pos-
sibly legally) irresponsible.
Citizens for Safe Water 590-2818 Email drj@hevanet.eom
i
i l � 40w
;ould appear on Sept. 21 ballon
Iv�
SUSAN DOHERTY COLLEEN TATOM DARCY FRISBY i
Where should Tigard get its drinking water — from
the Willamette River, or Portland's Bull Run reservoir?
SUSAN DOHERTY(45,Tigard):"I'm not really wild COLLEEN TATOM(18,Tigard):"I think they should
about drinking Willamette River water.I'd like to see go with the Bull Run.Why?All I know is that the
more evidence that it's safe to drink.I haven't gone Willamette is disgusting.I'll boat in it,but I won't
to any public forums because I have a really busy swim in it,and they want us to drink it?It's full of
life.I'd be worried to have my kids drink it.I know garbage.The water we drink now is fine,and
what the city wants—to go to the Willamette.I everybody knows the Willamette is one of the most
think that citizens need to have more input in this polluted sources in the country."
decision.I signed the Citizens for Safe Water petition
because I want the right to vote about this.I don't DARCY FRISBY(27,Tigard):"Obviously,1 wouldn't
know what I'd vote yet. I need to do more research." want to drink Willamette River water.I stopped
water skiing in it in 1993.It just smells disgusting."
DON LEWIS(75,Tigard):"This has really been quite DONNA BONFOEY(30,Tigard):"I'd rather not drink
an issue lately.I feel like the city has already decided Willamette River water when the fish in it are found
what they want to do—and that's to go the Wil- with deformed scales. If they go with the Willamette,
lamette.Maybe it would be a good source,'if they I'll be buying bottled water from now on. I don't
can clean it up,but the indications now are that it is want my kids drinking that water,and I don't want to
not safe." drink it either—maybe I'd develop scales."
Willamette River can be made safe to drink, saysex ert
p
Engineer cites studies According to Obermeyer,the current tests were missed or had to be thrown out. something Bull Run does not:organic costa- ,
support the some conclusion as previous tests Obermeyer acknowledged the disqualified minants. y
dating back to 1991 on the river— namely, that the water has samples, but said that some — not all — "These are not present in Bull Run, and
trace contaminants but meets safe drinking were retaken: you would not expect them to be;'he said. s
8 water standards even without treatment. Some chemicals have been tested for on a pa speaks
By CURT KIPP CatlirCil,.Community
The prior tests she cited included a water weekly basis,some on a monthly basis and Dredging and dioxin?
Of The Spokesman treatment pilot study commissioned by the some on a quarterly basis. However, Obermeyer pointed out, both Ifs will give
Tualatin Valley Water District in 1994, a Obermeyer listed the problems encoun- Bull Run and the Willamette River have Iiw to eval-
Water quality studies conducted since TVWD water monitoringram from tered so far. equivalent amounts of dioxin,an extremelyiestfh>�
1991 rove the Willamette River would be a program g Pe eq P y paper Rive*ase water
P 1994 to 1996,and samplingb the U.S.Ge- ❑ An Aug. 2l, 1998,test for pesticides toxic chemical produced b a r bleachin "rt8 are.scheduled to
good municipal water source, according.to ographical Survey from 1991 to 1995. was disqualified because,the•sample was held processes. Fdster,Department
Lisa Obermeyer. Both current and previous tests occasional- too long for the test to be valid.The sample Although the Bull Run Watershed'is a pro- 'Quality; Dr. James
Oberneyer, a supervising engineer with ly,found trace amounts of hazardous chemi- was retaken Sept.23 tected one,dioxin enters the system via at- b`t din'University: Dr•
the environmental firth Montgomery Watson, cals in the main stem of theriver. ❑ A Nov.2 test for pesticides was held mospheric deposition,Obermeyer said. ;dragon':State Univer-
presented an overview of recent river testing A test conducted in August 1998 detected too long.An attempt to resample failed due Scott expressed concern about dredging Williamson, Oregon
to Wilsonville councilors April 19.It was the an herbicide,simazine,by one water testing to pump flooding. on the Willamette,which he said could stir '`Questlons will be
same presentation Tigard's Water Advisory method. However, two other test- up dioxin in the sediments at the 'rx.rteil and the public.
Task Force heard before recommending the ing methods did not detect the her- bottom of the river. He asserted
Willamette River over city of Portland water. bicide. that some traces of dioxin in the
(The Tigard City Council was scheduled to Dichloromethane was detected We tried to focus on (any chemicals) Willamette will pass through treat- processes proposed for the plant would re-
ick a water source.April 27, after ss ► mo 25 to 30 percent of the TOC,Glicker
P P Pre during November's testing.It had that could possibly be in the river. Ment and wind up in the finished
time.) not been previously detected. water.He did not say whether this
Armed with an overhead projector and mi- Simazine had not been detectedwould also ha with Bull Run In addition, the ozonation process alters
crophone, Obermeyer explained the testing in Lisa Oberme err "
Past,but a similar herbicide, y water,which initially would be un- organic matter in the water so that it canna
techniques and protocols used to monitor the atrazine,was found in 19%4 Montgomery Watson engineer filtered. bond with chlorine in the transmission sys-
Willamette River's water quality for the city Dichloromethane is an industrial Heiser also asked whether rem to form disinfectant by-ptoductsi Glicker
of Tigard since July 1998. contaminant. Simazine and dredging of the river would ever be ted' „
Montgomery Watson has looked for 250 atrazine arc suspected endocrine disrupters used to lower water temperatures for the sakes P �g°rO�
chemicals in the current testing.The compa- — chemicals that interfere with human ❑ Four out of 35 weekly samples sched- of endangered fish. In addition to discussing test results,Ober-
growth arrived at the list of 250 chemicals by growth and development. uled so far were missed due to pump failure, Glicker replied that riparian im- meyer talked about tbe process used forgath-
"combining as many lists of concern as we However, contaminant amounts were in largely as a result of flooding problems. provements, such as the planting of shade ering samples and testing them.
could think of;”Obermeyer the Each sample is packed on ice and sent to
Berney parts per billion range, well below the Obermeyer took questions from the coon- trees.on tributaries,are much more likely to an independent laboratory b Federal Ex-
"We tried to think of everything we could maximums allowed under treated water sten- cil and audience after her presentation:. Ice ependen pry y
be used to improve fish habitat. rens,she said.The independent lab is not re-
possibly think of,"Obermeyer said."We tried dards, Obermeyer said.Treatment will fur- Glicker,vice president of Montgomery Wet-. P
to focus on anything that could possibly be in Cher remove the•chemicals,she-added. son,assisted her. '7 don't think dredging would do much for lated to Montgomery Watson.Once the sam-
the river:' Whether the existing standards are enough In response to a question from Councilor temperature,"he said ples arrive,each is assigned an identification
Chemicals tested included all of those reg- to ensure the safety of finished water is,of John Heiser,Glicker said the Willamette has Willamette opponent Gary Betts asked number, rather than beingidentified on the
ulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act,all course,contested by opponents of the Willa- produced results similar to other water several questions about the removal of total basis of where it came from.The laboratory
of those on the Environmental Protection mette. sources his company has tested in the North- organic carbon. uses EPA-approved testing methods and un-
Agency's candidate contaminant list, all of Obermeyees presentation came one week Hest, According to Glicker, 99 percent of the dergoes blind performance evaluations.Qual-
the chemicals ever detected by the USGS after Dr. Charles Scott, a Wilsonville resi- "In many ways, the Willamette River is TOC in the river is simply decayed organic ity control is"rigorous,'Obermeyer•said.
anywhere in the Willamette River basin,and dent, criticized gaps in Montgomery Wat- typical of water supplies in the Northwest," matter that occurs naturally, with the rest Montgomery Watson's testing will contin-
chemicals from a list of endocrine-disrupting son's current sampling of the river. Glicker said. consisting of synthetic organics.The ozona- ue through July,when a final report will be
chemicals. Scott was critical of several samplings.that He added that the Willamette basin has -tion and granular-activated carbon treatment presented.
Page 2 Wilsonville Spokesman,Wednesday,May 19, 1999
•
Wilsonville residents face
expensive water options
Budget panel The estimates do give Portland The rate increase will take effect
proponents a glimmer of hope. July I if approved by the City Coun-
OKs 22 percent Water rates using the Willamette cil. No council members have ob-
River would be slightly rnurc ex- jetted to it so far.
water rate hike pensive than Portland for two to An earlier set of rate estimates,
three fiscal years under ceitair sce- presented May I1 to the Budget
By CURT KIPP _ narios. Committee, showed an even greater
Rates with Portland would be difference between the two water
Of The Spokesman more expensive thereafter.however. choices.
Although the.figures are.just esti- That estimate shows thai the aver.
Wilsonville officials presented mates,city officials said the numbers age customer will save$527 per year
their latest estimates of future water in 2005 if Wilsonville goes to the
rates to the City Council on May 17, Willamette River for its water. The
making two things perfectly clear. difference would increase to $569
Water customers are sure to be `f f this commuYtity per year in 2010, but then decline to
soaked, whether the city chooses f $484 in 2020 and$196 in 2025.
Willamette water oblended Port- Wants to go to "These are for comparative land water. And it will happen poses only," city Finance Directorwhether Wilsonville tii as forward Portland, It Will Gary Wallis said. "There still needs
alone or with other cities as partners.
Right now,the average water cus- have to go it alone., to be further study."water. In five Willamette bimonthly The rate gap between the Portland
for 18 cubic feet of w
tomer is paying $30. and options has widened
years, that will probably double --- .Jeff Bauman since previous estimates because of
or more. one change: Tigard has cho¢en the
According to current estimates, Public Works Director Willamette River.
the average bimonthly bill for 18 "The numbers we gave you before
units of water will range from were going to Portland with part-
ners,' Public Works Director. Jeff
$59.19 to$97.27 in 2004-2005.
demonstrate the price difference be- Bauman told the committee. "If this
The lower figure is for Wilson-
ville
n-
ville treatment plant built with tween the two water options being community wants to go to Portland,
part- considered
it will have to go it alone:'
nets. The latter is for a Wilsonville
Whether Portland or the Willa- However, Lee questioned that as-
connection to the Portland water sys- mette is.chosen,city officials want to sumption. A citizen vote could still
tem without any partners. ease customers into the expected
overturn Tigard's decision,he noted.
Other permutations — such as
Portland with partner of the Willa- "Fater rate increases—starting now. "they haven't gone that way"Leemette without partners -- would lie A 22 percent increase was in- said. "It's not absolute yet:*
somewhere in the middle,rate-wise. chided it,the 1999-2000 city budget, Still, the river will be less expen-
The same trends would continue which was approved by the Budget sive no matter what, according to
through the final year of this latest Currintittee on May 11, City Manager Arlene L.oble.
batch of estimates. Committee member John Lee Jr. "If we went to the Willamette
In 2008-2009, the average water objected to raising rates now to pay River all by ourselves, it would be
bill is expected to range from$63.86 for improvements that wilt come substantially cheaper than if we went
(if Wilsonville goes to the later. He moved to eliminate the 22 to Portland with partners;' L.oble
Willamette with partners)to$165.69 percent increase for this year. said. "Under any scenario. the
of Wilsonville gets its water from Howc,.ci, Lee's motion died with- Willamette River will be less expen-
Portland without any partners). out a second. sive:'
The Boones F&y Messenger
4PA message from The Most Polluted fiver in the UJ*?
Cs Just one of the Claims we've heard throtrgttout We W111amette basin have sigr
the Mayor about the Willamette Rlv<r during the cantly altered eh habitat(e g..stream
AS the ply Gonads has grappled with the course of public debate over whether chaxmeltzation:filling of wetlands:damegt
A
ez�e S M 9lyw City
Co issue of sang-tam water it's appropriate to even consider the river as a spawning habitat,etc.). So its tair to say
ty
supply.we have wanted through an incredible drinking water source. if you're a ttskt,the Wfilamette maybe am(
amount of informatiorg some of it supplied by We%m also heard some very scary rhetoric the most impacted watersheds in the nad,
the city staff.some by outvidc consultants. thrown around regarding cancer.endocrine But in terms of water quality,aceordtr
some by the City of Portlarad and some by disruptom,dio#m and agricultural pesticides_ the Enviroaiaental Protection Agency,the
Wilsonville citizens. these
been busting our buns researching &itddle Willamette(the stretch from Salem
f laic input,vet must these issues t rying to find out whatb fact and Oregon City)Is in relattvdy good shape. Z
As we absorb all o
deride not only what f relevant.we must what's Action. so let's take a good hard look EPA gave the allddle Willamette a wore of
separatt fact from belief or opinion. at what weVe kid and wbat wenn found ouL on its lndcx of watershed indicators,whir'
One of the two water supply options still irst.it's t to understand what rates every waterebo in the U.S.for its
under eonatderation 18 a ntiatment plant on overall health on a 1.6 scale.with 1 being
kind of testing has actually been done "better water quality'and 6 bdng`more
the wM mette laver(the other Is a connection on the Willamette River and how the inions water quality problcnrs" The Char
to the City of Portland for a bland of Bull Run treatment proceca works_ mas Raver(which serves Take Oswego.We
and Columbia River west field water)and over in tests dating back to 1894.the aagineer-
the course of more than a year of public mo mg firm of M - tiand marry utas
debate on that option.marry things have been cities
n in uas
said that are have come to learn am simply etY Watson tested for '7J you're a,f�Sh, the W((iCutZette mcu,/ �� was�also 6C
not true. any chemical that had be �tpng the most OVOCbed water- at 3 and the Tualatl
ever been dctect ed at
we have consistently rv*alned from an level anywhere in sfteds in the rLttt(orL But(rt terms of Rives'.which suppli<
publicly correcting those naestateruents for theWillamette a River water quality, according to the Erwt drinking water port
tear that we would be accused°(having a basin by the U.S. rortmental Protection Agency: the of Washington Cour
4.
bias for the Willamette River option. However. Geologicalw'�'5 as Mfrom.f to addition.(ddle VAUamette (the stretch was scored .
the
in this issue of the sooner Ferry Mcasengerl
m the rather lengthy article at right,we will there
as any wasaeon cal m to Oregon Ctttjl is in rEta(ivety report of ft laovtn
to
-ess some of the myths and misstatements rt good shape." V�►illamttte River Ba
-otn This is rat to suggest that we on the believemigh Task Force states 0
.naris have made up our minds-we suers if It hadn't been -Must experts agree that the Willamette R
haven't. But when the tune comes for us to detected by USGS.as well as.of course.all is probably in better health today than it
a decision.we intend to make that EPA regulated contarni rants and all EPA been for a century." The rpr�ppoort then goer
raven
makeon on the bests of facts. candidate contaminants. This is by far the to address the problems that still need to
most thorough testing of any water source tackled.
