Friends of the Reservoirs

To subscribe to the Friends' email distribution list and receive occasional updates on related news, send your request to friendsofreservoirs1to6@msn.com.

MP3 Audio File: Hear Scott Fernandez talking about Portland's contaminated well field water on the KBOO show Monday on the Environment on 5/5/2008. Thank you to the show's host, Scott Forrester. Scott Fernandez is now a former member of the Portland Utility Review Board. (PURB) He was removed from that position after many years, by Commissioner Randy Leonard, shortly after this show. http://kboo.fm/node/7151 or Click here to listen to the 29 minute show. (27MB audio file)

Twelve Reasons Why Portland Deserves a Congressional Exemption From the Flawed EPA Drinking Water Rule

1. It will cost Portland (Bull Run watershed) ratepayers about 400 million dollars to comply with this misguided Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment regulation (LT2), with no measurable public health benefit.

2. We will lose our pure, minimally treated Bull Run water to risks of mercury contamination and other problems, including environmental concerns from the unnecessary construction of an Ultraviolet Light Radiation plant and the clear well that accompanies that plant. This will likely consume immense quantities of operational energy and generate hazardous material due to used mercury UV bulbs.

3. We will lose our historic open reservoirs at Mt. Tabor and Washington Park, along with the many benefits associated with open reservoirs. The public health benefits of open reservoirs include the venting of carcinogenic gases such as Radon, chloroform, and bromoform. Covering our open reservoirs will eliminate sunlight that inhibits the nitrification process, and breaks down Nitrosodimethyamine (NDMA), a carcinogenic chloramine byproduct.
There is no scientific research in the LT2 record to support that burying or covering open reservoirs improves water quality. A Portland Water Bureau (Montgomery, Watson, Harza) study on Portland’s open reservoirs concluded that there has been no degradation of water quality from our open reservoirs. Portland recently had a long serious discussion about burying and covering our reservoirs, with the Independant Review Panel (IRP) affirming Portlanders’ interest in retaining our open reservoirs. We preserved them, but now unless Portland campaigns vigorously for a Congressional exemption, our open reservoirs will be eliminated.

4. The LT2 law is inconsistant, it does not require any action upfront from systems that have actually had Cryptosporidium outbreaks. For small systems, or large filtered systems (i.e. a water source that clearly always needs filtration), the LT2 rule takes into account cost and benefit considerations, while for unfiltered systems that protect their watersheds from the sources of infectious Cryptosporidium, no cost/ benefit considerations are made; the rule requires that unfiltered systems build a treatment plant upfront, regardless of the absence of Cryptoporidium.

5. Unfiltered drinking water systems like Portland’s have never had an outbreak linked to Cryptosporium, even with open reservoirs.

6. The Portland Water Bureau (PWB) found zero Cryptosporidium in our historic open reservoirs when they independently tested for such in the 1990’s.

7. The EPA does not require systems that have had actual EPA documented outbreaks from covered or buried storage to take any action to address those problems.

8. The EPA’s concern with distribution system reservoirs (as opposed to source water Cryptosporidium contamination) was apparently so minimal that it did not require any testing for Cryptosporidium in open or closed distribution reservoirs, during the Information Collection Rule, (the time period that provided the data for the LT2 regulation.) The EPA did not conduct any data collection on open reservoirs at any time during the LT2 rule development, nor did it conduct any comparative scientific research on open and closed reservoirs.

9. EPA’s 2002 white paper, “Finished Water Storage Facilities,” (http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf) prepared by the American Water Works Association, cites a number of examples of contamination outbreaks from covered or buried reservoirs. EPA has not documented a single case of an outbreak from an open reservoir either in the LT2 regulation, or in any document that addresses distribution system problems. EPA misleadingly cited a 1993 covered tank salmonella outbreak in the LT2 rule under the heading of types and sources of contaminants in open reservoirs!

10. EPA’s Storage Facility document discusses the many problems with floating reservoir covers including the fact that they commonly cause bacterial contamination of drinking water. Yet, the poorly crafted LT2 rule includes problematic floating covers as an option for fulfilling the EPA requirement that all open reservoirs, problematic or not, be eliminated (or treated at the outlet.)

11. EPA’s Total Coliform Rule (TCR) documents, which were prepared in anticipation of revising the TCR, state that distribution system outbreaks that include open and closed reservoirs have been largely a result of cross connection contamination. (translation: sewage contamination.)

