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.

LT2 and Portland’s Open Reservoirs

According to EPA, the open reservoir requirements are Cryptosporidium “treatment techniques.” According to EPA policy, EPA is required to use the best science available in promulgating regulations.

The LT2 open reservoir requirements were inserted in the final EPA rule (draft rule- 2003) without any data collection or supportive science. Despite the many years of rule development, EPA failed to collect any data or conduct any scientific research that supported covering or burying open reservoirs. EPA failed to document a single public health issue with open reservoirs. And while EPA has documented real public health issues with buried and covered storage there has never been scientific research that compares open and closed distribution system reservoirs.

EPA has documented contamination events and public health issues, illness and deaths ONLY with closed distribution storage as indicated in its 20-page 2002 report, Finished Water Storage Facilities http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf.

Included among the many covered reservoir contamination problems detailed in this EPA report is the Gideon, Mo bird contamination event, a Salmonella outbreak involving buried storage wherein 7 people died and 44% of the population had health impacts. On page 713 of the LT2 regulation EPA referenced this contamination event falsely suggesting that it occurred in open storage.

EPA has not promulgated any rule to address the public health issues with buried and covered storage.

As stakeholders (FOR, Oregon Wild, Scott Fernandez, PURB, Large Water Users Coalition, Portland Water Bureau (PWB)) learned in reviewing the LT2 record, the record on open reservoirs is nearly nonexistent. Only a handful of the approximately 700 documents in the LT2 record even mention the words open reservoirs. That handful includes the single 1997 open reservoir study, a study that did not support burying, covering additionally treating open reservoirs. This study, Protozoa in Open Reservoirs by Mark W. LeChevalier involved New Jersey reservoirs that are lake-like reservoirs subject to surface water runoff. Portland’s five open reservoirs are highly engineered structures that are not subject to surface water runoff and are cleaned twice a year.

Although the researcher, LeChevalier, detected some oocysts in these New Jersey lake-like reservoirs, he states upfront that the analytical method used “does not permit assessment of the organisms public health significance. Nearly all of the cysts and oocysts were empty or contained indiscernible internal structures, suggesting the health risk is low.” He emphasizes the importance of developing methods to “accurately identify waterborne oocysts” and “accurately assess their viability and infectivity.” EPA’s current approved sample method cannot determine if the oocysts are dead (harmless) or alive (viable) nor if they are of a harmful genotype, infectious to humans (from humans or cows). EPA’s HV1623 does not identify the genotype or assess the viability of oocysts.

The LeChevalier New Jersey study concludes by saying that burying or covering reservoirs is problematic, with the covers themselves being a problem, as is well documented in another report, a 50-page California Department of Health Services Drinking Water Program report, Sanitary Assessment of Flexible-Membrane Floating Covers for Domestic Water Reservoirs. The LeChevalier study additionally references nitrification problems that occur in large, chloraminated covered reservoirs (i.e. 50 mg. tanks) with the exclusion of sunlight aiding the growth of nitrifying bacteria.

Years ago, EPA regulation commenters correctly stated that EPA would (must) collect data and conduct scientific research before promulgating any rule on open reservoirs. Between 1997 and 2006 when the final rule was released, EPA failed to collect any data or conduct any scientific research on open reservoirs.

The 2003 draft LT2 rule included a mitigation option allowing for open reservoirs. In the final rule (January 2006), EPA had without notice or opportunity for public comment inexplicably omitted the mitigation option, despite the lack of data collection or any scientific evidence to support the insertion of an open reservoir requirement in the draft rule. As the City of New York commented, no one was provided an opportunity for comment on this critical change.

Open reservoirs safely provide drinking water to tens of millions of customers around the nation. New York is seeking a variance for their large Hillview reservoir. There will be no measurable public health benefit resulting from burying Portland’s open reservoirs.

The current costs (capital only) for burial of the open reservoirs as estimated by the PWB are between $400.4 million and $415 million ($800 million with debt service). These costs do no include costs for Mt. Tabor amenities nor for Washington Park amenities. The Water Bureau plans call for retaining the properties at Mt. Tabor and Washington Park for future burial

Portland Reservoir Panel

In 2004 a 3-month city-selected 13-member reservoir panel led by a highly paid consultant ($325,000) and chaired by an engineer addressed all perceived problems related to Portland’s open reservoirs. The panel, meeting for several hours weekly, comprehensively examined all issues including water quality, security, age and condition of the facilities, costs, and historical significance. The reservoir panel reviewed large volumes of material, literally thousands of pages of documents including The Friends of the Reservoirs 300-page book prepared for the panel.

The reservoir panel did not support burying, covering, or additionally treating the open reservoirs. By ordinance, Council Resolution 36237, Portland City Council subsequently committed to retaining the open reservoirs supporting a mitigation option to address deferred maintenance and enhanced security.

The panel was not provided the EPA 2002 report, Finished Water Storage Facilities, http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf., that documents real public health issues as occurring ONLY in buried and covered storage. Stakeholders discovered this 2002 document in 2008. Also withheld from the panel was the fact that the EPA had failed to collect any data or conduct any scientific research that supported a requirement to bury or cover open reservoirs. The reservoir panel consultant, Mike McGuire and the PWB were aware of this information as McGuire, the panel consultant, was the consultant to the Federal Advisory Committee that negotiated the LT2 regulation and the PWB/MWH actively participated in the rule negotiation.

A subsequent review of the Portland Water Bureau/ Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) LT2 negotiation contract revealed information that the PWB/MWH was aware as stated in documents that there is a “lack of specific identifiable problems uniquely attributable to open reservoirs.”