I hope you will.too- anywhere in the U.S. FYnally wewt Come across a list of"M
* a * Almost all of these contaarinartts are not
On the prison front.one local duzat most polluted Livers or waterbodies>n Liu
described the currant state of affairs as'the pneserrt�� ����U/ti(alrtette U.S.'pnb113hed by the F-nvirocuriantal W
cad "to the light to t a prison an River nec>r wdsmwil(e- Those that are detected Ing Croup,a Washington.DC,lobbying,
name p�� P are present at keels that are below safe research and public information orgardu
the Dammasch State HOSPItal. diking water maximums and all can be -rhc Willamette appears on that list at 85
Unfortunately.both the House and Senatc removed by the Droposed treatment process. dead last. C1'his list measures only total t
sem to be helbbent on a bill(Saaate Bill 3) The treatment process to what s called a
that viould unite Dammasch and re-atte the multi-barrier osone/QAC system. Sediments on ac
wamea e prison and tntalke Center to Umatilla. arc removed from the raw water.ozone gas
This is despite the Govcrn0es promise of a kills bacteria and microbial pathogens.and a a 9
veto and the fact that tan votes are not there granular activated carbon filter removes e ti 3 G
to ovtrside a veto in either chamber of the rowalnbV contaminants. 'rine system is H z
�• designed to meet or exceed all existing and
The rzsult of a veto and the failure to anticipated EPA safe dsin)dog crater stan- 44a
override would be that Damunmch wouldt dards. It will produce the safest,higltest
remain legally sited and funded. None of our qualityg water int regtaa,a fact
scFatom or representatives
appears to knave a that water quality experts with the City of
plan for what happens pax(when things play Portland do not dispute. A more detailed
out this way. My very legitimate kern is that description of the system is contained else-
when the veto override vote Falb.the Governor where to this issue of the Messenger-
will
essengerwill simply cut his loescu and order construe- okay.now lets take a look at some of
flea to begin at Darmmasch. The.Legislature. claims we keep heart r4 w p'
meanwhile,will be unable or unwilling to
muster the political will to engage In further 1. UE MOST POLLUTED
'lingon this issue and will simply let the
o to Darranasch. Rc mmber. This is RiVER IN TIME (IS.
*t9hs1ttb1g an tissue once you gd outside the
Or the fourth most polluted or the Bath
Wilsonville area. The vast majority of Orego- most polluted or the tenth most polluted. C
nism don't much care whether the prison is
Whatever• we have been unable to Qred any 3
built at Dammasch or not and it's not likely
that the Legislature will want to ciq=d much documentation to true
that
phyiatcsical
these dams• o,
[t is ccrtalnty true that physical changes �.
conlimed oR hack page V �,
well-
concluded that there are no endocrine magnitude above background is not Watar disruptors present in the WtUamette. supported by the existing human t3ory t.-
emdmcel fmm1oVnr They reached this conclusion by exposing logic database.' (l~PA Science Advisory igoar<
teak discharges into the water:but not other human endocrine receptors to wMamette 21g0p AsewsmoU Rrvlew.Maly 15-15. 1995
River water taken from the point where the Finally.we came across this tidbit: in
factors that contribute to water quality prob- intake for a UvWmeat plant would be located 1892-95,the U.S.Geological Survey con-
terns. It also doesn't account for dilution that
Curs to rivers with larger wlumca of water.) and��looking for evidence of endocrine ducted a comprehensive study of¢Lorin level
Of course.them are snore than 50 rivers in disruptors binding to the receptors.in other in Northwestern Oregon. This report looked
U.S.and were not trying to suggest that words.rather than looking for sp=it shears- for 27 varieties of dioxins and furans. One o
cats,Drs.Byrd and Zacharews)d looked for the test sites was in the Willamette Riva nea
the Wiilaiixette is fro of pollution. But if
knows of a ova to subevidence that anything might be present that Newberg.and another test site was Fir Creek
anyone residing this kno Y - would act as an endocrine disruptor. Nothing in the Bull Stun watershed. The tests show,
stantiate the claims that the wiilamette is the was found. And this is an extremely sensitive the total dioxin levels at both sites are below
most polluted river in America.wed like to test,capable of detecting reactions at concen- background levels and the most toidc dioxin
hear fivm you. please call Dave Kanner, trations of less than 20 parts per trillion. (2.3.7.8-TCDD)was below the USGS detmUc
public affairs director.at 5'70-1505. DrsByrd and Zacharewskd thus con- limit. But the level of total dioxins was t h(
Z.. CANCER eluded that'disruption of estrogenic systema in Fir Creek in the Bull Run watershed than
1s not of concern for humans consuming was in the Wlllannette River.(USGS,QLgWpo
it has been said or Wen-cd that drtnldrng water from the Willamette River." and ft=g in Bed Sediment and Rale Tisa
treated Willamette River water wilt increase of the Willamette Basin. 1998.)
your cancer risk. Not so.say the health 4. DIOXIN
S. DETECTION LIMITS
girding to Michael Flumann.deputy Dioxin Is scary stuff. Or at least the word
epidemiologist.Oregon Health Division.there generates a lot of fear. Dioxin is the name We keep hearing that Montgomery Watso
are no given to a family of chemicals whose basic used tests that weren't sensitive enough or
'Benton County (wt fere studies that structure oasts of two molecular rings of that the U.S.Ocologlcal Survey consistently
le drink Willamette have shown carbon atoms connected by two oxygen atoms, found contamtnants that Montgomery Watsc
pip an link Some dioxins are created when chlorine mixes didn't because the USGS used more sensitiv
River water) has one of y with organic substances,as in the bleaching tests.
the very lowest cattier �l process formerly used by pulp and paper Montgomery Watson labs did in fact use
rates in Oregon,whereas drinking mills- One of the scariest chlorinated dioxins different testing method with higher detectic
Multnomah County water and 16 called 2.3.7.8 tctrachlorodibenxo-p-dioxIn limits than
(where a majority of rest- cancer (or TCDD)which is a waste product of mated- the USGS tab "7'her+e were 36 chem
incidence. als used by production of two pesticides and methods. cats detected at leas
dents drink BultRun wa- What's in the production of hexachlorophene.an That explains once. None of the &
Wei has one of the very more,says antibacterial agent. 'TCDD is also produced in why on chemkxVs were detecte,
highest cancer rates in Humatin. the incomplete combustion of numerous occasion
the State." the cancer materials: It decomposes rapidly in sunlight USGS de-
rink pre- but tends to be persistent for up to ten years tected chem!- Wittarriette River."
rented by water that meds EPA We drinkingin trot!layers not cats at trace
standards is'Immeasurably small." '[AccorV d to EMS] eVosei to levels that were below the Montgomery
Orego
If there Is in fact a causal relationship the levet Of total di- sunlight. Watson labs detection Britt l.t la the and
betwetn water supply and cancer,and if the oxins was hl in According t° Health the- rt the er al pori.Mond.and
consumption of Willamette River water is Creek m the BuII the Oregon state-of-the-art commercial labs.Niontgomc
presumed to Increase cancer risks,then one Health Division. Watson used EPA-approved Ilri ift-9 water
would"Peet eane�er rates to be higher to Run watershed than all of us arc monitoring methods. These arc designed to
Semon County(what:t people drink over it was in the Wit- exposed to dioxin test for compliance with TEPA drinking water
lamettc River water)than to Multnomah iameae River" at very low levels -twndards. The monitoring done by U5GS
County(where the majority of the population ("background involved academic research methodologies
drlriks Bull Run water!. to fact the opposite is leveis l every day. But 96%of that exposure which are not approved by EPA for drUAdng
the ease. Benton County has one of the very is from food.2%13 from air and In thatone- water monitoring standard,5.
lowest cancer rates in Oregon.whOc t�th of 1 is from_watcr But what did the USGS actually find?
Multnomah County bas one of the very high- Staff has been unable to substantiate the The USGS looked for 86 chemicals in es
est cancer rates in the-state. (Oregon Health claim that there is no threshold for any of 85 separate tests of the Willamette River
D1vlston.Cela Oregon. 1996) The amount of dlwdn. Here is what the EPA and its tributaries. -there were 36 chemical
greatest risk factors for cancer are tobacco actually has to say about dioxin:"while dioxin detected at least once. None of the 36 Chen
use.alcohol use.genetics acid workplace has been shown to be toxic to certain lab cats were detected len the rnairretem of the
exposure to carcinogens--not tap water arimals,evidence is lacking that it has seri- Willamette River. (U.S.Geological Survey,
ous long-term effects on humans.The publics ptstribuU=of Dissolved ftacid And Ott
J. INDOCRIN£ DISRUPMRS perception has been largely based upon alit?ConoOkWaa,in smA)l strew
information reported on toxic effects found in and their Rel&Uon to land U e n the W --
Endocrine disruptor+are a family of lab animals.People tend to relate these effects Jamette River Basin, 1997.)
chemicals that either alone or in cortxbina(lon to humans and begin to fear them.Ona fear in a separate study.the USGS tested th
mimic human estrogen:tnd are suspected of has been created,it is bard to dispel (EPA mainstem of the Willamette River rear
having negative „ ,atm rto endo- n'-�yironmental_Edueation Series- lume Newberg for 224 chemciale In the river watt
health and decal- 1R. iia and H=rdous waste. 1992) and bed sediments. Only 17 chemicals wet
opmental effects. Brine diSruptors In 1994 the EPA appointed a Scientific detected,all of them at levels_b9&6 safe
This has been a present to the Wit- Advisory Board composed of 42 scientists. drinking water standards.The ozone/GAC
major source of lunette (and ttJ is aeadc[nies,government researchers and process at the proposed Willamette water
concern for water not of concern for industry representatives,to review the E,PA's treatrmnt plant would remove all 17 of the:
t�uppiters. Dioxin Exposure and Health Effects Docu- chemicals—plus all of the other chemical.
However.a humans evnsurn- maitsThis Board found that while human that were not even detected.
new study con- in9 water from.the effects from dioxin(and like compound)
ducted by Dr. WtIIarrtette River." exposure occur at levels closer to background The diagram on the next
Darnel Byrd of than previously estimated,"flee conclusion Page(Cau"es y of the
Consaltants in Toxicology.Risk Assessment that dioxin and related compounds are likely Willamette Watef Sapply NO
and Product Safety,and Dr.Tim Zacharcwskl to present a cancer hazard to humans at
of the National Food Salety and Toxicology exposure levels within one or two orders of AsCIlC7/)shows the steps in
Center-at blichtgan State..University.has treating river wataf• .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Intergovernmental Water Board Members
FROM: Ed Wegner
RE: Willamette Water Treatment Plant
Wilsonville/TVWD Agreement
DATE: July 5, 2000
During a recent WWSA Managers meeting, the General Manager of TVWD discussed
with us the proposed contract between Wilsonville and TVWD and how the contract
effected WWSA members for future use. I will outline some of the highlights.
➢ Pg. 3, Sec. 2, 2.1.3 Deals with now TVWD may convey ownership interest in the
land.
➢ Pg. 8, Sec. 3.3.1 Wilsonville will act as Project Manager during construction
➢ Pg. 10, Sec. 5 Future agreements
➢ Pg. 10, Sec. 6 Wilsonville— Managing owner until Wilsonville's plant
capacity becomes less than 50%
This contract is still under negotiations, but could be signed by July 10th
Cc: Mike Miller
Bill Monahan -
Norm Penner
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
AGREEMENT REGARDING WATER TREATMENT PLANT
DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION, AND
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
This Agreement Regarding Water Treatment Plant Design, Construction,
Operation, and Property Ownership("Agreement") is made as of the day of
, 2000 (the "Effective Date"),between the City of Wilsonville, a municipal
corporation("Wilsonville") and the TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a water
supply district formed under ORS Chapter 264("TVWD").
RECITALS
A. Wilsonville holds Permit No.46319,which was issued on March 27,
1974, and authorizes Wilsonville to appropriate water from the Willamette River for
municipal purposes at the rate of 30 cubic feet per second(19,389,450 gallons per day).
B. TVWD presently holds Permit No. 49240,which was issued on June 19,
1973, and authorizes TVWD to appropriate water from the Willamette River for
municipal purposes at the rate of 202 cubic feet per second(1.30,555,630 gallons per
day). TVWD may assign this permit to Willamette Water Supply Agency("WWSA").
C. Wilsonville has purchased certain real property described in the copy of
the Warranty Deed, marked Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth herein(the"Property"). The Property is located near the points of
diversion authorized by Permit Nos.46319 and 49240. The location of the Property is
also consistent with the Regional Water Supply Plan's recommendation for the location
of a treatment plant. The Property is of a size and configuration which will accommodate
a water treatment plant and intake facility for waters of the Willamette River to be
appropriated,treated and used for domestic and municipal purposes in accordance with
the above recited permits. On June 1,2000, the City Council of the City of Wilsonville
adopted Resolution No. 1646, approving a conditional use per and site and design
plans for a water treatment plant on the Property.
D. Wilsonville and TVWD have commenced to permit,design, and build
upon approval by the applicable regulatory government agencies (i) an intake facility
capable of ultimately drawing 120 million gallons per day(mgd); (ii) an intake line from
the diversion point to the intake structure and (iii) a permanent, multi-barrier treatment
plant with an initial capacity of 15 mgd and planned capacity of 70 mgd to treat the
Willamette River water so that it meets federal and state drinking water standards; and
(iv) transmission lines to Kinsman Road(v) access road,bikeway and pedestrian pathway
(collectively, the "Supply Facilities").
Page 1—AGREEMENT
JAMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc
I
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
E. Wilsonville and TVWD wish to enter into an Agreement pursuant to
which they will allocate the costs of purchasing the Property and the design, construction,
operation and maintenance of the Supply Facilities.
F. Wilsonville and TVWD wish to provide the opportunity for other local
governments in the region(as may participate through TVWD and as may otherwise be
provided for in this Agreement)to participate in the ownership of the Property and the
ownership, development, operation and maintenance of the Supply Facilities.
NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the covenants and agreements
contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:
CONTENTS Page
RECITALS I
1. DEFINITIONS 2
2. THE PROPERTY; CREATION OF PROPERTY.OWNERSHIP 3
INTEREST; MAINTENANCE AND COST ALLOCATION
3. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUPPLY FACILITIES 6
4. ALLOCATION OF COSTS FOR SUPPLY FACILITIES 8
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONS
5. FUTURE AGREEMENTS 10
6. OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SUPPLY 11
FACILITIES; FUTURE AGREEMENT
7. INVOLUNTARY LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES 13
8. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 14
9. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE 14
.10. TERM 15
11. GENERAL 1.5
1. DEFINITIONS
"Agreement" means this Agreement, as it may be amended from time to time,
together with all exhibits to it.
"Diversion Point" means the diversion point as mutually agreed by Wilsonville
and TVWD and authorized by the Oregon Water Resources Department for appropriation
of the waters of the Willamette River.
"Effective Date" has the meaning given to that term in the preamble to
Agreement.
"Governing bodies" means the City Council of the City of Wilsonville and the
Board of Commissioners of TVWD.
Page 2—AGREEMENT
JAMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TWE)6-23-00C leanCopy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
"Managing Owner" initially means City of Wilsonville. A change in Managing
Owner shall only occur as provided for in this Agreement.
"Owners" means Wilsonville and TVWD. A change in Owners shall only occur
as provided for in this Agreement.
"Ownership Interest"means the percent of interest of an owner in the real
property as determined under Section 2.2.1.
"Participating Interest" means the percentage interest of an Owner in the
Supply Facilities as determined under Section 4 of this Agreement.
"Party or Parties" means Wilsonville and the TVWD and, such other local
governments and water districts as may participate in this Agreement in the future as
provided for in this Agreement.
"Project Cost"means construction costs to be shared between the owners based
on a proportional share of capacity,including the cost of all Development Review Board
(DRB) requirements.
"Property" has the meaning given to that term in Recital C.
"Supply Facilities" has the meaning given to that term in Recital D.
"Technical Committee " means engineering representatives from the City of
Wilsonville and TVWD.
"WWSA" means the Willamette Water Supply Agency, which has been7created
by intergovernmental cooperative agreement among TVWD, Clackamas River Water,
Canby Utility Board,City of Sherwood, City of Gladstone, City of Tigard, and City of
Tualatin.
2. THE PROPERTY; CREATION OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
INTEREST;MAINTENANCE AND COST ALLOCATION
2.1 Creation of Property Ownership Interest
2.1.1 In the form of the warranty deed("Deed") set forth in Exhibit 1,recited
and incorporated by reference above, Wilsonville shall convey to TVWD
an undivided 49%interest as tenant in common in the Property and
Wilsonville shall retain a 51%interest as tenant in common in the
property.-TVWD shall pay Wilsonville$1263,2 1 9 together-with interest-
$1,291,350,
ntern$1,291,350,which includes interest accrued at the rate of 6%per annum
from the City's oriOnal purchase date through June 30,2000, which is
agreed to be 49%of Wilsonville's original purchase price and of its
Page 3—AGREEMENT
JAMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
reasonable expenses incurred in acquiring the site. Closing costs for the
Wilsonville transfer to.TVWD shall be shared equally.
