Pete Forsyth emailed me the following article, and asked if we’d post it. Gladly, Pete! Update: Welcome new author Pete Forsyth to our ranks!
Lately it seems that some plan involving a $40 million baseball is the biggest thing we hear about from City Council.
But here’s something that’s much more likely to have an impact on Portlanders’ financial future: a filtration plant slated for construction in the Bull Run watershed. It will cost many hundreds of millions of dollars — maybe over a billion, if you include debt service. That might not hit your property or income tax bill, but it’s expected to DOUBLE your water bill.
TOMORROW, City Council will consider ordinance 1071, which will direct the Water Bureau to continue exploring this issue. But the issue has barely been considered by the public, and there’s been very little media coverage. It’s alarming to see such an enormous expenditure moving forward with so little public deliberation.
It’s a complex issue, but here are a few points to consider:
- Above all, it’s clear that City Council and the Water Bureau have been strategic in their planning around this issue, but it’s unclear what the motivations are. Many of us feel that a deliberation of this magnitude should be carried out in public.
- The federal EPA has mandated that all municipal water sources filter for a kind of bacteria called Cryptosporidium by 2014. Cryptosporidium is something that occurs in human and livestock waste, so it’s common in most areas. But Bull Run, which originates in a largely undisturbed area of the Mt. Hood National Forest, has consistently tested as being free of this harmful bacteria.
- The City of Portland has pursued an exemption from this mandate, but has been rebuffed.
- It’s unclear exactly what the consequences for failing to comply with the mandate might be. When hundreds of millions of dollars and the quality of our drinking water are at stake, it’s reasonable to consider resisting a federal mandate that does not take local conditions into account.
- Emotions on both sides of this issue have run high, but the Portland Water Bureau and City Council hold all the cards. In the rare media story that runs, like this one, City Commissioner Randy Leonard makes the unfortunate choice of addressing only the most extreme allegations of concerned citizens. What a terrible waste of an opportunity to stoke some public deliberation of the issue! Additionally, the Water Bureau has been unreasonably resistant to sharing documentation of what they’re planning when requested by citizens.
- The issue has an extensive history. In the late 1970s, the U.S. Congress passed a law permitting logging in the watershed. The resulting runoff resulted in mud in our water supply; so Portland fought back. Laws passed in 1996 and 2001 protected the area from logging. See here for more: Bull Run Watershed article from Wikipedia; Joe Miller papers from the University of Oregon; History from OregonWild; Profile of Joe Miller from Oregon Magazine.
- Portland’s water use has DECREASED dramatically since the 1980s, with the widespread adoption of water-efficient appliances and other measures. (See, there’s some good news in here!) Water usage report from Water Bureau
- Suburbs of Portland, and bottling plants, have moved to use water from the Willamette (and, I believe, the Columbia). How do City Council and the Water Bureau want to engage with this issue? Is there a desire to increase our water production in order to supply other municipalities? If so, where’s the public debate on the relative merits?
- This is connected with another issue of recent concern: covering the reservoirs at Mt. Tabor. City Council’s failure to anticipate or engage with public concerns about that resulted costly and embarrassing retreat, though I think the issue is still likely to resurface. Shouldn’t we have the opportunity to evaluate ALL potential major facility upgrades/expenditures by the Water Bureau, instead of piece-mealing them?
In the end, I don’t really buy into the idea, advanced by some people, that this issue is driven by corruption or laziness. But I do think our City government is terribly resistant to the idea that the public has a right and a responsibility to engage with its future in meaningful ways. With the kinds of communication technology and engaged communities that are evolving in recent years, this posture looks increasingly anachronistic…and I fear it will cost us tremendously if our elected officials at City Hall don’t carefully rethink their entire approach to issues like this.
Please take a moment to write an email to each member of City Council. Ask them not to take this action so soon, to be more forthright with their long-term goals in this process, and to seek to advance the public debate. And if you can attend or testify at tomorrow’s City Council meeting, even better! Email addresses and City Council details at the Friends of the Reservoirs site, listed below.
Some further reading:
- Friends of the Reservoirs site
- Wikipedia article on the Safe Drinking Water Act
- Recent blog entry on the issue from Bojack.org
Editor’s Note: Pete Forsyth, a Portland resident and business owner, was a member of the Mt. Tabor Central Yard & Nursery Planning Group, and has studied the history and future plans relating to Portland’s water supply for several years.
{ 5 comments }
Just to be clear, here are the exact words from Resolution 1071. (I’ve left out the extensive list of “whereas” clauses, including only the “be it resolved” portion.)
—————
Council directs the Water Bureau to continue to seek administrative alternatives to the treatment requirements of the rule, including seeking a variance from the EPA and seeking a deadline extension from the state of Oregon or the EPA; and
(…)
the City Council directs the Portland Water Bureau to engage immediately in the necessary planning, design, budgeting, permitting and land acquisition and any other activities necessary to prepare for the construction of a direct filtration facility; and
(…)
the Council directs the Water Bureau to construct a direct filtration facility only if and when its administrative efforts to secure compliance prove unsuccessful.
Since Bull Run water is fine, but we’re just doing this to get the U.S. EPA off our backs, why not use ultraviolet radiation treatment, which is much cheaper and will have the least effect on the character of our water?
I ain’t no scientist, but “cheap” and “effective” and “little negative effect on water quality” got my attention.
Seems to me that Resolution 1071 basically empowers the Water Bureau to make those kind of judgments without talking to us. I don’t think your solution is incompatible with 1071, but the resolution sure doesn’t give them a lot of incentive to evaluate the options in a public forum.
Nice article, Pete!
I agree, it’s sad that we are worried about meeting some unspecified penalty. On the other hand, it’s disappointing that Portland doesn’t fluoridate its water at all.
Think Out Loud is covering this issue this morning, August 2, on their radio program and http://www.opb.org/thinkoutloud/shows/bull-run-water/“>blog.
Comments on this entry are closed.