Water Quality

The 2004 reservoir panel comprehensively reviewed all available water quality data including but not limited to information contained in the Montgomery Watson Harza Open Reservoir Water Quality (WQ) Evaluation, tech memo 2.7. The detailed MWH WQ study of Portland’s open reservoirs concluded that there was no degradation of water quality related to the reservoirs. The Open Reservoir Water Quality report states “it is likely that the open reservoirs will be an important part of the Portland’s water supply for the next 50 years”

Current data available via the State of Oregon Drinking Water Program, data supplied by the PWB, indicates that there are no impacts to water quality related to the open reservoirs. Total Coliforms downstream of the reservoirs are either completely absent or well below the EPA standard. When Total Coliforms are detected anywhere in the system subsequent tests are conducted to determine if Fecal Coliform or E. coli is present. Neither has been detected in our drinking water system.

Viruses – From the PWB/ MWH Water Quality Evaluation, “ Due to the limited human access in the watershed and the current compliance with SWTR disinfections requirements, it is highly unlikely that active human viruses could be transmitted in the open reservoirs.” The potential for virus contamination was discussed in 2008 with Dr. Amy Sullivan and Dr. Gary Oxman of Multnomah Co. Public Health as a part of an LT2 stakeholder meeting. No one present could identify a virus that posed a significant or unique risk to open reservoirs.

Dogs- Dogs are restricted from the reservoir sites at Washington Park. There should be a dog exclusion zone at the Mt. Tabor reservoirs as well.

Friends of the Reservoir proposed a Mt. Tabor dog exclusion zone in 2004 and have continued to promote such to the current PWB administration. The PWB has taken no steps to restrict dogs from the perimeter of the reservoirs. While water quality data does not indicate that dogs have had a negative impact on Portland’s water quality, action should be taken to restrict dog access around the reservoirs.

Birds- Birds are often found at Reservoir 6 although since the 2006 repair and use of the fountain geyser (operating in the active basin at Res.6) birds now often avoid the drinking water side of the reservoir. If there is a real concern that birds at the open reservoirs may pose a public health threat, then bird wires should be installed. As documented in PWB/MWH files, bird wires have proven effective at open reservoirs in New York and Seattle, and bird wires were proposed by MWH for eventual installation at the Portland reservoirs.

Cryptosporidium- Although EPA has never demonstrated a concern with Cryptosporidium in finished water reservoirs such that they saw fit to conduct scientific research or collect data, Portland independently tested for Cryptosporidium in the open reservoirs in the 1990’s and detected zero Cryptosporidium. See below for details of Portland’s 2008/09 participation in a AwwarF Crypto study wherein ZERO Cryptosporidium were detected in our finished drinking water inclusive of the open reservoirs.

The MWH reservoir WQ evaluation states, “it should be noted that no waterborne disease outbreak or water quality incident of public health significance has ever been recorded in connection with Portland’s open reservoirs.”

Water Quality benefits of the open reservoirs includes the venting of disinfection by- products, venting of radon found in north Portland, and sunlight preventing nitrification.

POST 2004 RESERVOIR PANEL
Security and Deferred Maintenance- Significant security improvements and deferred maintenance work has taken place at the reservoirs at Mt. Tabor and Washington Park in recent years (2005-2009).
Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on maintenance and security at the Washington Park reservoirs in recent years. New piping, new security equipment including additional cameras, remote control on isolation valves for ease of maintenance, improved lighting, improvements to secure buildings, and a new reservoir liner have been installed. Gate improvements and vehicle access controls

The Washington Park Reservoir 3 perimeter was opened up to the public in 2006. Commissioner Leonard determined that opening up the Washington Park reservoirs improved security with more eyes and ears protecting the reservoirs. Consequently, the Black and Veatch contract was amended with work and dollar amounts added to accommodate the changes Commissioner Leonard authorized at Washington Park. The changes included installing new ornamental wrought-iron security fencing, constructing a grand new staircase and new pathways. Many testified in support of the plan including Chet Orloff who said “As the chair of the Parks Board and of a committee three years ago that spent long and painful hours developing a still-born plan to cover the historic reservoirs, I am proud to know that Water Bureau staff have created this new plan.”

At Mt. Tabor more than $25 million dollars has been spent on reservoir maintenance and security in the last few years. The fountain geyser at reservoir 6 was restored to operation in 2006. Automated isolation valves and a costly pressure-reducing valve were installed in 2008/09 providing easier shut off for maintenance and in case of an emergency. This project was scheduled for completion in 2001. The gatehouse at Reservoir 5 was modified for on site security monitoring and restroom facilities for staff. New vaults. New infrared motion-sensitive security cameras were installed in early 2009; improved lighting and window and walkway repairs are in the works. Previously, the onsite cameras did not function at night. New sensor equipment has just been attached to the wrought iron fencing surrounding the reservoirs. New wrought iron access gates are being installed. New card key entry boxes at the gatehouses and other entry points. A new water supply main was installed. Additional water quality monitoring instrumentation that allows for changes in operations and maintenance.

Ratepayers will pay for these projects over the next 20 years. Citizens of Portland value the high quality of our water and the livability of our City as manifest in our grand reservoir system. This investment supports that the reservoirs are significant and integral part of our water supply system.

Condition of Reservoirs
The Montgomery Watson Harza/ PWB Reservoir Facilities Evaluation report states that considering their age, the reservoir facilities are generally in good condition and that by addressing the deferred maintenance the reservoirs would be in good shape for the next 50 years. (Pg. 64)

As noted above significant deferred maintenance and other improvements have taken place at the reservoirs in the last few years.

In 2008 the Portland Water Bureau contracted with Cascade Design Professionals and historic architect, Robert Dortignacq, to provide expert advice on the condition, maintenance, rehabilitation and preservation of the open reservoirs at Mt. Tabor. This 70-page report was finalized in May 2009 with an overall assessment that the reservoirs were in fair to good shape. This good rating was assessed without consideration of the many maintenance and security enhancements that have taken place in the last year.