2.1.2 Title to the Property shall be held in the name of each of the Owners in its
respective undivided interest. The Owners intend that their relationship,
with respect to the Property, be a tenancy in common. The Recitals set
forth above are incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement and
conveyance.
2.1.3 TVWD's 49%ownership interest may be conveyed in whole or in.part by
TVWD, with prior approval by Wilsonville to WWSA for a period of one
year(365 days) from the effective date of this Agreement, and thereafter
without prior approval by Wilsonville;provided,however, WWSA's
membership remains one of local governments and water districts.Neither
Wilsonville nor TVWD shall convey to any person or entity which is not a
local government or water district without the prior consent of the other.
Each party's consent shall be based in its sole discretion on whether an
allocation or conveyance to an entity other than a local government or
water district is in the best interest of, in the case of Wilsonville,its
citizens and, in the case of TVWD, its FMepayer-s customers. Nothing in
this paragraph is intended to prevent TVWD from conveying to
Wilsonville or Wilsonville from conveying to TVWD its respective
interest as the parties may agree in the future.
2.1.4 Partition. During the term of this Agreement,no Owner shall seek or
obtain through any legal proceedings an administrative or judicial partition
of the Property or sale of the Property in lieu of partition,without the prior
written consent of the other Owner. Section 2.1.3 is not intended or
meant to create a partition of the Property and this paragraph on partition
is not intended or meant to prevent an allocation and conveyance of
TVWD's interest as set forth in 2.1.3.
2.2 Purpose
The Owners declare that the Property is and shall be held, conveyed,
hypothecated, encumbered, leased,rented, occupied and improved subject to the
limitations, restrictions, covenants and conditions set forth in this Agreement, all of
which are declared to be in furtherance of constructing and operating the Supply
Facilities for the treating and using waters of the Willamette River for domestic and
municipal water supply purposes.
The Owners agree that except as provided herein,the Property is dedicated for
domestic and municipal water supply purposes. The areas discussed in subsections
2.2.1 —2.2.7 are as set forth on Exhibit 2, attached hereto and incorporated by reference
as though fully set forth herein.
Page 4—AGREEMENT
JAMy DocumentsM,flamette WTPWgree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copydoc
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale,6/23/00
2.2.1 Area 1 is the Northern portion of the site as set forth on Exhibit 2 and shall
include an access road and bicycle and pedestrian access to Areas 2 and 3.
Area 1 may be used for park and recreational purposes at the sole risk and
cost of Wilsonville,but upon one year notice by either party to the other,
park and recreation usage shall terminate to accommodate use for future
domestic and municipal water supply facility capacity in excess of the 70
mgd facilities in Area 2, subject to required land use approvals and such
other governmental approvals as may be required. Nothing in the
foregoing sentence is intended to limit or restrict the parties from agreeing
to use the property in any manner in support of the Supply Facilities
and/or such governmental regulations as may be imposed on the
parties for the operation of up to a 70 mdg capacity plant. This right
to terminate on one-year's notice as conditioned above shall be a covenant
running with the land set forth on the Deed from Wilsonville to TVWD.
2.2.2 Area 1 Costs. So long as no improvements are built on Area 1 in addition
to those built as part of the initial supply facility project,the Owners will
share the costs of maintaining and insuring the development Area. The
Owners will also share the costs of maintaining, insuring and improving or
restoring, as needed, the natural areas directly impacted by the bridge built
across Arrowhead Creek and the stormwater discharge at the southwest
corner of Area 3. The costs of maintenance and insurance shall be
allocated based on the property Owners ownership interests, as established
in section 2.1.1.
2.2.3 Area 2 is that portion on the site which includes the multi-barrier treatment
plant with expansion up to 70 mgd (the wall and area behind the wall) as
set forth in Exhibit 2.
2.2.4 Area 2 Costs. The cost of maintenance shall be proportioned to each
owner based on capacity used as set forth in Section 4.
2.2.5 Area 3 is the "Meadow Area" and Water Feature as set forth on Exhibit 2
and is to be developed for passive recreational use and will have bicycle
and pedestrian use and access. This public bicycle and pedestrian access
:,ill also extend to the Plant.
2.2.6 Area 3 Costs. The costs of Maintenance of Area 3 including the park
improvements and the water features shall be solely the responsibility of
and at the cost to the City of Wilsonville.
2.2.7 Area 4 is the 60' access easement, together with such other property
and/or easements necessary for the alignment of the access roadway from
the property to Wilsonville Road and the water transmission line from the
Treatment Plant to Wilsonville Road as set forth in Exhibit 2. Thereafter,
the transmission line will be in Wilsonville Road right-of-way, which
Page 5—AGREEMENT
JAMy DocumentsMilamette WTPWgree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doe
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
right-of-way is not intended to be conveyed to TVWD as part of this
agreement, until it joins the City's transmission system at or about Station
67+00+1-, Kinsman Road.
2.2.8 The cost of the maintenance shall be proportioned to each owner on the
basis of capacity used as set forth in Section 4.
2.2.9 Bicycle and pedestrian access way costs. The costs of the maintenance
and insurance of the bicycle and pedestrian access as described in Section
2.2.1 or as may be required by the City's Development Review Board
shall be allocated based on the property owner's ownership interest as
established in Section 2.1.1.
2.2.10 Billing and Accounting: The City of Wilsonville shall be responsible for
Annually submitting a report of actual expenses in connection with the
property, including insurance,together with anticipated costs for the next
fiscal year. TVWD shall be billed quarterly for its share of the costs as
defined in this Section 2.2.
3. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SUPPLY FACILITIES
3.1 Preliminary Planning and Design
TVWD and Wilsonville,by this Agreement, commit to design and construct the
Supply Facilities,which shall include initially a 15 mgd Multi-barrier Regional Water
Treatment Plant according to the design build contract between Wilsonville and
Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc., Montgomery Watson Construction, Inc., and
Montgomery Watson, Inc. ("Montgomery Watson"), dated December 22, 1999, and to
such end, have or will immediately commence:
3.1.1 Joint Planning Participation. Participation in necessaryjoint planning
sessions for the Supply Facilities. -
3.1.2 Contribution of their.proportionate share of costs of preliminary design,
preliminary engineering,permitting, and other fees as necessary set forth
on Exhibit 3, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully
set forth herein. The Supply Facilities, including the multi-barrier plant,
shall accommodate expansion up to 70 mgd on Area 2 with Area 1
reserved for an additional expansion of 50 mgd. The general
configuration map of Area 2 on the above referenced Exhibit 2 will allow
the Owners to expand the treatment plant in the future as they may further
agree. Wilsonville has retained the project team of Montgomery Watson
only for permitting, design, and construction of the initial increment of the
Supply Facilities described in 3.1.
Page 6—AGREEMENT
1:VAy DocumentsiWillamette WTPWgree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
3.1.3 Wilsonville is and will be the Project Manager for the design-build of the
Supply Facilities and the permitting responsibilities of Wilsonville and
TVWD are set forth in Section 3.2 below.
3.1.4 The Technical Committee consists of engineering representatives from
Wilsonville and TVWD. The Technical Committee has reviewed all
requests for proposals and recommended a design-build team of
Montgomery Watson. Wilsonville has entered into a design-build contract
with Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc., Montgomery Watson
Constructors, Inc. and Montgomery Watson, Inc., referenced in paragraph.
3.1 above.
3.2 Permit Applications
Wilsonville as Project Manager shall be the lead agency in negotiating required
permits for construction of the Supply Facilities.
3.2.1 Point of Diversion TVWD Permit Responsibility. TVWD shall be
responsible to obtain, at its sole cost and expense, the transfer of the point
of diversion under its water rights permit No. 49240 to the subject
property and any extension to develop its permit or relating to the
application of the water to beneficial use.
3.2.2 Wilsonville Permit Responsibility. Except as provided in 3.2.1,
Wilsonville shall be responsible to obtain all other required permits and
approvals currently needed to construct the Supply Facilities, such as:
3.2.2.1 Section 404 Permits under the Clean Water Act through the
Division of State Lands and the Army Corps of Engineers;
3.2.2.2 Any approval necessary from the Oregon Division of State Lands
for use of submerged or submersible lands for the intake, if that
is in addition to the 404 Permit;
3.2.2.3 Any permit from the Water Resources Department for
Wilsonville's point of diversion,time extension, or application of
water to beneficial use;
3.2.2.4 Any permit necessary from the Oregon Department of Fish &
Wildlife,the United States Fish & Wildlife Service or the
National Marine Fisheries Service through consultation; and
3.2.2.5 Any other permit or approval required for the project.
3.2.3 Wilsonville Permit Process. Wilsonville's Development Review Boards
and the City Council have approved a conditional use land development
permit in the name of the Project.Wilsonville further agrees to, in good
Page 7—AGREEMENT
JAMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
faith,assist and support TVWD in the issuance of all permits or approvals
for pumping and transmission facilities from Station 67+00+i-, Kinsman
Road north through the City-limits and any area outside the Wilsonville
city limits where it has a planning area agreement with Clackamas County,
Washington County, or Metro, to enable TVWD to provide water from the
Supply Facilities to users outside the City. Wilsonville agrees to expedite
where and when practicable Wilsonville's approval to any permits,plans,
specifications, or detailed drawings which may be required for the
construction of TVWD only water facilities beyond those described as
Supply Facilities.
3.2.4 Expedited Design and Construction; Cooperation. TVWD also
understands and acknowledges that Wilsonville must have the design and
construction of the Supply Facilities expedited in order to meet
Wilsonville's emergency of lack of municipal water supply and to meet
Wilsonville's obligations under Senate Bill 686 and its contract with the
Department of Corrections ("DOC") to supply water to DOC's new prison
site. TVWD agrees to cooperate in an expeditious manner to assist in
design and construction of the Supply Facilities.
3.3 Construction
3.3.1 Project Management. During construction, Wilsonville will, as Project
Manager, convene the Technical Committee at least weekly to review
project schedules and performing progress payment requests, change
orders and punch list items
3.3.2 Progress Payments. Progress payments, during design and construction,
will be billed by Wilsonville according to the allocation of assigned
capacity of individual components of the system as set forth on Exhibit 3
and the schedule for payments set forth in the above referenced design-
build contract and the exhibits thereto. The total payment of a party will
not exceed the allocated cost of Exhibit 3 unless the governing body of
that party has approved. TVWD shall establish an interest bearing
account,with interest to TVWD, from which the Finance Director of the
Cityof Wilsonvillewill be authorized to withdraw TVWD's share for
design/build progress payments on such estimated payment schedule as
the Owners agree. Money shall be deposited monthly on the basis of the
estimated draw required for the next month's payment. At no time prior to
substantial completion shall there be less than$1 million in the account.
3.3:3 Dispute resolution; maintaining construction. Any disputed amount shall
be resolved in accordance with the Dispute Resolution Procedures of
Section 11.15 below. However, notwithstanding the foregoing resolution
procedures, during construction,no participant dispute will cause
cessation or delay of work by the contractor. If the contractor threatens to
Page 8—AGREEMENT
JAMy DocumentsMilamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
suspend or terminate work because of a dispute over nonpayment, the
parties hereto agree to make such payments to Wilsonville to resolve
contractor issues and will expressly reserve all rights regarding the
ultimate allocation of costs or obligations paid to the contractor which will
be resolved by dispute resolution.
3.3.4 Post Construction. Following construction, the Technical Committee or
the Owners'representatives, as the case may be, shall meet as needed to
review and recommend to the Owners on matters related to warranty or
other contract performance issues.
4. ALLOCATION OF COSTS FOR SUPPLY FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
AND OPERATIONS
4.1 Initial Participating Interests
Except as otherwise provided herein, Owners shall have an equal right and
obligation to use and operate the Supply Facilities. The initial Supply Facilities project
will be designed so that Wilsonville and TVWD, as the initial Parties to this Agreement,
shall have the following Participating Interests:
Wilsonville TVWD Total
in mgd in mgd in mgd
First phase plant capacity 10 5 15
River intake screens 20 50 70
Intake line and structures 20 100 120
Intake initial pump capacity. 10 5 15
Raw waterline and plant piping 20 50 70
Finished water transmission 20 50 70
main to Wilsonville Road
Access Road,Bikeway and 20 50 _70
Pedestrian Paths
The interests of the owners in each of the project elements are further identified in
Exhibit 3 attached to this Agreement.
4.1.1 Adjustment for Regulations Capital Improvements. The plant has been
designed to meet all existing and anticipated Environmental Protection
Agency and State Health Division Requirements for operation of water
treatment plants. Nevertheless, it is possible that changing requirements
will require additional construction to meet new regulatory requirements.
The Managing Owner will coordinate the financing design and
construction of the required improvements. The cost of these
improvements will be distributed based on ownership of capacity in the
facility requiring mandatory improvements. If a new facility is required,
Page 9—AGREEMENT
JAMy Documents\Willamette WTPWgee WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
then costs will be prorated based on an overall distribution of cost based
on their ownership in the entire treatment plant.
4.1.2 Adjustments for Capacity. It is recognized that the capacity of the
Actiflow system and the mixed media filters are based on conservative
historical comparisons. Any subsequent adjustment in capacity of the
Actiflow system or the mixed media filters will be distributed based on a
pro rata share of the then existing capacity ownership.
4.2 Adjustments for Development Review Board Improvements.
The parties agree that improvements imposed by the City's Development Review
Board will be a Project cost. Additional amenities not required by the Development
Review Board will be paid for at the sole expense of the party requesting such amenities.
4.3 Construction Costs and Ownership Capacity; TVWD Total Costs.
Exhibit 3, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
herein, identifies the proportionate share of the construction costs based on ownership
capacity for each of project elements of the initial Supply Facilities,the finished
transmission and accessory facilities extending to Station 67+00+�, Kinsman Road, and
the associated public roadway,bicycle and pedestrian access, The total cost to TVWD of
the supply facilities shall not exceed$17,000,000.
5. FUTURE AGREEMENTS
In addition to the negotiation in good faith of a future Operational and
Management agreement reference in Section 6.2.3, Wilsonville and TVWD agree to
negotiate in good faith to reach an accord within one year(365 days) from the effective
date of this Agreement with regard to the following subject matters: Leasing of Suppty 5-01`15
Capacity, Future Expansion,Transfer of Ownership Interests in Supply Facilities, Right
of First Offer,Future Voting Rights, Cooperation in Financing for Future Expenses, and
Defaults Regarding the Subject Matters of this Section 5 on Future Agreements.
6. OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE SUPPLY FACILITIES;
FUTURE AGREEMENT
6.1 Managing Owner
Wilsonville shall have the initial responsibility as Managing Owner to manage,
operate, repair and replace the Supply Facilities. In the event that Wilsonville's water
treatment plant capacity usage becomes less than 50%of annual plant production usage,
TVWD may assume the Managing Owner function by delivering to Wilsonville notice of
its election. The election shall become effective on July 1 following delivery of the
election no less than one year in advance. Failure by TVWD to exercise this election in
any year does not constitute a waiver of its right to exercise the election in a following
Page 10—AGREEMENT
JAMy Documents\Willamette WMAgree WIT Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy doc
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
year, provided that WiIsonville's water treatment plant usage remains below 50%of
annual plant production usage.
6.2 Duties of the Managing Owner
The Managing Owner shall manage the operation and maintenance of the
Property and of the Supply Facilities, and shall have the responsibility and authority to
perform the following functions and may make decisions with respect to such matters,
unless otherwise provided in this Agreement:
6.2.1 Operation, Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement. To contract or
perform work with its own forces for operation, maintenance, repair and
cleaning of Area 2 and Area 4, and those shared portions of Areas 1 and 3
'described in Section 2.2 pursuant to an approved budget, or other approval
of the Owners.
