The Core Friends' Position: These documents were presented to the Independent Review Panel as the basis of the Friends' opposition to burying the reservoirs. They cover the science, the history, and the politics behind this issue.
We are citizens concerned about Portland's open reservoirs. We treasure these landmarks that have shaped our parks, enhanced our city, and provided clean and safe drinking water for a century.
We seek a water system that maintains our superb water quality, minimizes rate impacts, and values reservoirs as part of our parks and public spaces. Most importantly, we believe that citizens should be equal partners in designing any public process that will impact their character, quality and function.
Here's some background on these key issues:
- The City Council public decision-making process is no longer public
- Private contractors stand to reap huge profits
- Shouldn't we bury the reservoirs to protect them from terrorism?
- Better water quality solutions exist
- Majority support not burying the reservoirs
The City Council public decision-making process is no longer public
The decision to bury the reservoirs was "buried" within the city budget process without the public discussion obligated by land use laws.
The funding via general bonds was pursued ambiguously, without notice to known interested parties. Ratepayers did not approve of this significant burden, approaching at least $200 million without including the larger costs of an ancillary filtration project under consideration, interest on the bonds and other elements of the Water Bureau's construction water safety plan. They will be buried in concrete tanks just below the surface, with severely limited and uncertain development planned on top.
A public process regarding burial was never offered to citizens. Here's the chronological record of public understanding:
- "We need to be careful that we don't invest a lot of money quickly in solutions that feel good but don't solve the problem” (Sten, 9/22/01)
- “Long-term changes could include capping the reservoirs…” (Oreg., 10/26/01)
- “Sten said he is thinking of … security enhancements, [which] could include such things as better security at the City's two open reservoirs” (Oreg., 1/18/02)
- “City's Wish List to Fight Terror Hits $20 mil…What's not on list?: security upgrades proposed by Bureau such as covering reservoirs” (Oreg., 2/21/02)
- “City Considers Quick Remedy for Water Security” (ie, burial) “It won't make our water system terrorism proof” (Oreg., Sten, 3/1/02)
After that, burial is treated as de facto, aside from formality of Council approval in May, the public left in the dark, waiting for process, for an explanation that holds water.
Then, despite being acutely aware of the intense community concern, the City authorized funding via revenue bonds without identifying the purpose of those bonds such that a reasonable person could have known that their purpose was related to the water system.
- On 12/18/02, the City Council passed Ordinance 177129, authorizing $200 million toward the burial project.
- On 4/23/03, the City Council passed Ordinance 177406, authorizing another $500 million "to finance various projects".
Once discovered, The Friends of the Reservoirs, along with Citizens for Safe and Affordable Water and other individual plaintiffs, sued the Portland City Council for underhanded use of revenue bonds as blank checks. The hearing was on November 5, 2003 before Judge Litzenberger in the Multnomah County Courthouse. The Judge should issue a ruling before Thanksgiving.
Private contractors stand to reap huge profits
The primary contractor behind the push to bury the reservoirs is Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH). The engineer who heads the Portland division of MWH worked for 14 years for the city and its water bureau.
Here's two controversial examples of MWH's involvement with water and sewer projects.
- In Houston in October 2003, MWH was awarded a $42 million expansion of a water treatment plant, without any competing bids. They have been accused of using sub-par materials and equipment. (Houston Business Journal: City feels water pressure on treatment plant deal)
- In East Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 2002, MWH was awarded a $618 million contract for overhauling a sewer system. No RFP was issued for this project. Conveniently, MWH was cozy with the head of the Dept. of Public Works. Many cried foul after the most expensive option was chosen and learning MWH was charging an above-market rate. Some city council members objected and were eventually circumvented. (Greater Baton Rouge Business Report: City sewer deal smells and Experts question city sewer deal)
Shouldn't we bury the reservoirs to protect them from terrorism?
No. The majority of experts have concluded that it would be virtually impossible to successfully contaminate a major public water supply. Toxins are much more effective in aerosol form. There has never been a successful water system contamination in the world. Homeland Security reported in May that Oregon is a low risk for terrorist attack and, thus, will not receive Federal money (Oregonian 4/15/03 article).
The bigger threat is backflow from the privacy of a home, and is considered more likely, per Wall Street Journal report 12/28/01. In 1975, LSD poisoning of the reservoirs was a concern. Then Commissioner, Lloyd Anderson, testified at 2/19/03 hearing that the decision to bury the reservoirs went away with the war and greater priorities, as the City had no money. Our economy is worse today.
New York City is keeping their large open reservoir, despite being a terrorist-targeted city. Hillview reservoir provides water for 9 million people. Homeland security is giving New York $25 million to fight terrorist threats.
Better water quality solutions exist
Alternatives include state of-the-art real-time monitoring being used and developed around the country. For example, researchers in New York are developing a microchip-based system that immediately alerts authorities when contaminants are dumped into a drinking water supply, based on laser monitoring.
For more information, read the Alternatives to Enhance Water Security (144k PDF)
Majority supports not burying the reservoirs
Citywide support is strong for historic preservation and an open public process on alternatives. Broad opposition to the City is reflected in resolutions passed by neighborhood associations throughout the city, including Mt. Tabor, South Tabor, Buckman, Overlook, Concordia, Arlington Heights, & Southeast Uplift. Neighborhood Coalition. Thousands of citizens have expressed their objections in writing.