Water Quality- See Above info addressing Current information

New Cryptosporidium Study

In February 2008 the PWB volunteered to participate in an American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF) filtered system Cryptosporidium study.   As a part of this study, over the last year ending May 2009, Portland has tested finished drinking water, the water it serves to customers inclusive of the open reservoirs for Cryptosporidium, detecting ZERO Cryptosporidium oocysts.  The AwwaRF study, "Detection of Infectious Cryptosporidium in Filtered Drinking Water (RFP 3021)”, was designed to assess the occurrence of infectious Cryptosporidium oocysts in finished drinking water. Twelve filtered systems participated in the study. Portland volunteered as an unfiltered system after being contacted by researchers at an industry conference. For this research, Portland sampled high volumes of water, 300L per sample (post reservoirs) twice per month in addition to routinely sampling 50L per month.

  When community stakeholders learned of this study outside of the LT2 stakeholder process, David Shaff, PWB administrator, justified the PWB decision and commitment of more public resources by saying that this study would be of benefit in securing protections for the open reservoirs.

The AwwaRF project summary states that if any Cryptosporidium is detected the samples would be tested to determine if they are infectious. The study researchers indicated that any positive detects would be subject to genotyping, which would indicate if the source was from a harmful species (from cows or humans) or from a harmless source.   PWB updates provided at request throughout the year indicated that the testing was representative of the open reservoirs either at Mt. Tabor or Washington Park. Testing sites varied depending on which reservoirs were offline or out of service for major maintenance improvement projects and security upgrades. The AwwarF study ended in May 2009 with ZERO Cryptosporidium detected in Portland’s finished drinking water.

More buried reservoir public health problems-

In 2008 a Colorado public health department documented a buried tank contamination outbreak (Alamosa, Colorado) wherein there was one death and numerous cases of illnesss. Colorado public health concluded their review of the event by saying that maybe now covered tank public health issues would be addressed via regulations. http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/dc/EIP/Presentations/Final.Something%20in%20the%20water!.pdf
LT2 Record on Open Reservoirs- In 2005 two community members accessed 6 boxes of material related to the PWB/ Montgomery, Watson, Harza LT2 negotiation contract. Hundreds of hours were spent at the PWB reviewing the material related to the LT2 rule negotiation including the LT2 Federal Advisory Committee (FACA) that negotiated and signed on to the Agreement in Principle. In 2006 two community stakeholders reviewed the bulk of the LT2 official record accessed via the Portland legal case. No scientific evidence was found in any of the LT2 material to support burying or covering open reservoirs.

NEW: Please go to our BACKGROUND section to see our research on the Historical Relationship between Montgomery Watson Harza Global, Inc., an Additional Bull Run Treatment Plant, Portland’s Open Reservoirs and the EPA’s 2006 LT2 Rule

4/11/2009/ 10am-12am
Glencoe Elementary School Auditorium 825 SE 51st Street, in the cafeteria-

Community Meeting with Water Bureau & Congressional Reps (or their staff)

Re: Efforts Needed to Secure Federal Relief from the EPA's Misguided LT2 Rule

$ave Our Reservoirs and Bull Run Water!

Without legislative relief championed by Oregon's Congressional Representatives in Washington, the 2006 federal Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) will force Portland to build an additional Bull Run treatment plant and either bury or cover the five open reservoirs at Mt. Tabor and Washington Parks, or disconnect them and use alternate storage elsewhere.

Hear what is being done and what needs to be done to advance legislative relief.

Tell the Water Bureau, City officials and our Congressional Representatives how important it is that Portland achieve legislative relief ASAP! The City is spending our precious money right now on these projects that we don't even need. Stop the madness!

Ask your questions and make your statements!

Hear a recent KBOO radio interview with Regna Meritt of Oregon Wild and Floy Jones of Friends of the Reservoirs speaking to this issue and what we can still do to keep the Bull Run "elegant, endlessly sustainable, and as yet, not corporatized."
Date: 04/07/2009. Program: Political Perspectives
Title: Can We Keep Portland's Water System 'Endlessly Sustainable' & Uncorporatized?

Producer: Stephanie Potter
Length: 28:02 minutes (19.25 MB)
Format: MP3 Mono 44kHz 96Kbps (CBR)

Note:
Want a quick run-down on what this is all about ? Scroll a long way down below here to 5/6/2008 to read our Twelve Reasons Why Portland Deserves a Congressional Exemption From the Flawed EPA Drinking Water Rule (It's all in bold)

Sometime after the Water Bureau's March 25 hearing, the Bureau posted their EPA reservoir elimination plans. Page 79 shows the costs related to reservoir elimination and UV treatment (~$99million). But Commissioner Leonard is now planning on longtime contractor Montgomery Watson Harza's more expensive Filtration plant, at a cost of at least $358 Million, so the total "elimination" cost is now at least $802.4 million, not including a variety of related costs such as whatever they eventually do with decommissioned Mt. Tabor and Washington Park reservoirs.
http://www.portlandonline.com/water/index.cfm?c=49632&a=229286

Friends of Reservoirs Community stakeholders are still fighting for our grand open reservoir system!

Below is the letter sent by the South Tabor Neighborhood Association (STNA) in late February '09, to Senator Wyden and Senator Merkley:

Re: Request for Congressional legislation exempting Portland from EPA LT2 Regulation with respect to source water and open reservoirs

Dear Senator Wyden and Senator Merkley,

The South Tabor Neighborhood Association (STNA) voted with a strong majority to ask that you seek relief from the onerous and misdirected requirements of the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2). We join the Mt. Tabor Neighborhood Association, the Arlington Heights Neighborhood Association, and many area business groups, environmental organizations, public health officials, and individuals. Specifically, we ask your assistance in securing a Congressional “waiver” exempting Portland from the rule’s two key mandates of 1) additional treatment of our Bull Run source water and 2) burial, coverage, or treatment of our five in-town reservoirs (or otherwise decommissioning and building storage elsewhere).