6.2.2 Managing Owners use of own work forces. The Managing Owner may
perform work with its own forces and charge the other Owner therefor or
by contract with another party. However,TVWD and Wilsonville are in
the process of moving forward to select a third party for operation and
maintenance of the supply facilities.To the extent that any Owner uses its
own employees in the performance of its duties under this Agreement, that
entity shall be responsible for complying with all applicable state and
federal laws and for all employment related benefits and deductions,
workers'compensation premiums and pension contributions.
6.2.3 Future Agreement. It is contemplated that a more detailed agreement
between Wilsonville and TVWD for managing and governing the
operation will be entered into and the provisions of this section will either
be incorporated or replaced in whole or in part in such agreement.
6.2.4 Coordination of Water Treatment Plant Operations with Owners'
requirements.As necessary, the Managing Owner for the water treatment
plant will coordinate meetings between the Supply Facilities operators and
the owners to coordinate ongoing water demands, water quality concerns
and any other ongoing operational considerations.
6.2.5 Insurance. To obtain or renew a policy of property insurance insuring the
Supply Facilities against loss or damage by fire and other hazards covered
by a standard policy of fire insurance with extended coverage
endorsements written for the full replacement value of the Supply
Facilities. TVWD and Wilsonville will also obtain or renew a policy of
public liability and property damage insurance with a single limit of not
less than$1,000,000. The policies will name Wilsonville and'TVWD as
insureds and such other Owners as may from time to time become a party
to this Agreement.
Page 11—AGREEMENT
J AMy DocumentsMilamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TWE)6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re -
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
6.2.6 Charges. To collect and deposit the charges due from Owners into an
account established for the Property; to mail written notice to any Owner
who is more than 30 days delinquent in payment of any charges; and to
mail written notice to the Owners for additional charges whenever it
appears that the funds on hand will be insufficient to cover future
expenses.
6.2.7 Payment of expenses. To pay when due the expenses of the Property, and
all other expenses or payments duly authorized by the Owners.
6.2.8 Records. To maintain complete and accurate records of all receipts and
expenditures for the Owners.
6.2.9 Improvements or Fixtures. No improvements or fixtures shall be made or
attached to the Property which could cause interference with the operation
of the Supply Facilities or be an obligation of a fiscal nature for the
Owners without the prior written consent of the Owners.
6.2.10 Meter Calibration. The Managing Owner will ensure that for operation of
the Willamette River water treatment plant all flow meters are calibrated
annually.
6.3 Annual Budget,Expenses, and Reporting
6.3.1 Books, Reports and Accounting. Quarterly, and at other times as may be
requested in writing by the Owners, statements shall be prepared by the
Managing Owner,which shall show all income,receipts, expenses and
costs in connection with the Property and Supply Facilities. The quarterly
statement shall be delivered to each Owner within thirty,(3 0)days of the
end of each quarter. All such books of account or other records may be
examined and copies of books and records may be made by any Owner at
reasonable times upon reasonable notice. Additionally,by January 31 of
each year, the Managing Owner shall provide to the Owners a budget for
anticipated expense for the next fiscal year for approval of each owner's
governing body.
6.4 Damage Claims
It is recognized there may be claims for damages arising out of the operation of
these jointly used facilities or that there may be litigation or other unforeseen costs or
expenses incurred in connection with these Supply Facilities that is not covered by the
previously mentioned insurance. Accordingly, it is agreed that all such damages, costs
and expenses not specifically provided for elsewhere herein shall.be shared by the
Owners in pro-ration to their participating interests.
Page 12—AGREEMENT
JAMy DocumentsMilamette WTPWgree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
6.5 Separate Accounts
The Managing Owner shall maintain one or more separate funds/accounts for the
Property and Supply Facilities on which the Managing Owner is the authorized signatory.
Reserves for the Property and Supply Facilities shall be invested in legally authorized
investment vehicles.
7. INVOLUNTARY LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES
7.1 Any involuntary lien or encumbrance on an Owner's undivided interest
including, but not limited to, any judicial attachment, any judgment lien, any lien arising
out of the order or judgment of any court, and any lien arising under federal or state
bankruptcy or insolvency laws, shall be discharged by the Owner, and the undivided
interest released,within thirty(30) days after such lien or encumbrance attaches to the
Owner's undivided interest. The failure to discharge the lien and obtain the release of the
undivided interest as required above,or to post security in lieu thereof,within the stated
time shall constitute a default of this Agreement. With respect to such default and the
lien or encumbrance causing the same,the Non-Defaulting Owner shall have the rights
granted Non-Defaulting Owner under the laws then and there existing.
7.2 The Owner against whose interest an involuntary lien or encumbrance
attaches may,within thirty(30) days after attachment,deposit cash, a corporate surety
bond or other security satisfactory to the other Owner; the deposit shall be in an amount
sufficient to discharge the lien or encumbrance, costs, attorney fees and other charges
which could accrue as a result of a foreclosure sale under the lien or encumbrance. Upon
making the deposit, the Owner shall not be considered in default and.shall be entitled to
contest the lien in a legal proceeding, and any appeal thereof. Any deposit made by
Owner herein shall go into an escrow account with a third party mutually agreed on by
Owners with instructions that said deposit shall be released to the depositing Owner upon
discharge of the lien or encumbrance requiring the deposit,or,if said lien or
encumbrance is not discharged within a reasonable period of time,not to exceed one(1)
year,the deposit shall be applied to the payment of the lien or encumbrances. Provided,
however, the one year period shall be extended to the date of final judgment in the case of
any contested lien, including of appeal.
8. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES
Each Party represents and warrants to the other Parties as follows:
8.1 That it is a legal entity duly organized under the laws of the State of
Oregon;
8.2 That it has the capacity and authority to enter into and perform this
Agreement and all transactions contemplated in this Agreement pursuant to the laws of
the state of Oregon and its charter;
Page 13-AGREEMENT
JAMy DocumentsMillamette WTPWgree WTP Wilsonville-'NWD6-23-00 CleanCopy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
8.3 That all actions required to authorize it to enter into and perform this
Agreement have been properly taken;
8.4 That it will not breach any other Agreement or arrangement by entering
into or performing this Agreement and that this Agreement has been duly executed and
delivered by it and is valid and binding upon it in accordance with its terms;
8.5 That Wilsonville has determined upon reasonable inquiry the Property
does not have violations of any environmental law which cannot be reasonably mitigated
during construction and that all contingencies prior to Property purchase have been
satisfied; and
8.6 That TVWD has received a copy of the preliminary title report No.
from Title Insurance Company, and acknowledges and
accepts the exceptions and encumbrances thereon.
9. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
9.1 In addition to insurance which is obtained under Section.4.6, each Owner
may maintain liability insurance insuring their respective operations on the Property or
Supply Facilities.
9.2 Each Owner shall,within the limits of the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS
30.260-30.300, save, defend and hold harmless the other Owner or Owners from any
claim for damages or injury arising from or alleged to have arisen from the sole
negligence or willful act of the Owner in the performance of this Agreement. Each
Owner shall be solely liable for any fine or penalties attributable to its performance of its
duties under this Agreement and that are caused by its willful conduct or gross
negligence.
10. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall be
perpetual, unless the Owners otherwise agree in writing.
11. GENERAL
11.1 Notices
All notices, payments and other communications to the Parties under this
Agreement must be in writing, and shall be addressed respectively as follows:
Page 14—AGREEMENT
JAMy Documents\Willamette WTP\Agrde WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
Wilsonville: City of Wilsonville
Attention: Arlene Loble, City Manager
30000 SW Town Center Loop E.
Wilsonville,OR 97070
Telecopy No. 503-682-1015
TVWD: Tualatin Valley Water District
Attention: Greg DiLoreto, General Manager
PO Box 745
Beaverton,OR 97075
Telecopy No.503-649-2733
All notices shall be given by(i)personal delivery to the Owner, (ii) certified or
registered mail,return receipt requested,or(iii)electronic communication followed
immediately by registered or certified mail return receipt requested. All notices shall be
effective and shall be deemed delivered(a)if by personal delivery,on the date of
delivery, (b) if by certified or registered mail on the date delivered to the United States
Postal Service as shown on the receipts;and(c) if by electronic communication, on the
date the confirmation is delivered to the United States Postal Service as shown on the
actual receipt. Upon a change in ownership,a new Owner shall,upon entering into this
Agreement, notify the other Owner or Owners of their contact person, address and
telecopy number. An Owner may change its address from time to time by notice to the
other Owners.
11.2 Waiver
The failure of an Owner to insist on the strict performance of any provision of this
Agreement or to exercise any right, power or remedy upon a breach of any provision of
this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver of any provision of this Agreement or limit
the Owner's right thereafter to enforce any provision or exercise any right.
11.3 Modification
No Modification of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and duly
executed by the Owners. As the context may require,reference to the singular shall mean
the plural and the plural shall mean the singular.
11.4 Force Majure
The obligations of an Owner, other than the payment of money, shall be
suspended to the extent and for the period that performance is prevented by any cause,
whether foreseen,foreseeable or unforeseeable,beyond the Owner's reasonable control if
the Owner is making a good faith effort to resolve or avoid the cause, including without
limitation labor disputes(however arising and whether or not employee demands are
reasonable or within the power of the Owner to grant); acts of God, laws, regulations,
orders, proclamations, instructions or requests of any government or governmental entity;
judgments or orders of any court; inability to obtain on reasonably acceptable terms any
public or private license,permit or other authorization; curtailment or suspension of
activities to remedy or avoid an actual or alleged, present or prospective violation of
Page 15—AGREEMENT
JAMy DocumentsMillamcde WTPVWgree WT?Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re -
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
federal, state,or local environmental standards; acts of war or condition arising out of or
attributable to war, whether declared or undeclared; riot, civil strife, insurrection or
rebellion, fire, explosion, earthquake, storm, flood, sinkholes, drought or other adverse
weather conditions out of the ordinary; material delay or failure by suppliers or
transporters of materials, parts, supplies, services or equipment or by contractors'or
subcontractors'shortage of, or material inability to obtain,labor, transportation, materials,
machinery equipment, supplies, utilities or services; accidents,breakdown of equipment,
machinery or facilities, or any other cause whether similar or dissimilar to the foregoing,
provided that the affected Owner shallgive notice to the other Owner within 30 days of
the suspension of performance or as soon as reasonably possible, stating in such notice
the nature of the suspension, the reasons for the suspension and the expected duration of
the suspension. The affected Owner shall resume performance as soon as reasonably
possible.
11.5 Implied Covenants
The Owners agree that in construing this Agreement no covenants shall be
implied between the Owners except the covenants of good faith and fair dealing.
11.6 Governing Law
This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws
of the State of Oregon.
11.7 Interpretation of Law
This Agreement will be interpreted by the laws of the State of Oregon and any
interpretation and any court action will be initiated through the County court in which the
water treatment plant is located, i.e., Clackamas County Circuit Court.
11.8 Remedies Not Exclusive
Each and every power and remedy specifically given to the Non-Defaulting
Owner shall be in addition to every other power and remedy now or hereafter available at
law or in equity(including the right to specific performance),and each and every power
and remedy may be exercised from time to time and as often and in such order as may be
deemed expedient. All such powers and remedies shall be cumulative,and the exercise of
one shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to exercise any other or others. No delay or
.omission in the exercise of any such power or remedy and no renewal or extension of any
payments due under this Agreement shall impair any such power or remedy or shall be
construed to be a waiver of any default.
11.9 . Survival of Terms and Conditions
The provisions of this Agreement shall survive its termination to the full extent
necessary for their enforcement and the protection of the Party in whose favor they run.
11.10 Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Owners and their
successors and assigns.
Page 16—AGREEMENT
JAMy DocumentsMillamcue WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD6-23-00 CleanCopy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re
Proposed Property Sale, 6/23/00
11.11 Time is of the Essence
A material consideration of the Owners for entering into this Agreement is that
each Owner will make all payments as and when due and will perform all other
obligations under this Agreement in a timely manner. Time is of the essence of each and
every provision of this Agreement.
11.12 Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, all of which taken together
shall constitute a single Agreement.
11.13 Limitations
This Agreement shall not be construed to create a partnership between the Owners
or to authorize any Owner to act as agent for any other Party or Parties except as
expressly provided in this Agreement.
11.14 Attorneys' Fees
If any suit or action is instituted to interpret or enforce the terms of this
Agreement, the prevailing Owner shall be entitled to recover from the other Owner such,
sums as a court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys'fees at trial, on appeal, or on any
petition for review, and in any proceedings in bankruptcy or arbitration, in addition to all
other sums provided by law.
11.15 Dispute Resolution
If a dispute arises between the parties regarding this Agreement, the parties shall
attempt to resolve the dispute through-,the p1l9wing steps:
Step One—Negotiation: The Managers or such other persons designated by each
of the disputing Owners will negotiate on behalf of the entity they represent. If the
dispute is resolved at this step, there shall be a written determination of such resolution,
signed by each Manager or designated person and ratified by their respective governing
body, which shall be binding upon the Owners.
Step Two—Mediation. If the dispute cannot be resolved within 30 days of
commencing Step One, the parties shall submit the matter to non-binding mediation
before the United States Arbitration and Mediation Service of Portland, Oregon. The
Owners shall attempt to agree on a mediator. If they cannot agree, then the Owners shall
request a panel according to the USA&M Rules. The cost of mediation shall be borne
equally between the Owners. Each Owner shall be responsible for its own costs and fees
therefor. The Owners agree to mediate in good faith. If the issues are resolved at this
Step, a written determination of such resolution shall be signed by each Manager and
ratified by their respective Board or Council.
Step Three—Arbitration. If the Owners are unsuccessful at Steps One and
Two, then the dispute shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules, then
obtaining, of the United States Arbitration and Mediation Service of Portland, Oregon,
and judgment upon the award rendered may be entered in any court having jurisdiction
Page 17—AGREEMENT
1:\My Documents\Willamette WTP\Agree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD 6-23-00 Clan Copy.doc
Confidential from Attorney re `
Proposed Property Sale,6/23/00
thereof The decision of the arbitration board shall be final and binding upon all Owners
hereto, and there shall be no appeal to any court therefrom. Expenses of arbitration shall
be borne by the losing Owner. Each Owner shall pay its own attorney fees in such
arbitration unless the arbitration board orders otherwise.
The Owners stipulate that the remedies at law in the event of any default or
threatened default by either Owner hereto are not and will not be adequate, that such
terms may be specifically enforced by a decree for the specific performance thereof or by
an injunction against a violation thereof or otherwise, and that the remedies of specific
performance and injunction will not impose undue hardship upon either Owner. The
Owners agree that any arbitrator shall have the authority to order specific performance or
to issue an injunction as provided for herein.
11.16 Entire Agreement
This Agreement, including all attached exhibits,contains the entire and final
understanding of the Owners and supersedes all prior Agreements and understandings
between the Owners related to the subject matter of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Owners have executed this Agreement as of the
Effective Date.
TUALATIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT CITY OF WILSONVILLE
By: By:
GREGORY E. DiLORETO ARLENE LOBLE
City Manager
Attest:
Sandra C. King,CMC
City Recorder
Approved as to form: Approved as to form:
Attorney Michael E. Kohlhoff, City Attorney
for City of Wilsonville
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1 Warranty Deed
Exhibit 2 General Configuration of Supply Facilities and Areas 1,2,3 and 4
Exhibit 3 AIlocation of Construction Costs Between Owners
Page 18—AGREEMENT
JAMy Documents\Willamette WTPWgree WTP Wilsonville-TVWD6-23-00 Clean Copy.doc
REGIONAL WATER PROVIDERS CONSORTIUM BOARD MEETING
Minutes of June 7,2000
Dominique Bessde, committee clerk,called the Regional Water Providers Consortium Board
meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Metro Council Chambers/Annex.