12. There was self-serving corporate involvement in the development of the EPA LT2 regulation. A criticism noted in the public comments by American Water Works Association addressed Calgon Carbon’s involvement. Calgon Carbon held the patent for the new technology of Ultraviolet Light Radiation that most systems will now be forced to use in order to comply with LT2’s source water treatment requirements.
Montgomery Watson Harza Global (MWH) was influentially involved in the development of the LT2 rule. Rhodes Trussel, 30-year MWH veteran and CEO of Trussel Technologies (2003), was the chair of the EPA Science Advisory Board Drinking Water Committee during the Rule development. Portland hired the engineering firm of Montgomery, Watson, Harza (MWH), with lead Joseph Glicker (former Bureau manager) sitting at the table in the LT2 rule development. MWH is the same corporation that has been on retainer with the Portland Water Bureau for decades and has held multiple Portland Water Bureau contracts related to Bull Run treatment (1989-2004) and the Open Reservoir Study (an 8 year contract for $2,138,900.) Other corporations, including chemical and equipment suppliers, participated in this Rule development.

Welcome to the Friends of the Reservoirs. We are in the midst of a new call to action, to ward off another assault on the "beautility" of our historic and elegantly functional Bull Run water system and city reservoirs. Previously, between 2002 and 2005, Portland citizens successfully rose up in grass roots cohesion to protest and reveal the unwarranted and costly nature of City plans to bury its open reservoirs. Now, we must overcome a nationally mandated Rule from the EPA, which essentially dictates building some form of a large scale treatment plant in order to address one parasite, called Cryptosporidium. This one-size-fits-all regulation that was strongly criticized by prominent groups across the country during its comment period, would also result in the destruction of our open city distribution reservoirs at Mt. Tabor and Washington Park. Though this rule may well be appropriate for some systems, it has no business being applied to Portland's. We have no Cryptosporidium problem, and no signs of having one down the road; unless, ironically, the addition of a treatment plant to our system leads to a false sense of confidence and an opening up of the Bull Run watershed to the very sources of infectious Cryptosporidium - humans and cows. The EPA's approach is akin to mummification to treat a freckle on one's hand. We have a pristine water supply that has served us well for over 100 years. Building a treatment plant and burying the open reservoirs will provide no measurable benefit to our system. These costly projects will add potential public health risks and will result in the loss of pure Bull Run water and our historic open drinking water reservoirs.

Our mission now is to educate the public on the ramifications of this ruling, of which there are many, and simultaneously rally your support to take action. For the moment, that support should include writing to Portland's commissioners (and candidates in the upcoming May election), urging them to take action to intervene such that we are not forced to negatively alter our system to address a non-existent problem. It is important that you also write to your Oregon Congressional representatives, including U.S. Senator's Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith, and U.S. Representatives Earl Blumenauer and David Wu.

Update: February 15, 2008

For those of you who missed the media coverage, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision in November, 2007 on Portland's challenge to the EPA regulation, the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2). We lost on all points. New York City joined Portland as an Intervener in this case (the open Hillview distribution reservoir in New York provides water to 10 million people.)  Walla Walla and Oregon Wild also participated in this lawsuit as Friends of the Court.

Portland challenged this regulation on two fundamental grounds: first, the rule requires all unfiltered systems - systems that protect their source water from infectious Cryptosporidium, which primarily comes from humans and cows – to essentially build treatment plants despite the fact that Cryptosporidium is rarely found in these systems. Second, the final rule inexplicably eliminated the mitigation option for open distribution reservoirs, such as those at Mt. Tabor and Washington Park. Under LT2 all open reservoirs must now either be covered, buried, or treated at the outlet.

A wide spectrum of representatives worked together in this effort: Representatives from the business community, including Kent Craford, who represented the Water Users Coalition, Regna Merritt of Oregon Wild (ONRC), Neighborhood representatives, Portland Utility Review Board representative Scott Fernandez and myself from Friends of the Reservoirs, worked with the City to develop a strategy for protecting our unique and pristine Bull Run system. This is a system that includes our historic open reservoirs, both of which have provided clean, safe, gravity-fed water to the community for over 100 years. Our water is not just lauded as the best in the nation, but recognized in other countries as one of the world's most highly protected watersheds, unique in that it is federally protected.

Bull Run will forever be negatively impacted if we proceed with building a treatment plant to address a non-existent problem. You might recall that all of the issues related to this regulation were presented to a Bull Run Treatment Panel in 2002, a panel that was facilitated by the corporation who was slated to profit from building a treatment plant.  The panel concluded that there would not be any measurable health benefits from the construction of a Bull Run treatment plant. Dr. Gary Oxman, Multnomah County public health officer has consistently held this same position.

Physicians for Social Responsibility demonstrated their support for protecting Bull Run this summer when representatives from the community joined the Portland Water Bureau, Friends of the Reservoirs, the Safe Drinking Water Program, and Oregon Wild at the state legislature in support of an Oregon State "clean water" variance to bring Oregon law in line with the Federal law. This "clean water" variance bill passed both Oregon legislative bodies unanimously.