With an April 1 deadline fast approaching, we ask you to take action now to avoid Portland ratepayer and taxpayer costs of approximately $800 million dollars in capital expenses ($1.6 billion including debt service) for blindly mandated source water treatment and open reservoir removal. This, for no measurable public health benefit and without rational relevance to the intent of the LT2 Rule. We would also support a first step of extending all related EPA deadlines if you feel it would facilitate your ability to produce an effective resolution.

While we understand that an EPA “variance” option on the source water is being pursued by our City officials, we believe the variance is unfairly onerous in its costs and testing requirements, which are also vulnerable to a high degree of subjective interpretation. We also understand that the EPA rule inexplicably removed an originally drafted mitigation option for the open reservoirs. For these reasons, we urge a legislative remedy.

We are aware of and thankful for the supportive position you have taken on this matter, the fundamental facts of which include EPA’s failure to rely upon sound science as a foundation for policy and law as it relates to Portland's system and open reservoirs in general. We are pleased and hopeful in hearing that the Obama administration is returning science to its rightful place in such decision-making.

Other fundamental facts have guided two separate and recent Portland community panels, which exhaustively reviewed the costs and benefits of additional Bull Run treatment and elimination of Portland's open reservoirs. They respectfully concluded that there would be no measurable public health benefit from additional treatment and that the best approach to the open reservoirs would be to implement risk mitigation plans rather than bury, cover, provide additional treatment at their sites, or take offline and build storage elsewhere. These fundamentals have not changed, with the following exception:

In the course of those public examinations, as well as other times in the past, the huge cost involved with just the burial or replacement of the open reservoirs alone has been cited as a key deterrent, especially given the questionable benefit. Our country, our state, our city and our citizens are experiencing an economic meltdown not seen in several generations, the depth and breadth of which far surpasses the circumstances of those previous inquiries.

Oregon’s C.E.S. Wood said, “Good citizens are the riches of a city.” As your constituents, we request that you and your fellow delegation members work together immediately to forge a path leading to a legislative waiver exempting Portland from the expensive and unreasonable requirements of the LT2 Rule. As Portland Water Bureau Commissioner Randy Leonard publicly acknowledged recently, we believe this position reflects “the will of the community.”

Thank you for your work to protect our historic and elegant Bull Run water system, as well as the pocketbooks of Portland ratepayers and taxpayers. Please let us know if you will introduce legislation to secure a Congressional waiver for Portland's unique system.

Sincerely,
Jonah Paisner
President, STNA

Cc:
Ms. Mary Gautreaux
Ms. Cyreena Boston
Congressman Earl Blumenauer
Ms. Hillary Barbour
Congressman David Wu
Ms. Julie Tippens
Mayor Sam Adams
Portland City Commissioners

Community stakeholders continue to advocate for our pure Bull Run water and our grand open reservoir system opposing unnecessary degradation and incurring massive debt for projects we don't need and don't want. Please read the letter below, then act.

Regards,
Floy Jones
503 238-4649

January 16, 2009

Dear Mayor Adams and Commissioners Fish, Fritz, Leonard and Saltzman,

RE: Water Bureau Budget Items, reservoir work scheduled without stakeholder notification and public process

We are dismayed to learn that the City Council is acting outside its own 2004 resolution regarding decisions related to Portland's open reservoirs and LT2; the resolution says that reservoir decisions will not be made without full public participation. We are learning via the back door that the City is presently advertising a contract for a 2nd Powell Butte reservoir to comply with LT2.[1]

As you are aware, it is a high community priority for the City to preserve our pure Bull Run source water and grand open reservoir system, with Congressional relief being vigorously sought. Doing so will avoid the degradation of our system and the unnecessary creation of significant long-term debt (upwards of $435 million dollars plus bonding costs[2]) for LT2 projects we do not need and do not want, projects that will provide no real or measurable public health benefit. The unfiltered gravity-fed reservoir system we have inherited is the ultimate green sustainable resource, a resource that should be protected from unneeded intrusive engineering projects.

Although the City has committed to seeking a Congressional waiver (or EPA variance) for our open reservoirs, there has yet to be an effort in this direction. There is no need, however, and we vigorously object to fast-tracking reservoir burial work because unlike the LT2 source water deadline of 2012, the rule does not establish a deadline for complying with the open reservoir requirement. The EPA LT2 open reservoir requirement requires only that by April 2009 we negotiate an agreement with the State/ EPA as to how and by what date we will comply with the rule.

Advertising a burial contract now and including dollars in this budget serves only to undermine both the upcoming EPA negotiations and pursuit of a Congressional waiver (or EPA reservoir variance).

EPA has previously indicated that they would allow much leeway in scheduling compliance. The state supported our 2006 "clean water" variance legislation (that passed unanimously and was signed into law) in anticipation of our applying for open reservoir and source water variances. This information, coupled with the lack of public health issues associated with our open reservoirs, the lack of public health benefits from compliance and the tremendous public debt and huge rate increases associated with compliance, on top of already skyrocketing rate increases, suggests that the state (or EPA) would have to be grossly unreasonable to not allow a significant period of time for compliance with this piece of the rule. Remember, the open reservoir requirement was simply inserted into this regulation without the EPA having collecting any data whatsoever, and without any scientific research that supported requiring covering or burying open reservoirs.[3]
We would also remind you that in 2004 an EPA LT2 Federal Advisory Committee consultant led a Portland city-selected reservoir panel that comprehensively examined the open reservoir issue, looking at all issues including water quality, security, age of facilities, costs, and historical significance. The panel remained unconvinced that there was any need to eliminate or additionally treat our open reservoirs.
We were told in November 2008 that we would not begin to work on the EPA negotiation until after January and that as stakeholders we would be full participants in the EPA negotiation. We have anticipated that stakeholder meetings would precede any meetings with the EPA. There should be no closed-door EPA meetings related to the April agreement or the future of our open reservoirs.

Generally there is no need for a PB2 and specifically we do not support the inclusion of this project in this budget cycle. The PWB acknowledges that Portland already has more storage than is needed and that a continued decline in water consumption (water sales) is expected.