Elected representatives from seventeen Consortium member agencies were present at the meeting
(which is a quorum), including City of Beaverton, Clackamas River Water, Damascus Water
District, City of Forest Grove, City of Gladstone, City of Hillsboro/Joint Water Commission,
City of Lake Oswego, Metro, Oak Lodge Water District,Powell Valley Road Water District,
Rockwood Water PUD, City of Sandy, South Fork Water Board, City of Tigard, City of
Tualatin, West Slope Water District,and City of Wilsonville.
Consortium member agencies not represented by elected officials at this meeting included the
City of Fairview, City of Gresham,City of Milwaukie,Mt. Scott Water District, City of
Portland, Raleigh Water District, City of Sherwood, Tualatin Valley Water District, and City of
Wood Village.
Ms. Bessde explained that Robert's Rules of Order indicates that the clerk of the committee shall
call the meeting to order in the event the Chair and Vice-Chair are unable to attend a meeting,
and the committee will elect a Chairman Pro Tem immediately. Rob Kappa, former Consortium
Board Chair,resigned his position on the Milwaukie City Council and the Board Vice-Chair was
unable to attend this meeting. Ms. Bessde invited suggestions for Chairman Pro Tem.
Election of Chairman Pro Tem: Councilor Kent Seida suggested that Commissioner Les
Larson serve,as Chairman Pro Tem. The Consortium Board approved his appointment.
Introduction: The Chairman Pro Tem called for introductions. Those in attendance included
Greg DiLoreto from Tualatin Valley Water District; Mike Rosenberger and Carla Ralston from
the Portland Water Bureau; Councilor Dave Frechette and Rob Foster from the City of Forest
Grove; Councilor Susan McLain and Mark Turpel from Metro; Commissioner A.P. DiBenedetto
and Jerry Arnold from West Slope Water District; Commissioners Bruce Fontaine and Paul
Rogers,and Dale Jutila from Clackamas River Water; District Board President John Huffman
and David Gilbey from Powell Valley Road Water District; Commissioner Les Larson and
Katherine Willis from Oak Lodge Water District; West Linn Mayor Jill Thorn and Dan Bradley
from South Fork Water Board; Councilor Ellie McPeak and Joel Komarek from the City of Lake
Oswego; Councilor Katharine Forrest and Mike McKillip from the City of Tualatin; Councilor
Paul Hunt and Ed Wegner from the City of Tigard;District Board President Bill Crandall and
Tacy Steele from the City of Hillsboro/Joint Water Commission; John Thomas from North
.Clackamas County Water Commission/Mt. Scott Water District; Councilor.Kent Seida and
Denny Klingbile from Damascus Water District; Councilor Forrest Soth from the City of
Beaverton; Councilor Carl Gardner from the City of Gladstone; Councilor Don Allen from the
City of Sandy; District Board President Pat Stallings and Harvey Barnes from Rockwood Water
PUD;David Rouse and Keely Thompson from the City of Gresham; Mayor Charlotte Lehan,
District Board Council President John Helser, and Jeff Bauman from the City of Wilsonville;
r
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 7, 2000
Page 2
Lisa Obermeyer from Montgomery Watson, Inc.; Tim McNichol from Trudy Cooper&
Associates; Steve Willey from Greenleaf Nursery;Jim Hansen from Tigard Citizens for Safe
Water; and Lorna Stickel, Rebecca Geisen, and Dominique Bessee from the City of
Portland/Consortium staff.
Election of Officers: The Chairman Pro Tem called for nominations for Consortium Board
Chair. Commissioner Les Larson and Commissioner Bruce Fontaine were nominated for
Consortium Board Chair. A motion was made, and seconded,to close the nominations.
Lorna Stickel suggested that the Consortium Board conduct a roll call vote.
Mayor Charlotte Lehan suggested that the nominees provide a brief statement of their interest.
Commissioner Larson said he was surprised by the nomination for Board Chair but would be
pleased to serve in this capacity. He noted that he has regularly attended Consortium Board
meetings since the Consortium was formed,and is well acquainted with Consortium activities.
Commissioner Bruce Fontaine said he is interested in being Consortium Board Chair,and has
been actively involved in Consortium activities since 1997. He said he would like to see the
Consortium attain the vision set out in the Consortium Intergovernmental Agreement(IGA)and
Bylaws, and become a nationally recognized group of water provider agencies that achieves the
goals in the draft Five-year Strategic Plan.
A roll call vote was conducted. The Consortium Board voted(9:7:0)in favor of Les Larson
becoming the Consortium Board Chair. (The elected representative from.Forest Grove arrived
after the voting.) District Board President Pat Stallings and Harvey Barnes requested a recount.
Consortium staff confirmed the initial vote tally by voice,and Commissioner Les Larson became
the Consortium Board Chair.
Chair Larson called for nominations for Consortium Board Vice-Chair. District Board President
Pat Stallings nominated Commissioner Bruce Fontaine for Vice-Chair. Commissioner Fontaine
nominated District Board President Stallings for Vice-Chair. Ms. Stallings deferred the
nomination to Commissioner Fontaine citing his wealth of experience.
Lorna Stickel pointed out that the Consortium Bylaws do not allow participants from the same
County to be concurrent Board Chair and Vice-Chair. She pointed out that Commissioner
Fontaine is unable to serve as Board Vice-Chair since both he and Chair Larson represent
agencies in Clackamas County. Ms. Stallings accepted the nomination.
A motion was made, and seconded,to close nominations. The Consortium Board voted
unanimously to approve Pat Stallings as Consortium Board Vice-Chair. (17:0:0)
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 7, 2000
Page 3
Approval of Minutes: A motion was made and seconded for the Consortium Board meeting
minutes of March 1, 2000 to be approved. The Board voted unanimously to approve the minutes
as written.
Comments by Ex-Consortium Board Chair: Rob Kappa, former Consortium Board Chair,
commented that he had made some good personal decisions over the last several months that
have not proven to be as good for political reasons.
Mr. Kappa referred to the recent withdrawal of Canby Utility Board from the Consortium,and
discussions currently underway regarding Metro's continued membership. He said he hopes that
the Consortium will remain intact,and resolve any real or perceived issues that could separate
the water provider agencies or cause conflict.
Mr. Kappa noted that the Consortium represents over 1 M people in the Portland metropolitan
area, and the collective agency has a powerful voice that could be used to help shape regional
and state-wide water issues and how the area will develop. He suggested that the Consortium
look to the Strategic Planning Committee(SPC) and the draft Five-year Strategic Plan for
guidance.
Mr. Kappa commented that the Consortium has a great deal of available resources and expertise,
and some very good staff. He said he has enjoyed his time with the Consortium and will miss his
involvement in water issues as an elected official although he planned to continue his
participation as a citizen.
The Consortium Board responded to Mr. Kappa's remarks with a round of applause.
Public Comment: Steve Willey, Greenleaf Nursery, expressed his appreciation to Metro
Councilor Susan McLain who invited his comments at this meeting. He said his historic family-
owned farm is located between Wilsonville and Tualatin,and the farm draws its sole water
supply from wells that pull water from the same aquifer as the City of Wilsonville.
Mr. Willey commented that although his water certificates predate those held by Wilsonville,the
Oregon Water Resources Department(WRD)has indicated that his access to the water supply
could be limited, and perhaps prohibited, at some future date. He reported that static water levels
in his area have dropped approximately ten feet over the last season, and WRD could assign a
critical designation to the limited groundwater area. Mr. Willey indicated that his pumps would
be turned off in that event and his business would be severely affected. He expressed concern for
his water supply even if the critical designation does not occur.
Mr. Willey reported that the new prison being constructed in Wilsonville will pull water from the
same aquifer. He noted that other new construction continues in this area. He expressed doubts
that the Willamette Water Treatment Plant will be able to meet demand needs in the near-term.
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 7, 2000
Page 4
Mr. Willey said he believes that Wilsonville is depleting the natural resource through poor
planning. He mentioned that agricultural and forestry zoned users are unable to connect to the
municipal system, and asked for the Consortium's assistance in remedying the problematic
zoning situation. He said he believes this situation could have been avoided if there had been
better coordination and information sharing between local,state, and federal land use planning
agencies and the general public.
Mr. Willey asked Consortium member entities to share their resources with those who have had
resources depleted by urban needs,and to work to ensure that all affected parties are considered
in future decision-making. Mr. Willey urged the Consortium to work collectively and share
information,and encourage public participation in decision-making. He asked that the
Consortium entities to use their influence to help resolve this situation if possible.
Mr. Willey thanked the Consortium Board for the opportunity to comment on this issue, and for
its continued efforts to benefit the citizens of the Portland metropolitan region.
Jim Hansen, Tigard Citizens for Safe Water,noted that the Tualatin, Tigard, Sherwood,and
Wilsonville chapters of Citizens for Safe Water(CFSW) submitted comments on the draft
Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy for Consortium Board consideration in advance of
the meeting. Mr.Hansen said CFSW is opposed to the Willamette River being tapped as a water
supply source because there are a number.of other ample water supply options available to the
region. He said citizens should have a voice in determining what water supply is selected to
meet demand needs,and citizens should have the ability to voice support for an alternative that
would allow them to pay for a particular water source.
Wilsonville: Steps to Address Near-term Shortage: Mayor Charlotte Lehan said she was
invited to make a presentation on water conservation and other actions being taken to address
near-term shortages in Wilsonville. She said she is unable to respond to all of the complex issues
raised-by the public comments although groundwater levels have been declining in Wilsonville,
and the city has been working to get off groundwater for years.
Mayor Lehan reported that the Wilsonville City Council approved a Public Facilities Strategy
(PFS)that will"ration"the issuance of building permits until the new Willamette Water
Treatment Plant is completed in the Spring of 2002. The objective of the PFS is to allow new
development to proceed at a rate that will not outstrip the City's limited ability to supply water.
The PFS creates three categories of new development. Category 1 development includes projects
that do not create any new peak season demand for water in 2000 or 2001. These developments
willbe allowed to proceed under the PFS.
Category 2 development are projects that create new peak season demand in 2000 or 2001, and
their owners are willing to sign a certificate acknowledging that they will not receive an
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 7, 2000
Page 5
occupancy permit until after October 15, 2001. In that way, such developments would not be
creating any new peak season demand until after the water treatment plant is on line in 2002.
Category 2 developments will be allowed to proceed under the PFS.
Category 3 development are projects that would create new peak season demand in 2000 or
2001, and their owners are unwilling to delay occupancy until after October 15, 2001.
Category 3 projects would move through the development review process but not receive a
building permit until the Community Development Director can certify that enough water is
available to serve the project's peak day demand. Category 3 developments will be required to
prepare a Wise Water Conservation Plan to demonstrate how peak day demand would be reduced
by 20%or more.
Mayor Lehan reported that Wilsonville has been very aggressive on conservation without
devoting significant funding resources towards these efforts. She reported that Wilsonville has
experienced a steady decline in summer peak day use since 1994 despite increased development.
She attributed the decline to mandatory curtailments/water restrictions,monthly billing,and
inverted block rates.
Mayor Lehan talked about the door hanger program that is used to notify residents of over
watering or watering that occurs at the wrong time of day/day of the week. She talked about
other processes used to disseminate conservation information. She reported on the Save Water
and Energy Education Program(SWEEP)demonstration program and the upcoming
Conservation Fair that will have interactive exhibits that provide information about the latest in
water- and energy-saving technology. Mayor Lehan said Wilsonville's goal is to make water
conservation a permanent component of their supply picture.
Councilor Forrest Soth commented that his purchase of a premium-efficiency clothes washer has
made a noticeable difference in both his water and energy consumption. He said the high
efficiency washers are well worth the much higher cost,and the purchase is eligible for an
Oregon State energy tax credit. Mayor Lehan mentioned that there are a number of programs
available that reduce the cost of the clothes washers, including discounts,rebates, and credits.
Mayor Lehan reported that peak day demand in Wilsonville has declined from 5.2 MGD in 1994
to 4.5 MGD in 1999 with significant amount of growth in both commercial/industrial and
dwelling units.
Draft Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy Report: Lisa Obermeyer, Montgomery
Watson, Inc., noted that the Consortium Board received a presentation on the draft Regional
Transmission and Storage Strategy(RT/SS)Report in March 2000. At that time, the Consortium
Board directed the Project Consultant Team to issue the draft RT/SS Report for review by
Consortium member agencies and interested stakeholder groups.
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 7, 2000
Page 6
Ms. Obermeyer reported that the draft RUSS Report review process is now complete. Input was
provided at a public workshop on April 3, 2000,and nine Consortium member agencies and
Citizens for Safe Water(CFSW)provided written comments.
Ms. Obermeyer said the content of the RUSS has not changed much from the initial draft to the
version now being presented for adoption. The basic principals of the recommended regional
transmission and storage strategy continue to be to 1) Strengthen and develop
interconnections between providers to improve emergency supply and reliability throughout the
region, and 2)Develop further interconnections between and among water providers over the
long-term while recognizing work to develop local water supply to meet more immediate needs.
Ms. Obermeyer reported that written comments received from the member agencies support the
priorities of the policy values in the draft RT/SS Report,as well as the near-and long-term
strategies. Some member entities requested that the RT/SS Report include a stronger discussion
of Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR), and indicate that ASR is being developed at several
sites in the region as a means to improve supply reliability. One agency requested that the
RUSS emphasize that participation by the water provider agencies in the individual transmission
projects is voluntary. Ms. Obermeyer indicated that there were a number of detailed comments
that suggested technical clarification to the report,and these comments have been integrated.
Ms. Obermeyer indicated that citizen comments supported the near-term strategy of improving
water reliability through emergency interconnections. The CFSW and others pointed out the
need for stronger discussion of ASR in the recommended strategy.
The CFSW requested that the Interconnected Subregional Approach be revised to remove the
Willamette River as a major supply source. Ms. Obermeyer reported that Wilsonville provided
equally strong comments that the Willamette River should not be removed from the scenario
because development of this source is currently underway. She said the important thing to
remember is that the Interconnected Subregional Approach is the pathline of the conduits and the
size of the scenario does not change whether or not the Willamette River is included.
Ms. Obermayer pointed out that all comments received about the draft RUSS Report are
documented in the report section"Summary of Public Information and Involvement and
Consortium Board and Member Input."
Chair Larson asked how many members of the public intend to comment on the draft RT/SS
Report. There were no requests to make public comment on this agenda item other than that
provided by Jim Hansen earlier.
Councilor Forrest Soth pointed out an error in the proposed revisions to the draft RT/SS Report.
He said the Joint Water Commission(JWC) Water Treatment Plant was recently expanded to
increase treatment capacity to 60 MGD firm capacity and 70 MGD nominal capacity.
• • J
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 7, 2000
Page 7
Councilor Soth reported that the Beaverton ASR system is working very well and Beaverton
anticipates being able to cut its need to draw excessive amounts from its share of the JWC to
meet summer peak demand.
There was a motion to adopt the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy with the proposed
changes. The motion was seconded.
Councilor Susan McLain commented that the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy does
not address water rights or competing uses, including rural versus urban needs. She said she will
support whatever decision is made, and hopes the Consortium Board will adopt a regional
strategy that connects the majority of users in a positive way and includes support for mutual
assistance with information and emergency back-up supplies. Councilor McLain said the
recommended strategy does not include all necessary elements of a complete plan,and she hopes
the next steps will address some of the unresolved issues.
The Consortium Board voted unanimously to adopt the Regional Transmission and Storage
Strategy as amended by the proposed changes(17:0:0).