You might ask what scientific evidence of Cryptosporidium problems in open distribution reservoirs, or any other scientific research was documented in the LT2 record specifically on open reservoirs? The fact is, while the EPA LT2 docket contained over 700 documents, several of which were hundreds of pages thick, the LT2 record on open reservoirs was literally just a handful of documents. There was one open reservoir Cryptosporidium study in the record ( Le Chevalier 1997) involving lake-like reservoirs in New Jersey. None of the reservoirs were engineered structures like Portland's or New York's according to the 12 page research paper by Mark W. Le Chevallier -- "resemble large clear lakes..." -- including the reservoir mentioned by the court, called “Stanley Levine.” A photo of this lake-like structure is included the research paper. These reservoirs, unlike Portland’s, are subject to runoff and are never cleaned. The summary statement on the face of the research paper states, "Nearly all of the cysts and oocysts were empty or contained indiscernible internal structures suggesting the health risk is low." At the time the draft LT2 rule was released in 2003, this report was in EPA's hands. Even though a draft ruling provided a mitigation option that would allow reservoirs to stay open, and no new information was received by the EPA on open distribution reservoirs before promulgation of the final rule, the EPA inexplicably removed the mitigation option from the final rule, requiring all open distribution reservoirs be covered, buried or treated at the outlet.

Portland must now pursue a variance from this regulation either through the EPA or through Congress. We can continue to demonstrate that Cryptosporidium is not a problem in Bull Run or in our open reservoirs. Please write to Commissioner Leonard (www.randy@ci.portland.or.us ) and thank him for all of his efforts to protect our unique system, including his support of this legal challenge, and encourage him to make a strong effort to obtain a variance or congressional exemption from this regulation. You might cc the rest of City Council as well.

Having spent several years reviewing and reading boxes and boxes of documents related to the development of this regulation, and having read significant portions of the official record related to this rule, it is clear to me how this regulation was developed, who benefits, and who will dearly pay for its poorly constructed "one size fits all" regulation. If enough of you are interested in learning more about this regulation and what actions are still available to the community let us know and we will consider scheduling detailed information sessions.
Sign up at: friendsofreservoirs1to6@msn.com

Regards,
Floy

Thursday, January 3, 2008, 10 AM KBOO Radio, Portland: 90.7 FM

The Recovery Zone - Host Stephanie Potter speaks with activists working to protect Bull Run and Portland's water system. Recent federal rulings mandate that millions of dollars be paid to corporations to "purify"
our water, but the activists counter that our present system is so effective and "sweetly low-tech that it seemingly could be coming from some very green future."
Hear that that show: Jan3 08.KBOO RZ.mp3
http://www.kboo.fm

The LT2 Decision statement
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 25, 2007 Decided November 6, 2007 No. 06-1068 CITY OF PORTLAND, OREGON, PETITIONER v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK, INTERVENOR FOR PETITIONER ...
Diane Curran was on the brief for amici curiae Oregon Wild, et al. in support of petitioner. Timothy Donaldson and Charles B. Roe, Jr. were on the brief for amicus curiae City of Walla Walla, Washington.
Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and SENTELLE and TATEL, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL.

In this case Portland and New York City challenge an Environmental Protection Agency rule regulating microbial contaminants in drinking water. The rule requires the two cities to take several steps to eliminate the parasite Cryptosporidium from their drinking water. The cities challenge the rule on many grounds, arguing that EPA improperly conducted a required cost-benefit analysis, provided inadequate notice and opportunity for public comment, ignored significant comments on the draft rule, failed to use the best available science, and issued a final rule unsupported by the record. Because we find the cities’ arguments either meritless, irrelevant, or both, we deny the petition for review.".... Read the whole decision here:
LT2 2007 Court Decision.pdfLT2 2007 Court Decision.pdf

Meanwhile, some citizens asked that we post the comments of citizen Brad Yazzolino, based on an opinion piece he had published in the SE Examiner in December.
The Bull Run has served us safely for over 100 years because it’s an unusually clean, high-elevation watershed. Now we need to work to preserve this entire system, because with a recent federal ruling, the EPA has told us to stop the beautiful handcrafted antique clock that is Portland’s water system even though it’s still working perfectly. They want us to replace it with a new, costly $150–350 million dollar system because of a perceived threat from a microbial parasite called Cryptosporidium. That’s so un-Portland! To their credit, two open-reservoir cities, Portland and New York, have diligently challenged the EPA regulation, the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2). Both challenges were rejected by a three- member Washington DC court panel November 6. The court admitted in the decision that “Portland may be right that the amount of Cryptosporidium entering their reservoirs poses a minimal threat,” but now under LT2, all open reservoirs must either be covered, buried, or treated at the outlet. Otherwise, Portland must obtain a variance or exclusion from this rule from Congress. The law requires cities with uncovered reservoirs to do everything possible— regardless of the cost— to absolutely eliminate Cryptosporidium.