In 2007 stakeholders did hear talk of an $86 million PB2 project (now budgeted at $137) although not in the citizen/employee budget committee. In April 2007 Kent Craford (Large Water Users Coalition) and Floy Jones (Friends of the Reservoirs) brought our concerns to the Water Bureau director and a program manager who advised that although no money was in the budget for this project, the reasons the bureau wanted to build PB2 were for retrofitting the 1980 Powell Butte 1 reservoir, improving fire flow and improving the Washington County Supply Line/ Tualatin Valley (TVWD) supply. We objected to the project based on the lack of need and cost.

We argued that this project was not essential for these reasons: The bluff fire showed that there is no fire flow problem, TVWD may leave Portland for the Willamette, and retrofitting the 1980 PB1 reservoir has been identified by the Bureau as low priority (cost for retrofitting PB1 has escalated from $5 million to over $35 million, 50% of the cost of total replacement according to a 2006 consultant report).

Having learned that Ultraviolet Light Radiation treatment plant design contracts are scheduled to be advertised in April for a Bull Run treatment plant, once again it seems that decisions have been made without the public process warranted for all significant infrastructure decisions. There has not been a public process to address stakeholder concerns regarding the siting of such a plant in the event that we are not successful in achieving the necessary Congressional waiver. Community stakeholders object to siting the Ultraviolet Light Radiation plant at Headworks. There are a number of environmental concerns, including the negative impacts of construction in the watershed, and we have concerns regarding mercury contamination resulting from UV bulb breakage.
Our message has several elements:
The City's strategy should be to aggressively pursue Congressional relief so that compliance with LT2 is irrelevant. Take no action that undermines neither the strategy to pursue a Congressional waiver nor the upcoming EPA reservoir compliance negotiation. Pull back the PB2 RFP for Reservoir Design and any PB2 dollars in this budget, and do not issue a treatment plant RFP until there is a meaningful public process addressing the siting of a treatment plant.

We ask you to slow down, restore transparency to the decision-making process, and involve the community and stakeholders before critical decisions are made. Do not allow the temptation of federal economic stimulus money or the PWB's ability to create significant long-term debt via bonding, to subvert real concerns about what projects are really needed and what projects are contrary to community priorities.

Sincerely,

Floy Jones
On behalf of The Friends of the Reservoirs
Cc City Chiefs of Staff

[1] Via documents presented to wholesale customers in December we have learned that the PWB is advertising this month, January 2009, a consultant contract to design a second underground tank at Powell Butte (RFP for Reservoir Design) to comply with LT2. The PWB is presently engaged in "ownership" discussions with wholesale customers related to this project.
[2] Bonds will be issued yearly beginning next year if we do not succeed in securing LT2 relief
[3] EPA has only documented public health issues with covered and buried storage, Finished Water StorageFacilities http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf

December 15, 2008

Transition Team for President-Elect Obama
451 6th Street, NW
Washington, DC 2001

Re: EPA regulation, Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2), as it applies to Portland's open storage reservoirs and unfiltered Bull Run source water.

To Whom It May Concern:

We write to you to request your assistance and to alert you of important savings that can be realized in this time of financial crisis. We represent grassroots groups, professionals, ratepayers and taxpayers. We are united by our commitment to the high quality of Portland's Bull Run water and the livability of our city as manifest in Portland's grand reservoir system.

We have encouraged the City of Portland and the Portland Water Bureau (through Commissioner Randy Leonard) to advocate for Congressional legislative alternatives or an EPA variance that will allow Portland to continue to safely operate its open reservoirs, maintain federal protections for our watershed and avoid the LT2 requirements to add unnecessary and expensive treatment to our pure Bull Run water.

We oppose the use of federal economic stimulus money (now) or federal/ratepayer dollars (later) for unnecessary projects that will provide no measurable public health benefit, that are not based on sound science, that increase the risk of pollution of our drinking water, and that will cost approximately $435 million.

Why relief is needed
The LT2 rule was meant to protect citizens across the country from waterborne disease, as represented by a 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where a filtered water system failed, leading to grave illness and even death.
Unfortunately, the LT2 rule, as it relates to Portland's unique, federally-protected watershed and open reservoirs in general, represents one of the major failures of the Bush administration - the failure to rely on sound science as a foundation for policy.
Years ago, EPA regulation commenters stated that EPA must collect data and conduct scientific research before promulgating a rule on open reservoirs. The open reservoir provision of LT2 was not based on science. It was simply inserted in the 2003 draft rule without any data collection. The final LT2 rule imposes new requirements that open reservoirs be covered, buried or additionally treated. It mandates much stricter standards for open distribution reservoirs, including Portland's five open reservoirs, than for buried or covered distribution reservoirs.
However, the EPA has never documented a single public health incident related to open reservoirs. The EPA has never conducted any scientific research that compares open distribution reservoirs to closed distribution reservoirs. And while the general level of contamination in covered reservoirs has never been studied, the EPA has documented multiple outbreaks of Salmonella, and other diarrhea illness due to drinking water from covered reservoirs. The most recent such outbreak was March-April 2008 in Alamosa County, CO, where Salmonella contamination of a covered reservoir sickened at least 60 and caused one death.

The level of Cryptosporidium contamination in Portland's in-town reservoirs was studied in the 1990's and was found to be zero. Current studies demonstrate zero contamination by Cryptosporidium. There has never been an outbreak of Cryptosporidium illness in Portland attributed to drinking water.

In 2004, an EPA LT2 Federal Advisory Committee consultant led a Portland reservoir review panel that comprehensively examined the open reservoir issue, looking at all issues including water quality, security, age of facilities, costs, and historical significance. The reservoir panel remained unconvinced that there was any need or that there would be any public health benefit to eliminating the open reservoirs.