Five.year Strategic Plan: Commissioner Bruce Fontaine reported that the Strategic Planning
Committee (SPC)has met three times since the March Consortium Board meeting to refine the
draft Five-year Strategic Plan. Commissioner Fontaine.noted that the draft Plan identifies the
following three key strategic challenges: 1) How do we facilitate the provision of adequate water
supplies as a region; 2)How do we deal with emergencies on a regional basis?;and 3) How do
we build the Consortium into a valued organization that helps water providers meet water needs
and water emergencies.
The key strategic challenges were derived based on responses to the Stakeholder Survey
distributed last year to Consortium members and external stakeholder groups. The SPC also
conducted a SWOT analysis over several meeting to assesses the Consortium's strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.
Commissioner Fontaine reported that the SPC focussed on issues specific to the collective
agency, and developed the strategic direction based on the stated purpose of the collective body.
Other options were also evaluated to arrive at strategic goals for the key challenges. The draft
Five-year Strategic Plan includes information about the strategic goals,evaluation criteria,
resource implications,potential approaches,and consequences of not addressing an issue. The
strategic goals are oriented around date specific actions for Board consideration.
Commissioner Fontaine pointed out that the strategic goals are summarized at the end of the draft
Plan to facilitate Board discussion in tonight's breakout sessions.
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 7, 2000
Page 8
Commissioner Fontaine indicated that the SPC will revise the draft Five-year Strategic Plan to
reflect comments made at this meeting. The revised Plan will then be revised with input from
the Consortium Technical Subcommittee and Consortium Technical Committee, and finalized
for Consortium Board consideration for adoption in September.
Lorna Stickel reviewed the basic ground rules for the strategic planning breakout sessions, which
are organized by the three metropolitan counties. She introduced Tim McNichol from Trudy
Cooper&Associates,Carla Ralston from the Portland Water Bureau, and Keely Thompson from
the City of Gresham,who will facilitate the breakout sessions. Each group will begin discussion
with a different key strategic area. Members of the public are welcome to attend either session,
however no public participation will be allowed. Public comment will be taken after the
Consortium Board reconvenes. Comments in the breakout sessions will be recorded on chart-pak
pages. Participants in the breakout sessions will respond to the following questions: 1) What
questions do you need to have answered to increase your commitment?; and 2) What key
recommendations do you have for the Board to refine the proposed strategic goals? The elected
representatives will then assign a priority ranking to the issues identified.
Ms. Stickel said Board members could decide to extend the amount of time in the breakout
sessions if there is consensus to do so. She noted that the Consortium Board meeting will need
to conclude no later than 9:30 p.m.
Consortium Board members departed for the breakout sessions. Comments voiced in those
sessions were captured on chart-pak pages and are reflected in the summaries attached to these
meeting minutes.
The Consortium Board reconvened at approximately 9:20 p.m. Lorna Stickel invited a
spokesperson from each group to report back.
District Board President Pat Stallings reported that participants in the Multnomah County
breakout session agreed that the draft Five-year Strategic Plan provides a good foundation for the
Consortium. Participants in this group voiced no strong objections to language in the draft Plan,
but noted that additional work will be needed to expand on some items, including a revisit of the
Regional Public Information and Involvement Plan. Group participants said the Consortium
should take a more proactive approach in the legislative arena on issues that can be agreed upon
by the collective body.
Participants in the Multnomah County breakout session talked about the need to maintain focus
on the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy, and to establish an Executive Committee to
improve communications between agencies and elected officials.
Councilor Forrest Soth reported that participants in the Washington County breakout session
echoed some of the same comments as those expressed in the Multnomah County session. He
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 7,2000
Page 9
said the Washington County participants noted the importance of Consortium Board members
becoming better acquainted so that Consortium work can move forward. Participants in this
group indicated that the Consortium should pay more attention to legislative issues,and arrange
for elected representatives to testify before the Oregon State Legislature when important issues
arise.
Councilor Soth reported that the Washington County group supported the formation of an
Executive Committee to attend to issues between the quarterly Board meetings. Members
suggested that Executive Committee members could take an active role in communicating the
Consortium perspective on legislative issues. He said the group indicated that staff should be
included on the Executive Committee to provide technical expertise.
Participants in the Washington County breakout session voiced favorable comments about the
breakout session,and indicated that this meeting format allows for increased conversation and
ability to meet objectives. Participants indicated that Consortium Board meetings should be
restructured to focus on a few points in a concentrated manner rather than covering a wide range
of topics. The group also identified the need for coordination between water provider agencies in
order to respond to emergencies.
Commissioner Bruce Fontaine reported that participants in the Clackamas County breakout
session talked about the need to revisit public involvement strategies, and provide appropriate
citizen involvement opportunities for citizens that have expressed interest in water issues.
Participants in this group discussed ways to be more proactive with the Oregon Legislature, and
how to determine goals and benchmarks for that interaction. He reported that participants
identified a number of potential ways to measure success, including the number of Consortium-
sponsored initiatives adopted by the Oregon Legislature and the Legislature perceiving the .
Consortium to be an information resource. Clackamas County participants also talked about the
dynamics and communication problems associated with the frequency of Consortium Board
meetings.
In regards to the strategic issue area of Emergency Preparedness, the Clackamas County breakout
group decided that the Regional Emergency Management Technical Committee(REMTEC),
Federal Emergency Management Agency,and Department of Emergency Services should be .
included in the emergency preparedness strategy. He said the question to be addressed is how to
determine who will lead this effort.
Commissioner Fontaine reported there was discussion about whether the Consortium would form
another entity to address emergency preparedness or work in a coordinated fashion with other
agencies to share expertise in our respective areas. He said the SPC proposed an emergency
workshop to be held later this year,and the Clackamas group questioned whether this timeline is
realistic. The group indicated that the only way to test an emergency preparedness strategy is to
test it.
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 7, 2000
Page 10
Commissioner Fontaine reported that the Clackamas County participants discussed the
composition of an Executive Committee, and if it would be logical for the SPC to evolve into the
Executive Committee. The group discussed the goals of such a committee.
Commissioner Fontaine commented about the increased level of exchange between participants
in the breakout session. He said the Consortium might have uncovered a new format for future
Consortium meetings.
Ms. Stickel indicated that there will be a three month period of time for the SPC to review the
comments expressed at this meeting. The SPC will propose revisions to the draft Five-year
Strategic Plan, and the Consortium Board will be asked to adopt the Plan at the next Board
meeting in September. Board member are invited to review the draft Five-year Strategic Plan
with their respective decision-making bodies over the next month or so before the SPC
reconvenes in July. She indicated that the same offer will be made to those agencies not
represented at this meeting.
District Board President Stallings spoke on behalf of the other members on the SPC and thanked
Consortium staff for their participation in the preparation of the draft Five-year Strategic Plan.
Other-Business: Lorna Stickel reported that Consortium staff prepared draft correspondence on
the Metro membership dues issue. The draft correspondence encourages the Metro Council to
reconsider its decision to eliminate funding for the Consortium in the FY 2000-01 Metro Budget.
The.correspondence was distributed for Board review earlier in the evening.
A motion was made and seconded for the Consortium Board to approve the Metro
correspondence. The Consortium Board voted unanimously to send the communication.
Mayor Jill Thorn encouraged each member entity to prepare similar correspondence to the Metro
Council.
Councilor Susan McLain reported that the Metro Council voted 4:3 in favor of the budget
reduction. She said the Metro Council grappled with the issue of why Metro should be involved
in the regional water supply planning. She suggested that certain Consortium member entities
might want to be more active in the letter-writing campaign and target their Metro district
representative who voted in favor of the budget.
Councilor McLain expressed her gratitude for the Consortium Board vote to send the
correspondence, and encouraged the individual member agencies to send correspondence as well.
Councilor McLain said she will present a budget amendment to carry the Consortium dues
amount forward when Metro votes to approve its final budget-on June 15, 2000. (Staff Note:
The Metro Council voted 7:0 in favor of paying the Consortium dues on June 15,2000.)
Consortium Board Meeting
Minutes of June 7, 2000
Page 11
There was a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded. The Consortium Board
meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. The next meeting will be on September 6,2000.
Prepared by Dominique Bessee
Y . �
Clackamas County Breakout Session 617/00
The group reviewed the strategic goals on the Strategic Plan "Short Form." Listed below are
the group's key recommendations and questions for the draft goals. Board members placed
check marks by the recommendations and questions they felt were the most important. The
total number of check marks any given recommendation or question received is indicated in
parentheses. The bulleted goals on the"short form"were assigned sequenced numbers within
each strategic area to facilitate identification of goals during the discussion.
Meeting Water Needs
Goal#3 - Review and Revise the Regional Water Supply Plan
The 3rd sentence should read: ide;;* Include appropriate citizen involvement
opportunities for this process." (5 checks)
Would this be forming a citizen committee? What other options are there for effective
citizen involvement? What would be their involvement at board meetings?
Goal#4 - Be more pro-Active with the Legislature (6 checks)
What does being "more pro-active"with the legislature mean? How would we measure
our success? Would it be:
• The legislature knows We exist? Respects our role or the value we add?
• The amount of feedback we get from the legislature about our role or input?
• Issues we sponsor or oppose as a consortium pass or fail respectively.
Is the ultimate measure the percentage of times the legislature comes to the
consortium for information and advice on water related issues?
Goal #6 - Review and revise the Public Involvement Strategy (1 check)
The goal should read: "The public involvement strategy should be reviewed for
effectiveness on an on-going basis."
How will we measure the effectiveness of our public involvement efforts?
Emergency Preparedness
Goal#1 - Develop a Regional Emergency Preparedness Plan
Should clearly state that this goal deals with integrating and coordinating water system
emergency response with other public safety emergency response needs. It does not
mean creating a separate emergency.group or plan. Should clarify what role REMTEC,
the Consortium and other emergency responders (FEMA, Dept of Emergency Services,
City and County staff,etc.)would play. (5 checks)
The target date for this goal might read"in coordination with the Regional Transmission
and Storage Strategy over the next 5 years. (i.e. goal#5 within this section)." That
would connect.the goal to other work that needs to occur.
Goal #3 - Hold a regional Emergency Preparedness Workshop
Target date for the workshop seems unrealistic. Could we put together an effective
workshop by fall of 2000 given we are already in the summer of 2000?
Goal#5-Implement Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy (2 checks)
Is the sequencing of this goal correct? Should local be occurring prior to agreement on
a regional plan? Is it enough if local implementation•is done with a regional focus?
Overall Emergency Preparedness Goal
When all is said and done, how do we measure our success in being prepared for
emergencies? How does testing our effectiveness in responding to simulated
emergencies fit into this goal? What would we be targeting or measuring to determine
how successful we are meeting this strategic challenge?" (3 checks)
Regional Partnerships
Goals# 1-3 Improve Meeting formats,topics, communication methods. (2 checks)
These three goals are methods ("how to's")for achieving the ultimate goal of improving
member satisfaction and involvement which is alluded to in goal#5.
Goal#2 - Improve meeting format and target agenda themes in advance
Identifying issues in advance (especially legislative issues)was identified as an
important method for increasing member involvement and participation. (6 checks)
Participants stated they appreciated the amount and quality of dialogue today's break-
out sessions produced.
Goal#5 - Survey the Board and staff on Consortium effectiveness (2 checks)
What is the goal we are trying to achieve through this activity? Is it:
• Member satisfaction rating target? Percentage increase in member satisfaction?
• Percentage attendance at meetings?
• At least a quorum at every meeting?
• Overall survival of the consortium?
Goal#4 - Establish Executive Committee to replace the SPC. (4 checks)
What is the intended result bf this approach? What problem is it solving? Is it to help
the board deal with issues related to the infrequency of board meetings?
How will an executive committee help deal with issues related to making decisions in a
large and diverse board?
Is an executive committee the best"solution"to improve board effectiveness?What
other options might there be? (Break-out work sessions like today was mentioned as
one approach.)
If the executive committee is a good approach,what would be the most effective make-
up, role, structure and authority of the executive committee?
How would we measure if the executive committee approach was being successful or .
not?
Clackamas County Breakout Session
Consortium Board Meeting
June 7,2000
Participants in the Clackamas County breakout session included Commissioners Bruce
Fontaine and Paul Rogers, and Dale Jutila from Clackamas River Water; Councilor Les
Larson from Oak Lodge Water District; Councilor Kent Seida and Denny Klingbile from
Damascus Water District; Councilor Ellie McPeak and Joel Komarek from the City of
Lake Oswego; Mayor Jill Thorn from the City of West Linn and Dan Bradley from South
Fork Water Board; and Jeff Bauman from the City of Wilsonville. Several citizens
attended this session. Tim McNichol from Trudy Cooper& Associates facilitated the
discussion.
Participants discussed the goals identified in the key strategic area "Meeting Water
Needs. " The group discussed how and when the public should be involved in the review
and revision of the Regional Water Supply Plan(RWSP). The group decided to change
language in the draft Five-year Strategic Plan to indicate that this strategy should
"Include appropriate citizen involvement opportunities for this process"and public
involvement opportunities should be tied to the same dates as the action steps in the
strategy. .
Les Larson suggested that the Consortium could consider forming a citizen involvement
committee. The group talked about how communication could occur between the
Consortium Board and the citizens committee, and how the success of this public
involvement activity could be measured.
Participants talked about ways to be more proactive with the Oregon State Legislature,
and how to measure the success of that interaction. The group identified a number of
potential ways to measure success, including the number of Consortium-sponsored
initiatives adopted by the Oregon State Legislature. Another indicator of success would
be that legislators would come to view the Consortium as an information iesource on
water issues.
The group suggested language to revise the strategic goal "Revisit the public involvement
strategy for review and revision in 2003"to"The public involvement strategy should be
reviewed for effectiveness on an ongoing basis."
The Clackamas County group discussed the goals identified in the key strategic area
"Emergency Preparedness. " Ellie McPeak referred to the strategic objective that would
develop a regional emergency preparedness plan in coordination with the Regional
Emergency Management Technical Committee(REMTEC) by the end of 2003. She
questioned the need for the Consortium to work independent of REMTEC, and noted that
this coordination would be critical during emergency events. Paul Rogers said REMTEC
does not have a high level of detailed information about the water systems in the region,
and it would be prudent for the water providers themselves to develop a plan to deal with
Consortium Board Meeting
Clackamas County Breakout Session
Page 2
water supply related emergencies. Jill Thorn and Don Allen noted that many entities in
the region have staff specifically dedicated to emergency preparedness and management.
Don Allen explained that the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) intended for this
strategy to address emergency management of water systems on a regional basis,and in a
way that would allow the water provider agencies to work in a coordinated manner to
meet needs during times of emergencies.
Some participants commented that the draft Ianguage suggests that a separate group will
be created to address emergency preparedness. Bruce Fontaine said that was not the
intent of the SPC.
Ellie McPeak suggested that the Consortium focus initially on existing emergency plans
and strategies in the region. Bruce Fontaine agreed that it would be worthwhile to invite
a representative from REMTEC and/or the Federal Emergency Management Agency to
give a presentation at a Board meeting.
Jill Thom asked if the timelines identified for this work are reasonable. She noted that
mostagencies devoted considerable time and resources to preparing for Y2K.
After some further discussion about this strategic area,participants in the Clackamas
County breakout session agreed that the draft language needs to be clarified to indicate
that this strategic area concerns the coordination of water system emergency responses
with other public safety emergency response needs. The group suggested that additional
language could be added to include more information about the roles of the various
agencies to be involved.
Tim McNichol asked the group to consider how the Consortium would know if the
emergency preparedness strategy is successful. Bruce Fontaine suggested that the next
step could involve testing the emergency preparedness plan. The group discussed how
the strategy could be tested with a simulated event, and how the success of that testing
would be measured.
Joel Komarek questioned the sequencing of the two strategic objectives that would
1) implement the Regional Transmission and Storage Strategy(RT/SS)on a local level
before 2)the Consortium evaluates an Intergovernmental Agreement to facilitate
interagency coordination and response. The group discussed whether an implementation
date is needed for the regional strategy. Some participants suggested that some activities
could occur prior to the suggested timeline.