Cryptosporidium has always been rare in Portland’s water system, and there has been no evidence of its presence here since 200[1]. In 2002, the Bull Run Treatment Panel concluded that there would not be any measurable health benefits from a treatment plant. Gary Oxman, Multnomah County public health officer, has consistently held this same position. Without a variance or congressional exclusion, Portland will be forced to needlessly over-clean some of the purest water on Earth to absurd zero tolerance levels that will do nothing of real value. Is this how we want our sensible, livable, green, creative, intentional city to get pulled into the 21st century global water game? It’s time for Portland water users to show appreciation and stand up for the water system we enjoy. Our existing water system is so old and sweetly low– tech that it seemingly could be from some very green future. It’s elegant, endlessly sustainable, and, as yet, not fully "corporatized," It is worth saving, a glorious engineering gift to us from the 1890s. We risk losing a frugal and graceful system whose loss we will regret 50 years after it’s gone, when we find ourselves re-inventing it (like streetcars, windmills on family farms, and livable neighborhoods). Our present system is valuable because it proves how wise it is to keep some areas relatively untouched, reserved only for water collection. It’s one of the world’s largest and best examples of exactly appropriate technology. Once we move to water treatment and an enclosed finished water system we totally devalue the elegant functionality of the whole: the remote rain-fed- basin, almost no human entry, Douglas fir needle filtration, downhill flow to city, gravity flow fountains, splendid hilltop reservoirs, direct to your drinking glass. Once we have a big water treatment plant, who needs a clean watershed? Commissioner Randy Leonard sees much of this value, and he unconditionally wants the reservoirs to still look as they do now. That’s some comfort, but that still may eventually mean watershed destruction, water skiing in Bull Run Lake, snowmobiles, fishing and hunting, and more logging in some of the best old growth around. Randy Leonard and the Water Bureau are saying they will entertain creative options. At the same time, however, they are saying they must plan for the treatment plant. Now is the time for citizens to insist on a safe variance, with frequent testing to show that our water remains as safe as it naturally always has been. Let’s repair, maintain, closely monitor, and honor Portland’s historic Bull Run drinking water system. Let’s defend it against the relentless push for an unneeded treatment plant, which will bring creeping privatization. Let’s resist selling parts of it off and keep it dearly for our region. Our leaders are willing to listen to us. Please write to Commissioner Leonard (rleonard@ci.portland.or.us) and thank him for all he does to protect our unique system, including his support of the legal challenge. Let’s encourage him to make a strong effort to obtain a variance for this regulation.

Portland will ask EPA for variance on open reservoirs
Posted by The Oregonian December 10, 2007 15:58PM
By Andy Dworkin of The Oregonian
Portland's taking no chances after a court rejected its efforts to avoid expensive federal

water treatment rules. City engineers have started studying ways to treat water for the parasite cryptosporidium and contain drinking water in open reservoirs at Mount Tabor and Washington Park.

Urgent Action Needed to Protect Bull Run from Unnecessary Treatment Under New EPA Rules

The City of Portland is currently considering fighting a pending EPA ruling that would require an expensive water treatment facility that is unnecessary. The Long Term 2 Enhance Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) is not only based on bad "science", but will be detrimental to our Bull Run system. Many consultants will profit from this rule, including those involved in promulgating it, at an enormous cost to ratepayers. Learn more about this issue with the following resources.

Statement from the Friends on the Proposed Treatment of Bull Run Water

The Friends of the Reservoirs oppose plans to add UV Radiation, Membrane Filtration or any other unnecessary additional disinfection to our system. We believe that the plan conceived and supported by the Portland Water Bureau, engineers, and consultants to add UV Radiation, Membrane Filtration, or other additional disinfection to our Bull Run system is a bad plan for Portland.

The following statements reflect years of research and investigation that are scientifically and documentarily supported:

Comments to the EPA Regarding LT2

Far from being the result of rigorous peer-reviewed research, much of what is in the LT2 is controversial and is based on estimates rather than actual data. See what other major players have to say about the LT2 in their Comments to EPA.

Portland to Host 2nd Open House on Proposed Water Sales Agreement

The City of Portland has water sales agreements to sell drinking water to 19 water providers in the region. The current agreements were negotiated in the late 1970's and most of the agreements will expire in 2007

The draft of the new agreement is currently available for community review and comment. The agreement and other information are available on Portland's website - www.portlandonline.com/water. Public comments will be accepted through early March 2006. For More Information Contact: Sarah Murphy, Portland Water Bureau 503-823-7444