If forced to comply with this EPA mandate the City would be harmed by the loss of the many benefits of open reservoirs including the loss of sunlight on water (creating the potential for public health problems from nitrification), the loss of the open reservoir venting of disinfection byproduct gases, the expense, construction in one or more nature parks, and loss of the opportunity to maintain a well-functioning "green" system of water storage.

Negative impacts of additional treatment of source water at Headworks

With regard to the Bull Run source water, additional treatment would bring a new risk of mercury contamination to our drinking water, creation of a new market for toxic mercury, increased use of energy, and the many potential negative impacts from a major unnecessary construction project in the Bull Run watershed including degradation of water quality, introduction of invasive species, increased risk of human contamination, and ongoing expenses related operating and maintaining an additional treatment facility.
Power of Special Interests
Many community stakeholders have concerns regarding corporate involvement in the rulemaking process. Calgon Carbon, who held the patent for the technology (Ultra Violet Light Radiation) that most systems will use to comply with the rule, was deeply involved in the rule development, as was Montgomery, Watson, Harza Global (MWH). MWH builds treatment plants, underground reservoir tanks, dams and other projects nationwide and around the world. It is possible that the power of these special interests may have determined the final outcome - a rule that would increase their profits at the expense of Portland and other municipalities with safe drinking water.
Lack of Mitigation Options
The 2003 draft LT2 rule included a mitigation option that would have allowed for continued, safe operations of open reservoirs. However, the EPA in the final rule inexplicably omitted this mitigation option, without notice or opportunity for public comment. As the City of New York argued, no one was provided an opportunity for comment on this critical change.
Relief Needed
We need your help to secure an exception to the EPA's mandate that Portland's open reservoir system be buried and that Bull Run source water be additionally treated. This exception can be based on the City's current compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Total Coliform Rule, and the extensive testing completed to date that confirms Cryptosporidium is not a problem in our Bull Run system.

Given unique federal legislative protections for the Bull Run system, the fact that human entry is completely restricted in the watershed, that domestic animals (source of Cryptosporidium) are prohibited, the total lack of disease attributable to our drinking water system, and the huge expenses to be incurred by LT2 mandates, we, the City of Portland, public health officials and other stakeholders have worked hard to secure alternatives to the LT2 rule.

The EPA has denied the City's first request for a science-based variance from the requirement for additional treatment for Bull Run water. The City's second request has yet to be approved and the EPA is requiring testing methods that are very onerous and expensive. On top of this, at a meeting in Portland in February 2008 between the EPA and many stakeholders, including the Portland Water Bureau, the EPA informally took the position that an LT2 variance for open reservoirs is not possible and would not be forthcoming from the agency.

An exemption from a national requirement would be appropriate, given the fact that Portland's water supply system is safe and healthy, providing the best drinking water in the nation, and that the LT2 Rule is an expensive, cookie-cutter approach with the potential to make our drinking water less safe!

Urgent action is needed

Time is running out to address the first of these issues, the open reservoirs, with an April 2009 signing deadline fast approaching. Please help us create an alternative to protect Portland's unique water system from this expensive, unreasonable and potentially destructive rule. We look forward to working with you to craft a winning strategy that protects public health and gains permanent relief for Portland from this regulation's expensive and unreasonable mandate.

Sincerely,


Floy Jones
Friends of the Reservoirs

Paulette Rossi
Chair Portland Utility Review Board

Frank Ray
PURB Chair 2004-2007

December 3, 2008

Senator Ron Wyden
1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Suite 223
Portland, OR 97204

Re: EPA regulation, Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2), as it applies to Portland's open storage reservoirs and unfiltered Bull Run source water.

Dear Senator Wyden:

The Friends of the Reservoirs (FOR) is a grassroots organization consisting of lay people, professionals, ratepayers and taxpayers. We come from both sides of the river and we are united by our commitment to the high quality of Portland's Bull Run water and the livability of our city as manifest in Portland's grand reservoir system. We are very grateful for your exemplary work in protecting the best drinking water in the country.

On November 6, 2008 during a community stakeholder meeting, Commissioner Leonard reiterated his commitment to lobby for Congressional legislative alternatives (or a EPA variance) that will allow Portland to continue to safely operate its open reservoirs and to avoid the LT2 requirements to add unnecessary and expensive treatment to our pure Bull Run water. We support this position.

We strongly urge you and others in our delegation to quickly initiate federal legislative action to protect Portland's five highly valued historic open reservoirs, to protect the Bull Run water from expensive, unnecessary treatment, and to provide relief from the Bush Administration's EPA LT2 regulation.

Timely congressional action is critical because Portland faces an EPA-mandated April 2009 deadline to sign a negotiated agreement with the State of Oregon and the EPA outlining how and by what date Portland will comply with the open reservoir aspect of the LT2 rule. A second deadline looms after that: construction of a facility to additionally treat Bull Run water must be completed by 2012 (or 2014, assuming a two year extension).

Why Congressional relief is needed

Lack of Science
The LT2 rule was meant to protect citizens across the country from waterborne disease, as represented by a 1993 Cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where a filtered water system failed, leading to grave illness and even death.
Unfortunately, the LT2 rule, as it relates to Portland's unique system and open reservoirs in general, represents one of the major failures of the Bush administration - the failure to rely on sound science as a foundation for policy.
Years ago, EPA regulation commenters stated that EPA must collect data and conduct scientific research before promulgating a rule on open reservoirs. The open reservoir provision of LT2 was not based on science. It was simply inserted in the 2003 draft rule without any data collection. The final LT2 rule imposes new requirements that open reservoirs be covered, buried or additionally treated. It mandates much stricter standards for open distribution reservoirs, including Portland's five open reservoirs, than for buried or covered distribution reservoirs.
However, the EPA has never documented a single public health incident related to open reservoirs. The EPA has never conducted any scientific research that compares open distribution reservoirs to closed distribution reservoirs. And while the general level of contamination in covered reservoirs has never been studied, the EPA has documented multiple outbreaks of Salmonella, and other diarrhea illness due to drinking water from covered reservoirs. The most recent such outbreak was March-April 2008 in Alamosa County, CO, where Salmonella contamination of a covered reservoir sickened at least 60 and caused one death.