Participants in the Clackamas County group discussed the goals identified in the key
strategic area "Building a Better Regional Relationship. " Kent Seida asked about the
purpose of the strategic objective that would establish an Executive Committee of the
Board as a replacement for the Strategic Planning Committee. Bruce Fontaine said the
formation of an Executive Committee would provide a venue for elected officials to
Consortium Board Meeting
Clackamas County Breakout Session
Page 3
communicate more frequently on relevant issues. The group discussed how frequently
Board members would want to meet either as part of an Executive Committee or in
smaller topic-specific subcommittees. The group talked about ways to measure the
success of this activity.
Jill Thorn asked if the SPC discussed other alternatives to an Executive Committee. She
asked if the SPC considered the option of forming subcommittees comprised of elected
representatives to address specific topic areas. Some group participants questioned if
Board members would be able to attend an increased number of meetings. The group
talked about the composition and authority of an Executive Committee if formed.
Tim McNichol referred to the strategic objective that would conduct an annual survey of
the Consortium Board and agency staff to determine the overall effectiveness of the
Consortium. He asked about the purpose of this strategic goal. Kent Seida said he
believed the immediate goal would be the overall survival of the Consortium group and
keeping the agency vital. Bruce Fontaine and Paul Rogers said another goal could be to
increase attendance and ensure quorums at Consortium meetings. The group
brainstormed about potential incentives to improve attendance.
Jill Thorn referred to the strategic goal that would implement meeting formats that allow
for increased dialogue among Board members. She agreed there needs to be more verbal
exchange between the elected officials, and said an improved meeting format might
motivate Board members to attend meetings on a more frequent basis.
The group talked about the overall success of the breakout session. There were a number
of very favorable comments about the breakout session, and the open exchange that
occurred in the smaller discussion group.
Some participants suggested that an Executive Committee or smaller topic-specific
subcommittee would be unnecessary if there is more discussion among Board members.
Participants talked about the awkwardness of the configuration used for Board meetings,
which was described as stifling to conversation. Some persons pointed out that the
strategic goals that relate to improved meeting formats and communication methods are
also ways to improve Consortium member satisfaction and involvement.
Joel Komarek voiced support for the strategic goal that would establish primary agenda
themes for meetings a year in advance. He said this activity would do much to enable the
Consortium Board to be more proactive in the legislative arena, and help to identify areas
of mutual advantage.
The elected officials in the Clackamas County breakout group indicated their agreement
with the issues captured on chart-pak pages by placing a checkmark next to them. The
results of this "voting"activity are attached.
Prepared by Dominique Bessee
J
Regional Water Providers Consortium Board
Meeting of Wednesday,June 7,2000 at Metro
5-Year Strategic Plan Draft Strategic Goals Breakout Sessions
Multnomah County
Facilitator: Keely Thompson,City of Gresham
HAM=
Meeting Water Needs
3 • Merging the Columbia-Willamette Water Conservation Coalition with the Consortium is
a significant step forward.
3 • Develop a procedure on how to combine all voices into one voice regarding legislative
issues.(It will be important to determine how to speak with one voice regarding
legislative issues.)
3 • The timing of meetings can make it difficult for a board member to make agency
decisions.
3 • Adoption of a regional transmission and storage strategy is important.
3 • Updating the Regional Water Supply Plan is important.
3 • Citizen involvement is important and valued by agencies.(Citizens need to know we are
listening to them.)
Emergency Preparedness
3 • Build on REMTEC's successes and experience.
3 G Develop inventory definitions. When assessing inventory,it is important to know that
we are comparing"apples to apples".
3 • All five goals fit together well.
3 C Emergencies require many types of communication that need to be integrated. The plan
for communication needs to be broadened.
3 • Some counties have different levels of plans already in place.
3 • It is important to create IGAs that identify who is responsible for what.
2 • Agencies not involved with the plan should be covered in some manner.
Members of the group commented the Strategic Plan is a comprehensive-report that required
significant efforts. They believed the length of time the Consortium has stayed together is
important to note. It was also noted the plan is intended to be a starting point.
Building a Better Regional Partnership
3 • It is important to integrate other regional issues and look for overlap. Example: land
use.
3 • It is important to build relationships within the Consortium body. Meeting only four
times each year makes this difficult.
3 • An Executive Committee will be required for,continued success.
3 • Strategic planning drives the work of staff and is the most important goal.
2 • Increase Board participation via specific,voluntary assignments.
3 • The Board and Chairs should visit other agencies that have difficulty participating.
Members of the group believed it important for the organization to look outside itself for
examples and assistance.No need to reinvent the wheel. We can learn from others.
Multnomah County Breakout Session
Consortium Board Meeting
June 7, 2000
Participants in the Multnomah County breakout session 'included District Board President Pat
Stallings and Harvey Barnes from Rockwood Water PUD, Councilor Susan McLain from Metro,
District Board President John Huffman and David Gilbey from Powell Valley Water District,
Mike Rosenberger from the Portland Water Bureau, and David Rouse from the City of Gresham.
A citizen also attended the session. Keely Thompson from the City of Gresham facilitated the
discussion.
The group focused initially on the key strategic area "Emergency Preparedness. " Pat Stallings
reported that the Strategic Planning Committee (SPC)gave great thought to the purpose of the
draft Five-year Strategic Plan, and believes that each of the three strategic areas are of equal
importance and should be undertaken as a unit.
Mike Rosenberger said the five objectives identified for the Emergency Preparedness strategic
area are comprehensive and hold together well.
Susan McLain pointed out the need to further clarify the strategic goal"Propose a menu of
actions to improve communication among water providers and other key stakeholders during and
after emergencies." She said communication during times of emergency will need to occur
via a variety of tools and in an integrated manner. Other group participants agreed with these
comments. Mike Rosenberger suggested that some emergency prepared issues could be
addressed by an Intergovernmental Agreement among the water provider agencies.
David Rouse asked if the SPC considered non-Consortium member water provider agencies in
the Portland metropolitan area. Such agencies would include Canby Utility Board, Lorna Water
Company, Interlachen Water District, Lorna Water District, and Troutdale. Mike Rosenberger
pointed out that the draft Strategic Plan identifies the key affected stakeholders as being the
water provider entities that comprise the Consortium. He acknowledged that there are other
stakeholder agencies that could be involved in Consortium emergency preparedness activities,
including other water provider agencies, and police and fire departments. He said the
Consortium will consider how to integrate those stakeholder groups when the Consortium begins
to flesh out the details of the Plan.
The Multnomah County breakout group focused next on the key strategic area,Building a Better
Regional Partnership. Keely Thompson invited the group to think about key questions and/or
recommendations that their agencies would have if this strategic area is to be supported.
Mike Rosenberger said it is important for the Consortium to research and learn from activities
underway in other parts of the United States. He said the Consortium should determine if there
are shared/overlapping responsibilities with other types of agencies in the tri-county area. Susan
Multnomah County Breakout Session
6/7/00 Consortium Board Meeting
Page 2
McLain said the Consortium would benefit from looking at how additional issues can be
integrated into the strategy (i.e. land use and full community concerns), and work to identify
overlapping areas. She commented that this activity would help to build better relationships with
external agencies.
John Huffman talked about the need to first build better relationships between the Consortium
member agencies themselves before focusing on external relationship issues. Pat Stallings
agreed with these comments. She said the Consortium should look for ways to improve
communication and information sharing between the elected officials on the Consortium Board.
Pat Stallings talked about the difficulty that the elected representatives encounter when they
gather for decision-making on a quarterly basis with a limited base of information.
Pat Stallings referred to the strategic objective to establish an Executive Committee. She
commented that the draft Five-year Strategic Plan would not exist if not for the efforts of the
SPC. She pointed out that it would have been nearly impossible for the-Consortium Board to
prepare a draft document like the draft Plan given the Board's size and meeting schedule. Pat
said an Executive Committee is needed to provide leadership and prepare similar types of
documents/educational materials. She said she feels strongly that the continued-success of the
Consortium will be based on monthly meetings of an Executive Committee.
Mike Rosenberger asked about the composition of an Executive Committee. Pat Stallings said
the Consortium Board would determine the composition of the committee if the concept is
approved.
Mike Rosenberger said he believes that the most important goal within this particular strategic
area is for the Consortium Board to conduct strategic planning sessions each_year prior to the
budget process. He said these activities will drive the work of the Consortium, and serve as a
springboard for policy-driving the organization.
John Huffman said he believes that an Executive Committee will help to focus the Consortium
work. Pat Stallings commented that Board members need to participate more actively in
Consortium activities and provide consistent leadership. She said she believes that an Executive
Committee will achieve both of those goals.
David Rouse said he believes the draft Five-year Strategic Plan identifies an equally important.
strategic objective that would have Consortium officers attend meetings of Consortium member
entities unable to attend Consortium meetings on a regular basis. He talked about the importance
of the Consortium entities remaining united, and the need to tout the benefits of the regional
partnership. Other participants agreed with these comments and talked about the importance of
maintaining open lines of communication.
Multnomah County Breakout Session
6/7/00 Consortium Board Meeting
Page 3
The group decided that participation among Board members will be increased through an
Executive Committee and/or voluntary ad hoc subcommittees that are focused on specific issues.
Participants in the Multnomah County breakout session talked about the key strategic area,
"Meeting Water Needs. " Mike Rosenberger said he believes that the objective of implementing
the regional conservation program by effecting the merger of the.Consortium and Columbia-
Willamette Water Conservation Coalition was a major step. Susan McLain and others agreed
with this comment.
Susan McLain referred to the strategic objective for the Consortium to be more proactive in the
legislative arena by interacting more as a body to determine areas of mutual advantage. Mike
Rosenberger said that while there is probably significant support for this objective,the issue will
concern how to implement this strategy while recognizing the difficulties associated with the
diverse group. Pat Stallings said this strategic objective means the Consortium will need to
improve the procedure that takes the collective voice of the Consortium entities to the State
Legislature.
John Huffman talked about how difficult it is for Consortium Board members to speak
impromptu for their respective decision-making bodies at Board meetings. Pat Stallings said the
system would work best if the elected officials received prior approval from their agencies to
make decisions at Consortium Board meetings.
David Rouse referred to the strategic objective to adopt the Regional Transmission and Storage
Strategy. He commented that the Consortium has taken an important step at this meeting with
the adoption of this strategy.
Pat Stallings asked participants in the Multnomah County breakout session to indicate if there is
objectionable language in the draft Five-year Strategic Plan. Lorna mentioned that Consortium
member entities will have a three month period of time to review and discuss the draft Five-year
Strategic.Plan with their decision-making bodies.
Susan McLain commented that the strategic objective to review and revise the Regional Water
Supply Plan(RWSP) is important. She said the RWSP should be updated to reflect new
circumstances and resources. Mike Rosenberger agreed that updating the RWSP is important,
particularly in regards to the language which indicates that regional decisions will be made
concerning reliability, and these decisions will be cornerstones for the regional strategy.
Susan McLain commented that the Consortium values citizen involvement. She said there are
ways to improve the Consortium Public Information/InvoIvement Plan so that citizens believe
their input is important and valued. John Huffman and others agreed with these comments.
Multnomah County Breakout Session
6/7/00 Consortium Board Meeting
Page 4
The elected officials in the Multnomah County breakout session indicated their agreement with
the issues captured on chart-pak pages by placing a checkmark next to them. The results of that
"voting" activity are attached.
Prepared by Dominique Bessde
Regional Water Providers Consortium Board
Draft Five-year Strategic Plan
Breakout session
June 7,2000
Washington County
Facilitator: Carla Ralston,Portland Water Bureau
'k "A
'Sri
dotes V2 _�p gate
1,iN'
41,
7-7
Building a Better Regional fartnershjR:
4 Acquaintanceship with other members has worked to work through potentially
divisive issues.
1 1) Hard to disagree. Hold proceeding budget concerns--December/January.
Possibly two meetings. Facilitate budget process. Focus staff and Board.
7 2) This would help get dialogue going -it's difficult with current format. Small
group is.producing more discussion tonight.
• Look at different formats for different types of issues throughout the year.
3) Commitment to link with other entities-not at meeting.
2 a Bring new members up-to-date when Board members change.
6 e At each meeting focus on a few providers to present issues from their entity,
rotating throughout the year. To keep us updated on what's going on with others.
* Staff members do meet frequently outside Consortium. Some providers meet
outside.
6 4) Establish an Executive Committee of the Board-- Who will make-up this
committee? When? What is the role/authority as far as the Consortium is
concerned? Agenda? This could move things along between formal meetings.
Legislative voice requires more frequent actions than quarterly.
0 Consortium is new and we need some history to gain trust in handing over
authority.
7 * Include staff in Executive Board for support and technical proficiency.
1 5) We did that this year. Some of us turned them in. Led to this process. We want
to continue.
2 6) Starting to build relationships with Emergency Management groups- Continue
this.
2 Bring Emergency Preparedness to Council levels. Some agencies are more
prepared than others. What other issues that we aren't focusing on now are
identified?
6/7/00 Consortium Board Meeting
Washington County Breakout Session
Page 2
Votes Strategy"
Building a Better Regional Relationship: (cont.)
1 7) Review staffing per IGA.
Meeting Water Needs
4 1) Develop implementation schedule.
2) Full-cost staffing-Yes or No?
3 . 3) Regional Plan Revision. (Review required every five years by IGA.)
Scope of work in this budget. Update trends and stats/staff and consultants.
I Caution: That it becomes overwhelming in time and$, Cost by%as dues are.
That we get too wrapped up in revision at cost(time and$)to other projects.
4 4) How would we get more involved legislatively? Lobby? Executive Committee?
We represent over I M users. There are staff people at agencies. We need to be able
to quickly respond to legislative issues.
• Legislature responds more to elected*officials than to staff.
4 • Executive Board could fill this role.
.1 • Source Water Protection Strategy--Continue.
4 • 'Public Involvement Strategy Gotta have it.
Washington County Break Out Session
Consortium Board Meeting
June 7, 2000
Board members and staff present included:
West Slope: A.P. DiBendetto
Jerry Arnold
Tualatin: Katharine Forrest
Mike McKillip
Tigard: Paul Hunt
Ed Wegner
Hillsboro: Bill Crandall
Tacy Steele
Beaverton: Forrest Soth
Forrest Grove:David Frechette
Rob Foster
TV WD: Greg DiLoreto
Wilsonville: Charlotte Lehan
John Helser
Jeff Bauman
Strategy-Regional Partnerships:
The facilitator asked the Board members for their comments on the strategic goals for the
strategy: Building a Better Regional Partnership.
Some general comments were made. Forrest Soth from Beaverton noted that it was
important that Board members become acquainted with each other, learn each others
background,to build relationships.
Dave Frechette from Forrest Grove asked about the composition of the executive
committee, and authority and role they would have.
The group decided to address each bullet item in order(referred to as SG# 1-8).
a v
Washington County Breakout Session .�
6nloo Consortium Board Meeting
Page 2
r
SG#1: Spend at least one Board meeting focusing on strategic planning issues prior to
the budget process.
Forrest Soth suggested that we hold issues meeting in December or January to precede
budget discussions. He added that this strategic goal would help focus the efforts of staff
and the Board. A participant agreed this would help facilitate the budget process.
SG #2: Meeting formats
Dave Frechette thought it was a good goal and agreed that the Board needs to be more
engaged and have more dialog. Forrest Soth asked if the concept is to have topics at each
meeting?Greg DiLoreto responded that the point of this goal is to focus on meeting
formats to engage Board members and to also explore meeting topics and themes. There
was general agreement that this was important and we needed to work on this. Forrest
Soth noted that the meeting format would.depend on what was being discussed.