The level of Cryptosporidium contamination in Portland's in-town reservoirs was studied in the 1990's and was found to be zero. Current studies demonstrate zero contamination by Cryptosporidium. There has never been an outbreak of Cryptosporidium illness in Portland attributed to drinking water.

In 2004, an EPA LT2 Federal Advisory Committee consultant led a Portland reservoir review panel that comprehensively examined the open reservoir issue, looking at all issues including water quality, security, age of facilities, costs, and historical significance. The reservoir panel remained unconvinced that there was any need or that there would be any public health benefit to eliminating the open reservoirs.

If forced to comply with this EPA mandate the City would be harmed by the loss of the many benefits of open reservoirs including the loss of sunlight on water (creating the potential for public health problems from nitrification), the loss of the open reservoir venting of disinfection byproduct gases, the expense, as well as construction in one or more nature parks, and loss of the opportunity to maintain a well-functioning "green" system of water storage.

Power of Special Interests
Additionally, many community stakeholders have concerns regarding corporate involvement in the rulemaking process. Calgon Carbon, who held the patent for the technology (Ultra Violet Light Radiation) that most systems will use to comply with rule, was deeply involved in the rule development, as was Montgomery, Watson, Harza Global (MWH). MWH builds treatment plants, underground reservoir tanks, dams and other projects nationwide and around the world. It is possible that the power of these special interests may have determined the final outcome - a rule that would increase their profits at the expense of Portland and other municipalities with safe drinking water.
Lack of Mitigation Options
The 2003 draft LT2 rule included a mitigation option that would have allowed for continued, safe operations of open reservoirs. However, the EPA in the final rule inexplicably omitted this mitigation option, without notice or opportunity for public comment. As the City of New York argued, no one was provided an opportunity for comment on this critical change.
Legislative Relief Needed
We need your help to legislate a waiver for Portland's open reservoir system and for Bull Run water. This waiver could be based on the City's current compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Total Coliform Rule, and the extensive testing completed to date that confirms Cryptosporidium is not a problem in our Bull Run open reservoir system.

Why? Given the unique protection of the Bull Run system, the complete lack of disease attributable to our drinking water system and the huge expenses to be incurred by LT2 mandates, the City of Portland, public health officials and stakeholders have worked hard to secure alternatives to the LT2 rule. The EPA denied the City’s first request for a science-based variance from the requirement for additional treatment for Bull Run water. The City's second request has yet to be approved and the EPA is requiring testing methods that are very onerous and expensive. On top of this, at a meeting in Portland in February 2008 between the EPA and many stakeholders, including the Portland Water Bureau, the EPA informally took the position that an LT2 variance for open reservoirs is not possible and would not be forthcoming from the agency.

A legislative waiver would take this issue out of the lap of the EPA bureaucracy. That would be appropriate, given the fact that Portland's water supply system is safe and healthy, providing the best drinking water in the nation, and that the LT2 Rule is an expensive, cookie-cutter approach with the potential to make our drinking water less safe!

Your legislative efforts may well gain support from the City of New York. That municipality was also stunned by the lack of science and the lack of comment opportunity regarding the open reservoir rule. They may also seek relief from this LT2 requirement.

Negative impacts of additional treatment of source water at Headworks

With regard to the Bull Run source water, the negative impacts of additional treatment include the public health risk from mercury contamination of drinking water, increased use of energy, and the many potential negative impacts from a major unnecessary construction project in the Bull Run watershed including degradation of water quality, introduction of invasive species and increased risk of human contamination, plus ongoing expenses related operating and maintaining an additional treatment facility.

Federal economic stimulus money should not be used for these projects

For the reasons stated above, we oppose the use of federal economic stimulus money (taxpayer dollars) or ratepayer dollars for unnecessary projects that will provide no measurable public health benefit, that are not based on sound science and that will cost upwards of $435 million for additional Bull Run treatment and the elimination of our open reservoirs.

Urgent action is needed

Time is running out to address the first of these issues, the open reservoirs, with an April 2009 signing deadline fast approaching. Please help us create a legislative alternative to protect Portland's water system from this expensive, unreasonable and potentially destructive rule. We look forward to working with you to craft a winning strategy that protects public health and gains permanent relief for Portland from this regulation's unsupported open reservoir and source water requirements.

Sincerely,

Floy Jones
On behalf of The Friends of the Reservoirs

Enclosure

Cc
Senator Jeff Merkley
Congressman Blumenauer
Congressman Wu
Josh Kardon
Mary Gautreaux
Portland City Commissioners
Mayor Potter
Mayor-elect Sam Adams

Addendum: Special Interests, Paucity of Science, Flawed Policy

Here is a brief review of some of the major issues or flaws associated with the rule, which may assist you in developing a legislative strategy. After nearly 8 years of research with much of it focused on the development of the EPA's LT2, we have concluded that the LT2 rule is quite flawed in its construction.

Special interests
The American Water Works Association's public comment noted Calgon Carbon's involvement in the rulemaking process. Calgon Carbon held the patent for the new technology Ultraviolet Light Radiation, that large systems will now be forced to use to comply with LT2's source water treatment requirements.
Although the rule was initially expected to encourage and support watershed protections as a treatment alternative, in the end, the rule became effectively an Ultraviolet Light Radiation requirement, an enormous windfall for Calgon Carbon and corporations that build treatment plants.   Because of the way the elements of the "toolbox" were weighted, watershed protection disappeared as a viable treatment option.