SG#3: Communication methods
People thought this was like the previous goal. Greg DiLoreto added that this goal
encourages Board members to meet externally. For example,Board members could meet
with colleagues that missed a meeting. This goal would ask Board members to make a
commitment to link with other members.
Dave Frechette said that it is often difficult to inform the rest of the City Council about
what is happening at the Consortium. Maybe this would be good opportunity to have staff
or Board members give a presentation to respective Boards and Councils. This is
reflected in SG#8.
Forrest Soth also noted that when membership changes and new Board members get
involved there should be a protocol where the old Board member informs the new
member about what is going on.
Charlotte Lehan noted that the Consortium Board meetings used to have a time where
everyone would go around the room and talk about newsworthy items, but it was
unsuccessful. Maybe each month a couple of providers could give a brief update on their
entity. Everyone knows what Wilsonville is up to since they are in the news, but if you
aren't in the news, you often don't know what is going on with each other. Greg DiLoreto
mentioned that there are numerous forums for the Water Mangers to keep each other
informed,but it doesn't happen at the Board level.
Bill Crandall of Hillsboro said that a group of providers meet in his region.
SG#4: Executive Committee(EC)
Forrest Soth asked if the EC could act on issues between meetings? Ground rules would
have to be established. He felt the EC would be a good way to make interim decisions if
necessary as we are limited by quarterly meetings.
Washington County Breakout Session
6/7/00 Consortium Board Meeting
Page 3
A meeting participant reminded everyone that there was concern when this was brought
up earlier that no one wanted to be left out of the decision making process, so there was
no executive committee. Dave Frechette asked if the SPC is sort of playing this role
now? Perhaps the EC could set Board meeting agendas. Forrest Soth recommended that
in formulating the roles and responsibilities of the EC that we ensure they are public
meetings. They could also be relied upon to offer opinions to the Board, if needed. Mike
McKillip said that the intent was also that the EC might be a good way to be more
engaged in the legislative process and could be liaisons with legislative issues since there
is so much time between Board meetings. We need a way to respond quickly.
Greg DiLoreto reminded everyone how difficult it was to recruit members for the SPC.
Rob Foster thought that since this group was still in its infancy,they may not be ready to
hand over any power to an EC. Maybe after more time has past and the group has more
confidence and history with each other.
Ed Wegner commented that this break-out session has had more dialog between Board
members than in the whole meeting. It ties in with SG#2.
Paul Hunt voiced his concern that staff are not as involved as Board members. He
cautioned that if staff wasn't involved then he couldn't be as up to date and useful. They
are an important technical resource.
SG#5 Board Survey:
There was general agreement that this was a good idea and served as a good catalyst for
the strategic planning process.
SG#6 Strategic Issues Focus:
Forrest Soth asked what conversations had taken place with emergency managers.
Rebecca Geisen gave a brief update on the Emergency Survey Results and coordination
with the Regional Emergency Mangers Technical Committee(REMTEC)_ Charlotte
Lehan asked about conservation as a key strategy since it was not listed. The facilitator
asked if there were other key issues. Federal requirements such at the ESA may also be a
key issue.
There was general agreement about this goal.
SG #7: Review staffing IGA
Everyone was in agreement and it was noted that we have to do this under the IGA.
SG #8: Attend provider entity meetings:
There was general agreement that this was necessary and a good idea.
Strategy: Meeting Water Needs
SG#1: Adopt regional transmission strategy
Washington County Breakout Session
6/7/oo Consortium Board Meeting
Page 4
This task has already been completed at tonight's meeting. Charlotte Lehan noted thdt we
need to develop a schedule for where we go from here.
SG#2: Implement regional conservation/staffing
Charlotte Lehan asked if we weren't already implementing this strategic goal. It was
clarified that this goal goes beyond integrating the Coalition and Consortium, but also
includes ramping up to fund staff. The additional cost implications generated discussion.
There were comments stating that it would depend on the method of assessment and
impacts on individual budgets. Everyone would have to contribute to the cost of staffing.
SG#3: Review and revise RWSP
There were comments that this was a big and expensive proposition,but required as part
of the IGA. Forrest Soth noted that it would require lots of updating of trends, statistics,
forecasting and would require staff and consultant time. Charlotte Lehan cautioned that
this not get overblown and take time and money from other projects that the Consortium
deems important. Staff noted that this year's work program allows for the preparation of
a scope of work for-revising the plan so the Board will have a better idea of what would
be involved and how much it would cost. There was concern over the cost and how it
would be paid for. There might be significant impact on smaller providers, especially in
conjunction with the ramped up conservation staffing. Forest Soth agreed that the update
should not drive the actions of the Consortium at the expense of other programs.
SG#4: Be more proactive in the legislature
Dave Frechette asked how do we accomplish this goal?Do we hire a lobbyist?It was
clarified that the intent was to get individual Board members and staff involved,testify, if
needed, on important bills and comment on legislation affecting the region's water
providers. This may be dependent on an executive committee to keep track of. Staff noted
that some providers have staff that act as legislative liaisons and this could tie into
existing resources. Forrest Soth noted that this is good because often an elected official
has more clout in front of the legislature. Dave Frechette asked how we stay informed
now? Staff responded that big issues are followed and reports are made to the CTC.
SG#5: Continue implementation of Source Water Protection Strategy
There was general agreement that this was necessary.
SG#6: Retain ability of water providers to manage their supplies
There was general agreement that this was a good strategy. It was noted that the public
involvement strategy should be revisited in 2003.
Elected officials checked issues on the chart-pac that they felt were important.
End of session
Prepared by Rebecca Geisen
RAMIS DRAFT
CREW
CORRIGAN &
9ACHRA•CI1, u-P
ATTORRHY'S AT LAW
1727 N.W.II*Senor MEMORANDUM
Peflund,Cfty,rw
(SM)
Fax:{M 243.2944
THIS MEMORANDUM CONSTITU-118 AN ATTORNEY/CLIENT COMMUNICATION,
AND AS SUCH IS A RECORD EXEMPT FROM PUBLIC INSPECTION PURSUANT TO
QRS 192.502(9). TO THE EXTENT 1T IS DISCUSSED DURING A PUBLIC M>E'.E7'i NG,
THAT DISCUSSION SHOULD OCCUR IN AN EXRCU11YE SESSION HELD PURSUANT
TO ORS 192.660(1)(f).
TO: Ed Wegner
City of Tigard
FROM: Timothy V.liamis,Gary Firestone,City Attorney's Office
DATE: May 31, 2000
RE: Water Supply Issues
ISSUE
You have asked for our advice on how the relationship between Tigard,Durham,]King City
and the remnant water district could be structured if Tigard seeks voter approval for using water
from thq Willamette River as a source for its municipal water supply and the other jurisdictions also
want to put the issue to a public vote.
SUMMARY
Each jurisdiction must vote separately. FAch jurisdiction is a separate governing entity,and
therefore each must undertake voting matters separAtely.
• Absent a charter provision to the contrary,the choice of a water source is an administrative
dccisian,and them-fore, for jurisdictions other than Tig4rd,the vote could he submitted as an
R
Memorandum re: Water Supply Issues
May 31,2400
Page 2
advisory vote only.
The current IGAs require approval of three out of four jurisdictions for.water supply
contracts. This provision does not apply to Willamette River water obtained under a water
right held by Tigard,. As a legal matter,Tigard could pursue this option without approval of
other jurisdictions.
0 1bore arc several possible changes that could be made to the IGA9,depending on the desired
policy outcome. Examples of possible language changes am provided.
DISCUSSION
1. Single or Multiple votes.
An Initial issue is whether each Jurisdiction votes separately or whether all persons receiving
water can join together in a single vote on the Issue. We conclude that the votes have to be separate
(although they can all be at the same election)for two reasons. First,no entity has the authority to
call an election for the entire area, Except for annexation elections,the cities and the remnant district
they can call elections only within their own territory. The second reason requiring separate votes in
each jurisdiction is that an area-wide vote would mot comply with Tigard Charter Section S 1,which
requires voter approval at a city-wide election for use of the Willamette as a water source for the
City.
2. Binding vs.Advimly..Y j iv,
If the other jurisdictions want to vote on the issue,several decisions will need to be made 6
to how to structure the voting and how to deal with the various possible outcomes. For Jurlsdictions
other than Tigard,the vote could be submitted as an advisory vote only. Absent a charter provision
requiring a vote,the decision on water source is an administrative decision,not a legislative one,and
therefore not one that would normally be binding. If the other jurisdictiems want to make the vote
binding,they would have to amend their charters or codes to make the vote binding.
3. rrrent y, Approval of Other JurisdietjQa.it is Not Regui�.
The ourrent IGAs do not directly authorize other jurisdictions to have an approval role in
selecting a water source. The one provision that comes closest is the provision relating to water
supply contracts. Tong term water supply contracts must be approved by three ofthe four
juriedletions. If the parties wom contracting for Widlamette water,this provision would be
't\
Memorandum re. Water Supply lssues \
May 31,2000
Page 3
applicable. I lowever,the Willamede water probably will be obtained under a water right held,in
whole or in part,by Tigard, Because the water would be taken under Tigard's water right,no water
supply contract would be involved and this provision would not be applicable. No other provisions
of the IGAs apply. If other jurisdictions are to have a mandated approval role in the choice of supply
decision,revisions to the IGA would be needed.
4. Lft Qf Tiwd Vote,
Tigard Is required to have a public vote on using Willamette water. If Tigard votes no,the
Willamette is not a viable option for the other jurisdictions under the current system, The system is
integrated and is run by Tigard. It is not currently posRible to servo the other jurisdictions with
Willamette water and keep Willamette water out of Tigard's system without major restructuring of
both the relationships betw=the parties and the physical system. Any changes to the WAS should
rceognize that an affirmative vote by Tigard is a prerequisite to use of Willamette water.'
S. Qp#ions.
lucre are several options if Tigard votes in favor of Willamette water. The first option is Ayr
the other jurisdictions simply to accept Tigard's decision, That could be accomplished under the
current IQ&because nothing in the current IGA'a gives the other jurisdictions any role in selecting
the water source so long as the water source is not obtained by a long-term water supply contract.
The second option is to require unanimity among the four jurisdictions before obtaining
Willamette water. This approach would preserve the current system and avoid the technical
problems that would result If one or more of the jurisdictions refused Willamette water but wu
connected to a system that used Willamette water.
A third option is to adopt an approach similar(although not identical)to the current system
of approving water supply contracts. If Tigard and any two other jurisdictions decide in favor of
Willamette water,all jurisdictions will accept V illarnettc water. This option will not be possible if
any of the other jurisdictions adopt a charter provision similar to Tigard's,but would be possible if
the vote in each jurisdiction is advisory only.
'Altematively, if Tigard votes no and the other jurisdictions want to use Willamette
water,the current arrangement could be terminated,with Tigard no longer playing a role in
Providing water to the other jurisdiction..
.r
Memorandum re:Watcr Supply Iss=S
May 31,2000
Page 4
A final option is to allow any other party that wants Willamette water to remain in the system
if't'igard votes In favor of Willamette water,but allow or require any jurisdiction that doesn't want
Willamette water to withdraw from the system. This would probably require some restructuring of
the physical system.
The following language could be used to incorporate the various options into the JGAs:
OPT16N 1
Tigard, King City, Durham, and the District have explored various options for water supply,
including obtaining water from the Willamette River. Tigard's charter requires a vote of the electors
before Willamette River water may be used as a source of Tigard's municipal water supply. Because
of Tigard's role in the water system,approval of Tlgard's electorate is necessary before Willarnatte
water can be used in the water system. Apliroval of the voters in the other jurisdictions is not
required. 11m other jurisdictions will accept Willamette water ifligard's voters approve the use of
Willamette water. If Tigard's voters approve the use of Willamette water,the Willamette River may
be used:as a source of water for the system.
OPTION 2
Tigard,Icing City,Durham,and the District have explored various options for water supply,
including obtaining water from the Willamette River. Tigard's charter requires a vote of the electors
before Willamette River water may be used as a source of Tigard's municipal winter supply. Became
of Tigard's role in the water supply system,approval of 7tgard's elect=te;is ncoessary before
Willamette water can be used in thx water system.•The source of tM water used in the system is also
a matter of concern for the other jurisdictions. Therefore.the Willamette River may be used as a
source for water for the water supply system only if approved by each of the four jurisdictions. Each
jurisdiction shall determine its own procedure for approving or rejecting the Willamette River as a
water supply source.
OPTION 3
Tigard,Icing City,Durham,and the District have explored various options for water supply,
including obtaining water from the Willamette River. Tigard's charter requires a vote of the electors
before Willamette River water may be used as a source of,Tigard's municipal water supply. Because
of Tigard's role in the water supply system,approval of Tigard's electorate i9 necessary before
Willamette water can be used in the water system. The source of the water used in the system is also
a rmattcr of concern for the other jurisdictions. Therefore,the Willamette River may be used as a
Mcmoranduin to: Water Supply Issues
May 31,2000
Page S
source for water for the water supply system only if approved by Tigard and two of the other three
jurisdictions. Any jurisdiction not approving the use of Willamette water may withdraw from the
-system if the Willamette River will be used as a source of watcx for the system,
OPTION 4
Tigard,King City,Durham,and the District have explored various options for water supply,
including obtaining water from the Willamette River. Tigard's charter requires a vote of the electors
before Willamette River water may be used as a source of 1 ard's municipal water supply. Because
of Tigard's role in the water supply system,approval of Tigard's electorate is necessary before
Willamette water can be used In the water system. The source of the water used in the system is also
a matter of concern for the other jurisdictions, If Tigard's voters approve the use of Willamette
water,the system may use the Willamette as a source for water,and any jurisdiction beat does not
accept Willamette water as a water source may withdraw from the system.
G1�J*1?f R/srb
tvrAhWJ/water/Wwc Mme
Jul -11-00 03: 12P Gretchen Buchner (503) 684-1437 P_02
CPO 4K
July 11,2000
City Corincil Members
City of Tigard Intergovernmental Water Board
13125 SW Hall Blvd. 13125 SW Hall Blvd.
Tigard, OR 97223 Tigard,OR 97223
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
CPO 4K is concerned about the disenfranchisement of its citizens about issues relating to water service.
When Citizens for Safe Water's initiative was filed in 1999,only citizens of the City of Tigard were
entitled to vote. Citizens of King City,Durham and the unincorporated areas were denied the right to vote,
while citizens in Tigard served by a diSbrerrt water district could vote.
CPO 4K is the Washington County citizen participation organization representing citizens of King City and
the surrounding unincorporated area. Almost all of the CPO area outside of King City is within the Tigard
Water District Board service area.
The issue has arisen again with placement of Bill Sizemore's Measure 47 on the November ballot, This
initiative would require at vote of rate payers for rate increases over 3 percent. The areas outside of the
City of Tigard will be denied their right to vote again. This is unjust to ratepayers.
CPO 4K passed a resolution by unanimous vote at its June 22,2000 meeting,requesting that the water
service district governments and the Intergovernmental Agreement be restructured.to enfranchise all of the
rate payers. The City of Tigard would continue to manage day4o-day operation of the water system. Only
restructuring of the district will enfranchise the rate payers living outside of the City of Tigard,and
eliminate Tigard residents served by the Metzger water district.
In addition,the current agreement has many deficiencies. A glaring example is a provision stating that
Tigard does not have to serve areas not already within tho water district in 1993. Rapid growth in the
unincorporated area will require the water district to be expanded substantially. Part of reserve area 47
brought into the UGB in 1998 is not in the district. It is anticipated that half of reserve area 49 will be
brought into the UGB within the next year.
It is time to bring the Intergovernmental Agreement into the 2 V century. CPO representatives will be glad
to work with all ofthe of cities and TWD to restructure the agreement. Your prompt assistance is
appreciated.
Very truly yours,
r
Gretchen E. Buehner
President, CPO 4K
cc: City Council,City of Durham; City Council, City of King City; Members,Tigard Water District