Another a corporate benefit was the open reservoir burial component. It is no coincidence that this regulation, which accepts only big engineering projects as solutions to water quality issues, was developed while the EPA Science Advisory Board's Drinking Water Committee was chaired by Rhodes Trussel, 30-year veteran of Montgomery Watson Harza Global (MWH) and CEO of Trussel Technologies (2003). MWH builds treatment plants, underground reservoir tanks, dams and other projects nationwide and around the world.

Paucity of Science
EPA policy says that they use the best science available in promulgating regulations, but that was not the case with the LT2 regulation.

The open reservoir provision was not based on scientific research: it was simply inserted in the draft rule (2003) without any data collection and without EPA having documented a single public health issue with open reservoirs. Out of more than 700 LT2 supporting documents, only a single decade old open reservoir study exists in the record. This study involved 1997 New Jersey study involving lake-like reservoirs, which are subject to runoff and the contamination that comes with runoff. (Portland's reservoirs, in contrast, are protected from runoff and are cleaned twice a year.)

Although the researcher, LeChevalier, detected some oocysts in these lakes, he stated upfront that the analytical method used "does not permit assessment of the organisms public health significance. Nearly all of the cysts and oocysts were empty or contained undiscernible internal structures, suggesting the health risk is low." He emphasized the importance of developing methods to "accurately identify waterborne oocysts and "accurately assess their viability and infectivity." EPA's approved sample method neither tells you if oocysts are viable (alive) nor if they are infective to humans; the method fails to identify the genotype.

LeChevalier concluded that covering reservoirs is problematic, with the covers themselves being a problem as has been well documented elsewhere including by the California Department of Health Services in it's 49 page report addressing the threats to water supply resulting from the use of these covers. The researcher also references nitrification problems occurring in large, chloraminated covered reservoirs, with the exclusion of sunlight aiding the growth of nitrifying bacteria.

With the near-absence of LT2 research related to water quality in open finished water reservoirs, and in the complete absence of research comparing water quality in open reservoirs to that in covered reservoirs, it is bad policy to require drastic changes where no problem has been shown to exist.

Bad Policy

With regard to source water and unfiltered systems, the rule is clearly biased in favor of filtered systems, despite the fact that all Cryptosporidium outbreaks have occurred in filtered systems where human and/or bovine sewage is present in the watersheds. Filtered systems are subject to much lower scrutiny and standards of compliance. The sad irony is that the LT2 rule does not require any action upfront from these systems, even those that have had actual Cryptosporidium outbreaks. Filtered systems are required to monitor monthly, and should they find small amounts of Cryptosporidium, the EPA does not require that they add additional treatment, institute watershed protection measures, or take any action. For filtered systems, EPA is concerned about its sampling method problems, i.e. false positives.

But for unfiltered systems, systems that protect their watersheds from the sources of infectious Cryptosporidium, the rule requires that additional treatment be added upfront, even with no history of outbreaks or oocysts detected in source water. For unfiltered systems, EPA is concerned about false negatives.

With regard to the City's current efforts with EPA for a source water Safe Drinking Water Act variance, EPA rejected Portland's proposal developed in conjunction with the Multnomah County Health Department, wherein a combination of epidemiology public health surveillance and water sampling would demonstrate compliance. Instead EPA is minimally requiring that Portland increase it's sampling from 600L per year to 13,500L. This would require near daily sampling, an enormous investment of time, energy and resources, and unjustified by our history of negative oocyst counts. This is the opposite of EPA's filtered system rule, where "EPA did not support requiring additional treatment for filtered PWS's based on so few counts" and "the feasibility of increased sampling is limited by the capacity of laboratories and the cost of sample analysis."   Although filtered systems need take no action should they detect low levels of Cryptosporidium, should Portland find two or more Cryptosporidium oocysts in this infinitely larger volume of water, we would be forced to immediately build a treatment plant.

Further, EPA's approved sampling method (HV1623) does not specify whether any oocysts detected are dead (harmless) or alive, nor does it specify the genotype (i.e. infectious to humans). Therefore, Portland could find itself in a position where we are forced to build a treatment plant after detecting dead harmless and or non-infectious microorganisms. And these detects could be false positives.

Is any of this reasonable?

Although EPA has denied that a reservoir variance is possible, this position is contradicted by the fact that the EPA considers covering reservoirs to be a “treatment technique”, and as such a reservoir variance falls under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Section 1415(a)(3) of the Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the "Administrator [to] grant a variance from any treatment technique requirement . . . upon a showing . . . that an alternative treatment technique . . . is at least as efficient in lowering the level of the contaminant with respect to which such requirement was prescribed."

In 2006, the Oregon legislature unanimously passed and Governor Kulongoski signed into law a "clean water variance" provision developed in line with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act variance provision. This action was taken in anticipation of the City's interest in pursing two variances to the requirements of LT2. The State Health Department, Physicians for Social Responsibility, ratepayer groups, and environmental groups including Oregon Wild supported this legislation.

Politics, politics
Finally, we'd like to point out how bias is reflected in some EPA reports and documents we've seen.
In the text of the LT2 itself, (Federal Register/ Vol. 71, No. 3, page 713), in a segment titled a. Types and sources of contaminants in open reservoirs, the 1993 Salmonella outbreak in Gideon, MO is cited. The text does not mention that this outbreak actually occurred in a closed reservoir.

EPA documented contamination events and actual public health issues with closed distribution storage in its 20-page 2002 report, Finished Water Storage Facilities http://www.epa.gov/safewater/disinfection/tcr/pdfs/whitepaper_tcr_storage.pdf but has never released a regulation to address these real public health contaminations.
A revision of the Total Coliform Rule has been in development for many years. This revision is intended to address the distribution system. Open reservoirs are a part of the distribution system. Closed reservoir public health issues including nitrification that occurs in buried storage, distribution pipe contamination, cross connection contaminations, and the risks of backflow are issues that a comprehensive distribution system regulation would address. Any hypothetical open reservoir issues should have been scientifically studied alongside the actual public health issues associated with closed systems.

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 over 800 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